Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the rules in place in his Department governing the acceptance of hospitality by Ministers from State agencies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44684/08]
Ceisteanna—Questions.
Official Gifts.
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the guidelines that exist in regard to the acceptance of hospitality by Ministers from State agencies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46104/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the guidelines for the acceptance of gifts by Ministers from State agencies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1779/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
If a Minister were to receive a gift worth more than €650 from a State agency, it would be deemed to be a gift given by virtue of office and would have to be surrendered to the State. It would also have to be declared in the Minister's annual statement of registerable interests.
As regards hospitality, I assume that the Deputies are not referring to a situation where Ministers travel abroad in the course of, and for the performance of, their duties and their travel expenses and accommodation are paid for by the State agency on behalf of which they are travelling. For obvious reasons, restrictions in the code of conduct for officeholders published by the Standards in Public Office Commission, which I will refer to in a moment, do not apply to any offer or supply of property or a service made "in the course of and for the purpose of performance of duties of an officeholder, for example, hotel facilities or attendance at EU Council meetings, including a representational role by a spouse where this is in accordance with established practice".
As regards hospitality otherwise, the code of conduct for officeholders sets out, among other things, a framework for the acceptance of hospitality by officeholders. Briefly, the code provides that officeholders should not accept offers of hospitality where to do so would, or might appear to, place them under an obligation. The code also provides that officeholders should not accept offers to meet the costs of travel facilities and-or commercial accommodation in connection with official activities where such offers are made by private citizens or private enterprises, but that discretion may be used where an officeholder is the official guest of another Government or official body, or of a not-for-profit representative organisation or the like.
The Department of Finance's code of practice for the governance of State bodies provides a corporate governance best practice framework under which State agencies are required to conduct their business. Among other things, it provides that State agencies should avoid providing hospitality which might affect or appear to affect the ability of the donor or the recipient to make independent judgments on business transactions.
The code of practice recognises that it is not feasible to provide specifically for all situations which will arise. It reminds directors and employees of State agencies, therefore, that it is primarily their responsibility to ensure that all their activities, whether covered specifically or otherwise by the code, are governed by the ethical and other considerations implicit in it.
When a Minister travels abroad on behalf of his or her Department, the position is well known, transparent and open to scrutiny. It appears from the investigations into FÁS that the same does not apply there. If a Minister accepts a trip or hospitality from a State agency, there does not seem to be the same level of awareness as if the Minister travels on behalf of his or her Department. For example, if the Minister for Foreign Affairs were to travel to some country at the invitation of a State agency as distinct from the Department of Foreign Affairs, that would not show up in the same way. Is the Taoiseach happy about that? What safeguards are being put in place to ensure that there is absolute transparency about such trips?
I accept the Taoiseach's bona fides in wanting to do things in the public interest here but I find it incredible that, because of the constraints arising from the Abbeylara case, the Committee of Public Accounts is unable to subpoena witnesses who have clear information about elements of this case. That is not in the public interest. We should be able either to write legislation within the context of the Abbeylara finding or have a referendum to allow the Oireachtas deal with these persons in semi-State agencies or whatever part of Government applies, when the need arises.
When I asked the Taoiseach last June about FÁS, he said that he held the then chief executive in the highest regard and would defend his integrity at all times. Is the Taoiseach happy that since that time structures have been put in place which allow for oversight of hospitality extended to Ministers within agencies such as FÁS for instance?
It is the normal arrangement that when Ministers travel abroad in the course or performance of their duties, their travel expenses and accommodation are paid for by the State agency on behalf of which they are travelling. It is right that this should be the case because the Minister is conducting duties in performance of his or her office. I am sure that lessons are being learned from the various issues arising out of FÁS. Mr. Ed O'Sullivan, a former Secretary General at the Department of Finance with responsibility for the public service, is the interim chief executive officer and is au fait with the various guidelines in respect of these matters. He also has an overall capacity to help guide the agency in the transition period pending the appointment of a long-term head of the organisation.
It is my view that those issues which have arisen are lessons to be learned and actions to be taken in changing a culture that may have grown up over many years and aspects of those arrangements which we would find unsatisfactory. From my point of view, it is under a leadership now that will ensure that the culture of public service is manifest and above public reproach in terms of moderation that is displayed as people go about their business in an appropriate way and are not seen to be extravagant.
Does that mean, for instance, that if Fáilte Ireland brings the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism to some function in France or Italy, that it will show up in its report and that of the Department? Will hospitality extended by an agency to a Minister be made public? I understand that there is no intention to cover it up but it is necessary that everybody be perfectly aware of it from the reports of the agency and of the Minister's Department. This should be absolutely above board and everybody should understand it. One does not want a situation to arise in which someone knows that a Minister was in America or wherever, but the trip is reported only in the accounts of the semi-State agency. I hope that the structures being put in place under the former Secretary General with responsibility for the public service will ensure that happens. If a Minister travels at the invitation of a semi-State body or agency to do business for the country, everybody should understand the nature of that travel and a record of it should be available for all to see. Everybody understands that is what it was, as it is there for all to see. Will those changed structures bring about that situation?
The Standards in Public Office Commission, which sets out the code of conduct for officeholders, does not apply the question of filling forms for the supply of a property or a service, made during the course of such a supply for the purpose of the performance of the duties of an officeholder. The Standards in Public Office Commission has drawn up the guidelines, and we should abide by them. The office is doing this in compliance with the legislation. I do not have a problem with whatever guidelines we are asked to comply with. In this case, the office has indicated its view on the matter and we should deal with the issues that are specific to what the legislation was set up to address, rather than trying to deal with every issue related to the performance of people's duties on a daily basis.
These questions arose from the controversy that developed following revelations about FÁS involving trips to Florida and the expenses incurred, about who travelled and who paid for what. It emerged that the statutory responsibility for approving the scheme of expenses rested with the Minister. Without going back over the detail about who travelled where, we need to first establish a few principles. It is not a good idea that a Minister, who has a statutory responsibility to approve a scheme of expenses, should himself be the beneficiary of an expenses regime in the State agency concerned. There needs to be some kind of wall developed between the Minister who approves the regime, and the agency to whom the regime applied. Where a Minister is invited on a mission of some kind by a State agency, the expenditure incurred by the Minister and his or her staff should be accounted for in the Department's own budget, and should be subject to Dáil questions and the normal parliamentary scrutiny and accountability that applies to that. If that were done, there would be a distinction between the expenditure of the State agency and the extent to which Ministers benefit. The important thing is to make that distinction between the accountability by the State agency and the Minister.
I do not know about that, but I will have it checked. The Department of Finance set out certain guidelines on this. I think the Deputy raised the matter with me before, when he asked that FÁS submit a scheme of expenses for approval by the Minister, on the basis that it is in compliance with the general guidelines set out by the Department of Finance. The question of whether the expenses are paid for out of the budget of the State agency or the Minister's own budget is a matter for consideration. I hear what the Deputy is saying about it. If a Minister is performing his or duties on behalf of a State agency, usually that agency deals with the travel and other arrangements that are provided for in that trip. It is not dealt with in different parts by the Department and the agency.
I will check whether the current arrangements in place will add to the issue to any great extent. We are dealing with public money, so accountability should be available from those who disburse it. If it is disbursed by a State agency, then that agency should answer for it, rather than create another arrangement where some payments are made by the Department and others by the agency. Why not have greater transparency from the State agency in the first place?
Yesterday I spoke about the use of the Government jet by the spouses of Ministers or Ministers of State. I made specific reference to the Minister for Health and Children, who was accompanied by her spouse in the incident mentioned by Deputy Gilmore. That trip was under the aegis of FÁS, and we know that there was much controversy in the fall out from the trip, including the personal services expenses paid by the platinum card of Mr. Greg Craig, the director of public affairs at FÁS. That created much controversy at the time and led to the resignation of the CEO, Mr. Rody Molloy. Arising out of what some believe is the inappropriate use of the Government jet, I asked the Taoiseach if any new guidelines were to be introduced by him to lay out his expected best practice approach to the use of the jet. He stated that he did not believe that this was necessary.
On the basis of all that was demonstrated by that Florida trip, have any new guidelines for Ministers and Ministers of State been drawn up in order to ensure that best practice applies to gifts, services and other expenditure by the State agencies? What guarantee have we that what was discovered about the FÁS trip has not been replicated in other situations across other Departments and State agencies? What level of oversight and scrutiny is currently in place? Following the exposure of the practices within FÁS that led to the resignation of its CEO, has the Taoiseach taken steps to insist on best practice across the board? Given what was exposed on the Florida trip, does the Taoiseach accept that there is a culture that needs to be addressed? Will he address it?
The Committee of Public Accounts has been discussing this matter for some time with various members of staff from FÁS. The committee will be making recommendations for consideration, while the interim chief executive has experience that is being brought to bear on the lessons to be learned at the agency. The legislative basis upon which we operate, such as codes of conduct, the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 and so on, are all complied with by Ministers. It is a matter for State agencies to ensure that the arrangements made are in line with guidelines devised by themselves and approved by the Minister, or in line with the general Department of Finance guidelines that apply to these matters.
I would like to follow up on that. It may well be that the practices we are discussing are endemic in the private sector. There is more and more evidence of that. The difference is that we are talking specifically about the spending of public moneys by the public sector. The highest standards need to apply in such circumstances. Does the Taoiseach accept that rather than allowing State agencies to mimic their counterparts in the private sector, we should put in place the highest standards of best practice? Can he clearly indicate to the wider public, whose money is employed in the abuses to which I have referred, that these practices have been stamped out and will not be tolerated in the future?
The essence of accountability is that lessons are learned when breaches take place or difficulties arise. If people take on board lessons, change can take place. That is precisely what accountability is about. It is obvious that like other agencies, FÁS needs to learn lessons from the controversies that have been brought into the public domain. As I have said, the new head of the agency will ensure that the appropriate standard of public service applies to all its activities, including activities in this area. We can have every confidence in his capacity and willingness to do that.
Freedom of Information.
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during November 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44686/08]
Enda Kenny
Question:5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests which were processed by his Department during 2008; the number which have been acceded to; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46572/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information applications received in his Department during 2008; the way these figures compare with the same period in each year since 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1005/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:7 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department in 2008 and the same figure for 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1780/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, together.
Ten freedom of information requests were received in the Department of the Taoiseach in November 2008. The number of requests received in 2008 as a whole was 83, 64 of which were granted or part granted and ten of which were withdrawn. There were no records in respect of six requests. In the other three cases, the records sought were exempt from release. The table that follows this reply sets out the other figures requested by the Deputies. All freedom of information applications received by the Department of the Taoiseach are processed by statutorily designated officials in accordance with the Freedom of Information Acts 1997 and 2003. In accordance with the Acts, I have no role in processing individual applications.
|
Year |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
|
Totals |
146 |
142 |
45 |
61 |
54 |
71 |
83 |
I would like to make two comments. When certain activities in FÁS were being investigated recently, the members of the Committee of Public Accounts obtained more relevant information from the individual freedom of information requests they submitted than from the documentation the semi-State body in question furnished to the committee. In other words, less information was supplied on foot of requests from the committee to the agency than was obtained on foot of the freedom of information requests submitted by the members of the committee. Perhaps that justifies the existence of the freedom of information system. As the overseer of that system, the Taoiseach should ensure that State bodies provide the fullest possible information when freedom of information requests are made.
In response to a previous question, the Taoiseach told me that 10,704 freedom of information requests were made to the Office of the Information Commissioner in 2007. That figure represented a reduction of 42% since 2003. The number of requests submitted to the Department of the Taoiseach decreased by 50% over the same time, from 142 in 2003 to 71 in 2007. I do not think people have stopped making requests because they have got all the information they want. The Tenth Report by the Minister for Finance on Freedom of Information, which was published on 28 October 2008, highlighted the shortfalls in the freedom of information system’s fee structure. The Information Commission has pointed out that Ireland is one of only two of eight comparable jurisdictions to charge people to make freedom of information appeals. Ontario charges €16 for an appeal, but Ireland charges €150. When the Taoiseach was the Minister for Finance, he dismissed the Information Commissioner’s call for a decrease in the fees imposed in respect of freedom of information requests and appeals. The commissioner has described the fees as being part of a “culture of secrecy”.
At a time when everybody is demanding transparency and accountability, does the Taoiseach, who has said we should have fair play, have any plans to reconsider the Information Commissioner's request for a review of the fee structure? Fine Gael has proposed that a flat fee of €10 should be imposed in respect of requests, reviews and appeals. We have suggested that appeal fees should be refunded if appeals are successful. Does the Taoiseach think the Government could give its consent to such a change? If a person's appeal to the appeals commissioner is granted, surely the appeal fee should be refunded in recognition of that, or as a consequence of it. Would the Taoiseach agree to that?
As I have indicated previously, questions about possible changes to the Freedom of Information Acts, whether by means of an extension to the principal Act or the revision of fees, should properly be addressed to the Minister for Finance.
The Ceann Comhairle is an advocate of fairness and transparency. He is doing a great job around the country.
I am only pointing out what is the position.
I often hear the Ceann Comhairle quite rightly telling pupils from all parts of the country that we want openness and transparency.
That is right. That involves the right question being asked of the right man.
Thank you.
The ongoing process of extending the Freedom of Information Acts to public bodies is being undertaken by the Department of Finance. As Minister for Finance, I oversaw the biggest ever extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Acts, to a further 137 bodies, in 2006. More than 520 bodies are now covered by the freedom of information regime. Just 67 bodies were covered when the original Freedom of Information Act came into operation ten years ago. I do not think anyone can question our commitment to wider transparency and accountability. The Department of Finance is making arrangements to extend the scope of the freedom of information scheme to a further group of bodies, including the Law Reform Commission, which is the only body under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach that has yet to be included in the scheme. I expect the Minister for Finance to make an announcement in this regard in due course.
I understand there are no plans to review the freedom of information fee structure, which is a matter for the Minister for Finance in the first instance. The current structure, which was introduced in 2003, provides that a fee of €15 is imposed when a freedom of information request is made. I contend that the fee is modest when compared with the estimated average administrative cost of processing a freedom of information request, which is €485. I remind the House that almost 11,000 such requests were made in 2007. I do not believe anybody would argue that the fee is unreasonable, or that it discourages people from making responsible freedom of information requests. It is important to point out that no charge is imposed in respect of the time that is taken to examine the records sought with a view to determining whether they may be released. Equally, no charge is imposed in respect of access to personal information. The fees charged under the freedom of information scheme have not increased since they were introduced in July 2003.
Deputy Kenny referred in particular to the fees that are charged when appeals are made. I remind him that it costs €75 for an internal appeal and €150 for an appeal to the Office of the Information Commissioner. Significant reductions may be availed of by medical card holders, who are asked to pay fees of €25 and €50, respectively, for appeals in each category. Appeals concerning personal information are entirely exempt from the fee structure. The making of appeals to the Information Commissioner is a quasi-judicial process. It can take many months to complete the process, as it can entail a considerable amount of work. The fee that is charged in such circumstances is a fair reflection of the nature of the appeal process and the costs and time involved. It is important to note that a person who submits an appeal to the Information Commissioner may receive a preliminary decision, which gives a good indication of the likely final decision. Such a person can withdraw his or her appeal and obtain a full refund of fees even at that late stage in the process. I understand that 30% of appeals made to the Office of the Information Commissioner are withdrawn. The appeal fee is returned in such cases.
The last time the House discussed this matter on Question Time, I asked the Taoiseach about the Information Commissioner's decision, which was made on foot of a freedom of information request, to release documents that were used during Cabinet discussions on Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions. The Taoiseach told me on that occasion, in October 2008, that it was intended to appeal the decision in line with advice that had been received from the Attorney General. Can the Taoiseach tell the House if the decision in question has been appealed? If so, at what stage is the appeal?
I do not know. I will have to check it out. Does the matter in question relate to the Department of the Taoiseach?
When I asked the Taoiseach about this matter on 21 October 2008, I note the record states that the Information Commission had recently made a decision that documents relating to the Cabinet's consideration of Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions should be released. The Freedom of Information Commissioner considered that European Union access to information rules and regulations, including access to environmental information, required that it should be released. The Taoiseach told me at the time that following consultation with the Attorney General's office it had been decided that an appeal should be taken in that case. If he does not know the answer to that question now, I am sure he will communicate it to me in due course.
In light of the scandals in Irish banking and in FÁS referred to earlier and, all too sadly, many others that have come to light in recent times, will the Taoiseach reconsider his position, when Minister for Finance, on the recommendation of the Information Commissioner not to continue to charge fees for FOI requests and appeals? In the context of all that has taken place, does he consider it is appropriate to revisit the Information Commissioner's recommendation and to set aside fees to strengthen scrutiny across the broad? Does he accept it is the absence of scrutiny that has given rise to much of what we have witnessed and learned, including this morning and sadly, into the future?
Does the Taoiseach also accept that, aside from FOI legislation and the bodies to which it applies, there is a good argument for him to consider a parallel process that would apply to the corporate sector in order that a light can be shone on the conduct, management and standards applying within it in context of the abject failure of the Office of the Financial Regulator to properly give oversight and scrutiny to that sector? Is there now a case for the Taoiseach to consider a further measure that would apply not only to public bodies but to the corporate sector to try to offset the serious lack of confidence and strong distrust within Irish society in regard to that sector?
In my previous reply to Deputy Kenny on the fees structure I made the point that it is in no way the deterrent some contend it is for the use of Freedom of Information for the purpose of obtaining information. The fees structure is very reasonable in the circumstances, given the nature of the work that is undertaken and the fact that the fee does not even come close to the cost of such information being gathered and collated. In all the circumstances, particularly the full exemption for personal information, the fees structure ensures that presumably, only responsible FOI requests would be pursued rather than people seeking information for the sake of it, putting the system to the trouble of responding only to have it forgotten, with the result that it would not be put to any great public effect.
Regarding the question of the regulatory situation in financial services and banking, all of that is now being considered and reviewed in the European context as well as domestically. We will work with colleagues to examine if the EU-wide regulatory regime is sufficient to meet the new circumstances in which we now find ourselves as a result of the fracture that has taken place in the financial services industry arising from the level of financial innovation that was being conducted, the number of off-balance sheet instruments that were being used and the leveraging of banking assets for the purpose of providing credit, which has led to a crisis of confidence in terms of credit being less available and the banking system being under stress worldwide. Domestically, the Minister for Finance will examine what arrangements he considers should now be proposed to the Government for consideration in respect of new regulatory arrangements that will ensure public confidence can be applied to the oversight and supervision of the financial services industry in Ireland.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. Will he accept it is unfortunate that the argument of vexatious FOIs is used to scuttle any reconsideration of the Information Commissioner's recommendation to abolish fees? In that context, is there not a mechanism that could be introduced for an independent determination as to vexatious as against sincere and serious FOIs? Does he not consider that the Information Commissioner's recommendation in this regard still has merit? By contrast with other jurisdictions, the punitive costs involved in the appeals process here constitutes a serious disincentive. Surely that merits reconsideration in the context of all that we have spoken about.
Will the Taoiseach indicate what recommendations, arising out of the experience of the inadequacy of the Financial Regulator, he and his Government are presenting in the European context for broader consideration and application? I hope this will be done at the earliest possible time.
I do not accept that the fees structure is punitive. The Deputy does not seem to have any evidence to suggest it is punitive. As I said, the fee for medical card holders is €35 and €50. This is in regard to quasi-judicial procedures. One could not go into a court with a lawyer and expect to get anything done for €20 or €50. Having regard to the amount of time being applied to provide this information, the appeal mechanism of the Information Commissioner and the fact that it takes months to address issues, to suggest that the fees structure is a deterrent or a disincentive is not borne out by the facts. Perhaps it has helped in reducing the number of vexatious Freedom of Information requests being submitted. If there is no fees structure in place, one would make it up as one goes along and keep the whole system going trying to collect information simply because somebody seems to want it rather than it being sought for any obvious effect. We must be sensible about this. I believe the balance is very well struck.
On the question of co-ordination and the question of to what extent EU-wide regulatory rules can be applied, that matter is being discussed by ECOFIN and Finance Ministers on an ongoing basis, as are proposals by the Commission, in which Commissioner McCreevy is involved. It is a question of waiting to see what emerges from that, but there is no doubt there is a broader context than simply our own regulatory context — there is a wider issue that must be addressed. This is an international industry and there is a strong movement of capital all over the world. We must have some rules and regulations by which people need to work to ensure there is greater transparency and understanding of what is going on.
Irish-US Relations.
Enda Kenny
Question:8 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent telephone conversation with the then President-elect of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44687/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:9 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach when he next intends to visit the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46102/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:10 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed in his recent telephone conversation with the then President-elect, Barack Obama; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46103/08]
Enda Kenny
Question:11 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach his plans to visit the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46575/08]
Enda Kenny
Question:12 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will convene a meeting of the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board during his next visit to the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46576/08]
Enda Kenny
Question:13 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the arrangements in place within his Department for maintaining contact with the Ireland-America Advisory Board; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46577/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:14 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the discussions he has had with the new US President; when his next visit to the US is scheduled; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1781/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:15 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the communications he has had with Barack Obama since his inauguration as President of the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3045/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:16 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he has plans to meet the newly inaugurated President of the United States, Barack Obama. [3046/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 16, inclusive, together.
I spoke on the phone with President-elect Obama on 18 November and congratulated him on his election success. I took the opportunity to stress the importance the Government attaches to Ireland's relationship with the United States. He expressed his desire that the relationship would continue to flourish in the coming years.
I commented on my visit to New York last summer. Ours is a mature two-way relationship and I fully expect it to further develop on that basis. I briefed the President-elect on the positive political developments in Northern Ireland with the resumption of meetings of the Northern Ireland Executive. I took the opportunity to personally invite him to Ireland. I also wrote to him on 20 January to convey my best wishes on his inauguration.
I expect to visit the United States in March for St. Patrick's Day. While the programme for my visit has not yet been finalised, I would expect to meet with the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board. My Department maintains contact with the board primarily through the Irish Embassy in Washington, as well as through visits and meetings.
Did the Taoiseach invite the then President-elect to Moneygall and did he invite the Taoiseach to the White House?
I do not think he would insult me.
Did the Taoiseach discuss with him, perhaps even briefly, the question of the undocumented Irish? Is it his hope that the US Government will introduce a comprehensive Bill within 12 to 18 months or does he envisage that the Minister for Foreign Affairs might have to make arrangements, if possible, for a bilateral arrangement with the US, given that former Senator Clinton is now the Secretary of State?
My third question concerns the role of the special envoy to Northern Ireland, an appointment made originally by President Clinton. This is an important position in keeping connections and contacts alive between Northern Ireland, Ireland and the United States. Prior to the US presidential election there were some suggestions that the special envoy might be recalled. Did the Taoiseach mention to President Obama the importance of maintaining this position? If so, did the President make any comment?
Paula Dobriansky was the latest nominee of President Bush and she is returning to other duties. I understand the Obama Administration intends to continue with such an arrangement whereby a person from the State Department will continue to engage his or her capacities with the process and be helpful in every way possible in terms of confidence building and bringing his or her particular perspective, especially an economic one, to the question of the process and how he or she can help things along. We very much thank all those who have been appointed by previous US Presidents and we look forward to the new appointment and to having a positive working arrangement with the person appointed. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, will engage most often with the appointee.
On finding a solution for undocumented citizens, supporting our diaspora and addressing the plight of the undocumented in the United States are key objectives of the Government. Finding a resolution for our undocumented community is an important priority for us. We have pursued a bilateral solution to reforming our migration arrangements with the United States. This strategy has three key objectives — the solution for our undocumented; the establishment of a new long-term reciprocal working visa system known as the E3; and the working holiday agreement. A new working holiday agreement between the two countries has now been achieved. Detailed discussions are being held with senior members of Congress in respect of the second issue.
However, finding a solution for the undocumented remains our key priority in this area. In taking up the issue with the new US Administration and with Congress we are building on the extensive work on behalf of the undocumented the Government has carried out over recent years with many of those now within the Administration, and in co-operation with the Irish lobby for immigration reform. Since 2006, the Government has provided funding of $235,000 for this work.
Only three minutes remain. I will try to come back to Deputy Kenny. Deputy Gilmore asked the question.
I heard the Taoiseach outline what he expects his programme to be when he visits the United States on St. Patrick's Day. Does he intend to meet President Obama during that visit? For a number of years there has been a tradition of making a presentation of shamrock in the White House. Will that occur this year? Will it still be presented in Waterford crystal?
From a Clara man to a Moneygall man.
As I said in my earlier response, no detailed arrangements have been agreed yet regarding the visit. I hope to visit Washington and perhaps New York around St. Patrick's Day, and to meet with different interests there as my predecessors have done in the past. We have had no indication yet of any change to arrangements that have become established in recent times. I should not anticipate agreement on any issue until it is forthcoming, officially.
Can the Taoiseach indicate to us his hopes in respect of an engagement with President Obama other than the photo opportunity of the presentation? Is he hopeful? Does he expect to have a meaningful engagement with the President and to have the opportunity to address, in a serious and focused way, the issue of the undocumented Irish in the United States? All sides of this House share concern on this issue. There is a critical need to start ratcheting up pressure with regard to this matter. It drifted during the former President's terms and this has caused huge hurt and anguish for Irish people in the United States, and for their families here. I presume we are all conscious of this.
In the context of President Obama's day one announcement in respect of Guantanamo and all matters emanating from that, during the course of his telephone conversation did the Taoiseach address the issue of extraordinary rendition and how it has applied in Ireland, and, specifically, at Shannon Airport? Will he address the issue in the course of an upcoming engagement with the US President in the context of his stated intent? Will we now see a new regime of inspection agreed to between the US Administration and Ireland?
If Deputy Kenny wants to come in he must be very brief.
I asked the Taoiseach if he invited President Obama to Moneygall. It might be at least a diversion from all the other woes.
I shall invite him to the country first and, if he accepts, we can decide afterwards on the location.
Is Offaly playing or will it have a team to bring to a match at that stage?
The county is looking for a manager at present.
No more so than that of the man beside the Taoiseach.
We are keeping the country in suspense.
Cork will give Kerry a free run this year.
I will try to keep the US President out of GAA politics. Deputy Ó Caoláin raised several matters. These are substantive meetings and any suggestion to the contrary is rather ungracious. The Deputy's party has been a beneficiary of the process for a long time and, but for the fact that Irish Governments were able to get into such places, his party members might not have been able to make the visits they have made in recent times. The Government has had an excellent relationship with all US Administrations and these have brought real and direct benefits. They have been instrumental in insuring that political developments can take place. That level of engagement continues. I have no reason to doubt that President Obama will not be seized by some of these issues given his very wide and burdensome duties and obligations. There is no doubt that Ireland has enjoyed a level of interest from successive Administrations, indicative of the very close ties of kinship we have enjoyed with that country over many years.
The question of the undocumented is one that must be handled appropriately and in a way that might achieve progress for us. It is easy, as the Deputy might claim, to ratchet up pressure. Ratcheting up presure is not in itself the issue. There are many people of goodwill in the Houses of Congress who will be supportive in the right circumstances. Those circumstances have yet to be created because there are many countries with a diaspora and there are, therefore, many people of different origins who also have this problem. It has caused very serious domestic difficulty for many in Congress, and in the context of political debate over many years.
Rather than believing we must go in and start twisting arms all over the place, what we must do is build on the goodwill we have generated on this issue. We must be respectful of the fact that it is a difficult domestic question for the United States. It is one on which we are prepared to engage with that country, find incremental improvements, and try to deal with this issue. That means being mindful of the difficulties it creates rather than believing there is an entitlement we can expect. The approach must be sensible and sensitive to the domestic realities for both parties represented.
That, in no way, is to suggest we are not very determined to assist those who find themselves in this difficulty. As constituency Deputies we know of many who hold this status who wish to have it rectified as soon as possible. Their position denies them return to their own country and their loved ones. They miss many important occasions in family life, whether weddings, bereavements or suchlike, quite apart from the fact they cannot come home and socialise in their own country. This is a very human issue and is one with which I am especially acquainted. I wish to address it but I must approach it, as we all must, on the basis there are people who can and will assist, given the right circumstances. It is our job to try to create those circumstances and not to make an approach that would detract from establishing sufficient goodwill to make a decision possible.
There is no relenting by this Administration. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, has been assiduous in the conduct of his duties in this regard, given the high priority it is accorded in his Department, apart from the important aspect of our bilateral relationship it represents as an outstanding item to be resolved. On the basis that Guantanamo Bay is closing, I do not see the purpose of an inspection regime.
Will the Taoiseach secure assurances?
The assurances we have obtained are satisfactory to this Administration.
But to very few others.
There is no evidence to the contrary. Such assurances are acceptable to us because it is in the interests of this relationship that we continue to conduct our business on that basis.
It is a very naive acceptance.
It is not a very naive acceptance. The idea that Deputy Ó Caoláin can ratchet up pressure on one hand and not accept the word of an Administration on the other is naive.
It is not. The Taoiseach will always get a pat on the back of the head.
That is why the Deputy is where he is and we are where we are.
A pat on the back of the head will no longer suffice.
That is wrong again. It is a question of mutual respect. If one wants respect, one must show it.
Absolutely.
On the basis of the assurances we received and with no evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to doubt the assurances I have received — none. Deputy Ó Caoláin can continue with his suspicions and conspiracy theories as long as he likes, and when he expects to get something done, he can give me a shout. He will be a long time waiting I would say.
We will be a long time waiting for a reply.
Regarding the question of detainees, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Justice, Equality and Law Reform understand their officials met a senior State Department representative on the matter earlier this week. We have made clear that our general disposition is to be helpful, but we also believe the greatest possible degree of co-ordination at European level would also be helpful. There was a first discussion among EU Foreign Ministers at the end of last month and the Justice Ministers will consider the issue a fortnight from now. Following that, we will review where matters stand.