Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach his plans to amend the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16300/10]
Ceisteanna — Questions
Ethics in Public Office
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach his plans to amend the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18903/10]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he plans to amend the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20229/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
The Code of Conduct for Office Holders was drawn up by the Government pursuant to section 10(2) of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 following consultation with the Standards in Public Office Commission, and was published in July 2003. A review of the code will be carried out, in consultation with the Standards in Public Office Commission, after the Ethics in Public Office (Amendment) Bill has been enacted.
Is it intended to change the Cabinet handbook so Ministers cannot give false information to the courts?
That is not a matter for the Cabinet handbook; it is a general principle to which we all subscribe.
It is a general principle that was breached in the case of a sworn affidavit laid before the court by the former Minister for Defence. Should it not be made perfectly clear to anybody with the privilege of serving in Cabinet that this is beyond any political action? The Cabinet handbook should state that.
The former Minister for Defence explained that in the House and apologised for the issues that arose. As he said, there was no intention on his part to give wrong information.
It happened. All I am asking is whether it is intended to correct or expand the Cabinet handbook to make the matter perfectly clear for every person who will serve in Cabinet over the coming years.
I understand the use of the Government jet must be cleared by the Taoiseach. There was no clearance given by him for the Government jet's flight to Las Vegas. I pointed out his matter some time ago.
The Deputy got a reply in writing about that.
I did.
I refer the Deputy to the correspondence, which confirms that the assertion he makes is nonsense. He needed a clarification, yet he has come into the House to keep this up.
Is the Taoiseach, as one who authorises the use of the Government jet, prepared to write into the Cabinet handbook that the people's jet can only be used on his authorisation by a Minister and to make it clear, if a situation like Las Vegas were to arise again, the jet could not move without his authorisation?
The Deputy has a clarification from me in writing about that matter and he knows there is no basis for his assertion.
It is also the case that a former Minister——
It is not appropriate to raise individual cases at this time.
There is nothing to ask.
This question relates to the code of conduct and asks the Taoiseach his plans to amend the code of conduct——
Are we going to deal with individual cases continually?
Individual cases are examples of breaches of the code of conduct. I asked the Taoiseach his plans to amend the code of conduct for officeholders and if he would make a statement on the matter. Is it proposed to write into the Cabinet handbook that Ministers should not make false declarations to a court? Will he also write into the handbook that the use of the Government jet should be authorised by the Taoiseach only and it cannot be used outside the code? We have an example of a Minister racking up a charge of €46,000 for delivering Fianna Fáil leaflets. Is this what is involved in Cabinet conduct? These are three examples of where the Taoiseach should amend the Cabinet handbook to make it clear to Ministers and future officeholders that such is the case.
I have answered both questions twice. With regard to the first question, it is a matter for Ministers to act with integrity at all times.
The Taoiseach appointed them.
I have indicated to the Deputy again that there was no intention on the then Minister's part, as he outlined in his apology to the House in regard to that matter, and he subsequently resigned his office.
After the Taoiseach voted to keep him in office.
It is not a matter for the Cabinet handbook for a self-evident principle like that to apply.
It is.
The second issue the Deputy raised was about the plane.
It is a jet.
He comes into the House and he hopes he can get a few tabloid headlines but when I send him the facts of the situation, he comes in two months later and he starts the same craic.
It is not craic.
What is the point in giving the Deputy the proper information?
I asked whether the Taoiseach is prepared to amend the Cabinet handbook or not.
There is no breach of the Cabinet handbook guidelines whatsoever in regard to this matter, as the Deputy was told directly. What is the point in giving him that information if he is going to come in and play the old game again? It is the same old story with him the whole time.
The Taoiseach is still defending the former Minister for Defence.
Was there ever a breach?
The Taoiseach continues to defend the former Minister for Defence. Before he signed his sworn affidavit, he should have known and could have read the Cabinet handbook, which would have outlined what not to do. That is not the way Ministers should conduct themselves and the Taoiseach knows that.
These questions are about the possible revision of the code of conduct for officeholders, which the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, has been seeking for some time. The Taoiseach's response to this is that when the Ethics in Public Office (Amendment) Bill 2007 is passed, he will review the code with SIPO. The legislation has been around a long time. It was first announced by the Taoiseach's predecessor, Deputy Bertie Ahern, and the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell, on the steps of Government Buildings in the autumn of 2006 following the disclosure that the former Taoiseach had received some payments while he was Minister for Finance from friends, associates and so on. It became known as the dig out Bill and it was introduced by the present Taoiseach when he was Minister for Finance.
It is intended under the legislation that if one is an officeholder and somebody offers one a gift, one would go to SIPO to check whether it is all right to accept the gift. The Bill was passed by the Seanad but we have not seen sight of it since, as it was never introduced in this House. When will it be brought into the House? If we have to wait for the review of the code of conduct for officeholders until that Bill is passed, we will be quite a while waiting because it has been going on for four years. What will happen to that legislation? Is it still the Government's intention to have it enacted? Can he give us some idea when it might be enacted in order that we can get some idea as to when he will consult SIPO about changes to the code of conduct for officeholders?
The reason I suggest it should await this is because the code of conduct cannot impose new requirements which are not legislatively based. It is based on the present legislation and, therefore, one cannot change the code in the absence of legislative amendment. As the Deputy said, the Ethics in Public Office (Amendment) Bill 2007 is available to be enacted. It is a matter for the Whips as to when it can be taken. The Government can discuss that with the Whips. The Bill was proposed to amend the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 to provide that ministerial and parliamentary officeholders and Oireachtas members are not to accept benefits, that is gifts, loans or below cost services, worth in aggregate more than €2,000 from a friend for personal reasons in a period — usually a calendar year — comprehended by an interests statement prepared under the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, unless they have obtained the opinion of the Standards in Public Office Commission that acceptance of the benefit would not be likely to materially influence the recipient in the performance of his or her functions or duties. If offered a benefit on an occasion where it would not be practical to refuse it, the recipient must seek the opinion afterwards and must give up the benefit or its value if the commission is unable to issue such an opinion. That is the purpose and objective of the legislation but we cannot amend or review the code unless we amend the legislation.
What has delayed the legislation? The Taoiseach was responsible for its introduction. I have wondered about the legislation. A gift or benefit of up to €2,000 is sizeable and the idea that somebody given the responsibility of running a Department would not be able to exercise judgement on whether it is appropriate to receive a gift of that size without seeking the opinion of SIPO seems extraordinary. The Bill was announced at the time to provide some political cover, particularly for the then Minister, Michael McDowell, following the emergence of the dig-out money at the tribunal of inquiry. It is a fig leaf for the Taoiseach to say he is waiting for the enactment of the legislation to review the code of conduct for officeholders when it is perfectly clear that the Government has no intention whatever of progressing it.
That is not true.
What is delaying it? It was proposed in 2006, which is four years ago.
Many Bills have been sought by the Opposition over the past 12 months or more and this legislation was not included. The Bill was to be enacted in response to a debate at the time during which it was stated issues such as this should be covered by the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 and the code of conduct subsequently and that we needed a legislative base for it. It was the view of everyone at the time to bring in legislation. Now that we have brought it in, the Deputy is saying it is just political cover for something else. He cannot have it every way. At the time, he was demanding legislation.
Bring it into the House.
There is no problem. It is a matter for the Whips——
Where is it?
——and it is a matter for the Minister for Finance to bring forward the legislation and finalise it. It is finished in the Seanad.
That is a load of nonsense.
It is not.
The Taoiseach knows well it is not a matter for the Whips. The Government Whip orders the business the Government, of which the Taoiseach is the head, decides should be ordered. He or she does not operate as an independent——
He brings some sort of order to the House.
That is fine. I have no problem with order in the House and the ordering of its business, but the Government decides what business will be given to the Whip to be put on the Order Paper. Clearly, the Taoiseach has decided, for whatever reason, that he will not progress that Bill.
To say the review of the code of conduct for officeholders is awaiting the passage of legislation amounts to awaiting something the Government has no intention of progressing in the first place. Will the Taoiseach bring it in?
That is Deputy Gilmore's assertion, but it is not the situation.
It is a fact.
I am responding to the situation——
It is a fact. The Government has had four years.
The Minister for Finance has brought in a good deal of important legislation in the House over the past 12 to 18 months. It is not a question of the Minister twiddling his thumbs while there is legislation to be passed. He has done a considerable amount of very important work in that area for the country, the Parliament and the Government. This is another Bill that is required to be completed, and it can be completed. It is a matter for the Minister and the Chief Whip, in the first instance, along with the other Whips, to decide when it can be taken. We did not introduce the Bill so that it would not be implemented. It is a question of going ahead with it. It is a matter of some priority and importance at present.
I want to ask about another matter involving promised legislation. In the Taoiseach's 2009 Ard-Fheis speech he promised new legislation to regulate political donations, particularly with regard to referendum campaigns. When will we see that legislation?
Again, that will be a matter for the line Minister to bring forward in due course. I believe it would be helpful to bring forward such legislation. In previous referendums we saw substantial funds being applied which were not accounted for in the way that political parties have to be accountable for funds. That was the thinking behind that.
Do I take it the line Minister is the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, in this case?
Yes.
The line Minister moves very slowly. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, told the House last night that he was going to fast-track the appointment of an electoral commission. This was his excuse for having his party vote against the proposal that there should be a time limit on by-elections, as presented by Fine Gael. The proposal to have an electoral commission was promised in the original programme for Government, which the Minister and the Taoiseach concluded three years ago. After three years it is somewhat rich to have the line Minister saying that he is going to fast-track it. I do not have a great deal of confidence that a Minister who is only now talking about fast-tracking something that was promised three years ago is going to introduce the additional legislation the Government promised in 2009.
The Deputy raised this two weeks ago and the fact that the Minister is proceeding with it now is something the Deputy does not support either. The issue of the independent electoral commission and the preparation of Green and White Papers on local government reform are all matters the Minister is proceeding with. He indicated to the House yesterday that he is proceeding with that particular issue.
Changes to the code of conduct for officeholders that could be considered would presumably be informed by new situations presenting or by the performance of the existing code. Has any consideration been given in terms of a review of the effectiveness of the existing code, given the increase in the limit from €650 to €2,000 in cash or equivalent value that officeholders are obliged to report? How many such declarations have been made and can the Taoiseach advise where the record of such declarations is held? What is the actual declaration process?
In relation to the responsibility of officeholders to declare any material interest in a given performance consequent on their roles as Minister, Minister of State or whatever, can he indicate the number of declarations since 2003 under the particular heading where an officeholder had a material interest in a specific performance he or she was required to carry out because of the office he or she held? Does the Taoiseach know how many declarations have been made under that particular heading within the code of conduct since 2003? As with the first question, can he advise what the methodology is and say to whom such declarations are made? Where is the record held of such declarations and is it publicly accessible?
These are obligations on individual Members of the House. It is up to those who are officeholders to discharge whatever requirements exist. They are submitted, as the Deputy knows, to the Clerk of the Dáil. They are also submitted, as appropriate, to the Standards in Public Office Commission. That is where they reside and that is where the records appear. These are matters all Deputies and officeholders have to comply with.
I am not aware of the individual issues that arise for Deputies in relation to complying with those requirements. They are statutory requirements for each individual Member to consider and comply with, and I understand this is what happens. If they do not, the Standards in Public Office Commission gets in touch with them about it.
Regarding the previous issue raised by Deputy Gilmore about the amounts, these are all matters of judgment. The threshold of €650 has not increased since the passage of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, apart from being changed to take account of a convenient euro equivalent at the time of the currency changeover in 2002. The original figure under the 1995 Act was £500 and this was changed to €650, with effect from 1 January 2002. The thresholds set in the 1995 ethics Act was the first attempt to set thresholds in this area. It is by no means unreasonable for that first attempt to be reviewed 15 years later, in the light of experience, not to mention the need to counterbalance the effects of inflation eroding the original figure over the intervening years. The Bill, when enacted, will be setting this amount after 15 years not just for the present, but for the next period of years. Deputies will be able to make their view about thresholds known when the Bill is debated.
As Minister for Finance I consulted the Select Committee on Members' Interests of both Houses about the proposals in the Bill before it was published. The Seanad committee agreed with them while the Dáil committee welcomed the proposals, noting that they would further strengthen the accountability of Members of the Oireachtas.
Am I to understand from the Taoiseach's reply that in both of the incidences I have highlighted, the Clerk of the Dáil is the appropriate officer to whom officeholders, Ministers and Ministers of State, make their respective declarations both in relation to gifts received and where there are material interests in connection with any given performance they are obliged to carry out? Is that record accessible to the public? Does it have to be accessed under the Freedom of Information Act or is it open to scrutiny? Are all these declarations open, public records?
Will he again note that my question is about whether the performance in relation to the existing code in any way urges or suggests that changes are required in terms of the code of conduct? Is the Taoiseach aware of anything regarding the performance under the existing code which may give rise, in his view, to a need for changes to the existing code?
The code of conduct does not stand in isolation but is part of the wider ethics framework established by the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 and the Standards in Public Office Act 2001. Section 10(7) of the latter requires office holders to have regard to and be guided by the code. The code cannot impose any new requirements that are not already set out in legislation; it mainly attempts to provide guidance at a level of detail that would be difficult to express in legislation. It can, however, be used by the Standards in Public Office Commission as guidance on whether a complaint made under section 4 of the Act should be investigated. This is the section of the Act under which a complaint of a breach of the ethics Act can be made.
The commission has a supervisory role under the ethics legislation. Its functions include supervising the disclosure of interests and compliance with tax clearance requirements. The commission has specific statutory powers to investigate and make findings about failures of compliance with the Act. The code of conduct, under the ethics Act, is admissible in any investigation of the commission and may be taken into account by it in its determinations. The penalties available to the commission are those specified in the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995; that is, the making of a report under section 24 to the Committee on Members' Interests of the relevant House. The code is also admissible in any proceedings before a court, tribunal or committee of this or the other House. The code in its own right indicates standards of conduct and integrity for office holders which are not expressly covered by legislation.
That is the role of the code of conduct. With regard to the accessibility of information about declarations made by Members, Members' interests are published on an annual basis. These provisions remain in place and are not in any way interfered with.
I must mention to Deputy Ó Caoláin that declarations in respect of Ministers are publicly available on the website.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the reply to my question to the Taoiseach.
Are they on the website?
Consultancy Contracts
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the group established in his Department to oversee the awarding of public relations contracts by Ministers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16301/10]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the operation of procedures put in place in his Department to monitor the awarding of public relations contracts by Ministers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18904/10]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:6 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if the group established to oversee the awarding of public relations contracts by Ministers is still operating; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20230/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together.
The Quigley report, which was published in 2005, highlighted the need for special care in cases in which a proposed consultancy comprises an element of direct service to a Minister or Minister of State, particularly in area of public relations or communications, or where a Minister or Minister of State suggests the name of a person or enterprise as being suitable. Following publication of the Quigley report, additional guidelines to be followed in such cases were approved by the Government and are published on my Department's website. The guidelines were brought to the attention of all Secretaries General, who were asked to implement them and, in future, to bring them to the attention of all newly appointed Ministers and Ministers of State, where relevant, in their Departments or offices.
The guidelines give the Secretary General to the Government and the Government secretariat a role in examining certain procurements. However, there is no special committee in my Department to oversee the awarding of public relations contracts by Ministers. Any workload arising from the application of these additional guidelines is handled within existing resources in the Government secretariat.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government spent €3 million on public relations contracts in 2009, one of which was the radio advertisements about the designation of seven special areas of conservation on the Dublin coastline. Those radio advertisements cost €23,000 or €25,000. I accept that Departments must advertise their activities to the public. Does the Taoiseach have any information in his brief about this? Is this type of contract approved by the public relations contracts committee? Must the Minister sitting beside the Taoiseach, Deputy Ó Cuív, or anybody else who wants to promote a campaign on behalf of his or her Department, seek approval from the committee first or is the decision made in-house in the Department, based on the budget available, to run advertisements to tell the public how wonderful it is and what it is doing? For example, was the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government obliged to seek approval from the public relations contracts committee before placing these advertisements on radio, on television and in the newspapers?
There is no committee in place. Guidelines were established which set out a procedure that must be followed when a particular set of circumstances arise, that is, a proposed consultancy or any proposed contract for services comprising a significant element of direct service to a Minister, particularly in the PR or communications area, or a suggestion by a Minister of the name of a person or enterprise that might be suitable. In such circumstances the Secretary General of the Department concerned must notify the Secretary General to the Government. Having inquired about any aspects he or she considers relevant, the Secretary General to the Government will then make a recommendation to me as to whether any special conditions should be observed in the procurement process. It is in those specific instances that the procedure is triggered.
Does the Taoiseach have information on the number of public relations contracts that are currently in operation in Departments? Is that something that comes to his attention regularly? Is there freedom, with certain restrictions, for Departments or Ministers to employ new public relations people on a whim or put out information about new campaigns? In other words, is there a figure for the amount being paid out to public relations agencies by Departments? If so, what was the cost of this in 2009?
No. The question is about the procedures that are in place with regard to public relations contracts as they pertain to me, arising from the Quigley report, which was drawn up at a time when an issue arose in a particular Department. It sets out general guidelines, and that is the basis on which I am replying today. I do not have any of that information.
One of the recommendations of the Quigley report was that consideration should be given to requiring the approval of the Taoiseach for any initiative being pursued by a Minister with regard to a consultancy contract for PR or communications advice, including the provision of advice to the Minister. Was this recommendation ever implemented? If so, on what occasions is the approval of the Taoiseach required?
In the period of time since he has been Taoiseach, how many times has he been asked for approval for the appointment of public relations or communications contracts for Ministers?
Eight cases that came within the terms of the guidelines have been processed so far. In September 2008 I agreed to the appointment by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources of a consultant to conduct a facilitation exercise with regard to a consultation paper on next-generation broadband. In 2007 one case was noted by my predecessor following consideration by the Secretary General to the Government; it consisted of an invitation to tender for consultancy work at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to scope out a project which would lead to the establishment of an independent electoral commission. I understand the candidate concerned was not subsequently successful in the tender competition. Two cases related to the appointment of an arts adviser at the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism; my predecessor approved one of these in 2005 following appropriate prior consideration by the Secretary General to the Government, and upon the resignation of the original post holder, my predecessor approved the appointment of a successor to the post in 2006.
The four other cases referred to the Secretary General to the Government were, on consideration by him, found not to fall within the scope of the guidelines and did not require consideration or approval. These related to the appointment of IT, PR and communications consultants.
I refer to the group established by the Taoiseach's Department to deal with the awarding of public relations contracts by Ministers. Would the Taoiseach consider extending its remit to include semi-state bodies under the aegis of the Ministers? Is the Taoiseach aware of the recent report about the Dublin Docklands Development Authority which stated that contracts of more than €80,000 were awarded to a business that not a registered company and did not have an identifiable business name? This, as the report clearly showed, does not comply with the requirements in terms of proper performance. I ask because this pertains both to the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and to FÁS, whereby different contracts were awarded that were anything but up to the required standards and serious questions must be asked in respect of them all. While the Taoiseach has a team in situ in respect of Departments directly, will he consider extending its remit to include semi-State bodies under the aegis of the respective Ministers and their Departments to ensure that where public moneys are involved, the highest standards apply right across the board? In conclusion, is the Taoiseach aware of the report to which I referred regarding the Dublin Docklands Development Authority prepared by Ray King? Of itself, has that report not prompted consideration of the course of action I now suggest?
As I stated in my primary reply, there is no special committee or group in my Department to oversee the awarding of public relations contracts by Ministers. Any workload arising from the application of the additional guidelines as outlined in the Quigley report is handled within existing resources within the Government's secretariat. Neither do I have involvement in respect of semi-State or commercial State bodies or otherwise. Guidelines have been set out as to how they should operate and from memory, I believe the line Department with which they are associated is the relevant Department, in the event of a breach being brought to its attention or whatever, to ensure the guidelines are being complied with.
It appears that they are not being adhered to. I refer to contracts being awarded in respect of public relations work by semi-State bodies. While I do not suggest this is the case now, certainly in the past, in the instances I have highlighted and as a recent report has underscored, this has been happening. All the wishful thinking in the world will not change this. In the light of the report by Mr. King into the Dublin Docklands Development Authority's awarding of contracts in this regard, I understand that the bulk of the awards by the authority were above board. However, I understand that in one instance out of 37, awards were made to a particular business that is neither a registered company nor has a business name to which one can point, registered or otherwise, of the order of €75,000 in one instance and €7,250 in another, that simply do not meet the required criteria. In that light and given the history of questionable awarding of contracts in this area and others by both the DDDA and FÁS, does the Taoiseach not believe there now is a requirement to formally bring the awarding of public relations contracts by all semi-State bodies under the direct aegis of the respective line Ministers and Departments?
I made the point that as the Deputy is aware, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has appointed a chairperson who has a particular expertise in corporate governance to that authority. Reports have been considered by the Minister and will be published in due course. I have every confidence that the new chairperson and board in the Dublin Docklands Development Authority now are putting in place the necessary governance requirements to make it consistent with appropriate corporate governance procedures. The reports and any subsequent issues that may arise will be a matter for debate and consideration as to what lessons are to be learned in the event of there being a lack of, or a deficit in, proper governance procedures in that authority. The Minister has introduced a new chairperson who will report on these governance issues and set out recommendations for the future that I believe will meet the best possible standards in the future. As for what has happened in the past, I cannot comment but I am sure these issues can be dealt with by the chairperson and chief executive as they report to the various committees of the Houses in due course.
Chief State Solicitor’s Office
Enda Kenny
Question:7 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the Nally Report on the reorganisation of the State Solicitor’s Office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16302/10]
As previously indicated in reply to similar questions on this matter, the implementation of the recommendations of the Nally report was completed in 2007.
A full and complete reply.
Before moving on, may I ask how much time remains? Given the import of the remaining questions, it would be unfair——
Six minutes. The Taoiseach should move to the next question.
Northern Ireland Issues
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:8 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the further action he will take on foot of the Barron, McEntee and Oireachtas Justice Committee reports on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and other fatal acts of collusion in this jurisdiction, as well as the Oireachtas resolution in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16305/10]
Enda Kenny
Question:9 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach his contacts with the Northern Ireland Executive since the devolution of policing and justice powers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16565/10]
Enda Kenny
Question:10 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the implementation of the recommendations of the Barron and McEntee reports into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17727/10]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:11 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his engagement with the First and Deputy First Minister and the British Prime Minister since the transfer of policing and justice powers was agreed by the Assembly and the Justice Minister elected; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18795/10]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:12 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the actions he has taken or plans to take arising from the publication of the Barron, McEntee and Oireachtas Justice Committee reports on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18905/10]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:13 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland since the devolution of policing powers [18906/10]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:14 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach when he plans to next meet the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18907/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 14, inclusive, together.
I spoke to Prime Minister Cameron by telephone on Wednesday, 11 May and offered him my congratulations. We discussed the importance of maintaining the close relationship between both Governments, in respect of Northern Ireland and other matters of mutual interest, including economic ties and European Union matters. I will meet the Prime Minister in the near future. I also contacted the leaders of the Northern Ireland political parties following the results of the elections.
I offered my congratulations to the Northern Ireland Executive on the successful devolution of policing and justice on 12 April and I wished the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice, David Ford, every success in his new role. I also wish Alex Attwood every success in his new role as Minister for Social Development and to congratulate John Larkin on his appointment as Attorney General.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, met Minister Ford on 16 April, when they discussed co-operation between the Garda Síochána and the PSNI and ongoing criminal justice co-operation matters. I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the Garda on its recent success in foiling dissident efforts to launch bomb attacks in the North.
I expect to next meet the First and Deputy First Minister and other Ministers from the Executive at the next meeting of the British-Irish Council on 25 June and at the North-South Ministerial Council plenary meeting on 5 July next. I also will meet delegations from the SDLP and Sinn Féin shortly. I am committed to working with the Northern parties to identify areas in which efficiencies can be introduced and savings made to our mutual benefit.
With regard to the Dublin-Monaghan bombings, the Deputy will be aware that the Clerk of the Dáil received a reply from the Clerk of the House of Commons arising from the Oireachtas resolution of 10 July 2008. As I have stated previously in the House, any future follow-up to this matter should be considered in consultation with the parties and can be raised with the Whips.
As the Taoiseach is aware, the 36th anniversary of the Dublin-Monaghan bombings occurred last week on 17 May. In the course of the ceremonies in both Dublin and Monaghan, various spokespersons have repeated the appeal to the Government to restore funding to the Justice for the Forgotten group, the work of which is far from concluded. In this regard I include Ms Bernadette McNally, the chairperson for Justice for the Forgotten, who herself is a survivor of the atrocities that were visited on the city in May 1974. Her appeal to the Government was echoed by the Cathaoirleach of Monaghan Town Council, Councillor Seán Conlon, and the Lord Mayor of Dublin, Councillor Emer Costello.
Great concern has been expressed in the city of Dublin, in my home town of Monaghan and nationwide regarding the Government's decision to cease funding——
I remind the Deputy that a limited time remains.
—— for Justice for the Forgotten. I refer to the attitude here, where there is only one campaigning group, namely, Justice for the Forgotten, for survivors of the atrocities of the previous 30 years. However, there are groups being funded directly by the British Government north of the Border. Can the Taoiseach not find it within his gift to reverse the decision and restore funding to Justice for the Forgotten to allow this campaigning group to proceed with its work, as it is clear that closure has not been reached?
Finally, on the issue the Taoiseach referred to and what I would regard as a most unique, unprecedented and historic decision of this House in July 2008, namely, a unanimous all-party resolution calling on the British Government to make available all original material relating to those atrocities of May 1974 to an independent international inquiry, with respect, I have to put it to the Taoiseach, that he has failed since then to press that decision of this House with the former British Prime Minister over that period. He has never been able to confirm that he had raised the matter with Gordon Brown throughout the entire period of their respective positions in office.
A question please, Deputy.
That compares starkly with the greater proactivity on the part of his predecessor, and there are not many things I would have to say are to his credit but that is one. Will the Taoiseach now press that particular matter and restore funding to Justice for the Forgotten?
On the matter raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin, from 2003 to 2008 the Remembrance Commission operated the scheme of acknowledgement, remembrance and assistance for victims in this jurisdiction of the conflict in Northern Ireland. Under the scheme, payments were made to groups offering support services to victims of the conflict and under this element of the scheme, payments were made to Justice for the Forgotten for the purpose of meeting the counselling and other needs of victims or their family members.
During the period of operation of the scheme, Justice for the Forgotten received a total of €1.2 million of the €1.5 million allocated for victim support services and was the only recipient of money under this heading. In addition, the organisation had received more than €890,000 from my Department in the period 2000 to 2003.
The term of appointment of the Remembrance Commission came to an end on 31 October 2008 and funding under the scheme ended at that stage. Nevertheless, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform decided at that time to grant further funding to Justice for the Forgotten totalling €190,300 to enable it continue to operate while seeking to put alternative funding options in place.
Officials from that Department met with Justice for the Forgotten on a number of occasions and met with them again last June to apprise them of the position and to confirm that our first priority is to ensure that those victims who require ongoing medical treatment for injuries sustained in bombings and other incidents arising from the conflict in Northern Ireland will continue to be provided for.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has made special arrangements to have these costs provided by his Department through the Victims of Crime Office.
With respect, that is not a reply. The Taoiseach has read into the record a response that he has already provided in written replies to parliamentary questions in the same vein. He has given no indication of any willingness to even consider the need to continue funding to Justice for the Forgotten, and that is outrageous. This particular group will not be able to sustain its important and valuable work, which is ongoing.
On the other matter regarding a decision of this House in July 2008, which was an important unprecedented, momentous and historic decision that every Member of this House could sign up to, we have never been given an iota of evidence that that decision——
Deputy, you will have to find another way to pursue that matter.
——has been pursued in any serious way by the Government representatives of this House. It is an absolute disgrace.
I call Deputy Gilmore for a brief supplementary because we are out of time.
First, on the question of the Taoiseach's plans to meet the Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, has a date been set for a meeting or when does the Taoiseach expect to have his first full meeting with the Prime Minister? Second, in the initial contacts that have been made with the new British Government, has the Taoiseach received any assurance or reassurance that Prime Minister Cameron will continue to give the kind of attention to bilateral relations between Ireland and the United Kingdom and, in particular, to matters relating to Northern Ireland that was given by his three predecessors, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and John Major?
First, no date has been fixed for that meeting. Obviously, we intend to try to fix that meeting in the coming weeks. Second, the assurances were given that in his capacity as British Prime Minister, David Cameron will seek to utilise his role as co-guarantor of these agreements to ensure they are fully implemented, both in the spirit and in the letter of thelaw.
On the matter raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin, I made the point in my reply that the question of the further follow-up action that can take place as a result of the parliamentary motion passed in this House on a unanimous basis is a matter that should be considered by the Whips in consultation with the parties concerned.
First, is the Taoiseach being briefed on a regular basis about the increasing threat of terrorism from the Real IRA and other dissident groups? I assure the Taoiseach of our full support for the efforts the Government is making to eliminate that kind of activity.
Second, in view of the cuts announced for Northern Ireland by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, will the Government prepare its own report on how best it can co-operate with the British Government in the development of the economic entity of the island about which the Taoiseach spoke recently and which is laudable? There are a number of other programmes that may not be cut where issues of a cross-Border nature arise that would be in the interests of the development of both economies North and South. Before the Taoiseach meets with the British Prime Minister, would he request his Department and other Departments to indicate what the Government in the Twenty-six Counties can do in terms of assisting and co-operating with the British Government in the interests of both communities North and South?
I join the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others in the House in thanking the security services for the find they unveiled in County Louth in the past few days. It is an indication of their determination to thwart in every way possible those who would seek to undermine the express will of the Irish people, North and South, who wish to pursue political progress in this country by exclusively peaceful and democratic means. They speak for no one, represent no one and are engaged in activities which are not supported and are intrinsically evil. The security forces will continue to be provided with all necessary resources to deal with these matters to avoid the possible loss of life or limb or the destruction of property that could ensue were these people to achieve their nefarious objectives.
Regarding Deputy Kenny's questions, we pursue the question of the island of Ireland economy as being an obvious outworking of the agreements we have reached. We seek at all times to persuade people of and confirm the mutual benefit that would be derived North and South and between the two islands were these economic and social issues to be addressed in a way that best benefits taxpayers in both jurisdictions by seeking to improve and protect services, identifying synergies and a more cost effective delivery of services North and South and not be impeded in that effort by the existence of the Border. That is a matter we continue to pursue at all levels and in all respects in a transparent, open and beneficial way for everyone we serve. Our work with the Northern Ireland Executive and the review of the work programmes that have been undertaken regarding where we can go from here, having bedded down the institutions in the past ten years or more, is a matter that should be constructively considered by all sides. We hope the Executive will be able to examine constructively and creatively the various opportunities that are in place and are possible with the goodwill on all sides.