Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the remit and projected cost of the proposed commission of inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15897/05]
View answerDublin-Monaghan Bombings.
Questions (1, 2, 3, 4)
Pat Rabbitte
Question:2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the remit and estimated cost of the proposed commission of inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings; when he expects the commission to be operational; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17972/05]
View answer
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the terms of reference of the McEntee investigation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18086/05]
View answer
Trevor Sargent
Question:4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the remit of the proposed commission of inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18373/05]
View answerOral answers (23 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
The remit of the commission of investigation is set out in the terms of reference which were published in Iris Oifigiúil on 13 May 2005. The estimated legal fees, salaries and other administrative costs for the commission were also published in Iris Oifigiúil on the same date. The estimated total cost is €604,880 for a six month period. This does not include any third party costs that may be awarded by the commission. Section 24 of the Commission of Investigations Act 2004 makes it clear that there is no absolute entitlement to pay third party legal costs. Such costs will only be payable on foot of a direction from the commission as provided for in that section.
Public notices were placed on various dates from the week beginning Monday, 23 May 2005 in Irish national newspapers and selected newspapers in the UK, Northern Ireland and County Monaghan, indicating how the terms of reference may be accessed and giving contact information for the commission. The commission is based in offices in Dublin Castle and it is supported by one senior counsel and three civil servants seconded from my Department. The advice of the Attorney General has not been sought with regard to the possibility of taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. There is one more report due from the Barron inquiry relating to the Dundalk, Castleblayney and Miami Showband atrocities. Does the Taoiseach know when he might receive that or when it will be presented to the House? Now that Prime Minister Blair is once more installed in Downing Street, will the Taoiseach again raise the matter with him? Will he impress upon him the necessity for full British co-operation in terms of information required by Mr. Justice Barron?
The report on Seamus Ludlow is now with the Government and we are checking what must be redacted for legal reasons. However, as with all other reports, we must try to avoid changing anything that is not absolutely necessary.
The Deputy is correct in that there is one remaining report which contains a number of issues. That will be available this month, or at least by the summer break, and will be sent to the relevant committees. I hope to resume the campaign this month with a new Secretary of State — the fifth so far — with regard to these issues, as well as with Prime Minister Blair.
From his discussions with the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach's judgment is that he is not forthcoming in terms of the establishment of a Weston Park type of inquiry in his jurisdiction. If this is the Taoiseach's assessment, are there any circumstances where he would be prepared to take the advice of the law officer to the State in terms of whether a case against the UK Government ought to proceed in the European Court of Human Rights?
As per the Official Report, I said some weeks ago in the House that I would make another attempt. I should not be pessimistic but the Deputy correctly reads my mind. I will try once more, but will not do so again after that. I will then seek advice as to how we should proceed. My reason for being pessimistic is not because of Prime Minister Blair or any of the British Secretaries of State and Ministers with whom I have dealt. However, this is an extraordinary and difficult position. I have tried for a long time as have successive Ministers for Foreign Affairs, the former Chief Justice, Mr. Liam Hamilton, and Mr. Justice Barron. We will make one more attempt with the new British Government, but if it is not forthcoming I will then seek legal advice.
On the last occasion the Taoiseach responded to these related questions, 11 May, he expressed some pessimism with regard to how far he might get with the British Government in seeking the truth about collusion. He also indicated he would be holding his first meeting on the issue of the Dublin-Monaghan bombings with the new Secretary of State, Mr. Peter Hain, in the subsequent week. Is the pessimism voiced on 11 May in any way different now? Did the new Secretary of State give him any greater hope than that expressed by the Taoiseach on 11 May? Does he hold out any prospect of the British Government co-operating in terms of the establishment of a full inquiry, either by the British Government or by both Governments in a cross-jurisdictional sense?
The Oireachtas committee presented a fall-back option in the event of the British Government continuing to refuse to establish an inquiry. Can the Taoiseach clarify the position that he outlined in his opening response regarding recourse to the European Court of Human Rights? This is the preferred option of the survivors and relatives of the victims of the Dublin-Monaghan bombings of 17 May 1974. There is a concern within Justice for the Forgotten regarding time restrictions which may close this avenue unless the project is pursued with some haste.
I have always followed the wishes of the Oireachtas in this matter since establishing an investigation some years ago and have kept track of the issues since. It was the Oireachtas which stated that we should look to the European Court of Human Rights if we do not get anywhere with regard to the matter. I wrote to Prime Minister Blair before the election and outlined that I would pursue the matter one more time, as had been discussed here in the House. A new Government is in place and we should give it one more try. However, I understand the system far better than I did years ago. I will try, but will pursue the other option if I do not succeed.
Can the Taoiseach tell us about his meeting with Mr. Peter Hain?
Most of our discussion was not about this issue. I focussed my attention on the Finucane inquiry. The Inquiries Bill was passed through Westminster before the election. As Deputy Rabbitte said, it is not in line with the Weston Park inquiry or with what some eminent members of the British Judiciary think is acceptable or with what Judge Corry stated in his letter. I have continued to pursue the matter and took the opportunity in that meeting to express our view on that investigation, and have also done so publicly. Unless the investigation is amended in some way I do not see how it can proceed. I made it clear to Mr. Hain that I cannot see how we can get a satisfactory outcome unless the British Government puts its mind to the matter. In fairness to Mr. Hain, he was only new to the job, but I wanted to make it absolutely clear that, regardless of what he hears from the Northern Ireland Office, our view is that it is not a satisfactory way of proceeding and that the British Government must find another way. Otherwise it could spend much time and money on something that will not satisfy anyone in this House, the Finucane family or the enormous international lobby which has followed this case for 16 years.
I hope we can avoid repetition given that we dealt with the same questions some weeks ago on 11 May regarding whether the Government is prepared to take legal action against the British Government for non-co-operation over this matter in the European Court of Human Rights. The Taoiseach indicated on that date that he needed to take legal advice as to how to pursue the matter but that he was prepared to follow up on it. On the basis of that answer, how far has the matter progressed since then? Has there been any extensive discussion with the Attorney General on the matter? What was the conclusion of the discussion?
On 24 May, The Irish Times cited a figure of €600,000 as the cost of the independent inquiry. Can the Taoiseach clarify that matter, particularly with regard to how the money will be spent? Whose legal fees will be covered? The families are anxious to know if there will be provision for their legal fees also if they are involved.
As I said, I have not met Prime Minister Blair since I put that on the record of the House. I met the Secretary of State and made our views clear again but I am waiting until we have that meeting. It might be a few weeks before I have that meeting, which is on European matters, although there may not be a meeting on Northern Ireland.
What about the Attorney General's advice?
It is only when I finish that process that I will seek the Attorney General's advice but if we get nowhere on this final attempt, I will pursue that line.
The cost is €600,000. Is that for——
The estimated cost is €600,000.
For whom?
The €600,000 is the estimated cost for legal fees, salaries and administrative costs for the commission for a six month period. That is for the commission headed by Mr. McEntee SC.
What about the families' costs?
The figure does not include any third party costs that may be awarded by the commission. Section 24 of the Commission of Investigation Act makes it clear that there is no absolute entitlement to pay third party costs. Such costs will only be payable on foot of direction from the commission as provided for in that section. It is a matter for the sole chairman of the commission. It is not included in the €600,000.
The Taoiseach has indicated that it will be at the discretion of the commission to pay third party costs subsequently. We are talking about relatives and survivors who have been victims of this tragedy. Will they have to employ their own legal representation to participate in this investigation and then await the outcome of the decision on costs? This matter has given rise to great concern in other quarters but in a case like this, which is so clear-cut, costs should be paid at the same time as they are being legally represented rather than leaving it open to difficulties arising later regarding costs for a third party who must be central to the inquiry?
In that respect, some difficulties arose with the Justice for the Forgotten group regarding the terms of reference. Will the Taoiseach indicate if those difficulties have been addressed and whether meetings have taken place between the legal representatives of Justice for the Forgotten and the chairman of the commission, Mr. McEntee?
In terms of what we will do in the future, the Taoiseach indicated that he was in favour of fully implementing the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, which led us to the next step of the European Court of Human Rights. He is fairly pessimistic about that because his past experience has been negative. Our experience has been negative also. That is the reason we made that particular proposal. Eighteen months will have passed by the time we come back to this issue in the autumn.
A question please, Deputy.
Will the Taoiseach instruct the Attorney General to begin to prepare the case for the European Court of Human Rights in light of the answers he has got in the past and the likely answers he will get in the future?
As the Deputy is aware, we have tried in a substantial way to help the legal representatives, families and Justice for the Forgotten. Another €30,000 is being processed in my Department to help them in respect of the group's engagement with the Oireachtas committee and Mr. Justice Barron's report. We have tried to help them all along for the reasons the Deputy correctly outlined.
The inquiry is a matter for the sole member of the commission. There is no question of the families not co-operating because they have been co-operating. That is a matter for him to take up with the sole member. The families are doing everything to co-operate. The question of interaction with the survivors and the victims' relatives is now for the sole member, Mr. McEntee SC, who is completely independent on this issue. Those matters will be dealt with and their legal team can talk to him. I readily admit that their initial reaction to the terms of reference was not 100% positive but the purpose of the commission is to investigate the facts and get to the truth in an efficient and timely manner. I hope, therefore, that they co-operate fully. I accept the Deputy's point that there should not be a long delay, and I will not delay. If it is clear to me when I have the meeting with Prime Minister Blair this month that we are going nowhere, I will take the action and move on immediately.
Benchmarking Awards.
Questions (5, 6)
Enda Kenny
Question:5 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the projected cost to his Department of the impending payment of the final phase of the benchmarking award; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15900/05]
View answerTrevor Sargent
Question:6 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the cost implications for his Department of the payment of the final phase of the benchmarking award; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18375/05]
View answerOral answers (16 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 6 together.
The cost of the next phase of the benchmarking award to my Department, payable in June 2005, is estimated at €150,000. This increase has been calculated in accordance with Department of Finance guidelines and all staff under the grade of Assistant Secretary level are eligible to receive the benchmarking increase.
Under the terms of Sustaining Progress, the pay increases recommended by the Public Service Benchmarking Body, and payable from 1 June 2005, are conditional on delivery of real and verifiable outputs in relation to modernisation and flexibility. The key mechanisms for monitoring overall progress in this regard are reports on action plans prepared by individual Departments and offices, a general review by the Department of Finance and verification by the Civil Service performance verification group. I understand the performance verification group has completed its deliberations and has concluded that the progress achieved warranted payment of increases from 1 June to the grades concerned in my Department.
Will the Taoiseach consider carrying out a survey of attitudes in the public service regarding morale, job satisfaction, the potential for advancement based on performance, the——
This question refers specifically to the Taoiseach's Department.
I understand that. Will he carry out a survey in his Department on job satisfaction, morale, the potential for advancement based on performance, the promotion of less talented individuals based solely on seniority and recognition of work well done? Will he concede that, to an extent, benchmarking has failed to deliver the reform that rewards talent, improves morale and cherishes innovation? In respect of his Department, does the Taoiseach consider that acuity recognition should be inherent in the benchmarking system? In other words, if persons who are generally in the category where benchmarking can be paid, and depending on the seriousness of their sense of responsibility, there would be a relative award for that. It is striking that in the health area, where nurses in surgical wards, for instance, deal with life and death issues and work under pressure every day in terms of making decisions, the structure of payment across the board is the same. For example, if persons with very responsible positions in the Taoiseach's Department make a mistake, the Taoiseach or the Government could be seriously embarrassed. Will the Taoiseach agree that there should be that kind of acuity recognition and does he believe the benchmarking system should take account of that? I have put the question in that way because I am restricted by the Ceann Comhairle's vigilance in preventing me from asking about the public service in general.
It is not the vigilance of the Chair. The Deputy read the questions and saw that they refer to the Taoiseach's Department.
I did, yes.
In terms of what has been happening in the whole modernisation process in the public service, surveys are being done now and people involved in that modernisation process are giving their views. Staff are involved in the change of structures, work practices and the preparation of the various documents across Departments. In my Department I am aware there is satisfaction and an engagement with this process. It is far better than it was some years ago. Looking at the strategic management initiative from the outside and all the issues that came out of that, it is working in the Civil Service and people are engaging in the job they are doing and preparing the action plans. In terms of benchmarking the merit award system, which has been examined, seems to be very difficult to operate. My Department is just one part of a workforce of 30,000 people. Even though it has been used in small amounts the merit system is not a system that works well. Benchmarking is far better than the old analogue system. In the old system if one person received an award eventually all others would receive the same award, whereas in benchmarking one examines individual grades. Under the performance verification groups it does not follow that all grades will get the same increase.
In the case of people working in intensive care the Deputy will be aware that there are allowances for people with nurse's duties, allowances for experience and allowances for additional courses and qualifications. If these do not apply benchmarking can identify this grade as one with more responsibilities and with work that involves matters of life and death, and payments can be made on that basis. The last time around the difficulty with benchmarking was that in similar institutions some people received an increase of 15% or 16% and others received nothing. We are going to see more of that and I think it is good. The case has to be made for grade and area responsibility.
It would be great if we knew how these decisions were arrived at.
The question was asked by Deputy Kenny.
I am in favour of the process being as open as possible as this avoids problems and arguments and the situation where I or anyone else have to defend the decision. The only argument made against this was that information on comparable grades was received from a considerable amount of people in the private sector, perhaps 25,000. As benchmarking was carried out across an enormous amount of people there was reluctance to put this information in the public domain for reasons of privacy. That was the reason given as to why the information could not be delivered.
My question arises from the new review announced in April. I understand the Government asked for an interim report in June if any anomalies were found that would have to be addressed. Does the Taoiseach expect a report this month, and have cost implications of such a review been included in figures in his Department? Is there a way to answer questions on productivity in a definite way? Can specific, agreed increases in productivity be indicated? Will the interim review be published this month?
In my Department there is no difficulty. In other Departments I think there are areas of difficulty. In my Department I can point to an area of productivity. In the period of benchmarking we have had to take a 4% cut in salary and a 4% cut in numbers. The Department will achieve the target and additional functions and work will have to be taken on in a number of areas. That work has been done, I am assured, with no diminution in service.
People have taken on extra work, and have changed functions and responsibilities. This has taken place across the public service. Now there is far more engagement with the public and with clients and there are different means of access. It is working well. In other Departments, about which I cannot talk, there have been extraordinary productivity gains, which unfortunately do not get into the public domain. This may be the fault of the Department or of the system but there are excellent examples. When these see the light of day, in fairness to civil servants, it will show that significant productivity increases have taken place in many of these areas.
Does the Taoiseach think the abandonment of the pay determination system and its replacement by benchmarking has been, and will be, a success? I was going to ask him about the point he mentioned, if there have been gains through modernisation, flexibility and productivity. One reads little enough about these in the public press and it would be advisable that this matter be ventilated in public, given the importance of the services provided by the Taoiseach's Department, the Civil Service and the wider public service. Does the Taoiseach see the interim report confirming that the 4% reduction to which he referred has been achieved across the area specified in the original agreement?
The answer to the last question is yes. Within the figures the MAC of my Department has the flexibility to try to rearrange things, seeing as the presidency came within the period to which the Deputy referred. In terms of achieving the bottom line figures, as has to be done in the report to the Department of Finance by every Department, this has been achieved. At the same time there are always new issues and work practices.
The other question across the Civil Service is that productivity has been quite extraordinary in many areas. I have many examples and Deputy Rabbitte is correct in saying that this information does not see the light of the public domain. In fairness to the public service I have seen issues in the Department Social and Family Affairs, such as turning around claims, and in other Departments and there has been a large gain. The beneficiary has been the public and this is what it is all about.
As the Deputy will recall from both our previous lives, I never liked the analogue system. I thought the system was like a sausage machine, rolling out the system and on it went. There were no benefits for anyone and what one person received the next person received and on it went. The only confusion was what round and what claim one was on. I am not saying benchmarking is perfect but it has the potential to examine grades and responsibilities where a good job is being done and where people are genuinely trying to make productivity changes.
As we all know there are always better ways of doing things and the people who know that are the people doing the tasks. If they consider it and if there is an incentive they will see a way of doing it. We can get rid of many things that do not need to be done. This is now being challenged in the system. Just because an Act passed this in House in 1942 why should people be doing a particular thing in 2005? If one stops and thinks about it they should be doing something else that is more useful, such as some of the things we talked about earlier this morning. The new system allows for this and there needs to be a challenge to the system so some section is not merrily continuing to do something for the sake of it when it is useless to do so. Nobody wants to be doing that job and benchmarking allows for that in an extraordinary way.
I will give one example, using disability benefits. From staff organising revised procedures the number of cases processed in three days was increased from 3% in 2003 to 29% in 2004 to 32% in 2005. With a bit if imagination, when the staff were left to it, they were quickly able to find huge productivity. That is the success of benchmarking and there are many examples, both in my Department and other Departments.
Approximately, how many civil servants in the Department of the Taoiseach are in the lowest grades? To what extent, if at all, has benchmarking impacted on their circumstances? Does the Taoiseach envisage a further benchmarking process after the final phase of the current benchmarking arrangements has been paid?
Staff of all grades have benefited from the various increases given from 2001. Although I do not have the breakdown of figures for my Department, all staff benefited to a certain extent. The benchmarking process has worked well for them all, including people in lower grades. The benchmarking group is due to meet again later this year, at the end of this process, and its report is due in the first half of 2007.
Computerisation Programme.
Questions (7, 8)
Enda Kenny
Question:7 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress in the implementation of the e-Cabinet project; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15901/05]
View answerPat Rabbitte
Question:8 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the progress made to date with regard to the implementation of the e-Cabinet project; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17973/05]
View answerOral answers (11 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together.
The main phase of e-Cabinet has been in operation across all Departments and ministerial offices since the middle of last year. It was introduced at Government meetings at the end of 2004. At an official launch in February 2005 the Government Chief Whip and Minister of State with responsibility for the information society, Deputy Kitt, signalled that milestone.
The benefits of e-Cabinet are already being felt. It enables instant, secure transmission of Government memoranda at draft and final stages. This means that Cabinet procedures, such as advance consultation with concerned Departments on particular proposals, can be implemented quickly and efficiently. Manual transmission of those memoranda has virtually ceased, along with all its limitations.
Improvements continue to be made in how information is being presented in the new electronic format so that key information can be highlighted. This is a valuable support for everybody involved — officials and Ministers — and is carried right through to Government meetings.
Some further phases of the project are due to be completed in the course of this year. My Cabinet colleagues and I are impressed with what the system has delivered to date. I am also pleased that it is being delivered within budget. It is an innovative project that is now beginning to attract considerable international interest from others who wish to make the best use of technology to support similar processes.
I note that Accenture's sixth annual report on global e-Government places Ireland at 14th place along with five other nations. That gives us the category of follower in terms of overall e-Government service maturity. What is the position regarding the public service broker or PSB as it is called? I understand this is a computer infrastructure project that will allow Departments to interact with each other and with the public. It would allow Departments to link up their various disparate computer systems, which would provide citizens with an integrated and efficient point of access to Government services. Where do we stand on that? Has this PSB gone live? What is the opportunity for citizens to be able to make contact in that sense? Where are we in terms of Government computer systems being integrated along the lines of the Accenture report?
The plan to link disparate systems that were unable to talk to each other —to use their own lingo — is almost complete. The current process of e-Government has already been completed because the whole system had to be integrated. The Deputy's question relates to broader computer systems and ensuring that each Department and agency is purchasing and using compatible equipment. The e-Cabinet project, which is linked to every Department, section and agency, is totally compatible. The advantage is that there is instant use of any information from a Department's IT section to the Government secretariat, involving documentation such as memoranda with which we are familiar. That is the benefit of the system. The Deputy's question related to the wider computer system for which the planned integration is well advanced. My understanding is that it will be completed this year.
It is all above my head.
To what extent will e-Government extend to subsidiary agencies, such as health service executives and local authorities, if that is what is intended?
To the best of my knowledge, local authorities are already using the e-Government system.
One would not think so to listen to them.
They spend more on computers than roads.
Please allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
South Dublin County Council is certainly well advanced in this respect.
A leading player.