Shane Moynihan
Question:1. Deputy Shane Moynihan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the programme for Government office being established in his Department. [1677/25]
View answerWednesday, 12 February 2025
Questions (1, 2)
Paul Murphy
Question:2. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach his plans for the implementation of the programme for Government. [4512/25]
View answerOral answers (28 contributions)
Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCeann Comhairle. I dtosach, guím gach rath ar an Taoiseach agus é ag tosú amach mar Thaoiseach. Baineann an cheist a chuir mé leis an gclár Rialtais agus le hoifig a bhunú i Roinn an Taoisigh le déileáil leis an gclár Rialtais a chur i gcrích.
Like me, I know the Taoiseach was extremely enthused by the prospect for delivery of the measures contained in the programme for Government. My question relates to the steps being taken to establish a programme for Government office in his Department; how we will monitor the necessary needs to focus on delivery of the much-needed policies in that programme for Government; if the office will decide on the indicators that will be used to monitor delivery; and if he will consider having an annual report on the delivery of the programme for Government.
Normally, the Taoiseach reads the response first and then we speak.
Okay, that is fine.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The Programme for Government 2025 - Securing Ireland's Future was approved by the Government on 23 January 2025. We will be working to establish an office in my Department to ensure the full implementation of the programme for Government over the lifetime of the Government.
The programme sets out policy and legislative proposals for the full term of this Government across a number of priority areas, namely, growing our economy; delivery and reform; accelerating housing supply; protecting our environment; investing in our future; a caring society; thriving communities; safe and secure communities; enriching our society and culture; Ireland’s place in the world; and political reform.
The programme for Government also includes details on the functioning of Government, which includes the office to which Deputy Moynihan refers. Over the lifetime of this Government, we will work hard to implement the commitments that have been set out. The Department of the Taoiseach will, via the Cabinet committee system, play a key role in the monitoring and implementation of the programme for Government and ensuring that a whole-of-government approach is taken to delivery.
We are in the first weeks of this Administration and the Government will shortly put in place a refocused system of Cabinet committees which will be central to the policy development, oversight and implementation of the programme for Government commitments.
The programme for Government refers to reforming the triple lock legislation. It was reported last Friday that a draft law to end the triple lock will shortly be brought to Cabinet. Will the Taoiseach provide some detail on this? In what way is the triple lock going to be ended or reformed? Back in 2013, the Taoiseach, who was not then Taoiseach, hit the nail on the head when he said that the triple lock was at the core of our neutrality and described the attempt to remove it as an out-of-touch ideological obsession by Fine Gael. That is, unfortunately, an obsession the Taoiseach has now adopted, and it seems with even more gusto than Fine Gael.
The Taoiseach might clarify, but I think he was in government when the invasion of Iraq took place. I was on the streets protesting against the invasion of Iraq. I see some other people in the Chamber who were also on the streets protesting. I think the Taoiseach was in government and that Government of course, while not sending troops - because it could not do so under the triple lock - to participate in that invasion, did facilitate the invasion by allowing US troops to go through Shannon Airport. Some 4 million have gone through the airport at this stage. The triple lock was the one thing that meant the Government could not send troops abroad to participate in the US-led war of invasion and occupation for oil and profit.
This attack on neutrality is being done in a very misleading way, so I want to challenge the Taoiseach on a couple of assertions, in particular on one he has made repeatedly. He talks about this being about getting rid of the veto the Security Council powers have on the deployment of our forces. Does the Taoiseach accept that no such veto exists because of the Defence (Amendment) Act introduced in 2006, which makes clear that it is not only peacekeeping missions endorsed or agreed by the Security Council that unlock the third element of the triple lock but that resolutions of the General Assembly of the UN would also do so?
The Taoiseach has a duty to tell people which missions he wants to send Irish troops on that he cannot currently do. The triple lock is currently in place. Where would he like to send Irish troops that he cannot because of the existence of the triple lock? He has a duty to inform people about that.
The Deputy will be aware that in my capacity as Minister for Defence we had significant discussions on this issue in this House. I outlined substantially the amendments that we were considering, essentially to end the veto. I do not accept Deputy Murphy's point about the General Assembly. I dealt with that before as well. Essentially, it is the Security Council that has the veto. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has caused a fundamental change in the world order and the way Russia is behaving. China and all the members of Security Council have a veto. It was very evident to us when we were on the Security Council that we had to work extremely hard and with great challenges to get humanitarian corridors opened, for example, to northern Syria during that war to make sure that millions of people would get access to humanitarian aid and, likewise, in respect of Ethiopia. We took a lot of heat for insisting on humanitarian corridors to Ethiopia during the war in Tigray. The Deputy may recall that during our time on the Security Council, when we fought to bring a resolution that would link climate and security together, it was vetoed by Russia. I do not think any decisions we take in respect of a peacekeeping mission should be subject to a veto by the likes of Russia. It is crazy.
You believed it in 2013.
Yes, but things have changed dramatically. Russia's behaviour, which has always been challenging in terms of human rights and compliance - you guys say that in a pro forma way but you do not really deal with it to the same extent as others-----
I bet you I have been on more protests outside the Russian embassy than you have.
The point I make is about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, for example. We are involved in KFOR, a NATO-mandated peace initiative. The European Union may be involved in conflict resolution, in line with the Seville Agreement. We have been involved in that regard as well, where people try to reach peace agreements. The UN itself has been supportive of regional approaches. For example, the African Union may want peacekeepers to keep the peace in certain conflicts on the African continent. Russia has been sending the Wagner Group to these places. Russia has been manipulating administrations all across the Sahel, promising security in return for coups d'état and so on, and the exploitation of minerals. Is Deputy Murphy really suggesting that Russia should have a veto on whether we participate in a peacekeeping mission?
No. It does not.
It does. It is the Security Council that approves peacekeeping missions.
That is the reality and the Deputy knows that. The triple lock is essentially about taking the Security Council out of the decision making. The Dáil has to decide and the Government of the day has to decide and anything we decide has to be in accordance with military neutrality and our Constitution.
We have a number of supplementary questions. Deputy Boyd Barrett is first.
The programme for Government refers to work-life balance, quality of life, quality employment and it even contains the phrase "a secure future for all living things", which is quite a noble ambition. I want to shout out for a group of workers very close at hand who do not have any of those things. They are the majority of people who work for Oireachtas TV, who broadcast proceedings from this Dáil Chamber, the Seanad Chamber and the committees but who are only employed on the days that we sit. That means that over the course of the year, they earn about €12,000. Imagine trying to exist on €12,000. Imagine over the last three months, as the Government was debating who would be in government and then forming that Government, not having any work and not knowing when they were going to be able to work, being laid off during the summer, at Easter and at Christmas but having to be always available to work for the company, whose name is Pi Comms. I am not sure, and maybe the Taoiseach will confirm the details, but I think the company gets €5 million or even €7 million per year for the contract. All of the equipment is provided directly by the Oireachtas and all the paperwork is done by the Oireachtas, so the only overhead that we can see for the company is to pay the workforce, who are on miserable earnings and have very few hours. There are five permanent workers but the majority of them are living in poverty. Given the role they play in projecting out the democracy of this country and the importance of that, they should have decent jobs and proper retainers and should not have to live in poverty in this precarious existence.
In relation to the programme for Government and what it says about pensions, I want to ask the Taoiseach about the pension entitlements of retired postal workers. As the Taoiseach knows, when An Post was founded in 1984, postal workers were promised at that stage that they would not lose their pension entitlements. That promise was copperfastened by the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act of 1983, which guaranteed that their pensions would never be less favourable than those of other civil servants. The retired postal workers have had pension increases capped since 2013 even though their pension fund now has a surplus of €500 million. Retired postal workers are being left out of pocket during the cost-of-living crisis. This makes a mockery of the promises that were made to them in the context of the dedication they have given, in their working lives, to public service. Will the Taoiseach ensure that the cap on the An Post pension increases is lifted without delay?
These questions are about the programme for Government specifically. Right throughout that programme, there are very clear commitments to investing in Ireland's artificial intelligence strategy and in digitalisation. I welcome the fact that the Taoiseach attended the global AI summit hosted by President Macron recently. The Department of enterprise has been charged with commissioning research on the impact of AI, as a key technology, on the Irish economy and developing a campaign on AI adoption for SMEs. The fact that there is such a commitment within the programme for Government is very welcome but I am concerned that Ireland may be falling behind. In terms of the commitments in the programme for Government, I ask the Taoiseach to outline how he sees them developing.
Thankfully there is a commitment in the programme for Government to review the drug reimbursement scheme process. This is something that the Taoiseach has spoken about and been supportive of in the past. I reiterate that urgency is required here. I hope that the review that has been committed to in the programme for Government will commence this calendar year and not in the latter stages of this Government's term. I impress that on the Taoiseach and ask him to raise it with the new Minister for Health.
I thank all of the Deputies for raising issues with me. Regarding Deputy Boyd Barrett's comments, that is a matter for the entire Oireachtas. It is not a Government issue as such because the Oireachtas Commission presumably-----
Does the Taoiseach agree with me?
Let me finish. I do not have the full background to this. I do not know whether these are self-employed contractors or how the company won the contract but it seems to me to be fundamentally an issue that the Deputy should raise in the context of the Oireachtas Commission and the organisation of the House. I do not know whether he has done that or not in the context of the House but-----
We do not have a place on the commission but the Government has a place.
I know but I do not think this issue has been raised with me in the past. It never has been-----
I just thought I would start the ball rolling.
Yes, but I am just wondering if he has raised it. He has been in the House a long time. I am just wondering whether he has-----
It was only raised with me last week.
Fair enough. Okay. Anyway, it is a matter for the commission and we will certainly check it out-----
Will the Taoiseach support them?
-----and examine it to see what has happened.
In response to Deputy O'Callaghan, there is a very real issue with regard to the entitlements of retired postal workers. I will be talking to the Minister for public expenditure in relation to that and to wider issues in terms of agreements of this type that happened in the past and people feeling that their pension entitlements have not stayed at par or have reduced in real terms. I met quite a number of people in the last while who were in quite a distressed state as a result of this reality. I anticipate that these issues will be examined in a considered way because they do not just apply in one area but could have consequences in and read across to other areas.
Deputy Byrne raised the extremely important issue of artificial intelligence. This is as profound as the industrial revolution of the late 19th century in terms of the level of impact and the profundity of change in social lives, business and the economy. Ireland has a strategy but we have to proactively work on delivering it. That means talking about issues like how we get the energy to drive on the huge computational demands that arise from AI and how we get sustainable energy to enable us to do that. We cannot stand still. We cannot have moratoriums for five years and hope everything will be grand in five years' time. That just will not work for the country. We have a technology lead as a country at the moment and we need to maintain that. AI is going to have to be a part of that and that is the reality.
The issue raised by Deputy O'Sullivan is in the programme for Government because of his insistence and persistence, to be fair to him. It is an issue about which he has long had concerns. I will work to make sure we get a timely review of the drug reimbursement scheme. I appreciate the work the Deputy has been doing on rare diseases, orphan drugs and so forth. He has been ploughing a somewhat lonely furrow, although I know the last Minister engaged with him and I engaged with him on it. It has been a long haul but we have got to keep at it for the benefit of the people who receive such medicines.