Micheál Martin
Question:1. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has changed the protocol in his Department regarding the use of private e-mail accounts (details supplied) for Government business. [7362/17]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Information and Communications Technology
Gerry Adams
Question:2. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has changed the protocols in respect of the use of private e-mail accounts within his Department. [8551/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The Department of the Taoiseach has detailed information and communications technology policies relating to the use of e-mail and the Internet. These policies, which are provided to all staff, also deal with software downloads, media device usage, remote access and the security responsibility of users. While the existing policies do not explicitly ban the use of unofficial e-mail accounts for official purposes, they stipulate that individuals using the Department's electronic media should handle their communications with the same care as any other type of business communications. I informed the House in December 2016 that the Department's information and communications technology policies were being reviewed and that a process of consolidation would be undertaken following the review. The review has now been completed and the consolidation process is under way. Text dealing explicitly with the use of unofficial e-mail accounts for official purposes will be included in the consolidated policy.
For the information of Deputy Micheál Martin, the consolidation process involves bringing together multiple individual policies dealing with various aspects of information and communications technology security, such as e-mail and Internet usage, remote access, mobile device usage and software downloads. These policies have been reviewed and updated and are being consolidated into a single overarching policy that will be a single point of reference for all staff in the Department. When the consolidated policy has been approved by senior management, it will be circulated to all staff.
That new protocol will contain specific guidance relating to the use of private e-mail accounts and other forms of electronic communications. Although there has not been a particular formal protocol, that will now become part of the process with which all staff will be fully acquainted.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. Many people would have been surprised by the way the Minister for Social Protection had enough time on his hands to set up and administer a discussion group for the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party. Clearly he did not spend enough time showing them how to use the application properly and it has been confirmed that the old group has now been shut down and replaced by a service where messages cannot be recorded through screen grabs and they disappear once read. Does the Taoiseach remember the "Mission: Impossible" series some time back?
I do. The message would self-destruct in five seconds.
Yes. That is the new order within Fine Gael.
It is more like "Get Smart".
A code of silence.
There is a serious point to all of this because of the growing concern that efforts may be made by Ministers to discuss public business without recording this in accordance with the law. There is an obvious difference between party political business and public business but what protection do we have to know that private e-mails and non-recorded chat groups are not being used for official business?
I do not know if the Taoiseach saw Mr. John Mooney's article in The Sunday Times, where he stated the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, broke e-mail protocol by using "personal email accounts for sensitive government-related business". It was reported the Taoiseach has used his personal e-mail 161 times since 2011 in this regard and the information came from the freedom of information process. Will the Taoiseach confirm it is true that he has used that account 161 times? Is it appropriate that the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality would use her personal Gmail account for correspondence to and from the Attorney General, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and for issues relating to immigration, asylum-seeking cases and judicial investigations?
The Taoiseach has indicated that a review and consolidation are afoot but will he state if there has been any vulnerability in this regard? Have any of the private accounts of the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality been compromised in any way by hacking or whatever? Is the Taoiseach concerned about this? There are sensitive issues in the justice sector relating to judicial investigations, Attorney General communications and so on. Mr. Mooney was able to read these e-mails and I was stunned, to a certain extent, when I read the front page of the newspaper and the level of material that got out.
I have seen headlines indicating matters were so sensitive, people were not allowed to see them. Clearly, some items are available under the freedom of information process and some are not. My private office uses a number of secure corporate e-mail accounts for conducting day-to-day business on my behalf, such as dealing with correspondence from the public or arranging events to be attended. My constituency office also has a secure corporate e-mail account and these accounts are managed by my staff in my office. They are only accessible on the Department's network. I use a secure corporate e-mail account to enable officials to send me priority e-mails and when I am out of the office, I can only access this e-mail account on mobile devices approved by my Department. No corporate data other than e-mail and calendar data are accessible from these devices. All data on the devices are encrypted and the devices are protected through specialised mobile device management products.
I have a private e-mail account that predates my time as Taoiseach and that I use for personal correspondence or party political correspondence that would not be appropriate for transmission on the official e-mail account of the Department. I generally use my corporate e-mail account for official purposes but I have, on occasion, used my personal e-mail account for official purposes for operational reasons. As far as I am aware, no particularly sensitive information has been used with that account. I do not know the number of times that the article mentions me and the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality.
It is 161.
Official e-mail accounts are only accessible on my Department's secure network at Government Buildings and remotely using official laptops and mobile devices. Those laptops issued to staff for remote access are fully encrypted and remote access to the network is only permitted from sanctioned devices using strong authentication protocols. The Deputy and I discussed this before and we can see what happened internationally, with hundreds of millions of e-mails that were supposed to be safe and secure being publicised all over the world.
I am not clear from the Taoiseach's initial answer as to whether there is a protocol for the use of private accounts for official business. One presumes official accounts would have more security built in and it would make sense, I presume, for Ministers not to use private accounts for official business. The Taoiseach mentioned what has happened internationally with the amount of hacking ongoing and people accessing information. The Sunday Times has indicated that seven senior Ministers admitted to receiving e-mails for official Government business in their personal e-mail accounts and the Taoiseach used his personal account at least 161 times since 2011, with the material on 23 such occasions too sensitive to be released under the freedom of information process. That contradicts the assurance given by the Taoiseach in the Dáil last December. The newspaper claims the e-mails include information on corporation tax. The Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality also allegedly used a personal Gmail account to deal with matters relating to An Garda Síochána, judicial investigations, the Attorney General and so on.
Will the Government put in place a protocol that prevents a Minister or someone in the Department using private accounts for official business? Is that now the case? Is it the Taoiseach's view that if it is not now the case, it should be the case?
What was the last question?
Is it the case that personal accounts will not be used for official business? If that is not the case, does the Taoiseach believe it should be the case?
There has not been a formal protocol but this matter came to light and the review is complete. What has been referred to as a consolidation process is being put in place. That takes into account the issues I mentioned, including e-mail and Internet usage, remote access, mobile device usage, software downloads etc. All of that has been put into a single overarching policy, protocols will apply and everybody will understand clearly what that means. There was nothing to breach before but when this consolidation process is made available to everybody, people will have a clear set of rules they can all understand.
I wish to broaden the question a bit if I can. The Taoiseach will recall that in our time we established the national cyber security centre to deal with the revelations that virtually any system is subject to hacking. What are the results of establishing that centre and has it completed a risk assessment of our vulnerability? Has it made any recommendations to strengthen the systems of communication within the Government? It is a matter of fact that even the most sensitive of documentation controlled by the National Security Agency in the United States is subject to hacking and release. Nothing can be foolproof in such matters but we should use the best technology. What risk assessment has been completed and have we taken any action on foot of that?
I will give more context to the question. Will the Taoiseach tell us how many cases of hacking in his Department have been recorded? If there have been cases, did the Taoiseach receive warnings about his own devices? Has malware been a problem for his Department? I hope his forthcoming visit to the United States will be enjoyable but what special precautions will be made in that regard?
There are many recorded instances of people's devices being hacked when they go to the US. Have any special arrangements been put in place to ensure the Taoiseach, who seems determined to meet President Trump, will not be hacked and bugged? It could be done by people from here, anxious to know how the Taoiseach is getting on. Equally, it could be people with bad intent.
We are not as overly exercised about e-mails.
The German Chancellor's phone was hacked and she was very upset about it.
I recall it.
Other countries might also listen in.
We can depend on it.
We must be cognisant of the issue. I do not know whether any special arrangements have been made. My old mobile phone is still working and maybe they listen to everything. I do not know. I will be very careful. Deputy Howlin's point is very serious. I will not have time to read out all my notes.
The Taoiseach might circulate them.
Cybersecurity is operated through the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment and operates out of University College Dublin, separate from here. My Department maintains contact with the computer security incident response team, CSIRT, in the National Cyber Security Centre which provides regular guidance and advice relating to Internet security alerts and threats. Prevention and mitigation measures recommended by the CSIRT are reviewed as soon as they are received and, where appropriate in our IT environment, implemented. We never release information on the number of attacks on the Department. The release by any organisation of any details relating to cyberattacks or specific measures taken to counter such attacks could expose vulnerabilities in their defences that could be exploited and provide potential attackers with useful information that would enable them to design more effective attacks.
In Austria, a hotel came under a cyberattack in which all the doors were locked and a ransom demanded. People could not get out. People who apparently know these things tell me the issue of the terrorist bomb will be surpassed by the ability to hack into driverless cars and use them for whatever purpose. Two years ago in America, attackers took over a driverless car and controlled its speed and direction remotely. One can imagine the implications. It is an issue for everybody. We have billions of digital content and technology assets, and they must be protected and safeguarded. Electromagnetic bursts can destroy and close down sections very quickly. How it works is beyond my understanding. However, I am informed by those who know that we should take these issues very seriously. The new president of University College Cork is an acknowledged expert in physics and has a great to deal of advice to offer in these matters.
Commissions of Investigation
Brendan Howlin
Question:3. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach the status of the commission of investigation into the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, IBRC; and the projected costs. [7363/17]
Gerry Adams
Question:4. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the status of the commission of investigation into IBRC. [8367/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.
The IBRC commission was established on 16 June 2015 under the Commission of Investigation (Irish Bank Resolution Corporation) Order 2015. Mr. Justice Brian Cregan, a judge of the High Court, is the commission's sole member. The timeframe for the final report on the first module of its work, on the Siteserv transaction, is the end of December 2017.
Up until the end of January 2017, the commission had spent €1.555 million. As outlined in the commission's interim report, it does not reflect third party costs which may arise for payment in due course. The commission has tentatively indicated an approximate cost in excess of €10 million for its investigation into the Siteserv transaction. This assessment was shared with the Opposition leaders when I consulted them, but their strong view was that the investigation should proceed. The estimate does not take account of the cost and time impact of any legal challenges which may be taken. The commission is independent in the performance of its functions and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any aspects of its work.
Most people have two concerns about the Cregan commission, namely, that it would progress speedily and curtail costs as far as practicable. The Taoiseach said it was expected that the preliminary report on the Siteserv part of the investigation would be completed by the end of December. Is it still on track to happen by the end of December and has there been any escalation of the costs? Have any discussions taken place with the investigation regarding likely ongoing costs or any mechanisms to mitigate costs, or is it believed that it would be inappropriate to do so?
It is still on track. The commission is independent and I have no information on anything else other than that it is on track for the end of December. Regarding third party costs for the IBRC commission, in its interim report of April 2016, the commission signalled that the special liquidators had informed it that the costs incurred by them in assisting the commission are €2.786 million, comprising their costs up to 31 January 2016 of €2,333,750, exclusive of VAT, and legal costs to 15 March 2016 of €453,248, inclusive of VAT. The Department of Finance informed the commission that its external legal costs were €246,000, inclusive of VAT.
In addition to Mr. Justice Cregan, the commission's staffing complement comprises a solicitor, an assistant principal officer and a legal secretary. The commission also has sanction to engage the services of two senior counsel and five junior counsel, as required. All legal service fees are paid at rates approved by the Government. The per diem rates for a senior counsel are €788.28 and a junior counsel €394.14. It is very much reduced from what it used to be during past years. People often ask whether the €10 million in the estimate was included in the Department's Vote. There is €4.763 million in the Vote for this year, which includes provision for the IBRC and Fennelly commissions. While the IBRC commission is due to report on the Siteserv transaction by the end of the year, there is provision for the commission to be asked to investigate other modules at that stage.
It is not possible to predict accurately at this stage the level of costs that will arise or when they will arise. It is likely that the third-party costs will fall for payment only after they have been considered and adjudicated on by the commission. It seems likely, therefore, that they may not arise for payment until 2018. As Deputy Howlin is aware, it is ultimately a matter for the commission. In the event that costs for the commission are above the €4.763 million and fall for payment in 2017, alternative funding will need to be identified from within my Department or from elsewhere.
The Taoiseach will recall that the commission of investigation into IBRC, like the one into Project Eagle, was one the Government avoided for a very long time before conceding the need for it. It is welcome that the Taoiseach is indicating that he is confident the commission will complete its work on the first module within the timeframe agreed, by the end of the year. We were also told the Taoiseach's Department would set aside €10 million to pay for it. However, last week, the Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach failed to show it. Does the Taoiseach have any information? If it is not in the Estimate, from where will it be paid? When will the commission of investigation into Project Eagle commence?
I have already answered the Deputy's question. There is €4.73 million in the Vote for this year for the commission of investigation. It includes provision for the IBRC commission and the Fennelly commission, which is due to finalise its report by the end of March. To date, the Fennelly commission has cost €3.03 million.
Will it finish in March?
Yes. I gave a further extension to Mr. Justice Fennelly, and I expect it to finish in March.
In the context of the queries on costs raised by Deputies Howlin and Adams, the IBRC commission of inquiry is due to report on Siteserv at the end of 2017, so we do not yet know the costs and, therefore, I cannot comment in that regard. If there are third-party costs, they would only fall for payment after they have been considered and adjudicated on by the commission. They would then not arise until 2018. If it transpires that they require to be paid in 2017, however, the money would need to be found from within the Department of the Taoiseach or elsewhere.
Reference was also made to Project Eagle. I met with the leaders in September 2016 and we heard their views on the issues of public concern. I received a number of submissions following that meeting. We met again on 4 October and agreed, in principle, that the Government would establish a commission of investigation under the Act of 2004 to investigate matters of significant public concern regarding NAMA. The Committee of Public Accounts has been holding hearings on this also. I referred this to Deputy Doherty at the committee meeting on Estimates recently. The committee had received a large amount of evidence from NAMA and many other interested parties, including some from outside the jurisdiction. I understand that the Committee of Public Accounts is to issue its report shortly and that statements on the establishment of the commission of investigation into NAMA were taken in the House on 1 February 2017. It was indicated on that occasion that the sensible thing to do is wait for the report of the Committee of Public Accounts before deciding on the next steps.
On the IBRC and Siteserv inquiry and the full range of investigations that are currently under way, it might be no harm if the Taoiseach could send me a note with details of those investigations and the projected costs relating to them.
Is that from Moriarty onwards?
No, just the more recent ones.
The Moriarty tribunal was 20 years ago and my Department is still paying for it.
I mean the inquiries we have initiated in respect of Siteserv and other matters. These inquiries are all symptomatic of a failure by existing mechanisms and systems to deal with issues and complaints when they arise. There is something wrong with our culture in terms of our ability to transparently deal with issues professionally, be it complaints relating to An Garda Síochána or in the context of the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement having the capacity to investigate commercial wrongdoing and so on. This is also having a huge impact on the taxpayer.
Parallel with these inquiries, we need to have a programme within the public service and within our existing mechanisms to ensure that part of the remit of the vision of any organisation involves providing timely, professional responses to issues that arise. Consider, for example, the volume of issues that go to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC. It is extraordinary. GSOC has almost become paralysed on foot of the volume of work it has on hand and its lack of resources and capacity. One is obliged to wonder, in the context of the overall picture, what it is all about. This volume of complaints must speak to something that is wrong with within our system. I put this to the Taoiseach in respect of the inquiry into Siteserv and the IRBC. Project Eagle is a classic illustration, where €4 million or €5 million ends up in an offshore account and nobody bats an eyelid. People were saying the problem was "Over there, and not over here". It is just bizarre that any State institution would have a view that it was fine because the potential wrongdoing was on the purchaser's side and not on that of the vendor, and that the issue would not need to be examined. Of course it is not fine. That kind of culture needs to be nipped in the bud.
I will send a letter to Deputy Micheál Martin and the other party leaders on the up-to-date position of the commissions of investigation that have been established. The Deputy previously suggested the establishment of a permanent inspectorate for public inquiries that would be professional, deal with issues in a timely fashion and have the experience to know which direction should be followed. For his information, the proposal was considered by the Law Reform Commission in 2005 when it dealt with the report on public inquiries, including tribunals of inquiry. I am open to the idea. The Law Reform Commission made three points. It said that, over time, an inspectorate's staff would become experienced in investigation and would be paid salaries rather than a daily rate, resulting in savings to the Exchequer. Second, the office would have easy access to precedence and guidance on procedural issues. Third, it would provide a one-stop-shop for those seeking information on inquiries.
The commission also listed some disadvantages. Although there were a number on inquiries at the time, there was no guarantee that there would be a need for a similar body in the future. The commission also said that public inquiries are, by their nature, ad hoc and their structure and personnel should reflect this. Having weighed up the advantages and disadvantages, the commission did not recommend the establishment of a permanent standing inspectorate. It did, however, recommend the establishment of a central inquiries office that would be charged with collecting and managing a database of records and information regarding public inquiries. This would provide those charged with establishing and running public inquiries easy access to precedence, guidance on a wide variety of matters pertinent to their inquiry - including legislation - procedural issues, the drafting of terms of reference and administrative matters.
It should be borne in mind that the Law Reform Commission report was published in 2005, the year after the enactment of the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. Obviously, since then we have had a number of commissions of investigation. Any decision to establish a permanent inquiries inspectorate or a central inquiries office would have to take into account the experience gained in the intervening period, as well as the Law Reform Commission's report and other relevant factors.
I would be open to having a rational discussion in the House about this matter. Protected disclosures are flooding in and they are very complicated and complex. Ministers have a duty and a responsibility for them, but cannot actually talk about them. While other cases are to follow, many of the cases raised with me by Deputy Micheál Martin a few years ago are still coming back in. They were examined by senior counsel but people are still dissatisfied. Perhaps the House should consider the idea recommended by the Law Reform Commission. I may put this in train and see what will come of it.
Dáil Reform
Michael Moynihan
Question:5. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Taoiseach the status of the commitment in the programme for Government on political reform. [7364/17]
Gerry Adams
Question:6. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on commitments contained in the programme for Government in respect of political reform. [8552/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 6 together.
A Programme for a Partnership Government was published last May and contains a number of commitments on Dáil and Seanad reform. In December, the Government published a report on the programme setting out the progress made to date across all of Government on implementing the programme. This is the first of many regular reports to be published in addition to the annual report which will be published in May following the Government’s first year in office.
In respect of Dáil reform, this Government continues to build on the Oireachtas reform packages introduced by the previous Administration. Implementation of A Programme for a Partnership Government requires a new relationship between the Government and Oireachtas. This is reflected in significant Dáil reforms that are being implemented, providing a significantly greater role for members of Dáil Éireann. These arrangements require greater collaboration and sharing of information by the Government with the Oireachtas.
Central to our approach for delivering on this ambitious programme is the concept of good faith and no surprises. Following the general election in 2016 this Government, and the previous Government, played a crucial role in the process of Dáil reform including the first election of a Ceann Comhairle by secret ballot, the selection of Oireachtas committee chairs under a d'Hondt system and the establishment of an all-party Dáil reform committee, which has since made a number of recommendations. Within my Department, there is an expanded role for the Chief Whip to support these arrangements including supporting good communication between Departments and the Oireachtas, particularly in terms of progressing Government legislation through the Oireachtas.
The new arrangements include more proactive communication between Ministers and their Departments and Opposition spokespeople and Oireachtas committee chairpersons and Members. It requires greater sharing of information with the Oireachtas to inform its deliberations, for example through the new budgetary procedures, use of pre-legislative scrutiny by committees and more briefing on significant developments or issues. There is a new Dáil business management committee established to discuss and agree on the Dáil schedule, more time for Private Members' business, new arrangements for Topical Issue motions and reformed structures for parliamentary questions. These all require a new approach from Ministers and their Departments and the Government is committed to ensuring it works effectively.
On Seanad reform, several steps were taken by the previous Government in relation to Seanad reform and we continue to progress this matter. The programme for a partnership Government commits to pursuing the implementation of the Manning report as a priority. In response to a suggestion by Deputy Micheál Martin last year, I have indicated that, provided there is all-party support for the Manning report, the interim implementation body proposed in the report should be set up comprising members of all parties and groups in the Dáil and the Seanad. On foot of this, I wrote to party leaders, Dáil groups and Seanad groups seeking agreement to the setting up of the implementation group and seeking nominees for same. I understand the three groups have not yet responded yet. I believe there is a bit of dispute over who should actually chair the group. I may speak with Deputy Micheál Martin about that matter.
There seem to be what one might call, shall we say, collegial tensions, to put it mildly.
Do tell.
I would be very happy if we could agree on a chair and get on with it.
This question is very apt given Pat Leahy had a very interesting article in today's The Irish Times where anonymous but very real sources say that the poor legislative record of the Government to date has now become very poor and that it is paralysed. There are two reasons: one is the current issues within Fine Gael; and the second is that the Government is very worried that if it produces legislation, the Oireachtas might amend it during its passage.
God forbid.
God forbid. I think it is an extraordinary admission that Ministers would say the majority of the people's representatives cannot be allowed, under any circumstances, to decide the content of legislation. I think that sabotages the Oireachtas. Ministers need to get with the new situation and produce and introduce legislation and be willing to have it amended along the way, if necessary.
It is a bit like when the Taoiseach wanted control of the banking inquiry membership and he thought we had to get it right first in terms of having a majority from the Government side.
It worked out.
It is as if political reform is fine as long as the Government does not have to give up any power.
The Seanad issue is really dragging on. My only issue is that the chair should be someone who is passionately committed to Seanad reform and that we do not appoint somebody who is hostage to his or her colleagues in the Seanad. In other words, there will be certain interests who would not necessarily be enthusiasts for the reform of the Seanad along the lines envisaged. That is the context in which I suggested the name of a person who I think would be constitutionally well aware of the parameters but also very committed to it, and would make sure something would come of it, rather than the prevarication that is currently going on. We are just not getting there. I ask the Taoiseach not to do what he did to Deputy Jim O'Callaghan's judicial appointments Bill, which was a cynical use of the money Bill process to block it. It is a very well written and structured Bill.
No, I will not. These things work both ways. A lot of legislation has gone through in Private Members' time and that is now backed up, so obviously parties will have to make a decision on what priorities they want taken through. I am genuinely anxious that this commission would get under way to start to implement the Manning report. I have another name that has come through as well, and I might mention that to Deputy Martin and the other leaders.
At the start of every session Departments are slow to come through with legislation. Nonetheless, there is the amendment Bill setting out the factors which a court may take into account when refusing bail, the Misuse of Drugs (Supervised Injecting Facilities) Bill 2017 and the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2016. There are also the other works, such as the Action Plan for Rural Development, the plan for the north inner city, the DEIS inclusion plan and the Creative Ireland programme, so there is a great deal of work going on. Therefore, far from being strangled or beaten down, there is a very full programme for all Ministers and I expect them to continue to implement that.
I do not buy into this spin about new politics. What is there is an arrangement which suits Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. I commend the work the Ceann Comhairle has done in terms of bringing in necessary reforms of how we do our business. However, the biggest difficulty is getting answers from Ministers, either in the exchanges in the Chamber or as one goes about trying to make representations on behalf of constituents. The Taoiseach cited the need for greater co-operation and greater information sharing with the Oireachtas.
I will give an example which I am sure matches the experience of all Teachtaí. I am fighting a case for a 42 year old adult with serious issues whose parents can no longer deal with this chap because he has such profound issues. I made representations to the HSE, as other Deputies would. The HSE sent back responses which are not adequate. We then made representations to the Minister. In this case, the Minister for Health referred it to the Minister of State with responsibility for people with disabilities, and we got an answer saying he has referred it back to the HSE. That is the universal experience. In another case, a five year old boy has only had two one-to-one speech therapy sessions despite the fact this child could be helped greatly if he got this therapy in a timely way. We were put through the same perambulations once again, namely, representations to the HSE, representations to the Minister and it is then sent back to the HSE.
The single biggest reform any Government could bring in would be to get clarity and clear answers. I do not know who the geniuses are who script the responses. There seems to be a type of genius involved in trying not to give people clear answers. The Taoiseach famously said at one time that Paddy and Patricia need to know. Imagine the family who are beside themselves trying to get respite care and other care for a 42 year old adult or, on the other side of the scale, the parents of that five year old boy. That is the reality. It is not just an issue when I talk to the Taoiseach every so often. It is an issue in their lives every single day. Thus far, I have been unable to get answers for those two families to the very legitimate questions they are asking.
When we had the old health board system, while it had its faults and failings, at least we were able to get answers and Deputies could talk to whoever the official was, although they were not called directors of services then. Public representatives-----
They were very poor on therapies.
Yes. Nonetheless, at board meetings the issues were always raised by public representatives and they would get a response. I do not understand why the parents of that person mentioned by Deputy Adams could not be given all of the facts and information on all of the opportunities to provide care for that person. There was a system whereby the HSE would come to the audiovisual room in Leinster House to answers queries from Deputies about issues like that. Some Deputies will table a parliamentary question to the Minister for Health and get an answer from the HSE, and the paper trail goes around, but the Deputy still does not have the answer he or she might get through a phone call or a direct discussion with whoever might be in charge. This applies not only in the case of health but in many other areas as well.
I suppose this is an example of the eternal balance between public representatives, who are elected by the people and entitled to ask questions in the House, and Ministers, who are responsible for the Vote in their Departments and, as such, should be able to provide transparency, accountability and responsibility in respect of all of these things. It is a case in point. If the Deputy speaks directly to the Minister for Health, he might deal with that one-----
I do all that but the culture is against giving people information.
The system needs to be able to deal with many more cases because there are many more.
To finish the last conversation, Deputy Adams is right. It is not a uniform culture. Health has always been a very difficult area to get accurate answers on. When Deputies put in a query, they get an acknowledgement from the HSE parliamentary affairs division that acknowledges it in a standard way, and the reply comes back on occasion to give the Deputy the very information he or she gave to the HSE in the question in the first place. We need a better system. Frankly, the Department of Social Protection is very good in this regard. If a Deputy contacts the Department of Social Protection, he or she will be telephoned by somebody to explain the answer to the query. It is a cultural thing that we need to do better.
With regard to the political reform question before us, while the Seanad has been mentioned, I want to mention local government. I will acknowledge it was a mistake that the Government of which the Taoiseach and I were members decided to abolish town councils. That is a view I hold very strongly now and I want to build a political consensus to restore them.
I think Fianna Fáil is in the same space.
They voted against it.
I think it is in favour of restoring them. That would be very good, but if we could have a political consensus it is something we should do in advance of the local elections. I ask the Taoiseach for his views regarding their restoration on a practical basis. Obviously, there was a lot wrong with some of them. Some of them did not have any powers.
We have a very good comprehensive policy.
There were some very small county councils to which 27 or 28 votes, in essence, one's extended family, would get one elected but in devolving local government I believe we should do better. Does the Taoiseach have any thoughts on that?
I do not want to give a guarantee here on a return for town councils but I have to say that some of them worked exceptionally well.
They did.
Many of them were completely ecumenical.
The Phil Hogan legacy.
Remember him?
What he did to Kilkenny was-----
The benefit can be seen in some towns. In Westport, for example, one had different groupings on the town council but they always looked in the same direction for developments. Signs around the town-----
Why did the Taoiseach get rid of them?
Others-----
Please allow the Taoiseach answer.
-----as Deputy Martin well knows, became the Frank Hall story and could not get agreement on anything.
No. They did not.
It was a mistake.
We need to look at the outcome of what has transpired since they were abolished in terms of representation of people. I know it took some time for people in towns to understand that they did not go to an office to deal with their town council business but rather had to deal with municipal authorities in terms of their functions. Deputy Howlin has raised the issue. There is nothing wrong with having a review or monitoring the current position. It was a big decision to make. It reduced the number of public representatives by 600 or 700. This was a big issue in------
With very little in terms of savings.
-----populist Ireland at the time in terms of the scale and size of political bureaucracy, questions about what they were doing and so on. The Deputy has every right to say we should seriously examine this issue and build a consensus. We will get a paper first and see what is the general response.
I thank the Taoiseach. I appreciate that.