Micheál Martin
Question:1 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will provide details of his recent visit to New York. [9869/11]
Ceisteanna — Questions
Official Engagements
Joe Higgins
Question:2 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to the United States. [10397/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:3 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will provide the details of his recent visit to New York; the merits of the visit; and if he will outline any other upcoming visits to promote investment here. [10469/11]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:4 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to the US; the persons with whom he met; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10701/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:5 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11455/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
I was in New York from 4 to 6 May last. During my visit I attended several events and gave a range of media interviews during which I stressed the progress in our economic recovery. My first engagement was when I paid my respects to those who died on 11 September 2001. On the evening of my arrival I attended an Irish community reception where I met a broad cross-section of the New York Irish and Irish-American communities.
The following morning, I attended a breakfast at the New York Stock Exchange where I met the chief executive. Also in attendance at the breakfast were top executives of IDA client and target companies and senior figures from the financial houses on Wall Street.
I participated in a lunch at the Council on Foreign Relations where I had the opportunity to meet the Council's chairman, Mr. Richard Haas, and to address an influential group of opinion formers. That evening I made the keynote address at the American Ireland Fund Gala at the Lincoln Centre which gathered together more than 1,300 of the most significant players in Irish America. I had a series of visits with US business leaders about potential investments and global economic prospects and had a meeting with the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform.
The trip provided a great opportunity for me to continue the work of rebuilding Ireland's reputation abroad. I reassured the business community in the United States that our rate of corporation tax would not change and pressed home the message that we are tackling our major economic challenges and are open and ready to do business.
Since taking office I have had two trips to the United States to restore and develop this crucial relationship. Monday's momentous visit by the President and First Lady was a tangible expression of the warmth and strength of the relationship between our two countries.
On the Taoiseach's visit, I welcome the fact that we maintain a strong engagement with our diaspora. I was particularly active in terms of the global diaspora and the United States. I learned recently that the Government has decided to have a second Farmleigh summit of the Global Irish Economic Forum. Does the Taoiseach agree that the concept of the forum was a good one when it was initiated? Will he indicate if he has had any engagement with the global Irish network which was formed as a result of the get-together in Farmleigh, particularly its American members?
As the Taoiseach noted, Ireland has always been open for business with the United States. Can the Taoiseach provide clarification on some of the potential projects that are under way? Did he have bilateral meetings with companies who are thinking of investing in Ireland with regard to specific projects? He obviously may not be in a position to name the companies involved, but I would be interested in ascertaining whether he spoke to a number of such companies. Reports yesterday suggested that 2010 was a particularly effective year for inward investment into Europe. Ireland is one of the largest recipients of foreign direct investment from the United States, so I would like to have some indication as to the potential for further job creation in that regard.
I have asked both the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste about the number of trade visits that are being planned. From the replies I received last week, it seems that there is a relatively small agenda for trade missions by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste for the rest of the year. Has that something to do with the tug-of-war that is currently going on between the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation and the Department of Foreign Affairs over who has responsibility for the trade portfolio? I welcome the Taoiseach's decision to move trade to the Department of Foreign Affairs, but that has not happened yet. It seems that there will be a division of responsibilities between both Departments, which will be a recipe for confusion, as well as a lack of clarity and focus in formulating, articulating and implementing trade policy.
I give the Deputy credit for the global economic forum which he held in Farmleigh. It was innovative and brought together a concentration of important people to examine how Ireland might use its global connections for economic development, including exports and job creation. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, has decided to hold a second forum in October, which will probably involve a larger number of interests from abroad. It will focus more on the consequences of working through the ideas and proposals that are brought forward. The forum that Deputy Martin organised was important as it was the first of its kind. I think he might agree, however, that the conclusions might perhaps have been worked through to a far greater extent. That is where the focus of the next one will be, although I am not decrying the Deputy's initiative. Having spoken to those in attendance, I know they would like to see a greater follow through on the ideas that were raised and, therefore, the emphasis will be on how best we can obtain actual results from ideas and proposals.
I met with quite a number of those people in New York and Washington DC. One of them made the point to me that they would all like to be ambassadors for this country. The challenge for Ireland is to be able to use that diaspora resource so that when they are speaking to business people or other worldwide interests, they will be informed about the opportunities that exist here. I also met with a number of banking and other commercial interests which are in the process of engaging with the Industrial Development Authority concerning decisions to locate in Europe. A number of these interests are considering Ireland, but the Deputy will appreciate that I cannot give details. It is not for me to make the final decision on their behalf, but we were strong in putting forward the view that they should invest in Ireland.
It is appropriate that we should discuss how best we can make an impact on trade promotion and the economy generally. There is no difficulty between the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, and the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs has responsibility for trade promotion, while trade policy remains with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is anxious that every embassy will have senior personnel working with the ambassador in the interests of trade promotion.
The number of forthcoming trade missions has not yet been finally decided. I have received a request to go to China and while we have agreed to that in principle, it is a matter for the Chinese authorities as to when they have appropriate dates that are suitable. I raised this matter with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, when he was here and when I met him in London recently. Given the resources they have, the British Government has made a conscious decision to expand trade promotion and work actively in that regard. It is also supportive of the opportunities for Ireland in that respect. We will focus on this area in so far as our resources facilitate us to do so. There is no difficulty concerning the division of responsibilities in the Departments. I will advise the Deputy when the trade promotion delegations are finalised.
Sometimes people think that if a very large delegation travels abroad it makes a proportionately bigger impact, but from my experience I do not think so. Depending on how far east one goes, a smaller number of chief executives might command more respect and opportunity than having a large delegation. In either event, we are interested in opening doors and keeping those opportunities very much alive.
In his discussions in the United States, was the Taoiseach able to cast any light on the claim that the US Government's Financial Secretary had vetoed the idea that €30 billion of bondholders' bad gambling debts should not become the responsibility of the Irish people? That was flatly refused by the US Government. Did the Taoiseach get any insight into that in America or from his recent talks with President Obama here?
With regard to the global economic forum and multinational corporations, while every job is absolutely vital for each worker concerned and must be protected, does the Taoiseach not recognise that much of this investment is highly capital-intensive? Even the Government's jobs initiative document explains that it does not yield major job creation. Does the Taoiseach not see a contradiction between crushing the domestic economy with austerity proposals, while on the other hand seeking a second global economic forum?
No, I do not see any contradiction there at all. I am sure the Deputy is as interested as I am in seeing that those who are unemployed in his constituency have an opportunity to get a job and be gainfully employed here. Whether that is by working for foreign direct investors in our country or because of indigenous investment whereby jobs are created, I am sure the Deputy would be happy either way. As regards foreign direct investment, we are interested in building on the opportunity that exists here in the hi-tech area, which is changing rapidly. Ireland has the flexibility to meet the next wave of change that is coming, whether it is in robotics, nano-technology, genetics, biotechnology or the Internet itself. Over the last dozen years or so, Ireland has measured up by having the world's best located here. We want to keep it that way.
I did not raise the US Treasury Secretary's comments because I was not aware of Professor Morgan Kelly's article at the time. I do not have the minutes of the G8 meeting. I understand that this matter was not on the agenda, but arose in side comments at that meeting.
Yes.
Obviously, the view of the IMF and the ECB in terms of burden sharing and bondholders is clear. Our engagement with the US Treasury is conducted by officials from the Department of Finance and we are in regular contact with it. As late as just a couple of weeks ago, one of the senior officials was actually in Washington discussing with the Treasury the connections that continue to exist between here and the United States.
Did the Taoiseach ask President Obama about it?
We discussed our connections.
If I understand the Taoiseach correctly, he has told the House that he met Timothy Geithner in March——
He has not.
He has. He met Timothy Geithner in March, he visited the United States again to discuss economic matters and he recently met the President of the United States. He knows, I know and the entire country knows that Ireland is on its knees as a result of the requirement placed on us to pay off the gambling debts of bankers and bondholders. Is the Taoiseach seriously telling the House that he got no inkling from Timothy Geithner or the US business people and politicians he met about the US Government's position of torpedoing a proposal that the bondholders should share some of the pain of the financial crisis they created and that we were being asked to pay for? That is extraordinary. I note——
This is Question Time. The Deputy should ask a question.
Is the Taoiseach telling the House that, despite the allegation, he gathered no knowledge in all of his meetings that this was the US Government's policy position on Ireland's economic situation? After the allegation was out in the open, did the Taoiseach ask President Obama about it? In the newspapers, he described the President as a political super star.
I am sorry, but I must remind the Deputy that this is Question Time. Will he ask questions, please?
Are we to take it that the Taoiseach was so star struck by his meeting with President Obama that he forgot about the most pressing issue facing this country and did not ask whether the US Government torpedoed our plan——
These questions relate to the Taoiseach's visit to the United States. Will the Deputy please ask questions?
——to force bondholders to pay some of the cost of the economic crisis they created? It is staggering. Has the Taoiseach any intention of asking the US authorities whether this most serious allegation is true? It will have a devastating effect on our people.
The Deputy seems to know a lot about it. It is a pity he did not remind me of this before I went to America to meet Treasury Secretary Geithner. Obviously, it was not discussed because the assertion had not been made in an article by the economist Professor Kelly. I am sure that, if the Deputy had known of it in advance, he would have informed me of it. In so far as that is concerned, I do not have the minutes of the meeting that took place in Asia. I understand that it was not on the agenda and I am not privy to the side comments made during any discussion that took place at that meeting.
In so far as the discussions with the President of the United States are concerned, we discussed immigration, our restructuring of our banks, trade both ways between the two states, foreign direct investment by American investors in Ireland and the fact that 80,000 Americans across 50 states work in Irish-owned companies, many of which have been assisted by Enterprise Ireland. We discussed the range of issues in so far as Europe was concerned. We will continue that measure of contact and connection between both Administrations. The information flow between the Department of Finance on behalf of the Government here is conducted with Treasury officials in Washington. A senior official was out there just a few weeks ago giving a full briefing in so far as progress about meeting our commitments and developing our economy were concerned.
On the Taoiseach's visit to New York in early May, he announced a jobs creation scheme, essentially a €3,000 reward for each job someone in the diaspora creates and that is still in existence after two years. Has anyone taken up this proposition and what job numbers has the Government projected will be created by the initiative?
Did the Taoiseach raise the issue of the undocumented Irish — we have both done so a number of times — directly with President Obama recently? Will the Taoiseach report on this matter?
We are all agreed that the diaspora is important and, particularly in the US, influential. The amount of help it has been to the peace process is a matter of public record. It has encouraged the British quietly and diplomatically to deal with issues the latter may have been reluctant to address. Has the Taoiseach considered the question of legacy issues? In particular, of what assistance will the White House be in respect of the Oireachtas motion on the British Government's refusal to hand over the files on the Dublin-Monaghan bombings? Will the Taoiseach seek the assistance of those in the White House and the wider diaspora to get the British to do what they should as of right?
I had a good meeting with the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform, ILIR, in New York. We discussed the implications of the fact that, if legislation was to be drafted through Capitol Hill, it would come through Senator Schumer of New York. He has close connections with the ILIR and would be the author of any such legislation. As the Deputy is aware, there is now a difference between the political bases of the Congress and the Senate. The legislation would require support from both sides to get through.
Regarding what might happen, the situation in so far as homeland security is concerned following the bin Laden incident is that an increased package of security measures may come forward, in which case immigration reform could be an associated measure, but this is a long process, as the Deputy knows. President Obama, at our meeting in Farmleigh House, indicated following his El Paso speech on immigration that this is a priority for him and that he would regard the matter as not being solely concerned with one element, that is, a number of nationalities are involved. He is interested in that. We agreed that, through the Irish ambassador and other agencies, we would continue to work with political representatives from both sides in Congress and the Senate.
I made reference to the jobs situation in New York. I did not put any figure on the contribution that the State might make to anyone responsible for bringing about a job here. This is an opportunity, brought forward by a private company, to say that there is now a facility globally to tie in the entire Irish diaspora through the use of modern methods, such as the Internet. If a person is in Australia, Alaska, South America or Siberia and has connections with this country in any shape or form, there is an opportunity to involve the entirety of the global diaspora in the potential creation of jobs here. If someone in Wicklow contacts a relation in Sao Paulo who is working for company X, he or she would ask whether there was an opportunity for some element of what that company manufactures to be manufactured in Ireland. A foreign national in this country could decide to contact someone in his or her own homeland to say there are better opportunities for sourcing the development of that person's industry in Ireland and ask for it to come here. If the IDA is not actively following through on this particular proposal and if it comes to fruition and jobs are created, the idea is that the person who initiated it would get a reward, if the House wants to term it in that sense, for bringing about jobs that last for one or two years and beyond. There is no figure mentioned. The proposal will be piloted by IDA Ireland which has appointed a person to drive it forward in conjunction with the company. It is not in operation yet. It is a brilliant and innovative idea, tying in the Diaspora in one fell swoop in the interests of job creation in Ireland. A project could be set up in Louth, Cork or anywhere else. It is an opportunity to tie everything together in the hope extra jobs will be created here by foreign investors who would not normally consider doing so.
I think the Deputy asked me a third question.
I asked about enlisting the support of the Diaspora and particularly the White House.
We talked about the Assembly elections in Northern Ireland and the fact that the Government would continue to work with the newly elected Assembly and the British Government in taking advantage of cross-Border opportunities. As the Deputy is aware, the Government is committed to following through on promises made by the previous Government in a number of cross-Border areas. The first North-South Ministerial Council meeting between the new Executive and the new Government will be held on 10 June when we hope to pursue a number of these issues.
What I did mention to the President was the requirement for funding under the International Fund for Ireland to continue. He specifically mentioned that his own Administration had included it in the budget. Senator Leahy, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, has this in view and I hope it will continue. I made the point that for vulnerable communities on both sides in Northern Ireland, this kind of investment was important, particularly to prevent young men, as the Deputy is well aware, from regressing towards violence and criminality. We discussed the matter in general. The President has been very supportive and says he will continue to be so in this regard.
We did not discuss the question of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.
Arising from the Taoiseach's earlier reply on trade and the division of responsibility, I am disappointed with what is happening. When he announced the new Cabinet, it was clear that responsibility for trade policy was to be in the Department of Foreign Affairs, hence the name Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It seems there has been a resiling from that position and that now responsibility for trade policy will not be in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade but will continue to reside in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation. Ambassadors in the Department of Foreign Affairs have always promoted trade. In the past two or three years they have had specific functions in this regard.
This is Question Time.
I put it to the Taoiseach that when I met ambassadors from around the world when they came back to Ireland a year ago, they all clearly articulated the idea that responsibility for trade policy should reside in the Department of Foreign Affairs because it would facilitate greater synergy of approach. From what the Taoiseach said, it seems that is not now happening. This is a mistake. The new title is a misnomer.
Did the Taoiseach discuss with the President the idea of having an E3-type bilateral agreement with Ireland? I successfully negotiated a working holiday agreement between Ireland and the USA and this was the first country to do so. The agreement allows a person to work and travel for up to 12 months, similar to other agreements we have in place. The idea behind bilateral agreements it to try to develop a legal framework for future structured migration in order that we can, at least for the future, avoid creating new generations of undocumented and illegal immigrants.
The Deputy should ask questions.
I am asking the Taoiseach whether he had any discussions on the specific issue of a bilateral agreement on the basis of the E3 visa which is a renewable work permit, a matter about which we have had discussions in the past. Given the difficulties outlined by the Taoiseach in achieving comprehensive immigration policy reform, have there been any separate discussions on the possibility of entering into such an agreement?
With regard to the Taoiseach's brilliant innovative idea, we need greater clarity in terms of verification and validation. My own experience as Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment suggests that is not how jobs are created by or sourced from multinational or emerging companies in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. It takes a far longer, more focused effort.
The President has made it clear that it is not his responsibility to decide on bilateral arrangements such as the E3 visa programme. It is a matter for the Hill, as the Deputy is well aware.
That is what I am saying. I am asking about the New York visit.
On the New York visit I met the ILIR and discussed the possibility of having an E3 visa-type agreement. In that context, any amendments made would require Republican support because the legislation would have to go through the House in the first instance. If this were possible, it would be tagged on, as the Deputy is aware, to some other Bill going through. That is where Senator Schumer and his group have an important role to play. I was in contact again in the last couple of days with the ILIR which is prepared to work with the Government in whatever way it can to achieve an E3 visa-type bilateral arrangement. The holiday visa was a concept that did not catch on as much as the Deputy might have thought.
It was a good initiative.
The President said during his visit that his priority was overall comprehensive immigration policy reform, but that will be difficult, given the political set-up in the Capitol.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade is developing the Ireland House concept that is already applied in many countries in order to drive trade promotion. This concept has worked successfully and will continue to do so.
I make no case that job creation will result from the initiative using modern communications that may be developed here. It is one element, part of an additional resource that will be piloted by IDA Ireland. It may bring about the creation of a substantial number of jobs, but I do not know. It must be tested. However, it is new and its value is that it will tie in the Diaspora. We can target individual areas by sending delegations or office appointment which have a constant impact, but this concept allows for people all over the world to involve themselves simultaneously in placing the focus on Ireland. This brings me back to the point I made about the last Government's Global Irish Economic Forum. The members of the Diaspora would all like to be ambassadors and they can now be because they will have an opportunity to make direct contact to feed into the job creation potential. It is an addition to the formal structures that have been proved to work by IDA Ireland during the years.
Deputy Joe Higgins must be quick. I allowed Deputy Micheál Martin in because he had tabled two questions, but we have spent 31 minutes on this group of questions. I, therefore, ask Deputy Joe Higgins to keep it short, please.
We are talking about issues of magnitude.
I appreciate that.
The Taoiseach has said he discussed the restructuring of banks with President Obama. I ask him to take us briefly through that conversation. Did he explain how German, French and other banks had recklessly gambled tens of billions of euro on Irish properties and then lost? Did he remind the President that his guy, Mr. Geithner, had vetoed the idea that these gambling banks should carry their own losses and generously offered that the Irish people would pay instead? It beggars belief that the Taoiseach would not raise this issue with the President, following on from his failure to raise the same or a related issue with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron. This is the single most crushing burden on the people. Will the Taoiseach explain to the Dáil why he failed to raise these issues and the possibility of a major reduction in the debt with these two world leaders?
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy, but this is Question Time. This group of questions relates to the Taoiseach's visit to New York. Can we stick to that matter, please? We have spent 32 minutes on this group of questions.
Will the Deputy please co-operate with the Chair and ask a supplementary? We do not need statements on each occasion he rises to put a supplementary.
I asked three questions.
I might respond to the speech made by Deputy Higgins by stating that it was the unilateral guarantee which was given that was identified as being impossible to resile from. The discussions in which I engaged in respect of restructuring involved explaining the Government's decision to move away from having six dysfunctional banks in order that we might establish two core pillar banks which would be in a position, through deleveraging, to make credit available to small businesses and to lend money in order that we might engage in job creation and develop our economy.
The Deputy referred to the German banks and the fact that they lent money to Irish banks which, in turn and in many cases, lent it on recklessly. The latter added to the confusion that existed and helped create the situation in which we find ourselves. From that point of view, the discussions in which I was involved centred around the decisions taken by the Government to move towards resolving this matter.
I have not obtained an answer to the question I posed, which relates to the Taoiseach's recent visit to the United States. Given that the burden of the banking debt is the key to our economy being crushed and is responsible for the brutal austerity being imposed on all of us, is the Taoiseach stating that he did not obtain an inkling from US Government representatives that their attitude towards this crucial problem is that the Irish people should pay for the gambling debts of French and German bankers?
What precisely is the Deputy's question?
Did the Taoiseach not get an inkling that this is US Government policy?
The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to answer that question.
Deputy Martin was given much more time to pose his supplementaries.
Deputy Martin tabled two of the original questions.
I have one brief additional question to pose.
Did the Taoiseach get an inkling from the US Government representatives?
What is the definition of an "inkling"?
If that is what the Taoiseach is indicating——
I will answer that question for the Deputy.
I call the Taoiseach.
The Ceann Comhairle should come off it. I have not finished asking my question.
This is Question Time.
The Ceann Comhairle continues to cut across me. He should allow me to finish my question.
What is the Deputy's question?
What is happening is not fair.
The Deputy asked if the Taoiseach had obtained an inkling and I asked the Taoiseach to answer that question.
I had not finished. The Ceann Comhairle cut across me before I had an opportunity to do so. Will the Taoiseach indicate that he is going to obtain an answer from the American Government as to whether that which I have outlined is its policy? The American Government is interfering in this matter and is insisting——
That is an entirely separate question.
——that ordinary Irish people must pay for the gambling debts of these bankers rather——
That is an entirely separate question. Will the Deputy please resume his seat? I call on the Taoiseach to answer the original supplementary.
It arises out of the Taoiseach's reply to the original questions.
Deputy Adams wishes to ask a supplementary.
The Ceann Comhairle should allow the Taoiseach to answer.
The Taoiseach will provide an answer if the Deputy allows him to do so.
This is unbelievable.
Did the Taoiseach get an inkling?
Deputy Boyd Barrett asked if I obtained an inkling of this when I met the Timothy Geithner, the US Secretary of the Treasury. I did not because the assertion had not been made at that stage. Is that clear?
He had taken the action.
Will the Deputy allow the Taoiseach to answer?
The Deputy asked a question and he has received his answer.
What about the second part of the question I posed? Does the Taoiseach propose to discover whether that which I have outlined is US policy?
That is a different matter and the Deputy should table a separate question.
What is not clear is why the Taoiseach did not pursue the matter with President Obama on Monday last.
If the Deputies table proper questions they will receive proper answers. I call Deputy Adams.
In respect of the job creation scheme which the Taoiseach outlined in graphic terms, are there any projections available which indicate the number of jobs that might be created? When he visited London prior to his visit to the USA the Taoiseach stated that he would be unveiling a range of initiatives — some of which he indicated would be very exciting — aimed at encouraging the diaspora to engage with our economy. In view of the fact that the diaspora is getting bigger with each passing week, will the Taoiseach provide details on some of the exciting initiatives to which he previously referred?
It is unfortunate that what the Deputy has just stated is the case. That is why we announced, as part of the jobs initiative, moves to deal with VAT and PRSI and it is why we are focusing our efforts on the areas of tourism and trade, particularly between Ireland and Great Britain and the United States. The programme of investment being followed through on by IDA Ireland is both serious and quite exciting in nature. I met potential investors in Washington and New York and I am aware that they are very enthusiastic regarding the clarity displayed by the Government in the context of its decisions on the banks and on how it proposes to encourage investment in this country by retaining our existing corporate tax rate. There will be no equivocation with regard to the latter. On my visit to the US, I also pointed out the financial advantages and opportunities that exist in Ireland for companies wishing to establish operations here.
Tying in the diaspora in respect of that new innovation would give a global reach to what we are trying to achieve. When the second economic forum takes place in Dublin later this year — the first was organised by Deputy Martin — I hope we can follow through with a more comprehensive process for dealing with the issues that arise in the context of ideas and proposals or with regard to changes that might be brought about in order to stimulate job creation.
As the Deputy is aware, every day that passes is a day which moves us further away from the recession. In addition, every job created represents a new career for someone and also an opportunity to proceed with the strengthening of our economy. The latter is critical in the context of ensuring that people will not be obliged to leave. Many of the companies which have already received assistance from IDA Ireland should be encouraged to employ and train graduates, particularly in view of the fact that the position with regard to our exports is currently so strong. If these companies did as I suggest, it would give people the opportunity remain here rather than being obliged to move abroad. I am sure the Deputy would support such a development.
I do support it. Is the Taoiseach in a position to provide projections with regard to the number of jobs to be created?
It is impossible to say. It will depend on how the scheme is structured and the degree to which it will catch on. I am sure people from abroad will be interested in the flexibility that exists in this country and in the infrastructure potential it offers. It may well be that it will prove to be critically important. However, it is critical that we should launch it as a pilot scheme in order to see how it will work. In this way we will be able to test it and improve on it. The important aspect is that it will tie in the entire diaspora, regardless of whether its members are located in Australia, South America or wherever. It will illustrate that there is a connection which is both alive and waiting in respect of interest in this country. In light of the changes that will occur in the coming decade, I am of the view that Ireland could score heavily in the newer areas of development. However, the position must be tested. We are going to establish the scheme, which is a new innovation. Let us see how it will work.
Programmes for Government
Micheál Martin
Question:6 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has given consideration to the costs involved in the setting up and operation of a constitutional convention. [10464/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:7 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has given consideration to the setting up of a citizens’ assembly. [11569/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 7 together.
The programme for Government commits the Government to establishing a constitutional convention to consider comprehensive constitutional reform and to report within 12 months of its establishment on the following matters: the review of our Dáil electoral system; reducing the term of office of the President from seven to five years; provision for same sex marriage; to broaden the reference in the Constitution to the role of women in the home to one which recognises the role of the parent in the home; removing blasphemy from the Constitution; the possible reduction of the voting age; and other relevant constitutional amendments that may be recommended by the convention.
Work has commenced on the preparation of detailed proposals for the establishment of the convention and, when ready, these will be considered by Government. They will address matters such as the structure, composition, terms of reference and basis on which the convention will be established. This process will include consideration of likely costs.
In the recent general election campaign Fine Gael promised to establish a citizens' assembly, while the Labour Party promised a constitutional convention. The programme for Government contains the name put forward by the Labour Party and the substance of the Fine Gael proposal. I asked the Taoiseach about this matter in March and he assured me that other parties in the House would be consulted well before any proposals were presented. That has not happened and there has been no consultation in respect of this mater. The legislation must be introduced in the next few weeks if it is to be passed before mid-July. Does the Taoiseach agree it would be a very bad start to the work of the convention if the first offer of consultation was reneged upon?
The Taoiseach previously stated the preparatory work relating to this matter is well advanced. Which Minister will be responsible to the House for the convention? How will it be funded?
This is contained in the programme for Government. There were originally two distinct proposals which have come together pretty well. There will also be consultation with the leaders of the Opposition and their parties. It is a matter that will, I hope, result in several changes to the way the country is run and it will be reflected in our Constitution.
It is not a case of proceeding with legislation without consultation. This is a convention in which citizens will have the opportunity to participate. On 13 April the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs had a briefing from We the Citizens. The results of the convention, when it has concluded, will be considered by the Government as a matter of discussion with other parties. Deputy Martin will be consulted. The details are well advanced and I hope to produce them soon.
While the details may be well advanced and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs has met We the Citizens, no one has met Members of this House who should be fundamental to any reconsideration of our Constitution. Why are such fundamental issues being discussed without any consultation with Members? It is unacceptable and wrong. There should be more proactive engagement with Members. Will the Taoiseach give a commitment that he will get the Chief Whip to organise effective consultations with Members on this convention?
Which Minister will be accountable to the House for the work of the convention? If it is to be truly democratic, as any reconsideration of the Constitution on such a wide basis should be, those directly elected by the people should be the first to be consulted.
I agree there has to be meaningful consultation. I do not see any way to bring about the type of political reform the Taoiseach has talked about unless meaningful consultation is a fundamental basis.
Did the Taoiseach consider giving the vote in presidential elections for Irish citizens outside of this State? On a matter which I have raised before with the Taoiseach, and which he has promised to consider, how truly national will this convention be? Will it include citizens from the Six Counties? Has any advance work or consultation been held on that?
The Dáil electoral system will be a matter for the convention which will include the possibility of people outside the jurisdiction being able to vote. At a meeting in Brussels before the last election, it was pointed out to me that more than 3,000 Irish people work in the European Commission, Parliament and other EU institutions. A simple amendment to the existing legislation would allow them to vote in the same way as diplomats can. That is a matter for the convention to consider under its review of the Dáil electoral system. Consideration will be given to the national reflection on this matter.
It will not be long before I bring these proposals to the House. It will be unlike the past when the House was disregarded. When the proposals are put together I will certainly discuss them with the leaders opposite. If they have suggestions to improve them, I will be very happy to hear them.
Yet, there will be no consultation.
There will be consultation. I will not set down proposals on which there will be no movement. Let us put the range together. I will be happy to take Deputy Martin's views and those of the other parties into account because we have to get this right.