Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach his plans to amend the code of conduct for officeholders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35239/09]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Standards in Public Office.
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach his plans to introduce amendments to the code of conduct for officeholders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37272/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if it is planned to amend the code of conduct for officeholders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44306/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
The code of conduct for officeholders was drawn up by the Government pursuant to section 10(2) of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001, following consultation with the Standards in Public Office Commission, and was published in July 2003.
Deputies will be aware that the Ethics in Public Office (Amendment) Bill 2007 provides for changes to the ethics framework. A review of the code will be carried out, in consultation with the Standards in Public Office Commission, after that Bill has been enacted.
The recent revelations about expenses incurred by Ministers have shocked and outraged the country. I do not think any Minister set out deliberately to do something like this, or at least I hope not.
Within the understanding of their responsibilities as Ministers, and the requirements of the Ethics in Public Office Act, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government spent €6,500 printing leaflets for delivery in his constituency, which cost a further €4,500. There are in-house printing facilities here and party membership delivers the leaflets. The Minister for Defence incurred a charge of €46,000 a couple of years ago delivering Fianna Fáil leaflets in his constituency, which the taxpayer paid for. This is just not on, as the Taoiseach knows.
In view of this continuing litany of expenses and charges, with €9,000 incurred by the Tánaiste to keep a limousine waiting at a hotel 1.5 km from a meeting in Switzerland, has the Taoiseach introduced changes that clearly require Ministers know in advance that these charges will be incurred so the taxpayer will not be continually outraged by the collation of such charges? Has he introduced a minimum standard for officeholders when they go abroad above which, if they want to stay in a higher class facility, they pay the difference? That way the public would understand that they are there to do their job on behalf of the country. We must not have a continuous litany of gross excess in terms of the expenses incurred by the taxpayer.
In view of the Ethics in Public Office Act, have there been changes on the instruction of the Taoiseach?
The next set of questions deals with that issue. This question relates to whether there are any changes envisaged in the code of conduct. That code of conduct does not stand in isolation, it stands as part of a wider ethics framework established by the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 and the Standards in Public Office Act 2001. Section 10(7) of the Standards in Public Office Act binds officeholders to have regard to and be guided by the code. The code cannot impose any new requirements that are not already set out in legislation; it mainly attempts to provide guidance at a level of detail that would be difficult to express in legislation. I am not aware that any issue raised by Deputy Kenny has been brought to the attention of the Standards in Public Office Commission in any way or is in breach of the code of conduct.
In the new economic circumstances in which we find ourselves, all Departments and agencies are required to be mindful of the costs of conducting business in every respect, both at home and abroad. That is being done and various subsistence and travel allowances have been cut extensively and, rightly so, in present circumstances. Obviously arrangements have been put in place to deal with that. The important point to make regarding the code of conduct is that it does not stand in isolation, it is a more detailed code in respect of the statutory provisions laid down by the 1995 and 2001 Acts.
I understand the Department of Finance set out guidelines that apply in the case of Ministers who go abroad. Are those guidelines published and are they available? For example, if the Minister for Health and Children attends a conference in Italy, Spain or France, does she know in advance the arrangements made for her? Obviously Ministers are very conscious of the requirement not to be seen or perceived to be outside normal guidelines. Are those guidelines published by the Department of Finance?
In respect of the Ethics in Public Office (Amendment) Bill 2007, which I raised with the Taoiseach some weeks ago, the change was to increase the value of a gift from €650 to €2,000 for Ministers and persons serving in parliamentary office. Given the changed circumstances that apply, does the Taoiseach consider a gift costing €2,000 for a Minister attending a function is excessive? Does he consider it should be reduced to a more realistic level?
The Standards in Public Office Commission has been seeking an opportunity to initiate an inquiry where it considers it is of public interest. When the Taoiseach was Minister for Finance he refused that request. He made the point, I think, that it could have serious consequences for those who become the subject of an inquiry. I can understand that. Persons who know their remit obviously would be vindicated in terms of any inquiry that might arise. What is his view on it now as Taoiseach? If a request were received again from the Standards in Public Office Commission to initiate an inquiry if it considered it was in the public interest, would it receive favourable consideration?
These matters are dealt with in another set of questions with which we will deal later. In any event, to be of assistance I will deal with any questions that arise. In regard to the third supplementary on the issue of allowing the office to initiate an inquiry, I believe a balance has to be struck between a proper investigation where there is a potential breach of guidelines and the good reputation of Deputies, Senators or Ministers being upheld. If there is a problem, a complaint should be made. On foot of a complaint an investigation should take place. If there is a problem in the public domain that the people feel is of a serious nature, presumably a complaint would be made by an affected or third party. On that basis it would trigger an investigative mechanism. I do not believe it is necessarily right that the investigator should be able to instigate an investigation at his or her own volition, with all the impact that would have, and find at the end that there was nothing at the back of it. All the loss of reputation and distress caused to the person against whom the complaint was made would have been without foundation. A balance has to be struck. The legislation sets out that balance and that is where things stand. Processes should be initiated on foot of complaints not on foot of someone deciding he or she wants to proceed with a process because of something out in the ether or because of something someone heard or said. One should put it on paper, make a complaint, deal with it properly and let us have fairness all around.
On the question of the amounts considered in the Ethics in Public Office (Amendment) Bill, the initial amount of €650 was mentioned 14 years ago. We are considering changing it for today's values and to set it for 14 years' hence as well. It is always a question of judgment, of deciding what should be the threshold, taking into account the situation does not remain static and to avoid having to make further amendment two or three years hence. It would need to be suitable over a longer period of time. It is a question of a judgment call because it is not an exact science. This is where the legislation currently stands as it is being considered.
Departmental travel policies are based on guidelines from the Department of Finance and these are applicable to all staff. The guidelines set out the policy regarding appropriate class of air travel, standard of hotels to be used and use of own transport. The aim of the guidelines is to minimise official travel costs, achieve value for money for expenditure necessarily incurred consistent with the effective discharge of official duties. This is the basis upon which these matters are dealt with.
In his opening reply the Taoiseach said that codes of conduct for office-holders would be amended after the Ethics in Public Office (Amendment) Bill has been enacted. If this is the case we will have a long time to wait. This Bill has been around for a long time. The Taoiseach will recall this Bill was first announced in October 2006 by the then Tánaiste, Mr. Michael McDowell, when he announced on the steps of Government Buildings that new legislation would be introduced governing payments from private persons and gifts and the size of gifts and loans being made to office-holders. He told us the Bill would be introduced as a matter of urgency. The Bill was introduced in the Seanad and it completed its passage in the Seanad in July 2007 but we have seen neither sight nor light of it since then. On a number of occasions I have asked the Taoiseach as to its whereabouts and when it would be brought into the House.
The Deputy is broadening out his question.
I am not broadening it, I am responding to something that was specifically referred to in the Taoiseach's reply. He told the House that the changes in the code of conduct would be brought in after the Ethics in Public Office (Amendment) Bill is enacted. I am pointing out to the Taoiseach that the enactment of the ethics Bill is a long-playing record at this stage. That Bill was passed in the Seanad in July 2007. On a number of occasions I have asked in the House for the reason it was not brought before the House and I have not received a satisfactory response. Perhaps the Taoiseach might take the opportunity today to tell us when it will be brought before the House so that we can see when these changes in the codes of conduct might be likely to be made.
In this context is the Taoiseach considering any change in the code of conduct as it might apply to State agencies? There is a provision in the code of conduct that office-holders should not accept offers to meet the costs of travel or commercial accommodation from private citizens or enterprises. There is also reference to discretion where the office-holder is the official guest of another government or body but there is no explicit reference to where the Minister might be entertained by a State agency and particularly by a State agency which is under the Minister's own remit.
On the progress towards enactment of the Ethics in Public Office (Amendment) Bill, such inquiries are best directed to the Minister for Finance whose Department has responsibility for this area. The Bill has completed all Stages in the Seanad. The taking of the Bill in this House is a matter for the Whips who arrange the business of the House. The House has been dealing with legislation on finance and other issues and this has taken priority over the Bill. It is not a question of not proceeding with it but rather a question of the Whips arranging time for when they would like to take it. It obviously will be the next session at the earliest. There is no withdrawal of the legislation in that sense and, having completed All Stages in the Seanad, as Deputy Gilmore noted, it can be debated further in this House. I take the point that the Bill has been on the Order Paper for a long time and we should try to complete it.
Regarding further guidelines on ministerial expenses — the issue of hospitality from State agencies, etc. — arising from the February 2009 report of the Committee of Public Accounts on the FÁS organisation, the Department of Finance issued revised foreign travel policy guidelines in 2009. These guidelines and the related amendments to the code of practice for the governance of State bodies took account of the recommendations on travel policy in the committee's report. The Minister for Finance wrote to his colleagues, including me, asking that the same principles, as set out in the foreign travel guidelines 2009, be observed by Ministers, Ministers of State and other officeholders when travelling abroad on official business.
The Department of Finance also noted the conclusion in the February report by the Committee of Public Accounts that FÁS should not have paid for airline tickets, for example, for civil servants or Ministers. The general practice has been that expenses relating to representational duties by a Minister or other officeholder on behalf of a State body are paid and accounted for by the body in question. In light of the committee's conclusions, this matter is under consideration by the Department of Finance and a final decision will be made in the context of a forthcoming second special report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on travel in the FÁS organisation and recommendations from the Committee of Public Accounts following its examination of the report.
I will take up the Taoiseach's invitation to ask the leader of the majority wing of the Government about the location of the ethics Bill. In respect of the recommendations which arise from the report on FÁS, what are the practical, net implications of the recommendations and what specific changes are being made in the arrangements for travel and other entertainment by Ministers where this is organised by State agencies? As the Taoiseach will recall, much of the controversy surrounding this area related to travel which was organised by State agencies, including FÁS, Horse Racing Ireland and the Irish Sports Council. What are the changes being made to travel arrangements?
The Deputy is anticipating the next group of questions which deal with travel.
I do not have before me the foreign travel policy guidelines 2009 which were issued by the Department of Finance. It would be best to submit a question to the Department to obtain the detail directly. The Government speaks as one on these issues.
Ministerial Travel.
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the projected cost to his Department in 2009 for overseas ministerial travel; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35607/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the estimated cost to his Department of planned travel for himself and the Ministers of State in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37273/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:6 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the cost to his Department of ministerial travel to date in 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44307/09
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together.
The 2009 estimate for travel for my Department, including home and foreign travel, is €731,000. Expenditure from January to the end of November 2009 for me and officials in my private office was €148,482. In respect of Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey, it was €15,014 and in respect of Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche, it was €6,907. Total expenditure by my Department in the period in question in respect of foreign travel was €324,135. I anticipate that we will achieve savings in this subhead by year end.
I know the Taoiseach keeps an eye on these matters in respect of other Ministers. I note that, arising from a request under the Freedom of Information Act by a national newspaper, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, left out €26,000 of his foreign travel expenses.
Questions relating to Departments should be directed to the relevant Department.
I am speaking to the Taoiseach of the country. As the Ceann Comhairle knows, if a Minister requires a helicopter to fly down to Kerry or Waterford, as the case may be, authorisation normally comes from the Office of the Taoiseach. In view of all the changed circumstances, I am sure the Taoiseach is cognisant of the need for an effective value-for-money spend. On numerous occasions I listened to the Minister, Deputy Gormley, and his party colleagues referring to value for money and how expenses should be kept down. However, I have outlined a case for the Taoiseach in which the said Minister left €26,000 out of expenses incurred by his Department in a freedom of information request. He spent a further €3,000 of the Taoiseach's money on chauffeuring between terminals at Heathrow Airport and a further €3,600 for a UK trip in a bio-fueled car. This was on top of €2,500 spent on the use of a VIP airport in the past 18 months. I do not understand why he makes a big show of travelling over by ferry to Holyhead and then has a chauffeur-driven car to get from London to Holyhead. Surely, there are car hire firms available in Holyhead if people wish to cut down on effective spend.
The same applies in the case of the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and a litany of things have been published in this regard as well. I am sure the Taoiseach has issued instructions to his Ministers in Cabinet, in their interest, to be very careful in respect of doing their duty where the public purse is concerned. No one wishes to see Ministers going around in rickshaws but there must be a level above which Ministers understand they should not be. Whether this is done by people in other Departments, the Department of Finance or wherever, the Taoiseach should lay down the law for his Ministers. I am sure they are more than willing not to have such odium hanging around politics. Will the Taoiseach explain if he has issued instructions to Ministers and Ministers of State to be cognisant of this matter? Does he keep an eye on these things from his office in Government Buildings?
Yes. In the last set of questions I dealt with the fact that there are revised travel guidelines in place for the purpose of ensuring that things are done as one would expect. Not alone are facilities made available to the Government, but in certain circumstances they are made available to members of the Opposition where it is appropriate as well, and it is only right that this is the case. I do not know where the matter goes beyond that, only to say that everyone is mindful of the need to maintain public confidence. Ministers or office holders must go about their work in an appropriate way and be mindful of the expenditure that must be necessarily incurred, consistent with the effective discharge of official duties.
As the Deputy will be aware, in many cases transport arrangements in these locations are not made by the Ministers themselves, but by the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Department has also been reminded of the need to recognise the circumstances in which the public purse is funding necessary expenditure in this area and it must be very mindful of all of this. I do not believe there is any issue between anyone in the House. This is an area of which we must be very mindful and careful and, at the same time, we must ensure that things are done appropriately and correctly.
I share the general sentiment. Recently, the world read of a €9,000 charge for a chauffeur-driven limousine to be available to the Tánaiste to travel from a hotel to the conference centre——
That is a matter for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
I wish simply to make a point arising from what the Taoiseach has said. This is in everyone's interest. I realise the Minister may have had to receive delegations or deputations or had bilateral meetings wherever she was staying. However, her public servants would have been aware of the nature of the meetings she had to attend. From that point of view, why was it necessary to have a limousine on hire all day and for half of the following day if it was only required for a few minutes by the Minister? Surely a conventional taxi would be able to bring any Minister from an hotel to a conference centre.
Deputy Kenny should submit a question to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
I say that in the interests of the Taoiseach being able to demonstrate that his Ministers use the public purse effectively and get value.
It must have been a stretch limousine.
Practices existed in the past on how those issues were handled. The question arises about their appropriateness at any time, but they are not part of the arrangements, given the current circumstances. It is not the case that Ministers make those arrangements for themselves. The arrangements are made, the Ministers go about their business and do their job. The important thing is that it is done in a way that is cost-effective and correct.
I note the record of the incumbent in that Department, and any of her predecessors, in terms of her mindfulness of the need to spend taxpayers' money carefully in those areas. The record will show that she was mindful of that. I said previously that other arrangements are no longer relevant or necessary and are not appropriate. Those changes have been made in the revised travel arrangements that are now in place.
The Taoiseach has said on a couple of occasions in reply both to this question and the previous question that new guidelines are now in place. Will he tell the House what are the guidelines, for example, in respect of overnight accommodation? Do the guidelines make it plain that the era of the €900 a night room is over and that accommodation has to be arranged on a more modest basis in terms of cost?
In view of limousine travel, for example, do our embassies in various countries not have transport facilities attached to them and to ambassadors? Is it not possible to make arrangements in order that those transport facilities might be used appropriately to ferry around visiting Ministers who are attending appropriate events? Surely it is possible to obtain appropriate transport at a lot less cost than the €9,000 arrangement we heard about for the limousine that was on stand-by.
Those arrangements were made by the Department of Foreign Affairs. Speaking for my Department, there is a policy based on guidelines laid down by the Department of Finance that is applicable to all staff. It sets out the policy regarding appropriate class of air travel, standard of hotels to be used and use of own transport. The aims of that policy are to minimise official travel costs and achieve value for money for expenditure necessarily incurred consistent with the effective discharge of official duties.
In regard to the question about procurement arrangements for sourcing hotel accommodation, the central contract with travel booking services for Government officials includes provision for making hotel reservations. That contract was awarded following a European Union-wide advertisement procurement process conducted under the lead of the Department of Finance earlier this year.
Hotel bookings are centrally co-ordinated. For example, in my Department, the finance unit ensures that the travel policy and Department's guidelines are complied with. A person has responsibility for making bookings on the basis of a decision by the Department on the options put forward by the company that has the contract on behalf of the State. Where Department officials book their own hotel accommodation they are required to adhere to the travel policy. I agree with what was said. All of those issues are being carefully considered.
On the question of transport hire, again, it is the responsibility of the overseas missions of the Department of Foreign Affairs to recommend transport arrangements for visiting official delegations. More appropriate arrangements are being put in place, rightly so, on the availability of car hire. All of that is being done. Sanction by my Department's officials is given if they are satisfied that best value for money is to be achieved. The control and review mechanisms are in place because we have to learn from those lessons.
I understand there is a requirement in the Cabinet handbook that Ministers who wish to bring a spouse or a partner with them on a foreign trip must consult the Taoiseach and his Department before they have permission to do so. I asked a parliamentary question about this and was advised that the number of requests to bring a spouse or a partner had declined in the past number of years. However, I was not able to get proper information on the number of occasions the Taoiseach or his Department refused permission for a Minister to bring his or her spouse or partner on a foreign trip.
On how many occasions has the Taoiseach refused permission for somebody to bring his or her spouse? What criteria are used to decide whether a Minister may or may not travel with a spouse? In view of the civil partnership legislation going through the House, does the Taoiseach propose to extend the option for people to bring their spouse or partner to girlfriends, fiancees or civil partners?
There may be an assumption behind the Deputy's questions which suggests that I receive many requests and he asked me how many I refused. I receive very few requests. I cannot——
It is 27 so far this year.
Is that right? The Deputy is obviously keeping a closer eye on it than I am.
Somebody must keep an eye on the Cabinet.
The guidelines are complied with in that respect. For example, there are occasions when Ministers accompany the President on foreign visits. That would be an occasion when the spouse of a Minister would be authorised to travel. It is where representational duties would require it. It is done far more sparingly than perhaps the Deputy might think.
Consultancy Reports.
Enda Kenny
Question:7 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the expert and consultancy reports that have been commissioned by him, or by the agencies under his aegis, since June 2007 to date in 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35608/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:8 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of reports commissioned from consultants since June 2007 to date in 2009; the cost in each case in respect of his Department and the agencies under the aegis of his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41723/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:9 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the cost of consultancy reports commissioned by his Department and agencies under his remit since June 2007 and to date in 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44308/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, together.
The expert and consultancy reports that have been commissioned by me and the agencies under the aegis of my Department from June 2007 to date are listed in the following tables. The tables provide details of the expert and consultancy reports commissioned by the Department of the Taoiseach and the agencies under its aegis from June 2007 to date.
|
Year |
Name of the Report |
Cost |
|
€ |
||
|
2007 |
Employee Opinion Survey |
18,102 |
|
2007 |
Operation of Regulatory Impact Analysis |
108,900 |
|
2007 |
Quality Customer Service Survey Report 2007 |
16,450 |
|
2007 |
Annual Risk Assessment, 2008 |
1,400 |
|
2008 |
Review of the Economic Regulatory Environment |
408,375 |
|
2008 |
Knowledge Management Report |
2,269 |
|
2008 |
Report on virtualisation options for eCabinet System |
726 |
|
2008 |
Survey of Civil Service Customers |
69,817 |
|
2008 |
Annual Risk Assessment, 2009 |
1,400 |
|
2008 |
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) on the Transposition of the Optional Pensions Provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings Directive |
7,200 |
|
2009 |
Survey of Civil Service Customers |
68,186 |
|
2009 |
Survey of Civil Service Business Customers |
23,752 |
|
2009 |
Case Study on the Garda Síochána Boundaries Realignment Project |
46,413 |
|
2009 |
Staff surveys for the Organisational Review Programme |
34,626 |
|
Year |
Name of the Report |
Cost |
|
€ |
||
|
2007 |
5th Periodic Report on the work of the NESF |
700 |
|
2009 |
Fifth Social Inclusion Forum |
3,038 |
|
2009 |
Fifth Social Inclusion Forum |
7,260 |
|
2009 |
Implementation of the Home Care Package Scheme |
9,345 |
|
2009 |
Implementation of the Home Care Package Scheme |
7,509 |
|
2009 |
Child Literacy and Social Inclusion: Implementation Issues |
4,900 |
|
2009 |
Child Literacy and Social Inclusion — Implementation Issues |
5,800 |
|
2009 |
Child Literacy and Social Inclusion — Implementation Issues |
6,075 |
|
2009 |
Community Participation in the Delivery of Public Services Work in progress |
Not invoiced yet. Contracted for €12,000 plus VAT |
|
2009 |
Ken McKenzie: Co Louth — Ireland’s First Age-Friendly Strategy Work in progress |
Not invoiced yet. Contracted for €700 per day to a yearly maximum of €20,000 plus VAT |
|
Year |
Name of the Report |
Cost* |
|
2007 |
The Innovative Workplace: A Practical Guide to Partnership and Performance |
26,562 |
|
2007 |
Hospital of the Future Project (name of report yet to be finalised) |
65,794 |
|
2008 |
National Workplace Surveys |
511,935 |
*Amount incurred by the NCPP.
The Economist intelligence unit undertook an independent benchmarking review to assess the comparative efficiency and effectiveness of Irish economic regulators. That report was due to be published after six months and was due last September 12 months. By the end of 2008, the cost of it stood at €408,000. It was finally published in May 2009. What was the final cost of the review? On foot of that report, the Taoiseach established the annual regulatory forum in October. What are the arrangements for that forum to work? How will it be monitored and how does the Taoiseach see it producing valuable reports for Government to act on?
The cost of that review of the economic regulatory environment was €108,900. The forum was one of the recommendations of the report where, on an annual basis, it would interact with the relevant regulators to review how regulation was handled during the course of that year and any issues which arose from it.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs was very anxious that the Pope would answer queries from the Department about the Murphy report on child abuse. He was not so anxious to respond when almost €1 billion was illegally taken from elderly people in nursing homes. He said it was not his responsibility. Over the years there has been a raft of consultancy reports which have never been acted on.
Turning to a slightly different question, I notice Deputy Ring has focused on €125,000 being spent on a report to count the number of frogs in the country on the eve of a frightening budget. Was this matter discussed at Cabinet or did the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government hop it on the Cabinet table and nobody saw it? How is it proposed that this consultancy report will get into every wetland field in the country to count the number of frogs? The Minister, Deputy Gormley, has said it will take two years to complete this.
Tell him to dry up.
What is the pressing evidence that required the Minister to come to Cabinet and say that he must commission a consultancy report to count the number of frogs in the country within the next two years?
The number will be smaller next year.
Perhaps the Government is looking to tax them.
When my own late father was responsible for the Office of Public Works he was asked by his opposite number, the then Deputy Lemass, how many seagulls flew over the Phoenix Park in 12 months. Does the Taoiseach consider the €125,000 cost for the report is justifiable, given that Deputies are inundated with requests for books from schools and children are being asked to bring toilet paper with them in the morning? Is this the focus of the Green Party in Government? Is the Minister hopping mad that this has been discovered?
The Deputy asked a question on the economic regulatory environment which comes under my Department. I explained that the cost was €108,900 and the recommendations of the consultancy report are being looked at and implemented. The questions relating to the habitats directive and the National Parks and Wildlife Service perhaps should have been contemplated when the Government that brought in the legislation — on the Opposition's watch — made such obligations to deal with various biodiversity issues that arise. It is important that the origin is put on the record.
Is the Taoiseach saying we are responsible for counting the frogs?
The habitats directive——
It is no wonder we are in the state we are.
The Taoiseach, without interruption.
I have heard the Opposition blamed for many things but that is a new one.
Deputy Flanagan, could we hear the Taoiseach out?
Was nothing done in the past 14 years?
The legislation that implemented the habitats directive in this country was enacted by the Deputy's Government. He supported it.
A frog census.
Frogs are keeping the Minister awake at night. The budget certainly is not.
The issue of biodiversity came up and the Deputy's party found it very important to legislate for it at the time.
How do we know we are not counting the same frog twice?
It was very important to bring in the habitats directive but the Government of the day did not decide to spend €125,000 on a consultancy report counting the number of frogs in the country.
The question should be directed to the relevant Minister.
Are we to see the spectre of the Minister, Deputy Gormley, in his sandals tramping through the wetlands of the midlands counting frogs at dawn or dusk?
Deputy Kenny.
Does he know the activities at dawn and dusk of the frog population? What is the evidence that he will produce as to the value of this at the end of it all?
He could do us all a favour and check the bog holes.
A question like that should be directed to the relevant Minister and not the Taoiseach.
We could be doing more than spending money on that at this time.
I call Deputy Gilmore.
It is frog watch. The Minister will be frog-marching around the country.
I will leave the frogs for a moment. I have heard the Government accuse the Opposition of many things but whatever we may have done a long time ago, we were not going around counting frogs.
The Opposition enacted the legislation.
That is great.
The Deputy must live with it as the Opposition enacted the legislation when in Government.
Who put this out to tender? It was not the Opposition.
I wish to discuss this review of the economic regulatory environment, which cost €408,000.
It is €108,000.
A reply to Deputy Burton on 6 October has a figure of €408,375.
That relates to the regulatory impact analysis.
It states it is a "review of the economic regulatory environment". Is that different?
It is described to me as the operation of the regulatory impact analysis.
Who did that?
The Deputy's is different. I do not have the authors of the reports.
What was involved in that report? The McCarthy report looked at——
It is a technical question that asked for the statistical details——
The Deputy is going into detail.
I am asking a supplementary question arising from the original question, which concerns the costs of consultant reports. This states, "Review of Economic Regulatory Environment — €408,375". Why did it cost that much? The wide-ranging McCarthy report cost one tenth of that. Why is the Government paying large sums for reports on the regulatory environment? What was involved?
An independent review in line with the terms of Towards 2016 of the operation of regulatory impact analysis, RIA, was commissioned to assess the effectiveness of the RIA model across Departments. The report was published in July 2008 and it is available on the better regulation website. It indicates overall that good progress has been made in the implementation of RIA across Departments, with 74 produced between 2005 and February 2008. The report also finds that supports made available to officials conducing RIAs are well regarded. RIA training has resulted in a significant increase in analytical skill sets across the Civil Service. These skills help to ensure that all impacts, including unintended ones, are assessed through the RIA process, resulting in better quality legislation. The Government agreed to implement the recommendations in the report.
The guidelines were revised as a result of the recommendations. Training materials have also been updated to take account of recommendations arising from the review and an updated training course run in conjunction with the Civil Service training and development centre, CSTDC, is available to officials on an ongoing basis. The better regulation unit has also made a number of other targeted presentations to officials outlining the changes to the RIA system resulting from the review and the unit is also working with the CSTDC to develop an on-line training solution.