I remind members to turn off their mobile phones and to be conscious of the note on privilege. We are now dealing with Votes 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.
We dealt earlier with Vote 4, which relates to the Central Statistics Office. The process for the meeting will be that we will hear an opening statement from the Taoiseach, after which members can engage.
I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before the select committee as it considers the 2022 Estimates for Votes 1 to 3, inclusive, and Votes 5 and 6. A detailed briefing document for each of these Votes has been supplied to the committee in advance. I will focus on the work of my Department in light of the proposed 2022 Estimate and touch on the proposed 2022 Estimate allocations for the President’s Establishment, the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. While I have certain responsibilities to the Oireachtas for administrative matters in some of these offices, they operate independently of my Department.
On Vote 1, the Estimate for the President's Establishment is €4.75 million. This includes just over €3 million for pay and administration, with the balance to fund the centenarians' bounty.
On Vote 3, the Estimate for the Office of the Attorney General is €33.29 million. Of this, €14.31 million relates to staff costs and €2.78 million is allocated to the Law Reform Commission. A new subhead for the consolidation and revision of planning legislation has been allocated €12 million.
The Estimate for Vote 5, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is €47.83 million. This provides €19.32 million in administration and pay, an increase of €2.1 million on 2021. Some €16.5 million has been allocated for fees to counsel and €8.2 million to fund the local State solicitor service.
For Vote 6, the Chief State Solicitor’s Office Estimate for 2022 is €49.66 million, the bulk of which relates to salaries and administration. A provision of just over €22.9 million is allocated for the payment of legal fees incurred.
The Estimate for my Department, Vote 2, is just over €38 million. Almost 62% of that relates to staff and administration. The remaining almost €15 million provides funding for Covid-19 public communications, the Citizens’ Assembly, the National Economic and Social Council and several independent inquiries. My Department will continue its role in providing, co-ordinating and overseeing a whole-of-government focus on the response to Covid-19 over the coming period. A whole-of-government approach to the management of the pandemic over the past two years has been critical to our current position and our recovery. A comprehensive evaluation of how the country managed Covid-19 will provide an opportunity to learn lessons from our experiences. This will help to ensure we are in a better, stronger position if another pandemic or other similar type emergency arrives. We are considering what the best model for this evaluation will be.
We know the capacity to have a public health response that is agile and flexible, with an ability to pivot rapidly and respond to any emerging threat, is critical. We have much to build on in terms of our achievements in disease surveillance, ICT infrastructure and vaccination programmes, all of which expanded rapidly over the past two years.
Our vaccination programme is one of the best globally. Over 93% of the Irish population above the age of 12 is now fully vaccinated. In total, more than 10 million vaccines have been administered since vaccination began in late 2020. More than 2.7 million booster doses have now been administered and the vaccination programme continues. In the European Centre for Disease Prevention data, Ireland is ranked fourth in Europe in terms of the population aged over 18 to have received a booster vaccination and has the sixth lowest overall mortality rate out of the 27 countries in the EU plus the UK. Nevertheless, while continuing to monitor the disease situation and the downstream impacts of the pandemic, we must also use this time to assess learnings and mainstream the changes we need. We need a public health response that is sustainable and flexible and has the capacity to surge in response to future pandemic threats. We are also working to ensure a flexible and robust vaccine delivery system is in place for any future needs.
As it has throughout the pandemic, the Government has taken extensive and unprecedented measures to support workers and businesses. In excess of €20 billion in direct supports have been provided to date, which places us as among the most generous within the EU. This includes approximately €9 billion for the pandemic unemployment payment and a further €9 billion through the employment wage subsidy scheme and its predecessor, the temporary wage subsidy scheme.
While we continue to manage the impact of the pandemic on the labour market, we have seen positive developments. Last December, the Covid-adjusted unemployment rate stood at 7.5%, down from 21.7% in December 2020. The overall level of employment reached a record high in quarter 3 of 2021, rising to almost 2.5 million people in work. This is a record number in employment. The Department of Finance has estimated a general Government deficit of approximately €9 billion or 4% of national income for 2021, following higher than expected tax returns in the second half of the year.
Of course, the pandemic is not over but our management of it is changing and that will continue to evolve to deal with the ongoing impacts and to respond to any fresh threats. Through the Cabinet committee structures, we will continue to assess longer term impacts and responses across public services. My Department will also continue, for as long as is necessary, to co-ordinate communications for the whole-of-government response to the pandemic, keeping the public informed about current public health advice, vaccination and booster programmes, and economic and other supports. Clear and consistent communications across national and regional press, national and local radio, digital display, social media, television and online video have been a core focus of the pandemic response from the beginning. Those Covid-19 public information campaigns will continue to ensure we reach all those who are relying on information, guidance and advice to underpin our recovery.
As we continue to live with the Covid-19 pandemic, it is important as a people that we pause and reflect, take time to remember those who have lost their lives and pay tribute to everyone who has contributed to how we have faced and are facing the challenges together. The public holiday to be held on 18 March is in recognition of the efforts of the public, volunteers and front-line workers during the Covid-19 pandemic and in remembrance of those who lost their lives during that time. A national day of remembrance and reflection is also planned for 20 March to reflect the experiences of all those who have suffered loss during the pandemic.
The 2021 economic recovery plan, which was published last June, is being progressed through the Cabinet committee on economic recovery and investment. The plan sets out renewed supports, investments and policies for a new stage of economic recovery and transition, with an overarching ambition of 2.5 million people in work, which will now be achieved by the end of the year, well in advance of what was originally set out in the plan. It is helping to drive a jobs-rich recovery and will support the economy in transitioning towards a decarbonised and digital economy. As part of the plan, a new artificial intelligence, AI, strategy was launched in July, and in the past week a new digital strategy, Harnessing Digital: The Digital Ireland Framework, has been published.
The Irish economy, like many other advanced economies, is, as we know, also experiencing a surge of inflation driven by supply chain difficulties and rising energy costs. Unfortunately, this is a global phenomenon. The Government is examining a number of ways to alleviate pressures on people from the rising cost of living.
Like all sectors, housing and construction have been impacted by the pandemic. The housing crisis will take time to resolve and the strong economy will mean continued pressure on prices and rents in the short term. It is a priority for the Government and for my Department. My Department chairs the Housing for All delivery group of Secretaries General and provides the secretariat. There are three subgroups, each chaired by a Secretary General. These are working on three key areas: investment, industry capability and public service delivery. The Housing for All Plan is the most ambitious housing plan in the history of our State and contains a range of actions and measures to ensure more than 300,000 new homes are built by 2030. This figure includes 90,000 social, 36,000 affordable purchase and 18,000 cost rental homes. Last week, the Government published the second quarterly progress report for quarter 4 2021. It shows significant progress towards the fundamental reform of the housing system, setting the course to increase the supply of housing significantly and provide a sustainable housing system into the future.
The end of January marked two years since Brexit, a process that started almost six years ago with the referendum in the UK in June 2016. Throughout that period, Brexit has remained a key focus of Government. I want to place on the record the importance of engaged cross-party support in the Oireachtas for the Government’s key objectives and approach to safeguarding Ireland’s interests in the context of the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. Officials in my Department were deeply involved in the negotiations and the preparation for Ireland’s national response.
While Brexit has brought ongoing disruption, the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, together with the withdrawal agreement including the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, means that Ireland’s key objectives in the Brexit negotiations were achieved. In particular, these agreements ensure the protection of the Good Friday Agreement and the gains of the peace process and include: avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland; facilitating the maintenance of the common travel area; enshrining the best possible outcome, given UK choices, for trade and the economy, notably tariff- and quota-free trade with the UK; protecting Ireland’s place in the Single Market and the Single Market itself; and ensuring fair competition and a level playing field for Irish businesses.
The Government has worked hard to support businesses exposed to the British market to prepare and continues to do so. I pay tribute to the effort that so many businesses have made to diversify markets, make supply chains more resilient and adapt where necessary. Our work on the implementation of the protocol will continue. The EU has listened closely to concerns in Northern Ireland and is working in good faith to minimise friction. The current talks between the EU and the UK must be given every chance to succeed. The Commission has put forward serious proposals which directly address the concerns about outstanding issues on implementation of the protocol. Our joint focus should be on achieving positive progress. We remain confident that solutions exist within the parameters of the protocol for the issues that have arisen.
I am deeply concerned about recent developments in Northern Ireland and the resignation of the Democratic Unionist Party, DUP, First Minister, Paul Givan. I have consistently stated that the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement should not be undermined and that politicians from all sides should respect this. I urge the DUP to return to full engagement with all the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement and avoid any action that could damage peace and stability in Northern Ireland.
The Government’s shared island initiative is progressing on an ambitious and whole-of-government basis and through all-island partnerships with the Northern Ireland Executive, the UK Government, and local authorities and civil society across the island. The shared island unit established in my Department in 2020 acts as a driver and co-ordinator of this whole-of-government initiative. The Government allocated €50 million from the fund in 2021 to move ahead with key cross-Border investments, including new phases of the Ulster Canal, the Narrow Water bridge project and a major new North-South research programme delivered by the Higher Education Authority.
We are also continuing the shared island dialogue series to foster deeper civic engagement on how we can work across all communities in practical meaningful ways for a shared future. In 2021, there was participation by over 1,000 civic representatives across all regions, communities and sectors in eight events. In-person and regional events will be convened during 2022 as part of the series, now that this is possible. A comprehensive research programme is also under way, working with the ESRI, the National Economic and Social Council, Irish Research Council and other partners on publishing a stream of high-quality work through this year, to inform discussions and engagement by all communities and traditions on the island on the opportunities of our shared future.
Since assuming our seat at the start of 2021, Ireland has played an active role on the UN Security Council. Together with Norway, we successfully led efforts to secure the renewal of the mandate for cross-border delivery of humanitarian assistance in Syria. We are closely involved in work on women, peace and security, and on upholding the Iran nuclear deal. At the September UN meeting, I spoke about the urgent need for a concerted multilateral response to climate change involving all organs of the UN. A key theme of the Irish presidency of the Security Council was the link between climate and security. Climate change is a major contributor to unrest across Africa and the developing world. Some 80% of UN peacekeepers are deployed in countries that are most exposed to climate change. Ireland, along with 60 other countries, is an active member of the wider group of friends on climate and security work. The Government is determined to continue to play its part on integrating climate-related security risks into the work we do to prevent conflict and build peace.
My Department supports whole-of-government efforts to combat poverty and disadvantage, improve the position of vulnerable groups, including people with disabilities, promote diversity and inclusion, tackle inequality in all its forms and provide ongoing support to children and families. Through the work of the Cabinet committee on social affairs and equality, we are overseeing implementation of programme for Government commitments in the areas of social policy, equality and public services, including matters relating to justice, policing reform and community safety. The Cabinet committee receives detailed reports on identified policy areas and considers the implementation of commitments and reforms. The Government is due to publish its new strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence next month. The Cabinet sub-committee will be responsible for its implementation. The strategy will be underpinned by clear actions, timelines for reforms and robust accountability mechanisms, including a delivery board, to ensure that all organisations deliver on their obligations under the new strategy.
We will continue to support the work to build stronger and safer communities through reforms in policing and community safety, including oversight roles in the implementation of A Policing Service for the Future, the piloting of the local community safety partnerships and the Dublin north-east inner city initiative. There are also pilots of local community safety partnerships in Waterford city and county and Longford county. An Garda Síochána has established and strengthened resourcing of a human rights unit and established the strategic human rights advisory committee. The Government will continue to implement the reform programmes outlined in A Policing Service for the Future.
Through the work of the Cabinet committee on health, we will continue our investment in an expanded public health service and embed the lessons learned in the pandemic into community and primary care services. 2022 will see the biggest ever investment in the health system in order to deliver Sláintecare, reduce waiting lists, increase capacity, protect the most vulnerable and address inequalities.
The Government is committed to building a world-class education system from early years to higher and further education. Through the work of the Cabinet committee on education, we are overseeing major reforms to the funding model for early learning and childcare services, the development of a long-term sustainable funding model for higher level education, and the development of a new ten-year strategy for adult literacy, numeracy, and digital skills. We will work through the National Economic and Social Council and other new engagement structures to ensure that a full range of views can input into the development of economic and social policy.
Tackling climate change and transitioning to a climate-neutral economy remains a key focus of this Government. My Department plays an important role in driving implementation of our ambitious climate agenda, including by co-chairing the Cabinet committee on the environment and climate change and reporting on the implementation of the Climate Action Plan 2021. That plan is the latest in a suite of measures introduced by this Government to fundamentally alter our approach to climate change. Our new climate legislation, carbon budgets and annual climate action plans provide for clear targets, actions and accountability. This puts climate action at the heart of all of Government’s plans and policies over the next decade and beyond.
The Government has agreed to establish two citizens’ assemblies to run concurrently. One will be on biodiversity and will examine how the State can improve its response to the issue of biodiversity loss. The other will consider the type of directly elected mayor and local government structures best suited for Dublin. It is also our intention to set up a citizens' assembly on drugs later this year. A resolution setting out the terms of reference for these assemblies will be put forward to the Oireachtas for its approval.
Provision is made in the Revised Estimate for a number of independent inquiries, including the Moriarty tribunal, the Cregan commission and the Cooke commission. The estimated cost of the Cregan commission to date is €11 million and the cost for the Cooke commission it is approximately €3.9 million. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Revised Estimates with Deputies.
Deputies Mairéad Farrell and Doherty have indicated.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Taoiseach as teacht os comhair an choiste. On Vote 1, the spending on consultancy fees for the President's Vote will increase by 162%. What is this for? Will the Taoiseach provide details on that as it is quite significant?
That subheading includes costs associated with services, such as ICT services and support, photography and videography services.
Will the Taoiseach explain why it has risen by such a significant percentage?
I presume in the context of Covid, there were additional use of video services, photography and technology supports. If further details are available, I will provide them to the Deputy.
An increase of 162% seems quite significant.
Over the past year or two, the number of events held were far less because of Covid. I have been informed that there will be an increased number of events in 2022.
If the Taoiseach provides that additional detail, we will see how that relates to pre-Covid times.
There were few events in the past year, if not the past two years, in the context of Covid-19. It is anticipated that there will be a much higher number of events next year.
I wish to move on to Vote 2, Department of the Taoiseach. This relates to the Civil Service accountability board, which is chaired by the Taoiseach. Will he clarify how many meetings he had last year?
The Civil Service management board has been meeting on a monthly basis, but the Civil Service accountability board has not been meeting.
Not at all?
It has not met.
The reason I ask is because I was looking for the minutes of the meetings. I could only find minutes of the meetings in 2016. Has the Civil Service accountability board met since then? This committee and the Committee of Public Accounts produced the Report on the Processes and Procedures Applying to the Appointment of Senior Executives in the Public Service. Has the board met since 2016? If it has met, has that report been discussed?
My understanding is that the Civil Service accountability board has not met, but the Civil Service management board has met, which is chaired by the Secretary General of the Department. In regard to that report, my understanding is that it was responded to by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. He indicated to the committee the measures that he is taking-----
Yes, he has come before the committee. The Taoiseach is before us today and as he is the chair of the Civil Service accountability board, I thought it was important to ask him about that. However, he said that the board has not met since 2016.
Some €15 million was spent on Covid-19 communications. We do not have a full figure-breakdown of the number of public communication campaigns etc. that have resulted in that amount. We are all aware that a lot of money would have been spent on Covid-19 communications; that is clear. I would like to see greater detail and a breakdown of what the spending was on campaigns, including spending on private media organisations compared with the State broadcaster, and if any external PR companies were hired to assist in this. If external companies were used, did they go through a competitive procurement process? We know that did not happen in some cases during Covid-19 because of the nature of the pandemic. Does the Taoiseach have that information?
First of all, it was a whole-of-government approach. The Office of Government Procurement runs a procurement process for media buying and contracts are put in place from which Departments and Government offices can draw down. When the Office of Government Procurement runs various campaign advertisements, the Department of the Taoiseach liaises closely with it on all matters relating to public procurement. It has procedures in place. It monitors all areas of expenditure.
On the question the Deputy asked, there were about 68 separate public information-campaigns in 2021 under the Covid heading, with campaigns using a combination of national and regional press, national and local radio, digital display, social media, television and online video. Campaigns provided, as the Deputy knows, information on public health measures that were in place at different stages of the pandemic. In addition, a wide range of business, social welfare and community supports had to be advertised and communicated. There were also targeted initiatives such as the #Antiviral campaign, which was a Covid-19 communications campaign that was designed by and for young people, allowing them to share their experiences of the pandemic while reinforcing key public-health guidance. There was also the RSVP campaign, which we used more recently. It encouraged people to be risk aware and assisted them in assessing the relevant riskiness of activities, and it supported them to take steps to mitigate the risk of contracting and transmitting Covid.
The total Covid spend in 2021 was €12.1 million. The breakdown shows, more or less, an even split across national and regional media outlets. The Department will continue to co-ordinate this throughout 2022. As I said, the oversight is provided by the Office of Government Procurement.
I understand that procurement can work in that way. I was not questioning that.
In 2020, some €4 million was spent on national radio; €4.8 million on regional and local radio; €3.4 million on the national print press; and €3.5 million for radio. In 2021, on national radio €2.1 million was spent; €2.4 million on regional and local radio; €1.3 million on national print press; and the same amount, €1.3 million, on regional print press. We spent €12 million in 2021 as opposed to €10.8 million in 2020.
My final question is about the citizens' assemblies. In the Taoiseach's opening remarks, he spoke of his intention to have a citizens' assembly on drugs, and he mentioned two other citizens' assemblies. Has he given further thought to the establishment of a national citizens' assembly on the constitutional future of this island, in terms of the shared island unit etc. and the citizens' assembly?
On what?
On the future-----
On the evolution of the Good Friday Agreement? The programme for Government has identified a number of citizens' assemblies that we have committed to, including on a Dublin mayor, biodiversity and drugs. We are committing to one on drugs in the latter part of this year, with education.
I will give my view on a citizens' assembly in terms of the island of Ireland. The shared island unit is a worthwhile initiative that, without prejudice to the constitutional situation, allows us to engage with civic society on the island on a range of issues outside the constitutional question, including on biodiversity, climate change, health, education, infrastructure and so forth. On the research area, we have had a successful subscription to the idea of joint research projects North and South. Some €40 million will be allocated to joint research initiatives between researchers in the Republic and researchers in Northern Ireland to which there has been a great response.
On the constitutional issue, having been involved in this area all my life, and since I became a Deputy, my view is that I am not convinced the future evolution of the island and relationships on the island can be resolved through a citizens' assembly. Rather, I believe it takes the painstaking engagement of people to people, the building of relationships, and that requires a lot of detailed work. It can take weekends. It requires constant engagement with all traditions and people from all backgrounds. It is consuming but it is necessary. We have all been on a journey of understanding in regard to Northern Ireland; I certainly have been since I became a Deputy and, indeed, before then. I honestly can say that the best insights I got were from talking to people who I perceived had completely opposite views and different perspectives to me. I met them at weekend gatherings organised by facilitators where we learned more about their backgrounds and issues.
I did it through the British-Irish Association. During the 1990s and the early 2000s in particular, it did invaluable work in drawing people from different backgrounds together. Those weekend meetings were held in Cambridge or Oxford alternately. I attended a reconciliation event in Ballycastle at which I meet 12 public representatives from the unionist and loyalist tradition to get a greater understanding.
The Deputy is speaking about a citizens' assembly in terms of designing the structures. To be honest, from a republican perspective, it really is about people engaging on a constant basis. This is what will enable us to develop and evolve beyond the Good Friday Agreement into a meaningful accommodation. This is what I believe. I am not yet clear in my head that a citizens' assembly can accommodate this.
I imagine we are all in agreement that conversations involving people from all backgrounds constitute the way forward. This is something on which I have engaged. I have taken part in the type of weekend meetings the Taoiseach described. It is very important to have engagement and to speak to people from different backgrounds who have different points of view and different lived realities. This is extremely important. It is something I would in no way want to diminish. This work is something on which we in Sinn Féin have been very active for a long period.
What I am saying with regard to a national citizens' assembly is that the conversation in respect of our future has progressed. I do not mean just among the people in this room who deal with politics every day; I am talking about people who, before Brexit and Covid, never necessarily had that much of a thought about or interest in the constitutional future, but it has become far more of a daily reality for them. People do bring this up and they do discuss this. I am not just speaking about people who have had strong points of view previously. The idea of a national citizens' assembly would be to move the conversation on and have a forum for people to have these conversations. The idea of a national citizens' assembly would be that people from all backgrounds and all perspectives would be able to come together and have this conversation. We all know that the only way we can move forward in any capacity is through conversations. I agree with the Taoiseach on this. There is a role for a national citizens' assembly in this regard.
The Deputy said it herself. I am not sure that all traditions would come to a citizens' assembly with this as the agenda item. Even on the shared island initiative political unionism have not engaged. To be fair, it has not put any obstacles in its way either or has not campaigned or articulated against it. Civic society in Northern Ireland from all persuasions has engaged in the dialogue, which has been very valuable. Projects are progressing. Funding is being allocated to sensible projects that can bring benefits to people North and South. There is a considerable distance to go before we are at that stage. It is not about simply convening a citizens' assembly; it is about the participation required to make it meaningful.
I have a very brief question on my understanding of the Taoiseach's perspective. For the Taoiseach, is it about the timing of a national citizens' assembly rather than a national citizens' assembly in general?
It is about the mechanism. The fundamental point I offer, and I am open to engaging in further discussion, is that the alternative route I suggested is better. It is a longer route but a more engaging one. A citizens' assembly in itself will not facilitate constantly meeting and engaging with people in a short period of time. Think of all of the work that went into the Good Friday Agreement, even the constitutional framework that emerged from the Good Friday Agreement such as the need to amend Articles 2 and 3 in the Republic and changes to the Government of Ireland Act. It involved the British Government, the Irish Government and the unionist, nationalist and republican and loyalist parties in Northern Ireland. It took enormous work for years to get to the stage we ultimately got to. I was a backbencher for part of it. I was a Minister for the concluding parts of the Good Friday Agreement. Perhaps I am influenced by the experience that it took that length of time and engagement to sound people out in order to identify what would be possible and not possible. A citizens' assembly is a different type of mechanism and I am not clear it lends itself to the type of work that was required for the Good Friday Agreement and the advances made prior to the agreement. I hope this explains where I am coming from.
Yes it does. I thank the Taoiseach.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Taoiseach. I am glad to have him before the committee. I will pick up on the questions Deputy Farrell has asked. I take it the Taoiseach has great knowledge of the Good Friday Agreement from his role as a former Minister with responsibility for foreign affairs. He accepts the Good Friday Agreement is a legally binding agreement on the Irish and British Governments and parts of it are judicially reviewable, does he not?
Yes.
In the Good Friday Agreement, the constitutional mechanism to bring about a new Ireland or changing the constitutional status of the North rests with the Secretary of State, and there is a conditionality that is part of it. That part of the Good Friday Agreement is also judicially reviewable. Is this not the case?
It is what we agreed.
We are seeing trends in the support for a referendum on the constitutional issue. In the most recent opinion poll, 51% of people in the North said that they want a referendum within five years. I would not dare to extrapolate that this would mean 51% would support it. Some will want a referendum for different reasons. Support for Irish unity has been growing, particularly among younger demographic groups. The point I am making is that the transition to a new type of Ireland is outside of the hands of politicians, including the Taoiseach or whoever holds his office or whoever is Prime Minister of Britain. We have all agreed and signed up to it being up to the people North and South in two referendums. The courts could force the Secretary of State to trigger the mechanism in the Good Friday Agreement if the courts believed the terms of it were reached. We could have a situation in four or five years where we have a series of opinion polls that show more support for Irish unity and, therefore, somebody would go to the courts and we would have a referendum. Is this possible in the Taoiseach's view?
I do not think we can have a united Ireland through the courts, through litigation or through judicial review. Ultimately, politicians will have to work out the future of this island. If we go back over the 20 years since the Good Friday Agreement, for half its lifetime the institutions have been down for one reason or another. This is problematic and illustrates the need for people to work the institutions in the first instance and to try to get normal politics applied within the institutions. They have never really been given a chance for any long period to do things the people want done on bread and butter issues such as housing and health. I remember George Mitchell talking about what he expected to see when he brought his son to the assembly. He said he expected to see the normal toing and froing of politics. This has not quite happened with the Good Friday Agreement, and this needs to be reflected upon.
There have been various polls and surveys. My view is that of Wolfe Tone, namely, that there is not a reconciled people. We have a lot of work to do on this. I said that an immediate border poll at the time of Brexit would have been counterproductive. We can see what is happening, in my view unfairly, with regard to the protocol and its impact. I believe the protocol is advantageous for the entire island, including Northern Ireland. We can see how certain people have elevated it to a constitutional level to which it should never have been elevated.
That would be my response to that.
I understand that.
I cannot see us doing it through judicial review. I know what the Deputy is saying.
For clarity-----
I know the Deputy is not suggesting that.
I am not suggesting that. I agree with the Taoiseach's view concerning the dialogue and engagement that must happen to ensure any referendum and any transition that would take place in the future would be as smooth and seamless as possible at that point in time. That is an important but different point.
In a conversation with a former Secretary of State when we raised these issues with him at the time, he made the point that if he was to call a border poll under the Good Friday Agreement, he could be judicially reviewed and the courts could find him in breach of an international agreement. The point I am making is that the opposite can happen. We could have a situation where the courts find that the Secretary of State is acting against the Good Friday Agreement because the desire could be there and represented and there would be a breach of the Good Friday Agreement in respect of not triggering the poll. He pointed to opinion polls as an indicator. The problem is that we need to have the preparation work done and part of that involves engagements and discussions that need to happen among all of us who believe in a new and shared island.
Part of that work needs to involve a separate work about an understanding for those of us who believe in a new Ireland regarding what our taxation system will look like, what our new health system will look like and how the transition of the Six Counties to the EU will take place, as is already allowed for by the EU. What will the economy look like? What will a new constitution look like? How will the identities and traditions of 1 million people who identify themselves as British or unionist not just be recognised but cherished on a new island? All of these tricky and sensitive questions must be asked and they cannot be asked just in terms of building relations. They must be asked formally. This is why it is really important regardless of whatever mechanism we find such as a Green Paper, a constitutional convention, a new Ireland forum or an all-party committee to thrash those issues.
There is a real danger because of the momentum that is growing, and discussion is really rampant concerning the question of unity, that a referendum takes place and, from my point of view, is won and the people of the North and South agree to constitutional change and a new Ireland but we have not done the work we should have done. We have always made it very clear that it is this work that needs to begin immediately. The discussion leading up to the referendum is crucial, just as it was in the Scottish referendum. Opinion polls can vary. They can go up and down as we saw in the last election. Those supportive of Scottish independence failed to achieve above the mid-30s before the debate on Scottish independence happened. We know the result of the referendum, which was very close. The debate is really important - not just in terms of winning hearts and minds but reassuring those who are not in any way supportive of the idea of Irish unity. I think every political party believes there will be a referendum. Does the Taoiseach believe there will be a referendum on the constitutional change in the next ten years? Does he see this as a possibility? If so, when do we start that other type of work in terms of what we think are the changes that would be required? This needs to be as inclusive as possible while recognising that some people may not be up for that discussion at this point in time. Others will, including some unionists.
I accept Brexit has had a very significant impact on this and attitudes, and that a majority of people in the North voted against Brexit. What is very interesting in the current discussions around the protocol is that nobody has told me they do not want to have continued access to the European Single Market, which is significant notwithstanding all the objections and opposition to the protocol. My genuine view at the time of Brexit was that it was the wrong time to draw up a border poll. We had our views on that. My view was that it would put people into the trenches and people would have strong views either way.
Probably one of the most important developments in my lifetime was the New Ireland Forum. I was not in politics at the time. I would have been an observer of politics. What the forum did to some extent was bring constitutional nationalism together to work out the best options for a unitary state. Options included joint sovereignty. We heard Margaret Thatcher say no, no, no to all three options. In retrospect, it was a good exercise.
The other one I thought was important was the Opsahl Commission which went through a range of scenarios regarding how to demilitarise the North. That was well in advance of the peace process. I do understand that point. The question is whether we do it in the Republic and just have our own rethink about where we are. What does that do? What impact does that have on unionism, loyalism and other traditions such as the new Irish? There is a centre ground view in the North. I think Andrew Trimble said on that programme that he sees himself as Northern Irish, so the Deputy is right in talking about all the traditions because there are many of them. I just do not think one would get buy-in to that in a citizens' assembly. Perhaps there is a case to be made for political opinion in the Republic. What do we mean? What are we talking about? One thing we do need to reflect on are the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement.
It seems we are in a very difficult space. Again, the institutions have been pulled down - wrongly, in my view. I think this is undermining the institutions in terms of public esteem and people's buy-in to those institutions. Whatever happens in the future must be grounded in the Good Friday Agreement foundations, which are three sets of relationships. They are that the British-Irish relationship would continue regardless of whatever evolution takes place. Other factors include the North-South relationship, the two traditions plus new traditions and parity of esteem between traditions. In my view, devolution in the North will be here for quite a while and should be engaged in. The Executive is another factor. These are only observations. I accept that these things need to be talked through but the issue is whether we do it in the most inclusive way possible or we do it just in the context of the Republic for the moment.
I do not think many people would suggest that it be done in a non-inclusive way. The problem is that if one believes the only way we can have these conversations is when everybody is included and political unionism is at the table, that is not likely to happen in the short term because unionism, by its nature, believes in the union, which is a legitimate view held by leaders of unionism who worked alongside Sinn Féin in better times and recognised the legitimate views of nationalists, republicans and Governments in the South. I will leave it at that.
I welcome the Taoiseach's comments. I think there is further thought in this other than just figuring out the structure. The structure is not the important part of it. The important part is a discussion so that we are not talking to ourselves but instead are talking together and trying to figure out the best way to go forward because there is tricky work to be done. I agree with the Taoiseach's point. Some of the heavy lifting has been done by the Good Friday Agreement because many of the issues were resolved in terms of parity of esteem and equality. Those fundamental principles in the Good Friday Agreement will outlast any constitutional change or decision in a referendum.
In the lead up to an election in Northern Ireland, we need that political engagement immediately involving all parties in Northern Ireland, the UK Government and the Irish Government on the institutions and how the system is not working within the context of the Good Friday Agreement.
I agree with the Taoiseach. I have no problem with it but I would issue a warning shot for those who want to rewrite the Good Friday Agreement-----
I do not mean that.
I know the Minister is not suggesting that but there are those who would like to rewrite the Good Friday Agreement. We also need to be very mindful of what has happened with the DUP such as the upcoming elections, the loss of support and the fact that it is looking over its shoulder. We know all that is happening and all the play acting that is taking place.
The shared island research programme feeds into a lot.
The ESRI, the National Economic and Social Council, the Irish Research Council, IRC, and other partners are now publishing a stream of high-quality work to inform discussions.
My time is limited and while I did not intend to go there, in relation to the Estimates, the Taoiseach confirmed in a parliamentary question that the Cabinet committee on social affairs and equality met in November 2020 and November 2021, I believe. I am not sure of the next time it will meet. The Taoiseach reiterated that the Cabinet committee on social affairs and equality will be fully utilised to bring dedicated focus to domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, to ensure oversight of the issue from his Department and that he would take a role in this. Has the Taoiseach allocated any budget or resources to this new oversight function for the third strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence to the Cabinet committee that is now charged with bringing forward that focused view? Can the Taoiseach let us know when it is next to meet?
It is due to meet next in March. On the funding that has been provided, while I do not have an estimate or the exact figures, funding will not be an issue on this question. The Minister will go out to consultation again with the strategy to the NGOs in relation to this issue. It is sharp in the public focus right now, following a series of attacks, which have occurred in recent days. The committee will meet in March. I suspect that it will meet again in April with the publication of the strategy. We also want to deal with issues to do with the accommodation question in the interim period.
On leaks from the Cabinet, the Taoiseach's Department oversees the investigation to ensure that no leaks take place. I raised this with him at last year's Estimates the leak of the mother and baby home report. It was very insensitive and caused a lot of hurt and pain at that time. An investigation was ongoing last year. Can the Taoiseach update the committee? Has that investigation concluded? Has it identified the culprit?
No, that process is still ongoing and has not concluded.
How long has it been going on for now?
It has probably been going on for a good 12 months, although I would have to check on that.
What is happening? We have seen the report on champagne-gate with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney. It was turned around in a couple of weeks. All of the staff have been interviewed. Have all of the Taoiseach's Cabinet colleagues been interviewed by the Secretary General at this stage?
I have not interfered with the conduct of this or with the manner by which the senior official within the Department is approaching it. It is also dealing with the management of documents for Government meetings and with the protection of the confidentiality. My understanding, however, is that the process has not been completed. Obviously, we endeavour to bring that to a conclusion.
Okay, but when I raised this last year, the Taoiseach said that he would look into it and obviously-----
Yes-----
Inn fairness, how long is a piece of string? It appears that nothing is happening here. There are only so many people in the Cabinet. There are only so many people that would have had access to that report. This was a hurtful thing that happened to those victims. It should not be taking a year and a half to conclude an investigation into this. Has the Taoiseach asked for an update from the Secretary General about how this is going?
As I said, I have not interfered with the Secretary General in relation to the broader issue or this issue, which was of course an issue of concern. The Government has focused on dealing with the substantive issues around the commission of investigation into the mother and baby homes. We moved at pace in respect of both the payment scheme that has been introduced and the Birth Information and Tracing Bill. We will now move forward on the proper memorialisation and the national memorial and records centre and with the certain institutional burials (authorised interventions) Bill Therefore, a lot has been done in the last 12 months in relation-----
My question-----
I just want to make the point regarding the recommendations of the commission itself. This is because I think this will turn out to be an unprecedented time for actual delivery on issues that, unfortunately, have been around for a long time and with which the previous Oireachtas could not deal. The legal advice was that we could not, in terms of the investigation that has been undertaken. It has not been completed and it has not concluded. I appreciate the points of the Deputy is making but that is the position.
It kind of appears that there is no investigation. It appears that there was an announcement of an investigation because what happened was completely and utterly wrong and because it hurt many victims at that time.
We are dealing with the Estimates here. If the Secretary General has spent a part of his time over the past year and a half investigating this matter, there will be a cost to that, just as would be the case if we were to put in a freedom of information, FOI, request to look for documentation. It would tell us that we would have to pay €300, because the FOI will take up however many of a person's hours. Can the Taoiseach inform this committee, as part of the Estimates, how many man-hours or how many work hours has the Secretary General put into this investigation? How many people and documents were scanned as the output - which is part of the Estimates process as well - has happened over the past year and a half?
I cannot give that information here because-----
I am not asking for that. Will the Taoiseach supply the information to the committee?
Again, I am awaiting its conclusion. Once this is concluded, we will deal with----
We have all been waiting for the last year-----
I am not in the position-----
What we are asking for as part of the Estimates and as part of the outputs-----
The Deputy’s time is up.
-----I am not looking for the identification of names but for the work hours have been put into this. What is the number of people-----
To be fair, public officials put a lot of work into a lot of issues. The broad Estimate covers the man-hours and the work that people put into a whole range of issues.
It appears that there is no investigation.
No, I would not accept that.
Does the Taoiseach know of any one person that has been questioned by-----
I have not involved myself in the investigation.
So how does the Taoiseach know that there is an investigation?
How does the Deputy know that there is not one?
Because it has been going on for a year and a half and we have not heard anything. There are only so many people that can be questioned. There are only so many documents that can be looked at.
The Deputy's time is up, and I ask him to conclude. I will move now to Deputy Tóibín.
Go raibh míle maith agat, a Chathaoirligh, agus míle buíochas a Thaoisigh as teacht isteach os ár gcomhair inniu.
In relation to themes that have been discussed so far, would the Taoiseach challenge the British Government in the courts, if it implemented an amnesty for the murders that happened in the North of Ireland and if that amnesty were to contravene the Good Friday Agreement and the Stormont House Agreement? Would he challenge the British Government in the courts?
Could the Deputy repeat that? Would I challenge them?
Would he challenge them in the courts, on the basis that the amnesty would contravene the Good Friday Agreement and the Stormont House Agreement?
That is an issue that we would have to consider at the time. There is the whole history and journey of relations between Ireland and Britain. The British and Irish Governments have avoided that type of litigation or legal process in modern times. Let us be clear, the relationship between the two Governments has been transformed over the past 30 years. That is a very good thing. We have to work hard to maintain those relationships, notwithstanding the challenges and tensions that may arise from time to time. Brexit has created significant challenges to that relationship. The British Prime Minister and I have engaged, and we continue to engage. We have made it clear to the British Government that it would be wrong to have an amnesty for anybody who was involved in any killings, any murders or any atrocities.
Okay.
I want to make the point that we believe that this is the correct route right now. We believe that it would be very damaging indeed if the British Government were to pursue this. There is, as the Deputy knows, a mechanism in the agreement and in the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, BIIGC. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney, has engaged in that process and on that specific issue with his counterparts, the Northern Ireland Secretary of State and the political parties in Northern Ireland.
There was a meeting on 24 June. Following that meeting, the Government joined with the British Government and with the Northern Ireland parties in a process of intensive engagement on these issues. Discussions began in July. We have said that the victims must come first. I think that the Deputy would agree with that.
Sure. As for the relationship between Britain and Ireland, that relationship has reversed significantly in recent times. Britain actually started to take unilateral decisions with regards the relationship between the two countries. It would not be unusual for a participant of an agreement to state that they would seek to uphold that agreement up to the point of even using the courts to do that. It would send a strong message to the families of the victims of Bloody Sunday, of Ballymurphy, of the Springhill massacre, as well as the victims related to Operation Greenwich, following the report that was reached yesterday. At this juncture, a strong message to the British Government is needed to state there is a line that cannot be crossed when it comes to upholding the Good Friday Agreement.
On the Deputy's overall point, since Brexit, the British Government has had wider issues that I think are impacting on its perspectives on Northern Ireland.
We can compare this with previous British governments, for example, the governments led by Tony Blair or John Major. The relationship between John Major's government and Albert Reynolds's Government was key to the Downing Street Declaration. Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern did enormous work for the Good Friday Agreement. Gordon Brown, Brian Cowen, David Cameron-----
I am going to be stuck for time.
The Deputy has made a fair point. This British Government seems to be taking more of a union stance - it is concerned about Scotland - and it is manifesting itself in many ways. We need to pivot again and we need to-----
Strengthen our message, surely.
Not only do we need to strengthen our message, but the British-Irish joint approach to the issues of the Good Friday Agreement in the North must be repositioned and the British Government needs to move away from what I detect to be a degree of unilateralism regarding legacy, protocols and so on.
The majority of the people in the North of Ireland voted for the Good Friday Agreement. Most polls show that a majority of people of the North support the protocol or could live with the protocol. The DUP is a minority party and unionism is now a minority political view in the North. I believe the DUP has put itself in a strategic cul-de-sac at the moment. At every juncture of Brexit, it has misstepped. It now finds itself in the past ten days pulling down Stormont, playing its trump card, which is its last card. The British response yesterday was just to say it would implement the Irish language Act. I do not believe the Irish language Act should be politicised in anyway in this entire process. It was interesting that in a debate in Westminster yesterday, Ian Paisley Jnr. basically said the Tories had no real interest in the North. He said they were an English nationalist party, more interested in the red wall than in the border on the Irish Sea. The DUP has created this situation.
I welcome that the Taoiseach said that no party should pull down Stormont on the basis of its own political agenda. I fully agree with that. If we allow Stormont to be pulled down by one single party in the future, is that not a recipe for dysfunction? It is actually undemocratic because there is a majority in favour of the Irish language Act in Stormont. There is a majority in favour of the protocol in Stormont. Do we not now need Stormont to be reformed? The rules of the institution itself need to move beyond where Stormont is at the moment. Even if there is an election in May, there is a serious likelihood that the DUP will not participate in the Executive. We cannot put ourselves into a two- or three-year hiatus when 44,000 people are on waiting lists for houses in the North, 250,000 people are in poverty and another 250,000 people are waiting for hospital beds for more than a year. Surely the Irish and British Governments now have a responsibility to rewrite the rules of Stormont.
I take the Deputy's point on a number of fronts. The DUP represents a very important constituency. It represents people of particular views in Northern Ireland. That needs to be respected as we must respect the UUP and the views it represents. Notwithstanding that we might disagree with some of the policies the parties might present, we need to respect that they have electoral mandates.
If there is to be broad community-based faith in the elections of the institutions, the results of the elections must be accepted on all sides. That part of it must be fulfilled. The Deputy has raised broader points that are valid regarding how it is operating. The First Minister's office and the deputy First Minister's office of course are two equal offices. Issues have surfaced over how business gets done and the role of other parties, and those issues are worthy of discussion. There can be no equivocation. There must be an election and whatever way the votes fall we have existing agreements and everybody who has signed up to those agreements should adhere to those, accept the result and take up their roles in the institutions.
The Deputy is correct that no institutions should be taken down for political reasons. As I said earlier, I believe they have been down for half of the lifetime of the Good Friday Agreement. There is an enormous difference between the esteem in which the Scottish assembly is held among Scottish people and the position in Northern Ireland based on surveys carried out. Based on my experience of having been in the North during one election recently, they do not like abstentionism; they want their politicians to do things for them in the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement. They want people to work them.
Has anybody in the Department of Taoiseach or any other Department been in contact with Conor Murphy, the Minister of Finance in the North, to discuss creating an all-Ireland rate of corporation tax? I understand that the North now has the ability to institute a corporation tax and potentially to equalise that rate with the South, which obviously would be a massive boon for the development of the economy in the North and would be a step forward in taxation equalisation on both parts of the island. Have there been any discussions with the Department of Finance in the North on that? What is the position of the Irish Government and the Department of Finance in the North on excise duty and minimum pricing on alcohol?
Is the Deputy asking about all-island corporation tax?
Yes.
Is the Deputy saying the Northern Ireland Executive is ready to go with it?
No, I believe it has the ability to seek the devolution of it. It has not sought to do it.
I understand it has had that capacity for quite a number of years, but I do not think it has moved within the Executive. There are challenges with movement over how to make up the revenue foregone. I will check with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, to see if there have been any discussions between the two Departments of Finance and the two Ministers in respect of corporation tax. I understand there have been discussions on the minimum pricing of alcohol between the two Ministers for Health; I can get clarification on that. Again, that would need to come through the Executive.
Suffice it to say, the Oireachtas passed the legislation on minimum pricing for alcohol almost unanimously. We did it for public health reasons. It was done in Scotland first. The results in Scotland appear to have been beneficial for public health. I take the point that the optimal way to do it is on an all-island basis. We would like the Northern Ireland Executive to implement it when it can. Obviously, now it is not in a position to do that because the Executive is no longer in place.
On a change of topic, the Government has promised an investigation into its approach to dealing with Covid over the past two years. Aontú will shortly bring a Bill to the Dáil to investigate what happened in nursing homes and hospitals over that time. The majority of people who died from Covid caught it in those locations. I would like details on that commitment. When will those investigations take place? Under which Department will they take place?
I deliberately do not use the word "investigation"; I consistently use the word "evaluation" into how we did as a country in dealing with Covid-19. That means taking on board all the issues the Deputy has outlined. We need to learn how we have managed Covid-19 and whether we could have done it better. What lessons can be learned from our experience over the past two years in dealing with a global pandemic, which was the first in 100 years? That would mean we would be in a better and stronger position if another pandemic or emergency arose.
The Minister for Health has established a public health reform expert advisory group. It will focus on identifying lessons from the public health components of the response to Covid-19 with a view to strengthening health protection generally and future public health pandemic preparedness. We are not just talking about hospital capacity, etc., but also the Sentinel system within the GP network.
We have doubled the workforce of public health doctors and support staff. For the first time ever, we have brought consultants into the public health area, which had been denied public health doctors for a long time. We need to get the public health side right because that should be the first line of response to any new pandemic. The key players on Covid-19 need to be at the wheel even still because we need to monitor what is happening with Omicron and where we go towards the middle of the year.
There will be a meeting of the Cabinet committee dealing with Covid-19 shortly to assess where we are right now. The key players are the leadership of the HSE and our leadership in public health.
The model I envisage will draw on different disciplines in the first instance. They would consider the different phases of the pandemic, and what happened in nursing homes would come under the first phase remit. We would have to set ourselves terms of reference, indices and how we compared internationally. I wanted to keep the key players working in the field, so to speak, during the pandemic, so we have not yet settled on a model. I have ideas in how to progress it and at the next meeting of the Covid-19 committee we will discuss the best model.
Will we have settled on a model and terms of reference by the end of 2022?
Yes.
There is quite a bit of information starting to emerge relating to the cost of Covid-19 and the restrictions. Do not get me wrong, as I understand that governance in this period was extremely difficult. The issue was live and it was very hard to make decisions, as information may not have been fully at the disposal of the Government. There is much information coming out now on the massive increase in domestic violence that occurred, in part, because of the restrictions and the length of their imposition. There was also the cancellation of cancer care and consequences for diagnoses, as well as the cancellation of hundreds of thousands of BreastCheck appointments. There were difficulties for the mental health of younger people especially. In the first quarter of 2021, only one country in the whole of Europe had stopped building homes, and that was Ireland, despite it probably having one of the worst housing crises in the whole of Europe.
There is a necessity for a real investigation into this. I am not looking for heads or individuals to lose their ability to do their jobs. It is really important, nonetheless, with the benefit of hindsight and understanding of the real costs, to measure them against the necessity to protect against a live virus and conduct a robust investigation into what happened. In nursing homes, 10,000 people were moved from hospital beds to nursing homes in the first six months of 2020 and many of them were never tested for Covid-19. The nursing home sector sought to close its doors to visitors in March and April 2020 but the National Public Health Emergency Team, NPHET, said the doors to visitors should be kept open for visitors to circulate in hospitals. The HSE took personal protective equipment and staff away from nursing homes in 2020 when those nursing homes were crying out for staff.
A range of decisions were made that had a significant impact on the health and well-being of individuals and we need more than an analysis of that. We need to be able to have a proper, detailed, forensic understanding of those decisions and the impact they had to ensure we do not repeat them.
Some of what the Deputy has said is valid but we could equally say that we must always balance the undoubted impacts of lockdowns against what would happen if we did not lock down. To me, the fundamental objective was always to save lives and people from becoming severely ill. We also wanted to protect our health services from being overwhelmed. The mortality question is important, and as I said in my opening address, we have the sixth-lowest mortality rate in that respect in Europe. We counted almost everything when it came to Covid-19 deaths and our data are very comprehensive.
We were very conscious of many of those matters throughout the pandemic. The Deputy mentioned domestic violence and mental health. I do not want to go back over old issues but on one occasion we were accused of differing from the NPHET opinion. At that meeting there were presentations from the Central Statistics Office, CSO, on well-being and mental health, and all of that informed our view of the time. I have remained very concerned about mental health and particularly the impact on young people through the pandemic. The effect on domestic violence, for example, was not unknown to us and it would have been reported to Covid-19 committee meetings that during the first lockdown, domestic violence rates increased.
These were very difficult decisions of life and death in deciding whether to lock down. I was very concerned about construction but we must remember where the alpha variant had us. That alpha wave was the worst moment of the Covid-19 pandemic, and it really stretched us. It was a variant that ran through us and we did not have vaccination to protect us. In hindsight we tend to look at things differently. I genuinely believe the absolute game-changing nature of vaccines has not been fully appreciated. I can look back at the Alpha wave and we did not have vaccines so people were getting very sick and dying. This time around, with the Omicron variant, we were vaccinated and doing far more socialisation even before Christmas than the previous Christmas but hospital beds were not filling up to the same extent. The vaccine story is the key to what happened in 2021 and how we go out of this.
There should a robust inquiry and evaluation of this. I use the word "evaluation" because I do not want future public officials - or private sector personnel who worked very well with us - looking over their shoulders. The Irish Business and Employers' Confederation and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions were very good on the return to work process and we saw some really good collaboration. We needed decision makers and for people to take decisions in the middle of a crisis like a pandemic. They will take what comes with that. We need an international comparator as well and we should have an international person or two in such a process.
I appreciate the vaccines played a very significant role in the protection of life, especially the life of older and vulnerable cohorts. The truth of the matter is that the Omicron variant spread at a rate of 500,000 per week towards the end of the last wave. In many ways, it is the spread of Omicron through the population that led to it having nowhere else to spread. That contributed to the end of that wave as well.
The Minister for Finance, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Michael McGrath, came before this committee recently to discuss the salary of the Secretary General in the Department of Health, Mr. Robert Watt. This is a burning issue in the minds of many people around the country because we could not create a bigger contrast between the experience of the general population and that particular salaried individual in the public sector.
The Deputy is approaching his time limit.
I will not take long with this. We are talking about an approximate €100,000 increase in salary over a period of a year for one individual with no process or international benchmarks. Last week the Minister said this was an isolated incident that will not affect other salaries but how can we say to people seeking wage increases in the next year due to cost of living hikes that wage increases are not for them but are only for others?
Wage increases are for the entire society and wages have been increasing. The Deputy's point is about a specific post and a position of Secretary General in the Department of Health. When I was questioned, I made the point that given my experience in health, there is merit in the Secretary General position in the Department of Health having a higher salary than other Secretary General positions.
Why would I say that? At that time and in the few months before that appointment, we were in the middle of a global pandemic, we had allocated enormous sums to the Department of Health and we had emerging issues with the children's hospital that summer. If I am honest about it, the Department needs fundamental reform and change to be fit for purpose. That was the motivating factor. Something similar happened regarding the HSE position, the Garda Commissioner and other positions.
I understand fully the points the Deputy has made. I understand people may not agree with me on this. We are all entitled to have views. I have no personal interest in this other than, as Taoiseach, I have to act in respect of the health portfolio.
The Government set itself three fundamental objectives when we came into office and, to be blunt about it, we do not have time to be hanging around. Climate change is one issue. Housing is another, and health. Of course, there is a range of other issues. We want to get things done and we want change.
People may disagree with us on an issue such as the filling the position of Secretary General of the Department of Health but I am clear that more needs to be done in health. The Department of Health needs to be the go-to Department in the public service. It was not that for the past number of years from what I am hearing. There are many very good people working in the Department. They have been working extremely hard during Covid-19. I pay tribute to the public servants in the Department for the work that they have done above and beyond the call of duty. It is so enormous. It is relentless in terms of issues that arrive on the desks of civil servants in the Department. It needs expansion, it needs capacity and then the relationship with the HSE is one that has to be developed. However, the expenditure we have allocated to health generally is exponential in its growth.
You said there that as Taoiseach you must act on the health portfolio. You were answering that in respect of the specific wage increase for the Secretary General. In your opening remarks and in the Estimates, you referred to Cabinet sub-committees which I was interested in. They are dealing with the disability sector and improving the lot of people with disabilities, and equality and justice, etc. I was not going to mention this but, in contrast, I put it to you that Ellie, who is three years of age, was accessing services through an agency funded by the HSE and she was doing very well. She has a particular diagnosis which is rare, genetic and so on, but she was doing well. Then the HSE reconfigured its delivery of services and it went from that agency back into the HSE and Ellie lost 75% of the services that were improving her lot in life. Her mother was told that she should reassess her expectations of what Ellie can achieve. She said: "If we get her to a place where she can creep and perhaps shuffle around on her bum, then I should celebrate this and be happy with that." That is from a letter that parent sent to your office, to mine and to others. I looked at it and I found what the mother was saying was absolutely true. I raised it last night with two Ministers in the Department of Health at a meeting. I cannot fathom why services that were working - that is not the only one and I have lots of correspondence here to do with the disability sector - when they are changed would result in that young person losing out to that extent. I am saying this to you in the context of the Cabinet sub-committee on disability.
There is another case where the young chap has been 28 months lying on a couch. I do not expect you to know anything about this. I am just giving you the general thrust of what is happening out there. The allocation from the HSE is €54,000 for the services that he requires. He is a child with autism who has not been in school and has not received any supports whatsoever for his condition, and there is no intervention. When I inquire as to why it has stopped and why the parents are put under such pressure, I do not get an answer. That is the difficulty. I am presenting this to you to explain things from my end.
Likewise, a family in Glanmire, County Cork do not have services for their child. I cannot understand given the amount that is being spent, that services are in such a state of almost collapse. It concerns me. This young man, Joey, is receiving services from Praxis, a company, I understand, being paid for by the Department. The services were closed in Douglas and they were moved to Monahan Road in Cork. Praxis has refused to pay for the transport of that young person to the services. As some of these services are transferred from the private sector to the HSE, people who require them are just not getting them. It is difficult to explain to those parents why that is happening.
When I listened to both Ministers last evening, I was struck by the level of bureaucracy that prevents them from delivering the funding effectively to the end user. I am wondering, in terms of the sub-committee, whether that the type of issue that is discussed. I do not expect you to deal with individual cases but you are aware of all of this. When can people expect that there will be a response?
Regarding the case of Ellie that you raised, I do not know who said that to the parent.
I do not expect you to.
No one should ever say that to the parent of a child. That is my point. That is wrong. No professional should say it and no official should say it because they never know the potential of a child. Parents know best, not professionals. I do not decry professionals. Sometimes even the best of professionals should listen, listen and listen. They should listen to the patient and listen to the parent. That can be soul-destroying and devastating to a parent and that is not acceptable.
We did decide policy-wise to move disability from the Department of Health to the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and to have a specific Minister for disability, the reason being to try and give it more focused attention because the stories you articulated have been experienced by many of us. I am impatient with this in terms of a more direct link between funding and action.
I would argue - not everyone might agree - it is much better in the Department of Education. At least when funding is allocated for SNAs, they will be allocated to schools. It is similar with psychologists, through the National Educational Psychological Service, although people may argue about the capacity, etc.
The Department of Health has an overly bureaucratic system. We must work on that relationship between the HSE and the Department, and link it to the Cabinet committee. That is work that the Cabinet committee has to do. The challenges of Covid have not helped in the transfer of responsibility for disability from the Department of Health over to the new Department. That is key.
On the relationship between education and health, the Progressing Disability Services programme has been going on quite a long time and, as I have said before, we have argued that existing services and multidisciplinary services in schools should be retained, particularly in special schools. Notwithstanding Progressing Disability, we need to look at what more we can do within the school environment. From what I can see, we can get a lot more done through schooling than we can through health services at the moment, so long is the entire journey for parents and children. There is a lot of good work being done also, and we must acknowledge that.
I acknowledge that too.
Some very good centres have developed. The Cork Enable Ireland centre has been a tremendous success in Curraheen. That came out of Progressing Disability and it is an excellent service. Provision in general, however, is too patchy. We have evolved a non-governmental organisation provision, with various charities, that in the past has provided services when the State was not providing services. In some instances, the State is always negotiating with agencies and negotiating with service providers, and this tug-of-war that goes on is not productive or constructive. For example, when we were trying to set up classes or schools for children with autism, some service providers might have said they did not want any more, that they had enough, and that they were not going to facilitate an expansion. That is going to have to change and the State is going to have to become more involved in providing services directly. I take the point, however, that it should not be done at the expense of other services. If the child already has an existing service, he or she should retain that service. If somebody wants to create a new service, there are many other children who will avail of the new service. The quality of service should not be diluted.
As I said, that girl lost 75% of the services she had enjoyed and in which she was progressing. Consider young Michael also. He is another case. He has been waiting for four years for a specialist bed.
Where?
He lives in Kilkenny. The HSE has engaged four years of measuring this bed. His legs and knees are now completely disfigured. It is the HSE.
Is that a community service to send out a specialist bed?
It has to be properly constructed. It is a specialist bed.
No child should wait four years.
No. He has also waited for a wheelchair.
We have allocated funding.
When I have asked about this, I have been told these are aids and appliances and are dealt with by somebody else. My point to the Taoiseach is that we cannot let time go by for these children. It is simply wrong. They are progressing, then there is a lack of service or a hiccup with the service or whatever it might be, and they just go backwards. It is having a devastating effect on families. Some of these families are on the verge of separating because they cannot manage it any more in their lives. It is not that the HSE is not getting the money. In these cases the HSE actually has the money.
On the aids and appliances, we provide a lot of capital funding. There must be an integrated single pathway for children and the provision of services. On the aids and appliances, some areas are now simplifying. No child should have to wait four years. The funding is there to make sure the child should get such a specialist bed. I remember in the southern area when there was rationing when five children would be done this month, for example, and then another five children would have to wait another three months for the next quarterly meeting or something like to be allocated. That is not good enough. The money is there. I believe that legacy funding needs in some organisations has, again, been picked up on by us in the context of provision. The reconfiguration of the HSE has to deliver. Work is going to be done there with reconfiguring the HSE but it simply has to deliver multidisciplinary teams. Every child needs multidisciplinary input.
It is failing people. I am not sure which page it will be in the Taoiseach's Estimates, but he referred to the number of staff in the Department. There are two blocks of information where it describes the number and type of staff in the Department. At the end - and there may be information missing - it says the remainder of staff includes service staff and those assigned to the private office, the constituency office and the internal information and records management unit. No figure is given for that. Perhaps the Taoiseach will give the committee that figure. If he does not have it to hand, perhaps he will send it on to the committee.
I will ask my officials to send it on.
The other matter I want to refer to is the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, and the Chief State Solicitor's Office. In light of the number of different cases I have read about, does the Taoiseach believe those offices are appropriately funded in the context of the number of cases they have and given the most recent decision not to prosecute in the Grace case? Is that the end of it? Is there a learning from that as to how the case was brought forward, or from the information or evidence? What causes something like that not to proceed given the huge context of Grace and the 47 other people? The Taoiseach will also be aware of the Shane O'Farrell case. Lucia O'Farrell had a lot of criticism of how that family was treated. In learning from that, what sort of reforms does the Taoiseach believe might be necessary in those offices?
On the basic question about the additional cost, the subhead provides for salaries, allowances and wages and they have gone up by 12% in 2022.
Is that the legals?
That is the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It has gone up 12% for the director and her staff, and it provides for the recruitment of extra staff to deal with the increased workload in the office and for the payment of increases arising from the Building Momentum public service pay agreement. The DPP's office will always be looking for additional resources, and I believe there was a need for additional resources. We provided those this year and we will keep it under review. It is a fundamental office.
The DPP's office is independent in the conduct of its work. To be fair, I know the Chairman has been a very strong advocate in the Grace case and in the Shane O'Farrell case. I cannot comment on that and I do not know the context of the inner workings for what leads the Director of Public Prosecutions to make a decision on whether particular cases are to be prosecuted. That is beyond my remit. It is an independent office. It has to be independent in how it does its work. It has been a long-standing principle that we do not interfere with the Office of the DPP. Most democracies maintain that divide.
I accept that.
We have an obligation to make sure the office is appropriately funded.
On the broader question, we need to do more thinking around our systems of accountability within existing organisations. In the Dáil Chamber today, I had queries for four inquiries. In my speech I referred to inquiries that are under the remit of our Department such as the Cooke and Cregan commissions and so on. They are taking a long time. It is probably time to consider whether we need to revisit how we conduct commissions of investigation of different models. Inquiries are taking too long, for the victims and for survivors.
Does the Taoiseach think that-----
I wonder if mechanisms already exist. Within every organisation, there should be robust systems. If a whistle blows or someone has an issue or a serious complaint, that person should be dealt with properly within the organisation and there should be an appeals mechanism to deal with that quickly and expeditiously. This does not seem to be happening in the State, however, and we end up with a lot of cases that are brought to the floor of Dáil Éireann. There was a particular case raised today by a Deputy with regard to the Irish Prison Service. I was not familiar with the individual case but the very fact it is being raised in Dáil Éireann is telling me something about the systems we have in place in organisations.
The Women of Honour and other groups I have met have been clear: they all agree on the need for change. Some believe in what the Government has been doing, namely, facilitating an independent review, without ruling out a statutory inquiry. Others want a statutory inquiry. All are clear that the minute they reported sexual assault against them, that was the end of their careers. That is what they said to us. That is the terrible reality of what happened to women in the Defence Forces over the years. It indicates that something is not working. A statutory commission of inquiry will not provide early closure or resolution in respect of the issues.
I take the Taoiseach's point about organisations in the State not dealing with some of these problems immediately and constructively giving people the opportunity to state their case. It then escalates into some sort of a demand for a commission or a State investigation. There are so many agencies and Departments that if they were actually told to engage and sort out the cases, they might not get as far as they do. My point about Shane O'Farrell and Grace is that there was no explanation and there is no method by means of which these offices can give an understanding to people who are close to the cases as to why, generally, they did not proceed. The State needs to learn from that and from what people such as Lucia O'Farrell have articulated about the justice system in general. The investigation might not get to the end of everything but surely there is a way of dealing with human beings in a different way from how they are being dealt with now and thus preventing further demands of one kind of another for investigations and allowing people to go on with their lives.
That is a fair point. The O'Malley report in respect of domestic violence and Supporting a Victim's Journey speak to that in the context of the journey of a victim of sexual or domestic abuse. They address how the criminal justice system liaises with and works with the person. If the Chair saw the programme earlier in the week, he will know that the victims spoke about the criminal justice system not serving their needs in some instances and the pressure that they came under. I will check that out with some people. The Chair is saying that if something does not progress, the families should be told. Gardaí are much better at liaising with families in the context of crimes and what is happening. Strong liaison work is being done by gardaí for the victims of serious crimes.
The decision makers should possibly go directly back to the families involved..
They may not want to prejudice the matter because no case is ever closed. Fresh evidence can emerge, which may be a factor in that. Regarding the Grace case, am I correct in stating that the commission has been granted an extension in order to complete its work?
Yes. It issued a mid-term report.
It is due to finish its work by July. The second phase relates to the care of other people who resided with the former foster family, along with matters relating to protected disclosures and those who made them. It is taking into account the facts established in phase one of its work. Phase 2 will commence following consideration of the phase 1 final report. The Chair probably knows this from the commission's written statement and the scope of its further investigation. Many lessons have to be learned from the Grace case. Notwithstanding the Chair's concerns about the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions has not initiated prosecution proceedings, there will be engagement with the relevant organisations and care providers to discuss those families. The circumstances which led to the investigation in the first place will be dealt with and addressed.
The Taoiseach mentioned the remarks by the ladies from the Defence Forces. When an agency under the Taoiseach's remit found out that a senior person was autistic and suffered from epilepsy, that person's employment was to be terminated. The Minister did not allow that to happen, but the matter is being fought before the courts. This goes back to the Revised Estimate. The family does not want to be in court. The agency apparently sees it as the only route and will not use mediation.
Which case is this?
I do not want to give the name of the person because he has got on with his life, but he is being challenged now by an agency that did not do anything about him. It never even knew that he might have been affected by autism or epilepsy, but when it found out, it wanted to fire him. The matter has ended up in court. I asked a question about this in the Dáil because it relates to governance on the part of the Taoiseach's office.
Is the Chairman referring to my office?
Yes. If someone is appointed to a board, as in this case, where there is a representative of the Taoiseach's office on the board, is there a reporting mechanism within the Department that nominated a person to alert the Taoiseach to something that might be wrong with governance or an issue such as this?
I will have to check that for the Chairman. I know that when people are appointed to certain boards, their legal duty is to the board, which may prohibit them from reporting to individuals about matters relating to the board, governance and so on. That is problematic for public officials on boards because their ultimate loyalty should be to public service. Nonetheless, if a public servant is on a board, the nature of the board means that the person has to behave properly in the context of that board. I do not know the specifics of this case. Some opportunities would arise for people to alert me about certain issues.
I will leave it at that and bring the actual case to the Taoiseach's attention.
Yes, the Chairman can bring it to my attention. People cannot be dismissed on the basis of having autism or epilepsy.
They should not be but that has happened here. I will give the Taoiseach the details. I will not dwell on it now. I have a question on the Cabinet sub-committee on enterprise. Does the Taoiseach envisage any change regarding employers being allowed to bring in truck drivers or mechanics from other EU countries or beyond? One cannot get truck drivers, bus drivers or mechanics. Employers have come to me in the south east to ask if someone can change the regime so that if people are found, they can be fast-tracked in. I was struck by the preparations for the Irish Open. The applications for chefs are waiting to be cleared in the Department. I would have thought that for major events such as that or indeed major bus companies or hauliers that there would be some method of fast-tracking applications to bring in people from outside the country to fill the vacancies that cannot be filled here. This is a significant problem.
It is. There is a significant issue with vacancies and the difficulty in attracting workers for a whole range of sectors, especially hospitality, truckers in the haulage industry, and construction, although the capacity for construction is back to where it was before the pandemic, which is a good story. The Tánaiste and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment have been apprised of the fact. We have engaged with the Department to accelerate work permits and visas for people living outside the European Union area. It needs to be kept under constant review. I know that, in respect of foreign direct investment, there has been a long-standing arrangement to try to accelerate critical companies' capacity to bring in non-EU or non-EEA workers. Given the level that the economy, employment and resulting vacancies are at, there is a need to accelerate and to review our existing practices with regard to attracting workers from non-EU countries.
Does the Taoiseach expect that review to yield anything?
It is constant. Everything possible is being done to speed it up. Representatives of many of the sectors have told us they cannot get workers. One issue with hospitality related to the income thresholds that existed for work permits. In the interim, we will have to examine that because hospitality has taken a significant hit as a result of Covid-19. We will need to come up with a medium-term plan for hospitality arising out of Covid-19, and that speaks to the issue of skills and talent. To be fair to the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science and the Minister of State at his Department, Deputy Niall Collins, much work is being done in that regard to expand the field of apprenticeships and develop a range of skilled courses to get people trained up. As I said earlier, 2.5 million people are now in employment. When we produced the economic recovery plan more than a year ago, we thought it would take us until 2023 to get to that figure, yet we are almost there. There is an issue there.
I encourage the Taoiseach to examine that issue. I do not want to do a Deputy O'Connor on it but I would like to see the N24 and N25 included. As part of the programme for Government, €3.5 million is required, between the two schemes, to move them forward to the next phase. The Taoiseach liaises regularly with the other two coalition leaders. He might encourage the Minister for Transport to look again at the N24 and N25 projects.
My understanding is the Minister is due to meet Deputies from the region.
Yes, but there is a bit of an urgency about it.
He has indicated he is looking forward to meeting Deputies from the area.
Very good. In that case, we can take it we will have that meeting.
Yes, that is my understanding. I take the point about moving it on.
The Taoiseach might check the cash to be sure there is a backup.
There are limits to the NDP, even though it is a huge programme. My preference is to keep projects moving. Moreover, much land has been sterilised and people cannot use it because of routes being on the agenda.
Yes, it is a big issue.
Even if the routes could be narrowed and a selection process could be agreed, we would make at least that degree of progress and it would free up the situation for many people. The Minister understands that point and recognises the issue. His main concern is that the same progress is not being made in respect of public transport, because of the nature of the projects, planning processes and so on, as that which is being made in respect of roads. Transport Infrastructure Ireland-----
As the Taoiseach will be aware, down the country we need the roads. His area is getting the Dunkettle roundabout. I was in the area on Friday last and substantial construction is ongoing there. We just want a slice of the action for Carlow-Kilkenny.
I understand that fully.
Is the Taoiseach satisfied that, in comparison with other jurisdictions, we dealt with Covid as well as could have been expected or better than was originally expected? My instinct suggests we did quite well.
Yes, in my view, relative to other countries at this juncture, we did well, particularly in respect of mortality and severe illness. Similarly, ours was one of the most successful vaccination programmes globally. The booster campaign, too, was vital in dealing with the Omicron variant. I think we have placed sixth in the European Union in terms of lowest mortality rates. As for the economic recovery and employment, there has been a very significant bounce-back, which means the economic interventions the Government made during the pandemic worked. They have got people back to work quickly as we have emerged from the pandemic. Even so, there are all sorts of issues arising as we bounce back from the pandemic in regard to inflation, which is a big issue. Fundamentally, however, we are back to 2.5 million in employment, which underpins the success of our economic and employment policies. The Bloomberg resilience metric, which measures a range of factors such as health, mortality and socioeconomic impact, for quite a while was ranking us as number one. Nevertheless, there are lessons to be learned and we will have to conduct a proper evaluation of the response.
In respect of the security of the IT systems in the Department of Health and all the other Departments, can we conclude we have adequate protection to deter and deflect all such attempts in the future?
Inflation is creating a problem and I have tabled numerous parliamentary questions about it to various Ministers. I accept that the fuel issue and the potential unrest in eastern Europe have had an impact. Is there any other way the Government can intervene with a view to lightening the burden of inflation that now presents itself and at least trying to ensure the trend will not continue?
My next question relates to Brexit, the Northern Ireland protocol and the suspension of the Northern Irish Assembly. To what extent can the Taoiseach advance the cause of dialogue and, perhaps, the shared island initiative while only the barest of political institutions are operating in the North? Does it present an opportunity to progress that area?
The Chairman made a point about women serving in the Defence Forces. My theory has always been that a duty of care applies within the body where an alleged offence occurs. Are the frameworks that are in place robust enough to deal with such matters as and when they arise?
My final question relates to due process. As we know, there was a case where public perception found against Members of the Oireachtas and private citizens who were employed elsewhere. By virtue of the public perception and the presumption of guilt, several of them ended up losing their jobs. The event was not a small thing and people will argue that is politics for you, but they were not all politicians. There was a difference of legal opinion and legal opinion was sought. As we know, every legal opinion is subject to challenge. Nevertheless, is there a case for the need to ensure due process and natural justice will prevail, rather than proceeding to a summary execution, as it were, whether or not a prima facie case could be established before the ultimate taking place?
We implement a security-by-design, defence in-depth approach to cybersecurity. We are very conscious of the need for ongoing engagement with experts, particularly in the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer and the National Cyber Security Centre to ensure best practice operates as it relates to all aspects of cybersecurity and information security. In the Department of the Taoiseach, we have factored in a significant review of our security posture in our plans for 2022.
Overall, for operational and security reasons we are advised by the national centre not to disclose details of systems and processes that could in any way compromise information systems.
More generally, we do not want to assist any criminals. It was clear to us following the cyber attack on the health service that there is a need for European solidarity. It was interesting how countries such as Poland and the UK came to our assistance very quickly. We will not do this on our own; European member states must share experience and knowledge and work together to combat cybersecurity problems, which will be a major threat in the future. The attack had an enormous impact on the health service. Considering the nature of the event, it could never be fully presented. I paid tribute to all the senior officials in the HSE who worked for 24 hours a day to try to get the system back. It took many weeks and months. It affected the front-line clinicians, who could not get scans. It was a very difficult time for all working in the HSE and the Department. I was critical regarding systems but I must pay tribute to the staff in this case. On top of Covid, the attack was the last straw for those on the ground and in the system. That people had to work so hard to save the system had an impact on their health. That is the truth, and that needs to be said too. I thank the staff for the work they did.
On inflation, the Government has said it is going to have a package of measures. Again, we must not fuel inflation inadvertently through our measures. Oil and gas prices have increased exponentially globally. The opening up of societies and the economic rebound across the world have meant an imbalance between the supply of products and demand, which is driving up inflation. Quantitative easing in America and Europe has been unprecedented during this pandemic. All of these factors combined are leading to inflationary spirals. We can see this in respect of both fertiliser and microchips for cars. It is manifesting itself in many ways, so we must now take measures to cushion the blow for affected people as best we can.
With regard to Brexit and the Northern Ireland protocol, the shared-island dialogue is working. Without prejudice to anyone’s constitutional views or perspectives, it is reaching out. The dialogues have been fantastic. There have been well over 1,000 participants. An All-Island Women’s Forum has been established on foot of the dialogues. An All-Island Climate and Biodiversity Network has been established as a result of them also. Great research has been done by the National Economic and Social Council and the ESRI on various systems, including primary care systems, and on educational curriculums etc. That is good and we will continue with that.
On the duty of care issue, I do not want to pre-empt the independent review, but my sense is that the review is important and not statutory because we need to safeguard serving and current members of the Defence Forces. We need to be satisfied that the duty of care is applied now. We cannot wait for a couple of years for a statutory inquiry that could take a long time. It will not give us the reassurance we need that existing systems in the Defence Forces are robust enough and that the culture is right. In that regard, the independent review led by the judge, human resources person and senior counsel is important.
Due process should always apply. Reference was made to public representatives, judgments and so on. Due process should always be allowed. I take the point that the pressures on politics sometimes create a shortcut through due process. As parliamentarians, we should guard against that.
It is a question of the possibility of trying to ensure people are not branded unnecessarily, whatever the type of case and regardless of whether it involves public representatives of private citizens. Everybody has a right to due process and natural justice. The ultimate decision, which is made in the courts, could be subject to appeal, but the point is that the axe has fallen and the decision has already been made. Regardless of whether the individuals in the case to which we refer feel they had due process, they lost their jobs. Therefore, it is a serious issue. There is sometimes a tendency to say in the public arena that it is all about perception. Of course, it is not all about perception; it is about substance. Therefore, whatever we do, we need to ensure that we assume people have a right to their good name and to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty. That is one of the basic tenets of our system. However, maybe there are some lessons to be learned from these matters. Would it not be a good idea to learn them?
I do not believe the Deputy is speaking about any specific issue; I take it he is speaking more generally. Generally, due process and natural justice should always apply. The legal world is different from the political world in that there are different bars and thresholds. We have to take that on board also. The political world can be a very cruel world for people.
I thank the Taoiseach and the officials for attending.
I thank the Chairman.
