Vol. 673 No. 3
1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the cost, including salary and pension payments, of each of the programme managers, special advisers, assistants or other staff appointed by him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35746/08]
2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the names, titles and duties of each of the staff appointed by him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35747/08]
3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the advisers, press officers, or other non-Civil Service staff appointed by him since 7 May 2008 and the duties of each; the annual salary costs for such staff; if this group of staff will be subject to the 3% reduction in payroll costs announced in July 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38355/08]
4 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the titles, duties and salaries of each of the non-Civil Service staff appointed by him since his election as Taoiseach; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43741/08]
5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the duties and responsibilities of the special political advisers as appointed by him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46579/08]
6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of political advisers or assistants appointed by the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46605/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
The names, titles and total annual salary, including pension contributions, of each of the staff appointed by me are detailed in the table. Under the direction of the programme manager, the primary function of the special advisers is to monitor, facilitate and help secure the achievement of Government objectives and ensure effective co-ordination in the implementation of the programme for Government. They are also tasked with giving me advice and keeping me informed on a wide range of issues, including business, financial, economic, political, environmental, administrative and media matters, and performing such other functions as may be directed by me from time to time. In addition, a number of my advisers have specific responsibilities in relation to speech drafting.
My programme manager meets other ministerial advisers on a weekly basis. He monitors and reports to me on progress in implementing the programme for Government.
I also appointed four non-established civil servants to the Government Chief Whip, two of whom are based in his private office and two in his Finglas constituency office — these are work sharers. I appointed Mr. Pádraig Slyne as special adviser to the Government Chief Whip. In addition, I appointed Mr. Eoghan Ó Neachtain as Government press secretary. He is supported by two deputy Government press secretaries, Mr. Mark Costigan and Mr. John Downing, who are supported by two non-established civil servants.
The Government press secretary and press officers provide an information service on Government policy to the public through the national and international media on behalf of me, my Department and the Government, together with promoting a co-ordinated approach to media matters across all Departments. The central task of the deputy Government press secretaries is to assist the Government press secretary in communicating to the media the decisions of Government.
The personal assistants and personal secretaries in my Department have a range of duties, including providing administrative assistance in the constituency office, protocol division and the Government Chief Whip's office. The Green Party programme manager, based in Government Buildings, is not a member of staff of my Department.
All appointments made by me comply with relevant legislation, including the terms of the Civil Service (Regulation) Act 2006 and the relevant directions on ministerial staff appointments of the Department of Finance. My Department will comply fully with the requirements of the Government decision of 8 July 2008. This compliance will necessitate the achievement of a 3% reduction in my Department's payroll figure by the end of 2009 and managing staffing within existing resources and budgetary limits, having regard to the overall priorities of the Department. In doing so, the Department will endeavour to redeploy staff according to key business needs and levels of activity, restructure workloads as appropriate and achieve greater productivity through exploiting new technologies and availing of shared service arrangements.
On the recommendation of the Attorney General, Mr. Paul Gallagher, Mr. Francis Kieran was appointed as special assistant to the Attorney General to act as a liaison between the Attorney General and myself and other Departments on items relevant to the programme for Government, as well as to keep the Attorney General informed on items arising in the Oireachtas or media which could impinge on or be relevant to his role. The position of Attorney General is not a political position and, as such, Mr. Kieran does not provide political advice.
Advisers' remuneration is linked to Civil Service pay scales and will, therefore, be subject to any possible adjustment that the Government may implement across the public service.
|
Name |
Title |
Annual Salary |
|
€ |
||
|
**Joe Lennon |
Programme Manager/Special Adviser |
**221,929 |
|
Gerry Steadman |
Special Adviser |
131,748 |
|
Brian Murphy |
Special Adviser |
131,748 |
|
*Declan Ryan |
Special Adviser |
94,785 |
|
*Peter Clinch |
Special Adviser |
204,952 |
|
Oliver O’Connor |
Special Adviser (to the Minister for Health and Children) |
177,547 |
|
*Padraig Slyne |
Special Adviser (to the Government Chief Whip) |
96,555 |
|
Sineád Dooley |
Personal Assistant |
66,179 |
|
Peter Lenehan |
Personal Assistant |
53,354 |
|
Annette McManus |
Personal Assistant |
49,685 |
|
Denise Kavanagh |
Personal Assistant |
61,082 |
|
John Sheridan |
Personal Assistant |
46,558 |
|
Yvonne Graham |
Personal Assistant |
55,030 |
|
Sarah McLoughlin |
Personal Assistant |
55,030 |
|
Aoife Ní Lochlainn |
Personal Assistant |
47,973 |
|
***Margaret Fogarty |
Secretarial Assistant to Government Chief Whip and Minister of State [Finglas Office] |
20,239 |
|
***Linda Weir |
Secretarial Assistant to Government Chief Whip and Minister of State [Finglas Office] |
21,398 |
|
Elaine Hogan |
Personal Secretary [Tullamore Office] |
40,479 |
|
Colette Waters |
Personal Secretary [Tullamore Office] |
39,351 |
|
Eoghan O Neachtain |
Government Press Secretary |
150,712 |
|
*Mark Costigan |
Deputy Government Press Secretary |
111,818 |
|
John Downing |
Deputy Government Press Secretary |
118,759 |
*These members of staff are not members of a Civil Service pension scheme. They receive a contribution towards their pension fund of 11% of their salary, which they arrange separately. All other staff are members of the Civil Service pension schemes. Separate superannuation arrangements for which the Department of Finance has responsibility are in place for them.
**Mr. Joe Lennon, programme manager-special adviser, has made a gift of €22,193, being part of his emoluments from his employment in 2009, for use for any purpose for or towards the cost of which public moneys are provided. The Minister for Finance has accepted the gift. The salary mentioned above is the total salary prior to the making of the gift.
***On a 50% work-sharing basis.
I am not sure how long it took someone to draft the Taoiseach's reply or what it cost to do so. I recall that until the 1970s, replies to parliamentary questions included their cost. This is a complex issue.
I realise the Taoiseach must have staff to assist him in his work. Last year, the total cost of the Taoiseach's appointments, including advisers and personal appointments, was €1.6 million. In 2008, the cost of Government special advisers, media advisers and other personally appointed staff amounted to €6.2 million. What level of cutbacks will apply in this regard in the Taoiseach's Department this year?
I note from recent answers to parliamentary questions that a significant number of advisers receive additional payments for salary purposes amounting to 11% of salary. As these persons are not part of the public pension scheme, is it intended that they will pay an appropriate levy for pension purposes arising from yesterday's decisions?
As I stated, those who have a pension entitlement by way of their employment, for example, advisers who have a previous work record as public servants — some of the individuals in question are in that position — will be subject to the same arrangements as any other public servant based on the decision that was made. I have indicated that those who do not have such an arrangement and for whom pensions do not form part of their terms and conditions will volunteer a 10% cut in their salary.
Is the communications unit still intact in the Department of the Taoiseach or is it part of the media communications wing servicing the Taoiseach's needs? We used to have discussions in the House about the unit's purpose, responsibilities and cost and the Taoiseach's predecessor used to invite Opposition Members to visit it to see what it was doing. Is that still intact and functioning?
The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Mary Harney, who is not here, came second in terms of spend to the Taoiseach. The amount spent on personal appointments, including advisers, in 2008 was €514,000. This does not include special advisers seconded from the Taoiseach's office. His predecessor, Deputy Bertie Ahern, said the Minister was given that level of staff because she was the leader of her party. The Minister is not now the leader of the Progressive Democrats.
Why, then, was a special adviser with responsibility for health and children to the Minister seconded from the Department of the Taoiseach? If there are 600 people working in the Department of Health and Children and 125,000 working in the HSE, why is it necessary to have a person seconded from the Department of the Taoiseach to be a special adviser to the Minister for Health and Children? Can the Taoiseach explain that? I fail to understand how this can apply.
It is a situation I arranged for and agreed to, on the basis of the heavy workload of the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Mary Harney, and the extensive reform programme in which she is engaged. Not only is the policy advice available to her, it is available to the whole Government and covers a range of issues. It was an arrangement I was prepared to enter into in view of the circumstances regarding the work of the particular Minister and Department.
If the Minister requires the number of advisers she now has but is not the leader of a party, and the Taoiseach's predecessor said she needed the advisers because she was the leader of a minority Government party, it is a contradiction. I do not think I will get anywhere with this line of argument.
I find it strange that somebody from the Department of the Taoiseach is seconded as a special adviser to the Minister when there are people in her own Department and elsewhere who would probably be able to give equivalent advice in a better format and at a lower cost. I am not running down the person doing the job.
We all accept the Taoiseach and Ministers require staff in their private offices to do the job that has to be done and respond to public enquires and so on. We also accept there is a necessity for policy advisers to provide advice of a political nature to Ministers. I do not know why there is a necessity to have the numbers we now have. It is a mystery as the Government has been in office for almost 12 years.
The area of employment which requires more scrutiny is the extent of the employment of people whose job is the publicity and promotion of the Minister concerned and who do constituency work for that Minister. It seems that many of the additional staff employed in private and constituency offices of Ministers are doing precisely that and are doing constituency work above and beyond what the normal allocation would be for any Deputy in the House. In the present circumstances, and given what is being done with public service pay and pensions, that is a luxury which can no longer be afforded.
How will the 3% cut announced last July apply to the staff employed in constituency offices of Ministers? Yesterday's announcement concerned a levy on pensions. Is there any corresponding cut or reduction in staff numbers which would take effect in that area? My final point is on the proposal made during the Christmas recess by Senator Boyle that there should be a reduction in the number of Ministers of State. Does the Taoiseach have any intention of going along with that suggestion? What is his response to it?
The questions relate to the Taoiseach's staff. Deputy Gilmore is wandering off the question.
The Taoiseach can confine his answer to staff in the Taoiseach's office and Minister of State.
Deputy Gilmore is heading off into the horizon.
There are 11 men on the other side of the House who would die on their swords for the Taoiseach.
The 3% payroll savings will apply across all Departments. It is how we provided for savings in that area and they are departmental targets. I have also indicated that the offices of Ministers and Minister of State should seek to reduce costs by 10% this year, which is a political decision I made yesterday.
We must show every effort to reduce costs in all areas of activity, including the offices of Ministers and Ministers of State. If it is necessary to redeploy some people back into Departments to do departmental work, that should proceed. I have no problem with making sure these things are done in the appropriate way, commensurate to the workload. As a former incumbent, Deputy Kenny knows there is a need to have full time cover in ministerial offices, which sometimes affects the complement of staff in terms of making sure people are available beyond office hours, morning and night. It is one of the complications.
I have said I believe there is room for a 10% reduction in costs in the offices of Ministers and Ministers of State. It may involve redeployment of departmental staff back to Departments or units which are particularly busy at the moment or would be helped by an increase in the numbers employed. The flexibility is there for whatever is necessary and I would like to see it happening.
Regarding the question asked on advisers and their role and work, there are guidelines in place under the Acts for the number one can have. I understand two per Minister is the maximum number and that is complied with. In the overall context of a spend of €55 million on day-to-day expenditure and €8 billion on capital expenditure, the availability of independent advice other than normal Civil Service advice was a negotiating imperative of the Labour Party when it joined the Government in 1992. It was a good development and, in the main, has served us well. People can make comments one way or the other on individuals which is not helpful. As a concept it is good and one which has to be properly utilised in the correct way. It is a resource for any incumbent Minister which is helpful and broadens the scope, horizons and policy inputs beyond an internal departmental focus and it is right and proper that it should be that way.
Regarding the 10% reduction in costs the Taoiseach says will now apply to the offices of Ministers and Ministers of State, I am sure it is an issue to which we can return in the course of time to see how it is going. I wish the Taoiseach would take up every suggestion and good idea from the Labour Party as enthusiastically as he appears to have endorsed and absorbed the one from 1992.
Deputy Gilmore has his own strong commitment to it.
I was asked by a member of the Taoiseach's staff if I had a mobile phone.
The final question I asked the Taoiseach concerned Senator Boyle's——
This has nothing at all to do with this question.
It was a very good idea.
It does not matter how good the idea was, it has nothing to do with this question.
I would like to hear what the Taoiseach——
I suggest Deputy Gilmore table a question about it.
I would like to hear what the Taoiseach has to say, privately or publicly, about it.
My answer to such questions is that we need all people to work hard in the jobs they have been given. We also need to reduce the cost of Government and I have indicated that a 10% cut in the offices of Ministers and Ministers of State is a way to do that. We need people and political authority, people with political initiative and people running their Departments in that way. I think we should get on with the job. On Leaders' Questions, we have just discussed the huge challenges this country is facing. People who have a democratic mandate should get on with the job that has been assigned to them. We should also ensure that it is done as efficiently and effectively as possible.
Has the Taoiseach given any consideration to a renegotiation of the contracts for advisers from outside the Civil Service in his own Department or in others? Is he satisfied that he cannot find the acquired expertise from within the Civil Service to cover the respective areas he has sought to address? Surely he cannot suggest that is the case? Particular expertise is acquired from within the Civil Service, so surely that would match up with and meet the Taoiseach's respective needs.
Regarding Deputy Kenny's point on the arrangement with the Department of Health and Children, I note he cited figures as well as the secondment of an adviser from the Department of the Taoiseach to the Department of Health and Children. My understanding from the figures is that the expenditure concerning non-Civil Service advisers within that Department is in excess of €900,000 — just short of €1 million. As my party's spokesperson on health and children, I must say that the advice given to the Minister has proved to be of little value in terms of people's real needs and their dependence on the health care delivery systems in this State.
Surely there is a requirement within the overall re-evaluation of the expenditure of public moneys in the Department of the Taoiseach and other Departments to revisit these arrangements holistically to see what savings can be made. Respect and regard is clearly due and must be attributed to people who have given long-term service within the Civil Service and the public service. Without question, they must have acquired the necessary skills and knowledge to match, if not better, that of any of those who are brought in privately.
There are many who have taken up advisory positions for many Ministers in different Administrations who have had long-term public service careers. Many of them — from memory, perhaps even the majority, certainly in my party — will have been people with a long-term involvement with the system. They understand how policy is formulated and how one interacts between Departments in order to get work done by undertaking and implementing initiatives. There are also some people who come in from outside who have also been very good.
Certain skills are required to do that job properly. Many have been successful but there is no identikit formula. It depends very much on a Minister's own initiative in the first instance and the ability of those who are employed by him or her to ensure that the Minister's writ runs in the Department of which he or she is the political head. Some have been very adept at that. It is important to point out, however, that there is no room for complacency in any of these matters. People have work to do and they need to get on with it. It must be done as efficiently and effectively as possible. That signal must be sent out and I hope that some of the directives I have given in that respect will send that signal as well.
Will the Taoiseach clarify the details of the announcement he made in the House yesterday on the pension levy for those within the public service? Given the Taoiseach's first reply to these questions, there seem to be two different strands or tiers of special advisers from outside the Civil Service. Is there a body of advisers to whom this levy will not apply and another body for whom this levy will apply directly within the terms of their contracts? Will the Taoiseach clarify the position? Does he propose to establish equality across the board so that if it is not already accommodated within the existing employment arrangements, the Taoiseach will recognise and appreciate that it should be applied equitably to all advisers engaged within the Department of the Taoiseach and every other Department?
I have indicated that some staff are members of Civil Service pension schemes, and for whom separate superannuation arrangements are in place, which is the Department of Finance's responsibility. There are members of staff who are not members of Civil Service pension schemes and they get a contribution towards their pension fund of 11% of salary, which they arrange separately. There are others who may not have any such involvement in pension schemes. Where the pension levy applies, it will apply to those, the same as everyone else in the public service. For those who are not involved in pension schemes, I have indicated that they should volunteer a 10% reduction in their salary.
I welcome the fact the Taoiseach agrees with the concept of programme managers. When I was a Minister, two people came to the Department and I answered a parliamentary question as to whether one of them had access to a mobile phone, such was the welcome for the concept in parts of the House.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach about arrangements concerning his own Department and the Department of Finance. He has outlined the use of advisers and programme managers, but my memory is that the Minister still took the ultimate decision. Are firms supplying advice services to either of those two Departments, whereby what is being hired is the corporate entity rather than an individual? The guidelines the Taoiseach described are ones that affect individuals. I am asking about accountancy firms that may be supplying advice on a per diem basis. According to the guidelines, in that instance, an arm’s length distance is appropriate between such accountancy services and sensitive international financial decisions.
Perhaps there are no such advisers in the Department of Finance, which may be rich in intellectual energy and whose staff may be proposing models to the Minister all the time. Perhaps the same is true in the Department of the Taoiseach. However, are firms being hired on a contractual basis to give specific advice, which is paid for on a daily basis? If so, what guidelines apply to them? Is the Taoiseach in a position to state that they do not conflict in any way either with the examination of the models or their application?
The questions for my Department or any other Department regarding the role of advisers are specific to individuals. As the Deputy knows, from time to time, firms are employed for their expertise. Various guidelines and rules on public procurement are laid out as to the basis on which that advice would be sought and used within any Department's structure. The Deputy should table a parliamentary question on that matter to the Department of Finance in order to elicit more accurate information.
Arising from the Taoiseach's replies, can we gather that there will be an actual reduction in numbers in the Department of the Taoiseach and other Departments in the course of this year? He referred to some existing members of staff being reallocated to departmental duties. Will that be a clean break situation or will they just get a redesignated title and continue doing the work they are currently doing in the various officeholders' offices?
I cannot give an accurate reply to that question. Similarly to the Exchequer payroll savings of 3%, I have indicated that within Departments and the offices of Ministers and Ministers of State I would like to see a reduction of 10% in the costs of running those offices in whatever way that is required. We must give flexibility to Departments as to how that might happen in particular situations. It may involve early deployment or a reduction in overtime. We need to see a cost saving there so that a signal is sent out that such efforts are being made within the political offices of Departments as well as in departmental offices and agencies generally. We need to see reductions in the cost of servicing these offices. That is my point.
7 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35748/08]
8 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting on 17 October 2008 with a delegation from the Democratic Unionist Party. [36581/08]
9 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting on 17 October 2008 with a delegation from Sinn Féin. [36582/08]
10 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Sinn Féin on 17 October 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36670/08]
11 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Northern Ireland First Minister, Mr. Peter Robinson; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36671/08]
12 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his contacts with the British Prime Minister on the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42397/08]
13 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his contacts with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in relation to the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42398/08]
14 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if the relatives of those killed in the Ballymurphy massacre by the British army in August 1971 have requested a meeting with him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43740/08]
15 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44685/08]
16 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent developments in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46563/08]
17 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46564/08]
18 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the British Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46565/08]
19 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet the British Prime Minister, Mr. Brown; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46566/08]
20 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the Forum on Peace and Reconciliation will next meet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46574/08]
21 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his participation in the seventh plenary meeting of the North South Ministerial Council held in Derry on 23 January 2009. [3044/09]
22 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach his plans for the future of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3142/09]
23 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent North South Ministerial Council meeting in Derry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3349/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 23, inclusive, together.
Together with my ministerial colleagues, I met with First Minister Peter Robinson, Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness and their colleagues at the seventh plenary meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council in Magee College, Derry on Friday, 23 January.
We had a very wide-ranging and practical discussion with a focus on how we can work together to face the challenges that confront us, including the economic challenges and the need for continuing practical and mutually beneficial North-South co-operation which can assist both Administrations in our efforts to deal with the economic downturn.
The council noted the key developments in the North-South Ministerial Council through the 14 sectoral meetings held since the last plenary meeting in Dundalk last February and welcomed the co-operation taken forward at those meetings. We also had an opportunity to discuss the excellent examples of projects being taken forward in the north west through the north-west gateway initiative, where there is significant co-operation on road infrastructure, airports, skills and training, higher education and spatial planning. Agencies such as the IDA, Invest NI, Tourism Ireland and InterTrade Ireland are working closely together on inward investment, tourism and cross-Border trade.
We noted progress on the North-South parliamentary forum and the agreement to establish two working groups to develop proposals for such a body as well as the Irish Government's proposals on the role, format, membership and operation of a North-South consultative forum and the progress made on the review of the civic forum in Northern Ireland.
I would like to commend the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on reaching an agreement which enabled the resumption of meetings of the Northern Ireland Executive. It is clear that a considerable amount of work has been done by the Northern Ireland political parties on the arrangements for the devolution of policing and justice and I believe that we can all have confidence that devolution will take place within a reasonable timeframe.
At my meetings with both the First Minister, Peter Robinson, and Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, on 17 October, in their parties' capacities, we had detailed discussions on the then political impasse. I also emphasised the importance of North-South co-operation and the all-island economy and the potential for developing synergies North and South, particularly at this difficult time for both economies. I stressed that progress was needed on other areas such as the North-South consultative forum, the North-South parliamentary forum and the review of the North-South bodies. I am glad to see that important progress has been made since then.
I have kept in regular contact with Prime Minister Brown over recent months on Northern Ireland and our officials continue to meet frequently. I expect to meet Prime Minister Brown at the next EU Council meeting in March.
I did receive a request to meet with representatives of the Ballymurphy Families Committee and I understand that the families recently met with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and they also met the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin on Thursday, 29 January.
With the restoration of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, there are no current proposals to re-convene the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation.
Is the Taoiseach concerned about the growing unease about dissident republicans and their activities in Northern Ireland, as a result of the discovery of a 300 lb car bomb in County Down recently, which was, apparently, intended for the Ballykindler army base? What is the Government assessment of the numbers involved in dissident republican activities? Based on the information available to the Taoiseach from security information, is he concerned about this? Has the Taoiseach taken into account the comment by the Garda Commissioner recently that the impact and effect of these persons should not be underestimated?
There is no room for complacency with regard to dissident activity. As the Deputy knows, the security services have been keeping a close eye on and have been involved in monitoring and surveillance of activities. Thankfully, they have been very successful in intervening and ensuring that certain major catastrophes did not happen in the past, given the malign intent of these people to cause havoc and undermine the democratic wishes of the people North and South to live in peace and harmony under both the Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement.
It is important to emphasise that the Garda Commissioner and other security services management personnel are vigilant in this matter. The level of co-operation between the police forces on the island is what is necessary and I am not aware of any problems regarding the necessary co-operation required to liaise closely and keep a close eye on these people.
The Eames-Bradley report published recently makes 30 recommendations. Has the Taoiseach examined that report and is there a Government response on the implementation of these recommendations? Is it correct policy to pursue compensation for families of victims, as is proposed? Money can never bring back a loved one, nor does money equate with the truth being made available to people. Has any family of victims in this jurisdiction been compensated by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform? If so, has the Taoiseach the relevant figures in that regard?
Does the Taoiseach have a view on information available to the British Government being made available to the families of the victims of the Omagh bomb who are pursuing the terrorists through the courts?
The Tánaiste referred recently to the fact that she was considering introducing price controls to deal with the situation where retailers were not offering the correct euro-sterling exchange rate. What guidelines or conditions does she intend to introduce and when does she intend to introduce them?
The Deputy is extending the remit of the question beyond its boundaries.
That question is beyond the remit of these questions. Perhaps questions to the Tánaiste would elicit the answer.
I will ask her so, but she does not answer very clearly much of the time.
I am sure she will. Do not worry about that.
I can be very distinct.
She will be very clear and concise if she knows the information that is required.
She did not answer very well yesterday.
We must move on.
I will take the Taoiseach's advice and ask her a question, if he takes my advice on issues also.
No deal.
Let us not fall out over it.
The Eames-Bradley report is somewhat outside the remit of these questions also, but I will try to be helpful. I commend the group on the extraordinary effort it put into its difficult task, and particularly the widespread consultations in which it engaged during the course of its work. Finding consensus or any agreed way forward around issues coming out of a conflict is very difficult, if not impossible, given the depth of hurt and suspicion still there. The report itself covers such themes as the legacy of the past, reconciliation, support for victims and survivors, addressing society issues and justice and information recovery. I would not like to give a detailed response on the report as yet. The issues with which it deals are complex and require detailed consideration.
With regard to the question of payments to families, this is a lengthy report on very complex issues that has been prepared by people of impeccable credentials over 18 months. It would be premature for me to comment on aspects of the report in isolation, without giving full consideration to all its recommendations. It has always been the Government's position that there should not be a hierarchy of victims. The loss of a loved one affects those left behind equally.
However, I understand the depth of feeling in Northern Ireland on the issue of payments to families of all those who died as a result of the conflict. I note that the First Minister and others have expressed reservations about a proposal that would, potentially, see payments to families of perpetrators as well as to victims of atrocities. I understand that point of view. It is an issue we need to consider further.
I understand that one of the decisions made at the North-South Ministerial Council was to establish two working groups to look at the idea of progressing the North-South parliamentary body promised or intended to be established following the Good Friday Agreement. I have raised this issue previously, but little or no progress has been made on establishing the North-South parliamentary body. What is the intention with regard to the working groups? Is there a timetable within which they must report and when, realistically, might we see some progress being made on the establishment of a North-South parliamentary body?
There has been a suggestion from the DUP that the number of Ministries in the Northern Ireland Executive might be reduced. I understand this suggestion is being advanced as a kind of cost-cutting measure in the current economic environment. While I can see there would be political temptation on the part of the DUP and, perhaps, Sinn Féin to reduce the number of Ministries, which would have consequences for the SDLP and the UUP, this would hardly help the overall political structure and framework in Northern Ireland. What is the Taoiseach's view of the suggestion regarding a reduction in the number of Ministries? If the number of Ministries is reduced will there be consequential changes in the method of appointment of Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure broad cross-party representation?
With regard to the North-South parliamentary body it is not true to state there has been no progress. The Ceann Comhairle and the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Mr. Willie Hay, are to be commended for the efforts they are making to ensure contacts between the two institutions are encouraged. Visits have taken place both ways. This is gaining its own momentum with the agreement of all and we should leave it to the Ceann Comhairle and the Speaker to lead the process on behalf of us all.
On this side of the Border we would like to have seen this North-South parliamentary forum well established by now. Obviously we must work with everybody and all sensitivities must be recognised and understood. I believe there is much good will and good faith in the efforts being made. I hope in due time we will see the establishment of such a body.
The British Irish Interparliamentary Body was established in the 1980s and I was a member of its first configuration. I believe it served a very good role, not only with regard to individual relations between politicians from both Parliaments but the subject matter of discussions also helped people gain a perspective and understanding of other points of view. It built a basis of trust and dissipated suspicion and prejudices which people may have had in the past in terms of the role both countries could play in seeking to resolve conflict and be seen to work co-operatively in many areas by emphasising that we have far more in common than what separated us in many respects. Similarly, a North-South parliamentary body has the potential to clear away much of the fog and misconceptions which only personal relationships can help dispel.
Many in this House have the skills to assist in this process of practical reconciliation which should never be underestimated in the context of the political dynamic of the country. I hope the efforts of the Ceann Comhairle and the Speaker working together will bring about such an outcome. It has much potential for good. It will not change the paradigm and no one suggests it will do the devil and all, but it will be an important step forward in the relationship between both sides of the Border.
With regard to reconfigurations of the Executive, strand one issues are for the parties in Northern Ireland. The format agreed to and which forms part of the Good Friday Agreement emphasises the need for inclusivity and representation. The question of mandatory coalitions and coalitions necessary in a divided society should not be underestimated. The question of representation and the fullest possible participation by parties in the Assembly in the Executive functions of Northern Ireland's affairs would be good in terms of embedding the progress we have seen thus far and ensuring the change is irreversible.
I welcome the statement made by the Taoiseach during his visit to Derry on 23 January when he indicated the economies North and South should work together to tackle the economic downturn, help to provide people with value for money and address cost issues. Recognising the current traffic is from South to North and it is not that long ago since it was from North to South does the Taoiseach accept the outworking of his remarks in Derry are to work towards a harmonisation of the economies North and South? This is the only way we can tackle the serious problem presenting South of the Border where entire sectors, not least the retail sector, are suffering serious downturns. Across the board significant numbers of job losses are being recorded every week.
In the course of the Taoiseach's meeting with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister did he address these issues directly, specifically with regard to price and VAT differentials between the two jurisdictions? In this context and given the budget increase of 0.5% in VAT here and its decrease North of the Border has the Taoiseach given further consideration to helping to create a new impetus within the commercial life of this jurisdiction, particularly with a eye to the Border counties, through a VAT reduction of 2% for which I and colleagues have argued?
With regard to the Ballymurphy massacre by the British Army in August 1971 is the Taoiseach in a position to indicate a willingness to meet with the Ballymurphy massacre relatives recognising that they have been campaigning since August 1971 through all of these years seeking the opportunity to have justice recorded in their case? Among the victims were a mother of eight children and a local priest.
I welcome the fact the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, met the families last week and acknowledged that many questions remain unanswered with regard to their particular story and suffering. Will the Taoiseach indicate that he would be willing to meet the families and recognise they have real concerns arising from the Eames Bradley report recommendation that further inquiries would not take place and that there would be a line drawn and closure for these families and others? It is unquestionably acknowledged——
The Taoiseach will not have a chance to reply because we are running out of time.
There is real hurt and pain which require address. As the former Taoiseach did in terms of meeting and engaging with such groups, will the Taoiseach indicate a willingness also to meet with this particular group of families? I urge that he acknowledge in the affirmative.
Does the Taoiseach not think it was bad judgment on the part of the Government to close the barracks in the Border region——
This has nothing to do with it.
——and move the Army personnel further away when paramilitary activity is still taking place in the region?
If I had known Deputy Bannon was going to ask this I would not have called him at all.
The Ceann Comhairle should not be like that.
It has nothing to do with the question.
With regard to the North-South Ministerial Council and trade matters, one of the great hopes and legacies of having a peace process is the win-win situation for both sides. This is as true for Border regions and areas as it is for any other part of the island. Trying to achieve fiscal harmonisation is difficult. The powers with regard to this matter reside in Westminster as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. To have differentiated tax systems within one jurisdiction is difficult to achieve. Over a period of time, a number of reports have been done on this matter and a number of inquiries and examinations have also been made. My attitude is that we must find those areas in which we can co-operate practically and park those areas in which we find it difficult to make headway. We should deal with the situation as it is rather than how we would like it to be.
There have been flows between the North and South in both directions at various times. The real problem has been the very strong fluctuation in the exchange rate between sterling and the euro. The appreciation of the euro against sterling brings about serious issues for us in terms of spend and flows of trade and consumer traffic. We must do what we can in our own interest bearing in mind that we are members of the euro area. Our interests have been accentuated in recent times in terms of representing a zone of stability for an open economy like ours. A stronger currency and stronger Central Bank to help us deal with the monetary issues that have arisen in recent months and years have been critical to our ability to cope with the circumstances that have presented themselves to us in recent times.
We must address the issues of becoming more competitive and reducing our costs as part of dealing with the problem that has arisen. I hope we will see far more stable exchange rate movements as soon as possible to avoid the distortion that can take place on either side of the Border, depending on the value of the currencies. We must continue to contend with this. Rather than pointing to this as a reason for division between us, we should acknowledge there are macro-economic circumstances that we cannot control and that we should, therefore, get on with practical co-operation on training, upskilling and, as the Deputy suggested, using the regional approach. For example, the North West Gateway Initiative between Donegal and Derry has considerable untapped potential.
In other Border areas, we must address the need to overcome the legacy of the past, which reinforced the partitionist mentality that it was a win-lose situation or a zero sum game. We must create win-win situations and can do so by emphasising and pointing to areas of co-operation in the delivery of health and education services and public services generally. We must also emphasise trade and investment and the benefit that accrues from creating employment in the regions in question, such that people can go across borders once job opportunities are created. These are the areas we must emphasise. Let the problems that we cannot solve in the medium term not detract from the enthusiasm we need to show in respect of others, in respect of which we can make a lot more progress more quickly.
What about the Ballymurphy families?
The Minister for Foreign Affairs met the families only last week. I will have him report to me and determine where we can take the matter from here.
