Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 May 2011

Vol. 732 No. 4

Ceisteanna — Questions

Cabinet Meetings

Micheál Martin

Question:

1 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach his plans regarding the holding of Cabinet meetings outside Dublin. [9563/11]

I have no plans to hold Cabinet meetings outside Dublin.

In times past there was a move away from what was a rigid approach to the holding of Cabinet meetings. The holding of Cabinet meetings outside Dublin was a good innovation, in bringing the work of Government closer to the people in terms of developing participation in democracy, etc., and I ask that it be considered again.

On many occasions when Cabinet meetings were held outside Dublin they were held on non-sitting days and they helped make Tuesdays more productive. Would the Taoiseach agree to the moving of Cabinet meetings to Mondays which would enable the Dáil to have more time, and a fuller day in terms of its work, on Tuesdays?

During the period 2000 to 2006, there were nine Cabinet meetings held outside Dublin and during the Presidency in 2004, a number of meetings were held in Farmleigh. Other meetings were held in Farmleigh between June 2002 and July 2010.

In the context of Dáil reform, I would not object to having a number of meetings outside Dublin but the focus of the Government at present is on the three principal areas of dealing with the banks, dealing with the employment situation and dealing with focusing on the budget deficit issues. For the moment, my intention is that Cabinet meetings will continue to be held here in Dublin. I am not adverse to having a number of meetings outside Dublin but I will probably wait until next year before considering that.

In respect of holding Cabinet meetings on Mondays, there is a matter of practicality and convenience here. The Dáil will be sitting for longer periods from September on and it might be appropriate to consider what best we do. There will be longer Dáil sittings and Tuesdays have been particularly convenient for most Members over the years.

Question No. 2.

On a supplementary——

No, we are only taking Question No. 1.

This is a supplementary to it.

You have got your answer. You asked a question and got an answer.

Surely I am entitled to a supplementary.

No, you are not entitled to a supplementary.

I thought I was.

Under Standing Orders, you are not.

The precedent in this House——

Only that if this——

——since time immemorial has been that a person has been allowed a supplementary question, particularly if it is the Leader of the Opposition.

No, no. If you look at the Standing Order, it is to elucidate information that one had not got in the original reply.

There is one final clarification I want to get briefly. The Taoiseach mentioned earlier today——

The reason I say this is we are not getting through enough questions. We are spending a long time on one question and other Deputies do not get a chance to get their questions answered.

I would say——

If the House wants to change Standing Orders, I will apply them.

From my observations, I would argue——

There is no point in arguing with me.

I just put forward the point to discuss with you that we have been very reasonable and responsible on this side of the House in how we are asking questions and supplementary questions——

——compared to anything I have seen previously here. We have been extremely reasonable and constructive about them and I have not written at any time.

If you ask a question——

All I want is to simply ask a basic question.

We have heard much about longer Dáil sittings, etc. It seems perfectly logical, if the Taoiseach wants more time for the Dáil, that the Cabinet should sit on Mondays, as I stated earlier, and that the Dáil could then sit earlier on Tuesdays. So far, in the past ten weeks, we have had debate after debate of statements. We have not had a great deal of legislation in the past ten weeks. It is time for the Taoiseach to put aside optics and be practical about what could happen here. I am saying Cabinet meetings on Mondays would allow for fuller days on Tuesdays and more time if that is what people want.

This question was about——

Deputy Martin is late enough——

Sorry, Taoiseach. This question was about the holding of Cabinet meetings outside Dublin.

——asking the Taoiseach about this. His party was in government for a long time and did sweet damn all about Dáil reform.

The position is that most of the legislation that the previous Government was dealing with is either to be amended or rewritten. In fact, pieces of legislation that were clearly promised as priorities by Deputy Martin's party in government were only that — empty promises.

The debates that we have had were requested by Members of the Opposition. We have had a number of those. We start with the new legislation being dealt with today, next week and the week after. If one looks at the record of this Government even in the past eight weeks, we have ended the practice of not coming back on Tuesdays after bank holidays and will proceed to implement a series of changes with the co-operation of the other Members to make this place more meaningful from the autumn session on, which will commence early in September. I hope that we have a thorough discussion about the practicality and the credibility of making changes that are relevant in all Deputies' interests to be delivered by the Ceann Comhairle in respect of whatever the House decides.

Office of the Attorney General

Micheál Martin

Question:

2 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the administrative changes which have been made in relation to the drafting of legislation by or under the supervision of the Attorney General’s Office. [9564/11]

Gerry Adams

Question:

3 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the form of reorganisation, if any, that has been undertaken in the office of the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11451/11]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.

The Office of the Attorney General is organised into two legal areas, one to provide legal advice and the other to produce legislative drafting. These two functions are supported by a shared administration service.

The office constantly reviews its staffing resources, their organisation and workload and, as necessary, adapts to meet the demands of its clients.

The changes can be relatively modest, for example, with a staff member transferring between specialist groups within the office or going on secondment to a Department. On other occasions there can be a more fundamental redistribution of staff and legal topics, both to develop staff expertise and to take into account rising or decreasing workloads in any particular area of law.

At the start of this year such a reorganisation took place in the advisory area of the office following staff changes and a review of the volume and type of work routinely being received. There are five legal groups in the office and the reorganisation involved a redistribution of the specialist topics dealt with by each group as well as the movement of staff members to ensure that the composition of each group is sufficient to carry out their work.

The office has also reduced its staffing numbers by 14 over the past two years. In order to maintain core services, that is, legal advice and legislative drafting, the office reorganised its administration areas to absorb the reductions.

In the programme for Government, and, indeed, in the Government's legislative programme, the Taoiseach made a series of specific commitments on the legislative process. In particular, he promised that the early drafts of legislation would be brought before the House for debate before Bills are formally published. This has not happened on any occasion in the case of any legislation so far this term. Is this because of delays in or capacity issues within the Office of the Attorney General, or is there some other reason we are not getting the earlier drafts of Bills? For example, there was no reason the most recent Bill, the Criminal Justice Bill 2011 from the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, could not have been published in draft form because it was already prepared by the outgoing Government. What is the reason we have not had these drafts?

The reason is that we have not yet agreed the changes in terms of Dáil reform. I want to see that happen and I will make it happen, but I want to discuss that with Deputy Martin's party, other parties and Members so that we can get agreement on how best to achieve that.

It would be valuable that when heads of Bills are being produced by Ministers and presented to Cabinet, and being approved by Cabinet, they would be referred to the relevant committee to get a political response. It would be in the interests of everybody as that Bill would proceed to Committee Stage and one would get a reflection from practical politicians as to whether it is relevant or irrelevant, or should be changed, amended or whatever.

The reason one has not had it heretofore is because we have not agreed the range of Dáil reforms. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, is working on that. In conjunction, through the Whips and the different parties, I hope that we can get agreement on a comprehensive range of changes, one of which will be that very fact.

Caithfidh mé a rá go bhfuil freagra an Taoisigh ar an gceist seo an-soiléir. Tá mé fíor-buíoch as.

Go raibh maith agat.

Bheadh mé níos sásta dá mbeadh sé an-soiléir ar a lán ábhair agus ceisteanna eile a chuirim air. Anyway, go raibh míle maith agat.

The Taoiseach stated, as I understand it anyway, that the Government acts on the legal advice of the Attorney General. I know of no case where previous Governments, even where confidentiality is not required, has published that advice. Would the Taoiseach as a matter of policy, where it is appropriate, make public the advice of the Attorney General on matters of public interest?

Neither do I know of occasions where the Attorney General's advice has been published. The Attorney General has a constitutional responsibility to be the legal adviser to the Government. The Government takes that advice into consideration before it makes its decisions. I do not see any change in current practice that might require publication of the legal advice of the Attorney General to the Cabinet of the day. The important thing is that Cabinet decisions are clear, transparent, accountable and debated.

In the Taoiseach's reply, he outlined that over the past two years there has been a staff reduction of 14 in the Attorney General's office. Looking at the scale of legislation promised for the remainder of the year, there is a case to be made that perhaps the capacity does not exist to process all of this legislation in this timeframe unless significant changes are made either in the Attorney General's office or in the way Bills are drafted such as the use of outsourcing, which, to be blunt about it, has always been frowned upon by the system, in terms of giving this capacity to others. I had experience of this with regard to one famous Bill. Given all that has happened on the economic side as well as the significant workload pressures on the office, what are the Taoiseach's observations on whether the legislative programme that has been published and promised is deliverable from the existing capacity in the Attorney General's office?

I will have to report further to the Deputy on this matter. I took the opportunity to attend the legislation committee last week. I think it was the first occasion that any Taoiseach attended a legislation committee dealing with the Whips, the Attorney General and the Parliamentary Counsel. The "A" list of legislation which is published is a list of Bills that can be delivered in this session by the various Ministers in Cabinet. However, I must tell the Deputy that I have asked the legislation committee, including the Attorney General and the Parliamentary Counsel, to bring forward the absolute requirements on which the Oireachtas must deliver with regard to Bills that must be delivered within a certain time arising from the IMF-EU deal. I will report to the House as soon as I have clarification on this.

It is not a case of the Attorney General's office and the Parliamentary Counsel not being able to produce legislation. I want to commend them on the fact they have worked weekend after weekend on Saturdays and Sundays dealing with elements of legislation, and Deputy Martin is well aware of this. Often, to be honest, it is that Ministers have not had the practice of being sufficiently clear in the policy requirements which need to be drafted. It is not just a case of stating one wants to introduce a Bill about concept "X". Unless clarity is given by the Minister or Department on what is being sought in legislation, it is difficult for the Parliamentary Counsel and the Attorney General's office to enshrine it in the appropriate legislation. This is an issue about which people must become aware.

Outsourcing has proved to be very costly in the past. I am not sure of the number of Bills that were outsourced during Deputy Martin's party's time in government. A number of specialist shorter-term contracts have been issued to people of exceptional competence who have expertise in a particular area of law. This has proved to be useful as an additional source of potential for the Attorney General's office.

Ministerial Responsibilities

Micheál Martin

Question:

4 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the arrangements he has put in place to co-ordinate the work of Ministers of State. [9565/11]

Micheál Martin

Question:

5 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he is satisfied that he has put in place arrangements for Ministerial responsibilities which adequately reflect his principal priorities. [9566/11]

Micheál Martin

Question:

6 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the extent of his co-ordinating role regarding the work of all Ministers and Ministers of State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11452/11]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together.

The programme for Government sets out the Government's priorities and my statement to the House on 9 March nominating Ministers and setting out the restructuring of Departments reflected these priorities. The programme was adopted by the Government at its first meeting as the framework for its policy over the coming years.

Ministers of State are appointed by the Government. When I announced these appointments in the House, I set out the Departments and areas of responsibility to which the Ministers of State were being assigned. Ministers and Ministers of State will be working together to progress those actions and initiatives that fall within their Departments' area of responsibility in order to achieve the implementation of the programme for Government.

The Government is a collective authority. The work of Ministers of State is of course co-ordinated through the operation of Government. I intend to meet Ministers of State on a regular basis to discuss progress on implementing the programme.

It is fair to state that the Taoiseach appointed three Ministers of State more than he stated were required, but he still left some very important areas uncovered. After very negative feedback, he agreed to extend two remits to include older people and drugs policy. In an honest bona fide way, I wish to put to the Taoiseach that there is concern about the apportionment of ministerial responsibility in the drugs area. It has been separated from responsibility for community development for the first time in 16 years. It is accepted that dealing with the drugs issue should be in the context of a community-wide response. Will the Taoiseach commit to revisiting how the drugs policy is handled and give it to a Minister of State as a full responsibility together with community development?

In the transfer of responsibilities and the establishment of new Departments, consideration must be given to all of this. The Minister of State, Deputy Róisín Shortall, deals with drugs and I am quite sure she will be prepared to have a comprehensive debate in the House whenever Members wish about the evolution of dealing with the drugs phenomenon, the difficulties this causes in so many communities, the information being brought forward to Deputies about activities with criminal intent, the use of certain persons, including children, in the transfer of drugs from one community to another and the wreckage this inflicts on people's lives. This issue goes beyond mere party politics, and the Minister of State, Deputy Shortall, will be happy to have a debate whenever the House so wishes.

My question is about the extent of the Taoiseach's co-ordinating role regarding the work of Departments. For example, particular issues affect children, including children with disabilities or learning difficulties. Issues also affect adults with disabilities, and huge issues, such as suicide, exist just below the surface. Such issues might cut across four, five, six or seven Departments and it is necessary to get a joined-up approach so the Government can deliver on these matters. I know this is a new Government but my experience, limited although it might be, particularly in the Northern Assembly, has been that where one could get strategic joined-up cross-departmental focus, one could get very quick delivery. Has the Taoiseach examined doing this? I could use any issue as an example but I will take that of children with disabilities. Their parents may have to go through a plethora and maze of processes to try to get the child's entitlement. Suicide and self harm are also issues that cut across many Departments. As a job of delivery, will the Taoiseach take one of these issues and try to co-ordinate the work of the necessary Departments?

I recognise this is a difficulty, which is precisely why the Government on my nomination created a senior Ministry to deal with children and youth affairs. Over the years, I have heard many examples of parents who were frustrated and driven to the point of despair trying to access facilities, resources and rights for their children, covering a broad spectrum. In many instances, they had to face court cases to get facilities from Departments of State. This is why the Minister for Children will seek to address these problems. I recall that when the former Minister of State, Austin Currie, was appointed with responsibility for children many years ago, he discovered that sections of various Departments had never consulted with each other, had never met each other, and in some cases did not even know that sections existed in other Departments. This is why the Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, will bring clarity and action to this area. The legislation setting up her Department will be published on 3 June and will give definition and responsibility in an area we consider to be an absolute priority. That is reflected in the appointment of a senior Cabinet Minister to deal with it.

Two of these three questions were mine. One question was on co-ordination and the other was on prioritisation. I mentioned the drugs policy earlier. The allocation of Ministries and remits is wrong and could undermine accepted analysis and approaches to the drugs issue. Will the Taoiseach look again at how the responsibilities have been allocated?

Having been involved in the establishment of the Office of the Minister for Children, having worked with the Minister of State with responsibility for children and having seen how the office has worked over the years in terms of co-ordination and delivery of policy across the board, lumping disability, equality, mental health and older people together under one Minister of State is perhaps too onerous and does not do justice to older people.

Children benefited from the co-ordination that resulted from the establishment of the Office of the Minister for Children, including the national children's strategy and so on, and the policy of having a Minister of State with responsibility for older people should have continued because the issues are enormous and wide-ranging in terms of an ageing population and, thanks be to God, one that is living longer because of modern advances in medicine and so on. A wide range of issues need to be dealt with and justify the allocation of a specific Minister of State to embrace the issues of older people and to co-ordinate all the issues which challenge older people in modern society. A mistake has been made by not doing that.

The question was about the number of Ministers of State. This Government believes it should get a more effective response with a much smaller number of Ministers of State, who will have to do more work. The work being carried out by the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, in the mental health and older people areas is complementary to that of the Minister for Health and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, where it impacts on the lives of children. This is a case where we must get it right.

The responsibilities allocated to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs will be connected very directly to the work of the Ministers of State who deals with community, drugs, mental health and other areas affecting young people and will build a sense of community response from the Departments of Health and Education and Skills or Departments affecting children and young people.

One can argue about this until the cows come home but we made a conscious decision to reduce the number of Ministers of State to get more from less and to build a delivery of public service for all these people in a leaner, more efficient and more professional way. That is why, at Cabinet level, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs will work with her colleagues in the Departments of Education and Skills, Health and Justice and Equality and Defence and with the Ministers of State with direct responsibility.

I wish the Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, well in her responsibilities. She can be assured of co-operation from our party and she will know that Deputy Ó Caoláin has done some exemplary work on the issue of children's rights.

On my question on the co-ordinating role — I accept entirely the examples the Taoiseach has given — it could be used across the whole range of governance, for example, on all-Ireland and cross-Border issues. One of the things which frustrates me, and I am sure every Deputy, is that we can deal with individual cases in that someone will come into our advice centres and we may, through diligent work, help that person but there are thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of people we cannot help because we need to make societal change to ensure the issues pressing down on people are rectified and addressed properly.

I commend any effort to co-ordinate the work of the Departments to adopt that cross-departmental approach and I assure the Taoiseach of full co-operation from our party in so far as it can help in those matters. Will the Taoiseach make clear that this will be his approach on all those issues in the term of this Government?

Will the Taoiseach consider nominating a Minister of State with specific responsibility for the offshore islands to co-ordinate the policy approach?

What was the question?

I asked whether a specific Minister of State would take control over co-ordinating policy for the offshore islands.

I can answer "Yes" to the latter question from Deputy Harrington.

I commend Sinn Féin for its participation in, and valid contribution to, the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children. If we do nothing else over the next number of years, we should be able to focus on providing a platform for all the children of this island to be able to compete with their peers internationally and on giving them the best education we can provide and the best opportunity to enable them to compete, to live up to their potential, to give vent to their creativity and imaginative qualities and to continue to keep the reputation of this country and its people at the highest possible level as they stand on the competitive platforms in a world that is changing rapidly.

Departmental Staff

Micheál Martin

Question:

7 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the staff arrangements for the Government Information Service, including personnel contracted or seconded to the service; the responsibilities of all personnel attached to the Government Information Service; his plans, if any, to expand the number of personnel assigned to the Government Information Service above the level in place upon the Government’s formation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9569/11]

There has been no increase in the number of staff currently working in the Government Information Service. The number of staff in the GIS, which includes the Government press office, the communications office and the Government's news website Merrionstreet.ie is 19, 13 of whom are civil servants.

There are two journalism graduates on contract and the remaining four, which include the outgoing Government press secretary, who is staying for a short period of transition, are political appointees. They are broken down as follows: the Government press secretary, the deputy Government press secretary, an assistant Government press secretary, five press officers, a press and information officer and seven administrative-clerical staff.

The Government press office and the Government Information Service provide an information service on Government policy to the public through the national and international media on behalf of myself, my Department and the Government. It also promotes a co-ordinated approach to media matters across all Departments.

The Government press office and the Government Information Service, in conjunction with the Department of Foreign Affairs, organises and manages the media aspects of State visits and major State occasions. Staff in the Government press office and departmental press officers are available after hours and at weekends to answer media queries.

As everyone is beginning to notice, most of what the Taoiseach said before 25 February must be re-examined to see if it still applies. The Taoiseach was extremely clear in his attacks on the Government Information Service and about the work of press and communications in Government Buildings prior to 25 February. In light of the fact he has retained all the functions of that office and most of the people who work there, is it not time he did the decent thing and withdrew all of his partisan comments and attacks on their past work and his central allegation which he repeatedly made in the past that all they produced was partisan propaganda?

The Deputy made the valid statement that he was not interested in a Punch and Judy show — nor am I. As he knows, the current GIS has grown from the early days when there were only two major broadsheets to a point now when instantaneous information is available through a whole range of press releases, e-mails, podcasts and webcasts, text messages and so on. From that point of view, what is on www.Merrionstreet.ie is factual news and is not altered to be party political.

Will the Taoiseach elucidate on the mysterious, anonymous spokespersons weakly quoted as sources for the Government who sometimes make very authoritative statements? How does the system work? Who are they and do they have favourite journalists whom they call in the dead of night to make serious revelations on behalf of Ministers or the Taoiseach, fly various kites and send up balloons to see which way the wind is blowing? In a supposedly modern and democratic system it would be much better if, rather than being an anonymous Deep Throat, the spokesperson concerned said on behalf of the Taoiseach what he wanted to say at 11 p.m. and gave the message to the nation. This may also apply to the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn. Would that be a better way to proceed at this time rather than by way of this ridiculous, old Fleet Street style journalism?

The media do not want to wait until 11 p.m. for an answer. If the Deputy ever becomes a Minister, he might find himself in a situation where he is involved in one meeting or another and media sources are looking for answers immediately. At that point one of his press staff might say, "This is what the Minister wants to say." In some cases a spokesman may be attributed. Sometimes I cannot find out who they are. I like to think Ministers are clear in what they say, but it may be the case that on some occasions they are en route to Brussels or involved in meetings when media outlets request an immediate response. On such occasions a spokesperson — anonymous or otherwise but certainly not Deep Throat cells — will respond on behalf of the Minister and the Department. There is nothing mysterious about it. In this case Ministers are happy to respond on issues relevant to their responsibilities.

I welcome the Taoiseach's response and take it from his statement that what emanates from the Government website and the Government Information Service is not propaganda or partisan in party political terms, and that he withdraws from all the attacks he made on the service repeatedly for over two years. I acknowledge his withdrawal of the remarks he made.

I can confirm that the Government press website, www.Merrionstreet.ie, no longer carries any Government propaganda.

I appeal to the leader of Fianna Fáil and the Taoiseach to leave the past behind.

I do not think a response is necessary.

It is about the future. There is no better practitioner of the art of spinning than the leader of Sinn Féin.

If Deputy Gerry Adams has left the past behind, he should be in Dublin Castle this evening.

State Assets

Micheál Martin

Question:

8 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if, following the transfer of staff and the establishment of a new economic secretariat in his Department, his Department will play any substantive or distinct role in the process of evaluating which State assets should be sold. [9865/11]

As the Deputy is aware, the report of the review group on State assets and liabilities was recently presented to the Government. The Government is considering the findings of the report and its extensive recommendations in detail. As stated in the programme for Government, assets will only be sold when market conditions are right and adequate regulatory structures have been established to protect consumer interests. As the Head of Government, I will contribute to the decision-making process on the sale of State assets, as appropriate. However, the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and reform has lead responsibility for policy in this area. As such, any questions on these issues, including future parliamentary questions, might be addressed to him.

I have asked the question on the basis that the small economic unit has been transferred from the Department of the Taoiseach to the emerging Department under Deputy Brendan Howlin. The sale of State assets is a fundamental issue that the Government has indicated it will address. Will the Taoiseach have available to him within his Department independent advice to enable him to take a broader perspective than a line Minister on a specific issue such as the sale of a specific State company? Will the Minister concerned have independent advice within his or her office to make an assessment of the merits or demerits of any decision that may come before him or her?

I attend the economic management council with the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Minister for Finance and the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and reform. Any question of that nature will come before the council which is a Cabinet sub-committee. The Cabinet must also give its approval to any proposals coming from any Minister on the potential sale of State assets. The Government has set out the sale of non-strategic State assets, as may be appropriate in market conditions, up to a value of €2 billion in the period of office of the Government. While Mr. McCarthy published an extensive list of potentially saleable non-strategic assets, amounting to €5 billion, the Government will consider the report and under the conditions I mentioned, the Cabinet will make its decision. As head of the Cabinet and the person who chairs meetings of the economic management council, with my staff I have plenty of independence advice to make a contribution and a judgment on anything that comes before us.

Will the Taoiseach articulate to the House what he considers to be a strategic and a non-strategic asset?

A strategic asset would be the transmission system for the ESB or the gas lines. These are strategic assets that are of importance to the State. Non-strategic assets are not absolutely essential to the economic well-being and continuation of the State. A number are listed by Mr. Colm McCarthy in his report. Under appropriate market conditions and having made a decision on what is a non-strategic asset, the Government may make a decision in that respect.

Can I have the Taoiseach's opinion?

I will send the Deputy a list of what I consider to be non-strategic assets.

On a related matter, the Taoiseach has twice mentioned my non-attendance at events involving the Queen of England. While I respect his right to attend and that of the President to invite the Queen of England, I also have the right not to attend. While I represent a constituency in the State, I am from the North. County Mayo is no longer under the control of the English Crown. Where I come from is, even in a conditional way, covered by the new dispensation we have carved out. Rather than making snide remarks back and forth, the Taoiseach needs to remember that there are people in the North, sometimes referred to as Northern Nationalists, who are watching every single comma and dot. I hope there will be good will as a result of this visit, but while the country is partitioned, as it is——

We are on a different question.

I understand that, but the Taoiseach has raised this issue on a number of occasions. I ask him to respect my right as a democrat and an Irish republican——

Not on this question.

——and someoneone who has contributed and will continue to contribute to bringing about the unity of our people. I ask that my view be respected also.

Will the Taoiseach clarify his response to Deputy Micheál Martin? It is still not clear to me where the buck stops on the State assets we will have to sell at the behest of the European Union and the IMF as part of their package. Who will make the final decision? Deputy Brendan Howlin and other Ministers may have an input, make recommendations and examine the McCarthy report. Surely, given something as serious and disastrous as a demand to sell State assets to pay off banker debts, the bottom line should be with the Taoiseach. Is it not also necessary for the Taoiseach to define somewhat more clearly than he has in his response, strategic as opposed to non-strategic assets? A couple of "strategic" examples are given but the Taoiseach referred to the McCarthy report, and the definition of "non-strategic" in it is preposterous.

Is there a question?

The Deputy should be brief. Other Deputies are indicating.

For example, the report suggests that harbours and ports are not strategic assets in an island nation.

The Deputy cannot do this on Question Time. We are not here to debate that issue.

Will the Taoiseach confirm if part of the EU and IMF bailout deal agreed by the last Government was that State assets be sold? Is it clearly defined in the agreement? Was it made clear at the time of the deal what was non-essential and, conversely, essential? Is it being left to the Government to establish the criteria to define the issue. It seems obvious that the deal was already done by the previous Government.

There has been change.

This Government has been left to deal with the matter. The establishment of criteria should be clarified.

That is the excuse anyway.

I also have a question.

We will come back to the Deputy. The Taoiseach will reply to the two supplementary questions.

I will be crystal clear for Deputy Boyd Barrett. The decision rests with the Cabinet and the Dáil. The programme for Government is what we have set out to implement during this Government's term of office and it is very clear. It states that the Government will give effect to the sale of non-strategic State assets to the tune of €2 billion over this Government's lifetime. The Government will consider how that can best be achieved on the basis of appropriate market conditions and in consideration of what is not a strategic asset. The Dáil will be fully appraised and allowed to discuss the matter. I hope that is clear.

In respect of Deputy Coffey's contribution, the previous EU and IMF deal recommended that a sale of State assets should be used for debt forgiveness only. The Minister responsible for public expenditure dealing with the matter was party to the negotiations which changed the deal with the troika in a number of areas, one of which is in respect of any sale of a non-strategic State asset. On a case by case basis that would be examined in the context of investing that money in job creation and job initiatives.

On a point of order, the Taoiseach is misleading the House. I quoted verbatim from the EU and IMF deal negotiated by the Government and it does not state anything of the sort. It actually states the opposite.

The Minister is dealing with this.

The Taoiseach should check the record.

I am aware of the——

It is important that the record be corrected. I am alerting the House to a serious error.

It is not to mislead the House at all.

It is there in black and white.

I am aware of the wording in the document. I am also aware that the Minister with responsibility was a party to the negotiations. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for public expenditure have an agreement with the troika that in respect of any individual sale of a non-strategic State asset, on a case by case basis that can be considered for investment in job creation. That is the negotiated position between the Ministers and the troika despite the wording in the document.

That makes absolutely no sense.

I did not call the Deputy. He cannot jump up and down without going through the Chair.

I do not want to do so.

I will not allow the Deputy to do it.

The agreement produced by the Ministers is different to that which was put before the House and debated. That is the complete opposite of what the Taoiseach has just said. That is treating the House with disrespect.

The Deputy is also treating the House with disrespect.

This is absolutely unbelievable. There should be some respect.

We have now run out of time for questions.

A Cheann Comhairle——

The time is up. I ask Deputies to read the Standing Order relating to parliamentary questions and the right of Deputies — which does not automatically exist — to put supplementary questions. I have been here almost 30 years and Question Time is becoming a total joke. People are tabling parliamentary questions but five or six questions are being answered during the session. The goal of parliamentary questions is to seek an answer; if Deputies are not happy with an initial answer they are entitled to elucidate. Not every Member is entitled to jump up and ask a supplementary question, and the Deputy asking the question is entitled to an answer. I will be fairly strict from now on unless Standing Orders are changed. As I have stated before, the current process can be very unfair to other Deputies who table questions that we do not reach.

I do not want to get into any arguments or rows with Deputies. When Deputies ask a supplementary question, there is no permission to start making statements. A question is just that. I will be fairly strict from now on because the current system can be grossly unfair to Deputies.

Top
Share