Nora Owen
Question:2 Mrs. Owen asked the Taoiseach the Government meetings scheduled to be held outside Government Buildings in 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2095/01]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Government Meetings.
Nora Owen
Question:3 Mrs. Owen asked the Taoiseach if he has any plans to update the Cabinet Handbook; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2153/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.
The Government intends to continue having meetings in regional centres. The policy was introduced last year and meetings to date have been held in Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, Knocknaheeny, County Cork and at Faithlegg, County Waterford. The public interest and warm welcome justifies the organisational effort behind the initiative. The number, timing and location of meetings to take place this year have yet to be determined. Announcements in respect of a regional meeting of the Government will be made only a short period before the meeting.
The Cabinet Handbook was published in October 1998. Two amendments to the handbook were published in 1999, dealing with policy proofing of Government memoranda for issues of regulatory reform and rural development. Incorporation of a further amendment approved last year in relation to statute law – restatement – will follow the enactment of the relevant legislation.
The text of the Irish translation of the handbook is currently with the printers. Production will be completed shortly and publication will follow as soon as can be arranged. No further amendments to the handbook are under consideration at this time.
Will the Taoiseach indicate where meetings outside Government Buildings are to be held? Will they be held in strategically located places where seats may need to be held or fought over? Will the Taoiseach tell the House the average cost of holding meetings outside of Government Buildings, given that when Governments hold meetings outside, they involve themselves with political work when in a particular location? Is there a separation of the cost of holding the Government meeting and Ministers doing political work when in a particular area, whether Roscommon, Waterford or Cork?
Ballaghaderreen was chosen as it was the central location chosen for the launch of the western region's offices. Knocknaheeny was the central location for the southern group, while Waterford was the central location for the south eastern group. Two of the meetings coincided with meetings of the regional areas and all the other representatives attended the Knocknaheeny meeting. That was the reason the meetings took place at the beginning of last year. This made sense, given that the Government intended holding meetings. This aspect will be taken into consideration when holding further meetings. The costs involved are low. Usually Government meetings last for a full day and, while there was some political activity, I recall this took place in just one of the venues.
I do not object to Government meetings being held outside of Dublin. It is probably good to bring Government around the country provided either of the Government parties do not try to promote themselves.
On the Cabinet Handbook, in view of the information regarding the Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, are there proposals to change any of the declarations Ministers must make to the Taoiseach? We must all make declarations under the ethics in public office legislation, but certain information is also given to the Taoiseach of the day. In light of the Government's experience in discovering matters about some of the Taoiseach's appointees, are there proposals to change any of the regulations or requirements governing Ministers or Ministers of State?
Not as yet. On the issue referred to by the Deputy, the Minister of State indicated on that form that the company properly complied. The matter will go to the commission and due process will take its course, therefore I do not wish to say more on the matter. I have been considering more carefully the monitoring of these forms in relation to the information given that the detail is fairly scant – not particularly in relation to this case. The Deputy will appreciate that I would normally have a quick look at the forms, I would not study related companies to see whether more details should be provided in the forms. I have asked for advice on this aspect. I do not think a change in the handbook is required because it is already specific on that issue. In the case mentioned, the Deputy declared an interest in that company.
Given that there have been clear breaches of Cabinet secrecy and information – I am reminded of the faxes exchanged when the Government was in the process of making a decision on the size of supermarkets, when the Taoiseach received a fax from a particular person—
That issue should not be raised during this question.
It is very relevant to the question. What changes in the Cabinet Handbook has the Taoiseach implemented or is he proposing to implement to ensure that when a Member of the Cabinet breaches Cabinet confidentiality a full investigation is carried out, the person is identified and the appropriate sanction is imposed?
The responsibilities of Members of the Cabinet are well documented in the handbook and this has been the case for several years. On the question of leaks, the example given by the Deputy was not a leak. People sent data to me and to other Ministers, therefore it was not a leak. However, as the Deputy will be aware, leaks are investigated by the Garda.
Arising from the Taoiseach's reply to Deputy Owen, did I correctly hear him say on the matter of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, not declaring an interest in respect of his family farm having a licence to feed meat and bone meal to animals, when he voted in the House on a Private Members' Bill, notwithstanding his responsibility with regard to food, that he does not propose to take any action until the Public Offices Commission has examined and adjudicated on the complaint?
The matter in question is before the commission and it is a matter for that body to deal with it.
The Taoiseach is taking no responsibility?
By way of clarification, does the Taoiseach believe he has any political responsibility as the head of Government in relation to that issue?
The questions on the Order Paper are very general. Specific cases should not be raised. The case mentioned is currently before the Public Offices Commission.
That is the point I wish to clarify. Does the Taoiseach believe he is not in a position to accept his political responsibility because one aspect is before the Public Offices Commission? Is that the rule the Taoiseach is following? Is he in effect saying he cannot act or discharge his political responsibility because one aspect of the matter is being considered by the Public Offices Commission?
I do not wish to go through all the details. In relation to the aspect correctly raised by Deputy Owen, the Minister of State does not have anything to answer. However, there are other matters which must be investigated. While I have a political responsibility, people are entitled to due process under the Act. The Member in question is complying with the Public Offices Commission. There would not be any point in having a Public Offices Commission if someone else was to do the job for it. On the aspect covered by me in relation to the forms, the Minister does not have a question to answer.
On the matter referred to by the Taoiseach, I wish to bring him back to the question of due process. While I do not disagree with what he said regarding due process, I put it to him that there is a danger of his abdicating responsibility on this issue. Surely there is a question of political accountability. Perhaps I could cite another case to the Taoiseach, that of his colleague, the Minister for the Marine. Will he proffer a view on requests for further information that may from time to time issue from the Public Offices Commission? Does he have a view on the speed with which such a query might be answered to the satisfaction of the committee, or is the Taoiseach willing to take a wait and see, hands-off, "not for me", "none of my business" approach? Is that what he means by due process or does he have any responsibility in relation to these issues?
The question relates to the updating of the Cabinet handbook.
The Cabinet Handbook is not meant—
It is not in order to raise questions on specific cases.
Has the Taoiseach a view on outstanding queries that may have been lawfully raised by the Public Offices Commission?
On any information or query, Ministers or Deputies should deal with these matters speedily. As Whip, the Deputy will be aware that there are a great number of queries between Deputies, Senators and the Public Offices Commission. I am aware of this as leader of my party as well as in my position as Taoiseach. People should answer queries speedily. I have said to my colleagues that, wherever there is doubt, they should err on the side of giving excessive information.
On the other aspect, Deputy Owen asked the correct question. If the Ministers of State in their declaration to me had not declared their involvement and engagement in a company, it would be a matter for me. If it is an aspect of what happens within the House or within legislation, the person is entitled to due process and it might or might not come back to me because I have a political responsibility. However, the point at issue in this is a point that is before the Public Offices Commission and I have no more to say about that.
The Taoiseach would have known about the Minister, Deputy Fahey.
I am not entitled to see the correspondence.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that the complaint in relation to Deputy Ned O'Keeffe is in his capacity as a Deputy—
I have ruled against the naming of people.
—and not in his capacity as Minister of State?
This question is not about specific cases. It is about the updating of the handbook.
This is about the attempt by the Taoiseach to link political responsibility as to whether he will take decisive action with the findings of the Public Offices Commission—
That is not the point.
It is not related to the question either.
It is the point. The Taoiseach is waiting for Deputy O'Keeffe to fall on his sword like Deputy Lawlor, Deputy Foley and the others.
No, that is not the point.
The Deputy is out of order.
He will not exercise political responsibility—
I can see where the Deputy is coming from. The Deputy does not want to have a Public Offices Commission because then—
We set it up.
We have introduced strong legislation to make it meaningful.
We set it up; the Taoiseach should not go down that road.
Then why does the Deputy not stick by the due process? Why does he not follow what is in the Act?
We must proceed to the next question.
Why does the Taoiseach not exercise his responsibility?
The Taoiseach has to take responsibility for his Ministers.
The Taoiseach is just waiting for him to fall on his sword.
No, this is the old story with the Labour Party – deal with the issue and do not allow due process.