Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 9 February 2005
58 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on the recent report by Mr. Dermot Quigley; his further views on the action his Department must take in light of the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4202/05]
View answerThis is a fine report which was produced in exemplary fashion. It is a good example of the expediency that should attach to these types of issues.
On 27 January 2005, the Taoiseach directed that arrangements be made to implement, as appropriate, the recommendations of the Quigley report. I understand that advice to all Departments in regard to the main recommendations of the report will be issued by the Department of the Taoiseach shortly. The specific recommendation addressed to my Department is that it should review and consolidate its internal advice on all aspects of procurement. This recommendation is accepted and will be implemented fully over the coming weeks.
My Department is a large and complex organisation dealing with 3,700 suppliers of a wide range of goods and services. A relatively large number of officers are involved in procurement. Revised procedures are being put in place to strengthen the monitoring and control of procurement and intensive briefing and refresher training is being arranged for all staff involved in this activity. Furthermore, additional resources are being allocated to the Department's internal audit unit and organisation unit. The latter co-ordinates advice and monitoring in regard to procurement activities.
I am confident these arrangements, which will be implemented urgently, will enable my Department to achieve the improvement and consolidation of its procurement arrangements recommended by the excellent Quigley report.
I am pleased the Minister believes it is a fine report. It is surely time that he apologises to the House and the public on behalf of the Government for subjecting us to this sorry business. The Quigley report states that things must change and that a perception of impropriety has been given.
What conclusions are we to draw from the discovery that the contract with Monica Leech Communications, which we were told was a vital part of the Department's communications strategy, was not renewed yesterday and that the position held by Ms Leech has been scrapped? Perhaps it is easier to sack a communications executive than a Minister. Will the Minister comment on this?
It is an excellent report and the conclusions which it reaches have not been portrayed accurately in the somewhat brusque and politically apposite summary that Deputy McCormack has produced. Regarding the reappointment of the consultant in question, I have made it clear form the outset that my preference is to rely on the Department's press office and other departmental resources. Circumstances change over time. It must be pointed out that the communications strategy at that time, which has concluded, was successful.
I am sure the Minister is aware that this contract has cost the Department and the Office of Public Works up to €400,000. I understand that Ms Leech has still to tender her final bills in this matter. There is also the possibility of a second investigation into this sorry affair. Would the Minister have acted as his predecessor did? If the Minister believes that the previous Minister, Deputy Cullen, did nothing wrong, would he like to put on the record of the House that he would do just as his predecessor did?
It is a hypothetical consideration as to what I would do in those circumstances.
I am only asking the question.
Deputy McCormack is entitled to ask and I am entitled to answer in the manner I consider appropriate. This is a hypothetical scenario about which I am not willing to speculate. I do not know what the situation was at the time. However, I know that Mr. Quigley's report puts a somewhat different snas on the issues than that suggested by Deputy McCormack. I draw the Deputy's attention to what is said in the report in regard to the previous Minister and his intervention.
The Deputy mentioned that a second investigation may take place. I am not in a position to comment on the decision that will be taken in this regard by an independent body.
I am not getting a straight answer so I will ask one simple question. Does the Minister agree or disagree with what the previous Minister, Deputy Cullen, did?
I have indicated neither because I did not know the state of play in the Department at that time.
The Minister should give an answer.
It is an entirely fatuous question——
It demands a simple answer.
No, it is an entirely fatuous question. I have indicated my position on several occasions.
There is our answer.
Would the Minister resign if he were in his position——
I am not he.
——and if not, why not?
Because he has only been there a short time.
I will only resign if I do something that deserves resignation.
