I wish to ask the Taoiseach about his prodigal Minister, sitting beside him, the Minister for Transport, particularly in the context of the EU Commission report today about Irish women being at greatest risk of poverty in the European Union compared to other member states. It is important to examine how we use public money. Has the Taoiseach anything to say with regard to the loss of public money such as money lost on electronic voting machines, €52 million, and storage of €680,000 per annum, rising to €1 million if we include maintenance, for machines which it seems will never be used? I raised the issue of the escalating costs for the upgrade of the M50 previously. Over a few months the costs have risen from approximately €200 million to €800 million, an enormous increase. Also, should a PR consultant effectively charging twice as much as a rival PR consultancy company be hired? On the issue of public money ——

The Deputy is entitled to ask a question on one topical issue only.

My question is all about one topic, public money. The Ceann Comhairle knows well that asking about the Minister who oversees that spending is asking on one topic. How can the Taoiseach say that the Minister is exonerated when Mr. Dermot Quigley's report states there is no comprehensive inventory of work done under the PR contract in question, that monitoring and recording of the work done was not satisfactory, and in the case of a number of areas of work, as well as support work at various international meetings, he was not convinced that the services were fully within the scope of the contract? Is the Taoiseach serious when he says the Minister is exonerated? Is he going to lay out criteria to ensure we do not have a repeat of this debacle? Will he set out criteria with regard to foreign travel for consultants, fund raising by consultants for their ministerial employers and for the hiring of consultants? Will he set out performance indicators to measure achievements and performance? Will the Taoiseach put these measures in place and ensure we do not have a repeat of this debacle?

Is the question about the Quigley report and the Standards in Public Office Commission report?

It is about the outcome of the Quigley report and what the Taoiseach intends to do?

The subject of controversy raised by the Deputy has been examined in detail by two separate bodies. There is nothing to suggest that the Minister, Deputy Cullen, acted inappropriately in the matter in question. The House knows that when we drew up the terms of reference, care was taken to ensure that nothing would be done to pre-empt any investigation the Standards in Public Office Commission might decide to carry out.

By and large, Mr. Quigley was asked to address the issues relating to the procurement process and he concentrated his inquiry on that area. His report, which is in the public domain, shows that while there are issues we must improve on in the procurement process, the Minister did nothing wrong. The Standards in Public Office Commission found there was no basis on which to undertake an investigation.

With regard to what I intend to do, I have already stated that we will introduce new procedures to deal with these issues. The Cabinet has discussed and almost finalised these matters and the new procedures will be announced shortly. I hope this will alleviate the pressure with regard to this issue and tighten up the procurement system. The Department of Finance must also examine some aspects of the issue raised by Mr. Quigley. It will do that as part of a review it will undertake on procurement generally. We will follow up on the two aspects raised by Mr. Quigley.

The Taoiseach mentioned the Standards in Public Office Commission. I am not surprised it found no prima facie case, given that the Quigley report was quite rushed in the sense that the Taoiseach asked for it to be back on his desk before the Dáil reconvened. The Standards in Public Office Commission had a long debate on the issue. I imagine the members did not all agree on the position, but the commission put a position into the public domain.

Does the Taoiseach think the investigation done was comprehensive? Is it acceptable, given that it was just dealing with procurement? It did not deal with other pertinent issues such as whether a consultant should be able to conduct fund raising for a ministerial employer or some of the issues raised somewhat obliquely in the Quigley report.

Following on previous investigations carried out by the Taoiseach, is it any wonder there is not much comfort in him saying he will vet appointments made by other Ministers? Are we to expect the Taoiseach to look up every tree in County Waterford, or wherever it happens to be——

The Deputy's time has concluded.

——to investigate the merits or otherwise of an appointment? Would it not be better for him to concentrate on the Standards in Public Office Commission putting in place regulations and criteria that would ensure it would know what it had to do and could do its job?

Again, the Deputy is raising two points. I do not intend to examine every aspect of it. The Government discussed the matter and we have agreed to incorporate guidelines into the Cabinet handbook in this area. These guidelines will apply, particularly in the PR or communications area, where there is a significant element of direct service to a Minister, or where a Minister suggests a name of a person or enterprise for a consultancy or contract. What will happen is that the Secretary General of the relevant Department will be required to inform the Secretary General to the Government who will arrange, if necessary, for the Cabinet secretariat to inquire about any aspects of the proposed procurement that it considers necessary. I hope an inquiry would not be necessary as the procurement process will be strengthened. The Department of Finance is already dealing with that.

The question raised by the Deputy of whether somebody with a contract to a Minister should be involved in fund raising is a wider area. If anybody has a Government contract, should he or she be debarred from political activity and debarred from a significant sector of the State? If some company such as PricewaterhouseCoopers had a contract with the Department of Finance, should everyone in the company be debarred from the system? I do not think that is what we are talking about. The issue concerns whether somebody works directly for a Minister, or works directly in a Minister's office. What we are doing is changing the regulations to deal with that area. Broadening out in a wide area is where this problem started. We have investigated the issue and two bodies have examined it. Mr. Quigley has made suggestions for change, both in the procurement process adopted by the Department of Finance and in our Cabinet handbook. We have taken action on both.