Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the names, occupations and dates of appointment of persons appointed by him to State boards and other agencies since June 1997; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8772/05]
Ceisteanna — Questions (Resumed).
Appointments to State Boards.
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will list all those appointed to State boards or other agencies operating under the aegis of his Department since June 1997; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11820/05]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his appointments to State boards and other agencies since June 1997; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11883/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
I refer the Deputy to the reply I gave to a similar question on 5 October 2004. I am circulating in the Official Report a table showing the appointments which have been made since then.
|
State Board-Agency |
Name of Appointee |
Occupation-Organisation |
Date of Appointment |
|
National Economic and Social Forum |
— |
— |
— |
|
There have been no new independent appointments to the NESF since its reconstitution in early 2004. The changes in membership are as a result of internal re-organisation in the bodies concerned. |
|||
|
Strand (ii) Employer-Trade Unions |
— |
— |
— |
|
Employer-Business Organisations |
Maria Cronin |
IBEC |
October-November 2004 (replaced Jackie Harrison) |
|
Strand (iii) Community and Voluntary Sector |
— |
— |
— |
|
Disadvantaged |
Audrey Deane |
Society of Saint Vincent de Paul |
November 2004 (replaced John-Mark McCafferty) |
|
Strand (iv) Central Government, Local Government and Independents |
— |
— |
— |
|
Local Government |
Councillor Ger Barron |
General Council of County Councils |
November 2004 (replaced Cllr. John Egan) |
|
Councillor Jack Crowe |
General Council of County Councils |
November 2004 (replaced Cllr. Patsy Treanor) |
|
|
John Tierney |
County and City Managers Association |
November 2004 (replaced Donal O’Donoghue) |
|
|
Law Reform Commission |
— |
— |
— |
|
President |
Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness |
Judge of the Supreme Court |
22 February 2005 (replaced The Hon. Mr. Justice Declan Budd) |
|
Marian Shanley |
Solicitor |
Re-appointed 12 November 2004 |
|
|
National Economic and Social Council |
— |
— |
— |
|
Dr. Sean Barrett |
Economic Consultant |
January 2005 (replaced Mr. Colin Hunt) |
When Mr. Mervyn Taylor, a former Labour Party Deputy, was Minister for Equality and Law Reform in the rainbow Government more than ten years ago, he directed that at least 40% of seats on State boards be allocated to women. We are some distance from achieving this figure on many State boards. For instance, the board of the National Economic and Social Council, which falls under the Taoiseach's Department, has six women compared with 26 men. How does the Taoiseach expect his Ministers to be guided by a 40% recommendation when there is such a clear failure to achieve the target in an organisation connected to his Department?
To which board does the Deputy refer?
I refer to the board of the National Economic and Social Council which is composed of 26 men and six women.
I believe the overall figure for women on boards is approximately 40%. The figure for the NESF is 44% and the figure mentioned by the Deputy probably refers to the NESC. The big problem regarding the boards for which I have responsibility, those which come under social partnership and outside organisations, is getting the nominating groups to appoint women. This is an ongoing battle. We have been trying across a number of areas to get the nominating bodies to give us three names or panels of names from which we can choose. As regards the boards over which we have control, we certainly endeavour to make sure we meet the target. Having been involved in this for some time, it is a struggle and a half to get the social partnerships to achieve anywhere near the 40% figure.
Consultancy Contracts.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if a special unit within his Department to evaluate proposals for the appointment of public relations consultants by Ministers, as recommended in the recent report of Mr. Dermot Quigley, has been established; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8774/05]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the steps taken to date to implement the recommendations of the recent report of Mr. Dermot Quigley in so far as they relate to his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11821/05]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:6 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress in the implementation of the Quigley report’s recommendations in regard to the appointment of public relations consultants by Ministers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11884/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:7 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the action he has taken within his Department on foot of the recent report of Mr. Dermot Quigley with regard to the appointment of consultants by Ministers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11938/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, together.
As I outlined to the House on 1 March last, in so far as the report makes recommendations for improvements in the procurement procedures, additional procedures have been approved by the Government for incorporation into the Cabinet handbook and are available on my Department's website. Those procedures will give the Secretary General to the Government and the Government secretariat a role in examining certain procurements. These procedures were brought to the attention of all Secretaries General who were asked to implement them and bring them in future to the attention of all newly appointed Ministers or, where relevant, Ministers of State in their Departments or offices. They were effective immediately upon announcement on 17 February. In doing this, I have implemented all the recommendations by Mr. Quigley which were relevant to my Department.
There is no special unit in my Department for the application of the procedures and there was at no time an intention to establish such a unit. Any workload arising from the application of these guidelines is being handled within existing resources in the Government secretariat.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. I read recently about the extraordinary amounts being paid to some personnel dealing with Departments. May I assume that circumstances in which a person such as Mr. Quigley will be called in to investigate the antics of an individual Minister or Minister of State who decides to take business into his or her own hands, as it were, will not arise again and that the Taoiseach has instructed all Ministers and Ministers of State to this effect? I am not sure whether the Taoiseach's comment regarding new Ministers and Ministers of State indicates he plans to have more of them. In the event that he has such plans, I am sure the new appointees will have to comply with the same regulations.
They apply to existing and new Ministers — and will forever, I hope. I have implemented the recommendations Mr. Quigley made regarding my Department. He also made recommendations about other Departments which I hope have also been implemented. They have certainly been given to the other Departments to implement.
The guidelines apply in particular, as Mr. Quigley asked and recommended, in the area of public relations and communications, where there is a significant element of direct service to a Minister or where a Minister suggests the name of a person or enterprise for a consultancy or contract. It was in these circumstances, in particular, that Mr. Quigley highlighted the need for a different procedure. In these circumstances the Secretary General of the relevant Department is required to inform the Secretary General to the Government who will arrange, if necessary, for the Government secretariat to inquire about any aspects of the proposed procurement that it considers necessary. Arising from this, the Secretary General will then make recommendations to me as to whether any special conditions should be observed in the procurement process. This means an issue can no longer be processed without first being highlighted and examined. If necessary, recommendations will be made. This process by itself should, I hope, diminish the numbers.
To take an example, if a Minister travelling with a number of officials to the United States, Europe or elsewhere decides he or she needs a consultant or consultants to travel with him or her to provide specialist advice, does the procedure require that the consultant or consultants in question will pay their way and charge the Department subsequently, as distinct from the Department paying their way in the first instance? Is the procedure in this regard clear?
If somebody is working in or associated with a Ministry, normally the group travelling is cleared beforehand. In the case of a European Council meeting, the full delegations from all Departments are put to me for approval before they go. If a Department was making a case for an outside expert to come, a rare occurrence, my consideration is that it is not a good idea. It is better that the person should go directly in those circumstances and send his or her bill the normal way. It is the only way to get a clear line of distinction.
As the Taoiseach knows from two recent examples, the papers on file are examined when the likes of Mr. Quigley or Mr. Travers are sent in. Knowing the quality, diligence and experience of our civil servants, the files are usually kept in order. The substance of the matter being inquired into, if it cannot be supported by paper work, is deemed not to have happened. The Taoiseach and I, as men of the world, know that is not what happened in either of the two cases here. Has the Taoiseach issued or caused to be issued from his office a circular to his Ministers and Ministers of State arising from the Quigley report drawing their attention expressly to the matters with which they must comply from now on?
Are there consultancy contracts of whatever character being awarded below a certain threshold in any Department that are not going through the procedure of requiring a tender or raising it to the level envisaged as a result of the Quigley report?
Is Deputy Rabbitte asking if there is a procedure if the tender is under a certain amount?
If it is a small contract.
Regardless, if it is directly associated with a Minister, it still should be checked. That is my understanding, subject to correction. I do not think there is a monetary amount on it.
It is up to individual Departments and Ministers to satisfy themselves whether particular tenders or contracts need to be referred to the Secretary General. It is, however, now a requirement of the Cabinet handbook and I have made that known.
In any of these investigations, and we have seen a number of them in recent times, it was not just the record that was examined, individuals were interviewed at length, certainly in the case of the report by Mr. Quigley. He did not just follow a paper trail.
Deputy Rabbitte made an interesting point that I have made and I hope it does not become an issue in future. He correctly said that normally the files and records are in good order. This is an exposed area for politicians. Regularly, I walk around my Department and people ask me for a decision, direction or view and I give it. Politicians do not have the benefit of writing detailed memos and often, as good as a person thinks his or her memory is, one has no recollection of it when it is raised. That worries me in this day and age, where everybody else will be writing detailed memoranda but politicians must do their best to keep things moving. There lies a question for politicians to focus on because it will arise again.
Is the political activity that was the subject of the inquiry absolutely forbidden for outside consultants now? Is it a necessary condition of employment that is the case? Apart from a circular, are the procedures arising from the report now in the Cabinet handbook? Are they to be inserted and when will that happen?
Following a previous question on this matter, has the Taoiseach had the chance to review if his Department is the most appropriate place for adjudication of the procurement process? He may answer that the Cabinet secretariat undertakes this function but is that not part of his Department as well? Does the Taoiseach think there should be outside adjudication of such matters so their integrity is beyond doubt?
It has been implemented in the Cabinet guidelines. The book has not been reprinted but it is on the website.
The Deputy asked if an adviser can be of a political nature. The report does not mean an advisor cannot be of a political nature. Quigley highlighted that if someone is being appointed on that basis, the appointment must go through the procedures. That is what is set down, not that a person with a political affiliation or association is banned. That was not the spirit of the report. If such a person is going into a contract like this, there is a procedure that should be followed.
The Cabinet secretariat prepares and is responsible for the work on Cabinet guidelines and other procedures and rules so it is the obvious place to do this. The civil servants in that section are familiar with this work. They probably would prefer not to be engaged in this kind of checking but there is not another suitable place unless an outside contractor is employed to check the work of an outside contractor. That would not be a good idea either. In the absence of a more suitable place for arbitration, the Cabinet secretariat is a good location.
Does the Taoiseach accept that lessons have been learned from the Quigley report? What were those lessons? Will there now be fewer contracts between Departments and public relations companies? Is the Taoiseach comfortable with the amounts spent on these lavish PR exercises? One company was paid more than——
That does not arise out of these questions.
I am making the point that some companies have been paid a fortune for this. Is the Taoiseach comfortable with that?
We are dealing with the Department of the Taoiseach.
I am asking about the report itself and it is reasonable to ask about the amounts of money spent.
The next question deals with the communications unit and the Deputy should ask his questions then.
Has the Taoiseach learned any lessons from the report, particularly in regard to many of the companies and the amount of money spent? I am sure he is aware of many projects in his own area where that money could be well spent.
The relevance of the issues raised has served a useful purpose. Government guidelines and procedures have been changed to deal with these issues and to ensure they do not happen again. If public relations or communications issues arise, they go through a different procedure, particularly if they are associated or there is a direct service element to the Minister or Minister of State.
In complying with the Ceann Comhairle's ruling, any consultancy or public relations exercises involved with the Department of the Taoiseach, which are minimal enough, are based around the presentation of data to the public. It is not public relations in the sense referred to by the Deputy. The work mainly involves compiling reports or researching and gathering data. I do not have large public relations launches or strategies in my Department.
Departmental Expenditure.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:8 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the cost of the communications unit in his Department for the first two months of 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8775/05]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:9 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the cost of his Department’s communications unit for the first quarter of 2005; the way in which this compares to the first quarter of 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11885/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 9 together.
The cost of the communications unit for the first quarter of 2005 was €78,783. Of this, €32,017 was a direct cost to my Department, with on average €9,353 being borne by the five other Departments that have staff seconded to the unit. The cost of the communications unit for the first quarter of 2004 was €75,069. Of this, €29,560 was a direct cost to my Department, with on average €9,102 being borne by the five other Departments that have staff seconded to the unit.
The unit provides a media information service to Ministers and their Departments. It furnishes news bulletins and transcripts, ensuring Departments are kept informed in a fast and efficient manner of any relevant news developments. In this way, Departments are able to provide a better service to the public.
The communications unit works an 18-hour day based on a flexible rota of three working shifts. The unit is staffed by six established civil servants, five of whom are seconded from other Departments. The unit's work means that Departments have greatly reduced their use of external companies, ensuring they no longer duplicate work such as transcripts and tapes. The communications unit is estimated to save Departments in excess of €200,000 per annum.
We have dealt with this issue previously. I still have not taken up the Taoiseach's offer to see what this communications unit does. The cost of the unit for 2005 will be approximately €320,000. The Taoiseach previously estimated that the communications unit saved the Government approximately €200,000 in fees to external companies that would normally supply transcripts and tapes. Does the Taoiseach believe the unit gives value for money?
If there is nothing surreptitious or underhand about the material upon which the unit casts its eye or which it hears, should it not be circulated to all Deputies? If there is a discussion on, for example, Shannonside Radio about the military barracks in Athlone, will the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, be given information on this or must it come from the local Fianna Fáil cumann?
It is more than likely that the Minister for Defence will have given the story to Shannonside Radio.
He could come down the River Shannon anyway.
That may well be the case. Does the unit collect information from all media outlets in the country or is it confined to the greater Dublin area?
It is confined to the greater Dublin area. It does not monitor media outlets outside Dublin.
What about the Internet?
Is the Taoiseach saying that the Minister, Deputy O'Dea, has no back-up?
The costs highlight the good value the unit provides in so far it not only gives information to Ministers, but a host of people within the Civil Service. The information is up-to-date and factual news material. It gives Departments transcripts and other materials which they require, mainly from national radio, which cuts down on large costs charged by several companies in this business.
However, it will not provide that information to Members.
The Taoiseach has had time to reflect on the unit's merits and value. Does the Taoiseach see anything wrong in the information being made more widely available? Given that civil servants are engaged in collecting the information on the back of taxpayers' money, is it not in the common good for Members to be brought into the information loop? We would be better informed to do our job in the House.
The Taoiseach stated the limit of the unit's service was the greater Dublin area. How does this tie in with the Taoiseach's claim that the former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, had no problem receiving information on what people were saying about electronic voting when he was in the Far East? Would Ms Monica Leech have got the information in the Far East, as well as the Minister? Is the information dispersed to wherever Ministers happen to be? If so, why can it not be dispersed to Deputies given that we are probably in Ireland when the Ministers are abroad?
The unit covers local Dublin radio stations and the national media. The information is given to Ministers, their advisers and senior civil servants when they are abroad. The information can be dispersed through ISDN systems and text messaging. It is not available to every Member because they have that information if they listen to the morning news. The unit simply puts it into a handy form for Ministers and others.
It is a costly radio service.
It is not. Before the unit was established, all Departments and agencies sought transcripts and tapes on an individual basis. However, this was costly. On a cheaper basis, six civil servants cover an 18-hour day, monitoring and giving useful and up-to-date headlines to Ministers, Ministers of State, their staff and a range of other civil servants.
It must be a relief to the communications unit that it does not cover the extra-Dublin activities of the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea. He usually gives the story to the Sunday Independent and then reacts by denouncing it.
A double whammy.
Does the Taoiseach agree that Deputy Sargent's point is reasonable? If the communications unit is staffed by civil servants and paid for by public money and if the contents are as neutral as the Taoiseach claims, why should it not be made available to Members? The Taoiseach claims we would all hear it if we were listening to the radio. How are we supposed to listen to all radio broadcasts? Is Deputy Sargent not making an innovative and reasonable recommendation?
The data prepared by civil servants in the normal course of work are not made available to everyone. They are only made available under freedom of information requests. Such requests have been made to the unit to get lists of the day's events. The normal work done by civil servants is not given to Deputies. This case is no different.
What is the sequence of events in the event of the communications unit detecting an alarming matter in the media, for example, a puncture in one of Deputy O'Dea's tanks? What action is taken?
That is a hypothetical question.
It is highly hypothetical. Are consultants in various Departments automatically given the information gleaned from the media by the unit? If so, what action follows?
As Deputy Durkan knows, civil servants do not get alarmed, they simply pass on the information. Ministers get alarmed.
Ministers should be getting alarmed.
That is what happens in this case. The alarming information is passed on.
The civil servants must be fully occupied.
Official Commemorations.
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:10 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if his attention has been drawn to the proposals for the designation of a memorial day for the Famine; if his Department has received representations on this matter; if he will consider the proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9240/05]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:11 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if money has been allocated under subhead E of his Department’s Estimates, for commemoration initiatives, to commemorate the Famine; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9241/05]
Dinny McGinley
Ceist:12 Mr. McGinley asked the Taoiseach if his Department has plans to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the Flights of the Earls; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11768/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:13 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the commemorations of historic events for which his Department is responsible; if further commemoration initiatives are contemplated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11939/05]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:14 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if his Department plans to designate a memorial date for the Famine; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12843/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 14, inclusive, together.
I received correspondence last year and again recently from the committee for the commemoration of the Irish Famine victims. An interdepartmental committee to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Great Famine and the bicentenary of the 1798 rebellion was established by the Government in 1994. Significant public funding was made available for a number of worthwhile projects of major importance and permanent significance including the national memorial at Croagh Patrick and the restoration of Famine graveyards. The committee disbanded after successfully fulfilling its task.
These commemorations were the first of their kind since those tragic times and I have no doubt they will be commemorated again at appropriate future anniversaries. I do not however propose to designate an annual national day to commemorate the Famine. My Department has not received any application for funding for any Famine commemoration project this year. The last application received for such a project was in 2000 for a Famine memorial in Scotland and funding of €6,000 was provided. Funding of €25,000 was provided in 1999 for a Famine memorial in Hyde Park Barracks, Sydney.
An amount of €65,000 was allocated under subhead E of my Department's Estimates this year to support commemorative projects. This funding is available to assist individuals or groups in organising the commemoration of individuals or events of historic importance. My Department has not yet received any applications for the commemoration of the 400th anniversary of the Flight of the Earls in 2007. I am aware that community groups are now beginning to make plans for the commemoration of this important historical event and I expect that my Department will receive applications for funding in due course.
I understand the Taoiseach said he is not in favour of a day of commemoration of the Famine. Will he re-think that? The Famine is the most cataclysmic event in our history in its impact on this island and its effect on so many countries outside Ireland. Up to 1 million of our people poured out of this country at the time in an effort to stay alive. Would it be appropriate for the Famine to be commemorated in the manner suggested by the committee that wrote to the Taoiseach?
The Taoiseach said he did not support a commemoration day but the correspondence I have from the Fianna Fáil general secretary tells the committee: "On behalf of Fianna Fáil I support your call for a day of commemoration to mark the tragic loss resulting from the Famine." He says that this followed discussions with the Taoiseach. In the light of that, will the Taoiseach reconsider and agree it would be appropriate to commemorate it, given the significance of the Famine and the resulting emigrant flow from that terrible event?
I have no great feeling one way or another on the issue. If people feel we should commemorate the Famine, we can do so. I have read the files on the matter and the debates which went on in this House for years between the political parties, and with Departments and agencies, about a national day of commemoration. Some 20 years ago there was a sense of a political decision being reached whereby all the different days commemorated, and those which people were requesting be commemorated, would all be subsumed into the national day of commemoration. That was to be broadly inclusive, and would serve also to remember Irish men and women who died in wars and in service with the UN, as well as being one proper, symbolic day of national commemoration. That decision was made for a good reason. Many well-meaning committees were seeking many different days of commemoration. I have experienced that, with people calling for special days. That carries on almost endlessly.
Clearly the Famine greatly affected this country. In recent years I have tried to hold the line, and bring the various groups together to agree on one day. I have spent time with many religious groups and others, urging them quite successfully to become part of the national day of commemoration. Currently we are trying to attract members of certain faiths to join in this year's day of commemoration. I am not trying to detract from the merits of different commemorations but trying to involve all in one day. I would be open to including a Famine commemoration in that day but it is a good idea to try to have all the commemorations on one day.
I see some merit in what the Taoiseach says but I regard the Famine as being quite an exception to the events noted regularly by many of my colleagues in their questions. I mean no disrespect to them in that regard. It is one thing to seek, as Deputy McGinley does, to commemorate the Flight of the Earls, but such an event is not comparable to the Famine. I suggest this was in the Taoiseach's mind when he discussed the matter with his general secretary, who says: "I have discussed the matter with An Taoiseach—"
The Taoiseach is not responsible for a political party in this House. Neither is it appropriate to quote.
The Ceann Comhairle is correct on both issues. If he had allowed me to quote, the letter would be seen to be very interesting. I am asking the Taoiseach what caused him to change his mind since his discussion with the general secretary of Fianna Fáil. The committee for the commemoration of the Famine victims is very earnest. It has furnished the Taoiseach's Department and the various political parties with a cogent argument why this country, given its distance from the Famine, and relative economic affluence, should now be prepared to commemorate that event in our history, and why it should not be confused with other events which, as the Taoiseach says, might be commemorated in a single national day of commemoration.
As I said, I have no strong feelings on this matter. There may be a cross-party feeling in the House that we should have a day to commemorate the Famine. A good case for individual days has been made by various groups. The committee seeking to commemorate 1798 made a good case. Such committees are formed for a period and then move on. The 1641 commemoration committee was another. There have been many such committees. It is good that people care about history and put forward their case. There has been a suggestion to commemorate the role of the Royal Irish Fusiliers, Robert Emmet and others. I have been trying to focus on a single day of commemoration so that we do not return to proliferation. That happened prior to the decision on the national day of commemoration 20 years ago.
Historically, since the foundation of the State, we commemorate events every 25 years, 50 years, 75 years, on centenaries and bicentenaries. That has been the rule of thumb. A small committee worked on the issue in the mid-1980s, and bringing many different groups and days together was a matter of contention. Many groups and suggested dates were involved. Some groups were religious, some not. It was a matter of trying to bring everything together. Having researched the committee's work, it is clear it was not easy.
I am not detracting from the importance of the Famine, but one can take it that as soon as a day is selected to commemorate any event, some ten or 15 groups will quickly make excellent arguments, backed by eminent historians, for commemorating other events. I have no objection to any commemoration but we should confine them to a single day. If someone has a very strong view on the subject, I will consider it. It is not a question of me changing my mind. People who have dealt with this for many years have pointed out the ongoing arguments and the battles that keep arising.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Rabbitte. The National Famine Memorial is at the base of Croagh Patrick and for a number of years there was a Famine commemoration walk from Delphi to Louisburgh to commemorate a tragedy there. Perhaps the matter should be considered again on an all-party basis. It might even be possible to do it in conjunction with world food aid day or the like. It is a central feature in the history of our country and its consequences have formed its people today. I met members of the committee mentioned by the Deputy and they are genuine in their appeal. If the Taoiseach does not have fixed views either way, he might take the lead on this issue and organise a group representing all parties and none in the House to consider this.
I hear what the Deputies are saying. However, looking back over the years and at the 1986 period, and I have made this point to these committees previously, there is nothing worse than organising commemorations when nobody turns up for them. It is almost disrespectful. That happened in the past, when only small numbers turned up. That is the reason I have fought to keep these events together on a single appropriate day. I am not saying that would happen with the Famine day. I will not go into detail but I recall one important day when only eight people turned up for the church service.
The easiest course is to give in on these issues but there must be sense. I am prepared to examine the matter but I believe combining these events, where people can come together and celebrate, is a more appropriate way of doing it than with bright ideas that become, within a short period, not well respected. That is my concern.
I am glad the Taoiseach could clarify the situation. It was understood from the correspondence he was agreeable to a Famine memorial day and I have been informed that it is likely to be on 29 May. Is there a need to write directly to this group if it is embarking on organising a memorial day, supposedly with the Taoiseach's goodwill? Should there not be some clarity and discussion of what the Taoiseach meant when he made known his views on the matter previously? Does he accept that it is inappropriate to put such a huge traumatic event in Irish history, when more than 1 million people died and another 1 million left the country, on the same level as other tragedies of much smaller scale in terms of the human impact? Should we not recognise this as an event of enormous significance worldwide both for people of Irish descent and for people who are suffering through famines at present and as a reminder that there are lessons to be learned? I hope we have learned those lessons.
I listened to the Taoiseach with interest. Wicklow will celebrate its 400th anniversary next year. It is the youngest county in the country. Will he give an assurance that he will look favourably upon applications for funding from the baby county in the country to commemorate that important anniversary?
I like the garden county a great deal and I visited a beautiful part of it with the Deputy recently. The easiest thing I could do is agree to the national day suggested. However, 1798 is an enormous event for Wexford. What if somebody sought a designated day for that? Thousands of people died in Wexford. There are other parts of the country——
Dublin and Kerry in 1974.
Yes. In Deputy Kenny's constituency, people could talk about the passion associated with the Land League. It is not that any single event is not significant, and the Famine is significant in numerical terms, but there should be a way of combining them. That was done in 1986. We can embrace all these events. With no disrespect to the committee in this case, committees come and go. Twenty years ago, much thought was put into organising a national day of commemoration, respect and celebration. That should be considered. Otherwise, there could be a host of days of commemoration. It might be an important day but people will say, as Deputy Timmins just did, that some other day is more important for their region. Then one gets into an endless argument.
This group is a good group but so are all the other groups. It is good that there is a historical connection and if people wish to examine it, we can do so. However, we should combine these commemorations into a single event.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.