Ceisteanna — Questions.
1 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when he expects to receive the report of Mr. Dermot Quigley into the circumstances of the appointment of a person (details supplied) and related matters; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34256/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he has received a report into the circumstances of the appointment of a person (details supplied) by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and related issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2602/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he has received the recent report that he commissioned by Mr. Dermot Quigley; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3646/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the findings of the recent report he commissioned by Mr. Dermot Quigley; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5701/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he has studied a recent report by Mr Dermot Quigley; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6512/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
The report prepared by Mr. Dermot Quigley was published on Thursday, 27 January 2005. I made the report available to Deputies in the Oireachtas Library and also on the Department of the Taoiseach website. There is nothing in the report to suggest that Deputy Cullen, now Minister for Transport, acted inappropriately regarding the matter.
In so far as the report makes recommendations for improvements in the procurement procedures, additional procedures have been approved by the Government for incorporation into the Cabinet handbook and are available on my Department's website. Those procedures will give the Secretary General to the Government and the Government secretariat a role in examining certain procurements. In so far as there are recommendations for other Departments, I understand that they are actively being pursued.
Does the Taoiseach agree with finding 4.2.1 of the Quigley report into the affair surrounding the Minister, Deputy Cullen? It states:
... there are risks in a Minister proposing a named person for a contract. Such a procedure may not least give rise to a perception of impropriety.
Does the Taoiseach share the conclusions of Mr. Quigley, the report's author? In particular, does he agree that the reason for such a perception is that the fees commanded in this case would be attracted only by the top dozen or so senior partners in long-established public relations companies in this city? Ms Leech cannot be counted among those fortunate few. Is it not the case that, on the other hand, she can indeed be counted as a political associate of the Minister? Are those the facts that give rise to what Mr. Quigley called "a perception of impropriety" and the need to change the rules? Will the Taoiseach state specifically which change will address this issue?
The question of there being a suspicion or perception of impropriety can arise, as Mr. Quigley stated. I have accepted that position and, within that broad principle, there must be changes to the rules. It arose in this case and we must ensure that it does not happen again. It was precisely because those concerns existed that I set up the inquiry into the procurement process. It was commissioned and I agreed to the suggestion from Deputy Rabbitte. The report makes it clear, regardless of how anyone would interpret the events, that there were good, objective reasons for the engagement of a person and that the quality of that person's work was good. The work done conformed with what was asked for in the stated plan. All those matters have been examined and dealt with, but I accept the point that there should be no doubt in such instances and it is for that reason that I have changed the system.
Regarding Deputy Rabbitte's second question, the position now is that there are several recommendations. Mr. Quigley put forward several procedures, among them that the Department's Accounting Officer and an audit officer should immediately be informed if a Minister mentions or refers to a name now. If the person mentioned comes forward, the question arises of the Secretary General to the Government or the Cabinet secretariat being informed. They can either reject the position or attach conditions. Broad flexibility is allowed and what condition they might attach is not stipulated. An example might be that the person should not be involved in political activity during the life of the programme.
I hope two things will happen as a result of this. First, now that the rule has been made clear I hope events such as this will not take place again. Deputy Rabbitte knows my view on these matters. It is better not to get involved with this range of people. Politicians are better off leaving it to the procurement system than getting into recommendations in the first place. Second, there is now a process in place whereby when people are recommended and it is not absolutely tied down, those people are protected by the procurement regulations.
The third aspect is that there are other issues about the whole procurement process which the Department of Finance has to examine. I believe it will do that separately. Dermot Quigley raised these points. He believes there is a need to look back on the procurement procedures, which are not that old; they were only put in place in 1999. He raised the point and I have asked the Department of Finance to examine that. It is better that we fully comply with what he stated.
I thank the Taoiseach for that reply but is it not the case that however restrained the language in the Quigley report, Ms Leech was sponsored in her public service career by the current Minister for Transport and that the fees commanded are commensurate with, if not better than, what would be commanded by the top senior partners in the most practised firms in this city? There is no precedent that I can find for this type of hourly rate to be paid on an eight-hour recurring basis.
A question, please, Deputy.
That is a question, Sir. The Taoiseach may be aware of a precedent. Let me put it this way. Does the Taoiseach know of any other precedent where this level of fee can be commanded effectively on a permanent basis? In other words, is it not the case that the structure of these companies' charging arrangement is that the senior partner in the most prestigious firms may charge a figure approaching what was charged in this case by Ms Leech's company for a very small number of hours but that the work thereafter is done by middle ranking or lower executives for a fraction of what is being charged here, and that we are forgetting the element of political cronyism that was involved in this case? Is that not what Mr. Quigley is getting at, albeit in temperate, restrained and very polite language?
I do not intend to have a re-run of Mr. Quigley's report. He did that work and put forward his issues. I have not checked what people got but Mr. Quigley said that the procedures in that Department alone on previous occasions were not unlike what had happened in this case. Other issues had happened at other times. Perhaps years had moved on and the rates would not be the same but he made the point clearly that it was not out of kilter with what that Department had done on previous occasions. It is also a point that the value of Ms Leech's service was further evidenced by the fact that the Office of Public Works, on similar rates, engaged her services subsequently to manage projects when the Minister, Deputy Cullen, had left that area. That issue does not stand up either.
The first point is whether it is appropriate that Ministers would recommend people. We all know that in politics, people know people and they would suggest someone who has a good deal of experience. In this case, the individual concerned had 20 years' experience in marketing and communications. She was active in the business community and the national chamber of commerce. People were very satisfied with her work — that is a fact. They came to an agreement on the individual's remuneration. The central issue, however, was whether there was a question of wrong-doing. That is what the report was about, not the rate. It was whether there was wrong-doing or some misappropriation and whether this was unfitting behaviour. That is what the report was about and we are not going to change what the report examined. In those instances, the Minister, Deputy Cullen, was cleared. However, Mr. Quigley raised a number of points relating to the procurement process which he believed, in procedural terms, should be improved upon. The Government dealt with these at its meeting on 15 February.
The late and much loved Hugh Coveney was obliged to resign from Government because he merely inquired whether a person might be able to tender for — not to mention obtain — a contract. As Deputy Rabbitte said, Mr. Quigley pointed out that not only could Deputy Cullen's behaviour give rise to a perception of impropriety but there should have been five firms instead of three, that the value of the contract with the then Department of the Environment and Local Government was well in excess of the threshold for advertising in the Official Journal of the European Union, that there was no comprehensive inventory compiled of the work carried out——
Perhaps the Deputy could just ask a question. The purpose of Question Time is to elicit information from the Taoiseach or other members of the Government.
The purpose of the Chair is to allow Deputies to make their case and to ensure that the questions they ask are relevant and complete.
No, the purpose of the Chair is to ensure that we all, including the Chair, adhere to Standing Orders.
It is only Tuesday. Following the long trip from the fine county in which he lives, the Ceann Comhairle can take it easy.
In light of the Quigley report, has the Taoiseach circulated to each Minister a set of guidelines that will apply in future in respect of the appointment of PR consultants? Have the Accounting Officers, that is, the Secretaries General, in each Department taken these guidelines on board? Is the Taoiseach sure that other Ministers have not used similar methods to appoint consultants?
The purpose of the inquiry was to ascertain all the facts. Everybody was interviewed about the relevant issue. In future, we will have to follow the procedures put forward. The Cabinet discussed the issue so all Ministers are, therefore, aware of what is happening. We have also informed Ministers of State about the new procedures. We will change the Cabinet handbook at the appropriate time. I have also asked the Department of Finance and any other Departments to address their own procedures.
As regards the point the Deputy made in respect of tenders, it would always be better if the necessary number of tenders were received. However, for various reasons and on a quite regular basis, this is not the case. I understand why this is the case but it is not the best way for matters to proceed. As I pointed out to Mr. Quigley, the same thing happened to other individuals who previously occupied the position of Minister in that Department. However, I accept that this does not make it the best system. I am not stating that anyone did anything wrong on this or any other occasion but questions about procedures arise. The report concludes that, in the round, the necessary procedures that were in place were applied. It would be better, however, if we addressed the issues that have arisen.
I do not wish to comment on the specific procurement exercises that were conducted in this instance. In the future, however, we should seek to take on board the points that have been made. The Department of Finance will consider the EU procurement guidelines to see what improvements we should make in that regard. Mr. Quigley's report will form the basis for such improvements.
Does the Taoiseach agree that most people would view granting of such a contract by a Minister as a scandal? Does he accept that the scandal has been compounded by the fact that the contract involved public relations duties that should and could have been carried out by the Civil Service? What is his view of the fact that the report shows that the value of the contract given to Ms Leech was well in excess of the threshold for advertising in the Official Journal of the European Union and should have been put out to tender? Has the Taoiseach admonished the Minister, Deputy Cullen, particularly as the report shows that the OPW contract awarded to Ms Leech as project information co-ordinator was unique to Waterford, the Minister's constituency, and was unprecedented for any other major OPW project——
Questions do not afford an opportunity to reopen matters that were the subject of the inquiry.
——with the exception of that relating to Farmleigh House?
As regards matters to do with European procurement, the report addresses issues relating to procurement. Deputies are well aware that the application of procurement guidelines whether at national or EU levels is complex and no two sets of circumstances are alike, as the report makes clear. Mr. Quigley's report at no time says that anything was wrong with the specific procurement exercises. He recommends improvements for them in the future, but the process adopted had been used many times before and will be used again.
As regards value for money, both the OPW and the Department considered that this had been forthcoming on the basis of the reports submitted.
Has the Taoiseach admonished the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen?
Apparently not. The Taoiseach——
Apparently, the Taoiseach is very happy with the whole thing.
——stated that he felt Deputy Cullen had--——
He stated very little.
Allow Deputy Sargent to speak.
——not acted inappropriately. I ask him to take on board that this is not a view shared by me or by many people. The fact that Deputy Cullen is still there——
Will the Deputy please ask a question?
I will ask the question, based on what I am saying. The fact that the Minister is still there reflects badly on the Office of the Taoiseach as much as it does on the Minister for Transport. That said, is the Taoiseach serious when he says politicians would be better off leaving such matters of appointments to the procurement system, when his response to the Quigley report has been to basically involve the Department of the Taoiseach all the more in overseeing the appointment of public relations and communications staff? Is there not a direct contradiction in his view that this should be left to the procurement system and to the Standards in Public Office Commission, rather than involving his Department and perhaps the Taoiseach himself in the area of consultants' appointments? Is it not the case that the fact of politicians policing themselves is bound to draw a cynical response? It would be better to enhance the terms of reference given to the Standards in Public Office Commission so that people with substantial contracts from Departments are precluded from political fund raising, for example, with the Department keeping a register of all consultants engaged, including their terms of reference. Finally, foreign travel must be subject to strict criteria, which obviously were not in place in this case.
Procedures are already in place for all of these areas. If one insists on everything being so clear-cut as regards such matters, one will find oneself all over the place.
They are not clear enough, according to the Quigley report.
The Quigley report did not say so. It said, however, that there was nothing to suggest that Deputy Cullen acted inappropriately in the matter. Obviously, Deputy Sargent just wants to fire people when they have been cleared. I am glad he is not a judge. In the remit of the Standards in Public Office Commission, which I set up on foot of the wide-ranging powers in the Standards in Public Act 2001, I do not believe the commission should be involved in the procurement system of every contract within every Department. That is not what the Standards in Public Office Commission is involved in. Although it is inappropriate, people will always know someone they can recommend and there are dangers in that approach. I have said this many times. If there is a procurement system it is better if it is left to that system. It is not my office that would be involved but the Cabinet secretariat, and only in the case where the Accounting Officer believes there should be an issue of conditions in the procurement system, where a politician is mentioned, to make the system more secure.
As we come across more and more matters of this nature I imagine people become wiser as regards their involvement. However, I do not want to suggest that anyone involved in the political system or who might have canvassed or who might have been seen with Deputy Kenny or Deputy Ahern has done wrong. I have spent most of my adult life trying to promote democracy and involvement in political parties. If we fit into a system of being whiter than white——
There is still a long way to go.
I do not think that is the case either. In the last decade, we have moved an enormous distance in terms of tightening up things. Sometimes there is a level of common sense with these issues and people should tie that level down. I set up the investigation into this so we can learn lessons, tighten procedures and not have vagueness. At the same time, we cannot write a system in which no one can move. At the end of the day, people have to be innovative and make things work. If we all become experts at tying everything down and nobody can do anything, I do not know where the country will be in 20 years. I would not like to leave it that way either.
In the interests of transparency and openness, will the Taoiseach release all papers relating to the Quigley report to Members and to the general public? They have been refused to me following a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
The only papers I have on the report is the report itself, which I have made available in the Dáil Library. I have no other papers.
That was not my question. I am referring to all of the documents that were presented and which were listed under the freedom of information request which I made, yet were refused to me, a Member of the Oireachtas. Will the Taoiseach arrange for them to be released?
I cannot do so because I do not have those papers. I only have the report. Mr. Quigley's working papers and documents were not given to me and are not available to me.
With respect——
The Deputy has made his point. I am not sure the Freedom of Information Act is a matter for the Taoiseach, except for information from the Department of An Taoiseach. I call Deputy Rabbitte.
Does the Taoiseach agree that they ought to be released?
I have called Deputy Rabbitte. If the Deputy has another question I will return to him.
Will the Taoiseach agree to Deputy O'Dowd's request? If there is litigation on this issue, as there might be, is it not the case that all these documents will be discovered to the court in any such action? Would it not be better for the Taoiseach to instruct that the papers be laid in the Library so Members could study them?
I have listened to the Taoiseach's very benign interpretation of the Quigley report. Are we not talking about a very large amount of taxpayers' money? The person in the eye of this storm did not have the remotest experience commensurate with the level of fees being commanded. Her employment as a political adviser would have been more appropriate, perhaps with a dimension of public relations and marketing skills.
I think we are going well outside the scope of the questions. It appears to the Chair that we are holding a further inquiry here into matters that have already been inquired into and reported. The questions are on the report only.
We are asking the Taoiseach for his response to the Quigley report. All of the matters to which we referred are well within the bounds of the Quigley report. I am asking the Taoiseach why he is glossing over the gravity of it. The Taoiseach and I both know that senior civil servants are very protective of their Ministers past and present. The fact that this is written in temperate language does not underplay the gravity of what was at issue here. Has the Taoiseach not spoken in Duleek and Kilcock to the same people to whom I spoke who regard €330,000 of taxpayers' money as a hell of a payment for a short number of half weeks? They agree that it is appropriate to discuss the matter in the House. Does the Taoiseach agree that the person concerned did not have a level of experience commensurate with the level of fees commanded?
That does not arise from these questions.
Does the Taoiseach agree, therefore, that there is an urgent need to ensure that all aspects of the Quigley report are implemented?
There are a number of points. Significantly, the report finds that, taken in the round, there was little material difference between work done by Ms Leech and what was contracted for. The Minister and Ms Leech rejected the suggestions that they did not in any way complete the full work contracted for, whatever about the rates of salary, expenses and allowances. They were agreed as part of the contract. The report notes that both Departments involved were very satisfied with the quality of work done by Ms Leech. I am certainly not in a position to take an alternative view. I do not know on what basis Deputy Rabbitte makes his assertion.
On the papers to which Deputy Rabbitte referred, there is a procedure for dealing with freedom of information requests and it is being followed. I do not have the papers, or the working papers as they constitute a matter to be dealt with under freedom of information legislation. There is not a twin-track procedure for that.
To address Deputy Rabbitte's other point, the deficiency in the procurement process was evident within the Department on occasions other than the one in question. That is not a justification, but a reason to put matters right, which is precisely what we have done in the area of procurement. Mr. Quigley said the matter could have been handled better, that the audit committee should have been involved and that when a Minister makes a point like that outlined it should be brought to the accounting officer's attention early. All these points have been dealt with to assist with procedures.
The evidence I have read does not suggest that Ms Leech had no qualifications to carry out the job and none of the people concerned has voiced that opinion. I appreciate that Deputy Rabbitte has formed that view, but it is not one formed by the Department, the former chairperson of the OPW, the current chairperson of the OPW, people involved in marketing over 20 years or any of the other people with whom Ms Leech was associated. I accept that Deputy Rabbitte is entitled to form a view, but it is contrary to that of everybody else.
Did the Taoiseach instruct other Departments to find out whether they had contracts in place similar to this one? If so, did he receive a response?
The Taoiseach stated that he had spent most of his adult life promoting democracy. Having studied the report, does he agree that there is a significant democratic deficit given the Government's endless access and the Opposition's limited access to resources?
The Quigley report recommends that the Government's contracts committee, in the hands of which the Taoiseach said the matter in question will rest, should review its guidelines on the engagement of consultants. Other than the provision of advice, what checks or sanctions can be imposed if a Minister fails to proceed according to best practice?
Regarding his response to Deputy Rabbitte a moment ago, how does the Taoiseach explain the view he claims everyone but the Deputy holds, given that the report states that no comprehensive inventory of work was done under the contract and that monitoring and recording of the work was not satisfactory? Does the Taoiseach not agree there are real questions on the carrying out of the work under the very lucrative contract for this firm?
Four weeks ago information pertaining to all contracts in each Department was circulated on foot of parliamentary questions. Every Minister and Department was asked to ensure that all contracts were properly in place. As shown in the detailed report, most press work is done by civil servants. People were asked to ensure that standards were in place regarding contracts.
The Quigley report recommended the Department of Finance review the guidelines dating from 1999 with regard to the engagement of consultants, especially in the context of single tendering arrangements where "urgently" is stated as the grounds for proceeding, and the Department will do so. What happened in the case in question is that the normal procurement where three or four tenders are procured before making a decision were not followed. I understand that in many cases people must proceed on a quicker basis, but the recommendations are that it should be examined in areas where it occurs. The procurement system should be strengthened.
People must follow the Cabinet guidebook for Ministers and that is the sanction. People must follow the procedures laid down and abide by them. They are subject to the procedures under the ethics in public office guidelines. A Minister of State in the previous Government had to resign for what was a very small breach by anyone's standards in that he effectively left something out. However, those are the rules and people must abide by them. They are extreme, harsh and tough on people's political careers and lives and would be regarded as such.
Deputy Ó Caoláin asked a question about best practice. In an ideal world we would try to follow procurement arrangements as much and for as long as we could. Many EU procurements follow these standards in the normal sense. I am not speaking of political involvement but the procedures take much time and are very demanding and we must follow them. That is done in the normal course of events and is something that Departments and Accounting Officers, including those involved in this case, work hard to achieve.
On Deputy O'Dowd's question, my understanding is that the reason they were refused was that it would have been prejudicial to Dermot Quigley's inquiry which was ongoing at that stage.
I was referring to the time since the inquiry was completed.
I can ask about that, but my information is that was the reason for refusal, so I am not aware of why it has been refused now. I can ask.
6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach his Department’s legislative priorities for 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34264/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra7 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach his Department’s legislative programme for the current session of Dáil Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1458/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra8 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2601/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra9 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3647/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra10 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his Department’s legislative priorities for 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4486/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 10, inclusive, together.
My Department has three items of legislation for the current Dáil session: the National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002, the Interpretation Bill 2000 and the Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Bill 2004. I do not anticipate any change in priorities in the next 12 months.
The National Economic and Social Development Office Bill is awaiting Committee Stage. The Interpretation Bill, which has passed all Stages in this House, is awaiting Committee Stage in the Seanad. The Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Bill is at Order for Second Stage in the Seanad.
The schedule of promised legislation has 86 Bills, none of which is from the Department of the Taoiseach. The pressure for legislation is therefore obviously less in that Department.
The National Economic and Social Development Office Bill was published in April 2002, finished Second Stage on 18 December 2003 and we have not heard of it since.
I know this could be because the Taoiseach does not have any clout in the Whip's Office. If he does, however, could the Bill be introduced to see if we could finish it before the end of the current Dáil session? One never knows what kind of collapse might happen after the by-elections. We would be left with this Bill which has not been enacted and the Minister, Deputy O'Dea, would not qualify for a pension.
I am qualified already.
Not for the big one.
I repeat that three Bills from my Department are before the Houses at present: the National Economic and Social Development Office Bill, the Interpretation Bill and the Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Bill. Deputy Rabbitte is correct in saying that if we were to get some time, we could clear all three Bills. It would be helpful if we could do so and move on.
While I would still like to complete the National Economic and Social Development Office Bill, the reason we have not pushed it that much is that the office has been established and is operating. It was agreed in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness to establish the office on a statutory basis and I gave a commitment to do so. It has some pension purposes that would help the existing staff, so I would be in favour of completing it. It could be completed in half an hour.
My question relates to the Taoiseach's legislative priorities but not to his own Department. I know the Ceann Comhairle is going to get very technical about this.
No. The Chair is ruling, as it has ruled since the establishment of the State, that these questions must be appropriate to the Department of the Taoiseach.
Given that you are so pernickety about this matter, why did you allow this question to appear on the Order Paper?
Which question?
Question No. 8. You allowed it on the Order Paper.
I took it that when the question was submitted, it was in accordance with the Standing Order that applies.
I am sure it is.
Standing Order 33 states that questions to the Taoiseach should refer specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach.
This is a matter of interpretation. The Ceann Comhairle allowed the question on the Order Paper. It seeks to ask the Taoiseach about his legislative priorities.
No. I take it that present questions are for the Department of the Taoiseach. The Deputy should be aware of that.
The Ceann Comhairle cannot amend his own Standing Orders on the hoof.
The Ceann Comhairle is in a corner this time. He should back down gracefully.
The Ceann Comhairle allowed it on the Order Paper. It is there in black and white. We have enough ambiguity about other matters in this House. Has the Taoiseach any other legislative priorities outside his Department which is often quite limited?
This does not arise on Taoiseach's questions.
I will ask the question anyway but the Ceann Comhairle will probably shoot me down. I am concerned that there was a group that recommended changes in the legislation governing the protection of children and vulnerable adults. It proposed an amendment to the Protection of Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act 1998 and the Sex Offenders Act 2001. Does the Taoiseach have any idea if such an amendment is anywhere on the Government's scale of priorities?
I could check it.
In case there is any ambiguity about it, I will read out Standing Order 33 and I will then allow the Taoiseach to provide a brief answer to the question.
I will then ask the question again.
Standing Order 33 states:
Questions addressed to a member of the Government must relate to public affairs connected with his or her Department or to matters of administration for which he or she is officially responsible (including bodies under the aegis of his or her Department in respect of Government policy).
I take it that when the question was submitted, the Deputy was aware of Standing Order 33.
The Taoiseach is the Head of Government but he is in charge of all Departments and, therefore, should be able to answer a question about them.
The legislation referred to is on the legislative list of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. However, to be helpful to Deputy Kenny, I will check its current status.
I thank the Taoiseach very much.
A Cheann Comhairle——
Deputy Rabbitte, we are running out of time and Deputies Sargent and Ó Caoláin also submitted questions. I will take a question from each of them followed by a final reply from the Taoiseach.
In the replies the Taoiseach has given so far, as regards his Department's legislative priorities, I did not note a reference to any legislation specific to the peace process, including the ongoing and, regrettably, currently suspended contacts between both Governments and all parties. Is it not the case that there is legislation that should be brought forward arising from the Good Friday Agreement and all that has developed since? Why would the Taoiseach project here today that he does not envisage any other legislation over the coming 12 months? I ask the Taoiseach to be as specific as he can because it is a matter of great concern.
I congratulate the Ceann Comhairle on giving rise to the best oxymoron today in the Dáil when speaking of legislative priorities in the Taoiseach's Department. Given that it has been five years since the Interpretation Bill——
I ask the Deputy not to waste time. We are now past the time for Taoiseach's questions. If Deputy Sargent does not have a question I will call on the Taoiseach to answer Deputy Ó Caoláin's question.
I am asking a question. Given that the National Economic and Social Development Office is up and running, why has the legislation relating to it yet to be passed? Does that not indicate a back-to-front operation?
Will the Taoiseach be involved this year in the five-year review of the non-proliferation treaty? Accordingly, would it not make sense for the legislation, which has been awaited since 2001 on that matter — a non-contentious issue — to be passed?
I suggest that the Deputy submits a question to the appropriate Minister.
There is no legislation in my Department relating to Northern Ireland but a number of Bills are pending in other Departments such as the Foyle fisheries Bill and other related legislation and orders. The Foyle fisheries Bill is at a fairly advanced stage and we should be able to progress it. Other legislation not relevant to my Department is pending but is caught up in North-South issues.
The purpose of the Bill on the National Economic and Social Development Office, which is awaiting Committee Stage, is to establish the office on a statutory basis. The three offices were separate and we brought them together some years ago. There was a commitment under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness that it would be set up on a statutory basis. There are a number of reasons for that apart from putting it on a legal basis, mainly in terms of advantages to the staff involved. The NESC has been in existence for a 30-year period, the NESF is about 12 years old and the NCPP is a more recent organisation. These bodies were not set up on a statutory basis and the purpose of the legislation is to bring them together. The staff have been doing their job, in some cases for many years. The legislation will include provisions to assist the staff, including, as Deputy Rabbitte stated, on pension issues. Many of the staff, for example, in the NESC, have been in the job for 30 years and the matter is a pressing one for some individuals.
Is it urgent?
I do not think anyone will leave tomorrow but it is important that we deal with the matter during the course of the year.
