Micheál Martin
Ceist:1. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the number of staff within his Department who have decided to return to work after their official retirement date. [6005/18]
Priority Questions
Departmental Staff Data
Mary Lou McDonald
Ceist:2. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach his plans in respect of staffing levels in his Department for 2018. [6900/18]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The role of my Department is to support my work as Taoiseach and to co-ordinate the work of the Government and Cabinet. My Department uses workforce planning and succession planning to ensure that there are sufficient staffing resources in place to deliver the Department's strategic goals. With the exception of politically appointed staff such as special advisers, staff assignments, appointments and recruitment in my Department are dealt with by the Secretary General and the senior management of the Department. There are currently 206.1 whole-time equivalent staff employed in my Department. I am dying to know who the 0.1 is. Perhaps there is a 0.6 and a 0.5, together leaving a 0.1 over. I do not know. There are no staff currently employed by my Department who retired from it and returned to work in it.
In 2016 the then Taoiseach stated that a staffing audit was being carried out in the Department of the Taoiseach. This was in response to questions from me about how the Department was going to undertake a range of challenges, including dealing with Brexit, the ongoing instability in the Northern institutions and the capital plan, which was due to go before a Cabinet committee at that time. The current structures of the Department were put in place before the audit, with the exception of the new marketing unit which was the Taoiseach's idea, although apparently he has no idea what it does for him or for his party. Apparently there are Chinese walls between the two, as we saw at the weekend.
The Taoiseach accepted last week that Michel Barnier, Commissioner Hogan and others are right when they say that the current state of Brexit negotiations is potentially not good news for Ireland. The Taoiseach appears now to accept what we have been saying for nearly a year and a half, which is that a deal specific to Ireland is likely to be the only way to protect the interests of all parts of this island. The issue is now whether there are enough staff with the requisite expertise working on developing proposals for some form of Ireland-specific deal.
I know the Taoiseach wants the British to stay in the Single Market and the customs union but that is not happening. Every speech from every senior Tory Minister indicates that they want to be outside the customs union and the Single Market. Will the Taoiseach say whether he is confident that he has enough staff working on alternative proposals? Has he invited any expert submissions on this issue? Does the Taoiseach have any intention of holding substantive consultations on these alternatives? It is very worrying, for example, that so many small and medium enterprises have made no preparations for Brexit at all. That was the quite stunning outcome of a recent survey. I have met representatives of companies that have 60% of their market in Britain. They are not going to be able to turn that market share around quickly by diversifying. There is a real problem down the road with the type of Brexit that the British want. It will be a problem for Irish indigenous industry along the west coast and outside the Dublin region in particular.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Taoiseach as ucht a fhreagra. My question is about his staffing levels. Can I suggest that, as a first step, he round the 0.1 up to a full post? In a similar response given to a similar question which was tabled last month, the Taoiseach said that staff assigned to the international, EU and Northern division in his Department support the Government's efforts to develop strategic alliances. None of us would argue with the absolutely vital nature of this work, particularly in the context of Brexit and a post-Brexit scenario which, as Deputy Martin has described, could potentially be disastrous for Ireland, North and South, and which certainly will be if the Tories have their way.
It was announced last week that the Cabinet had given the Minister for Health approval to open negotiations with Austria and the Benelux countries to secure affordable access to new medicines for Irish patients. Last Tuesday the Taoiseach said that a letter of intent in this regard was sent or was to be sent. Can he confirm that letter has in fact been issued? When is he expecting a reply? Does he envisage a role for his Department in this process? The cost of drugs has been an ongoing issue and any and all steps to address the cost and accessibility of new drugs for patients are welcome, I am sure we all agree the sooner this matter can be advanced, the better.
I thank the Taoiseach for his answer. Has he completed the staffing of the strategic communications unit? The last answer he provided for us said that there were 14 people working in it. Who in that unit, or elsewhere in the Department, is responsible for writing and placing the information advertisements in local papers this week following up on the national development plan? I see there were very colourful pages in the Drogheda Independent. Two full pages were brought to readers by the Government of Ireland. Is that part of the work of the Taoiseach's Department?
A friend of mine went to see "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" over the weekend. Before he could watch the movie he had to endure another billboard - an advertisement for the new national development plan. Apparently this is only the start of it. We are all going to be encouraged, informed and invigorated by advertisements on social media and in our national and local press issued by the Government in respect of the plan. Who writes that content? Is there someone in the Department of the Taoiseach who specifically works on it? What level of input does the Taoiseach have in it? Is it the view of the Taoiseach that it is simply political advertising? Has he had any discussions with the Standards in Public Office Commission in this regard?
My Department is structured around seven main work areas. The breakdown of the staff currently assigned to each of these is as follows: 24.3 staff are assigned to the international, EU and Northern Ireland division. They are the staff who mainly deal with Brexit but obviously they are very much supported by and work very closely with the hundreds of staff who work for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, not just in Dublin but also in Brussels, London and other places. There are 25 staff assigned to the economic division. They deal in part with the economic response to Brexit and the different scenarios that may arise post-Brexit. Again, they do not work on their own but have the support of hundreds of staff in the Departments of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform, which are located just next door. We work across Government. There are 24.2 staff assigned to the secretariat, protocol, general division and the parliamentary liaison unit. There are 13 staff assigned to social policy and the public service reform division. There are 15 staff assigned to the strategic communications unit.
How many?
There are 15. Staffing is complete. I cannot tell Deputies exactly who does what out of those various staff-----
I thought it was meant to be five initially.
It was supposed to be five, yes.
-----but the director, John Concannon, obviously directs the work of the unit.
Does the Taoiseach have any idea what goes on in there?
They do not engage in any political advertising. They have been very clear on that. The Deputy opposite may be particularly interested to know that the last time a national development plan was launched and communicated to the public - it is important that we do tell the public what we as a Government are doing - was in 2007. At that time, the then Government made a decision to set aside a budget of €1 million in order to communicate to the public-----
It is now five times that amount.
-----the content of the 2007 plan, including for advertising. Interestingly enough, a body called the strategic communication group was established to monitor it all. It was certainly not my idea. I got it from-----
Bertie.
The unit was the Taoiseach's idea. The Taoiseach appointed Mr. Concannon.
I learned from the masters of political communication. That is a strength, not a weakness.
The unit now has 15 permanent staff. That is interesting.
Some 15 permanent staff for branding.
In the area of corporate affairs, there are 27.4 staff. There are 8.1 staff assigned to information and records management. There is no marketing unit at present. The staff of my Department includes services staff and those who are assigned to the private offices, constituency offices, the press office and also internal audit. I think I have enough staff. The staff complement of the Department is approximately 200 but that is a matter for the Secretary General, not me.
I do not have an update on BeNeLuxA, save to say that, last week, the Cabinet gave the Minister for Health permission to issue a letter of intent to the countries involved setting out our intent to work with them and perhaps join that group and to ensure that we can share information and negotiate on the cost of medicines together in order to get a better price for medicines and obtain quicker access to new medicines for Irish patients, which are twin objectives. It may require an international agreement and it is only then that the matter will come back to my office. In the interim, the Minister for Health will be dealing with it.
I went to see "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" at the Lighthouse cinema on Sunday night.
Was there an ad for Ireland 2040?
There was. There were ads for many things.
Who placed that ad?
I imagine that my Department did so. My Department is organising the strategic communications for the Government.
The Taoiseach imagines?
It did; I know it did. I must say there were ads for many other things and it is not unusual for Government agencies and Departments to take out advertising.
Come on.
I was not sure what to make of the film, a Cheann Comhairle.
It was very good.
It was good but it was hard to warm to the heroine at all.
Perhaps we will do the criticism elsewhere.
I was not sure what to make of it. The ad was very good, though.
May I ask a brief supplementary question?
There are a couple of minutes left.
Does the Taoiseach think it is acceptable that there is more staff in the strategic communications unit than in the social policy division? Does that not say it all? Social policy was a very strong part of the Department of the Taoiseach in terms of social partnership but also in the context of the RAPID programme areas and facilitating a cross-cutting role for Government with regard to areas of disadvantage, CLÁR programmes and so on.
Initiatives in the north inner city.
It is quite striking that strategic communications, which is very new and which is now embedded within the Department, is the one initiative the Taoiseach has taken and that it trumps all others in terms of staffing and expertise recruited. Given the enormity of Brexit, it is striking that priority is being give to communications above and beyond anything else. I have seen some of the videos as well. In one, reference was made to approximately six projects that were announced years ago and people were shown claiming credit for the N28 project.
That was a mistake. I also saw that one; it was the N17.
The matter went to an oral planning hearing in the region of six months ago. Site selection and other matters have all been taken care of. Likewise, a dental hospital was mentioned that has nothing to do with the Government. The relevant university hospital got money from the European Investment Bank. People will not be impressed by the idea that we use taxpayers' money to advertise projects that have been well and truly launched and announced, including those relating to schools, various buildings, public private partnerships and so on.
In a recent reply, the Taoiseach said that among the tenders his strategic communications unit has put out is one relating to the development of a Government identity system for roll-out across Government. I thought that the Government had an identity and that this is a democratic republic governed by the Constitution. I do not actually understand the ethical framework relating to this sudden roll-out of a Government identity. I understand that it is "marketing speak", but I think it is unethical.
Branding.
What our Constitution requires is that Ireland be a democratic republic. It is not really for a party that has the responsibility of being in power to roll out a Government identity system. Will there be people or places in our republic that will not meet the criteria relating to this system?
The other matter to which I wish to refer is the provision of marketing pitch specialist services. This would all be understandable in the context of party election campaigns where the aim is to get this or that party into office, either as part of a coalition or on its own. That is what politics is about. However, it is completely different to take the institutions of the State and seek to give them an identity system. What is the ethical framework behind the strategic communications unit and the ads that Deputy Howlin showed?
If Deputy Burton goes on much longer, we will not have time for an answer.
People who read magazines will be familiar with this type of ad. It is called paid information. It is a two-page spread; I am holding it up. The ad is all about Drogheda and it is two pages' worth of paid information. In other words, it is a paid editorial. Everybody in journalism knows what that means; it is one's message that is paid for.
Clearly, the concern is that the strategic communications unit is a propaganda arm-----
-----not of the Government but of the Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, and, indeed, Fine Gael and in terms of their electoral ambitions. The next election will happen whenever those in Fine Gael or their partners in Fianna Fáil deem it most advantageous to go to the people.
Hear, hear.
The Taoiseach might dismiss that. He might say it is simply a part of modernising and professionalising communications. He might even believe that to be the case. There is an ethical consideration, a public interest consideration and a public purse consideration in the expending of public moneys for these advertising exercises. There are, of course, traditional tried and tested ways to roll out things such as large infrastructural development projects and regional plans. I had understood that the floor of the Dáil is the first port of call for doing that-----
Only in law.
-----in order to seek the input and the imprimatur of people who are elected to this House. The latter is also supposed to be sought from those in the Seanad. Clearly, the Taoiseach sees matters differently. I imagine that this will be a source of controversy and disquiet across the Dáil. The bottom line is that people believe the Taoiseach is being a bit chancy with all of this and that public moneys are being expended, not in the interests of professionalism but, rather, squarely in the interests of Deputy Varadkar and Fine Gael.
I invite the Taoiseach to deal with those questions.
I deal with questions like this almost every week. I have said many times that I believe communication is important. It is important that people know what the Government is actually doing on their behalf and how taxpayers' money is being spent. I often hear that the Government does not get its message across. It is important that the Government gets its message across and I intend to make sure that happens.
In terms of the framework and the operating principles, which I imagine cover ethics, I am advised that the operating principles as approved by Government are that the output is characterised by accuracy, truth and quality; that the priority is to simplify communications, with citizens at the centre; that the organisation structure will be built around actual work; that the focus will be on incremental delivery of work at speed; and that teams across Government will be empowered. The unit will carry out its work objectively and without bias and will operate in accordance with the Civil Service code of standards and behaviour, which is published by the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO-----
Does that mean that Deputy Ross gets a fair shot?
-----and will adhere to Civil Service values as delineated by the Civil Service renewal plan and therefore it cannot carry out any party-political work. I can assure Deputies that will be the case.
In terms of the dental hospital, as was the case with this national development plan, NDP, and previous NDPs, it includes Exchequer capital spend and also capital spend by semi-State bodies and other public bodies.
It was announced by the previous president of University College Cork, UCC. This is extraordinary.
It includes the universities. It is not the case that the European Investment Bank has nothing to do with the Government.
There are six projects in that video that have been announced already.
A governor of the EIB is appointed by the Government, and EIB is also-----
I might mention the Dunkettle interchange.
-----capitalised by the Government.
In terms of the identity piece, I do not know the details on that but I understand that it may relate to an attempt to pull together the different ways in which we market Ireland abroad. Tourism Ireland, the IDA, Enterprise Ireland and Bord Bia all have different messages.
It is more domestic than foreign.
It might make sense, particularly in the run up to the St. Patrick's Day period and all of the business that Ministers and others will undertake during that period, that we try to have a common brand or picture of Ireland. Other countries have done it. New Zealand has done it very successfully, without having seven or eight different agencies telling a different story about the country but by having a common unified-----
In fairness it is the Minister in the centre, not the citizens.
-----message. I advise Deputies, if they want to move beyond point-scoring, to have a look at what New Zealand did in terms of creating a common identity.
Perhaps the Taoiseach could arrange a briefing for all of us.
If the Deputy would like I can arrange that.
It might be the making of the unit.
Deputies should give the Taoiseach a chance to respond to their questions.
Seanad Reform
Micheál Martin
Ceist:3. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his address to Seanad Éireann and the new Seanad reform group. [6006/18]
Mary Lou McDonald
Ceist:4. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent address to Seanad Éireann; and his plans for Seanad reform. [6901/18]
Brendan Howlin
Ceist:5. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his address to Seanad Éireann and the proposals for Seanad reform. [7270/18]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 together.
As I outlined in my recent speech to Seanad Éireann, I have decided that an implementation group on Seanad reform should be established with an eight month mandate to consider the Manning report and develop specific proposals to legislate for Seanad reform.
I propose that the implementation group comprise Members of the Oireachtas with the assistance of outside experts, as appropriate, including the franchise section of the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government.
I believe it is important that all groups in the Oireachtas are represented on the implementation group and also that it is representative, although this will make it quite large.
I will be writing shortly to party and group leaders inviting them to nominate members to the group.
The Taoiseach will accept that there is universal frustration in the House at how often promises of genuine consultations are not followed up on and it has taken some time to get this off the ground. I have consulted with the Taoiseach on this issue and I believe it is important that we get onto the implementation of the Manning report and ensure we have an outcome. I know the Taoiseach himself has not been a convert to the recommendations of the Manning report, but it is in the programme for Government, which makes it clear that it is to be implemented.
Can the Taoiseach outline why, in his speech to the Seanad, he did not outline the name of the potential chair of this group? I am of a view that it has to be someone substantive, with authority and with the commitment to implement the Manning report and who will get the job done. My understanding is that the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, has objections to a certain individual who was put forward for the role. I regret to have heard that. We should proceed with someone who is independent, is genuinely committed to Seanad reform and can see this through.
I noted the absence of a nominee for chair of the group in his Seanad speech and I would appreciate if he could clarify the reasons for that this afternoon.
There is a level of public and political cynicism around the whole area of Seanad reform. It must be one of the most talked-about political phenomena of our time, alongside the roll-out of broadband. It is endlessly rehearsed, yet it never happens. I note the Taoiseach's stated intention to the Seanad to establish this committee and for it to have an eight month mandate. The Taoiseach might consider narrowing that down to six months, simply in recognition of the tardiness in establishing this mechanism to consider the Manning report. Having said that, I believe that the committee is probably the way to proceed and we support that.
I would appreciate if the Taoiseach could confirm for us whether he was due to announce that Senator McDowell would act as chairperson of the committee and whether that in fact was vetoed by Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross. If that was the turn of events, who does the Taoiseach propose will chair this committee?
The Taoiseach also said that we should elect Senators from the North, from both nationalist and unionist communities, so that the Seanad has an all-island dimension. I very much support that statement. I believe the Seanad can be a really powerful vehicle for Northern participation in the Oireachtas. Let me emphasise that I mean a balanced participation from both nationalism and unionism. The Taoiseach did not elaborate much on this issue. I wonder if he might now discuss it further.
The Manning report recommends extending the franchise to all citizens resident in the North as well as the diaspora. The report further states that there is no constitutional impediment to doing so and that the Oireachtas can confer the right to register to vote in Seanad elections on Irish citizens living in the North and to Irish passport holders living overseas. The Taoiseach has said that he does not support all of the Manning report recommendations. Does he support the recommendation to extend the franchise to citizens in the North and to the diaspora and will he commit to legislating for this in the time ahead?
There is an element of Groundhog Day when we talk about reforming the Seanad. It is the equivalent of restoring the Irish language and draining the Shannon: an object that will always be with us. I know the Taoiseach had a jaundiced view about the Manning report. He previous told us to write to each of the party leaders to seek a nomination to serve on an implementation body. Is this panel to be established going to implement the Manning report faithfully or is it to investigate whether it is fit for purpose now? Will the Taoiseach be making his own submissions and having his own input into that? Will he have his own nominee on the panel?
On the issue of votes for all Irish citizens, either in the Irish diaspora or in Northern Ireland, would the Taoiseach consider a separate panel to look at that? I remember looking at this issue many years ago when I was Minister for the Environment, because at that stage there was talk of having a universal vote across the world for a panel of members elected to the Seanad. The issues are formidable, in terms of getting registration, so it might be more effective if there was a working group looking at that issue separately from the balance of the proposals in the Manning report. I am interested in hearing the Taoiseach's views.
On the issue of the chairmanship, the chair has not been nominated as yet. The matter is still under consideration. I am not entirely sure if it necessarily falls to me to appoint a chair.
It is possible that the committee could elect its own chair, but-----
There was a view that Senator McDowell would be the chair.
I know he is the favourite candidate of the Fianna Fáil Party. I do not know what the view is of Labour or Sinn Féin-----
We were not asked.
I thought the Taoiseach had agreed it.
-----but I do agree that whoever it is should be independent of Government, genuinely committed to Seanad reform and capable of bringing it through, so I agree with Deputy Martin's sentiments.
It is true that I have reservations about the Manning report - I have not made a secret of that - regarding the cost and also the practicability of implementing it. If implemented, it would require everyone to re-register to vote not for the Dáil, but for the Seanad. It would also require people to register to vote on a particular panel, and they will have a choice of one of five panels plus universities. I believe that could cause a degree of confusion. As the Constitution requires it, the election, when held, will have to be a postal vote. It is a requirement in the Constitution that elections to the Seanad can only be held by postal vote. That is the reason we go through this very strange ritual where we fill in the ballot papers in here and then go to the post office to post them back to here. That would have to be done not just on that scale but potentially on an international scale, so the election potentially could cost €50 million, €60 million, €70 million or €80 million. Who knows? Frankly, I have reservations about some of these matters, but it is in the programme for Government. I am bound by the programme for Government and therefore we will press ahead with it in full.
In the sure knowledge that it will never happen.
It is not another committee to examine the recommendations again.
Where is the strategic communications unit now?
It is a working group to implement the many recommendations, not to reconsider them. I want to be very clear about that.
We cannot understand the communication. I think we need the strategic communications unit to explain to us what the Taoiseach is saying-----
Deputy, can we let the Taoiseach respond?
-----because we do not understand it.
He is saying it is hogwash, but he has to do a bit of it.
I am saying exactly what I am saying. I am fairly clear and blunt in the contributions I make in this House. I have reservations about it. I have doubts. I told the Deputy what they are, but I know it is a commitment in the programme for Government. Therefore, I am bound by it, and we are gong to go ahead with it.
Who put it in the programme for Government?
That is what is going to happen.
It is a hogwash-----
It is a contradictory message.
The group is being set up not to look at it again, but to implement it, and that is what will happen. If other people do not have reservations, that is fine, but I want to put mine on the record now. I assume that if others do not have reservations, they are happy that no problems will arise in implementation.
In terms of broadband, when we talk about broadband it is important to acknowledge that when this Government comprising Fine Gael, the Independent Alliance and Independents came into office in May 2011, only about 50% of the homes, businesses and farms in this country had access to high speed broadband.
The Taoiseach did not come into power in 2011.
My apologies, 2016.
I know he would like to airbrush that-----
I almost forgot about those five long years. My apologies.
It is okay.
When the Fine Gael, Independent Alliance and Independents Government came into office in May 2016, just over 50% of homes, businesses and farms had high-speed broadband. We are now up to approximately 75% and we will be at 80% by the end of the year. Notwithstanding the delays in the national broadband plan-----
It has nothing to do with Government; it is commercial entities.
-----going from 50% to 80% is not bad progress and is much more progress than is being made with Seanad reform, draining the Shannon and those other matters.
As Deputy McDonald pointed out, the Seanad can be used to allow those of us in the Oireachtas to hear more diverse voices, including those of the diaspora, and I am delighted that my forebear appointed Senator Lawless to represent the diaspora, and also more voices from Northern Ireland. The Free State Senate reserved seats, at least in its first term, for people from a southern unionist background like W.B. Yeats. I believe it would enhance the Oireachtas and the Seanad if we had more people from North of the Border in the Seanad. It would be important also that they would be from both communities.
Proposed Legislation
Brendan Howlin
Ceist:6. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach the legislation under preparation or planned in his Department. [6883/18]
Joan Burton
Ceist:7. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach the legislation under preparation by his Department. [7295/18]
Mary Lou McDonald
Ceist:8. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach the status of Bills under preparation in his Department. [8335/18]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:9. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on legislation under preparation in his Department. [8432/18]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, together.
My Department has responsibility for the National Economic and Social Council, NESC. The NESC’s statutory basis is as a body under the framework of the National Economic and Social Development Office Act 2006. That framework is no longer necessary and the Government has agreed that it should be dissolved and the NESC itself placed on a statutory footing. Work is under way to prepare the heads of this Bill, and it is the only legislation being prepared in my Department.
The absence of specific legislation does not impede the NESC as regards carrying out its mandate. NESC's role is to analyse and provide advice on strategic policy matters relevant to Ireland's economic, social, environmental and sustainable development.
I see on the legislative programme that the only Bill in the Taoiseach's Department is the national economic and social development office (amendment) Bill to dissolve, as the Taoiseach said, the National Economic and Social Development Office, NESCO, and place the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, on a statutory footing. In terms of strategic thinking on Brexit as matters become very serious indeed, is there any legislative response envisaged by the Department? Has the Taoiseach's Department done any preparatory work on any legislation in the event of a hard Brexit? Has any consideration been given to what might be required from his Department regarding that very major issue?
First, as part of the announcements on the national planning framework and the national plan this week, the Taoiseach mentioned the development of a new quango, which I believe is to be called something like the planning and infrastructure agency. I understand that possibly will come under the remit of the Department of the Minister, Deputy Murphy. In the context of a whole-of-Government approach to issues, why would that not be associated with the Taoiseach's Department given that he has set so much store on strategic communications across Government and that it is a whole-of-Government issue?
Second, for a long time the NESC has been a social partnership organisation with views being elicited from employers, trade unions, academics and researchers. The Taoiseach may not be a fan of social partnership but at this stage in the country's development, does he agree that in developing legislation for NESC, in the context of the 2040 plan, it would make a good deal of sense to have a resourced social partnership structure which would draw in views? I have concerns that, as far as I can see, there is no reference in the plan to inner city and inner town areas which may see particular concentration of social disadvantage, for instance, many children from those areas not going on to college or apprenticeships. In the context of the ambitious plans for 2040, surely the NESC should be in a position to provide research and information about how we provide plans in our cities, towns and smaller villages where there are pockets of deep deprivation that would allow progress to be made in the context of the plan.
Gabhaim buíochas arís leis an Taoiseach as ucht a fhreagra. As he has confirmed, the legislative programme published in January lists just this one Bill sponsored by him and currently under preparation. As others have said, the purpose of the now omnipresent national economic and social development office (amendment) Bill, which has been listed as part of the Government legislative programme since 2013 and has been talked about since then Deputy Brian Cowen served as Taoiseach, is to abolish the National Economic and Social Development Office and to place the NESC on a statutory footing. When will the Bill be finally introduced? I know the NESC was effectively moribund for a time but I am also aware that the Taoiseach opened up a process recently for independent appointments to the council and that a work programme is in place.
Has there been interest in or progress on appointments? When does the Taoiseach expect the process to be completed?
As for the work programme, I agree that challenges relating to deprivation, disadvantage and poverty are of huge concern in inner city and urban, but also rural settings. We should not miss the last. I also believe the phenomenon of precarious work must be tackled and weighed. Finally, the work programme must address environmental protection and climate change which, to be frank, the Government, as with its predecessors, does not have a handle on and in respect of which it has failed to demonstrate any credible ambition. Those jump out as three key context issues and then there is, of course, Brexit and all that is unfolding around us.
I am aware of the legislation under consideration by the Taoiseach's Department. In relation to previous correspondence, however, it may be important for the Taoiseach to consider legislating for the strategic communications unit, or SCU, and consider the statutory underpinning of it. He says it is important to communicate what the Government does and he talks about roads and so on, but thus far, all the communication has been party political with Ministers front and centre. One analyst in the news media described it as "Pyongyang on the Garavogue", which was an insightful observation. All of the videos I have seen thus far are of Ministers and it is not actually hard information for the public. It says we are going to do roads and schools in 2024 to 2030. However, the real information people want through TII on a major road project like the N28 is not glossy brochures, it is the number of CPOs along the route, as well as information about the alignment and direction of the route. It is the same with the Macroom bypass, any motorway project or the A5. The real public information, which is hard to get from time to time and which is not provided by the strategic communications unit, is how a project affects residential amenity and the community. That is hard information the Government should be providing to the public transparently and openly without any political context. It is about hard, objectively-sourced information.
I put it genuinely to the Taoiseach that there is a real danger in what is happening here and I do not think he gets it. There is a muddying of the waters and an overlap between strictly Government information and political communication and information. This is an ongoing thing with various programmes and it runs a real risk of corrupting the democratic process over time. We must look at that and set down very clear parameters. I ask the Taoiseach and the Secretary General of his Department to consider a legislative underpinning for this setting out clear parameters as to how Government, as distinct from party political, communications should work. Following the McKenna judgment on referenda, I recall the rigid demarcation early on in Lisbon 1 and 2 that had to be followed as to what Departments could spend money on and do and what political parties could do. We observed that very rigidly to ensure there was no crossover which could contaminate the outcome of a referendum campaign. We saw that in the children's referendum when the courts found that errors were made in the Government's approach. It is a serious issue notwithstanding all the hilarity about billboards and the films. It merits consideration and I ask the Taoiseach to look at a legislative underpinning for the way in which the unit goes about its operations.
As a serious point, that is all covered by the Civil Service code of conduct. The Deputy can be assured that there will be no party political work and no involvement in any electoral matters or referendums which would bring us into conflict with the McKenna judgment.
As to legislation on NESC, the heads of a Bill will be brought forward but it is not a legislative priority for Government at present. The National Economic and Social Development Office, NESDO, was initially created under the National Economic and Social Development Act 2006 as a body corporate with three constituent parts, the NESC, the National Economic and Social Forum, NESF, and the National Centre for Partnership Performance, NCPP. The NESF and the NCPP were dissolved by order leaving the council as the only remaining body. Consequently, the framework of the 2006 Act is no longer necessary. As I stated in my reply, the absence of specific legislation does not impede the NESC in carrying out its mandate. Some time was taken to reflect on the role and working methods of the council following the end of the term of the previous council in 2016. This included consultation with outgoing members. There have been a number of changes aimed at making the council more effective. For example, the current council, which was appointed in May 2017, has fewer plenary meetings to allow more focused in-depth discussion of issues under consideration through working groups and committees. While council representation continues to include the various sectors, its overall membership has been reduced from 34 to 28 to ensure more efficient meetings while capturing a broad range of views. It is appropriate to allow these decisions to bed down in advance of finalising any legislative proposals.
Members are appointed under the Act and the National Economic and Social Council (Alteration of Composition) Order 2010. Each of the following sectors nominate representatives to the council in accordance with the legislation: business and employer interests, ICTU, farming and agricultural interests, community and voluntary sector and the environmental sector. The new council has three nominees per sector. The legislation also provides for six public servants to be appointed, which appointments have been made, and between seven and eight independent members, of whom three have been appointed. In October 2017, I made three appointments to the council on the basis of nominations received from farming representatives. The other members of the council were appointed by the previous Taoiseach in May 2017. I plan to make four further appointments to the council following the conclusion of an open process which is currently being conducted by the Public Appointments Service.
As to legislation which may be required from my Department in the event of a hard Brexit, we do not envisage any legislation being required of my office. However, it may the case that legislation would be required of other Departments, most notably the Departments of Finance and Justice and Equality. The new agency which Deputy Burton asked about will be under the auspices of the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government. As the Department deals largely with housing, planning and development, that is the right home for the agency. It is intended that the body will acquire State land, bring it together and develop it, mainly for housing, but also, perhaps, for mixed use. We have seen similar models in the past with the redevelopment agencies in Limerick, Ballymun and the docklands, the last of which initially worked well and before it went very bad. Something based on that model would not sit appropriately in my Department and is best placed in the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government.
The modern iteration of social partnership involves consulting with and involving unions, employers and their representatives in major economic decisions and decisions which affect the labour market. That is very much alive and something which is done through a number of mechanisms. The Labour Employer Economic Forum, or LEEF, meets this week and I will chair the meeting. The meeting will be on Brexit and Project Ireland 2040 and will get input from unions and employers in respect of the latter. I am very heartened by the support of IBEC, Chambers Ireland and the IFA for Project Ireland 2040 and am very pleased that they came out so quickly in support of it. There was, I suppose, a mixed welcome from some of the trade union groups. For example, the INMO nursing union is very supportive of the health element of the plan. We are also able to engage with the social partners through the national economic dialogue, which occurs in the run up to the budgetary cycle. That has been very useful in helping us to frame the budget. There is also a social inclusion forum, which is a wider forum used to consult social partners.