Micheál Martin
Question:1. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the board appointments he has made in the past 18 months; if there is a gender balance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40095/12]
Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed)
Appointments to State Boards
Gerry Adams
Question:2. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the appointments he has made to State boards since he came into office; if he will outline the procedures for identifying persons for appointments to State boards. [41491/12]
Seán Fleming
Question:3. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Taoiseach if he expects members of the Irish diaspora to be appointed to strengthen State boards; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43418/12]
Gerry Adams
Question:113. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will provide in tabular form all appointments to State boards under his ambit since the Government took office; when the person was appointed; if the position entitles the holder to remuneration and if so the amount in each case; if the appointment was made in accordance with new procedures whereby Departments have to invite expressions of interest from the public in vacancies on the boards under their aegis. [45811/12]
Gerry Adams
Question:114. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the number of chairs of State boards that have been appointed since the Government came into office; if there is a remuneration for the position and if so the amount of same; if the appointee was required to go before Oireachtas Committees to discuss what they have to offer to the particular board or committee to which they are being appointed. [45827/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, and Questions Nos. 113 and 114 together.
Since coming into office on 9 March 2011, I have made appointments to the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, as set out in the following tables which will be circulated with the Official Report. I can give the Deputy the names here if he so wishes.
The NESC provides guidance to Government on strategic issues for Ireland's economic and social development. Appointments to the NESC are made in accordance with the provisions of the NESDO Act 2006 as amended by the NESC (Alteration of Composition) Order 2010. I appoint members specifically on the basis of nominations from business and employer interests, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, farming and agricultural interests, the community and voluntary sector and the environmental sector. I may also appoint up to six public servants of whom at least one shall represent the Taoiseach and one shall represent the Minister for Finance. These appointments represent relevant Departments to ensure that the work of NESC is integrated with Government policy making. Historically, the chairperson and deputy chairperson posts are filled from my Department at Secretary General and assistant secretary level. NESC members are not entitled to remuneration.
I appointed eight independent members in June and July last year. Of these, four were women and four were men. Women now account for 29% of the council's total membership while men account for 71% of its membership.
There has been one appointment to the National Statistics Board, NSB since I took office. The person concerned is an assistant secretary at my Department and was appointed to the NSB in line with the provisions of the Statistics Act 1993. My functions in respect of the NSB were delegated to the Government Chief Whip, the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Paul Kehoe, who made the appointment in this case. No remuneration is payable to this appointee for this role on the NSB.
In view of the statutory procedures for the appointment of members of the boards of NESC and the NSB, there is limited scope for me to take factors such as gender or whether a person is a member the diaspora into account when I make such appointments. Under the new arrangements for the appointment of State board members which the Government introduced in 2011, Departments now invite expressions of interest from the public in vacancies on the boards of bodies under their aegis on their websites. It is open to all members of the public, including the diaspora, to apply for such positions and all applications will receive appropriate consideration from the Ministers concerned.
The Government appreciates the willingness of individuals based abroad to serve on State boards. Several members of the global Irish network have been appointed to State boards and I expect more will be appointed in the future. The Government will continue to consider suitably qualified members of the diaspora for appointment to State boards, including those who may be members of the global Irish network and other initiatives such as Diaspora 2016.
Tables for Circulation with Official Report in response to question 40095/12
Details of appointments made by the Taoiseach to NESC since 9 March 2011 are set out in the following tables:
|
Name |
Organisation |
Date of Appointment |
|
Mr. Martin Fraser, Chairperson of NESC |
Secretary General, Department of the Taoiseach |
August 2011 |
|
Mr. John Shaw, Deputy Chairperson of NESC |
Assistant Secretary, Department of the Taoiseach |
January 2012 |
|
Prof. Edgar Morgenroth |
Associate Research Professor, Economic and Social Research Institute |
June 2011 |
|
Prof. John McHale |
Economist, National University of Ireland, Galway |
June 2011 |
|
Prof. Mary Daly |
Department of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work, Queen’s University Belfast |
June 2011 |
|
Prof. Anna Davis |
Department of Geography, Trinity College Dublin |
June 2011 |
|
Prof. Seán Ó Riain |
Department of Sociology, National University of Ireland, Maynooth |
June 2011 |
|
Dr. Michael O’Sullivan |
Head of Portfolio Strategy and Thematic Research, Credit Suisse, London |
June 2011 |
|
Ms. Mary Walsh |
Chartered Accountant |
June 2011 |
|
Dr. Michelle Norris |
Senior Lecturer, School of Applied Social Science, University College Dublin. |
July 2011 |
|
Mr. Shay Cody |
IMPACT |
September 2011 |
|
Mr. John Murphy |
Secretary General, Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation |
November 2011 |
|
Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú |
Secretary General, Department of Education and Skills |
February 2012 |
|
Mr. John Moran |
Secretary General, Department of Finance |
March 2012 |
Details of appointment made to the National Statistics Board since 9 March 2011
|
Name |
Organisation |
Date of Appointment |
|
Mr. John Callinan |
Assistant Secretary, Department of the Taoiseach |
September 2012 |
There were three questions in the group. The first question was whether the Taoiseach can explain why he reiterated last year a rock-hard commitment that there would be a 40% gender balance rule applied. Clearly he has not abided by it. Can the Taoiseach explain the reasons he has not been in a position to abide by it and why the Government has not done so? The Taoiseach stated that the gender balance was 79% in the context of NESC. This is a poor target or realisation of the target given what he said so strongly not so long ago.
Second, how many of the appointments were advertised? We were told on the formation of the Government in the programme for Government that such positions would be publicly advertised. That is Government policy. Were the vacancies in the NESC publicly advertised and, if so, where were they advertised and by what means?
Last year with significant fanfare the Government stated it was radically changing the nature of boards in terms of how they would be appointed. Of course, the reality is very different. Media research suggests the bulk of new appointees are persons with direct connections with either the Fine Gael Party or the Labour Party. It is argued that for reasons of perception the persons concerned often submit an application, but that it is not a genuine attempt to widen the net to include others who are not connected with the Fine Gael Party or the Labour Party.
It was Fianna Fáil people who held the positions.
Prior to the general election we were promised there would be a broadening in the programme for Government. How many of the Taoiseach's appointees are persons who expressed an interest and have no connections with the political parties within the coalition?
As I stated in my reply, I made eight appointments last year. Four were men and four were women. I have made it clear that it is my intention in the limited number of appointments I have to make to increase the number of women appointees. The membership of the council now comprises 71% males and 29% females, but the appointments made last year, in June and July, were on a 50:50 basis.
On the vacancies being advertised on websites of Departments, the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport published on its website an advertisement seeking expressions of interest in appointments as chairpersons of the boards of the CIE companies-----
Were the positions in the NESC advertised?
The persons on the list compiled were mostly academic and exceptionally well qualified. The positions were not advertised. The persons on the list compiled by the Department were included on the basis of their experience and expertise. That is not to say, however, that in the future advertisements will not be issued. If the Deputy reads the list of appointees, he will see they have a broad range of expertise. I have not met great numbers of them.
In respect of a range of appointments to be made, the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport advertised; the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources advertised for Bord na Móna, An Post and the Ordnance Survey; the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht advertised; the Department of Finance advertised; the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine advertised; the Department of Children and Youth Affairs advertised; the Department of Health advertised; the Department of Social Protection advertised, etc. I like to think that over a period we can increase the percentage of women appointed to boards. I recall, way back in the 1990s, that the then Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Mervyn Taylor, used be very conscientious about requiring appointments to be based in so far as was possible on a ratio of 50:50. In whatever limited appointments can be made by my Department - mostly to the NESC - I will be anxious to ensure the level of female members is increased.
I actively encourage the Taoiseach on the issue of pursuing a gender balance. As he will be aware, the majority of citizens are women who are unrepresented in most public institutions.
I am disappointed - if I heard the Taoiseach properly - that not all of the vacancies were advertised. He may be aware that earlier this year the Institute of Directors in Ireland carried out a survey among executives in State bodies - it was pertinent to hear their views - who stated they did not think the appointments process was open. I recall the Taoiseach outlining persons being put forward for appointment as chairpersons of State boards would have to go before Oireachtas committees, but he also made it clear that such committees would not have the same authority as Senate committees in the United States, that proposed appointees would be interviewed by the committees but that they would have no say in whether they would be appointed. I think that was a fault in the Government's position.
I note that the former Chairman of the environment committee expressed his disappointment that the Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht had been bypassed by the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, in appointing the chairman of a State board. I am sure the person appointed was good and worthy to be in the position. It was to the Dublin Docklands Development Authority in June 2012 and the committee was only informed afterwards. The same applied to the appointment of the director general of the Environmental Protection Agency in November 2011. Is this totally at odds with what the Government set out to do? Is it satisfactory? Has the Taoiseach spoken to the Minister about it?
Women clearly are under-represented on a range of State boards and agencies. I am anxious to ensure their level of representation is increased.
On the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, it was an emergency. There were unique financial circumstances and the Minister had to respond within a very short time. The matter was debated extensively in the House. That was the reason; it was not his wish to bypass the committee. It was imperative that the matter be dealt with quickly.
May I ask a brief supplementary question?
I will come back to the Deputy.
That is hard to accept. The decision was not made in the middle of the night. The Government had clearly set out a different way of doing business. It had particularly talked about giving a new status in terms of authority and importance to the committees and because of public concern about the level of patronage in doling out these positions in the past made it clear that there would be transparency and a proper way of making appointments. This is not my complaint. The person who was Chairman of the environment committee is making it an issue that it should have been consulted. That is also my opinion.
Another issue identified in the IDI survey is the belief that insufficient consideration is given to the skills needed. I wonder if the procedure used in appointing the folks to these positions took skills into account. Is there a skills audit carried out across State boards? If not, could this be done in order that the Government would be able to see where the gaps are?
Paid positions need to be advertised, certainly on the website of the Public Appointments Service or the relevant Department. If that is not the case, will the Taoiseach make a commitment that such will be the case?
That is a relevant point, which I accept. The Public Appointments Service is in a position to state the skills sets needed for particular appointments. In the process in place which does not have that element formalised appointments are made on the basis of competency and the recognition of ability to do the job. It might be worth considering the Deputy's view that the Public Appointments Service should be able to point, for instance, to the skills sets needed and in the process that follows the persons to be appointed by Ministers and the Government should meet these criteria. That is a valid suggestion, which I accept.
By and large, Oireachtas committees operate effectively. The intention, in bringing chairpersons before them, was not to conduct an investigation but to ascertain what they had to offer to the agency or body concerned in terms of their experience, skills set and competencies.
We are never going to get it 100% right every time but these people bring skills, energy and commitment to the positions, which are very important.
I take on board the Deputy's views on the Public Appointments Service and his suggestion that the service make a list of what it believes is required for particular appointments and then see if the process can match that, in terms of numbers of men and women to be appointed.
I did not get a chance to ask a supplementary question earlier.
The Taoiseach has admitted here that the positions for NESC were not advertised. I am not casting any aspersions on any individuals because I am sure they are fine academics but there are plenty of fine academics across the country. This is an example of the kind of insider appointments that the Taoiseach was allegedly trying to get rid of. He was supposed to be broadening, widening and opening the net and it is extraordinary that this did not occur in the context of the NESC appointments.
The basic point is that what is now happening is far removed from what was promised by the Government in terms of appointments to State boards. It is a bit of a sham and a con-job, like many of the other commitments that were made. One of the key reforms of the last Government was introduced by former Deputy Eamon Ryan of the Green Party, who allowed Oireachtas committees to work on the appointment of people to State boards. That was real reform but we have seen nothing like that from this Government, in terms of openness, transparency or the involvement of the Oireachtas in selecting personnel for boards. That is the reality.
The Taoiseach must accept that part of Government policy was that board appointments would be advertised. I found it extraordinary, in that context, that the director of the HSE was selected by the Minister of Health. It is extraordinary that there was no public advertisement at all. The director was simply hand-picked by the Minister. There was no selection or advertising process, which is unhealthy. I am not casting any aspersions on the individual but that is a very unhealthy situation. It creates all sorts of unwelcome scenarios and compromises the independence of the individuals who get picked and selected in that way. It should not happen in the future, in any Department or for any position because it is not good enough.
Question No. 3 relates to the diaspora and it is my experience that there are many people overseas who are interested in Ireland and would be willing to give of their expertise to serve on State boards. I made some such appointments myself on a number of occasions. They worked out very well and it is an example that should be followed. I ask the Taoiseach to indicate whether he has had an opportunity to ensure a greater mix in the appointment of persons to State boards by including members of the diaspora.
As the Deputy is aware, membership of NESC is made up from different pillars. Regarding my own Department, the Secretary General and another departmental official sit on the board, one of whom was appointed in August 2011 and another in January 2012. The trade union pillar nominees include the General Secretary of the ICTU, another individual from ICTU, an individual from IMPACT and one from SIPTU. In respect of the business and employer pillar, there are two nominees from IBEC, one from CIF and one from Chambers Ireland. The agriculture and farming organisation pillar nominees include one person each from ICOS, IFA, Macra na Feirme and the ICMSA. The community and voluntary pillar nominees include a person from Social Justice Ireland - formerly CORI - from the INOU, the Saint Vincent de Paul and the NYCI. The environmental pillar nominees include an individual from Friends of the Earth and three others from that sector. The Government Department nominees include the Secretaries General of the Department of Finance, Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Department of Environment, Community and Local Government and the Department of Education and Skills. The independent nominees, some of whom I nominated myself, are from the ESRI, National University of Ireland, Galway, Queen's University, Belfast, Trinity College, Dublin, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Credit Suisse, London, University College Dublin and from the chartered accountancy sector, all of whom are academics and have something valuable to offer.
Freedom of Information Legislation
Micheál Martin
Question:4. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has reviewed the recent operation of the Freedom of Information Act in his Department. [40268/12]
Gerry Adams
Question:5. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests that have been received by his Department since the beginning of the year. [44449/12]
Gerry Adams
Question:6. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he is satisfied with the operation of the Freedom of Information Act within his Department. [44450/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together.
The statutory framework relating to freedom of information keeps the decision-making process and the operation of freedom of information at arm's length from the political head of the Department. The functions relating to freedom of information are carried out in my Department by statutorily designated officials, as envisaged in the Acts. These officials follow the guidelines set out in the decision-makers manual of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. I am satisfied that the processes being followed by my Department comply with the manual.
As the Deputy will be aware, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform is preparing legislation to implement the programme for Government commitments on freedom of information. My Department will implement any changes required by the new Act.
During the period 1 January to 30 September 2012, my Department received a total of 115 freedom of information requests.
One of the most obvious developments since the Taoiseach has taken up office is how often he makes claims for which he will not provide any backup. More than ever before, the Opposition and the media must rely on the Freedom of Information Act to check his claims and to seek information which should be in the public domain. In recent times the Taoiseach's Department has been invoking every legal route possible to prevent access to information. When I asked for details of the supposed attack on corporation tax, for example, the Taoiseach refused to release the information, claiming a diplomatic exemption.
Today I wish to ask him about a far more serious issue, namely his casting of a slur on his predecessor. In both this House and the Seanad, the Taoiseach repeatedly claimed that he had looked for files about the bank guarantee and how it came about but could not even find a single piece of paper on it. He suggested that perhaps the file was lost behind a radiator. Deputy Paul Kehoe chipped in with the suggestion that perhaps the file had been destroyed. Under a freedom of information request, the Taoiseach was forced to admit that there are actually 17 files in his Department, on top of a further 48 in the Department of Finance. Does the Taoiseach now have the basic decency to withdraw his false attack or will he continue to put partisan attacks ahead of everything?
I remind the Taoiseach that even though both he and the Tánaiste explicitly said, almost three weeks ago, that all information relating to the primary care centres should be released, we are still waiting for that documentation under a freedom of information request. Indeed, towards the end of last week, we received a reply to the effect that the Department wants an extension of a further four weeks before it will give us the documentation requested. This is not open practice. I do not know how the Taoiseach can be satisfied with the operation of the freedom of information procedures when an answer on an issue of such topicality, that has grabbed the imagination of the public for the last five or six weeks, is still not forthcoming. The Government is hiding behind the Freedom of Information Act and using it as a shield to prevent the release of information. The provisions of that Act are all we have left in terms of trying to find out the rationale behind the selection of additional primary care centre sites.
The programme for Government promised additional legislation but it appears that the Government is quite content to use the freedom of information process and to tell Deputies and Senators to utilise the provisions of that Act to obtain information rather than pre-empting such requests and providing information in the House. The Government should be trying to ensure that key questions about important topics raised by parliamentarians are not long-fingered or delayed for four weeks or more, in the hope that by the time the information is eventually released, interest will have moved on to some other issue. I can instance a whole range of issues, from the pension levy onwards, where it has taken months to get basic information as to why decisions were taken. In no way could the Taoiseach be satisfied with the operation of the Act, from an objective standpoint. Perhaps he could be satisfied with it from a narrow, political perspective in terms of just wishing to obfuscate and prevent the release of information.
I do not know whether the Deputy was in this House or was away with his colleagues when his party in government bulldozed through the gutting of the Freedom of Information Act in 2004.
It was put through the House in one day with no submissions sought. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, will bring the heads of the Bill to reform the Freedom of Information Act before the Dáil, hopefully by the end of the year. My Department received 115 requests between January and September, of which 68 were granted or partially granted and nine were rejected. No records existed in nine cases, ten requests were withdrawn and 19 requests are ongoing. The process is pursued at arm's length from the political system. The Minister will introduce changes to restore a sense of credibility to the Freedom of Information Act, which was withdrawn by a previous Government.
Deputy Martin once again referred to the 17 files associated with the decision to introduce a blanket guarantee for banks. Those 17 files have been published. The vast majority of them are meaningless, as the Deputy is aware. The problem is that the Department of the Taoiseach has no evidence on the meetings that took place with the banks, what was said in them or who made what point. Irrespective of whether the files comprise copies of faxes, e-mails or acknowledgements, they are not relevant to the fundamental questions - perhaps the Deputy knows the answers - as to who was in the room, who met with the banks and at what level, what the discussions were about and what issues were decided on in order to determine the background to the most momentous and fundamental economic decision ever made in this country.
When was Deputy Martin told?
I do not know whether Deputy Martin was just the recipient of a telephone call as part of the incorporeal meeting.
You do. You were told.
I do not have any-----
Stop the waffle.
Through the Chair, please.
What did Deputy Martin say?
I do not have a report of meetings between the then Taoiseach and Minister for Finance. Did Deputy Martin raise questions about the matter? Last week he stated during the debate in advance of the European Council that it would be easy to restructure the promissory notes.
I did not.
That is what he said.
He said it would be very easy to restructure them.
We will have that debate tomorrow.
I will be interested in hearing his contribution on how the promissory notes can be restructured easily in a way that is acceptable to an independent European Central Bank. He made that point clearly last week in his contribution. I will listen to him on it tomorrow if he so wishes. If we did not have a problem with this and if it is as easy as he suggests it could be of great benefit to the people.
In regard to freedom of information, there is no concise file in the Department of the Taoiseach pertaining to the essential heart of the matter, namely, who met whom, who came in from the banks, what was discussed, what were the decisions and how was the background put together for a decision that was made in the middle of the night by means of an incorporeal meeting. The Deputy was an important part of the then Government. Did he ask any questions about the promissory notes? Did he say they could be restructured? What questions did he ask about the extension of the guarantee? Did he ask whether it was about liquidity or solvency, or did he just say "Yes"?
Did he take any notes?
I call Deputy Adams. He tabled two questions.
May I ask a supplementary question?
I allowed the Deputy to ask a supplementary question.
You did not.
I did. You came in after the response.
I did not. I had only one question.
That was a supplementary question. Deputy Adams has two questions. I will let Deputy Martin come back in again.
The last time -----
I am just trying to be fair.
On the last occasion I was only allowed to ask one question and the Ceann Comhairle did not allow me to ask a supplementary question. Deputy Adams was allowed to ask a supplementary question.
Hold on a second.
I just want fairness, that is all.
Hold on a minute.
That is what happened.
It is his gentle demeanour.
Deputy Adams tabled two questions and Deputy Martin tabled one. I am calling Deputy Adams because Deputy Martin had his opportunity.
The Ceann Comhairle did not do that the last time.
I am letting Deputy Adams in.
On Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 he did not do that.
For God's sake.
He did not do so.
I sit here listening to speeches every day at Question Time. If Deputy Martin wants me to apply the rules, I will apply them strictly in terms of what can be asked. This is Question Time. I call Deputy Adams and then I will let Deputy Martin in again.
I think the Ceann Comhairle is being very unfair in his comments about people asking questions.
Excuse me-----
I am getting annoyed about the matter.
The Deputy can be very annoyed if he so wishes. I call Deputy Adams.
How many times have you called Deputy Adams on Leaders' Questions?
Cool down.
I have been in this House for a long time but I have never seen anything like the nature and demeanour of the Ceann Comhairle's interventions.
I did not interfere with the Deputy at all. I am calling Deputy Adams because he has tabled two questions.
I have never seen such behaviour in all the time I have been in this House.
I have been here longer than Deputy Martin.
I do not appreciate this type of behaviour from the Ceann Comhairle.
I do not need a lecture from Deputy Martin.
I have never seen this kind of behaviour but from the Ceann Comhairle. I am getting annoyed.
Your bully boy tactics will not work on me.
He has an awful habit of intervening in a very nasty manner.
You are not going to bully me, I can tell you that for nothing.
I have not been in this House as long as other Deputies and it is a revelation to be here.
It is a revelation to be sitting in this Chair.
We are delighted to have you.
These questions pertain to freedom of information.
Tuigim. The Taoiseach, who is the longest serving Deputy, spoke about the dysfunctional nature of this institution while he was in opposition. The purpose of the original freedom of information legislation was to provide citizens with three new legal rights, namely, to consult official records, to update and correct inaccurate personal information and to get reasons for public decisions that affect them. There was a clear commitment in what the Taoiseach said while in opposition to restore the Freedom of Information Act to what it was before it was undermined by Fianna Fáil-----
We will go further.
-----and extend its remit to other public bodies.
That is in train.
The Ombudsman legislation and the Freedom of Information Act was to be extended to ensure that all bodies which receive significant public funds are covered.
I share the concerns that have been expressed about the difficulty of getting information about the criteria for primary care centres. One would need to be Inspector Columbo to get to the bottom of the matter. It must be six weeks since it arose.
Last July the Minister of State at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brian Hayes, indicated that new legislation would be introduced by next April to restore the Freedom of Information Act to its original purpose. One of the problems with the current Act, which Fianna Fáil introduced, is the exorbitant fees charged. These have resulted in a reduction by half in the number of requests under the Act. I ask the Taoiseach to outline the total amount and average fee charged by his Department for freedom of information requests and whether fees can be removed or minimised. These are important rights for citizens but they cease to be rights if one has to pay exorbitant fees for them because then they become privileges.
It is difficult for me to concentrate when Ministers are conversing.
We are listening.
Please speak through the Chair. It is difficult enough without having conversations across the floor of the Chamber.
Earlier this year Deputy Doherty introduced a Bill to bring NAMA within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act. His Bill would have removed the application fee and reverted to the fee structures set out in the original Act. Will the Taoiseach take that on board? It is impossible to get information about NAMA. This is a multi-billion euro agency which has to brought within the remit of the Act.
Another thing I find really interesting is that in October we paid €1 billion to unguaranteed bondholders. I do not know who these bondholders are, nor do I know anybody who knows who they are. The supposition is that they are people from abroad, but they may not be. They could be people living in the Taoiseach's constituency or my constituency. We do not know. Why should we not know?
Will the Government legislation include the extension of freedom of information provisions to NAMA, to the National Treasury Management Agency, the Financial Services Regulatory Authority, the Central Bank and An Garda Síochána?
The reason for the slight disruption while the Deputy was speaking was that the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform was just saying to me that personal information is free under the Freedom of Information Act and that the charge per request is only a fraction of the actual cost of determining the information.
The Deputy said his party had put forward a proposition. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, is dealing with the matter. He has submitted the general scheme of a freedom of information Bill to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform for its views and recommendations. The heads of the Bill were cleared by the Government some time ago and the Minister expects to be in a position to publish the Bill by the end of the year-----
Depending on what comes back from the committee.
The general scheme of the Bill is already on the Department website and can be accessed by the public. The intention is to extend the provisions to cover a number of high profile public bodies, including the Central Bank, the NTMA and NAMA, but not in full. Clearly, commercial confidentiality must be respected. It is the Minister's intention to expand the scope of the Bill, but with restrictions in particular areas. This should deal with the restoration of a more effective, efficient and comprehensive freedom of information Act for citizens and the public at large. I hope that when the Bill comes before the House we can discuss it comprehensively and decide whether it is adequate or how it might be changed. The issue of sensitivity can be discussed properly when the Bill arrives in the House on Committee Stage.
What about the matter of fees?
That will be included in the Bill also.
I regret very much that the Taoiseach refuses to withdraw the false claim he made about his predecessor. He said the papers were shredded. It reflects badly on the Taoiseach that he refuses to withdraw false claims in the face of the facts, as 17 files became available under a freedom of information request from the Office of the Taoiseach.
Acknowledgements are of real value.
The Taoiseach seems to attack all the time and is just cementing his reputation as one of the most tribal and partisan holders of his office. I regret having to say that, but it is the only conclusion with regard to his failure to withdraw that claim.
Will the Deputy get back to the question, please?
On freedom of information generally, I will deal with the issues with which the Taoiseach took great liberty on the European question. I remind him that he voted for the bank guarantee himself and he had a conversation with the then Minister for Finance, the late Brian Lenihan, on the bank guarantee and the rationale for it. The Taoiseach gave him clear approval to go ahead and do what he had to do. Everybody knows the fundamental rationale at the time was articulated publicly in the context of liquidity in the banking system.
Can we deal with the question before us?
Everybody knows that, as it was no big secret.
On other matters, the Taoiseach was quite eloquent and clear yesterday in Paris about the reason Ireland was-----
Will the Deputy please get back to the question?
I will, of course, but the Taoiseach made all these points to me without interruption.
I am not going to take any more smart comments from the Deputy.
I did not make any smart comment.
Will the Deputy please adhere to the Chair and stick to the question?
I am adhering to the Chair. However, the Taoiseach has been doing this forever when asked questions. He goes where he wants to go.
I do not take lectures any day from the Deputy. I ask him to stick to the question.
The Taoiseach makes any statement he wants, but the Ceann Comhairle does not tell him to stick to the question.
Will the Deputy stick to the question?
The Ceann Comhairle did not tell the Taoiseach to stick to the question, did he? Did the Ceann Comhairle tell the Taoiseach to stick to the question?
The Taoiseach may answer the questions asked by the Deputy.
Did the Ceann Comhairle tell the Taoiseach to stick to the question?
Will the Deputy get on with it?
Did the Ceann Comhairle tell the Taoiseach to stick to the question when he went on for ages about Europe and asked me questions that had nothing to do with what was under discussion? That is all I am saying. If he does it, I may have to respond.
Will the Deputy please get on with his supplementary question?
On the issue of freedom of information, the Taoiseach's colleague, Deputy Howlin, who is the Minister responsible, said the fees are not an issue, although they were once. The point is that we paid the fees for the information we received under freedom of information requests. On the question of the operation of the freedom of information provisions and the need to review them, the Dáil should get information without having to make a freedom of information request. We should not be dependent on the Freedom of Information Act for basic information on policy decisions.
There is no question but that in the context of the selection of the primary care sites, we had to go through the Freedom of Information Act, because we could not get the information through the parliamentary questions process. However, even when we used the Freedom of Information Act, we were told - I have here the letters from the Department, not just from the FOI office, on the primary care centres - that it would be another four weeks before we could get the information because the office was availing of the provision to seek another four weeks. This is on top of the six weeks it has already taken. All we are asking for is some basic information. Why is it not possible just to publish the documentation? Why is it not put in the Oireachtas Library where the Members can go through it? What is there to hide? Just publish all the documentation that exists on the selection of the primary care centres.
The Taoiseach is using the Freedom of Information Act to frustrate the genuine and legitimate interests of Dáil and Seanad representatives who seek information on the rationale behind a policy decision on the selection of primary care sites which resulted in the resignation of a Minister of State. This is a very serious issue, yet there is a consistent pattern of denying that information to the House in the hope that, by the time it eventually comes out, the issue will be forgotten and people will not have the same level of interest.
The previous Administration tore the heart out of the Freedom of Information Act. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has had the heads of his Bill approved and it has been sent to the committee and is on the Department's website. We will deal with the question of expansion of the Freedom of Information Act and its restoration to the way it should be. I agree that as much information as possible should be made available. However, the Deputy cannot forget his own argument. He comes in here and says "Publish all the documentation". I make the point to him that I have no file in the Department of the Taoiseach, other than acknowledgments and faxes that are irrelevant to the central issue, on what happened on the night of the bank guarantee. The Deputy knows, as he was a Minister for many years, that on any issue about which people come to see a Minister, never mind senior members of the Government, where an incorporeal meeting must be held-----
I was told I could not address that point because it was out of order.
I will address it again. It was the single most fundamental economic decision ever made in this country, in which the then Government landed €64 billion on the backs of the Irish people, but there is no file in the Department of the Taoiseach that tells me and the public who met whom, who said what or why the decision was made. It is incredible, yet the Deputy comes in here and says we should publish all the documentation about a list of sites for primary care centres.
On a point of order, I mentioned this issue and was told it was out of order. The Taoiseach can do what he likes.
The Minister of State, Deputy White, has responsibility for primary care centres, and we want to build many more of them. If Deputy Martin, in all his wisdom, could take the original list of 300 centres drawn up by the HSE and determine whether 199 should be in place of 75 or whatever, he is a Solomon. However, he cannot come in and demand we publish all this information. He himself will not tell us what notes he took on the night of the big economic decision. I would love to know that and hope I find out some day.
I have already put it on the public record.
If we have an assessment to find this out, I hope the Deputy will come along and give truthful and up-front evidence about what he said when asked a question in the incorporeal meeting.
That was a very relevant answer.
Northern Ireland Issues
Micheál Martin
Question:7. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach his views on the progress that has been made in relation to the implementation of the St. Andrews Agreement; the aspects of the agreement in which he is not satisfied with the rate of implementation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41258/12]
Micheál Martin
Question:8. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach when the next North South Ministerial meeting will take place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44246/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together.
The St. Andrews Agreement of 2006 was aimed at achieving full and effective operation of the political institutions in Northern Ireland, which has been achieved. The devolution of justice and policing powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2010 was a significant step forward in the full implementation of the St. Andrews Agreement. Following the 2011 election, the Alliance Party leader David Ford was reappointed as Minister of Justice by cross-community vote and earlier this year the Executive agreed to extend his mandate beyond the April 2012 sunset clause provided for in the Hillsborough Agreement.
On strand two issues, it provided for a review of the existing North-South bodies to examine them from the points of view of efficiency and value for money.
It was also agreed that the review would look at the case for additional North-South bodies and areas of co-operation, as well as a replacement for the Irish Lights Agency. In regard to the first element of the review, on value for money and efficiency of the North-South bodies, it was agreed at the plenary meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council on 15 June 2012 to endorse the recommendations concerning the various bodies that had been made by the review group and agreed by Ministers at the relevant sectoral meetings. Progress has been disappointingly slow with regard to the second and third terms of reference of the review, which include the case for additional bodies and areas of co-operation within the North-South Ministerial Council. It was agreed at the last plenary meeting on 15 June that the First Minister, Deputy First Minister, Tánaiste and I will reflect and consult with a view to decisions being taken at the next plenary meeting. While these consultations have yet to be concluded, I hope progress can be made at the next plenary meeting on 2 November in Armagh.
The establishment of a North-South parliamentary forum was proposed as an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement. In addition to playing an important role in building understanding and co-operation for the common good of everyone on the island, such a forum would also have a valuable role in advising the Government and the Executive on economic, social and cultural issues with a cross-Border dimension. Following discussions and consultations, the Ceann Comhairle and the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Willie Hay, announced in July of this year that agreement had been reached on the establishment of the North-South Inter-Parliamentary Association. The association will provide a forum for regular and formal discussions between Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas on issues of mutual interest and concern, as envisaged in the agreements. Under its terms of reference, the association will meet twice yearly on a rotational basis. This historic milestone is another major stepping stone in the peace process and should be recognised as such. I have already congratulated the Ceann Comhairle on his intensive efforts and those of the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I do so again now. I welcome the holding of the inaugural plenary meeting of the association the Seanad Chamber on Friday, 12 October 2012. I understand it was very successful.
The establishment of a North-South consultative forum has been discussed at all plenary meetings of the North-South Ministerial Council since the institutions were restored in 2007. In the interim, the Government facilitated three consultative conferences in Farmleigh, involving social partners and other civil society groups from across the island. Despite this, progress has not been made. Regrettably, it appears that the Executive will be unable to advance the issue for the moment. The establishment of the British-Irish Council secretariat earlier this year in Edinburgh is to be welcomed. Together with my relevant ministerial colleagues, I have attended three plenary meetings of the British-Irish Council. The next meeting is scheduled to take place on 26 November in Wales. A limited number of areas relating to the Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement remain to be implemented. A bill of rights for Northern Ireland is currently under consideration by the British Government following a public consultation in Northern Ireland. The key issue of an Irish language act, as agreed at St. Andrews, remains unresolved. Some progress has been made in securing measures to promote and protect the Irish language and Ulster Scots, which have been the subject of recent consultation strategy papers by the Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. I hope to see progress on these outstanding issues.
Since my Government came into office, Ministers have attended over 17 North-South Ministerial Council sectoral meetings. I have attended three plenary meetings of the North-South Ministerial Council. Across a range of issues, the North-South Ministerial Council is facilitating economic and social activities on a cross-Border, all-island basis. The next plenary meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council, which takes place on Friday, 2 November in Armagh, will be hosted by the Northern Ireland Executive. The meeting will provide an opportunity to discuss the forthcoming Irish Presidency of the European Union. In this context, the Government is maximising North-South engagement in the run-up to and during the Irish Presidency, including opportunities for participation in Presidency-related events and the secondment of a small number of officials from the Northern Civil Service to work in our system. The North-South Ministerial Council will consider possible future EU programmes and ongoing co-operation on a range of North South co-operation initiatives. There may be an opportunity to discuss the north-west gateway initiative. I also intend to welcome the inaugural plenary meeting of the North South Inter-Parliamentary Association.
The House will be aware that I have initiated a number of sensitive meetings with the families of victims on all sides to hear at first hand how their lives have been affected by atrocities from the Troubles. I have met the families of victims of the Kingsmills massacre and victims of the Troubles in east Fermanagh. My officials recently met the Ballymurphy families as part of the preparations for a meeting with me. My colleague, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Deenihan, is working proactively with his counterpart in the Northern Executive to ensure the decade of centenaries is celebrated on a shared basis and with respect. We welcomed the 29 September event celebrating the Ulster Covenant as a central part of this process, albeit with concerns around some aspects of parading. The conflict in Northern Ireland which dominated the British-Irish relationship for decades has been replaced with a peace process opening a space for a relationship to develop which has never been stronger or more settled. Last year marked a turning point in British-Irish relations, which began with the visit to Ireland of Queen Elizabeth. By any standard, the events of those four days were groundbreaking. The visit was and is rightly a source of great pride for all the people of these islands. The British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, and I agreed that our joint statement of 12 March last would be the starting point for the realisation of the potential over the next decade of stronger relations for current and future generations living on both islands. The joint statement now provides a framework within which work is being carried forward on further joint actions and collaboration over the medium to longer term.
It is fair to say that the basic infrastructure put in place under the Belfast Agreement means that meetings, committees and engagements keep going on no matter what. It is also fair to say that very little progress can be achieved if all sides are simply going through the motions. That is sometimes the sense one gets as one observes the situation. That is what we are getting from the Government and from some of the political parties involved. There is an urgent need to avail of the framework created by the St. Andrews Agreement within which certain issues can be pursued. It is clear that by any yardstick, the Assembly and the Executive are not working optimally. Much more needs to happen if the Executive and the Assembly are to be seen to be working for the better interests of people. In the last year and a half, I have not discerned any single initiative to move the process forward. I do not think the Taoiseach has spent enough time on the issue. I would like to ask him about the case for additional North-South bodies. Has he suggested any particular additional bodies, or additional areas of co-operation between North and South, that could be created under the St. Andrews Agreement or under the review of North-South bodies? If he has, could he outline to the House the areas that might be involved? What is the roadblock in terms of their pursuit? The Taoiseach said that "progress has been disappointingly slow" on the North-South agenda. That is my observation as well. That is why I said what I said recently. At the initial stage of the Good Friday Agreement, significant progress was made under the auspices of a range of North-South bodies like Waterways Ireland and Tourism Ireland. There is now a sense that momentum is being lost and people are just going through the motions. What is the Taoiseach's agenda now in terms of moving the North-South issues on and in terms of the broader implementation of the St. Andrews Agreement? What does he want to achieve in his discussions on the North-South axis and on the British-Irish axis? Has he raised the question of an Irish language Act with the British Prime Minister recently? What is his sense in terms of progress with the formulation of such an Act?
I did not raise the specific Irish language issue with David Cameron. The strategic partnership agreement that we signed enhances the relationship between Ireland and Britain, and between here and Northern Ireland, to a great extent. I do not have any great wish to set off on the appointment of a plethora of new bodies for the moment. Before I give the Deputy a view of some of the things we are interested in and where some activity is taking place, I will reiterate that much more can be done and emphasise that it would be much easier if this economy were in a strong and thriving position.
For instance, in the transport area, the Ministers have agreed on a detailed timetable for drafting the passage and enactment of parallel legislation North and South by 31 December 2014 to allow the mutual recognition of penalty points across the island of Ireland.
Tourism Ireland continues to build on the success of the 2011 marketing campaigns, which resulted in an increase in overseas visitors for the first time since 2007. Given the success of the Irish Open held in Northern Ireland and the world rankings of a small but influential number of golfers here, this speaks for itself. Next year, of course, Derry has Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann and is the international City of Culture, and there is a great deal of activity going on between tourism areas North and South.
InterTradeIreland is working to encourage and stimulate a great deal of co-operation to increase applications to the EU framework programme, including enhanced levels of participation by small and medium-sized enterprises. At the Council meeting on Thursday and Friday, leaving aside other matters that were discussed, there was quite a discussion on the Compact for Growth and Jobs, with particular emphasis on SMEs across the EU, in which 18 million people are unemployed. Earlier in the year the Special EU Programmes Body had a successful open call for INTERREG applications, with 91 applications requesting over €217 million.
In the environment field, a great deal of progress has been made on the repatriation of illegally dumped waste, which I consider important. Education is a sector of great promise and the Minister, Deputy Quinn, and his counterpart are active in this regard. Among the work being undertaken is a joint attitudinal survey to inform cross-Border pupil movement and school planning and liaison between the two teaching councils, with the object of facilitating greater mobility of teachers across the island.
In health, there is ongoing co-operation on a minimum unit price for alcohol and proposals for a North-South alcohol forum to develop strategies on alcohol in both jurisdictions, on which the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy White, will be working. Planning is well advanced for the establishment of the radiotherapy unit at Altnagelvin; construction will commence in 2013 and the unit will be operational in 2016. The Deputy is also aware of the position regarding the A5 and A8 roads.
I refer also to the statement by the Minister for Finance that a great deal of work is ongoing with regard to research into illegal activity in diesel, which is so important for both economies. The aim is to have the capacity to trace movement of volumes of diesel and to have an ingredient that cannot be washed out in order to deal with the illegal activities which have gone on for a long time. Despite the current budgetary challenges, the Government remains fully committed to the PEACE III projects and will see that they continue.
There is a measure of work that each of the groups and bodies can do and I would like to see progress in this regard before we set out on setting up new bodies. To be honest, I am not aware of the difficulties that apply with regard to the Ulster Scots and Irish language Bill but that is an issue I intend to take up when I visit the North in the not-too-distant future. I also want to reflect on the issue of the Bill of Rights and examine the current situation in that regard. As I said, I spoke to the Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, briefly on Thursday and Friday and discussed a number of issues I hope to follow through with him over the period ahead.
I am somewhat concerned. First, I see nothing new in what the Taoiseach has just said, so my basic criticism remains that nothing new is being added to the narrative in terms of progressing the St. Andrews Agreement and the North-South issues. I am concerned that, despite the fact that the St. Andrews Agreement provides for a case to be made for additional bodies, the Taoiseach does not seem to have made any case at all and, indeed, does not even believe there should be an additional body, if I am to pick up on what he just said.
I want to make the ones that are there work first.
He said he was not going to set off to appoint a plethora of new bodies. It was announced that the position of the Irish Government was that there should be a replacement for the Lights Agency and also that it would seek areas in which we could appoint new bodies. To make a suggestion, one obvious area is the food sector. There is food safety, but we could broaden that out. Food is an area that is crying out for an all-island approach.
We have a lot to do.
There are other areas in which bodies could be useful if people would get over their political problems in facilitating them. The Irish language Bill is also a requirement of the St. Andrews Agreement. I am somewhat concerned by the Taoiseach's statement that he is not aware of the difficulties. He has been in office for 18 months and should be aware of some of the difficulties.
I have a lot of difficulties to deal with, most of them created by the Deputy's-----
A Deputy
It is 21 months.
Sorry, 21 months.
Will Deputy Martin prepare a report on all of that?
Order, please.
I ask the Taoiseach to get on his bike and start promoting the actual agreement the two sovereign Governments-----
We will commission a few reports.
These are issues the sovereign Governments have agreed on with the parties. People signed off on these issues at St. Andrews, so they are not optional extras.
The other key point is that we need far more in terms of anti-sectarian initiatives and the building of cross-community relationships. I ask the Taoiseach, even from the limited budget available, to add something in order to give momentum and to support the historic approach of our Government.
The other big issue I am concerned about is the poverty in many parts of Northern Ireland. The child poverty rate of 46% in west Belfast is extraordinary and is something we need to address. This affects the entire island. In addition, there are loyalist areas in which there are high rates of early school-leaving and health indices are very poor by international standards, as we know from the all-island mortality studies. If we do not get to grips with those more fundamental issues-----
Maybe the Deputy should organise to be part of that.
Maybe he should look at Cork.
-----then we are storing up problems for ourselves in terms of the future of the island. That is my main outstanding concern. Having been a Minister for Foreign Affairs, with experience of where some of the support for certain groups comes from, I believe we need to do an awful lot more to ensure the Good Friday Agreement has a social and economic dividend. It was never meant to be just about the absence of violence; it was much more than that. The aim was that people in Northern Ireland, particularly those on the lowest incomes, the most vulnerable and those at risk of poverty, would see the benefits. The fact that 46% of children in west Belfast are living in poverty, according to the most recent survey, is a damning indictment.
I spent yesterday at Stormont. I brought a delegation of farmers from County Louth up to meet the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, and we had a good, solid meeting, with the IFA and the Ulster Farmers' Union in attendance. I have to say people everywhere were electrified by the fact that an Teachta Martin had discovered the North again. People were delighted to hear him raising all of these issues.
Especially Deputy Adams.
I want the Government to be doing more, but this Government is doing no more or less than the last Government did.
That is not true.
That is absolute fact.
Is there a supplementary question?
Annex B of the St. Andrews Agreement deals with the issue of prisoners and integration into society. I sent the Taoiseach a file on Marian Price and Martin Corey and I wrote to him on that issue. These two citizens are held without any legal process whatsoever - none. They are interned. They are held in camera. There is some sort of a review but there is no public legal process. Has the Taoiseach raised this issue on the back of my letter and my sending the report to him? If not, will he raise this issue?
Deputy Martin seems to think we can be moving around Europe, Northern Ireland and everywhere but here. I remind him there is a set of circumstances that apply in sorting out our own public finances and getting our economy moving again, which take up the vast majority of my time, as he will understand.
The photo-ops take up the vast majority of his time. The PR companies are in full flight.
I like to think there is a great deal of work that can be done by the bodies that are already set up. I want to follow this through at the next North-South Ministerial Council on 2 November.
I take the Deputy's point about the anti-sectarian issue. That is an issue of concern to everyone. Deputy Martin is well aware of the close co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda. Yes, I saw some of the Northern Ireland producers at the SIAL exhibition for food producers in Paris yesterday. It is the second biggest such exhibition in the world. It was enormous. I was happy to launch the international element of Origin Green, which is a programme for Irish producers in competition with others from around the world involving the highest standard of quality foodstuffs. The programme is going very well.
Deputy Adams inquired about Ms Marian Price-McGlinchey and Martin Corey. I received the file the Deputy sent and I have read it. An appeal hearing on the case is to be heard on 26 October. Clearly, I cannot comment in advance of it, but I have the file and I have read it. I will await the outcome of the hearing this week before I make any further comment on it.
A Cheann Comhairle-----
No, I am sorry. I cannot take any more questions.
Okay.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.