The Order of Business is Nos. 11 and 2. Lest Members wonder why we will begin at No. 11, I should explain that a slip in the configuration resulted in "1" becoming "11". No. 11 is a motion on draft regulations that were referred to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, which has completed its consideration. The draft Companies (Auditing and Accounting) Act 2003 (Prescribed Accountancy Bodies) Regulations 2006 prescribe the Association of International Accountants, the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy as prescribed bodies for the purposes of section 48(1)(a) of the Companies (Auditing and Accounting) Act 2003. The motion on the draft regulations will be taken without debate. That is surely enough about accountants for today; and No. 2, statements on Northern Ireland. The statements will be taken on the conclusion of the Order of Business and will conclude not later than 1.30 p.m. Spokespersons will have 15 minutes and other Senators will have ten minutes.
Order of Business.
There was a fair degree of controversy on yesterday's Order of Business about the President's remarks on the issue of 1916——
I should rule that out of order.
A Chathaoirligh, my remarks will not be controversial. Having read the President's speech in full last night — I did not have a chance to do so beforehand — I was struck by the part of her speech in which she remarked that this year is the 90th anniversary not just of the 1916 Rising but of the Battle of the Somme. The President is right to highlight the fact that the commemoration could be a point of reconciliation for every person on the island of Ireland. I remind the House that 35,000 Irishmen gave their lives in the Great War, yet we have no plaque, statue or listing in the Houses of the Oireachtas to commemorate their great contribution in what was one of the most appalling battles ever fought, not just for human civilisation but for Ireland. They were fighting for Ireland and were doing as John Redmond said on that famous occasion at Woodenbridge when he stated, "We must go where the fighting is fiercest". I agree with the President that this joint commemoration of the Battle of the Somme and 1916 would not only be good for this Republic but would be good in terms of reaching out and stretching the hand of friendship to Northern Ireland. It is in the context of those remarks that we should pitch the debate on 1916 and on the Battle of the Somme.
Over the past number of years Senator Mooney has very bravely raised the issue of the Shot at Dawn Campaign. I joined this campaign much later than he. I seek a debate on that issue in the coming weeks because developments are apace in London and we need to be kept up to date on what the Government is doing.
The President is independent of this House and I would not like there to be a debate on what she said or reference to be made as to whether Senators are in favour or against. It would be unfair of this House to proceed in that manner.
As this year is the 90th anniversary of the 1916 Rising, it is worth discussing it. The year 1916 was a time of extraordinary change but there has been no acknowledgement of it. People are afraid of their past in that regard. There were decent people in the Royal Irish Constabulary as well as in the various volunteer forces. There was Tom Kettle as well as Tom Clark. Some people gave much to make this country what it is. It is only in recent years that I have read the statements taken by the State in 1946 from people who lived through that period. Those statements were taken in confidence and were locked away in the military history archives in Beggars Bush. When one reads them, one sees it was about ordinary people.
This is the year in which we should grow up, acknowledge our past and welcome the Queen of a neighbouring country. We should be grown up and developed enough to do that without trying to justify physical force or argue about who are the true successors of 1916. That is irrelevant. The successors of 1916 are all the people.
We have all come from a generation where Irish history at school finished in 1916. It is time we acknowledged it happened and its rights and wrongs. People were in favour of it while others were opposed. That is what people want to say. For me, however, it is not about that but about reading the fourth paragraph of the proclamation and the vision therein and about seeing if we have reached it yet and where we go from here. It is not about the rights and wrongs. It would be completely wrong to try to apply the views of today to that time. We should openly discuss 1916.
I never argue with the Cathaoirleach's rulings and I will not do so on this occasion. However, I am not sure the President is above all criticism. There are the person, the office and the personal opinions of the President. I have not read the speech so I will not go into it.
If we are to debate the 1916 Rising and its significance, we should not debate something which happened 90 years ago through the lens of today. At the same time, there was the Battle of the Somme and the extraordinarily romantic view of war which pervaded in Britain until Wilfred Owen and other war poets began to tell the truth about what war was like which led to the destruction of that romantic view. These events should perhaps influence how we judge 1916 as well. It was the beginnings of the realisation of what war was and the fact there is no romance about any war, however noble the cause for which it is fought. There are reflections which are worth making without making moral judgments.
On a few occasions over the past year or so I have raised the fact it is no longer possible to know in what country much of the clothing we buy is made. A very good campaign about who made the shirt on one's back is being run by an active group of people. I find it astonishing that we still do not know because in other EU countries, it is possible to find out. Marks and Spencer in Britain has announced a Fairtrade equivalent in the clothing area. Its problem is that it is very hard to get cotton which can be certified as being provided in a legitimate way.
The least we can do is ensure Irish consumers, many of whom are sensitive about this issue, are aware of where their clothes are made. I would say it is six months since I asked the Leader about this issue. I do not doubt her goodwill but somebody somewhere is not taking this issue as seriously as they should. It is an issue of concern to people. Fair trade in other areas is a significant part of the marketplace and it influences people's choice. If what they buy is cheap, people are entitled to know the reason is that it was produced via exploitation.
Speaking of exploitation, we need to have a major debate on partnership. A series of utterances from IBEC reported in today's newspapers suggest that Irish workers in Europe's most successful economy should accept below the rate of inflation wage increases. That suggests the grip on reality about which IBEC seems to talk has been lost by it. Those of us who will watch the extraordinary corporate indulgence on the margins of the Ryder Cup as the whole of corporate Ireland goes on a rampage of champagne drinking and high living will have great difficulties identifying——
I have no problems with the ruling class in this country enjoying itself.
The Senator is part of it.
I know——
I wonder about the relevance of this to the Order of Business.
As has often been said here, I know what class I am in. The problem with Fianna Fáil is that it cannot make up its mind.
A Senator
It is a broadly-based party. It is representative of all.
It is a bit rich to suggest that lifestyle should be sustained by the notion that ordinary working families should put up with a wage increase which is less than the rate of inflation. That is nonsense.
I agree with Senator Brian Hayes and others in regard to a debate on the 1916 Rising, the Battle of the Somme and the other events of that time. It is important to reflect on these issues. For too long, we have excluded parts of our history. We must be mature enough to confront all aspects of history, including 1916, the First World War, the Second World War and the atrocities which have taken place since. It is important we confront those issues.
Senator Mansergh made a good point yesterday in regard to the proclamation as being a declaration of what a republic should be and a model which states could follow. In fact, it was a model for other countries. However, we must remember all those who died. What they had in common was sacrifice. By the lights of their own conscience, they made a sacrifice which must be recognised, whether in the GPO or on the battlefields of Flanders. We cannot ignore those matters. This House recognises the President is Head of State. She has our loyalty and our confidence, irrespective of what criticisms we might have of the utterances she might make.
Senator Ryan has descended into the realm of the absurd in making a conjunction between the events of the Ryder Cup and partnership. The Ryder Cup has one of the largest worldwide television audiences of any sporting event. It will have enormous benefits for this country. People in my part of the country close to the K Club, which is an exclusive place, and in many other parts of the country will benefit enormously from the Ryder Cup and the people who will come to see it.
They will not have any champagne.
In January 2005, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources said that much research was being done in the area of energy.
He stated that it would be the most profound work undertaken for years. As part of his research, he employed a consultancy group, Deloitte & Touche, which completed its findings prior to December. While there have been many leaks regarding the report's potential contents, no Members have seen the report itself.
I ask the Leader to invite the Minister before the House to discuss general energy matters. We have witnessed a liberalisation of the electricity market which has made no difference. Instead, in the past few years, electricity prices have skyrocketed. I understand the report has implications for the ESB's dominance in the market, in that it has recommended breaking up the ESB to open up the market place. In that context, I want the Minister to come before the House to outline the current status vis-à-vis the energy market.
I endorse much of Senator Ryan's remarks in respect of the country of origin issue. Like me, he has received much correspondence from the main supporters of this campaign in Ireland, namely, Burma Action Ireland, which is to be commended for highlighting this matter. The issue is of course linked to the junta in Burma, or "Myanmar", as the junta likes to call it. The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Michael Ahern, who has responsibility for this area has corresponded with me on this issue. While there is no consensus within the European Union on the matter, there are signs that an initiative is under way to attempt to pull together the disparate forces within the EU that might agree on a country of origin label. It is incumbent on this House, and I welcome Senator Ryan's remarks in this respect, that the Leader of the House should make further inquiries. As this is an important issue for consumers, it might also warrant the Minister coming before the House to clarify the matter.
My main purpose in speaking this morning is to discuss the Shot at Dawn Campaign. I thank Senator Brian Hayes for his kind remarks with regard to my modest contribution in this area. He and I jointly questioned the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the recent British-Irish Interparliamentary Body's plenary session in Edinburgh on the "shot at dawn" question. The Shot at Dawn Campaign in Ireland has been led by Peter Mulvaney, who has been extremely active in this regard. As a result of the initiative taken by Senator Brian Hayes and me in Edinburgh, Lord Dubbs, who is a member of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body, raised it in the House of Commons. The view is that the activity on the Irish side has managed to put this issue back on centre stage. In order to maintain this momentum, I ask the Leader of the House to allow time for statements, perhaps for one hour, at a time to be agreed between the Whips, so that we can join with our British colleagues in this respect.
After many years of failed attempts, the Government was given the files on the 27 Irish soldiers who were shot at dawn. All 27 files were forensically examined and it makes for appalling reading. While the files have not been published because the British Government will not allow it, they were leaked to the Sunday Independent in August. I recommend that all Members should read the article in question, which appeared in the issue published on the first Sunday in August and which makes for awful reading. There is a general view that the Government should publish the report and the Department of Foreign Affairs is happy to so do. While I am sorry for speaking at such length, it is important, in the context of the remarks made about reconciliation in the House this morning, that we have an early and urgent debate on this matter.
I welcome the remarks of Senators Brian Hayes and Mooney on the Shot at Dawn Campaign and congratulate them on raising it in the appropriate forum, namely, the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body meeting. They have done some extremely important work. I must take an assertiveness course, because I raised this issue first. I raised it consistently over——
My apologies.
It does not matter. The most important thing is to get something done about it. As I have noted previously in the House, the New Zealand Government really put this issue on the agenda. It not only exonerated its own troops but honoured them publically. These poor creatures were slaughtered for reasons like refusing to put on a wet filthy cap in the middle of a bombardment. It was a disgrace and a vile thing to happen.
This is cystic fibrosis week. It would be useful if this House discussed this issue for a number of reasons. I feel strongly about the matter because I have encountered a number of people with the condition. For example, I had an extremely remarkable, charming and intelligent student in Trinity College who greatly impressed me and who continued with her work despite her great difficulties. I have known a number of people with this tragic and awful disease and they are gentle, decent people. This country has the highest rate of cystic fibrosis anywhere, and one in 116,000 live births has this problem. While in the North of Ireland, the average life expectancy of someone with this condition is 34 years, in the Republic, it is 17 years. Why is this? Surely when we have this problem in our midst, we should direct our energies, resources and facilities towards it. We should conduct research and be the world leader in this respect. I would welcome, perhaps in the context of a debate on health issues, the House pressing for such people to be given a decent opportunity of life. Many initiatives, such as the provision of isolation units could be taken. However, I will not anticipate the debate.
It is my understanding that in accordance with a Government decision, An Post will issue stamps to commemorate both the 90th anniversary of the Easter Rising and the 90th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme.
At the Soloheadbeg commemoration last Sunday, as has been the practice for many years, relatives of at least one of the RIC constables who was shot dead were present. There is everything to be said for looking at our history in a spirit of mutual respect and reconciliation. However, that does not mean that I subscribe to efforts to effectively repudiate and criminalise parts of our history, such as the 1916 Rising and the War of Independence. I am afraid that some people's ambitions — one of whom was quoted in this House yesterday — stretch in that direction.
Finally, supporting a debate——
Name and shame. The Senator should provide Members with the name.
As a Senator of long standing, I would have thought that Senator Norris knows that it is not the practice of this House to so do.
Order, please.
This was a sly insinuation, as the Senator is perfectly aware.
Order.
I will conclude. While I would support a debate on the Shot at Dawn Campaign, one hour is unrealistically short, as I believe that many Members might wish to contribute and a more substantial debate would be required.
Senator Brian Hayes made some interesting points this morning, and did Members a great favour by staying up late last night to read the President's speech. I must confess that I had not read it. However, all Members accept, as Senator Dardis has noted, that however one might regard individual utterances, the President's comments were of course meant in that spirit of mutual respect. Regardless of how Members as individuals might judge 1916, as Senator O'Toole remarked, we are now sufficiently grown up and mature to be able to discuss and debate all of those matters. We do not need to exclude any aspect of our history. I support having a debate, if the Leader of the House can arrange it.
To some extent, Members should feel pleased that 1916 is being discussed in these Houses. It is no longer a matter of "Who fears to speak of Easter week". In many ways, we must be careful that in endeavouring to build bridges, we do not become apologetic for what we are. I have always supported the idea of commemorations because I never thought of them in terms of physical force. I thought of them in terms of patriotism, of selflessness and of heroism. I do not believe that the men and women of 1916 were in any sense "military", as we understand the term. Having one parent who was English, many of my relatives fought with the British army but I am an Irishman and I would like to commemorate and celebrate those people who helped us to develop in the manner we have. The discussion on all aspects of the fight for freedom has never lacked balance.
There is a strong revisionist movement in Ireland and many of the revisionists have written books and articles and made programmes which denigrated and misrepresented the patriots of the past. Recently, I was privileged to be a guest speaker at a meeting of the 1916-1921 Club at McKee Barracks. The club has commemorated that period through the years but I did not get a sense of them failing to acknowledge other countries that fought for their freedom and protected their independence.
My mother, for example, wore the poppy but I saw nothing wrong with that. There is, therefore, nothing wrong with people in Britain or America commemorating bravery and courage. I am worried that we are not mature enough to recognise those great people who gave leadership at a time it was necessary. If 1916 is to be commemorated, I would not like the commemoration to be confused. However, I agree with Senator Walsh's call yesterday. Why not have a long debate during which everybody's point of view can be heard and analysed? The House would do a great credit to the State if it gave leadership in that regard.
Members should not applaud in the House.
Could the Cathaoirleach explain what I just heard? Was it a cuckoo?
I come from a proud republication tradition. My grandfather was a Sinn Féin councillor and he was also commander of the IRA in north Roscommon. However, we have had too much revision for too long. Young Irishmen who were not soldiers went abroad to fight against tyranny with a sense of adventure. They also travelled because their friends were going and they needed the money. Every Member should visit the grave of John Condon, who was sacrificed at Flanders at the age of 15 years. For too long, we have air-brushed the proud history of these young men.
Hear, hear.
I agree with Senator Brian Hayes that a memorial should be provided. We should remember the men of 1916 in the same way as the men who fought in the Great War. I am a member of the Connacht Rangers Association. More than 130 men from my town, which had a population of 2,500, were killed in the Great War and they must be remembered but, for too long, successive Governments, for reasons I can never explain, air-brushed their histories. These young men left as heroes and they fought for a united Ireland. As a result of what happened in 1916, they had to hide for many years when they returned from the war. We should grow up, as should the British Government.
I agree with Senator Mooney's call for the pardon of the 27 Irish soldiers. The British Government has not acted impartially on this because many senior officers were pardoned through patronage. The precedent has been set and pressure must be put on the British Government to ensure those men are pardoned.
Senators
Hear, hear.
I concur with Senator Ó Murchú's contribution. When I called for a day long debate on 1916 yesterday, I was not as precise as I should have been in the language I used. I had in mind a debate on the Easter Rising and all aspects associated with it. Many Members have commended the content of the proclamation, which was an outstandingly far-sighted document for its time. We enjoy the opportunity to debate the social and economic challenges and policies that we would like to pursue on behalf of our nation in the Oireachtas and that is attributable to those men who paid the supreme sacrifice during the Easter Rising. It should be debated in an open and healthy way on its 90th anniversary, without confusing it with other events. We should not join the revisionist brigade by confusing issues.
What is wrong with revisionism?
I support the call for a debate on the First and Second World Wars and the Irishmen who fought in them on another occasion.
I do not need to be told to visit the grave of John Condon because I have visited it. The first pair of boots a 14-year old from Waterford ever wore was when he joined the British army. That highlights the need for the Easter Rising and why those involved gave us the freedom we enjoy today.
As an employer over the years, I was always greatly satisfied when immigrants integrated well into our society. However, a number of immigrants do not integrate very well. Yesterday, the question of who has responsibility to help immigrants to integrate into our society cropped up at a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs. It emerged that nobody has such responsibility. I am thinking of immigrants who arrive in Ireland to take up low paying jobs, usually cleaning and washing. They work only with people of their own nationality and they only speak their native language. When they finish work, they return to a ghetto-like apartment or home. They never learn English and they do not integrate. The State has a responsibility to help them integrate and somebody should have this function. It also emerged at yesterday's meeting that it is likely that 575,000 immigrants will move to Ireland over the next five years. On that basis, there is an onus on the State to help them integrate and somebody should take that responsibility. I seek a debate on this issue.
I support the call for a debate on the 1916 Rising. I come from a republican tradition and I have always understood that the Irishmen who participated in the First World War fought against German imperialism in Europe and those involved in the 1916 Rising fought against British imperialism in Ireland. My primary degree is in history and in the context of the Penguin book of history, we won both the home draw and the away draw. I am glad because the decent people won in both cases. It was better that Germany was defeated because it engaged in an imperialist act and it was also better that we secured our freedom because we have done so much with it and we can do much more.
Will the Leader ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to come to the House to debate our energy policy? The House should examine the Government's strategy to develop our natural resources. The Centre for Public Inquiry recently issued a disingenuous report which stated oil exploration licences have not been granted. Since 1980 the average price of oil has been less than $30 a barrel but the centre accused the Government of handing out licences when they could not be given away. A great deal of money has been invested and I would like a fair and rational debate on our energy policy.
Order of Business adjourned.