Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of political advisers or assistants appointed by the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48414/09]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Departmental Staff.
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of personnel employed as political advisers or assistants to the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3183/10]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of political advisers appointed by him; the salaries of each and the cost; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3465/10]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of political advisers or assistants in addition to the staff of his office appointed by the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3466/10]
Enda Kenny
Question:5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the duties and responsibilities of the special political advisers appointed to him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5109/10]
Enda Kenny
Question:6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the duties and responsibilities of the special political advisers appointed by him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8789/10]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:7 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the duties and responsibilities of special advisers or other political staff appointed by him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8819/10]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:8 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the duties and responsibilities of advisers or other political staff appointed to the Office of the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8820/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 8, inclusive, together.
There are currently seven special advisers in my Department. Under the direction of my programme manager, Joe Lennon, who is my principal special adviser, their primary functions are to monitor, facilitate and help secure the achievement of Government objectives and to ensure effective co-ordination in the implementation of the programme for Government.
The role and duties of special advisers are described in section 11 of the Public Service Management Act 1997. In summary, these are providing advice; monitoring, facilitating and securing the achievement of Government objectives that relate to the Department, as requested; and performing such other functions as may be directed.
My programme manager meets other ministerial advisers on a weekly basis. He monitors and reports to me on progress in implementing the programme for Government. My advisers liaise with a number of Departments and act as points of contact in my office for Ministers and their advisers. My advisers attend meetings of Cabinet committees and cross-departmental teams relevant to their responsibilities. They also liaise on my behalf with organisations and interest groups outside of Government.
Special advisers are also tasked with giving me advice and keeping me informed on a wide range of issues, including business, financial, economic, political, environmental, administrative and media matters, and performing such other functions as may be directed by me from time to time. In addition, a number of my advisers have specific responsibilities for speech drafting.
The annual salaries for my special advisers are as follows: Joe Lennon, €188,640; Peter Clinch, €194,957; Oliver O'Connor, €156,241; Brian Murphy, €126,718; Gerry Steadman, €126,718; Padraig Slyne, €92,853; and Declan Ryan, €92,672.
Francis Kieran is special assistant to the Attorney General. His functions are to act as a liaison between the Attorney General and me and other Departments on items relevant to legal issues arising from the programme for Government as well as to keep the Attorney General informed on items arising in the Oireachtas or media which could impinge on, or be relevant to, his role. His contractual duties include matters assigned from time to time by the Attorney General and he also participates in meetings of special advisers and attends the Government legislation committee. The position of Attorney General is not a political one and, as such, Mr. Kieran does not provide political advice.
Sometimes I find it difficult to pick up all the Taoiseach's responses. Perhaps this is due to the microphone or maybe it is me.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has stated that the reason for the delay in producing the reports on the Dublin Docklands Development Authority is it has to be reviewed and analysed by the Office of the Attorney General. The constant stream of revelations from the authority has obviously become a matter of considerable public interest. The most recent of these revelations involves what appears to be extraordinary amounts of travel expenses for members of the authority's board. Is it the case that the Attorney General does not have sufficient staff to deal with these queries? Why is the Minister unable to publish the report until it is reviewed by the Attorney General? Can the Taoiseach indicate when that might happen?
Deputy Kenny's questions are not relevant.
Yes.
The Ceann Comhairle is taking advice from the Taoiseach.
No——
This is a question about political advisers.
Deputy Kenny——
Hold on a second. The Taoiseach told the Ceann Comhairle that my question had nothing to do with him but this matter concerns political advisers or assistants appointed by the Attorney General.
In fairness, the Deputy expanded somewhat.
The Ceann Comhairle is taking advice from the Taoiseach.
It is not a question of taking advice from the Taoiseach. In so far as the Deputy's question relates to the role of the Attorney General, the Taoiseach may wish to respond. However, the question of expanding the question is problematic as far as we are concerned.
I am just making the point that the questions relate to the duties and responsibilities of special advisers in my office. I referred to the appointment of an individual who is a special assistant to the Attorney General and his functions. That is not germane to the supplementary question.
The question is the number of political advisers or assistants appointed by the Attorney General. A matter of considerable public importance is being held up because the Office of the Attorney General is not able to review the report of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government says these reports cannot be published because they must wait until the Attorney General's office is able to review them. Is it the Taoiseach's view that the Office of the Attorney General does not have sufficient assistance to review the legal requests before it from the Government? I simply asked the Taoiseach when he expects this will happen and the Ceann Comhairle seems to have responded by indicating there is some difficultly. This is about the assistance of political advisers appointed by the Attorney General and surely it is matter of public concern because extraordinary amounts seem to have been used up by the members of that authority's board. Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the Attorney General has sufficient staff to be able to review the legal requests and reports before him?
It is important to advise that it is not the Taoiseach's responsibility to give a response on that matter.
What?
The questions relate to whether the Attorney General has any political adviser or assistants in respect of matters that are germane. This is why I took questions Nos. 1 to 8 together. They do not refer to general staff. One such assistant was appointed to the Attorney General. The assistant acts as a liaison between the Attorney General and other Departments on items relevant to legal issues arising from the programme for Government. I have no problem answering questions asked of me but it cannot be suggested that I should provide replies to questions which are specific in nature and then deal with general questions arising in respect of a totally different matter——
I will follow through on it.
——although I am informed that it is line with the question set out.
Question time is about eliciting information germane to the questions asked. A trend is arising here every week whereby the Deputy asks questions regardless of what is before me and he has decided I am here to answer them. If he wishes to table a question on matters germane to my responsibilities I will answer them but I cannot reply to everything. Anyway, I am just making that general point. The point the Deputy is making relates to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and a parliamentary question to that Department will elicit the up to date position. As I understand it, the position is that legal and other issues have arisen, which must be considered before the publication of such reports can be provided for and that is ongoing.
I will follow through on the Taoiseach's valid comment. He stated one liaison person was appointed to the Office of the Attorney General. Has that person reported to the Taoiseach of a shortage of staff there or that these reports cannot be reviewed? This is a matter of public concern and interest and it has been referred to by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. He has stated that he cannot publish the reports until they are reviewed by Government and the Attorney General. Has the liaison person in the Office of the Attorney General reported to the Taoiseach in respect of when the Attorney General's office will be in a position to provide a report to the Government? It is a valid question given the Taoiseach's observation.
No he has not, nor is it his function to do so.
If not, then what is his liaison function?
I have just explained that the liaison function relates to his interaction with the Attorney General and the Departments that deal with him. It relates to the question of reports and legal advice. The Attorney General provides legal advice and it must be considered. It is not a question of the Attorney General being unable to provide the legal advice.
If there is a liaison person appointed to the Office of the Attorney General to liaise with Departments that have interactions with that office then, surely, the Department headed by the head of Government is always in contact with the Office of the Attorney General. It is back to the Taoiseach, as Head of Government, that the message will come stating the Attorney General has reviewed this, the Government is quite entitled to consider it and here is the Attorney General's legal advice in respect of it. All I want to find out from the Taoiseach is whether this liaison person has any broader function to keep the Taoiseach fully acquainted, as I am sure he would want to be, of what is happening.
The Ministers and the Attorney General would keep me acquainted. Those are the persons who attend at Cabinet. The question here is——
The number of assistants.
Matters generally relating to that function are dealt with by that person on the Attorney General's behalf. The person works to the Attorney General, not to me. I have my own list of advisers on matters generally. It is not a question of lack of staff in the Attorney General's office.
The Green Party seems to have attached a priority to certain legislation, for example, the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009. One of the specific commitments in the programme for Government is to deal with the long-awaited animal health and welfare Bill which will phase out fur farming and end stag hunting. Has the liaison person informed the Taoiseach as to the current position in so far as that legislation is concerned?
No.
I have been listening carefully to the Taoiseach's replies to Deputy Kenny and I am confused as to the function of this political adviser to the Attorney General. Why does the Attorney General have a political adviser in the first place?
He does not have a political adviser.
Then what type of an adviser is he?
He is a special assistant. He does not provide political advice at all.
Is he a lawyer? Is he a legal person?
He is a special assistant to the Attorney General. I will get Deputy Gilmore the details of his qualifications in due course.
My understanding is that the Attorney General is the official legal adviser to the Government.
Correct.
The Taoiseach has just told us that this person's job is to liaise with other programme managers and advisers in various Departments about legal issues arising from the programme for Government. If there is somebody in the Attorney General's office whose job is to liaise with other Departments about legal issues arising from the programme for Government, it is not unreasonable to ask if the person is a lawyer. Is he a lawyer?
I will get the details of the person's qualifications. I do not have his qualifications before me. He does not work for me but for the Attorney General.
I will await the information but it would be odd if one had somebody dealing with legal issues arising from the programme for Government who was not——
He does not have to be a lawyer if he is a special assistant.
The Taoiseach has told us——
He does not have to be but I will find out for Deputy Gilmore.
I am trying to understand what it is about. It seems strange that the Attorney General who, effectively, is the law officer of the Government, would have a political adviser. The Taoiseach corrected me stating it is not a political adviser. He had earlier stated that it was to provide liaison of legal issues, etc. I am speculating as to how somebody could do that if he or she was not a lawyer. However, the Taoiseach will clarify that for me.
What are the legal issues arising from the programme for Government? The programme for Government is a political document.
Deputy Gilmore is expanding the questions. I am not disputing his right to ask that question, but there may be a different way of doing it, by submitting a direct parliamentary question on the matter.
I have. I submitted the following direct parliamentary question: "To ask the Taoiseach the duties and responsibilities of advisers or other political staff appointed to the Office of the Attorney General . . .", which question I am pursuing. The Taoiseach, in his reply, stated that he was dealing with legal issues arising from the programme for Government. I am asking the Taoiseach what are the legal issues arising from the programme for Government which are the responsibility of this particular adviser.
He attends the special advisers' meetings where he is able to be au fait with the issues that are arising across Departments and the priorities which may be pushed by special advisers on behalf of various Ministers at these meetings. He also ensures that the Attorney General is au fait with that. He does not provide or issue legal advice to Departments. That function is provided by the advisory counsel in the Office of the Attorney General and by the Attorney General himself.
Mr. Kieran is amply qualified for this position. In addition to his undergraduate and Master's degree, he is a qualified attorney-at-law in the State of New York. He was the first person to hold both the O'Reilly and Fulbright scholarships and was elected by his peers as president of the students union in Trinity College Dublin. He also assisted with legal work on a case in the US Supreme Court for the American National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
There is an administrative benefit in having a person assisting the Attorney General and his office by monitoring and keeping them abreast of what is happening in the matters in question, thereby allowing them to concentrate on their other duties. The Attorney General should have available a person to liaise on matters relevant to the Government legislation committee and other issues of a legal nature.
The Attorney General cannot personally monitor all that is happening in all Departments and the legislative programmes of all Ministers. With everything being dealt with by his office, he must also monitor matters raised in the Dáil and Seanad. Mr. Kieran brings such matters to the attention of the Attorney General to assist him in discharging his obligations. Enormous demands are placed on the Attorney General and his office by departmental requests for information and data. For several years, individuals have been appointed to liaise with the Attorneys General on such matters.
The Taoiseach said the adviser in the Attorney General's office attends the weekly Government programme managers' and senior political advisers' meetings. It is well-known those meetings are of a political troubleshooting role.
For example, if the report the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, received from Professor Brennan on the Dublin Docklands Development Authority were likely to be politically troublesome to a Minister or Ministers, would that political difficulty be flagged by the respective adviser to the Minister or Ministers concerned for the Attorney General's adviser? Presumably, he or she in turn would flag it for the Attorney General. Would that be part of the adviser's role? If so, where would that leave the independent — if one could call it that — role and function of the Attorney General in providing advice to the Government on such matters?
There is no question whatever of the integrity of the Attorney General being compromised in any way. He gives his advice without fear or favour and is a person of impeccable credentials.
I was not casting aspersions on the Attorney General. I was just asking how the system for advisers operates.
Allow the Taoiseach without interruption.
I am disabusing Deputy Gilmore of the idea that the Attorney General is compromised or undermined by reason of the fact he gives his advice without fear or favour. The purpose of the assistant to the Attorney General is, as I stated earlier, to assist him in all of the contacts between Departments. There is no way his legal independence is compromised or undermined in any way, and neither would he contemplate it for a moment.
In a time when the Taoiseach and his colleagues are constantly urging belt-tightening, does he believe it would be appropriate to undertake a review of the number of advisers in his Department? Their numbers are over and above the existing staffing complement of the Department. Does he believe it would be appropriate to review the excessive salaries paid to them that range between three to seven times the average industrial wage? How does the Taoiseach justify the maintenance of such a large number of advisers and these salaries when punitive levies are being applied to others in the public service which are having a serious impact on low to middle-income earners? This will lead to an ever-unfolding and deepening crisis in industrial relations within the Civil Service.
Deputy Ó Caoláin is drifting from the substance and content of the question.
This concerns special advisers and how the Taoiseach can justify it. Today, four weeks' notice of industrial action has been served on the HSE by porters, cleaners and security staff within hospital sites across the city. Are these the advisers who advised in respect of the approach to engagement with the public service unions, where ultimately the talks were collapsed and innovative, inventive efforts on behalf of the public service union representatives were roundly dismissed?
All appointments, pay, terms and conditions require the sanction of the Minister for Finance. All appointments from outside the Civil Service require the sanction of the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach. Having seven advisers from outside the Department and some who worked in the Civil Service and were seconded to these advisory positions is not a large number given the responsibilities, the relatively small size of my Department and the co-ordination role of the Taoiseach, which requires being properly advised on a range of matters. The salary of advisers is based on the fact that their term coincides with the length of tenure of the holder of the office. Their remuneration applies to pay levels at various grades of the Civil Service in the main. Given the overall responsibility such as overseeing the expenditure of €55 billion, that there are seven advisers available to the Head of Government is not excessive in the circumstances.
From the programme manager receiving a salary in excess of €200,000 and a senior political adviser receiving almost €200,000, does the Taoiseach accept that this focus would not happen except for the times we are in and the Government has had no hesitation in surgically applying a scalpel to the interests of ordinary low to middle income earners within the public service? In fact, it is not so surgical because the knife has slipped and the people are bleeding profusely.
Deputy Ó Caoláin is drifting away from the questions under this heading.
That is the key and critical issue because it has been applied in so many areas with devastating consequences for so many ordinary workers yet a situation maintains in the Department of the Taoiseach where a number of special advisers earn such substantial salaries. Can the Taoiseach advise the House if there is still an arrangement between the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Health and Children whereby special advisers to the Minister, Deputy Harney, are provided for and paid by the Department of the Taoiseach following arrangements entered into in the cobbling together of the coalition in the first instance and when she took up responsibility for the health portfolio in the previous Government? How many advisers to the Department of Health and Children are under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach and at what cost?
The Taoiseach must take on board the fact that these questions and their tenor is against the backdrop of the €8.50 cut the carers providing——
The Deputy is going off on yet another tangent.
——care in the home of elderly and disabled people, in regard to which the Government had no care in the world. We offer no apology for stating that if the Government is prepared to wear that and to watch the suffering as a consequence of its actions then other areas, including the remuneration of special advisers in his Department and across all other Departments, need to be addressed.
The adjustments to pay for people in receipt of salaries similar to those for grades in the Civil Service affected those advisers as they did everyone else. They had to take cuts in pay, as was the case in other related grades. That goes without saying.
On the question of responsibilities, Mr. Oliver O'Connor, special adviser, provides advice to the Minister for Health and Children and more generally to the Government on health policy matters, which covers a wide range of reform. Reform is necessary. We have seen huge and continuing reforms in the health service, including improvements in cancer care services and so on. Administrative reform must also be proceeded with.
In the context of the total overall spend in Government, including an exclusively public service pay bill of one third of the total of more than €50 billion — we are speaking in this regard of €19,000 million in salaries — the amount of money expended in terms of bringing in advice from outside to supplement and augment this is minuscule when compared to the overall cost of the full complement of civil and other public servants available to advise Government in a whole range of areas.
There are many of them.
I will allow a brief supplementary from Deputy Ó Caoláin.
I heard the Taoiseach's response in regard to the special adviser from his Department and the Department of Health and Children being directly involved in reform exercises. People in my constituency — the Minister, my colleague from the constituency is sitting beside the Taoiseach — do not, as does the Taoiseach, view this as reform. What has happened in regard to the acute hospital network in places such as Monaghan——
The Deputy will have another opportunity to raise that matter.
——and many other communities throughout the country is far from reform.
There has been reform in all of those areas.
Legislative Programme.
Enda Kenny
Question:9 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for the first half of 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48415/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:10 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for the remaining period of the 30th Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3467/10]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:11 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for the remainder of 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8821/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, together.
The legislative priorities of Government for the current Dáil session are set out in the legislative programme published on 19 January 2010. The Government will as usual publish its legislative programme at the beginning of each session throughout the remainder of the 30th Dáil.
My Department has no legislation planned for the current Dáil session.
In respect of legislative priorities, has the Government decided yet on a date for the referendum on children's rights and the reinstatement of the criminal offence of statutory rape? I commend the members of the committee dealing with children's issues which has produced and finalised its report, statements on which will be heard in the Dáil.
Given the litany of failures by the State, evidenced in the recent past, with more to come, will the Government prioritise the introduction of child protection guidelines? Will Children First will be put on a statutory basis and if so, when that might happen?
Some of the Deputies questions may relate to other Departments.
On the second report, no decision has yet been made in regard to when legislation will be introduced. The Government has decided to go the legislative route in respect of the matters raised by the Deputy. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on behalf of the Minister of State with responsibility for children and youth affairs obtained Government approval on 8 December last to prepare the general scheme of a Bill implementing the recommendations, including the recommendations of the majority of members where there was no unanimity on the second interim report. The Bill will deal with the issues of absolute and strict liability that arose in the context of the Supreme Court judgment in the CC case. The general scheme work has begun, but there is no date on either its publication or when it will be enacted. Obviously it will need to be proceeded with as soon as practicable.
On the other matters, a specific question to the Minister in question might be the best way to get an accurate reply. However, I welcome the fact that the accountability mechanisms, which are now in place like the Health Information and Quality Authority, are bringing forward as a result of audits conducted by the HSE the need to deal with its procedures in a transparent way and improve public confidence. It is precisely because we have improved the accountability mechanisms and because the work of HIQA is ongoing that we are getting to a position where we are able to address issues that would not be brought to our attention in the absence of those accountability mechanisms. That is the benefit of what is being done and it proves that the more modern framework that we have of inspection and the quality authority is drawing out these issues and ensuring that we have a structured and comprehensive response to these issues.
Is the Taoiseach happy that the HSE has the capacity to respond effectively and in an accountable fashion here? Obviously prioritisation of the publication of HSE reports leaves much to be desired. Has the Government firmed up on its intention to hold a referendum on children's rights, given all the information now in the public domain? Will it take place some time in 2010?
Following Michael Somers's appearance before an Oireachtas committee last summer when he made comments about Government policy, it now appears that legislation published, including the National Asset Management Agency Act and the Inland Fisheries Board Bill, contain a specific section stating:
In carrying out duties under this section, the chief executive shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government or on the merits of the objectives of such policy.
Is this to be a standard feature in all legislation where this might apply? Are we in the position where a chief executive or a person in an area of responsibility is being told in law that he or she cannot make any kind of comment or express an opinion on the merits or otherwise of a Government policy or a Minister or on the merits of the objectives of such policy?
We had a previous ruling on this matter. Quotations at Question Time are not to be encouraged.
You are not going to——
They are to be positively discouraged.
I shall quote it by rote if you want. We had this before.
I shall ask the Taoiseach to disregard the quotation.
Sure he is reading his quotations.
I refer to a section in the legislation which states that the chief executive shall not make any comment about any member of the Government or about any objective of a Government policy. That provision has been included in the National Asset Management Agency Act and the Inland Fisheries Board Bill. Is it now to be standard practice that chief executives cannot express an opinion on the merits or otherwise of the Government, a Minister or the objectives of a policy? I am sure that is in order.
I do not believe it is a standard feature of all legislation.
It has been since last summer.
However, where it is necessary it can form part of the legislation. The important issue that arises here is that the general principle of governance applies where in the event of people working for Government, the Government sets the policy and people implement and operate the policy. That is a basic principle that is often stated. If there are, for reasons of commercial sensitivity, issues arising particularly in terms of how Government policy is understood externally or outside the country, that coherence of approach is certainly important to establish.
I made the response to the Deputy previously that we were going down the legislative route in regard to one of the reports on the children issue. It is best if specific questions are asked. I do not have full information on all of that detail apart from what I can recall from memory in many respects. I will try to correlate some of the information I have here if it is of any relevance but the questions relate to the legislative programme in my Department specifically. If there are questions about the legislative programme generally it is best to address them to the line Department, certainly in regard to getting accurate answers to parliamentary questions.
The other question raised by the Deputy was the referendum issue. Again, that is a matter that can be considered by the Government at any time but a direct question to the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs would elicit the accurate answers.
The revised programme for Government as agreed between the Taoiseach and the leader of the Green Party, or both parties together, contains commitments across several areas for new legislation. None of that promised legislation has yet been published. None appears in the programme of legislation for the current term. What arrangements exist between the Taoiseach and the leader of the Green Party to introduce the promised legislation in the revised programme for Government? Is there any direct engagement between the two political parties in terms of the production and implementation of the commitments contained in the revised programme, which allegedly took some considerable time to pull together?
I will give the Taoiseach three examples in terms of those commitments. They include the establishment of an independent electoral commission, a Bill to make FÁS more accountable to the public and the Dáil and measures to protect the family home from financial institutions. Having scanned through the revised programme, those are three critical areas yet there is no indication that work is even under way on any of them. I can cite several more from the document on which the Taoiseach signed off. What process is in place to progress these commitments to new legislation? Is there any direct engagement between the two leaders of the component parts of the current coalition to agree priorities in terms of bringing forward those commitments to new legislation?
To refer to the previous question, the purpose of programme managers is to assist in the monitoring and progressing of the programme for Government. It is not surprising, if the programme is passed in October or November, that the existing legislative programme is in place and therefore work must begin on any fresh commitments made in that programme. There are regular meetings between myself and the Green Party leader.
I will pass on any further supplementary questions.
The questions are to try to establish from the Taoiseach the Government's priorities for legislation in 2010. In his reply the Taoiseach has referred us to the legislative list that was circulated at the beginning of the session. There are 85 pieces of legislation on that list but even with enormously improved productivity, we will not get 85 Bills enacted. The last time we had a legislative list, which was in September, 20 pieces of legislation were promised to be published by the Government in that session, that is, the session between September 2009 and Christmas 2009. Only eight of the 20 were published. A number of pieces of legislation on that list of 85 have been around for some time. There is a judicial council Bill, which was to deal with the disciplining of judges.
The Taoiseach will recall some issue arose in that regard. The legislation was originally promised in 2004 but has still not been published. There is a national monuments Bill which first appeared on the list in late 2003. Even with a Green Party Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, we still have not seen sight nor light of it. A Curragh of Kildare Bill was on every list published from 2003 until September of last year but it has now disappeared from the list altogether. I wonder what has happened to it.
There are a number of Bills that are urgent. My colleagues have been asking repeatedly about the necessity for legislation to deal with the management of apartment blocks and private housing schemes. My colleague, Deputy Quinn, has been asking about urgent legislation promised with a view to dealing with the patronage of primary schools. Legislation is promised to deal with qualifications in education and training, which I would have believed is fairly topical given the report that was issued last week on grade inflation.
There is also legislation that might save the State some money, such as the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which has been published by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government with a view to placing caps and controls on incinerators. This must be considered in light of the contradictory positions he and the Dublin city manager appear to have adopted regarding the incinerator proposed for Ringsend. We want to establish, in a general way, which of the 85 listed Bills the Taoiseach plans to have enacted by the end of the year.
The Deputy will know the Bills are graded into three lists, A, B and C. List A is the most relevant for those who want to consider what legislative proposals will be coming forward rather than refer to Bills that obviously are not accorded priority or which are not in prospect of enactment in the near future. The Deputy will know that when promises are made in respect of legislation, the period in question is not from the beginning of a session to its end but from the beginning of a session to the beginning of the next session. One must consider the Bills published before the first day of this session when accounting for the list of 20 about which the Deputy spoke. There would be more than eight by that definition. That is generally accepted by the Whips as what is meant when one brings forward a list and makes a promise of publication.
I was asked about the priorities. Clearly, the priorities are those Bills that are on list A because they are more ready to go than the others referred to by the Deputy. Sometimes occasions arise when legislation must be drafted quickly. Therefore, Bills sometimes come before the House that are not on the list but which are necessary and urgent. Court cases or other issues may arise that leave a lacuna in the law and in respect of which the taxpayer would be put at risk were a change not implemented quickly.
The Chief Whip, as chairman of the Government legislation programme, has been bringing forward these particular Bills. With regard to the Department of Finance, the Central Bank Bill is to replace existing structures with a new single and unified Central Bank of Ireland commission. The Finance Bill, which is before the House, is obviously important and it is to give statutory effect to budget day decisions.
With regard to the Department of Health and Children, we have in prospect this year the nurses and midwives Bill, which is to modernise the regulatory framework for nurses and midwives. I understand the prescription charges Bill will be later this year. It is to enable charges to be imposed under the medical card and long-term illness schemes subject to a monthly cap.
Traditionally, a large amount of legislation is brought forward by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. There are a number of Bills pertaining to this Department on the list. Criminal law and civil law are the sorts of areas in respect of which legislation will be brought forward. This legislation includes the civil law (miscellaneous provisions) Bill.