Vol. 436 No. 5
1 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if, in regard to his comments in reply to Parliamentary Question No. 11 of 20 October 1993, in which he said he would investigate the circumstances of the disclosure of the contents of a question to a third party, he will give the outcome on any such investigation; the action, if any, that has been taken as a result; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I have learned that, in order to prepare the reply to the Deputy's question of 20 October 1993, officials of my Department had to contact principals of the company referred to in it to establish the facts in relation to the company being retained by ACC.
I believe that this contact should have remained confidential — in line with the usual arrangements that exist between Departments and their consultants — and that it was not proper that the company should have made any approach to the Deputy, or the anybody else for that matter, on this issue.
I tabled the question which relates to Nemesis, with which one of the Taoiseach's advisers is associated, late in the evening of 12 October. It and I received a letter on 14 October. It is clear that the question would hardly have reached the stage where contact might have been made on 13 October in respect of a question tabled for reply on 20 October. Can the Taoiseach be more specific about the contact that was made and the basis on which it was made because this question deals with the relationship between him and his adviser rather than with the company?
I have to correct the Deputy; the gentleman to whom he has referred is not an adviser to me or my Department, his company has entered into a contract relating to a number of specified projects with my Department. The Deputy should not complain about the efficiency of the Department, if as soon as a question is tabled, it seeks information to prepare an answer to it.
I am hardly complaining about its efficiency as it is clear there was an efficient tick-tacking between his Department and the consultant and the company concerned. They must have been contacted withing a matter of 12 hours. However, my question relates to privilege. I would like to know how questions tabled by Deputies get into the hands of people outside this House. How does the Taoiseach propose to deal with this aspect?
It is common practice in gathering material to prepare an answer to a question relating to a company which has a contract with any particular Department to contact that company. As I said in my reply, it was not proper conduct for any member of the company concerned to get in touch with any Deputy in relation to a question that had been tabled. Interaction between a Government Department and a company under contract takes place on a confidential basis and we expect it to be kept on that basis.
I reiterate that my question relates to the Taoiseach's Department's relationship with the consultant and not with Nemesis. My point is that there was no necessity for the Department to contact Nemesis in order to establish what presumably the Taoiseach already knew, the nature of the relationship between his Department and the consultant. I am still at a loss to know the reason the information was conveyed to that company when it was not necessary to do so. Indeed, the Taoiseach's reply on 20 October did not contain any information which might possibly have been conveyed to him by Nemesis, it related entirely to the relationship between his Department and the consultant.
This is tending to become a debate.
It is an important issue.
I think the Deputy is trying to chase hares——
I am not.
—because the consultant is a director and shareholder in the company. There is no mystique about this; it is clear and unequivocal. The question related to the contractual arrangements this company had entered into with ACC. I examined the relationship between the company and my Department at length on a previous occasion and I have nothing further to add.
