Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 May 2011

Vol. 732 No. 1

Ceisteanna — Questions

Ministerial Staff

Gerry Adams

Question:

1 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the number of political advisers working in his Department; and the total cost of same. [8371/11]

Micheál Martin

Question:

2 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has assigned responsibility for policy relating to Northern Ireland to any special adviser. [9568/11]

Micheál Martin

Question:

3 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will provide a full list of advisers and other staff appointed to his Department since his election as Taoiseach; and if he will provide details of the salaries each person will receive. [10720/11]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.

There are five special advisers appointed in my Department, four of whom are my special advisers and one of whom is a special adviser to the Chief Whip. In addition, three special advisers appointed by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade have offices in Government Buildings. I am also appointing four personal assistants and two personal secretaries. The Chief Whip will have one personal assistant and one personal secretary. I am circulating in the Official Report a list of advisers and other staff appointed to my Department.

The terms and conditions of employment of my special advisers and other appointees are being finalised. The cost of remuneration for my staff will be considerably lower than under previous Administrations, by at least 20%.

In relation to policy on Northern Ireland, among other duties, my chief of staff, Mr. Mark Kennelly, will work closely with the Northern Ireland division of my Department to ensure I am kept fully briefed on all developments.

The table lists advisers and other staff appointed to the Department of the Taoiseach.

Name

Grade

Mark Kennelly

Special Adviser to the Taoiseach

Andrew McDowell

Special Adviser to the Taoiseach

Paul O’Brien

Special Adviser to the Taoiseach

Angela Flanagan

Special Adviser to the Taoiseach

Mark O’Doherty

Special Adviser to Government Chief Whip

Sarah Moran

Personal Assistant to the Taoiseach

Gerard Deere

Personal Assistant to the Taoiseach

Teresa Diskin

Personal Assistant to the Taoiseach

Pauline Coughlan

Personal Assistant to the Taoiseach

AnneMarie Durcan

Personal Secretary to the Taoiseach

John Lohan

Personal Secretary to the Taoiseach

Claire Urquhart

Personal Secretary to the Chief Whip

Eoghan Ó Neachtáin

Government Press Secretary

Feargal Purcell

Government Press Secretary

Joanne Lonergan

Deputy Government Press Secretary

Cathy Madden

Deputy Government Press Secretary

The table lists Advisers and other staff appointed by the Tanaiste working in Government Buildings.

Name

Grade

Mark Garrett

Special Adviser to the Tánaiste

Colm O’Reardon

Special Adviser to the Tánaiste

Jean O’Mahony

Special Adviser to the Tánaiste

Doreen Foley

Personal Administrator to the Tánaiste

Before I call Deputy Gerry Adams, I remind Deputies of Standing Order 42 which applies to supplementary questions which may be put only for the further elucidation of the information requested and shall be subject to the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle, both as to relevance and number. I say this because I do not wish to have to interfere with Members as they speak. I ask Deputies to understand that at Question Time I am trying to ensure Members' questions are reached. Members often wait to put questions, but they are not reached because we do not deal with enough questions. A supplementary question should be for the purpose of further elucidation of the information requested.

Dúirt an Taoiseach i rith fheachtas an olltoghcháin go mbeadh an Rialtas oscailte, le polasaithe macánta. B'shin fhocal a bhí go mór i mbéal an Taoisigh. I appreciate that he is trying to introduce new procedures. In the interests of transparency, can he tell us what the appointment procedures are for political advisers? He said their salaries were being finalised. However, could we be given, especially at this time when there are such impositions on working citizens, some sense of the salaries and benefits being given to advisers? Will the Taoiseach consider appointing a Minister, with no extra pay, with responsibility for developing policy and engaging with the political institutions in the Six Counties?

I have responsibility for Northern Ireland matters, working with the Tánaiste and the Northern Ireland section of the Department. There is very strong co-ordination of activity and interaction with the political parties and representatives from the North. I spoke to the First Minister, Mr. Peter Robinson, and the deputy First Minister, Mr. Martin McGuinness, in the last two days and we have arranged for the North-South Ministerial Council to meet in June, to which I look forward. There will be much interaction on issues of an all-island and cross-Border nature which will be discussed at the Council.

The process of appointing advisers has been well laid out. Those who are appointed as advisers must work with whatever Minister is in situ. The same is true of my own responsibility as Taoiseach. The salaries, when finalised, will be published, as all these things are. The cost of the advisory service to me will be approximately 20% lower than that of my predecessor.

I appreciate, acknowledge and commend the work done by officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach's Department. Other Departments under successive Governments have also had to deal with the Six Counties. However, as someone who comes from there, with many others in the State, I find it offensive that this matter comes within the remit of the Department of Foreign Affairs, as if it was a foreign place. Much wonderful work could be done, not least on the economy but also in building harmony, good relationships and neighbourliness, if there was a dedicated Minister. I ask the Taoiseach to consider the appointment of such a person who would top up the work being done by other Ministers. This is one of our most important issues and there is a lot of unfinished business to be done. I commend this approach to the Taoiseach.

The Deputy can be assured that the politics and the development of the economy on the island and our communities will have my personal attention and that of the Tánaiste. We will see to it that there is a high level of activity and interaction, as there always has been and which I supported from an Opposition point of view for many years.

Questions Nos. 2 and 3 were submitted by me. There is no issue, from my perspective, with the employment of special advisers. It is only in this country that the notion has developed that there is something wrong with Ministers having staff who are independent of the Civil Service. Even in the Northern Ireland Executive, Ministers have political advisers. Equally, if we want people with ability, we need to pay them, at least in line with the officials with whom they work. It was a pity that Opposition parties in the last Dáil sought to make cheap headlines on these issues, although they knew that if they were in government, they would have to employ political advisers too. For example, two months ago the Government website and the Government Information Service were called sinister propaganda organs whereas, today, they are fine.

In terms of the policy responsibilities of the advisers, it was a very successful policy of the Taoiseach's predecessors to give one adviser special responsibility for Northern Ireland, which helped to provide an essential route for groups to make contact at political level. From my own time in the Department of Foreign Affairs, I am acutely aware of how this was effective in building bridges between different political groupings and traditions in the North and between North and South.

In his reply, the Taoiseach referred to Mr. Mark Kennelly having this role, along with other duties. Will he clarify this and perhaps be more specific in terms of whether Mr. Kennelly will be specifically responsible in the advisory role for developing such links and advising the Taoiseach on Northern Ireland issues?

Yes. In his capacity as chief of staff, he will be the main link person working with the Northern Ireland division in respect of Northern Ireland affairs.

He will have many other responsibilities as well if he is chief of staff.

Yes, he will.

Would it be preferable that the Taoiseach have a specialist adviser in regard to the situation in Northern Ireland to work exclusively on the agenda of the significant work that lies ahead in embedding the peace process and in advancing the North-South agenda in terms of linkages with communities and in particular the social and economic advancement of conditions of the people of the island of Ireland? To be frank, there is a need to have someone within the Department of the Taoiseach devoted full-time and exclusively to working on that agenda.

In the past, when times were very difficult, several people were appointed, including specialists in that area, as the Deputy is aware. The normalisation of relations is very good for the development of the economies and our intention of moving those agendas forward. I also want to pursue the North-South Ministerial Council activities, and the body that will be under the aegis of the Ceann Comhairle and the new Speaker of the Assembly will take some of the burden in that regard. While the person named is obviously busy, it is well within his compass to keep the Northern Ireland issue to the forefront, and I will ensure this happens.

Church-State Dialogue

Gerry Adams

Question:

4 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will continue the dialogue with churches and other faith communities begun by his predecessors; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8373/11]

Since the process was inaugurated in February 2007, general and bilateral meetings have taken place with most of the participants at both ministerial and official levels. I hope in the near future to meet partners in the dialogue and subsequently to hold further meetings with individual dialogue partners. The agendas for these meetings will be agreed in advance with each dialogue partner.

The process of structured dialogue was envisaged from the outset as a channel of consultation and communication on matters of mutual concern, but not to displace or override the normal arrangements for the conduct of policy and administration by Departments and agencies in their responsibilities. I am satisfied that it will develop in the years to come to be a very valuable support in dealing with issues of change in society and am confident that the opportunity to exchange perspectives and address issues of mutual concern in this way will be of great benefit to all of the participants involved.

It is important to acknowledge the very good work that has been and continues to be done by churches and faith communities. The mark of a real republic, when we get one, will be to have eradicated sectarianism and to have tolerance and full civil and religious rights.

In the course of those discussions, some legacy issues still need to be resolved. In discussions with the Catholic Church, has the Taoiseach raised or will he raise the issue of the victims of the Magdalene laundries? Does he acknowledge that the State and the Catholic Church — certainly, the hierarchy — owe a public apology to those women, and that a redress scheme should be established? Will the Taoiseach raise with the Church of Ireland the issue of Bethany House, Rathgar, and also acknowledge the joint responsibility of the Church of Ireland and the State? Will the Taoiseach tell the House whether there are plans to revisit the existing redress scheme for survivors of abuse while in State institutions or other institutions run by the religious orders?

As the Deputy is aware, the Magdalene laundries were not State institutions. One of the ten Magdalene laundries was used by the Department of Justice for a period from 1960 onwards for the remand of 16 to 21 year old women for short periods pending trial. Since the foundation of the State, a condition of probation sometimes imposed by a court on women found to have committed criminal offences was that they reside in an institution such as a Magdalene laundry for a period of three years. The Department of Justice and Equality has not received any complaints from individuals charged with criminal offences who were remanded or sent on probation orders to any of the institutions that were run by religious orders.

On 9 November 2010, the Human Rights Commission published its assessment of the request by the Justice for Magdalenes group to carry out an inquiry under section 9 of the Human Rights Commission Act 2000 into the treatment of women and girls who resided in Magdalene laundries. The commission decided not to carry out a statutory inquiry itself, as it is entitled to do under the legislation which established it, and as was requested by the Justice for Magdalenes group. It recommended that a statutory mechanism be established to investigate the matters advanced by the Justice for Magdalenes group and, in appropriate cases, to grant redress where warranted. Its assessment was the subject of an Adjournment debate in the House.

The assessment raised issues for a range of Departments as well as for the four religious congregations which operated the Magdalene institutions. The Department of Justice and Equality has received proposals for a reparations scheme from the Justice for Magdalenes group, which are currently being considered, and the Department of Justice and Equality, in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, whose role it is to provide legal advice, has prepared a draft submission for the Government on the matter, which is being considered by the Minister at present.

It was a good initiative of previous taoisigh to establish this dialogue between the churches, other faith communities and the office of the Taoiseach. Many of these churches and faith groups now see the Taoiseach's office as a protector or promoter of diversity and tolerance. In this context, many of the churches, including minority churches, will be worried about the impact of Government announcements and decisions, particularly the impact of Government policy on their schools. A unilateral declaration has been made that they should hand over 50% of their schools, which has not given confidence to quite a number of minority churches. Has the Taoiseach had consultation with the churches on that issue and, if so, will he elaborate his thoughts on the matter?

Has he had consultations or discussions with the churches in regard to faith formation in schools? I do not accept that instruction in regard to holy communion and confirmation is undermining literacy standards in our schools, which I understand was suggested by the Minister for Education and Skills. I tend to agree with the view of former Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, that this is a completely over the top analysis of the literacy issue, which arises from more profound issues and requires deeper analysis. I want to ascertain the Taoiseach's views in this regard and whether he has had consultations with the churches on the issues pertaining to education.

No, I have not had any consultations with the churches but I expect to do so and I look forward to that series of consultations on a whole range of issues, including in respect of schools. When the Minister, Deputy Quinn, made his comments, he made it perfectly clear that while it might be fine to be ambitious, these issues depend on a serious dialogue between the parents, the boards of management and the patrons. The forum on patronage and pluralism in the primary sector has been established. That forum, announced by the Minister for Education and Skills, will undertake its work in respect of the conditions served.

This is a matter the House should discuss in due course. It is important that people's views be expressed. However, the forum is getting on with its work for now. After I meet and have a series of consultations with the Catholic Church I will be happy to come back to the House and discuss the matter further.

May I ask a supplementary?

I agree with the Deputy it was a worthwhile initiative on the part of the previous Government to set up the dialogue and conversations.

I come from a position of being a very strong supporter of pluralism within the education system and I was a very strong supporter of Educate Together when I was Minister for Education and Science. However, I believe consultation in the broadest sense is important for moving forward. I take from the Taoiseach's reply he does not necessarily agree with the Minister for Education and Skills on the 50%——

That is a matter for the Minister for Education and Skills.

As the Taoiseach approaches dialogue with the churches, is it his view, for example, that instruction for communion and confirmation should take place outside the classroom?

That is not a matter for the Taoiseach but for the Minister for Education and Skills. The Deputy cannot ask the Taoiseach to look into the mind of the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn.

I am asking about the Taoiseach's mind, his own impression on this issue.

That is not a question for the Taoiseach to answer. Let us be reasonable. There are other questions to be answered. Perhaps the Taoiseach may care to make a short comment.

This is obviously a matter for serious discussion. I was in a classroom recently with 31 or 32 pupils, of whom one had been born in this country. There are obviously practical problems in dealing with the instruction of children of diverse nationalities, ethnic groups and religious beliefs. In the first instance practical discussion must be held — that is an important conversation.

Official Engagements

Micheál Martin

Question:

5 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the talks he has held with Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy which he mentioned in his London speech of 18 April 2011. [9558/11]

Pearse Doherty

Question:

6 Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Taoiseach the plans he has submitted as part of the national reform plan to the European Commission; if he will publish these plans and present them before Dáil Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9641/11]

Micheál Martin

Question:

7 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the planned official trips he will be undertaking between now and the summer recess; the purpose of these trips; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10722/11]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, together.

I met with Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy at the meeting of the European Council on 24 - 25 March, and at the meetings of the Heads of State and Government of the eurozone and the Extraordinary European Council on 11 March. The Europe 2020 strategy has been adopted as a successor to the Lisbon strategy for jobs and growth and aims to enable Europe to emerge stronger from the current economic crisis and to turn the European Union into a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy. As part of the strategy each member state is required to prepare a national reform programme and submit it to the European Commission by the end of April.

Ireland's national reform programme was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas on Friday, 29 April and was subsequently submitted to the European Commission. The programme is also available on my Department's website. The national reform programme sets national targets in the five headline areas of employment, research and development, climate change, education and poverty. The programme complements the stability programme update prepared by the Minister for Finance as part of what is known as the new European semester.

In regard to official trips before the summer recess, the House will be aware that I travelled to New York last week to promote Ireland to US business leaders and investors. While I was there I took the opportunity to conduct a number of media interviews. I also addressed the American Ireland Fund dinner gala. I expect to attend the British-Irish Council in London on 20 June, and the European Council in Brussels on 23 - 24 June. Other arrangements have not been finalised and remain under review.

We remain in close contact with our European colleagues, both in capitals and in the EU institutions, including on matters relating to the economic challenges facing Ireland and the Union.

I asked two of the questions, Nos. 5 and 7. In his London speech, after meeting Prime Minister Cameron, the Taoiseach stated he had held discussions with Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy concerning Ireland's position. I asked him about the talks he had with those Heads of State. There is a growing awareness or sense that to a degree the Taoiseach's international context is being overspun in order to give the impression of more radical action. What the Taoiseach outlined in his reply does not amount to much. I am surprised that in his calendar, even into June, there is no sense of a substantive bilateral encounter to take place with any of the major European leaders, in spite of the diplomatic initiative the Taoiseach stated he and the Tánaiste were launching. Since the Taoiseach's Berlin election stunt there has not been very much——

Can we have a question, please?

I believe the point I raise is important.

I must adhere to standards.

I have three questions on the matter and am trying to ascertain——

I am trying to adhere to Standing Orders.

I accept that, a Cheann Comhairle.

It is Question Time.

Will the Taoiseach outline whether there are substantive bilateral discussions in the offing with President Sarkozy or Chancellor Merkel? I do not mean talking on the margins, or on a bus. The Minister for Finance meets Christine Lagarde on a bus and this becomes "talks" or a meeting. We all know what happens on those bus trips from a meeting to a dinner; it is not substantive bilateral discussions on fundamental and profound issues such as the banking situation or the economic situation facing the country and the European response thereto. That is my point. There is a great deal of spinning and hype going on but it does not amount to a whole lot from what I can see or from what I hear in the Taoiseach's reply.

Much of this is overplayed from other quarters. I never made any overspin of this kind. As I stated in my reply, I met both the Chancellor and the President at that meeting. We have not made any arrangements for bilateral discussions to follow. As the Deputy is aware, the Ministers for Finance continue to discuss and negotiate matters relevant to the IMF-EU bailout, as per the agreed position following the decision of the Heads of Government. The diplomatic onslaught, as the Deputy terms it, is being followed through. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Gilmore, called together all the EU ambassadors in Dublin and had a serious conversation with them. That was followed by requests from the ambassadors of non-EU countries whom he then called together. All Irish ambassadors, IDA and enterprise and employment personnel will be called back to the country in June for a serious discussion about programmes and plans to sell the message of our country and how we will rebuild relationships and demonstrate to other countries and public representatives we are serious in our resolve to sort out our country's problems.

The Tánaiste was in London yesterday, or perhaps Monday, and is to be in Paris tomorrow. Ministers and Ministers of State who travel abroad on official business will be required to make contact with their counterparts in a meaningful and realistic way. Other Heads of Government are busy, just as we are. Our priority was to launch the jobs initiative and restore a sense of confidence.

I will inform the House as and when such meetings are arranged.

May I ask a supplementary question?

I will come back to the Deputy. I call Deputy Adams.

Before I ask my question perhaps the Ceann Comhairle will give me some guidance. There are a number of questions lumped together and I want to have a sense of what happens when that is the case because these questions are widely diverse. What time is allowed to the Deputy who tables the question?

As I stated at the outset, the point of a supplementary question is to elucidate on the reply given. If the Deputy is not happy with the reply given to the question tabled by Deputy Pearse Doherty he is entitled to seek further information. It is difficult for the Chair when questions are grouped which do not really follow, one on the other. That is not a matter for me in this case but for the Taoiseach. If Deputy Adams is representing Deputy Doherty I ask him to stick to the question as tabled.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for that advice. This is something the Taoiseach should consider, in the interests of trying to arrive at clarity and information. Sometimes it is difficult when totally different questions are grouped together.

The national reform programme contains no specific 2020 poverty reduction targets. Why is there no reference to that? It repeats the existing targets for reduction of consistent poverty contained in the national action programme for social inclusion by 2016. The deadline is not contained in the Government plan and the Government does not appear to have met or mentioned the guideline required by the Europe 2020 strategy. There is no reference to those experiencing relative poverty or the growing number of people throughout the island, especially in this State, who are defined as working poor.

My other question relates to the Taoiseach's future trips. Does he plan to visit Palestine or Israel during his term of office and, if not, will he consider doing so? The Taoiseach may wish to note and I am sure the Minister for Foreign Affairs has noted the agreement between the main political movements in Palestine. It is a welcome development and offers up the hope of a negotiated settlement once again which recognises the rights of the Palestinian people.

We are straying.

I am dealing with the question put to the Taoiseach to name the planned official trips he will undertake between now and the summer recess.

That is a different issue.

Given the relative success of our own peace process and the awful plight of people now in the Middle East, if the Taoiseach were to visit Palestine and Israel it would be a very good signal, especially a visit to Gaza. I was there myself and I know Deputy Micheál Martin in his capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs was there and I commended him on that. What he did was courageous. I was there myself and stayed overnight for some time. Dreadful repression has been endured there. Ireland can help in what is a gloomy international situation with many difficulties.

The Deputy can take it that the Tánaiste has a particular interest in seeing that the Middle East situation, in so far as Israel and Palestine are concerned, becomes more the focus of concentration of the European Union. When I was on the other side of the House I brought several of my Deputies out to Israel and Gaza and I found the trip a revelation in many respects. I had a long conversation and a fruitful meeting with John Ging, who, as the Deputy is aware, was working in Gaza. This is a political issue that deserves concentration in so far as we, as a State and a member of the European Union, are concerned. The Deputy can take it that the Tánaiste will see to it, in so far as he can, that this receives a high level of priority. I cannot say that I have any fixed intention of visiting there in the near future although, personally, I am keen to go back and review some of the issues we discussed before. However, I assume the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs has this high on his agenda as well.

What about the question I put on the absence of poverty reduction from the Government programme or plan?

It is a part of the programme set out for the Union. I mentioned the five headline areas of employment, research and development, climate change, education and poverty. In so far as the strategy is concerned, the programme for Government sets out the fact that the Government is fully committed to the 2020 strategy and the creation of employment in smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

Poverty is an issue that is part of the programme submitted and it is something about which we are concerned. Those living close to or below the poverty line, of whom there are many, deserve the consideration of Government and we will give them whatever priority we can afford to encourage and bring them up the ladder of life opportunity. The Department of the Taoiseach is responsible for co-ordinating the preparation of Ireland's national reform programme with line Departments. Deputy Adams may be assured that, in so far as this is one of the headline areas, we will see that it is promoted.

I have put down Questions Nos. 5 and 7 and I wish to follow up on the Taoiseach's earlier reply. The Taoiseach said that reporters or the media hyped up some of the contexts. The Taoiseach's office issued a press release referring to the launch of a diplomatic offensive. This is the context in which I put down the questions. The Taoiseach has held only one substantive bilateral meeting since then. We have all called in the EU ambassadors. That is regular and does not constitute anything in terms of a diplomatic initiative. That is part of the regular briefings with EU or non-EU ambassadors with whom I regularly interactively engaged when I was Minister for Foreign Affairs. I put it to the Taoiseach that this is normal practice.

The bringing back of our own ambassadors is a regular occurrence as well and this took place long before the Taoiseach came into office. Does the Taoiseach agree that none of this constitutes the diplomatic initiative that the Taoiseach and his office launched? In essence there has been an over-hyping of the contacts.

I am concerned that in the Taoiseach's answer to Question No. 7, among the official trips up to June I see no substantive bilateral meeting with European leaders on the schedule. It is important that this should happen. Does the Taoiseach intend to lead any trade delegations in the coming six months as part of the official trips he plans to undertake during that period?

When I went to see Chancellor Merkel in the course of the general election campaign the Deputy said it was a photo opportunity.

Which it was, that was self-evident.

We held an important bilateral discussion about the issues of Europe.

You are damned if you do and you are damned if you do not.

I do not share the Deputy's view. While it might be regular to call back European Union ambassadors, non-EU ambassadors and our own ambassadors, it is important to be able to say and to remind them that a new Government is in charge with a new sense of priorities, a renewed enthusiasm and decisiveness to sort out the country's problems. It is important for them to get the message out because, unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, things were not the way they should have been.

Unfortunately, we had evidence of Ministers not turning up at meetings in Brussels, departing quickly and not doing their job in the interests of the country as one would assume. It is important to set out clearly the changed situations in the context of the diplomatic interaction or onslaught and to express to those people that we are serious in our resolve to deal with our country's problems, to explain the strategy of making decisions in respect of the larger issues such as the banks, the deficit, employment and so on and to show them that things are not the way they were and that we have every intention of moving to a point where this country goes back up the ladder to be among the top five again. This is the reason why the Tánaiste has been so vigorous in following through what may be reasonably normal meetings but with a rather different and changed agenda.

There is no change.

I have not decided on any individual trade delegation but I have had requests in respect of a visit to China. I understand the Deputy was there as Minister for Foreign Affairs.

This is an important element of Ireland's capacity to export. The Tánaiste, in his capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs and trade promotion, will do this. I have no fixed dates for any trade delegations but this will come into the reckoning before long and I will provide the Deputy with an update on them as they happen. As the Deputy is aware, one cannot simply say any trade delegation will pay a visit to China. The Chinese will make the arrangements in respect of suitable dates for their personnel over there. As someone who was many years ago in the Department with responsibility for trade I realise the importance of particular trade delegations and how they can open doors for Irish potential to export to foreign markets and I support that strongly.

I call Deputy Mac Lochlainn.

Can I put a brief supplementary?

I have given you a fair run.

They were my questions.

The Taoiseach will acknowledge that it will be rather difficult for us to deliver on the goals we set ourselves in the national reform plan while, at the same time, implementing the austerity programme from the EU, the IMF and the ECB. The Tánaiste has announced the diplomatic initiative. Does that initiative involve engaging with the Governments of Greece, Portugal and, potentially, Spain on a counter-offensive to the narrative that exists in northern Europe that the bailout is a result of the recklessness of the peripheral economies when, in reality, the recklessness of major financial institutions in the core states being allowed by the ECB and IMF to lend banking institutions in the peripheral states was the cause of the crisis? What engagements have taken place with those Governments?

Have we considered an engagement with the 186 other member states in the IMF on its failure in oversight?

That is a separate question.

The two are clearly linked. We must develop and defend our national interest by countering the erroneous narrative that the recklessness of peripheral European states caused the crisis when the failure of the IMF and ECB in their regulatory responsibilities caused it. What have we done so far?

That is not really for this supplementary question.

It is linked to the meetings.

Anything can be linked. This is Question Time. We are trying to get answers for Deputies. It is not a general debate. That is what I am trying to get across. I do not want to cut across the Deputy but I must be fair to everyone. There are Deputies waiting for their questions to be answered. We cannot have a general debate on the economy in response to a simple question.

For the Deputy's information, I had a meeting with Prime Minister Papandreou before the meeting in Brussels where he sought support for an interest rate reduction and the difficulties faced by his country. I also met with then Prime Minister Socrates in respect of the difficulties in Portugal. Obviously these countries have problems that are different from ours. We have a strategy in place and we are on target to meet it. It is being monitored by the troika and I am glad to note the Exchequer returns indicate our tax drive is on target. The Government's focus is now to follow through with job creation, stimulate the economy, create investment, provide opportunities for further exports and grow the economy. That is how we must do this.

Micheál Martin

Question:

8 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach his official engagements since 9 March 2011 which have involved engagement with the manufacturing industry. [9562/11]

Micheál Martin

Question:

9 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach his plans to meet chief executives of major businesses following his statement that he intends to do so in a recent reply to a question. [10462/11]

Richard Boyd Barrett

Question:

10 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will make it a matter of priority to meet with trade union, unemployed, industry, small business and other civil society groups to discuss the jobs crisis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10478/11]

I propose to take Question Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive, together.

Supporting enterprise and providing a favourable climate for business start-ups and growth are key elements of the Government's strategy for supporting enterprise and growing employment. The jobs initiative announced yesterday contained a number of measures to assist enterprises in creating and retaining jobs. As Head of Government, I have met a number of senior business executives from a range of sectors including manufacturing at domestic events and also during my recent international visits to London, New York and Washington.

I will continue to support the development and implementation of enterprise policy in a variety of ways including through engaging with the business community at home and on international visits and meeting with potential investors where appropriate. However, these and other aspects of enterprise policy are primarily the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation. As such, any questions on these issues, including future parliamentary questions, should be addressed to him.

I also intend to meet with the representative groups under social partnership, including business representatives, in due course to outline the Government's approach to dealing with our current economic challenges and to explore how their activities can enhance economic and social progress. These meetings have not yet been scheduled. However, I believe that social dialogue can and should continue to take place through the different structures in place across Departments as we implement the programme for Government.

I asked about the Taoiseach's official engagements with the manufacturing industry. I would appreciate if he could be more specific about official engagements he has had with that sector since 9 March. Manufacturing industry is extremely important. Exports are at an 11 year high because of the consistent policies that have been adopted to support export industries.

Could the Deputy please not take up too much time? I am trying to get to other Deputies.

I appreciate that but I have two questions.

Yes, but it is a simple question: has the Taoiseach engaged with manufacturing industry, yes or no?

The Ceann Comhairle has interrupted before I even finished the sentence.

I understand how important this is to the Deputy but he must be reasonable.

I will be reasonable but I must give the basis to the question. I have noted how the Government has quickly latched on to those elements that are doing very well but has the Taoiseach met the representative bodies for the manufacturing sector or with companies such as Boston Scientific, Hewlett Packard and Intel? Has he garnered anything from them about the needs of the manufacturing sector in terms of confidence, growth and development so we can attract more inward investment? I am not asking any other Minister; I am asking the Taoiseach what is needed to secure investment from the manufacturing sector in the country.

From the Taoiseach's response and the comments that have been made around the jobs initiative, with the Minister, Deputy Howlin, making the same points on radio this morning, I do not doubt that he is concerned about dealing with the jobs issue, as is everyone. There is, however, a significant difference of opinion about how to do that. Much of the emphasis in terms of who the Taoiseach is talking to and who is advising him is very much to one side of the economic perspective. My question is about the extent to which the Taoiseach will engage with workers, civil society groups and academics who are suggesting that we are moving in precisely the wrong direction to deal with the jobs crisis. That opens debates about the IMF programme. Is there a willingness to engage seriously in new forums in this Chamber and externally in terms of who the Taoiseach meets and talks to, particularly those who have a different perspective on how to deal with the situation and who feel the current path is unsustainable and will not work?

Deputy Boyd Barrett seems to think he is the only person who meets workers and real people. I do that on a regular basis and I can testify that the Minister for Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation has met a range of manufacturing industry representatives. I have met with a number of senior figures from firms throughout the country. I have not met with industry blocs but I have asked the Department to see if we can get an appropriate time to meet with groups of chief executives to discuss that issue.

Deputy Boyd Barrett talks about the range of opinions and asks when I will consult with workers. The jobs initiative yesterday is specifically about the unemployed, those who were workers and who want to be workers. The academics at the other end may well have the view that we can jolt the economy by getting rid of the budget deficit in one year. I do not want to give the economy a lethal injection like that. People are entitled to their views and can write reports and articles but on this side of the House we must deal with real people and their lives and make decisions that affect the country; that is what we intend to do.

It is a constant process of meeting workers and real people and those who have ideas about how to improve the situation. If the Deputy has any worthwhile proposals about job creation, I would like to hear them. Some of the proposals I have heard in the last month, however, would certainly not help this country.

Top
Share