Joe Higgins
Question:1 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent contacts with trade union and employers bodies. [24430/11]
Ceisteanna — Questions (Resumed)
Social Partnership
Gerry Adams
Question:2 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the recent contact he has had with the social partners. [26090/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:3 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has in place within his Department any formal mechanism for holding consultations with social partners; and if he is satisfied with any such arrangement. [28459/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:4 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has held any recent consultation with trade unions, employer organisations or other social partners. [28460/11]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
I addressed the IBEC president's dinner on 22 June and met with representatives of IBEC on 20 July. I addressed the IBEC HR leadership summit last week. I spoke at the biennial conference of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, on 4 July and met with officials from ICTU on 28 June, in advance of that conference.
At my meetings with employer and trade union representatives I outlined the Government's approach to restoring economic and fiscal stability and the importance of the jobs agenda, which is at the heart of our programme. Our discussions also covered a broad range of issues of mutual concern.
I met representatives of the Irish Farmers Association on 12 July last and also met members of the wider farming community at the National Ploughing Championships on 22 September. I met representatives of all the social partnership organisations, including the environmental pillar and the community and voluntary pillar, when I addressed the inaugural meeting of the new National Economic and Social Council on 17 June.
In all of these engagements I confirmed my intention to follow up these meetings as part of a wider process of social dialogue. In particular, I anticipate meeting some of the social partners, along with the Tánaiste, in November. I also envisage an enhanced role for the National Economic and Social Council, as a vehicle for dialogue on the economic, social and environmental challenges facing the country.
I look forward to future contacts with the social partners as part of the Government's efforts to ensure economic and social recovery.
I put it to the Taoiseach that it is a sham to pretend there is such a thing as ongoing partnership between the Government and the trade union movement in current circumstances, when the Government accedes to the diktats of the EU, IMF and ECB with regard to a range of issues which have detrimental effects on the lives and living standards of working people, including those represented by trade unions, and when the Government unilaterally decides to hammer pension rights and wages and privatise semi-State bodies to pay off speculating bondholders and bankers. Can the Taoiseach say there is, in any sense, a dialogue between the Government and the representatives of workers, when all these decisions are made and imposed?
It is not a sham. We have completed all the conditions that were signed on for in respect of the troika. We have resisted efforts by the troika to move in particular directions and have renegotiated elements of the programme. I made it clear to the social partners that we will not be returning to the social partnership model as applied previously but that there is a clear line of communication between employers and trade unions and the Government. The Tánaiste outlined this very clearly at the SIPTU conference last week. We have made that clear to employers and trade unions — the social partners, as were — and we intend to adhere to that.
There is no sham, other than to say the Government is open to engagement with the different groups and to hearing their proposals on a regular basis. They understand that and we will continue to operate in that manner.
In his meetings with the employers and trade union leaders did the Taoiseach discuss the joint labour committees, JLCs? I appreciate the fact that the Government did not oppose the Sinn Féin Bill relating to the joint labour committees last Friday. Tá Sinn Féin ag tabhairt amach, agus an ceart againn, go bhfuil an Rialtas an-tapaidh chun reachtaíocht a bhrú tríd an Oireachtas ar son an EU agus an IMF, ach tá sé i bhfad níos moille maidir le reachtaíocht chun cearta na n-oibritheoirí a chosaint.
What steps has the Government taken to ensure that the 180,000 employees who were abandoned by the JLC High Court judgment in July are to be protected?
The principal measures will include the following. The number of JLCs will be reduced from 13 to six. JLCs will have the power only to set a basic adult rate and two higher increments to reflect longer periods of service. JLCs will no longer set Sunday premium rates or any other conditions of employment covered by universal standards provided for in existing legislation, but the special position of Sunday working will still be recognised. Companies will be able to derogate from employment regulation orders, EROs, in case of financial difficulty. In setting rates, JLCs will have to take into account factors such as unemployment rates, competitiveness and wage trends here and in our major trading partners. Record-keeping requirements for employers in these sectors will be reduced. The constitutionality of EROs will be restored through inclusion of robust principles and policies. The arrangements and critera applying to the registration, variation and cancellation of registered employment agreements will be made more secure, from a constitutional perspective.
The heads of a Bill to give effect to the reform proposals are being prepared by the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. They have been agreed by Government and communicated to the Attorney General, who has agreed to give the highest priority to drafting this legislation. It is the Minister's intention to have a Bill ready to introduce to the Oireachtas at the earliest possible opportunity.
Can the Taoiseach explain why the Tánaiste, rather than himself, announced Government policy on this issue? At the SIPTU conference, the Tánaiste spoke of structured dialogue to be announced in the next month and which would begin with social partners. In the Taoiseach's reply, there was a studied avoidance of any phrase relating to a formal mechanism, which I asked about in Question No. 3, or to a structured dialogue. The Croke Park agreement is at the heart of social partnership, was a product of its dynamic and was an important part of securing some of the substantial agreements relating to the public finances in the last number of years. While facilitating social partners and articulating their views forcibly, either in meetings or on the streets, it generated a consensus around the necessity to take very strong decisions regarding the public finances and in achieving progress on that front.
The Taoiseach says he is not returning to social partnership in any formal sense. He needs to be very clear about that. He used the phrase, "We will not be returning to the social partnership model as applied previously" but we do not know what that means. How can hard negotiations or any sequel to the Croke Park agreement, in terms of its efficacy in the overall debate on the public finances, begin? On the joint labour committees, a Bill published by Fianna Fáil was debated in this House prior to the summer recess. Sinn Féin also published a Bill on the matter and the Government is soon to publish a Bill on it.
Questions, please.
The Taoiseach, in his remarks today, has officially confirmed the Labour Party's acquiescence to a worsening of the conditions for the lower paid.
Perhaps the Deputy did not hear me clearly. I said we were not returning to the social partnership model which previously existed, which was wasteful from the perspective of time and so on. Communication lines between the Government and those previously involved in social partnership, including employers, trade unions and other groups, are open. I explained that to all of them individually and again when we met with the National Economic and Social Forum, NESC.
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and I met with the Croke Park implementation body last June, at which time we pointed out the necessity to implement the conditions of Croke Park as fully and expeditiously as possible in order that the conditions signed on for in respect of the troika could be adhered to. The Tánaiste made his remarks last week in the context of an address to SIPTU. I spoke to him prior to the SIPTU conference and agreed the process of dialogue and communication with those who were previously members of the social partnership. There is nothing mysterious about that. The Tánaiste took the opportunity of addressing the delegates at the SIPTU conference to spell out that the lines of communication would be open to them and others who were previously involved in the social partnership programme, which was good, relevant and opportune. As is required, that communication facility is available to them.
Can I——
I will come back to the Deputy. I call Deputy Higgins.
The Taoiseach stated that trade union leaders are available for consultation. Is it not the case that they are available to be dictated to?
We are on Question Time and the Deputy must ask questions.
Unfortunately, they are allowing themselves to be dictated to at great cost to their members who suffer the consequences of the austerity being imposed by Government.
How can the Taoiseach say the Government is open to real dialogue with the trade union movement when, for example, members of the INMO and SIPTU were forced to take strike action against grotesque overcrowding and danger to patients at the Mid-Western Regional Hospital, Limerick? These nurses did so not for an advancement in wages but in the interests of safe working practices. Does the Taoiseach see a contradiction between the fine platitudes he has just spoken and the reality that trade union members, who are trying to provide services, are facing on the ground as a result of Government policies?
I do not deal in dictatorship. Government will work with the different groups on the decisions it will have to make in the interests of our country and people.
Nurses at the Mid-Western Regional Hospital, Limerick did not go on strike: they protested vehemently at overcrowding. The Deputy will be aware that this situation has been allowed to fester in a number of areas for quite some time. The special delivery unit established by the Minister for Health has visited a number of hospitals throughout the country to examine efficiency of management and competency to deal with situations such as this. I am aware that nurses will visit the Dáil tomorrow and intend to hand in a letter to the Minister for Health. I do not accept the Deputy's assertion that the lines of communication between Government and trade unions and workers are not open. This is not a case of Government being closed off in some room. We are facing the reality of a range of very challenging problems with which we intend to deal and to do so in as fair a manner as is possible in the interests of everyone.
In response to the questions from Deputies Martin, Adams and Higgins, the communication avenues to this Government are open to those who are members of trade unions and workers who are feeling the pinch, as they are to employers, business people and other social groups. That will continue to be the case. As decisions are made by Government, people will be consulted and fully informed.
Chuir mé dhá cheist ar an Taoiseach ach ní bhfuair mé ach freagra amháin. Perhaps the answer to that question will give a sense of the quality of the dialogue with the trade union leaders. Did the Taoiseach discuss the JLC issue with the trade union leaders when he met them?
Yes. I pointed out that the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation was doing as required to do, namely, to consult in respect of the drafting of legislation arising from the court judgment. I have outlined for Deputy Adams the issues that will be pertinent to that legislation, in respect of which the heads of Bill have been approved by Government. We are awaiting presentation of the final Bill by the Minister and hope it can be brought before the House as quickly as possible.
That was not my question.
The answer to the Deputy's question is, "Yes, it was discussed". The requirement and responsibility of the Minister to consult about this with the groups was met. The legislation will be brought before the House as quickly as possible.
I would appreciate some clarity on what will happen in terms of the relationship between the social partners and Government. The Tánaiste spoke about structured dialogue but the Taoiseach has avoided any reference to structured dialogue. Perhaps the Taoiseach will clarify what is meant by "structured dialogue" with the social partners.
It is dialogue that is structured.
One expects that the communication channels will remain open. No one is suggesting they should ever be closed. There is no big deal in communication avenues or channels between Government and the social partners being open. What will be the process of engagement, if there is to be any between the social partners and Government? The Taoiseach needs to let us know that one way or the other.
The Taoiseach referenced in his earlier reply that the Tánaiste's comments were made in the context of his address to SIPTU. Was it a sop to SIPTU or a sop to the Tánaiste? One gets the impression that the Fine Gael side of this Government wants nothing more to do with social partnership. The Labour Party has a more nuanced view in this regard, which is the reason for all this verbiage and lack of clarity in regard to the nature of the relationship or how the process of engagement is to be structured.
There is nothing like the new politics.
There is no lack of clarity about this. The Tánaiste, when speaking at the SIPTU conference, outlined the nature of the dialogue that will take place. Commencing in November, the Government will invite lead social partner organisations to bilateral meetings. That is clear. These meetings will involve senior Government Ministers, including the Tánaiste, other Ministers and myself. Our intention is that these meetings will take place on a regular and period basis, focusing on matters of current concern. For instance, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform will lead the discussions on public sector management and implementation of the Croke Park agreement while the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation will lead on issues to do with employment regulation. That, too, is clear.
In addition, to develop a strong role for the social partners in finding solutions to common problems, we will re-engage the National Economic and Social Council. I, as Taoiseach, and the Tánaiste will undertake to attend a plenary session of the council each year. We do not seek consensus for its own sake. We must learn from past failures of social partnership, including the need to respect the role of the Oireachtas and the role of Government. Given the scale of our difficulties and the challenges facing our country, we must work together in the interests of the country and our people. That is the structure of the process in which we will engage.
It could not be clearer. I will be happy to debate issues that emerge during the bilateral meetings and the outcomes of the plenary session of the National Economic and Social Council, NESC.
Will the Taoiseach agree there have always been bilateral discussions between Ministers, trade unions and employers?
Yes, and we intend to continue that process.
Attending a plenary session of NESC is hardly earth-shattering.
It is not meant to be earth-shattering. However, we are not going to waste time in the fashion done before in which there were endless meetings with nothing coming out of them. In these cases, there will be bilateral meetings with fixed and focused agendas. The dialogue between the social groups, myself, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and lead Ministers will deal with current issues that are important.
All will be in safe hands.
I have no doubt of that.
There will be no verbiage anyway.
Ministerial Staff
Micheál Martin
Question:5 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will provide details of the cost to him, including salaries, relating to supporting him and Ministers of State in their constituency work during the 100 days following his appointment. [24712/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:6 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the number of persons employed in his private office and in his constituency office; the salary paid to each person; and if he will provide a breakdown of the responsibilities of each person. [28192/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 6 together.
There are 11 staff working in my private office. Eight of these staff are civil servants, two are my personal assistants and one is my personal secretary.
There are five staff working in my constituency office. Three are based in Government Buildings, one of whom is a civil servant, while two are based in Castlebar.
There are three staff working in the Chief Whip's constituency office, one of whom is a civil servant based in Dublin, while the other two are based in Enniscorthy.
The staff working in the constituency office of the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, which is based in my Department, are paid for by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The staff consist of one personal secretary and two clerical officers.
The cost of supporting constituency offices for my Department during the first 100 days following my appointment is approximately €134,000. This comprises salary costs of €122,884, postal and telecommunications costs of €1,544, office equipment and supplies costing €8,320 and travel and subsistence costs of approximately €1,000.
In comparison with the last Administration and its 2009 figures, there are now seven fewer staff working in the private offices and constituency offices of my Department. This also represents a 26.7% reduction in costs.
The staff of my private office, which includes civil servants and personal assistants, provide ongoing administrative support to me across the whole range of my functions. The five staff in my constituency office are responsible for dealing with any constituency matters and correspondence.
The following table provides details of the numbers employed and salary levels in my private and constituency offices
|
Number |
Grade |
Pay |
|
Private Office |
||
|
1 |
Private Secretary (HEO) |
€46,426 to €57,251 |
|
1 |
Assistant Private Secretary (HEO) |
€43,816 to €55,417 |
|
1 |
Assistant Private Secretary (EO) |
€29,024 to €45,616 |
|
4 |
Clerical Officers |
€23,177 to €37,341 |
|
1 |
Clerical Officer |
€22,015 to €35,515 |
|
1 |
Personal Assistant |
€75,390 |
|
1 |
Personal Assistant |
€64,750 |
|
1 |
Personal Secretary |
€40,233 |
|
Constituency Office |
||
|
1 |
Executive Officer |
€29,024 to €45,616 |
|
1 |
Personal Assistant |
€64,257 |
|
1 |
Personal Assistant |
€64,257 |
|
1 |
Personal Assistant |
€66,519 |
|
1 |
Personal Secretary |
€40,233 |
Note: Some of the civil servants working in my private office receive allowances in addition to their basic salaries in accordance with normal Civil Service rules.
On 23 February 2011, two days before the general election, the Taoiseach claimed Ireland could not afford Ministers to be doing constituency work in their first 100 days in office and that he would ban them from doing so if elected. There was no small print or qualification to this claim. Characteristically, the Taoiseach patted himself on the back for making such a bold promise.
We now learn from several parliamentary questions that the Taoiseach never had any intention of carrying out this commitment. On taking office, he and his Ministers immediately hired over 60 people to do constituency work, spending approximately €750,000 in their first 100 days.
Can we have a question, please?
They were already there when we took office. We actually reduced the numbers.
If the Ministers of State are included in this, over €1 million has been spent.
Without using his usual tactic of talking about everything other than what he has been asked, will the Taoiseach explain why he made this promise and then abandoned it days after coming to office?
This is a case of changing the culture of what went on before. For Deputy Martin's information, I have spent very little time in my constituency office in the west. When I have, I have started at 7 a.m. for those who have a problem and want to see one of their local representatives. That means the early morning shift, as it were.
The Government made a decision in March 2011 that staff employed in ministerial private offices be reduced from a maximum of ten to eight while those in constituency offices be reduced from a maximum of six to four. It was also decided the staff in a Minister of State's private and constituency offices be reduced from a maximum of seven to five and a maximum of five to three, respectively, while the staff complement for a Minister of State assigned to more than one Department be reduced from a maximum of nine to a maximum of seven. In the case of more than one Minister of State assigned to one Department, it was changed from no additional restrictions to the total not exceeding four in respect of each Minister of State.
The reductions are there for all to see. We have changed the nature of the culture that existed before. When appointed to the Government, I encouraged Ministers not to go down the tunnel route of accepting the thousands of invitations they would receive. Human nature, being what it is, people will fulfil engagements of one sort or another.
Compared to previous arrangements, these reductions will make the considerable saving of €800,000 and it is a demonstration of changing both the culture and the nature of way the Government treats its duties and responsibilities.
With respect, I do not believe a judgment can be made on the basis of what passed before. It has to be based on how the majority of working people are living through this difficult time. I noticed how the leader of Fianna Fáil's question flippantly asked the Taoiseach to provide details of the cost of the staffing arrangements to him. It does not cost him anything; it is the taxpayer who pays for this.
It is ridiculous and shameful that €300,000 of taxpayers' money is spent to employ constituency workers in the Taoiseach's office. Guidelines on special advisers from the Department of Finance stipulated special advisers' pay should be brought into line with the five-point salary scale applicable to the standard principal officer position in the Civil Service, between €50,000 and €93,000. Why are two of the special advisers employed earning salaries of €168,000, nearly five times the average industrial wage and twice what was stipulated in the Department's guidelines. An gcreideann an Taoiseach i ndáiríre gur sin an sórt ceannaireachta atá de dhíth san am crua seo?
Tá a fhios ag an Teachta go bhfuil laghdú an-mhór, suas le €800,000, i leith costas a bhain leis an iar-Rialtas. Tá fhios aige go maith freisin go bhfuil an bheirt chomhairleoirí speisialta ann agus go raibh siad ag obair leis an bpáirtí agus liom féin le fada an lá. Tá a fhios aige go bhfuil caipín curtha ar thuarascáil i leith seirbhíse poiblí suas go €200,000. Tá laghdú mór ann sa dhá chás ansin i gcomparáid leis an ráta a bhí á íoc ag an iar-Rialtas. Tá laghdú de níos mó ná 27% ó thaobh costas comhairleoirí agus comhairle do Roinn an Taoisigh ná mar a bhí faoin iar-Rialtas.
Ar bhris an Taoiseach an chaidhp sin ina Rionn féin?
Could Deputy Adams ask his questions through the Chair, please?
An féidir liom teacht isteach arís?
I would like the opportunity to call Members. I call on Deputy Martin.
I do not accept that any culture has changed.
I do not want statements just questions. It is Question Time and we want to move on.
I know but I am being very brief.
I know but we need a question.
Given that over €1 million was spent by the Taoiseach, Ministers and Ministers of State on constituency work since they took office, will he confirm he would have said anything before the election to win votes and that he meant nothing then?
Deputy Martin has some neck.
If the Taoiseach was sincere about no constituency work in the Government's first 100 days——
What is the question?
——he would have ensured all ministerial staff would have been allocated to other areas in their respective Departments.
Will Deputy Martin go away about that?
If the Taoiseach had been sincere about this, he would have done what I just suggested.
Is that a question?
Yes, it is.
Taoiseach, are you sincere or not?
A Cheann Comhairle, please do not paraphrase my question. It is not your job to do that.
I want to know what question you want asked.
Deputy Martin was in power for 15 years with a gilly carrying around his briefcase. He now comes in here with his Francis of Assisi face.
What about all the consultants the previous Government used to employ?
It is not the Ceann Comhairle's job to paraphrase my question.
My job is to see the Deputy asks questions.
I asked him a question.
No, Deputy, you are making statements all the time.
I asked him if he was sincere when he made this commitment before the general election.
Deputy Martin is only whingeing.
Deputy Martin suffers from recurring political amnesia.
Amnesia.
When he sat on this side of the House, he always dismissed every issue that was raised with the disregard of those who become too used to the comforts of office. There are no such comforts applicable here anymore.
Will the Taoiseach answer the question?
Since March my constituency office has received 18,000 items of correspondence. Are we to show the discourtesy that the Deputy's people showed?
The Taoiseach must answer.
One must have some capacity to answer people's claims.
Of course.
They know that there is a big cultural change from what applied previously.
Why did the Taoiseach make stupid promises? It was silly stuff.
As the Deputy is aware, there is no overtime payable to personal assistants in the Department of the Taoiseach, so I reject completely what he is at.
Hear, hear. Deputy Martin should be honest with himself.
The Taoiseach is wrong.
Fianna Fáil left this legacy.
It would be far better to focus now on what these people are focusing on——
Fianna Fáil's commitment was——
——which is dealing with the problems of our country and the problems of our people——
The Taoiseach never had any intention of implementing any of it.
——that we have inherited to an unprecedented degree——
This highlights his cynicism and his lack of sincerity before the election.
——from a Government that lost all regard for its capacity to do its business.
The Taoiseach made the promise. No one else did.
Deputy Martin is the one with the pious face.
I am trying to figure out how the salary cap was breached.
In the case of the two particular advisers that the Deputy mentions, these salaries are very much reduced from what applied previously.
That was not the question.
They are two people who worked in the Oireachtas for quite some time prior to coming in here. Their salary now is commensurate with their experience and the responsibilities that they carried out for many years assisting myself as Leader of the Opposition.
Commemorative Events
Micheál Martin
Question:7 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding preparations for the commemoration of the 1916 Rising. [24725/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:8 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the preparations that have been made regarding the commemoration of the 1916 Rising. [26091/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:9 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding preparations for the commemoration of the centenary of the 1916 Rising. [28457/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:10 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he intends making any changes to the annual State commemorations of the 1916 Rising. [28458/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, together.
I am very conscious of the enduring significance of the historic events of the early 20th century that culminated in the establishment of the State. Commemorative initiatives should seek to generate an enhanced understanding by the generations of today and the future of these important events in our national history. The official commemorative programme will be organised on a consultative and inclusive basis, contributing towards improved understanding and acceptance by all traditions.
Mindful of the fundamental importance of the centenary anniversaries to arise in the coming years, I envisage a comprehensive programme that will not only commemorate these events sequentially, but also seek to explore the issues thematically, presenting them anew to modern generations. An appreciation of the economic, social and cultural life of the Irish people in the years before the Easter Rising is essential to an informed understanding of the political and military history.
My Department is engaged in a programme that will include all other Departments, agencies and services in preparing a framework for commemorations. In addition to this official consideration, I envisage that the commemorative initiative will include an opportunity for all interested persons and groups to make proposals and submissions. I would like the commemorative programme to comprise not only the official initiatives, but also regional, local and community activities relating to persons, themes and events of relevance. Complementary efforts by national associations and cultural and sporting organisations will also be welcome.
Arrangements are also in place for a special consultation with parties in the Oireachtas on the draft programme. As the Deputies are aware, I have asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Deenihan, to chair an Oireachtas consultation group in respect of these centenary commemorations. I am grateful for the nominations received from party leaders and groups in this regard. The consultation group now includes Senator Mary White of the Fianna Fáil Party, Senator Mark Daly of the Fianna Fáil Party, Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Senator Kathryn Reilly of Sinn Féin and Deputes Catherine Murphy and Maureen O'Sullivan from the Independent group. I understand that this consultation group met in July and will meet again shortly.
With regard to the specific inquiry about current arrangements, the Easter Rising is commemorated annually at the GPO in Dublin. The annual parade by the Defence Forces, in abeyance since the 1970s, was re-instated in 2006. In subsequent years, there has been a military ceremony taking place in front of the General Post Office on O'Connell Street. There are no current proposals to amend these annual arrangements, although I expect that special arrangements will be made for the centenary anniversary in 2016.
I thank the Taoiseach for his comprehensive reply. I welcome the sentiments he expressed and I look forward to working with him and the Government on ensuring a comprehensive programme of commemoration to open up genuine shared understanding of the different traditions on the island.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the commemoration of the 90th anniversary of the 1916 Rising showed considerable public support for commemorating the event that directly sparked the achievement of independence by the State? There was a wonderful atmosphere on the streets of Dublin with tens of thousands of families in attendance. Does the Taoiseach agree that a crucial factor in that commemoration was the centrality of the Defence Forces, a body of men and women who have always represented a unifying force across all classes and boundaries? Does he agree that a dignified commemoration of the State founded by the heroes of 1916 needs to be at the core of the 2016 events and that the Defence Forces should be at the core of that centenary commemoration?
I have two questions regarding ongoing commemorations. There is always strong public support for State events to be held outside Dublin to address the entire period of the Irish revolution, dating from 1916 to 1921. The Taoiseach mentioned the period prior to that time, which was valid. What will be done outside Dublin and will work be undertaken to facilitate it?
The period will be 2012 to 2022. I thank Deputy Martin for his comments. What we want is a dignified commemoration that is inclusive and covers all of the issues that should be commemorated. As I stated in my reply, local, regional and national events will be covered. I also accept that the Defence Forces, which have been important to the history of our country, should be centrally involved. They bring a particular resonance and importance to all of the occasions in which they participate. This will obviously continue.
The consultation group that the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, chairs is a consultation group with the Government, and all the parties and Independents are reflected there. We want to expand that because the citizens will want an opportunity to send in their views about what issues or events and so on should be commemorated in this decade.
I would also like to involve a group of professional historians who would be able to deliberate and put forward a view on the accuracy and the authenticity of matters that should be considered by Government for inclusion in the programme, which will be debated and discussed with all of the parties here to ensure that we arrive at a situation where we have a dignified sequential series of commemorative events and occasions over that period.
I want the leaders of the other parties to understand that this is not to be considered in any way to be under the sole ownership of any party. This is about our country's history and our military history of days gone by when people had very polarised views about politics. It is a case of getting as inclusive, dignified and appropriate a sequential series of commemorative occasions as possible.
I do not want to be flippant, but we need to keep an eye on these professional historians. I take it that it will be a broad church.
We discussed the 1916 commemoration during a previous Question Time. What is the update on the possibility of the Government working with Dublin City Council in respect of the rebellion's footprint around the GPO and on the streets of Dublin? Between now and 2016, this situation needs to be turned around to ensure its retrieval for the State. The relatives have pursued this matter with all of the political parties, as that area may make way to a major development. It would make greater sense were a trail and a proper urban context given to the area. This is a question of the preservation of an historic site and area in Dublin. The Government should work with Dublin City Council to ensure this is done by 2016.
On the occasion of the first meeting in July, the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, outlined the broad range with which the consultation group intends to involve itself. It is open to the group to interact with Dublin City Council, whether it be about Boland's Mill, Moore Street or other relevant locations in the general city centre area, to determine what should be included. This is part of what can be done.
It is not good at present.
We do not yet have conclusions to the discussions that have taken place but Deputy Martin can take it that the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, and his consultation group will take these views into account. This is appropriate.
It may be appropriate to have a dignified commemoration of this State but the commemoration of 1916 is not a time to have it. The most important thing that happened in 1916 was that a republic was proclaimed but in my opinion nowhere in Ireland today do we have any sense of this republic. Between sovereignty, people's rights and partition we need a new republic and we should take this opportunity to re-imagine the republic. Part of what the Government should be doing is to encourage this type of conversation.
I commend the committee, comprising mostly relatives of the leaders of the 1916 Rising, which has campaigned to secure the future of Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street. I cannot think of a state in the world where the last place such leaders met is now a derelict shop. Where Pearse gave the surrender note to the British Government is not marked. Thomas Clarke's shop is covered with a plastic piece of neon sheeting. All of this is absolutely obscene. I cannot think of any other place where this would be allowed to happen.
The business of establishing a special consultation group is a good step but it has met only once. There is no clár or schedule. There is no notion of what will happen. Does the Taoiseach expect to be able to bring forward a plan — and when does he expect to do so — whereby this great event in our history will be commemorated? There is a need for the Government to seize the initiative on the development of a freedom quarter, a liberation quarter, cúinne na saoirse or revolutionary quarter in the precincts and environs of the GPO.
We have discussed this previously here as the Deputy is aware. He knows the story in respect of my views about No. 16 Moore Street and the general locality. Without interfering with the legalities of what obtains at present I see real opportunities in this area. Deputy Adams is aware that in September 2006 No. 16 Moore Street was added to the register of protected structures under the Planning and Development Act 2000 by resolution of Dublin City Council because of its historical importance and architectural interest. This listing gives protection to the building, its interior and the land and structure in its curtilage. In January 2007, the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dick Roche, placed a preservation order on the building under the National Monuments Act 1930 as amended because the preservation of No. 16 is considered a matter of national importance due to the historical interest attaching to it. Ministerial consent under section 14 of the National Monuments Act will be required for all works in the area covered by the preservation order.
I understand the planning approval granted by An Bord Pleanála for the redevelopment of the Carlton Cinema site in central Dublin includes a provision relating to the conservation of the national monument at Moore Street. Everybody understands the importance of the events that took place during Easter week at the GPO and the significance of the last command post at No. 16 Moore Street. The proposed development of the Carlton Cinema site, of which Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street form part, envisages the retention of these buildings and the provision of a commemorative centre to the 1916 Rising in No. 16. I was there recently and it is not a very edifying historic centre for what happened in 1916.
An application by the developer for consent to these proposals under section 14 of the National Monuments Act 1930 was submitted to the Minister for the Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs on 17 June. I understand the Minister is considering this application and is engaging in extensive consultation with all interested parties for and against the developer's plans. The Minister will have to take into account all relevant views, including those of the Oireachtas consultation group on commemoratives matters which he chairs, prior to making a decision on what is a very important case. I understand the consultation group was at the site recently to look at it themselves.
We all have views on this. The area from the side door of the GPO, turning left to the corner of Moore Street, to the point where the O'Rahilly was shot, to the location where the battery was on top of the Rotunda, to the sidewalk location where the actual surrender took place is very small. With a bit of imagination and interest it could become a location for understanding what happened when the Rising took place and eventually led to this country being one of the first small countries to achieve its independence in the 20th century. I respect this as somebody who tried to teach some elements of this to children many years ago. It is not all gone and this is an opportunity to get very much of it right or as right as we can. I expect all parties and Deputies to contribute to a constructive debate in this regard.
The Taoiseach will not mind me stating the country has yet to achieve its independence. The island is still partitioned. Whatever independence was won in this——
This is why we have the Good Friday Agreement to which the Deputy is a party.
That is exactly right. Whatever independence we have in this State has been given away.
As the Deputy knows, the Good Friday Agreement understands Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom with the opportunity to hold a referendum if the people so decide.
I thank the Taoiseach but I think I know an awful lot about the Good Friday Agreement. I thank him for his advice.
And the Deputy knows a lot about other issues as well I would say.
We all know about the Good Friday Agreement. We follow it with a keen interest.
In many ways we are a great country, and we will agree on this for all the messing——
We are a great people.
——and we are great people. The unity of our people and of orange and green and all the shades in between should be the objective of this Parliament and it is a constitutional imperative on successive Governments. What is happening in the Moore Street environ is a metaphor of the state we are in. Go up the back entry of this iconic building, No. 16 Moore Street, and one will find an open sewer. This is the reality. With regard to the Carlton Cinema site, very few places would commemorate the proclamation of a republic and the first blow against an empire which controlled most of the globe at that time with the type of cinematic modern development that will be put there.
We agree on one thing: there is an opportunity to develop this for educational and historical reasons, for tourism and to show a sense of pride in those who went out and fought and died for the freedom of the people of this island. However, unless the Government decides to do something about it as opposed to the revisionist history we sometimes hear then I fear we will miss this opportunity.
The role of Dublin City Council is crucial with regard to the zoning of the area as an area of special interest, conservation, preservation and historic importance. It contains a number of historical monuments. I have spoken to members on my party who sit on Dublin City Council and I have asked them to take an initiative on this. If the Government met the officials and authority of Dublin City Council it would be a significant catalyst to move this on to get concrete proposals on how between now and 2016 we can lay out a pathway for how the area can be enhanced for once and for all and how it can become a significant place for history and heritage and, for generations to come, an area that can illustrate what happened. I ask the Taoiseach to do this given its overall national significance.
Will the Taoiseach not agree it is a bit tokenistic and a bit of a joke, frankly, to talk about commemorating the 1916 rebellion when this country is being recolonised by the dictatorship of the EU-IMF?
Just a moment, Deputy. We are dealing with the arrangements for a celebration.
The best commemoration we could have for 1916 is to stand up together and tell the EU-IMF to get off our backs and stop asset-stripping this country——
There are other opportunities for the Deputy to raise that issue. I ask the Taoiseach to reply to the relevant question.
I do not think what Deputy Boyd Barrett said was a question.
It is a question.
How will the Deputy pay next year's bills?
The four houses are believed to date from 1756 to 1773. Nos. 15 to 17 date from approximately 1763 but were refaced in about 1880. The buildings are in the private ownership of Chartered Land Limited and form part of an extensive site in the O'Connell Street-Henry Street area of Dublin which CLL proposes to develop. Dublin City Council granted permission to CLL in December 2008 for the development of the 2.17 hectare development incorporating the national monument site. As a prescribed body, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government commented on the initial planning application in May 2008 and identified a number of concerns relating to architectural heritage, height, demolition of certain buildings and the impact on the character of O'Connell Street. The Department's concerns were addressed in the redesign of the project, for example, with the inclusion of a screen along O'Connell Street to reinforce the street facade, the omission of the tall building element onto Henry Street, the overall reduction in height of the tallest element of the development and its relocation to the centre of the site where the visual impact from surrounding areas would be lessened. The granting of planning permission was appealed to An Bord Pleanála which, following an oral hearing, approved the development with the modifications on 24 March 2010.
As regards the national monument-designated buildings, approval was given by An Bord Pleanála for the demolition of the non-original additions and partitions, extensions to the rear and the lowering of the basement. However, the forgoing was subject to the stipulation that no works could commence until ministerial consent had been obtained under the National Monuments Act for any work that might impact on the monument site at Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street. The buildings require ongoing maintenance works to ensure their structural protection pending a full programme of refurbishment works. In 2006, and prior to the preservation order being placed on the site, some stabilisation works were carried out in agreement with Dublin City Council's enforcement section. An application for consent for further works was made by Shaffrey Associates Architects in February 2010 and was approved by the Minister in May 2010 following consultation with the director of the National Museum of Ireland. In summary, the works involved temporary stabilisation works to elements of the structure, prevention of fabric loss, elimination of water seepage, maintenance of suitable environmental conditions to ensure preservation of fabric and removal of vegetation. In December 2010, as an extension to the existing consent, ministerial approval was given for the removal of mid and later-20th century finishes to enable the carrying out of a proper condition and historic survey of the building fabric and structure.
A formal consent for application for works was submitted to the Department by the developer on 17 June. The proposals, which comprised the conservation of Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street as a commemorative centre to facilitate interpretation of the significant cultural history relating to the events of Easter 1916, must now be considered by the Department, prior to consultation with the director of the National Museum of Ireland. The Minister's formal consent will be required before any work can begin. The Minister, Deputy Deenihan, has visited the site and he will consider matters such as the preservation, protection and maintenance of the archaeological, historical or other cultural heritage or amenities of or associated with the national monument.
Constitutional Amendments
Micheál Martin
Question:11 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has reviewed arrangements in place within his Department to consult Opposition leaders on matters relating to constitutional reform. [24726/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:12 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if, further to his previous commitments in Dáil Éireann, he will detail the nature and extent of consultations with the Opposition which will be held before he finalises his proposal for a constitutional convention. [24727/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:13 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will detail preparations made for publishing the proposal to establish a constitutional convention. [24728/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:14 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the consultations he has held or plans to hold with political parties or other stakeholders regarding the proposed constitutional convention. [26092/11]
Joe Higgins
Question:15 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach the further referenda he plans in this Dáil term; and if a referendum is planned on the abolition of the Seanad. [26987/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:16 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the preparations that have been undertaken regarding the proposed constitutional convention. [27364/11]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 11 to 16, inclusive, together.
Work is proceeding in my Department on the preparation of proposals for a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad and for the setting up of a constitutional convention. These proposals, when ready, will be considered by the Government.
The proposal to abolish the Seanad was signalled by the Government parties prior to the general election and the Government intends to put this question to the people in a referendum next year. The Dáil and Seanad will have an opportunity to debate fully the necessary legislation when it is published. With regard to the setting up of a constitutional convention, once proposals are approved by Government I intend that they will be the subject of full consultation with the Opposition parties.
As Deputies will be aware, it is proposed, in conjunction with the forthcoming presidential election, to hold referenda on judicial pay and the granting of powers to the Houses of the Oireachtas to conduct inquiries. Proposals for the referenda on the other constitutional amendments promised in the programme for Government are being progressed by the relevant Ministers.
I intend to make an announcement in respect of the constitutional convention following the people having voted on the two constitutional amendments on 27 October.
Three Deputies have asked questions and the time allotted is six minutes.
I have asked two questions.
I have asked three questions.
I wish to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to ask questions.
I must articulate my concern about the Taoiseach's statement that he will make an announcement after the voting on the constitutional amendments. Six months ago he promised substantive consultations on the proposed convention would take place before a proposal was published. I do not think this is a great way to start. I ask him to confirm his intention to have substantive consultation with Opposition party leaders before he makes any announcement about the proposed convention so our views can be taken into account as to the issues to be debated by the convention. Will the work of the convention be limited to topics selected by the Government or can others introduce new ideas? What is the time line regarding the referendum on the future of the Seanad?
I appeal to the Taoiseach to have the consultation before the Government brings forward recommendations, otherwise it becomes a process of notification as opposed to full, inclusive consultation.
I have a question about voting rights for holders of Irish passports. Sinn Féin tabled a motion in the Seanad which was voted down by the two Government parties even though the Taoiseach had given a commitment that this matter would be put to the constitutional convention. I also refer to the success, thus far, of the Irish global economic forum. I did not wish to raise this issue at the forum because I did not wish to embarrass the Government, considering the people who want to help us will not have a vote. I ask for clarification on this matter and I ask that consultation should happen before the decision is made.
I ask the Taoiseach to clarify whether he said it will be a referendum to abolish the Seanad or to reform the Seanad.
I will spell out the word "abolish" for the Deputy.
Thank you. That elitist institution which is undemocratically elected should obviously be gone. Has the Taoiseach any proposal during his term of office to deal with the proposals in the Constitution regarding the election of President? It is highly undemocratic that citizens may only stand for election as President if they have been vetted by the political establishment or a bunch of politicians.
Just like Deputy Higgins.
Should the Taoiseach also have a proposal to abolish that institution——
Why does Deputy Higgins not run?
——especially in view of the farce that passes for a presidential campaign, with half a million people unemployed and our hospitals in shreds and the media filled with a personality fest known as a presidential campaign? What are the Taoiseach's proposals regarding either abolition or at least democratising the office?
Does the Taoiseach accept that in outlining fairly precise figures for Dáil constituencies the Constitution sometimes creates a straitjacket which results in lines on maps, much like the way the Western imperialists divided up Africa to suit themselves? For example, a cohort of voters in Swords are referred to as being in Dublin West and they are feeling very alienated from their hinterland to which they belonged for decades and to which they should be returned in a Dáil constituency review. Will the Taoiseach deal with that so the rights of residents in those areas are respected, rather than leave them subjected to a line through a map just to fit the figures in the Constitution?
This has been a matter for a commission working independently under the chairmanship of a judge, so that there cannot be any interference from the political process and lest there might be allegations of attempted gerrymandering or whatever else. I understand that wherever one draws a line based on population movements can cause difficulties and that where some towns or counties are split people feel very aggrieved that they might not have the opportunity to elect a Deputy, or Deputies. The people in Leitrim were very upset, as were the people in areas of north County Dublin and in other parts of the country. As Deputy Higgins is aware, wherever one starts, there is a roll-on effect. I do not intend to interfere in any way with the process that has been accepted democratically here of an entirely independent commission made up of people of repute who have no political association or bias to do the job.
In respect of the convention, I do not want to make any announcement about it before the presidential election and the two referenda that are taking place so that nobody will be confused about what the constitutional convention is to do. If Members wish, after the presidential election and the two referenda, I will hold consultations with the leaders of the Opposition, take their views, allow the Government form its view and publish our proposals. Or, if Members prefer, I can do it the other way round and let the Government announce its recommendations here and allow comment on those. That is a matter we can talk about.
Members should understand that the programme for Government contains a commitment to have a constitutional convention. There are a number of other issues also set out, including the review of the Dáil electoral system, which will take into account the issue mentioned by Deputy Higgins; reducing the term of the office of the Presidency from seven years to five years — my view is that the term should coincide with the European and local elections, which are now fixed five-year periods — provision for same sex marriage; the broadening of 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 in the voting age; and any other relevant constitutional amendment that might be recommended by the convention. The convention will also be asked to look at giving citizens the right to vote at Irish Embassies in presidential elections.
Work has been under way for some time on the preparation of detailed proposals for the establishment of the convention. These will address the status and independence of the convention, its terms of reference, its structure and make up, selection methods — particularly in regard to citizen participation North and South — and the convention's working methods, timetable and budget.
A number of other suggestions for inclusion were also made. The Ombudsman wrote to me to suggest the convention should consider putting her office, the Office of the Ombudsman, into the Constitution, similar to the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The president of the Human Rights and Equality Commission wrote to me, the Tánaiste and to the Minister for Justice and Equality to suggest that the convention should take into account human rights standards. In addition, a Sinn Féin Private Members' motion in the Seanad in October 2011 supports the extension of voting rights in presidential elections to all Irish citizens in the Six Counties as well as to citizens living and working abroad, subject to conditions set out in law. These are all issues that can be discussed by the convention.
What about corporate donations?
We will change that by law.
It needs a constitutional change.
Yes. I said previously that we would give consideration to involving citizens from the Six Counties in the convention. The convention will have the inclusivity that will allow Members of the Dáil, the Seanad, local authorities and ordinary citizens to have their say and it will move throughout the country in the same way as the Forum on Europe did. We also propose to give consideration to including a Northern connection in the convention. The results of the convention will be considered by the Government and be a matter for discussion among the parties. When the proposals for establishing the convention are put together, we will discuss them with the Opposition leaders. I will discuss with Deputy Martin and Deputy Adams, the leader of the Independent group and the Socialist Party leader the issues of timing and how we will go about it. It is of considerable importance and I would be very happy to have the view of Deputy Higgins on it.
Deputy Martin asked about the referendum on the abolition of the Seanad. I would like to hold that referendum on the same date as we hold the referendum on children's rights. Both of these issues are under discussion. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs is in discussion with the Attorney General and the children's advocacy groups to see whether we can arrive at an appropriate wording to put to the people.
The question of the abolition of the Seanad and the removal of Articles and references to the Seanad and its responsibilities is the subject of considerable work in my Department at the moment. I do not have a timescale for this and do not want to give Deputy Martin a date in case unforeseen constitutional complications arise. However, it is my intention to hold the referendum at an appropriate date and as early as possible next year when the issues are clear. I cannot give a date at this stage, but plan to hold the two referenda together.
There was a promise of substantial consultation.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.