Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the functions and responsibilities of the Ministers of State attached to his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24523/05]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Ministerial Responsibilities.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:2 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the responsibilities of the Ministers of State in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27693/05]
Trevor Sargent
Question:3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the functions and responsibilities of the Ministers of State in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28643/05]
Joe Higgins
Question:4 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the functions and responsibilities of the Ministers of State in his Department. [32459/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
The Government appointed Deputy Tom Kitt as Government Chief Whip and Minister of State at my Department and at the Department of Defence and Deputy Noel Treacy as Minister of State at my Department and at the Department of Foreign Affairs with special responsibility for European Affairs.
Deputy Kitt, as Chief Whip, is primarily responsible for the organisation of Government business in the Dáil and for representing the Government's interest in all matters, procedural or otherwise, relating to the conduct of its business by the Dáil. He chairs the Government Legislation Committee and oversees preparation of the Government's legislative programme. In addition, he has responsibility for the Central Statistics Office and for the Information Society. In this respect, he oversees the e-lnclusion Fund established to support the participation of late adopters of technology in an inclusive information society. The Government allocated €1.025 million for the funding of e-inclusion initiatives this year, which includes a particular focus on initiatives targeted primarily at older people and people with disabilities.
In a co-ordinating role in the Department of the Taoiseach, the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, chairs the interdepartmental co-ordinating committee on European Union affairs. The committee keeps under review and works to ensure coherence on the full range of issues on the European Union's agenda. The committee focuses particularly on the correct and timely transposition of EU legislation. The Minister of State also has responsibility for the Government's Communicating Europe initiative which aims to foster broad public understanding of and identification with the issues on the EU agenda.
The Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, plays a key part in the national ratification process of the European constitution. He is in this regard playing an important role in the period of reflection and debate on Europe that was initiated by the European Council last June. He will also play a central role in consolidating and further developing Ireland's positive bilateral EU relations, particularly with the new member states.
In addition to these duties, the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, has a heavy workload within the Department of Foreign Affairs which workload involves representing the Government at meetings in a wide range of contexts related to European affairs.
The Chief Whip, Deputy Kitt, who is one of the Taoiseach's Ministers of State, is described on the Department's website as having among his tasks the operation of the pairing system. Will the Taoiseach elaborate on the role of the Chief Whip in this regard? For the benefit of those outside the House who have little or no understanding of this system, will the Taoiseach advise the House how it works week to week? I am sure he will agree that many of those watching this debate or who will read the report thereon will be very interested in the accusations of some Members on the Opposition benches, especially those of the Fine Gael Party, that there is a lack of Government accountability in this regard, particularly given the full——
Has the Deputy a question?
——explanation of how this pairing system works.
The Chief Whip is nominally responsible for Dáil reform. What measures of reform has he presented in the period of his tenure since 2002? Given our knowledge of these, will the Taoiseach advise us if the Chief Whip is seriously considering real reform measures at this time?
It is 23 years since I was Chief Whip so I can hardly remember how the system works. It is meant to work in such a way that Ministers and Ministers of State on official business can seek pairs. The Chief Whip deals with Opposition Whips to arrange those pairs so thatthe Ministers and Ministers of State can continue to engage in official business on behalf of the Government. From time to time, other pairs are sparingly allowed on the basis of illnesses or special or family occasions that Members wish to attend. That is how the system operates.
As the Deputy will appreciate, Dáil reform is the responsibility of the House and, more specifically, of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the sub-committee on Dáil reform. I assure the Deputy that the Government, through the Chief Whip, will always engage constructively in this regard. The Chief Whip brought forward a scheme to make the work of the committee system in the House more accessible, including by using the Internet to make available the workings and decisions of committees. This is due to be operational in the new year.
Deputy Treacy is a Minister of State in addition to Deputy Kitt. Given that we had a discussion last week on the fate of, or lack of a future for, the European treaty as it stands, will the Taoiseach state whether the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, who has responsibility for European affairs, is to have his role amended in any way given that he would have been appointed with a referendum on the treaty in mind? Will there be a reallocation of duties?
Will the Taoiseach indicate whether the level of expenses for his two Ministers of State, Deputies Treacy and Kitt, has changed compared with the levels of last year or the preceding year? Is there a pattern or will the level remain the same? Does he have a view on the proposals of the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, to allow the public to make submissions on legislation while it is going through the House? This is facilitated in the Scottish Parliament via the Internet. Has progress been made in this regard?
With regard to the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, the work of Europe goes on. Much of it is carried out in the Department of Foreign Affairs, where the Minister of State stands in for the Minister for Foreign Affairs and attends meetings on European initiatives. In my Department the Minister of State chairs the meetings of the interdepartmental co-ordinating committee on EU affairs, which comprises senior officials from all Departments. A group is charged with ensuring there is a co-ordinated approach to negotiations on key policy issues arising at the European level. As many issues arise, it is a way of pulling them together and co-ordinating the work so that each Department prepares and plans accordingly. The Minister of State reports on development issues arising from the group to the Cabinet committee on EU affairs but it is his responsibility to co-ordinate the effort.
The interdepartmental committee works to co-ordinate the position on key policy issues and to ensure that this goes back to the Government and its various Departments. The committee is focused on an ongoing effort on the timely transposition of European measures and is also briefed on the key working groups in the EU, from which information comes back on an ongoing basis. The interdepartmental committee deals with that level of work, which would not normally come to the Cabinet committee. The EU co-ordinator of every Department and officials at different levels sit on that co-ordinating committee.
The e-democracy proposal of the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, gives the public the opportunity to make their views known to the committee of the House via the Internet. It is hoped to begin work on that with the broadcasting Bill at the beginning of the next Dáil session.
Sinn Féin will understand the pairing arrangements when they are sitting on the other side of the House, sharing power. It would look well to have Corporal O'Dea sitting beside Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Does the Taoiseach intend to alter the responsibilities of the Ministers of State in his Department? In particular, does he intend to create new ministerial positions? Fine Gael suggested that ministerial responsibility for small business, consumer affairs, immigration and anti-social behaviour could be of considerable benefit in assisting the economy, the consumer and society as a whole to move towards a more multicultured society.
My Department has no proposals in that regard, although I changed roles and responsibilities at the last change of Government. I do not want to discuss this matter in detail as it is outside the scope of the question but, with regard to the responsibilities of other Ministers of State, from time to time we consider it appropriate to switch around or change ministerial functions, as was recently done in regard to some areas of transport. However, while we regularly do this, there have been no changes to the responsibilities of my colleagues.
Deputy Kehoe has a point — they will learn what the Whip is like then, all right.
Can the Taoiseach provide figures for the constituency office staffs of the Ministers of State in his Department? How many staff are employed in these offices? Is it intended that the Ministers of State will retain these staff during the course of a general election? There seems to be a serious disadvantaging of the majority of Deputies given that it is apparently the rule that Ministers may, under the guise of promoting themselves as Ministers, maintain facilities in the House that are not available to the rest of us. Does the Taoiseach intend to promulgate regulations in terms of advertising for Ministers?
The Deputy has gone well outside the range of the four questions which refer to the functions and responsibilities of the Ministers of State in the Department of the Taoiseach.
If we were to put down questions that set out what we intend to put by way of supplementary question, it would take up a page each of the Order Paper.
The Deputy knows supplementary questions must be——
The Ceann Comhairle continues to restrict and narrow the scope of Members on this side of the House. Perhaps he will tell me what questions I raise are not permitted by the rules.
The questions he raised about the numbers of staff in the Ministers of State's offices should be submitted separately. They are not included in this question.
That is outrageously pedantic.
I allowed the Deputy to put that question even though it is outside the scope of these four questions, but then he moved on to advertising——
The Ceann Comhairle does not permit me to do anything that is outside the scope. He constantly uses his position to restrict this side of the House unreasonably.
The Deputy knows that the Chair is acting in accordance with Standing Orders.
Will the Taoiseach say how many people are employed by the Ministers of State in his office? Has he any intention of promulgating advertising regulations in respect of Ministers using public resources to——
That matter does not arise under these questions.
——promote themselves? Now that the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, does not have to run the EU constitution, what does he propose to do? Will he say whether Ministers of State have the rights that I refer to, during the course of a general election?
To the best of my knowledge, and subject to correction, the staff complement referred to by the Deputy is four. The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, has an adviser, but the number of constituency staff is four and the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, has the same number. While the EU constitution work is not proceeding at the same level, there still is a reflection period, and Deputy Treacy is co-ordinating that. Apart from that, he has the entire workload of the everyday co-ordination of all of the committees in Europe. These comprise the feedback through various Departments and Deputy Treacy chairs the interdepartmental co-ordinating group that deals with these matters. He also stands in at a number of meetings and in particular acts as a delegate at various functions for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. A considerable amount of his time, therefore, is spent in the Department of Foreign Affairs.
What about their rights during the course of a general election?
The content of the two questions about advertising procedures was raised last week. I have just been checking again what the procedures are. In the case that came up last week, it was the Dublin Transportation Office that organised the advertisement. I am conscious that such issues should be restricted to the Departments concerned so that unnecessary arguments do not arise. We must keep within the regulations that are in place. Last week's issue, as I understand it, was kept within those rules and regulations.
As regards what occurs between elections, while some changes were made on that front, following the Supreme Court case in 2002, I understand Members can still keep their staff in their constituency offices. They can deal with constituency work, but cannot be involved in issues that are related to the election. I assume this means they can deal with the normal issues of representation but cannot be involved in forwarding election literature or participating in campaign matters, beyond dealing with ongoing issues. The situation is confined to where it was before.
It is hard to draw the line in these matters.
It is. The Department of Finance always had an old rule that once an election started, photocopiers and printers could not be used for anything that was directly related to an election issue. That extended to circulars that were sent out during an election period, so if something was to be sent out about a traffic problem outside election time, that was allowed, otherwise it was not. That line is already there and I know that it was imposed in the last election. Any literature of a canvassing nature is not allowed to be sent during election time.
I welcome Deputy Kenny to the Chamber. I thought I was doing well in his absence as Deputy Kehoe had placed me in the Taoiseach's chair when he referred to Corporal O'Dea at my side.
He meant this side. The Deputy has got the wrong side.
We will wait and see.
I see the Deputy is still talking to them anyway.
I am still talking to Deputy Kenny and I hope he is pleased to note that. In the Taoiseach's reply to my question about——
This sounds like a Government without me.
——the operation of the pairing system, in which Deputy Kenny will be very interested, he indicated that it applies to Ministers and Ministers of State. I have been a Member of this House for just over eight years and I have noticed the pairing arrangement operating beyond that. Is the Taoiseach not aware that pairing arrangements have exceeded the original arrangement? The pairing arrangements between the Government parties and Fine Gael go well beyond that. They are so outrageous that——
Has the Deputy a question?
——I recall that during the expulsion of a Fine Gael Member, Deputy Timmins, from this House, members of his party had to sit on their hands and could not cast a vote due to pairing arrangements. That is hardly something that would bring the Government down. Does the Taoiseach believe that the arrangement operating between Fine Gael, presenting the semblance of opposition, and the Government is disingenuous?
The Deputy is making a speech.
It gives a false reading of the position of the Government on issues in this House. Perhaps the Taoiseach will elaborate on his reply.
There have been many traditional procedures in the House that have worked well. The pairing arrangements in the Dáil are not dissimilar to other parliaments, where the major parties operate pairing arrangements based on rules set out from time to time by the Whips. These are based on urgent business and the domestic situation as they see fit. In my time in the House, the Whips have run this in a competent way. That is how we manage to function efficiently in the Dáil and in committees, and that system operates effectively.
I could never understand why the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Kitt, was given responsibility for civil defence. Did the Taoiseach ever consider moving that responsibility to the Minister for Defence? While I do not doubt the ability of the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, that would make more sense. If the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, had the additional responsibility it might stop him sending out scurrilous press statements.
I have enough to do.
He would have less time to canvass.
Jealousy will get the Deputy nowhere.
The historical connection is that there was a link between the Department of the Taoiseach and the Defence Forces. The responsibility rests with the Minister of State. As far as this connection to civil defence is concerned, the President has a key role as the Taoiseach meets the President monthly.
I believe that the Civil Defence probably would have been abolished 20 or 30 years ago, had it not been for this link. In more difficult financial times, there was always a temptation to assert there were savings to be made on the Civil Defence. This was always resisted by the Department of the Taoiseach in various battles on expenditure with the Department of Finance in the 1970s and 1980s. It is a good connection and a useful link. Moreover, the Minister of State can remained involved in this respect and can act in place of the Minister for Defence when he is unavailable or abroad.
I am interested in some of the functions of the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Kitt. Does the Taoiseach receive a full report from the Minister of State on all the functions he attends? Was the report he received concerning the Minister of State's visit to RAF Lyneham as full as the French report? The latter referred to the host country showing how it would secure a hostile airport with the sort of forces it believes are needed by the EU. It is claimed to be the first exercise of its kind.
Why was the Minster for Defence, Deputy O'Dea not present? It sounds more like his cup of tea. However, I understand that the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Kitt, was officiating on behalf of the Minister of Defence. Is that part of his role? Did he report to the Taoiseach on how that function included EU defence, fighter planes, transport, refuelling aircraft, helicopters, ground troops——
The Deputy should confine himself to a brief question.
This is a question. I am trying to ask the Taoiseach whether he received a full report on how the low-flying Harrier jump-jets flew low over the Minister of State's head——
It does not arise. I will take a brief final question from——
——and how they would destroy enemy vehicles. Is the Minister of State operating to the remit given to him by the Taoiseach when overseeing the destruction of enemy vehicles?
It does not arise from these questions.
Ireland has no enemies.
The Minister of State belongs to what we think of as a neutral country. Is the Taoiseach not concerned about the militarisation of the EU when he hears of this sort of event? Was a report given on that meeting?
Before the Taoiseach responds, I will accept a brief and final supplementary question from Deputy Kehoe, followed by a final reply.
How often does the Taoiseach meet the Ministers of State at his Department to hear reports on their activities?
Is Deputy Kehoe the official stooge today?
As to the first question, this obviously refers to a meeting where Deputy Kitt was acting as the Minister of State at the Department of Defence. At meetings which he attends on behalf of the Minister for Defence, he reports to that Minister. Both my ministerial colleagues concerned have informed me that the meeting in question pertained to peacekeeping in the EU.
It is a strange kind of peacekeeping.
Keeping the peace is not an easy task and all aspects must be examined, which is what was being done on that occasion. As regards Deputy Kehoe's question, I meet the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Kitt, every day and I meet the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Treacy, several times a week.
Departmental Bodies.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:5 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the membership of the task force on active citizenship; when it will issue its first report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24621/05]
Joe Higgins
Question:6 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when the new task force on active citizenship last met; and when the next meeting will take place. [25352/05]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date by the task force on active citizenship; when he will receive the report of the committee; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26563/05]
Trevor Sargent
Question:8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach when the active citizenship task force last met; when the next meeting is planned; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28644/05]
Enda Kenny
Question:9 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the task force on active citizenship; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28680/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 9, inclusive, together.
A high level of civic engagement and participation significantly contributes to individual, community and societal well-being. However, it is generally accepted that there are pressures on this type of civic engagement in modern Ireland arising from work and family responsibilities, changing settlement patterns and evolving societal values.
Recognising the importance of these issues, I announced my intention earlier this year to establish a task force on active citizenship. There was a strong public response to my statement and many individuals and groups made suggestions as to how this task might be pursued. A secretariat established in my Department has analysed these suggestions as well as gathering further relevant material, such as the recently published report from the ESRI on the place of sport in Irish society, and further work from the National Economic and Social Council, which will be incorporated in its forthcoming strategy report.
I am now in a position to confirm the terms of reference of the task force. They are to review the evidence regarding trends in citizen participation across the main areas of civic, community, cultural, occupational and recreational life; examine those trends in the context of international experience and analysis; review the experience of organisations involved in the political, caring, community, professional and occupational, cultural, sporting and religious dimensions of life regarding influences, both positive and negative, on levels of citizen participation and engagement; and recommend measures which could be taken as part of public policy to facilitate and encourage a greater degree of engagement by citizens in all aspects of life and the growth and development of voluntary organisations as part of a strong civic culture.
I expect to be in a position to announce the membership of the task force shortly. It is intended that the task force will complete its work within nine months. An important part of its work will be to provide an opportunity for individuals and organisations throughout the country to contribute their experiences and suggestions to inform the work of the task force.
Does the Taoiseach recall that when the task force on active citizenship was established it was expected that a report would issue within six months? Now that more than six months have elapsed, when can we expect the report? Does he also recall that when the task force was announced the initiative was questioned by the Community Workers Co-operative, in the context of the Government's decision to cut the core funding of that organisation? The CWC has provided, certainly in my experience, a valuable service in terms of networking with the community and voluntary sector.
Does the Deputy have a question?
Yes. Does the Taoiseach agree with this view of the Community Workers Co-operative? Does he also agree that the support the organisation has provided, specifically to disadvantaged communities, is such that a revisitation of the decision to pull its funding is merited?
The matter does not arise from this group of questions.
I hoped it would arise because one——
The Deputy should submit a separate question to the appropriate Minister.
As I explained, when the task force on active citizenship was established the Community Workers Co-operative almost met its demise. The two issues are, therefore, linked.
The Deputy must ask a question as other Members wish to contribute.
While I accept that my colleagues wish to speak, I would also like to be shown the courtesy of being able to put my question. I ask nothing further.
I have ruled the question on funding is out of order.
Will the Taoiseach advise whether funding for the Community Workers Co-operative will be restored? A White Paper on community and voluntary activity has been published and an implementation group established. Will the implementation group and the task force on active citizenship be linked?
I will deal briefly with the questions. The first issue is not a matter for me as it relates to a community workshop which has an ongoing issue about funding with the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív. I have done some work to try to assist in that but it is a matter for the Estimates.
When we announced the task force on active citizenship we asked for submissions from people outlining their views on the terms of reference and seeking initiatives on how best the task force could function and what issues could be addressed. The reason we did so was the huge range of issues involved and the large number of requests received from people seeking an input into how the issue could best be handled and requesting that the work of the task force be based on a White Paper on the community drawn up some years ago by a committee chaired by former Deputy Chris Flood. Parts of the White Paper in question are being implemented and it was considered that a task force was required to examine this issue. It is hoped the task force will commence work at the beginning of the new year and conclude in September.
To make way for the work of the task force, three things happened. The secretariat in my Department worked with a number of organisations on the terms of reference and used material from NESC and the ESRI to provide a framework for the work of the task force. That would ensure it would not attempt to examine a whole host of ideas from several hundred organisations but that there would at least be a framework allowing it to make progress in its work.
The Deputy mentioned the White Paper, which was published, and there are studies from the ESRI and NESC, with many other very good submissions from numerous organisations. The secretariat has put all that together in a meaningful fashion. It covers such a broad range that it was necessary to put that work in place. Otherwise, a new group would have operated in the dark. Even if they were not in the dark regarding their own knowledge, it would have taken them a long time to proceed. I hope that, after those preparations, work will start formally in January and will finish by autumn next year.
Deputy Rabbitte.
Perhaps I might ask a very brief supplementary question.
I am sorry, but I have called Deputy Rabbitte.
The Taoiseach told me on 14 April that the task force would report within six months. Did I hear him say that it has not yet been appointed? Will he say when that will happen? Does he agree that one of the most important manifestations of active citizenship is fulfilling one's duty to vote, something that has been declining in recent years? Will the Taoiseach ask the task force to examine that, for example, in the context of remarks made in a report published recently by Democratic Dialogue on similar terrain? Does the Government intend to do anything about the state of the electoral register?
The first speech I made on this issue was in April and at that stage, I asked people to make submissions. A great variety of ideas came from those at the conference regarding how we might best take this forward, and it has taken us a long time to agree terms of reference regarded as workable by all the relevant organisations on the basis of their submissions.
I agree with the Deputy that voting is a key part of social involvement and participation. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, is moving ahead with a separate initiative, but a more pressing and important issue is to work on the present register, which I regard as containing an unacceptable number of errors. I encounter these issues in my area but I do not have knowledge of matters outside it. People who have moved from apartments and flats in the inner city remain on the register, while those who live there are not on it. Dublin Corporation and others must make a great effort in this regard. The position may be perfect elsewhere, but not where I am.
Is it appropriate to leave the issue to the local authorities? One gets the impression that they are not really that pushed when it comes to keeping the register up to date and accurate.
It is certainly not being done as it was in the past. I am not sure whether it could be contracted out in the same way as the census, but it could be done far better than at present — that would not be hard. The Minister, Deputy Roche, is bringing forward an initiative on the register and another on the Deputy's first point regarding awareness and the importance of participation. I understand that he will do that shortly. It is probably better that it is kept that way since it will be far speedier.
Will the Taoiseach give the matter some more thought? He can see how appalling the register is for every constituency, rather than simply his. Will the task force on active citizenship recommend that someone be on the register as soon as he or she turns 18, given that the data are now in place and it is possible to do so through current computer systems? Will the Taoiseach recommend that so that we might see some light at the end of that tunnel? Second, will the Taoiseach leave open the possibility, although I know his opinion on the matter, of lowering the voting age, given that it has been mooted in a number of quarters by people concerned about low voter turnout? Third, is the Taoiseach interested in any of the initiatives taken in other countries, Switzerland being the most famous, where citizens' initiatives are allowed to bring about referenda on amending the constitution, not without considerable preparation and collecting of signatures? Is that something the Taoiseach would welcome as a way of engaging people further in the democratic process and perhaps getting people into the habit of casting their franchise?
I have spelled out the terms of reference, which are broad and will allow people put forward what they believe are the various dimensions of Irish life regarding influences, both positive and negative, and the levels of participation and engagement. Having seen many of the submissions, both written and e-mail, on this, there is an enormous interest on the part of all kinds of groups, bodies and individuals. A task force could be at it forever but the existing reports, including the White Paper on community involvement, what NESC and NESF have done and the various reports they produced, and what has been done by ESRI, provide a good basis for that within the terms of reference I mentioned. The task force will get at that and give some good advice on the issue.
Regarding Deputy Sargent's point on the register, the Minister, Deputy Roche, is dealing with that and it is best left with him. He has been talking to numerous bodies about that and it is best to leave that process with him because it will be far quicker than this process. That does not prevent people making comments about voter activity in this area but the physical work of improving the current register by advertising and increasing people's interest in voter participation will continue. To answer the age question, 18 is fine and I do not see any difficulty about that.
On the Swiss idea the Deputy raised, not many of Switzerland's initiatives are on the constitution but its practice is to allow people, when local issues arise within the cantons, to have plebiscites on those issues. Five or six times a year they put forward popular votes initiatives and decisions in various ways and the practice is that they get very high voter turnout. They recently had an initiative about traffic and 86% of the people voted on a Sunday afternoon between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. Obviously it is a practice with them——
What does the Taoiseach think of it?
On initiatives like that it is not a bad idea within local authority areas, but it is not so good in constitutional or legislative areas.
Does the Taoiseach believe they would have a planning problem with St. Luke's? Would it be put to a referendum if it was in Switzerland?
I know which way I would vote. I do not want my footpath removed. That is the practice in Switzerland. The only example of it being used here is the plebiscites the councils use in areas but it is a small number of cases. It could resolve many arguments but I know local authorities are not in favour of it because it has been mooted previously.
I have two brief questions for the Taoiseach. First, will he agree that a concern of people who get involved in voluntary projects is the concept of litigation? Second, we have a very good scheme in Wicklow called the first responders which deals with volunteers who assist people who suffer cardiac arrest. The scheme has proved very successful. They are covered by the Department of Health and Children clinical indemnity insurance. We are trying to expand the project to include sporting, mountaineering and canoeing clubs but one of the drawbacks is legislation that acts as a defence for those who try to assist people in good faith. Does the Taoiseach agree that legislation to indemnify members of the public in such circumstances would be useful? Fine Gael's Good Samaritan Bill 2005, which is on today's Order Paper, deals with this issue. It will not cost anything and will not offend anybody.
I do not want to get into the issue of indemnity. One of the regular complaints from active members of the community relates to the restrictions on their activities because of the cost of insurance. One of last year's reports on the insurance industry included entire sections on the issue of indemnity for persons active in civil society, particularly those involved in scouting and sports. This is a matter for the Minister. Indemnifying community groups against actions and litigation is a complex and costly area, as sporting organisations have discovered to their cost.