Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the procedures in place in his Department for dealing with requests for files and information by tribunals of inquiry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3566/08]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Tribunals of Inquiry.
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of requests he has received since June 2002 to date in 2008 from tribunals of inquiry for files or other information held by his Department; the procedures in place within his Department for dealing with such requests; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4659/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the approximate number of requests since 2002 for files in his Department from tribunals of inquiry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4984/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
From time to time, there have been requests to my Department for files and information from various tribunals. My Department has co-operated fully with all such requests and will continue to do so in the future.
Normally requests from tribunals are received by the Secretary General of my Department and assigned to the appropriate departmental officials by him. Appropriate replies subsequently issue when the requests have been considered and any relevant information or files have been identified.
All inquiries to my Department from tribunals and all replies that are issued by my Department to tribunals are dealt with on a highly confidential basis, as required by the tribunals themselves. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the substance or the number of requests received in my Department from tribunals. It is a matter for the tribunals themselves to consider if and when to disclose such information in the interests of ensuring that the work of the tribunals is not encroached upon.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach a number of questions on this matter. How many files have been supplied to the various tribunals by his Department? How many files have been requested and transferred to the various tribunals by his Department? Can he confirm that the file dealing with the State's purchase of the Battle of the Boyne commemorative site is one such file?
As I said in my reply, I am not in a position to discuss, with regard to any of these matters, issues which the tribunals themselves have stated are highly confidential. It is a matter for the tribunals to disclose if they so wish.
I will allow Deputy Kenny to ask one supplementary question as we must move on to other Deputies.
I have a few, a Cheann Comhairle.
I am sure the Deputy does.
I wished to know the number of files transferred from the Taoiseach's Department to the tribunals, but the Taoiseach has not confirmed this. He is reluctant to say whether the file on the purchase of the Battle of the Boyne site was requested. He did say that his Department co-operates fully in supplying the relevant information, which is gathered on a confidential basis, to the tribunals. However, there is a great deal of public information available on the file to which I refer because of one person who was associated with the group that bought the site in 1997 for £2.7 million. The site was sold for £7.8 million two years later. Despite the fact that the Department of Foreign Affairs was opposed to the holding of such a commemoration, it was taken to a point at which the Taoiseach's predecessor requested that a meeting take place between the then Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, former Deputy Síle de Valera, and Deputy Séamus Brennan to investigate whether it could be included in the millennium projects.
The former Taoiseach did answer one question on this matter but subsequently refused to answer any other questions. I do not know what the Taoiseach has in front of him but perhaps he would comment on what was actually going on between the Department of Foreign Affairs and his Department and whether the person associated with the group that originally purchased the site was directly involved. It is a matter of public interest. Will the Taoiseach confirm that if questions are asked about the Battle of the Boyne site he will answer them, unlike his predecessor who shoved them off somewhere else?
It is not a question of shoving anything off anywhere else.
It is, because the former Taoiseach would not answer the questions.
It is a question of appropriateness. We have set up tribunals of inquiry to look into various matters. The requests for information from the tribunal were made on a confidential basis and it would be improper for me to divulge the content of that correspondence. That is the situation as far as the tribunals are concerned. It is they who make the requests. People must understand that it would be totally inappropriate for me to divulge any information about the correspondence received in my Department from the various tribunals. All such queries comprise the private phases of the tribunals' work. For reasons of confidentiality required by the tribunals I am prohibited from going into any more detail. We must respect the tribunals in the conduct of their work. That is the reason I must give the answer I am giving.
I must move across to Deputy Gilmore.
Will the Ceann Comhairle come back to me?
Yes.
Are there any requests for files that are still outstanding? In addition, was any request for files by any of the tribunals declined by his Department?
No. In the body of my reply I confirmed that the Department has co-operated fully with all such requests and will continue to do so in the future. As I said, from time to time my Department has been requested by various tribunals to supply files and information, which has been forwarded to them. I cannot add to that. There is nothing outstanding as far as I know.
Why is the Taoiseach not more forthcoming on the questions asked by Deputy Kenny? What is preventing him from providing the information about a specific file that would confirm or deny what Deputy Kenny asked?
I am advised — it is a requirement of the tribunal — that, for reasons of confidentiality during the private phase of the tribunal's work, I am prohibited from going into further detail. If the tribunal wishes to pursue an issue, it will be put in the public domain in accordance with the tribunal's procedures. As far as the tribunals are concerned, I am not in a position to discuss this matter further.
Was the Taoiseach quoted accurately when it was reported that he stated there was merit in the view expressed by his predecessor that the tribunals of inquiry should be scrapped? The former Taoiseach has called for a review of the Tribunals of Inquiry Act. In what I have read of his comments, he called for future tribunals under new legislation to be under the supervision of an Oireachtas committee. Is it the Taoiseach's opinion that there is a proposition for a hybrid? Surely it is either a case of tribunals of inquiry under new legislation and procedures or what could be described as an investigation by an Oireachtas committee. To what was the former Taoiseach referring and does it reflect the Taoiseach's opinion on how these matters should proceed? Will there be further legislation in respect of tribunals of inquiry or will a mechanism be found? I suggest the merit of and seek the Taoiseach's opinion on the usefulness of engaging in a public consultation process as to the means that should be employed for addressing matters of such import as those referred to tribunals.
I cannot refer to the quote. I do not recall making that comment. I stated that there was merit in considering future procedures for investigating matters of public interest given that these proceedings have been ongoing for a considerable length of time, far beyond the contemplation of those who proposed establishing them originally.
The Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005 provides for comprehensive reform and consolidation of current legislation to put in place a modern and comprehensive statutory framework governing all aspects of the operation of a tribunal from the time of its establishment to publication of its reports. In large part, the Bill implements the recommendations contained in the Law Reform Commission's final report on public inquiries, including tribunals of inquiry, published in May 2005, particularly those relating to the more efficient management and operation of inquiries. The Bill contains a number of significant provisions to ensure greater control of legal costs at tribunals. Section 25 provides that a tribunal can only grant representation where it is satisfied that the person's constitutional or legal rights are likely to be affected by the proceedings before the tribunal or where there are exceptional circumstances for granting representation.
The Bill comprises a number of improvements. While a tribunal of inquiry can be established by a resolution of the Houses, there is no statutory basis whereby the Oireachtas, should it so wish, can suspend or dissolve a tribunal. In line with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission on this point, the Bill provides at sections 9 and 10 that the Government may, for stated reasons and on foot of an order approved by each House, suspend an inquiry in whole or in part to allow for the completion of any other inquiry or the determination of any civil or criminal proceedings relating to matters to which the inquiry relates or to dissolve a tribunal for stated reasons. Before the Government makes an order under either section, the responsible Minister must consult with the tribunal.
Ensuring a clear statutory basis for a suspension or dissolution of a tribunal represents a sensible approach to a sensitive issue and closes a gap in existing legislation. It is self-evident that, if the Oireachtas has the power to establish a tribunal, it should have the power to dissolve one. The requirement for consultation with the tribunal and the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas prior to a suspension or dissolution will ensure these powers are exercised appropriately.
Having given that lengthy reply, will the Taoiseach indicate his position on the raft of inquiries currently sitting and his intent in regard to legislation in this area? Does he accept that the critical concern of the vast majority of the public is the exorbitant cost and the inordinate length of time that these inquiries——
Deputy Ó Caoláin is straying into the whole question of tribunals generally and that is not related to the questions under discussion, which deal with requests for files. We must stay within the parameters of the questions or we will be all over the place.
The questions under discussion relate to tribunals of inquiry. The key issues of concern are exorbitant cost and inordinate delay. Does the Taoiseach agree with that and does he intend to address it? Does he also agree the public has no issue with the process of probing for the truth that is under way? The critical issues are exorbitant cost and inordinate delay.
The Taoiseach was cited as indicating there was merit in the view expressed by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, in regard to the tribunals. If he is not familiar with the particular reference, I will send it to him. Does the Taoiseach agree with his predecessor when the latter referred to himself in an interview in last week's Sunday Independent as somebody who was being victimised and compared himself with Parnell and the former United States President, Bill Clinton?
That is not relevant. I will not allow that question.
Does the Taoiseach see his predecessor in that light?
It does not matter how the Taoiseach sees his predecessor. There will be no light cast on that today.
The Ceann Comhairle is having no more of it.
I am not allowing the question because it is not relevant.
I asked several questions.
None of them is relevant.
At least Deputy Ó Caoláin is consistent.
I am entitled to an answer.
The Deputy is not entitled to an answer if his question is not relevant.
I did not write the piece in the Sunday Independent.
I did not write Standing Orders. Nor did I write the piece in the Sunday Independent, I assure the Deputy of that.
I am asking the Taoiseach for a simple reply to a number of questions that are pertinent to the tribunals and which relate to the issues raised in this series of questions. I am entitled to a reply.
The Deputy is entitled to a reply to his first question but not to the question about the Taoiseach's views on his predecessor.
My views on tribunals of inquiry are clear. They must deal with issues far more speedily, comprehensively and efficiently than we have seen. That is my honest view.
I understand the members of the tribunals currently sitting have indicated they will conclude their public sessions at the end of the summer. I look forward to receiving their reports and to getting on with our business here.
In his reply, the Taoiseach said the information in question was collected and forwarded to the tribunals on the basis of confidentiality and that it would not be appropriate to comment on that here. Answering questions on the Battle of the Boyne site on 1 May last year, his predecessor said he had made no recommendation to the Department of Foreign Affairs on the acquisition of the site. Notwithstanding the confidentiality requirements under the Freedom of Information Act, restricted though it is, letters were produced which clearly showed that the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, arranged for a meeting between the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, and the then Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy Brennan, to see whether this could be accommodated as part of the millennium projects. Was it the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Department of the Taoiseach which drove this project?
Given that the Taoiseach's predecessor answered one question on this site, in respect of which an acquaintance of his made a substantial finder's fee when it was sold to the State for more than €7 million, is the Taoiseach prepared to answer questions on it if they are put to him? In other words, does it concern the Department of the Taoiseach or the Department of Foreign Affairs? The former Taoiseach answered one question and then said he would not answer any more. Is the Taoiseach in a position to answer questions as they come under his remit?
Further to Deputy Ó Caoláin's question and the Taoiseach's belief that his predecessor was telling the truth to the Mahon tribunal, does the Taoiseach have a view on Deputy Bertie Ahern's comment that the workings of the Mahon tribunal are "low-life stuff"?
These questions are very clear.
So was the question I asked.
They relate to the procedures and the number of requests since 2002. We cannot stray into other areas. If the Deputy wishes to put down a question about other matters, he is entitled to do so, but I have to stay within Standing Orders because otherwise we will be all over the countryside.
When I put questions to the Taoiseach's predecessor, he answered one of them and refused to answer any more. My questions to the Taoiseach are clear. If I put down questions about this site, will the Taoiseach answer them? Is the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Department of the Taoiseach in charge of this? I am entitled to ask him, as Taoiseach and leader of the country politically, whether he shares the view that the workings of the Mahon tribunal are low-life stuff. I have one further question to ask him when he answers these questions.
That is not in order.
In respect of the matters raised by Deputy Kenny, any question put to my Department can be answered if the information is available as appropriate in the Department. I cannot anticipate whether a specific question about any matter is under my aegis since it predated my appearance in this office.
There is no objection in principle.
I will certainly be available to assist in whatever way I can.
We will try and see.
That is not to be taken as a prior commitment on what the answer will be.
The former Taoiseach is entitled to the same presumptions as any other citizen going before that tribunal. On Deputy Kenny's question about the particular phrase used, Deputy Bertie Ahern went to court and was fully vindicated in respect of some of the issues put to him which were not regarded as complying with fair procedures. Let the record speak for itself in respect of that comment.
Does the Taoiseach agree with Deputy Bertie Ahern about low-life stuff?
I have a further question for the Taoiseach.
I answered the question.
I will return to Deputy Kenny. I call Deputy Gilmore.
I have three questions arising from the Taoiseach's responses. With regard to the file on the Battle of the Boyne site, I do not understand how the Taoiseach is prohibited from telling the House whether it has been requested by the tribunal by virtue of confidentiality of correspondence between the tribunal and the Department of the Taoiseach. We are not asking what was in the file or what was supplied to the tribunal. We simply want an answer regarding whether the file was sought by the tribunal.
The Taoiseach referred to the Tribunals of Inquiries Bill 2005, Second Stage of which began in this House in November 2007, although we have not seen it since then. Is the Government still proceeding with that Bill and where is it? Is it being withheld?
With regard to the costs of the tribunals, the then Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, announced in 2004 a new scale of fees which was supposed to come into effect in September 2006. That scale of fees was confirmed in February 2006 but was subsequently withdrawn by the Government in July 2006. A new deadline of March 2007 was set for the implementation of new fees. None of these have been met. Why has the Government not implemented the revised scale of fees for lawyers at the tribunal, which was set and announced four years ago, in 2004?
In regard to the first matter, as I said previously, the questions I was asked pertained to various matters and I had to answer in the way I did based on the requirements of the tribunal itself. I am not suggesting whether a particular file was sent there, I am simply making the point that whatever requests come to the Taoiseach's office in regard to its private business, I am required to observe the confidentiality it insists upon. All I can say is that whatever information was sought, it was provided. I am not indicating whether a particular file was sent to the tribunal. That is a matter that is confidential between the tribunal and the Department. Requests do not come to me, as political head of the Department; they come to the Secretary General, who sends them on to the relevant officer. That is the position and, unfortunately, I cannot be any more specific.
It was at the request of the chairperson of the tribunal that we were asked to defer the implementation of the new fee structure. This was on the basis of commitments that were received regarding the tribunal finalising its work. As the Deputy stated, that work has extended beyond the period originally envisaged. We understand, however, that it will be completed. If we had proceeded with the new fee structure against the chairperson's wishes, we could have been accused of interfering with the tribunal's work. In conjunction with the chairpersons of the tribunals, the Government is acting in good faith in the interests of having the matters being investigated finalised as quickly as possible and ensuring that there will be no necessity to replace personnel or whatever in the event of the arrangements relating to fees being altered. That is what we are trying to achieve.
As far as I recall, we received a commitment that the public hearings should end some time early in the second half of the year. We hope the preparation of reports will commence at that stage and that these reports will be forthcoming.
These matters should be dealt with in the form of separate parliamentary questions.
The Moriarty tribunal has missed a series of deadlines and it appears to be holding very few meetings at present. In view of the fact that this tribunal is sponsored by his Department, has the Taoiseach been provided with a timescale regarding the completion of its work? Would it be possible to encourage the Moriarty tribunal to produce its report as expeditiously as possible in order that there might be finality in respect of at least one of the tribunals?
Again, this matter is worthy of a separate question.
The Department of the Taoiseach is responsible for sponsoring the tribunal in question.
I understand the tribunal's work is near completion. We hope to receive its report shortly after that work is completed. I will obtain a copy of the latest official communication from Mr. Justice Moriarty on that matter and forward it to the Deputy.
Public Relations Contracts.
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the group established in his Department to oversee the awarding of public relations contracts by Ministers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3567/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date in 2008 regarding the work of the interdepartmental group chaired by his Department which was established to monitor the appointment of public relations consultants by other Government Departments; if the group continues to operate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4657/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:6 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if the working group established in his Department to monitor the awarding of contracts to public relations consultants by Government Departments is operating; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15227/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together.
These questions relate to the findings of the Quigley report, which was published in 2005. That report highlighted the need for special care in cases where a proposed consultancy comprises an element of direct service to a Minister or Minister of State, particularly in the public relations or communications areas, and-or where a Minister or a Minister of State suggests the name of a person or enterprise as being suitable.
As my predecessor previously outlined, following publication of the Quigley report, additional procurement guidelines were approved by the Government and are published on my Department's website. The guidelines were brought to the attention of all Secretaries General, who were asked to implement them and to bring them in future to the attention of all newly-appointed Ministers and Ministers of State, where relevant, in their Departments or offices.
The guidelines give the Secretary General to the Government and the Government secretariat a role in examining certain procurements. However, there is neither a special unit in my Department nor an interdepartmental group chaired by it to oversee the awarding of public relations contracts by Ministers. Any workload arising from the application of these additional procedures is handled, within existing resources, by the Government secretariat.
An inquiry previously took place into the current Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, Deputy Cullen, and allegations regarding the awarding of contracts within one of the Departments in which he formerly served. Following this inquiry, a new system was put in place for new Ministers and Ministers of State that any public relations or other contracts would have to be approved by the Department of the Taoiseach.
The Taoiseach recently appointed some new Ministers and Ministers of State. Have any changes been introduced in respect of public relations contracts since those appointments were made? Have new Ministers or Ministers of State made inquiries about this matter with the Taoiseach in line with the recommendations of the inquiry to which I refer regarding how any new contracts might be awarded?
It appears the Government will be spending €35 million in two areas over a period. Some €15 million will be spent on matters relating to climate change, while a further €20 million — €3 million of it this year — will be spent during the period of Transport 21.
I do not know how the Taoiseach feels but for me there are very few things as frustrating as sitting at traffic lights which turn green three times without the traffic moving, yet there are 40 ft. by 80 ft. billboards indicating the Government is spending €34 billion on Transport 21. That €20 million on public relations about Transport 21 will not build one extra school where people have been waiting 15 years in some cases. It will not provide an extra bed or ameliorate any traffic jam at street corners.
The Taoiseach is now in charge of the country, having previously been in charge of the Department of Finance, and he must tighten up on this. Is there a need to spend €20 million telling the people that the Government expects to spend €34 billion on Transport 21 when people are sitting in traffic, frustrated and giving out? It would be far better to use that money on the relief of blockages in the health or education systems.
There is little point in having 40 ft. by 80 ft. billboards indicating spending of €34 billion when a person is stuck at the Red Cow roundabout, or elsewhere, with the traffic lights going green three times without traffic moving. There would be a strong measure of cross-party support for cutting down seriously on what is an obscene waste of money in many respects. Telling the people about spending €34 billion through huge billboards and other media campaigns while they are not moving in traffic does not seem to be good value for the taxpayers' money.
Were that true, it might be a point, but only €3 million has been allocated this year in assisting to bring to people's attention Transport 21, what it means and what it will do for people. It is not a question of €20 million being spent.
It is over the period.
No allocations whatever are agreed for 2009 to 2011, inclusive, and these matters must be reviewed on a constant basis. I have indicated to colleagues that this is an area in which I will expect a report. I will make the point before everybody goes off thinking €20 million is being spent, that it is not.
There is a plan to spend it.
Deputy Kenny made the point about four times but €20 million is not being spent. It is very unlikely anything like €20 million will be spent.
It is too much anyway.
The amount of money spent is €3 million.
I call Deputy Gilmore and I will allow Deputy Kenny to come back in later.
Ceann Comhairle——
I will allow the Deputy back in later but we are running out of time.
The Ceann Comhairle has a new style today. It is most efficient, which is fine.
I am trying to include everybody.
Under the Quigley report, there was a recommendation that where public relations or communications consultancy work was to be obtained by a Minister, and where that was of either direct service to the Minister or where the Minister was recommending a particular consultant to be appointed, the matter was to be notified to the Secretary General of the Government, who would then set in motion a certain procedure.
On how many occasions has the Secretary General to the Government been notified by a Minister in the circumstances I have described arising from the Quigley report? How often has the Secretary General been notified of such appointments?
In respect of the two public relations campaigns referred to by Deputy Kenny, Transport 21 and climate change, both of these are of no value whatever in terms of public information. Their only value is the benefit of self promotion to the Ministers concerned. Were those campaigns notified to the Secretaries General of the Departments before they were engaged in?
No, they would not be because they do not involve direct service to the Minister in the way the Quigley report sets out.
Of course they would.
I was asked how many cases have been referred to the Government secretariat under the additional procedures. Six cases coming within the terms of the guidelines have been processed so far. Two of the cases related to the appointment of an arts adviser in the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. My predecessor approved an appointment in 2005, following appropriate prior consideration by the Secretary General to the Government. When the original post holder resigned, my predecessor approved the appointment of a successor to the post in 2006.
In 2007, a case was noted by my predecessor following consideration by the Secretary General to the Government. It related to an invitation to tender for consultancy work in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The work involved an examination of the possibility of developing a project that would lead to the establishment of an independent electoral commission. I understand that the candidate concerned was subsequently unsuccessful in the tender competition.
The three other cases which were referred to the Secretary General to the Government were, on consideration by him, found not to fall within the scope of the guidelines and so did not require consideration and approval. The three cases related to the appointment of information technology, public relations and communications consultants.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the last time the House discussed this matter on Question Time, approximately a year ago, his predecessor said the Quigley report, which was published in 2005, highlighted the need for additional care? The then Taoiseach said that such attention is particularly needed in cases in which there may be a suggestion that a Minister or Minister of State might have an element of direct service through procurement arrangements in areas like public relations and communications. Does the Taoiseach recall his predecessor's comment on that occasion that additional procurement procedures had been approved by the Government? Are all such procedures now in place? Are they being strictly adhered to? Can the Taoiseach confirm that €60 million was spent on public relations and consultancy services by the Departments in 2004, which is the last year for which I was able to dig out figures? The Quigley report was published a year later, in 2005. Does the Taoiseach have figures for the Government's expenditure on consultancy services in 2005, 2006 and 2007?
The Taoiseach will be aware that this process was initiated on foot of concerns which were expressed about the close association between the Government parties, particularly Fianna Fáil, and those involved in public relations and consultancy firms. The House will recall that €3.315 million was spent on such aspects of the launch of the electronic voting system, even though the roll-out of that system was later abandoned by the Government. The companies that benefited from those arrangements were Q4 Public Relations and McCann Erickson. Is the Taoiseach aware that a former general secretary of Fianna Fáil, Martin Mackin, and a former adviser to the Taoiseach, Jackie Gallagher, are directors of Q4 Public Relations? Such details comprise the background to all of this matter.
Can the Taoiseach give the House a clear indication that, since the publication of the Quigley report, there has been a stricter adherence to the rules set out in that report? Has an effort been made to curtail the extent of the Government's engagement with external private consultancy firms? Is there now a greater concentration on the Government press office and the individual press entities within Departments? Is the Government less dependent on external agencies? What is the intent of the new Taoiseach in this area?
The Deputy's questions relate to the implementation of the Quigley report. I assure him that it is being implemented. The report's recommendations were adopted by the Government and the Secretaries General of the various Departments were informed. I explained the procedure in my initial reply. That is that; that is the way it is. It is a matter of ministerial choice. I have observed people in successive Governments working with people within Departments and with people outside Departments. It is a matter of personal choice. Obviously it must be in line with approval of the Department of Finance regarding salary levels etc. That is a transparent process. I do not understand the reference to individuals who are engaged in business now. They are subject to the same procurement arrangements as everyone else. If they get the tender, they get it and if they do not get it, they do not get it. I do not see the purpose of that intervention. Anyway I do not question the professionalism of any of those people who may be employed from time to time by Departments to do specific jobs. They have been employed by various Ministers of all parties from time to time where circumstances require them. As the Deputy has said there are also skill sets within the public service which I, personally, have always utilised.
I call Deputy Kenny.
I have a second question.
I have called Deputy Kenny.
I wish to turn to the question of the——
The normal procedure is that I have an opportunity to come back.
We are not doing it on the second round because I am trying to get everybody in. Deputy Kenny did not get to ask a supplementary question either.
Others have already been in twice——
I obeyed the Ceann Comhairle's ruling.
——and you are ready to make it a third time, yet are curtailing me to one.
I made my ruling.
I must object with respect.
I call Deputy Kenny.
May I ask the Taoiseach——
I am entitled to ask a subsequent question
Deputy Kenny has been called.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle.
Perhaps you might explain to the Deputy why you are not according me the same courtesy and opportunity.
On the second question in each case I did not allow a supplementary question because we are running out of time. The same applied to Deputies Kenny and Gilmore. I am now applying the same procedure to you.
That is not what you are applying.
We are all treated the same by the Ceann Comhairle here.
What you are demonstrating is that you are quite irked.
That is equality of opportunity.
It is not.
I return to the €20 million being spent on public relations for Transport 21. The Taoiseach tried to portray it as if €20 million is not being spent on it. My understanding is that over the period of that plan it is proposed to spend €20 million on telling the people about the great plans for Transport 21. I welcome what appears to be a reversal of policy here or a climb down, if one likes, when he said that no expenditure is allocated for the years from 2009 onwards. I would welcome him taking the money back from the public relations and putting it into the 20 school buildings that have fallen off the back end of the waiting list. I heard Deputy Quinn say here one night that the Department of Education and Science did not know how many prefabricated buildings were being used in schools in the country. Instead of telling people who are stuck in traffic about the €34 billion being spent on Transport 21, that money would be very welcome for school buildings. If that is what he is saying, I welcome it and I will support him in transferring money from public relations about Transport 21 into much needed school buildings, where children in some places are going to schools in converted toilets.
I will call Deputy Gilmore followed by Deputy Ó Caoláin. Then I must close it.
I wish to come back to the reply the Taoiseach gave me that the Transport 21 and climate change advertisements did not come under the Quigley report, because he said they were not a service to the Ministers concerned. What are they for? Both those advertisements basically suggest we are marvellous to spend all this money on transport and to do all we are doing for climate change. They are clearly political advertisements dressed up as some kind of public information. What is the benefit of those advertisements to the public? As the public are paying for them, what are they getting from the Transport 21 advertisements? They add nothing to the value of public information and do not provide material information the public would want to have. These advertisements are purely about promoting the Government.
The former Taoiseach had indicated that special care needed to be exercised. That was part of the intent of the Quigley report. That is why I made the particular reference to individuals in public relations consultancy roles. Special care needs to be exercised where they have strong associations — past or present — with the current Government parties. In his reply the Taoiseach stated to me that it is up to the personal choice of individual Ministers and Departments. Surely that is not what it should be. Surely there should be a clear policy position of intent. The Taoiseach should be indicating across the board that, in the first instance, there should be a dependency on each of the respective publicity offices, PROs, or whatever phraseology applies in the Departments, and on the Government press secretary, before any consideration is given to outside professional, paid PR consultancy firms.
I am simply making the point that the choice of press officer is a matter for the Minister and procedures and processes are in place by which that appointment is made. The appointment can be internal or external. I do not know what the Deputy's point is, but procurement rules and procedures are observed in all cases. That is the way it is. I am sure Deputy Ó Caoláin would agree that past association should not be a disqualification for anybody.
Transport 21 is an important infrastructural investment programme. We are communicating to the public the progress of the projects. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that; it is public information. We are reporting on the managing of impact during construction. I am sure Members would decry in this House the fact that public information was not being made available about where construction was taking place at various interchanges. A lot of good work has been done on the M50 and at other interchanges. A proactive approach is being taken to let people know what is happening and how it will impact on them getting to work every morning. I presume that is a public benefit. We inform the public about possible disruption and the impacts of individual projects before they occur.
We also have campaigns to increase awareness of public transport modes as we make the investments to make sure people are aware of them and will use them. We have seen the benefit of that approach with the development of the Luas lines and the numbers who use public transport. An extension of the Luas network is envisaged in Cherrywood and, I hope, in the docklands next year or the following year. Important information needs to be provided to citizens on an ongoing basis about the impact of Transport 21 in terms of their own convenience, their ability to get to work and how those projects impact on their locality. People are entitled to be made aware that the money is being well spent and that many of the projects are coming in within budget and on time or even before time.
That is the thrust of what is being worked on, so that the public is made aware of the €34 billion process and how it will interact in their daily lives. That is the purpose of the ongoing campaigns. In many respects they have been very good at that, especially, for example, in terms of the inconvenience to transport users coming to Dublin when major works were taking place at the Red Cow. All of that work has to be communicated to the public and done in a professional way that is to their benefit.