Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the number of occasions on which the Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure has met; when the last meeting was held; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20075/00]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure.
John Bruton
Ceist:8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the number of occasions on which the Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure has met; the likely number of meetings between now and the end of 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21077/00]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:9 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach the number of occasions on which the Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure has met. [24069/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, together.
The Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure has met on 12 occasions to date. Its last meeting was on 7 November 2000. The committee meets as required, usually on a monthly basis.
The Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure is an integral part of Government and its meetings, as with any Cabinet committee, are an integral part of the business of Government. The practice has grown up over time of allowing questions in the House as to the date and number of meetings of such committees. Questions as to the business conducted at Cabinet committee meetings have not been allowed in the House on the grounds that they are internal to Government. The reasons for this approach are founded on sound policy principles and the need to avoid infringing the constitutional protection of Cabinet confidentiality.
A great deal of work is being done on all aspects of the infrastructure agenda. Questions on particular aspects should be put down to the relevant Minister.
If I am allowed to ask, will the Taoiseach confirm a decision of that committee was that, on reflection, there was no desirability in establishing a special division of the High Court to process as speedily as possible planning applications and other matters which were being delayed because of the long queues for access to the courts?
That is correct. It was considered that may not be the best and most desirable way of moving forward because a number of courts and judges are involved in several of these cases. Matters have evolved in comparison to the position a few years ago where one court and one judge would have been the best way forward. However, there are now so many of these cases that it would have the opposite effect.
Therefore, the announcement made on 17 November 1999 has, in effect, been abandoned.
On the basis that it would not be efficient and would give the wrong result. For example, three different cases were going ahead simultaneously recently. It would not speed up the process, which was the intention; it would have the opposite effect. This is the view of those who deal with the courts.
If a paper in relation to that set of recommendations or conclusion was available, it would be most useful for future Administrations. Regarding the infrastructural blockage and delay, has the committee made any decision on recruiting more planners at national and local levels to deal with the massive backlog of planning applications?
We are moving away from the substance of the question. The Deputy is aware in relation to Cabinet sub-committees that there is a long-standing precedent that supplementary questions may not be raised on any items discussed at meetings of the committee or any recommendations made by the committee to Government as the raising of such issues would impinge on matters internal to Cabinet. This is a long-standing precedent in the House.
Is that why the Government announced this committee with such fanfare?
No, that has been the long-standing precedent.
I am asking about the outcome of the decisions, not the content.
Does the Taoiseach agree that this Cabinet sub-committee was announced by him as if it was something of significance? If it is something of significance, does he agree that it should be something about which he is prepared to answer questions in the House?
I chair six different Cabinet sub-committees. The practice is that sometimes these questions are ruled out of order while at other times they are considered to be in order. The precedent when Deputy Bruton was Taoiseach was that one only received dates in response to questions. One was told when a meeting was held; he did not say anything about the questions in so far as they related to Cabinet sub-committees.
We did not have Cabinet sub-committees. We dealt with the business at Cabinet. We did not need those time wasting exercises.
That is probably why the infrastructure was as it was when I took over. Five or six Ministers attend these meetings. There is no point in having Departments if I deal with them all, although I am well capable of doing that as I have demonstrated on many occasions. However, the rule is that I answer questions in relation to what I deal with and that is not chairing the meetings. If the rules are changed, I will stick by them. That is the position.
Has the committee done anything concrete to speed up the snail's pace at which infrastructure projects are proceeding?
The committee was the main body involved in putting together the national development plan. It has driven the plans of the National Roads Authority regarding roads such as the southern cross motorway, the south eastern motorway, which is out to tender, the port tunnel and the Limerick by-pass.
Regarding the matter to which Deputy Quinn referred, the committee is considering the issue of planners. An examination of the difficulties in the construction area has been carried out. There was an insufficient number of planners and the number of places for students at third level has been doubled or trebled this year to address the shortfall in this area. The committee is also considering ways of enhancing packages to attract planners from outside the country.
The committee is also involved in the quality bus corridors, the Luas line, the metro system and relevant matters. However, the detail of all those matters rests with other Ministers.
How many staff are permanently attached and assigned to this infrastructure committee and are working on a full-time basis?
Approximately six or seven Ministers are involved in the committee so all their key civil servants are involved. Representatives of the NRA, CIE and representatives of some other organisations attend regularly. ICTU, IBEC and others have attended these meetings when there is an issue of relevance to them.
Are there any full-time staff from the Department of the Taoiseach working permanently on it?
A number of my key people are spending a great deal of time on it, although it is not their only job. All the senior people who deal with roads, sewerage, drainage and transport in other Departments and a number of my senior people are involved, although perhaps not on a full-time basis.
Is it correct to infer from what the Taoiseach said that a person has not been dedicated on a full-time basis to co-ordinating the task of the national development plan which is engaged in spending approximately £48 billion across a range of different Departments and is chaired by a sub-committee which the Taoiseach chairs?
The co-ordination of the national development plan and the public private partnership units are in the Department of Finance. That is where the full-time staff are based for both those areas.
(Dublin West): Will the Taoiseach inform the Dáil if the remit and the guidelines of the Cabinet sub-committee on infrastructure will reflect the implications of the recent catastrophic flooding for infrastructural development in the State? Does he agree that climate change and the fact it is being drastically affected by human activity puts an onus on the State and on the Cabinet sub-committee to come up with radical new thinking and action to meet the new challenges posed by this development? Has the Cabinet sub-committee on infrastructure decided on and agreed a detailed national spatial plan which will be implemented through the national development plan? Given that the national development plan is supposed to be in place by 2006, does the Taoiseach agree it is essential that the details of the Government's proposals for infrastructural development should be outlined and debated?
The two sets of questions are relevant to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. The answer to the Deputy's first question is "yes". All those matters have been discussed at the infrastructure committee and at a meeting in recent days. I am sure the Minister for the Environment and Local Government will be glad to give the details to the Deputy. The report on the national spatial plan will be completed next year by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government.
I will pursue the Taoiseach on his interpretation of the doctrine of Cabinet confidentiality as it applies to these committees. Is the Taoiseach aware that he informed the House a few moments ago that representatives of IBEC and ICTU, who are not part of the Government structure, attend some of these Cabinet sub-committee meetings? Does he see it as strange that organisations, which for all their great qualities are not elected by anyone, are attending these meetings while we in this House, who are elected, are not able to ask questions about what happens at these meetings? Does he agree his answer about the Cabinet sub-committee is an eloquent commentary on the extent to which parliamentary democracy has been replaced by other forms of consultation on matters of importance?
The majority of what happens at this or at any other committee can be obtained by tabling questions to the relevant Ministers with responsibility for these issues. The CIF, IBEC and ICTU have attended meetings on issues relevant to them. Ministers and senior officials have also attended where necessary. On any of the issues under consideration, including QBCs, accelerating work projects, the involvement of project teams on the eastern by-pass and the various other road systems, the railways, trains, metro lines and the Luas light rail project, Deputies can obtain information by submitting questions to the relevant Ministers. I am not the relevant Minister.
Is the Taoiseach aware that we could ask about, and be answered on, details of ordinary meetings held between Ministers and any of the organisations to which he has referred, but that we cannot ask about meetings held at Cabinet sub-committee level because they are under the aegis of the Cabinet and are, therefore, bound by Cabinet confidentiality? Does he not regard it as very unsatisfactory from the perspective of parliamentary democracy that bodies like ICTU, IBEC and the CIF participate in Cabinet discussions on which Members of this House cannot ask questions? Does he agree this proves, more than anything, that, as Deputy Jim Mitchell has said, we need a democratic revolution to restore parliamentary democracy to the proper position of primacy in the structures of Government it has been denied?
I do not believe we need any revolutions and certainly not of the kind to which the Deputy referred.
We need a change of Government.
If that happens there will be no sub-committee meetings and nobody will know what is going on.
Will the Taoiseach stop muttering.
Who is muttering?
The Taoiseach is.
I am not muttering.
The Taoiseach is waffling.
The Taoiseach mutters. He makes statements under his breath.
I do not, especially not to the Deputy. Cabinet committees deal with confidentiality aspects. When public organisations are involved they normally publicly state their involvement. They place papers in the public domain. I have repeatedly answered questions on these issues.
Deputy John Bruton and others present me with a difficulty because they want me to answer questions on behalf of other Ministers. That is not the procedure in this House. If they wish to submit questions to the relevant Ministers they will get all of the information they require.
That is a different issue. I am concerned about Cabinet confidentiality.
Does the Taoiseach not consider it anomalous that Members of this House may not question in this House what happened at a Cabinet sub-committee meeting, but that unelected people participate at such meetings? Is there a constitutional precedent for participation at such meetings by private citizens representing private sector organisations?
When outside organisations attend Cabinet sub-committee meetings the business conducted is not confidential. The documents submitted by such organisations to recent meetings, be it the CIF, IBEC or ICTU, have been in the public domain and I have answered questions concerning them in the House. That is not at issue. I understand there are subsequent questions to me ordered for today concerning the participation by IBEC and ICTU at some of these meetings concerning social partnership. They are not the same as the confidential aspects of what happens at Cabinet sub-committee meetings.
Is there a precedent for participation by private citizens at the work of a Cabinet sub-committee?
Over the years groups have made presentations to the Cabinet.
That is a different matter.
It is not. Questions may not be asked about such deliberations, but that is a different aspect. Where a group attends a Cabinet sub-committee meeting and makes a submission on, say, the national development plan, it is necessary to answer questions about such meetings. Such aspects are not bound by confidentiality. The Ceann Comhairle allows parliamentary questions on them.
What is at issue is who answers questions on meetings involving six or seven Ministers that I chair. It is not me, but the individual Ministers with responsibility for their areas.
Nobody in this House has objected to presentations being made to Cabinet Ministers; that is not the issue. The Taoiseach informed the House that these external organisations participated in the work and meetings of the Cabinet sub-committee which he presumably chaired and for which he should be accountable to the House. I am asking for the constitutional precedent for participation by private citizens' organisations in the work of the sub-committee—
That is the point where the Chair must make up his mind. I may chair meetings of six or seven Ministers who are responsible for various issues and this House has always ruled that questions on such issues should be answered by the relevant Ministers, not by the chairperson. That procedure has been followed by all Taoisigh and it is a ruling which the Leas-Cheann Comhairle announced again today. I do not intend to change that ruling.
That is a different issue.
It is not. The chairperson of a sub-committee, be it a Cabinet sub-committee or otherwise, is not necessarily the person who is responsible for answering questions in this House. If that were the case, I would answer the questions. Until the ruling which I outlined is changed, it should be abided by.
Does the Taoiseach agree it is a daft ruling?
Does the Taoiseach realise that he is subtly changing the question which is not about who is answerable for particular issues in terms of meetings between Ministers and various organisations but the confidentiality of Cabinet sub-committees? Does the Taoiseach agree neither he nor other Ministers can answer questions in regard to discussions at a Cabinet sub-committee because those discussions are confidential?
Yes.
If that is the case, how can the Taoiseach justify people who are not members of the Dáil participating in Cabinet sub-committee meetings, given that they are not Cabinet members and no account can, therefore, be provided of what transpires between them and Cabinet Ministers?
An outside body may request or be requested to come before Cabinet to state its views on how we can move to implement the national development plan or some other major structural issues such as Luas more quickly. Major organisations such as the CIF, IBEC and the ICTU have made such requests. Cabinet members answer questions in this House on issues such as the national development plan and Luas on a regular basis.
They do not answer questions about what happens at the Cabinet sub-committee.
No, but they answer questions which relate to the presentations made to the sub-committee because those presentations are not secret. The organisations which make presentations to the Cabinet sub-committee also make those presentations in public. They often circulate documentation on these matters.
I would like the Taoiseach to clarify one of his earlier replies lest the House is inadvertently misled. The Cabinet sub-committee on infrastructure co-ordinates spending in the region of £20,000 million or at the very least co-ordinates a spend which represents at least one third of the total spend of £48,000 million. Am I to understand from the Taoiseach's earlier reply that the work of the sub-committee, which co-ordinates the activities of various Departments, which, of necessity, must be progressed together, is not the full-time responsibility of any one person? In other words, am I correct in thinking this is a part-time job undertaken by a civil servant in the Taoiseach's Department who also has other responsibilities?
No. I will answer the question again. I chair the Cabinet sub-committee on infrastructure and a small number of my senior officials co-ordinate its work. The senior and line officials of the relevant Ministers work to that committee on various issues. For example, Department of the Environment and Local Government officials from the sections with responsibility for roads or sewerage and drainage are responsible for issues relating to their sections as are officials with responsibility for CIE etc. A separate unit with responsibility for public-private partnership, which is a key element of the national development plan, is located in the Department of Finance and is staffed by full-time officials. A co-ordinating group for the national development plan is also staffed by full-time officials and the presentation of the national development plan is handled by a separate unit in the Department of Finance which, again, is staffed by full-time officials.
Will the Taoiseach request the Cabinet sub-committee on infrastructure to address one of the most glaring and serious omissions from the national development plan, namely, that the road to the north and north-west has been ignored completely? There will be spurs to Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford, with roads raised to the standard of dual carriageway or motorway, while the road to Donegal and Derry will have minor improvement works. Access is the key to development in the north-west, particularly in County Donegal where there is an unemployment rate of 17%. It is a scandal that this route has been ignored completely. I refer in particular to the N2 between Dublin and Aughnacloy.
Hear, hear.
Will the Taoiseach convey to the sub-committee—
The Deputy should submit a question on that matter.
I will convey that.
The emphasis is on the Belfast route while the Derry route is being ignored.
In replying to the questions about the meetings of the CIF, ICTU and IBEC the Taoiseach listed some examples of the issues raised, all of which could have been raised at direct meetings with the individual Ministers concerned. Why were those organisations attending the meetings of the Cabinet sub-committee and what particular aspects of infrastructural development were discussed which could not have been raised or discussed between those organisations and individual Ministers?
It is mainly those organisations, but also others, which have done an enormous amount of work in highlighting the areas of staffing, recruitment, planning issues in terms of one planning zone, how work can most effectively be done and how project teams can operate. They have put forward a number of other useful suggestions over the past year or so since the launch of the national plan. These organisations also have views about the tendering process. The Government has been very concerned about the lack of ability to move in terms of contract prices and ensuring more competition in the tendering process. I have already spoken about tenders from outside the country. All of these issues have been put forward publicly and at meetings with Ministers.