Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the arrangements in place in his office for providing assistance to independent members of Dáil Éireann who support the Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15405/04]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Agreements with Members.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:2 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the arrangements in place in his office for assisting certain independent Deputies who support the Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17237/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
A number of Independent Deputies offered invaluable support to the previous Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrat Government. While in regard to this Administration, their support is not as critical to the Government's majority, given the support they have provided in the past I have tried and will continue to try to be as helpful as possible to these Deputies.
A staff member in my office assists the Government Chief Whip's office in its work in liaising with these Deputies. This official meets with these Deputies on a regular basis and arranges to keep them briefed on issues as they arise.
On what basis are special arrangements made with certain Deputies? Does it include better access to Ministers and to the full range of ministerial offices? If these Members are not members of the Government grouping, on what basis are they accorded special privilege or regarded as most privileged among Members in this House? Will the Taoiseach accept that those who hold ministerial office, be it as a Minister or a Minister of State, have a bounden responsibility to treat all elected Members of this House on the same basis, that the democratic mandate that each and every one of us enjoys in this House requires and deserves an equality of respect from all ministries and that there should not be a kink towards the backbenchers of Government parties or to any other individual Members of this House who align themselves with those parties? Will the Taoiseach accept the equality of the mandate that each and every one of us in this House enjoys?
Of course I would and that is practised very well in this House and always has been. The Deputy will realise that in the case of Government backbenchers or delegations it is easier when one is in Government to get access. I remember when it was the other way around when I was in another position.
Regarding courtesies, these arrangements are not as pertinent as they were in the last Dáil. When it comes to people seeking explanations or information, as I said previously, I try to follow the same practice, regardless of what side of the House Members are. This is a daily occurrence. I do not think there is an issue of Members being given special privilege or that there is difference regarding equality of treatment of Members. Such assistance is given to Members purely on the basis of their trying to deal with constitutency issues, deputations and delegations. I do not think that access in that respect is of any great help or assistance otherwise.
In the last Dáil we had a direct method of dealing with Members because when Deputies were asked to support the Government, issues had to be explained to them by Ministers so that they knew what they were supporting. That practice is not as frequent in this Dáil, but it was a good arrangement following a precedent that had existed in this House for many decades.
Will the Taoiseach agree that we have a Government with a massive majority that is wasting public money purely to massage a number of Independent Deputies to provide a golden parachute for the Government to ensure that, if it loses the Progressive Democrats' support, it will be able to continue in power? Does he agree that breeds dreadful cynicism among ordinary people about public money being used to help Fianna Fáil cling to power? Will we see an increase in spending in this regard now that the Government's backbenchers are indicating that the PDs are being pushed close to the door?
There is no additional expenditure involved in this regard. A person involved in other work assists wherever possible. Therefore, there is no increase in expenditure involved. It is common courtesy. The reality is that Deputies from all sides of the House at times ask members of the Government to do things to assist them — it is not much more than that.
If we take the Taoiseach at his word about being helpful to individual Members of the House and so on, I ask him to contrast that with the kind of example I gave this morning where on a live current issue, we sought a simple statement of fact about the number of non-national births in the Dublin maternity hospitals. We tabled a parliamentary question——
That does not arise from this question.
—— which was passed from one Minister to another and I get a reply dated 11 June 2004, the day of voting.
That does not arise.
With respect, Sir, the——
Deputy, it does not arise out of Questions Nos. 1 and 2.
The question is about the assistance given to Independent Members.
It has nothing to do with questions that were answered in the House. The Chair has ruled on the matter.
Let me put the question this way then. Is it appropriate that the Taoiseach is prepared to put arrangements in place to assist Independent Members and that Opposition parties cannot elicit the same information, even by way of parliamentary question?
Whether a Member is an Independent or a member of a political party and tables a parliamentary question, the same procedures apply. If information was available in a Department, it could not be given to a Member once a parliamentary question on the matter was tabled. That issue could not arise, as it could not be done under the rules.
I have here a letter dated 11 June 2004. It is the ultimate.
That information could not be given to an Independent Member. I do not know the circumstances. The Deputy stated earlier that he tabled the question eight weeks previously and I do not know why it took that length to provide the information. The questions the Deputy tabled were generally in the public domain — the newspapers had been ringing the maternity hospitals and had published their own calculations several weeks ago. I accept that to wait eight weeks for a reply to a parliamentary question is a long time.
We are not talking about the standard procedures that relate to parliamentary questions, where Members abide by Standing Orders of three and five days. In some cases, we receive a response and not an answer. We are talking about a fast track.
Will the Deputy put his question?
The question is about the fast tracking facility for certain Independent Members of the House. Should this procedure be properly accounted for? Quite rightly, the expenses of Members for travel, accommodation and constituency offices are accounted for every year. Should not the time spent by civil servants specifically accommodating the Independent Members be accounted for also? There are at least half a dozen civil servants in the offices of the Ministers and the Ministers of State of each Department working solely on constituency work and this is not accounted for in terms of public accountability. Does the Taoiseach agree that this should be accounted for?
Questions are tabled time and time again on the cost of the facilities in Ministers' offices and that information is in the public domain.
A different arrangement applied during the previous Dáil because Independent Deputies were asked to support the Government in office on a weekly basis. This type of arrangement dates back to the 1950s and applied also in the 1970s, where the Government of the day would explain, brief and assist Independent Members in various ways. This is all quite proper. It is not as necessary or as formal in this Dáil as in the last Dáil, where the Government required the support of four Independent Deputies to enable legislation to be passed. It was a proper parliamentary procedure to brief them and keep them informed.
Is the Taoiseach offering Independent Members an illusion of having the inside track, or is the reality that they get things done that other Deputies cannot? Is that not what this is all about? Essentially, the Government is making sure that it has an insurance policy if Fianna Fáil breaks with the Progressive Democrats.
The formal arrangements that applied during the last Dáil are not in practice now. I do not think it is a question of some Members getting privileged treatment. Independent Deputies do not have the same facilities for seeking deputations and delegations as political parties.
The Independent Members have an additional allowance.
When Independent Members are elected, it may be quite difficult for them, as they point out to me on a regular basis.
Has the Taoiseach outlined the full extent of the assistance available currently or previously to the Independent Deputies, whether the assistance goes beyond advice and information and that the pet projects of Independent Members are being facilitated and fast tracked? Have discussions on such issues taken place in recent times between the Independent Deputies and the office that now facilitates them?
I am not aware of any pet projects. The reality is that Deputies from all parties are always seeking out Ministers to help them with their pet projects. On my way to the House, this morning, a Senator from a non-Government party lobbied me about a pet project. That is quite proper.
That was not the question.
If an Independent Members asks if he or she may meet a Minister to discuss a matter, it does not mean the Minister will accede, but he or she is entitled to gain access to make a case.
That was not my question.
They would get access, but that does not mean they would get the project.
They would be facilitated by preferential access.
It is not preferential access. I see the Opposition Deputies being able to catch the Minister and arrange delegations. It happens all the time.
There is no one to facilitate the pet projects.
It is noticeable that none of the PD Cabinet Ministers is in the House to support the Taoiseach in his post-election travails.
The Minister is in the Seanad.
Is the real purpose of devoting resources to this independent channel to provide the Taoiseach with a spare wheel, in case one of the wheels comes off the wagon? Is that not the real reason he is taking out an insurance policy to protect the Government? The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, wakes up every morning with another new earth moving speech that has usually nothing to do with his own portfolio and meanwhile crime levels are rising and so on.
A question please.
Can the Taoiseach continue to have Deputy McDowell making hyperbolic speeches every second day, while the Tánaiste is telling him to speed up and make hard decisions and backbenchers are telling him he must go the opposite direction?
That does not arise out of the questions.
Would it not be much easier to live with a small number of Independent Members from the Fianna Fáil gene pool, who would very soon revert to the family? The Taoiseach would have a cushier life. He has been through a great deal and has served the country well. Would he not consider giving the PDs their P45 now?
He dreams about it every night.
No.
Departmental Agencies.
Enda Kenny
Question:3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the costs which have accrued to his Department in respect of the National Economic and Social Development Office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15408/04]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:4 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the work of the National Economic and Social Development Office. [16326/04]
Enda Kenny
Question:5 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the National Centre for Partnership and Performance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17232/04]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:6 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the National Economic and Social Development Office; the associated costs which have accrued to his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17238/04]
Trevor Sargent
Question:7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the National Economic and Social Development Office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17635/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive, together.
The National Economic and Social Development Office is funded from subhead M of my Department's Vote. The costs which have accrued to date to my Department in respect of NESDO since its establishment in 2001 amount to €1.276 million. The priorities for NESDO for the coming year are to promote complementary programmes of research, analysis and discussion by the NESC, NESF and NCPP.
NESDO will also continue to provide shared administration and support services for those three bodies in order to obtain best possible value for money. It will submit reports, recommendations and conclusions by any or all of the constituent bodies to Government and arrange for their publication.
The National Centre for Partnership and Performance has been proactively promoting change and innovation, through partnership, in our workplaces. As borne out by the centre's case studies and review of international experience, partnership works as a positive force for change and it enhances outcomes for both employers and employees. As the ESRI studies commissioned by the centre show, employees want more, not less, partnership.
The work currently taking place at the Forum on the Workplace of the Future on how workplaces can adapt to competitive pressures, improve the delivery of services and meet the changing needs of the workplace, will be of particular importance in this regard.
Will the Taoiseach give us a more precise idea of the savings which will accrue as a result of the amalgamations which have led to the formation of the National Economic and Social Development Office? What is the order of staffing in the office and what synergies does the Taoiseach think the amalgamation brings in terms of the contribution he expects it to make? In terms of parliamentary accountability, will the office remain within the remit of the Department of the Taoiseach and will the Taoiseach continue to answer questions on it in the House?
Yes. The office will still be directly linked to the Department of the Taoiseach. The savings for 2002-2003, which was a costly year, were of the order of 8% and that figure will grow because non-recurring costs were included, such as those for staff moving into their new office in Parnell Square. The expenditure on NESDO is approximately €3.4 million, while that on NESC and NESF is quite small and the costs of NCPP are just in excess of €1 million. NESDO has three staff, NESC has seven, NESF has six and NCPP has eight. There is a slight duplication of staff because the chief executive officer of NESDO is included in figures for two bodies. Therefore, there are 22 or 23 people in the office.
In the context of the synergies to which Deputy Rabbitte referred, the primary role of NESDO is to add value to the work of the constituent bodies by creating the conditions under which synergies can be released, joint projects pursued and the potential for duplication — which the offices had identified was inherent in the system — minimised. The office promotes the development of a shared vision for realising these goals and encouraging the constituent bodies to maximise their efforts to collaborate on policy development initiatives and this is working quite well. The bodies will not lose their individual positions. NESC will continue to provide strategic analysis through its reports and will develop the national framework within which discussions on future national agreements and various other issues will take place. NESF will continue to monitor and analyse the implementation of specific measures and programmes identified in the context of social partnerships, especially those to do with issues of equality and social inclusion, and NCPP will continue to focus on bringing about change and improving performance in the workplace through partnership.
I am satisfied the terms of reference of the three bodies are complementary and that they can gain a great deal from working in the one building with a joint administration. They will each play their own role when necessary but will also work collectively, which the bodies have proven they do well. Under the umbrella of NCPP, a programme was undertaken last year, including a workplace forum and various conferences and other activities through which the bodies did an enormous amount of work which was totally focused on change and improving performance through partnership in the workplace. The programme was developed from their first meeting in Dublin Castle last year and was brought throughout the country and involved employers, employees, State and private sector companies and people engaged in education and so on. They also produced a cost review study under the umbrella of NCPP.
Overall, it was a good gathering of small offices working individually and collectively to do a very good job. The former executive chairperson has set out a very ambitious programme for the next number of years which, if followed, will make this a very successful project.
Almost a year ago, NESF published a report on equality policies for older people. Is the Taoiseach aware it recommended that all Departments and State agencies in the wider public service should prepare and publish equality plans with time-tables for action mechanisms to track these plans and to publish an annual statement on the measures they have either adopted or propose to adopt in order to secure equality on all nine grounds, including age?
Is the Taoiseach also aware that NESF recommended that all Departments should undertake equality reviews and that the Equality Authority should devise the template by which the Departments could approach the task? Has this been done and, crucially, has the Department of the Taoiseach taken on a co-ordinating role in ensuring that measures to secure equality for our older citizens, in particular, are undertaken as recommended in the NESF report?
I am aware of the report and its recommendations. The co-ordinating role referred to by the Deputy is the responsibility of the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Callely. I cannot answer for all Departments and agencies but I know many of them have implemented the recommendations, which is a good idea. Like many of the NESF's recommendations, they should be pursued.
I am sure many people in the NESC, NESF and the NCPP will be interested to know the progress of the National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002 which is on Committee Stage. Does the Taoiseach have a timeframe in which this Bill will be passed and does he wish to see it passed? When does he see that coming about?
Is NESDO part of the Government's decentralisation plans? Given that it has represented the coming together of three bodies, does it not suggest there is sometimes a case for bringing bodies together rather than scattering them to the four corners of the country? In that contect, has the Taoiseach evaluated the thinking behind NESDO?
One of the main strands of the NCPP's work, as the Taoiseach mentioned in his reply, is the forum on the workplace of the future. In that context, will he outline the areas being considered to assist employees in adapting to competitive pressures? Does he take the point, made by many employees, that regardless of the fact that they are seen as the most productive in the EU, they are still under immense pressure for increased productivity while issues of child care, paternity leave and so forth are still far behind international standards? Will the Taoiseach indicate what the Government will do to respond to the identification of those problems? Does the increase in commuting time not give rise to a need to re-examine the national spatial strategy in order that the time might be reduced since it is greater here than in other countries?
I would like to see the Bill to which the Deputy referred passed whenever possible. However, it is not affecting the work of the organisations because they were set up and continue to work on a non-statutory basis in the interim, pending the enactment of the Bill.
Bringing the three bodies together made sense because they were located in separate offices and places and are small organisations comprising just 22 or 23 staff between them.
It made sense to bring them together. The Deputy is correct that it makes sense at times to bring small organisations together because they can share overheads, have better facilities and a better means of working. In this case, that proved to be cost-effective in that there were savings of more than 8% in the start-up year.
An enormous effort has been put into the Forum on the Workplace for the Future. For the past 12 months, the forum has been engaged in in-depth discussion, research and analysis on how workplaces operate, and how best they can adapt to competitive pressures and improve the delivery of services. It has also examined in an organised way the difficulties raised by the Deputy and the pressures under which people work to see if there is a way in which workers can be involved in decisions from start to finish. It is clear from the studies that this can be done successfully, especially where employers take account of needs, concerns and flexible time arrangements. Some of these arrangements in agreements are remarkable compared with what would have been the case ten years ago. People have changed their hours and structures to avoid peak traffic times.
On the issue of commuting time, I was in Carrick-on-Shannon recently where I met many who had left this city or worked in London and whose greatest pleasure and enjoyment as they left their house at 8.25 a.m. or 8.55 a.m. for their few minutes' drive to work was listening to reports on RTE of traffic congestion. That is a good argument for more of the public and private sector being located outside the city. The length of commuting times is a great shame, as is people having to leave their homes in rural areas permanently to come to cramped and costly accommodation in the city. It is not good for either city or country. It would be much better if we could convince more private sector companies to locate in the regions where there would be many benefits for staff. Some do so because they see the merits of it.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the fibre of social partnership has been seriously damaged by the direction of Government tax policy, especially in the past two years? Where was the spirit of partnership in failing to index tax bands and in increasing stealth taxes which ate into the modest wage settlements which people received in the previous pay settlement? Where was the spirit of partnership in finding money for tax breaks for sports clinics when accident and emergency departments are in crisis and unable to cope? Where was the spirit of partnership in finding tax breaks for holiday homes when young couples in Dublin city find it impossible to meet the cost of housing?
Is it not time we set about building a new social partnership based on decent values, such as equality of opportunity, instead of the carefully choreographed activity where the Taoiseach, like a white knight, will supposedly rescue the social partnership pay negotiations from the brink of failure? Is it not time we got back to basic values and delivered to people the services they expect?
That was a general question. The Deputy will have seen the recent reports on tax rates in this country and, given our collective and cumulative tax rates, we are now one of the low tax countries of the OECD, not to mention the European Union. The social partnership negotiations are examining the areas referred to by the Deputy such as housing——
Looking and doing are very different.
They are also doing. The figures show a record number of houses being built, with twice the number of a few years ago. The lion's share of them are being bought by first-time buyers and our tax system takes account of that. It would be terrific if we could build houses much more cheaply.
Why is it that one can buy a house more cheaply in Florida? I looked at a brochure on property in Florida when I attended the G8 summit last week. I was also given information on what the workers from south Carolina were earning for the job compared with the rates paid in this country. They were working for about a quarter of the rate that Irish construction workers are paid. It is clear from surveys that the price of land is not always the issue. It would be good if prices were lower. The price of a block in this country is the same as it was 12 years ago but the cost of block-laying has increased by 1,900%. These are the difficulties and the issues. That is why other areas do it differently.
The tax money is going to holiday homes, not to first-time buyers.
Allow the Taoiseach speak without interruption.
The holiday homes scheme was of enormous benefit to communities that have little other than the summer season. It is clear that in parts of Donegal, Connemara and Kerry, local communities live on what they make between now and the first week in September. That is the reality.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the reality that only a third of new homes go to first-time buyers and that a significant report showed that to be the case and that Government housing policy is falling off the spectrum? Is he aware, for example, that a worker in private rented accommodation receives a total of €4 per week from the State to help with rent whereas a person either purchasing or living in a local authority home receives approximately €200 per week? Is that not gross discrimination that ought to be addressed?
Where is the sense of urgency from Government in addressing some of these issues? Where is the sense of urgency in sorting out the chaos in accident and emergency departments? Is it not the case that those involved in the social partnership process feel let down and betrayed that there is not a sense of urgency in delivering on the issues that should make partnership work and turn the wealth created into something that makes a difference to people's lives? That is what is missing and the electorate said as much in the past week.
I do not want to start answering questions on health, environment and housing. It is clear from all the recent surveys that the lion's share of new houses went to first-time buyers and the Deputy is, therefore, not correct. In the case of the top 10% of houses, namely, the most expensive, first-time buyers are not in that league.
To say that social partnership is not concerned about quality of life issues is not true. Most of Sustaining Progress has been based on improving services and introducing the reforms to allow this to happen. I could give a long answer to the Deputy on a number of issues and the urgency of the reform programmes in many areas. It can be seen that a major difference is being made in many areas that are being targeted. Waiting lists in some categories are almost eliminated and we have seen improvements in cardiac surgery and cancer services, although not in every area. Some regions do not receive equal treatment and people undoubtedly feel aggrieved about that. On the evidence of the cardiac surgery waiting lists of a few years ago, however, it is clear that enormous strides have been made. The same will happen as better facilities are built and opened and the service is improved.
We always hear about accident and emergency departments and I accept that they do not work too well, the reason being that people are in hospital for too long because no step-down facility is available. While that creates a problem, it does not take from the fact that the majority of people in hospital receive very good treatment, and we heard as much to this effect during the campaign. About 90% of the problem concerns accident and emergency departments and the fact that people are left lying on trolleys for two, three or four nights. That grates with the public, and rightly so, and is the issue with which we must deal. The reason they are in accident and emergency departments is that they cannot go home. There are no facilities or people to mind them at home so they have to get stand-down facilities. We have to address that issue.
I wish to refer once more to the NESF report on equality policies for older people. While the Taoiseach earlier acknowledged an awareness of the report and its recommendations, which I welcome, he indicated it was primarily a responsibility for the line Minister. However, my remarks related specifically to the Taoiseach's own Department so I wish to ask again if his Department is now taking on a co-ordinating role, or is it proposed that it should do so, to ensure that measures to secure equality for older citizens are undertaken as recommended by the NESF. What steps, if any, has the Taoiseach's Department taken to implement the recommendations in that Department? That is the specific matter I wish the Taoiseach to address. What he does will provide the lead for other Departments. Has he acted on the NESF report and, if so, will he be specific in outlining to the House exactly what has been done and what remains to be done?
I repeat that I do not have a section, unit or people in my Department to co-ordinate that matter. Therefore, it will not be co-ordinated from my Department, but from the Department that has the section, unit and personnel to make this happen. The section that can do that comes under the aegis of the Minister of State with responsibility for older people. I have neither the resources nor a unit to do it, so it would be meaningless to attach that responsibility to my Department. The best way to do it is through people who are working directly with the services in the relevant unit.
What is the Taoiseach's Department doing?
My Department has given over the responsibility for that area and does not have anybody involved in it. Therefore, there is no point in our trying to co-ordinate it because nobody would be doing it.
It is not only a question of co-ordination. What is the Taoiseach's Department doing? Nothing.
I am sorry Deputy Ó Caoláin, but we have moved on to Question No. 8 in the name of Deputy Enda Kenny. I call the Taoiseach.
On a point of order, there is very limited time left and these questions are of great importance. Perhaps it would be appropriate to defer them, or will we get a chance to address them properly?
It is a matter for the House. There are eight minutes remaining and my proposal is to take a question from each of the Members, breaking them into two groups of three questions each, and conclude it. However, it is a matter entirely for the House if it wishes to suspend Taoiseach's Questions. Does the Taoiseach want to proceed?
I will proceed.
Dublin-Monaghan Bombings.
Enda Kenny
Question:8 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent attendance at ceremonies to mark the 30th anniversary of the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15411/04]
Enda Kenny
Question:9 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet with the Justice for the Forgotten group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15412/04]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:10 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he has plans to meet the Justice for the Forgotten group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16327/04]
Joe Costello
Question:11 Mr. Costello asked the Taoiseach the action he has taken or plans to take arising from the report of the sub-committee of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights, that considered the report of the Barron inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16280/04]
Joe Costello
Question:12 Mr. Costello asked the Taoiseach the action he intends to take arising from the recommendation made by the jury at the inquest into the deaths of victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974 that consideration should be given to a further investigation into the involvement of loyalist paramilitaries. [16281/04]
Trevor Sargent
Question:13 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at ceremonies marking the 30th anniversary of the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16442/04]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:14 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the action he has taken and the further action he proposes to take on the recommendations of the report of the Barron report sub-committee of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights, especially in view of the recent conclusion of the inquest into the deaths of 33 persons in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of May 1974. [17239/04]
Tony Gregory
Question:15 Mr. Gregory asked the Taoiseach if he has received the full report arising from the inquest into the deaths of victims of the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings; the action he intends to take arising from the statements made at the inquest; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17419/04]
Trevor Sargent
Question:16 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach when his next meeting will be with the Justice for the Forgotten group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17636/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 16, inclusive, together.
I attended a wreath-laying ceremony on 17 May, which was the 30th anniversary of the bombings, and met many of the victims and their families. I have not received a request to meet with the Justice for the Forgotten group. I have met the group many times and any request for a meeting would, of course, be considered in the context of my diary commitments.
I received a copy of the proceedings of the inquests from the coroner the week before last. The inquests lasted over three weeks and I know that the families appreciated the opportunity to relate the deep hurt and sense of abandonment they felt over the years. I also note the apology expressed by the coroner on his own behalf and on behalf of his predecessors, for the delay in completing the inquests in the time since the bombings. I hope that the holding of the inquests has helped the healing process for the families.
The House will have the opportunity to debate the report of the Oireachtas committee in the near future before it is considered by the Government.
As the Taoiseach knows, time is passing by and nobody concerned in this matter is getting any younger. The events took place 30 years ago. The Barron report is now being examined by a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. The recommendations in that report were very specific and two of them refer to actions by this House, including the commission of investigations legislation. Will the Taoiseach ensure that legislation is expedited so it can be passed by both Houses before the summer recess? In that way, both commissions referred to in the legislation can deal with the reasons the Garda inquiry ended so abruptly, as well as inquiring into the missing documents in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and at Garda headquarters.
We must also begin debating the legislation to allow it to be referred to Westminster for endorsement. The Taoiseach should meet with the British Prime Minister regarding the proposal for a public inquiry in Northern Ireland or Great Britain.
At the inquest hearings, requests were made for a further investigation into loyalist paramilitary activity relating to the 1974 bombings in Dublin and Monaghan. What action does the Taoiseach propose to take in that regard?
Does the Taoiseach acknowledge that time is moving on? We had the Barron report in December and some seven weeks or more have elapsed since the Oireachtas sub-committee dealt with the report and the issues involved. However, there is still no indication from the Government as to what actions might be taken. Will the Taoiseach pledge to the House that time will be allocated to debate the report of the sub-committee before the House rises for the summer recess?
Has the Taoiseach taken any steps to consult with his colleague, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, in respect of Mr. Royston Brady's claims that he has information that would be relevant in this regard?
He did not tell us.
Mr. Brady has made a very serious claim and he is standing by it. I would not dismiss it out of hand. I would like to know if the Taoiseach has taken any steps to establish whether or not the claim is well grounded, and whether or not he has asked Mr. Brady to make whatever information he has available in some cogent fashion.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the Northern Ireland Office, the PSNI and, indeed, the forensic science department in the North each refused to attend the recent inquests on the victims of the Dublin-Monaghan bombings? This follows their refusal to attend the Oireachtas sub-committee's hearings. Does the Taoiseach agree with me that this is totally unacceptable? Does he also agree with the Justice for the Forgotten group that it is utterly hypocritical of the British Secretary of State in the Six Counties, Mr. Paul Murphy, to have written in The Irish Times that he is interested in listening to victims’ families, given that he has also refused to appear personally before the Oireachtas sub-committee?
Will the Taoiseach use his special relationship with the British Prime Minister to have these matters addressed in the course of seeking to establish the cross-jurisdictional public inquiry that is now required?
What action does the Taoiseach propose to take with regard to the failure of his party colleague, and unsuccessful European Parliament candidate, Mr. Royston Brady, to present himself before the Oireachtas sub-committee, given that Mr. Brady has stated he has information relevant to the deliberations of that sub-committee?
As regards the process, it was agreed that we would debate the report in the House before the summer break. The Government will consider the report of the sub-committee and we will then have to deal with the Garda report and the aspects that are special to us. We have already taken up with the British Government and the Northern Ireland Office the other recommendations that were in the report. We have not received a response to those but when the Government formally considers it after the debate here we will renew that effort during the summer.
As regards the ongoing investigations into loyalist involvement, as the Deputy knows, a number of other instances are included in Mr. Justice Barron's report into the Dublin-Monaghan bombings. These include incidents at Clones and Belturbet, the Pettigoe bombings of 1972, and other bombing incidents that took place before May 1974, as well as the Carr case in November 1971. The report on the murders of Oliver Boyce and Bríd Porter is almost ready and Mr. Justice Barron expects to be able to send it to the Government at the end of this week or early next week. Following Government consideration of the report, it is expected to be referred to the Oireachtas and published.
We have taken up the issue of the Loyalists with the NIO which has agreed to investigate three of the four issues on which Mr. Justice Cory reported, apart from the Finucane case. It is not conducting any further investigations on loyalism apart from some of the reports it has already published. It is a pity the individuals from the various sections of Northern Ireland did not attend here. It would at least have been helpful to the families. Even if they did not have a technical or administrative role it would have been good to attend. That is my view but they made their policy decision, which I regret.
If the Lord Mayor of Dublin has anything of note to say he should reply to the letter he received from Mr. Justice Barron and give that information. I am not aware of whether he has any information that would be useful.
I continue to liaise with Justice for the Forgotten which has made several points about the Oireachtas sub-committee's report. We will follow up those issues in the normal way.
I do not wish to labour the point about the Lord Mayor of Dublin but Mr. Justice Barron wrote to him and the Lord Mayor did not see fit even to reply. It is rather strange that his party leader did nothing to influence the Lord Mayor to co-operate at that stage. The Taoiseach has answered the question on the main concerns of the relatives that the Dáil debate this issue and progress it before the summer recess, which I am glad to hear has happened because I have requested that at Whips' meetings.
Will the Taoiseach clarify his position on the view, which is strongly held by many of the relatives, that this matter will not be resolved and concluded without a full public inquiry?
I do not wish to crow over anyone's disappointment but the Taoiseach should make himself aware of what information the Lord Mayor may have so that he can inform the Government process on this. Has he had discussions with the British Government about the possibility of cross-jurisdictional investigation because that is the key to the process? Mr. Justice Barron was impeded in some of his work by inability to get access. Has the Taoiseach made progress on that front?
I wish to get to the nub of this issue. Has the Taoiseach discussed this matter with the Lord Mayor of Dublin who seems to be in possession of very important information? Would it not be in the interests of those who suffered in this atrocity that, as Taoiseach and as a colleague of the Lord Mayor, he would ask him what he actually knows? Has the Taoiseach discussed the matter with him?
The Lord Mayor of Dublin was two years of age when this happened so his memory of any information would not be very good.
Six months ago he was quite clear about it.
He is still two years of age.
If he has information he should answer Mr. Justice Barron's letter. It is a pity the people who have information did not give it over the years. There are people who have very good information but unfortunately we do not have much of that.
In reply to Deputy Gregory's question on a full public inquiry, we have agreed a process which will determine whether an inquiry is necessary but we must follow the process. We should have the Dáil debate, the Government should then consider it and decide where we go from there. If we are to have an inquiry it must be in Northern Ireland or in Britain because only there will we get the witnesses to attend. Justice for the Forgotten has accepted that having it here is of no value because we will not get the witnesses from the North or from Britain. That is the issue on which we must focus our minds because having a public inquiry in Dublin on this matter when the people involved and who have the information are outside this State and not answerable to this Government would be a waste of time.
Why should we accept a snub like that?
It is not a snub.
It is bad manners. We are not talking about violence, we are talking about victims.
As our investigations here showed——
I was on the sub-committee and certain people snubbed it.
The point is the inquiry must be held where it can get the people to attend. That is the issue. If it is to be held anywhere it must be in London or Belfast. I have pursued all the matters connected with this, in terms of the report of the sub-committee and the good debates here, with the British Government.
On a point of order, I asked a direct question and did not receive an answer.
That is not a point of order.
That is a point of order. With respect, I asked the Taoiseach if he had discussed the matter with the Lord Mayor. He has not. Very well.
Deputy Rabbitte's name came before Deputy Costello's on the Order Paper but on the question Deputy Costello's came first, hence the error of calling Deputy Costello first.