Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the cost which accrued to his Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal during 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43908/06]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Tribunals of Inquiry.
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the procedures in place in his Department for dealing with requests for files and information by tribunals of inquiry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43909/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the first report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Payments to Politicians and Related Matters. [43952/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:4 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the action he will take arising from the first report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Payments to Politicians and Related Matters. [43953/06]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:5 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the costs to his Department of the Moriarty tribunal since its establishment; the projected costs for the completion of the tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1130/07]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the costs which have accrued to date to his Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal; if an estimate is available as to the expected total cost; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2076/07]
Trevor Sargent
Question:7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his views on the first report of the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2355/07]
Joe Higgins
Question:8 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the action he will take following the publication of the first report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Payments to Politicians and Related Matters. [4437/07]
Joe Higgins
Question:9 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the cost to his Department during 2006 in respect of the Moriarty tribunal. [4438/07]
Enda Kenny
Question:10 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach his views on the first report of the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7810/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 10, inclusive, together.
My sole responsibility as regards the Tribunal of Inquiry into Payments to Politicians and Related Matters is in the facilitation of its budget from my Vote. The first report of the Moriarty tribunal was made to Dáil Éireann in accordance with the terms of reference under which it was established by the House. I have no responsibility for and am not in a position to answer to the House on the content of the report. In so far as the findings in the report may require action, such as improving oversight mechanisms, I refer to my statement to the House on 14 February 2007.
The total cost incurred by my Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal from 1997 to 28 February 2007 was €27,071,138. This includes fees paid to counsel for the tribunal and administration costs incurred since its establishment. The total payment made to the legal team was €20,882,453 to 28 February 2007. The total cost in respect of the Moriarty tribunal for 2006 was €3,897,559.
The administration costs for the Moriarty tribunal, including counsel fees, are met from my Department's Vote. Issues in this regard which may be raised from time to time by officers of the tribunal are dealt with in the normal course of business by my Department. From time to time, there have been requests by the tribunal for records and files and my Department has submitted these. It will continue to co-operate with the tribunal in making available any records sought. Normally, these requests are received by the Secretary General and assigned to the appropriate departmental official by him. All are dealt with on a highly confidential basis as required by the tribunal.
The last time the House discussed the Moriarty tribunal, 90 minutes were allocated to the debate. In the course of that, the Taoiseach indicated that the practice of signing blank cheques was undesirable.
That does not arise with these questions. These questions are addressed to the Taoiseach in his capacity as Taoiseach, not in his role as leader of a party.
Did I ask a question yet? I made the point that the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, had said in his contribution on the Moriarty tribunal that his practice, when he was a Minister and involved at administrative level for the Fianna Fáil Party, of signing blank cheques was undesirable. That is what the Ceann Comhairle pulled me up on. Maybe after last weekend——
Strictly speaking we should not be discussing the report of the tribunal.
——the Ceann Comhairle wants to react quickly.
These questions are very limited in terms that they concern the Taoiseach's responsibility as Taoiseach.
(Interruptions).
Where are we now?
I do not know about that.
Yes, that is quite limited.
Standing Order 33——
We do not get much information from the Taoiseach as it is.
He will probably call the election now.
In fairness, does money really matter after last weekend if one considers——
The Chair's concern is to implement Standing Orders. For the benefit of the House, Standing Order 33 is very specific. It states:
Questions addressed to a member of the Government must relate to public affairs connected with his or her Department, or to matters of administration for which he or she is officially responsible....
I agree. An allocation of fees of €2,500 per day is a matter of public affairs.
Yes, costs are in order.
At the time, a national newspaper stated the number of persons receiving an allocation of €2,500 a day should be strictly limited. The Taoiseach and the Government requested a reduction in the fees payable to lawyers dealing with the tribunals. What is the current status of the request? Will it be implemented?
It has been reported that the second report of the Moriarty tribunal will be available by the end of the year. Does the Taoiseach agree that such a timescale can be met?
What is the position on the allocation of costs for persons who have had their costs deferred? A small number is involved. What is the Taoiseach's position on the view that this was a fraction of those who deserved to have their costs withheld?
In respect of persons who deliberately delayed the workings of the tribunal, what action, if any, is to be taken on that, or is that an area on which the Taoiseach has a view?
Regarding the completion of the work, I understand the entire work of the Moriarty tribunal, including the report, will be completed in the calendar year of 2007. As we have done in some of the other tribunals, on that basis it will be allowed to complete its work under the existing arrangements. I understand the public hearings are finished. I have been told by my officials it is possible there could be a limited number of days of public session hearings but that is a call for the tribunal.
The work on completion of the report has started or is about to start. The tribunal should be able to commence preparation of its report in a matter of weeks from now. It is not possible to indicate when the second part of this report will be finalised but it should completed in a matter of months. The entire tribunal work will be finished during the course of 2008.
We must respect the right of each sole member to exercise his discretion on what can be appropriately included by a tribunal in regard to a matter in advance of the determination of costs for third parties. Having regard to his anticipation of issues, he will have to adjudicate on them. I understand that at the end of the report the sole member will have to adjudicate on the costs and decide whether people co-operated. He will then make a decision on those costs and probably take submissions on the fees. I understand this will be certainly an issue.
Regarding the cost of the tribunal, I provided €10 million in this year's Estimates to cover the cost of the report, publication of it and some element of the award of legal costs as well as administrative costs and legal fees. However, it is inevitable that the settling of the claims for costs that will be awarded will almost certainly continue into 2008. I expect to have more specific insight into liability for the third party costs but it is unlikely I will have that information until the Estimates for 2008 are formulated.
The work will certainly be finished this year as well as probably some aspect of dealing with the third party costs but it is likely, according to the view of my accounting officers, that the decision to pay the full costs or to decide on it based on the disputes, arguments and submissions that may be made around those costs will go into next year.
Does the Taoiseach have any information or view on the tribunal imposing costs on persons who deliberately or dishonestly held up the working of the tribunal? What will happen in such a case, of which, clearly, there are a number?
According to the rules covering the tribunals, we have seen already that in some cases costs have been issued by some of the other tribunals. If a tribunal is of the view that somebody has not co-operated — I think that is the word they use because people are legally entitled to challenge it, therefore such a challenge would not be considered a delay in terms of not co-operating because people are entitled to do that — it can refuse costs. A few of the tribunals have done that in regard to other costs. I am not sure if this arises in the case of the Moriarty tribunal; I am not aware that it does.
In terms of costs, does the Taoiseach think that we got value for money in this report? Mr. Justice Moriarty found that Mr. Haughey stole taxpayers' money from the leader's allowance and that the Taoiseach facilitated it by writing blank cheques.
The Deputy cannot discuss the contents of the report.
Does the Taoiseach think he got off lightly?
It is not for me to judge whether you got value for money. I have already congratulated Mr. Justice Moriarty on his work.
I will ask the question again. Does the Taoiseach think, since he facilitated the theft of taxpayers' money——
The Deputy cannot go down that road with these questions.
Why not?
Because we are not discussing the report of Mr. Justice Moriarty.
We were given no opportunity to ask questions on it when it was before the House and the Ceann Comhairle told us we could table questions. This is the first opportunity to table questions.
There are opportunities in the House, for example, during Private Members' business, when the Deputy can raise the issue. This question is governed by Standing Order 31.
That is shameful and partisan. The Ceann Comhairle is telling me that we can table questions for Private Members' business. How can we do so?
The Deputy can raise the issue during Private Members' business; I did not say to table a question for Private Members' business.
Is it now the case that the only facility in this House to ask a question about the nine years of work of the Moriarty tribunal is during Private Members' business?
The Standing Orders apply to Deputy Rabbitte in the same way as they apply to the Chair to implement them.
What about the costs?
The Ceann Comhairle applies them to me as the subject matter dictates.
I have read out the Standing Orders to the Deputy.
It is an entirely partisan position.
That is a point of view.
Has the Taoiseach any regrets now regarding the disingenuousness of his reply when he told my predecessor, former Deputy Spring, that the cheques were supervised by a senior party member and he did not identify the fact that——
Sorry, Deputy, the Chair has ruled on this matter.
——he was the member at issue? How does he reconcile his words on the tribunal with his conclusion on another occasion——
Deputy Rabbitte, I ask you to obey the Chair and to obey the Standing Order. The Chair has ruled in accordance with the Standing Order that it is not appropriate to discuss the report of the Moriarty tribunal during these questions.
In my opinion that is an outrageous ruling.
That may well be. The Chair is not interested in what the Deputy thinks; all I am asking is that the Deputy obey the Chair and the Standing Order.
I am asking about the costs. I am asking whether it is the Taoiseach's view that we got value for the taxpayers' money expended on this report. Can the Chair think of a way to rule that question out of order?
The Chair did not rule out that question.
I would therefore like to hear the answer to it.
I will answer both questions. I have dealt with the matters in the report which relate to me in answers to questions from the tribunal and that is the appropriate manner. I am happy the tribunal accepted my evidence and was satisfied that I had no reason to believe the leader's account was operated otherwise than in an orthodox fashion. I am also pleased the tribunal stated in a report that it is noteworthy that at my insistence, amendments have since been made in the governing of the leader's allowance accounts. I have already dealt with the matters relating to the conduct of Mr. Haughey.
With regard to the costs of the tribunal, I have already congratulated Mr. Justice Moriarty and his staff on bringing the long work to a successful conclusion. They are currently working on the remaining part of the report which is expected to be passed this year. The other point made by the Deputy is in accordance with the facts.
I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Does the Taoiseach recommend or believe that——
Sorry, Deputy Rabbitte, I have called Deputy Ó Caoláin.
I beg Deputy Ó Caoláin's pardon.
I have called Deputy Ó Caoláin. I will call Deputy Rabbitte again.
In his response to the questions the Taoiseach has indicated a certain level of fee payment. Does this suggest to him that anything at all like the order of overall fee expenditure in the Mahon case will be reached, as speculated by the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell? The figures cited suggest a figure much lower but this is not to suggest it is any more acceptable. What is the Taoiseach's position on the decision to introduce the lower fees as of 31 March 2007, which is later this week? Will that position be honoured? How many times now has a decision been taken to allow for the higher fees to continue? If I recall correctly, there was at least one deferral in the course of 2006. Are we now to face yet another deferral of the reduced level of fee payment?
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is party to the establishment of the core team. However, the Department of the Taoiseach is not represented on that team. I understand that officials from the Departments of Finance and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government are participating. Why is the Department of the Taoiseach not represented? When is it expected the core team will substantively report on its review of the fees that apply in the case of the Mahon tribunal? Is it addressing fees in general that apply to other tribunals, particularly those that are currently sitting, not just those that may be established in the future?
It is a separate tribunal and it is not covered. I can, however, inform the Deputy that those matters remain under discussion. While my Department was not represented at official level, there was representation from the Office of the Attorney General, which comes under the aegis of my Department.
The questions I asked relate to the Mahon tribunal.
However, the parliamentary questions with which we are dealing relate to the Moriarty tribunal.
My questions relate to the Mahon tribunal.
I am not answering questions on the Mahon tribunal because it does not come within my Department's remit. In the interests of being helpful, however, the matter to which the Deputy refers is still the subject of discussion. The three officials dealing with it are from the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Finance and the Office of the Attorney General, which comes under the aegis of my Department.
The Comptroller and Auditor General is examining matters relating to costs and fees, and his report will be made available during the course of the year.
The Taoiseach has not given an indication as to whether the 31 March deadline relating to reduced fees——
I stated that those matters are ongoing.
How many deferrals of the decision the Taoiseach trumpeted two years ago have been accommodated?
There has not been a deferral.
There was previously a deferral. The Taoiseach has allowed an overrun in respect of the highest level of fees.
I am not providing answers in respect of the Mahon tribunal, however, there has been no deferral. The original date given in respect of the Mahon tribunal was 31 March 2007.
Is it not interesting that the Progressive Democrats were not present the first time around and that they are absent again today? At least we have this opportunity to table questions in respect of costs and the actions that may arise on foot of the tribunal's report. Is the Taoiseach aware of the nature of such actions being requested by the Irish branch of Transparency International as a result of the publication of the Moriarty tribunal's report? It called for additional powers for the Standards in Public Office Commission and for full disclosure of financial accounts by political parties, not just for the three weeks leading up to an election but for the period between one election day and the next. If we are to obtain value for money, does the Taoiseach acknowledge that the actions which arise on foot of the report must be taken? Will he indicate the stage the Government has reached in the implementation of such actions?
Is it possible for the Taoiseach to indicate — this would also impact on the actions to which I refer and it may have allowed us to avoid spending over €27 million on the report in the first instance — what would have been the position if he had refused to sign blank cheques?
That matter does not arise. A distinction must be drawn between Deputy Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach and in his role as leader of the Fianna Fáil Party.
There is only one Deputy Bertie Ahern——
The Taoiseach is not responsible to the Dáil for party activities, past or present.
——and we all know that.
The distinction is the same as that between Superman and Clark Kent.
I have already outlined the contents of Standing Order 33.
Even the Taoiseach realises that he is the same person.
Members should confine themselves to asking questions on the costs relating to the tribunal or the findings of the report in respect of which Government action is required.
I only see the one person across the floor here and I am asking that person about his actions.
Sorry, Deputy, but I ask you to obey the Chair.
I had a number of questions and the Chair did not rule them all out of order.
I am sure the Deputy had and the Chair has pointed out clearly that it must implement the Standing Orders. The Deputy is aware of that. Members must obey the Standing Orders.
I am looking forward to the replies to the questions that were in order according to the Ceann Comhairle's ruling.
I read out Standing Order 33. I do not want to read it out again but, if necessary, I will have to.
Any of the recommendations of the Moriarty tribunal applies in every Department. I do not think there is a recommendation that all political parties are to account in any further way for their expenditures between the elections. They are already audited accounts, and the leaders' accounts now——
The period leading into an election is what we are speaking of.
——are dealt with in an entirely different way from previously and the statement goes to the Standards in Public Office Commission. I do not recall seeing a proposal such as that to which the Deputy refers that all of these controls for political parties, which are in place during the course of an election, should be in place all year round, and I do not think that is a recommendation. I am sure any of the recommendations of the Moriarty tribunal, and any reflections it requires for amended legislation in the future, will be fully taken into account.
Is the Taoiseach aware of Transparency International?
I call Deputy Kenny.
Apparently not.
I had asked the Taoiseach on the procedure to be followed by persons who might wish to acquire papers from the tribunal that were used in the course of drawing up the report. Is there a procedure for that or are persons who may have an interest entitled to acquire those?
Second, in respect of the question on the Taoiseach's views on the Moriarty tribunal, one of the most uncomfortable features of the Moriarty tribunal was the uncovering of the use of funds for the late Brian Lenihan's medical operations for personal use. It has been alleged that there was a constant stream of assistance or donations coming in for that.
Has the Deputy a question appropriate to these questions?
Yes. I am going to ask it now. Arising from that, does the Taoiseach, in his capacity as leader of his party——
Sorry, the Taoiseach is not here to take questions on that.
——and as Taoiseach, have a view as to whether what the tribunal uncovered was all that was involved?
Sorry, Deputy, that does not arise on this question. The first question is appropriate.
My question is clear; I am seeking the Taoiseach's views on the first report of the Moriarty tribunal. This is about the Moriarty tribunal and this is something that has been alleged on a number of occasions. I do not know the answer to it. I am just asking that the Taoiseach——
The Chair has already pointed out that we cannot discuss the tribunal. The Taoiseach is not here in his capacity as leader of his party to answer questions. Standing Order 33 refers.
I am not asking him to discuss the tribunal; I am asking him to discuss his views on it. I am asking the Taoiseach whether he has a view on what I consider was one of the most uncomfortable issues——
It does not arise from this question. I call the Taoiseach on the first question.
Can I ask the Taoiseach then, a Cheann Comhairle, whether he is happy having read the report that the matter relevant to the amounts concerned for the late Mr. Lenihan——
Sorry, Deputy, that does not arise.
——were the amounts in total? I think that is a relevant question in respect of views on the tribunal.
Sorry, Deputy. You may well think that but Standing Order 33 binds the Chair.
A Cheann Comhairle, you allowed this question——
Question No. 10.
——to ask the Taoiseach his views on the first report of the Moriarty tribunal. I am asking the Taoiseach for his view on it. Can you give me a reason for ruling that out?
Yes. The Chair has given the Deputy a reason.
What is the reason?
Standing Order 33.
What does that state?
Standing Order 33 states:
Questions addressed to a member of the Government must relate to public affairs connected with his or her Department, or to matters of administration for which he or she is officially responsible.
This is relevant to his Department.
This raises the question of costs.
This is relevant to the Taoiseach's Department. He is the Taoiseach. The question is about his views on the Moriarty tribunal. I am asking the Taoiseach for his view on that.
If you want a view on that, a Cheann Comhairle, all records of the party were given comprehensively to the tribunal in its investigations and, therefore, anything on which the tribunal would have reported would have been on all the records the party would have had. On the first question, any submission on data or reports that the tribunal may have had or used would have been made to the sole member. That is the only procedure. I do not know of any other.
Is the Ceann Comhairle ruling that it is not possible to put down a question to the Taoiseach about the content of the Moriarty report?
It is possible to put down questions to any Minister——
I am not speaking about any Minister.
——about anything for which he or she has official responsibility, and that includes the Taoiseach. However, it is not possible to put down a question to any Minister about something for which he or she does not have official responsibility in this House.
I am not interested in Deputy Kenny's matter.
I am merely outlining to the Deputy the Standing Order.
I am asking whether it is possible for me to put down a question to the Taoiseach on the content of the Moriarty report.
Sorry, I have given the Deputy the ruling, which is that any question is in order provided it is a matter for which the Minister has official responsibility in his or her Department. If he or she acts in another capacity, such as leader of the party, he or she is not responsible to this House. That is the Standing Order and the Chair is obliged to implement it, as my predecessors have done for the past 80 years.
I ask the Taoiseach, having regard to the cost of this tribunal report, whether his Government has taken any action in respect of it.
The full recommendations of the tribunal and a full report have been sent to every Department. I do not think many actions are necessary because most have already been acted upon, particularly those pertaining to public moneys and how they are to be audited and moved to the Standards in Public Office Commission. Most of these things are already in place but any other recommendation that has not been dealt with will be addressed.
I appreciate that it has been distributed, but I do not know to whom and maybe the Taoiseach will reveal that.
To every Department.
I am asking the Taoiseach whether any initiative, action or legislative measure has been taken or derives from the report.
What I have stated is that during the nine and a half years of work on the Moriarty report, many issues came to light that required legislative change and they have already been legislated for during the course of the tribunal. It is probably true to say that a lot directly related to its work. I am not aware of any further legislative issue but changes were made over the years to Finance Bills, the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 was enacted and amendments were made to the Electoral Acts and the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 during the course of the tribunal's work. If there is any other one on which action was not taken, I am sure it will be addressed by various Ministers when they and their officials examine the full report.
With regard to costs, is it not the case that the Taoiseach approved and the Attorney General recommended a doubling of fees for solicitors and researchers and that after 2002 the Taoiseach approved an increase of €800per diem for lawyers at tribunals, including the one under discussion? Does he not agree it is the height of humbug that he and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform are cooking up a storm and a controversy about the fees associated with these tribunals when he as Taoiseach approved them and the Minister, Deputy McDowell, who is leading the storm, facilitated some of the increases while he was Attorney General?
At the outset of the tribunals, certain costs were set. I think they were changed a few times during the course of the work of the tribunals. They were set on the basis the tribunals would be finished within certain timeframes but for one reason or another a number of tribunals made submissions regarding extensions of time. When the tribunals were set up in 1997, it was considered they would take two years to complete. It is clear from the record that this was the view of everybody on this side of the House. The legislation was amended on the basis we would know when the final modules would be finished and by what date. The Moriarty tribunal was expected to end in 2002. Increases were given. In 2004 the then Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, and the Attorney General agreed the timescale within which the tribunal would be completed. However, a number of the tribunals, including the Moriarty tribunal, made submissions that some delays were beyond their control and that they needed further time. The Moriarty tribunal has completed its first report and stated a small number of hearings may be held on its second report. It expects to start work on the second report within a few weeks and wrap up all matters relating to the tribunal, except that of third party costs, which will be a matter for the sole member. The tribunal as we know it should wrap up during 2007.
In respect of costs, do the negotiations under way encompass all tribunals, their legal staff and legal fees or do they relate only to a single tribunal?
The work of the Moriarty tribunal is almost complete within the existing arrangement — that it will be finished this year. The work of the other tribunals is on schedule or there are agreed dates. The new fee structure has been put in place by a number of them but I cannot recall which ones off the top of my head. Negotiations are continuing on an agreement with the sole member and the legal teams on the timespan and fees for the Mahon tribunal.
How many junior and senior counsel are working in the Moriarty tribunal which has sat for the minimum number of days this year? Has the tribunal provided the Taoiseach with its work programme and outlined the number of days it will sit in public or private session, as we approach the end of the year and the production of the second report? In other words, what is the scale of the tribunal team? Does the tribunal set out a work programme in order that the Taoiseach can at least monitor its activity both in public and private session in order that the report will be published by the end of the year?
Under the system used, the fees for counsel are initially certified by the solicitor to the tribunal and then certified by the honourable Mr. Justice Moriarty. The certified counsel fee invoices are then forwarded to the protocol and general division of my Department for authorisation in accordance with Department of Finance sanction. They are, in turn, forwarded to the finance unit of my Department for payment. Office expenses and supplies are invoiced directly to the tribunal. The tribunal registrar certifies the invoices and passes them to the finance unit of the Department of Finance for payment. The main team of the Moriarty tribunal comprises eight people, including three or four senior counsel, while the others are clerical staff.
Commemorative Events.
Trevor Sargent
Question:11 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if his Department is providing financial support for the planned Famine commemoration in Dublin on 27 May 2007 and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2354/07]
Enda Kenny
Question:12 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if his Department is providing funding for the planned Famine commemoration in Dublin in May 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7811/07]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:13 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach his plans for an annual commemoration of the Famine; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8366/07]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:14 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the arrangements for an annual commemoration of an Gorta Mór; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9641/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 to 14, inclusive, together.
I am aware that a commemorative event in respect of the Great Famine is being prepared for 27 May. While this is not an official initiative, it is associated with the proposal under consideration between Departments to establish a memorial day. I understand it is the intention of the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, to host a reception on the occasion of the Famine commemorative event. This is intended to reflect the ongoing role of Irish Aid in responding to global issues of hunger and food security.
The Great Famine had a most telling impact on Ireland both in the direct loss of so many lives and through the displacement of people and establishment of a pattern of emigration that continued for more than a century. I recall the official commemorative programme for the 150th anniversary of the Great Famine which took place across several years under the auspices of my Department. This intensive programme engaged a wide audience in Ireland and among the Irish diaspora.
There has been a sustained pattern of commemoration of the Famine for many years. The Famine Museum at Strokestown Park, County Roscommon, was opened in 1994. The national Famine monument was unveiled at Murrisk, County Mayo, in 1997 and replicated on the UN Plaza at New York in 2000. The Famine figures at Custom House Quay, Dublin were installed in 1997 and will be complemented this summer by a similar installation at the Irish Park in Toronto to be unveiled by the President. The many official and private initiatives regarding monuments and commemorations reflect the enduring significance of this tragedy for the Irish people at home and abroad.
I am positively disposed towards the establishment of a memorial day and have asked that the matter be considered at official level, having regard to the appropriate timing and location of a commemorative event; the possible nature of the commemoration, reflecting the terrible loss of life; the links to the diaspora and the continuing issues of hunger and food security. While I do not anticipate that an official annual event will be inaugurated this year, I am satisfied for the Government, through the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, to be associated with the Famine commemoration being arranged for 27 May. The question of financial support for this event has not arisen.
I am surprised to hear the Taoiseach state the commemoration will not have official status, given the presence and involvement of the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan. I ask him to take into account the fact that the Opposition parties, various Independents, the Tánaiste and 30 Fianna Fáil Deputies and Senators all support the commemoration and hope it will have official status. Does he still consider, as he stated in the House on 4 May 2005, that he has no great feelings one way or another on the issue or has he had time to reflect on the matter? Does he consider that the commemoration should have official status, given that famine is still an issue of world significance and that the Irish Famine resonates with many around the world, particularly those of Irish extraction? Will he make a statement on this matter in order that there will be at least an expectation of official status for this year's event?
As the Deputy noted, there have been many representations on this issue. As I stated in 2005 and many times since, it has been the practice that the principal events in our national history are marked by official commemorations on their significant anniversaries. However, because of our long history, it has not been the practice to organise official commemorations annually of the many people and events worthy of such commemoration. When the issue of a national day of commemoration was discussed at great length 20 years ago, the July date was used to bring them together. There has been much debate in this regard and the committee which has been working on this memorial has cited the example of Holocaust day among others. However, they are not official events. While the Taoiseach, Ministers and senior politicians might attend and participate, they are organised by representative committees which reflect the communities which suffered during such terrible events and there are many such days. I note that in the correspondence forwarded to me by Members they are being classified by the organising committee as being national or official days. However, they have nothing to do with the State.
As for the Famine event, many thought it should be examined. We held events to commemorate the 150th anniversary which were significant and a lot of effort was put into them. Through the Office of Public Works the State was involved in the commemoration in New York and the State provided €500,000 to this year's commemoration in Toronto. We will also link in to the day of commemoration by having a reception.
As Deputy Sargent stated, there is a great deal of support for a commemoration. I asked officials to see how we could commemorate it through a national day, based on the three points I made, how we would best do so and in what circumstances we could do so. I am happy we should do it for reasons of links with the diaspora and continuing issues of hunger and food security in the world. We will consider how to best do it and on what date — it seems 27 May would be the annual date.
I repeat what I stated before — it is never a popular thing to say — every year, the number of anniversaries, commemorations and groups throughout the country which would like the State to be affiliated with has no end. Letters in my name go out every year stating we cannot do something and that raises a head of steam.
This year, the official commemoration programme is looking at the 400th anniversary of the flight of the earls, their story in Ireland at a time of change and their progress in Europe. We will commemorate the 400th anniversary of the Irish college in Louvain where the earls found their initial refuge and the 350th anniversary of the death of Luke Wadding, the Franciscan scholar. This year will also mark two issues related to Daniel O'Connell. It is the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade with which he was closely associated and on which he made his name internationally. It is also the 160th anniversary of his death.
We were able to put resources into the first two matters. If we were to commemorate everything every year what we would do for each would become meaningless so I attempted to hold the line. We have a great history, but the number of groups and committees would be endless if the State linked itself to all of them. It is not a popular line to take because one gets into the thick of all of them. If we went with everything we would have 20 or 30 commemorations every year with very limited resources. I allowed the committee to pick what it believed were the most significant.
We will consider a national day of commemoration for the Famine, which seems to be linked to 27 May. I asked the committee dealing with commemorations to see how we could do that in a meaningful way. Only a very small amount of money, amounting to a few hundred thousand euro, is provided every year to do something like what we did at the UN, and it is fitting for the country to have such a prime site for the Famine commemoration as the grounds of the UN building. The Toronto commemoration will also be on a prominent site.
We will try to work out a way to do this. I want to do so on the basis that we should continue to resist the endless commemorations people want on an annual basis.
That concludes questions to the Taoiseach.
I have one or two brief questions.
The Ceann Comhairle could not wait to get off the earlier batch.
That was for the very simple reason——
He went into them early. We have questions down. The Ceann Comhairle made rules previously when he went around the House to ask people to answer questions.
Not at 3.20 p.m.
We should be permitted to ask a question about this.
A total of 112 questions have been tabled for the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.
This was asked to the Taoiseach.
I do not see the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources or the two Opposition spokespersons objecting.
They are entitled to have their questions taken too.
The Taoiseach will be brief in answering my questions because they are themselves brief.
The Deputy has 30 seconds.
I would give the Government some credit for the allocation which led to the national commemorative Famine ship under the shadow of Croagh Patrick at Murrisk, which was a worthwhile endeavour.
The Taoiseach laid a wreath at ground zero in New York prior to St. Patrick's Day but was there a reason he did not go to Battery Park, to Adrian Flannelly's house two blocks away, which would have been appropriate with regard to Famine commemoration? I note the planned Famine commemoration is for 27 May, Whit Sunday. Is the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, likely to be on his own at the event or will it be a commemorative date for the ending of Fianna Fáil's time in power after ten years?
It may be joint commemoration.
What is the Taoiseach saying? Is he indicating he is of a mind to have a commemorative day for the Famine and it might be 27 May? Surely he is not comparing the Famine to other meanderings that he has engaged in. It is quite a separate matter.
What is the event taking place this year, which is not official but has a Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, as a host? Is he paying for it himself or is it coming from State funds? Is this a Fianna Fáil solution to an Irish problem? If this is the way to deal with it the Taoiseach could send Conor Lenihan around to host the other events spoken about by him and nobody would pay any attention. Is this real or is it illusory?
Does the Taoiseach agree that the best way to commemorate the great hunger visited on the Irish people is by taking the initiative, the leadership role internationally, in addressing the horrors of global famine today? Is the Taoiseach aware that some 16,000 children die every day from hunger-related——
We must move on. The Deputy cannot make a major statement.
——problems? It is time Ireland made its mark in this way.
I thank Deputy Kenny for his remarks on the commemoration event. With regard to visiting the house, there was no other reason for not doing so other than I had been there a few times before. That was the only reason I did not go and there was no particular link with a commemoration event.
I believe Deputy Rabbitte does not really care less about the Famine and is trying to make a bit of a skit of it.
I was the first Deputy to raise the matter in this House and I have raised it consistently.
That is a disgraceful statement.
The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to speak.
I see through the sham the Taoiseach is organising.
I ask the Deputy to allow the Taoiseach to speak.
The Deputy's remarks today have been trying to make a bit of a skit of the matter. We should be frank.
The Taoiseach should withdraw the remark.
As always I have to repeat myself several times for Deputy Rabbitte.
I am a bit stupid, as the Taoiseach remarked last week.
I stated that this year the Famine commemoration——
It is understandable.
I am not of the quality of those behind the Taoiseach.
The commemoration this year is being arranged for 27 May. The State is not officially associated with it as an official annual event, as is being requested. We are assisting by having an official reception around the commemoration event. I have asked the committee of people involved in the commemoration to consider whether we should have a national day under three criteria.
First, we should have an appropriate time and location for a commemorative event and 27 May has been designated by the people involved. Second, we should look at the nature of the commemoration, which should reflect the terrible loss of life. Third, we should consider the links to the diaspora and the continuing issues of hunger and food security. If we can put together a commemorative day that would embrace all the issues, which we have been asked to do, we could have a national day and I would support it.
I made a point about other commemoration days. The letters I have been receiving from Deputies have been indicating that the Holocaust memorial days, among others, were national days. My point was that none of these days, organised by large national committees, county associations or other powerful committees with many people on them, is a national day. There are committees far greater than the group behind the Famine day. It is a good idea but others represent thousands of people who would like commemoration days, and we cannot accommodate them all.
The Great Famine is of course an enormous issue but it does not take away from the many others. I checked this and approximately 39 different groups have a significant belief they should have a national day. We cannot have that range of days. I will support the Great Famine commemoration day and I have asked officials to draw up the outline of a commemoration. To show our support this year we will provide a reception around the event, which I know is considered helpful to the organisers.