Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the costs which have accrued to his Department since June 2002 in respect of newspaper advertisements; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9149/06]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Departmental Advertising.
The following schedule outlines the value of newspaper advertisements undertaken by my Department since June 2002.
|
Year |
Amount spent on Newspaper Advertisements |
|
€ |
|
|
2002 (June to Dec) |
10,299 |
|
2003 |
10,212* |
|
2004 |
21,608* |
|
2005 |
27,731 |
|
2006 (Jan to Mar) |
Nil |
*Included in the above figures are payments made by my Department for advertisements in newspapers which were recouped from the change management fund. The following details apply: 2003 —€5,444; 2004 —€16,685.
Not only did the national development plan advertisement campaign feature two full-page advertisements in all newspapers, but the population at large was exposed to the visages of a number of Ministers, particularly the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin. While I realise it is difficult to separate on a consistent basis Government from actions of Government and developments that take place around the country, and there are occasions where they become inseparable, in cases where the Government was sending out the message about——
This question refers specifically to the Taoiseach's Department.
It does, but it is party to the advertisement. Sometimes these issues are inseparable. Two full page advertisements in all newspapers were used to put out the message. How much did that cost? Was the cross-departmental team on public private partnerships, which includes the Taoiseach's Department, involved in drawing up the advertisements? Is there a genuine value in using the faces of Ministers on——
This question refers specifically to the Taoiseach's Department.
I could reverse the question, if the Ceann Comhairle wishes to be technical. Is there any value in the advertisements in the absence of the Taoiseach's face? The Taoiseach will be aware, on the basis of cases raised previously, especially those involving Ministers of State, that there is clearly potential for abuse in this area.
The Deputy is going way outside the scope of the question.
That may not be the Taoiseach's intention. I raise this issue because if the public is to be informed about developments under the national development plan, including those led by the Taoiseach's Department, it is not necessary to insert Ministers' faces in the advertisements for which the public pays. Perhaps he will respond to that.
The national development plan advertisements are not placed by my Department. I issued a circular on the appropriateness and inappropriateness of advertisements during the last session, which should be adhered to. Nobody bothered to put my face on the list of advertisements placed by my Department and I was not upset about that.
They do not need to put the Taoiseach's face on them, as he is known well enough at this stage.
I am not too sure that makes much difference to the advertisements.
Criteria, which are fair, are laid down for public information advertisements. The advertisements are placed for public information and not propaganda purposes. If those who design the advertisements feel they should include a Department's title or logo or a photograph, that is all right but they should not be used for anything else. The main criterion is they should be seen as public information rather than a means of promoting of somebody, which is fair. I may be corrected but, having looked through the list of advertisements placed by my Department, I very much doubt that my name even appears on them. Unless it is necessary, that should not happen. Each Department deals with the advertisements and not the cross-departmental team.
I agree with the Taoiseach that the advertisements should be about public information. However, from the Opposition's point of view, the advertisements could be restructured so that Ministers would state the items they have not yet delivered under the national development plan, which are seven years behind schedule, and which they propose to undertake over the next 18 months.
The Deputy is going way outside the scope of the question.
I have gone off the runway.
I accept what the Taoiseach says about the absence of any necessity to portray himself in these advertisements. I am only grateful he does not commission a stamp commemorating himself while he is still in office, as there is no need for it.
The Taoiseach wrote to me recently about this issue. With regard to the criteria he set out, are procedures in place to monitor compliance? An issue can arise because of a particular event or Minister or Minister of State. On an ongoing basis, are there procedures to monitor compliance?
I brought this issue to the attention of every Minister, Minister of State and Department. A notification was also circulated by the Standards in Public Office Commission. Ministers should follow the commission's request and that, on its own, should determine that people stay within the guidelines.
Northern Ireland Issues.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:2 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Mr. Raymond McCord regarding the murder of his son Raymond in 1997; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11811/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting on 22 March 2006 with Mr. Raymond McCord regarding the circumstances of the murder of his son in Northern Ireland in 1997. [11812/06]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his 22 March 2006 meeting with Mr. Raymond McCord concerning the murder of Mr. McCord’s son in 1997; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13070/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, together.
I met Mr. Raymond McCord on 22 March in Government Buildings. This meeting followed a series of meetings between Mr. McCord and officials from my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs. I expressed my sympathy to Mr. McCord and his family on the loss of his son, Raymond. Since his son's brutal murder in November 1997, Mr. McCord has been extremely brave in his determined efforts to get justice. Following my meeting with Mr. McCord, I raised the case with the Prime Minister Mr. Blair when I met him in Armagh on 6 April.
This is a deeply worrying case. It centres on the possible involvement of loyalist paramilitaries who may also have been police informers in the murder of Raymond McCord, as well as in other murders. It is clear that the matter requires the fullest investigation. A report by the Police Ombudsman in Northern Ireland has already been prepared and was sent to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland last October. The outcome of deliberations in that office, are currently awaited. I welcome the Adjournment debate about the case that took place in this House last October. Deputy Rabbitte asked me previously to meet Mr. McCord. We will continue to follow developments in this case very closely. In this context, the report of the Police Ombudsman will be very important when it becomes publicly available, as will any decision by the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the persons allegedly responsible for the murder of Raymond McCord in 1997 were members of the UVF and were also agents of the RUC special branch? Is he aware that the same persons are strongly suspected of having been responsible for the attempted bombing of a Sinn Féin office in Monaghan around the same time? That office acts as my constituency office to this day. Is the Taoiseach aware that one of the agents is believed to have been responsible for a number of killings while he was an active special branch agent? Does the Taoiseach agree that all of these pointers suggest that the spectre of the RUC and the British system in the North will always seek to protect its own at any cost and that is what we are witnessing in the terrible murder of Raymond McCord? Does the Taoiseach accept that it is vitally important that the Government acts in every way possible to assist the family of the late Mr. McCord, given that his father courageously crossed the political divide and that across the island in the pursuit of truth and justice for his son? Does the Taoiseach agree that it is therefore all the more important and incumbent on the Government to exercise itself in every way possible in this case?
In his initial reply to the question, the Taoiseach stated that he raised the matter in his meeting with the British Prime Minister in Armagh on April 6. Can he elaborate on that? What exactly does "raising the matter" mean? Has he asked the British Prime Minister to initiate a full inquiry into the murder of Raymond McCord, given the extent of the information to hand, accepting that there has been and may well continue to be a flow of information from current and former serving officers in the police et al which confirms the collusion involved in this terrible act? I would appreciate the Taoiseach’s elaboration on his engagement with the British Prime Minister on 6 April.
I am aware of the issues raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin but, although they may prove to be factual, the Deputy will understand that I cannot stand over the facts at this stage. However, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Ms O'Loan, has investigated the details to an enormous degree and has elaborated on them in a report she prepared over some months. That report is with the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland who has been considering it for the past six months. We will have to await the outcome of that process. Most of the facts noted by the Deputy have been stated here or by Mr. McCord and others.
On the question of assistance to Mr. McCord from the Irish Government, we have held a number of meetings with him over the past six months and officials of my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs will maintain contact with him and will continue to monitor the situation. When I met him on 22 March, I said that my officials would contact him to offer any assistance they could. I also told him that, in terms of seeking a public inquiry, it was best to await the outcome of Ms O'Loan's report and the statement of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I told him, based on the facts as I know them and subject to their substantiation in Ms O'Loan's report, which I have not seen, we would support him in seeking an inquiry. However, I told him that it would be best for the reports to be first entered into the public domain by the DPP and Ms O'Loan, which I understand will happen in the normal course of events. It is important that this is done at the appropriate time and based on the situation.
The facts are disturbing and Mr. McCord outlined the details to me at a number of meetings. He is a tremendously brave individual, a quality which has not been without problems for him. I will not elaborate on that but I admire him and think he deserves support for that reason. As I have promised to Deputy Rabbitte some months ago, we will continue to help him.
I thank the Taoiseach for agreeing to meet Ray McCord but want to pursue one aspect of the matter. When I initially raised the matter in an Adjournment debate on 27 October, I understood that the publication of the report of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland was imminent. However, the Taoiseach is now saying that it has been referred to the DPP. Can the Taoiseach tell the House when it is likely to enter the public domain? I am unsure, in a case where a report is sent to the DPP for possible prosecution, whether the report as compiled by the ombudsman is entered into the public domain.
Does the Taoiseach know whether any of the people against whom these serious allegations were made continue to serve as police officers or members of the Northern Ireland security forces?
I do not know precisely when the report will enter the public domain but I understand from a number of sources that it will do so within the coming weeks and by some time in May. I am unsure whether that estimate is based on the fact the DPP will make a decision or on a time gap. It is seven months since the report went to the DPP. I do not know whether the issue is time or if it is a call the ombudsman can make. Although I have not heard it from the ombudsman, I have heard that it is expected.
On the Deputy's second question, the allegations are not against any serving members at this stage. As the Deputy knows from his own meetings, there is an intricate list of people and connections relating to the murders of Mr. McCord and many others. We will have to wait for the report before we will know how many are involved and what the relationship with the old RUC was. Although it is quite a number of people, none of them are serving now.
The Taoiseach already promised to seek a full investigation into the murder of Mr. McCord. He promised to meet Mr. Blair at the fringes of the European Council meeting at the end of March. Did the Taoiseach not meet him there but in Armagh instead, or did he meet him a second time to discuss this matter? In his reply the Taoiseach mentions Armagh only. Can the Taoiseach indicate what is in the preliminary report and if so, does he expect the special branch detectives, who ran the UVF informants, to face prosecution? If this happens, has the Taoiseach thought about how any effect on the peace process would be addressed?
The meeting I mentioned was the meeting with the Prime Minister in Armagh to make him aware of our concerns about the case. On 9 November 1997, Mr. McCord's body was found in Ballyduff Quarry in Newtownabbey after he had been beaten to death by loyalist paramilitaries. He was a 22 year old Protestant resident of north Belfast and his father has fought his case since then. Since last year British Irish Rights Watch compiled and sent the report on the case to the United Nations, the Police Ombudsman, the Independent Monitoring Commission, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the US special envoy in Northern Ireland and the US Congress. The report names individuals believed to be implicated in the murder. It has not been published because it names people. That issue must be examined. Mr. McCord's father has lobbied political parties and others North and South for support in this issue. We just have to wait to see how the process evolves. The case is important for many reasons and is being watched closely in Northern Ireland.
Commemorative Events.
Joe Sherlock
Ceist:5 Mr. Sherlock asked the Taoiseach the position regarding arrangements being made for the 2006 commemoration of the 1916 Easter Rising; if he will confirm if representatives from all political parties in Northern Ireland have been invited; if he has invited representatives from the British Embassy to attend; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11777/06]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the arrangements for the commemoration of the 1916 Easter Rising; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12889/06]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:7 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the finalised arrangements for the commemoration of the 90th anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising; the preparations being made for the centenary of the 1916 Easter Rising; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12980/06]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:8 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the preparations for the commemoration of the 1916 Easter Rising. [14272/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:9 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his Department’s participation in the recent commemoration ceremonies for the 90th anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising. [14878/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:10 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if the Government has plans to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the death of Michael Davitt, the Irish patriot and founder of the National Land League on 31 May; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14955/06]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:11 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will review the 16 April 2006 commemoration of the 90th anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15130/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 11, inclusive, together.
As Deputies will be aware, the Easter Rising of 1916 was commemorated by a military parade in Dublin on Sunday, 16 April 2006. Approximately 2,500 personnel representing all branches of the Permanent Defence Force together with representatives of ex-service personnel and veterans of UN service were included. The parade also included members of the Garda Síochána, representing their service abroad with the United Nations and the Garda Band. There were a number of aerial fly pasts by the Air Corps.
The parade departed Dublin Castle, passed through Dame Street, College Green and O'Connell Street. There was a reading of the Proclamation outside the GPO, appropriate military honours were rendered and the President laid a wreath in memory of all those who lost their lives. As is normal for State occasions of this nature, such as the national day of commemoration, the diplomatic corps was invited.
It has been the practice to invite representatives from all walks of life in Northern Ireland to State occasions. This is a gesture of both friendship and respect. As such, all MLAs, including Unionists, were welcome to attend the parade on Easter Sunday. However, in advance of the event no Unionist representative indicated a wish to attend, and the Government fully respected that position.
The 90th anniversary of the Rising was also marked by a wreath laying in Kilmainham Gaol earlier that morning and by a Government reception at Dublin Castle that evening. A newly prepared exhibition relating to the Rising is being presented by the National Museum of Ireland at Collins Barracks. The official opening of this presentation was on Sunday, 9 April and it continues through the summer. A special commemorative stamp was issued by An Post on Wednesday, 12 April to mark the 90th anniversary.
My Department chaired an interdepartmental working group which oversaw all the logistical arrangements for the day. This group included representatives of the Office of Public Works, the Departments of Defence and Foreign Affairs, as well as the Defence Forces, the Garda Síochána, Dublin City Council, RTE, St. Patrick's Day Festival and the fire services. I take this opportunity to thank all those involved behind the scenes for their professionalism in the organisation of the event and for a job well done.
I am sure Members will agree the parade was a wonderful spectacle and in addition to the thousands of people who watched it on the streets of Dublin, it was also watched by hundreds of thousands of people on television. As Deputies will be aware, all parties in the House have nominated spokespersons to offer advice on the appropriate scope and content of a 1916 centenary commemoration programme to be put in place in the coming years. The inaugural meeting of the Oireachtas group held on 1 March was mainly concerned with the arrangements for the 90th anniversary commemorations this year. Further meetings of the group in the months to come will address the possible arrangements to commemorate the centenary.
This year is also the 90th anniversary of the battle of the Somme, the attack having been launched on 1 July 1916. Details of arrangements to mark the occasion will be announced closer to that time. The 100th anniversary of the death of Michael Davitt will be commemorated by the issuing of a stamp in September 2006.
I agree with the Taoiseach that the commemoration of 1916 was a successful occasion. While I had to remind the Taoiseach of the necessity for inclusiveness in the work of all politicians in the run-up to that celebration, the conduct on Easter Sunday was entirely apolitical and provided an opportunity for a demonstration by the Defence Forces and an opportunity for them to be thanked for the service they have given to the country at home and abroad.
This morning the Irish Independent carried a report that the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, is running with the idea that the GPO should be closed as a post office and transformed into some type of museum of the 1916 Rising. Has this idea been put before Cabinet or has a decision been made in this regard? Is it the intention of Government to hold an annual 1916 commemoration ceremony in the run-up to the centenary, given that the Taoiseach quite rightly called for a national conversation, as it is called, in this regard? I am sure there are people with imagination and creativity throughout the country who have ideas about how the centenary should finally be celebrated in a country that will have survived and stood the test of 100 years at that stage. Will the Taoiseach comment on this?
As was stated to me on Sunday, whatever else might be said about the members of Óglaigh na hÉireann, the Irish Army, it still retains absolute neatness and gives a lesson to everybody on how to shine shoes.
I thank the Deputy for his comments on the commemoration. No decision has been made on the GPO or other suggestions. These matters are best discussed within the committee. It has been mooted by a number of people that the GPO could and should be used, either in part or in full, not just as a museum of 1916 but as a museum of the past 100 years or further back. There are many creative people who would bring forward ideas. I would like to encourage work to be expedited, since I know how long it can take. Everyone will say that it is ten years away and that we are in no hurry. However, owing to the processes involved, if we do not move along, it might never happen. Over the next few years, people must put great effort into whatever projects we plan for the centenary so that we can have them finished in time rather than starting them at that stage, which would be a pity. Every year I would like all those involved with the interdepartmental committee, as well as Members of the Oireachtas, to express their views.
We should have some commemoration every year. Perhaps this year we should reflect on whether it is possible or sensible for it to be precisely the same and to see how we might organise it best. I have an open mind on whether to embrace other matters each year as we approach the centenary. Whatever we do, we should use the run-up to the centenary to ensure that we get things right, since it is a very important day, not only for the country but internationally. It should be tried and tested, and doing that will take some time.
I am sure that there will be imaginative ideas. Perhaps we should put a few years' effort into them, agree on something and have it done. As I have said to those involved in the various agencies and Departments, we should try to finalise arrangements by 2016 rather than have a blueprint that will be finished in 2026.
I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Perhaps I might make one brief point.
I will return to the Deputy.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that I had communicated to him that the Sinn Féin president and I would be unable to attend the Easter Sunday event because of prior commitments, a reality far removed from speculation in some newspapers that we had somehow absented ourselves? Our party was officially represented by at least two Deputies, two MPs and one MEP, amply indicating our intent to be fully involved and support the event, and I communicated that to the Taoiseach in writing in advance.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the best way to honour the men and women of 1916 would be to strive for full implementation of the Proclamation and the hopes and promise thus embodied? Does he agree that foremost on a list of objectives derived naturally therefrom would be earnest and proactive work for Irish reunification and the unity of our peoples on this island? Should that be a clear objective of this and future Governments and something towards which they should strive?
Will the Taoiseach act on the Sinn Féin proposals regarding the establishment of an all-party Oireachtas committee on Irish unity that would plan for Irish reunification, assessing the implications and needs to be addressed in the course of moving towards that objective, a transition to Irish unity? In that regard, will the Taoiseach commission a Green Paper on Irish unity before the current Dáil ends, something for which Sinn Féin have consistently argued?
The Deputy should confine himself to questions, since we are running out of time.
This is a question. I ask whether the Taoiseach will initiate a Green Paper on Irish unity based on the widest possible consultation and participation before the end of the current Dáil.
Will the Taoiseach clarify recent unconfirmed reports that consideration is being given to re-interring the remains of the 1916 leaders from Arbour Hill to Glasnevin cemetery? There has been speculation about this and it is important the position of the Government and the Taoiseach on this is clarified. My view is that it should not happen.
I ask the Deputy to confine himself to the question. Four Deputies are offering and I want to try to facilitate them.
Does the Taoiseach agree that now that Arbour Hill is fully open and accessible to all and is a fitting place to pay homage to those who gave their lives in 1916, those interred there should remain there?
On Deputy Ó Caoláin's last point, I have heard no speculation. It certainly did not come from any of the issues with which I dealt. Arbour Hill is the resting ground of the leaders of the 1916 Rising and I cannot think why anybody would want to change that. I agree with the Deputy's comments on the Good Friday Agreement as I spend a huge amount of my time trying to do that.
Deputy Ó Caoláin asked me to acknowledge that I knew he would not be at the Easter Sunday event. He informed me of that and of who would stand in. Even if I was criticised for where I made the original announcement, I gave everybody seven months' notice. It was a good day to pay tribute to Óglaigh na hÉireann, in particular, but it is a matter for everybody whether——
I assure the Taoiseach that I did.
Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.
It is a matter for everybody whether they can attend events. I confirm the Deputy told me he would not be there and that he would be represented by another Deputy.
Was it not breathtaking hypocrisy for the Taoiseach's Government to pretend to honour those who fought in 1916 when the Proclamation for which they fought, although certainly not a socialist document despite the presence of the great socialist, James Connolly, asserted the ownership of Ireland by the people? Does it not fly completely in the face of the spirit of that that his Government is divesting key assets of Ireland and the ownership of those assets from the people to international speculators? This has happened with the telecoms industry and the Government proposes to do the same with the national airline. It has destroyed the national sugar beet industry by giving it to national and international speculators.
As he stood at the GPO on Easter Sunday and thought of men and women who went out to overthrow imperialist domination of Ireland, a small country, did the Taoiseach not consider the irony that he and his Government are facilitating a similar domination by other major powers, namely, the US and Britain which have invaded and occupied Iraq? Is the Government wrapping the banner of 1916 around itself utterly opportunistic in view of its policies over the past nine years?
The Deputy asked three questions. I totally disagree with him on the first question, even more so on the second one and fundamentally on the third one.
Deputy Joe Higgins has a clear position on this issue. I am bound to say that in the case of Sinn Féin, it was a mistake for the ard comhairle to decide its president would not be present. I pay tribute to the performance of the Defence Forces. I am not sure it would be appropriate to have the same type of commemoration of the event each year between now and the centenary. I understand the Taoiseach stated he has an open mind on that matter. Perhaps it should be the subject of cross-party discussion before a decision is made.
Has the Government plans to mark the 90th anniversary of the First Dáil? Will the Taoiseach comment on the apparent discrepancy between his speech and the website of his office in terms of marking the foundation of this State? Most of us in this House regard the origins of the House as the 1919 meeting of the First Dáil in the Mansion House, and that that is the foundation point of this State. I ask the Taoiseach to comment on that.
Does the Taoiseach think it inadequate to mark the centenary of the death of Michael Davitt merely with the production of a commemorative stamp? Having regard to Davitt's contribution to the history of this country, the land wars and especially the struggle in my part of the country, the mere production of a stamp to commemorate the centenary of his death is inadequate. I urge the Government to look at the issue between now and later in the year. The centenary occurs on 31 May and the Government should consider the matter again.
With regard to the centenary of Michael Davitt's death, there will be a week of commemorative activities in the last days of May and the early days of June. Relevant people have been in touch with my Department with regard to support for the commemoration programme. There will be a conference commemorating the centenary, the Army is involved and there will be a number of other events. I cannot recall the exact support we have given, but my Department's commemorative division has been in discussions with the people involved. The stamp is one of the initiatives and it is separate from the planned week of activities. The relevant committee requested that the stamp be brought forward, and that will be done later in the year.
Some years ago, on one of the anniversaries of the First Dáil, I brought all the families, relatives and parties together in Dublin Castle for an evening, which was important at the time. Since then, a number of the people involved have died. Only a certain number of events can be held this year. There are three big events, those relating to 1916 and the Battle of the Somme and our national day of commemoration. That is the broad commemoration that includes all the events. There is some work on other commemorations, such as the centenary of Michael Davitt's death.
I have no difficulty with any of these events. Five years ago we held the commemoration of the First Dáil. The Deputy will appreciate that in any one year only a few such events can be held and these should be dealt with correctly.
I welcome the opportunity for the commemoration. The Green Party was particularly mindful of the need for the Proclamation to be a reference point for the way this nation is developing and that it must do considerably more to live up to the expectations of those who fought and the many who died in 1916. As Deputy Rabbitte said, the Taoiseach should consider that the prospect of ongoing military parades between now and 2016 might be too narrow in terms of the breadth of vision evident from those who took part in the 1916 Rising. Would it be useful to refer to different aspects of the Proclamation to be used as themes in the run up to 2016 taking into account the emphasis on equal rights? It would even be useful to reflect upon the sovereignty aspect as mentioned by Deputy Joe Higgins. The suffrage of men and women and how——
A brief question.
I am trying to be positive and I will be brief. In suggesting the events and the inclusiveness that should mark those events, did the Taoiseach have any expectation that he would give rise to the Roman Catholic church and the Church of Ireland debating fundamental theological reconciliation? I ask the Taoiseach to reflect on the Arbour Hill ceremonies in future. These have not been marked by ecumenical characteristics, which might be worth reviewing as we are asked to review the events.
Could the Taoiseach acknowledge that the men and women in 1916 felt as strongly about the Irish language and its relationship to sovereignty as they did about the colour of the flag flying over the GPO? In this regard, I ask him to emphasise this in his future statements. B'fhéidir go bhféadfadh sé sin a dhéanamh go dátheangach.
Obviously I share Deputy Rabbitte's view of Michael Davitt as a driving force behind the one of first great European agrarian movements. The Government could consider a number of matters beyond issuing a stamp. The Taoiseach spoke about the GPO, which has functioned as a working post office since 1818. I would not favour it being transformed into a museum. However, the outgoing chief executive officer told me on Sunday that the space behind the existing building could be transformed into a fabulous atrium dedicated to 1916, which should be considered.
A question.
The Taoiseach might be able to answer this question. I saw a very interesting documentary, I believe on TG4, about the executions of the leaders of 1916. Of all the courts martial the only missing file was that of Éamon de Valera. I wonder where it went.
The Taoiseach said that the President laid a wreath to all those who lost their lives. I have previously asked the Taoiseach——
I would prefer if the Deputy would allow the Taoiseach to answer as the Chair has facilitated Deputies in continuing for five minutes longer than we should have.
I am nearly finished. Are there any plans to compile a definitive list of those who died between that time and the War of Independence? No definitive list exists of those who lost their lives and to whom the wreath laying by the President was dedicated.
I do not know what will ultimately happen with the GPO. There is quite a lot of space and with modern technology, I do not believe the GPO will need all that space in the future. It is worth considering how it is best dealt with and whether it is just 1916 or whether it is a broader look back on Irish life. The best thing is that people give their views on these things and see what is best to do. While it does not need to be decided in the short term, we should not allow it to go on for too long.
I do not know about the records on Éamon de Valera. There are a substantial number of records on the deaths. The Deputy referred to a definitive list of all of them. A fixed number of how many were killed is always given. If they cannot match that to names——
But not the names.
I will raise the matter with the archival people to see what they can do.
Historians are very glad that a definitive list of the 1916 volunteers has been compiled, based on the applications for pension arrangements which were received not long afterwards. Such a list has not been available before now. We have given clearance for the list to be digitalised so historians can build a far better picture of the people who were involved in the events of 1916. Perhaps they can also look at the records mentioned by Deputy Rabbitte in the context of the definitive list.