Michael Moynihan
Ceist:1. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken with or met a person (details supplied). [19994/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraTaoiseach's Meetings and Engagements
Ceisteanna (1)
Freagraí ó Béal (27 píosaí cainte)
My office contacted Vicky Phelan to offer a meeting with her. Ms Phelan has agreed to meet me at a date that is convenient for her. She is in regular contact, however, with the Minister, Deputy Harris.
Our priority and focus remains on getting to the truth of what happened through the Scally inquiry, ensuring that women who have been affected are contacted and engaged, rebuilding confidence in the life-saving CervicalCheck screening programme and carrying out individual case reviews of all 209 women who formed part of the audit to assess their smear tests and determine the impact that the alternative reading had on their diagnosis and treatment.
The Government has agreed a comprehensive package of health and social care measures to assist the 209 women, and their families, who have been diagnosed with cervical cancer and whose audit result differed from their original smear test.
The Government has also announced that the State Claims Agency is advancing a new initiative aimed at expediting resolution of the outstanding legal cases in a sensitive manner utilising mediation wherever possible and wherever agreed.
The impact on these women and their families of the failure of disclosure, transparency and sharing of information has been devastating, and has added to the distress and huge difficulty they are already experiencing as a result of their cancer diagnosis. The package of supports cannot undo the hurt caused, but will at least ensure their health and social care needs will be met. Women and families will be offered support through counselling and practical assistance with costs such as childcare and travel and also access to clinical trials and experimental medicines.
The National Cancer Screening Service is writing to the 209 women, or their next of kin, apologising for failures in relation to disclosure and setting out the actions being taken to deal with the issues identified.
The Minister, Deputy Harris, has also asked the HSE to introduce human papilloma virus, HPV, testing as the primary screening method for prevention of cervical cancer as soon as possible. Like all screening tests it is a screening test, it will not be individually diagnostic and it will produce false negatives and false positives. It is, however, more accurate than the current test and we will be one of the first countries in the world to introduce it.
The Government has also agreed to the proposal of the Minister, Deputy Harris, to establish an independent board for the HSE to strengthen the management, governance and accountability of the organisation. The general scheme of the Bill has been published. The board, with strong competencies across key areas, will be accountable to the Minister for the performance of its functions.
First, I wish to say again that if it was not for Vicky Phelan we would know nothing about any of this. Given all the documentation that has emerged through the various committees of this House, both the Committee of Public Accounts and the Joint Committee on Health, and that has come into the public domain, it is quite an extraordinary fact that if it was not for Vicky Phelan's decision to reject any suggestion of non-disclosure of her settlement, we would not be here discussing this matter. That needs to be reflected on regarding the health of our public services in terms of disclosure and revealing issues of public interest, in particular ensuring disclosure to patients generally in our health service and, in this context, to women who were the victims of non-disclosure of false negatives and wrong results in terms of cervical cancer.
What I find quite striking is the very significant degree of correspondence between doctors, people in CervicalCheck and chief executive officers, CEOs, such as the CEO of the mid-western health group, the numbers of people involved in the Department of Health, HSE leadership and CervicalCheck itself yet it did not get to any policy level in terms of someone shouting "stop" and saying that we have a clear policy of open disclosure here and should disclose to the women concerned. During Leaders' Questions last week, the Taoiseach told me he had regular discussions with the director of health and well-being, Dr. Stephanie O'Keeffe. Was the CervicalCheck programme in general raised with him? Were any issues relating to difficulties, challenges or needs involving CervicalCheck raised with him in terms of its ongoing progress? The Taoiseach might indicate to the House whether any such issues were raised with him at any time.
It is extraordinary that after the former Minister, Senator James Reilly, abolished the board of the HSE, it has taken so long to restore it to ensure some degree of governance and accountability on the part of the director to a board nominated externally and not just officials being accountable to officials, which is the current position. I do not know what the former Minister, Senator Reilly, was at.
Most people are still reeling from the sudden revelations that emanated from the aftermath of the very important stance taken by Vicky Phelan and all that has come into the public domain. There will be tiers of questions to be answered but one of the two things that are most urgent and fundamental are that this State would give complete support to those women who are most affected, namely, the 209 women instanced by the Taoiseach. In terms of the package of measures he has talked about that was announced last week, are these measures currently available to these women? If not, when will they be available to them?
Can we give absolute assurance to women who are going for smear tests today, tomorrow and the next day? The Taoiseach again instanced the fact that we will introduce a new screening process, namely, the HPV screening process. Again, can he be specific about when that new test will be introduced? I raised a matter previously that I want to clarify in my own mind so that I understand this. The Taoiseach indicated that the current testing programme has a reliability rate of between 65% and 70%. That came as a surprise to many people. The Taoiseach explained why this is the case and that the new HPV test has 100% accuracy because it tests for the HPV virus but that the virus is the cause of only 70% of cervical cancers. Will the missed rate improve substantially or, as I have read in some publications, will the existing screening continue in parallel with HPV screening to significantly increase the probability of accurate testing of cervical cancer?
Along with others, I acknowledge the bravery of Vicky Phelan, her family and all those who have come forward to tell their stories. It is extraordinary that the chief medical officer was privy to information relating to the audit, the availability of information and the deliberate withholding of information from women and their families but did not share this information with the Taoiseach, who was then Minister for Health, at the very time when both of them were clearly in discussions around the issue of open disclosure and a policy of candour. Can the Taoiseach shed more light on those matters?
Can he also comment on the fact that, as reported in today's newspapers, the author of fairly shocking memos - a senior HSE executive - who actually made a call to withhold information from women and their families has been promoted? The Taoiseach will know that for Vicky Phelan and so many others, accountability is at the root of addressing this scandal. They have been very clear about this.
A story that gave rise to many concerns that appeared on the front of a Sunday newspaper set out a scenario whereby Emma Mhic Mhathúna would be embroiled in a scenario best described as damage limitation. I raise this issue with the Taoiseach not to make any negative assertions against him but because his state of knowledge on those matters or lack thereof needs to be clarified in the Dáil. More specifically, the concerns now involve the Taoiseach as the then Minister for Health, what he did or did not know and the nature of his exchanges with the chief medical officer. If he withheld information from the Taoiseach, has the Taoiseach addressed that issue with him?
Like others, I would like to say how brave people like Vicky Phelan have been in dealing with this and related matters. The Taoiseach spoke about the systems the Government is putting in place, some of which sound fine. However, it is very difficult to understand others unless the Taoiseach is more forthcoming with the details of what the Government is proposing. Does the Taoiseach have clarity at this point about the lines of communications between CervicalCheck and the HSE? In his answer, he alluded to the fact that he now intends to reinstate both the HSE board and regional boards. From some of what the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health have said, my understanding is that these boards will have executive chairpersons. In particular, the HSE will have a high-level executive chairperson. That is a major change. I struggle to understand how the incoming CEO of the HSE, who will obviously be a full-time executive, will deal with that. If there are also to be regional boards, and there is a lot to be said for the regionalisation and localisation of significant elements of the HSE, is the Taoiseach really proposing a whole set of executive chairpersons along with a chief executive and about 30 very senior subordinate executives to the HSE in his plan? Could he share the plan with us? Better still, could he get somebody to draw us a graph of what this proposed structure will look like? From my experience of structures, it seems that the Taoiseach is almost overreacting with a top-heavy structure that will be almost impossible to operate. The leadership issue relating to motivating the staff in the HSE seems to be entirely absent.
If we do not give the Taoiseach time, he will not be able to draw any graphs for us and he certainly will not be able to tell us what he is proposing to do.
What Deputy Micheál Martin said is quite correct. Were it not for Vicky Phelan's strength and bravery in refusing to agree to a confidentiality clause, we would not know what we now know. Once again, I wish to put on the record that the State Claims Agency and the State did not request that. In fact, they counselled against that being done.
I would have met Dr. Stephanie O'Keeffe approximately every two months when I met the directorate. Certainly, any conversations we had on CervicalCheck were not about the audit or the issue of non-disclosure. They would have been about the functioning of BreastCheck, CervicalCheck and BowelScreen, which was relatively new at the time. The two issues that would largely have arisen would have been whether the targets for participation in BreastCheck, CervicalCheck and BowelScreen were being met because we were always very keen to ensure people were participating in those screening programmes. The big job of work that was being done was extending BreastCheck to an older cohort of women. That was one of the main projects about which I would have spoken to her frequently. There were other issues of public health relating to anti-smoking campaigns and so on. Those would have been the main areas on which we interacted.
Deputy Howlin asked me about the package of supports being offered to the 209 women and their families. Public health nurses are visiting each of the women or their next of kin individually, trying to prepare an individualised package. I am sure the Deputy has spoken to some of the people affected and all of those involved have different needs in light of their circumstances. Individual meetings are happening with public health nurses - in people's homes, sometimes in a hotel and sometimes in an office or a hospital. That is ongoing. I am not sure if everyone involved has had such a meeting but many did so last week and many will this week as well. Those packages are being put in place.
Up to now, the plan was to introduce the new test in October. Given the change of personnel and the disruption to CervicalCheck, it is still anticipated that the October target will be met. However, it will be more difficult now given that there is no clinical director and so on. However, it is still intended that it be introduced in October. It will require tendering for labs and for virology for example.
Does that mean it will be delayed?
October remains the target date.
Deputy Howlin asked some very valid questions about the science of the new test. I am reluctant to answer those questions. It can be dangerous to know something about something, because one may answer-----
I raised it the last day and the Taoiseach did not get a chance to answer it.
I am reluctant to answer for those reasons. However, I know that, since 2015, HPV testing has already been introduced in circumstances where a low-grade or high-grade abnormality is identified. The plan now is to move to primary screening whereby the test is done for HPV first and cytology later. At least that is my understanding, but I would be afraid to answer that question in too much detail without knowing what is involved.
The patient-safety package was published in October or November 2015 at the patient safety conference, which, if I recall correctly, was held in Dublin Castle. Any discussions I had with the CMO about the form of open disclosure we would select happened in 2015 before the publication of that package and many months before the first memo on the CervicalCheck audit arrived in the Department of Health, which was in March 2016. I believe the first memo arrived on 29 March 2016. I ceased to be Minister for Health in the first week of May 2016. Hence, there was a period of about five weeks during which I could have been informed and there was an opportunity to do it. There was a significant issues paper and a MinMAC meeting in that five-week period. As the former Minister of State, Kathleen Lynch, who was present and received those papers, can attest, it was not in the significant issues paper or raised at that MinMAC meeting. During that period, however, the audit was still under way. Perhaps this explains why that was the case.
It is proposed that the HSE board will have between nine and 12 members. There will be a CEO - the director general post will evolve into the role of CEO - and there will be a chair. I can understand some of the confusion on that. I know that in past cases, for example, that relating to CIÉ, there was an executive chair who was effectively the chair and the CEO. That is not intended in this case. There will be a CEO. The chair will not be a member of the executive, but will have an enhanced role. Rather than being a chair who attends monthly meetings, the person appointed will have a greater involvement and will be asked to devote one day or two days a week to the job. Given the size of the organisation - 110,000 employees and a €16 billion budget - it would be more appropriate to have a chair who puts in a day or two a week and that is what is intended.
Deputy Burton asked about the regional boards. To a certain extent, they exist already. The hospital groups all have boards and these have been populated. However, they do not exist on a statutory footing. The plan, in line with what is proposed in the Sláintecare report, is to bring the hospital groups and the community health organisations together into a single combined hospital group.
To re-rationalise them.
I thank the Taoiseach. We need to move on.
Each of those will have its own board.
We need that graph.
That will all be graphed and mapped out in the Sláintecare implementation plan, which, I anticipate, will be published certainly before the summer recess.
The Taoiseach did not answer my questions.
Which one?
I would need another seven or eight minutes to answer all the questions.
I raised the matter of the HSE executive - the promotion.
I have not read that story.
The Taoiseach is not aware.
I also raised the Sunday newspaper story about Emma Mhic Mhathúna.
I answered that in Monday's newspapers.
This is the Dáil.
This is the Dáil and this is where the Taoiseach is supposed to-----
Question No. 2 is in the name of Deputy Burton. For this question, we will only have about ten minutes if that is okay.
Northern Ireland
Ceisteanna (2)
Joan Burton
Ceist:2. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach the division of responsibilities between his Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in respect of Northern Ireland affairs and the restoration of power-sharing at Stormont. [20058/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (13 píosaí cainte)
As the Deputy would expect, there is close co-operation between my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which has primary responsibility for matters relating to Northern Ireland, North-South co-operation and British-Irish relations. Officials from the two Departments work very closely together across the range of issues relating to Northern Ireland and British-Irish affairs.
Within my Department, the Northern Ireland section supports me, in my role as Taoiseach, on Northern Ireland matters. It supports me in my contacts with the British Prime Minister in the context of the role of the two Governments as co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement and in the ongoing efforts to secure the restoration of the institutions under the agreement.
It also assists me with my participation in key institutions of the Good Friday Agreement, such as the North-South Ministerial Council, when operational, and the British-Irish Council and in other aspects of cross-Border engagement and co-operation.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has the lead role in respect of the day-to-day interaction with the Northern Ireland institutions, when they are operating, the Northern Ireland political parties and the Northern Ireland Office. As part of this role, that Department provides staff and funding to the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference secretariat in Belfast and the North-South Ministerial Council joint secretariat in Armagh.
The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and his staff are also in regular contact with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the main political parties in Northern Ireland regarding matters of concern to the Irish Government, including issues relating to the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent agreements, talks on the restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive and, of course, Brexit.
As I am sure the Taoiseach is aware, yesterday four of the party leaders in the North - Michelle O'Neill of Sinn Féin, Colum Eastwood of the SDLP, Naomi Long of the Alliance Party and Stephen Agnew of the Green Party - issued a statement recognising that the North should remain in the Single Market and the customs union. That was agreed by all four.
Over the weekend and in recent days there has been a flurry of senior British Tory politicians not only commenting on what would happen with North-South issues and the island of Ireland, but also visiting the North. In particular, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mrs. Bradley, is apparently testing how maximum facilitation, or max fac, can be made to work and whether it can be made to work for Northern Ireland. I welcome that the Taoiseach was very clear last week that he was standing by the backstop and that max fac was very unlikely to offer anything much in the case of Northern Ireland or indeed the island of Ireland. We also had statements from and visits by people such as the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, David Davis, and the UK Business Secretary, who are also exploring the technological solution for the Border.
Obviously, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade would have considerable detailed contact, particularly with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but also with other line Ministers. Are they really getting the Government's message to the effect that as far as people are concerned-----
All right.
-----here in the Republic and in the North from the statement of the four party leaders-----
I thank the Deputy. We must finish.
-----there is no appetite for technological solutions of any kind because it does not appear that they can be made to work and that, in any event, they would entail the reintroduction of some form of hard border which, as the Taoiseach has said - we all agree with him on this - we do not want?
I will give all the Members one minute for supplementary questions.
I will take half a minute.
That is even better.
I have one question. The absence of power-sharing in Northern Ireland is a real problem for all of us. It seems to have disappeared entirely from the political discourse right now. Specifically, are there ongoing initiatives to seek to restore the power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland?
I too invite the Taoiseach to make a response to the joint statement from Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the Green Party. It sets out clearly the majority view of people in the North that the island would remain in its totality within the customs union and the Single Market, and goes further in that Britain might also remain within those arrangements. It also makes clear that the backstop as agreed last December represents a minimum bottom line. I think this brings a level of clarity, particularly in circumstances where we see that recent polling data suggest sentiment in the North of Ireland to remain has increased quite dramatically since the Brexit referendum. A response to that from the Taoiseach, as Head of Government, would be welcome.
What progress has been made in respect of the calling of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference? To answer Deputy Burton, we reckon it is the best mechanism available to us at this stage to kick-start that very pathway back to the power-sharing institutions.
Has the Government made a decision in respect of appealing the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights regarding the hooded men? As the Taoiseach knows, the appeal must be made before 18 June, so time is running out.
It is clear to me that the elephant in the room in terms of Northern Ireland and Brexit is the absence of an Executive and an Assembly. There is a lot of hype and rhetoric about regulatory alignment with regard to the customs union, being part of the Single Market and all of that. However, it is extraordinary, given the grave threat that Brexit represents to the island, particularly to Northern Ireland's economy, and notwithstanding all of the huge difficulties we had in the past that we were able to surmount, in terms of the establishment of the Executive and the Assembly, that we cannot do the same now and that the parties concerned do not see the urgency and necessity for this. Given everything that Brexit represents, the parties concerned need to come together without conditions at this stage to re-establish the Executive and the Assembly and at least have a legal parliamentary and governmental framework to shape Brexit for Northern Ireland. Opinion polls will not shape Northern Ireland's fate in the context of Brexit but an Assembly and an Executive could have a far more effective capacity and influence in shaping Brexit. Look at what the Scottish Parliament has done by voting against the wishes of the British Government and nailing its colours to the mast as to what it wants. There are regular meetings of the Brexit Ministers in Scotland and Wales with the Brexit Secretary but there is a complete absence of this in Northern Ireland.
First, I strongly and warmly welcome the statement by the four parties in Northern Ireland - the Alliance Party, the SDLP, Sinn Féin and the Green Party - expressing their view that they want Northern Ireland to stay within the structures of the Single Market and the customs union, and presumably to remain part of the European Economic Area. I am conscious of the fact that, when we add those parties together, they make up the majority of people elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly, so I think it is a very significant statement and a very welcome one from those four parties.
I have also seen the Queen's University Belfast opinion poll, which very clearly indicates what the people of Northern Ireland want, what their wishes are and what they would like to consent to. It shows well over 60% of people in Northern Ireland still wanting to remain in the European Union and very much the majority of people from both communities - the Catholic and nationalist community and the Protestant and unionist community - expressing their strong view that they want to remain within the European Union, the Single Market and the customs union. I really hope and trust that the UK Government will take into account the wishes of people in Northern Ireland over the next couple of months.
There is a lot of ongoing contact, as Deputies would expect. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade is in regular contact with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister for the Cabinet Office, David Lidington. I met Prime Minister May just last week. Once again, I want to say that the Government and I, as Taoiseach, stand by the political agreement that was made in December and we expect it to be honoured in full by the UK Government. We also stand by and continue to support the text of the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland-Ireland protocol, which was published in March. The task force and the other 27 member states absolutely stand by that as well. I look forward to welcoming the Prime Minister of Belgium, who will be visiting this week, and I will talk to him a little more about that. At least until such time as somebody puts forward an alternative that is as good as, or better than, the backstop, we will be insisting that it be part of the withdrawal agreement and there can be no withdrawal agreement without us being satisfied that that is the case.
In regard to efforts to assist the parties in Northern Ireland to re-establish the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement, that work is ongoing. Prime Minister May and I discussed that in Sofia and, again, the Tánaiste is working with Secretary of State Bradley and David Lidington, on what we can do, as Governments, to encourage the DUP and Sinn Féin to set aside their differences. Rhetoric is cheap, compromise is not. Deputy Micheál Martin is correct that the best thing that Sinn Féin and all the parties that have representation in Northern Ireland can do now is to get the Assembly up and running and get the Executive functioning. What would be much stronger than a statement from the four parties would be a vote by the Assembly to say what was said in that statement but with the Assembly not meeting, it is not able to do that. This means people in Northern Ireland are at a disadvantage compared with people in Scotland, for example, where the Parliament is meeting and passing resolutions and where the Government in Scotland is speaking up for its people, with the authority of Government, not just one party.
Estimates Process
Ceisteanna (3, 4, 5)
Brendan Howlin
Ceist:3. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the Revised Estimate for his Department. [20129/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraMary Lou McDonald
Ceist:4. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the Revised Estimate for his Department. [20958/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraJoan Burton
Ceist:5. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the Revised Estimate for his Department. [21114/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (10 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, together.
At the end of April, a further Revised Estimate for my Department was voted through the House. This further Revised Estimate reduced my Department's 2018 net budget allocation by €2.5 million, from €35.89 million to €33.39 million. My Department's original Revised Estimate showed a net reduction of 2% on 2017. This further Revised Estimate brings the total reduction to 9%, or €3.3 million year on year. The budget reduction followed the decision by the Government to wind down the strategic communications unit on foot of a comprehensive review of the operation of the unit, which was completed by the Secretary General to the Government.
The primary role of my Department is to support me in my executive functions as Taoiseach, to support the Government and to oversee implementation of the programme for Government. It also supports the four Ministers of State assigned to the Department: the Government Chief Whip; the Minister of State with responsibility for defence; the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs; and the Minister of State with responsibility for data protection, who is also assigned to a number of other Departments.
An important part of my Department’s work is providing a secretariat for meetings of the Government and of Cabinet committees. The scope of the committees encompasses the Government’s national priorities and the challenges Ireland faces in the coming years. Cabinet committees A and D address issues relating to economic policy, infrastructure, regional and rural affairs and climate action priorities. These committees provide a focus for advancing Project Ireland 2040 that will sustain and enhance economic growth. The work of Cabinet committee B - social policy and public services - and Cabinet committee E - health - deal with social policy, particularly in the areas of education and health, as well as the public service reform programme. Cabinet committee C deals with EU matters, including playing a significant role in ensuring a co-ordinated approach to all issues arising from the UK decision to leave the European Union. Cabinet committees F and G deal with the issues of national security, justice and equality, including providing a focus for a significant programme of reform for policing in Ireland.
My Department also has a number of other responsibilities, such as State protocol, including commemorations; constitutional issues; relations with the Office of the President; relations with the Oireachtas; the Government Information Service; the National Economic and Social Council; the Creative Ireland programme; the Citizens' Assembly; and the Dublin North East Inner City initiative. In addition, my Department funds a number of inquiries from its Vote, including the Moriarty tribunal, the Cregan commission and the Cooke commission.
My Department's 2018 budget is divided between administration and programme expenditure. The 2018 administration budget for my Department amounts to €22.39 million and is broken down as follows:
|
Pay |
€15.1 million |
|
Travel and Subsistence |
€730,000 |
|
Training and Development and Incidental Expenses |
€4.46 million |
|
Postal and Telecommunications |
€360,000 |
|
Office Equipment and External IT Services |
€1.41 million |
|
Office Premises Expenses |
€316,000 |
|
Consultancy Services and Value for Money Policy Reviews |
€18,000 |
The 2018 programme budget for my Department amounts to €11.87 million and is broken down as follows:
|
National Economic and Social Council |
€2.05 million |
|
Tribunals of Inquiry |
€4.5 million |
|
Commissions of Investigation |
€4.7 million |
|
Citizens' Assembly |
€609,000 |
My Department has also budgeted for appropriations-in-aid of €872,000 in 2018.
It is a good job that not all Deputies are present or the Taoiseach would be asked for his biscuit allocation for the year. I note that the revised voted funding allocation to the strategic communications unit, SCU, for this year has been reduced by €2.5 million to a sum of €2.25 million. I understand that €2.2 million of that sum had already been spent. Is there no money left for a residual communications unit? I understood that it would carry on in some shape or form but there is no budget allocation balancing for any of it. Is that what the Taoiseach is telling us?
What is the status of the proposed market research that we have asked about on a couple of occasions? The Taoiseach's previous reply was that he would continue with that but only after consultation with party leaders in the House. Is that continuing and when will it take place? This is the third time I have asked this during Questions to the Taoiseach.
When does the Taoiseach expect the new national digital strategy to be published? That is an extremely important issue and it is timely that we debate it. The Taoiseach said in his statement to the Oireachtas Select Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure, Reform and Taoiseach that the successful organisation of the forthcoming papal visit is a significant objective of his Department. As the papal visit approaches, what specifically will the Department do to support the visit in terms of money, resources and how does he see that panning out?
The budget for the Department of the Taoiseach is revised downwards from €35.891 million to €33.391 million, a 9% reduction. Only when we consider the bigger figures do we fully realise the significance of the €5 million SCU figure. That would have represented something like 15% of the Estimate for the Department, so the Taoiseach obviously attached very considerable weight to that initiative.
When we have asked about the unit, its disbandment and the report spearheaded by the Secretary General of the Department, each of us in turn has asked about the market research. The Taoiseach said there would be consultation with Opposition parties. That has not happened. Can he make clear for us today what is the status of that market research, what form the consultation with other parties will take and when that will happen?
What is the status of the development of the brand "The Government of Ireland" to which a great deal of money was allocated in the previous communications programme? How is it attached to the activities of the Government? I hear on broadcast media regular advertisements for a consultation or an event, involving, for example, people who have been in mother and baby homes and asking them to register for such a meeting. The branding for that is not, as one might have thought, the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. It is the Government of Ireland. Who is paying for that advertising? Is it coming out of the money already allocated to the Department of the Taoiseach or is it from the Department of Children and Youth Affairs although under the brand of the Government of Ireland? It is important for people when public announcements are made at some cost to be able to follow who exactly is inviting them to what. It seems the Government of Ireland is inviting them to something but it is not very specific.
I welcome the reduction in respect of the SCU because what was going on there was wrong and its parent was the Creative Ireland initiative. Through freedom of information, FOI, requests we came across evidence that the then Minister was making decisions as to which newspaper would be allocated what. The Minister made a decision on the allocation of public moneys to newspapers. I have the response to the FOI request and can show it to the Taoiseach. That is a dangerous precedent and one that is open to abuse. For that reason I welcome what has transpired.
The market research was originally identified by the Taoiseach as a basis for the decisions that the SCU would take, to follow what the public had identified, through the market research, as areas where Departments were deficient in communicating with it. However, €2.2 million was spent well in advance of any research being done based on the political objectives and priorities of the Government, not on the market research. I look forward to a meeting to discuss this market research which we have heard about for a year. Perhaps on the anniversary of the market research we might get a consultation.
There is probably only a few hundred thousand left of the original allocation to the SCU apart from what has been allocated or committed already. Deputy Howlin is right to identify that point. The budget was originally to be €5 million but it has been cut in half because the unit is being wound down and will cease to exist in approximately two months' time.
Behaviour and Attitudes already has the contract for the citizens' survey but it has been delayed for quite some time. It has not been a priority with all the other things that are going on. I was consulted on the questions for the first time this week.
What is the point of coming to us then?
It is now intended to consult the other party leaders on those questions in the next few weeks.
The contract has been awarded to Behaviour and Attitudes.
It is a survey that is designed to assess citizens' awareness of Departments and agencies, and what they do, their satisfaction with them and what improvements they would like to see. I look forward to the input of party leaders in suggesting additional questions or amending some of the questions. The outcome will be published for everyone to see. It will be repeated over time to see if there has been a change in public perceptions of Government agencies and bodies and so on.
The Department's main involvement in the papal visit will involve the protocol section, which has a specific role in welcoming visiting Heads of State and of Government. The Pope is a visiting Head of State and will be accorded the same courtesy, honours and respect of any visiting Head of State. The protocol section is very involved in helping to coordinate the Government’s response to the visit. It is also proposed that there will be an event in Dublin Castle which will be the main Government aspect of the visit which is principally a pastoral one and it is important to bear that in mind.
The major cost will relate to security and matters such as Garda overtime. That will fall to the Department of Justice and Equality Vote rather than the Department of the Taoiseach Vote.
The Government of Ireland identity or brand is being retained. Among the objectives of the SCU when it was first established was to move away from a Government which is fragmented with many Departments and agencies with their own logos and websites and competing identities and very often competing communications budgets towards something streamlined.
The Government of Ireland identity remains in place, as does the basic harp logo with the green background. That will apply to any Government policy, programme or initiative that is being promoted or communicated. To the best of my knowledge, the mother and baby home consultation advertising is being paid for by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. That is going to be the case in the future. There will not be significant communications or advertising budgets in the Department of the Taoiseach. Spending will be done by line Departments and agencies. The co-ordinating role in the Government Information Service, GIS, however, will remain.