Gerry Adams
Question:1 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the Cabinet sub-committees which he has established. [5741/11]
Ceisteanna — Questions
Cabinet Sub-Committees
The Government economic management council has been established with the status of a Cabinet committee. I am a member of the council, along with the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Finance and Deputy Brendan Howlin. In addition to the Council, I expect that the Government will shortly establish a number of other Cabinet committees to deal with more specific aspects of policy.
Fuair mé an litir seo ón Cheann Comhairle. Dúirt sé sa litir nach féidir liom cuid den cheist seo a chur ar an Taoiseach. I received a letter from the Ceann Comhairle this morning in which he regrets that he had to disallow the underlying part of my question. In deference to his ruling I am not going to put the question.
It is in accordance with Standing Orders.
Is there some secrecy involved? The Taoiseach would be very open about what committees he proposes to establish. What is the big deal? Is he going to set up a committee——
It is a matter of Cabinet confidentiality that I have to rule on the question. We can ask questions about sub-committees being established but not about the subject matter being discussed.
When the Taoiseach was in Opposition he said Fianna Fáil was too secretive and tight and that it was interpreting Cabinet confidentiality too strictly. Is the Taoiseach going to establish a committee on housing? The question was ruled out of order and I cannot ask it. Is he going to establish a committee on the Irish language?
The Deputy can submit a parliamentary question to the appropriate line Minister.
Deputy Adams has considerable experience in politics but he is a new Member of this House. As the Ceann Comhairle has pointed out, Cabinet sub-committees have the status of Cabinet, in the sense of confidentiality. The Deputy's question is valid. I have formed the economic management council as one Cabinet sub-committee and I am considering a number of others. There was one dealing with the Irish language, the Gaeltacht and Irishness.
We need committees on the general area of infrastructure, which would include planning and housing. I can take suggestions. I have four or five in mind and I will announce them next week. In the sense of being open, while Cabinet sub-committees retain the status of having confidentiality, unless they are mandated by the Government to make a decision they bring the issues back to Cabinet when they have teased them out or finalised them.
In the course of the next week I will outline the number of Cabinet committees I intend to form. Generally, they are chaired by the Taoiseach or whatever Minister is in charge of the area to which they are relevant. From that point of view, the issues which will be raised can be debated, as distinct from the elements which are discussed in the Cabinet sub-committees.
The Taoiseach suggested that he would take suggestions as to the committees that should be established. Would he consider establishing a Cabinet sub-committee on drugs as there is no longer a Minister or Minister of State with sole responsibility for it? Some of the responsibility now lies with the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald. At the very least there should be a Cabinet sub-committee and it is to be hoped he will take that suggestion on board.
It is a serious matter. Drugs are now available all over the country, apparently. Young people tell me they do not have to go too far if somebody is looking for these things. Some elements of the drug strategy that has been in place for a number of years have worked and some have not. There is a need to revisit the issue, in terms of its effectiveness. Whether there is a specific Cabinet sub-committee, it is something that will be dealt with by a Cabinet sub-committee in any event.
In terms of the programme for Government, in the Taoiseach's opening remarks in establishing a Government he emphasised the necessity for joined-up Government. Nowhere is that more critical than in the area of climate change. It is not just the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, it requires multi-departmental engagement and involvement. From my experience of being in Government one of the more effective ways of ensuring an urgent and engaged joined-up approach to the very pressing issue of climate change is the establishment of a Cabinet sub-committee. It would be an important mechanism to achieve that objective.
Deputy Martin can take it that there will be a Cabinet sub-committee on climate change.
Will there be a Cabinet sub-committee dealing with the financial services centre? I understand the Taoiseach's predecessor had a committee of some kind working on the activities of the IFSC. Is that the case and if so, will that be continued?
It will be part of a Cabinet sub-committee. Finance, financial institutions and financial activities are central to where we are headed and they should be the subject of a Cabinet sub-committee, whether specifically or as part of a broader brief.
Social Partnership
Gerry Adams
Question:2 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach his plans to re-establish the social partnership process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5743/11]
Joe Higgins
Question:3 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he has met with the representatives of trade unions and employers. [5800/11]
Joe Higgins
Question:4 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the National Implementation Body. [5801/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:5 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach his views on social partnership and his plans for social partnership over the coming years. [5914/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, together.
The Government values dialogue with the social partners, whether within the framework of a formal agreement or otherwise, and recognises the contribution that social dialogue can make to maximising common understanding across all sectors of society as we respond to the many challenges facing the country.
Social dialogue continues to take place in different ways and through different fora. The National Economic and Social Council provides a forum for consideration of strategic economic and social issues. There have also been recent discussions at official level with the social partners and other stakeholders on the development of Ireland's national reform programme under the Europe 2020 process.
In addition, social partner representatives continue to participate in a large number of other governmental consultative fora and bodies. In particular, engagement with the public service trade unions continues to take place under the terms of the Croke Park agreement, which is the responsibility of the Minister for public expenditure and reform.
I anticipate that this ongoing process of social dialogue will continue through these and other channels over the period ahead. While this process is not the concern solely of my Department, I intend to meet with the social partners in due course to outline the Government's approach and to explore how their activities can enhance economic and social progress.
I believe that any framework for engaging with the social partnerships, beyond the mechanisms I outlined earlier, can evolve if they are seen to provide value in achieving shared objectives which reflect the needs of the country at this time.
The National Implementation Body, comprising Government, employer and trade union representatives, played an important role over the years in maintaining industrial relations stability under the terms of successive national pay agreements. While Deputies will be aware that there is no current national level agreement covering the private sector, the Government remains supportive of engaging with employer representatives and trade unions to ensure a positive environment for the conduct of industrial relations.
I welcome the fact that the procedures agreed between ICTU and IBEC in 2010, under their Protocol for the Orderly Conduct of Industrial Relations and Local Bargaining in the Private Sector, have been recently extended for 2011. This protocol provides for the continuation of tripartite engagement to oversee industrial peace and stability.
I am disappointed as that is hardly a commitment to the re-establishment of the social partnership process, although I welcome the Taoiseach's remarks that this process has played an important role in industrial relations.
There is a case in point. Down the road from here, five workers in the Davenport Hotel had their wages lowered without their consent. The ensuing dispute went to the Labour Court, which found in favour of the workers. The social partnership process would have prevented that from happening.
That type of scenario arises mostly because of the Government cut in the minimum wage, which sent the signal to employers that they could do this in the non-consultative way it was done in the Davenport Hotel. Would the Taoiseach commit to when the minimum wage will be put back to what it should be, which, indeed, is a minimum?
I appreciate that the Taoiseach met the women workers — I am advised by a colleague behind me in this case — and he will be familiar with the case. When does the Taoiseach intend to move on his pledge to reverse the cuts in the minimum wage? Would he not consider the Davenport Hotel case as a striking example of why we need, with all its flaws, that process of social partnership?
As I stated, I favour a good environment for dealing with stable industrial relations and for the better progress of the country.
I met the workers on the Davenport Hotel issue. As Deputy Adams will be aware, in the programme for Government we are committed to reversing the minimum wage reduction. This is a matter that is not merely budgetary. It may well require legislation and will require the approval under the programme of the IMF-EU deal and I cannot give the Deputy an exact date as to when the implementation of the reverse can become a reality. Those are the parameters of the situation.
This is an important issue for those who are locked into it and who are the subject of actions like that outlined. I understand it was not because of the decision taken that the action referred to was precipitated but I am glad it has been resolved.
Is it not the case that the Government and major employers used so-called social partnership since 1987 to keep workers' wages in check, but allowed speculation and profiteering in the areas of finance, property, etc., to rise uncontrolled and unchecked to obscene levels? Is it not a fraud to speak of social partnership when in the course of ten years, from 1997 to 2007, the so-called partners of ordinary workers can raise the price of a house by four times to make massive profits for themselves? Is it not the case that as soon as the idea, or pretence, of social partnership had passed its utility for both Government and big business, the Government jettisoned the idea and the trade unions, who had been under the illusion that they were partners of the Government and big business, were unceremoniously booted out in the cold?
Is it in order that State agencies, such as the HSE, can treat like indentured labourers hundreds of nurses denied positions in hospitals to utilise their skills and training? They have been forced to go to agencies to be put into hospitals when the HSE can, by diktat, cut massively their wages and working conditions. Is it not despicable to treat our nurses, particularly young nurses, in that fashion? Will the Government continue the policy of its predecessor in that regard in treating workers — in this case public sector workers — in this way or will the Government tell the HSE that it should reverse its decision and give those nurses tenure and rights equal to their colleagues who are already in the health service?
Nobody will dispute the value, quality and heroism of nurses who work on the front line in pressurised conditions. Many fine young people who go through nurse training here and those who partake in other elements of the health service, be it physio-therapists, speech and language therapists or such like, must then leave for other jurisdictions. Yet, many come back subsequently and work as agency nurses. That speaks for itself. That is the reason, as Deputy Higgins will be aware, there must be a radical restructuring of the HSE in its current form. This is a cental part of the programme for Government.
I pointed out on many occasions the obscene wastage of taxpayers' money while at the same time nurses who provide exceptional care and attention at the front line have been let go and cannot be employed in the numbers in which one would wish. That is why I agree in the sense of losing that exceptional level of care and attention. However, it must be dealt with in part by restructuring the entire system and the programme for Government is very clear on that.
I understand we are taking all the questions on social partnership together. We have asked for the Taoiseach's views on social partnership. I have listened carefully to what the Taoiseach has said and I believe it represents a significant departure from the concept of social partnership as we have known it in recent years. Is the Taoiseach saying today that the concept of social partnership is essentially abandoned and that we are going to evolve to a situation of what we term "social dialogue", the phrase the Taoiseach used in his response? If this is the case, then we need more transparency on this and a clear statement, from a policy perspective, of the new Government in respect of social partnership.
Social partnership is not only a social dialogue with trade unions. It involves a more comprehensive round table approach involving agricultural interests, employers, trade unions, the community and voluntary pillar and contributions and submissions from others. People can argue the merits or de-merits of it. Some people would argue that from 1987, during the last recession, it was a key factor in supporting the recovery of the economy. It is equally arguable that it was not fit for purpose in the latter part of the economic growth period we had prior to this recession. However, if it is the case that a policy departure of some significance is taking place then it should be articulated clearly and comprehensively by the Government. There may be sensitivities with the Labour Party members of Government in this regard.
The Taoiseach used some significant phrases. For example, he stated that the Department of the Taoiseach is no longer solely responsible for social partnership. The Department of the Taoiseach was the cradle of social partnership and it was where social partnership resided in previous Governments in central policy terms. Has this changed now? Is the new Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and the public service now assuming responsibilities in respect of aspects of that? Could we have some clarity on this point? It seems that a significant departure is occurring on a creeping basis but it is not being articulated in any clear way.
The engagement with the social partners was never exclusively a matter for the Taoiseach, although I have led in many of the negotiations and I will continue to maintain a central interest here. As Deputy Martin is aware, primary legislation is required to establish the new Department of public expenditure and reform and it will be pushed through as a matter of some urgency.
As Deputy Martin is well aware from having served in Government, the social partnership arrangement was central to stabilising industrial relations in the country for many years. Social partnership extended into a whole range of areas for which it was probably never intended in the beginning. In that sense, a one size fitting everything approach did not work as effectively as it should have. I have been invited by several of the social partners to meet them and I intend to do so during the period ahead. Suffice to say that the Department of the Taoiseach, my Department, will continue to keep a central involvement in this area. When the legislation giving effect to the Minister for public expenditure and reform is completed, the Minister will be centrally involved as well.
Does the Taoiseach intend to re-establish social partnership as we knew it, in terms of engaging with the farming organisations, the trade union movement, the employers' representatives and the community and social pillar? Will the Taoiseach bring these together on a collective basis in a meeting anytime soon?
Since the Government has been formed only recently, Ministers will be involved individually in meeting all the different groups and sectors under their departmental responsibility during the period. I intend to meet a range of groups during the coming weeks and months. When the new Department is given legal effect, it and my Department will consider the situation in so far as continuing serious interaction with the social partners is concerned.
Does the Taoiseach agree that while the idea of social partnership sounds like a good and fair idea, the reality of social partnership during the past 20 or 30 years has favoured employers and the wealthy over workers to a great extent? For example, the Taoiseach may or may not be aware of the share of national wealth that has gone to wages and salaries as against the share that has gone to profits, shares and bonuses. There has been a 10% shift in the share to the latter from the former. Does the Taoiseach agree that the facts suggest that social partnership has been a means to transfer wealth from working people to the wealthy in our society? There seems to be a suggestion in the Taoiseach's comments that we should move away from the existing model of social partnership to what he terms "social dialogue" and that a key objective in doing this should be to reverse that situation. In this regard, I draw the Taoiseach's attention to a dispute currently taking place in Dún Laoghaire, now almost entering its first full year of industrial action. Workers in a shoe shop, Connolly Shoes, some of whom have worked there for 38 years, have been unceremoniously sacked because they refused to accept swingeing cuts in their pay and conditions. They have simply requested consultation on these issues but have been left out on the street.
A question please, Deputy.
It has a more general point or question to it. Does the Taoiseach see it as his objective to change a situation whereby an employer could do this to workers, some of whom have worked for 38 years in a shoe shop, serving the people? This could happen and other employers could develop the confidence to do this.
This is a general question, Deputy.
Should we not enact legislation which will ensure that workers cannot be treated like this by their employers? Perhaps the Taoiseach will examine that particular instance.
I will take another supplementary question from Deputy Clare Daly.
I note the Taoiseach's lip service or aspiration to the idea of partnership. Will he comment on the fact that against that backdrop and as we meet here today there is a scenario where bin workers, employed by one of the Government's local authorities, South Dublin County Council have been informed unceremoniously that as and from this Friday their trucks will be given to a private company and their wages will drop by €200 per week? For workers on a relatively low salary, this is a decimation of their living standards and poses a great problem for the financial commitments they and their families face. Will the Taoiseach comment on whether he believes this is an appropriate manner for a local authority to conduct itself?
This is a general question on social partnership, not individual disputes.
I am asking the Taoiseach to comment on whether he believes this is a reflection of adequate engagement in a partnership process in one of the Government's local authorities.
As a general comment, the programme for Government is focused centrally on restoring good health to our public finances. The legacy that has been inherited is pretty grim. This requires some serious decision making. Fundamental to this is the confidence of our people and to give them hope that good Government can deliver opportunities for jobs and careers and satisfying and challenging work. This is part of the reason the Government will bring forward a specific jobs budget programme in its first 100 days in office and which is being worked on by the Minister with responsibility for jobs and enterprise as part of that stimulus for the local and indigenous economy.
Local authorities have a legal remit to draft plans and annual budgets. Many local authorities have made decisions in respect of privatising refuse, waste collection services or whatever, some of which have been in place for many years. Change always results in difficulties and while I can sympathise with any worker in this regard, local authorities have a remit to make decisions in respect of their budgets and how they provide their services. In his previous existence, the Ceann Comhairle was aware of the issue to which Deputy Boyd Barrett referred. There are well tried mechanisms for sorting out long-running disputes. These things often require a measure of common sense and I hope that the actors in this dispute can avail of the opportunities presented to arrive at a solution that will deal with the problem raised by the Deputy.
Official Engagements
Joe Higgins
Question:6 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to the United States on the occasion of St. Patrick’s Day 2011. [5795/11]
Joe Higgins
Question:7 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach the issues he discussed with President Obama on the occasion of his recent visit to the White House. [5796/11]
Joe Higgins
Question:8 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he met with Republican Representative Peter King during his visit to the USA in March. [5797/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:9 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he discussed with US President Barack Obama the withdrawal of funds for the International Fund for Ireland; and if he has any plans to pursue this matter further with Congress. [5815/11]
The Taoiseach: I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, together.
I travelled to the US from 15 March to 18 March to attend the traditional St. Patrick's Day celebrations. I held meetings with the President of the United States, the Vice President, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, the United States Treasury Secretary, Senator Patrick Leahy, the Chair of the Friends of Ireland Mr. Peter King, Congressman Richie Neal, other members of the US Congress, the Governor of Maryland and the Governor of Virginia. I held my first formal meeting as Taoiseach with the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland, Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness, as well as informal discussions with other political leaders from Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
I also met members of the Ireland America Economic Advisory Board and the Global Irish Network, as well as representatives of Irish artists who were performing in America as part of the Imagine Ireland programme. I addressed the American Ireland Fund national gala and an event for business leaders which was part of an Enterprise Ireland trade mission.
I met with President Obama in the Oval Office on St. Patrick's Day. At that meeting, President Obama accepted my invitation to him to visit Ireland and undertook to come here on his way to his official visit to the UK in May. I took the opportunity to brief the President on the economic challenges that this Government is committed to overcoming and I emphasised the central theme of job creation. We also discussed the general situation in Northern Ireland and I expressed my appreciation for the role of the US in the peace process. The President commended Ireland on excellent examples of co-operation including food security and Ireland's role on aid around the world. During the course of our meeting I also acknowledged the President's commitment to immigration reform which I appreciate is a very challenging issue.
Following the meeting in the Oval Office, I attended the traditional St. Patrick's Day lunch on Capitol Hill hosted by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner. That evening I attended the White House St. Patrick's Day reception, where I presented a bowl of shamrock to President Obama.
During my visit to Washington, I discussed the International Fund for Ireland with Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the appropriations committee which deals with the fund. I expressed my gratitude for the support which the United States has provided to the International Fund for Ireland over the past 25 years and stressed that we would welcome support from the US for this specific initiative among hard-to-reach communities. I emphasised the importance of not withdrawing that aid from vulnerable communities on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland.
Did the Taoiseach meet Representative Peter King?
Yes I did, briefly.
Did the Taoiseach have an opportunity to raise the issue concerning the tens of thousands of Irish people who were forced out of their homeland in the 1980s as a result of the crisis at that time? They continue to live undocumented lives in the US, often in very insecure situations. There are many tragic stories, such as being unable to return for the funerals of their parents. This was a major issue a few years ago, but we have not heard anything very recently. Did the Taoiseach get any indication of the current position of our fellow citizens under the presidency of Barack Obama, and whether they and other migrants from elsewhere in the world would be given their full rights in the US?
Did President Obama say anything to the Taoiseach about the use of Shannon Airport by the US Air Force, and the facilitation by the Irish State — I presume the current Government will continue this policy — of the US armies of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan?
During his meeting with Representative Peter King, did the Taoiseach raise the concerns of those interested in human rights about his hearings into the so-called radicalisation of the American Muslim community? This has been compared to a McCarthyite witch hunt against Muslim Americans and it has been led by a representative who, ironically, dragged his political career from obscurity to national prominence among certain Irish Americans 25 years ago by declaring his support for the disastrous paramilitary campaign of the Provisional IRA. I would like to know if the Taoiseach discussed this issue and whether he pronounced that it was deplorable to be stirring up hatred against American Muslims who have no connection with al-Qaeda or any such organisation.
Immigration reform is obviously a matter of some considerable importance to us. I know many people who have found themselves in that position for a number of years. The answer to everybody's problem would be comprehensive immigration legislation, which is very difficult, given the scale of what is involved and the number of nationalities involved in a country the size of the US. It has been on the agenda for quite some time. The previous President made attempts to push it through, but it did not happen.
The current focus of attention is on the Australian E-3 visa for Irish nationals. This might release an amount of pressure that is building up here. There have been attempts to introduce a number of Bills in the US Congress, but they all failed. I raised this matter with President Obama, the Irish ambassador and the Vice President, who has connections with Ireland. For many people involved in this, it is an issue of increasing interest. A number of those who left before the dates mentioned by the Deputy find themselves in isolation in huge conurbations, and there is a growing need to look after many of these elderly people. With enforced emigration again being a factor, this is an issue for young people as well. We will keep it on the agenda and hope that the E-3 visa system becomes a reality soon. With the change in political circumstances on Capitol Hill, it is not going to be as easy to get comprehensive legislation as it might have been in the past.
I did not have an opportunity to speak to Representative Peter King at any great length. These meetings do not lend themselves to long discussions, but the issue of his comments about American Muslims were a matter of discourse in the New York area.
There was a sense of excitement among Irish American businesses about rebuilding strong links with our country, investing and creating jobs in Ireland. That is something I would like to work on, because American business interests were focused clearly on the retention of our corporate tax rate at 12.5% in respect of employment and investment opportunities. It was a great opportunity to make these connections, reinforce our traditional links with the United States and continue to build on them for the future.
I also asked about Shannon Airport.
The President was grateful for the opportunity to thank us for allowing transit through Shannon Airport and the use of the facility there in accordance with the United Nations' agreement and resolution.
It is welcome that the visit to the United States was a success on many fronts. It bears out the importance of such visits. When I was Minister for Foreign Affairs, they were subject to attack from time to time, not from all elements in the House but from certain elements in it. I recommend that in the future all major cities in the United States should be visited by Ministers during the week in which St. Patrick's Day falls. That did not occur on this occasion, for a variety of reasons. We should not always pander to simplistic commentary on these issues. No other country has the opportunity we receive to profile itself. That is why I am glad the Taoiseach participated in the Enterprise Ireland trade mission which has become the hallmark of such visits in recent years. We initiated the mission to use the opportunity to promote Irish companies.
Some of the tax policy initiatives of the Obama Administration have become less pronounced, if not weakened, over time. When we were in power, we took the opportunity to locate a tax specialist in the Irish Embassy in the United States to keep an eye on how emerging tax policy in the United States might affect our corporate tax rates and the tax policies of American multinationals based in Ireland and globally. I would appreciate it if the Taoiseach indicated whether he has any updates on American plans for taxation issues pertaining to multinationals and global companies.
Does the Taoiseach accept that the introduction of E3 visas means a new bilateral approach to work permits that lead to residency has been established between Ireland and the United States? Does he think it is the best approach in the short term, given that the prospect of comprehensive immigration reform is receding owing to changes in the electoral and political landscape in the United States? I refer to the recent congressional elections there. Did the Taoiseach seek agreement with Irish-American lobby groups that such an approach should be the sole focus of attention and policy direction in the coming weeks? It has been a long-standing view of mine that a bilateral arrangement with America is essential for the present and the future. It would create a bilateral framework by means of which we could try to improve and enhance the situation for those in the United States. In that context, does the Taoiseach accept it is important for the Government to ring-fence funding under the Irish emigrants support programme — the Irish abroad programme — for welfare organisations in the United States? I refer to organisations which support those who are undocumented, particularly young Irish people who are experiencing legal problems and individual predicaments, by providing valuable social, counselling and legal services.
I share the Deputy's sentiments. It is important for us to re-establish and renew our contacts in American cities. We normally have such contacts in New York, Washington, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco and, to an extent, Los Angeles. I have received correspondence from other places such as San Antonio and Cleveland. It is important to encourage and motivate those who do business in both directions. Deputy Martin is aware that a significant number of American people are employed in Irish firms in the United States.
I agree with what the Deputy said in that regard. The issue of the repatriation of tax to the United States is not as live in that country as it was a number of years ago. The Deputy dealt with that matter when he was in government. It was of some concern that people assumed this country was somehow deemed to be a tax haven for certain purposes. I was glad that was cleared up at the time.
It is right to say we should prioritise the renewable E3 visa. It was assumed that the DREAM legislation would be passed by Congress, but that did not become a reality. It would be difficult to put it through now because of the change in the balance of representation there.
Rather than ring-fencing moneys as suggested by the Deputy, I am keen to ensure the things he mentioned actually happen. People tend to say funds should be ring-fenced for one purpose or another. The money provided through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for various purposes, including the provision of the social, legal and counselling services needed by young people, is very important. I would like it to be maintained because it is becoming more important than ever owing to the increase in the number of Irish people drifting out there. Those forced to go overseas sometimes carry problems which are exacerbated when they arrive in a new country. I share the sentiment that regardless of whether the moneys are ring-fenced, it is important that they are made available. We need to work with counselling services and other organisations which assist those who need support when away from home. I accept and share the sentiments expressed.
Bhí cuairt an Taoisigh go dtí na Stáit Aontaithe an-mhaith. Táimid buíoch dó as an obair an-mhaith a rinne sé sa tír sin. The Taoiseach had a very good visit to the United States where he did some very good work on behalf of citizens here. I particularly commend the approach he took to the International Fund for Ireland which affects Border counties on both parts of the island. I have lobbied many of those to whom the Taoiseach spoke on the issue of emigration reform, although I do not have his influence. I ask that this brú be maintained. Will the Taoiseach make it clear that he would like to see President Obama visit the North when he comes to this island? Perhaps he could stop in County Louth on his way to west Belfast.
I welcome the fact that the Taoiseach raised the issue of the undocumented Irish. During his discussions with various groups, did he get any sense that conditions were getting worse and the fear of the knock on the door in the middle of the night, followed by arrest and deportation, was growing? I am worried that the pathway that has been put in place to allow some people to obtain E3 visas does not assist tens of thousands of people who are living in the shadows. Many are not covered. While I am pleased that the Taoiseach raised the issue, is it possible for the Government to take a leading role in resolving it? The Taoiseach referred to bilateral agreements, etc. Surely measures could be taken to allow a more flexible approach to be taken to American visitors who come on holidays to this country. That would send a signal back to the United States in this respect. The fear I mentioned is growing in Irish communities in the United States. I remind the Taoiseach that at one stage an all-party group was working on this issue in the Dáil. If such a group were to be initiated again, perhaps by the Whips, does the Taoiseach think it would be helpful on this issue?
I accept that the all-party group played an important role in building bridges. The members of the group travelled to Washington and New York on a number of occasions to strike up new relationships with Congressmen and Senators. Its role was accepted on a cross-party basis. Although the group played a part, it did not work in the sense that the legislation it sought was not passed. It had a value in the sense that it motivated those who provided services for young Irish people abroad.
Deputy Adams spoke about the International Fund for Ireland and Northern Ireland. I had a good conversation with Senator Leahy. Members will be aware that the Obama budget provided that funding would continue to be made available to the International Fund for Ireland, but this proposal was removed by the Republican Party when it presented its view of the budget. The ensuing hiatus will end in the next ten days or so when the budget will actually go through. Senator Leahy has strong connections with Ireland. He is chairman of the Senate committee on appropriations, a very powerful position. I explained to him the value, as we see it, of keeping IFI funding alive not just for itself but also as a signal for leveraging further funding in Europe for disadvantaged and vulnerable areas. I think he understands that very well and while I cannot confirm what the appropriations committee will do, the case was made clearly to him and I hope it will happen.
In respect of President Obama visiting west Belfast, Derry or Antrim, this matter was also raised with me by the First Minister, Peter Robinson, MLA, and the Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, MLA. The problem is that the President, under existing protocol, is not allowed to go to Northern Ireland without first visiting Britain. That is a protocol issue and I am not sure I have any control over it. If President Obama decided to go close to the Border, from a protocol perspective he is expected to go to London before travelling to Northern Ireland. From that point of view I do not have any control over the issue.
Nevertheless, I am glad President Obama is coming here and I hope the people of Ireland will give him a wonderful welcome and when he associates himself with part of his ancestry. I hope his visit will be an outstanding success and will build on the tourism and business opportunities it undoubtedly presents. When his itinerary is finally agreed, I hope he will have an opportunity to speak to the young people of this country about his hope and confidence for a new future in a world that is changing rapidly and in which many problems of a global magnitude cross his desk every day.
How long will the visit last?
From that point of view, I was delighted he accepted Ireland's invitation to come here.
That completes Taoiseach's Questions for today.
How long will President Obama's visit last?
Sorry Deputy, we are out of time.
Are we really?
Perhaps I will allow the Deputy in on the Order of Business. I would appreciate it if he would resume his seat.
Is it true that it will comprise a five hour photo opportunity?
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
There will be protests.
Certainly not.