Vol. 511 No. 6
1 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the way in which it is proposed to spend the allocation for the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation under subhead D in the 2000 Estimates for his Department; the proposals, if any, for further meetings of the forum in view of recent developments in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24320/99]
2 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the grants, if any, he will make under the Irish Soldiers and Sailors Land Trust Act, 1988, from the £450,000 provision in subhead C of the 2000 Estimates for his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24322/99]
3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the reason the 1999 forecast outturn of expenditure for his Department is nearly 17 per cent below the Estimate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24348/99]
4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the reason the 2000 Estimate of expenditure by his Department is 36 per cent above the forecast outturn for 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24349/99]
5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the reason the 1999 forecast outturn of capital expenditure for his Department is 63 per cent below the Estimate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24350/99]
6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the reason the 2000 Estimate of capital expenditure for his Department is 140 per cent above the forecast outturn for 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24351/99]
7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the 2000 Estimates for his Department. [24912/99]
8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the proposals, if any, he has to spend the £80,000 allocated to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation under subhead D in the 2000 Estimates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24913/99]
9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the proposals, if any, his Department has to spend the £450,000 allocated to grants under the Irish Soldiers and Sailors Land Trust Act, 1988, in subhead C in the 2000 Estimates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24914/99]
10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the proposals, if any, he has to spend the £557,000 allocated to the Information Society Commission under subhead G in the 2000 Estimates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24915/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 10, inclusive, together.
The total Estimate for my Department for 2000 is £36.391 million. This represents an increase of £4.158 on the 1999 Estimate.
The main reason for this is an increase of £3.35 million – to £8 million – in the allocation for the Moriarty tribunal. The bulk of the legal costs from the tribunal are expected to arise during 2000, once the tribunal has completed its work. As a consequence, the full allocation for the tribunal in the 1999 Estimates is unlikely to be spent.
The other major item reflected in the Estimate for my Department is the funding of the millennium celebrations, for which the Government has allocated an overall budget of £30 million over a two-year period. To date, the Government has approved expenditure on projects totalling £22.5 million, following recommendations by the National Millennium Committee. Expenditure during 1999 has been lower than estimated, mainly because there is a significant capital element involved. There is a longer lead time on capital projects and the millennium office is determined that grants will not be made until satisfactory progress has been made on such projects. It is therefore likely that the bulk of the capital expenditure will now arise during 2000. In summary, therefore, the main reason the forecast outturn of expenditure for 1999 is below the estimate is the lower than expected level of payments of millennium capital grants, and savings on the 1999 cost of the Moriarty tribunal; the main reasons for the difference between the 1999 projected outturn and the 2000 Estimate are the higher levels of expenditure projected for 2000 on millennium capital projects and on the Moriarty tribunal; the lower than expected outturn on capital expenditure in 1999 relates to the timing of millennium capital expenditure, as I have outlined, and the projected increase in capital expenditure for 2000 arises for the same reason.
Regarding the provision for Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Act, I refer to my reply to the House on 25 May last, where I announced the allocation of more than £1.2 million in grants, under the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Act, 1988, for projects involving North-South and East-West co-operation or relating to the island of Ireland. This allocation fully exhausted the moneys available under the fund. I also circulated with my reply on that date a full list of 59 projects to receive funding. The process of disbursing the grants is ongoing and, this year to date, grants have been issued to 34 organisations.
I am circulating with my reply a full list of those organisations which have, so far, drawn down funds. The provision which has been made under subhead C of my Department's Estimates relates to those organisations which have not yet drawn down their funds, but which are expected to do so during 2000. The allocation of funds between the years 1999 and 2000 was made on the basis of the best estimate of the requirements of the organisations in each year. It may be necessary, in the context of revised Estimates, to take account of any shortfall in the drawdown of funds in 1999 as compared with the estimate originally made.
Regarding the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, provision has been made under subhead D of my Department's Estimates to allow for the contingency of the forum having one or more meetings in 2000. However, I recall that in a previous reply in this regard, I said I believed that, in the context of the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, it would be preferable to see the primary axis for future island-wide consultation being the joint parliamentary forum and the independent consultative forum, envisaged in paragraphs 18 and 19, respectively, of Strand Two of the Good Friday Agreement. In that event, while it would be a matter for the chairperson and the participating parties, I would envisage a final concluding meeting of the forum.
Regarding subhead G, the provision for the Information Society Commission of £557,000 will fund the commission's activities for the full year. The budget covers salaries for the commission secretariat of seven full-time staff and the director's part-time post, and general administration expenses such as office supplies, equipment and maintenance. It also covers further work on the many activities of the commission including awareness and educational activities, including media campaigns; participation in public events, seminars and conferences; further initiatives aimed at the business community; and ongoing market research to measure progress and to support the policy analysis work of the commission.
Schedule
Grants paid in 1999 to date under the Irish Sailors and
Soldiers Land Trust:
|
Organisation |
AmountPaid£ |
|
Royal Irish Academy |
25,000.00 |
|
British Association of Irish Studies |
15,000.00 |
|
The Irish Association |
10,000.00 |
|
REACH Across |
3,000.00 |
|
Cork Lions Club |
1,000.00 |
|
British Irish Association |
20,000.00 |
|
Centre for Peace & Development Studies |
4,000.00 |
|
Federation of Ulster Local Studies |
8,000.00 |
|
Cystic Hygroma & Hemangioma Online |
5,000.00 |
|
John Quinn (WW 2 Irish Wreckology Group) |
3,000.00 |
|
Cost of the Troubles Study |
20,000.00 |
|
Beyond '96 Youth Club |
5,000.00 |
|
Oxford Hertford College |
25,000.00 |
|
Irish Community Care – Manchester |
25,000.00 |
|
Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation |
35,000.00 |
|
Irish in Britain Representation Group |
500.00 |
|
Queens College, Cambridge |
25,000.00 |
|
University of North London |
10,000.00 |
|
Military Heritage of Ireland Trust Ltd. |
10,000.00 |
|
South London Family Service Unit |
20,000.00 |
|
Irish Youth Choir |
10,000.00 |
|
Boomerang |
8,000.00 |
|
The Ulster Society |
13,000.00 |
|
Keele University – Dept. of Criminology |
10,000.00 |
|
Royal Dublin Fusiliers |
12,000.00 |
|
London Irish Centre |
71,000.00 |
|
Islington Women's Counselling Centre |
9,420.00 |
|
Irish Studies Centre – Bath |
9,000.00 |
|
Voluntary Service International |
3,333.00 |
|
Safe Start Trust |
11,500.00 |
|
Salmon of Knowledge–St. Mary's Dublin,Edenbrooke, Belfast |
3,000.00 |
|
Childrens Holiday Scheme |
22,000.00 |
|
University of Liverpool |
72,000.00 |
|
University of Bradford |
10,000.00 |
|
Total disbursed to date |
533,753.00. |
Ten questions have been taken together and I have three to put to the Taoiseach. Bodies have been entitled to, and have been allocated moneys under the Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Act and presumably the committee to advise on the allocation of funds has been disbanded. If they have not been in a position to draw down their money or have been otherwise unable to avail of their allocation, will the Taoiseach indicate if he is favourably disposed to make any residues of money available to the Irish peace park in Messines, which requires further funding?
In his reply the Taoiseach suggests, although he does not confirm, the desirability of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, which contributed to the process that has culminated in the progress made to date, meeting for a closing session. If so, will that session, among other things, agree to publish the work that remains unpublished, especially the obstacles to reconciliation in the South? I believe that work is well advanced and it could be concluded. If a decision was made to conclude, it could be our contribution in the South. The forum should not simply fade away. Is the Taoiseach prepared to suggest to the chairperson that a final meeting or series of meetings – one would probably be sufficient – be convened and that we would formally close that chapter in our history?
In respect of the allocation of money to the Information Society Commission, I want to raise the issue of Y2K and our preparedness for it. Does the Government, through this commission or any other body under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach, intend to send to each household across the nation a checklist similar to those being issued in other countries of the things of which they should be aware regarding a possible crash of any domestic system over the weekend of the millennium? Is that work being contemplated; is that part of the allocation to the Information Society Commission; and will he make a statement on that matter?
To take the last question first, that matter was raised here at Taoiseach's Question Time some time ago and we had some discussion on it. I said I would bring it to the attention of the co-ordinating committee and I did so. That is the present position.
What happened?
It is with the co-ordinating committee.
It is too late now. He will hardly send himself a Christmas card.
If the Deputy tables a question to the Minister for Finance, he will deal with the matter. They have put together all of the arrangements, as I understand it, in the various sectors. The Deputy should table a question. There is no point in me answering everybody's questions every day here.
On the second question on the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, yes, I agree with Deputy Quinn. There should be a final meeting at an appropriate time to formally sign off that committee, if that is what happens at that stage. The work which was not totally completed – there were a few reports which were not totally completed – should be done. All going well, we should do that during the next calendar year.
I will look at the draw down for Messines. Some of the 59 agencies may not take up the money. I have not said that I would not give the Messines project funding. I just want them to organise and sign off the first phase of their work, make sure that the first phase of the work is properly dealt with and administered and make sure that it is left in somebody's care in an organised way before we move to the second phase. I fear that we might go through a few phases of this and in five or six years we will hear again that the place is falling apart or is overgrown. I am trying to establish that what is done is completely administered and finished before they look at the second phase. I am not against the second phase.
Is it not the besetting sin of our people that we are very good at building things and poor enough at maintaining them? Even green areas in housing estates are laid out well the first day and then they are not maintained afterwards because adequate provision is not made. Would the Taoiseach agree, given that the President of Ireland, the Queen of the United Kingdom and the King of Belgium visited Messines, that there is a need to make provision for the ongoing maintenance of this park? If we were not willing to make that commitment, we should not have allowed the President to go there. It would be an affront not only to the memory of the 49,000 Irish people who died in the First World War but also to the dignity of the President if a place, the opening of which she participated in, is not properly maintained ten, 15 or 20 years from now. That is something which must be dealt with and decided upon and not simply left to endless bureaucratic exchanges between voluntary organisations and Departments.
That is what I said. Unfortunately the site is not within our jurisdiction and there are other bodies who deal with the site. It is quite a complex area. Whether it is us or somebody else who must do it, I just want to get certainty on that. On a few occasions I have given allocations additional to what was required originally and I just want to see that the first part is properly signed off and maintained into the future before we begin the next phase.
On that, has the Taoiseach had any conversations about finalising this issue with the Prime Minister Mr. Blair or the Prime Minister Mr. Verhofstadt?
I have done so with the organisation to which we gave the money in the first place and the Office of Public Works has had some discussions with the people involved. It is just a question of how it is done. I supported the Messines project from the outset. I gave the original allocation, the second allocation and third allocation. I just want to see that the project is administered properly. We will ensure that is done, however it is to be done.
I refer to the last question I put to the Taoiseach concerning preparedness for Y2K in domestic households. With all due respect, the Taoiseach did not really respond to my question in the spirit I would expect from him. The Department of Finance has established a national emergency committee whose title presumes that some difficulties are anticipated. As regards Y2K preparedness, the business sector has been well served by Forfás and other agencies, but many domestic situations could go wrong. We simply do not know. Given that today is 30 November, for the Taoiseach to suggest that I should table another parliamentary question is "a little bit previous", to quote a favourite phrase of the late Brendan Corish. Will the Government, through the Information Society Commission, undertake a campaign of awareness thus enabling households to go through a check-list of items, including ordinary domestic appliances such as washing-machines? Such a check could avert the kind of problems that would cause strife for many people over a holiday period when repair services are not readily available. Will the Taoiseach indicate what domestic campaign, if any, is envisaged by the Information Society Commission or, alternatively, the body under the aegis of the Department of Finance?
In answering the Deputy I did not mean to be short with him, if I was. The Information Society Commission is not involved in such a campaign but the co-ordinating committee and all the agencies working with the Minister for Finance have been looking at the issues. The emergency group in the Department is involved and personnel from State agencies will be involved in providing emergency cover on 1 January 2000. A suggestion was made concerning a circular to households. Seminars have already dealt with these issues but I do not know what was done about that idea. I will obtain the information for the Deputy but I do not want to answer on behalf of a committee which is still working on the matter. The committee has put an enormous effort into solving Y2K problems across the industrial spectrum as well as the wider public service sector.
May I make the following formal suggestion by way of a question to the Taoiseach? Would he not consider it appropriate that the bodies responsible under the aegis of Government Departments – whoever is uniquely placed to do so – would undertake an information campaign of some intensity to alert householders to the possible dangers of Y2K non-compliance?
I thank the Deputy for his suggestion and I will discuss it with the Minister for Finance who is chairing the particular committee.
Does the Taoiseach recall that I raised this matter with him in October? Subsequently, I sent him a copy of the leaflet that has been distributed to every household in New Zealand by the relevant authorities there. What happened to the leaflet I sent to the Taoiseach? Did he consider that it was a good idea or a bad one to send out such a circular? I am asking for his opinions, not those of some body he may have sent the leaflet to and whose response he may not have been able to check. What has been done about this suggestion, given that it was formally made by myself, as Leader of the Opposition, to the Taoiseach as a result of an exchange in the House at Question Time? It is now two and a half months since I made this suggestion, precisely along the lines that Deputy Quinn has now outlined.
I am not going to get into an argument as to who said what.
There is no argument.
I clearly remember Deputy Bruton's correspondence. If he wants my honest view on that particular circular, I did not think much of it. I did not think it would attract a lot of interest. As the Deputy probably knows, there has been much controversy in the United Kingdom where people laughed at the circular that was distributed there. It was treated with derision. I do not think we need to do that. If the proposal is for a basic check-list, that was the proposal I put forward.
A check-list including freezers, washing-machines, cookers and central heating appliances.
Yes.
All these appliances were listed in the circular.
The Deputy may recall it was a very long, closely typed list. However, the concept of it is to assist people in their households, which I am not against. I put that to the committee that had been running the seminars on awareness. That committee has done fairly well, given our position a year ago. It may have done something on this. I do not chair or answer for that committee but I will ask it what it has done on the issue Deputy Bruton raised.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the sort of people who attend seminars probably do not need this information because they are, obviously, already conscious of the need to check these matters? It is the people who do not attend the seminars who need to be reached. Is it not the cumann members, so to speak, who need to be reached, not the average supporters. The problem is that they are not being reached by the current methods of communicating the impact of Y2K to individual households. Perhaps if the Taoiseach applied some the communication skills used in the political movements in which he is involved, he might realise that communications with the public on the hazards of Y2K are not the best.
Needless to say, an enormous amount of preparatory work is being done. However, I do not think we should apply the American system, where I recently saw that people are buying ten days' worth of groceries and locking themselves away in case the world changes because of Y2K.
I am in favour of giving basic information, which I will communicate to the committee. It has worked extremely hard on this and is taking it very seriously. It has organised staff for the night and co-ordination groups for all the essential services. I am sure it has looked at this but I will raise it with it. I do not want to force it to look at something it has probably already examined, but I will highlight the views of the House to it.
I remind you, a Cheann Comhairle, that I am answering on a matter which is not part of the questions that were tabled. However, I will highlight the matter.
Why is there an 8 per cent increase in salaries in the Taoiseach's Department, given that pay rates will increase this year by 3 per cent or 4 per cent?
The Estimates for the Department took into account the outturn base and the staff base and determined, accordingly, that we needed this increase.
Will the Taoiseach agree that is not an answer to my question?
It is the only answer the Deputy will get today.
The Taoiseach means it is the only answer he can give today. Why is there an increase of 8 per cent? It is a legitimate question, if Question Time means anything. This relates to the Taoiseach's Vote, not someone else's, and he should be able to explain why salaries in his Department will increase by 8 per cent when, under the partnership agreement, rates of pay are increasing by a smaller amount. However, if the Taoiseach has not got the information—
On a point of order, is it not the case, a Cheann Comhairle, that if one wants to get an answer at Question Time one should table a question?
I did.
I received several questions but I did not receive one on—
It is Question No. 7.
What does that say about pay rates?
It asks the Taoiseach to make a statement on the Estimates, the very first item of which is salaries.
The Deputy did not ask me about the payroll.
I asked the Taoiseach about the Estimates. He should know about his own Estimate.
Wrong.
The Deputy wants a micro answer to a macro question.
We cannot have an argument about this now.
I gave the Deputy the answer on the payroll.
Does the Taoiseach mean to tell me—
I gave the Deputy the answer on the payroll. It is an 8 per cent increase.
I know that one of the Taoiseach's predecessors did not believe in reading more than one page, but I would have expected him to, at least, acquaint himself with the most important item of expenditure in his Estimate, which is ‘salaries'.
I ask the Deputy to confine himself to questions.
Why are they going up by 8 per cent?
The Deputy should ask a specific question.
That is a specific question.
It is not on the Order Paper.
Question No. 7 refers to the Estimates, the first line of which is 'salaries'. The Taoiseach cannot answer—
Order, please.
—a simple question about why salaries are increasing by 8 per cent.
If the Deputy tables that question tomorrow he will get an answer.
Let us have an orderly Question Time.
I rest my case.
The Deputy is being pedantic.
The problem is, insufficient preparation. Will the Taoiseach give me some information on the other big item in his Estimate, apart from salaries on which he was unable to help me? Subhead L refers to the tribunal to investigate the affairs of Mr. Haughey.
And Deputy Lowry.
When does the Taoiseach anticipate this tribunal will report?
The Estimate for salaries in my Department is based on the normal practice for preparing Estimates in a Department. The practice is to list all staff by grade, work out the mean salary, take the basic overtime and tot it up. A figure must have been arrived at, which showed an increase of 8 per cent. I will provide the Deputy with the working sheet if he wishes.
Are extra staff involved?
Very few. The complement is practically the same in the Department.
It is known as grade drift.
There is some movement.
They are going to travel less and be paid more.
The efficient transport system costs less.
I presume they will go by bus.
They will travel by trains which are very fast.
What about regions like south-west Cork which are not serviced by trains?
I do not know when the Moriarty tribunal will conclude.
On a point of order, does the Taoiseach agree the Attorney General, for whom the Taoiseach reports to the House, has written to me giving his estimate of when the tribunal will conclude? It would appear this is more than simply a matter—
This is not a matter for the Taoiseach but for the tribunal.
On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, I respectfully suggest that the Attorney General stated he expects the report to be provided in the first half of next year. I have received private communication from the Attorney General, for whom the Taoiseach reports to the House, and I would be grateful if the Taoiseach would confirm this publicly for the benefit of the public.
When it will report is a matter for the tribunal and not the Taoiseach or this House.
I cannot understand how the Attorney General could write to me about this if it is a matter for the tribunal.
If I can be helpful, I stated in my reply that I expect the tribunal will end next year. I am wary about this, however, because two years ago I predicted that the Flood tribunal would end the following year. I am two years out. I do not want to estimate a date. I am aware the Attorney General's view is that, perhaps, it should conclude between Easter and summer. I hope he is right but we do not know from Justice Moriarty precisely when it will be completed. We expect it to be completed in 2000 and that is why I made provision to pay the normal closing costs during 2000.
Why has £1 million been provided in the Department of the Taoiseach's Estimates for the Dunnes tribunal which has reported and concluded its work?
There are outstanding fees pertaining to the Dunnes tribunal which are due. I do not have the details as to whom they refer, but outstanding fees have not yet come in and are expected to total about that figure.
Bearing in mind the cost efficiency of the Committee of Public Accounts sub-committee on DIRT, the speed with which it dealt with the issue and the manner in which it intends to dispose of the matter, does the Taoiseach agree there may be a lesson for us to learn in terms of making extra resources available to the Houses of the Oireachtas to enable it to carry out similar inquiries in the future, both in terms of efficiency of time and cost?
Yes, I have stated this inside and outside the House. I look forward to the sub-committee's report. Deputy Jim Mitchell and his sub-committee have done a remarkable job and dedicated a large part of the summer to the task. It proved very successful.
