Gerry Adams
Question:1Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the number of staff currently employed in the Office of the Attorney General. [23755/12]
View answerOffice of the Attorney General
Questions (10, 11)
Gerry Adams
Question:2Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if any assessments regarding staff numbers and efficiency has been held in relation to the Office of the Attorney General since he took office. [23756/12]
View answerOral answers (5 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
I have been advised by the Office of the Attorney General that, as of 30 June 2012, the number of staff serving in the office was 122.2. Two competitions are under way to fill essential legal positions, so it is expected that the staffing level will increase to 129 in the coming months. The number of staff serving is regularly reviewed with a view to ensuring that there are sufficient resources available to carry out the necessary functions of the office. The current competitions arose from such a review. Further, in the context of the public service agreement review mechanisms, the office regularly updates its targets and objectives and part of this process is to address efficiency.
I have two specific reasons for asking this question about staffing. The Taoiseach may recall that last November, he agreed to meet Opposition leaders to discuss demands for an independent inquiry into sexual abuse allegations in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda. At that time, the Taoiseach said he was taking advice from the Attorney General but that he would meet Opposition leaders. Dúirt an Taoiseach go mbeadh an cruinniu sin againn roimh Nollaig. That did not happen. I asked for a meeting in January but it did not happen. I again raised the issue in March. On each occasion the Taoiseach said he would meet Opposition leaders on the matter. I also asked the Minister for Health a series of written questions and to each he replied that he was consulting with the Office of the Attorney General. The last time I raised this issue was in May. The Taoiseach has given me and other Opposition leaders four or five commitments to meet us, but we have not met.
I ask the question because I am concerned there may be a capacity issue in the Office of the Attorney General. It is 17 years since complaints of sexual abuse in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda were first made. The longer the matter remains unresolved the more the victims are traumatised.
Can that meeting be held? What has the Attorney General been saying about these matters and what has delayed the process?
The point the Deputy makes is not directly relevant to the question he asked about the number of staff currently employed in the Office of the Attorney General and whether or not assessments of staff numbers and efficiencies have been carried out. I have answered both those questions.
There are matters relating to the issue raised by the Deputy that I do not wish to discuss in public. I will give the Deputy a private briefing on the difficulties that arise in this case.
The point is fully relevant. I was told at the different times I raised these issues that the Government was waiting for advice from the Attorney General. Not having been advised otherwise, I was concerned that there may be pressures on that office. The Taoiseach also noted on a number of occasions that there are pressures on the Attorney General's office due to the demands of the EU-IMF programme. At one point, he noted that this meant that vitally important legislation, such as comprehensive legislation on domestic violence or to recognise the collective bargaining rights of workers which was promised in the programme for Government, was delayed. These are issues that have no sensitivities attached to them. They are commitments made by the Government. What steps are being taken to deal with these outstanding matters?
I thank the Taoiseach for his answer that there is no problem of pressure in the Attorney General's office.
As Deputy Adams is aware, the Government publishes a list of proposed legislation to be drafted, adopted, published and dealt with in the House. The vast majority of that legislation comes through the Department of Justice and Equality.
The staff of the Attorney General's office is in two sections, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and the legal advisory section, serviced by a common administrative secretariat. The same personnel vet and prepare legislation. They have been working continuously for the past number of months dealing with a range of legislation that has been published. Some of that legislation is required by the troika and therefore time-pressured but some is to comply with the requirements of Ministers wishing to push through priority legislation that is part of the programme the Government. We try to achieve the best result from that list but it is not always possible to do so. Some of these things, when one delves into them, are discovered to be more complex than was previously envisaged.
The staff of the Attorney General's office does extraordinary work. There are two vacancies to be filled in accordance with a normal competition. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has 29 sanctioned positions and arrangements are being made to recruit two assistant parliamentary counsel, grade 2, and one legislative editor, which will bring staff levels in that office up to its full complement. The office has met the challenges presented in recent years to produce significant amounts of legislation. Last year, for example, the office drafted 55 separate pieces of legislation. It produced 52 Bills in 2009 and 39 Bills in 2010. This year it has, so far, produced 24 Bills. The complexity and extent of the Bills varies. That takes up a deal of time.
It is proposed to comply with the Government's published list of proposed legislation. Both sections of the Attorney General's office are working exceptionally hard, often at weekends, to meet the requirements here.
A review is carried out on a regular basis to see that staff numbers are at maximum level and that staff give of their best, which they do.
Employment Rights
Questions (12, 13)
Gerry Adams
Question:3Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the contact he has had with the social partners since the Easter recess. [23766/12]
View answer
Joe Higgins
Question:4Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach the contact he has had with the social partners since Easter. [25366/12]
View answerOral answers (7 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.
As I have stated on many occasions, while this Government does not support a return to the social partnership model, we recognise the value of constructive dialogue with representatives of all sectors of society as we continue to work through the many difficulties facing the country.
Since the Easter recess, I have met with representatives of the IFA on 25 April and 4 May. I spoke at the IMPACT annual conference on 18 May in Killarney. I addressed the IBEC business breakfast on two occasions, and met with representatives of IBEC on 21 June. I also intend to meet with the Croke Park agreement implementation body, which includes representatives of the public service trade unions, later this week. In line with the Government's approach to social dialogue, relevant Ministers continue to have bilateral contact with social partners on issues of concern to them.
In addition, the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, which comes within the remit of my Department, continues to provide a forum for multilateral dialogue on the economic, social and environmental challenges facing the country. The council continues to meet on a regular basis.
Some employers do not want to waste a good recession and many workers have been denied rights. The Taoiseach spoke eloquently about the Vita Cortex employees in Cork and said that what they wanted was respect. We saw similar situations in La Senza, Lagan Brick, Game, Vodafone, Irish Cement and Diageo. I understand that 25 workers currently occupy a call centre company, Éist agus Cuidiú Teo., in Gaoth Dobhair, County Donegal, which has received substantial State funding. Has the Taoiseach raised any of these issues with the social partners or discussed steps that could be taken to avoid issues such as these?
Last week, a large delegation of workers from Lagan Brick was brought to Leinster House by Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin. The workers had been on strike for 206 days and they received unequivocal support from Deputies and Senators in all parties. A big company, Lagan Brick, refuses to give workers the dignity and respect they deserve. They are not asking for anything extraordinary. They are asking for their entitlements. The company needs to engage with the workers' union representatives and to agree to pay them their redundancy entitlements.
Has the Government discussed these issues with the social partners? People are being denied redundancy payments to which they are entitled and deserve. Has the Taoiseach discussed these matters with the social partners?
No one likes to see people out on strike. The machinery of the State has been well tried over many years in difficult circumstances, not least of which was the Vita Cortex incident to which Deputy Adams referred.
When a dispute arises the facilities of the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation are available to assist in the resolution of the dispute.
Deputy Adams will be aware that last July the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, announced his intention to reform the State's industrial relations machinery and to replace the five existing employment rights bodies with two bodies. One body will be responsible for dealing with first instance complaints and the other will deal with appeals. He has undertaken two public consultation processes on the matter and this month he intends to seek Government approval on drafting the workplace relations Bill. It is the intention to have the Bill enacted in the autumn and the new system up and running by the beginning of next year.
It is most unfortunate to hear about the case which the Deputy mentioned and the period of time that the workers have been on strike. I do not know the details of the case but the machinery of industrial relations and the co-operation of the Department in so far as the Minister is concerned are available at all times for attempting to resolve these difficulties, whatever the nature of the actual problem.
I will meet the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and the public service unions tomorrow regarding the report on the Croke Park agreement. This issue will obviously be referred to in the context of those discussions.
My question was about the social partners and the Taoiseach's engagement with them. Have the Government's plans to amalgamate the five employment rights bodies been discussed with the social partners? Will the change improve the entitlements of workers? I think we will see more of this. I sat with Members of the Taoiseach's party as we heard from the Lagan Brick folks, who have been on strike for 208 or 209 days. A spouse of one of the workers described the difficulties she faces in making ends meet. This is a very profitable company which has public contracts with local government and, for all I know, with Departments.
The processes favour the employers and especially the big employers. A fine of €1,000 is a pittance for an employer but it is a huge amount to take from the pocket of a worker and his or her partner. It is no accident that workers are taking over their workplaces. In my opinion they are doing so because they have nothing else to lose. The Taoiseach acknowledged that the workers in Vita Cortex wanted respect. They should not be required to endure strikes for almost six months to get that respect. They are not asking for anything extravagant, like big bonuses or breaking the ceiling on pay. They are asking for appropriate redundancy payments. Where should they go given that the State's mechanisms are not functioning in support of them or their rights?
Deputy Adams will be aware that, in the case of reform of the joint labour committees, JLCs, and registered employment agreements, REAs, the process of making employment regulation orders, EROs, was found by the High Court to be unconstitutional, together with an identified lack of adequate Oireachtas scrutiny of the process. That supports the case for the main features of the recommendations for reform put forward in the Duffy Walsh report. Following the High Court ruling of July 2011, the Government's priority has been to prepare and deliver a comprehensive reform package because the implications of the judgment are not confined to the joint labour committee system. A programme of reform of the JLC and REA systems is required to address all the recommendations for reform put forward in the report, as well as the broad implications of the High Court ruling in the John Grace Fried Chicken case.
There was a constructive Second Stage debate in this House and following further consultations with the social partners and other interests a number of amendments were introduced on Committee Stage to strengthen or clarify certain provisions of the Bill. These include provisions dealing with the principles and policies applying to the framing of REAs and EROs, the timeframe for those provisions and the granting of temporary exemptions from the obligation to pay the terms prescribed under EROs and REAs.
I would like to think that the work the Minister, Deputy Bruton, is doing on structural reform will be in the interest of everybody because it will provide a resolution process where a complaint is lodged. To a great extent the Croke Park agreement has delivered industrial peace. A number of cases have been ongoing for some time but the agreement has to be implemented in full and expedited to meet our own targets. We want a process that is clear, straightforward and works so that where legitimate complaints arise they can be resolved satisfactorily and people and businesses are allowed to conduct their affairs in the interest of the economy, the country and both workers and management. That is why the machinery of the State has been tried and tested in severe circumstances over the years and it is always available to deal with concerns or disputes such as those mentioned by Deputy Adams.
The existing resolution mechanisms are not working in the current climate and they did not work for the Vita Cortex or Lagan Brick workers. These disputes require a strongly proactive approach on the part of the Government of the day. There was no need for the Vita Cortex dispute to persist as long as it did. It could have been resolved much earlier if a more proactive approach had been taken. The existing mechanisms simply do not work in situations like that. We need a process that cuts to the chase.
Engaging with the social partners on these issues can lead to new mechanisms, which are needed because in the current economic collapse these situations are arising with greater frequency and workers are being left behind. In many instances they are the last to be considered in such circumstances.
In the context of social partnership talks, has the Taoiseach discussed with farming organisations the need for immediate support in the context of the appallingly wet weather and the damaging impact it is having on agricultural incomes and farming and harvesting generally? Across all sectors of farming it has become a serious issue. This is a vital industry and I ask whether the consultations entered into by the Taoiseach have focused on the need to help the farming community in its hour of need.
When I meet the social partners and the public service unions I intend to ask their views on where the machinery of the State falls down. It works in the vast majority of cases and, as Deputy Martin will be aware, at the end of the day in disputes like the one in Cork it is a case of the resolution of the people and an understanding on the other side that the matter has to be ended. State machinery or no State machinery, there will be resolution of these disputes if there is a willingness to engage and deal with the problems that arise.
The Deputy mentioned the difficulties that the atrocious weather has caused for the farming community. The losses have already been substantial. I have seen tractors bogged down in fields after they attempted to cut silage. The fact that more rain fell in June than during the preceding six months speaks for itself. It has been an extraordinary year for bad weather and rainfall. I have discussed the issue with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, who is in constant contact with the farming organisations and is investigating how he might be able to help. The farming organisations have requested early payment of part of the single farm payment.
For now, however, there is an immediate crisis where fodder is required and substantial losses are being incurred by farmers.
In respect of the flooding that occurred in Deputy Martin's county, including Douglas, Glanmire and Clonakilty, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government hopes to receive a report on it this week. He will examine that report to see if he can assist in any possible way those whose businesses or houses have been flooded. It is a terrible thing to happen. I note from media reports of the topography that even early warnings were inadequate, given the extent of rain that fell in a short time. There is evidence of this happening also in Britain and to an even more serious extent in Russia.
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, is well aware of the losses to the farming industry because of the disastrous weather. His colleague, the Minister, Deputy Hogan, is expecting a report on the flooding issue in Cork and will try to respond in the best way possible arising from that.
Proposed Legislation
Questions (14, 15)
Micheál Martin
Question:7Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the progress made in his Department on legislating on the issue of Cabinet confidentiality; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24829/12]
View answerGerry Adams
Question:8Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the steps he has taken to bring forward legislation on Cabinet confidentiality. [30541/12]
View answerOral answers (92 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together.
As I have previously said in the House, Cabinet confidentiality is provided for in the Constitution and any consideration of legislation would have to take this into account.
The Taoiseach can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is in the programme for Government.
Yes, it is.
It states that there will be new legislation on Cabinet confidentiality. That is why I was surprised by the brevity of the response. My supplementary questions were to ask about the current proposals for proposed legislation on Cabinet confidentiality. I was going to ask him to outline what the Government intended to do in line with its programme for Government commitment and whether it wished, for example, to facilitate pre-budget discussions between Ministers and the Oireachtas in a much more open format than happened in the past. That might deal with some of the difficulties we have experienced in recent times and Ministers could feel free to come out and argue their positions regarding their Departments' Estimates, for example. How does the Taoiseach believe the programme for Government commitment will be met? What will the content of the new Bill or any legislation be and when is it expected?
As the Deputy is aware, Article 28.4.3° of the Constitution contains a specific reference to Cabinet confidentiality and I do not propose to have a referendum to change that.
What does the reference to Cabinet confidentiality in the programme for Government mean?
The reference is not specific, but it is a requirement of all Ministers that Cabinet confidentiality be maintained obviously in the interests of the work of Government and the national interest.
The programme for Government proposes legislation on Cabinet confidentiality - that is the point. Obviously Sir Humphrey does not want it.
The Deputy should not mind Sir Humphrey.
Where has the political commitment gone?
Sir Humphrey has not visited the Department of the Taoiseach in a very long time.
I just want to find out about the proposal.
Were his ghost to appear, he would be reminded that Article 28.4.3° of the Constitution deals with Cabinet confidentiality and that the Taoiseach has no intention of holding a referendum on that.
The Taoiseach proposed it. Can he clarify what the programme for Government means in regard to legislation on Cabinet confidentiality?
What it means here is that the Constitution refers specifically to Cabinet confidentiality and I am not proposing to change the legislation by having a referendum on that.
The Taoiseach proposed he was going to change it.
He has obviously changed his mind.
What does the programme for Government mean?
I call Deputy Adams.
Please explain, Taoiseach.
Does he know what is in his own programme for Government?
I call Deputy Adams and I ask that Members address their questions through the Chair.
Any legislation that is proposed has to take Article 28.4.3°-----
The programme for Government is very clear and the Taoiseach cited it all this session and the Government's will on these issues. It contains a commitment to bring forward legislation on the issue of Cabinet confidentiality. It also says that the Government has become too centralised and unaccountable. There is lots of evidence of that, particularly around the Economic Management Council when we cannot even ask questions of the doings of that council even though it is dealing with the troika, the economy, banks and issues that are having a vital impact, particularly on citizens who are suffering under austerity policy. As I understand it, has the Taoiseach just torn up another programme for Government commitment by saying he has no intention of bringing forward legislation? This issue also affects the issue of health where members of the Cabinet sub-committee on health cannot ask questions about what is going on there either. How does this fit into the commitment to more transparent, open reform? The Taoiseach hailed the last election as the people's revolution or some such term. I am citing to the Taoiseach his programme for Government which has a commitment to bring forward legislation on the issue of Cabinet confidentiality and he also cited that the Government is too centralised and unaccountable. Has he just told us that he is not bringing forward such legislation?
He has.
The relevant Article 28.4.3° states:
The confidentiality of discussions at meetings of the Government shall be respected in all circumstances save only where the High Court determines that disclosure should be made in respect of a particular matter -
i in the interests of the administration of justice by a Court, or
ii by virtue of an overriding public interest, pursuant to an application in that behalf by a tribunal appointed by the Government or a Minister of the Government on the authority of the Houses of the Oireachtas to inquire into a matter stated by them to be of public importance.
The concern here might have arisen in that the provision that was being inserted into the Constitution covered very narrow circumstances in which Cabinet confidentiality discussions might not be respected. This has been enshrined in our Constitution for the past 14 years and that provision cannot be changed without a referendum. I do not have any intention of seeking a referendum to change it.
May I ask a brief supplementary?
Yes, if it is very brief.
I understand the Taoiseach has perhaps forgotten why the commitment was made 15 months ago in the programme for Government but may I enlighten him? His partners in government and his own members criticised continuously Cabinet confidentiality for many years; they felt it was too restrictive, it did not allow enough information out, etc. I suspect that is the reason that commitment was put into the programme for Government.
What is the Deputy's question?
The Taoiseach was the author of the programme for Government. It is incredible that he would come into this House-----
What is the Deputy's question?
-----and either feign ignorance of what is in the programme for Government or not have a clue as to why something as fundamental as Cabinet confidentiality was put into it. The Taoiseach does not have a notion as to why it was put in there-----
Thank you, Deputy.
-----or what is intended by it.
What is the Deputy's question?
It is incredible that the Taoiseach would come forward in that manner.
That is a very sweeping statement.
I ask the Taoiseach to consult the Tánaiste and find out why this is in the programme for Government and perhaps he might enlighten the Members of the House on that because he clearly does not know that now-----
This is Question Time, not a time for statements.
-----but he might find that out and tell us what is intended by the provision in the programme for Government which commits to legislation on Cabinet confidentiality. We know all about articles in the Constitution. This is a commitment to introduce legislation on the subject of Cabinet confidentiality. The Taoiseach does not seem to have a notion why that commitment is in it.
This is Question Time.
Could the Taoiseach provide me with an answer?
The Deputy has made very sweeping statements-----
What is the Deputy's supplementary question?
-----about other people and whether they know or do not know things. He has suddenly become a know-all in every sphere.
I am not. I cannot claim to be a know-all on this.
He knew nothing when he was on this side of the House and he would not accept any responsibility for it.
I just do not know what you are up to.
The Deputy used to be in the Cabinet.
I note that the Committee of Public Accounts in its report on the crisis in the domestic banking sector said that a preliminary analysis and a framework for a banking inquiry published on 5 July recommended a review of the Cabinet confidentiality provisions of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997 so as to give the committee the broadest possible access to papers and records relating to the bank guarantee. Obviously the Government will reflect on the issue in so far as knowing the truth about the bank guarantee-----
(Interruptions).
Come off the stage, Taoiseach.
-----and perhaps in respect of Cabinet confidentiality, Deputy Martin might like to stand up here and tell us what he knew himself-----
Answer the question.
What he knew himself.
-----and what he actually said when he were called on-----
We would love to know.
The Taoiseach does not know what is in his own programme for Government.
-----at 3 o'clock in the morning, or whatever time it was, and asked: "Do you, Deputy Martin, agree that we should give this bank guarantee?"
The Taoiseach is blustering.
Why is there no information over there on the rationale that you applied to the information given by the banks-----
It is a case of when in doubt, lash out.
-----which screwed the Irish taxpayer for years? Instead of making sweeping allegations about everybody else, the Deputy might tell us what he knows-----
He should tell us what he knew.
-----and not have a need for any inquiry at all.
The Taoiseach is blustering.
The Deputy should stand up and be a man and tell the people what he knew when he was called or when he attended at the meetings where the information was given by the banks about what should happen in respect of the bank guarantee. He should give us some of the rationale which is not available in the Department of the Taoiseach.
Hear, hear.
Was that the one that was shredded?
The Taoiseach is filibustering.
What is Deputy Adams's supplementary question?
I cannot hear the Chair.
Can I have the Deputy's supplementary question?
(Interruptions).
Will you please stop?
I am sorry.
Thank you. We have a shouting match every blooming day. Has Deputy Adams a supplementary question and not a statement as we are getting statements here?
I do not represent Fianna Fáil.
I know.
I am speaking here for Sinn Féin. Let me put my question again. It is very straightforward. We looked at the programme for Government. The Taoiseach has a commitment to legislate on the issue of Cabinet confidentiality. I asked him a very straight question about what steps has he taken to bring forward legislation on Cabinet confidentiality and if he just tore up that commitment.
Yes. That is it. That is the reply.
Fair enough. The fact is that we hear more about the budgetary committee-----
That is a separate issue. The Deputy should put down a separate question.
-----of the German Parliament than we do from the economic committee of the Taoiseach's Cabinet.
We are not going into the German Parliament at this stage.
The PAC that the Taoiseach cited was assisting the Taoiseach to fulfil his programme for Government commitment.
In case the Deputy did not hear that properly-----
I did hear it properly. The Taoiseach does not need to repeat himself.
-----the point is that the European Commission-----
I heard it properly.
-----had to apologise for information that was leaked when it was sent to the budgetary committee of the German Parliament because it is a requirement that all countries that are in a programme send their information to the paying countries.
Will the Taoiseach apologise for tearing up a commitment?
We changed that here so that information that is being sent to those countries that contribute to Ireland is lodged in the Houses of the Oireachtas simultaneously. That does not arise anymore and I hope the Deputy understands that very clearly. Yes, it was wrong that this information was leaked in the beginning and it should not have leaked from the European Commission through the budgetary committee of the Bundestag. That matter has been changed because when that information is now presented to those countries which contribute to Ireland, which the Deputy wanted to get out of here and for them to take their money with them, it is lodged simultaneously in the Oireachtas Library for all Members and all of the public to have access to it.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.