What steps does the Taoiseach propose to take to investigate the circumstances surrounding the appointment of a media co-ordinator by the previous Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government? I am sure the Taoiseach will agree that taxpayers will wonder why this question has not been raised with the Taoiseach and why he has not commented on it, given the extent of public concern over the manner of this particular appointment.

It would appear the appointment was made in such a fashion to deliberately avoid the regulations governing the appointment of a political adviser. Whereas I have no objection to the appointment of a political adviser, it seems that this was deliberately done so that the normal obligations governing a political adviser would not apply and neither would the restrictions on remuneration.

The person seems to have been recruited because the Minister needed someone in a hurry. Once in situ, the matter was then properly put to tender. Although one of the longest established companies providing this type of service in the city apparently tendered at half the price, it was unsuccessful. Another long-established and successful company in the city, which was providing services with regard to the spatial strategy, for example, was apparently dislocated.

I am not casting any aspersions on the person concerned and the current Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government said he was immensely impressed by her professionalism and that she was capable of rendering complex phenomena intelligible to the public. I understand why a Minister might find that an extraordinary concept. It is, however, an unusual way to recruit a close political confidante based in the Minister's constituency and pay her €3,600 for a three-day week.

We would all like to have someone minding the constituency for us while we are in the House trying to do the best we can. I am sure we would all like if the taxpayer paid that person €3,600 for a three-day week. If the rainbow Government had made such an appointment, the Taoiseach and especially the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, who had a record for this kind of thing——

The Deputy's time is concluded.

——would be up on his hind-legs——

Deputy Rabbitte would do well to remember——

I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to allow Deputy Rabbitte to conclude. He has already exceeded his time.

Former Deputy De Rossa appointed five and advertised these positions in the Democratic Left party's own paper. Does Deputy Rabbitte remember that party?

The Minister would be the first to allege political cronyism against anybody who would have made an appointment such as this. Will the Taoiseach say——

The Deputy's time is long since finished.

——if he is prepared to put in place any investigation of this by someone such as the Ombudsman, a former Cabinet Secretary or someone of that calibre to establish whether there are reasonable or any answers to the questions on this issue being adduced in the media?

I remember well the issue referred to by Deputy Rabbitte.

And I remember the Deputy.

He raised it 47 times in one day.

The Deputy had to withdraw.

I had the good grace to do so. The Minister never withdrew anything.

The Taoiseach will speak, without interruption.

I never made these allegations against the Deputy.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs must allow Leaders' Questions to proceed.

In reply to Deputy Rabbitte, it is already agreed, I understand, that the Committee of Public Accounts will examine this issue. If it does not, I have no problem with it being investigated by another forum. That is not an unreasonable suggestion since there has been considerable interest in the matter. This individual was retained on a six-month short-term communications contract by the Department in July 2002 following a single tender process which was overseen by Department officials.

What is a single tender process?

The individual was informed of the duration of the contract and that the Department would be undertaking a full tendering procedure at the end of the contract. On this occasion, a single tender approach was taken because of the pressing communication demands on the Department at the time of her arrival. In November, five months later, three firms were invited to tender for the longer-term communications consultancy contract. The selection process was again overseen by officials of the Department and the same individual was recommended and commissioned. Before that, the individual had been retained by the Office of Public Works in December 2001, where the Minister then was, to act as a project information co-ordinator on projects in Waterford and the south east. The individual was retained by the OPW until July 2003 and was involved in a number of other projects. I accept the point Deputy Rabbitte made and I am not talking about the competence of the individual. If the procedure at the outset had not been a single tender contract, if there had been three names involved from the start, it would not look the way that it does. The explanation the Minister and the Department have given is that they were looking for someone.

The individual has been involved in a number of other works during the Presidency and ine-voting and other projects. When the three firms were invited to tender for the longer-term communications consultancy contract, the selection process was overseen. It was based upon a fee of €800 per day at 12 days per month, excluding VAT at 21%. I do not have a difficulty. Perhaps it would be better if I agreed with Deputy Rabbitte's point that if the Committee of Public Accounts will not look at the papers, someone else should do so. I would not object to that.

I do not want to speak for the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts as he is not looking at it. In the normal course of events, the committee will only cover the context of the annual report from the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is likely to be a long way down the road. I do not want to cast aspersions on anyone, but this issue will not go away. It would be better if it were investigated by someone like the Ombudsman or some former eminent civil servant. We are talking about a close political confidante who is a fundraiser for the Minister, someone who shored up the constituency for the Minister, someone who reported to the communications unit during the last general election and who is a political adviser. The Department is well catered for with its own press unit. If the Minister wanted to retain a political adviser who would be subject to the rules that apply for such persons, why did he not do so? I read this morning in the Irish Independent that this person had no PR experience whatsoever. Rather than let it fester, the Taoiseach should agree to have the circumstances surrounding the person’s recruitment and appointment investigated and deal with the questions that are in the public domain.

As I understand it, the individual was not involved in any fundraising activity during the period the Minister, Deputy Cullen, was in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The individual was a member of a voluntary committee which organised an event recently in the constituency. This was done in an open and transparent way. The individual does not hold any contract with the Department. I have been told that the individual has shown good experience and knowledge in dealing with a range of public relations and other issues. However, I am not against the point. Deputy Rabbitte is right that this will not go away and I am not against finding someone to look at these papers.