Gerry Adams
Question:1Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the number of staff currently employed in the Office of the Attorney General. [23755/12]
Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed)
Office of the Attorney General
Gerry Adams
Question:2Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if any assessments regarding staff numbers and efficiency has been held in relation to the Office of the Attorney General since he took office. [23756/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
I have been advised by the Office of the Attorney General that, as of 30 June 2012, the number of staff serving in the office was 122.2. Two competitions are under way to fill essential legal positions, so it is expected that the staffing level will increase to 129 in the coming months. The number of staff serving is regularly reviewed with a view to ensuring that there are sufficient resources available to carry out the necessary functions of the office. The current competitions arose from such a review. Further, in the context of the public service agreement review mechanisms, the office regularly updates its targets and objectives and part of this process is to address efficiency.
I have two specific reasons for asking this question about staffing. The Taoiseach may recall that last November, he agreed to meet Opposition leaders to discuss demands for an independent inquiry into sexual abuse allegations in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda. At that time, the Taoiseach said he was taking advice from the Attorney General but that he would meet Opposition leaders. Dúirt an Taoiseach go mbeadh an cruinniu sin againn roimh Nollaig. That did not happen. I asked for a meeting in January but it did not happen. I again raised the issue in March. On each occasion the Taoiseach said he would meet Opposition leaders on the matter. I also asked the Minister for Health a series of written questions and to each he replied that he was consulting with the Office of the Attorney General. The last time I raised this issue was in May. The Taoiseach has given me and other Opposition leaders four or five commitments to meet us, but we have not met.
I ask the question because I am concerned there may be a capacity issue in the Office of the Attorney General. It is 17 years since complaints of sexual abuse in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda were first made. The longer the matter remains unresolved the more the victims are traumatised.
Can that meeting be held? What has the Attorney General been saying about these matters and what has delayed the process?
The point the Deputy makes is not directly relevant to the question he asked about the number of staff currently employed in the Office of the Attorney General and whether or not assessments of staff numbers and efficiencies have been carried out. I have answered both those questions.
There are matters relating to the issue raised by the Deputy that I do not wish to discuss in public. I will give the Deputy a private briefing on the difficulties that arise in this case.
The point is fully relevant. I was told at the different times I raised these issues that the Government was waiting for advice from the Attorney General. Not having been advised otherwise, I was concerned that there may be pressures on that office. The Taoiseach also noted on a number of occasions that there are pressures on the Attorney General's office due to the demands of the EU-IMF programme. At one point, he noted that this meant that vitally important legislation, such as comprehensive legislation on domestic violence or to recognise the collective bargaining rights of workers which was promised in the programme for Government, was delayed. These are issues that have no sensitivities attached to them. They are commitments made by the Government. What steps are being taken to deal with these outstanding matters?
I thank the Taoiseach for his answer that there is no problem of pressure in the Attorney General's office.
As Deputy Adams is aware, the Government publishes a list of proposed legislation to be drafted, adopted, published and dealt with in the House. The vast majority of that legislation comes through the Department of Justice and Equality.
The staff of the Attorney General's office is in two sections, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and the legal advisory section, serviced by a common administrative secretariat. The same personnel vet and prepare legislation. They have been working continuously for the past number of months dealing with a range of legislation that has been published. Some of that legislation is required by the troika and therefore time-pressured but some is to comply with the requirements of Ministers wishing to push through priority legislation that is part of the programme the Government. We try to achieve the best result from that list but it is not always possible to do so. Some of these things, when one delves into them, are discovered to be more complex than was previously envisaged.
The staff of the Attorney General's office does extraordinary work. There are two vacancies to be filled in accordance with a normal competition. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has 29 sanctioned positions and arrangements are being made to recruit two assistant parliamentary counsel, grade 2, and one legislative editor, which will bring staff levels in that office up to its full complement. The office has met the challenges presented in recent years to produce significant amounts of legislation. Last year, for example, the office drafted 55 separate pieces of legislation. It produced 52 Bills in 2009 and 39 Bills in 2010. This year it has, so far, produced 24 Bills. The complexity and extent of the Bills varies. That takes up a deal of time.
It is proposed to comply with the Government's published list of proposed legislation. Both sections of the Attorney General's office are working exceptionally hard, often at weekends, to meet the requirements here.
A review is carried out on a regular basis to see that staff numbers are at maximum level and that staff give of their best, which they do.
Employment Rights
Gerry Adams
Question:3Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the contact he has had with the social partners since the Easter recess. [23766/12]
Joe Higgins
Question:4Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach the contact he has had with the social partners since Easter. [25366/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.
As I have stated on many occasions, while this Government does not support a return to the social partnership model, we recognise the value of constructive dialogue with representatives of all sectors of society as we continue to work through the many difficulties facing the country.
Since the Easter recess, I have met with representatives of the IFA on 25 April and 4 May. I spoke at the IMPACT annual conference on 18 May in Killarney. I addressed the IBEC business breakfast on two occasions, and met with representatives of IBEC on 21 June. I also intend to meet with the Croke Park agreement implementation body, which includes representatives of the public service trade unions, later this week. In line with the Government's approach to social dialogue, relevant Ministers continue to have bilateral contact with social partners on issues of concern to them.
In addition, the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, which comes within the remit of my Department, continues to provide a forum for multilateral dialogue on the economic, social and environmental challenges facing the country. The council continues to meet on a regular basis.
Some employers do not want to waste a good recession and many workers have been denied rights. The Taoiseach spoke eloquently about the Vita Cortex employees in Cork and said that what they wanted was respect. We saw similar situations in La Senza, Lagan Brick, Game, Vodafone, Irish Cement and Diageo. I understand that 25 workers currently occupy a call centre company, Éist agus Cuidiú Teo., in Gaoth Dobhair, County Donegal, which has received substantial State funding. Has the Taoiseach raised any of these issues with the social partners or discussed steps that could be taken to avoid issues such as these?
Last week, a large delegation of workers from Lagan Brick was brought to Leinster House by Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin. The workers had been on strike for 206 days and they received unequivocal support from Deputies and Senators in all parties. A big company, Lagan Brick, refuses to give workers the dignity and respect they deserve. They are not asking for anything extraordinary. They are asking for their entitlements. The company needs to engage with the workers' union representatives and to agree to pay them their redundancy entitlements.
Has the Government discussed these issues with the social partners? People are being denied redundancy payments to which they are entitled and deserve. Has the Taoiseach discussed these matters with the social partners?
No one likes to see people out on strike. The machinery of the State has been well tried over many years in difficult circumstances, not least of which was the Vita Cortex incident to which Deputy Adams referred.
When a dispute arises the facilities of the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation are available to assist in the resolution of the dispute.
Deputy Adams will be aware that last July the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, announced his intention to reform the State's industrial relations machinery and to replace the five existing employment rights bodies with two bodies. One body will be responsible for dealing with first instance complaints and the other will deal with appeals. He has undertaken two public consultation processes on the matter and this month he intends to seek Government approval on drafting the workplace relations Bill. It is the intention to have the Bill enacted in the autumn and the new system up and running by the beginning of next year.
It is most unfortunate to hear about the case which the Deputy mentioned and the period of time that the workers have been on strike. I do not know the details of the case but the machinery of industrial relations and the co-operation of the Department in so far as the Minister is concerned are available at all times for attempting to resolve these difficulties, whatever the nature of the actual problem.
I will meet the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and the public service unions tomorrow regarding the report on the Croke Park agreement. This issue will obviously be referred to in the context of those discussions.
My question was about the social partners and the Taoiseach's engagement with them. Have the Government's plans to amalgamate the five employment rights bodies been discussed with the social partners? Will the change improve the entitlements of workers? I think we will see more of this. I sat with Members of the Taoiseach's party as we heard from the Lagan Brick folks, who have been on strike for 208 or 209 days. A spouse of one of the workers described the difficulties she faces in making ends meet. This is a very profitable company which has public contracts with local government and, for all I know, with Departments.
The processes favour the employers and especially the big employers. A fine of €1,000 is a pittance for an employer but it is a huge amount to take from the pocket of a worker and his or her partner. It is no accident that workers are taking over their workplaces. In my opinion they are doing so because they have nothing else to lose. The Taoiseach acknowledged that the workers in Vita Cortex wanted respect. They should not be required to endure strikes for almost six months to get that respect. They are not asking for anything extravagant, like big bonuses or breaking the ceiling on pay. They are asking for appropriate redundancy payments. Where should they go given that the State's mechanisms are not functioning in support of them or their rights?
Deputy Adams will be aware that, in the case of reform of the joint labour committees, JLCs, and registered employment agreements, REAs, the process of making employment regulation orders, EROs, was found by the High Court to be unconstitutional, together with an identified lack of adequate Oireachtas scrutiny of the process. That supports the case for the main features of the recommendations for reform put forward in the Duffy Walsh report. Following the High Court ruling of July 2011, the Government's priority has been to prepare and deliver a comprehensive reform package because the implications of the judgment are not confined to the joint labour committee system. A programme of reform of the JLC and REA systems is required to address all the recommendations for reform put forward in the report, as well as the broad implications of the High Court ruling in the John Grace Fried Chicken case.
There was a constructive Second Stage debate in this House and following further consultations with the social partners and other interests a number of amendments were introduced on Committee Stage to strengthen or clarify certain provisions of the Bill. These include provisions dealing with the principles and policies applying to the framing of REAs and EROs, the timeframe for those provisions and the granting of temporary exemptions from the obligation to pay the terms prescribed under EROs and REAs.
I would like to think that the work the Minister, Deputy Bruton, is doing on structural reform will be in the interest of everybody because it will provide a resolution process where a complaint is lodged. To a great extent the Croke Park agreement has delivered industrial peace. A number of cases have been ongoing for some time but the agreement has to be implemented in full and expedited to meet our own targets. We want a process that is clear, straightforward and works so that where legitimate complaints arise they can be resolved satisfactorily and people and businesses are allowed to conduct their affairs in the interest of the economy, the country and both workers and management. That is why the machinery of the State has been tried and tested in severe circumstances over the years and it is always available to deal with concerns or disputes such as those mentioned by Deputy Adams.
The existing resolution mechanisms are not working in the current climate and they did not work for the Vita Cortex or Lagan Brick workers. These disputes require a strongly proactive approach on the part of the Government of the day. There was no need for the Vita Cortex dispute to persist as long as it did. It could have been resolved much earlier if a more proactive approach had been taken. The existing mechanisms simply do not work in situations like that. We need a process that cuts to the chase.
Engaging with the social partners on these issues can lead to new mechanisms, which are needed because in the current economic collapse these situations are arising with greater frequency and workers are being left behind. In many instances they are the last to be considered in such circumstances.
In the context of social partnership talks, has the Taoiseach discussed with farming organisations the need for immediate support in the context of the appallingly wet weather and the damaging impact it is having on agricultural incomes and farming and harvesting generally? Across all sectors of farming it has become a serious issue. This is a vital industry and I ask whether the consultations entered into by the Taoiseach have focused on the need to help the farming community in its hour of need.
When I meet the social partners and the public service unions I intend to ask their views on where the machinery of the State falls down. It works in the vast majority of cases and, as Deputy Martin will be aware, at the end of the day in disputes like the one in Cork it is a case of the resolution of the people and an understanding on the other side that the matter has to be ended. State machinery or no State machinery, there will be resolution of these disputes if there is a willingness to engage and deal with the problems that arise.
The Deputy mentioned the difficulties that the atrocious weather has caused for the farming community. The losses have already been substantial. I have seen tractors bogged down in fields after they attempted to cut silage. The fact that more rain fell in June than during the preceding six months speaks for itself. It has been an extraordinary year for bad weather and rainfall. I have discussed the issue with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, who is in constant contact with the farming organisations and is investigating how he might be able to help. The farming organisations have requested early payment of part of the single farm payment.
For now, however, there is an immediate crisis where fodder is required and substantial losses are being incurred by farmers.
In respect of the flooding that occurred in Deputy Martin's county, including Douglas, Glanmire and Clonakilty, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government hopes to receive a report on it this week. He will examine that report to see if he can assist in any possible way those whose businesses or houses have been flooded. It is a terrible thing to happen. I note from media reports of the topography that even early warnings were inadequate, given the extent of rain that fell in a short time. There is evidence of this happening also in Britain and to an even more serious extent in Russia.
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, is well aware of the losses to the farming industry because of the disastrous weather. His colleague, the Minister, Deputy Hogan, is expecting a report on the flooding issue in Cork and will try to respond in the best way possible arising from that.
Departmental Staff
5.Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the number of civil servants employed in his office for the purposes of constituency work; and the total cost to the State of this on an annual basis. [23770/12]
There are five staff working in my constituency office. Three are based in Government Buildings while two are based in Castlebar. The staff comprise three personal assistants, one personal secretary and one executive officer. They are responsible for dealing with my constituency matters and correspondence. The total of their annual salaries is €289,151.
I did not hear the figure.
It is €289,151 and that is for five of them.
Is that to do constituency work on the Taoiseach's behalf?
Yes. Three are based in Government Buildings and two are based in my own county.
Let me give the Taoiseach some figures, if I may, for him to cogitate on - these are from the Irish League of Credit Unions. Some 1.8 million citizens have less than €100 per month to live on, after bills are paid. Some 50% have had to borrow to pay household bills in the past, with 10% of them using moneylenders in the past 12 months. Some 17%, or over 600,000 citizens, have nothing left each month when the bills are paid.
We sometimes wonder why people become disenchanted with and alienated from electoral politics and parliamentary systems. This is all as a result of austerity and if we were all in it together-----
I am sorry, Deputy, but this is a straightforward question about the number of civil servants employed in the Taoiseach's office and the cost. We cannot get into other matters.
Can I just finish my point, a Cheann Comhairle?
Yes, but please stick to the question.
We also have a situation in the Department of the Taoiseach where a ceiling for special advisers is set at €92,000, yet some of the Taoiseach's special advisers, including one who was in the news recently, earn almost twice that.
I am sorry but that is an entirely separate matter.
I consciously did not name the persons involved, a Cheann Comhairle.
If there are to be cuts - we are approaching a winter of cuts - they should start at the top. They should start in the Taoiseach's office with the man who is in charge of the Government and the staff he employs there. That is how we will get an end to the inequality that austerity is reinforcing, as well as a narrowing of the social gap which is being widened daily by austerity policies.
I ask the Taoiseach to show leadership on this issue by implementing the pay cap that his own Government introduced. Are any of those five staff, who the Taoiseach says are working on constituency matters, being paid above the Government's cap?
The Deputy seems to suggest that these people are all on excessive salaries. The total of their annual salaries is €289,151. That is a gross figure, which is about €450 net on average per week.
I note the Deputy's comment about the report by the Irish League of Credit Unions, which is by no means to be discounted. We all know many families who are seriously challenged in these times. We are not the only ones in Europe who are now so affected. The Government is well aware of this, however, which is why we reversed the minimum wage in the memorandum of understanding. That is why we brought thousands of families out of the universal social charge requirement. We did not increase income tax or taxes on employment in order to give the best opportunity to business and employment creation. We downsized the scale of the banks and required the two pillar banks to lend €3.5 billion of new loans this year so that these opportunities can be implemented.
The Deputy asked me the number of civil servants employed in my office and I have answered him. I note that some people seem to think that one should not have a constituency office for the benefit of constituents at all. Whether one makes no representations or many, these matters become the focus of public attention. If somebody stops Deputy Adams on the street and says, "I live here in Dundalk, I've applied for the disability benefit and I'm on appeal for the last three months", is he supposed to say, "Sorry, I can't deal with your query here. That's a constituency matter"? My constituency office, which I rarely attend due to the business of Government, constantly deals with queries from people all over Ireland but mostly from the western region. They are normal constituency queries that come in about everything one could think of. These staff work exceptionally hard and give an enormous commitment to dealing with people's problems. As I said, their average net income is €450 per week.
I am not discounting in any way the impact or relevance of the report conducted by the Irish League of Credit Unions. The Government is well aware of that. The budget for 2013, which will obviously be challenging, will be framed in a way that is seen to be fair, equitable and affordable. The drive has to be not to penalise employment and work, but to provide opportunities whereby businesses can flourish and jobs are created.
Abolition of Seanad Éireann
6.Deputy Micheal Martin asked the Taoiseach the role his Department will be taking in relation to the abolition of Seanad Eireann as outlined in his own Department’s statement of strategy 2011-2014; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23885/12]
My Department's role in relation to the referendum on the abolition of the Seanad will be the usual one of a sponsoring Department, including preparing proposals for legislation for the referendum, liaising with the Attorney General's office in the preparation of the legislation and support for Government when the legislation is being debated in the Oireachtas.
The proposal to abolish Seanad Éireann was signalled by the Government parties prior to the general election. The Dáil and Seanad will have an opportunity to fully debate the necessary legislation when it is published.
Is that it?
That is it. We will wait and see.
It is 15 months into the Government's term of office and this is a promise the Taoiseach made with great solemnity well before the last general election.
The Deputy made a fair few of them himself.
We did not. Actually, we made none. We deliberately made no promise before the election.
You knew you were going to be wiped out.
I said at the time that this was no time to make promises that one could not fulfil.
Deputies should address their comments through the Chair, please.
Unfortunately, the Taoiseach made too many of them and the people now know that he could never fulfil them. He has lost a lot of trust and credibility as a result. Coming into government, there was no document, preparatory work or research.
Over the past 15 months, we have had various announcements about this matter and now the constitutional convention is being established. I asked earlier about marriage equality but the Taoiseach refused to answer any question on that. He has decided to refer that issue to the convention but, in his own wisdom, not the Seanad question. The Taoiseach has given the distinct impression that a great deal of work has been done but that proposals are far down the road. Perhaps he will outline for the House how much work has been done on the proposal to abolish the Seanad, how many Articles of the Constitution will require amendment-change in this regard, who is overseeing that work and the timeline in respect of the holding of a referendum on abolition of the Seanad.
The referendum on children's rights is promised for the autumn, which we are all agreed should be held on its own. The constitutional conventional agenda will also be dealt with this year. As such, we are looking at 2013 at the earliest in terms of a referendum on abolition of the Seanad, or are we? It is time the Taoiseach produced some evidence of work on this issue. Is it his intention to publish a position paper on the abolition of the Seanad and has a great deal of technical work been done that could, for example, facilitate debate on this issue by the Oireachtas? I would have thought the convention a good forum for discussion of this issue given people have differing views on whether there should be one or two Chambers in our Parliament. The original intent of the convention was to bring about radical reform in terms of how we govern ourselves. However, it will not now do this. It will not deal with this Parliament or with the relationship between it and the Executive or with whether we have a bicameral or unicameral system. It appears that all concerned could have done with that type of reflection. Nonetheless, the Taoiseach is ploughing ahead.
Perhaps the Taoiseach would respond to my questions on how much work has been done, how many Articles of the Constitution will require amendment, who is overseeing this work and when he expects the referendum on the abolition of the Seanad to be held.
Unfortunately for Deputy Martin the Government intends to fulfil its programme for Government, which commits to two issues, which will be outside of the constitutional convention, being decided by referenda. The two issues concerned are children's rights and abolition of the Seanad. The question in regard to the holding of the referendum on the fiscal stability treaty was not envisaged at that time.
I am asking about the Seanad.
I am coming to that matter. The presidential election and two referenda were held last year. We need now to reflect on whether it is good to hold more than one referendum on the same day, taking into account the simplicity or complexity of the issues involved.
I can assure Deputy Martin that a great deal of work has been done on the proposal in regard to the abolition of the Seanad. This will require the deletion of all references to the Seanad in the Constitution. In addition to deleting all Articles which establish the Seanad it will also be necessary to amend Articles which primarily deal with other matters but which vest specific constitutional functions in the Seanad or in its members. The types of functions which will have to be considered in this context include, for example, the Seanad's role in triggering the process for determining whether a Bill constitutes a money Bill, motions for early signature of Bills by the President and membership of the Cathaoirleach of the Presidential Commission. This work is being overseen by the Department of the Taoiseach. A great deal of that work has been done.
Deputy Martin asked when the referendum will be held. Perhaps he might offer a suggestion. The children's rights referendum will be held in the autumn. It is hoped that ongoing work in the Department of Children and Youth Affairs will enable publication of the relevant legislation following the Dáil recess, at which time a date for the holding of that referendum will be fixed. It is a complex issue and should be dealt with by way of stand-alone referendum. Ireland holds the Presidency of the European Union from 1 January to end June 2013, during which time the Government and Ministers will be required to focused on dealing with issues affecting this country and on issues relating to the responsibilities of our Presidency. Deputy Martin will be aware that in terms of Presidency of the European Union Ireland follows Cyprus and precedes Lithuania and Greece.
The Taoiseach is filibustering. We know all this.
No, I am not filibustering. Does Deputy Martin suggest the referendum on the abolition of the Seanad should be held in February, March, April, May or June, during which time we may well have to deal with the conclusion of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020, namely, the budget for the European Union? Were I to agree to such proposition from Deputy Martin he would be the first to say we cannot do it then because we will be tied up with the Presidency of the European Union and all that involves and means for the Irish economy in terms of dealing with the range of issues that have been around for a long time.
I assure the Deputy that a great deal of work has been done on the question of the abolition of the Seanad. As I stated, this will require the deletion of reference to the Seanad from every relevant Article, with no loss on the corresponding side in respect of the rights of citizens in so far as the Dáil is concerned. I will not make a pronouncement as to when that referendum will be held. However, I can assure the Deputy that it will be held. The people will be asked the question of whether they want the Seanad to be abolished. I believe it should be abolished. I understood from Deputy Martin's comments prior to the election that Fianna Fáil was of the same mind. However, the Deputy appears to be rowing back on this now. This is not the first time someone in his party has done so. However, that is a matter for his party.
I again assure Deputy Martin that the programme for Government is clear on this issue and that the commitment therein on this issue will be carried through. It is only a matter of deciding the appropriate time to do so.
The Taoiseach is assuring me of nothing. The setting of a date for this referendum is continually being pushed out. I recall the Taoiseach being equally as adamant a year ago that it would be held this year. The Taoiseach definitively said then that it would be held in 2012. He now says it will not happen during Ireland's Presidency of the European Union because he does not want anything to spoil that party and has suggested that it will be held in the latter half of 2013.
I asked the Deputy to make a suggestion but he did not answer me.
I will deal with that now. Unlike the Taoiseach, I have no need to filibuster.
The Deputy should answer my question.
The Taoiseach said a great deal of work has been done.
Yes.
Will he share that work with the Oireachtas?
The Deputy did not attend any of the briefings on the constitutional convention.
Never mind that nonsense. I am asking the Taoiseach to share the work which he says has been done. With the greatest of respect, the Taoiseach gives a great deal of silly responses.
If the Deputy puts his questions I will seek the answers for him.
The Taoiseach should treat this House with a little more respect.
Deputy Martin did not turn up for the briefings on constitutional matters.
Fianna Fáil's spokesperson and Chief Whip, Deputy Ó Fearghail, attended the briefing which was just a role-out of the convention.
The Deputy is decrying that.
It was a sham and everybody knows that.
Deputy Ó Fearghail spoke well. He did a good job.
I am asking the Taoiseach if he will share the work that has been done on the abolition of the Seanad with the Oireachtas. Why will the Taoiseach not do so? Will it publish that work so that the Oireachtas can discuss it?
Yes, I will share it but at the appropriate time.
What I said during the election - I made this very clear - is that we believe in real reform of politics in this country-----
The Deputy had 14 years in Government to do it.
-----and of the relationship between the Executive and the Parliament. We did not favour abolition of the Seanad on its own.
Fianna Fáil did nothing when in Government for 14 years.
We favour abolition of the Seanad as part of a broader reform of our political system.
Right.
We made that very clear at the time. Reducing the number of Dáil Members by eight and abolishing the Seanad while doing absolutely nothing to change how we behave is not radical reform. It is optic politics and playing to the gallery.
Deputy Martin is well used to that.
That is all the Taoiseach is doing. As far as I can see what the Taoiseach is doing in terms of abolition of the Seanad is playing this out until such time as he considers it most politically opportune to throw it into the frame, from an electoral point of view.
Fianna Fáil is well used to doing that.
I ask that the Taoiseach share that work with both Houses of the Oireachtas and with his parliamentary party, some of whom are concerned about this issue.
I will share the information but at the appropriate time.
Why will the Taoiseach not share it now?
One of the other issues-----
What is the big deal?
This will interest the Deputy.
We are having a convention on the Constitution.
The Deputy said that he supports the abolition of the Seanad as part of a broader political reform agenda.
That was our view during the election.
That is what the Deputy said. One of the issues already provided for in the programme for Government and to be considered by the constitutional convention is the electoral system.
Fianna Fáil has views on that issue and on how Ministers-----
We made a submission on it.
-----should not have anything to do with constituents. I accept that the Deputy has his own point of view as do I. The assessment by the constitutional convention-----
The Taoiseach tends not to have a point of view on these issues.
I do have a point of view. I believe the Seanad should be abolished. The intention of Government is to put that to the people and let them decide on it.
Will the Taoiseach share the papers?
Yes, I will share them.
Not now, but at the appropriate time.
The other fact is that, as the Deputy knows, a reduction of the Dáil numbers by eight is the limit without holding another referendum. The constitutional convention is to look at the electoral system - whether we have multi-seat constituencies-----
But I am asking-----
-----single-seat constituencies, the French system or whatever. It will be very interesting to see what the constitutional convention will come up with in that regard. That will be part of a broader electoral reform package, which I know the Deputy wants. What he wants to do is to try to restructure this in such a way that his party might have some fleeting chance of getting back into office again. That is also a matter for the people.
We have been led to believe that an incredible amount of work is going on behind the scenes. Could the Taoiseach share that with us?
The Deputy asks a question to get an answer.
We cannot get an answer. That is the point.
The reduction by eight seats and - if the people decide to approve it - the abolition of the Seanad will reduce the overall Oireachtas size by 33%.
The Taoiseach is on the way to abolishing democracy.
All this information will be out there at the appropriate time - we have a lot of stuff to do now. In respect of the question of the Seanad being abolished, I will give all the information to everybody when it is appropriate on the lead-in to the question being asked of the people.
We are being asked to discuss seven items in the constitutional convention, including gay marriage, equality, electoral systems-----
And others.
We will not go through that now.
I am not going to go through that.
We are talking about the abolition of the Seanad.
The point about the Seanad is as follows. What is the objection to sharing all the background work on what it takes to abolish the Seanad with everybody in the Oireachtas? Why not do that now?
I do not want to confuse the Deputy with an overload of information. He can believe me that there is a great deal of-----
The Taoiseach might confuse himself.
-----interesting material there.
Is there?
There is, actually.
Could he share it with me?
Yes, I will share it with him at the appropriate time - of course I will. That, together with the constitutional convention review of the electoral system, will, I think, provide great fodder for those who are in politics and those who aspire to be in politics. All in its good time. The Deputy can take it that the programme for Government in this matter-----
The Government Senators are on the run, I think.
-----will be implemented in full. It is just a question of timing.
If Deputy Martin is looking for reform, he should stop the posturing.
As Shakespeare said at one time, all is in the timing.
The Government is eight Senators down - eight Deputies down.
Readiness is very important.
Shakespeare also said: "There is a tide in the affairs of men." One thing I have learned from being here is that when the Taoiseach decides not to answer a question, he does not answer it. I was going to ask him when we could expect legislation on the future of the Seanad and when a referendum would be likely to be held. There is a seanfhocal in the North that states "Whatever you say, say nothing." It must have come from Mayo because the Taoiseach is right on the button.
What is the seanfhocal?
Let me try another couple of questions. Sinn Féin's view is that the issue of the future of the Seanad should be part of the constitutional convention. If we are carrying out a thorough review of the Constitution, covering the electoral system, the political system, presidential terms and so on, it seems appropriate to put the Seanad into that also. Some of these other issues are also matters for the programme for Government but he has no problem putting those into the constitutional convention.
Perhaps the Deputy might ask his supplementary question, as I want to move on.
A reformed Seanad could find space for people such as the Traveller community, for people who are disenfranchised, for people from the diaspora and citizens living in the North. Will the electorate be presented with options on the future of the Seanad or will it simply be a choice between the status quo and abolition?
The answer to that question is "No". The legislation and all the information surrounding it will be debated in full by everybody and the question on the ballot paper will require a "Yes" or "No".
"Yes" or "No" to what?
To the abolition of the Seanad. The question will be: "Do you wish to abolish Seanad Éireann?", requiring a "Yes" or "No" answer. It will be very straightforward and the people will give their answer. On the run-in to that legislation being published, all the information Deputy Martin and others require will be made available to the fullest extent possible and that debate will take place. This is part of the programme for Government and both parties agreed it. That is outside the convention as is the child protection referendum - those two are very clear. We will hold those when it is appropriate to do so. In respect of electoral reform, the constitutional convention will reflect on that. If we did not have an agreement beforehand-----
Or a Labour Deputy.
-----clearly the Seanad option could be one for the convention to consider. However, we have already put it into the programme for Government that if the constitutional convention and the persons who serve on it decide that there is another issue or other issues that are of such importance that they should also be considered by the constitutional convention, as I told the Deputy at the briefings he attended, it will be possible for the constitutional convention to do that. The Seanad and the child protection referendum are outside the convention and are part of the programme for Government. The question will be put to the people in due course.
I have a very short question.
I will be very brief.
We have had a good deal of time on this.
The Taoiseach made a very pertinent point. He said that if the constitutional convention wishes to raise other issues, it could do so. What would happen if the constitutional convention wishes to raise the future of the Seanad?
It may certainly reflect on it, but the Government has already decided that the question of the abolition of the Seanad will be put to the people. In the ordinary course of events when the constitutional convention makes a finding to the Government, for instance, in respect of the reduction of the voting age to 17 or the reduction of the presidential term of office from seven years to five years, it will outline its reflection, finding and recommendation. In each of those cases the Government has committed to responding "Yes" or "No" within four months. For instance, if the constitutional convention recommends that the voting age should be reduced, the Government will respond positively within four months to them all. However, in the case of the Seanad and child protection, the Government has already decided that we will have a referendum on each of these two things. They are both complex - it is just a question of timing. If we had not had the fiscal stability referendum, we might have had one before summer and one after summer. It was most important that it stand on its own and that the child protection one would stand on its own. I am hopeful that the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs will be able to bring a consensus wording to Government shortly and we will be able to publish the legislation for that very early in the new session.
One referendum does not make a summer.
Nor one swallow, in which there is some providence in respect of his fall.
Proposed Legislation
Micheál Martin
Question:7Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the progress made in his Department on legislating on the issue of Cabinet confidentiality; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24829/12]
Gerry Adams
Question:8Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the steps he has taken to bring forward legislation on Cabinet confidentiality. [30541/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together.
As I have previously said in the House, Cabinet confidentiality is provided for in the Constitution and any consideration of legislation would have to take this into account.
The Taoiseach can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is in the programme for Government.
Yes, it is.
It states that there will be new legislation on Cabinet confidentiality. That is why I was surprised by the brevity of the response. My supplementary questions were to ask about the current proposals for proposed legislation on Cabinet confidentiality. I was going to ask him to outline what the Government intended to do in line with its programme for Government commitment and whether it wished, for example, to facilitate pre-budget discussions between Ministers and the Oireachtas in a much more open format than happened in the past. That might deal with some of the difficulties we have experienced in recent times and Ministers could feel free to come out and argue their positions regarding their Departments' Estimates, for example. How does the Taoiseach believe the programme for Government commitment will be met? What will the content of the new Bill or any legislation be and when is it expected?
As the Deputy is aware, Article 28.4.3° of the Constitution contains a specific reference to Cabinet confidentiality and I do not propose to have a referendum to change that.
What does the reference to Cabinet confidentiality in the programme for Government mean?
The reference is not specific, but it is a requirement of all Ministers that Cabinet confidentiality be maintained obviously in the interests of the work of Government and the national interest.
The programme for Government proposes legislation on Cabinet confidentiality - that is the point. Obviously Sir Humphrey does not want it.
The Deputy should not mind Sir Humphrey.
Where has the political commitment gone?
Sir Humphrey has not visited the Department of the Taoiseach in a very long time.
I just want to find out about the proposal.
Were his ghost to appear, he would be reminded that Article 28.4.3° of the Constitution deals with Cabinet confidentiality and that the Taoiseach has no intention of holding a referendum on that.
The Taoiseach proposed it. Can he clarify what the programme for Government means in regard to legislation on Cabinet confidentiality?
What it means here is that the Constitution refers specifically to Cabinet confidentiality and I am not proposing to change the legislation by having a referendum on that.
The Taoiseach proposed he was going to change it.
He has obviously changed his mind.
What does the programme for Government mean?
I call Deputy Adams.
Please explain, Taoiseach.
Does he know what is in his own programme for Government?
I call Deputy Adams and I ask that Members address their questions through the Chair.
Any legislation that is proposed has to take Article 28.4.3°-----
The programme for Government is very clear and the Taoiseach cited it all this session and the Government's will on these issues. It contains a commitment to bring forward legislation on the issue of Cabinet confidentiality. It also says that the Government has become too centralised and unaccountable. There is lots of evidence of that, particularly around the Economic Management Council when we cannot even ask questions of the doings of that council even though it is dealing with the troika, the economy, banks and issues that are having a vital impact, particularly on citizens who are suffering under austerity policy. As I understand it, has the Taoiseach just torn up another programme for Government commitment by saying he has no intention of bringing forward legislation? This issue also affects the issue of health where members of the Cabinet sub-committee on health cannot ask questions about what is going on there either. How does this fit into the commitment to more transparent, open reform? The Taoiseach hailed the last election as the people's revolution or some such term. I am citing to the Taoiseach his programme for Government which has a commitment to bring forward legislation on the issue of Cabinet confidentiality and he also cited that the Government is too centralised and unaccountable. Has he just told us that he is not bringing forward such legislation?
He has.
The relevant Article 28.4.3° states:
The confidentiality of discussions at meetings of the Government shall be respected in all circumstances save only where the High Court determines that disclosure should be made in respect of a particular matter -
i in the interests of the administration of justice by a Court, or
ii by virtue of an overriding public interest, pursuant to an application in that behalf by a tribunal appointed by the Government or a Minister of the Government on the authority of the Houses of the Oireachtas to inquire into a matter stated by them to be of public importance.
The concern here might have arisen in that the provision that was being inserted into the Constitution covered very narrow circumstances in which Cabinet confidentiality discussions might not be respected. This has been enshrined in our Constitution for the past 14 years and that provision cannot be changed without a referendum. I do not have any intention of seeking a referendum to change it.
May I ask a brief supplementary?
Yes, if it is very brief.
I understand the Taoiseach has perhaps forgotten why the commitment was made 15 months ago in the programme for Government but may I enlighten him? His partners in government and his own members criticised continuously Cabinet confidentiality for many years; they felt it was too restrictive, it did not allow enough information out, etc. I suspect that is the reason that commitment was put into the programme for Government.
What is the Deputy's question?
The Taoiseach was the author of the programme for Government. It is incredible that he would come into this House-----
What is the Deputy's question?
-----and either feign ignorance of what is in the programme for Government or not have a clue as to why something as fundamental as Cabinet confidentiality was put into it. The Taoiseach does not have a notion as to why it was put in there-----
Thank you, Deputy.
-----or what is intended by it.
What is the Deputy's question?
It is incredible that the Taoiseach would come forward in that manner.
That is a very sweeping statement.
I ask the Taoiseach to consult the Tánaiste and find out why this is in the programme for Government and perhaps he might enlighten the Members of the House on that because he clearly does not know that now-----
This is Question Time, not a time for statements.
-----but he might find that out and tell us what is intended by the provision in the programme for Government which commits to legislation on Cabinet confidentiality. We know all about articles in the Constitution. This is a commitment to introduce legislation on the subject of Cabinet confidentiality. The Taoiseach does not seem to have a notion why that commitment is in it.
This is Question Time.
Could the Taoiseach provide me with an answer?
The Deputy has made very sweeping statements-----
What is the Deputy's supplementary question?
-----about other people and whether they know or do not know things. He has suddenly become a know-all in every sphere.
I am not. I cannot claim to be a know-all on this.
He knew nothing when he was on this side of the House and he would not accept any responsibility for it.
I just do not know what you are up to.
The Deputy used to be in the Cabinet.
I note that the Committee of Public Accounts in its report on the crisis in the domestic banking sector said that a preliminary analysis and a framework for a banking inquiry published on 5 July recommended a review of the Cabinet confidentiality provisions of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997 so as to give the committee the broadest possible access to papers and records relating to the bank guarantee. Obviously the Government will reflect on the issue in so far as knowing the truth about the bank guarantee-----
(Interruptions).
Come off the stage, Taoiseach.
-----and perhaps in respect of Cabinet confidentiality, Deputy Martin might like to stand up here and tell us what he knew himself-----
Answer the question.
What he knew himself.
-----and what he actually said when he were called on-----
We would love to know.
The Taoiseach does not know what is in his own programme for Government.
-----at 3 o'clock in the morning, or whatever time it was, and asked: "Do you, Deputy Martin, agree that we should give this bank guarantee?"
The Taoiseach is blustering.
Why is there no information over there on the rationale that you applied to the information given by the banks-----
It is a case of when in doubt, lash out.
-----which screwed the Irish taxpayer for years? Instead of making sweeping allegations about everybody else, the Deputy might tell us what he knows-----
He should tell us what he knew.
-----and not have a need for any inquiry at all.
The Taoiseach is blustering.
The Deputy should stand up and be a man and tell the people what he knew when he was called or when he attended at the meetings where the information was given by the banks about what should happen in respect of the bank guarantee. He should give us some of the rationale which is not available in the Department of the Taoiseach.
Hear, hear.
Was that the one that was shredded?
The Taoiseach is filibustering.
What is Deputy Adams's supplementary question?
I cannot hear the Chair.
Can I have the Deputy's supplementary question?
(Interruptions).
Will you please stop?
I am sorry.
Thank you. We have a shouting match every blooming day. Has Deputy Adams a supplementary question and not a statement as we are getting statements here?
I do not represent Fianna Fáil.
I know.
I am speaking here for Sinn Féin. Let me put my question again. It is very straightforward. We looked at the programme for Government. The Taoiseach has a commitment to legislate on the issue of Cabinet confidentiality. I asked him a very straight question about what steps has he taken to bring forward legislation on Cabinet confidentiality and if he just tore up that commitment.
Yes. That is it. That is the reply.
Fair enough. The fact is that we hear more about the budgetary committee-----
That is a separate issue. The Deputy should put down a separate question.
-----of the German Parliament than we do from the economic committee of the Taoiseach's Cabinet.
We are not going into the German Parliament at this stage.
The PAC that the Taoiseach cited was assisting the Taoiseach to fulfil his programme for Government commitment.
In case the Deputy did not hear that properly-----
I did hear it properly. The Taoiseach does not need to repeat himself.
-----the point is that the European Commission-----
I heard it properly.
-----had to apologise for information that was leaked when it was sent to the budgetary committee of the German Parliament because it is a requirement that all countries that are in a programme send their information to the paying countries.
Will the Taoiseach apologise for tearing up a commitment?
We changed that here so that information that is being sent to those countries that contribute to Ireland is lodged in the Houses of the Oireachtas simultaneously. That does not arise anymore and I hope the Deputy understands that very clearly. Yes, it was wrong that this information was leaked in the beginning and it should not have leaked from the European Commission through the budgetary committee of the Bundestag. That matter has been changed because when that information is now presented to those countries which contribute to Ireland, which the Deputy wanted to get out of here and for them to take their money with them, it is lodged simultaneously in the Oireachtas Library for all Members and all of the public to have access to it.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.