Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE díospóireacht -
Thursday, 21 Mar 2002

Vol. 5 No. 5

Estimates for Public Services, 2002.

Vote 3 - Department of the Taoiseach (Revised).

Vote 5 - Central Statistics Office (Revised).

Vote 13 - Office of the Attorney General (Revised).

Vote 14 - Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Revised).

Vote 18 - Office of the Chief State Solicitor (Revised).

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Seamus Brennan, and his officials to today's meeting, the purpose of which is to consider the revised Estimates falling within the remit of the Department of the Taoiseach, namely, Vote 3 - Department of the Taoiseach, Vote 5 - Central Statistics Office, Vote 13 - Office of the Attorney General, Vote 14 - Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and Vote 18 - Office of the Chief State Solicitor.

The proposed timetable for considering the revised Estimates was circulated to the Minister of State. It allows for an opening statement of up to 15 minutes by the Minister of State and Opposition spokespersons, if they so wish, and open discussion on all five Votes by way of question and answer session. Is that agreed? Agreed. I ask for members' co-operation in adhering to the timetable as we must conclude no later than 3.55 p.m. to allow another committee to commence at 4 p.m. I invite the Minister of State to make his opening statement.

I welcome the opportunity to meet the select committee to discuss the revised Estimates for the Department of the Taoiseach and associated offices: the Central Statistics Office, the Office of the Attorney General, the Office Director of Public Prosecutions and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. The activities outlined in the Estimate for the Department reflect the central role it plays in advancing the priorities of the Government. I will outline to the committee the key objectives and projects which will be progressed during 2002.

The date, 10 April, will mark the fourth anniversary of the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, an agreement achieved after intensive negotiations between representatives of all the major traditions on the island, Unionist, Nationalist, republican and loyalist. The Agreement, which addresses all the key issues - constitutional, within Northern Ireland, between North and South and east-west arrangements - was the culmination of many years of effort devoted to the achievement of a peace settlement in Northern Ireland.

Over the course of the past four years we have faced many difficult issues. While the achievement of the Agreement was in itself historic, its implementation has required careful and determined management. The referendums, North and South, the establishment of the institutions, the achievement of decommissioning, the establishment of a new police service, have all been significant milestones along the way - all of them unthinkable to previous generations, but now realisable because of the determination of both Governments and the pro-Agreement parties to work together and keep the process moving forward.

Under the Agreement, constitutional arrangements in Britain and Ireland place the future of Northern Ireland firmly in the hands of its people. Without their consent, there will be no constitutional change. Under the Agreement, a unique set of interlocking and interdependent political institutions are working productively and effectively on behalf of all the people and a new dispensation in the areas of human rights and equality is being created.

We have not done this work in isolation. Our many friends in the United States, successive US Administrations, the European Union and the international community generally have been a constant support, both through the special programmes that have been put in place to support the process and through their advice and counsel when difficult issues have had to be faced. Their support for our efforts remains strong and committed and it is very much appreciated.

The question of policing in Northern Ireland has always been particularly divisive. It is, therefore, welcome to see the new Police Service in place with a Policing Board, which includes representatives of both communities, making a very good start. It seems there is a strong level of interest among Catholics in joining the new service.

There is no doubt that work remains to be done. There are aspects of the Agreement and the commitments made by the Governments at Weston Park which have yet to be fully realised. Violence, while greatly reduced, is still with us. Sectarianism remains a corrosive influence and there are communities where paramilitaryorganisations still wield a terrible control. There are also some who have yet to be convinced that the Agreement with its guarantee of equality and its protection of the interests and identities of both traditions truly represents the best hope for us all. Change is always unsettling. For some, it comes too slowly, for others, too fast. If we are to build a future brighter than our past, change is necessary.

We now stand closer to the achievement of the goal of lasting peace and reconciliation on these islands than at any time in our history. There are challenges that remain to be met, but these should not be allowed to blind us to the scale of the achievement and the distance we have travelled in such a relatively brief period of time. The Agreement is our template mapping out the road to a society built on the principles of partnership, equality and mutual respect. As politicians, it is up to us to provide the vision and leadership necessary to complete our journey.

In addition to providing the necessary support on matters relating to Northern Ireland generally and our efforts to secure the full implementation of the Agreement, the Northern Ireland division of my Department is responsible for a number of subheads in the Estimates being considered by the committee this afternoon. Regarding grants under the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Act, 1988, the amount of €34,000 in subhead C of the Estimate for 2002 is the amount expected to be disbursed to projects this year. Following an advertisement and assessment process completed in 1999, funding was allocated to 59 successful projects. A sum of £714,253 or €906,904 was disbursed in 1999. The process of releasing funding to projects will continue this year and into next year in order to meet all commitments as they arise until such time as the remaining €175,000 of the original fund is disbursed. Projects expected to receive funding in 2002 include the RNLI and the Irish Episcopal Commission for Emigrants for the making of an educational video for schools to provide an insight into the achievements of the Irish in Britain.

In subhead E, €63,000 has been allocated for commemoration initiatives to provide funding for commemorations of different periods or events for which commemoration is appropriate or proposed from civil society. The amount of €52,000 in subhead D of the Department's Vote for 2002 is a contingency provision to cover costs associated with meetings of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation which might be convened throughout the year. There were no meetings in 2001.

There is an amount of €635,000 in subhead M of the Department's Vote to allow for all costs associated with the independent commission of inquiry, under the sole member, Judge Henry Barron, into bombings in Dublin, Monaghan and Dundalk and their sequel. It is hoped when Judge Barron has gathered and examined all the available information, he will be in a position to report on the bombings in line with his terms of reference. He will also report on the Dublin bombings of 1972 and 1973 and a number of other cases which he has considered mainly in the context of the broad security landscape of the time. The report will be published. It is the intention, as of now and taking into account the awaited decision of the Supreme Court in the Abbeylara case, that it would be considered by an Oireachtas committee.

The Department of the Taoiseach plays a key role in the formulation of national economic and social policy and providing advice for the Taoiseach and the Government. The Department continues to oversee the progressive implementation of the wide-ranging set of commitments contained in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. Good progress has been made in implementing the PPF as indicated in the quarterly progress reports available on-line on the Department's website. The Department provides the secretariat to the Cabinet committees on social inclusion and children. It is also represented on the advisory committee for the National Children's Office. We also work closely with other Departments to advance a range of social inclusion objectives and programmes.

The review of the national anti-poverty strategy, in consultation with the social partners, was completed during 2001. The revised strategy was launched by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs on 27 February.

The Department leads the cross-departmental team and provides the secretariat to the Cabinet committee on infrastructure and public-private partnerships. The team facilitated continued progress in the delivery of key infrastructural priorities and addressing key policy issues, including the public transport strategy for Dublin, the national roads programme, energy infrastructure, enhanced programme and project management, planning issues, integrated land use and transport arrangements for Dublin and construction capacity. The Department also continues to be involved in the development of the International Financial Services Centre in Dublin.

Subhead B deals with the National Economic and Social Council. The National Economic and Social Council provides advice to the Government on the development of the economy and the achievement of social justice. There is provision of €773,000 in the 2002 Estimates to fund the council's activities.

The National Economic and Social Forum was established by Government in 1993 as an advisory body on major economic and social policy issues and has published a number of publications in that regard. It was re-constituted in 1998 and given a particular remit to focus on measures concerned with the achievement of equality and social inclusion. A total of €773,000 is provided for in the Estimates for 2002 to fund the forum's work.

The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness provided for an enhanced role for the National Centre for Partnership and for its re-designation as the National Centre for Partnership and Performance, the NCPP. The centre's role is to provide a strategic focus to the deepening of partnership and improvement of performance in the workplace in both the private and public sectors. The centre's council held its inaugural meeting in October 2001. Provision of €932,000 has been made in the 2002 Estimates to fund the centre's activities.

An amount of €600,000 has been provided in subhead N for the National Economic and Social Development Office, NESDO. Legislation will be published shortly to make provision for the establishment of this new office, comprising the NESC, the NESF and the NCPP. The legislation will put these three bodies on a statutory basis as part of the new office. It will facilitate the emergence of new synergies between the bodies, complementary work programmes and shared administration services.

As part of the information society agenda, the Vote provides for €2.5 million in subhead A8 for information society initiatives, including the e-Cabinet project; the Equalskills project; and €717,000 for the Information Society Commission.

The Department continues to lead the development of the information society and e-government in Ireland. During 2001, we put in place new structures to drive its development at the highest levels including a new Cabinet Committee on the Information Society, an e-strategy group of Secretaries General which will advance key aspects of the information society agenda across all Departments, an expanded information society policy unit within the Department of the Taoiseach and a new Information Society Commission, chaired by Dr. Danny O'Hare, which will monitor Ireland's performance as an information society.

Our extensive work in the area of e-government has gained international recognition over the past year. In the first e-government benchmarking exercise carried out by the European Commission last November, Ireland distinguished itself by being rated best overall. Of the EU states surveyed, we were ranked first.

I am also pleased to report continued good progress with the modernisation of the public service under the strategic management initiative. Important recent developments include an independent evaluation of progress to date in the modernisation programme, which will help to identify the critical next steps in the modernisation process; new customer action plans for Departments and offices for the period 2001-2004; implementation of the performance management and development system in Departments; moves towards greater devolution of authority for human resource management to Departments and offices; a new gender equality policy for the Civil Service; the establishment of a high level group to co-ordinate implementation of regulatory reform; continuing progress on the introduction of new financial management systems to support a modern management information framework, a project in which my own Department is well-advanced; and each Department is required to report on performance indicators to a Civil Service Quality Assurance Group which has members from outside the Civil Service.

A total of £33 million of Exchequer funding was made available through the Department's Vote for suitable millennium projects. All of this funding has been committed to projects recommended by the National Millennium Committee and approved by the Government.

The 2002 Estimate makes a provision of €3.8 million to meet outstanding commitments for approved projects and relates almost entirely to capital projects. There are now a small number of projects for which funding remains to be drawn down.

The other relatively large allocation in the Estimate is €6.349 million to fund the ongoing work of the Moriarty tribunal. There is also a contingency provision of €1.27 million for any outstanding legal costs that might fall due in respect of the McCracken tribunal.

An allocation of £338,000 has been made for the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. The committee secretariat is provided by the Institute of Public Administration, with funding from my Department. An amount of €2 million has been provided in subhead O of this Department's Vote for the National Forum on Europe in 2002.

The forum has made excellent progress on its work programme since its launch on 18 October 2001. The current programme of the forum will run up to Easter at which stage it will have held 18 full plenary meetings, two outside Dublin - in Cork on 6 December 2001 and Galway on 28 February 2002. In addition to the full plenaries, the forum also held nine mini-fora at regional centres throughout the country and also covering Dublin West and Dublin North.

A wide range of topics has been covered both in terms of the impact of enlargement, our relationship with the European Union and the areas of concern to our national interests. The work of the forum continues to promote debate on these key issues, clarifying positions and communicating its work to the public. This is happening in tandem with our involvement with the Convention on the Future of Europe.

At the European Council in Barcelona, the Taoiseach took the opportunity to brief his EU colleagues on the work of the forum and to explain that it has helped to clarify many issues. In particular, the Taoiseach emphasised that both the Government and all the major political parties are committed to enlargement and to the ratification of the Nice treaty by the end of the year.

I want to refer now to the other Votes which are the subject of today's meeting. The Central Statistics Office is responsible for the collection, processing and dissemination of official statistics on economic and social conditions in Ireland. While the main focus is on the statistical requirements of Government, there is a wide community of users nationally, including the social partners, numerous public bodies, business, universities, research institutes and the general public. There is also a significant international dimension to the work of the office, with EU requirements affecting most areas of statistics.

Net expenditure in 2001 amounted to €39.382 million. The 2002 Estimate provides an allocation of €53.358 million to meet the operational costs of the office.

A census of population will be taken on Sunday, 28 April this year. The census was originally scheduled to have taken place in April 2001 but this was deferred, as a precautionary measure, on the advice of the expert group on foot and mouth disease.

Preparations were at a very advanced stage last year when the decision to defer the census was made. The premises, equipment and new technology to process the census had all been acquired, field staff had been selected, and the census form had been printed.

Census 2002 will include a number of new questions. These include PC ownership and access to the Internet; membership of theTraveller community; a question on unpaid help given to a friend or family member; and twoquestions on disability. The census also includes questions on housing, which are asked every ten years.

The census form has been designed for scanning, which will speed up the availability of results. Preliminary results will be published within three months of census day and all the results of the 2002 census will be made available within two years of census day.

The number of staff provided for in the CSO's 2002 Vote is approximately 781, including staff assigned to process the census of population.

The Estimate for the Office of the Attorney General is €11.902 million. This provides for the operating costs of the office and general law expenses. A total of €6.207 million is in respect of salaries, wages and allowances. A total of €1.237 million is being provided in respect of consultancy services. A total of €1.338 million is being provided for office machinery and other supplies. A total of €873,000 is earmarked for incidental expenses, €248,000 of which is for staff training and development.

A total of €1.348 million is being provided by way of a grant-in-aid to the Law Reform Commission, whose second programme of law reform was launched in February following consultation with the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights.

The Estimate for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is €24.955 million. The DPP's Vote provides for the salaries and expenses of the director and his staff, fees to counsel engaged by the director to prosecute cases in the various courts, and legal costs awarded against the State arising out of judicial review and other legal proceedings.

This provision is an increase of €8.68 million on the 2001 out-turn, reflecting the transfer of the criminal prosecution functions of the Chief State Solicitor to the Office of the DPP in December 2001 and the increased provision for fees to counsel required to deal with a general increase in the volume of business before the courts.

The Estimate for the Office of the Chief State Solicitor is €29.158 million. The Vote provides for the operating costs of the office, which includes salaries, wages and allowances, consultancy services, fees due to Counsel for litigation on behalf of the Attorney General and legal costs awarded as a result of litigation.

I thank the committee members for their attention and hope I have not detained them too long.

I am inclined not to dignify the proceedings. This way of reporting to the House on the Estimates for the Department of the Taoiseach is most unsatisfactory. The Minister of State is the Chief Whip of the Government. He is supposed to be its leading light in terms of increasing the role of the Oireachtas in relation to accountability but to have an Estimates format like this, with not one other member of the Government parties present and while several other sessions of the House are going on, is unsatisfactory, and I have expressed that sentiment previously.

I want to raise a number of points. One of the notorious failings of the Government has been its failure to meet not only financial but many timetable targets. It seems many targets have been missed because there is no head office of Ireland incorporated. I have always held the view that there can be only one head office and that should be the Department of the Taoiseach. That is the only Department that can ask and check with other Departments as to why targets for Government projects are not being met. This is not only a criticism of the Government but of its appalling record on targets for almost everything. It is a direct criticism of the Department of the Taoiseach and the Taoiseach.

The completion of major projects such as the port tunnel and the Luas and delays in opening hospitals and commencing and completing roads are crucial to our economy and quality of life. The total lack of enforcement of timetable targets goes straight to the heart of Government and the failure of the Office of the Taoiseach to get performance from the rest of the Government.

The Department of the Taoiseach does not see itself as having that role. When I was Minister I remember realising that really I did not report to anybody. Ministers attend Cabinet meetings, put forward memoranda and give commitments and the Government makes decisions about starting and completing projects, but thereafter nobody checks up on them.

Within Departments civil servants are accountable to their secretaries general, but thereafter, in management terms, the secretaries general are not accountable to anybody. Secretaries general are accountable in financial terms to the Committee of Public Accounts, but in terms of achievements, meeting deadlines etc., they do not report to anybody because there is no chief operating officer of the Government. The Taoiseach is the chief executive officer, but there is no chief operating officer. Secretaries general do not have somebody over them who can ask them if they are meeting their targets. There are no monthly or three monthly reports, as would be required in any other country. It is no wonder that not only are the financial targets of the Government alarmingly off - I spoke about those earlier today and yesterday - but as we face an election, I, having been a Member of this House for a long time, do not ever recall a Government that has so consistently failed to meet its deadlines across every Department. I challenge the Minister of State to name a project of significance that was started and finished on the dates set by Government. I doubt there is one such project.

This is not a trivial matter. It has an impact on people's daily lives. The delays in the completion of major road works means many young couples spend two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening commuting to and from work. They have to take their children out of bed early in the morning and bring them to their child minders and they do not get home until late when it is time to get their children ready for bed. If some of the bypasses were completed when they were supposed to have been, it would have eased the pressure on some commuters.

Young couples who want to buy houses near Dublin city cannot afford to do so. They can only afford to buy a house in the outer suburbs of the city or the surrounding counties. If they buy in the surrounding countries, they face long delays commuting to and from the city. If the proposed roads were built, they would not face such delays. They could buy a house in the surrounding counties without having the quality of their lives destroyed.

The Government has failed to meet many timetable targets. Fine Gael proposals to correct this failure include making the Taoiseach's Department head office and creating a reporting relationship between Departments and head office on targets and deadlines. In terms of GNP, Ireland incorporated is smaller than many of the biggest companies in the world who run their affairs and meet their targets much better than we do. If they do not, the markets will soon let them know about it. The scale of the running of this country with a GNP of something around €120 billion is not unmanageable. Such a scale of operation is managed by many private companies without the powers of government.

One of the major differences on offer in the forthcoming election will be the outgoing inefficient Government, an unreforming government, compared to an alternative government that promises a great deal of radical reform, which is outlined in our policy document, A Democratic Revolution, together with a new ministry of public service and parliamentary reform, whose job will be to enforce and achieve government deadlines and to make sure Departments are reportable. Another difference will be that the alternative government on offer will be a government of social justice. We will not have widows living on £96 a week. We will not have 20% of children leaving primary schools with learning difficulties when three quarters of that 20% need not do so if they were given the right resources. For the sake of €30 million a year, we will not have disabled people without personal assistants. We will not have people earning €130 a week without a medical card. The list goes on. The results of this Government have yielded a great deal more injustice in society than I experienced when I was first elected to the Dáil 25 years ago. Efficiency, effectiveness, reform, social justice and more prudent economic management will be on offer from the alternative government.

The Department of the Taoiseach does not discharge the central role that any head office should discharge. It is responsible for a myriad of bodies to which the Minister of State referred, many of which should not come under the Department. Some €0.5 million is thrown to one quango, €700,000 to another and €2.3 million to another. The point was made yesterday at the finance committee that the Government is predicting expenditure growth of 14.4% this year, which is 4.4% of an increase compared to what the Department of Finance said a few weeks ago and it is 2.4% of an increase on what was predicted in the budget. That figure of 14.4% is in addition to the figure of 22% last year. It is a compound increase of 39.6% in expenditure in two years, that is, if the Government meets it latest upward revised target, which it will not. Letting expenditure increase by 39.6% while income is increasing, by the Government's estimates, by 8.18% in those two years is a chronic, acute dereliction of duty. That is what it is doing.

People ask where all that money has gone. We should all have new rig outs with this type of money. We should be driving 2002 registered cars and the streets around Leinster House gilded with gold rather than granite. Where has this money gone? It has not been spent on widows, the disabled or those with learning difficulties. It seems to have been spent on the quangos which proliferate in every Department.

There is so much money being wasted. In every constituency there are partnerships, task forces and groups with different names duplicating and triplicating each other's work. All of them are getting easy money, much of it unaccounted for. That seems to be where the money is going. There are also many gaps. It has reached the stage where we do not mind sums like €600,000, €773,000 or €2.5 million being scattered throughout the paragraphs. These amounts add up. However, that seems to be the way every Department is run.

There have been 15 years of enormous economic advances. The Government has been in office for five years and it is leaving after having all the opportunities in the world. However, it squandered them. Poverty should have been eliminated in the last five years, but it was not. We should have the most efficient Government in Europe, but we do not. It has been a wasted five years despite the incredible economic advances. Far from improving, the quality of our citizens' lives has disimproved. The Taoiseach should be here today to apologise.

I intend to make a brief contribution. When discussing the Department of the Taoiseach, it would be inappropriate not to refer briefly to the facts surrounding the extraordinary decision to award the contract for the operation of the national aquatic centre in Abbotstown to a London based shelf company. This is a scandal. The public is amazed that a decision with such enormous implications could be taken by the Government without the facts and information being available to it. It is an extraordinary admission by the Government.

What is most amazing and unacceptable is that when the project commenced, it was under the auspices of the Department of the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach is unwilling to accept valid questions to which the public is seeking answers. He is afraid to answer the questions himself and diverts them to the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation. We have a Taoiseach who gives the impression of being a Taoiseach for all the people, but when it comes to being answerable for basic errors that took place on his watch, he runs away and passes the problem, not to Ministers, but to Ministers of State.

Basic questions require to be answered which go further than simply the role of Campus Stadium Ireland Development. We must ask if the proper Government checks and balances, which would normally be applied to the awarding of a contract worth £63 million of taxpayer's money, were put in place. This morning we had the experience in the Dáil of hearing the Tánaiste admit that before the Government and the Taoiseach made their decision in this regard the facts were not available. That is an extraordinary admission by anybody, particularly by the deputy leader of the State. The Taoiseach was not available to answer the questions. Is it the case that nobody in government was aware that this contract was being awarded to a London registered shelf company with assets of just £4 sterling?

In other such situations, the contractor would normally require the approval of the Department of Finance. Here we have the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance unaware of what was happening in this case. What is required is——

——political pressure.

We must conclude the meeting at4 p.m.

I am aware of that. The Taoiseach should be present at this meeting and we should be able to ask him questions. He is in charge of the Department. He denied that he knew the contents of the PwC report on the national aquatic centre. That is unbelievable. On 19 December 2000 he went to a Cabinet meeting a day after his former departmental secretary received a report raising concerns about Waterworld. Imagine getting such a report from his officials and proceeding to make that decision.

This issue is being dealt with by another committee of the House. I do not know how its members can discuss it this afternoon without the report being available. It is another scandal that the Government and the Attorney General have not made the report available to our colleagues. There are many questions to be answered and the Taoiseach and the Government will not be able to keep running from the issue.

The Minister of State said the Department of the Taoiseach plays a key role in formulating national economic and social policy. We hear this time and again and read the newspaper reports on the Government's programme. However, as far as the people I represent in the greater Dublin area are concerned, the programme for the provision of infrastructure is years behind schedule. Some of its key elements and its co-ordinated policy of trying to provide a quality of life for the people of Dublin have been cast aside because the necessary finance has not been made available.

We were told, for example, with regard to the Estimates that major finance would be made available to ensure the rail network in the greater Dublin area was put on a proper footing. What the ordinary people in north Dublin have to go through to get to work is unbelievable and unacceptable. They cannot get on the trains to get into work and if they decide to use alternative modes of transport, such as cars, the roads are chock-a-block from 6.30 a.m. The new motorway is behind schedule and the money is not being made available. The Government has failed because it has not looked at the overall situation. The Department and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government designated certain areas for major housing developments. The Government redirects people 15, 20 or 25 miles out of the city of Dublin, yet it has not given any consideration to how they will get to and from their places of employment. The Government has failed to provide the necessary finance in this area.

We are one of the richest countries in the world. We had a unique opportunity over the past five years to rectify the imbalances in our economy and country. However, we have failed miserably to do that. The people are waiting to indicate their displeasure with the Government's performance. The Taoiseach is running away from difficult decisions. I cannot give the Government or the Taoiseach many brownie points for the way the country has been run.

I thank the Minister and Deputies Jim Mitchell and Seán Ryan for their contributions. We will now have a question and answer session.

Are memoranda from the Department of the Taoiseach circulated in advance to other Departments for their comments?

Yes, they are circulated in the normal way.

Are there any occasions when that does not happen?

The normal procedure is that memoranda are circulated to all Departments for their comments. As the Deputy will appreciate from being in the Cabinet, some memoranda are only sent to designated Departments for their comments. Occasionally, a memo might come directly if it is urgent or late. There are three levels. The normal procedure is that all Departments get time to comment on the memo. Those comments are incorporated in the memo and responded to by the relevant Minister and then the memo is brought to Cabinet. The same procedure applies to the Department of the Taoiseach.

Was the memorandum on the aquatic centre in Abbottstown, which is a controversial issue at present, circulated in advance?

I do not have that information but if I had, I would give it to the Deputy. I did not look that up. I would probably have to take advice from the Attorney General on whether I could discuss Cabinet documents in that way.

We are not discussing the content of the document but the process under which the Government and the Department are run. The Minister of State said he did not know.

I do not know because I did not check it. Whatever the procedure, I would need to take advice on the issue of Cabinet confidentiality in relation to Cabinet documents.

The Minister of State should forget the documents. The Attorney General was given the job by the Taoiseach of reporting on this. A report is now available, which is not a Cabinet document. Was the Taoiseach interviewed by the Attorney General about that?

The only way I can help is to point out to the Deputy, as the Chairman has pointed out, that the Committee of Public Accounts is meeting as we speak. That issue is on its agenda.

The Committee of Public Accounts does not call Ministers. This is the policy committee for the Department of the Taoiseach. This is the only chance we have to ask the Minister of State to answer——

The only way I can help is to point out, as the Tánaiste did this morning on the Order of Business, that the Attorney General's draft report will be published some time late tomorrow. I presume all the information about who he did or did not interview and whether he interviewed the Taoiseach will be included in his report. It would not be right for me to pre-empt that report now. That draft report must be made available to the main persons mentioned in it. As the Tánaiste said this morning, they will be given until tomorrow to respond and then it will be published in full. Perhaps the answers to the Deputy's questions might be in that report. It is not for me to say who the Attorney General interviewed or to comment on the process he conducted. He was appointed as an independent Attorney General to conduct this examination. We must wait to see what he finds out.

Can the Minister of State tell me if the Department of the Taoiseach was among the people or bodies questioned by the Attorney General?

I presume the relevant Departments, such as the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation, the Attorney General's Office, the board and the consultants were asked for documents by the Attorney General. I am certain that whatever he requested would have been furnished to him. Any documentation requested from the Department of the Taoiseach was provided.

The Minister of State is hedging.

I am being straight. I am not in a position to tell the Deputy what is in the Attorney General's report. We can stay here until 6 p.m. and I will not go any further than that.

The Minister of State has deliberately ensured he does not have the information so he cannot answer the questions.

What is the question?

What role did the Department of the Taoiseach play in the project?

My answer is straight. The Deputy must wait for the Attorney General's report which will be published tomorrow evening. He will lay out his information and outline the people he spoke to, if any, in the Department of the Taoiseach. I cannot pre-empt that.

This is deliberate evasion by the Minister of State who is supposed to be the Government's leader in its attempts to reform the Dáil and to get more Government accountability. It is deliberate evasion to ensure the Taoiseach cannot be asked questions about his role. We all know the Taoiseach presided over the "Bertie Bowl" fiasco from the outset.

I will put that language down to election excitement. Due process must be observed. Individuals are named in a report and the Government has decided to allow them time to study it and to respond by tomorrow evening. If the Deputy calls that dodging the issue, that is his decision. I am telling the Deputy I am being as straight and honest as I can be.

We have given that issue sufficient airing, particularly as it does not come under the Estimates we are supposed to be discussing.

It does not. I ask the Deputy to speak about the Estimates.

The Government has been forced to establish a number of tribunals because of a lack of answers in the House. One of the tribunal judges said that if questions had been answered in the House, there would not have been a need for the tribunal. The Government has clearly demonstrated the fact that it has learned nothing. The leopard has not changed its spots. The Government is prepared to evade issues and to allow an impression of corruption rather than answer the questions. The leopard has not changed its spots.

The Deputy should be very careful if using the word "corruption" in connection with present circumstances.

Some of the tribunals have already made it clear that the very need for them to be established arose from the fact that Ministers would not answer questions just as we are not getting answers today, either in the House or at this committee.

I would like to debate that matter with the Deputy some time because if he looks at some of the tribunals, it was the behaviour of Members of the House which brought odium on themselves and their parties and constituents, not the failure of any Minister on the Deputy's side or mine to answer questions in the Dáil. The Deputy has a selective memory. I would argue with him in another forum the reason we have tribunals. Ranking way down the line as one of those reasons is parliamentary replies. The Deputy and the country know the reason we have tribunals is not the failure to answer parliamentary questions, but rather misbehaviour by individuals who should have known better.

I do not disagree with anything the Minister of State has said, but these issues would have been exposed in the House and in committee if there had been proper procedures in place and proper answers had been given. The Minister of State is now hiding under the same sort of umbrella in not answering questions and it stinks to high Heaven. The Government is ending the way it started.

Will subhead J bring to a conclusion the matter of the outstanding money required for the Dunne Stores tribunal?

Subhead J amounts to €1.27 million.

Will it bring the matter to a conclusion?

It will. That is our estimate. The budget allocation is €1.27 million which is set aside to meet outstanding claims from those parties granted representation before the tribunal but who have not yet claimed their costs. As the Deputy knows, the tribunal finished its work five years ago.

I wondered why it was still in place after five years.

It is a precautionary measure in case there are claims.

At what stage is the inquiry into the Dublin, Monaghan and Dundalk bombings? When does the Minister of State expect to receive a report?

The report is being prepared. As I said, as soon as Judge Barron is ready with it, I hope it can be referred to a committee of the House. He has not yet given us a date.

Is it expected to be issued before the general election?

Probably not.

I have gone through some of the other subheads and have no difficulty with them.

Which office selects people to carry out the census?

The CSO. It does so independently.

The section located in Cork.

Yes. The director general and senior staff conduct interviews.

Does the Minister of State wish to make a concluding comment?

My critic has left - a bit like Hamlet. I reject the assertion that the term of office of the Government has been a waste of time. The level of unemployment is now 4% - it was 10% when we took office. The debt ratio is now 36% - it was 74% when we took office. We have cut the standard rate of income tax from 26% to 20%. The public capital programme now runs to billions of pounds. I say to Deputy Jim Mitchell that if that was a waste of money, he should say that to those who have to pay less tax, who are now employed, have jobs in hi-tech industries and the elderly and children who have been given substantial increases in allowances. If the money has been wasted, I invite him to make that case to the public.

On behalf of the select committee, I thank the Minister of State and his officials for attending today's meeting. I also thank members of the committee for the manner in which they conducted the Estimate's discussion.

Barr
Roinn