Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Departmental Functions

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 20 July 2011

Wednesday, 20 July 2011

Ceisteanna (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

1 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will publish a specific list of public affairs which are connected with his Department and matters of administration for which he is officially responsible, including bodies under the aegis of his Department. [21079/11]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

2 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the administrative procedures by which his Department handles parliamentary questions. [21080/11]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

3 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he plans implementing any alterations to the administration of parliamentary questions in his Department [21081/11]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

4 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach his plans to make his Department accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas [21194/11]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

5 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the revised estimates for his Department. [21198/11]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

6 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will detail those areas of policy relating to Northern Ireland which he plans in the future to be connected with his Department. [21082/11]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (187 píosaí cainte)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.

I am responsible to the Dáil for the general activities of my Department and parliamentary questions addressed to me must relate to public affairs connected with my Department or to matters of administration for which I am officially responsible.

The presentation of my Department's Estimate to the Select Sub-Committee on the Department of the Taoiseach also provides an opportunity for members of the sub-committee to question me on a wide range of activities relating to my Department.

There are, however, specific activities undertaken by officials of my Department for which I do not have official responsibility, for example, decisions made in relation to freedom of information applications or matters concerning release of files under the National Archives Act.

My responsibilities in relation to European affairs include my participation in meetings of the European Council and other key European summits, as well as bilateral meetings and foreign visits. Questions relating to international agreements and pacts, including those with EU partners and institutions, generally fall for answer by the relevant Minister.

I am also accountable to the Dáil in a limited way in respect of a number of State offices, for example, the law offices of the State and the Central Statistics Office. By and large, I answer questions in the House in relation to matters of administration connected with those offices. Similarly, the nature of my responsibility to the House in respect of any tribunal or commission established under the aegis of my Department is confined primarily to the arrangements relating to their establishment and ongoing administration.

The specific nature of my accountability in respect of my Department and those bodies operating within its policy area has long been established by precedent in each.

The procedures for dealing with parliamentary questions in my Department are long established and have not changed recently, nor do I propose to change them. The Ceann Comhairle examines questions to ensure they comply with Standing Orders. When a question complies with Standing Orders, I answer it. However, in accordance with long-standing practice, questions are transferred to another Minister where responsibility for the substantive subject of the question rests with that Minister. Ministers of State at my Department also reply to parliamentary questions in respect of their areas of responsibility.

On Wednesday, 13 July, I presented my Department's Estimate to the Select Sub-Committee on the Department of the Taoiseach and also outlined the restructuring that has taken place in my Department recently and the way in which the Department supports me in carrying out the duties of my office.

The 2011 Revised Estimate for my Department is €21.039 million. This is an overall decrease of 27% on the 2010 Revised Estimate allocation. On the administrative budget, the overall reduction in the Revised Estimate for 2011 is 14%.

Of the programme subheads, there has been a reduction of 30% in the funding allocated to the National Economic and Social Development Office, 15% in the allocation for commemoration initiatives and 53% in the allocation for the Moriarty tribunal.

If the full Revised Estimate allocation is spent it would represent an increase of 12% over the outturn for 2010, although I would be hopeful the Department will be able to come in well within budget as has consistently been the case in recent years. The increase of approximately €2 million over the 2010 outturn relates primarily to one-off expenditure on salaries, wages and allowances related to the transition from the previous Government, plus costs related to events such as the visits by Queen Elizabeth II and President Obama, the State funeral for the former Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, and the forthcoming presidential inauguration ceremonies.

I have not made any changes to the Northern Ireland division in my Department. The division continues to support me on all matters relevant to Northern Ireland, including my participation in the North-South Ministerial Council and the British Irish Council, and contacts with the Northern Ireland First Minister and Deputy First Minister, as well as with the British Prime Minister. The division also plays an important role in co-ordinating matters relating to North-South co-operation across Departments.

I tabled four out of the six questions that we are taking and I will take them in some degree of sequence. I am endeavouring to get clarity from the Taoiseach as to the issues on which he is willing to answer questions. I have written to the Ceann Comhairle on the matter and it will be raised at the CPP. I specifically want to address the matter of questions being transferred from the Department of the Taoiseach. Under the doctrine of collective responsibility it has long been the rule of the House that the Taoiseach can answer any question he wants. Therefore when a question is transferred it is not because he cannot answer it, but because he chooses not to answer it.

In Question No. 1, I asked for exact and not general details of the matters on which the Taoiseach is willing to answer questions. The failure to give the requested list in the reply is striking and instead I got an answer about long-established precedent. Will the Taoiseach instruct his officials that they should no longer, for example, transfer questions on contacts he has had with European Union leaders or leaders in Northern Ireland? There comes a point when all the talk about reform is undermined by the reality of significant backward steps. For example, can the Taoiseach explain how he can transfer the entire EU affairs section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the Department of the Taoiseach last week while at the same time refuse to answer a simple question about the European Union Presidency in 2013?

The Deputy needs to get his research people to phrase their questions differently. The difficulty is that he has not become used to Opposition yet. It is a very different prospect from being over here as a Minister in various different Departments when he did not need to bother about this. As I have known myself over the years, when a Deputy tables a question it goes to the Ceann Comhairle who decides whether it is in compliance with Standing Orders. It then goes to a line Department. In the case of the Department of the Taoiseach, if the substantive responsibility rests with another Minister, that is when a transfer for answer to that Minister takes place. I do not see these questions until they appear on the Order Paper. I have answered 260 oral questions tabled by the Deputy and others since the Government was formed, which is probably more than previous Taoisigh did in a term, but that is beside the point.

If the question is in compliance with Standing Orders and is relevant to the issues I have raised here, I answer it. I have no intention of changing the nature of the way which this is arrived at. It is a question of the Deputy's researchers rephrasing the questions. For instance he has asked a question about the Department of the Taoiseach being downsized by 50%. His party might have had a view, but that is not what is in the programme for Government. It is probably not the Deputy's fault, but perhaps he should instruct his researchers to phrase their questions slightly differently in order to be in compliance with Standing Orders and to deal with the issue for which the Taoiseach has responsibility.

As the Deputy is aware, over recent years the issue of European affairs has become central to all with which we have to contend. As Taoiseach I have responsibility there. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade obviously has a great deal of interaction with his counterparts at European level, which is why the second Secretary General, who I am glad to say will be taking up office shortly, will deal with the question of a far more streamlined European co-ordination element of what we have to do. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade will continue to answer questions on European issues. Where I have responsibility, I will answer them and the second Secretary General in the Department of the Taoiseach will have a much stronger and more effective co-ordinating responsibility between the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, because we both deal with elements of European issues on a regular basis.

I have no intention of not wanting to answering questions from Deputy Martin or any other Deputy, but they should be, first, in compliance with Standing Orders and, second, relevant to matters for which I have direct responsibility. If I am asked questions about European agriculture in so far as I might have dealings with Heads of Government about agricultural issues, it may well be that the substantive element of the question is more appropriate to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in those circumstances that is where the transfer takes place. I had the same problem over the years in opposition and I learned to phrase questions differently in a way that they are in compliance with Standing Orders but still get an answer from the Taoiseach of the day.

It is not about researchers or people phrasing questions right; that is not the issue at all. I have spent time in opposition and I have spent time in government. It is about strategy and an approach to questions. I am not talking about compliance with Standing Orders, which is a separate issue; I am talking about transfers. Let us focus exclusively on the questions that are being routinely transferred to other Ministers with the express purpose of the Taoiseach avoiding having to answer them.

That is nonsense.

The Taoiseach just spoke about the European Union. I tabled a question last week asking the Taoiseach the role he will personally play in preparing for Ireland's Presidency of the European Union in 2013 and if this role will increase following the transfer of responsibility for European Union co-ordination to his Department.

The point is the Taoiseach's role in terms of the European Union Presidency.

To whom was it transferred?

I know to whom it was transferred, but it is the Taoiseach's role.

The Deputy should answer the question. To whom was it transferred?

The Taoiseach is the leader of the country, who always has a significant role in the EU Presidency.

Yes, and I will tell the Deputy about that.

However, the Taoiseach's reply to me referred to established precedence.

The Deputy should read his question again.

Let us not get semantic about this and act the smart alec here.

Semantics are what the Deputy is on about.

Former taoisigh always answered questions on upcoming European Union Presidencies. I will give a further example if I may. I also tabled a question asking if the Taoiseach was aware of the reservations conveyed to the Minister for Justice and Equality by Mr. Justice Smithwick about the implications of the Government's intentions to amend the terms of reference of the Smithwick tribunal when he answered questions on the Dáil on this matter on 1 June. That question was transferred to the Minister for Justice and Equality. The Minister had been asked a series of questions by his Opposition counterpart and others. I was asking the Taoiseach if he was aware, because this was a decision of the Government as a whole and he had accountability and responsibility to this House on the question.

The Deputy's question was wrong.

I also asked whether the Taoiseach had any further contacts with Heads of Government concerning the interest rate and Ireland's financial support package. Incredibly the Taoiseach transferred it to the Minister for Finance. Given that the Minister for Finance is not entitled to contact Heads of Government and normally does not do so, transferring that question to him was simply incredible. There are many more examples of this.

The Deputy is wandering.

The Taoiseach acknowledged here this morning that he has increased his Department's control of and involvement in European Union affairs, but he is now refusing to answer questions accepted by his predecessors of all parties when they occupied the Office of the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach's staff are engaged in a direct attempt to get all controversial questions transferred to other Departments. How can he explain transferring, for example, questions about his personal contacts with Northern leaders, European leaders and so on?

This is where the Deputy loses the run of himself. Last week he was complaining about the Dáil being subverted. He has made a point about a question in respect of my responsibilities in determining the Presidency, which will be held by Ireland in the first half of 2013. I could give him ten examples of how he might have phrased that question differently so that the Taoiseach of the day might be able to outline the responsibilities that rest with his or her office. His researchers — it is not just himself, as he must give an instruction to his people — could have asked me whether I would indicate what involvement I have in respect of the preparations for the 2013 Presidency.

That is the question I asked.

No. Read it out.

I asked what role the Taoiseach will personally play in preparing for Ireland's Presidency of the EU in 2013. Take me through it, please, sentence by sentence. What is wrong with that question?

What I told the Deputy in response to the question is that, where the main responsibility lies with a Minister or Minister of State, the Department will transfer a question to him or her. The Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, the Tánaiste and I, as Head of Government, will have a direct involvement in the preparations for the Presidency, as will all other Ministers. In fact, I discussed this at some length with President Buzek the other morning when he visited Ireland as President of the European Parliament. We discussed the intense involvement of every Minister during the six-month period of the Presidency, which will be crucial for Ireland and Europe in a range of areas. This is why I have issued an instruction to all of our Ministers and Minsters of State to attend at their informal Council meetings and begin to make real contact with their counterparts so that, when this comes along, they will be well acquainted with the issues and the facts. It appears that a number of very big decisions may not be made before the end of 2012 and will have to be made during Ireland's Presidency.

The Taoiseach is filibustering.

If the Deputy rephrases his question, I will be happy to tell him of my involvement as Head of Government in preparing for the Presidency.

I will revert to the Deputy.

It is important. Let us not filibuster.

I am not changing the regulations or rules about the transfer of questions.

The Taoiseach is trying to filibuster his way out of it.

He stated that I phrased my question incorrectly and that I should have asked about his involvement. I have repeated the question, which the Taoiseach has transferred. He has discussed the issue with President Buzek of the European Parliament and everyone else——

——but he refuses to discuss it in the House. He transferred it——

That is not true.

I will ask the question again.

Why did the Deputy not ask the question about President Buzek?

What role will the Taoiseach play in preparing for Ireland's Presidency of the EU in 2013? Will he please explain to me how this wording is wrong?

Why did the Deputy not ask whether I had a meeting with President Buzek and what issues we discussed?

I did not refer to the President. I asked about the Taoiseach's role in the planning for our Presidency.

I am telling the Deputy what I discussed with the President.

No. Just two minutes ago, the Taoiseach stated that I should have asked him about his involvement in preparing for the EU Presidency. I have now read what I asked him. He is all over the place on the issue.

It is not beyond the Deputy's ingenuity——

He is bluffing. He does not know what he is going on about.

This coming from the greatest bluffer ever to enter the House.

Will the Taoiseach please explain to me what is wrong about asking him what role he will play in preparing for Ireland's Presidency of the EU in 2013?

Why did he refuse to answer this question and transfer it to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade? He has a role to play in the European Presidency. Does he accept that?

As the former Minister of greatest indecisiveness in the history of the House——

Stick to the issues.

——the Deputy should be embarrassed coming in here. Why did he not table a question to ask whether I had met President Buzek of the European Parliament——

Is the Taoiseach writing our questions for us?

——and whether I would indicate to the House the nature of those discussions?

That is not the issue. The issue is the Taoiseach's role in the EU Presidency.

Yes, that is part of my role.

I call Deputy Adams.

The Taoiseach introduced the other issue as he filibustered. He is avoiding the question.

If Deputy Martin instructs his——

He is transferring every single question to other Ministers. He came to the House today bluffing.

We will revert to this matter.

If the Deputy instructs his researchers to table a range of questions, he will surely get an answer.

Deputy Adams. Order, please.

I am not changing the rules or regulations at the Department of the Taoiseach.

Can the Taoiseach tell me——

Please, Deputy Adams is next. I will revert to Deputy Martin.

I only have one point to make. Why was the question on contacts with Heads of Government transferred to the Minister for Finance? What was wrong with its wording?

What is wrong with tabling a question to confirm my discussions with President Buzek?

Deputy Adams, please.

An absolute bluff. The Taoiseach is smiling up to the press gallery.

I am not smiling up to any gallery.

Order on both sides, please.

That is not subversion of democracy.

It is pathetic. I apologise to Deputy Adams.

Seans ar bith?

Last week it was "subverted" and Deputy Martin walked off the pitch. There have been 260 questions this week so far.

When will we get guidance from the Taoiseach?

Members, please. I call Deputy Adams.

I apologise, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Ba mhaith liom labhairt faoi Cheist Uimh. 4 ar dtús agus ansin, nuair a thabharfaidh an Taoiseach freagra, ba mhaith liom leanúint ar aghaidh le Ceist Uimh. 5. An bhfuil cead agam sin a dhéanamh?

I am trying to be constructive. My two questions that have been lumped into this grouping relate to different subjects.

One asks about the Taoiseach's plans to make the Department accountable to the Houses and I welcome the information he has provided in this respect. The second, which I will address in a moment or two, is on a different issue. It is impossible for me to cram it all in and for the Taoiseach to give me and, therefore, the Oireachtas the information we request.

Regarding the first question, there is frustration with the manner in which some questions are being lumped together. Some of my questions have been disallowed or transferred to other Departments. For example, they related to the Taoiseach's contacts with the social partners, 14-17 Moore Street, his efforts to secure a reduction in the bailout interest rate and the work of Cabinet sub-committees. The latter issue is frustrating, given how Cabinet confidentiality is wrapped around it. We cannot get information about the economic management council. I have also asked about the Taoiseach's work in preparing for trade missions and his contacts with the British Prime Minister on issues such as Sellafield. On some issues he has committed to reverting with answers, but I was not allowed to ask him about those when I tabled this question.

We must find a mechanism to allow more discourse and more light to be shone on matters. Tá a fhios ag an Taoiseach i rith fheachtas an toghcháin, bhí an Taoiseach a rá go raibh sé an-mhacánta faoi rudaí mar sin agus go ndéanfadh sé rudaí i slí difriúil. Could we just discuss this matter for a moment or two? The Taoiseach was a long time in opposition. With respect, it is not good enough to tell us that we are asking the wrong questions or tabling them in the wrong way. Nor is it correct to claim that he is answering all of the questions. He may have given answers, but there is a difference between that and answering questions.

I will not make an issue out of another matter, namely, how the Taoiseach was not present during the last Questions to the Taoiseach. He is fully entitled to delegate to another member of the Government, but there was not even an explanation for his absence. I did not receive satisfactory answers to my questions.

Deputy Martin asked two questions. The first time I took Questions to the Taoiseach, I told Deputy Martin that we should consider ordinary Taoiseach's questions to see how we might get a better system going. I have not changed the rules or regulations on the manner in which questions arrive in my Department. They go through the Ceann Comhairle's office to see if they are in accordance with Standing Orders, then they come to my Department. If the main responsibility rests with another Minister, the question is transferred to there. I recall asking questions of previous taoisigh on many occasions, but there was an endless list of transfers. I have not actually changed that.

Deputy Adams asked two particular questions. First of all, he is aware that the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach over the years has always dealt with issues like the CSO, a number of other administrative areas and so on. That has been the case for many years. Questions put down for oral answer may not seek information that has been provided orally within the Dáil in the previous four months. He could change the wording of a question and table it as a different question on the same subject. Obviously, if an oral question is not reached, it goes down as a written answer.

Deputy Adams has submitted two questions, one of which is on my plans to make my "Department accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas". I answer questions here where they are my responsibility. For instance, Deputy Adams as an elected Member was perfectly entitled to go to and ask any question at the meeting of the Select Sub-Committee on the Department of the Taoiseach at which we had a discussion for more than an hour on the Revised Estimates. I cannot recall whether any member of his party was present, but he is entitled to go to any committee he wishes. As I said in my reply, we had a detailed discussion at the sub-committee on my Department's Revised Estimates, just as any other Minister who goes before such a committee would.

The Taoiseach is filibustering now.

I am not filibustering at all. The Deputy's predecessors in Government gave 15 minute answers that contained nothing but waffle in most cases. We have six questions here now. If I answered each of them individually, Deputy Martin would say I was repeating myself.

Could I deal with my first question first? We could then return to my second question. The Taoiseach is dealing with my second question, which I have not even dealt with yet.

Six questions are being taken together and that is the procedure. I am sure the Taoiseach will answer both questions.

There four questions from Deputy Martin and two from Deputy Adams and they will all be answered.

Has the Taoiseach finished with his previous reply?

If either of the Deputies wishes to make a suggestion, we have six questions today. Would the Deputies prefer they would be answered individually, in which case there would be a discourse about who is first or second as the case might be? There has not been any change; if these questions refer broadly to a sector, that is how they are answered. I am happy to look at the way we deal with replies if Deputies want them dealt with individually or where the subjects are the same, grouped together. There can be up to 20 questions grouped together; Deputy Martin did that when he was in government. When he was Minister for Foreign Affairs he would take questions about everything outside the European Union together.

Not on the Taoiseach's role in it.

The then Taoiseach rarely answered questions.

Deputy Adams has another question.

Deputy Martin rarely answered questions on foreign affairs or health when he did not want. He was afraid to answer questions. He never read the brief either.

I feel I am the third person in this relationship. I am trying to learn how this place works in order, in my humble way, to make it work better.

So far I have failed miserably, although not through lack of effort. The Taoiseach will be pleased to know, however, that I do not intend to give up.

Why is there a 14% increase in salaries, wages and allowances in the Department of the Taoiseach between 2010 and the projected figure for 2011? How many people in the Department are employed on salaries of €100,000 or more? Does the Taoiseach think that is fair in these straitened times?

There is also an increase in the cost of the Moriarty tribunal in 2011. Will that be the last public money spent on that particular tribunal set up to investigate corruption in the State?

The allocation for the Moriarty tribunal is €3.5 million and total expenditure to the end of June 2011 is €1.059 million. Having published its second and final report, the tribunal is currently dealing with the matter of third party costs. It has indicated to the Department that it is not possible at this stage to give any accurate indication of the timescale that might be involved in completing this task but has indicated that it will probably take quite some time. As a result I do not know what the timescale is or what the adjudication will be in respect of those third party costs. I cannot give the House an answer to that question because I do not know the answer until those decisions are made.

I will communicate with the Deputy today, to demonstrate efficiency to him, about the numbers of personnel who might earn over €100,000 per year but I do not have the information here.

My other question was about the increase of 14% in the cost of salaries, wages and allowances in the Department. Why is that?

There are extra costs in the GIS. I do not have the details of the Estimate with me but I will send the Deputy that information. I answered questions on this at the committee meeting I attended last week. I will send the Deputy the details.

The first three of my four questions out of the six relate to parliamentary questions and it is logical that they come together. I am not interested in the groupings; I am more concerned about the nature of the replies we receive here.

I asked in Question No. 1 if the Taoiseach would give a specific list of public affairs connected to his Department and matters of administration for which he is officially responsible. I asked him that question because it is an exact take from Standing Orders on questions to the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach refused to give any specific list on what he is prepared to answer for in the House. Despite all the talk of reform from the Taoiseach, we are in reality witnessing significant steps backwards, even in the reforms coming before us. The Taoiseach has never asked me about Taoiseach's questions; he said that repeatedly for four months in the House but he has never made a single proposal on the conduct of Taoiseach's questions. All that happened in terms of Dáil reform is that the Government Chief Whip met our Whip and said he proposed to give a half hour less time for Taoiseach's questions and that the Taoiseach did not want to answer questions on a Wednesday.

We are here until 1.30 p.m. today.

That is what is in the reform programme. It is less than the position was previously.

It is absolutely unacceptable that the Taoiseach came in here this morning and tried to bluff his way through by saying I should ask the question differently. When I gave the Taoiseach concrete examples of the questions I had tabled and the Taoiseach had transferred, he had no answer. It is completely unacceptable that the Taoiseach would not answer a question on his role in preparing for the EU Presidency in 2013. It is absolutely unacceptable he would transfer questions to him about his contacts with other Heads of State to the Minister for Finance. It is absolutely unacceptable for the Taoiseach to transfer questions about his contacts with Northern Ireland leaders to other Ministers.

On the tribunals, where the Oireachtas is involved in an issue of collective responsibility, it is also unacceptable for the Taoiseach to dodge questions put to him. That is the Taoiseach's track record. It is noticeable that the Taoiseach is breaking with precedent in the questions he is transferring and that he is trying to avoid answering hard questions. The Taoiseach's political advisers have a definitive strategy of transferring all controversial question to other Government Departments. That is unacceptable and undermines the Taoiseach's accountability to this House for matters for which he is accountable under Standing Orders.

I will not take such absolute patent rubbish from Deputy Martin. He did not listen to the answer I gave. I am responsible to this Dáil for the general activities of my Department, and parliamentary questions to me must relate to public affairs connected with my Department or to matters of administration for which I am responsible. That is English and the Deputy should understand it.

There are, however, specific responsibilities undertaken by officials of my Department for which I have no official responsibility, such as decisions made on freedom of information requests — I am telling the Deputy because he does not seem to want to understand — or matters coming under the National Archives Act in respect of the release of files. My responsibilities in European affairs include my participation in meetings of the European Council and other key European summits, as well as bilateral meetings and other foreign visits. That is clear.

Why was that question transferred when the Taoiseach was specifically asked about it?

Questions relating to international agreements and pacts, including those with EU partners and institutions, generally fall for answer by the relevant Minister.

Why did the Taoiseach transfer the question?

I am also accountable to the Dáil in respect of a number of State offices, including the law offices of the State and the Central Statistics Office, although the Minister of State in my Department generally answers questions on statistics. The procedure for dealing with parliamentary questions goes to the Ceann Comhairle.

I know that but they were transferred.

That is not what the Deputy is saying then. I have made it clear the regulations governing this have not been changed by me and I have no intention of changing them. Questions may well be transferred to other Ministers where substantial responsibility rests with them.

No. It is because the Taoiseach chooses not to answer them.

Deputy Martin asks a question about issues regarding Europe and finds they are transferred to another Minister, but I do not see those questions — the ones that have actually come through — until they appear on the Order Paper. I have dealt with 260 of them. Deputy Martin has been asking me questions such as "How long did you meet such a person for?", "What time did the meeting take place at?", or "What were the issues that you discussed?". Why did he not frame his question to say "Will the Taoiseach confirm that he had a meeting with President Jerzy Buzek?" or "Would the Taoiseach confirm that they discussed Ireland's EU Presidency for 2013?"?

Would the Taoiseach stop acting the idiot? No one asked him about that. Come off it.

If the Deputy wants to ask a direct question, please do so. If I were him, however, I would get used to Opposition and I would begin to instruct my officials and researchers to ask a range of questions because he will surely get a hit then.

I asked him about his role in the European Presidency.

It is not a question of subverting democracy.

With all due respect, the Taoiseach is acting the idiot.

While the answers I have given may not contain all the information the Deputy wants, they are a hell of a lot shorter than my predecessor's. I have answered 260 parliamentary questions since the Government was formed.

He is transferring them.

Deputy Adams has not been neglectful of his duties here. He has learned a great deal since he came here and he understands the mechanics of it. On tomorrow's Order of Business a whole raft of changes to the way we do business in the Dáil will be voted through and will become effective from the next session. I hope the Deputy will participate in those debates. If he has any further constructive suggestions, I will be happy to hear from him.

It is a joke and the Taoiseach is smiling because he knows it.

He would make an excellent president.

Is the Deputy making a suggestion?

I am talking about the Irish EU Presidency in 2013.

I have experienced exactly the same frustration as has been expressed by others——

The Deputy has no question in here at all.

——because they all get transferred.

Which ones were transferred?

I put in about six or seven questions last week. The majority of my questions are being transferred.

The Deputy should talk to the Ceann Comhairle about that.

I will give the Taoiseach a few examples.

This is question time.

Yes. Why, for example, when I asked a question as to whether the Taoiseach had met personally with the EU-IMF delegation during their visit, was that transferred? When I asked a question about the Taoiseach's role in the Economic Management Council, that question was ruled as being subject to Cabinet confidentiality. In addition, a document that we got as new Deputies referred to the fact that the Taoiseach was supposed to answer questions on economic and social affairs. However, time and time again, when I table questions on economic affairs, which is the area of most public concern, they are all transferred or disallowed. It is unacceptable for the Taoiseach to say that a question should go to the Minister for Finance, particularly in the current economic climate. The Minister for Finance is up for questioning every four weeks approximately. Given the scale, depth and severity of the economic crisis we are facing, which is a fluid situation that is moving on a daily basis, as public representatives we must have an opportunity to ask the Taoiseach about those developments in our country's economic situation.

While it is absolutely justified and legitimate for the Taoiseach to bat off detailed questions about economics or the country's finances to the relevant Minister, if we are asking questions about how to deal with the broad strategic orientation of our economic and financial policies in relation to the current economic crisis, the Taoiseach should answer those questions instead of batting them off, transferring them or telling us that they are subject to Cabinet confidentiality. Given all the right talk about a new type of Government and politics, transparency and open government, it is not acceptable to have questions on these key issues batted off to some Minister or disallowed on some spurious basis.

I am happy to participate in Leaders' Questions here, morning after morning. I answer questions from Deputy Martin and Deputy Adams about European economic issues and other matters. I love the Deputy's phrase about "broad, strategic orientation". He is a great man for these kind of phrases, but they are meaningless.

They are not meaningless at all.

In respect of the two questions he asked, the first was whether I met the IMF delegation. The Deputy will appreciate from his attendance here that responsibility for these matters was devolved to the Minister for Finance. Obviously, the latter and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform met the IMF-EU-ECB Troika.

I asked if the Taoiseach met them.

That responsibility was devolved to the Ministers to hold that meeting.

So the Taoiseach did not meet them.

As regards the Deputy's second question concerning the Economic Management Council, this is a Cabinet sub-committee. The confidentiality clauses apply to those, as they always have done.

As the Economic Management Council deals with issues that will come before Cabinet, the Deputy himself surely understands, with his broad strategic orientation, that one cannot discuss everything in public before it goes to Cabinet for decision. That is the way democratic governments do their business.

The Taoiseach deliberately excluded it.

One might have an idea that a matter will shortly go to Government, like the question of household charges or water metering, but I am not entitled to divulge that information to the House until the Cabinet decides upon it. Does that answer the Deputy's question?

The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, has told the world.

The Deputy can have all the questions about the broad, strategic orientation that he wants, and I will answer them for him.

I am just wondering if the solution — perhaps my friends could consider this — would be for the Taoiseach to draft our questions as well as the answers. That might get us over this problem.

Do Deputies wish to go on to the next question?

I could draft a few for the Deputy, as well.

I think this is a deliberate attempt to undermine this session of Taoiseach's Questions.

That is absolute rubbish from the Deputy. He has been on about that for the past three weeks — the subversion of democracy and all the rest of it.

As regards the bottom line, let us be clear about the reason I tabled this question.

For a man who did not read his brief and will not accept responsibility, he has a cheek to come in here and say that.

I read it. If the Taoiseach read the Travers report, he would know that what he is saying about that is nonsense. It is typical of the Taoiseach. He does not bother looking at any facts about anything, he just goes on with mantras.

He would not accept responsibility and he never even read the brief.

Deputy Martin is the best hide-and-seek man that ever came into the Dáil.

There were 130 reports, but they were not acted upon. The Deputy is the best manager for indecision ever in the history of the country. The reports were not acted upon.

We need to be clear about one thing: under the doctrine of collective responsibility it has long been the rule of this House that the Taoiseach can answer any questions he wishes.

Of course.

When a question is transferred, it is not because he cannot answer it, it is because he chooses not to do so.

He may answer.

That is what the Taoiseach has been doing to many people on this side of the House. He has refused to answer. He has chosen not to answer and is transferring questions left right and centre. How can he justify not answering questions about his role in the EU Presidency, meeting EU heads of state and Northern Ireland leaders? How can they be transferred? The Taoiseach treats the House with contempt in the sense that he will not even attempt to give any response to the specific positions we put to him. He should talk to his advisers and get it right this time.

The Deputy has gone from the subversion of democracy to contempt for democracy.

The Taoiseach's performance is ridiculous.

One voice, please.

He should be embarrassed to come in here, as someone who commissioned 130 reports at the taxpayers' expense but which were not acted upon.

I was elected to come here.

He is somebody who did not read his brief on an issue costing €1 billion and he would not accept responsibility.

I accepted responsibility.

As somebody who is quite prepared to answer questions, maybe I will take Deputy Adams' suggestion to write a few questions for him and then he might get an answer. I would be happy to comply with his request.

We just want the answers.

If Deputy Martin and all his researchers are unable to put down questions that will get through the Standing Orders' requirement and the non-transfer rule, I will be happy to answer them for him, fully, completely and comprehensively — hard or easy.

Like hell he would. This is filibustering. The Taoiseach is laughable and pathetic.

Time is almost up.

I had a question about the Economic Management Council refused on the basis of Cabinet confidentiality.

I then asked what areas were subject to Cabinet confidentiality and I was told that was subject to Cabinet confidentiality. This is just bizarre.

Can I specifically ask, in the area——

The issues that are subject to Cabinet confidentiality are the issues that are being discussed at Cabinet. Climate change is certainly not an issue of Cabinet confidentiality in so far as we all talk about it as a general theory, but a matter dealing with climate change to be decided by the Cabinet will be subject to confidentiality until it is decided.

Okay. I have made my point, but the Taoiseach did not answer the other question I asked.

Will the Deputy accept the answer to the first question?

I am getting nowhere on that. A document given to us stated the Taoiseach would answer questions on economic and social affairs. Given the severity of the economic crisis and the concern we all have with economic and social affairs, it is not good enough to have questions in these areas batted off to Ministers who can only be questioned once every four weeks and only then by a kind of lottery. Will the Taoiseach be a bit more generous in answering questions on economic and social affairs as they are so important?

That means the Deputy sits over there every morning and does not listen. There is notice given on the Order Paper when questions are submitted. I come in here every Tuesday and Wednesday and answer questions from the leaders about banks and water metering, and I answer questions from Deputy Higgins about economic and social affairs. In so far as my responsibility as Taoiseach goes in chairing a number of Cabinet sub-committees, the issues under discussion for recommendation to the Cabinet for decision are subject to Cabinet confidentiality. When the decisions are made, Members are quite free to discuss them openly and with responsibility in here, including matters such as household charges and water metering. When they are decided by the Cabinet, as they will be, we can then discuss them quite openly without any fear of restriction. Do I make myself clear? The Deputy will get a lot of information and a lot of answers to many questions, and he will be a very happy little boy.

Barr
Roinn