Gerry Adams
Question:1 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the steps he has taken to continue the dialogue with churches and other faith communities begun by his predecessors; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23768/11]
Ceisteanna — Questions (Resumed)
Inter-Faith Dialogue
Micheál Martin
Question:2 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the work undertaken by him in recent months regarding the promotion of inter-faith dialogue. [26094/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:3 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the new initiatives he is planning for the next 12 months regarding the promotion of inter-faith dialogue. [26095/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
I advised the House on 11 May last of my intention to continue with the process of dialogue between Government and churches, faith communities and non-confessional organisations that was inaugurated in February 2007. On 19 May I had the opportunity to meet representatives of many of the partners in this dialogue to convey this interest directly.
I was very pleased to visit the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland in Clonskeagh on 3 September as the community continued their celebration of the Eid festival. It was a welcome opportunity to meet local and regional representatives, together with many families and community members. Both these encounters were important as foundations for the relationship the Government will build during its term of office, but our discussions were introductory and informal and consistent with the occasions. I hope to arrange further meetings soon with individual dialogue partners. The structure for dialogue will also include meetings at official and ministerial level. The agendas for those 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 functional responsibility. I am satisfied that the process of dialogue will develop in the years to come to be a very valuable support in dealing with issues of change in society, and I am confident that the opportunity to exchange perspectives and address issues of mutual concern in this way will be of great benefit to all the participants.
Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an díospóireacht seo. Tá sé an-thábhachtach. Ar ardaigh an Taoiseach ceist an Bethany Home le hEaglais na hÉireann? Did the Taoiseach raise the issue of Bethany Home with the Church of Ireland? Does the Government plan to revisit the existing redress scheme for survivors of abuse while in State institutions or other institutions run by religious orders to include the survivors of Bethany Home? I cannot understand why those survivors have been excluded from the redress scheme. I have written to the Minister for Justice and Equality on the issue and I raised it also with others. As the dialogue is ongoing, will the Taoiseach raise the issue, if he has not done so, with the Church of Ireland? In particular I urge him to open up the redress scheme to include the survivors of abuse in Bethany Home.
No, I did not raise it directly but I am aware that it is a matter of considerable interest. An agreed agenda will be put together before I deal with the church directly. This is a matter that I am quite prepared to put on the agenda and discuss with the church authorities. In my meeting with the Church of Ireland I did not have an opportunity to raise Bethany Home because of the nature of the discussion that took place on the day.
Could the Taoiseach provide clarity? The Government has ruled out thus far including the survivors of Bethany Home. I would like to see the Government including it, but thus far the Government has not. Could the Taoiseach give a reason they are not included?
The question of including Bethany Home within the scope of the redress scheme was originally considered in 2004 and was rejected by the Department of Education and Science as there was no evidence of a public body having a regulatory or inspection function.
In May 2007, the Department of Health and Children contacted that Department to advise that papers had come to light which indicated a State regulatory and inspection role. These papers related to its inspection under the Registration of Maternity Homes Act 1934. There was another reference on the papers held by the Department of Health and Children to "Bethany Mother and Baby Home". The Department concluded that as Bethany Home operated as a mother and baby home it was not eligible to be considered for inclusion in the redress scheme.
In October 2009, a former resident of Bethany Home drew the Department's attention to a notation on the maternity home's inspection report on the home in 1939 which stated that the home also operated as a children's home for those up to three years of age.
Deputy Costello of the Labour Party tabled a parliamentary question in December 2009 requesting the inclusion of Bethany Home in the redress scheme. In response, the Minister stated that the issue of including the home had been previously considered and it was decided that it should not be included. He advised that the Department was examining further information submitted to it in relation to the home together with a renewed request for its inclusion, and that the examination would be completed as soon as possible.
At the same time, there was a range of demands for the redress scheme to be extended to other categories such as psychiatric hospitals, Magdalene laundries, foster care, and mother and baby homes. While the possible inclusion of the Bethany Home could have been examined on the grounds that it operated as a children's home, other institutions such as psychiatric hospitals could equally have been considered and the Government decided against extending the redress scheme.
As the Taoiseach will be aware, minority religions have long seen their ability to offer schools, and particularly schools of their faiths, as central to protecting their existence in our country. They have been scared of the agenda, as announced by the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, of transferring 50% of schools away from religious patronage. Did this come up in discussions with the minority faiths? It has been an important issue in the continuing inter-faith dialogue. Did the Taoiseach give the churches he met any reassurance on that point in terms of religious patronage and their role in education, which they, particularly the minority religions, see as central in terms of protecting their faith?
No, but I can give Deputy Martin some information now.
The Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector was officially launched by the Minister for Education and Skills on 19 April this year. It is a key education objective of the programme for a national Government 2011-2016. In announcing the establishment of the forum on 28 March, the Minister stated that it would take a multidimensional approach involving consultations with the key education stakeholders, including parents. He appointed an advisory group to convene that forum to receive and look at the various views and perspectives of participants and to provide policy advice having regard to the terms of reference. The advisory group has to conduct a number of meetings and report back, obviously, having sought submissions from the public as part of its work. This was not a matter of any discussion at the meeting I had with it but when we meet the churches, this will be a matter of concern on both sides.
The Taoiseach answered the question at the end. I know the policy. I simply stated that it is a matter of concern to the minority churches and asked did the Taoiseach discuss it with them, and he stated he did not discuss it with them and did not offer reassurances.
Minority churches are equally concerned about and sensitive to changes in school staffing and school funding models, and they are worried about certain leaked proposals on class sizes and on funding generally. Was that discussed and did the Taoiseach give them any reassurances on those matters?
A series of statements was issued by each of the participants at that. This was the first such meeting we had and there was not any detailed discussion about any of that. Obviously, there was not the time at a first meeting in plenary session to do that. It merely set out a range and agenda that we would discuss at future meetings, setting out the prospectus of each of the individual participants in it.
I would expect that as the individual meetings take place, these matters will be explored in far greater detail.
What was discussed?
I can give Deputy Martin the information from each of the churches as to what they said in their contributions. They set out the dimensions of where they themselves stand and how they see the importance of this forum and the terms of reference that it set out.
As I pointed out in the reply earlier, it was never intended to override or supersede the normal workings of Government. It is an important element of consultation and an opportunity for Government and the churches and religious groups to interact on matters of importance and social change, some of which Deputy Martin mentioned.
Departmental Correspondence
Gerry Adams
Question:4 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has had any contact with or from the Vatican or the Catholic Church in Ireland regarding his statement in Dáil Éireann of the 20 July 2011 in relation to the Cloyne report. [23769/11]
As Deputy Adams will be aware, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade met the Papal Nuncio, Dr. Giuseppe Leanza, on 14 July 2011 to convey the consideration and concerns of the Government arising from the Cloyne report. The church authorities will also have noted the discussion in this House of the report on 20 July.
I have not had any contact with the church authorities in Ireland or the Holy See in the matter in the intervening period. The response of the Holy See to the Government, appropriately addressed to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, was received on 3 September.
I accept the testimony of Cardinal Sean Brady that the statement from the Holy See was "carefully prepared and respectfully presented." I acknowledge that the response, as described by the Cardinal, conveys the profound abhorrence of the Holy See for the crime of sexual abuse and its sorrow and shame for the terrible sufferings which the victims of abuse and their families have endured. I appreciate the acknowledgement by the Holy See that it is "sorry and ashamed" for the terrible suffering of victims of child abuse in Ireland and their families and the acceptance of "grave failures" over the handling of the child sex abuse scandal.
I am aware that many people were disappointed that elements of the argumentation advanced by the Holy See in its response were technical and legalistic, rather than focused exclusively to the Government's concerns about the welfare of children. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that the response from the Holy See is of value in coming to terms with the sad history of abuse and the inadequate handling of cases.
The Holy See has suggested that the way forward is through continuing dialogue and co-operation. The Government will insist on arrangements that ensure, as far as possible, the safety from abuse of children. With confidence, I require and expect to have the complete and unreserved co-operation of the church authorities and everyone in our society to that end.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Taoiseach fosta. Is the Taoiseach satisfied with the procedures and the attitudes now adopted by the Catholic hierarchy on compliance with the law?
I note last week the report In Plain Sight, which was published by Amnesty International and launched by the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, put the issue of the abuse of tens of thousands of Irish children in sharp focus. According to the report, children were tortured, brutalised, starved and abused in institutions run by the State and the Catholic hierarchy in what has been described as the greatest human rights failure in the history of the State. Ós rud é go bhfuil an tuairisc ar Cloyne ar fáil ó mhí Iúil, cén dul chun cinn atá déanta le páistí a chosaint? Given that this Amnesty International report follows on from the Cloyne report which was published in July last, what progress has been made in bringing forward statutory changes in procedures to ensure the protection of children?
Is dócha, ar dtús, go bhfuil an t-Aireacht Leanaí agus Gnóthaí Óige curtha i gcríoch. Tá sin críochnaithe agus tá an Roinn ag obair. Tá a fhios ag an Teachta Adams go bhfuil dlúth-cheangailt idir an Roinn Leanaí agus Gnóthaí Óige agus an Roinn Dlí agus Cirt agus Comhionannais ó thaobh na deacrachta seo. The Deputy is aware that the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, is working actively in her Department, which was established specifically to deal with children and youth affairs. The Department is working on the introduction of vetting legislation and the statutory implementation of the guidelines for children. It hopes to bring the children's advocacy groups together again to discuss the changes recommended by a previous Attorney General to the wording to be used in a potential referendum on children's rights. These are matters of absolute priority for the Minister. I do not doubt that she will be quite willing to answer any detailed questions Deputies may have about them. Although this question relates to the Cloyne report, I should say that I was also shocked by the Amnesty report, which is of considerable interest to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs.
The Taoiseach raised an issue in his speech on the Cloyne report. As Head of Government, the Taoiseach made specific points about the behaviour of a separate state. We have all gone on the record to criticise the response and record of the church on the abuse of children. When we make assertions, we have to be willing to do more than simply say we stand over them. The Taoiseach's spokesman said that the Taoiseach had no incident in mind when he claimed that the Vatican had hindered an investigation. The Taoiseach said at the time that another state had frustrated and hindered an investigation. When this claim was challenged by the Vatican, the Taoiseach or his spokesman said that the Taoiseach had been referring to a much earlier letter. The report itself does not suggest that the letter in question was used to frustrate its inquiries. Why have we been given two different explanations for the words used by the Taoiseach? Can the Taoiseach clarify the situation a bit more for us?
I recall very well standing here in my own humble way trying to reflect the anger and the deep sense of violation of the Irish people regarding what had happened. I make no apology for standing over the comments I made in the Dáil. This was a statutory inquiry into a specific set of allegations in the diocese of Cloyne. There should have been nothing less than full and comprehensive co-operation on the part of the church, as the organisation that was the sole subject of the inquiry. The level of church co-operation with the Murphy commission from the Vatican and locally appointed leadership was not acceptable. There is no doubt that the absence of full co-operation undermined the opportunity for the inquiry to get to the heart of the allegations. As I said in my reply to Deputy Adams, I respect the words used in Cardinal Brady's response and the profound abhorrence of the Holy See. I expect the church authorities and everybody else to work with the Government as it does its work in the interests of putting in place legal protection for all the children of this island. I hope that what has happened cannot happen again. Standards are being set out and work is being done by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. I hope that as a result, the Irish people will have an opportunity to vote in a referendum on children's rights that goes further in setting out the standards and principles we espouse in respect of all our children.
We all agree that the church and the Vatican, in particular, were not sufficiently proactive down through the years in response to the issue of child abuse and child sexual abuse, in particular. I established the Laffoy-Ryan commission to examine industrial schools. I established the Ferns inquiry, which revealed horrific abuse of children. The aspect of the Cloyne issue about which I am asking is the Taoiseach's assertion that another state frustrated or hindered an inquiry in this state. I am trying to ascertain the exact way in which it hindered or frustrated the inquiry. Was there a specific incident in mind? Was there a specific issue on which it actually tried to frustrate or hinder the inquiry? I am trying to ascertain the Taoiseach's basis for making that assertion.
In my contribution here, I did not refer to specific incidents. I said that there was less than full and comprehensive co-operation with the statutory inquiry into very serious allegations about child sexual abuse in the diocese of Cloyne and that it did not help the inquiry to get to the heart of the matter. Clearly, the desired level of co-operation from the Vatican and from local leadership was not available to the Murphy report. That upset me greatly.
Northern Ireland Issues
Gerry Adams
Question:5 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has had any contact with political leaders in the North since Dáil Éireann went into recess in July. [23771/11]
Joe Higgins
Question:6 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach his plans to meet with the political leaders in the North. [24428/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:7 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach his contacts with political leaders in Northern Ireland in the period since 21 July 2011. [24717/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:8 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has held any discussions with political leaders in Northern Ireland concerning any tribunal of inquiry. [24718/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:9 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach his planned visits to Northern Ireland up to the end of 2011. [24719/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 9, inclusive, together.
I last met the political leaders in the North at the plenary meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council which took place in Dublin on 5 July and on which I have reported to the House. I have not had any particular contact since 21 July. At an official level, contacts are ongoing with the Northern Ireland Executive and the British Government. A number of North-South Ministerial Council sectoral meetings have taken place since the recess. The sixth meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council in institutional format took place yesterday, 3 October. The Tánaiste is due to meet the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 6 October. I hope to visit Belfast in the period ahead, although a programme has not yet been put in place. I will travel to Armagh on 18 November to meet political leaders and attend the 11th plenary meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council. I have not held any discussions with political leaders in the North concerning any tribunal of inquiry.
What progress has been made on the sectoral meetings agreed at the plenary meeting in June? As we approach the date of the Presidential election at the end of this month, can I bring to the Taoiseach's attention the fact that Irish citizens in the North and in the diaspora are excluded from voting? Tá a fhios ag an Taoiseach go bhfuil suim ag a lán daoine 60 míle ón gcathair seo go mbeidís ábalta vóta a chaitheamh sa toghchán, ach níl an ceart sin acu go fóill. Does the Taoiseach agree that the extension of voting rights to all Irish citizens and passport holders would be a natural outworking of the Good Friday Agreement, which enshrines the right of the people of the North to Irish citizenship? Has the Taoiseach given any further consideration to extending the franchise for Presidential elections north of the Border? Perhaps that can be considered in the context of the upcoming planned constitutional convention.
B'fhéidir go bhfuil faitíos ar iarrthóir Sinn Féin nach bhfaighfidh sé sách vótaí thíos anseo. B'fhéidir go bhfuil an Teachta ag iarraidh a chinntiú go mbeidh vótálaithe sa Tuaisceart in ann vótáil thíos anseo.
An é sin an fáth nach ndearna an Rialtas é roimhe seo?
Níl a fhios agam an bhfuil sé sin ag cur isteach air, nó nach bhfuil. I have given some consideration to the Deputy's suggestion. It is right that the constitutional convention should consider this matter. I hope to announce the establishment of the convention after the Presidential election. Obviously, I will consult the Opposition leaders before doing so. It will then be a matter for the constitutional convention to consider and take hearings about the matter and a range of other issues that will fall within its legitimate remit, including the Presidential period of service.
Questions Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, are in my name. I might follow up on them separately. The Taoiseach has been in office for seven full months. He will appreciate that people want to know how he intends to lead on Northern Ireland. Thankfully, it has been a relatively quiet period when it comes to constitutional issues. This is an opportunity to drive change and policy forward. The lesson we consistently need to be aware of is that nothing can be taken for granted in relation to the North. The consistent position of the Irish Government has been that it sees itself, along with the British Government, as a guarantor of progress through the institutions established by the Good Friday Agreement. I ask the Taoiseach to comment on the assertion that it is not enough for institutions to be established and for politicians to hold positions without actually delivering for the people. It is a matter of regret that one of the failings of the Northern Ireland Executive is that it has not functioned very effectively in recent years.
I can recall, prior to the Hillsborough Agreement, that it was quite dysfunctional in terms of how it was operating as a collective Executive, in regard to circulating memos and papers to each other and so forth. In that context, does the Taoiseach agree it seems surprising that even the position of Deputy First Minister is one which can be put on hold for about two months?
When Mr. Peter Robinson stepped down as First Minister, we saw this caused a lot of inaction and drift for that period. Ministers in the Executive tend to come and go, almost on a yearly or two-yearly basis, which seems to be more about electoral advancement than actually doing things, whereas being in government means one has to do — one has to execute policy and deliver. It is a curious aspect of the Northern Ireland Executive that there tends to be the sense about it that people can come and go, and divert, whereas there is very serious work to do. This is almost the equivalent of the Taoiseach saying he is taking two months off because he wants to go off and campaign somewhere.
I do not mean that in any personal sense. It is a very real issue in terms of how the Northern Ireland Executive works. It has been one of the reasons there has been a lack of confidence in public opinion towards the institutions in the North. The medium to long-term damage emanating from this can actually undermine the edifice of the Good Friday Agreement itself if people are not careful with regard to the office, the institutions and the positions within the Executive. I make that point sincerely.
I do not disagree with that broad principle. The Deputy is well aware from his own experience of the incredible sensitivities of the discussions that took place over many years to bring about the Good Friday Agreement and to have an Assembly in place. When that final structure was being put together, nobody would have assumed that what has happened would happen. I know that when others might have considered leaving the Assembly or leaving Northern Ireland politics, they chose not to do so.
I share the Deputy's view that there is a fragility about the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement that requires strength, leadership and solidity. As I said, I do not disagree with the broad principle he has outlined, namely, when people are appointed under the d'Hondt system to these positions following the elections, they are generally expected to complete their remit and responsibilities, or, if they choose for some other reason to leave, they are free to do so.
Is the Taoiseach concerned, and has he had any discussions with Northern Ireland leaders or his British counterparts, with regard to the effects of the projected stg£4 billion in cuts outlined in the Northern Ireland budget at the beginning of this year? These are, from here on, designed to result in thousands of job losses in the public sector, on which the North is very dependent, as the Taoiseach knows, given the collapse of manufacturing over many decades and the serious effects on health and education.
In view of the fact there are already quite severe areas of disadvantage in working class communities in Northern Ireland in both Protestant and Catholic areas, and serious alienation of a certain cohort of youth in particular, is the Taoiseach concerned that these cuts will give rise to more unemployment, poverty and alienation, and are grist to the mill of dissident paramilitary organisations, whether on the republican or loyalist side, where young people seeing a dead end get diverted into these worse dead ends, with all the destruction that is involved? Will the Taoiseach make representations to the British Government on these issues and even to the leaders of the Assembly, who should be fighting them as well?
As Deputy Higgins pointed out, I have certainly noted the impact of budgetary policy in respect of Northern Ireland and the implications it is having. Clearly, it is a matter for the Executive in its dealings with the British Government. The Deputy is also aware of this House's interest in keeping alive the importance of foreign funding for social upkeep in Northern Ireland, of which we are very supportive. At the discussions on the North-South Ministerial Council, as happened in the past, we are supportive of contributing to the well-being and the support of issues that have a benefit both North and South.
It is not for me to interfere in the workings of the Executive and its relationship with the Chancellor in the Commons. Obviously, we have discussed the interest of the Northern Assembly and its constituent members in regard to taxation matters and the matter of employment and investment, North and South. However, as I said, it is a matter for the Executive how it does its business in respect of its budget.
It is a bit rich to hear a lecture on what is happening in the North. As the only Teachta Dála who was honoured to serve people in the Northern Assembly, let me say there is confidence in that institution and also in terms of the requirement to fulfil fully the Good Friday Agreement.
On the Government's plans to amalgamate the Equality Authority and the Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Commission is an essential part of the Good Friday Agreement and the Government will be in contravention of that agreement if it goes along that track. I was at Hillsborough, as was the leader of Fianna Fáil, when the then Taoiseach refused to raise the issue of Irish language rights with the Unionists.
That is not true. It is so untrue it is unbelievable. Why does the Deputy seek to tell such untruths?
It is absolutely true and the Deputy knows that. He should look at the public record.
Easy, lads.
He only raised it in the afternoon, after we confronted him and the British in an off-room. Deputy Martin must know that.
I know as I was involved in negotiating it.
On the other issue of the bill of rights——
Can we have a question, please?
Is it not more in keeping with the Government's responsibilities that it should uphold all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement? I am particularly drawn to this issue of amalgamating the Equality Authority and the Human Rights Commission.
I did not say that there was not confidence in the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is entirely a matter for the people of the North who they elect to their Assembly. I understand the point being made by Deputy Martin is that, when the Assembly was set up, it was not envisaged that people could leave for a while and come back again. I do not disagree with that broad principle which he set out.
In respect of the Human Rights Commission, that matter was a specific part of the Good Friday Agreement and it was cleared up and accepted by the Northern Assembly and the Ministers in respect of the amalgamation here of the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority, and for very good reason, as was explained by the Minister for Justice and Equality in co-operation with both the Equality Authority and the Human Rights Commission. I had the opportunity to address both organisations in a fitting assembly close to Leinster House recently, where members of both organisations set out on a new agenda. That is perfectly acceptable and, in fact, the Human Rights Commission, as was, which had been diminished in its capacity to do its work, is now strengthened by the addition of the Equality Authority. It is accepted as a continuation in a stronger way from this jurisdiction.
What always struck me in terms of language and cultural issues was that it was successive Irish Governments, with the British Government, that actually delivered for the Irish language in the North, not any party. It amazed me that Sinn Féin always allowed a Unionist become the Minister with responsibility for culture and language and then complained about lack of delivery on the language in the North. I could never quite understand that one.
This is Question Time.
They would then come around the scrum to get the Irish Government to put the word in to get another €10 million for the language.
They get mixed up sometimes.
The review of the work of cross-Border bodies and the examination of new proposals was a core part of the St. Andrew's Agreement. We have now had the general election and the Assembly elections. Will the Taoiseach provide an update on the publication of the review? Will he agree to continue the policy of seeking to expand the scope and reach of these cross-Border bodies? A review has continued for ages; publication has been stalled and so on.
The Taoiseach has stated he made no call to any Northern leader before announcing changes to the Smithwick tribunal. This caused much concern at the time regarding the Government's approach and commitment to the objectivity and independence of the tribunal which is very important in terms of confidence within the Unionist community. The Taoiseach has also stated he has held no further discussions with any political opinion in Northern Ireland in that regard. People need reassurance in respect of the tribunal being allowed to finish its work without hindrance or interference. It is a vital issue in terms of Unionist perception of the South and how we in the Republic conduct our inquiries and so on.
Yes, I can give the Deputy that assurance. On 1 June the Dáil passed a resolution amending the terms of reference of the Smithwick tribunal to require it to provide an interim report for the Clerk of the Dáil not later than 30 June 2011 and to present its final report to the Clerk of the Dáil not later than 30 November 2011. Mr. Justice Smithwick had previously indicated to the Minister for Justice and Equality that the tribunal would be able to conclude its work in the timescale established in the amended terms of reference. The Minister emphasised in his statement to the Dáil that if for any unforeseen reason, the chairman found he could not conclude his inquiries and report by 30 November, he could report that matter and the Oireachtas could consider it further. It also was made clear that the Government's response would be fully cognisant of and consistent with the need for the tribunal to fulfil its obligations fully and as expeditiously as possible. I understand the Minister spoke with the Northern Ireland First Minister, Mr. Peter Robinson, and the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice, Mr. David Ford, to inform them of the content of his speech in the Dáil on the Smithwick tribunal and the motion passed. As the Deputy is aware, the tribunal is conducting public hearings. He has my assurance that there will be absolutely no interference — nor should or could there be — with the chairman in his dealings with the tribunal. As I stated, if for some unforeseen reason, he is unable to conclude the hearings within the timescale set out, he can report the matter and the House will consider it further.
The rights of people in the North in respect of the Irish language are important. However, far more pressing at this time in working-class communities is the massive crisis with regard to jobs, the beckoning health and education cuts and the sectarian division that, unfortunately, still underlines society in the North. As a representative of a political tendency that historically has opposed both British imperialism and paramilitarism of all kinds, I am seriously concerned that the intensification of the economic crisis, leading to greater poverty and the alienation that goes with it in the North, poses a threat to the possibility of society advancing and ordinary people in the North having the decent society and life they deserve. I put it to the Taoiseach that, unfortunately, while Members welcomed the end of the insane paramilitarism on all sides and recognise that British imperialism and capitalism are in crisis and do not really have a solution to offer, the institutionalisation of sectarian division which is the reality of the structures put in place on foot of the Good Friday Agreement has fault lines and that such fault lines can be badly exposed if the economic crisis, poverty, alienation, unemployment and cuts to services are intensified. Therefore, in the interests of ensuring a decent future and overcoming the problems of sectarian division, I suggest to the Taoiseach that it is critical that these issues be addressed. I note his own Government does not give good example in leading a massive barrage of cuts here.
The Deputy should stay in Northern Ireland for the moment. We will get back to the other one later.
It really is up to ordinary people, the trade union movement and others in the North to stand up and fight against the cuts being implemented, whether from London or the Assembly.
For once I agree with the Deputy on the impact serious cutbacks can have on any area of society, particularly one in which people are under pressure. That is the reason I have had some involvement with them, albeit not as much as I would like. I hope that when I get the opportunity to travel to Belfast in the near future, I will be able to have a look at a number of issues there. However, this is the reason the Government has been highly supportive of the continuation of funding from both the European Union and the United States. It is also the reason the Government was happy to support the expansion of health services at Altnagelvin hospital in Derry and is happy to support, where appropriate, infrastructural projects that benefit both sides.
In addition, there is a number of strong examples in which a community gets involved with young people in particular, especially young males who might be tempted to take the wrong direction in life, and makes whatever impact it can. We have raised elements of this issue, as always happens between North-South ministerial colleagues, and in so far as we can encourage and assist in any way, we will be happy to so do. However, as I noted to Deputies Adams and Martin, it is a matter for the Executive to decide how it conducts its negotiations with Britain. In so far as general support is concerned, I understand the issues of depression and pressure, as well as, unfortunately, the tragic impact of suicide in a number of locations in the North where disillusionment and an absence of hope have reigned too long.
I call Deputy Adams to ask a final supplementary, as we want to move on.
There will be a huge cead míle fáilte for the Taoiseach when he visits Belfast. We are very fond of County Mayo and if he gives me notice, we might arrange for him to visit Michael Davitt GAC which is a fine hurling club. However, he stated — perhaps the leader of Fianna Fáil said the same thing — it was not foreseen that a member of the Executive could leave and then return. Clearly, he was talking about Mr. Peter Robinson, the only person to have done this. All Members respect this as in his dire and hugely difficult family circumstances, this was the appropriate and right thing for him to do. As a matter of eolas or information to the Taoiseach and the leader of Fianna Fáil in respect of the only other person to do so, Mr. Martin McGuinness, his temporary replacement, Mr. John O'Dowd, has been praised by other Unionist Ministers for the way in which he is handling his brief. Moreover, the Taoiseach will be aware that on foot of the help his Ministers are giving to Mr. McGuinness, perhaps he might not be obliged to return.
I do not now whether that was listed as one of the questions.
Does this mean Deputy Adams is prepared to acknowledge that a wrong choice was made and that when the person he mentioned returns to Northern Ireland, he will not have a job at all?
We will move on to Question No. 10.
The Taoiseach is being presumptuous as the election is not over yet.
I did not get much of a reply to Question No. 9.
In Question No. 9 the Deputy asked whether the Taoiseach was planning visits to Northern Ireland and he has just told the Deputy that he intends to go there. We want to move on as only 17 minutes remain and 40 questions to the Taoiseach were tabled. I am anxious to try to facilitate all the Deputies present as we could spend all day on this issue. Does the Deputy have a quick supplementary?
No, that is fine.
Official Engagements
Joe Higgins
Question:10 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach his contacts with the British Prime Minister since Dáil Éireann rose on 22 July 2011. [24423/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:11 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the contacts he has had with the British Prime Minister since Dáil Éireann went into recess in July 2011. [26093/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 11 together.
As Members will be aware, I had bilateral meetings with the Prime Minister in London on 18 April and in Dublin on 18 May during the Queen's visit, as well as meeting him at European Council meetings. I also spoke with the Prime Minister prior to the British-Irish Council meeting that took place in London on 20 June. We have had no direct contact since Dáil Éireann rose on 22 July.
I expect to next see the Prime Minister at the European Council meeting on 17 and 18 October. We have agreed to keep in close touch on a regular basis on bilateral matters and matters relating to Northern Ireland. I spoke briefly to the British Deputy Prime Minister at the European Union Eastern Partnership summit in Warsaw last Friday.
Has the Taoiseach had any discussions with the British Prime Minister on the plight of the Travelling people in Dale Farm in England? These people, who are either Irish or English-born Irish Travellers, are facing extreme difficulties, including the threat of possible imminent eviction from the homes where many of them have been for a long time. The Travelling people in England face many of the same problems they have traditionally faced here in discrimination and in particular difficulty in finding suitable locations to reside and educate their children etc. Has the Taoiseach made any representations on their behalf for proper accommodation and that their civil human rights would be respected?
No, I have not had any discussions with the British Prime Minister about this. I understand that is a pretty complex case in which litigation is still ongoing. Personally I have not made any representations about it, but I have obviously read some of the reports and seen some of the news headlines about what appears to be a very complicated issue.
When did the Taoiseach last raise with the British Prime Minister the issue of the British Government's failure to co-operate fully with the inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings? Has he brought to the Prime Minister's attention the resolution passed here in May? Mar dhéan cad é an freagra a fuair sé?
On a number of occasions I have raised the issue of funding for Justice for the Forgotten, which has been working with victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Thus far it is not in receipt of funding from the Government. Can that be rectified?
I raised the question of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings when I met the British Prime Minister in April and again when I met him on the occasion of the state visit here by Queen Elizabeth II. Obviously everybody recognises the sensitivity of this, including all of the issues surrounding the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, without getting into endless open-ended inquiries. A recent Dáil motion acknowledged that we are approaching this task in the context of transformed relations on this island and between Ireland and Britain. We still have many sensitive issues to deal with towards finding a resolution. However, as the Deputy knows, we do so on the basis of partnership in a very different way.
There were two significant and lengthy inquiries by the judges, the Hamilton and Barron inquiries, thorough examination by an Oireachtas committee and a full commission of investigation conducted by Patrick MacEntee. I understand the cost of the Barron inquiry came to €3.5 million and the total cost of the MacEntee commission was €2.6 million. There were very significant and lengthy inquiries by those two gentlemen. The Pat Finucane case also arose in the context of my discussions with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron. I understand the British Government is continuing to consider how this matter might be resolved. I have not had any communication with Britain since then.
The question was about the contacts the Taoiseach has had with the British Prime Minister "since Dáil Éireann went into recess in July 2011". However, he never answered that question, with respect.
What is the question again?
What contacts has the Taoiseach had concerning the Dublin and Monaghan bombings? Has he raised the issue since we went into recess in July? I also asked about funding for Justice for the Forgotten, which he also did not answer.
I raised the question of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings with the British Prime Minister in April and again when I met him on the occasion of the state visit of Queen Elizabeth II. I have not had any communications or raised it with him since the House went into recess.
What about funding for Justice for the Forgotten?
I will let the Deputy know the up-to-date position on that.
It would be a cause of some surprise that since those meetings in May there has been no follow-up or pursuit of the issue of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. When the Taoiseach was questioned in the House on that occasion he said he remained committed to doing something on the issue. Clearly it has not been raised since then with the British Government. Given that members of the Government are currently talking about atrocities over the years of the Northern Troubles and all the violence on the island of Ireland, surely this is an issue that should be of equal concern to the Government and Ministers. I agree that people should be open and honest about what they did during the years of violence, but I respectfully suggest the Government cannot have it both ways. Is it not time to stop equivocating on the issue and to meet the British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, and tell him that covering up files concerning the worst atrocities of the Troubles — it must be remembered that the Dublin and Monaghan bombings were the worst of all of them even though there were some terrible atrocities all around — goes directly against the spirit of the peace process? I ask the Taoiseach to put that to the British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, in terms of the impact of this on the victims and also in terms of confidence within the broader peace process.
Do I take it from the Taoiseach's reply that he has had no discussion since May with the British Prime Minister on the eurozone crisis?
The Deputy is correct in his last question. I have not had any discussions with him since I last met him.
I agree in respect of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. When I was sitting where the Deputy is now sitting, I raised the issue many times with the former taoisigh, Mr. Ahern and Mr. Cowen. On each occasion the response was that the British Government would consider the matter. I got the same reply when I raised it directly with the British Prime Minister. It is an issue for all of us here. I do not want to get into a long series of endless inquiries, but it is an issue I will continue to raise and I will report to the House on a follow-up from the last time I raised it. Obviously when I do it again, I will be happy to come back and give the Deputy the up-to-date position.
Joe Higgins
Question:12 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach the foreign leaders he will meet here up to the end of 2011. [24426/11]
Joe Higgins
Question:13 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach the official visits abroad he has planned up to the end of 2011. [24427/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:14 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding his proposed programme of bilateral visits to other countries during the next six months. [24706/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:15 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding which international leaders he will host for bilateral meetings in the next six months. [24707/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:16 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will detail arrangements he has made to participate on trade missions during the next 12 months. [24713/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:17 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach his plans to meet foreign leaders between now and the end of 2011. [26088/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:18 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach his plans for official visits abroad between now and the end of 2011. [26089/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 to 18, inclusive, together.
I attended the Eastern Partnership summit in Warsaw on 29 and 30 September. I had bilateral meetings on the margins of the meeting with the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte; Chancellor Faymann of Austria; the Prime Minister of Finland, Jyrki Katainen; President Yanukovych of the Ukraine; the Prime Minister of Moldova, Vlad Filat; and President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia. I also spoke informally with several other EU leaders.
I will also attend the British-Irish Council in Dublin in November, and the European Councils in Brussels on 17 and 18 October and 9 December. I hope to be in a position to travel to China later this year, subject of course to final agreement with the Chinese authorities. Other arrangements, including for meetings with key European partners, are being prepared and will continue to be based on assessment of strategic priorities and dates. I will continue to keep the House informed.
When the Taoiseach next meets the leadership of the European Union on 17 and 18 October and on 9 December, given his election pledge to the people, does he intend to resume to seek a significant cut in the amounts of bad debts that are to be repaid to the European bondholders, bankers and speculators who gambled so wildly on Irish property or given that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, capitulated to the president of the ECB, Mr. Trichet, in Poland two weeks ago, has he now given up on that promise and therefore negated what he said in his opening speech on the day the new Dáil first met with regard to sharing the burden and so on? When the Taoiseach meets the likes of Council President Van Rompuy, Commission President Barroso and ECB President Trichet in the next few weeks, will he demand an explanation for their insistence that the Irish people carry tens of billions of euro on their backs for private European institutions? I would like him to ask that question on my behalf, as a representative of the Irish people and taxpayers. How can he sit at meetings with these people, who are blackmailing the Irish people, demanding that they be gouged for up to €60 billion, their services and living standards cut, the future of their children put at risk by being forced out of this country, in order to pay off private profit-seeking institutions in Europe? Does the Taoiseach find that revolting?
I do not find it revolting. The Deputy's salary is paid by the decision of these people and the European Central Bank. We do not control the ECB, although our governor attends its meetings. The 17 eurozone governments obviously each have very different views about how individual countries operate their economies. From those with triple A status down along the line, there are very different views. The leaders of which the Deputy speaks were the leaders who made the political decision to bring in the EFSF, and consequently followed through with the decision, which was in part put on the table by Ireland, that there be no margins for funding, which has meant a substantial saving for the Irish taxpayer here.
We have pointed out recently the impact of the discussions between the Minister for Finance and Mr. Trichet about writing down debt against senior bondholders in Anglo Irish Bank, which might result in a saving of €100 million. The Minister for Finance made it perfectly clear that if it were possible to do something in respect of the promissory note over a longer period, the savings would be of a very substantial nature to the Irish taxpayer.
I do not find it revolting to sit at meetings with leaders who are democratically elected by the people in their countries and who make decisions there about the European Union, of which Ireland is a central player. At this meeting, I spoke to President Barroso, Mr. Van Rompuy, the special representative, Ms Catherine Ashton, the Prime Minister of Poland, the German Chancellor and a number of other leaders who were present. In so far as Ireland is concerned, we will continue to point our country in the direction it is now headed, which is one of increasing confidence, with an injection of equity into our banks and an inflow of deposits. These represent a sign of confidence, although I recognise we have a long way to go and have some difficult decisions to make. We will continue to work with our European partners to ensure Europe gets back to where it should be, which is right up there at the top.
Does the Taoiseach agree that it is surprising that he has gone seven months without a substantive bilateral meeting with a eurozone leader? At the start of April, the Government announced it would be holding a series of these meetings. In April, the Tánaiste announced he would be undertaking a series of bilateral meetings with his foreign ministerial counterparts, and that in turn, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance would engage with Heads of State and other finance ministers. The Tánaiste has had a few such meetings, as has the Minister for Finance, but the Taoiseach has not done so. He told Members he had no intention of either phoning or meeting anyone before the July summit. Given how central the leaders are to this crisis, can he explain why he has taken this approach?
Is the Taoiseach planning to meet the new head of the ECB, Mr. Mario Draghi, on the euro crisis?
In answer to the Deputy's question, I am interested in results, and the savings to the Irish taxpayer as a consequence of the interest rate reductions have been substantial. I do not dictate the schedules for other European leaders, no more than they dictate ours.
I had a bilateral meeting with the Finnish Prime Minister, which is a triple A rated country. Finland had inserted a clause in July that its participation in the EFSF would result in a requirement for collateral to be made available to that country. This was a source of considerable difficulty for other countries, but the matter has now been resolved. I spoke at length to the Finnish Prime Minister about that, and one of the issues we discussed was Finland's interest in looking at the global economy next year, the possibility of a downturn in the Finnish economy, and the production of a competitiveness index for the European Union and the eurozone. I pointed out to him the reduction in unit labour costs here, the increase in our competitiveness and the decisions taken by the Government that impact on that. We both agreed on the potential of the Single Market and the opportunity provided to European countries to market their goods.
The Dutch Prime Minister's view in July was for a charge to be levied against countries that avail of EFSF funding. That matter has been dealt with technically and it has all been sorted out. I also discussed the future with the Austrian Prime Minister. As a triple A rated country, the Austrians were anxious to hear about the decisions Ireland has been making and the consequent progress that has been made.
I have been in touch with Chancellor Merkel's office on a couple of occasions. I expect we will be able to arrange a formal bilateral meeting of substance. I cannot confirm the date yet, because it depends on schedules here and there, as well as with the——
There was no problem with the schedule during the election.
——French President. The Deputy's own schedule for the election was everywhere.
Ignore the side comments, please. We are over time.
It was arranged very rapidly during the election. That was very noticeable.
I do not determine the schedule for the German Chancellor, but she had a very substantial vote in her favour in the Bundestag last week in respect of the EFSF, and that is significant. I will let the Deputy know when the meeting is agreed, as I will for any other formal bilateral meeting. The French President invited me to go to Paris, following the last meeting in Brussels, and we are in contact about that. I will let the House know whenever they take place.