Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during February 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9661/09]
Ceisteanna — Questions (Resumed).
Freedom of Information.
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during the first two months of 2009; the way this compares with the same period in each year going back to 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10885/09]
Enda Kenny
Question:3 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests which were processed by his Department during 2009; the number which have been acceded to; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15536/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
A total of 28 freedom of information requests have been received to date in my Department in 2009. Of these, 15 were granted and four were part granted. Four requests are still being processed. As regards the other figures requested by the Deputies, I will circulate a table in the Official Report.
All freedom of information requests received in the Department of the Taoiseach are processed by statutory designated officials in accordance with the Freedom of Information Acts 1997 and 2003. In accordance with the Acts, I have no role in processing individual applications.
|
Year |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
|
Jan |
20 |
21 |
1 |
2 |
9 |
14 |
4 |
8 |
|
Feb |
12 |
29 |
8 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
14 |
Can the Taoiseach credibly say that policy decisions are being made in a better fashion since the Government destroyed the Freedom of Information Act in 2002 when it removed the opportunity for scrutiny of government decisions at the time, and shortly after, they were taken? Does the Taoiseach still believe that the smothering of public discussion on many important decisions has improved decision-making? Will he agree that we would be much better off if we had proper freedom of information disclosure in respect of decisions such as those on decentralisation?
Decentralisation was a disastrous decision which was ill-thought at the time. We would also be much better off if we had open discussions and information on the decisions concerning public sector benchmarking which were completely concealed. We would be much better off if we had open information about the failures of regulation in the banking system which we still do not know enough about.
This is all very interesting.
It is indeed. It goes to the core of these questions which are about the restriction of freedom of information disclosures.
If I might tell the Deputy, this is a familiar theme. Questions relating to the Freedom of Information Act are in fact a matter for the line Minister, who happens to be the Minister for Finance. The questions the Taoiseach was asked relate to the requests received by his Department.
The Ceann Comhairle will understand there is much interest in how the Taoiseach of the time handled the decentralisation decision, a decision taken without any strategic plan or consultation with the line Departments affected or even the wider public. The idea of freedom of information was to have a degree of openness in respect of decision-making but this has been smothered. Does the Taoiseach agree with me that we need to rethink that so that better decisions are made in these crucial areas of public policy?
The Taoiseach can help but it is a matter for the line Minister.
The question is about the factual information to what requests under the Freedom of Information Acts my Department received. It does not relate to a debate on the merits, or demerits as Deputy Bruton would see it, of the Acts.
During my tenure as Minister for Finance, I widened the number of agencies that came under the Act's remit. Hundreds of State organisations are now required to work under the legislation, more than was the case when it was first enacted. Any objective assessment has shown the type of information made available by the legislation compares more favourably than that released in other freedom of information regimes, including that of the United Kingdom. If there are particular policy issues that Deputy Bruton has a problem with, I am sure he will find plenty of opportunities to air his views about them in other debates. However, I cannot help him on this particular question.
I acknowledge the Taoiseach widened the Act's remit when he was Minister for Finance. However, that is because the Government created 250 new agencies. This was not a great breakthrough in far-seeing openness.
Does the Taoiseach believe we would be better off if we knew what advice was given to Ministers on, say, handling the property bubble or decentralisation? Will he agree this would lead to a more realistic public debate?
That is way beyond the remit of the question.
All I know is that if I had taken Deputy Bruton's advice prior to the last election, we would be in an even worse economic situation now. He sought to increase the cost of housing by doing away with stamp duty.
That is ridiculous. The Taoiseach is scraping the barrel at this stage.
It is true. That was the central plank of his economic policy going into the 2007 general election.
Not only does the Taoiseach know it was not——
It was the central plank of Fine Gael's policy. It was an effort to win over middle class urban Ireland.
Deputy Bruton has been caught out.
No wonder the country is in the state it is, if that is as far as the Taoiseach's economic insight goes.
No, my economic insight goes much further than that. I am just pointing out how far the Deputy's went on a particular occasion.
There were many agencies that predated the last Government and even the establishment of the Freedom of Information Act which were brought under the aegis of the legislation when I was Minister for Finance, including the Garda Síochána and others. It is not accurate to claim the widening of the legislation only related to those agencies or offices set up to develop public services in recent years. There were many well-known State organisations that predated the legislation which now fall under its remit.
Is that correct about the Garda?
No, the legislation does not apply to the Garda.
The Taoiseach does not even know that the Garda are not subject to the freedom of information legislation.
The freedom of information legislation introduced by Deputy Bruton when he was in power was the most restrictive legislation ever placed on the Statute Book.
That may be the case Deputy Roche but all these questions are a matter for the Minister for Finance, as we all well know.
Will we have to submit a freedom of information request to the Taoiseach to find out who are the new Ministers of State? If we do, will we be charged a fee for it?
I will abide by protocol and announce the Ministers of State after Question Time and before the Order of Business.
I am relieved to hear that.
The Labour Party has two Private Members' Bills on the Order Paper relating to freedom of information. One Bill proposes that the Freedom of Information Act should apply automatically to all public bodies unless there are compelling reasons for it not to, in other words, that the freedom of information process would apply automatically and the legislation would provide for exemptions, rather than the formula we have at present, whereby bodies must be added to the Freedom of Information Act.
The second Bill, in the name of Deputy Mary Upton, proposes that the number of years before State papers are transferred to the National Archives would be reduced from 30 to 15. Will the Taoiseach give favourable consideration to this idea?
These are questions for the line Minister unless the Taoiseach can be helpful to the Deputy.
To be helpful to the Deputy, as always, we can look at the merits or demerits — the pros and cons — of the approach that has been suggested when the Private Members' Bills are debated during Private Members' time.
The Information Commissioner has called for all new State bodies to come under the ambit of the Freedom of Information Act. Will this apply to the national asset management agency? Is it the intention of the Taoiseach that NAMA would come under the Freedom of Information Act in line with the Information Commissioner's recommendation that all State bodies would do so on their establishment?
That question is appropriate to the Minister for Finance.
With regard to another point the Information Commissioner has highlighted, namely, the poor record provision by a number of bodies that come under FOI, she instanced in particular Fingal County Council and its records in regard to Thornton Hall. Has the Department of the Taoiseach any specific role in ensuring record retention and information protection in advance of, or in the likelihood of, information being sought? Has it a role in ensuring this is retained carefully and responsibly in order that citizens can have access to critical information if and when the situation might present?
I am not aware that my Department has any specific role wider than looking after its own records. It is a matter for each agency or body which comes under the remit of the freedom of information legislation to have the necessary people involved and designated to deal with any queries that arise under the legislation and in accordance with its terms. I am not aware there is a wider responsibility on my Department beyond that.
The question of what bodies could for the future be considered for freedom of information requests or what would be appropriate in that regard would be best addressed to the line Minister concerned.
With regard to the Taoiseach's first reply, if, as he indicated, he has an uncertainty as to his Department's role, will he undertake to establish if there is any responsible party or Department in regard to the information preservation which I have referred to as being highlighted by the Information Commissioner? As I said, she has instanced bad practice. What Department, if any, will take up on the Information Commissioner's raising of this matter in order to ensure best practice? I expect the Department of the Taoiseach employs best practice. What steps can be taken to ensure all of those who come under the rigours of the Freedom of Information Act aspire to at least the same standards the Taoiseach would no doubt expect in his own Department?
That is a question for the Minister for Finance.
All I can say in regard to the operation of the Act is that it would require a direct question to the Minister for Finance.
If an issue arose in the local authority system which the Information Commissioner felt was systemic, or if there was a problem getting the quality of information she felt should be available, it is a matter she would bring to attention in her annual reports for action by the Minister for Finance or whatever responsible Minster would be asked to look into the matter. The annual reporting mechanism by the Information Commissioner applies in respect of any specific complaints or ideas the Office of the Information Commissioner would have as to what would assist it in doing its job. The annual report is submitted to the Minister for Finance, who, I understand, would then have the obligation of taking up the matter with whatever responsible authority is involved.
Cabinet Committees.
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of times the Cabinet Committee on Economic Renewal has met. [9662/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:5 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet Committee on Social Inclusion, Children and Integration last met. [9856/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the last occasion on which the Cabinet Committee on Economic Renewal met; and when the next meeting is due. [10886/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:7 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet Committee on Social Inclusion, Children and Integration last met; and when the next meeting is due. [10887/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:8 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the Cabinet sub-committees on which he sits. [13189/09]
Enda Kenny
Question:9 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the progress of the Cabinet committee which he chairs. [15540/09]
Enda Kenny
Question:10 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet Committee on Irish and the Gaeltacht will next meet. [15572/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 10, inclusive, together.
I sit on the following Cabinet committees — European Affairs; Climate Change and Energy Security; Science, Technology and Innovation; Social Inclusion, Children and Integration; Health; Irish and the Gaeltacht; Economic Renewal; and Transforming Public Services.
The Cabinet Committee on Economic Renewal has met six times since its establishment, most recently on 1 April 2009. The date of its next meeting has been scheduled for 13 May next.
The Cabinet Committee on Social Inclusion, Children and Integration, which last met on 26 November 2008, covers an area which has seen considerable structural development aimed at enhancing co-operation across Departments. Consequently, much of the focus of joint work in the area of social policy and strategy is now comprehended in the daily operations of the integrated Offices for Children and Youth Affairs; Older Persons; Mental Health and Disability; and Integration. In addition, part of the considerations of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Renewal, relating to activation for employment purposes through training, upskilling and further education, is relevant to the social inclusion area. The next meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Social Inclusion, Children and Integration is provisionally scheduled for 20 May next.
The next meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Irish and the Gaeltacht has been provisionally set for 21 May 2009.
Where did the concept of economic renewal go when the Government came to drawing up the budget strategy that was presented just six days after the last meeting of that committee? In the budget, there was only one reference to supporting jobs, which was an enterprise fund of €50 million in two years, at a time when the Government's document was forecasting 250,000 jobs would be lost over those two years. The Taoiseach can work out the sums for himself. This represents a stimulus package of approximately €200 for every job being lost. Do we not need a completely separate arm to budgetary strategy that focuses on the investments in infrastructure we will need in future to get us out of this hole? Why did the budget not address that task? Fine Gael——
We cannot discuss the budget during this question.
Either this is a meaningful process where we can discuss something of relevance to the country or else it is just a sham and we are wasting the Taoiseach's time and our own.
We cannot discuss it now.
I would like to have some opportunity. We are talking about an economic renewal committee which has important business to do. Within six days of the meeting of that committee, a budget emerged which bore no stamp of the work of that committee. Surely we have a right to ask the Taoiseach in respect of this——
It is a different issue.
——-particularly at a time when other parties made their effort. We put forward our proposals for infrastructure investment that would not have relied on Exchequer funding.
Perhaps the Taoiseach can be helpful to the Deputy.
We are all interested in some process of Dáil reform that at least allows us some sort of meaningful exchange in this House on issues that matter.
I am trying to be as fluid as I can. If the Taoiseach can be of assistance, that is fine. I am just pointing out the rules.
The whole question of budgetary policy was dealt with not only in regard to Cabinet committees but Cabinet meetings also. The regaining of competitiveness, which deals with what is happening in the private sector in regard to people having to take less in wages and take-home pay and the effort to reduce costs in a very difficult market environment, is an important contribution towards trying to maintain the maximum number of jobs in what is one of the most difficult years this economy has ever experienced. The point, which I believe is accepted, is that without seeking to bring order to the public finances, the prospect of economic recovery is postponed. While it is a difficult year and next year will also be difficult, it is not contended by any serious commentator or observer of the economy or the economic events in Ireland that this is an issue that can be sidestepped.
The issue for us, therefore, has been our contribution towards reducing the rate of current expenditure, targeting capital expenditure as a contribution towards economic activity, seeking to assist in every way we can, not just by reason of an equalisation fund but also with regard to the question of activation measures to try to help the people who unfortunately have been losing their jobs, similar to what has been happening in other economies in the developing world.
We need to see in what way we can assist at a time when the public finances are very scarce. We are trying to maintain service levels in key areas of health and education which will require further reforms. We will require further support in this House for reforms on the basis that everyone would acknowledge that the level of resources that will become available to the Exchequer will be such that without reforms we put at risk the service levels we are tying to protect.
Last Friday I was in Donegal where businesspeople were in despair at the budget. There is a sense that nothing was done about the VAT issues to give them relief and that there was no investment stimulus. These are people trying to hang on in the face of a very tough climate. The Taoiseach needs to think again about what the Government is going to do about job protection and job stimulus in this very difficult time. It is all very well to talk about balancing the books and raising taxes to fill the hole, but there needs to be another dimension to this strategy, which was lacking in the budget. While 30 May is a long time away, the committee needs to knuckle down to that issue.
I point out to the Deputy that the Cabinet meets every week. It is not a question of waiting for a committee meeting to decide what we do on economic policy or respond to economic issues. I can assure him that economic issues dominate any Cabinet meeting because of the scale of the task that faces us and the number of problems that are arising. Let us get away from the idea that a committee meets on 21 May and nothing happens in the meantime. That is not the real world.
Despite the very tight economic situation in which we find ourselves, the Government is still committed to a 5% capital investment programme this year. It does not make up for the reduction in activity in the private sector in toto, but it is a serious commitment by Government at a time of great scarcity of resources and when the taxation base has been reduced by 33% in a very short period of time. With respect, the idea that was being contended by the Deputy’s party leader that we could bring forward a recovery strategy in the absence of any change in the income tax system was bereft of any credibility and was seen as such by the public.
Can the Taoiseach clarify whether the Cabinet committee on social inclusion, children and integration has replaced what I had understood to be the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs? When did such a change take place if that is the case? If it is the case, is there a separate Cabinet committee that now has responsibility for addressing the issue of drugs? Has the frequency of meetings of the Cabinet committees increased over the past six, ten or 12 months as full Cabinet meetings have clearly increased in response to the ever-deepening economic crisis we face? In the context of what I can only regard as the very savage cutbacks in education, which are especially hitting children of what might be described as our new communities and making integration and social inclusion even more difficult, have the issues of the capping of the numbers of language support teachers at two, the increase in class sizes, the cutting of special needs supports and the cutting of book grants been addressed at the Cabinet committee on social inclusion, children and integration, given that they have a particular impact on the children of new community families within our wider community?
I must remind the Deputy that deliberations at these meetings are internal to the Cabinet.
I understand. I do not seek access to the detail of what the committees would discuss. However, the issue is of such import and to give us a sense of the work of these committees, would the Taoiseach indicate if it has addressed the matter at all?
That is internal to the Cabinet.
As the Ceann Comhairle said, these are matters for Cabinet alone. To be helpful to the Deputy, the particular Cabinet committee he mentioned meets as necessary and will continue to do so. New institutional structures are in place, such as the integrated offices for children, older persons, and mental health and disability. It means these crosscutting responsibilities are enabling Ministers of State in those offices to do the work that normally in the past would have been left to a Cabinet committee to consider at a time when all these responsibilities were strictly departmental rather than interdepartmental. We can consider what has been happening in the areas of disability and mental health, drugs strategy and how it is interacting with the provision of local services with the Office of the Minister for Children. It has proven to be a successful innovation in developing a greater degree of cross-departmental and buy-in as one considers how to deal with issues that affect these subjects far more holistically than was the case in the past when various Departments had varying responsibilities in respect of a category of people.
It lines up with the social partnership agreement where we consider the lifecycle approach and try to bring together a policy on children, young working families, disabilities and the elderly. If one likes, we have given expression departmentally to that lifecycle approach. In my experience and in my attendance in whatever capacity since they were instigated, I find it a far better and more worthwhile means of trying to pull together whatever are the policy issues and how one can seek developments in various areas in the most cost-efficient way possible. For that reason the requirement of a Cabinet committee agenda arising in that particular area has been superseded by these crosscutting Departments, with Ministers of State with specific responsibilities. The Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, also has the benefit of attending Cabinet meetings on a weekly basis.
There have been occasions when Ministers of State with these crosscutting responsibilities have attended the particular part of a Cabinet meeting where issues arising out of their responsibilities have been discussed or where a policy matter was being considered or decided upon. That has been a worthwhile innovation and is something I would commend. It is continuing in the context of the new Minister of State arrangements that will be announced shortly.
There is a Cabinet meeting every week, as the Deputy knows, and more if necessary, depending on the workload or what is happening. Cabinet committees meet as required. Where interdepartmental and inter-ministerial discussion on an issue would be helpful it is called on that basis. That is generally the methodology that is used.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. I seek clarification. If I have missed out on a change of Cabinet committee title then it is my failure. I was genuinely of the view that heretofore we had been referring to the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs. At what point was this changed? Are the issues regarding drugs being addressed in a different and newly designated committee? At the outset of a new Dáil term, let us say, there could be a reshuffle of the portfolios under different Ministers, which happens from time to time. Has there been a shuffle of responsibility by Cabinet committee and is that what this reflects? Could the Taoiseach shed some light on the matter?
Regarding the absence of any public profile, I appreciate that the Cabinet meets as frequently as required and certainly once a week. However, we have no notion of the function, remit or activity of Cabinet committees. While the Ceann Comhairle correctly cautioned me earlier on the confidentiality aspect, would the Taoiseach share his view of this matter? Surely it would be beneficial to an appreciation of the work that has been undertaken by all involved for us to have a sense of the issues being addressed, if not the detail, which were taking up the Taoiseach's time.
Next thing, the Deputy will be asking me for the clár.
All in good time.
The holding of Cabinet committees is an internal matter for the Cabinet. As I said, no decisions are taken at Cabinet committees. The whole idea is to bring to fruition various policy issues and debates and to come to Cabinet with a position that is, usually, agreed by the various Ministers, rather than have all of that argument and discussion at the Cabinet level. There might be a specialised issue involving two or three Ministers that needs to be dealt with at that level by the Ministers and their Civil Service advisers and whatever. Such committees are really just a methodology of getting through the agenda in a more efficient way rather than being in plenary session all the time.
I am aware and have read political biographies in the past that suggested some people had Cabinet meetings into the early hours of the morning. Sosanna were taken and ——
Chips were brought in.
Chips were brought in and the sense of crisis abated — I am sure — and discussions resumed again into a coherent whole. I assure the Deputy that is not the best way in my experience. If people need to be up until that hour of the morning to get a decision, they are probably better off deferring it to another day.
Much better to do it at breakfast.
I will remember that. The work done at Cabinet committees is just part of the wider ministerial work, while Cabinet meetings are where the decisions are made. Cabinet committees have a role, but it is not necessary that they be structured on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Sometimes issues arise where a series of meetings is required at that level before the issue is brought to Cabinet and dealt with so we can move on. We may also very well need to have a number of meetings of another committee because another issue that has arisen requires some more intensive cross-departmental consideration. People should not assume the number of meetings equates with their effect on a particular Cabinet committee. The Cabinet committee deals with an issue as it arises. Some of these committees are working very well. Our current ministerial arrangements have mitigated against the need for committee meetings and more action oriented ministerially directed activity has improved for those sectors and constituencies in respect of the offices we have set up.
All these arrangements relating to Cabinet committees are very confusing. I thank the Taoiseach for explaining to the House the role of these committees in reconciling what may appear to be conflicting policy objectives by Government and individual Departments. Which of the committees is addressing the matters related to banking?
Which committee, for example, would have considered the proposal to establish "an bord bail out", or NAMA as it is officially known? Which committee would have considered the apparent conflict of Government objectives with regard to the establishment of that agency and the issue, for example, of staffing? What is the anticipated complement of staff and how is it proposed to recruit those staff? Is it intended to have a recruitment process or is it intended to transfer them from other areas of Government activity? How is it proposed to reconcile the establishment of an agency which appears to require a large number of staff in circumstances where there is a total and rigid embargo on recruitment in the public sector?
The question of banking issues will be brought to full Cabinet.
Is there no committee dealing with the issue?
We do not have a Cabinet committee on banking.
Does no committee deal with banking?
The Cabinet deals with all economic issues, including banking, on an ongoing basis. Obviously, some meetings would take place that would not be Cabinet committee meetings, for example, between myself and the Minister for Finance or between myself, the Minister for Finance and other Ministers or people attending from the Central Bank. This depends on the issue of the day or the issue requiring discussion. To put it another way, we do not have to have a committee in order to have a meeting. However, the normal decisions on banking are taken in accordance with Government procedure, through memos for Government being provided, circulated, discussed and decided upon. Therefore, there is no change in that respect.
NAMA is being set up under the aegis of the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, which has the ability to recruit people within its arrangements and in which it has been quite successful. As we know, this is a mammoth task that has been undertaken. A detailed implementation plan will now be devised by the NTMA for the purpose of setting up this asset management agency. I envisage an interim chief executive and interim board will be established as soon as possible and the Minister for Finance will bring proposals to Cabinet in that regard. The need to set out an implementation plan and take the practical steps for setting up the agency and the question of the staffing complement it will require will be a matter of consideration by the board, the Minister and the interim executive appointed — the NTMA experience in this area will be vital. They will also decide the question of the extent of oversight and decision-making with regard to assets transferred under the control of NAMA. Who will do the monitoring of that work is a matter for decision by NAMA itself. These issues will be decided in due course.
What we see here, arising from the budget, is a policy statement which confirms, both at home and abroad, the overall method to be adopted by Government to deal with the issue of how to isolate these impaired assets and deal with them in the longer term by recovering their full value to the greatest extent possible, protecting the interests of the taxpayer and setting up an agency that will be independent, transparent and in line with EU guidelines in respect of impaired assets. These are the sort of considerations that will now be undertaken by the Minister for Finance as he comes to Cabinet for the consideration of an interim board and the setting up of an executive.
Do I take it from the Taoiseach's reply that the NTMA is exempt from the provisions of the recruitment embargo? What is the anticipated level of staffing required by NAMA? I think, for example, of the work a local authority must do if it wants to buy back a council house. It must send out a valuer and, probably, an architect to check its condition. There is a considerable amount of administrative work involved in the process also and this involves the council's own finance department. We must multiply that when considering the work involved in sending people out to look at half-finished housing estates, office blocks, hotels and fields. There is also work to be done sending people abroad to see the properties there that must be bought up. They must be valued and an opinion on them must be got. What happens if NAMA is acquiring one of these properties and the builder-supplier appears out of the woodwork to say he is owed money by the developer and lodges a challenge to the purchase or makes some attempt to get money back? What assessment has been made as to the total number of staff required by this agency? As regards the public sector recruitment embargo, will the NTMA have a free hand in staffing to whatever level is required to do what will clearly be an extensive job?
As I have stated to the Deputy, a detailed implementation plan will have to be devised by the new NAMA organisation as it takes hold and forms. It is under the aegis of the NTMA. As the Deputy is aware, the NTMA has the ability to recruit people in the context of treasury management, which has been very successful——
Yes. Absolutely.
——without it being a huge conglomerate. The idea that one would be taking on very many staff is something that has to be considered by the NAMA in terms of what is the best and most efficient way of doing that. It will be a matter for decision by the NAMA.
In the first instance, we have to establish an interim board and an interim executive and allow them the time to devise the implementation plan that is necessary. We have set the policy direction. A lot of work must now be undertaken to get it up and running in a pragmatic way, to work thereafter on the legal arrangements that will have to be put in place and debated in the House and, in the coming months, to enable all of that to start to take shape. It is a mammoth task, but it is important to point out that the first pragmatic step is to allow the interim board and the appointed executives to set out a detailed implementation plan. We can see the path forward on that basis.
I am a bit surprised by the Taoiseach's reply. I am looking for a ballpark figure from the Taoiseach. Is he seriously telling the House that the Government gave no consideration to the likely level of staff that the agency would need to engage? We have a situation where one cannot renew——
The level required.
——a temporary contract. Hospitals all over the country have six-month contracts for nursing staff, for example. In areas of the health service, the contracts of caring staff cannot be renewed. Services will need to be curtailed as a result. The Government has decided on an absolute embargo on recruitment, promotion, acting up and the renewal of short-term contracts because of the reasons explained to the House by the Taoiseach previously. Against this backdrop, it is strange that the Government would not have given some consideration to or have a handle on what will be the likely staffing requirement of the new agency. I am surprised to hear that. Apparently, the issue has been left to the NTMA in a vague way.
No. Let us be fair. We set out a policy decision and it is important for this country that it proceeds. We will proceed with a detailed implementation plan drawn up by, as I said, the interim board and an interim executive. It is under the aegis of the NTMA. The NTMA has been advising on this matter for some time. That is where we will go.
Regarding the question as to what staff will be taken on, all staff will be taken on subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance. A case will be made to him. We want to make sure that we set up an agency that does the job it has been given and enable it to get on with its work. That work will take place in the coming months. As we know, the perspective for its——
And no idea about the staff numbers that will be required.
No. The question of the number of staff will be as required by the agency.
Like the HSE.
The methodology and means by which it will do that will be outlined in the implementation plan as brought forward.
The HSE mark 2.
It is the exact opposite. Is the NTMA a HSE mark 2?
The Taoiseach is telling me that it is very good.
Perhaps if it is under the NTMA's aegis, Deputy Gilmore will give it some fair wind.
No. I am following what the Taoiseach has said.
Shadow boards and a shadow HSE. The Government has never recovered from that.
Allow Deputy Bruton.
The same old conspiracy theories. It never ends with the Labour Party.
Are the newspaper reports accurate, namely, that the legislation to underpin the NAMA will not be presented to the House until autumn? Against this backdrop and if the Taoiseach is discussing establishing an interim board, will it have the authority to commit taxpayers' money without the Dáil having any say in the framework within which it will operate? The figures are of a stunning magnitude. Before we set up interim boards with commitments to act on behalf of the taxpayer, the people who represent the taxpayer have rights to some idea of the framework and to an opportunity to insert whatever protections for the taxpayer that the House considers are appropriate as the institution evolves.
Of course it will be the case that any agency set up for this or any other purpose must act with due legal authority. Therefore, whatever powers are required for it will have to be obtained in this House and elsewhere. That goes without saying.
What I have been speaking about here is that in order for the work to begin and for the implementation plan to be drawn up, they must run in parallel with the legal work that must be undertaken by the Attorney General's office and the Department of Finance regarding the legal apparatus required for the setting up of the agency. It is only when the heads of the Bill are prepared and brought to Cabinet that we will be able to indicate how soon this will be legislated for. It is a priority in the Department.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.