Trevor Sargent
Ceist:1 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8598/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraSocial Partnership.
Ceisteanna (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
Joe Higgins
Ceist:2 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9099/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his involvement in talks on the next phase of the social partnership agreement; when he will meet the relevant parties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10497/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Enda Kenny
Ceist:4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10543/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at the meeting with the social partners in his Department on 29 March 2004; his views on the prospects of a new pay deal for private sector workers in view of the meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10701/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraPat Rabbitte
Ceist:6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when the next quarterly meeting of the social partners under the Sustaining Progress process is planned; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10702/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraPat Rabbitte
Ceist:7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach his views on whether there should be a successor national agreement to Sustaining Progress; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10703/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (38 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, together.
Social partnership has been of enormous benefit to Ireland, both socially and economically. Since the programme for national recovery in 1987, the stability it provides has allowed for record levels of growth and enhanced social inclusion. In recent times of more moderate growth, the processes of social partnership have helped maintain competitiveness and a pro-jobs environment while enhancing a co-ordinated and comprehensive approach to inclusiveness issues. I assure the House that I am committed to the implementation of Sustaining Progress, which is operative to the end of 2005 and to the development of further national agreements in future.
As I indicated to the House, considerable progress continues to be made in implementing the wide-ranging set of commitments in Sustaining Progress. This was borne out by the fourth progress report, which was produced for the last social partner plenary meeting held on 23 April 2004. I was represented at that meeting by officials from my Department. The agenda for that meeting included a presentation on the spring European Council and the Tripartite Social Summit which preceded it; a presentation on the recent overview of waste management plans; and an overview of the arrangements for the mid-term review of the wider policy aspects of Sustaining Progress. The fourth progress report on the implementation of Sustaining Progress was also presented to the meeting. A copy of the report and relevant Powerpoint presentations have been laid in the Oireachtas Library. The date of the next quarterly plenary meeting of the social partners is 13 July 2004.
I will attend that meeting with the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance. While the agenda is not set, I envisage that it will address the mid-term assessment of the ten special initiatives contained in part one of the agreement. The review of the interim pay terms contained in part two of the agreement was formally initiated on 29 March 2004. This meeting was attended by representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Irish Business and Employers Confederation, the Construction Industry Federation and relevant Departments, including my Department.
The parties set out their opening positions in some detail, by reference to their assessment of current and prospective economic conditions. It was agreed that the discussions would be managed in a way that would accommodate differing interests and concerns of the private and public sectors within the framework of a single agreement.
While SIPTU did not participate in the meeting because of concerns about the clarity of assurances already given in regard to employees in State companies, the framework of partnership continues to offer the best environment for dialogue around the future of State companies. It is one in which I hope, on reflection, it is possible for all parties to participate.
The future of the State sector is closely linked to the health of the wider economy and I believe that the current round of pay talks have a crucial role in restoring our competitiveness and maintaining employment across all sectors. For that reason, and recognising their valuable contribution to the social partnership process to date, I encourage SIPTU to join in the pay negotiation process and to utilise the other talks processes in regard to specific companies.
I stated publicly that I share the view of the SIPTU general secretary that the challenge faced by social partnership is that of reconciling the objective of a dynamic, competitive economy with that of fairness and promotion of workers' rights and interests in the workplace. I believe that the resumption of the pay talks provides a pathway to the best possible framework for ensuring such a balance.
Since the first meeting to review the pay terms took place on 29 March, the Secretary General of my Department has met ICTU officials, including SIPTU representatives, and ongoing contact has been continuing in an effort to provide a basis for the resumption of talks. I am confident that this will occur in the immediate future.
The overall objective of the pay review talks, from the Government's point of view, will be to ensure a pro-competitiveness and pro-jobs outcome, while at the same time, ensuring industrial relations stability.
One of the issues dealt with to some extent yesterday relates to the social partners. The commitments on social housing often comes up in discussions about the social partnership. Does the Taoiseach not agree that very little progress has been made in this area? Going by the figures collected by CORI, 130,000 people in over 48,000 households are on waiting lists for social housing, a growth rate of over 76,000 since 1996.
A total of 10,000 additional units of affordable housing were agreed under Sustaining Progress. Will the Taoiseach indicate why no planning applications have been lodged or no architects appointed? Will the Government bring some level of radical overhaul in this area to ensure a future for social partnership? Would such a radical overhaul, perhaps, include some of the recommendations from the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution which appropriately recommended that social housing be included in the definition of public infrastructure, that it should be seen as part of the infrastructural needs for society and provided for in the same way as other basic infrastructure? Does the Taoiseach agree that there is a lack of adequate progress in the provision of social housing and that it is time to reintroduce Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to ensure that 20% of new housing developments include social and affordable housing? Are we not looking at a serious lack of progress in this area?
It might be more appropriate for the Deputy to table a detailed question on housing in that regard to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
This is the issue that arises most when we discuss social partnership.
A detailed question on this matter tabled to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government would be more appropriate.
I will do that.
It might be best if I confine my reply to Part 5 of the Act, given that Deputy emphasised that. Sites have been identified. They are an addition to the provisions of Part 5 of the Act in the normal sense, although I do not have the figures in that regard. The sites have the potential to yield more than 6,000 units. The precise number of units can be determined in planning individual projects. There are about 24 developments. They will take account of site characteristics and the need for sustainable development. The objective will be to maximise the output of affordable housing. It may be appropriate to incorporate a mix of housing and other facilities to ensure a good living environment for the purchasers. Once the initial planning phase is over, specific planning permission for the project will have to be obtained and developed as well as procurement to deliver the project before construction can begin. We will ensure that these processes take place in parallel to the greatest extent possible to ensure early delivery. These processes must be followed for statutory reasons.
The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the contacts group will ensure that the momentum to progress the initiative is maintained. The social partners have agreed, in principle, the eligibility criteria that will apply to the initiative. It will be broadly similar to that provided in Part 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended. The criteria will be based on ability to pay and will be location sensitive. The details have to be finalised with the parties to the pay agreement and, when finalised, they will published.
On the matter of the timescale for the delivery of this initiative, agreement on this was reached last July. The Government put forward a number of sites in July and December. There is an issue regarding some of the sites possibly not being suitable and some of the them may be switched to engage some of the developers. Mr. Des Geraghty will play a part in that to try to drive the process forward with the social partners. The sites are available and it is a matter of making the process happen as quickly as possible. I hope that can be done. Like all such processes, it moves more slowly than one would like. It is not yet a year since we identified the sites, but the process needs to be driven. Several meetings have been held since Christmas with all those involved and I hope that will have helped to quicken up progress in this area.
This is another broken promise.
On the same issue, on the previous occasion the Taoiseach addressed this subject in the House on 11 February, he indicated he was confident that construction would commence before the year's end. Is he still confident that we will see a commencement of building projects under the affordable housing initiative, which was such a key provision in Sustaining Progress?
The Taoiseach indicated that agreement with the ICTU on the eligibility criteria has been reached. He briefly indicated some elements of that. Can he elaborate on the criteria agreed? Can he advise the House of some of specifics and detail?
The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was quoted in the media on 16 April as stating that a delivery model was still being developed with the social partners, but no agreement had been reached on who would provide the initial funding to hire builders. Is this the case? Is this another situation where bureaucracy is delaying the implementation of an important and welcome initiative? Will the Taoiseach elaborate and advise the House on that?
This is one area where the system, at least in so far as the Government is concerned, has delivered. We have now achieved 60% of what was proposed. However, Deputy Ó Caoláin has a point regarding the bureaucracy involved. I find that difficult because I thought the land would have been the major issue, but we have provided land. The eligibility criteria have been agreed. Funding should not be a problem, but that is not covered in my note and I will check that. This initiative needs the involvement of the local authorities and planning is required for the projects. It also needs the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and some of officials who are in the social partnership group to work together. I know officials in the smaller group have been driving this forward, but they need to deal with the planning process. Part 5 of the Act, the mechanism for providing that, is in place.
Des Geraghty is being brought in to try to knit the group together. He was very involved in his previous career in drafting this initiative and he will try to pull the people together. I hope that will help to overcome the bureaucracy. Deputy Ó Caoláin has a point regarding the bureaucracy; the system is in place and we now need to pull it together and drive it on. Deputy Sargent, who has left the Chamber, made the point that we are spending €1.8 billion on these schemes this year. Therefore, there is not a resource problem.
The first scheme under this initiative was launched in Finglas a few weeks ago. It is a modest one. I am glad to see the first scheme under construction. It will consist of 150 houses, 35 of which will be for senior citizens. If such projects were in the private sector, I am sure the builders would be quick to take them up and get on with the work. We should be able to achieve the same in this regard. These are all open sites; they are not complex. Therefore, we should be able to move the process forward reasonably quickly.
I was at an opening of an affordable housing scheme the other night and I do not understand why every time we go to build another development, we have to redesign it and we need another group of architects. I do not understand why in these cases we cannot use the same set of plans for a new site. I get frustrated every time I am told that new plans are needed because of drains or something else. I am no engineer or architect. Anyone who knows me would know that I would not build much, but I do not understand why the process involved is so convoluted.
The Taoiseach is good at putting up the old hanging baskets.
Just about. That is about as good as I am.
Perhaps the Taoiseach should wear different suits.
When it comes to affordable housing, if a scheme is adequate, wins awards and everyone is happy with it, why can the plans for such a scheme not be applied to other such schemes?
The same is true in the case of schools.
What about the eligibility criteria?
The criteria have been agreed and they are to be announced by the social partnerships. It may be that the funding issue, which the Deputy raised, is delaying matters, but I will check that.
Will the Taoiseach circulate me with his findings?
Given the remarkable revelations at AIB last week, does the Taoiseach agree that the consumer's voice is weak or that the consumer has no voice regarding the current decision-making framework and that a strengthened Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs with an office holder along the lines of a consumer rights enforcer, which Deputy Hogan has promoted for some time, should be a representative at future social partnership talks to ensure that the necessary checks and balances can be put in place to protect the consumer? Does the Taoiseach favour that kind of strengthened position? Will he comment on that?
I note that MANDATE last month reported that 1,800 shop workers in the Republic are assaulted every year and that 7,500 are victims of verbal abuse. This comes on foot of anecdotal evidence that the level of racist abuse directed at shop workers of different ethnicity is becoming increasingly prevalent. Does the Taoiseach believe that the next social partnership agreement should examine devising methods to combat this growing phenomenon? Will he or some of his officials call in representatives of MANDATE to discuss its report and to ascertain its view on how this could be achieved?
On the first issue, a good aspect of the legislation on the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority, IFSRA, and the related legislation, which we discussed yesterday and which I understand will be cleared in the Seanad next week, is that it has a consumer element to it. From the point of view of people's concerns about the consumer interest, it is good that they are involved. I do not have a difficulty with this. I do not know which organisation will be involved or which way we will proceed but those representing consumers' interests should be heard.
I am not aware of the details regarding the second issue to which the Deputy referred. However, I will ask the officials involved in the social partnership negotiations to follow up on that issue. More generally, I am aware that there is a growing problem regarding how, in our multi-ethnic society, people deal in the large shops. While they are not markets, I accept that there is a problem. This matter has been raised with me by a number of individuals and I have been informed that perhaps because there are so many people of other nationalities living here, there is a certain friction which was not evident previously. We must work to ensure this does not develop into a larger problem. I have spoken to many individuals who work in stores about the matter. As the people concerned are not all Irish, there is obviously a problem as regards multiculturalism, with which we must deal. I imagine that is what is causing the concerns to which the Deputy referred. I will ask the officials to discuss the matter with MANDATE.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the reason we cannot proceed with delivering on the commitment in Sustaining Progress to provide 10,000 additional affordable housing units is not really to do with architects or bureaucracy but a lack of will on the part of the Government to drive the implementation of the programme? We are entering the second half of the period to which the agreement refers and not one brick has been laid or a single house built. There does not seem to be any political will to deliver on the promise to provide these additional houses, despite the manner in which the numbers on housing waiting lists are increasing, almost exponentially, every year.
The Taoiseach stated he had attended the opening of a housing scheme the other night. Is he referring to the scheme at Finglas where the affordable houses in question are being built under Part 5? Will he indicate whether the Government is seeking to do what it did with the RAPID programme? When the Government pulled the rug, in financial terms, from under the programme, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, travelled around the country relabelling projects that were coming on-stream in any event as being part of the RAPID programme. It seems that the Taoiseach went to Finglas and gave 150 houses that were being built in any event Part 5 designation, thereby making them part of the social housing provision of 10,000 units. Is it not the case that if the Government seriously wanted to drive implementation of the programme in the light of the acute nature of the housing crisis at that level, the houses in question would be beginning to become available now?
I referred to two sites. At Finglas, the building work is only starting. The housing scheme I opened recently, which was completed by the organisation Respond, comes under the heading of voluntary housing and does not relate to the affordable housing programme. I am not trying to confuse matters. The Finglas scheme comes under the affordable housing initiative.
The Government provided 6,100 sites in two tranches, the first in July last year and the second in December. Those sites are now available. There has been a debate between the social partners since last September until now regarding the scheme and the model to be used and, as I informed Deputy Ó Caoláin, I understand agreement has been reached. The Government provided the sites. In this instance, I was of the opinion that this would have been a major contribution on its part. There are almost 3,000 sites in Dublin city and county, 1,000 in Cork, 350 in Meath, 350 in Kildare and approximately 100 in Waterford. We are trying to obtain others. If the model is agreed and the local authorities and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government are involved, we can proceed.
Private developers state it takes five years from the purchase of a site to the sale of the first house. We made the announcement on 13 July last, approximately ten months ago. However, I hope it does not take five years to deliver the houses. We should be able to make further progress in trying to drive matters forward. I do not want them to be drawn out. I have asked my Department, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the local authorities to work together. I have also asked the former president of SIPTU who is involved in the scheme to try to assist us in bringing people together and driving matters forward. It is because we are trying to make progress that we are doing this. The sites are available and the scheme is in place. Therefore, we should be able to proceed. That is the position.
I do not believe there has been a delay. The model outlined under Part 5 is in place. It has been agreed that this model, which was used in the Finglas affordable housing scheme, can be extended to the other 6,100 sites. The Finglas development does not come within those 6,100 sites.
There are difficulties which I do not quite understand and on which the Deputy might need to table a question to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. In some instances, local authorities have indicated that some of the land provided is not suitable because of a lack of adequate facilities nearby. They have suggested that swaps should be arranged with developers for more suitable sites which would all work to proceed more quickly. If this is done in the correct way, I have no difficulty with it. I am not sure of the details but if it means developers swapping sites for more suitable adjacent sites, there should be no problem.
I hope to be able to identify more State-owned sites to be made available. If the land is available, the model is in place and the various groups work together, we should be able to make progress on this matter.
It is difficult to believe building a house in 2004 is a matter of rocket science. I do not understand it.
I return to the question of whether there is likely to be a new social partnership agreement, the absence of SIPTU from the negotiations and the issue of State companies. SIPTU absented itself as a result of what has been happening with Aer Rianta and Dublin Bus and the disposition of the Minister for Transport in respect of these issues. Is the Taoiseach in a position to indicate where we stand regarding the inclusion of SIPTU in the negotiations, particularly as it affects the Aer Rianta situation? Since last July legislation to break up Aer Rianta has been promised on a number of occasions, particularly in November, but has not yet been forthcoming. Has the Government been reconsidering this matter?
I had the privilege yesterday of visiting an Irish multinational, Keenans, in Borris, which is an immensely impressive engineering company. Aer Rianta is effectively an Irish multinational company with a considerable reputation outside this jurisdiction. If it was operating in the private sector, the Government would be building up its capacity as an Irish multinational but what we are actually doing is breaking it up into three different companies for a stated objective that none of us can understand.
A question please, Deputy.
Is it not the case that the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, has been unable to publish the business plan we began discussing last July? It would facilitate the full re-entry of SIPTU to the negotiations if the Taoiseach could provide assurances on the future of Aer Rianta. Why are we persisting with dismantling the company? Does the company's international reputation not mean that it is a significant player in the area? By breaking it up it will become insignificant and one or two limbs of it will prove unprofitable and be parcelled out to the private sector as SIPTU fears. Will the Taoiseach say whether he can rein in the Minister for Transport who takes an ideological approach to these issues? They keep driving press releases, but not much else is driving in this country.
The Deputy should confine himself to questions.
As Deputy Rabbitte knows, I have been dealing with this issue, either directly or indirectly, over the past 12 months. There are a number of aspects to the issue. I have given repeated assurances that there will be no diminution in the tenure of the terms of the conditions of employment of workers in State companies, specifically CIE and Aer Rianta. Talks have resumed today in the case of these two companies.
Talks have been going on in one form or another for the past ten years and actively for the past five years seeking certain reforms. A new paper is up for discussion today and hopefully those involved can enter the talks in a spirit of dialogue and try to come to conclusions as quickly as possible. The process is there for that reason and I have tried to help to get that engagement.
It is really about changing the stated position of the 1932 Act before it is done for us by the European Court or elsewhere. This was first highlighted about 20 years ago but we are still talking about it. At all times I have tried to keep the dialogue going but it is time to come to conclusions on the matter. I wish both the unions and management well in the deliberations. I do not seek to mention figures but urge those involved to get on with the talks and discussion of the papers put forward by the Department.
I have stated in my agreement that there is no conflict between the objectives of the reform of either sector with good and secure employment in the other. With the appropriate engagement of both sides that can be achieved. I have set that out and hope it is helpful to SIPTU.
Aer Rianta, which is a good company, has considerable difficulties in that regard. The Government has no intention of privatising Aer Rianta. However, it has problems and is not so financially strong, as has been pointed out. The unions are aware of this because they got the 40 page document to examine a few weeks ago. Reforms are necessary as believed and argued for by the regions, particularly Cork and Shannon. They believe that if they were allowed to operate as separate agencies, they could do a good job. That case has been made to the Minister and he has gone along with that.
Deputy Kenny raised the issue yesterday of the alternative view that private investors want to construct an independent terminal on a Dublin Airport site. They say if they can do it independently with unionised labour, they can bring in — I forget the exact figure — approximately 5 million additional customers and an enormous amount of work. As Deputy Rabbitte knows, that is totally opposed by Aer Rianta workers who are opposed to private development in any form in this area. It is a difficult issue because it seems that if we had an independent terminal and all these extra people, they would bring added value to the city. I have endeavoured to get some facilitation——
Many transport economists agree with the unions on this issue. Why duplicate or create a competitive model at the airport when it could be done more economically and efficiently as another public sector terminal?
Allow the Taoiseach to reply without interruption.
As the Deputy knows, three independent reports, two large and a smaller one, were produced on this issue. The former Secretary General of the Department of Finance, Mr. Paddy Mullarkey, chaired the group which produced the most recent one, which was a comprehensive report. It came out in favour of an independence. It is a hotly fought issue. I have talked to staff and to people in the airport on the matter. This issue feeds into the matter of the splitting up of the company. The talks are ongoing and are trying to find a resolution to the issue.
Now, because of those difficulties, we are not moving forward with the independence of the airports although we have good people lined up to drive this change in the regions to make it happen. On the point made by Deputy Kenny yesterday, none of the 13 companies where people want to invest privately has got going. I understand the fear of Aer Rianta staff is that if there was another terminal, their jobs would go and the cake would not grow. However, quite frankly, I do not think that would happen because all the indications are that tourism numbers and travel will increase. This year Dublin Airport, in spite of the conflict, has 19 new destinations, all of which are doing well. For travel in and out of Dublin also, the capacity figures are far higher than in most other countries. The most lucrative line in Europe at present is the Dublin-London line.
If we do not move on, we will stifle growth and large numbers of hotels and other industries in the area will be affected by that. We are trying to come to conclusions and to keep the workers satisfied. It is not a question of trying to privatise Aer Rianta, either split up or collectively, in any form. It seems we will lose out on other opportunities if we cannot find a way forward.
There are economists who say that——
I want to call Deputy Sargent. Deputy Rabbitte has had three supplementary questions. If he wants to pursue the matter he should submit a question to the Minister for Transport.
——the most efficient use of resources is to expand the facilities that are there.
I am concerned, and would like to know if the Taoiseach is also concerned, that the future of social partnership is being seriously jeopardised. Regardless of the Taoiseach's penchant for dialogue, to which we listen for long periods here, does he agree that a pledge of 10,000 additional units is a copper-fastened agreement? It is something that cannot simply be dismissed by an approach which says there are difficulties or problems with the drainage or that not being a builder he would not understand them. It is a pledge based upon the best advice of experts at the time and was not lightly entered into. Does he agree that there is a need to look not just at that pledge but also at 13 other pledges which were not followed through in terms of the agreement and on which CORI prepared a paper? Is there not a need, if he has any hope of another social partnership, to record exactly what went wrong, where it went wrong and what the Government will do to compensate for it, and to set out dates for when, for example, the 10,000 units will be built? As matters stand, the credibility of another partnership is in jeopardy.
The Deputy should confine himself to questions.
I think Deputy Sargent misunderstands this.
I am not the only one.
There was no expert opinion on this. The trade unions asked whether the State would provide 10,000 sites they could be used in the lifetime of the next programme, and the State has identified well over 6,000. Working with the social partnership we were to devise the criteria, the scheme and the process, and we are fully engaged in this. I am not involved in the construction. Our part was to provide the sites and to deal with the process involved. Local authorities, working in partnership with some of the private sector developers, will have to build the schemes. We have provided the land, the resources, the scheme and the process. We made a first announcement ten months ago and hopefully we will get on with it.
Deputy Sargent is right that building the units does not involve rocket science. However, developers will say that from the time they purchase a site until they build a house, with our plan and process, it will take them five years. In many cases it takes far longer but they say the best they can do is five years. Therefore, after ten months, we have not fallen behind. However, I would like to see them built quickly and hope we do not have to wait five years. I accept that bureaucracy should not allow this to be held back. I want to see progress.
National Security Committee.
Ceisteanna (8, 9, 10, 11)
Enda Kenny
Ceist:8 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if, in view of the recent atrocity in Madrid, he plans to convene a meeting of the high level group chaired by his Department to monitor the aftermath of the September 2001 terrorist attack in the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8970/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraTrevor Sargent
Ceist:9 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if the high level group on terrorism has met since the Madrid bombings; if not, when it intends to meet again; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9109/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Dinny McGinley
Ceist:10 Mr. McGinley asked the Taoiseach if the National Security Committee has met since the Madrid bombings; the membership of the committee; if it has reviewed the threat level from international terrorists to this country since Madrid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9568/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraPat Rabbitte
Ceist:11 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when the high level group, chaired by his Department, established after 11 September 2001 last met; if the group has considered the implications of the Madrid bombing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10706/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (9 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 11, inclusive, together.
The tragic events in Madrid have re-emphasised the need for continuing vigilance against the threat of international terrorism. The security services continue to closely monitor developments, in consultation with security services in other countries.
The National Security Committee is concerned with ensuring that I and the Government are advised of high-level security issues and the responses to them, but is not involved in operational security issues. It is chaired by the Secretary General to the Government and comprises the Secretaries General of the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Defence and Foreign Affairs, the Garda Commissioner and the Army Chief of Staff, and their respective deputies.
The committee met on 16 March in the aftermath of the Madrid tragedy and again in April. In addition, its members maintain close contact on an ongoing basis.
In the aftermath of the Madrid terrorist atrocity the Minister for Defence requested a review of the State's security measures. Was that carried out and is there an outcome to it?
Is the Taoiseach not concerned that Ireland's approach to emergency planning is very fragmented, coming as it does under the control of the National Security Committee, the Office of Emergency Planning, the Task Force on Emergency Planning and the interdepartmental group under the control of that task force? Are there any proposals to streamline this?
In respect of the very welcome celebrations which the Taoiseach hosted for the EU enlargement ceremonies, was there any contact with any other European Union states on the question of providing assistance or extra protection to this State in the event of a warning about a possible terrorist attack?
This group of questions brings together the role played by Departments and the security issues with which the Garda Síochána and the Army deal. The Garda and the Army now have extensive contact with Europol and Eurojust. There are procedures whereby there is almost daily contact and exchange of information and intelligence with Europol and Eurojust. The system works very tightly. The National Security Committee feeds into Government. The arrangements are fairly tight.
On the enlargement celebrations, any information would feed through. Obviously the Garda paid close attention to the movements of certain people in making preparations. Furthermore, there has been constant and very close monitoring since 11 September 2001 of a large number of international groups and operations. The Garda and the Army are increasingly involved in close co-operation with Europol and Eurojust. One can never say a system is perfectly tight, given what happened in Madrid and the fact that a number of groups are creating considerable concern in Europe and beyond. I know this from my colleagues. However, co-operation is at an all-time high in so far as we can effectively work on these issues.
Three Deputies submitted questions. If the House agrees, we will take questions from each and a final reply from the Taoiseach.
I listened to what the Taoiseach said regarding monitoring and I find it difficult to accept. Does the Taoiseach believe we as an island are mindful of the enormous lack of monitoring around our coast at ports, harbours and ferry access points? The number of stolen cars leaving this country suggests it is possible for people to go through without too much fuss or monitoring.
The Deputy should ask a question.
Would the Taoiseach agree that terrorist monitoring in the aftermath of September 2001 is more focused on what might be called "spectaculars" rather than on the day to day groundwork monitoring that seems to be more in evidence at football matches than at ports? Would the Taoiseach not agree that there is a significant need to monitor our coast? Is that being done? It is certainly not in evidence at the ports and harbours in my constituency.
Would the Taoiseach agree with the generally accepted view that, in the event of an attack similar to 11 September 2001, we would not have the capacity to defend our airspace? Has this been addressed by the National Security Committee? Is there any understanding between ourselves and any of our neighbours that assistance would be provided in the event of such an attack to defend our airspace and our people?
In answer to Deputy Sargent's question on general security regarding drugs and stolen products, there is enormous cross-over of intelligence inside and outside the country between the Garda and customs agencies. Europol and Eurojust track the movement of drugs, sometimes successfully, sometimes not so successfully. Regarding rings involved in car theft and other issues there is very close co-operation. I presume the Deputy is referring to a number of major investigations currently under way and there is a two-way trade on these issues.
Shortly after the events of 11 September 2001, the Government set up the Office of Emergency Planning to co-ordinate the work of the various emergency agencies in preparing contingency plans. The Task Force on Emergency Planning which is chaired by the Minister for Defence meets frequently to discuss these issues, which include issues of airspace.
In the event of a major disaster the level of expertise and infrastructure that would be required is far greater than we would have. Other European countries would always assist, if requested, in the event of a tragedy in what would be considered to be crisis management relationships. The possibility of requesting assistance or aid is available to us under present arrangements. As we have seen, a number of far more sophisticated and larger countries than ours do not have these capacities. If a major incident occurred we would have to seek assistance. Such an atrocity happened some years ago involving an Air India aeroplane off the Cork coast and we were assisted from outside. The level of co-operation between the Task Force on Emergency Planning and Europol and Eurojust is at an all-time high, as is the number of people involved in justice and home affairs issues compared to a few years ago when it was not a big issue. Today it is by far the biggest issue on the European agenda, given the astronomical extent of resources being put into emergency planning and emergency frameworks.