John Bruton
Ceist:2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has satisfied himself with the progress on the key issues for the implementation of his Department's strategy statement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16351/00]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Strategy Statement.
John Bruton
Ceist:3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the progress made to implement the legislative and administrative priorities of his Department for 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16352/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.
My Department's strategy statement covering the period 1998-2001 was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas on 1 May 1998. The key goals for the Department can be summarised as follows: facilitating the efficient functioning of Government as the executive power of the State; bringing about and maintaining lasting peace on the island of Ireland and the realisation of a new three stranded political settlement; developing a strategic focus for Ireland's interests and image at international level; working with the social partners to develop and implement national programmes of economic and social development; and the ongoing development of an efficient public service. My Department has made significant progress towards achieving the goals in all of these areas. Each division has drawn up a comprehensive business plan setting out the action required to meet the objectives set out in the strategy statement. The divisional business plans are monitored on an ongoing basis.
In addition, we are finalising our progress report on the strategy statement for the years 1998 and 1999, as required under section 4 of the Public Service Management Act, 1997. We expect to have the progress report completed shortly. Once completed, the progress report will be submitted to Government and will, when approved, be laid before both Houses for their information.
The strategic management initiative division of my Department is charged with the ongoing development of an efficient public service which delivers excellent services. Considerable progress has been made in the following areas: developing the quality customer service initiative; human resources management, including performance management; reforming the financial management system; staff recruitment and gender equality issues; advancing the regulatory reform programme; and developing the information technology agenda. The latest phase of the strategic management initiative is the new performance management and development system which I formally launched on 11 May. The launch marked an important stage in the modernisation and change programme in the Civil Service and is the culmination of a wide-ranging and inclusive consultative process between management and unions. The PMDS is based on clearly identifying roles and the range of competencies that each person needs to fulfil their role. The spirit of the new PMDS is captured in the theme agreed for the launch: "Excellence through Performance – Moving forward Together".
One of the key objectives identified in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness is the implementation of this system in each Department and office. In my own Department a project team has been established and a comprehensive implementation plan has been developed. Training for all staff in the PMDS is to commence later in June.
My Department has continued to make significant progress in implementing financial management reform. A comprehensive implementation strategy was completed in January of this year, covering the period 2000 to 2002. A team is currently being put in place, with appropriate professional expertise, to bring the project to a conclusion in accordance with that strategy. In addition, the Department's financial management structure has been strengthened by the setting up of a dedicated internal audit unit.
Government policy on the information society is set out in the Government action plan. Essentially they are concerned with developing the Information Society in Ireland in a co-ordinated way and contributing to policy development, with a particular focus on e-government. A major goal is the provision of integrated e-government services focused on the needs of the customer. The key areas in which the policy development team has played a major role include the co-ordination and publication – November 1999 – of guidelines for public service web publication.
More recently, and very significantly, the team and the implementation group have worked with other key players, including CMOD and the REACH team on devising a model for the "e-Broker model", by which public services will be delivered in an integrated way. This is a very significant step towards the delivery of public services using modern technologies and will result in substantial benefits for the customer and the service providers alike.
With regard to the legislative priorities of my Department for 2000, as I indicated to Deputy Bruton in my reply to him on 24 May, the drafting of the Bill to place the National Economic and Social Council and the National Economic and Social Forum on a statutory basis is at an advanced stage. These bodies will be located within an Office for National Economic and Social Development.
The Statute Law Restatement Bill, 2000, which was published on Monday, 29 May is currently before the Seanad and is scheduled for discussion on Thursday. The purpose of the Bill is to allow the Attorney General to publish a certified version of the text of an Act incorporating any amendments made by later Acts into one up-to-date statement of the Act as amended. A restatement will not amend existing legislation. Instead it will transpose it into a more accessible form that will be a prima facie evidence of the law being restated.
The Interpretation Bill will be a consolidation and modernisation of previous Interpretation Acts, providing additional interpretation rules, principles and definitions. The Bill has been drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Draftsman at the insistence of the Attorney General. I expect the Bill will be published before the Dáil goes into recess.
Overall, I am satisfied that my Department has made an important contribution to moving the agenda forward in relation to the key areas set out in the Department's strategy statement.
I thank the Taoiseach for his comprehensive reply. Does he accept that one of his obligations as Taoiseach, and one of the obligations of his Department, is to ensure that Cabinet procedural instructions are respected in the efficient performance of Government business?
Yes.
While acknowledging that, is the Taoiseach aware of the provision in Cabinet procedural instructions, paragraph 221, which says that where an appointment to a board or the like is to be made, each Minister making such an appointment must raise the matter at Cabinet two weeks in advance of making the appointment, to allow colleagues the opportunity of making recommendations?
I am.
Would the Taoiseach agree that this provision of Cabinet procedural instructions was clearly breached in the case of the appointment of Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty to the European Investment Bank in that the matter was not mentioned at Government, two weeks' notice was not given, and colleagues were not given the opportunity of putting forward other names?
We are drifting into a different area now.
It is not a different area.
Well, it is.
Would the Taoiseach agree that assuring that Cabinet procedural instructions are respected in all cases is a key part of his function as Taoiseach and, therefore, in order to test that, can he account for his failure to ensure that Cabinet procedural instructions were abided by in perhaps the most important, and certainly the most lucrative, appointment the Government has made this year?
The appointment does not arise in these questions. The questions relate to the Department's strategy statement and to the legislative programme.
I am not questioning the appointment, Sir. I am questioning whether Cabinet procedural instructions were abided by. The Taoiseach already acknowledged that a key part of his function as Taoiseach is to ensure they are respected. How can he explain how Cabinet procedural instructions were not abided by, and that he did not ensure they were, by the Minister for Finance in making the appointment of Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty to a board?
The Deputy is referring to a particular case. These questions are—
There is no possibility of judging it.
I wish to advise the Deputy—
Would the Taoiseach agree that there is no way of judging whether Cabinet procedural instructions are abided by in the case of appointments, without making reference to particular cases, because each case is particular and, therefore, the only way one can test whether this provision has any meaning at all – and whether the Taoiseach is abiding by Cabinet procedural instructions – is by questioning a particular case?
These questions are not about a particular case.
I know that. They are about the Government's and the Taoiseach's ability to abide by the procedures.
The Deputy must put a question.
I am asking a question about whether the Government has fulfilled the strategic objectives in regard to the management of Government business in accordance with instruc tions which, as the Taoiseach set out in his first answer, are part of his function. I am asking if he is satisfied that he applied them adequately in the case that I have mentioned.
Deputy, you will have to pursue it by way of a written question.
No, Sir. I cannot pursue it by any other way.
It does not arise on these questions.
It does arise.
The Deputy should not attempt to bring in matters or particular cases. I have ruled. The Chair is the person who decides whether it arises and the Chair has decided it is a separate matter which should be pursued in a separate way.
No, Sir, I cannot pursue it any other way.
The Chair decides that, not the Deputy and the Chair has made its decision.
The Taoiseach has acknowledged in this series of questions—
The Deputy should not challenge the ruling of the Chair. He should accept the ruling of the Chair in this matter.
I have no wish to challenge the Chair, I want to challenge the lack of respect for Cabinet procedure in the cavalier way in which this appointment – the most lucrative appointment made by this Government this year – was made, in clear defiance of paragraph 221 of the Government's Cabinet procedure instructions—
The Deputy should accept the rulings of the Chair. The Deputy should resume his seat and respect the ruling of the Chair in this matter.
On a point of order—
The Chair is on its feet, so a point of order is not acceptable.
On a point of order, if there was a rule which you were interpreting as Ceann Comhairle, which required certain procedures to be followed in regard to an appointment being made here, and if those procedures were clearly transgressed, would you not, as Ceann Comhairle, feel you had a responsibility to uphold procedure?
This is not Question Time to the Ceann Comhairle.
It is exactly the same situation. The Taoiseach did not abide by our code.
If the Deputy does not have a relevant supplementary question—
I intend to pursue this matter.
The Deputy will have to pursue it another way. He cannot pursue it at this stage on these questions. I have ruled on that matter and the Deputy should proceed.
On a point of order—
The Chair is on his feet.
Could I respectfully—
The Deputy should have some regard for the Chair.
I have a great deal of regard for the Chair.
Then the Deputy should accept the rulings of the Chair on these matters.
May I make a submission to the Chair?
The Chair is still on his feet.
A Deputy
Sit down, Chair.
This is a very serious matter, Sir, and I wish to pursue it in a serious fashion.
It is, but it should not be pursued in this manner.
The mirth to be seen on this issue is not appropriate. Cabinet procedure instructions exist to protect the rights of everybody and to protect collective responsibility.
I am moving on to the next question. I am calling Question No. 4. There is total disorder.
The principal fault of Charles Haughey was his unwillingness—
The Deputy will resume his seat.
—to abide by Cabinet collective responsibility.
The Deputy is being totally disorderly.
In the appointment of Hugh O'Flaherty, Cabinet collective responsibility was breached.
I am proceeding to call Question No. 4.
This House exists to protect the country. The Constitution requires collective responsibility.
In view of the disorder, I suspend the House for ten minutes.
Sitting suspended at 2.53 p.m. and resumed at 3.05 p.m.
I call Question No. 4.
Before you do that, Sir, may I ask a question in regard to the fulfillment of Cabinet procedure instructions?
We have moved on to Question No. 4.
Sir—
The Deputy will have to pursue the matter in another way.
Sir—
I have called on the Deputy three times already to accept—
I am anxious to be orderly.
The Deputy can be orderly by accepting the ruling of the Chair. I have called Question No. 4.
A Cheann Chomhairle, there was a large amount in the Taoiseach's reply to Questions Nos. 2 and 3 which we have not had an opportunity to discuss.
That is not the Chair's fault. The Deputy should resume his seat and allow business to continue.
I wish to ask a question arising from the Taoiseach's answer to Question No. 2.
I have asked Deputy Bruton to resume his seat and allow proceedings to continue.
Sir, this House exists to protect the Constitution—
The Deputy should not interrupt the business of the House—
—and Cabinet decisions implement the Constitution.
If the Deputy continues to be disorderly, the Chair will have no option but to adjourn the sitting again.
You do not have to do that.
On a point of order—
I have called Question No. 4.
On a point of order, a Cheann Chomhairle—
When the Chair is on his feet it cannot be a point of order.
There is a monologue going on at present. There are other Deputies in the House.
I accept that, and I have called Question No. 4 which is the next question on the Order Paper. The Deputy must resume his seat. There cannot be a point of order when the Chair is on his feet.
Can I bring up a point of order now that the Chair has resumed his seat?
Yes.
I indicated some time ago that I wished to ask a supplementary question on Question No. 3. There was a difficulty between the Chair and the leader of the Fine Gael Party but that should not preclude another Deputy from participating in Question Time. It is damaging to the conduct of the business of the House—
The Deputy has made his point.
Can I now ask a supplementary question on Question No. 3?
We have moved on to Question No. 4.
Can I not ask my supplementary question?
We have moved to Question No. 4.
(Interruptions).
Why is the Chair protecting the Taoiseach?
Why are you doing this?
Collective responsibility was half applied in this decision by the Government.
The Deputy must now resume his seat.
The procedures of Cabinet were not adhered to.
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
That is a matter for the Taoiseach and I am asking him about it.
I adjourn the sitting until 3.30 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 3.09 p.m. and resumed at 3.30 p.m.
The House will resume on Question No. 4.
On a point of order, will the Ceann Comhairle agree to convene a special meeting of the Joint Committee on Procedure and Privileges to consider the right of Members to ask questions of the Taoiseach on the specific application of collective responsibility and Cabinet procedure instructions?
The Deputy's request for a meeting will be considered by the Chair.
I have no wish to be in conflict with the Chair. I would have expected the Taoiseach to answer my questions if he had been allowed to do so. I will pursue the matter further because these are legitimate questions which the Taoiseach should answer.
The Deputy has made his point of order.