Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the appointments made by him since June 2002 to the State Boards, or other agencies under his aegis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16808/07]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Appointments to State Boards.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:2 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the appointments made by him to State boards since June 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18784/07]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will list the persons appointed to State boards or agencies operating under the aegis of his Department since 1 January 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20154/07]
I propose to take Question Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
The information sought by the Deputies concerning appointments made by me to State boards and agencies under the aegis of my Department since June 2002 is set out in the following schedule.
The relevant bodies are the National Statistics Board, the Law Reform Commission, the National Centre for Partnership and Performance, the National Economic and Social Council and the National Economic and Social Forum.
The schedule also lists appointments made in respect of the Second Information Society Commission, the term of office of which ended on 31 December 2004.
|
Board |
|
|
1 |
The National Statistics Board |
|
2 |
The Law Reform Commission |
|
3 |
The National Centre for Partnership and Performance (NCPP) |
|
4 |
The National Economic and Social Council (NESC) |
|
5 |
The National Economic and Social Forum (NESF) |
|
Name |
Occupation / Organisation |
Date of Appointment |
|
Mr. Frank Cunneen |
Health & Safety Authority (IBEC) |
February 2004 February 2006 |
|
Mr. Ciaran Dolan |
ICMSA |
February 2004 February 2006 |
|
Ms. Paula Carey |
ICTU |
February 2004 |
|
Ms. Mary Doyle |
Department of the Taoiseach |
February 2004 February 2006 July 2007 |
|
Prof. Brendan Walsh |
University College Dublin |
February 2004 February 2006 July 2007 |
|
Dr. Patricia O’Hara |
Western Development Commission |
February 2004 February 2006 July 2007 |
|
Mr. Derek Moran |
Department of Finance |
July 2003 February 2004 February 2006 |
|
Mr. Paul Sweeney |
ICTU |
October 2006 July 2007 |
|
Mr. Danny McCoy |
IBEC |
July 2007 |
|
Mr. Michael J. McGrath |
Department of Finance |
July 2007 |
|
Mr. Con Lucey |
IFA |
July 2007 |
|
Name |
Occupation |
Date of Appointment |
|
|
President |
Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness |
Judge of the Supreme Court |
22 February 2005 |
|
Commissioner (Full-time) |
Patricia T. Rickard-Clarke, |
Solicitor |
15 September 1997 Reappointed 30 September 2004 Reappointed 1 September 2007 |
|
Commissioner (Part-time) |
Dr. Hilary A Delaney, B.L. |
Senior Lecture in Law, TCD |
15 April 1997. Reappointed 15 April, 2002 Resigned May 2005 |
|
Commissioner (Part-time) |
Professor Finbarr McAuley, B.C.L., LLB, Mphil, LLD, |
Jean Monnet Professor of European Criminal Justice, UCD |
1 September 1999. Reappointed 1 September 2004 Reappointed 1 September 2007 |
|
Commissioner (Part-time) |
Marian Shanley |
Solicitor |
13 November 2001 Reappointed 12 November 2004 Reappointed 1 September 2007 |
|
Senior Counsel (Part-time) |
Donal O’Donnell |
Senior Counsel |
28 June 2005 (replaced Dr. Hilary A. Delaney, BL) Reappointed 1 September 2007 |
|
Name |
Occupation / Organisation |
Date ofAppointment |
|
|
Executive Chairperson |
Mr. Peter Cassells |
October 2001-April 2004 reappointed: 7 November 2005 |
|
|
Government Departments |
Mr. Philip Kelly, Asst. Secretary Deputy Chairperson |
Dept. of the Taoiseach |
October 2001 reappointed: 24 January 2006 |
|
Mr. Ciaran Connolly, Asst Secretary |
Dept. of Finance |
October 2001 reappointed: 24 January 2006 |
|
|
Mr. John Walsh, Asst. Secretary |
Dept. of Enterprise, Trade& Employment |
June 2002 — (replaced Mr. Maurice Cashell) Reappointed: 24 January 2006 |
|
|
Employers |
Mr. Brendan McGinty |
Director, Human/Industrial Resources, IBEC |
October 2001 Reappointed: 24 January 2006 |
|
Mr. Liam Doherty |
Director, Human Resource Services, IBEC |
October 2001 Reappointed: 24 January 2006 |
|
|
Mr. Gavin Marie |
IBEC |
replaced Mr. Liam Doherty in April 2007 |
|
|
Mr. Eddie Keenan |
CIF |
24 January 2006 |
|
|
Ms. Irene Canavan |
Arnotts |
24 January 2006 |
|
|
Mr. Morgan Nolan |
Industrial Relations,CIF |
Jan 2004 — (replaced Terry McEvoy) |
|
|
Trade Unions |
Mr. Fergus Whelan |
Industrial Officer, ICTU |
October 2003 — replaced Mr. Tom Wall Reappointed: 24 January 2006 |
|
Mr. Jerry Shanahan |
AMICUS |
24 January 2006 |
|
|
Ms. Catherine Byrne |
INTO |
24 January 2006 |
|
|
Mr. Des Geraghty |
Member of Executive Council, ICTU |
September 2004 — (replaced Mr John Tierney, MSF) |
|
|
Mr. Gerry McCormack |
SIPTU |
24 January 2006 |
|
|
Ms Angela Kirk |
IMPACT |
September 2004 — (replaced Ms Marie Levis) |
|
|
Mr. Sean Heading, Education & Training Services Trust has been nominated by ICTU as an alternate |
|||
|
Independent Members |
Prof. Joyce O’Connor |
National College of Ireland |
24 January 2006 |
|
Ms. Dorothy Butler Scally |
Human Resources Consultant |
24 January 2006 |
|
|
Dr. Catherine Kavanagh |
UCC |
24 January 2006 |
|
Name |
Occupation / Organisation |
Dates of Membership |
|
|
Chairperson |
Mr. Dermot McCarthy |
Secretary General, Dept. of the Taoiseach |
September 2003 June 2007 |
|
Deputy Chair |
Ms. Mary Doyle |
Assistant Secretary, Dept. of the Taoiseach |
September 2003 June 2007 |
|
Trade Union Pillar |
|||
|
Mr. David Begg |
General Secretary, ICTU |
September 2003 June 2007 |
|
|
Mr. Peter McLoone |
General Secretary, IMPACT |
September 2003 June 2007 |
|
|
Mr. Manus O’Riordan |
Economist, SIPTU |
September 2003 June 2007 |
|
|
Ms. Joan Carmichael |
Assistant General Secretary, ICTU |
September 2003 |
|
|
Ms. Sally Anne Kinahan (replaced Joan Carmichael) |
Assistant General Secretary, ICTU |
January 2004 June 2007 |
|
|
Mr. Jack O’Connor |
Vice President, SIPTU |
September 2003 June 2007 |
|
|
Business and Employer or Organisation Pillar |
|||
|
Mr. Turlough O’Sullivan |
Director General, IBEC |
June 2007 |
|
|
Ms. Aileen O’Donoghue |
Director, Financial Services Ireland |
September 2003 June 2007 |
|
|
Mr. Brian Geoghegan |
Director, IBEC |
September 2003 |
|
|
Mr. Danny McCoy(replaced Brian Geoghegan) |
Director of Policy, IBEC |
October 2005 June 2007 |
|
|
Mr. John Dunne |
Chief Executive,Chambers of Commerce Ireland |
September 2003 June 2007 |
|
|
Mr. Liam Kelleher |
Director General, Construction Industry Federation |
September 2003 June 2007 |
|
|
Agricultural and Farming Organisation Pillar |
|||
|
Mr. Seamus O’Donoghue |
Secretary, ICOS |
September 2003 June 2007 |
|
|
Mr. Ciaran Dolan |
General Secretary, ICMSA |
September 2003 June 2007 |
|
|
Mr. Michael Berkery |
General Secretary, IFA |
September 2003 June 2007 |
|
|
Mr. Eddie Punch |
General Secretary, ICSA |
June 2007 |
|
|
Mr. Damien McDonald |
Chief Executive, Macra na Féirme |
September 2003 |
|
|
Mr. Colm Markey |
National President, Macra na Féirme |
June 2007 |
|
|
Community and Voluntary Pillar |
|||
|
Fr. Sean Healy |
Head of Justice Office, CORI |
September 2003 June 2007 |
|
|
Mr. Donall Geoghegan |
Programme Manager, National Youth Council |
September 2002 September 2003 |
|
|
Mr. John Dolan |
Chief Executive, Disability Federation of Ireland |
September 2003 June 2007 |
|
|
Ms. Deirdre Garvey |
Chief Executive, the Wheel |
September 2003 |
|
|
John Mark McCafferty |
Policy Officer, Saint Vincent de Paul |
September 2003 |
|
|
Mr. Séamus Boland |
Chief Executive,Irish Rural Link |
June 2007 |
|
|
Ms. Brid O’Brien |
Senior Policy Officer, Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed |
June 2007 |
|
|
Ms. Camille Loftus |
Community Platform |
June 2007 |
|
|
Government Department Nominees |
|||
|
Secretary General |
Dept. of Finance |
September 2003 June 2007 |
|
|
Secretary General |
Dept. of Enterprise, Trade and Employment |
September 2003 June 2007 |
|
|
Secretary General |
Dept. of Social and Family Affairs |
September 2003 June 2007 |
|
|
Secretary General |
Dept. of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources |
September 2003 |
|
|
Secretary General |
Dept. of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government |
September 2003 June 2007 |
|
|
Secretary General |
Dept. of Education and Science |
June 2007 |
|
|
Independent Nominee |
|||
|
Prof. John Fitzgerald |
Senior Research Officer, ESRI |
September 2003 |
|
|
Prof. Eithne McLaughlin |
Dept. of Social Policy, Queens University, Belfast |
September 2003 |
|
|
Mr. Colin Hunt |
Head of Research, Goodbody Stockbrokers |
September 2003 |
|
|
Dr. Peter Bacon |
Economic Consultant |
September 2003 |
|
|
Prof. Brigid Laffan |
Department of Politics, UCD |
September 2003 |
|
|
Dr. Sean Barrett (replaced Colin Hunt) |
Department of Economics, Trinity College |
January 2005 June 2007 |
|
|
Mr. Con Lucey |
Economist,IFA |
June 2007 |
|
|
Prof. Peter Clinch |
UCD |
June 2007 |
|
|
Prof. Elizabeth Meehan |
Queen’s University |
June 2007 |
Terms of Office of NESC relevant to this PQ
(a) 1998 – 2001 (extended to 2002)
(b) 2003 – 2006
(c) 2007 – 2010
|
Name |
Occupation / Organisation |
Date of Appointment |
|
|
Independent Chairperson |
Maureen Gaffney |
Jan/Feb 2004 May 2007 |
|
|
Deputy Chairperson |
Mary Doyle |
Asst. Sec., Dept. of the Taoiseach |
Jan/Feb 2004 May 2007 |
|
Strand (i): Oireachtas |
Michael Woods |
Fianna Fáil TD |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
John Curran |
Fianna Fáil TD |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Senator Mary O’Rourke |
Fianna Fáil |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Senator Paschal Mooney |
Fianna Fáil |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Senator Brendan Daly |
Fianna Fáil |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Senator Geraldine Feeney |
Fianna Fáil |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Pat Carey |
Fianna Fáil TD |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Senator Paul Coghlan |
Fine Gael |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Damien English |
Fine Gael TD |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Paul Kehoe |
Fine Gael TD |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Joan Burton |
Labour TD |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Willie Penrose |
Labour TD |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Senator Kate Walsh |
Progressive Democrats |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Senator Feargal Quinn |
Independents |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Jerry Cowley |
Technical Group TD |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Strand (ii): Employer/Trade Unions |
|||
|
Employer/Business Organisations |
Jackie Harrison |
IBEC |
January/February 2004 |
|
Maria Cronin |
IBEC |
October/November 2004 (replaced Jackie Harrison) |
|
|
Tony Donohue |
IBEC |
September 2006 (replaced Maria Cronin) May 2007 |
|
|
Heidi Lougheed |
IBEC |
January/February 2004 May 2007 |
|
|
Patricia Callan |
Small Firms Association |
January/February 2004 May 2007 |
|
|
Kevin Gilna |
Construction Industry Federation |
January/February 2004 |
|
|
Dr. Peter Stafford |
Construction Industry Federation |
replace Kevin Gilna Oct 05 May 2007 |
|
|
Robert O’ Shea |
Chambers of Commerce/Tourist Industry/Exporters Association |
January/February 2004 |
|
|
Sean Murphy |
Chambers of Commerce/Tourist Industry/Exporters Association |
replaced Robert O’ Shea Aug 05 May 2007 |
|
|
Trade Unions |
Eamon Devoy |
Technical Engineering & Electrical Union |
January/February 2004 May 2007 |
|
Blair Horan |
Civil & Public Service Union |
January/February 2004 May 2007 |
|
|
Jerry Shanahan |
AMICUS |
January/February 2004 May 2007 |
|
|
Manus O’Riordan |
SIPTU |
January/February 2004 May 2007 |
|
|
Paula Carey |
ICTU |
January/February 2004 |
|
|
Esther Lynch |
ICTU |
Sept 2006 (Replaced Paula Carey) May 2007 |
|
|
Agricultural/Farming Organisations |
Mary McGreal |
Irish Farmers Association |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
Michael Doody |
Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association |
Jan/Feb 2004 May 2007 |
|
|
Mary Johnson |
Irish Co-Operative Organisation Society |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Carmel Brennan |
Macra na Feirme |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Anne Murray |
Irish Country Women’s Association |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Carmel Dawson |
Irish Country Women’s Association |
June 2006 (Replaced Anne Murray) May 2007 |
|
|
Emer Duffy |
Irish Co-Operative Organisation Society |
May 2007 |
|
|
Michael Berkery |
General Secretary IFA |
May 2007 |
|
|
Catherine Buckley |
Macra na Feirme |
May 2007 |
|
|
Strand (iii): Community & Voluntary Sector |
|||
|
Women’s Organisations |
Orla O’Connor |
National Women’s Council of Ireland |
Jan/Feb 2004 May 2007 |
|
Joanna McMinn |
National Women’s Council of Ireland |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Unemployed |
June Tinsley |
INOU |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
John Farrell |
INOU |
replaced June Tinsley Oct 05 |
|
|
Patricia Short |
ICTU Centres for the Unemployed |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Disadvantaged |
Sr. Brigid Reynolds |
CORI |
Jan/Feb 2004 May 2007 |
|
John-Mark McCafferty |
Society of Saint Vincent de Paul |
Jan/Feb 2004 May 2007 |
|
|
Audrey Deane |
Society of Saint Vincent de Paul |
Nov 2004 (replaced John-Mark McCafferty) |
|
|
Sharon Keane |
Anti-Poverty Networks |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Joe Gallagher |
Anti-Poverty Networks |
replaced Sharon Keane Sept 05 |
|
|
Youth/Children |
Malcolm Byrne |
NYCI |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
Marie Claire McAleer |
NYCI |
replaced Malcolm Byrne Sept 04 |
|
|
Raymond Dooley |
Children’s Rights Alliance |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Jillian Ban Turnhout |
Children’s Rights Alliance |
replaced Raymond Dooley Aug 05 May 2007 |
|
|
Older People |
Robin Webster |
National Council for Ageing and Older People/Senior Citizen’s Parliament/Age Action |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
Others |
Frank Goodwin |
The Carers Association |
Jan/Feb 2004 May 2007 |
|
Seamus Boland |
Irish Rural Link |
Jan/Feb 2004May 2007 |
|
|
Fergus O’Ferrall |
The Wheel |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Ivan Cooper |
The Wheel |
May 2007 |
|
|
Brid O’ Brien |
Pavee Point |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Aisling Walsh |
Disability Federation of Ireland |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Joanne McCarthy |
Disability Federation of Ireland |
replaced Aisling Walsh in 2006 May 2007 |
|
|
Michael O’Halloran |
Chief Executive Officer Irish Senior Citizens Parliament |
May 2007 |
|
|
Marie Claire McAleer |
National Youth Council of Ireland |
May 2007 |
|
|
Karen Murphy |
Irish Council for Social Housing Head of Services |
May 2007 |
|
|
Frances Byrne |
OPEN |
May 2007 |
|
|
Kathleen McCann |
Congress Centres Network |
May 2007 |
|
|
Stavros Stavrou |
Integrating Ireland |
May 2007 |
|
|
Maria Joyce |
National Traveller Womens Forum |
May 2007 |
|
|
Strand (iv): Central Government, Local Government and Independents |
|||
|
Central Government |
Secretary General |
Dept. Finance |
Jan/Feb 2004 May 2007 |
|
Secretary General |
Dept. Enterprise, Trade & Employment |
Jan/Feb 2004 May 2007 |
|
|
Secretary General |
Dept. Social & Family Affairs |
Jan/Feb 2004 May 2007 |
|
|
Secretary General |
Dept. Community, Rural & Gaeltacht Affairs |
Jan/Feb 2004 May 2007 |
|
|
Secretary General |
Dept. Environment, Heritage & Local Government |
Jan/Feb 2004 May 2007 |
|
|
Local Government |
Councillor John Egan |
General Council of County Councils |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
Councillor Ger Barron |
General Council of County Councils |
Nov 2004 (replaced Cllr. John Egan) May 2007 |
|
|
Councillor Patsy Treanor |
General Council of County Councils |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Councillor Jack Crowe |
General Council of County Councils |
Nov 2004 (replaced Cllr Patsy Treanor) |
|
|
Councillor Constance Hanniffy |
General Council of County Councils |
Jan/Feb 2004 May 2007 |
|
|
Councillor Patricia McCarthy |
Association of Municipal Authorities |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Donal O’Donoghue |
County and City Managers Association |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
John Tierney |
County and City Managers Association |
Nov 2004 (replaced Donal O’Donoghue) |
|
|
Councillor Mattie Ryan |
Association of County and City Councils |
May 2007 |
|
|
Councillor Paddy O’ Callaghan |
Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland |
May 2007 |
|
|
Councillor William Ireland |
Local Authorities Members Association |
May 2007 |
|
|
Independents |
Dr Colm Harmon |
Institute for the Study of Social Change, UCD |
Jan/Feb 2004 May 2007 |
|
Dr Mary P. Corcoran |
Department of Sociology |
Jan/Feb 2004 May 2007 |
|
|
Dr Brian Nolan |
ESRI |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Paul Tansey |
Tansey, Webster, Stewart & Company Ltd. |
Jan/Feb 2004 |
|
|
Cait Keane |
South Dublin County Council |
Jan/Feb 2004 May 2007 |
|
|
Marie Carroll |
Southside Partnership |
May 2007 |
|
|
Professor Rose Ann Kenny |
TCD |
May 2007 |
The Taoiseach said recently that membership of Fianna Fáil does not disqualify persons from being appointed to State boards. Was Mr. Joseph Burke re-appointed to the chairmanship of Dublin Port on the basis of his friendship with the Taoiseach or on the basis of merit and experience? His company specialised in refurbishing public houses and employed 16 people in north Dublin. The High Court was told the building company had substantial debts. It is no fault of anyone that a business venture fails. Was his re-appointment made on the basis of merit or because he was a friend of the Taoiseach?
Mr. Burke, as a member and chairman of the board for many years, has carried out a hugely successful reform of the port company and is recognised as having done so across all political persuasions. His appointment is made on the basis of the knowledge, expertise and experience he brings to the job. These are the qualities a person should bring to a board. There are many Fine Gael and Labour Party people on boards. Most of the people I have appointed in my Department have a political orientation but are not from my party. They are all appointed on the same criteria. Mr. Burke's appointment was made on the basis of his knowledge and expertise. The improvements in the industrial relations situation and productivity in the company and the changes he has made over many years stand up to scrutiny by anyone.
What is the position regarding Oireachtas membership of the National Economic and Social Forum? Have changes been made or are changes intended in line with the recent general election result? The technical group was represented by the former Deputy Jerry Cowley, who was not re-elected to the Dáil, and the Progressive Democrats representative was the late Senator Kate Walsh.
What is the method of selection? Is it made on a ratio basis?
Have the NESF vacancies been addressed since the general election result?
Changes will have to be made in respect of membership of the NESF to reflect current Oireachtas representation. As I understand it, that is happening or is about to happen. It was agreed earlier this year that the existing 15 Oireachtas nominees to NESF would be reappointed pending the general election following which the position would be revisited. I understand the Whip's office will shortly be in touch with the parties to seek fresh nominations for the Oireachtas strand. It must be changed based on current Oireachtas representation.
The Taoiseach said that membership of the NESF must change and that changes are pending. Is he directly involved in deciding who will fill the vacancies? The Taoiseach indicated that representatives from Fine Gael and the Labour Party will be on boards. Is he willing to consider the appointment of a Sinn Féin representative to the board of NESF as reconstituted following the general election result? There are vacancies on that board. What methodology is used in the selection of appointees? Does the Taoiseach take a direct hand in the selection and, if so, when does he expect to address this matter?
The formula used is based on party representation in the House. Fifteen Members of the House are appointed to the board and it is a straight mathematical division. I have not worked out the new formula though I have included the old one in the reply. I will examine with the Whip's office what this means for Sinn Féin.
I suppose if it is based on a formula of numbers — the Taoiseach is a man of great skill with numbers and accountancy — that suggests that perhaps we would not have automatic entitlement to one of the 15 positions. Perhaps the Taoiseach will be good enough to consider the contribution we could make.
I will consider that. To the best of my knowledge, the Technical Group was represented on the previous board, as were the Progressive Democrats and the Independents. I will look at the formula.
What changes, if any, have been made since the reformation of the Fianna Fáil Government, with the participation on this occasion of the Green Party, following the general election? Is it the case, as the Taoiseach previously stated publicly, that those selected by him for appointment to boards are his friends? Has there been any move towards the method proposed in March by the Green Party in its Appointments to Public Bodies Bill 2007, which called for an independent and transparent method of appointments to State boards? I have read the programme for Government and cannot find reference therein to any change in the method by which appointments will be made to State boards. Will the Taoiseach say if there has been any change in the method of appointment to State boards and what concession, if any, has been made in respect of the proposals contained in the Green Party's Bill introduced in the House in March of this year?
The Deputy is, of course, misrepresenting my view. I have stated many times that it is no longer easy to get people to serve on State boards, given the commitment required of them, much of the time free gratis and often for very small amounts. Appointments are based on a person's experience, expertise, willingness to serve and commitment to the organisation in which they are involved. Most appointments to organisations that come within the remit of my Department are nominees from the social partners. Appointments to organisations such as the National Statistics Board and the Law Reform Commission are limited to people with particular expertise in these areas.
There are no proposals or procedures in place to establish an independent system to examine or scrutinise appointments. Ministers and Departments try, to the best of their ability, to select the right people for positions. As I stated many times, people are no longer queueing up, as they did in the past, to participate on State boards. The current situation is different, given the legal position, governance arrangements and the commitment required. A limited number of people have the time or the commitment to get involved. That is a fact of life. We continue to manage to obtain suitable people but doing so is not near as easy as it was ten or 20 years ago.
What understanding exists between the parties in government with regard to the making of appointments to State boards? Is there an arrangement by which the smaller parties in government can make or recommend nominees for appointment to these boards?
What normally happens — this has been the case for many years — is that the relevant Department makes a nomination and that is agreed by Government. Legislation in respect of semi-State companies provides that a Minister may make a nomination which is then agreed by Government, and that is what happens. Consideration will be given to a suitable nomination by any member of Government.
Is there an understanding or agreement in terms of allocations, ratios, proportions and so on between the parties in government with regard to the making of appointments to State boards?
No.
There is no agreement.
There is no agreement in respect of allocations, ratios and so on. The Deputy is implying that the bigger party gets X and the smaller party gets Y, but there is no such arrangement.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that neither the Green Party nor the Progressive Democrats will be consulted in advance in respect of appointments by Fianna Fáil Ministers to State boards and that they will have absolutely no say in that matter? Will he tell the House what vacancies currently exist on State boards? Will he also list those vacancies and tell us when it is intended to fill them? Will the Taoiseach clarify the question asked earlier, namely, why he forgot to appoint two directors to Aer Lingus?
I do not wish to be unhelpful to Deputy Shatter but I am answering questions in respect of boards which come under the aegis of my Department. The Government makes appointments to State boards as provided for in legislation. There is consultation with Government in respect of nominations by Ministers, but ultimately the decision is made by the Minister. Much depends on what is provided for in the relevant legislation.
The Taoiseach did not respond to my question regarding what vacancies currently exist on State boards. I think the Chief Whip is falling for the Taoiseach.
He is falling off the job.
We are anxious not to have a Dublin South constituency accident if by-elections are to be avoided.
Will the Taoiseach list what positions are currently vacant on State boards? In the context of the Taoiseach's expression of concern in respect of the difficulty of finding suitable people to sit on boards because of the governance provisions and the time commitment, does the Government plan to review the remuneration payable to members appointed to State boards?
I do not think there is such a proposal, but the Deputy would need to table a question to each Minister in respect of vacancies on State boards that come under the remit of their Departments. I have outlined in my reply the position in respect of my Department.
I have made the point several times that significant issues arise in respect of membership of State boards in terms of time, legal positions and governance arrangements. Most members of State boards are also members of several audit committees and other committees. The situation is unlike it was years ago. Given the volume of legislation enacted in the past 15 years and the practices arising therefrom, it is no longer considered a great plus to be a member of a State board. A limited number of people are prepared to give the time and effort required for State boards. It is for this reason that people of all political persuasions and none are represented on State boards and that is good.
Does the Taoiseach know what positions are currently vacant on State boards?
Is the Deputy referring to my Department?
No, on boards in general.
I have no idea.
The Taoiseach has no idea what vacancies exist even in his own Department.
I know of the situation in my Department; that is the subject of these questions.
Which positions are vacant?
The board of the NESF needs to be reappointed.
The Taoiseach will be aware of requests from the self-catering industry for representation on the board of Fáilte Ireland. This industry is an important part of the sector but because its members are so dispersed throughout the country they have very little influence or voice while big decisions are being made about the future of that sector. The industry has made its case to the Taoiseach and the line Minister for representation on the board. Will the Taoiseach use his influence to ensure they are represented when the vacancy arises?
I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister concerned.
With respect to the Taoiseach's statement about the difficulties of finding suitable people, will he inform the House whether these positions are advertised and, if not, why not?
They are not advertised.
Why not, if there is a difficulty in finding people?
Was there ever a case where a person nominated to a board was found subsequently to be disqualified for any reason and that person's name was withdrawn as a result or was forced to resign from the board as a result of information which the Taoiseach was not aware of when he nominated the person?
Is that with regard to my Department?
Yes.
I cannot recall such a situation.
Will the Taoiseach find out this information?
I suggest the Deputy puts down a question.
The Taoiseach in his reply mentioned that because of recent legislation it is becoming more difficult to find good people to serve on State boards. Is he suggesting that the legislation should be changed. Surely it is most important to find well qualified, good people to serve on boards and if this is being prevented by something in the legislation does he propose a change in the legislation?
No. Issues of governance and the responsibilities and obligations of directors are the same in the private as in the public sector, as the Deputy will be aware. That means that because of the time commitment, people are not prepared to be members of boards unless they can give the time to do the work to the best of their ability and to participate in committees such as audit committees. The duties and responsibilities of board members are demanding. I talk to many of the key people on State boards on a regular basis and many will say that the time commitment is very high. This is evident in boards in many areas, particularly in the key commercial semi-State sector. Members of such boards do not want to be reappointed. They serve their term which they regard as their duty to the State and they then move on. It is a time commitment.
Many boards hold weekly meetings. I referred earlier to the board of Aer Lingus, some members of which are from the United States so they must travel over for meetings. They put in a considerable effort and the same applies for members of other boards. When membership of a sub-committee is taken into account, such people could have to devote as much as one day a week. That is acceptable if a person is not too busy, but it is a significant commitment for an individual who is a member of one of the key commercial State boards.
Standards in Public Office.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he has plans to amend the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16810/07]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:5 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if it is his intention to amend the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18785/07]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach his views on changes to the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20155/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together.
The code of conduct for office holders was drawn up by the Government pursuant to section 10(2) of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001, following consultation with the Standards in Public Office Commission, and published in July 2003.
Deputies will be aware that changes are to be made to the ethics framework upon the enactment of the Ethics in Public Office (Amendment) Bill 2007, which is due to be discussed before the Dáil in the current session. I intend to carry out a review of the code, in consultation with the Standards in Public Office Commission, as soon as the amending legislation has been enacted.
Is a copy of the code of conduct available in the Oireachtas Library for Members to read the rules of the code as they currently obtain?
I note the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, apologised to a lady in Limerick for remarks he made. I am sure the Taoiseach accepts that this is the proper response from the Minister who therefore must have said something akin to what was reported. We have dealt with the motion of confidence in the Taoiseach and he has had some exposure to more forensic questioning than I have an opportunity to ask him in the House.
The regulations and rules are different now. When the Taoiseach was Minister for Finance, persons known to him made financial contributions to him. Even now does the Taoiseach accept that, as Minister for Finance, the highest ranking Minister besides the Taoiseach, the acceptance of this kind of contribution was wrong? Does he accept that such conduct was completely unbecoming for a serving Minister, despite whatever pressures they may experience? I ask the Taoiseach to comment, given that we are at a remove from the glare of intense coverage that was recently applied to him?
If a copy of the code of conduct is not in the Oireachtas Library, it is not a secret document. The code applies to office holders, namely the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, Ministers and Ministers of State, the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Dáil and the Seanad. It is a public document and I think there is a copy in the Oireachtas Library.
With regard to the other question which I have been asked a number of times, this issue arose in 1995 when the new legislation was enacted and in 1997 and 2001. I would have been required under the law to declare those issues and I would have had no difficulty doing so. To be frank, I would not have lodged those moneys into what is the busiest bank in the main street of the capital of the country, one of the busiest branches of Allied Irish Bank, if I thought there was anything wrong in doing so. There would be a million ways for somebody who wanted to do something wrong. I was totally up-front in what I did because I saw nothing wrong and that is the reason I lodged the money into my bank account.
I have already admitted that, with regard to the Manchester money, it may have been unwise at the time. Even now, until this legislation is changed, the receipt of money from personal friends is not in any way wrong, illegal, unjust or improper. I received the money on the basis of loans that I would repay and not on the basis that the money was a gift that I would never repay. I received it at a time of difficulty, during a short period in 1994-95 and that was the basis for repayment, which is what I did. It was not a question of receiving money from some dodgy source or somebody with whom I was not acquainted. These are people with whom I have been associated for 30 years. They are friends and not even political friends. Some of them have been friends of mine since our school days. The Deputy has asked a fair question, but I do not regard what I did as wrong. If the Deputy asked whether I would have been better off if I did not accept the money, I would agree. Having been dealing with the issue for seven and a half years, I agree it would have been better, but I do not regard it as something that was wrong of me to do.
The Taoiseach speaks of school friends making personal loans or making moneys available. I am not sure if he used the term, "dodgy people" or "dodgy issues".
It was not something that could in any way be considered dodgy.
That is fine. One of those people who made a contribution, Mr. O'Connor, made it on the basis that it was for the Fianna Fáil Party. He said publicly he was not a personal friend of the Taoiseach. How does that tie in with the other school friends who made personal contributions to the Taoiseach?
This is public evidence so I have no difficulty answering the question. I was clearly told that what Mr. O'Connor gave to another friend of mine was for me. Twelve years later, however, he has said it was not. I believe I know why that has happened, given the way it was paid. However, the only thing ever said to me was that it was given for me.
The Code of Conduct for Office Holders states with regard to people who move from Government office to private business that "...office holders should act in a way which ensures it could not be reasonably concluded that... an unfair advantage would be conferred in a new appointment by virtue of, for example, access to official information the office holder previously enjoyed". The former Minister of State and Deputy, Mr. Tom Parlon, got a top job with the Construction Industry Federation following the recent general election. As a Minister of State he had access to privileged information, not least with regard to the decentralisation programme. He was also responsible for the Office of Public Works.
I am not suggesting that Mr. Parlon did anything wrong. However, the code of conduct states that former office holders "should be careful to avoid any real or apparent conflict of interest with the office they formerly occupied". It is no secret that this Government has had a special relationship with the construction industry down through the years——
And with 40% of the population.
——and it has allowed the industry to dictate housing policy, often against the interests of ordinary people accessing affordable homes. In the context of Mr. Parlon's example, does the Taoiseach believe that the code of conduct and the sections I have cited need to be re-examined and strengthened? What sanctions, if any, exist for former office holders who act in breach of the code of conduct? Is it a voluntary matter that office holders accede to the terms of the code of conduct or are there sanctions that can be brought to bear? Will the Taoiseach outline what, if any, procedure exists?
I have answered that question many times. The code of conduct does not stand in isolation. It is part of the wider ethics framework established by the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 and the Standards in Public Office Act 2001. Section 10(7) of the Standards in Public Office Act binds office holders to have regard to and be guided by the code. The code is linked directly to the powers of the two legislative measures. The reason for the existence of the code was to lay out the terms of the legislation in straightforward, layman's English. That is what it does.
The code cannot impose any new requirements that are not already set out in the legislation; it cannot go beyond what the law provides. It mainly attempts to provide guidance at a level of detail that would be difficult to express in legislation. It can be, and has been, used by the Standards in Public Office Commission as a guide when a complaint is made under section 4 of the Act as to how the complaint should be investigated. The code, therefore, is tied into the legislation and into the operation of the Standards in Public Office Commission. Complaints can be made about breaches of the ethics Acts under section 4.
With regard to the Deputy's question, I do not wish to discuss the specific details regarding a single individual but a review of the code is under way. This issue arises regularly after every election, or at least has done after the last three elections. What is the position of a person who has left politics and goes straight into another position outside the House? There is reference to this in either the code or the Cabinet handbook; I cannot recall which. It advises people to be careful. It is a little vague in my view. I would prefer a cut and dried requirement.
Is there a preferable period for such a move? In some countries there is no specified period while in others there is a fixed period. In our system it is open to interpretation. The interpretation is then used to criticise the individual, one way or another. From the point of view of an individual who leaves the House, it would be better if the code provided that the individual cannot do X, Y or Z for three or six months. If one goes beyond that, how is a person supposed to live? It is unfair. It would be better if the position was clarified. It is unsatisfactory that an individual can be made to feel they did something wrong, which is part of this country's culture anyway. I would prefer if the matter was cut and dried, and it stated that the person cannot do X, Y or Z for a certain period.
I welcome the Taoiseach's stated preference for certainty being enshrined in whatever booklet applies, be it the Cabinet handbook or otherwise. Indeed, the Taoiseach might send me a copy of the Cabinet handbook. I have never seen it but it is worth examining as well. What method will be employed in the review of the code of conduct? The Taoiseach said a review is under way. Who is conducting it? Is there is a timeframe within which they will report? Will the recommendations made be brought before the House for further scrutiny and debate and for the input of Members of the Oireachtas? Does the Taoiseach have a role in the review? Given his comments today, is it not important that the Taoiseach's view on the importance of certainty in this area should be placed in the code of conduct? What steps will the Taoiseach take, following this matter being raised this morning?
Earlier this morning the Taoiseach said, in response to Deputy Kenny, that the Deputy was "dead right" and that the Taoiseach wished that things were otherwise. With regard to former Deputy Parlon's case and with no implication of wrong doing, does the Taoiseach agree that, given the portfolio Mr. Parlon held and the post he took up with such speed following the general election, he might have been better advised to wait for a reasonable period of time? We accept that people, following their years of service in this institution, have the right to a future in employment. However, standards must be set and the code of conduct must reflect them. I agree with the Taoiseach that certainty should be enshrined therein.
I will not give my views on individual cases. If one does that with one and not with others, it is unfair. The review will be carried out by the Cabinet secretariat. Obviously, I will have a say in that and I will raise the issue I raised today. The Cabinet secretariat will do the review in consultation with the Standards in Public Office Commission.
I feel strongly about this matter because it is raised regularly. When a Member of the House leaves the House it is unfair for them to be treated differently from leaving any other job. The Dáil has turned over 34% of its Members in the last four or five elections. They should not be tainted. Several questions are raised every time about whether something is outside a fixed period. People must live, particularly younger Members who leave the House and who have young families and must get on with another career. If there is to be a rule, I do not think that it should be that they should be careful, look at it or take it into account. How does one do so? Any Member of the House, office holders or non-office holders, will have met and associated with people. Is it the case that when they enter the House, they cannot do this or that?
I have looked at what happens in other jurisdictions because the issue was raised several times during the past ten years. Either they do nothing and the person is entitled to do whatever he or she likes the following day or they have a fixed period. Our position is that the onus is put on a Member that they should be careful about this, that and the other and I do not think this is practical.
I should remind Members that people outside the House may not be the subject of either blame or praise in the House. This is a long-standing precedent and in the case of former Deputy Parlon I allowed the questions because it was in the public domain prior to this and no impropriety was being suggested on the part of former Deputy Parlon.
The net point with regard to the former Minister of State, Mr. Parlon, is that had he been a senior civil servant in the OPW who transferred to a job directly connected with his previous job of overseeing considerable volumes of capital State expenditure in construction projects, under the code of ethics he would have been required to contact either the Secretary General of the Department or the appointments board for advice on what is a conflict of interest.
Did the former Minister of State advise the Government, the Secretary General to the Government or the Secretary General of his former Department that he was undertaking a position which could give rise to the perception of a conflict of interest if not an actual one? The rule for senior civil servants, which we debated at length here, is that unless they are advised it is all right they must wait 12 months. People on all sides of the House agreed, in the context of generous departure and retirement arrangements for senior civil servants and Members of the House, that not allowing a buffer period of time to elapse is wrong and sends out the wrong message. One day one looks after the job in Government of spending hundreds of millions on construction contracts and the next day one changes hats and does the same job for the Construction Industry Federation. If we have a good rule for senior civil servants, why do we not have it for people such as the former Minister of State?
It is a point to be considered in the review. It is not there at present. In my experience, I have not seen any former civil servants being advised that they should not take up positions. Members will note they all move on very quickly and the best of luck to them. The answer to the question whether the former Minister of State Mr. Parlon asked me or the Government is "no". He had no obligation to do so. There is no procedure or rule that he had to do so.
In the context of ethics and the code of conduct as it stands at present, would the Taoiseach feel comfortable if the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, met a group of people informally either in or outside Ireland to talk to them about the economy, how the State is doing and where he sees the economy going during the next 12 months and at the end of the meeting the group had a whip-around and gave him €10,000 which he took away as a personal gift? Would the Taoiseach be comfortable if any other Minister so behaved?
He would follow the ethics issue of the day. I note that many office holders have functions and golf outings at which they do precisely that and declare them. As Deputy Shatter knows, nowhere better than the legal profession——
I am not talking about political donations or funds raised for political purposes. If the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, or any Minister sat down today with a group of people, gave them a briefing on the economy for more than an hour and they had a whip-around — not for his political campaigning or purposes, not a political donation, but because they decided he was a nice guy and needed a few bob — and gave him €10,000, would the Taoiseach be comfortable with this behaviour? Would he expect a Minister in his Government to retain those funds for his or her own purposes?
A Minister today must abide by the code and legislation and obviously one cannot do that.
Previously, the Taoiseach stated there is nothing in the law at present to prevent a Minister so behaving.
I stated that with regard to friends. Deputy Shatter put it in a different context.
If the group were the Minister, Deputy Cowen's friends and he had met them a couple of times before, would the Taoiseach be comfortable with it? Is he aware and does he accept that former Ministers such as Deputy O'Rourke have stated that if they were offered funds in these circumstances, they would not accept them?
I accept that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, Deputy O'Rourke and anyone else would now follow the code of conduct and the legislation. That is what I would do also.
Dublin-Monaghan Bombings.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:7 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the costs which have accrued to his Department in respect of the MacEntee inquiry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16812/07]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:8 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to receive a report from the MacEntee inquiry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16813/07]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:9 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the action he will take on foot of the report of the MacEntee inquiry into the State’s response to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of May 1974; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18786/07]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:10 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the action he will take arising from the report of the MacEntee commission into aspects of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in 1974; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20156/07]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:11 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he has raised or intends to raise with the British Prime Minister the report of the MacEntee commission into aspects of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in 1974; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20157/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 11, inclusive, together.
I received the final report by the Commission of Investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974 from the sole member, Mr. Patrick MacEntee, SC QC, on 12 March last. Under the Commissions of Investigation Act, I was obliged to consider certain legal issues prior to publication. As such, I sought advice from the Attorney General, who considered these issues and advised that the report should be published in full. Accordingly, I brought the report to the Cabinet and published it on 4 April. The Government has considered the findings of the report carefully.
Although they relate to a difficult period in the past, Mr. MacEntee's findings with regard to shortcomings and omissions are a matter of serious concern. It should also be acknowledged that he found considerable improvements in administrative practice since that time. A full review has now been carried out of all systems and procedures in the relevant Departments and agencies to ensure that the failures found by Mr. MacEntee do not occur in the future.
In chapter 11 of his report, Mr. MacEntee stated that for legal reasons he was unable to report on one significant aspect of his terms of reference specifically relating to why the Garda Síochána did not follow up on a lead they had regarding a man who stayed in the Four Courts Hotel. Following dissolution of the commission of inquiry, the relevant confidential information remained subject to legal privilege. Its archive was transferred to my Department, where it is in secure storage.
Based on the legal advice of the Attorney General on this point, the Government decided to seek voluntary withdrawal of claims of privilege from those agencies, both here and in Britain, which provided the confidential material to the commission so that it could be shared with the relevant authorities in this State. Agreement has now been obtained from all those agencies and my Department has forwarded this documentation to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Garda Síochána for appropriate consideration.
Deputies are aware that I and my officials have consistently raised these issues with the British authorities, including at Prime Minister level, and will continue to do so. I recognise that victims' issues and dealing with the past are difficult, but it is important that we find a way to resolve this and allow people move on with their lives.
The total amount spent by the commission of investigation is €2,632,702. This amount breaks down as follows: €1,756,533 on legal costs; €351,410 on support staff; and €524,759 on set-up and administrative costs of the offices of the commission.
Is the Taoiseach aware of how unhappy the Justice for the Forgotten group is at the fact there was little discussion or substantive investigation into what is contained in the report with reference to the man in the Four Courts Hotel? Is he aware that any evidence available to the State was made available in this regard? Will the Taoiseach comment on whether it is a State security matter?
The subcommittee which dealt with the Barron report last November recommended an Oireachtas debate should take place on collusion referred to in the report. Obviously, it would have been preferable if that debate had taken place before the election but that did not happen for whatever reason. Is that a matter to which the Taoiseach will give consideration in the future?
In regard to his comments about continual interaction with the British authorities, a matter we have raised on many occasions, is the Taoiseach happy that they have supplied all the information they can in respect of this matter? Has he spoken to the Prime Minister, Mr. Brown, since his appointment as British Prime Minister, on the issue of whether there are outstanding documents or material that could be provided by the British authorities in order to bring this matter to a final conclusion?
In relation to the man who stayed in the Four Courts Hotel, I have, as outlined in my reply, forwarded the relevant material to the appropriate authorities for their consideration. Regarding Justice for the Forgotten, there have been comprehensive examinations and all the work regarding Mr. Justice Hamilton, Mr. Justice Barron's report, the commission of investigation and the examinations here in the House has been completed to the best of everybody's ability.
It was only recently that I saw that information regarding the issue I mentioned in the reply. I will give my own political view on it; I do not want to get into the legal realms. I do not think we should look at it with enormous interest. In my estimation, it is not very substantive. That is purely my political view; it is for others to offer a legal view. Obviously, I cannot say what it is — given what it is — but I had not seen it in previous work when it was finished. I have just seen it in recent times but it is no more substantive than many other things I have seen in these reports. I do not know whether it is of any relevance at all, but that is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. Politically, I do not think it is of huge interest because we are talking about a period 34 years ago. If there are any leads on these issues, they are not there.
If the Deputy asked if I believe that all the information that is available in the British establishment has been given to us, I certainly would not answer "yes" to that question. If the Deputy asked whether we have we all the information we are going to get from the British authorities, I would answer "yes" to that question. After the considerable efforts of Mr. Justice Hamilton, Mr. Justice Barron and Mr. MacEntee, we are unlikely to see any further information. With the help of numerous Secretaries of State they did ultimately change their position and gave far more information than they were giving in the first place. They moved substantially from their position. Any other information is probably in the hands of MI5 or MI6 and I do not see how we will get it.
We are running out of time but I will allow two brief supplementaries from Deputy Ó Caoláin and Deputy Gilmore.
It is now 12 months since the Oireachtas sub-committee made the recommendation of a full debate in both Houses of the Oireachtas on the issue of collusion. The Taoiseach has not responded to the earlier question from Deputy Kenny. Will he be specific on when that debate will be accommodated? I have raised this matter over the summer recess and since then with the Chief Whip, who can confirm that is the case. I believe the matter needs to be accommodated with some urgency.
Having read the MacEntee report, does the Taoiseach hold the view that the Government and Garda response at the time raises very serious questions? I have heard him articulate his concerns on this whole area and I am of the view that gross incompetence is not enough to explain what happened, given the seriousness of the failure to properly investigate and the disappearance and destruction of records pertaining to the tragic events of 17 May 1974. What action does the Taoiseach propose to take in this regard, given that I have heard him articulate on a number of occasions his particular concern in relation to that whole area of the investigation or, more correctly, the failure to properly investigate all that pertained to that issue?
Following the appointment of the new British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has the Taoiseach raised with him the failure of the British Government to properly co-operate with the series of inquiries by Mr. Justice Hamilton, Mr. Justice Barron and Mr. MacEntee? Has the Taoiseach acquainted him with the extent of the failure of the British authorities to properly co-operate with a commission appointed by this Parliament and its failure to co-operate throughout which has not only impeded but stunted the potential of those commissions of inquiry toproperly get to the full detail that must be available?
Has the Taoiseach had the opportunity to raise with Mr. Brown the other pressing issues under the umbrella of collusion, for example, the murder of Pat Finucane, which the Dáil has unanimously agreed warrants a full inquiry?
Having met the family of the late councillor Eddie Fullerton of Buncrana and Donegal councils, has he any intent to initiate a full public inquiry with cross-jurisdictional application into that particular murder?
Following the publication of the MacEntee report, the Taoiseach stated that there should be a broader debate on the issue of collusion. The Justice for the Forgotten group is particularly anxious that this debate should take place. What are the plans in that regard?
Last week, the Garda Commissioner announced that he was establishing a cold case type arrangement within the Garda to re-open and examine approximately 200 unsolved murders. Will the Dublin-Monaghan bombings come within the remit of that cold case arrangement and be subject to re-examination by the Garda on that basis?
Obviously, issues around the Finucane and other cases are continually raised with the British Government. At a meeting just before the summer I raised these issues with the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.
There is no substantive discussion on collusion in the MacEntee report. It was the clear view of the Oireachtas committee that the issue of collusion could only be properly addressed by an appropriate inquiry in the UK. As regards a Dáil debate, I have always had serious concerns about a number of atrocities that happened in the State during the 1970s, including the Dublin-Monaghan bombings. That is why I asked the late Mr. Justice Hamilton in the first place and then Mr. Justice Barron to look at all of these incidents. As the House will be aware, the Oireachtas joint committee report which dealt with these issues made some stark findings and painted a very disturbing picture. As I said when I published the MacEntee report, I fully support the call for a debate in the Dáil and Seanad and I am happy to do that whenever the House agrees to do it.
In regard to the other issues raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin, in the context of all the reports including the MacEntee report about that period, as I said in my reply, findings in regard to shortcomings and omissions are a matter of serious concern. The situation has improved. We have asked the Garda to ensure these kinds of issues never happen again, where whole files and records went missing. Deputy Ó Caoláin has alluded to what I said many times before. I cannot and never will understand how a file on something like the Dublin-Monaghan bombings which happened in May 1974 was closed in August 1974. All I can do is ensure that the procedures in place now, and for some years, will never allow for the lack of records and recording of procedures to happen again and that any of the recommendations made by the late Mr. Justice Hamilton, Mr. Justice Barron or Mr. MacEntee are implemented. They throw considerable light on the circumstances of the time and are helpful to the families. They do not solve everything as we know, regrettably. I believe we have done a good service in the last number of years in all these reports which have really now come to a conclusion.
With respect, I do not believe it is a conclusion.