Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 11 Apr 2017

Vol. 946 No. 2

Leaders' Questions

Deputy Micheál Martin

The second Fennelly report into the telephone recordings at Garda stations has been published. It outlines clearly that these recordings were unlawful, but it must also be said that the consequences of such unlawfulness were very significantly overestimated at the time by the Attorney General. I recall the meeting about this issue to which the Taoiseach summoned Deputy Adams and me. Essentially, the Taoiseach advised at that stage that the entire criminal justice system could break down, convictions would be overturned and entire court proceedings would be rendered null and void. More serious than that, it is very clear that the alarmist and over-reactive response of the Government forced the removal of a Garda Commissioner on that specific issue. The Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality was sent out on a Monday evening by the Taoiseach to tell the then Commissioner that the Cabinet could no longer have confidence in him and would not be able to have confidence in him the following day arising from this issue, notwithstanding that, as the report clearly confirms, the Commissioner was about the only person who acted appropriately in respect of this issue. As soon as the Commissioner became aware of the practice, he insisted that it be stopped and wrote to the then Minister for Justice and Equality about it. The Attorney General bypassed the Minister for Justice and Equality and went straight to the Taoiseach to say that the heavens were about to fall and that something needed to happen.

It is extraordinary that an Attorney General would have bypassed a Minister for Justice and Equality in that context. I would appreciate the views of the Taoiseach on the propriety, both constitutionally and generally, of an Attorney General not bringing such a matter to the then Minister for Justice and Equality and the Government. When an Attorney General bypasses the Minister for Justice and Equality, it reveals a bizarre dysfunctionality at the heart of Government.

Would the Taoiseach accept that it was wrong to send the then Secretary General to the Garda Commissioner to tell him that the Cabinet could not have expressed confidence in him arising from these issues, essentially forcing the Commissioner's resignation on this issue? Does the Taoiseach accept that the failure of the Attorney General to inform the then Minister for Justice and Equality about the telephone recording issue was wrong and could not be defended? What is the Taoiseach's position on that?

The Taoiseach knows that the Attorney General knew about this issue as far back as October 2013 but it was March by the time the Taoiseach had been informed. Clearly, the Attorney General was alarmist and over-reactive on this issue. When the Taoiseach established the Fennelly commission, he made it clear that he wanted to restore confidence in the professionalism of An Garda Síochána. In essence, however, the Garda Commissioner had to go and the Minister for Justice and Equality fell on his sword subsequently, but the Attorney General has retained the confidence of the Taoiseach to the very end. Does the Taoiseach believe that the actions of the Attorney General on this issue were proper and appropriate?

The Taoiseach

Yes, I do. The comments made by Deputy Martin are quite extraordinary. He would attack an officer of the State who is not here to respond. The Attorney General is adviser to the Government. She became aware of matters that she could not have known about, nor did anybody else know, or the extent of them. These were quite serious matters and she acted quite appropriately and properly in bringing them to my attention as Taoiseach.

In consideration of that, the first interim report of the Fennelly commission on a sworn inquiry dealt with some of the matters raised by Deputy Martin. The interim report of the Fennelly commission, and I thank Mr. Justice Fennelly for the work he has put into it, was very clear in its findings that I had no intention of forcing the resignation of the former Garda Commissioner and that the former Commissioner himself had decided to retire.

The second element of the Fennelly commission deals with the issue raised by Deputy Martin with regard to the Attorney General of our State. She had brought to my attention a very serious issue about the unlawful recording of telephone calls to Garda stations. Once again, I thank Mr. Justice Fennelly for the work he did in this. He says in his findings that these recordings were unlawful and unconstitutional, and that there was a lack of effective oversight and procedures within An Garda Síochána over a very lengthy period, including in regard to the content of certain telephone calls relating to the investigation of the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier.

These are the reasons the Attorney General was quite justified in bringing the issue to my attention and why we were quite justified in putting together a commission of investigation to find out the answers to those questions. I am very glad to note that no case before the courts or pending in the courts was in any way compromised by this situation. The findings, however, are clear. The matter was unlawful, unconstitutional and went on for a very great length of time and it did not interfere with any case pending or before the courts.

On the second report of the Fennelly commission, I was notified of this by the commission by the close-off date on Friday at 6 p.m. As is my responsibility, I sent that to the Attorney General for her analysis and examination. She reported to me, in writing, that it was in order to publish the Fennelly report, which I did within 12 to 14 hours. It is now part of the overall consideration of the root and branch analysis of An Garda Síochána, which Government has agreed to and has decided to do. It will wish to have the views of the Opposition leaders and the Opposition parties.

In respect of the findings in the second report by Fennelly, the Minister has decided to refer the report to the Policing Authority, oversee the implementation of the recommendations in the context of the oversight of An Garda Síochána, examine the need for legislation in the context of the recording of calls; and refer matters relating to the Bailey case and dealt with in the report to GSOC to consider whether it believes that any further investigation is necessary against the background of the investigation that it has already been carrying out into this case. The Attorney General is quite justified in her actions.

Deputy Micheál Martin

The Taoiseach avoided answering the key questions I put to him. He is, perhaps, the only person who has that view on the removal of the former Garda Commissioner. Irrespective of one's views on the former Commissioner or whether one was for or against him, the bottom line is that on this issue he did everything appropriately. However, the Taoiseach sent the Secretary General out to his house in the middle of the night. That does not normally happen. Nor is it normal when a Commissioner happens to resign the following morning. While the Taoiseach managed to say with a straight face that he had nothing to do with it, the bottom line is that the immediate context was this phone-recording crisis. I recall the meeting between the Taoiseach, myself and Deputy Adams well. The only person there who said that court cases could be overturned was the Taoiseach. That was on the basis of the advice he had received from the Attorney General. I find it astonishing that the Taoiseach does not have some regrets and does not at least accept that the wrong thing happened that evening.

Essentially, a Garda Commissioner was removed and the law governing the removal of a Garda Commissioner was bypassed. That eventually led to a resignation which covered all the technicalities. Cabinet approval was not sought. The message was relayed that the Cabinet could not have confidence even though it was not consulted. That is not good constitutionally for the country. Things should be done according to proper practice and in a proper way. The latter did not happen on that occasion and the reason was a panicked, alarmist and over-reactive response from the Taoiseach and the Attorney General. The Taoiseach has failed to comment on the failure of the Attorney General to talk to the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality. Why will he not answer that question? It is incredible.

The Taoiseach

I have already dealt with the Deputy's question. I asked the sole member, Mr. Justice Fennelly, who was in charge of the commission to deal, in the first instance, with two elements of what was considered important in the terms of reference. He dealt with those elements and the findings of the sworn inquiry are clear. The finding of Mr. Justice Fennelly was that the former Garda Commissioner decided to retire.

In the context of the second Fennelly report, the Attorney General was quite justified in bringing to the attention of the public - and to me, as Taoiseach - an extraordinary situation whereby hundreds of thousands of phone calls over a very long period were made to certain Garda stations and were recorded unlawfully. Who knows what might have been said during some of those phone calls? There was a woman murdered in west Cork and, in respect of phone calls made to a Garda station, this had a bearing on the setting up of a commission of investigation.

The commission of investigation is clear in its findings. These phone calls were unlawful in being taped, they were unconstitutional and they did not interfere, at the end of the day, with any case before the courts or pending going to the courts. This was not a case of what the Deputy describes as over-reaction or panic. It is a very important element of the security of our State and confidence in the Garda. As Mr. Justice Fennelly has pointed out, this happened in Garda stations around the country over a very lengthy period. It has now ended and the situation arising from that means that the root-and-branch analysis of An Garda Síochána will take these matters into account, with the Policing Authority, with GSOC and through the action that the Government will take in respect of any legislation that is necessary.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

As the Taoiseach knows, the Joint Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water Services is meeting to discuss what was supposed to be its final draft report on the future of water services. The recommendations of that report represented a very significant victory for all those who have opposed domestic water charges and the privatisation agenda at the heart of the Government's water policy. On the basis of that version of the report, domestic water charges would be abolished, the metering programme would be scrapped, and the people would have their say, by way of a referendum, on a constitutional guarantee for the public ownership of water services.

The overriding message from the final draft report is that our water supply is not some commodity to be eventually auctioned off by the current Government or any other.

However, it now emerges that Fine Gael and the relevant Minister, Deputy Coveney, will not under any circumstances accept the democratic will of the people or the Oireachtas. The Taoiseach wants to preserve the possibility of water charges through the back door. The Taoiseach wants to maintain the possibility of privatisation at some future date. The bully boys of the Government wish now to sabotage the work of the committee. Like all bullies, they cannot accept when they have lost. Indeed, they are now trying to bully their friends in Fianna Fáil into a U-turn. Indeed, it seems they are trying to bully the people into accepting the Government's water policy.

When will the Taoiseach get it into his head that this is never going to happen? The argument on water has been won on the streets by thousands of protesters who marched at countless demonstrations to defend their rights. It has been won by the majority of Deputies who ran for election to this Dáil on an anti-water-charges platform. It was won for a third time at the Joint Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water Services.

The Taoiseach cannot ignore that reality. The people have spoken loud and clear. They turned up in their thousands again on Saturday to reinforce their demands. The Taoiseach has lost. The matter has been settled on the streets by protest, in politics at the general election and in the Oireachtas at the water committee. The draft report, as it stood this morning, met the demands and the democratically-expressed views of the people. That cannot be casually swept under the carpet to suit the Taoiseach's political agenda. The Taoiseach's behaviour - and that of the Government - in particular, his refusal to accept defeat on the issue of water, represents a real crisis in terms of democratic representation. It is time for the Taoiseach to finally listen up: it is over. The Taoiseach has lost and the people have won. It is time for the Taoiseach to be gracious in defeat. Will the Taoiseach now stop undermining the democratic process in the Oireachtas and accept the demands of the people?

The Taoiseach

I think Deputy McDonald is a little ahead of herself. As I understand it, the legal counsel is due before the Oireachtas committee in the next five minutes - it is just up ahead of us - to discuss certain matters with the committee. I do not have a report from the Oireachtas committee. Deputy McDonald had a draft report. The committee members are entitled to have their deliberations. They are fully entitled to have their legal advice. They are fully entitled to make their decision in their own way.

Deputy McDonald speaks of victory, loss and winning. She only sees things in such colours, whereby no one has to pay for anything. Deputy McDonald should believe me that water is a precious resource and someone has to pay for it at the end of the day. Someone has to pay for its treatment and all of that.

As I understand it, the committee at this point has agreed there should be a referendum on water and that it should be retained in public ownership by virtue of a vote on the Constitution. Therefore, the nonsense that Deputy McDonald is going on with about some sinister attempt to privatise Irish Water is only that – nonsense.

I would advise Deputy McDonald, with respect, to allow the Oireachtas committee to do its job. She should listen to the advice of the legal officer who is about to address the committee members in the coming minutes and she should await the findings of the Oireachtas committee.

I hope that a conclusion can be reached because for years and years, people have been able to and have paid for water. In the vast majority of cases, they have been happy to receive high-quality water indeed. Be that as it may, the committee has made substantial progress. I await the final deliberations of the committee members. I hope that we can let them conclude these in the spirit of the responsibility that they were given by the Oireachtas.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

I respectfully suggest it is in fact the Taoiseach and the Government that needs to allow the committee to get on with its work.

The Taoiseach is fully aware that his Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, has intervened in a most inappropriate and very direct way with the findings and the draft report. Today, we have round two of the plan to sabotage the committee report, spearheaded by the Taoiseach's Government. They are the facts.

The Taoiseach does not have respect for people. He has no respect for the people who have marched in their tens of thousands to set out very clearly their demands in respect of water. The Taoiseach has no respect for people elected to this Oireachtas either, it seems. He deliberately frustrated us since we came here to this Dáil from taking a vote on the matter of water charges on the floor of the House. The Taoiseach set up this committee. It does its work. The Taoiseach does not like its outcome so he has set about sabotaging that, largely, let it be said, by putting pressure on Fianna Fáil.

Deputy Simon Harris

Deputy Paul Murphy put pressure on Sinn Féin.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

Let me repeat for the Taoiseach what I asked originally. What the people on the streets at the weekend want to know is whether their Taoiseach is capable of listening, hearing, understanding and respecting their wishes. Today is the day he needs to make that clear. Will he respect the wishes of the people for the abolition of water charges, for the ending of the water metering programme and for the referendum? Will he commit to all of those elements? Will he assure us that he will back off and allow the committee to complete its work and take his foot off the neck of Fianna Fáil?

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

Deputy Paul Murphy put his foot down on Sinn Féin.

Deputy Frances Fitzgerald

Where is Deputy Murphy now?

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

We would expect and hope in that scenario that Fianna Fáil Members will stand firm on their democratic mandate. The people will not back down on this issue. Sinn Féin will not back down. Water charges are dead and over and it is time for the Taoiseach to accept that.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy's party has a particular use of certain words like "sabotage".

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

Or "explosive".

The Taoiseach

Deputy Paul Murphy sabotaged the Deputy's own party's view on this because Sinn Féin favoured water charges.

Deputy Simon Harris

Now Sinn Féin has changed its mind.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

Gerry said pay the bill. Remember?

The Taoiseach

The president and the leader said he would pay his water charges and everybody else nodded in unison. Then, the sound of marching in Tallaght changed Sinn Féin's view. Therefore, I ask the Deputy not to come in here as somebody who is right on everything and exuding righteousness on behalf of the people. The Government has made some serious decisions over recent years that have restored our economic well-being to a great extent, which has allowed two million people to take jobs, have lives and contribute to their country.

The Minister, Deputy Coveney, did not address the Oireachtas committee. He did not interfere with the Oireachtas committee.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

He wrote to it.

Deputy Simon Harris

He is allowed to write a letter.

The Taoiseach

He is perfectly entitled to send in correspondence. Now that they have become all lawful in the Sinn Féin Party, I am quite sure that they realise that the implications of some of the elements of what was being proposed might not be in compliance with the law. I am quite sure that Deputy McDonald wants to be in compliance with the law, as all of her party now proclaim in righteous tones every time I hear them speak.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

Not nearly as righteous as the Taoiseach.

Deputy Martin Ferris

The Taoiseach is a disgrace.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

He is an absolute disgrace with comments like that.

Deputy Michael Harty

I wish to raise an issue about Shannon Airport and balanced regional development. This week in The Clare Champion, Limerick Leader, and no doubt other local newspapers in the mid-west there are one and a half page broadsheet advertisements devoted to what appears to be a joint Dublin Airport and Aer Lingus marketing campaign to persuade those of us stuck in the rain in the mid-west to fly off to Spain through Dublin Airport. It even explains how we can bypass Shannon Airport by getting various bus services to Dublin Airport. It is a raw and unapologetic attempt to cannibalise passengers from Shannon Airport. This is not the first campaign like this. One was also carried out last year. The Dublin Airport Authority operates Dublin and Cork airports. It has a throughput of passengers of 27 million. The throughput of passengers through Shannon is 1.7 million. The irony of this is that Cork and Dublin airports are publicly owned while Shannon Airport is independent.

Fair enough, one might say. This is a competitive world and dog can eat dog. However, we have a commitment from this Government to develop rural Ireland and promote balanced regional development, which was enshrined in A Programme for a Partnership Government.

The Action Plan for Rural Development has been published. This is the first ever whole-of-Government strategy aimed at delivering real change for people in rural Ireland and, in February, the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, Deputy Coveney, launched Ireland 2040, a consultative process, in an effort to look ahead and to shape long-term planning for the country over the next 20 years. All of these plans are necessary to protect our future, yet people living in rural Ireland wonder whether there will be anything worthwhile left in their areas by the time they are implemented - if they are implemented. The fabric of rural Ireland is unravelling, with emigration happening as a result of a lack of infrastructure, a lack of job opportunities and the uncertainty which Brexit brings, particularly to our agricultural community.

The Shannon Airport situation is a good example of a large, State-owned airport in Dublin pillaging business from a small State-owned company in the mid-west. Somebody must shout "Stop" and ask if this is acceptable. I hope the Taoiseach will tell me that this kind of behaviour on the part of a largely publicly owned company against a smaller neighbour is not acceptable and that activities such as this, which undermine Shannon's viability, are incompatible with the promotion of balanced regional development in the mid-west.

The Taoiseach

A number of years ago, the Government made a decision to give Shannon Airport freedom to do its own business and it has improved greatly since then.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

No.

The Taoiseach

The optimism I feel about Shannon is voiced by many people in business in the mid-west region. Deputy Harty will look at the increase in employment and investment in the greater region in recent years and see clearly that Shannon has a very bright future. It is not for me to decide whether Aer Lingus and the DAA advertise by whatever method. Some 120,000 people from the north-west would have travelled either to Dublin or to Shannon to fly to America in the past 12 months. We are aware of those figures. Competition in advertising is one thing but the loyalty of people from the Shannon region to their own locality is manifest, I am quite sure. I am not sure of the airport connections to the locations the Deputy has mentioned but, clearly, these connections are increasing in number on an annual basis. Unprecedented numbers of people are coming into Ireland and significant numbers are travelling abroad for business or for holidays now that the economy has improved.

The programme for Government sets out the objectives for the development of rural Ireland, with 135,000 of the 200,000 jobs to be in regional Ireland, with the programme announced last week by the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment in respect of the broadband programme and with the opportunity for the development and attraction of inward investment by IDA Ireland. In addition, the improvements in staff and finances to enable Enterprise Ireland to help small and medium enterprises, both the vulnerable and those which are able to export to new areas, speak for themselves.

I am not sure the one-page advertisements in local newspapers which the Deputy mentioned are going to sway the people of the mid-west to travel to Dublin in order to fly to their destinations. People will go where they wish to go. In fact, I remember when all the trouble used to be about Shannon Airport and the landings there from America before aeroplanes would land in Dublin. I remember the late Tony Ryan saying to me down in Shannon, "Let them fly where they want because that is what they will do anyway". It is a very competitive business and it is not for me to say that Dublin Airport or Aer Lingus should not advertise. Obviously, Shannon has its own capacity to get its own message out, and it is a very good message.

Deputy Michael Harty

The reason I raised this issue is not necessarily in respect of the advertising but in the context of the dominance that Dublin Airport is exerting over air travel in this country. There is a proposal to build a new runway at Dublin Airport and it may actually have a new terminal in years to come. This is creating an imbalance in the country and in air travel in and out of Ireland. Ireland needs an effective counterbalance to Dublin and to the eastern regional economy.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

Hear, hear.

Deputy Michael Harty

This also applies to broadband, as the Taoiseach has mentioned, and to transport, health and education. We need to address the spatial imbalance that is developing today and is accelerating. Allowing Dublin Airport to dominate entry and exit by air is overheating the Dublin economy, which does not have the infrastructure to cope. The Atlantic economic corridor and other regions must not be undermined by Dublin Airport, which seeks to attain almost total dominance in air travel.

The Taoiseach

Deputy Harty is well versed in the programme for rural development, which provides opportunities and, indeed, incentives for communities and regions to benefit from it. Clearly, the Deputy is aware Norwegian Airlines added four flights from Cork and Shannon to North America this year. The numbers coming back in from there will be unprecedented. Tourism Ireland is actively looking at the regional marketing of the west, with a focus on the Wild Atlantic Way, servicing Shannon and other surrounding locations. The figures show ten million visitors to Ireland, 230,000 jobs and expenditure of €5 billion in the hospitality area alone. Consider the small and medium enterprises and the scale of inward investment. Clearly, Shannon, given the nature of the development of the aircraft business, has very clear opportunities. With airports in Knock further north and in Cork, Dublin and Belfast, the island has opportunities. It is all changing, as the Deputy is aware, with more efficient engines and airlines and more people wish to come here. Thanks be to God, Ireland is a safe location to visit and we hope to keep it that way. Clearly, the mid-west has changed utterly in the past ten years. Long may it and other areas continue to prosper in the time ahead. Shannon is a central focus of the mid-west, just as Knock is to the west and north west and Cork is to the south west. Dublin, of course, is a city that is going to grow very strongly again in the next 15 to 20 years.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

This morning RTE reported that the Government is considering relaxing the cap on bankers' pay to facilitate a huge salary for the new Bank of Ireland chief executive officer. The cap is already set at €500,000, yet Bank of Ireland has now stated such a cap places it at a competitive disadvantage. It is worth noting that last year alone, Mr. Boucher's total package was €958,000, nearly €1 million. Huge salaries far above the €500,000 cap were paid while the banking fiasco played out. We were told repeatedly that if one pays peanuts, one gets monkeys. Therefore, we paid the exorbitant salaries to the experts, who fiddled while Rome burned and the people were left to pick up the pieces.

The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, has himself said that because the Government now holds a stake of only 14% in Bank of Ireland, it can be more flexible regarding pay. Are we now about to make the same mistake again by proceeding with the sale of AIB shares and further losing control of a sector that cost billions of euro and tore the social fabric out of this country?

AIB is 99.9% State-owned. The money we pumped into it is not the Taoiseach's or mine; it belongs to the people across this country, not just this generation but also generations to come. They deserve to know that any decision taken on AIB will not be informed by some arbitrary decision by the Taoiseach or by the Minister, Deputy Noonan, based on the same advice or the advice of some of the experts and consultants who stood on the sidelines cheering the boom, many of whom have benefitted considerably in advising on how to handle the wreckage of the bust.

It was heralded recently that the Government is considering a sizeable AIB share sale. I now read that Goodbody Stockbrokers has been appointed along with familiar names such as JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Davy, among others. They have been appointed until July 2018. It appears that the Taoiseach expects the sale to proceed almost unnoticed. Have we learned nothing from the mistakes of the past? A share sale means losing control and losing control means a return to the same banking model that got us into trouble in the first place. The salary fiasco in Bank of Ireland is a prime example. Surely the Taoiseach recognises that a decision of such magnitude should be taken by democratic means and is not a simple matter for a minority Government to make.

It is a matter for the people and, as such, no such sale should even be contemplated without at least majority support. The Social Democrats have tabled a motion on the Order Paper to that effect. Will the Taoiseach commit to producing a full cost-benefit analysis regarding any proposed share sale of AIB clearly laying out the benefits of a share now, at a future date or not at all? Will he make public the findings of that cost-benefit analysis and will he guarantee that no decision will be taken on any AIB share sale until at least there is a vote in the Dáil?

The Taoiseach

Deputy Murphy has raised a couple of issues. It is part of the programme for Government that there would be a sale of up to 25% of AIB. The Minister for Finance has made that perfectly clear on numerous occasions and is proceeding through the process of bringing that to a conclusion.

In respect of pay rates, the situation is that the cap remains and if the person to succeed the current chief executive comes from the internal panel, the cap will still remain in place. Bank of Ireland is in a position to negotiate an arrangement with a competent effective person if it deems somebody from outside to fulfil its requirements.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I suppose clichés exist for a purpose but one that jumps to mind immediately is that if one does not learn from history, it has a tendency to repeat itself. It looks like we are heading back to the same banking model as was in place prior to the crash. Indeed, it was not only the citizens of Ireland who picked up the tab. Many people are in penury who had invested in these banks, in terms of shares for their pensions.

It is essential that there is a cost-benefit analysis on whether to sell, and when to sell if it is decided to sell. It is unconscionable that there would not be a vote in this House given that there is a minority Government. If the cap is breached, may I also ask if the Taoiseach would stand over that kind of salary for the chief executive of a bank, that is, somewhere in the region of €1 million?

The Taoiseach

Deputy Murphy has expressed an interest in this on many occasions but there is no economic reason to sell a share in AIB. We are not under economic pressure to do it. The Minister for Finance, the Department and the Government will get the best professional advice they can in respect of the valuation being put on the share to be sold and that would be in the interest of the people because it is held by the Government on behalf of the people. There is no pressure to sell it and the Minister will get the very best professional advice he can and then make a decision based on that best professional advice.

As I stated, the cap remains in respect of salary if that person is from inside the bank. If the Bank of Ireland wishes to negotiate up to the level of the current chief executive with an effective suitable appropriate person from outside, then it has that opportunity.