Vol. 609 No. 1
100 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the initiatives he intends to take to improve employment standards as requested by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in the context of the renewal of social partnership; the progress or otherwise that is being made in the dispute between Irish Ferries and SIPTU; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31861/05]
101 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, in view of the decisions of ICTU and SIPTU to defer entry to talks on a new social partnership agreement, the steps he has taken and the proposals he has formulated to address concerns regarding the protection of workers’ jobs, pay and conditions of employment from displacement in favour of cheap labour involving the exploitation of non-national workers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31717/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 100 and 101 together.
A comprehensive body of employment rights legislation is already in place. It has as its objectives the protection of employees against arbitrary behaviour by employers, provision for the safety and health of workers and to foster labour market harmony by promoting policies that minimise conflict and maximise fairness. While recognising the exceptional circumstances which have arisen in the maritime sector, it is important to remember that all labour law on the Statute Book applies to non-national workers working in this country in the same way as it applies to Irish workers. If a non-national worker feels he or she is being treated by his or her employer in a way which breaches any employee protection legislation, it would be open to him or her to refer a case for adjudication to a quasi-judicial body or person such as a rights commissioner, the Labour Court or the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
Following the announcement on 12 April last, 31 inspector posts are sanctioned for the labour inspectorate. This represents almost a doubling of the complement of inspectors in the past 12 months and is indicative of the Government's determination to ensure compliance with employment rights legislation.
Apart from strengthening staff resources, other initiatives are also under way. Arising from a commitment in Sustaining Progress and to assist in the preparation of proposals for consideration by Government, a discussion document was prepared by the labour inspectorate on its mandate and resourcing. The document covered the full range of issues that impact on the operation of the labour inspectorate, extending from the legislative framework through to operational aspects and staff development. It has been well received among the social partners and the parties are well advanced in their consideration of the proposals, of which there are in excess of 40. The objective is to formulate a set of recommendations for Government and it is intended that the process will feed into and complement any future partnership discussions.
On 24 May last, I announced a programme of action in response to the report and recommendations of the review group on the role and functions of the employment rights bodies and following consultations with the various interested parties. This included the establishment of an employment rights group, ERG, comprising representatives of my Department, the employment rights bodies and the social partners. The ERG is to consider how best to simplify and streamline the complaints, appeals and enforcement procedures and documentation across the various employment rights bodies. It will also examine the extent to which common procedures and a simplified approach to the conduct of hearings or investigations can be adopted, leading to procedural simplification and improved customer service. Its work should be completed by the end of next year.
The concerns expressed by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and SIPTU to which the Deputy refers raise complex legal and policy issues. The Government is, however, committed to taking whatever steps are feasible, through legislation or otherwise, to develop in partnership with ICTU and employers a meaningful package in the area of enhanced employment standards generally. Those issues can best be advanced through dialogue in the context of the partnership process.
I understand that the Irish Ferries dispute has been referred to the Labour Court, an independent statutory body that acts independently in carrying out its functions. I have no function regarding the decision-making process of the court.
Will the Minister of State comment on the fact that, in the context of Irish Ferries changing its workforce in a very unorthodox fashion, the Taoiseach cast doubt in the House on the legality of its conducting its business in such a manner? Has the Taoiseach or the Minister of State checked the legality of the move by Irish Ferries to change its workforce from indigenous Irish to migrant labour? Is that now legal? If not, does the Minister of State intend to change the law to prevent the activity in question from proceeding?
The Minister of State said that approximately 40 issues relating to employment law and standards were being considered in the context of partnership. What is the Department's thinking on those issues, and will the Minister of State spare us from having to rely on people involved with the social partners to acquaint us of the issues under consideration? The democratic process of this House requires that he inform it of the 40 ideas that he has said are being considered.
The Deputy has raised several issues. In the first instance, any legislation that might arise would clearly be a matter for the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. However, I had a meeting with the Minister of State at the Department, Deputy Gallagher, and subsequently with officials from it and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment on these issues. As Deputy Hogan said, legal advice was sought on a range of issues.
The suggestions and recommendations made during Question Time a few weeks ago were pursued at European and other levels. No definite decisions have been made in that regard, but the matter is being followed up by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. There have already been more than 40 recommendations which will be brought to the attention of the House at the appropriate time. Some of them concern resourcing and others additional legislation or amendments to existing laws. Some are fairly simple and others quite complex. They deal with the resourcing and mandate of the labour inspectorate.
The Taoiseach wrote to the president of ICTU outlining his views on the protection of workers. That was found wanting and both the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and SIPTU have declined the invitation to participate in talks on a successor agreement to Sustaining Progress. Has there been any further communication from the Taoiseach to ICTU to clarify his position?
The Minister of State seems to believe that the Irish Ferries dispute is a unique aberration in this country's labour relations. Has the exchange of legal views between ICTU and the Departments that the Taoiseach told the House was taking place actually happened? What is the current legal situation? Does the position that the Taoiseach relayed to the House on 26 October, that it would be extremely difficult in Irish and international law to deal with the issue of re-flagging, remain the Government's view?
Regarding the Minister of State's reply that 31 labour inspectors have now been authorised, how many are in place? Does he believe that even if all 31 were in place, this would be adequate to monitor a workforce that has now exceeded 2 million?
Subsequent to the Taoiseach's letter to ICTU, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, had meetings with SIPTU on 20 October. On the same afternoon, ICTU had a meeting with the Taoiseach on this and a number of other issues.
Were those meetings with the Taoiseach or the Minister, Deputy Martin?
Initially, the meetings on 20 October were between SIPTU and the Minister, Deputy Martin. On the same day, however, ICTU had a meeting with the Taoiseach on this and a range of other issues, though principally, perhaps, on this issue. Deputy Howlin is of the view that I consider the Irish Ferries case to be a unique aberration. It is fair to say that the set of circumstances apply to maritime law and the enforcement of Irish industrial legislation outside the jurisdiction. Members of the House are aware of the situation in that regard.
The Department has not received a notice of redundancy from Irish Ferries at this stage nor is there any indication that it will. The Taoiseach has indicated that the situation is extremely difficult as regards taking any of the actions stipulated, some of which were proposed in this House when the matter was discussed on a private notice question and some of which were raised subsequently. It continues to be extremely difficult. However, the Government is committed to ensuring that if any means can be found to address the crisis, it will take whatever action is available to it. At this stage it is not clear what effective action is available to the Government as regards the international maritime law.
Deputy Howlin asked about the number of inspectors. The announcement was made earlier in the year and subsequently the positions were advertised. There were not sufficient candidates on the first round of interviews. A second round of interviews was held and completed in the middle of October. I understand the positions will now be filled. The inspectors will have to be trained and that process will have to be undergone——
My question was about how many were in place.
I will find out the exact information for the Deputy. I understand that some from the first round may already be in place. Those appointed from the second round have not been trained as yet. However, the process of short-listing and choosing the applicants has been completed.
The matter does not appear to be that urgent given it is five or six weeks since the Taoiseach indicated that legal advice would be required. I am surprised the Minister of State has not got legal advice that he can impart to the House or indicated that the legal process has been completed. It does not seem to be urgent. It has placed the partnership talks under scrutiny and raised a doubt about the process itself because it has taken so long to get this legal advice.
Can the Minister of State make an assessment as to where matters stand as regards a new partnership agreement in the light of this dispute and the lack of clarity by the Taoiseach over the correspondence with the president of SIPTU? Does he believe the current partnership process should be reformed if a new national agreement is to be arrived at within the coming months?
The Taoiseach has informed the House of the up-to-date situation as regards legal advice. Legal advice has been sought across a range of issues including the implications for redundancy payments and international maritime law as well as those which might arise if flagging were to be undertaken either within or outside the EU. The Taoiseach has answered questions on all of these issues and there is no more up-to-date information available.
Deputy Hogan believes there is a doubt about the future of partnership. I assure him that the Government is entirely committed to ensuring that the partnership process continues and that every effort is being made to ensure that the next round gets under way as soon as possible. Notwithstanding that considerable difficulty has arisen, mainly from the Irish Ferries dispute, this has been addressed. The Taoiseach has met SIPTU. I am to meet the ICTU this afternoon as regards related issues and I am sure this matter will be raised at that stage, too. There is no lack of clarity on the Government position. It is entirely committed to the process of partnership. Should the issue of reform arise, I am sure this will need considerable debate. In the interim, a better model has not been presented by anybody. It is clearly in the interests of everybody in the State that every effort is made to ensure that the partnership process continues.
I will pursue that matter again. The Taoiseach told the House on 26 October, that the Attorney General was looking at a legal way to address this issue. Will the Minister of State give the House a progress report on that? Given the degree of urgency which should be attached and which I thought the Government attached to this issue which is the foundation of our economy in terms of the social partnership model that has worked effectively for 18 years now, if the social partnership is under threat because of the actions of one sole rogue operating company, surely we should have a definitive view as to whether legal action is possible at this stage. What views, even in a preliminary way, has the Attorney General given to the Minister of State on this issue? What is the status of the commitment given by the Taoiseach to examine the Labour Party Bill, which has been examined by international lawyers and seems to be a workable solution?
I am sure the Taoiseach will fulfil his commitment to examine the Labour Party Bill. The legal advice received since 26 October indicates there is no easy way to address the difficulties that have caused problems for ICTU in terms of participation in social partnership. There are clearly difficulties for the Government also. Most of the issues in question arise in the area of international maritime law in respect of which this country cannot unilaterally make changes. None of the legal advice indicates such a course of action is open to the Government.
I imparted to the House on a previous occasion the legal advice we received in regard to the redundancy situation. There has been no request from the company in question in terms of the redundancy scheme. Until such is received, it is impossible to be definitive in this regard.
Will the Minister of State share the Attorney General's advice with the Opposition?
Question No. 102 is in the name of Deputy Eamon Ryan. As the Deputy is absent, the question cannot be taken.
103 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the reason for the delay in bringing forward legislation to establish the national consumer agency; the timescale for the appointment of a new chairman of the Competition Authority; the timescale for the appointment of a new Director of Consumer Affairs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31862/05]
Given the importance of the national consumer agency, NCA, to the development of future consumer protection policy, it is vital that the legislation is framed to ensure the NCA has sufficient powers and functions to enable it to carry out its role as a forceful advocate on behalf of the consumer, as envisaged by the consumer strategy group. In addition to setting up the NCA, I will take the opportunity in the legislation to update the existing code of consumer protection law, some of which is more than 100 years old, as also recommended by the consumer strategy group. Furthermore, the legislation will seek to transpose the recently promulgated European directive on unfair business to consumer commercial practices, one of the most significant directives in the area of consumer protection, into national law.
Given the scope of the legislation, its preparation will take time. It is my expectation, however, that the legislation will be published in the latter half of next year and that the national consumer agency will be up and running early in 2007. In the meantime, I have appointed a board to the agency to act in an interim capacity. Since its appointment, it has been active in putting the consumer's case on issues such as the debate on the future of the groceries order. I am confident the interim board will continue to be a forceful advocate for consumers in ensuring their voices are heard.
With regard to the timescale for the appointment of a new chairperson of the Competition Authority, the Competition Act requires that the recruitment process be undertaken by the public appointments service. However, the vacancy has been advertised both nationally and internationally, and consultants, PricewaterhouseCoopers, have been engaged to carry out an executive search for suitable candidates. The Public Appointments Service is arranging for a high level board to conduct competitive interviews. However, in view of the high profile of this post and the worldwide scope of the executive search for suitably qualified candidates, it is unlikely an appointment will be made until 2006.
The Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs continues in existence until such time as it is incorporated into the new agency. The Director of Consumer Affairs continues to perform her enforcement functions to guarantee the protection of consumer rights. I understand she has been approached in regard to a possible appointment to another position. No decision has been made in this matter, however, and the question of appointing a successor does not therefore arise at this time. The Government is determined that policy in the areas of competition and consumer protection is robust and is fully developed to meet the needs of the modern marketplace and the modern consumer.
Does the Minister accept that the Government voted down a Fine Gael proposal in November 2003 which aimed to establish a consumer rights enforcer, similar to the agency advocated by the consumer strategy group? On its announcement, the Minister stated the national consumer agency was important and urgently required. A year and a half later, however, the relevant legislation has not been produced. There is no evidence of urgency in terms of the importance of ensuring some mechanism of redress for consumers. It is unacceptable to delay until the latter half of 2006 the establishment of an agency that is long overdue. Consumers effectively have no right of redress or of complaint at present.
Does the Minister accept that he appears to have decided to merge the Office of Director of Consumer Affairs with this national agency? Would it not be better to state that explicitly now and not allow this inept body, the Office of Director of Consumer Affairs, to continue in existence without knowing its future?
I reject the Deputy's assertions. We said on the publication of the consumer strategy group's report in May that it would take time to produce the legislative template for the new national consumer agency. That is why, almost immediately, we took steps to establish an interim board of the agency. It has already been forceful in articulating and advocating on behalf of the consumer, for example, with regard to the debate on the groceries order.
It has not.
It has.
It has not. That was in the consumer strategy group's report.
It has made submissions and so forth.
The group made its views known before being appointed to the interim board. The Minister should get it right.
No, the consumer agency advocated in a vigorous fashion on behalf of the consumer in the groceries order debate. It has also been in discussions with the Department with regard to its plans for the coming months. The Estimates assessment will reflect that in due course.
It is correct, therefore, with regard to the legislation to be put in place, that we do not simply deal with the establishment of the consumer agency but we also transpose that important directive into law. It is an important consumer protection measure. We must also update consumer law. In the meantime, the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs is not an inept body. It has clear statutory functions to discharge and legislation has been passed to increase the fines the office can levy in penalties. This, too, was recommended by the consumer strategy group.
There is a unit in the Department dealing with this issue. Resources have been allocated for people to work on the legislation and it will be a substantial measure. Obviously it is reasonable that it should take that length of time.
After nine years in office it is clear today that there is no consumer policy. The Minister announced last May that he would establish a new agency and that the required legislation would be presented to the House a year and a half later. The Minister has stated that he will bring forward legislation in the latter half of 2006, which will be October or November in 2006 unless the House sits during the summer recess next year or there is some other interruption to the Minister's schedule.
The national consumer agency is an important development for consumer protection. The Minister should take a more urgent approach to putting in place an agency to advocate on behalf of consumers and, similar to the Ombudsman, to offer consumers the opportunity to seek redress. The Minister should use his good offices in Government to fast-track this process. It is most important because people are not getting the benefit of good consumer protection at present.
The appointment of the chairman of the Competition Authority is most important in the context of policing consumer issues and with regard to mergers and takeovers. There is a vacuum in the chair of the authority at present and most of the members of the authority are not involved in business or consumer activities. Does the Minister have any plans to reform the Competition Authority or to strengthen competition law in the context of the appointment of a new chairman? This would make it easier for consumers to secure a better deal in the marketplace.
The Competition Authority has been an effective body. The chairperson has moved on to a new position——
There have been no prosecutions or fines.
He was an exceptional performer.
He talked a lot.
He retired from the post on 5 October. It is reasonable——
Did the Minister know he was leaving?
One cannot do anything until the person actually leaves the position.
He could have told the Minister in advance.
The search is under way for a replacement. Any analysis would indicate that the authority has been an effective and powerful body in terms of advocacy for competition in the economy generally.
The Minister should look at the replies he gave to my questions last week.
As Deputy Eamon Ryan has arrived in the House and it is still within the time allocated for Priority Questions, I call his Question No. 102.
102 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the grounds on which he has made an application to the European Commission for grant aid to Centocor; the amount of Government funding already committed to the project and the consequences for the ongoing construction of the plant should grant aid be refused. [32015/05]
Member states are obliged to notify for approval all projects which exceed the threshold provided for in the multisectoral framework for large investment projects. The aid in this case exceeded the threshold and accordingly had to be notified to the European Commission, and discussions are ongoing.
The amount of Government funding already committed to the project is a confidential matter between the Government and the company involved. It would be wholly wrong of me to breach this trust. Construction of the plant has already commenced.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and apologise to the Minister for being slightly late to ask the question.
I want to broaden the matter. We have been remarkably successful as a location for foreign direct investment. I am querying whether the success of that policy is possibly being threatened by a different perception of it, specifically within the European Commission's rules. We have seen the difficulties in getting certain projects in Intel and others developed. Is that a signal from the Commission or from the European Union of a change of policy on Ireland's policy in this area? Given the failure of other countries to attract similar levels of foreign direct investment and given the concern about our lower tax rate, even though I would contend that their effective tax rate due to reductions for research and development and other expenditure may be as low, if not lower, than ours, does the Minister sense that there is a political problem for this State in dealing with the European Union or with our European colleagues in terms of attracting support for our policy, particularly for having applications for capital grant support accepted, as in this case?
The issue is as follows. The European Commission and its officials must operate in the context of the regional aid guidelines and multisectoral framework that have been passed by the member states. Ireland entered a number of submissions on that, particularly for large projects. There was a footnote attached to the multisectoral framework which we argued should allow for innovation in terms of large-scale projects, even where the company may have a dominant share of the market. In one previously highly publicised case, that argument did not win through.
The number of projects caught up in this sort of multisectoral framework is few. The majority of projects do not necessitate notification. Notification can be necessary under a range of criteria. Enjoying in excess of 25% of market share is a key one and it is one which affects this case. We are engaged with the Commission at present, answering questions and responding with information on the market share of the company concerned.
The issue the Deputy has raised is more general. It is not a political problem for Ireland vis-à-vis the Commission. It is really about the competitive position of Europe vis-à-vis other trading blocks across the globe and in terms of overall globalisation.
We in Ireland have a view and have made a submission to a review being undertaken of those regional aid guidelines and the new multisectoral framework for large investment projects. We have made the point that Ireland often wins these projects not from European member states but from countries in Asia, South America or elsewhere. We submitted that this point should be taken on board and that Europe as an entity must be competitive and must face up to competition in terms of effective corporation tax rates in the context of the state aid policies of non-EU countries. We have concerns about that overall position.
The good news is that the significant players see Ireland as an attractive location for industry and for high-end activities. The activities plan in this respect is relatively good for 2005. I have accompanied IDA Ireland on a number of trade missions and we are working hard to position Ireland as an attractive location. That continues to be the position.
When does the Minister expect to get a decision from the Commission in this regard? Can he indicate whether he expects that decision to be favourable or negative? If there were to be a negative response to it, what would be the implications for the project in question or a similar project? I do not want to go into the specifics of a commercial operation. If grant aid is not allowable, what are the implications for projects such as this when they have already proceeded?
There are two stages to the ongoing engagement with the Commission. As a first stage, the Commission must make a decision as to whether to open the issue to full, formal investigation, in which submissions are received from others who may have an interest in the issue. This is a process that can take some time. We hope it will not be necessary in this case but I do not want to be seen to pre-empt the discussions and the exchange of information which are ongoing between ourselves and the Commission.
That would be terrible.
What if we do not get a decision in our favour?
There is little point going into the realm of speculation. "So far, so good" is how I would term the way we are operating within the multisectoral framework. We have strong relationships with many of the companies which have established in Ireland and which may be establishing new phases to their development here. We want to maintain that relationship. I cannot speculate in terms of what may happen. However, it is important that, at a pan-European level, we take a more competitive approach to Europe's global competitors in terms of the attraction of mobile international investment.
104 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the reason applications for the position of chief science adviser were not invited and the position was not advertised; the number of such positions filled by his Department in this way without advertisement or competition; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31718/05]
The decision to appoint the chief science adviser was made by the Government as part of a package of measures in the area of science co-ordination and oversight. These measures were agreed by Government in June 2004 and included the following: the establishment of a Cabinet Sub-Committee on Science, Technology and Innovation; the establishment of an interdepartmental committee to support the Cabinet committee in its work; the creation of the post of chief science adviser to the Government; and the putting in place of a new Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation, comprised of stakeholder interests from academia and enterprise. The chief science adviser is contracted to Forfás and reports to the chief executive of Forfás in respect of his day-to-day functions. He reports to the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Science, Technology and Innovation in respect of his advisory functions.
Will the Minister answer the question?
As regards the filling of the position of chief science adviser, there were particular circumstances surrounding this matter. The Government was aware of the availability of a specific individual with a particular background and experience of relevance to the position of chief science adviser. That individual was retiring from a post in the European Commission at director general level. The post in question was that of director general of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. The Joint Research Centre employs over 2,000 staff and covers a broad range of scientific and technological areas including energy research, food safety and quality, and chemicals.
The individual had previously worked for the European Commission as head of the unit responsible for the Marie Curie research fellowships. Prior to his employment in the European Commission, he had been responsible for Ireland's first national biotechnology programme, BioResearch Ireland. He had also held a number of positions in industry, as a clinical biochemist at Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin and as senior research biochemist at the Wolfson Research Institute, Birmingham. As such, the individual had an extensive range of experience and a track record across a spectrum of science and technology disciplines in the public and private sector, nationally and at European level. That experience and track record matched very well with the multidisciplinary nature of the position of chief science adviser.
The prospective availability of the individual in question coincided with the finalisation of the overall package of measures on science and technology co-ordination and governance which I have just described. Following consideration of the experience and track record of the individual, and in the context of its consideration of these measures, the Government approved the creation of the position of chief science adviser. Arising from these unique circumstances, the position was not filled by way of competition and was exceptional in this regard as far as my Department is concerned.
In a previous reply to Deputy Hogan, the Minister referred to the appointment of the Director of Consumer Affairs as being of such importance that a worldwide search would have to be carried out independently by the Public Appointments Service, so critical was that job to the economy. Does the Minister regard the job of chief science adviser, one of the pillars of the approach of recognising science as a pivotal part of Ireland's economic future, in the same light? Would it not have been best to advertise to find whether a more suitable candidate was available, rather than simply selecting one individual, as exemplary as the Minister obviously believes the candidate to be?
An Irish Independent article of 31 October stated the Minister met with the chief science adviser last week to present him with a series of questions and requested that he clarify the position within seven days. Is this the case? Did the Minister meet with the chief science adviser? What questions did the Minister pose to him? What concerns has the Minister in regard to his position?
At the time the Government was satisfied there was a need to give momentum to science co-ordination policy and the general science agenda.
Why was the position not advertised?
A situation arose within the Commission where an individual was readily available to fill the position of chief science adviser. He occupied a significant post in the Commission, under which a significant number of people were employed in a research facility. He had a track record with the establishment of BioResearch Ireland and is well thought of in academia and government circles.
Why was he leaving the Commission then?
It made sense at the time, with the other measures taken in science and technology policy, to create the position of chief science adviser. In a short time, many positive developments have taken place in research, such as the programme for research in third level institutions and the creation of Science Foundation Ireland.
Last week, I met the chief science adviser, not to present several questions as has been described or to set a target of seven days, but rather because I received several parliamentary questions, arising from an article in a particular newspaper, pertaining to one of his academic qualifications. I pointed out to him that this raised concerns among parliamentary colleagues and that it needed to be dealt with in a comprehensive and substantive way. I also explained to him that I was receiving follow-up correspondence from a Deputy. Regarding the specific academic qualification in question, I explained to him that I needed to have information to me available to deal with that issue. The chief science adviser undertook to do this and this matter is ongoing.
So he is not qualified.
The Minister's reply was a long one to a simple and straightforward question on the advertising of a post. The principal academic qualification, the PhD held by the chief science adviser, is in question. Is the Minister satisfied that the awarding university, the Pacific Western University, is acceptable for the prestigious post of chief science adviser? Has the Minister independently checked the university's record, its capacity and its recognition within the academic community in the US, or is the Minister entirely dependent on the view given by the chief science adviser?
No, I am not dependent on his views. The National Qualifications Authority of Ireland, the body responsible for accreditation in Ireland, was asked to assess the bona fides of this institution.
What was the authority's view?
Its view was that it did not have accrediting powers within the US. In our discussions with the chief science adviser, his view was that the body he dealt with at that time is vastly different from the one in place now.
What body?
There is an issue of due process in this case.
He is on the way out then.
I am anxious to bear this in mind when considering the individual's position, particularly as he has a significant track record in public positions both in Ireland and the European Commission. I put the position we received from the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland on that body in the US to the chief science adviser.
That does not sound good.
I wish to raise a point of order.
What is the point of order?
I need guidance as to whether the Chair has jurisdiction over the transfer to another Department of parliamentary questions placed with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
It has been repeatedly stated that the Chair has no responsibility with regard to this issue.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, unfortunately the effect is that a member of the public, who is not a Member of this House, has more access to accurate information from the Minister through a freedom of information request than a Member of this House through a parliamentary question. I find that grossly unacceptable.
The point has been made clear on numerous occasions. I call Question No. 105.
The Minister should rethink his position on this matter. It is grossly unfair to Members of this House. Through freedom of information requests, members of the public have more access to accurate information than Members of this House have through parliamentary questions. The parliamentary question system defies logic. It is ridiculous.
Hear, hear.
