Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the responsibility of the Ministers of State of his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46594/08]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Ministerial Responsibilities.
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he plans to change any of the functions or responsibilities of Ministers of State at his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3148/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the manner in which it is intended to achieve the 10% reduction in costs in his offices and that of his Ministers of State, announced by him on 3 February 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4744/09]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the way he will achieve the promised 10% savings in the costs of his office and that of the Ministers of State in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5672/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:5 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the roles and responsibilities of the Ministers of State in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7052/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:6 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the savings and reductions in cost which have been undertaken in his Department, including in his offices and those of Ministers of State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7053/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
The Government appointed Deputy Carey as Government Chief Whip and Minister of State at my Department and at the Department of Defence. Deputy Roche was appointed Minister of State at my Department and at the Department of Foreign Affairs with special responsibility for European affairs.
As Chief Whip, the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, is primarily responsible for the organisation of Government business in the Dáil and for the Government's programme for Dáil reform. He also oversees preparation of the Government's legislative programme. In addition, my statutory functions in relation to the Central Statistics Office have been delegated to him.
I have also assigned to him responsibility for the active citizenship initiative in my Department. His role will be to drive the initiative forward, oversee the implementation of the recommendations of the taskforce on active citizenship and, critically, promote the concept of active citizenship in all spheres of Irish life. He will be supported in this work by a steering group chaired by Ms Mary Davis.
In my Department, the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, chairs an interdepartmental co-ordinating committee on European Union affairs. The committee keeps under review, and works to ensure coherence on, the full range of issues on the EU agenda. The committee has a particular focus on the correct and timely transposition of EU legislation.
In addition to these duties, the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, represents Government at a wide range of EU and international meetings, most recently at an informal General Affairs and External Relations Council in Prague. The Minister of State plays a central role in consolidating and further developing Ireland's bilateral relations with EU member states. He also plays a key role in communicating the importance of the European Union to Ireland and thus fostering enhanced public understanding of EU issues.
I have no plans to change any of the functions or responsibilities in respect of the Minister of State, Deputy Carey or Minister of State, Deputy Roche. I have asked the Ministers of State and management of my Department to identify savings of the order of 10% in the running of their offices and to report to me within the week on how these savings will be achieved.
Further to the Government decision of 8 July 2008 to achieve a 3% saving in payroll costs and further efficiencies across the Department's administrative costs, a number of measures were put in place to ensure that these requirements were met. These included the non-filling of staff vacancies arising so as to attain a 3% reduction in salary costs by the end of 2009, the reduction or curtailing of certain costs across a range of administrative expenditure categories, including consultancy, advertising, PR, travel and telecommunications, efforts to achieve better value for money in the procurement of goods and services through improved procurement practices and the use of shared service facilities to reduce costs of payroll and financial processing systems. In total, savings amounting to in excess of €1 million were achieved by the end of last year through a combination of efficiencies across the administrative spend for my Department. Substantial savings were also achieved in the agencies which receive funding from my Department's Vote arising from the implementation of similar policies.
The 2009 Estimates allocation for my Department reflected the consequent level of savings on the Department's administrative costs of the continued implementation of these efficiency measures throughout 2009. Further to my recent announcement with regard to the achievement of additional general administrative reductions, the Revised Estimates allocation for my Department will be reduced by a further €508,000. Measures to effect these savings have been identified across a number of subheads within my Department's administrative budget through reductions for travel and subsistence, consultancy, telecommunications services, office equipment and office premises expenses.
I am not sure who wrote that reply. Has the Taoiseach received a report from Minister of State and Fianna Fáil Party Whip, Deputy Carey in regard to when the Dáil reform package will be introduced in this House, a matter which comes within his remit as Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach?
Also, has the Taoiseach received an up to date report from the Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy Roche, on the state of play in regard to the legal clarifications being prepared by the Czech Presidency? Perhaps the Taoiseach will clarify if he has received up to date reports on those two matters.
On the first issue, the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, is working with ministerial colleagues, some of whom are former Whips, in regard to the preparation of the Dáil reform programme. Work on the matter is continuing following which the Minister of State will bring the issue before Cabinet and, in due course, before the House for consideration.
The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, who is responsible for European affairs is in close contact with all of the institutions on a regular basis. Regarding the preparation of the legal text, these are, in the first instance, prepared by the Irish Government and dealt with by the legal council services and will be brought before the Czech Presidency and wider European Council members as soon as sufficient progress has been made on the text and as soon as the discussions have been brought to appropriate fruition. It is an ongoing process that is urgently being pursued.
The Taoiseach has been credited, rightly or wrongly, as being the chief negotiator in regard to the increase in the number of Ministers of State. We have 20 junior Ministers who are costing the Exchequer €3 million per annum.
In view of the comments made by members of the Green Party, represented beside the Taoiseach, that this number should be reduced and that the matter should be brought before Cabinet for decision, perhaps the Taoiseach will inform us if that matter has been discussed? I am not suggesting the positions of Ministers of State, Deputies Carey or Roche, who are assigned to the Taoiseach's Department, be abolished. However, a reduction in the number of Ministers of State is a matter for the Taoiseach given he has been credited as the person who created the number of positions currently in place.
The 2007 negotiations in which I was involved related to policy matters in regard to the formation of this Government. On the question of the costs of Government, which is a legitimate issue, my view is that we need to reduce them. One such way of doing so is through reductions in personnel. Another way of doing so would be to reduce the cost of government itself. I believe that is the best way forward. There is a great deal of activity in this regard. We need to achieve more in those areas if we are to get the savings we want.
Arising from the Taoiseach's response, in the context of perception and costs, will he agree what is needed is a substantial reduction in the number of Ministers of State?
This is an issue that arises all the time.
It does.
It is a matter for Government and for the Taoiseach of the day——
Deputy Cowen is the Taoiseach.
——as to how Government is reformed and represented. We have this year begun the process of public service reform arising out of the comprehensive OECD report. I look forward to achieving the reorganisation of Government that will arise from this. In the meantime, we must ensure the costs of Government are reduced. I have done this by insisting on a 10% reduction in the running costs of each Minister of State.
The Minister of State, Deputy Micheál Kitt, led a cavalcade across the west last week.
That is good news for Mayo.
I would like to pursue a little further the Taoiseach's last response. I acknowledge, as did Deputy Kenny, that both Ministers of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputies Carey and Roche, are doing real jobs. Also, the two Ministers of State present in the House are excellent Ministers of State.
The Green Party, which is a partner in Government, has proposed a reduction in the number of Ministers of State. I would like to know if that proposal has been brought to Government and if the Government is considering reducing the number. I recall that when the proposal was made a number of Ministers of State volunteered their preparedness to step aside if such reduction was required. This is probably the only area of the public sector in which volunteers have presented in terms of reductions in numbers. Is the Government actively considering reducing the numbers of Ministers of State?
The Deputy will recall he was a member of a coalition Government in the past. He served as Minister of State with responsibility for fisheries and was, as far as I recall, a good Minister of State——
Hear, hear.
I thank the Taoiseach for his remarks. He has made my day.
The people of Dún Laoghaire are forever in his debt. Deputy Gilmore will be aware that people and parties take various positions. However, what is important is that we reduce the costs of Government. The position I have taken is to ensure this happens not only in terms of payroll costs of Ministers and Ministers of State, who have taken a 10% wage cut and who are also affected by the imposition of the pension levy, but in terms of reductions in regard to the running costs of offices. This is an indication of the seriousness of intent. That people indicated their preparedness to step aside if asked to do so is an indication they are there for the right reasons.
As I stated, it is a matter for the Taoiseach of the day to decide how Government is organised. I believe we have a crisis on our hands and that we need to get on with the job of Government. The workload is increasing rather than decreasing. People are aware that in bad times rather than good times we need to get on with the job and reduce the costs of Government, which is what we are doing.
While the Taoiseach's response is interesting, it does not answer the question I asked, namely, is the Government considering reducing the number of Ministers of State? The only interpretation I can put on the Taoiseach's response so far is that the Government is not considering that proposal. I would like a straight answer to my question. Is a reduction in the number of Ministers of State an option under consideration and when are we likely to see a decision in that regard?
I have answered the question. I believe a reduction in the costs of Government is what is at issue.
Is the Taoiseach saying it is not a matter of numbers? Is that it?
One could have fewer numbers and the Government may cost more. Is that regarded as an objective to which the Deputy would subscribe? I do not believe so. This issue is the cost, effectiveness and efficacy of Government. Proposals are put forward in the interests of reducing the costs of Government. All proposals have been considered. I have put forward the means by which we could reduce the costs of Government. It is open to the Taoiseach of the day to decide at any time how to organise his Government. If the Deputy ever has that privilege in the future, it is one he will preserve for himself also.
Will that principle apply generally now? If that principle is to be applied to the numbers of Ministers of State, will it also apply throughout Government services, that if the cost of Government is reduced numbers are safe? Will that apply in the HSE? Is that the direction the Taoiseach has given to an bord snip? Has an bord snip been given this principle and told that if it can achieve reductions in the cost of Government, there is no need to achieve reductions in numbers?
We are straying beyond the ambit of the question.
We are straying well beyond, but we are running a country with a GDP of in excess of €200 billion. The current and capital expenditure allocation tops €60 billion and we must ensure that there is proper political accountability for all such expenditure. The issue is what is government costing the taxpayer and how to make it as efficient and effective as possible. It is not left to any committee or anyone else to decide how the Government is organised. That is decided by the Government or the Taoiseach of the day. The Government must reduce its costs in the same way as every other area. The Deputy will find that the way to do so is a matter for judgment and for decision at any time. I have indicated that the quickest way of getting the costs saved is by a 10% reduction across all offices.
The official job description of the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Pat Carey, includes the preparation of the weekly brief for the Taoiseach on legislation in preparation. Does the Taoiseach discuss the prioritisation of the Order of Business as presented here day after day and the prioritisation of legislation on a weekly basis with his Chief Whip, Deputy Pat Carey? Shortly, we will move on to the Order of Business where Members of the House continually raise promised legislation. At any time in his experience in the job has the Taoiseach ever taken on board any of the arguments or points in respect of delayed legislation raised daily by Members? What is the role of the Chief Whip in respect of the legislation committee and what is the relationship between the Taoiseach and that committee?
Does the Taoiseach accept that there is not an awareness of the real cost of Ministers of State? It is the cost issue as against the numbers per se. Presumably, the two issues are inextricably linked, but nevertheless the issue is in respect of cost and what savings can be effected. It is not simply a matter of salary. Does the Taoiseach accept that it is also entails, for example, the “half car” as it is referred to jocundly by several Members on the Government benches? It includes the additional support for the constituency operations and the requirement for travel that occurs domestically and internationally, more the former I expect in Minister of State positions. None of this is ever shown. When the publication of expenses and costs relating to Members of Houses of the Oireachtas are printed from time to time——
This is Question Time and the Deputy ought to seek information, not impart it.
——it refers to individual Deputies.
Let us hope the Deputy learns.
However, it never shows what is subsumed within a given Department's overall budgetary provision. Does the Taoiseach accept that there is not a realisation of the real cost and that this must be an incentive to address it? We need transparency and the facts in respect of the true cost of Ministers of State. There must be appointments based on specific need and area of prioritisation, rather than as a means of appeasing the very large parliamentary bloc of the Fianna Fáil Party which, in election after election in the past 12 years, has appointed more Ministers of State than at any given time previously in the history of the jurisdiction.
The Taoiseach will note there are several questions to be addressed.
I reject the patronising nature of some of those comments. The fact is that we must run a Government. This is a modern country with a Government with many responsibilities at home, in Europe, abroad, within Departments and throughout various areas of policy which are being developed. We introduced the idea of cross-departmental responsibilities which have worked very well for the elderly and for people with disabilities. These are all reforms that get away from the silo mentality in the delivery of public services. They are well respected by those who interact with the Departments, who represent those constituencies and who have seen the benefit of strategic planning by bringing forward such reforms with ministerial responsibility.
If we were to take the logic of some of the Deputy's arguments to its conclusion, we would have a technocracy. People are elected to the House to take on responsibilities and to discharge those conscientiously. There are many on all sides of the House who would have a contribution to make were they given sufficient mandate to do so. If we were to reduce democratic accountability according to the analysis of Deputy Ó Caoláin, it would take away from that. The Deputy is one of the main advocates who has come to the House on several occasions and discussed the need for political accountability, yet, when it suits, he puts forward the argument that we should not have political accountability in that respect.
We must be straightforward. We must have an efficient Government and people must do their jobs which have value and worth. These people are getting on with the work and assisting Ministers in the discharge of duties, which are becoming all the more burdensome and manifold because of the nature of the challenges we face. Everyone in the House discharges those responsibilities conscientiously and to the very best of their ability. My job is to ensure that, in the context in which we live at present, those responsibilities are discharged in a way which is accountable to the people and which takes cognisance of the new economic situation. That is what I am attempting and seeking to do and we are not absolving those who hold ministerial office from the demands of the time any more than anyone else.
While I note some of the points made, I reject the idea that my remarks were in any way patronising. What I am trying to instill in the Taoiseach's thought processes is the importance of being open and transparent, and that we fully appreciate the cost of such a large number of Ministers of State.
This is Question Time.
Does the Taoiseach accept that? This is what I have attempted to expose because it is not only about salary situations. Altogether apart from technocracies and so on, this is a whole "Il Duce" approach on the part of the Taoiseach.
That takes some doing taking into account the irregularities in the Deputy's quarter.
When the Taoiseach falls back on such a response, he clearly does not have the answers to the questions I am putting, or he does not wish to go there.
The Deputy continues to impart information.
Easy, take it easy.
This is my final question. The Taoiseach can bullshit away for all he is worth, but these are valid questions that he is refusing to answer and he is doing so day on day. It is a very comfortable thing for the Taoiseach to keep his people in check, despite all the pressures on them currently.
I refer to one final matter which has not been addressed in respect of the efforts within the Taoiseach's Department to find savings. Has any consideration has been given, informally or formally, to the issue of reducing the number of committees within the Houses of the Oireachtas? Has there been any discussion informal or otherwise in respect of any of the committees that have been established? What would the raison d’être be behind any such consideration? What cost savings would be involved, altogether apart from the fact that people are here working anyway? The only additional cost that I can ascertain is in respect of the stipend for the chair of these committees. Will the Taoiseach note that I would have no objection if such a ridiculous situation as the additional payment to chairmen of Oireachtas committees was abolished forthwith?
This is a different story.
That saving would be immediately written into the saving side of his efforts to better balance the books. The work of committees needs to be scrutinised more carefully than on the basis of savings alone.
That is a different chapter. We are not opening other chapters now. The Deputy needs to stick to the questions on the Order Paper.
The Ceann Comhairle has a role in that process also.
Whether I do, there are no questions about the matter on the Order Paper.
The Ceann Comhairle does have a role but there are no questions for him today. We must await another occasion.
The Oireachtas Commission deals with these matters and then discusses them with the Minister for Finance.
The Taoiseach has said the Chief Whip has several responsibilities, the first being to order Government business and the second, Dáil reform. Is it the Taoiseach's policy to bring forward a comprehensive package as has been attempted and failed in the past 20 years, or does he agree that it is necessary to examine the daily procedures and privileges? There are proposals agreed by most parties under the auspices of the Ceann Comhairle. These changes could be made tomorrow, for instance, those relating to the Adjournment debate; it would only be a matter of swapping e-mails. A Minister comes into the House and responds to a Deputy without having heard him or her, which the Taoiseach must agree is ridiculous. Every day Deputies seek to raise matters under Standing Order 32 out of sheer frustration because there is no other way to raise current issues in the House. These two changes could be made immediately without any major fuss or bother.
Hear, hear.
It is necessary to examine the work we do here. The Canadian Parliament held a national debate and introduced comprehensive proposals over time. The Taoiseach could make changes now, with the agreement of all sides, that would improve efficiency immediately and, in parallel, work on the overall package. Will he once and for all engage with us and let us see some genuine changes because this place is becoming more and more irrelevant by the day?
I do not believe the Houses of the Oireachtas are irrelevant but I do believe we need to update our procedures and reach agreement on how we can do this without anyone trying to jockey for advantage. That is always the problem.
We are not doing so. That is a fiction.
It is not. I have been a Member for 25 years and seen many proposals from various sides of the House.
Some good, some not so.
If we are interested in it, we should all commit ourselves to reform. The Chief Whip will bring forward a comprehensive set of measures soon and we should deal with them then.
Bipartisanship.
In respect of the simple changes mentioned by the Deputy, if we want a comprehensive set of measures, let us make them comprehensive.
Does the Taoiseach agree that this comprehensive package has been tried in the past 25 years and not worked? There is always something in it with which someone does not agree. Will he not open his mind to the suggestion of making some minor changes to procedure and let us do something now? If we are to await comprehensive measures, we will be here for another 20 years.
Correct.
All parties, with the exception of the Government parties, seem anxious to make changes and engage in conversation but there is no conversation, debate or engagement. The idea that we are all trying to gain an advantage is a paranoid fiction in the Taoiseach's mind. Nobody is trying to do this. We want to make the place more efficient. We have said this time out of number. Even the Ceann Comhairle hints at it from time to time out of frustration. The Taoiseach is the only person holding it up.
That is not true. The Chief Whip will bring forward comprehensive measures. The plenary sessions could be improved. Unfortunately, much good work is conducted at committee level that is not relayed to the general public. I do not accept that we do not do important work. There is an exercise in accountability here every day of the week. I am in the House every Tuesday afternoon and every Wednesday morning to answer questions in various ways, whether on the Order of Business or during Leaders' Questions. That compares very favourably with the work of any other Prime Minister in a similar jurisdiction. We need to allow the Chief Whip to bring forward a comprehensive set of proposals and not just debate them but make some decisions.
Dublin-Monaghan Bombings.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:7 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the McEntee commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46597/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:8 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the further action he has taken on foot of the report of the McEntee commission, the report of the sub-committee of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and other instances of collusion in the State and the Barron reports; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7054/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together.
Judge Barron prepared reports on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, 1974; the Dublin bombings of 1972 and 1973; the murder of Seamus Ludlow and the bombing of Kay's Tavern, Dundalk. The work of the commission of inquiry began in January 2000. Judge Barron completed his work in July 2006. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights considered all of his reports.
The Government appointed Mr. Patrick McEntee, senior counsel, as sole member of a commission of investigation to examine specific matters relating to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974, including aspects of the Garda investigation and missing documentation. Mr. McEntee handed over his final report on 12 March 2007. It was published on 4 April 2007.
Following dissolution of the commission of investigation, the relevant confidential information remained subject to legal privilege. Its archive was transferred to my Department, where it is in secure storage.
Following the recommendations of the joint committee, we held a debate on collusion in the House last year and passed a motion relating to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings on 10 July last. Arising from that motion, I understand the Clerk of the Dáil communicated the text of the resolution to the House of Commons, together with the report of the commission of inquiry and the Barron reports, and received a reply from the Clerk of the House of Commons. Any follow up to this should be considered in consultation with the parties and I understand the matter has been raised with the Whips.
Funding for Justice for the Forgotten ceases on 31 July. The group recognises the need for cutbacks and has made some adjustments. Family members and persons associated with families have approached the group in respect of the legacy commission about their entitlement to the proposed payment of €12,000. Many of the families concerned would prefer to have a group advise or assist them in dealing with such a commission. Does the Taoiseach see a value in having Justice for the Forgotten continue to liaise, assist or counsel families associated with the legacy commission and payments, if the commission is formed and a payment of €12,000 is made to families?
The suggestion made in the Deputy's second point is premature. I do not know whether any bureaucratic or administrative issue would arise if that recommendation were to proceed. It is only one of several but has been the most extensively highlighted. I do not see what complexity would attach to the process or administration of payments to those affected by the conflict that would require another support system to interact between the individuals or families concerned and the commission set up to disburse the money. The remembrance fund commission ended on 31 October having been extended for several years. I understand the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has written to Justice for the Forgotten regarding its funding and that his Department is providing €125,000 for next year.
Will the Taoiseach accept that the primary reason for continuing to fund Justice for the Forgotten is to allow it to continue to play its role in campaigning and searching for truth and justice in respect of the events that occurred in this city and in Monaghan town on 17 May 1974? Does the Taoiseach accept that it would be wholly and absolutely wrong and unacceptable if the Government were to withdraw critical funding from Justice for the Forgotten, as it endeavours to do its core work, in the immediate aftermath of the 35th anniversary of those events, which will fall in May of this year?
When did the Taoiseach take the opportunity to raise directly with the British Prime Minister the decision of the Houses of the Oireachtas to unanimously endorse various reports, including the sub-committee's report and the MacEntee report? Does he have further plans to raise these matters directly with the Prime Minister? I refer, for example, to the response received by the Clerk of the Dáil, Mr. Kieran Coughlan, from his Westminster counterpart, which was that this is a matter in the first instance for the UK Houses of Parliament. It has been suggested that the House of Commons will need to address the substantive statement involved in the unanimous decision of these Houses. Has the British Prime Minister indicated to the Taoiseach that the decision of the Dáil and the Seanad is scheduled to be addressed in Westminster? Will he undertake to revisit this matter with the British Prime Minister at the earliest opportunity? Does the Government have any plans to mark the sad occasion of the 35th anniversary of the tragedy that visited Dublin and Monaghan, which will fall within a matter of weeks?
As I said when I answered questions on this matter during a previous Question Time, the problem that has arisen relates to the conduct of their work by the commissions of inquiry. Mr. Justice Barron has conducted his work. Mr. MacEntee, who was the sole member of the commission of investigation, handed over his final report in March 2007. It was published in April of that year. Some relevant confidential information remains subject to legal privilege. In line with the sub-committee's recommendations, a debate on collusion was held in the Dáil last year. A motion was passed by the Dáil on 10 July 2008. The Clerk of the Dáil communicated the text of the resolution to the House of Commons. A reply was received from the Westminster authorities.
I am sure this issue will continue to be addressed at official level. I have not raised it specifically with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Brown, at any of the meetings I have had with him on specific issues. We all recognise that this is one of the problems that has arisen from the Troubles of the past. Despite the best efforts of everyone, including most eminent legal counsel and judges, there has been a failure to get to the full truth of everything. They have brought it as far as they can bring it, unfortunately. We will continue to see what can be done in addition to what has already been achieved.
The acoustics in this Chamber are not always great, so the Taoiseach will forgive me if I misheard him. Did he indicate that he has not had an opportunity to raise the specific decision of the Houses of the Oireachtas on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, and the series of reports on the bombings, with the British Prime Minister? If I understand correctly that these matters have not been raised, why is that the case? Independent Members and Deputies from all parties in this House made a unanimous decision to adopt a motion that called for full disclosure and co-operation on the part of the British authorities. That decision was communicated by the Clerk of the Dáil to his counterpart at Westminster. We are still waiting for a formal response, other than the acknowledgement that the communication was received, from the Westminster authorities. Why has the Taoiseach not raised the matter with the British Prime Minister? Will he undertake to raise it in the serious manner that is required? Will he consider the suggestion that has been made to him on many occasions that he should arrange a specific meeting with the British Prime Minister to discuss the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and all other matters pertaining to collusion? A proper summit of the leaders of both Parliaments is required if this matter is to be addressed in a real and concerted way.
This has been an ongoing matter.
It has been going on for 35 years.
Yes. It is an ongoing matter. We will never get to the bottom of — to the truth of — many things that happened during the Troubles, unfortunately. I refer not only to the matters raised by the Deputy, but also to a range of other issues of equal concern.
I do not suggest that this is not a matter of import. I do not mean to lessen in any way the importance of the all-party motion that was passed by the Dáil. The Government and its predecessor instigated mechanisms and procedures to seek to address the issues that arose during the Troubles to the greatest extent possible. I was personally acquainted with one of the people who were murdered in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. I am not unaware of the situation. We will continue to pursue this matter as best we can. There is always ongoing contact between the two Governments on these issues. While we are disappointed with the response we have received to date, we will continue our efforts, as I have said. We will continue to see how we can bring this matter forward.
Will the Government continue to support Justice for the Forgotten?
I have indicated that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has made an allocation of €125,000 for that group this year.
Is that for the remainder of this year?
If the Deputy wants more detail, I suggest that he should table a parliamentary question to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Funding was provided to the group mentioned by Deputy Ó Caoláin to help it to deal with various issues. Commissions of inquiry, etc., were established by the Government as part of an effort to answer the questions asked by the group. Those proceedings have been brought as far as they can be brought, as far as the Minister, Mr. MacEntee and Mr. Justice Barron are concerned.
Surely the whole point is that they have not been brought "as far as they can be brought".
They have been brought as far as the mechanisms I have mentioned were able to bring them. I understand that funding was provided to the group to enable it to interact with the mechanisms that were set up for these purposes. I have indicated to the Deputy that, for the purposes of this year, the work of those commissions of inquiry, etc., has been concluded. They have brought it as far as they can bring it.