Derek Keating
Question:1. Deputy Derek Keating asked the Taoiseach his plans to establish a national awards scheme; if he will now bring forward his plans for a national awards scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46775/14]
Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed)
National Awards Scheme
Derek Keating
Question:2. Deputy Derek Keating asked the Taoiseach further to Parliamentary Question No. 9 of 25 October 2011, during which he committed to write to the party leaders and representatives on the establishment of a national civil award, if he will report on the responses received; the views expressed by those party leaders and representatives; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3280/15]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The issue of a State honours system has been discussed many times in the past but there has never been all-party support to sustain its development. I believe that such support would be required if consideration of an honours system were to proceed. While I have no objections to all-party consideration of this matter, the timing of any such consideration would have to take into account other political priorities at the time.
I am aware that Deputy Keating has had an interest in this matter for some time and he has mentioned to me that he has carried out extensive research. If he wishes to forward that research, I will be happy to talk to him about it and have it examined.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this issue today and I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. I am grateful to him for acknowledging the number of occasions I have raised this issue. The record will show that I raised it previously in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.
I do not wish to use a pun but this proposal has considerable merit. Ireland is one of the countries that does not have an awards system to acknowledge the accomplishments and efforts of people, some of whom might be known and have a high profile and others who are unsung heroes in their communities. It is long past time to introduce such an awards system.
The Taoiseach referred to the fact that I have carried out research on this. I have spoken to diplomats, ambassadors and people from other parts of Europe. This is in place in a number of other states. I recall a debate on this issue in 2011 to which Members such as Deputies Martin, Adams, Mathews and Durkan contributed. Unless I misread the situation completely, there was a positive response to this issue and, frankly, I hoped that it might have been progressed to a further stage by now. Subsequently, I had a meeting with the Chief Whip and there was agreement that we would take it to a further stage and discuss it with the other party Whips and so forth. I am disappointed that we have not moved to a further stage, but I am anxious to continue to explore this option. I believe it would be in the national interest. It would give recognition to people, many of whom might be known and popular but many of whom might not necessarily have such a profile, are unsung heroes in their communities and make various efforts in their lives and in society.
I am interested to hear what the other Members say before I make concluding comments.
This is Question Time, not a debate.
I do not have an objection to this in principle. In fairness to Deputy Keating, he has raised the matter each year since 2011. He has been consistent in doing so. It is not the first time this has been suggested but the absence of all-party agreement is the deterrent or obstacle. Article 40.2.1° of the Constitution clearly states that titles of nobility shall not be conferred by the State. The last attempt to do something about this was by my predecessor, former Deputy Bertie Ahern.
There are a number of schemes run by the State whereby the State recognises and rewards merit, distinction or bravery in particular cases. These include the President's Award, Gaisce, for young people. That is a scheme where young people are challenged to use their leisure time for positive development and the betterment of their communities.
Gold, silver and bronze medals are presented by an tUachtarán as a recognition of that achievement. That scheme has not been established on a statutory basis.
The second is the Presidential Distinguished Service Award for the Irish Abroad. This was introduced in 2012. The distinguished service award is presented by an tUachtarán to persons who live abroad. Primarily, these are Irish citizens who are entitled to Irish citizenship or persons of Irish descent who have made a sustained and distinguished service to Ireland or to Irish communities abroad. A total of ten awards are made each year. I understand you have attended a number of these, a Cheann Comhairle.
The third is Aosdána, the national scheme to honour artists whose work has made an outstanding contribution to the arts in Ireland. It offers to those who need it a basic level of financial security to enable them to devote their energies fully to their particular art.
The fourth is the National Bravery Awards awarded by the Deeds of Bravery Council. The council awards medals and certificates for deeds of bravery. A deed of bravery is defined as an effort to save human life involving personal risk. The council awards gold medals, bronze medals and certificates. It may also pay compensation to recipients or their dependants. Another example of this type of award is the Scott Medal awarded annually by the Garda Síochána for bravery. The gift is presented by the Garda Commissioner but awarded by the Minister for Justice and Equality.
The fifth is the Volunteer Ireland awards. These are presented in recognition of people who are unsung heroes and who have given time volunteering throughout Ireland. Nominations are forwarded by members of the public. The categories include arts, cultural media, sports and recreation, health and disability, children and young people, campaigning and awareness raising, community education and training, social work, animals and environment, and international development.
There are commercially sponsored awards ceremonies as well which recognise contributions to sport, business, charities etc., for example, the Rehab People of the Year awards, the Irish Film and Television Academy awards, the Irish Times InterTradeIreland awards, which are for young innovators and small businesses, the RTE Sports Person of the Year award, and the Entrepreneur Of The Year award, which is presented in three categories: engineering, industrial and international awards. There are 24 finalists and the winner goes on to participate in the World Entrepreneur Of The Year.
I know Deputy Keating has done some research on the matter. If he wishes to converse with me about it I would be pleased to do so. He may wish to engage with the leaders of the other parties with a view to this. Within the constraints of Article 40.2.1°, under which nobility and titles are not awarded by the State, we have a range of opportunities to reward people for exceptional performance and so on. Perhaps Deputy Keating might wish to take that up. I would be happy to converse with him further on the matter.
I am unsure whether the Taoiseach is aware of the comment by Napoleon when he was stabilising matters after the French Revolution, that he would rule mankind with baubles. We need to be careful. I have always had an open mind but, as a republican, I have a view that there is always a question mark around the State bestowing honours on people. Unfortunately, in Britain we have seen the system there abused by political parties. The system was brought into disrepute for electoral and political gain and there were allegations of fund-raising in respect of honours being bestowed on people. That is a significant issue as well.
We discussed this last as an Oireachtas or as a country in 1997, if I am not mistaken. The political parties discussed the matter at the time. Several awards, including the Gaisce and Aosdána awards as well as a number that are independently decided upon, are outside the political or State system. There are set criteria, particularly for the Gaisce award for young people. Has the Taoiseach looked at reviewing the Gaisce award? It is an excellent awards system that challenges young people to achieve certain objectives in certain disciplines and areas. It is a quiet, understated awards system that has significant benefits for the young people concerned as well as for communities of young people who engage in various challenges to attain either the bronze, silver or gold medal. We should not shy away from celebrating or supporting the Gaisce award and ensuring it is well-resourced in terms of the management and administration.
Does the Taoiseach accept the basic principle that those responsible for our Constitution took a deliberate decision? They did not want the State to have a direct awards scheme. Does the Taoiseach accept that principle? Does he accept that our Constitution provides for an explicit ban on the creation of titles of nobility? Is that something the Taoiseach agrees with?
There were citizens here who thought they had all the trappings of nobility. Let us put that to one side because that would be improper.
I trust Deputy Adams is not referring to republican royalty.
I think there is a good case to be made for a national award scheme. The Taoiseach has enumerated some of the awards that represent a recognition and celebration of people in sporting organisations, the arts and community activists. It is good that society reflects this. Members of the media deserve their just awards as well for the work they do. It is important to give credit and praise.
Is there any chance I might get one for my patience?
Indeed, a Cheann Comhairle. The Taoiseach referred to the Gaisce or President's award. This is a successful awards scheme that brings considerable benefits to the young people who participate. Tá fadhbanna leis sa Tuaisceart ós rud é go gcaithfidh daoine óga ann dul tríd an Duke of Edinburgh's award chun clárú le Gaisce. There is a problem in the North. I have made representations about this. Young people who wish to avail of the President's award or Gaisce have to go through the Duke of Edinburgh's Award. God bless the Duke of Edinburgh, but there are some young people there who do not want to apply for the President's award through the Duke of Edinburgh's scheme or system. We find, therefore, almost by default, that young people in the North are unable to apply for the President's award. We should perhaps tease this out and have a genuine debate. Whether people are in Ballymena or Ballycastle at the tip-top of Antrim or in the tip-toe of Cork, they should be able to be part of all this. This gives me the opportunity to draw the Taoiseach's attention to the matter. Will he review this arrangement in order that groups or individuals in the North can register directly for Gaisce?
It might be useful to give some consideration to an overall award, a unique award, for persons who may have made a unique contribution to society. These people could be broadcasters, journalists or even the odd politician. There are many people who would merit special recognition. Provision is made in other constitutions, such as the French Constitution, for an awards system, for example, la Légion d'honneur. In Germany there is a similar system. In the United States there is the Congressional Gold Medal. These awards are not handed out liberally. They are unique awards for unique service. Perhaps over the passage of time there has been something of an aversion to recognising a major or great contribution in society, apart altogether from the individual awards mentioned by An Taoiseach. Would it be possible, in conjunction with the other party leaders, to look again at the prospect?
We must not allow a system to develop in which it becomes everybody's award. Rather, it should be because a particular contribution to society merits a unique award. It would be for that purpose only.
For the information of the House, I will give some background details. In July 1930, Mr. Blythe, as Minister for Finance of the Executive Council, decided that unofficial negotiations on the matter of an Irish honours system should be opened with the British Government at the earliest convenient opportunity. This was not pursued prior to the constitutional changes in 1937, at which point it became entirely a matter for the Irish Government. The system he had in mind was the Order of the Legion of St. Patrick, of whom there would be 25 commanders, foreign persons chosen by the Executive Council to be honorary commanders, with not more than 50 to be officers and not more than 100 chosen by the Executive Council to be members.
Was that the official Blueshirts?
In January 1946, the Government decided that the then Taoiseach, Mr. de Valera, should examine the question of an honours list, as they put it, in the light of the relevant provisions of the Constitution and of the practice in other countries. A draft memorandum setting out those general lines for a State declaration of honour was circulated to the Departments of Finance and External Affairs for observations. The system they proposed comprised An Chraobh Ruadh and An tÓrdan Feibhe. The Taoiseach was to make proposals to Government. An Chraobh Ruadh - the Red Branch - would be limited to 25 persons, with An tÓrdan Feibhe, first class, limited to 100 persons, and second class limited to 250 persons, and distinctions to be conferred by the President on the advice of the Government.
In 1948, the draft memorandum was brought to the attention of the new Taoiseach, Mr. Costello, who decided that while the matter should not be abandoned entirely, it should be deferred for the time being. In 1953, a revised draft memorandum, based on the 1946 version, was brought to the attention of the then Taoiseach, Mr. de Valera, who, having consulted his Cabinet colleagues, decided that the time was "not opportune" for the institution of an honours system. In May 1956, the Minister for Defence submitted a memorandum to the Taoiseach, Mr. Costello, who decided that the question should be left aside for further consideration at a later time.
In November 1959, following more public discussion, the then Taoiseach, Mr. Lemass, indicated that the matter should not be pursued actively until such time as there emerged evidence of widespread public interest. The following January, the Department of External Affairs suggested the establishment of an interdepartmental committee to examine the matter. This was not pursued in view of the Taoiseach's decision the previous November.
In 1963, the Government, following consideration of a memorandum from the Taoiseach, Mr. Lemass, approved in principle a proposal that a State declaration of honour be instituted. It authorised him to consult with the Opposition leaders in Dáil Éireann with a view to securing their acceptance in principle of the proposal and agreed that if the concurrence in principle of the Opposition parties was obtained, the details of an appropriate scheme would be settled by a joint committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Taoiseach wrote to the leaders of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties. The Labour Party responded that before it could agree even in principle to the proposal, it would prefer to have talks on the type of scheme envisaged, while the Fine Gael party simply indicated that it would not be expedient at that time to proceed with this proposal. In view of this, the matter was not pursued.
In March 1991, the then Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, wrote to party leaders inviting them to exploratory talks on the introduction of an honours system. All party leaders responded, saying they were willing to meet the Taoiseach. The leader of the Workers' Party felt it was not a priority and, if a system was established, it should be free from political patronage and should not be hereditary or of monetary value. The leader of the Fine Gael Party asked that the Taoiseach outline the system he had in mind, while the leader of the Labour Party simply accepted the invitation. However, these talks did not take place, as the political climate was not right. The issue was viewed as low priority and there was a lack of public demand.
In April 1994, the then Taoiseach, Mr. Reynolds, wrote to Opposition party leaders asking for their views on the introduction of an honours system. The only reply he received was from the Fine Gael Party leader, who stated that he supported the concept in principle and was willing to participate in an exploration of the idea. He explained and suggested mechanisms for selecting people.
In September 1999, the then Taoiseach, Mr. Ahern, initiated consultations with other party leaders. He asked the Government Chief Whip to represent the Government at a meeting with representatives of the other party leaders. Senator Manning, representing Fine Gael at the time, subsequently wrote to the Chief Whip indicating that, having consulted with the Front Bench, the overwhelming majority felt the question of an honours system should not be pursued further. The Taoiseach accepted the views expressed and decided not to do so.
In October 2007, the Taoiseach again wrote to the party leaders, inviting them to discussions. Fine Gael and Sinn Féin responded favourably, while the Labour Party indicated it would bring proposals before the parliamentary party. The last Taoiseach, Mr. Cowen, did not pursue the matter with the other party leaders, indicating in a response to a parliamentary question that the timing of any consideration of this matter would have to take into account other political priorities.
There has been, therefore, an 80-year consideration in this regard. Article 40.2.1° still stands in that the State shall not award titles or nobility. I take the point made by Deputy Martin in respect of abuse of this in hereditary or monetary terms.
The Taoiseach deserves an award for his answer.
Deputy Keating is part of what is a very long line of prestigious comments made in the House over 80 years. Somebody else may stand up here in 20 years' time and say that Deputy Keating was pursuing it when he was here. I thank him for the intervention and for the question.
I thank the Taoiseach and all those who contributed to the debate. What I am trying to do is to ensure the current Taoiseach is not added to that list, if this is raised in 20 years time, although I say that with tongue in cheek. I am aware there is a long history associated with this request and that many others have pursued it in the past, although I did not know just how long the history was.
In reference to the Taoiseach's' earlier comments, I would be grateful if this could be taken a stage further and if the Taoiseach would agree to present this to the Whips and the party leaders for discussion. Given that I have been raising this over the past four years, perhaps we could agree on a specific timetable to at least arrive at a decision and maybe save others time in the future. Perhaps the Taoiseach could report back to me in four to six weeks, if that is reasonable.
That was a very impressive chronology of progress over the 80 years. It demonstrates a lot of uncertainty, a lot of hesitation and a lot of doubt. However, I recall one thing that has happened in past years - that Dr. T. K. Whitaker, who is now 97 years of age, was honoured by being declared the Irishman of the 20th century. It is in that sort of context that I say this could be the first toe-testing, if one wants to put it that way, of a President's honours list - not an award but rather a President's declaration of particularly productive contributions to the people of Ireland. That is the way I would take it, given that there has been such going around in circles for 80 years. We could make one move forward in that regard.
Before the Taoiseach replies, I want to mention that I have the pleasure of chairing the bravery awards, which we have moved to Farmleigh. The committee includes the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, the Lord Mayor of Cork, the chairman of the Red Cross, the Cathaoirleach and myself. To be honest, the stories we have received from throughout the country are astonishing in terms of the acts of bravery performed by people we never read about. The biggest problem we have is to try to get people to make submissions. One particular case that will always stick in my mind is that of two young guys who, while on their way home after celebrating their leaving certificate results in Fermoy, noticed smoke coming from the upstairs window of a house. They broke down a door and went in, through thick smoke, risking their own lives. They pulled out somebody who was unconscious, brought him out and resuscitated him on the footpath.
The person told them there was another person inside. One of them took off his jacket and went back in - there were flames at this stage - and dragged out the second person. I never read or heard about this, but these are the sort of things that are happening. We present the awards in Farmleigh each year and the amount of goodness that happens that we never hear about is incredible. Perhaps I should not intervene as Ceann Comhairle, but as chairman of the bravery awards I will mention the incredible information that comes to us. We are very careful about the level of awards we grant depending on the acts performed.
Hear, hear. Well said.
The bravery awards are, as the Ceann Comhairle said, very special and very much appreciated by the people who receive them. I had the privilege of launching Anne Chambers's biography of T.K. Whitaker, an extraordinary citizen who was selected by popular vote of those interested the most influential and important citizen of the 20th century, which is an extraordinary commendation from people throughout the country who gave their views. I take Deputy Keating's point of view and I will come back to him.
Economic Management Council
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:3. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach his views on the recent suggestion that the Economic Management Council should not be retained past the period of fiscal crisis. [47797/14]
Micheál Martin
Question:4. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach his views on the suggestion that the Economic Management Council should not be retained after the fiscal crisis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2157/15]
Joe Higgins
Question:5. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach his views on the continuation of the Economic Management Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5464/15]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:6. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach his views on a recent suggestion that the Economic Management Council should not be retained past the period of the fiscal crisis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5534/15]
Micheál Martin
Question:7. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach when the Economic Management Council last met. [9967/15]
Micheál Martin
Question:8. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the Economic Management Council meeting held in March 2015. [12697/15]
Gerry Adams
Question:9. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the number of times the Economic Management Committee has met since the start of the year. [12777/15]
Gerry Adams
Question:10. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach when the Economic Management Committee last met. [12778/15]
Gerry Adams
Question:11. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach his views on the continuation of the Economic Management Committee and the suggestion that it should not be retained after the period of the fiscal crisis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12779/15]
Gerry Adams
Question:12. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the frequency of meetings of the Economic Management Council with the banks and when these meetings occurred. [12780/15]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 12, inclusive, together.
The Economic Management Council, EMC, was established with the status of a Cabinet committee to manage the Government's programme of economic planning, budgetary matters and banking policy. It has four members, namely, the Taoiseach, Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The council met on three occasions this year. The last meeting took place on 4 March. It has met the banks on three separate occasions. The meetings took place on 9 November 2011, 21 February 2012 and 26 June 2012. Following the adoption of the statement of Government priorities in July 2014, a review of Cabinet committee structures took place and a number of changes were made. However, the Government decided that the EMC should be retained in its current format to continue its work in securing economic recovery.
I put it to the Taoiseach that from day one the main concern of the Government has been to spin its role on a range of issues rather than showing form in terms of substance. Central to all this was the establishment of a Cabinet committee which was pompously titled the Economic Management Council. An army of advisers spent countless hours talking about the importance of the EMC, themselves and their political bosses. The reality is that the EMC has been a way of making the Cabinet and Government less relevant and far more centralised than the Constitution ever envisaged. The Constitution is very clear about the role of Government, that is, that it should be responsible to Dáil Éireann.
It is a fact that the EMC has never produced a fiscal strategy. There has been no new fiscal strategy for three years. It has never published a full economic strategy. If one listened to the Tánaiste, Deputy Burton, the Ministers, Deputies White and Coveney, and others, one would find it has been a way of keeping normal discussions away from Government and the public. The water debacle was a classic illustration of that. It provided for the €500 million for water meters, devoid of any accountability.
On the forthcoming campaign event, which has been called the spring statement, will the Taoiseach say whether the EMC will be taking the lead role on that? The spring statement is due to involve civil servants in writing the document. The Taoiseach has confessed that the document is primarily about setting out Fine Gael and Labour Party policies beyond the next election. Will he outline on what legal basis he is using significant amounts of Civil Service time to write a document which has no formal status? It is not a White Paper or Book of Estimates, it contains no financial resolutions and will be immediately superseded by the budget. Will he confirm that is the case?
For most of last year we had weekly exclusive stories on tax cuts about to be handed out by a very generous Government. Will the Taoiseach confirm the status of those stories? We read about them every day. Are they cleared by the Taoiseach and the EMC before being released? Is he keeping a list of them or will it be like last year where the leaks went far beyond anything that subsequently materialised in the budget?
The EMC decided four years ago to end the practice of providing detailed distributional impact information for budgetary proposals. It seems to me that the reason it did that was to save the Labour Party's blushes due to Fine Gael's very regressive approach to budgetary and fiscal changes and the unfair policies that were allowed to dominate. One would argue that this is very basic material. The Department of Finance has all that material and historically has always produced it. Will the EMC lift a ban on its publication when the spring statement is issued? Will we be allowed to see the full impact of the announced policies rather than just the ministerial spin?
I put it to the Taoiseach that by law all budget proposals should be prepared in light of an analysis and recommendations from the Fiscal Advisory Council. It is a legal position. Will the law be followed, for example, for the spring statement? If it is not, it will be transparently and purely an electoral event and Fine Gael and the Labour Party should be asked to reimburse the taxpayer for the costs. Article 28.4.1° of the Constitution states: "The Government shall be responsible to Dáil Éireann." Instead, the Dáil is treated essentially as a rubber stamp in all this.
Will the Taoiseach outline to the House the position of the Tánaiste, Deputy Burton, on the EMC? She pouted a lot prior to becoming Tánaiste and leader of the Labour Party about not being on the EMC and not being given access to its work. Some Ministers, such as Deputies Varadkar and White, have complained publicly about the role of the EMC and their lack of engagement with it. The Minister, Deputy Coveney, did previously but has gone rather quiet on the issue. What is the up-to-date position of the Tánaiste?
Before I ask the Taoiseach to reply, I advise that because of complications, questions submitted to An Taoiseach concerning committees of the Cabinet are restricted to obtaining information on the number of meetings that have taken place, the dates of those meetings and the proposed dates of future meetings. The basis of this procedure emanates from Article 28.4.3° of the Constitution which states: "The confidentiality of discussion at meetings of the Government shall be restricted in all circumstances save only where the High Court determines that disclosure should be made in respect of a particular matter." Consequently, questions related to the activities of individual Cabinet committees are not in order. That is the advice that has been given formally to the House.
There are a quite a number of Cabinet sub-committees in existence. I choose to devote one day per month to them. For instance, yesterday I started at 8.30 a.m. and finished at 7 p.m. I went through a range of ministerial responsibilities, programmes and policy issues that need to be moved on by individual Departments or where there is a relationship between Departments and Ministers.
The EMC was set up for a very good reason. Given the scale of the economic crisis that faced the Government when it was appointed, it was necessary to have a focused entity that could regularly examine the evolving and changing economic landscape. As the Government comprised two parties, we believed it was important that there be that level of contact, as required, between the leaders or Ministers of the parties, as would apply.
The overall mandate of the Government was to fix the public finances and get our country back to work. The Economic Management Council, EMC, has in my experience allowed for very regular contact between the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform on issues arising every day of the most serious import. They concerned matters relating to the European Central Bank or questions about bailout negotiations etc. These discussions also concerned budgets in very difficult financial circumstances. The EMC is not the Government and there has not been a case where any discussion taking place at an EMC meeting suddenly became Government policy. It is necessary for its members to go before the Cabinet so that these matters can be discussed and formal agreement can be given if required. It is often the case that a view reached by the EMC might not emerge from the Cabinet at the end of the day, as other views might have been expressed.
Given the scale evident of where we were, this was a very important entity. As Deputy Martin is aware, the number of meetings we have had this year is smaller than the number we would have had per year in the middle of this crisis. I genuinely believe the EMC has an important value in keeping the Government focused on the central remit, which is to continue to secure the recovery, achieve full employment by 2018 and allow for constant changes in the way business is done and the kind of environment in which business can operate.
The spring economic statement is not a mini-budget and it is not a case of using the occasion for the purpose of making announcements that apply to the budget. It is an important entity for the Government to be able to set out its views about the challenges that lie ahead, the kind of business environment we would like to see and the strategy the Government will set out that it intends to follow as far out as 2020. Deputies are aware that national programmes are set by and in conjunction with the European Commission that are published in or around May each year. These are normally low-key programmes but the spring economic statement allows for the inclusion of these kinds of programmes in setting out the general environment and challenges we see up ahead. As I said, the EMC is not the Government. It meets as appropriate, depending on the issues that arise. The EMC will meet representatives of the banks in due course in regard to an agenda dealing with mortgages and rates etc.
To respond to Deputy Martin, the spring economic statement is not a budget or a litany of announcements about matters being implemented. It is to set out for everybody the opportunity to engage themselves in where our country is headed in the time ahead. The strategy will consist of the announcement of the spring economic statement, followed by a consultation and engagement with elements of the public and other sectors before the drafting and presentation of the budget in October. It is good that there are definite dates set for the implementation of budgets so people know those timelines. That has been of value. That will be the process following through the spring economic statement, leading to consultation and the presentation of the budget.
The independent fiscal council is an important entity. It is a watchdog independent in its analysis and views. The Government is not bound to take those views into account but it is an important entity in its own right. People can see the opinions and views of experts in the financial field, including what they would consider important to implement. The view of that economic council in terms of fiscal adjustments would have been more severe in some cases than what the Government did. It is for the political process to assess what decisions have to be made and how best they might be implemented in the interests of working towards full and sustainable employment, continuing to reduce our debt and making serious progress to wipe out our deficit, as well as having full employment by 2018.
Will the fiscal council be consulted on the spring statement?
I do not believe there is any formal engagement but on the run-in to the preparation for the budget-----
I am talking about the spring statement.
-----the independent fiscal council will have all the information available to it. There is no proposal to have a formal engagement with the fiscal council about the spring economic statement. As I said, that is not a budget or a vehicle for indicating what issues the Government will announce. It concerns the general economic landscape as the Government sees it right out to 2020. That will be discussed and published here, with the information pertaining to that made available to people so they can have the opportunity to have their say.
One of my questions is about the Taoiseach giving us a view on the continuation of the Economic Management Council and the suggestion that it should not be retained after the period of the fiscal crisis. Another question relates to frequency of meetings with banks. I accept entirely what was read to us. It is interesting to note that in several newspaper reports earlier this month, the Minister for Finance was quoted as telling a Fine Gael parliamentary meeting that the Economic Management Council discussed the question of insolvency legislation and mortgage arrears. It appears there is no difficulty briefing the Fine Gael Members or the media of discussions within the EMC but we in the Dáil cannot be briefed on these matters.
Having made that point, my main question is whether this management committee should be retained. It has been described, variously, as autocratic and dictatorial. The Taoiseach has stated this is not the Government but it has been described as a government within the Government. That is not coming from us but people within the Government parties. Others have stated it undermines the role of Ministers and the Cabinet while enhancing the power of unelected civil servants and party advisers. Mr. Pat Leahy, in his book, The Price of Power, identifies one key reason for its existence. He argues that one senior Minister put it to him that the Cabinet "leaks like a sieve", so perhaps it is about preventing leaks and control. Last November, one of the Taoiseach's backbenchers, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, called for the disbandment of the EMC and suggested its operation might even be unconstitutional. A Minister, Deputy Alex White, warned that the council should not become a fixture of the political system. He specifically called for the role of the Economic Management Council to be re-examined. Has this been considered by the Government?
Last month, the Taoiseach reported that the Economic Management Council met representatives of the banks on three occasions, which were in November 2011, February 2012 and June 2012. That means it has been almost three years since the EMC last met representatives of the banks.
Given the central role that the banks must play in any fair economic recovery, is it right that there were no meetings for three years? We all know about the number of mortgage accounts which are in arrears and the pressure on householders, which is rising and will continue. Many times, I have raised with the Taoiseach the problem with banks not lending enough money to small and medium enterprises. Is it not a glaring fault that the Taoiseach did not meet with the banks on this issue?
It is not about control, but focus on the challenges and issues that must be addressed and the kinds of views that should be presented to the Cabinet for its consideration so that we can make decisions on them. I have never favoured holding endless meetings without a focus in which everybody throws in opinions just for the sake of it. While I am not suggesting this happens at Cabinet meetings, it is far more efficient to set out a number of views, identify the challenges we face and discuss how we will deal with them. The spring economic statement, which will be led by the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform, will include a stock take of economic performance, a discussion on the developments taking place in the public finances and how this will fit in with the stability programme update, which is a requirement under European legislation. The statement will set out what the Government feels are the challenges that lie ahead during the coming years.
One of the issues is that the Government has set out to reduce our deficit below 3% this year - it will be well below 3% - and to eliminate it by 2018. This means we need to create 40,000 jobs this year and 40,000 next year and in 2017 and 2018, respectively, to recover all the jobs that were lost during the recession. Tomorrow, the Central Statistics Office, CSO, will publish the live register, and we hope the positive trend will continue. Deputies will be able to contribute to the focus on economic and financial challenges, including the potential risks and challenges that lie ahead. This is where we want the spring economic statement to be focused. Given the progress the country has made, and the sacrifices people have had to make, we do not want to lose the momentum. Our intention is to set out the parameters and secure the future and the recovery so that people all over the country can benefit from it. This will be important in the sense of setting out where we are.
We hope, in 2015, to exit the excessive deficit procedure, look ahead to 2020, hold a public consultation, present our budget, let the independent Fiscal Advisory Council present its views and publish the information leading up to the budget so people can assess its impact and put forward alternative proposals. While the spring economic statement is technical in many ways, it is also political and financial in its setting out of the strategy the Government will follow and our intention not to go backwards but to secure the recovery and move forward. Around the country, in the different sectors, what I see is very encouraging. As I have said on many occasions, the credit goes to the people. However, it is the Government's responsibility to secure the momentum and progress, and this requires clarity and clear decisions. For this reason, I am a very strong supporter of the concept of the EMC.
Deputy Martin asked whether the Tánaiste attends the EMC. She does attend, and contributes very worthily to it. Arising from the meetings, people have a better perspective on the decisions the Cabinet must make. I repeat, it is not a mini Government but a process of streamlining work so the Cabinet can make decisions. The EMC will meet the banks in the period ahead. We have already committed to bringing in a number of changes to the situation in so far as mortgages are concerned. The Government will deal with it in April. The Government has put together a suite of options, including the Insolvency Service of Ireland, ISI. Although the ISI may not have dealt with as many cases as people might like, banks have reached acceptable and satisfactory conclusions in more than 100,000 cases. These settlements had been vetted by the Central Bank, and the vast majority are working satisfactorily.
I hope the process that lies ahead will prove successful and that Deputies on all sides will contribute to it in a way that will make it worthwhile. Everybody will have an opportunity to comment on it. Following it, there will be a process of public consultation, during which people will be entitled to send their views and observations as the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform set out their views regarding the budget, which will be presented by the Minister for Finance. Some time before the summer, the Government must reflect on the capital programme for the coming years, given that there are serious infrastructural deficiencies in various places around the country. There are other programmes that need to be followed through, such as the building of schools and primary care centres. These matters will come before the Government for decision and we hope to deal with them before the summer so everybody can have his or her say and we can discuss the budget in October.
The Taoiseach said the EMC was established for a specific reason and that it allowed for very regular contact. This seems a very poor reason for the establishment of the EMC. The Taoiseach can have this regular contact with the Tánaiste whenever he wants to. Some two thirds of the measures needed to reach the 3% deficit target had been taken by the previous Government before the EMC was established. The rationale for it has never been fully articulated, given its quasi-constitutional status. Although the Taoiseach would have voted against all the budgetary measures taken by the previous Government, he now takes credit for them and their contribution to getting the deficit below 3%. The four-year plan that the former Minister for Finance, the late Brian Lenihan, produced was done without any EMC. The full Cabinet participated in it without any emergency fiscal council. The funding arrangement with the troika, which provided the funding for three years of the plan, was done and dusted before any EMC had been established. The Taoiseach would agree with these facts.
It is difficult to ascertain the role of the EMC and the Cabinet in the episode detailed in Pat Leahy's book, when the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, had proposed to burn the bondholders. We were all sitting here in the Dáil when the Minister for Finance arrived in 20 minutes late because he had received a phone call from the then Governor of the European Central Bank, Mr. Trichet, who had told the Minister that if he tried to burn any bondholders, a bomb would go off, not in Brussels but in Dublin.
The Minister had to back down, it seems, unilaterally and on an individual and solo basis. He might have told the Taoiseach or whatever but it seems quite a number of Ministers who were sitting in the House waiting were taken by surprise that his statement on that occasion did not include any reference to the burning of bondholders. It perhaps exposed the falsehoods that were perpetrated before the election that the bondholders would be burned and they were not but, again, there has never been any accountability about that.
Equally, the assertion has been made that the EMC is about keeping issues under control and avoiding leaks, as was pointed out in Mr. Leahy's book. It is extraordinary that €500 million in expenditure was approved by the council for the installation of water meters with no accountability to the House in any shape or form. The House was told that because Irish Water was a semi-State entity, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government did not have to answer questions and, therefore, we can find out nothing about the awarding of the contracts for the installation of meters because that is all considered to be confidential for alleged commercial reasons. It is an extraordinary fact that the central role of the EMC in the water meter story has been to keep it all hidden from public view. As a result of the mechanisms adopted, such as using NTMA money as a borrowing instrument, which was approved by the council with no questions allowed in the House, no questions have been answered in respect of any aspect of that. One is led to the conclusion that the role of the council is to ram through measures about which people, even within the Cabinet, might ask awkward questions. They did not get the opportunity to do so. We are aware of the battle that ensued in respect of water services subsequently. There were approximately 13 U-turns with legislation rammed through the House in 24 hours twice to deal with the issue. By any yardstick or objective assessment, the EMC did not cover itself in glory on that issue, notwithstanding the fact that its role has been over hyped by a Government that was focused on spin rather than reality
The Taoiseach has stated the spring statement will not be a budgetary statement and further stated, "It is an opportunity to engage ourselves in where the country is heading". I do not know what that means.
I will tell the Deputy.
The spring statement will not be a budget, a White Paper or a Book of Estimates and it will contain no financial resolutions.
We have only two minutes left.
It is not even a national development plan. Is it an election document? Should civil servants be involved in preparing it? Will the capital programme mentioned by the Taoiseach be yet another instalment in the series of documents and announcements we are getting on a regular basis?
I am sorry. Unfortunately, we have only one minute and 40 seconds remaining.
Is it not the position that all this is about the electoral timetable as opposed to substantive fiscal or budgetary matters? There is a big question mark over the utilisation of the Civil Service in such a cynical exercise.
It is patently obvious that the spring statement is about the upcoming election. The big issue at the moment is what type of recovery we are experiencing. While I listened to what the Taoiseach said, it is also patently obvious that this is a two-tier economic recovery. He just glossed over the big issue, which is the fact that he has not met representatives of the banks for three years and the fact that they have a veto over citizens' mortgages.
When I tried to unravel the issues around Irish Water and the €85 million in taxpayers' money given to private consultants, I could not get to the bottom of who took the decisions. There are not even records of minutes of meeting between the former Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, and the chairwoman of Bord Gáis. I understand what the Taoiseach is saying about the need for focus and we all have examples of meetings that did not have focus but the EMC appears to me to be almost a subversion of the Cabinet's collective responsibility for governance on the crux issues facing people. It is easier to control a small group such as this to take decisions and then, in an ongoing atmosphere of crisis, to push them through. The big issue around Irish Water and other matters I have raised is there were no proper debates in the House. The guillotine was used time out of number and sensible amendments tabled by the Opposition parties, including by Sinn Féin, were totally ignored or voted own by the Government.
The Taoiseach ignored my question, which is a suggestion from others, including those in the Government. I asked him to comment on whether the EMC should be retained following the period of fiscal crisis.
In respect of Deputy Adams's final question, I stated in my reply that the Government considered this. We made changes last year to the structures of Cabinet committees but one thing we did not change was the retention of the EMC. It is an important element of running government efficiently. It is not a government in itself. It is not only a way of focusing on the challenges we face but also a way of setting out the options for the Cabinet to consider and make decisions on.
The decisions that are the subject of valid discussion and accountability in the House were made by the Cabinet in respect of Irish Water and, in some cases, by the regulator which is independent in its duty. The value we see of having more than 600,000 meters installed is in allowing people to beat the cap but also in identifying 30,000 leaks that need to be fixed. The statistics in this regard were released earlier.
The banks will meet with the EMC in the next period and the Government will bring forward a number of changes to the mortgage regime in April. Nobody wants to see anybody lose a house where that is humanly possible and that is why we want the best range of options and opportunities for people to deal with this issue. A total of 100,000 have been sorted out successfully.
The taxation system is an issue for the budget and the Minister for Finance will consider all these issues. We expect that up to 500,000 people will be taken out of liability for the USC in the October budget if we can continue the progress made.
The spring economic statement will not be a general election document and it will not be a series of announcements about things that are happening. It will be an opportunity for the Dáil to discuss the financial position and economics of the country and, as both Deputies said, the direction we are headed and where we want to be in five years. Where we want to be is in a country with full employment, a well managed economy, jobs for everybody who wants one with the opportunity for people to come back home and powering ahead as an energetic, committed country where innovation and research change the frontiers ahead.
In 2013, there were quite a number of guillotines in the House. That was very much reduced last year. There were significant debates on Second and Committee Stages of the Water Services Bill 2014. The Government parties made decisions and they are accountable for them at Irish Water level.
In response to Deputy Martin finally, it is true that the late, lamented Minister for Finance had begun to make a number of changes. He said to me on a number of occasions that he was finding it difficult to have the then Government respond to the alarm soundings he was putting out there. Clearly, the catastrophic decisions made by that Government at the time were indicative of parties being unable to talk to each other. It came to the point where Ministers resigned from Government and others could not be appointed to particular portfolios. Deputy Martin decided to leave himself in the middle of all of that.
That is dishonest. That is not the truth. All those issues were dealt with before anybody resigned. The Taoiseach should be honest.
We saw them.
The Taoiseach is wrong.
The Government was reduced to six or seven Ministries at one stage and nobody knew what Ministry they were serving in.
Two thirds of the decisions.
We are over time.
Deputy Martin, as one of those Ministers, decided to leave the Government himself.
The Taoiseach is appalling.
One of the values of the EMC is that parties engage with each other about the matters that affect the country and bring them to Cabinet for discussion and decision. Our priorities are to fix our public finances, eliminate our deficit and create full employment. We want to provide opportunities for our people for the way ahead so that the economy is well-managed and Ireland can take its place again as a country that is reliable, confident and competently managed, and whose people have an opportunity to contribute to their own lives, to their communities, to our country and as a consequence to the European Union and beyond.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.