Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Dec 1997

Vol. 483 No. 6

Supplementary Estimates, 1997. - Vote 3: Department of the Taoiseach.

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £2,659,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment in the year ending 31 December 1997 for the salaries and expenses of the Department of the Taoiseach, and for the payment of grants and grants-in-aid.

This Supplementary Estimate arises from a variety of factors. A number of new public services commenced operations under the aegis of my Department in 1997. These are the National Partnership Centre, the Information Society Commission and Territorial Employment Pacts. Services in respect of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation and the Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Act have been reactivated. It is appropriate that the costs arising on some special services such as the Moriarty Tribunal of Inquiry, the referendum on Cabinet confidentiality and the all-party committee on the strategic management initiative should be borne by my Department.

It was necessary to make substantial organisational arrangements in my Department since July 1997 to take account of these new services, to adjust for a number of services which were transferred to other Departments and to provide for the administrative arrangements directly related to a change of Government. These factors gave rise to increased financial demands above the level estimated for the general administration of the Department, including salaries, travel and official entertainment and a wide range of utilities costs. The final costs of the EU Presidency were also discharged in 1997 above the estimated level.

My Department's services in the area of partnership are critically important. Ireland's economic performance in recent times has been impressive. Every imaginable superlative has been used to describe our success. The statistics speak for themselves: 5.5 per cent average growth per annum during the past ten years compared to 1.8 per cent during the previous decade; the lowest inflation rate in the EU; buoyant Exchequer returns which indicate that the general government balance, the measure used for Maastricht Treaty purposes, should record a surplus for the year; and record creation of new jobs — 41,000 more people at work in April this year than at the same time last year giving a total increase of 186,000 during the four year period since 1993. Forecasts for 1998 predict a further increase of over 50,000 people at work.

The positive effects of these performance indicators on the economic well-being of our people are evident throughout the country. Many reasons have been advanced to explain Ireland's exceptional performance. The truth is that, as with all growing economies, success is rooted in a multitude of factors and policies working in an appropriate balance with one another. What is unique in the Irish context is the mechanism which enables that balance to be struck. It boils down to one word — partnership.

The national partnership agreements since 1987 have been the bedrock of Ireland's achievements during the past decade. They have provided a framework for stability that had been markedly absent in previous years. That is clear from any number of perspectives — growth rates, industrial relations, inflation figures, Exchequer returns, emigration statistics, numbers of people at work and so on.

At national level, the four social partnership pillars — employers and business, the trade unions, farmers and the voluntary sector — work together with Government to advance the agreed set of commitments outlined in Partnership 2000. Although each pillar and constituent organisation has its own special interests and concerns, they work in a spirit of co-operation towards fulfilment of the partnership agreement. The Government does likewise but, additionally, it is obliged to act as co-ordinator and facilitator, frequently spanning a vast range of sectoral interests and concerns. That unique and crucial role often falls to my Department. Considerable resources are required to fulfil that role effectively. Having regard to the scale of national benefits the administrative costs are modest.

Under Partnership 2000 a range of mechanisms is in place to ensure expeditious implementation of the agreement. These include a secretariat which services the quarterly plenary meetings in all respects, from logistical arrangements to the production of progress reports. In addition, officials from my Department chair, or are otherwise represented on, a significant number of groups operating under the auspices of the partnership. These groups deal with a wide range of economic, fiscal and social issues of particular concern to some, or all, of the social partner organisations.

Looking ahead, the years to the new millennium and beyond offer particular opportunities and present unique challenges for Ireland, especially in the context of our entry into economic and monetary union. We must continue to achieve sustainable, competitive advantage, particularly in an enlarged and more integrated European Union. Central to that aim is the implementation of Partnership 2000 in order to best position the country to meet the challenges and avail of the opportunities which will inevitably ensue.

Equally important, we must continue our earnest efforts toward bringing about a more equitable distribution of the nation's increasing wealth. The Government's agreement with the social partners provides an imaginative and effective framework to progress that agenda and is complemented by the Government's own Action Programme for the Millennium.

In short, we must learn from the mistakes of the past and, perhaps more importantly, the successes. We should continue to remind ourselves of what is being done correctly and what could be done better. The partnership process provides the framework to do just that. In particular, it focuses the efforts of Government and the social partners on realising our shared vision of a better future for all our people. It is in such a context that adequate resources are essential. In part that represents the reason for my moving this Supplementary Estimate for my Department.

Another key part of the Government's strategy for promoting partnership in the years and decades ahead is the National Partnership Centre. Arising from the commitment in Partnership 2000, a National Centre for Partnership was established in May last under the aegis of my Department. Its key task is to promote and facilitate a new, more co-operative relationship between unions, employers and employees at workplace level in the private and public sectors. The centre has two full-time executives and other administrative appointments will be made in the near future.

The Supplementary Estimate provides £193,000 for the cost of salaries, office equipment, travel and subsistence, training and promotion, design and printing, research and office maintenance.

The Supplementary Estimate covers costs in relation to progressing the important work of the Information Society Commission. The commission, established in May last, is playing a vital role in overseeing the implementation of the strategic framework for the development of the information society in Ireland. It is currently preparing an interim report which will identify areas for action to position Ireland to maximise the benefits of technology in the years ahead and will also include its work programme for the coming year. In this Supplementary Estimate, the 1997 allocation of £249,000 for the commission relates to six months of operations this year and includes set-up costs.

Territorial employment pacts — TEPs — are an exciting new pan-European Union initiative, established by the European Commission, to encourage regional and local partnership in tackling long-term unemployment and disadvantage in a cohesive, co-ordinated and integrated manner. There were 88 TEPs selected throughout the European Union, four of which are in Ireland. The Commission's proposal of the pacts is a recognition of the importance of broadening the partnership principle and of intersectoral co-operation at local level to tackle unemployment. Therefore, the Irish pacts will build on the experience of the area-based partnerships already in place under the Operational Programme for Local, Urban and Rural Development. Our local development approach has been recognised internationally as a useful model for tackling disadvantage, acknowledged as such by the European Commission in its endorsement of the pacts. It is important that we continue to be at the leading edge in implementing the pacts in Ireland and I am confident we shall be successful in doing so.

The Supplementary Estimate provides £60,000 Irish co-financing for the pacts which are 75 per cent grant-aided by the European Union. The territorial employment pacts have the full support of the social partners at national level, receiving endorsement under Partnership 2000. Their success calls for the participation and support of employers, workers, State agencies and indeed all who can bring worthwhile ideas for action to the table.

As Members will be aware, from February 1996 meetings of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation were deferred until a basis had been restored on which, consistent with its terms of reference and the basis on which it was established, it could agree to meet in a fully inclusive format. Following the restoration of the IRA ceasefire on 20 July last, this became possible. It has been decided to hold occasional meetings of the forum commencing with one on Friday next, 5 December, 1997.

A total of £40,000 is being provided this year for the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. This is to cover costs associated with the forum, including that of the meeting this week, the cost of the printing of proceedings of that meeting and of some outstanding proceedings.

A total of £50,000 is being provided to fund projects this year under the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust. This is to cover an amount, which had been envisaged by the former Taoiseach and with which I agreed, for the Institute of Irish Studies in the University of Liverpool. This amount is part of a total figure of £180,000 which will provide sponsorship of the lectureship in modern Irish language and literature in the institute over a five year period. The institute received funding from the trust in previous years to establish the lectureship.

As the House will be aware I recently announced a further allocation of £150,000 from the trust towards the cost of a First World War memorial in Messines in Belgium for all the Irishmen who died in the conflict. The total provision is, therefore, £200,000 for the current year.

These allocations have been made from moneys which will accrue to the Irish Government in connection with the winding up of the Irish Soldiers and Sailors Land Trust, on foot of an agreement on division of the proceeds, made with the British Government some years ago. The trust was set up in 1922 to provide houses for Irish ex-servicemen who fought with the British Armed Forces in the First World War. It is currently in the process of being wound up and when all the necessary procedures for winding up the trust have been completed, the money will become available. The Irish Government's share will be somewhat more than a million pounds. I will shortly seek Dáil approval of a motion to facilitate this.

A provision of £300,000 is proposed for the tribunal in the current year for all legal and administrative costs. Work on the preliminary investigations specified in the terms of reference has commenced, and Mr. Justice Moriarty has indicated that he hopes to complete his task and finish his report by mid-1998. The administrative staff which served the McCracken tribunal have remained in place to serve the new tribunal.

The Supplementary Estimate includes a provision to meet the expenses of the ad hoc Commission on Referendum Information. The commission was established by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to encourage informed debate on the positive and negative implications of the proposed constitutional amendment on Cabinet confidentiality.

The ad hoc commission consisted of the Ombudsman, the Clerk of the Dáil and the Clerk of the Seanad. It supervised the production of an information advertisement, within parameters it could lay down, containing statements of the case for and against the proposed amendment.

To ensure the statements were prepared in a fair and impartial manner, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government invited the President of the Bar Council to nominate two senior counsel, one to draw up a statement for the case and the other a statement against, having regard to arguments advanced publicly on either side and to submissions made to them.

The estimated cost of the proposed ad hoc commission is £400,000. In line with precedent the cost is to be borne by the Vote of my Department which sponsored the referendum.

In response to views expressed by Members I propose that an Oireachtas Committee on the strategic management initiative be established, the details of which will be announced shortly. A token provision of £5,000 is being provided to meet possible expenses of the committee during the remainder of this year.

As I indicated to the House earlier, substantial organisational arrangements were required in my Department in the course of the year. Accordingly, expenditure in my Department's administrative budget will exceed the amounts estimated. To a large extent this arises because of the change of Government in the course of the year. Additional costs inevitably occur in these circumstances, in particular as a result of severance payments due to staff of the outgoing administration. There are also extra administrative costs associated with this change and with the transfer of staff and functions to other Government Departments. Payments relating to the EU Presidency were discharged in 1997 and were higher than the amounts previously estimated.

I thank the Taoiseach for the Estimate he introduced and the outline he gave to the House. I put down a marker in regard to a matter I am concerned about and which I wish to draw to the attention of the Taoiseach.

In the past five or six years, 37 criminal law Bills were laid before this House. Some of them contained draconian powers and almost all were passed into law. The Taoiseach, with the assistance of the Attorney General, needs to take a role in monitoring the situation which is developing; we are approaching a law and order problem with much law and little order.

As a Deputy who has stood for law and order for many years, I make no apology for my approach. If we do not have law and order the most feeble will suffer. Law and order is a human rights and a social justice issue but it must be enforced in a way which does not bypass the constitutional requirements for checks and balances in our democracy, provides for accountability from those given strong powers and only provides such powers where they are clearly necessary. Law and order requires prison reform, efficient as well as effective policing, statistical analysis which allows for measurement of success and-or failure and a courts system which, though independent, must modernise where it is wise to do so.

In addition to passing laws, we have started to modernise the administration of the courts ten years after I first introduced the Courts (Administration Reform) Bill, 1986, but we have done precious little about prison reform. Many of the laws passed were necessary because of the sophisticated capability of organised criminals. However, there comes a time when we must ask if we need ever mounting new criminal laws giving more and more powers to the Garda. Before enacting any more criminal law provisions of that kind, the Taoiseach should consider appointing a wise person, such as the former Ombudsman, the former Comptroller and Auditor General, the soon to retire President of the High Court or, perhaps, a former President to examine independently the current state of criminal law and identify if any gaps remain. Only after that type of process should we consider conferring more powers.

The Criminal Justice Public Order Act, 1993, was meant to tackle problems of loitering. I objected to a section in that Bill. Using that section to which I objected, the first prosecution under that Act was taken against the distribution of a leaflet by a group, but that was not the intention of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The use of the Offences Against the State Act has been common, even for non-subversives.

I am reluctant to interrupt the Deputy but the substance of the Supplementary Estimate is the subject of the discussion.

This is a passing reference and I will relate it to the subject of the discussion. The use of the Special Criminal Court is now not uncommon.

The press release must have gone out already.

There has been a new development in the use of supergrass witnesses which was not discussed in this House. News reports blast out all day long that a defendant before a court is believed by the Garda to be the murderer of a journalist, even though he has not been charged. Gardaí search and arrest people in circumstances where the media are forewarned, thereby attaching guilt and blame where none may lie. One could be forgiven for wondering if we have a propaganda department or a public relations department in the Garda Síochána.

The Deputy should move to the substance of the Supplementary Estimate under discussion.

The Garda are not only a police force but the guardian of the peace. There is a need for greater accountability from the management of the force. Furthermore, elected representatives must be free to make constructive criticism without being the subject of abuse in a Garda magazine or a leaked innuendo by Garda sources. Let us have law and order, but that order must include checks and balances if the cure is not to be as bad as the disease. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is at the coalface but the Taoiseach——

I ask the Deputy to return to the substance of the Supplementary Estimate under discussion. He is discussing an Estimate for the Department of Justice, but this is a general Estimate.

He is coming to that.

He has had a good run.

The Taoiseach must take a detached view of overall needs and involve the Attorney General, who has a constitutional duty to ensure the system works, as it is required to do, fairly for each citizen and as any one section of the community might want it to. That is a responsibility held by the Attorney General and, traditionally, the Taoiseach has answered for the Attorney General on policy issues of that kind in the House.

Supergrass evidence has now been introduced and, if it is to be used in the future, there should be regulations governing its use. There is a proposed increase in the secret service Vote from £250,000 to £750,000, presumably for use in rewarding informants. All those powers if used against criminals can be effective, but it is for the Executive, the Oireachtas and the courts to ensure a separation of powers and checks and balances to defend the innocent. I put down a marker that we should reflect on how to deal effectively with crime and its causes within a democratic framework and I hope the Taoiseach will reflect on those words. I am not opposed to any of the harsh measures taken to improve criminal law, but there comes a time when it must be accompanied by order and there must be checks and balances.

Regarding Partnership 2000, the Taoiseach referred to the advances made. I recommend that during the quietness of the Christmas period he should examine how beneficial the Programme for National Recovery, PESP 1 and 2, the Programme for Competitiveness and Work and Partnership 2000 have been in closing the gap in society to give those who are deprived a better chance to participate. If we want to give people equality of opportunity we should tackle the housing conditions in which they live. Some conditions particularly those in inner city flat complexes, are unacceptable. We should also provide access to third level education, which is not on the agenda for large sections of the community, particularly for those who live in inner city areas, including Dublin.

On the question of tolerance, the House should put forward proposals on racial tolerance before this issue, which is clearly of concern to the community, is dealt with improperly and the House should deal with it in a sensitive and balanced way.

The Taoiseach referred to the territorial employment pacts. As a former Minister with responsibility for local development at the Department of the Taoiseach, I was pleased to hear this, particularly as it relates to local development. I would like make a suggestion to the Taoiseach which may have already been made. It was my ambition to try to make Ireland a centre of excellence for local development, although I did not get the opportunity to bring it to fruition. No country in Europe has the experience of participative democracy we have. Our system is not perfect and is being refined as we go along. For example, there is a need to tie in representative democracy and participative democracy so that elected representatives, whether councillors or TDs, are not by-passed because it is the public purse, European or Irish, which funds local development.

Our thinking on local development fits nicely into the territorial pacts proposal made by President Santer and which the Taoiseach mentioned. Indeed, we had a major input into that proposal and all European Council conclusions since and including the Essen Declaration where local development initiatives have been mentioned. There is a need for the European Union and the 11 applicant states to tackle disadvantage. Local development, as we know it through the partnership process, is a vehicle for doing that in the five fingers in a glove integrated approach which it takes. I acknowledge the need for refinement of the local development process but we cannot always ensure the horse goes before the cart. While there is a need for refinement, the idea is good.

We should ask the European Union, not only in the context of the existing Fifteen but in that of a union of 26 or more member states, to see if we can make a fairer society and tackle the sources and causes of disadvantage. Let us see how local development, as we have developed it and as was studied by the OECD which gave an impartial and fair view of how it operates here, can influence and lead Europe. Let us seek to have the European centre of excellence for this participative democracy and local development partnership approach here. We could lead Europe and the world and give a great service to Europe if that came about.

This Supplementary Estimate is substantial in real terms given the overall size of the Taoiseach's budget. Much of it is inevitable and unavoidable and it is not being opposed by my party. I would like to ask a couple of questions to which the Taoiseach may be in a position to reply. If he cannot respond, he may avail of an opportunity to communicate with me later.

The first question relates to the national partnership centre, which I strongly support. The sum of money made available for what is a body with only two paid executives is fairly substantial. Perhaps the Taoiseach will take the opportunity to outline when the programme of work will be made available to a wider public than that participating in it and say if the question of its housing and accommodation has been resolved. It is not desirable that it should be physically housed in the Department of the Taoiseach. Temporarily, it had to be given a home but if it is to be given the manifest autonomy it requires, it should be taken out of the Government Buildings complex. Perhaps the Taoiseach will be in a position to respond.

I welcome the additional £30,000 for the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. Obviously, the money required is not only being used for the one day event later this week but for some backup and good report work which should be properly documented and made available to the public. They are essential documents in the building of confidence, North and South. I welcome the fact that an opportunity has been taken to get extra money to do this.

The Taoiseach, who is a former Minister for Finance, is probably in breach of every known sound accountancy rule in raiding the Sailors' and Soldiers' Trust and using it as a bounty fund to disperse money in a different and specific way. However, he is following the practice and precedent of his predecessor, so I cannot criticise him on that basis. It is wrong in principle that money accruing to the Exchequer as a result of the winding up of a particular trust, irrespective of its origin, is retained like an escrow account for disbursement by a Government Department — in this case, the Department of the Taoiseach. Having regard to the nature in which the trust was established and its purpose, it might be more appropriate if the proceeds were used to contribute to the cost of the Army deafness compensation fund. It is bad accountancy practice and that it has been established should not go unnoticed on this side of the House. It should not be encouraged. I assure the Taoiseach that this precedent will be cited in future on the grounds that two Taoisigh utilised this money, albeit for undoubtedly good purposes. I do not doubt the bona fides and appropriateness of the centre for Irish studies in the University of Liverpool or the proposed memorial in Belgium.

As regards the referendum, would the Taoiseach outline why this money is dealt with in his Vote and not the Department of the Environment and Local Government? I am open to correction but I recall that the Department of Finance had to bear the cost of an explanatory memorandum relating to the divorce referendum, because there was no provision for it in the then Department of Equality and Law Reform. This may be an accountancy device to place it in the Vote of one Department rather than another.

I am disappointed that, having successfully transferred responsibility for the area based partnerships and local development from the Department of the Taoiseach — where I believed it should never have been in the first place — the Taoiseach has not followed through the logic of that correct decision and has notionally and nominally retained responsibility for the territorial employment pacts within his Department. It may simply be an accountancy device because the operational programme for local urban and rural development is associated with his Department. I believe the operation of the area based partnerships was not enhanced by its location in the Department of the Taoiseach. While it is a horizontal, multi-disciplinary activity which crosses over the remit of a number of Departments and it made some sense for the Department of the Taoiseach to have responsibility for it, that Department should not get directly involved in operational activities. I believe that was the sense of the Taoiseach's decision to transfer the responsibility to the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation — if I am correct in assuming that is the Department in which it is now located. The Taoiseach might be able to explain why this was done with this relatively small sum of money.

I have difficulty with the way the Taoiseach has allocated responsibilities since he took office. I refer specifically to the recommendation of the National Economic and Social Council that pilot studies be conducted on rural renewal. The Taoiseach laid much emphasis on partnership. I am unsure whether he is aware that there has been no informed debate in this House on rural development. There has been a withdrawal of public services in rural areas which has led to mass emigration, particularly from the West. When I was Minister of State, seven or eight pilot studies were undertaken on the recommendation of NESC which is led by the Department of the Taoiseach. These pilot studies were done in the context of Agenda 2000 and the territorial employment pacts. To my horror, responsibility for rural renewal has now been transferred to the Department of Agriculture and Food.

The word "rural" implies an agricultural content, but the idea of renewal means, for example, putting a one stop shop in a place like Feakle, for which funding was provided by the former Minister for Finance. Now there is no provision for these people who have a three year programme.

Rural renewal has been successful. It is community driven, and no politics are involved. I invite the Taoiseach to communicate with the officials in his Department who have been working on rural renewal and who have drawn up an interim report. Rural renewal has involved a conversion of people, particularly trade union people, who work for public services, who have made themselves available to people in country areas to provide a service where post office, health and bus services etc. had been withdrawn. In Feakle, to give that example alone, there are services available from all the public services at least once a month. The lack of transport facilities has been a challenge all over the West and in every rural area, but the other day, owing to an agreement between Bus Éireann and the school bus authorities, the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Davern, was able to launch a new bus service for old folk at a reasonable cost.

All the benefits of the pilot studies will be lost if the Taoiseach passes the responsibility to the Department of Agriculture and Food which has other problems and does not want the headache of trying to renew a post office in Ballydehob or a health clinic in Castletownbere. I appeal to the Taoiseach to review this issue of renewal. There is a clear distinction between development and renewal. Development involves services, public and private. Cranny, County Clare, where the post office was closed has taken up one of the pilot schemes and it has led to a renewal of the parish, uniting the community and providing services over a ten mile radius — people are coming to Cranny who had not been there for years, to avail of the banking services there now.

We need to work out what funds will be necessary in the future when the interim and final reports are made because I am quite certain there will be a necessity to continue building on the existing schemes. I am not saying they will all be successful. There was a study done in Letterfrack with the use of EU funds and particular problems were identified, but no solutions were provided. The rural renewal schemes initiated during the lifetime of the last Government are providing solutions, and showing ways of proceeding. The department of rural development in St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, which is supervised by Michael Kenny, is very soundly based. Every time I tabled a question on rural renewal to the Taoiseach it was transferred to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. Officials of the House persuaded me my questions were spurious and should not be tabled to the Taoiseach. I could have said the Taoiseach knew nothing about rural areas but I have not adopted this approach. I merely want him to look at what is going on.

We see much of the human side of the Taoiseach every day in photographs published in the newspapers and his Department must adopt a hands-on approach to social issues. When the Taoiseach was on this side of the House he championed issues such as the development of partnerships and the renewal of areas of his city. The pilot schemes introduced by the previous Government were tremendous and I am disappointed the officials in the Taoiseach's Department did not fight harder to keep them.

I will bring the points made by Deputy Mitchell to the attention of the Attorney General. I agree with the overall thrust of Deputy Quinn's points. On the points made by Deputy Carey, if all these sections were in the Taoiseach's Department he would not have to deal with other Departments. It was intended that all these aspects should be dealt with by the line Departments. There are often arguments about which is the correct line Department. However, this is not a reason for including all these aspects in the Taoiseach's Department. The Taoiseach must ensure he is familiar with what is going on in the line Departments and if there are turf wars between two or three of them——

I was a party to some of them.

——he must talk to them and co-ordinate the activities. I discuss the various issues every day so that I have an overall view.

It is not the fault of the officials who work hard on these issues but if these matters are split between many Departments it makes it very difficult to deal with them. This is what happened in a number of areas over many years. Successive Taoisigh endeavoured to correct the issue and all of them were successful in their own way. When Deputy Quinn and I were in Government some years ago we dealt with arts, culture and the Gaeltacht issues. If I remember correctly, we found that seven Departments were responsible for different aspects of these issues. I have not heard anyone argue that the present position is not better. It is not always possible to bring all these matters together but it is better to have libraries, museums and other services in this area under one Department.

If the subject matter of a parliamentary question is not my responsibility then I do not answer it. However, this does not mean I have no interest in the matter. I will raise with the appropriate people Deputy Carey's point on the differences between rural development and rural renewal.

On the National Partnership Centre, I take Deputy Quinn's point that the £197,000 was basically paid to two individuals. Much of this money was spent on setting up the centre. The executives have also commissioned much research. They have some clerical assistants but do not have any senior staff. I will meet those involved shortly. In their short-term work programme they are considering best practices and looking at genuine partnerships that have worked, mainly in the private sector where people have followed through with participative and work councils. Some semi-State companies have a long track record in that regard and they hope to learn from experience in that area. They are also anxious to organise training programmes which will lead to partnerships and that would be useful.

From our respective careers in the Departments of Finance and Labour, Deputy Quinn and I are aware that many industries and companies would be glad to form partnerships, but there is a fear of doing so because of a lack of information on the issue. The National Partnership Centre — Deputy Quinn made available money for its establishment — should provide information on the benefits of partnerships. If information was readily available rather than only when there is a crisis, such as in the face of closure, and people were trained in the workplace, which the centre hopes to do, that would build up trust and confidence.

What is the position regarding accommodation for the centre?

For convenience purposes they are accommodated in the offices of the Department of the Taoiseach. I will raise that matter with the officials when I meet them. The Information Society is accommodated in Dublin Castle, and I am sure it would be possible for the centre to use that venue, which is associated with meetings on Partnership 2000 and, therefore, may be more appropriate.

On the issue of soldiers and sailors, I agree with Deputy Quinn that trust funds should not be raided. The former Deputy, Paddy Harte was involved in this matter for a considerable time when he was a Member of the House and he identified this fund. I do not want a position where a sum of £2 million is sought but only £1 million is available. Under the Freedom of Information Act, which will come into effect in April, criteria will be set for the selection of projects and they will be published. Applications will be sought by way of advertisement and a process set up to deal with the matter.

That is reasonable.

The money could be put into the central fund or the Army deafness fund.

Some Deputies have put forward suggestions in that regard, but the present proposal is not very different from the purpose for which the fund was set up in 1922.

The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform paid for the bail referendum and the last referendum came under the jurisdiction of my Department. On territorial employment pacts, I am advised that because they are linked to the social exclusion aspects of the Partnership 2000 programme, those involved with Partnership 2000, which comes under the aegis of my Department, wish to retain that aspect. I will, however, consider the matter.

I thank Deputies for their contributions and for facilitating the passing of this Supplementary Estimate.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share