Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the Nally report on the reorganisation of the Chief State Solicitor’s office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29468/08]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Office of the Chief State Solicitor.
As my predecessor indicated to the House on 3 October 2007 and 8 April 2008 in response to similar questions, the implementation of the recommendations of the Nally report relating to the reorganisation of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor was completed last year.
I did not hear much of the Taoiseach's response because of the noise in the Chamber. I would like to ask about comments that were recently made by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Hamilton. He argued that if a 3% cut is applied across the board, as announced by the Government, it will not be possible for his office to operate. He suggested there is no fat left in that office. He pointed out that given the nature and sensitivity of the cases he pursues, he will not be able to fulfil his duties, in accordance with the remit given to him by the Government, if the 3% cut is implemented. I support his decision to give explanations where prosecutions do not proceed. Does the Taoiseach agree with that? Has he examined the consequences of the statement by Mr. Hamilton that a 3% cut would be completely unrealistic in his office? Is he concerned that, as a consequence, the DPP will be unable to do his duty if the Taoiseach implements the 3% payroll cut he outlined last July?
Every office, Department and agency of State must make a contribution to the necessity to cut back costs.
Accepted.
His office, therefore, is not exempt from that requirement any more than any one else's.
The DPP pointed out the policy he must deal with covers murder, manslaughter, infanticide, fatalities in the workplace and even road traffic accidents. He hoped to extend the policy to include rape and other sexual offences by the end of next year, which I accept depends on resources. However, he also said recent statistics on rape across 22 countries showed Ireland has the lowest rate of conviction in reported cases. Is that not an important area for the DPP to address? A recent EU report on the efficiency of justice, funded by the Council of Europe, found that Ireland's prosecution service has the lowest per capita expenditure of any state in Europe. The Taoiseach proposes to cut the budget of the DPP’s office by a further 3%. Is that feasible or fair?
The DPP said the number of files forwarded to his office is increasing by approximately 5% annually. I acknowledge the Government must consider efficiencies but a cutback of in excess of 3% is probably more realistic in sections of other Departments. The DPP pointed out publicly as a servant of the State that there is no fat in his office and a 3% cut in his budget will result in him not being able to do his duty. This important duty is given to him by Government, which the Taoiseach understands fully, and I would like the Taoiseach to confirm he is happy with the Government decision. It will result in the DPP being unable to complete his duties properly.
It is interesting that the Deputy holds that view. He has been coming into the House for the past six months saying there is fat all over the place and everything should be cut and sliced and we should get rid of agencies.
I am not speaking on behalf of Mr. Hamilton.
Every day of the week, the Deputy comes into the House saying millions of euro is being wasted here, there and everywhere
There are, yes. I am not speaking on behalf of Mr. Hamilton. I am using his words.
When it comes to a 3% payroll cut in an office of State, the Deputy states the office should be exempt. Everyone can make that argument.
Mr. Hamilton is well able to speak for himself.
I am not here to get into an issue with Mr. Hamilton.
He is the DPP in case the Taoiseach does not know that.
He is head of the DPP's office. He was in receipt of increased allocations over the past number of years, the same as everyone else.
The Taoiseach, therefore, thinks he is talking nonsense.
Every other Department of State——
Does the Taoiseach think he is talking nonsense?
I am not getting involved. I am outlining Government policy——
I know what is Government policy, but I am asking the Taoiseach to comment on the DPP's analysis of it.
——which is unlike the Deputy's policy to exempt certain areas according to factions.
Mr. Hamilton is the DPP. I am not speaking for him.
The DPP can continue with his work, based on the allocations provided.
The Taoiseach is, therefore, happy with that.
The DPP's office worked in the past on lower budgets. If the Deputy believes there is fat everywhere except in the DPP's office, that is his view but it is not my view. If one wants consistency and a situation where every Department——
I am giving the DPP's view——
Is the Deputy answering the questions or am I? Which way does it work?
Let the Taoiseach finish.
That is bad form.
The Taoiseach knows the answer to every question.
I listened in silence and the minute I open my mouth, the Deputy is interrupting.
Let the Taoiseach finish. Deputy Kenny will have another opportunity.
The bottom line is people have to manage the resources available to them, the same as everybody else. People in every Department and agency could make an argument for more funds. The taxpayer has no more funds. The taxpayer is providing €6.5 million less in tax revenues this year than last year.
And the Taoiseach has a load of Ministers he does not need.
The same as everyone else in business or a family on a budget, one has to cut one's cloth according to one's measure.
Now they have to.
No one's job is being compromised or undermined in any way by the allocations they have received. The 3% payroll cut is required across the public service. People in many organisations can have a different view. It is predictable that people working in various offices and agencies have a certain view of what their allocation should be. The taxpayer does not have infinite resources. We have allocated the resources, which are much higher than would have been available to the DPP's office or any other office four or five years ago when people got on with their jobs. That is what we have to do in this situation.
Yesterday, we had an exchange in the House over what is happening on our streets, the problem with crime and the need to secure convictions. I drew attention to the fact that of the 161 gun murders in the State over the past ten years, there have been only 22 convictions. We are all agreed that to tackle crime effectively, cases must be brought before the court and prosecuted and the people responsible put away. There is a problem in the DPP's office. The Taoiseach's predecessor told me in the House last April that the office had 17 unfilled vacancies, which was before the Government applied its 3% cut. The DPP says the number of cases he is handling has increased by 6% and the Taoiseach's response is to cut his budget by 3%. The DPP's solution is to pass cases back to the Garda for prosecution in the District Court.
We, therefore, have two problems. First, the DPP's office is under resourced and he cannot do his job effectively, which means there is a greater prospect of criminals getting away with their crimes. Second, the DPP will ask the gardaí to spend their time sitting around the District Court waiting for cases to come up when they should be trying to detect those who committed the crimes in the first place. Will the Taoiseach stand over that or will he do something to deal with it? The DPP is a public servant and he has made public what is his difficulty. He has an increased caseload and a reduced budget, with which he cannot cope. He cannot do the job we all want him to and he says he will ask the Garda to deal with cases in the District Courts. That is no good to anybody. The DPP cannot to his job effectively and gardaí will be tied up hanging around court rooms waiting for cases to come up when they should be detecting crime.
In 2006, the Department of Finance carried out a review of staffing in the DPP's office, arising from which 28 additional posts were approved to bring the staffing complement to 206. The office currently has six staff vacancies. This number will reduce to five upon the filling shortly of a vacant post in the library. With regard to the 3% payroll expenditure cut in 2009, I am informed by the DPP's office that it will meet the reduced level by a combination of reducing support staff numbers through a proposal to locate in two rather than three premises and a range of measures such as changes in work practices and the level at which work is performed, delays in filling vacancies and tight control of overtime payments. The office is confident it can achieve the 3% cut without having an adverse impact on front line prosecution services.
We are seeking a 3% payroll cut to provide flexibilities within the overall spend in order that any Department that might have a particular problem would be able to put its case to the Department of Finance, which would decide in the context of the need to achieve the 3% cut what arrangements should be made to achieve that. We did not introduce a staff embargo, whereby no vacancies could be filled. This is a flexible mechanism, which insists on a 3% payroll cut in that context. Deputy Gilmore either agrees savings are required or he does not. Five minutes ago he told me where he would save €10 million and now he is telling me where he will spend €10 million. It is the same old story. The Deputy changes his argument to suit his question. The bottom line is the payroll cuts can be implemented and that is the up to date position. Deputy Gilmore is suggesting that the office is totally compromised as a result of seeking these savings but that is not borne out by the facts available to me.
I am not making this case, it was made by the DPP himself.
Correct.
The DPP stated that he will hand back cases to the Garda to prosecute them in the District Court. That is not a good idea because it means that the gardaí will be tied up in the courts when they should be out detecting crime. Does the Taoiseach agree that this should proceed, that cases currently being prosecuted by the DPP should now be handed back to the Garda for prosecution in the District Court? Is the Taoiseach happy with that? Will he do anything or have the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform do anything to ensure that it does not happen and that we can have a situation where the gardaí are enabled to do their job without being tied up in the courts and that DPP is enabled to do his job successfully and that he can ensure his office also does successful work?
That is all I want to ascertain, there is no point in blaming me for it. I did not say it, the DPP said it.
I am not blaming Deputy Gilmore. The fact is he does not like the answer. The answer available to me is the up-to-date position.
Yes, but what is the Taoiseach's view on the matter?
This is the up-to-date position. I have explained to Deputy Gilmore that the DPP's office has come back and indicated where it will make the 3% savings. It has indicated that it is confident of achieving that without having an adverse impact on front-line prosecution services. How simple is that? Where is the doubt in it?
Put it this way,——
No, I must call Deputy Ó Caoláin next and then I must return to Deputy Kenny.
People in top management positions must manage their budgets. That is the way it is.
Deputy Ó Caoláin is next. Deputy Gilmore can come back again. I did not allow Deputy Kenny and it is his question.
I do not intend to add to what has already been said. On the response the Taoiseach has given to both Deputy Kenny and Deputy Gilmore, and to the latter more particularly on his second line of questioning, would the Taoiseach accept that what has been recorded publicly and referred to seems in direct contradiction to what he states is the most up-to-date position? Surely at the very least if, as Deputy Gilmore indicates, there is a concern about progressing convictions and moving towards successful convictions as a result of the impact of the proposed 3% reduction in the budget for the Chief State Solicitor's office and the role of the DPP, would the Taoiseach undertake to the House to establish factually what is the position and report back to us? Surely that is a formula that will get us out of this exchange, which will not achieve anything. The facts should inform the decision and if they do, as Deputy Gilmore claims and refers to in terms of the words of Mr. Hamilton himself, then a problem exists and needs to be addressed. Would the Taoiseach accept that there is a need to establish factually the situation and act responsibly as a result?
The factual situation is clear. The only fair and transparent way in which one can achieve 3% payroll savings is to impose that obligation on everybody. Everyone can make a case. Within the ceiling of the overall 3% payroll savings, which are necessary and must be obtained, one can, if an area has a problem, work through the Department of Finance and the public service. People listen to these points of view at the official level in terms of what the public services believes is required. That is how it works.
One cannot come into the House and state there is a need for payroll savings but one has a problem here and there. Everyone can make that argument. The bottom line is that there is no evidence, based on the supplementary information available to me, to suggest that the DPP cannot do its job because we are seeking a 3% saving in payroll costs. That is not the case. The assertions are being made here but it is not the case based on the information available to me, nor should it be. Why should it be so? It should not arise when trying to make efficiencies to the tune of 3% of payroll costs.
The Taoiseach expresses a sense of indignation in the House.
It is not indignation.
If he wants to descend to cat-calling and name-calling, or lecturing Members on this side, that is his business.
Deputy Kenny is getting very sensitive.
The Taoiseach stated he would not take lecturing or hectoring from anybody. He himself seems to dispense a good deal of it.
I want to remind the Taoiseach of what he has just stated. He said that the position of the DPP and the efficacy of his office is not being undermined by the Government decision to effect a 3% payroll cut in his office.
The Taoiseach said assertions are being made here. There are no assertions being made by myself or by Deputy Gilmore. We are merely stating what the DPP, a respected officer of the State, stated on the national airwaves, that if the Government goes ahead and implements a 3% cut in costs in his office he will not be able to do his job. Does the Taoiseach accept that or does he not?
I do not. He must manage.
The Taoiseach qualified his remarks by stating that it is open for anybody to make a case to the Department of Finance and the public service for the continuation of a service. There are vacancies in the DPP's office. The Taoiseach mentioned that one vacancy will be filled but that a 3% cut in payroll costs will be implemented.
We do not have much contact with the Director of Public Prosecutions. He is a respected officer of the State with a responsible job to do. He has said on the national airwaves that he will not be able to do his job properly if the Government fully implements the proposed cut in payroll costs. Does the Taoiseach accept the word of the DPP?
Deputy Kenny spoke of lecturing or hectoring. I say in response to him that the up-to-date position is that there have been discussions on how to implement the 3% payroll cut. I have explained to him how it is intended to proceed. That is the latest position, whatever people's views of what it might entail.
On what date was that? When was that?
Logically, it took place afterwards——
When? What was the date?
——because the DPP's office now tells us that it will meet the reduced level.
When was that?
It was subsequent to what Deputy Kenny is quoting.
The Taoiseach does not know, does he?
Is Deputy Kenny suggesting the office was meeting it but now it is not?
He is paying €8 million to advisers.
Deputy Kenny is playing this old game all day. The bottom line is that the Deputy is trying to make an argument where none exists.
The Taoiseach does not know.
I know far more about it than Deputy Kenny.
Tell us.
I have just explained to him. Deputy Kenny did not know, for example, before I gave him the answer, which is the reason he tabled the question in the first place — one is not supposed to know the answer.
That is the question.
It is this, that one meets the reduced level of expenditure——
The Taoiseach has gone very much like a schoolmaster.
Deputy Kenny is the schoolmaster and I understand he is still on the payroll.
(Interruptions).
I was always told one should know the answer before one asks the question.
The Taoiseach is wrong there.
The reduced level of costs is achieved through a combination of reducing support staff numbers and a proposal to locate in two rather than three premises.
I ask the Taoiseach to qualify that. I have drawn nothing from the Department of Education and Science for 20 years.
Please let the Taoiseach finish.
Will he withdraw that?
(Interruptions).
Of course I will. Now who is getting upset?
Does the Taoiseach withdraw that?
A Deputy
The Taoiseach slipped there.
Deputy Kenny is very sensitive.
I have no problem withdrawing it.
It is not the same.
On a point of information, I have not received a cent from the Department of Education and Science in over 20 years.
Good man.
I say that so that the Taoiseach would know.
A range of measures includes changes in work practices and the level at which the work is performed, delays in filling vacancies and tight control of overtime payments.
What is the date of that report?
It is subsequent to the Deputy's information, it is the up-to-date position.
Since the question was tabled.
We have received this information following the tabling of the question.
Why will the Taoiseach not check the position?
I myself heard the DPP on national radio a couple of weeks ago. He stated that if the Government implemented a 3% cut in payroll costs in his office he would not be able to do his job. The Taoiseach has all these advisers and he has a big file in front of him. Can he tell me when the latest report to which he referred was received?
Since the Deputy tabled the question.
It is the latest information——
I will tell the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, that the cost of submitting another question will be a couple of hundred euro. The Taoiseach has the information before him.
It is hot off the press.
The Taoiseach does not know the answer to the question. He should say he does not know the date.
By definition, it must be more recent.
It is hot off the press, I understand. I call Deputy Gilmore.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle. He is stepping outside his terms of reference.
I call Deputy Gilmore.
Deputy Dempsey sat on these benches at one time.
Only for a short time.
I have with me the newspaper report which quotes the DPP, the date of which is 23 October last. It would be interesting to hear from the Taoiseach what is the date of his latest information from the DPP. The DPP explained it, stating that three years ago the Garda Síochána Act 2005 transferred prosecution functions of the Garda to the DPP and the idea was that it would free up the gardaí to catch criminals. Everybody knew this. In District Court cases gardaí could often be hanging around and waiting for a relatively small case to come up while among themselves lawyers arranged postponements and adjournments. The gardaí could have been out doing their job. This was the problem and the job was given to the DPP. The DPP is now stating that because of the 3% cut he must hand back these prosecution cases to the Garda. The Taoiseach should answer Deputy Kenny's question on what is his latest information from the DPP. Will the Taoiseach assure the House that the DPP will not hand back to the Garda Síochána prosecution cases in the District Courts?
I cannot say what are the operational matters on a day to day basis in the DPP's office. I do not know. I cannot give any such assurance. How would I be able to give such an assurance?
That is the issue.
It is not the issue.
The DPP says he will hand back the cases.
The issue is whether the Office of the DPP will implement savings to achieve a 3% payroll cut. The most up to date information as of yesterday is that it will do so.
Of course it will.
I outlined in detail how it intends to do so and it will do so in quite a creative way. This is its contribution in a fair and transparent way as to how its office will assist in ensuring we have a 3% payroll cut throughout the public service. There is not much more about it. This is the information.
We know this. If the Office of the DPP is told it must cut its payroll costs by 3% then it must do so and there is no doubt about it. Of course the DPP will tell the Taoiseach how he will do so. I am not concerned about the accounting in the DPP's office or how it is reported to the Taoiseach or to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I am concerned about the consequence in terms of the delivery of a service to the public.
The DPP states he will achieve a 3% saving but the consequences will be that gardaí who should be out patrolling the streets and detecting crime will be sitting in courtrooms prosecuting District Court cases which would otherwise be done by the DPP's office. The DPP stated this. I did not invent this. It is not the Opposition trying to get one over on the Taoiseach. We are not trying to get to the Taoiseach.
I have explained the same thing two or three times.
We are trying to find out whether gardaí will be tied up in District Court sittings. This is what concerns members of the public. The DPP states he must hand over cases to the Garda for prosecution in the District Court. Will this happen? This is not a matter of something being an operational issue for the DPP which the Taoiseach cannot answer. It is a matter of public policy and the best use of the State's resources. I submit it is not best use of the State's resources to have gardaí tied up in the courts when they should be out patrolling the streets.
Members of the Garda Síochána attend court——
I know. They do so as witnesses.
——and must prosecute cases and it is part of their job. They go back onto the streets, prosecute again and return to the court. Deputy Gilmore suggests they should not be in the courts but out on the streets while at the same time asking me the level of prosecution of offences. For an offence to be prosecuted, under our law the person who makes the arrest must go to court and make the case. It is called due process and gardaí will continue to do this.
I am not trying to get to Deputy Gilmore either. All I am doing is giving the information prepared by another public servant in response to the queries raised. The response is that the office is confident that it can achieve the 3% payroll cut without having an adverse impact on frontline prosecution services.
This has all the appearance of descending into farce. The question now has descended into which information is the most up to date. It is a sad situation that on the day an innocent victim of gangland murder is buried, the real question is whether the DPP's office is in a position to effectively prosecute in all cases presenting and whether the proposed curtailment in terms of budget provision for 2009 will have any negative impact on this expectation.
The Taoiseach has responded to the questions but I ask him to verify to the House the information as provided as clearly it seems to be in contradiction to the position articulated by Mr. Hamilton. The Taoiseach should do so as a matter of course in his position.
With respect, I will not query the view stated by the DPP on public radio or wherever it was stated on 23 October. This is 12 November and I am explaining what is the up to date position. I do not have to verify it. It is the position. The person who provided me with the information did not make it up.
Nor did the DPP.
Why should I have to verify it? I am coming to the House to provide it with up to date information and not to verify it having put it on the record.
The Minister for Transport, Deputy Noel Dempsey, invited me to table a parliamentary question to establish the date of the report which the Taoiseach has.
I did not.
He did.
What did Deputy Dempsey say?
Do not mind Deputy Dempsey, he has nothing to do with it. These are questions to the Taoiseach.
He offered his contribution to the Taoiseach to assist him.
I listened carefully to the Taoiseach when he replied to Deputy Gilmore. We all know that gardaí must attend in court. This morning, we had a discussion about co-location of hospitals but the Taoiseach seems to imply that gardaí should have powers of bilocation and be on the streets and in court at the same time.
Deputy Kenny is really murdering this question. That is all I can say.
The Taoiseach might want to come in here like an intellectual Norman Schwarzkopf and beat the living daylights out of us all. I am asking a simple question. Does the Taoiseach accept that the Director of Public Prosecutions, a respected officer of the State, Mr. Hamilton, speaking on national radio stated he will not be able to do his job effectively if the Government implements a 3% payroll cut? He did not make this up. Does the Taoiseach accept his word that he has difficulties with what the Taoiseach proposes? What is the date of the report which the Taoiseach has in front of him which states something different from what is reported?
I do not have any quibble with the views expressed by the DPP on 23 October. If that was his view, that was his view. The up to date position is as I outlined. That is all I can state about it. If this is an effort to get me into a row with the DPP I have no intention of going there. We all understand the independence of his office and the issues. I will not be brought down this cul-de-sac.
He is not the type of man to change his mind just like that.
Without reason.
I will give the up to date information as of 12 November. A view was expressed on 23 October——
Was pressure put on him to change his mind?
Clearly.
Deputy Conor Lenihan should not intervene in this.
Official Engagements.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the foreign visits he plans to undertake during the remainder of 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29471/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach his plans for official visits abroad until the end of 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29616/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:4 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his intervention at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2008. [30109/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting in Dublin on 22 September 2008 with the President of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. [31951/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his intervention at the United Nations in New York on 25 September 2008. [32382/08]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:7 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meetings at the United Nations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32697/08]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:8 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to New York; the names of the persons who accompanied him; the mode of transport used; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32698/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:9 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the official visits overseas he has planned for the remainder of 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34897/08]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:10 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the programme for his visit to China; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35745/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:11 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his official visit to China. [37027/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:12 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his participation in the Europe-Asia summit in China. [37028/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:13 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to China. [37593/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 13, inclusive, together.
On 22 September, I met with President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian National Authority. We discussed the current situation in Palestine in general and the prospects of progress towards an agreed two state solution.
I travelled to New York to attend the UN high level meeting on the millennium development goals on 25 September. I spoke on the topic of hunger at a round table discussion on food security. During the course of my visit I launched the report of the hunger task force in the presence of the UN Secretary General. As I mentioned in the House last week the task force on hunger report was very well received. I was accompanied by my programme manager, my private secretary, the Government press secretary, two senior officials from my Department, and my personal protection officer. The delegation travelled to New York on a scheduled commercial flight.
I visited China from 22 to 25 October. The purpose of my visit, in addition to attending the Asia-Europe, ASEM, summit in Beijing, was to further strengthen bilateral and trade relations between China and Ireland and to assist with developing co-operation in new sectors, including financial services.
I led a trade mission involving approximately 100 Irish businesses and organisations and participated in a business breakfast organised by Enterprise Ireland, attended by more than 500 guests, as well as events organised by IDA Ireland, Tourism Ireland and Bord Bia. These events promoted Ireland as a source of world-class products and services. As a result of this trade mission, contracts were signed worth €65 million over the next 12 to 18 months. I also witnessed the signing of two important memoranda of understanding between our respective regulatory authorities in the financial services area, which will enhance opportunities in the financial services sector and facilitate greater investment in both directions.
During my visit to China, I met with Premier Wen Jiabao at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. We discussed the potential for Ireland and China to do more business together, as well as EU-China relations and the international economic and financial crisis. I also gave a keynote speech on Ireland-China relations at the prestigious China Foreign Affairs University in Beijing.
I participated in ASEM VII, the Asia-Europe summit which is held every two years to promote political, economic and cultural co-operation between Asian and European leaders and to identify common strategies to address global issues that impact on both regions. Summit topics included discussions on the current international economic and financial situation, food security, and disaster preparedness and management. During the summit I highlighted the global issue of world hunger and emphasised the importance of collective action in tackling hunger and its underlying causes. I specifically referred to the key recommendations of the Government's hunger task force report — delivering on the millennium development goals, increasing agricultural productivity in Africa and action on maternal and infant malnutrition — as being highly relevant to our discussions.
Regarding my travelling plans for the remainder of 2008, I will attend the European Council meeting in Brussels in December.
Has a request been submitted by the Government for a meeting between the Taoiseach and the United States President-elect, Mr. Obama, to take place some time in the new year? Is it likely that the Taoiseach will visit Washington on the traditional St. Patrick's Day business and has a formal request been submitted in that regard? What is the up-to-date position — or the latest report, as the Taoiseach would call it — in respect of the undocumented Irish in the United States? Are we moving to prepare a new case on that?
What is the position regarding yesterday's visit by the President of the Czech Republic, Mr. Vaclav Klaus? The Taoiseach has conducted himself properly on his visits abroad. In light of the remarks by Deputy Timmins and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, that Mr. Klaus's actions were entirely inappropriate in attending, while on a state visit, a function where unelected persons——
These parliamentary questions relate to visits by the Taoiseach abroad, not visits by leaders of other states to Ireland.
As the Ceann Comhairle will understand, when I submitted my question I was not aware of the implications of the visit of the Czech President.
The Deputy is reversing the questions.
The Taoiseach's predecessor invited former United States President, Mr. Bill Clinton, and former British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, to help him in the run-in to the election campaign in 2007. However, it is a case of embarrassment for the Government that a visiting President has made political remarks in this jurisdiction while on a state visit. It is inappropriate and an embarrassment for the Government in the context of where we stand in Europe and our future in Europe. The Government should have taken a far clearer view on this issue.
It was within the Taoiseach's information that the President would attend a particular function. It might have been better if he had been warned that this would be inappropriate. Perhaps the visit should have been cancelled altogether. Does the Taoiseach have a view on this? Did the Department of Foreign Affairs advise the Government or was it simply a case of complacency in the knowledge that the president might well make the statements that he made, which are clearly an embarrassment to the Government and to the work it is setting out to do in respect of Ireland's future in Europe?
The Taoiseach may answer that question if he wishes, but he is not required to do so because it is not on the Order Paper.
I have not put in a request for a meeting with the President-elect of the United States, Mr. Obama, other than to send my good wishes on his election. He should be allowed the opportunity to settle into his new post. He has many preparatory issues to deal with before taking office in January. As I said last week, we should leave it at that for now. We intend to work closely with his Administration in developing our bilateral relations with the United States, which continue to be excellent, specifically in regard to the issue of the undocumented Irish. That is an ongoing issue.
There is a new Congress and we will have to wait and see how the matter can be progressed. It is a difficult issue in the context of domestic politics in the United States, but it is an issue on which we continue to make our case in order to assist those in the difficult situation of not having proper status in terms of how they work and live in the United States. We had a helpful decision in regard to the visa programme and other efforts are being made to build on that. It is early days as far as the new Administration is concerned and we must wait to determine whether there is a political will to revisit this issue and find a creative and helpful solution.
Regarding the visit of the President of the Czech Republic, he is here on a state visit and I do not wish to enter into any controversy on the matter. He has well known views, which he has consistently held, on various aspects of policy and he has articulated those here in Ireland. I do not wish to add anything to what the Minister for Foreign Affairs had to say this morning. We have freedom of speech and we live in a democracy. People have views on this issue, with many of our own citizens expressing that view last May in the referendum, which we respect. We must move on from there and see how to deal with the issues that now arise. I do not wish to say anything that would in any way affect the cordial welcome that the President, Mr. Klaus, has received in Ireland. I understand he is visiting Czech citizens living in Cork today. He is welcome here and I wish him well on his return.
As the Taoiseach said, if the Czech President wants to convene a meeting of people who share his right-wing, Eurosceptic views, that is a matter for him. The issue, however, is whether he should use the occasion of an official state visit to this country to do so. I appreciate the courtesy the Taoiseach is displaying to the Czech President, which does not appear to be reciprocated. Does the Government intend to raise the issue in any form with the Government of the Czech Republic?
As I told Deputy Kenny, Deputies should confine themselves to the parliamentary questions under discussion.
I am responding to the reply the Taoiseach gave to Deputy Kenny.
Deputy Gilmore does not have to do so. The question is not on the Order Paper.
The Taoiseach gave a reply and I am entitled to ask a supplementary question.
What was achieved by the Taoiseach's visit to China, which was truncated due to the domestic difficulties he was facing at home in trying to keep the Government together in the aftermath of the budget? Did he raise with the Chinese authorities any of the human rights questions that are of concern here, such as the issue of Tibet? Was any progress made on the possible establishment of direct air links between Ireland and China?
The visit to China achieved a lot. It was the second largest trade delegation ever to leave the State. The largest was also to China, in 2005. As I said, contracts worth €65 million were signed. I spoke to people on the trade delegation and they were very happy with the progress we are making in seeking to establish business relations with counterparts in China. We all know the importance of the emerging Chinese market. Ireland is displaying that the reach of Irish exports is now global, and not simply the UK, Europe and the United States. The Middle East and Asia are important markets that are growing in importance, and Ireland is very well regarded there.
Second, I attended the EU-ASEM meeting, as did many other prime ministers. It was an important debate. Our Asian colleagues attach great importance to the attendance of prime ministers at such a meeting. It gives us an opportunity to acquaint ourselves with colleagues from that part of the world. We might not do much trade with some of their countries but it is important that we show our interest and demonstrate the inter-dependence that exists between these trading blocs, particularly in the context of the worldwide financial and economic crisis, about which they are also concerned.
The conclusions of that meeting were broad agreement on the need for better co-ordination and on the need, at the important meeting in Washington next week, to see how the financial architecture that underpins the world's trading system, it having been established in the aftermath of the Second World War, can be updated to meet the requirements of the 21st century. These are huge issues that require detailed, face-to-face discussions. For that reason it was important that I and many other colleagues attended. Almost all the EU prime ministers, with the exception of the British Prime Minister, were in attendance.
On the other issue the Deputy mentioned, I do not intend to raise this matter any further beyond what the Minister for Foreign Affairs said this morning.
The Taoiseach's predecessor, following his visit to China, stated that he was "impressed" by what he noted was the Chinese Government's commitment to address human rights. Would the Taoiseach employ the same language following his recent visit? Does he have any evidence from his recent visit to express the view that he is impressed by the Chinese Government's commitment to address human rights abuses in its country?
On a different matter, the Taoiseach's colleague, Deputy Chris Andrews, and my colleague, Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh, participated in an international parliamentary delegation's visit to the Gaza Strip last weekend, where they were exposed to the reality of the ongoing Israeli blockade of that part of the Palestinian territories. Does the Taoiseach have any plans for, or will he give serious consideration to, a visit in his capacity as Taoiseach to the Palestinian territories and specifically Gaza and a meeting with Salam Fayyad, the Prime Minister of the Palestine National Assembly? I encourage him to do so.
In my view the most important foreign visit the Taoiseach will make before the end of the year is to the General Council meeting in Brussels in December. Will the Taoiseach consider breaking with precedent and come to the House before he goes to that meeting to outline what proposals he intends to put to his fellow prime ministers? One of the shortcomings of this House's dealings with Europe is that the House does not have an input before such meetings. It would be helpful to the Taoiseach and to the Irish people in general in understanding the way forward if we all had an input or were allowed to express a view before he went to the meeting, which is to be held on 13 December. Perhaps he will consider breaking with precedent and consult the House beforehand.
I had not intended breaking precedent as the Deputy suggested in respect of that meeting. There are ongoing discussions obviously and I will try to keep everybody up to date with that aspect.
Will the Taoiseach consider coming to the House with his proposals beforehand?
I cannot anticipate at what stage we will be, up to the date of the meeting. I am available in the House on an ongoing basis to answer questions and provide updates, such as with regard to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Taoiseach knows what I am asking.
I do.
Does he not think it would be more helpful if we heard from the Taoiseach in this House rather than hear from Brussels, when something is a fait accompli? We should have an input into the way forward.
Work is taking place in the Oireachtas committee. It will produce a report which can be brought before the House, if that is possible. We can take it from there. There are ways in which all these issues can be addressed.
One of the strong feelings is that we should discuss things before Government Ministers go abroad.
These matters are worthy of consideration at any time.
In respect of Deputy Ó Caoláin's question, I do not have plans to visit Palestine in the immediate future. I have been there on a number of occasions in other capacities. The EU has a common foreign and security policy and the Presidency of the Union usually takes on the role of keeping the Union abreast of developments or, more to the point, the lack of developments in the Middle East and regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state, which we very much support. I met President Abbas when he visited this country recently so I had the opportunity to be personally briefed on the up-to-date position. I had also met him in his capacity as prime minister when I visited Gaza and the West Bank in the past.
With regard to human rights in China, I did not make a general reference to the matter. The meeting was primarily on an agenda on economic issues that had been set at the request of the Chinese, who were about to begin the ASEM summit. However, I made a general reference in my reply to the importance of the development of human rights. I believe it is only through encouragement and respectful dialogue that one can acquire a standing on this issue which might be influential in a positive way. We will continue at all times to encourage the Chinese Government along the path upon which it has embarked in this area as in others.