Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 7 Jun 2011

Vol. 734 No. 3

Ceisteanna — Questions

Departmental Expenditure

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

1 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will identify any red line issues in his Department in terms of the forthcoming spending review. [12834/11]

In general terms, the Department of the Taoiseach is not involved in the delivery of major schemes and programmes. The spending review will involve a detailed and comprehensive evaluation of all aspects of the expenditure of the Department. The main focus of the review will be on general administration. There will be an examination of whether there is scope for further savings and efficiencies in addition to those already identified in the Department's action plan for implementing the Croke Park agreement.

The Taoiseach will be aware that previously he promised to find significant savings in the Department of the Taoiseach immediately. When I asked a question on this matter on a previous occasion, the Taoiseach was not in a position to point to a single area in which a significant cost saving had been implemented. He accepted at the time that the transfer of a section of the Department of the Taoiseach to a new Department would not constitute such a saving, in his opinion. Since then, has the Taoiseach identified any areas in which savings can be made? What is his opinion of the important expenditures within his Department that might potentially be open to efficiencies or savings? Surely he does not need a comprehensive spending review to identify where savings can be made at this stage.

The Deputy is aware of the changes that have happened in the Department of the Taoiseach. He is aware that the most significant element of the Vote relates to administration. The Forum on Europe and other bodies have been closed. The Newfoundland arrangement has been subsumed back into another Department. The National Economic and Social Development Office, which includes the National Economic and Social Council and two other bodies that are now out of commission, is the only agency of that type for which the Department of the Taoiseach is still responsible.

The answer to the Deputy's question, therefore, is that the Department of the Taoiseach is dealing with its administrative Vote. It will continue to reduce its numbers while maintaining high quality services. By the end of 2014, its number of staff will decrease by a further 2% below the employment control framework target set by the Department of Finance. The Deputy is aware that 55 staff have been redeployed since January 2008. A further five support staff will be redeployed shortly. The Department will continue to facilitate the reallocation of staff to those areas of greatest need, in accordance with the system of redeployment set out in the agreement.

The total budget of the Department of the Taoiseach was reduced by 31% between 2008 and 2010. There was a reduction of 11% in the administration budget during that time. The 2011 administration budget Estimate has been reduced by 15% by comparison with the Revised Estimate for 2010. Further savings will be achieved over the period of the plan through continued efficiencies in procurement practices, greater use of technology and shared services, energy efficiency programmes, the use of central framework agreements and close monitoring of all expenditure. The Department of the Taoiseach incurs its operating expenditure across a range of goods and services, including travel services, staff training and development, State functions, telecommunications, office equipment, premises expenses, information technology, library costs, consultancy, printing and other incidental costs. An average of €3 million is spent on such matters each year.

I am well aware of the ongoing run-of-the-mill expenditure that has been incurred by the Department of the Taoiseach. Contrary to commitments given a number of months ago that there would be a radical downsizing and changing of the Taoiseach's office, and a very significant reduction in expenditures, the Taoiseach seems to be saying that is not the case and that while he intends to achieve some efficiency savings, there are no fundamental change in terms of how the Taoiseach's office will operate.

Deputy Martin has a further question down, if he wishes to take it now——-

——dealing with the downsizing of the Department of the Taoiseach by 50%. Deputy Martin is incorrect in that assertion in that the programme for Government does not state that. It refers specifically to a reduction in the size of the Taoiseach's Department to, effectively, a Cabinet office to oversee the implementation of the programme for Government. The Vote of the Taoiseach's Department deals with administration, the issues I mentioned earlier and the NESC which is still attached to the office of the Taoiseach. There are a number of other costs involved, including moneys still remaining in respect of the Moriarty tribunal and one or two other issues, that we can talk about if Deputy Martin wishes. The Vote of the Department now relates to the administrative cost. The Taoiseach's Department, no more than any other, will continue to monitor that to achieve efficiencies in respect of those items I mentioned in order to have it as lean, professional and efficient as one would expect.

Commemorative Events

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

2 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will seek from the British Government the return of any personal items or paper belonging to those who were court-martialled by the British army following the 1916 Rising. [13448/11]

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

3 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will seek from the British Government all court-martial papers and other documentation held by it which relates to the execution of the 1916 leaders and all of those others who were tried. [13449/11]

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

4 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will seek from the British Government all papers still in its possession relating to the British administration in Ireland prior to partition. [13450/11]

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

5 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will press the British Government to release all Government and British military papers and Cabinet minutes relating to the decision to execute the 1916 leaders and including the execution of Roger Casement. [13451/11]

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

6 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will instruct all Government Departments to examine their records and to release all materials relating to the Easter Rising and subsequent events including the 1918 election, the Irish War of Independence and the Irish Civil War. [13452/11]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, together.

I appreciate the Deputy's interest in the commemorative programme to be brought forward in relation to the centenary anniversaries to arise in the coming years, bringing to mind the turbulent period that culminated in the establishment of the State.

The commemorative programme will address and reflect the political, cultural and social themes of the period to 1916, most especially the developments leading towards the Easter Rising. My Department will work with all other Departments in preparing a framework for commemorations. I envisage that this initiative will include an opportunity for all to make proposals and submissions and for a special consultation with parties in the Oireachtas on the draft programme. As the Deputy will be aware, I wrote recently seeking nominations from party leaders for this consultation. I am grateful for their responses and will now make arrangements to include representatives of Independent Deputies and Senators. I have nominated the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Deenihan, to chair this special consultation process with the Oireachtas Members.

As Head of Government, I will continue to have a role in the direction and development of the commemorative arrangements. The comprehensive framework of commemoration that I envisage will contribute towards an enhanced understanding of the political, cultural, economic and social conditions in this most important period of Irish and world history.

Notwithstanding my role in directing the overall development of the commemorative programme, it would be inappropriate to displace the primary responsibility of particular Ministers for the various elements of the programme. Consistent with their assigned portfolios, each Minister will account for his or her contributions to the commemorative programme.

The passing of the generations facilitates original and further consideration of the principles and activities in the revolutionary period. To contribute to that assessment, the initiative will be sustained to prepare for public access to the service records of the personnel associated with the Rising and subsequent years of struggle. These records, the military service pensions archive, are the last remaining official archive of unpublished material relevant to the period. I believe that these first-hand personal accounts, reviewed and verified by contemporaries, will be of great assistance in reaching a clear understanding of the history of those years.

I would agree with the Deputy that the time is now right for all records pertaining to the period to be released. I am not aware of other undisclosed records held by Departments or institutions. If any should come to notice in the context of commemorative planning, I assure the Deputy that the disposition of any consideration will be towards publication. I will ensure that this commitment is communicated with regard to all records of relevance wherever they may be held.

The principal interest with regard to records abroad has been to ensure that all material is accessible to students and researchers. Recognising that they reflect a shared heritage, I do not know that it would be feasible to seek the transfer or repatriation of all records in Britain relating to Ireland. I am aware the technologies for on-line searching and examination have greatly reduced the significance of the location of records. I believe it would be useful to identify the nature and location of any such records so that they might contribute to the study and understanding of our history.

I thank the Taoiseach for his answer. It is clear that his commitment is to make available all records. That is as it should be. I realise the Taoiseach made this commitment previously and plans are underway for the all-party committee for the commemorative events leading to 2016. The issue of the personal effects and records held, as the Taoiseach put it, wherever they may be, is important, especially those in Britain. History not only in this country but elsewhere reflects that when control was being taken from them in different countries, the British authorities took vast amounts of information, documentary and otherwise. It would be a pity if we were to mark the centenary of the 1916 Rising without having made every possible effort to ensure the repatriation of any documents or personal effects of the leaders of that time. The Taoiseach has been cautious in how he has couched his response on that score. I call on him to raise the matter again with the British Prime Minister. It could be raised as a matter of goodwill. I am sure they will be aware of the historic times that are to be commemorated in the coming years.

I take the opportunity to raise again the issue of 16 Moore Street and the proposed national monument site which, I understand, the Taoiseach visited and which is in a bad state of repair. The Taoiseach is aware that the Save 16 Moore Street campaign has been vocal on the issue. All who know the city well are aware that this quarter is ripe for development, that it would make an ideal revolutionary quarter and that it could add another tourist hub to the capital city. Above all, it would be an appropriate marker or flagship event for the centenary celebration. However, for this to happen we need the commitment of Government in addition to Dublin City Council. Will the Taoiseach indicate today if he is prepared to make a commitment to such a project?

In respect of the Deputy's first question, perhaps she will inform me later if there are specific issues, documents, artefacts or whatever in which she and her party are interested and which are not in the public domain or which are not intended to be in the public domain. I would be pleased to follow that through.

For the information of the House, I have received correspondence from people whose parents or grandparents were involved during that period and who have made reference to documents, files or papers about which they have queried whether they are in the military archives. For the information of the Deputy, some 300,000 documents are in files in the military service pensions archive which relate to the Easter Rising, the War of Independence and the Civil War to 1 October 1924. This is what comprises the collection.

The purpose of the military service pensions archive project is to make all of these available to the public well in advance of the centenary of the 1916 Rising in 2016. To back up this, a team of four archivists has been put in place in Cathal Brugha Barracks in Rathmines. The work of processing the collection is under way under the direction of a steering committee, which comprises representatives of the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department of Defence, the Defence Forces and the National Archives. We can report progress on how the archival analysis is progressing in order that it will be available. We plan to have those 300,000 files available to the public long before 2016.

I have visited No. 16 Moore Street and understand there is a planning process under way which I do not want to prejudice in any way. In 2007 the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dick Roche, placed a preservation order on the building under the National Monuments Act 1930, as amended, on the basis that the building's preservation is a matter of national importance by reason of the historical interest attached to it. Ministerial consent under section 14 of the 1930 Act will be required for all works affecting the area covered by the preservation order. I understand the planning approval that was granted by An Bord Pleanála for the redevelopment of the Carlton cinema site in central Dublin includes a provision relating to the conservation of the national monument at Moore Street.

I recognise the importance of this issue and took the trouble to visit the site long before the election was held. In my view, as a citizen and public representative, there is an opportunity here for a very worthwhile project. However, the current site is not very amendable to encouraging people to visit it. The exit from the side of the GPO into the laneways — the laneways of history, as I call them — to the site of the battery on top of the Rotunda, to the location of the eventual surrender, including the location of the death of The O'Rahilly, together with No. 16 Moore Street, should be considered an essential part of our history. While not wishing in any way to prejudice the planning application that is under way, it is an area in which I have an interest.

I am aware that the Taoiseach has visited Moore Street and, as he put it, the laneways of history. One of the problems in terms of the protection for the building is that the approach that has been taken is very minimalist. We are all aware of that. Does the Taoiseach support extending the level of protection for the whole terrace? In order to develop it as a viable commemorative site and to house, for example, a museum dedicated to 1916 and all it stood for, the plan will have to be on a much grander scale and much better designed. As it stands, the Moore Street site is effectively in isolation, with the development of the Carlton site at the back of it, which is completely at odds with what would be best for the site in the interests of State tourism and the commemoration of our history. How much further does the Taoiseach wish to see that level of protection expanded? I am aware he is sympathetic to this issue, but can he be more specific?

I do not want to prejudice the planning application currently under consideration. There have been proposals for major historic presentations at the GPO site itself and that is a major plan. Those who exited the GPO in that time of insurrection had to break in through the walls of the houses on Moore Street to make their way to No. 16, from which they all exited. Some of the original brickwork is there, as well as some of the cobblestones and some of the archways into the backs of the houses. From the point of view of 20 or 50 years hence, there are possibilities, as exist in other places around the world, for people of all nationalities to come to a location where an insurrection took place at the beginning of the 20th century and which was the start of a difficult process by which this country achieved its independence. For a small state to do so in that historic period is quite significant.

The Deputy is asking me to go further. I cannot answer the question about the current position in so far as the Carlton site is concerned, although it is probably some distance away. In that mix of conversation and reality, clear potential exists although a planning process is in place that I do not wish to prejudice. As for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government becoming involved in the preservation order that was issued for 16 Moore Street, I will take up that with them because it is an issue of general interest in any event. It should be associated with the general programme of various developments that have been mentioned for the GPO, which also is important.

First, I welcome the spirit of the Taoiseach's response to this series of questions and I believe he will acknowledge the previous Government opened up much archival material relating to this period. In the past, the argument had been that there may have been political difficulties or problems with releasing some of that material. However, Fianna Fáil's view, which I believe the Taoiseach will share, is that the State has no business in denying people full access to our founding history. I ask the Taoiseach to explore with the British Government its attitude and approach to some remaining records. At this point, I do not consider that Irish republicans could think any better or worse of the role of the British Government at that time either before or after independence. In essence, there is no contemporary political down-side to releasing this material and I ask the Taoiseach to take up this matter in order that future historians may have full access to all the archives and records both here and in Britain that pertain to the rising in the run-up to its centenary. The fundamental issue with the Irish archives is not the right of access but rather the ability to gain access in person to those archives. Consequently, in the run-up to the centenary there is a strong case for adopting as an objective the digitising of all material relating to the struggle for independence. I ask the Taoiseach to explore this possibility and to take the lead in ensuring this will be the case by the centenary itself.

Finally, with the Ceann Comhairle's indulgence, having walked to and gone through 16 Moore Street with the relatives and so on, someone in government with responsibility for this matter should meet Dublin City Council. What really strikes me is the absence of an overall plan emanating from the city council, which is the planning authority. As the Taoiseach is aware, councils develop local sectoral and area plans and this area begs for and demands an area development plan that is consistent with its history and heritage and that would reflect all that has taken place. Someone must take the initiative with Dublin City Council to get it to begin to develop proper planning processes to ensure the conservation of the history and heritage there in a manner that is accessible to the public and that does justice to what by any standard is a highly significant historic site and location. I repeat that what really strikes me is the absence of any sense of a plan that encapsulates the historic nature of the site.

I agree with Deputy Martin in this regard. Obviously the previous Government and the then Minister placed a preservation order on 16 Moore Street. I will also take up this matter with the British authorities in respect of whatever records may have been removed, transferred or whatever to British locations. I made the point to Deputy McDonald that the location no longer is that important if access now is available via digital or electronic means.

It is fair to state that there has not been a sense of the real importance of this location to the extent that, as politicians, Members might have liked. However, in the context of the Deputy's comments, I also believe that as we approach 2016, this will become more prevalent and more realistic. Consequently, the suggestion to have Dublin City Council review its own programme and plan in this regard is a good one because Dublin obviously will take centre stage in all these commemorations. It is an issue with which city councillors, many of whom are new, would like to be involved to heighten the perception of the importance of this location.

For me, the question is whether there is a possibility of putting together the old and the new in a way that is new and realistic, that is forward-thinking but which does not lose the historic importance of what happened here and for all those involved. I say this without prejudice to the planning application.

A final supplementary question from Deputy Wallace.

With regard to history, there is a good chance that the planning permission for the Carlton project will run out before the project is financially viable again. In the case of this happening, would the Government consider putting a preservation order on the area and thereby force a scaling back of the Carlton project, which was a little on the grotesque side in the first place?

I cannot prejudice the outcome of the planning application but in the context of my reply to Deputy McDonnell and Deputy Martin, this is an issue that would arise if what Deputy Wallace says comes to pass.

Departmental Staff

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

7 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will provide a progress report on the halving of the size of his Department as committed in the programme for Government; and the steps he has taken regarding same. [13620/11]

The Deputy is correct in his assumption. The programme for Government is quite clear in regard to the reduction of the size of the Department of the Taoiseach:

We will reduce the size of the Department of An Taoiseach, transforming it into the equivalent of a Cabinet Office that oversees the delivery of a new Programme for Government.

At the end of January this year, 189 staff were employed in my Department and at the end of May, 166 were employed. Sections and posts in my Department which had been engaged in work that now comes within the responsibility of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform have transferred to that Department. Arrangements are being made for the transfer of some support staff. The total number of staff involved is approximately 25. There will be further restructuring of my Department following the forthcoming appointment of a new second Secretary General post.

I refer to the new politics document of some months ago which contained fairly strong commitments to significantly reducing the size of the Department of the Taoiseach and also to increasing accountability. We are looking at downsizing and to a certain extent what we perceive to be a reduction of accountability of the Department of the Taoiseach. I dealt with this matter last week with regard to the establishment of the Cabinet sub-committees. The Fine Gael new politics document said that the Department of the Taoiseach would be converted into a Cabinet office——

Sorry, Deputy, the question relates to the programme for Government.

Yes, and I am dealing with that.

That would be a first for the Deputy.

I see Deputy Buttimer is back.

I have not gone away.

His presence at my side during Question Time——

I do not like interrupting a speaker but——

Is it the Taoiseach's intention to relocate responsibility for European affairs to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as indicated? He referred to the idea of turning the Taoiseach's Department into a Cabinet office to oversee the delivery of a new programme for Government. We do not see that transformation happening or the delivery of a new programme for Government. Has the Taoiseach any idea of what will be the final configuration of the Department of the Taoiseach when he has finished the various reforms he has articulated? Some would say the Taoiseach has taken a very extreme approach in the matter of answering and transferring questions from his office and such replies are central to the accountability of the Taoiseach's office. Last week, he refused to answer a question about his own personal approach to the European Commission, for example, and this question was transferred to the Tánaiste's office.

Please explain your question, Deputy.

The issue is that the number of questions transferred from the Department of the Taoiseach is growing in volume. It is an extraordinary number covering all sorts of areas——

The Deputy is straying a little bit now.

——which would lead one to the view——

Deputy Martin should have been over there for the past 14 years.

——that there are very few subjects left which one can ask about to the Department of the Taoiseach, given the reduced accountability and the transfer and displacement of a whole range of functions from the Department to elsewhere. What will be the final configuration of the Department?

The Deputy will recall that at the first Question Time in this Dáil I suggested that we might do away with one of the ordinary questions to the Taoiseach because such questions come up very often on a rota basis, as the Deputy is well aware. I was asking the same questions repeatedly for nine years when I was in opposition. Following this restructuring, the Department of the Taoiseach will oversee the implementation of the programme for Government. I chair the seven Cabinet committees which are intrinsically involved in all the important issues of Departments and which the Ministers attend and these are in addition to Cabinet meetings.

The Deputy's question concerned the provision of a progress report on the halving of the size of the Department, as committed to in the programme for Government. That referred to the Fine Gael document published before the election. Maybe whoever drafted the question for the Deputy got a bit excited. It is in the programme for Government.

Maybe we were giving your influence a bit too much weight.

The programme for Government is an agreement between Fine Gael and the Labour Party to bring about a situation whereby we rectify our public finances, sort out our banks and provide opportunities for people for the future in a country of which we can all be proud. It is a document, as Deputy McDonald is aware, of both parties and not one which belongs to a single party, something to which her question referred.

The Taoiseach may not have made the commitment to halving his Department. I accept it is not in the programme for Government. However, he said he sees the Department as becoming the strategic centre of Government, overseeing the delivery of the programme for Government. It is for the Office of the Taoiseach to bring coherence, clear communication, commonality of purpose and a oneness of will and action to matters. How does the Taoiseach think that is going, given that the events of recent weeks demonstrate that the left hand does not seem to know what the right hand is doing? Ministers openly contradict each other.

I thought we had a supplementary question.

I am curious to know how the Taoiseach intends to anchor this strategic centre. It seems to be far from centred, it seems to be all over the place. What does the Taoiseach propose to do to bring a sense of discipline, action and good communication to his team?

Take a leaf out of your own book.

A Deputy

You mind your team and we will mind ours.

I cannot comment on what commentators may say or whatever interpretation they put on words. We are not mixed up between personalities and shoes here, like the Deputy was in a recent comment she made in the House.

The Labour Party benches knew all about shoes.

In any event, as far as I am concerned the essential job of the Taoiseach in this context is to see that the programme for Government is implemented as rationally, logically and smoothly as possible. Some Departments are very big and have enormous responsibilities. Ministers are finding evidence on a daily basis of decisions which were announced with nothing to back them up, which sometimes does not make for pleasant reading. From that point of view, my job as the person who chairs Cabinet committees dealing with a range of issues from all Departments is to ensure that we implement the programme for Government.

There is no confusion about the target and objective in mind. Even within the Deputy's party there can be little see-saw activities in respect of words and their meaning. As far as the Government is concerned, we are very focused on the target and objective. We are not yet in Government for 100 days and a great deal has been achieved. There is a full programme lying ahead of us. The people concerned are now all at their desks making decisions and preparing memos for Government to decide on.

Northern Ireland Issues

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

8 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will pursue the issue of the release of files held by the British Government following a failure to reach any agreement on this in his most recent meeting with Prime Minister David Cameron. [13624/11]

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

9 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach when he plans to visit the North. [14500/11]

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

10 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has a strategic plan for making best use of the all-island structures and institutions of the Good Friday Agreement. [14502/11]

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

11 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will bring together Irish Government representatives on the various all-Ireland bodies and agencies to discuss future strategic goals; and the way to make best use of those bodies. [14503/11]

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

12 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has raised the issue of the release of files relating to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings with the British Prime Minister; the response to same; and if he will continue to raise this matter. [14506/11]

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

13 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach his priorities ahead of the North-South Ministerial Council on 10 June 2011. [14523/11]

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

14 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he supports the efforts to achieve a 12.5% corporation tax rate in the North. [14534/11]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 14, inclusive, together.

The Dáil debate on 17 May on a motion on the Dublin-Monaghan bombings, which was agreed by all parties in the House, requests this Government to continue in its endeavour to seek a resolution to this issue. The Government is committed to doing so.

As the House will be aware, I raised this matter during my broad discussion with the British Prime Minister in April and again when I met with him on the occasion of the State visit of Queen Elizabeth II. We both acknowledge that there are a great number of sensitive issues relating to the past, including the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, that need to be sensitively considered, without getting into endless, open-ended inquiries. There are many other acts of violence from the past where victims on all sides would wish to have more information on what happened to their loved ones.

As the recent motion in the House acknowledged, we are approaching this task in the context of transformed relations on this island and between Ireland and Britain. While we still have difficult issues which require to be dealt with in a sensitive manner towards finding a resolution, we do so as equal partners, good neighbours and on the basis of mutual respect. In addition, I remind the House that there was a significant and lengthy inquiry by two very eminent judges, Mr. Justice Hamilton and Mr. Justice Barron, a thorough examination by an Oireachtas committee and a full commission of investigation conducted by Mr. Patrick MacEntee. The total cost of the Barron inquiries amounted to €3.5 million and the total cost of the MacEntee commission of investigation was €2.6 million.

As set out in the programme for Government, the Government is fully committed to the implementation of the Good Friday and St. Andrews Agreements, which have brought about transformational change on this island. Under the St. Andrews Agreement it was agreed that the Northern Ireland Executive and Irish Government, under the auspices of the North-South Ministerial Council, would appoint a review group. The group was asked to examine the efficiency and value for money of existing North-South implementation bodies and examine the case for additional bodies and areas of co-operation within the North-South Ministerial Council where mutual benefit would be derived. We will be discussing the outcome of the review at this Friday's plenary meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council. At that meeting, I will take the opportunity to highlight the North-South aspects of the programme for Government and the Government's commitment to North-South and all-island economic co-operation. We will also have a broad ranging discussion on the economic challenges facing all parts of this island, including banking reform and the National Asset Management Agency.

In addition, there will be a full discussion of progress across a range of areas of North-South co-operation, including progress on the A5-A8 roads, good progress on road safety, co-operation on innovation and the work of North-South bodies, particularly as it relates to fostering economic recovery across the island. The establishment of the North-South parliamentary forum and North-South consultative forum will also be on the agenda.

I intend to visit Northern Ireland in the near future although there are no specific plans in place at present. Regarding corporation tax issues, while this is a matter for the British Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, the Government is positively disposed towards any issue that will assist the all-island economy in any way possible.

I object to the questions being taken together in this manner as the issue addressed in Question No. 8 is separate from issues related to the North-South bodies and various meetings the Taoiseach is having. A wide range of issues have been lumped together in this group.

On the question as to whether the Taoiseach continues to pursue the release of files by the British Government on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, on the most recent occasion the House discussed this issue the Taoiseach effectively threw his arms in the air and stated he could not do anything more on the matter. I suggest he can do a great deal. This issue is fast becoming a major test of the new British Government's goodwill towards peace and reconciliation. It is not one that can be left to lie or fester. If both Governments are willing to show complete openness, we can keep the high moral ground against those who murdered for nearly three decades and continue to hide the truth of their activities.

If the British Government refuses to hand over the relevant files, will the Taoiseach consider supporting the families of the victims of the bombings in taking a case in the British and European courts in pursuit of this issue? The failure and refusal to provide the files in question is a denial of their human right to justice. Does the Taoiseach have any plans or does he intend to take any initiative to move this issue from one of talk and comment to one of action, particularly if the British Government refuses to stop what essentially amounts to a cover-up on this very important issue, the largest atrocity that took place on this island? I propose to address the other questions later.

Deputy Martin is saying that what cost the taxpayer €6.1 million between the Barron inquiry and the MacEntee commission of investigation is a cover-up. There was a very significant, lengthy and detailed examination of these issues by Mr. Justice Hamilton and Mr. Justice Barron, a full and thorough inquiry by an Oireachtas committee and a full commission of investigation was conducted by Mr. Patrick MacEntee. All of these inquiries went into very considerable detail. As I have pointed out, the cost was €6.1 million. The Deputy has been down this road himself and can take it that, as Head of Government, I will continue to raise the issue with the British Government in respect of files that might be released. Obviously, closure is important to everybody concerned on all sides in these cases and, for my part, I will continue to make contact about that whenever I can.

The Oireachtas committee was unanimous in seeking the release of these files. The investment that has gone into this matter and the significant work that has been undertaken make the release of these files all the more important and imperative. The failure to release them is, crucially, undermining the work that has gone into this issue to date. We all recognise the extraordinary transformative impact that, for example, the management of the Bloody Sunday investigation had on relations on the island and particularly in Derry. A similar move in the right direction to release these files would have a similar impact on public opinion and attitudes generally on this outstanding issue.

I have just made the point in response to previous questions that I will be happy to talk to the British Government about records it may have, or which were transferred to it, or which were removed to locations in Britain in respect of the 1916 to Civil War period. I will continue to raise the question of releasing these files or whatever relevant material is there. I supported the Oireachtas committee's report in respect of the release of such documentation and I will continue to do so whenever I have the opportunity.

On two occasions this House has called for the release of files on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Nobody in this House disputes the fact that there have been victims on all sides, and that all victims must have acknowledgement and truth. It is a given that this cannot be a selective process.

I am worried, however, when I hear the Taoiseach report on conversations with the British Prime Minister which rule out endless, long-running inquiries. As the Taoiseach and the British Government are aware, Sinn Féin's position is that a properly constituted truth-recovery process is needed. None of us should run from that, least of all the British authorities. Nonetheless, the Taoiseach should not run away from his responsibility to press the British authorities in a meaningful and urgent way to release these files, by going off at a tangent and having discussions about other, yet-to-be-established, long-running inquiries.

Some €6.1 million has been spent on this matter. The Taoiseach knows that those charged with making the investigation have clearly stated that the British authorities have wilfully obstructed the investigation. They have deliberately and consistently refused to release these files. Conversations about future investigations are important and necessary, but the immediate matter at hand is the release of these particular files. This is not a matter of cost because the €6.1 million has already been spent. I suggest therefore that the release of these files will be revenue neutral to the British authorities. The reason they will not release them is because they have taken a political decision not to do so. It is the job of this Administration, on behalf of this State's citizens, to force the position with the British authorities. Will the Taoiseach therefore reassure this House that he has been rather more assertive with the British Prime Minister than what I have heard from him today? Can he give us that assurance?

I can. I have already told Deputy Martin that I will continue to raise this matter at every opportunity I get. I noted the statement made by Deputy McDonald's party leader, Deputy Adams, today in respect of the Smithwick tribunal. This is an important statement because it clearly states that the Sinn Féin Party was in a position to influence volunteers who were previously members of the IRA in regard to meeting with the Smithwick tribunal. That is an important influence to recognise. While Deputy Adams has never admitted being a member of the IRA, in his capacity as a member of Sinn Féin he was in a position to influence former members of the IRA, known as volunteers, to consult with the Smithwick tribunal.

What about the files?

I put it to the Deputy that if that is the case and that influence has clearly been proven, surely it would be in her party's interest to continue to encourage volunteers who are members of the IRA to produce the evidence about the death of Jean McConville, Jerry McCabe or others.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

A Deputy

The "Reeling in the Years" programme last night——

I will continue to raise the issue with the British Government. Can Deputy McDonald give me a commitment that she will continue to raise it with the volunteers who came forward to the Smithwick tribunal?

Deputies

Hear, hear.

I can tell the Taoiseach that republicans will fully co-operate with an independent, international and properly established commission on truth and reconciliation; he need be in no doubt about that.

That completes questions to the Taoiseach.

Barr
Roinn