Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to raise a matter to which we referred last week. The Taoiseach claimed that the Provisional IRA could not be persuaded to end its activities without the release of the murderers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe as part of a final settlement. This position was contradicted last night by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who said this concession would only be considered after all criminal activities had ended. Today the president of Sinn Féin, Mr. Gerry Adams, made an allegation that the Taoiseach told him privately, before the Good Friday Agreement was finalised, that these killers would be covered by the early release terms of the Agreement and that "there could be no exemptions". At that time, the Taoiseach was giving solemn assurances to the contrary to the family of Jerry McCabe and the public.

I would like to know the truth of this matter once and for all. Does the Taoiseach confirm or deny that he had a meeting with Mr. Adams at which he said there could be no exemptions and that the killers of Jerry McCabe would be eligible for early release? I have recently been made aware that other participants in the Northern talks were informed before Easter that the release of these murderers was part of the October deal which was derailed at the last minute by Mr. Trimble's decision. Can we put an end to this speculation? Will the Taoiseach come clean and admit that he put this concession to the IRA on the table last October, thus breaching his word to the people and to the McCabe family? Is Mr. Adams telling the truth when he says he had a private meeting with the Taoiseach at which this matter was discussed?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I dealt with a number of matters in this area in considerable detail last week and I do not want to go over them again. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform met with representatives of the Garda Representative Association for more than two hours last week and he also met with the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors.

He has also indicated that he will write to Mrs. McCabe on the matter. I expect he will do so in the near future.

The Minister and I have made it clear that the issue of the release of Jerry McCabe's killers can only be considered in the context of acts of completion in the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons, which means ending the conflict once and for all. I said this last week, and I say the same now. I do not think I need to go over what the Minister said last night. I have looked at the text of what he said, which is what I have been saying for months.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What happened last October?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The process of engagement between the two Governments is continuing. We want to make progress in the coming weeks. We want to clear away as many issues as possible before the summer. The current controversy has brought the issue of paramilitarism clearly into focus. There are other issues, but this is obviously a key question. The two Governments will continue to facilitate and actively encourage the process. We need the parties to continue to engage and commit themselves.

In regard to last October, as I said last Wednesday, we were prepared, if we achieved the totality of what we were trying to negotiate, to examine and approve a situation where we would release the prisoners. Unfortunately, we never reached that position for a number of reasons. It was not the only issue. There were several issues, including the ending of paramilitarism, "on the runs" and all the issues around that, which we never got near. I hope that clears up the issue. We were prepared to deal with the issue if we got what we wanted, but we did not get there.

On what the President of Sinn Féin said today, it is clear that Mr. Adams is under an enormous misapprehension. The Government made it clear at the time of the Good Friday Agreement that the release of Jerry McCabe's killers was not covered by the Agreement. I said so on several occasions, including in a letter and in subsequent statements in this House and elsewhere. Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness argued that they should be covered, but we argued they should not. At that stage we were not discussing the end of paramilitarism or what would happen in regard to decommissioning. We had negotiated that decommissioning would be finished in two years. These issues should have been completed by 2000. I reiterate that Sinn Féin argued the position.

The fact is that the McCabe killers were convicted in February 1999 and we were discussing where we were in April 1998. Whatever discussions took place, we certainly had not reached a position on who would be released. We made it clear from the outset that the Good Friday Agreement would not include this aspect. The matter was raised in this House at the time. I replied by saying I could understand how people in the North would say they were being treated under one rule while people in the South were being treated under another rule. I defended that position, which was clearly our understanding at the time. What is on the Dáil record is correct.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I listened to the arguments this morning between the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Mr. Adams. Did this one to one meeting occur between the Taoiseach and Gerry Adams? Did the Taoiseach tell Mr. Adams that there were no exemptions and, therefore, the killers of Detective Garda McCabe would have to be released? When I and thousands of others like me, both North and South, voted for the Good Friday Agreement, we did so on the clear understanding that the Executive had ruled out early release for these prisoners. If the Taoiseach made an agreement with Mr. Adams on a one to one basis, it alters fundamentally the understanding of the Agreement for which people voted. If this is the case, it means that the word of Government given to the McCabe family and to the public has now been breached.

I note comments today that the McCabe family should trust the Government. If we cannot believe what was said for the past five years on a range of issues, why should we believe it now? Does the Taoiseach deny that Gerry Adams met him and that he told him there were no exemptions to the Good Friday Agreement? Is the Taoiseach saying that Mr. Adams's comment today is false? I use that word because I cannot use another.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The answer to all the questions is "yes". We had a substantial number of discussions from September 1997 right through 1998. At no stage was there an agreement that the murderers of Jerry McCabe would be included in the Good Friday Agreement. We are talking about something which happened six years ago. This is why these people are in prison for the past six years. Some of them are in prison eight years next month because we said they will not be released. I recall Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness arguing the prisoners should be released after 22 May, but we refused to do so. This is why they are still in prison. If they were to have been released, they would have been immediately. We held to the line that they were not included in the Agreement.

I have answered the question about last October. Yes, they would have been in the position had we obtained a full agreement last October, or last March for that matter, because the March and October agreements were different. We did not get to that position, which is a fact. To say anyone mentioned releasing them on 10 April 1998, or any period up to that, when they were not fully convicted until February 1999, is impossible.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They will be released but not just yet.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government promised the judicial conduct and ethics Bill some years ago, and it still has not seen the light of day. Is the Bill imminent? In the climate of current events, will the Taoiseach inform the House of the contents of the letter from Judge Brian Curtin?

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am reluctant to intervene. However, before the Deputy continues, as I indicated on 27 April in regard to the issue surrounding the Circuit Court judge, since this House may ultimately have to adjudicate on the matter, to ensure the interests of the House and natural justice are best protected, Members should refrain from making references which could prejudice the decision of the House in the discharge of its obligation if called upon to do so at a later stage.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Anything I say, or have said, does not rule out the possibility that a defence will be advanced by the judge that may be deemed a good defence ultimately.

What are the contents of the letter received by Government and what is the Government's response to the letter? The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is on the record as saying that impeachment is a live option. Is that still the disposition of the Government? By what procedure might the Oireachtas have this question examined? I understand that, whereas we have the powers, we do not have the procedures. Given the judgment in the Abbeylara case, how would it be possible to deal with this matter? If the Government is going down that road, I presume it is not proposed to have the 226 Members of the Oireachtas hear the evidence. How can a joint committee be established given that the decision on Abbeylara was that where the findings may adversely reflect on the reputation of a citizen that is not permissible?

Will the Taoiseach outline to the House the procedures the Government has in mind? Are there any precedents in this matter? Does the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform have any intention to refurbish the legislation on inquiry by committees of the House? Since the Abbeylara judgment, the Minister who in a previous incarnation was well disposed towards inquiry by parliamentary committee in appropriate circumstances has not made any attempt to address the implications of the Abbeylara judgment since then. I would like to know the response of the Cabinet if it considered this matter this morning and what procedures the Taoiseach intends to adopt from here.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The heads of the judicial conduct Bill are currently being drafted. The House will consider a motion in the context of Article 35.4 of the Constitution.

Because of the nature of this process it is of fundamental importance that those Members who may be called to vote on a resolution for removal must keep an open mind on the issues that are brought before them. Each Member must make an independent assessment of all matters including such information that may be relied upon by Judge Curtin. As the House is aware from my statement of three weeks ago, a letter was sent by the Secretary to the Government to Judge Curtin. That letter presented an opportunity to the judge to explain and address the apparent circumstances of access to and downloading of child pornography from a website. The purpose of forwarding that letter was to enable Judge Curtin to provide explanations and comment upon these apparent circumstances which were not connected with any exercise of judicial functions in order that the Government would then be in a position to make a fair and objective assessment on whether grounds existed for bringing a resolution for his removal under Article 35.4 of the Constitution.

In that initial letter, Judge Curtin was given a period of seven days to reply. He sought a two week extension to reply through a solicitor and the Government acceded to that request. The secretary to the Government received a response from Judge Curtin's solicitors. They asserted that it would not be constitutionally appropriate for him to answer questions asked by or on behalf of the Government or to give an explanation to the Government in circumstances where it is clearly contemplating a process to remove him from office. In fairness to Judge Curtin, his solicitors stated that should the Oireachtas, the body that disposes of resolutions under Article 35.4, make requirements of the judge he will respond appropriately. Judge Curtin has not availed of the opportunity to provide an explanation and commentary to the Government as requested of him on the matters covered in the Government's first letter to him. The letter that granted him a two week extension of time made it clear that such an extension was to enable him to provide a comprehensive response to the Government. The Government had already determined that if a satisfactory response was not received from Judge Curtin, the matter would be referred to in the Oireachtas. The correspondence with Judge Curtin and his solicitor will be available to the Members of this House and the Seanad in due course. I have made it clear that there will be no sweetheart deals. Compensation for loss of office does not apply to the removal of a judge for stated misbehaviour.

The solemn process provided for in Article 35.4 of the Constitution is of fundamental constitutional importance. Neither the timing of nor the procedures inherent in that process will be dictated by any consideration other than fair procedures. There will be no place in this process for partisan party political interests. I have no doubt that the procedures required to ensure due process will be followed. That is an obligation on this House and on the Seanad and is one that will be pursued in an orderly manner.

I wish to reply to Deputy Rabbitte on the deliberations of the Cabinet this morning. A detailed motion will now be drafted for consideration by this House and the Seanad. It is envisaged that the motion will, among other things, invite the House to resolve to establish a joint committee to investigate, in the light of Article 35.4 of the Constitution matters of public concern regarding the conduct of Judge Curtin. Second, it will require that all steps required be taken to confer powers of compellability provided for by the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997. Third, it will establish that the role of the joint committee will be to receive and record such evidence by way of video, transcripts and exhibits, and transmit it to the Houses of the Oireachtas by way of report for their consideration; that the joint committee will accord all fair procedures and constitutional rights and due process to Judge Curtin; that the report of the joint committee will record the evidence adduced to the committee hearing but will not make findings of fact or make recommendations. Fourth, it will recommend taking measures to ensure due process for Judge Curtin. They will be the steps taken about which Deputy Rabbitte asked. There will also be a consultation with Opposition parties on a proposed motion and any other procedural steps arising from its content. I anticipate that the motion will be placed before the House not later than next Tuesday if we can come to an understanding on that.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Do I understand from what the Taoiseach has said that a special joint committee of both Houses will be put in place, but its only purpose will be to receive and record evidence and that it will not make any finding or draw any conclusion and that that report will then be referred to the Houses to take whatever action they consider appropriate? How does the Taoiseach propose to invoke the compellability Act since it expressly exempts judges? Has the Taoiseach received the report from the Director of Public Prosecutions and from the Garda Commissioner? Will those reports be put in evidence to the committee? When the Taoiseach stresses the necessity to observe due process, does that mean that in re Haughey would apply to the actual work of the committee and therefore all parties appearing before the committee would have a right to appear with a battery of lawyers? If that process is held in public, given that reputation may be at stake, it would be likely to go on for a long time. Will the Taoiseach comment on this?

Article 35.4 is the relevant Article quoted by the Taoiseach and refers to stated misbehaviour. Are there any precedents for the route we may now embark upon? Can the Taoiseach give assurances to the House that the Opposition parties will be given information on the steps it must take? As I understand it, the constitutional power rests with the Oireachtas as distinct from the Government. Will the Attorney General's advice be available to the spokespersons on justice in terms of the procedure to be followed from here? Will the motion be introduced by the Government? Is it only on foot of that motion that the all-party joint committee can be established? Do I understand from the Taoiseach that will be done as early as next week?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy has asked a number of questions. Given the constitutional power of the Oireachtas, the Government will make available all information and advice given to us. Over the past three to four weeks the Attorney General has done a substantial amount of work on this and, obviously, as it moves into the area of the constitutional position of the House, we would make our information available and the advice of the Attorney General to meetings or whatever. I assume it would be a Government motion. Others could join in that but, in the preparation of it and to fulfil Article 35.4, the advice we have received is that we should consult on that, and we would do that forthwith.

There have been precedents for this on two different occasions in the 19th century. The committee would be structured as the Deputy said. It would be a joint committee to investigate, in the light of Article 35.4, the terms of the motion and certain matters of public concern regarding Judge Curtin's conduct. It would draw evidence, as the Deputy said, and then report. It would not draw a conclusion. The conclusion would be a matter for the House. The committee would report on the evidence.

On the issue of the compellability of the judge, he is not compellable if he wishes not to be, but witnesses to produce the evidence are compellable. The reports to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Garda Commissioner and the other relevant letters would be made available to the committee along with any other information we have.

On the question of whether lawyers would be available to the committee under the Haughey procedures, the answer to that is yes. The committee would be in camera. That is what distinguishes it from the other cases to which the Deputy referred. Our advice is not the same as that on Abbeylara but, in so far as there are any similarities, they can be dealt with on that basis.

We would hope to move as quickly as possible on the consultation. I accept there are legal issues. We spent four weeks——

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Would all the work be necessarily in Cabinet?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am advised that is generally the case because it is a gathering of information. There is also a time factor in regard to the point the Deputy made about the delay, but the advice I have received is that it would be in camera. I believe that answers most of the Deputy's questions.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It has been stated by the UK chief Government adviser that the greatest threat to global stability is climate change and not global terrorism, as President George W. Bush is in the habit of saying. Does the Taoiseach agree that perhaps the greatest threat to the Irish economy in the medium term is the current record price of oil, which at $41.50 a barrel in New York is the highest level in 21 years and appears set to rise?

Why does the Government continue to make a name for itself internationally as being responsible for exacerbating climate change on the first count and jeopardising the economy on the second count, given our reliance on oil? Why has the Government allowed Ireland to become the seventh most oil dependent and the most car dependent country in the world? Why has the Government not required, or even incentivised, the installation of renewable energy, particularly with 70,000 houses being built per annum? There is no incentive, VAT reduction, obvious grant or even encouragement for the installation of solar water heating on all the roof space which, in other countries, is seen as a resource for harnessing renewable energy.

Has the Taoiseach given this matter any serious thought, given that in the area of wind, we have just installed 70 MW in the past three years, giving a total of 214 MW? The Government's modest target of 620 MW to be installed by December 2004 looks unlikely to be achieved. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether that is at least a target which will be achieved in 2004, whether he intends to stand over that commitment or whether it is another series of well-meaning indications that he is supportive of dealing with this dependency on oil when the evidence suggests there is no such commitment and that there is exacerbation of the situation?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy has asked a number of questions. The Government is committed to the Kyoto targets that have been set down and which have worked. I answered questions from Deputy Sargent in the House recently on the national climate change strategy in which I outlined the measures that are included in that to ensure adequate reductions in greenhouse gases are in place to meet the obligations under Kyoto. I restate that. We have been working to put in place the necessary arrangements for participation in emissions trading. That structure is in place.

The Deputy asked about renewable energy. Sustainable Energy Ireland has set out its policies and targets and what it is endeavouring to achieve. The Government is funding it to undertake that work. We will soon decide on the total amount of CO2 allowances to allocate to large industrial sites and power generation stations under emissions trading.

I accept Deputy Sargent's point that, because of our growth in the past decade, compilation of the plan has been harder to achieve but, at the same time, we were one of the first countries to submit a plan and we have taken a lead on this position in the European Union. It is not correct to say we have stood back from this. That national allocation plan has been presented to the European Commission.

What the Deputy said about the increase in the cost of oil is a fact. The reasons for that are well known but that is why we are committed to the issues and policies set out by Sustainable Energy Ireland and towards which we should try to work in the case of renewable energy. We cannot make these changes in a short period, however, particularly when our economy has effectively doubled in a period of more than a decade.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach has answered questions I did not ask. We know about the Kyoto Protocol and his statements on that matter. He has repeated them often enough but we still have to see the evidence of compliance. My question was about the price of oil and this country's dependency on that particular resource. The Taoiseach said that the rise in price was a fact, but that is hardly news.

The question I asked was how that will be dealt with by the Government. Will it simply be accepted as tough luck and that the economy can effectively consume oil to the point of going into recession or is there any clear commitment by the Government about which the Taoiseach can inform us which would, for example in the case of Germany and Denmark, involve much more ambitious targets for renewable energy such as wind, biomass and wave power? Is it not unacceptable that renewables contribute about 1.8% of total energy requirement in Ireland in 2002 whereas Germany and Denmark are dealing with factors of 20% and continue to strive much higher?

Is the Taoiseach not ashamed that this country has such a resource and that it could be much less dependent on oil and much more successful in staving off the large fines that are bound to kick in between emissions trading and the Kyoto Protocol? Will he give any indication as to whether he will reduce VAT on solar power in regard to roof space, for example, given that we are building approximately 70,000 houses per annum without any incentive to make use of that roof space? Is there anything tangible the Government can say to reduce our dependency on oil?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was simply accepting the point the Deputy made about the price of oil. As he knows well, there is a premium on renewable energy. It is not just a question of being able to change our targets. It is a substantial premium and that makes it more difficult.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Oil would be more expensive

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is our policy to promote sustainable energy. Significant resources have been allocated to deal with this issue and we are committed to it.

The applications already made with regard to wind energy——

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is more hot air.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption. The Green Party submitted a question, which was in order. The Taoiseach is entitled to reply and the Green Party is not entitled to use the Taoiseach's time as well as its own.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, we did not say a word.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are three Members from the Green Party present. We have been listening attentively for any words of wisdom from the Taoiseach and we are still waiting for them.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The applications before us bring us up to our target percentage for wind energy already. Our policy, as set out by Sustainable Energy Ireland, is to promote renewable energy. One cannot change things overnight. There is a significant premium on that issue.

I have also set out our policy on the Kyoto Protocol and the national climate change strategy. Far from taking a relaxed position, Ireland is the first country to have taken this position and used it in our Presidency. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has been to the fore in developing the national allocation plan and we have submitted our plan. I do not accept the claim that we are not taking a lead in this area.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We were the first country to do that. The Deputy might acknowledge this.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The evidence is not there.