Vol. 722 No. 4
1 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he is satisfied that there are adequate procedures and facilities in his Department for archiving documents held in electronic form; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32343/10]
2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the arrangements in place in his Department for the preservation of records held in electronic form; if he is satisfied that these arrangements are adequate for compliance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41191/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
I am satisfied that there are satisfactory procedures and facilities in place in my Department for the preservation and archiving of all records, whether in electronic or paper form or otherwise. My Department complies with the requirements of the National Archives Act 1986 which stipulates that all official records, regardless of their format, received or created by the Department of the Taoiseach must be preserved.
Specifically with regard to the preservation of records held in electronic form, all members of staff in my Department are provided with the appropriate ICT facilities to create and manage these records as part of the Department's work support system. All electronic records are stored on the Department's storage area network on which every individual staff member and every section is allocated space. The storage area network is backed up nightly with incremental backups, weekly with full backups that are stored for one month, monthly with full backups that are stored for at least 12 months and annually with full backups that are stored indefinitely.
Each staff member also has an individual e-mail file. These are backed up and stored as above. In addition, all e-mail messages in my Department are electronically stored using an e-mail archiving product that captures all e-mail messages into a secure e-mail archive.
When I last raised this matter, along with other voices here in the Chamber on 23 February this year, the Taoiseach indicated he was not aware of the position on the safe retention of electronic documentation. He told us that he expected the comments in the Seanad of the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Martin Mansergh, to be correct. I brought to the attention of the Taoiseach at that time the fact that Minister of State had stated in the Seanad that documents held electronically will not be preserved. I take it from what the Taoiseach is indicating today that what the Minister of State outlined is not the case.
Is it now the case that electronic records will be preserved? Does the Taoiseach agree they are just as important as written material that is traditionally preserved? Will he indicate what has changed since his response and the comments by the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh in February this year, and whether the position prior to that in February is now the case with regard to electronic material recorded prior to that date? Is it a new development that preservation will be the order of the day or does it pertain to the beginning of the holding of electronic material?
Until the National Archives takes custody of my Department's records or alternative measures to ensure the preservation and accessibility of the records prior to eventual transfer to the National Archives, my Department will continue to retain electronic documents and records indefinitely. The electronic records are held in my Department and there is sufficient storage to hold those records; until the National Archives Act comes into play for them and they are transferred, they will be held in my Department.
The Department uses standard well-documented formats such as Microsoft Word and Excel, portable document formats and Lotus Notes for electronic documents and records. Whenever system or database upgrades are performed, checks are carried out to ensure existing electronic documents and records remain accessible from the upgraded system or database. It is also standard practice in my Department to convert data in older formats to more modern formats on an ongoing basis to preserve accessibility into the future.
When I advised the Taoiseach of the comments by the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh in the Seanad, stating that electronic documents would not be preserved, he indicated in reply that he was confident, knowing the Minister of State, that what he stated in the Seanad was correct. Clearly, the Taoiseach's confidence was ill-placed if we are to take it that the reply is indicating that documents are being held as an interim measure until the National Archives is in a position to take the electronic material in trust for the State. Will the Taoiseach indicate what point the preparation for holding electronic material by the National Archive is at and when he expects the transfer of records from his and other Departments?
I am not suggesting the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, is incorrect. No data has been archived to date as there is sufficient capacity on the storage area network to accommodate all electronic records in my Department. Under the National Archives Act 1986, there is an obligation on Departments to preserve records created and received in the course of performing official functions, to seek authorisation from the director of the National Archives prior to destruction of any such records, and from among record holdings to transfer to the National Archives those records worthy of permanent preservation because of their ongoing value for administrative and historical research purposes when the records are 30 years old. This is so they can be made available for public inspection and research use.
That is the statutory obligation of the Department. Based on the information I have given the Deputy, it is clear that we are recording the material in question in compliance with the National Archives Act. It is not the case that one is obliged to transfer records to the national archives on an annual basis. Records are transferred after 30 years and one transfers to the national archives those records worthy of permanent preservation. That is the position. Owing to the amount of storage on the storage area network, we are in a position to preserve all the records in question in the meantime.
I was about to suggest that the Government may be in the National Archives before too long.
It is not yet 30 years old.
It looks 30 years old.
The software used for archiving material in the National Archives is Microsoft Word 2007. The problem appears to be that current electronic databases may become inaccessible in 30 years as a result of future changes in electronic data. Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the electronic data currently being stored using this software will be accessible in the years ahead?
The National Archives Act 1986 requires that a National Archives Advisory Council be appointed by the Taoiseach. This matter needs to be attended to, particularly as the National Archives is struggling to cope with inadequate facilities and resources and, in some cases, very poor storage. When does the Taoiseach expect to be in a position to appoint a National Archives Advisory Council, as intended in the legislation?
On the Deputy's second point, the National Archives Advisory Council was established to advise the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport on matters of archives under the 1986 Act. My information is that it is the Minister's intention to reappoint the council shortly to advise on draft legislation.
On the Deputy's first question, as I indicated in reply to an earlier question, whenever a system or database upgrade is performed checks are carried out to ensure existing electronic documents and records remain accessible from the upgraded system or database. It is also standard practice in the Department to convert data in older formats to more up-to-date formats on an ongoing basis to preserve accessibility in future. It is part of the upgrading process to ensure archives are transferred into the upgraded system.
Is it standard practice in all Departments to make arrangements for whatever archival material they have to be stored and made available as time goes on?
I understand the Government proposes to merge the National Archives, National Library and Irish Manuscripts Commission into a single body. When is the merger expected to take place?
I do not have before me information in respect of the questions asked, which relate to the archiving of documents in my office.
3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach to report on the publication by him on 4 October 2010 of the Second Report of the Organisational Review Programme [35866/10]
4 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Taoiseach the role of his Department in implementing the Second Report of the Organisational Review programme; the recommendations that have been implemented to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41382/10]
5 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the Second Report of the Organisational Review Programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41386/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, together.
The organisational review programme, ORP, was established to review the capacities of Government organisations in three key areas, namely, strategy, managing delivery and evaluation. The aim is to ensure Government Departments and major offices are fit for purpose in terms of the challenges they face.
The first report of the organisational review programme was published at the end of 2008 and covered three Departments, namely, Transport, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which is now the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation.
The second report of the organisational review programme was published on 4 October and copies were circulated to all Deputies and Senators. The report contains the findings of reviews of four Government organisations, namely, the Department of Health and Children, Office of the Revenue Commissioners, Central Statistics Office and Property Registration Authority. It includes follow up action plans prepared by the management of each of these organisations. Detailed findings on each of the four organisations covering ten different organisational practices and behaviours were included in the report, along with a special commentary by the late Professor John Murray, head of the school of business, Trinity College. There also is a chapter on ICT best practice guidelines drawing from research of the seven organisations reviewed in the first and second phases of the programme.
While it would not be practical to go through each of the findings here, the second report highlights significant progress in several areas including, for example, a strong commitment to quality customer service being firmly embedded in many of the organisations reviewed, as well as a number of excellent examples of the effective use of ICT, involving innovative approaches and strong project management. The report also highlights areas in which there are significant capacity challenges that will require transformational change and development. For example, organisations still struggle to put in place effective performance measurement systems, especially to measure outcomes. Moreover, people management must be significantly improved, particularly in respect of the flexible allocation and redeployment of staff and the introduction of innovative work practices. In addition, Departments and offices must make more effective use of resources, both people and technology, to enhance productivity levels. As for follow-up to the findings, a clear responsibility lies in the first instance with the head and senior management of each organisation reviewed to ensure full implementation of its action plans.
The report, which was published in October, was particularly critical of the Department of Health and Children. It stated that the Department had not yet got to grips with managing the Health Service Executive, that allocation of staff was uneven and that staff morale within the Department was at a very low level. It went on to state "the quality of leadership [within] the Department is uneven" and concluded that staff allocation was highly unbalanced. What actions have been taken to improve the position within the Department of Health and Children arising from that report? In the context of the decision taken to proceed with a voluntary redundancy scheme in the HSE, can the Taoiseach indicate whether a similar scheme was considered for the Department of Health and Children itself? Has there been a marrying up of the issue of staff allocation and staff requirements in the HSE with that in the Department of Health and Children?
The danger is that we will get into detailed questions about individual Departments. The Deputy is familiar with the normal advice in respect of the line Minister.
However, this is a report of the organisational review programme, which is the responsibility of the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach still has overall responsibility for the Government. This was a report that was conducted under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach on various Departments and, as I am entitled to do, I am asking the Taoiseach a question about it.
I always will be as helpful as I possibly can, however detailed the requirements.
The Taoiseach is being very open.
Thank you, Deputy. Arising out of the specific issue raised by the Deputy, the action plan contains an action that is to take place by the end of the year to deliver a more effective allocation of work assignments, which will in turn lead to an improved use of available staff resources. The target is to have the work of the project team completed by the end of this year. On the wider point, as the Deputy is aware, the Croke Park agreement provides the industrial relations framework to enable the Government, through redeployment, to consider a range of issues in which there are critical service pressures, to identify areas in which there is an underutilisation of staff and to make arrangements for redeployment in that regard as well.
One point made in the report regarding the Department of Health and Children was that at junior level, some staff are overwhelmed with work while at the same time, staff in other areas have little or nothing to do. Specifically, has that problem been resolved or when is such resolution likely? When are the reports due for the other Departments that are subject to the organisational review programme?
With regard to the Deputy's first matter, a project team is in place which will report by the end of the year on that specific point. I believe it is No. 8 in the overall action plan. That has been taken up as a matter of priority and urgency.
With regard to the third phase of the review, four Departments are being examined in that respect. They are the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Education and Skills, Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach. I understand that substantive progress has been made. I expect these reviews and the associated action plans to be completed in the new year.
The second report of the organisational review programme, also in reference to the Department of Health and Children, stated among its recommendations that the Department should:
Define its customer and stakeholder groups clearly and align resources, processes and procedures to serve each one in the most appropriate way and at the same time strike an optimal balance in the allocation of resources between competing priorities.
Has the Department implemented this recommendation? Would the Taoiseach agree that speaking of the Department of Health and Children's role of service to the citizens of this State in terms of customer and stakeholder groups is inappropriate and reflective of the thinking that is influencing all that is wrong at the Department, where we have become customers or stakeholders rather than citizens with equal entitlements to access services on the basis of need rather than ability to pay? Would the Taoiseach agree that the Department should consider all the people living in the State as meriting equally its concern and that services across the Department's responsibilities should be delivered in an equitable way, which currently is far from the case? Have the recommendations contained in the second report, which I have referred to, been pursued? Will the Taoiseach join me in urging a revisitation of the terminology used to describe the citizens of this State as customers, which we certainly are not?
In fairness, I do not think that was the intent. Customer service and customer delivery are part of the management of delivery. There are three aspects to these operational review programmes. These include the level of strategy in these Departments, how they are delivering and the situation for customers and people who use the service. Of course citizens use the service. No one is trying to say otherwise. This is the terminology used in the organisational review. It is not meant to devalue the importance of the service or the people who use it. The reviews then evaluate how Departments are measuring performance, the feedback from stakeholders and from people who use the service and what is the input into policy and strategy that derives from that.
As a management tool, a review is a good and objective exercise. For it to be rigorous, robust and thorough, one would expect that there would be recommendations and that weaknesses and strengths would be identified. It is like a SWOT exercise to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats and to make sure an organisation responds to needs and to its strategy remit.
Where resources are limited issues will arise and critical service pressures will emerge. The programme is intended to get best practice across the system. Service pressures may emerge in some areas which are not replicated elsewhere because there are different ways of dealing with these things. In many respects it is down to management, personnel, the involvement of stakeholders and the team approach that can be adopted. It is only fair to say that we are engaged in a huge change management programme regarding the delivery of health services, moving from a regional structure that was with us since the mid-1970s to one that is now based on a programme involving a national hospitals office. This has been good and a means by which centres of excellence could be provided rather than looking at the need for resources regionally.
We have seen what has happened in regard to the cancer care programme, which is a very good example of the sort of change management programme required. These management programmes never meet with universal approval but outcomes for patients are far more likely to be better because of the changes than they would be under the status quo. Sometimes defending the status quo can get people involved in loyalties to institutions rather than seeing the bigger picture of what is in the best interest of patients. It is also about trying to localise as many services as possible and reconfiguring how we deliver them in a way that will, in many cases, increase service levels in many localities while developing centres of excellence in other areas. That is how the hospital system is being reformed. People have strong views on these matters. I have outlined the overall thrust of developments. Certainly, the status quo was not sustainable, nor was it providing the sorts of outcomes we would like to see. There was certainly no uniformity of outcome, as one can see from various statistics.
It is important that this exercise be about ensuring that, departmentally, the strategic plan of the health services is implemented by the bodies and agencies whose functions are on the operational side of the equation. Despite the constant portrayal to the contrary, the existence of problems does not mean progress is not being made. One can identify many areas in which objective progress is being made. I am glad to say the experience of the health service of the vast majority of people has been good. Members will note this themselves if they are prepared to admit it. People confirm my point and have been very happy with the way their relatives, or others, have been catered for or cared for. There are circumstances in which this may not be the case but, if one considers the overall level of activity, one will note that the thrust of the policy and the objective of the ongoing effort are to achieve uniformity across the service in every respect and on every occasion. Against the background of limited resources, that is a continuing challenge. The Croke Park agreement is a once-off opportunity to transform circumstances in a way that could provide us with a sustainable and practical future for stakeholders and citizens who use the service. That is my honest opinion.
Clarifying the roles of the Department vis-à-vis the agencies continues to comprise an area in respect of which further work is needed. We are in the process of implementing a change management programme and when we come out the far side — it will not happen overnight but over a period — the basic thrust of and philosophy behind the changes will prove to have been correct and will best guarantee accessibility. We have changes in respect of long-term care and care for the elderly, in respect of which there is now much more equity and a far better statutory basis for the equitable provision of such care than would have been the case in the past when various care systems grew almost organically and regionally depending on what resources were available and what practices were in place in various regional organisations.
There have been many improvements but, as I would expect, particularly in a Department such as the Department of Health and Children in respect of the delivery of health services, there are areas for further improvement.
There are significant areas where matters must improve further and in respect of which we must ensure that the strategy is implemented in the best possible way. The redeployment provisions in the Croke Park agreement are fundamental to ensuring that we can allocate resources into communities, where appropriate, and that there is efficient use of the hospital system.
There are marked differences between the Taoiseach and me regarding how to describe the Department of Health and Children and the situation relating to our network of public hospital sites. The second report of the organisational review programme was published in the first week of October. Is there a timeframe regarding the implementation of the recommendations in the report, particularly those relating to the Department of Health and Children?
A number of the recommendations in the report relate to the Department of Health and Children. The action plans are set out and are part of the process. The specific issue regarding a better allocation of work and assignments within the Department of Health and Children is a matter of priority and the recommendation in this regard has been taken very seriously. I expect that the project team will have completed the work designed to improve the situation by the end of the year. In the context of encouraging greater clarity between the agencies, we also expect the relevant work to be completed by the end of the year. I am not stating that all of this work will be done by the end of the year but I am satisfied that several priority areas have been identified. I am confident that what I have outlined will be done.
I understand the Department of Finance did not opt into an operational review programme at all and instead carried out its own capacity review in 2009. The latter found that the Department is widely acknowledged to be a professional and effective organisation with dedicated and highly skilled staff. Is there a reason the Department of Finance did not opt in? Is it of such superior status that it did not need to be involved in an organisational review? Is there a reason for its stance or was it a case of "Hands off, leave us alone"?
As the Deputy is aware, an independent panel has been established to carry out a review. It is usually the case that reviews ongoing in Departments involve existing personnel from other Departments coming in. There is quite a fair level of engagement with the staff in respect of how organisational programmes are worked through.
The Minister for Finance established an independent panel to review his Department. His decision was announced on 10 September. The panel is chaired by Mr. Rob Wright who has 35 years of economic, policy and management experience in the public service of Canada, more than 20 of which was at the level of what we could call Secretary General. Most recently, Mr. Wright served as Deputy Minister of Finance in Canada. The second member of the panel is Mr. Hans Borstlap, who has considerable experience in the Dutch public administration system, including holding the position of director general at the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment and membership of the advisory board of the Dutch National Bank. He also gained significant experience at EU level as Chairman of the Employment and Labour Market Committee. He is currently a member of the Council of State and provides advice to the Government on the annual budget in this role. The third member is Mr. John Malone, a former Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture and Food. Mr. Pat McArdle, an economist, provides support and assistance to the panel. The panel is assisted in its work by a secretariat provided by the Department.
The independent panel has been asked to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the systems, structures and processes relating to those elements of budgetary, economic, financial and public service management that are relevant to its role. I expect it to report quite soon.
6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he has met the new Ulster Unionist Party Leader Mr. Tom Elliott; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41192/10]
7 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet with the First Minister of Northern Ireland Mr. Peter Robinson; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41193/10]
8 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach his views on extending the remit of the North-South Ministerial Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41387/10]
9 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his most recent contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland [42569/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, together.
The Hillsborough Agreement provided the basis for a significant step in the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement by allowing the completion of the devolution of policing and justice powers. The appointment of Mr. David Ford, MLA, a locally accountable justice Minister, was a further important landmark in consolidating the peace process.
While justice is not a formally agreed area for North-South co-operation under the Good Friday Agreement, I am glad to say that the current excellent level of cross-Border co-operation in policing and justice matters is unprecedented. Intergovernmental agreements on policing co-operation and on co-operation on criminal justice matters provide the framework for North-South co-operation in this area. The Intergovernmental Agreement on Criminal Justice Co-operation provides for regular meetings between the justice Ministers, North and South, who receive reports from a working group made up of representatives from both jurisdictions, including senior Garda and PSNI officers and the heads of various criminal justice agencies.
The Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has met with the Northern Ireland Minister for Justice, Mr. David Ford, MLA, a number of times since the devolution of policing and justice and the two Ministers met again on 12 November to formally review ongoing co-operation. The Government is also in ongoing contact with the British authorities in our joint efforts to combat the threat from so-called dissident groups. The ongoing co-operation between the Garda and the PSNI will remain critical in tackling this threat.
There are areas of agreed North-South co-operation under the Good Friday Agreement. These include agriculture; education; transport; environment; waterways; social security-social welfare; tourism and relevant EU programmes; inland fisheries; aquaculture and marine matters; health; and urban and rural development. There are regular meetings of Ministers, North and South, to review and progress areas of North-South co-operation in each of these sectors.
The review group appointed under the St. Andrews Agreement was asked, as part of its terms of reference, to examine the case for additional bodies and areas of co-operation within the North-South Ministerial Council where mutual benefit would be derived. At the last North-South Ministerial Council plenary meeting in Dublin in July, the Council agreed that recommendations in a report prepared for the review group by an advisory panel of experts and advisers would be forwarded for views to Ministers who have responsibility for the North-South bodies. They noted consultation that is under way within Executive Departments on the second and third terms of reference of the St. Andrews Agreement review and anticipated that the review group would move rapidly to conclude its work when this is complete. Ministers agreed to consider the outcome of consultation that is under way in both jurisdictions at a future North-South Ministerial Council meeting.
I would hope to see the St. Andrews review process brought to a conclusion in the near future. I believe we need to move on to a more expansive agenda. There is much potential for mutual benefit that can be realised within the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement. We continue to make that point to our partners and we hope that, internally, the Executive can come forward with a review process that can be completed and allow us proceed.
It should also be noted that at the twice yearly plenary meetings of the North-South Ministerial Council, as well as considering issues across the agreed areas of co-operation, it is now regular practice to discuss the economic situation and to consider where co-operation could be to the mutual benefit of both jurisdictions. I am firmly of the view that it makes sense for us to work together to achieve economies and efficiencies to mutual benefit, especially in the face of the economic challenges faced throughout the island. As I have outlined, there is also ongoing co-operation in the justice area. I look forward to continuing to work with my Northern colleagues to progress and develop North-South co-operation to the greatest extent possible.
I am glad to note that the first ever North-South Parliamentary Forum conference took place in Newcastle, County Down, over two days on 7 and 8 October. That conference was attended by representatives from all parties in the Oireachtas and Stormont and was co-chaired by the Speaker, Mr William Hay, and the Ceann Comhairle. I understand that the conference followed a detailed work programme covering issues such as building parliamentary links with Europe and agriculture and rural development issues. The Tánaiste and the British Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Nick Clegg, were guest speakers at the conference dinner.
There will be a further North-South Consultative Conference on 8 December involving civil society from both North and South.
I have not yet had an opportunity to meet with the new leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mr. Tom Elliott, MLA, but I sent him my congratulations on his election as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. I look forward to working with him and his colleagues for the mutual benefit of all those whom we represent, especially at this time of economic difficulty.
I expect to meet with the North's First Minister, Peter Robinson, and Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, at the meeting of the British-Irish Council which will take place in the Isle of Man on 13 December. I also expect to meet them at the next plenary meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council which will take place in the coming weeks. I sent my congratulations to First Minister Robinson and Deputy First Minister McGuinness on being awarded the Glencree Peace Award on 11 November in Dublin. I was represented at the awards ceremony by the Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply.
I hope to end supplementaries shortly.
I met Tom Elliott, MLA, the new leader of the UUP recently when he attended a cross-Border tourism conference arranged by my party in Donegal. At that meeting, he highlighted the role of the six official North-South bodies, namely, Waterways Ireland, the Food Safety Promotion Board, InterTradeIreland, the Special European Union Programmes Body, the language body comprising Foras na Gaeilge and Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch, and the Foyle, Carlingford and Commissioners of Irish Lights.
At its plenary session on 17 July, the North-South Ministerial Council agreed to take forward the review of the North-South implementation bodies and areas for co-operation as provided for in the St. Andrews Agreement. Does the Taoiseach have any indication on when this report is expected? Is there a cost for the 30 month review process that has taken place? Is it the Taoiseach's opinion that the six bodies established at the beginning have fulfilled their remit? Is there a need for them to continue in their original form? Does he have any information from the review process as to where the future lies for them?
As I stated, we are very anxious to move forward on all of these issues and the Government stands ready to do so. The Executive in Northern Ireland is under the second and third requirements in the St. Andrews review. It has to come forward with the internal outcome of that review process. The prospect of getting some decisions at the North-South review is dependent on getting some agreement in the Executive as to what proposals it will make.
I honestly believe this is a matter that should be progressed. As I stated, we require the agreement of all concerned. I believe the record of co-operation in areas where we have been able to proceed with co-operation has been to everyone's benefit. There is a greater degree of potential in all of these arrangements and I believe that the level of trust and co-operation can and should be such as to regard expanding these areas of co-operation as being a matter of practical benefit and mutual benefit to all. I hope these matters can be progressed as quickly as possible and we stand ready to do so.
We attach importance to the provisions of the agreement, which foresaw an organic build-up of structures which will serve the people, North and South. The issue with regard to the Commissioners of Irish Lights has not been resolved in terms of having an alternative implementation body in another area but what we have should not be regarded as either the beginning or the end of the matter.
Is the Taoiseach aware that on 14 September in the Assembly, the Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Michael McGimpsey, advised the Stormont Assembly that he had agreed with the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Mary Harney, not to publish or bring forward the feasibility report on North-South co-operation on the issue of health? This issue has been raised at a number of committees here, including the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, and is a cause of serious concern. Is the Taoiseach aware that the feasibility report that has been withheld contains recommendations for ever-deepening and further co-operation in health care delivery North-South that would make a critical difference for citizens on the island of Ireland in terms of accessing procedures that are not currently on offer on the island? Citizens North and South must leave this island to access particular procedures, whereas if the mass of the population on the island was taken into account, it would allow for those procedures and the particular expertise to locate on the island of Ireland, at whatever location.
There is also an issue with regard to particular areas, such as transplants, which are of a specialist nature. Currently, people are obliged to leave this island for treatment. The report contains many important and welcome recommendations. Would the Taoiseach not accept that co-operation in health delivery systems is hugely important and would benefit all on the island of Ireland? Will he join me in asking for the publication of this report and for its reintroduction as a document for live consideration North and South?
A direct request to the Minister for Health would provide the exact circumstances of the current status of the report. That said, the publication of the report requires the agreement of both sides. We would like to see any assessments that are being made about how we can co-operate further, and pending any decisions that will be made to co-operate, we would like to see all of these avenues explored. Where work is done, we would like to see it brought into the public domain as quickly as possible.
