I want to ask a number of questions regarding the appointment of Mr. John McNulty to the board of the Irish Museum of Modern Art, IMMA. On Friday last, the Taoiseach issued an apology, saying: "I wouldn't say it was my finest hour and I take responsibility for this having evolved to what people might imagine it is." That apology calls for a far greater degree of clarification. People are wondering what exactly he was apologising for, because he did not say precisely. People did not imagine this; it happened. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht appointed Mr. McNulty to the board of IMMA, albeit for two weeks. In so doing, the Government used IMMA, an institution with considerable artistic status and an achievement on behalf of the country, as a political tool. He was clearly appointed to give him suitable qualifications to contest the Seanad by-election on the Cultural and Educational Panel. Despite the fact that the Minister wished Mr. McNulty every success in his tenure only last Tuesday in the Seanad, he resigned on Friday, which raises a question: how could he, in her words, "bring his considerable talents and abilities" to serve effectively a board that he could not serve on for longer than a couple of weeks?

Will the Taoiseach clarify when it was decided that Mr. McNulty would be the Seanad by-election candidate? Did he or anybody on his behalf ask, direct or suggest to the Minister that Mr. McNulty be appointed to the board of IMMA? Why was it decided to appoint someone to the board of a national institution when it was clear that the person could not serve for longer than a few weeks? Why appoint someone who had not even applied for the position in question?

The Government parties are on the ropes.

Obviously, my acceptance of responsibility last Friday came in my capacity as uachtarán of the party that I lead, and I did so for two reasons. The first was that it was a case of bad judgment and not having followed through on the process that was put in place for the validation of persons who were looking for nomination to the Seanad by-election, and the second was not having followed through more quickly on the internal structures that we agreed at our think-in on Fota Island just a few weeks ago. It was for those reasons that I said I accepted responsibility for this. It happened on my watch. It was beneath the standards that I have always applied to the consideration of names for nomination to Seanad elections.

The position is that, as president of the party, I let my own standards slip in that regard. I wanted to accept responsibility for that on Friday and did so.

In respect of the appointment to the board of IMMA, that was made by the Minister, Deputy Heather Humphreys, exercising her right as the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht in respect of examining the qualifications of Mr. McNulty, who is a completely innocent person in this regard. Mr. McNulty was formally nominated on 17 September.

I am disturbed by the Taoiseach's reply on one key matter. He stated that he apologised in his capacity as uachtarán Fhine Gael. Would it not be better and more appropriate to apologise in his role as An Taoiseach of the Government?

Hear, hear.

He undermined a key cultural institution by using it as a political tool and insulting it. He owes it an apology, as does the Minister. In the process, he also undermined the Seanad, a key institution in our parliamentary structure.

Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach has his views on the Seanad but, as he knows, it is a key part of the Constitution. He should apologise more fundamentally on those two counts and not, with the greatest respect, in respect of his role as leader of the Fine Gael Party, which suggests a self-absorption by him and his party that defies all logic and credibility. I find it incredible that this is the response we have received.

I understand Mr. McNulty has withdrawn his candidature from the Seanad by-election process. If that is also the Taoiseach's understanding, will he confirm Mr. McNulty's decision? His withdrawal would illustrate more than anything else the debacle into which the Taoiseach and Minister plunged Mr. McNulty and the entire process.

It is always a worry when people cannot answer straight questions in a simple manner or avoid answering questions for days, as we saw last week. I asked why someone would be appointed to the board of IMMA if that person could serve only two weeks on that board. Mr. McNulty was clearly not in a position to serve the board in any meaningful way. Why did that happen?

I also asked the Taoiseach whether he asked the Minister to appoint Mr. McNulty or suggested to someone else that he or she suggest to the Minister that she appoint Mr. McNulty, or whether someone in the Fine Gael Party asked the Minister to appoint Mr. McNulty. Will the Taoiseach give me an answer to those questions? Where was the catalyst in this matter? Who asked the Minister to appoint Mr. McNulty given that, as was clear from the Minister's speech in the Seanad last week, Mr. McNulty did not apply for the job? In addition, he did not have any particular qualifications in the visual arts, contemporary modern art or anything like that which made him suitable.

A party hack.

Who picked up the telephone and asked that Mr. McNulty be appointed quickly to qualify him for the Cultural and Educational Panel? Most people would like a definitive answer to that question.

The Deputies opposite are a sombre group today.

The Fine Gael Party received 44 nominations for the Seanad vacancy. These related to 29 persons, as some people were nominated more than once. There were, therefore, 29 people looking for the opportunity. I looked at the names of the candidates and their qualifications. I interviewed John McNulty and felt that he was an excellent, outstanding candidate who was well qualified.

Is that public procurement policy?

During the course of the process of validating his eligibility, Mr. McNulty expressed a wish to serve on a cultural body because he was intending to serve if elected to the Cultural and Educational Panel. He was not nominated until 17 September.

He was also a member of Fine Gael.

His curriculum vitae was forwarded to the Minister by Fine Gael officials and she made two appointments to the board of IMMA on the same day. She has already made the point that she made these appointments in her own right and on her own analysis of the individuals' qualifications and what they brought to the process.

I confirm that John McNulty has formally requested that Oireachtas Members should not vote for him. I do so because the Seanad seat and his name have become the source of great controversy as a result of all of these actions.

They were the actions of the Taoiseach.

I have accepted responsibility.

He must accept responsibility as Taoiseach.

I do not want a decent man to become the object of a barrage of criticism simply because he was qualified in his own right to be a member of the Cultural and Educational Panel for consideration by the Seanad.

The Labour Party came looking for a head again.

Where are all the Labour Party Ministers?

What the Labour Party wants, the Labour Party gets.

Did Fine Gael ask that Mr. McNulty be appointed to the board of IMMA?

As a result of all of this, Mr. McNulty has been subjected to great pressure. From that point of view, he has formally requested that Oireachtas Members do not vote for him.

I also do this because, as I said, I am standing here as a Taoiseach who also happens to be the president of the Fine Gael Party, and this process is beneath our standards. It does not measure up to the integrity and the way in which we have conducted ourselves at elections. It would not be worthy to win a seat in these circumstances - John McNulty recognises this - because of the-----

He recognises that Fine Gael backbench Deputies would not stick with him.

Quiet, please.

-----trust given to the Fine Gael Party and the standards that have been set.

What about the Labour Party Deputies who indicated they would vote for Mr. McNulty?

Order, please.

I might add that the Government has decided to put an end to all of this. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, has published a framework whereby all applications for public appointments will from now on be made publicly, and appointments by Ministers will be properly assessed and vetted before being made.

That is a fig leaf.

Every board has been stuffed with Government cronies.

In the case of commercial State bodies, there will be a specific requirement that the credentials of everybody to be appointed be vetted outside the political process. From an internal point of view, I have removed authority from Fine Gael Party headquarters in respect of validation, assessment and appointment of candidates. I will also move to implement the structures we adopted in Cork just a few weeks ago.

Will the Taoiseach apologise to IMMA?

Will he apologise to the Minister, Deputy Heather Humphreys?

Before I call Deputy Adams, I remind the House that Leaders' Questions is restricted to questions from party leaders and replies from the Taoiseach.

To be clear, I am addressing my questions to the Taoiseach, not uachtarán Fhine Gael. The renowned artist Robert Ballagh has stated that the record of the Government on the arts is the worst of any Government in the history of the State. Its attitude to appointments to the board of IMMA is a further illustration of this. A central plank of the Fine Gael Party's election platform in 2011 was one of political reform. In recent days, however, the Taoiseach attempted a political manoeuvre straight out of the Fianna Fáil handbook of political strokes.

There is no need for the gun.

Deirtear sa Ghaeilge go bhfilleann an feall ar an bhfeallaire. Dhein an Taoiseach rudaí le déanaí nach raibh soiléir agus oscailte. Cleasaíocht a bhí ann. The Taoiseach first denied any responsibility for the controversy surrounding John McNulty's appointment to the board of IMMA. Having stated that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Heather Humphreys, had made the appointment, he then changed his story and indicated that he took full responsibility. Today, however, he has failed again to tell the Dáil what it is he took responsibility for, and he continues - or perhaps he does not - with his plan to place his man in the Seanad.

Tá trí cheist dáiríre agam. Ba mhaith liom freagra simplí agus soiléir a fháil. The Taoiseach appeared in his earlier response to admit that Fine Gael asked the Minister to appoint Mr. McNulty to the board of IMMA.

Let me be clear about this. Did the Taoiseach or anyone working for him, or anyone on behalf of the party of which he is uachtarán, instruct or request the Minister, Deputy Heather Humphreys, to appoint Mr. John McNulty to the board of IMMA or is the Taoiseach making a Jesuitical distinction between his post as uachtarán of Fine Gael and as Taoiseach of the State?

Is the Taoiseach's claim that this was solely a matter for the Minister, Deputy Heather Humphreys, inaccurate? Given what he has said earlier, is it untrue? If, as the Taoiseach says, Mr. McNulty is asking Oireachtas Members not to vote for him, does that mean he is withdrawing his name?

Tabharfaidh mé freagra soiléir don Teachta. Tá mé tar éis an dá fhreagra-----

Chuir mé trí cheist.

-----a thabhairt don Teachta Ó Máirtín níos luaithe.

I accepted responsibility - I think I was probably one of the first to accept responsibility for anything on this side of the House - for two reasons. I have set in place-----

You got caught before.

You could have got caught several times but you did not answer for anything.

Let us have order, please.

My party has a structure in place for dealing with applications and the validation of candidates for all elections. There is a process through our executive council whereby that happens. This was set in place in the early part of the summer. A sub-committee of the executive council made a recommendation for a number of names to be considered for the Seanad, which was their responsibility. Subsequently, Deputy McGinley announced his retirement and I looked at the possibility of the appointment of a candidate for the Seanad from Donegal. My rationale was that this was a Fine Gael seat in the Seanad which was made vacant by the election of Senator Deirdre Clune to the European Parliament. For that reason that process was not followed, nor was I informed of the state of play of the validation exercise.

Secondly, I accepted responsibility for taking my eye off this situation when I should have been more diligent about seeing it through. I have already said that publicly. As a follow through on that, without having any Jesuitical distinction between these two things, as Head of Government I have now put in place the structure and framework to deal with all appointments, non-remunerated and remunerated, to semi-State boards and other organisations so that will be entirely free of the political assessment before appointment. This is as it should be and I think it is something that everybody can support. The effective date of implementation is 1 November 2014.

I am not happy about the situation as it evolved in the Fine Gael process, nor was I informed of that situation. For those reasons I feel it is beneath the standards that I have set myself. It is beneath the trust placed in us by our supporters and is beyond the integrity of the way we fight elections. For that reason, I felt strongly that this seat should not be accepted in these circumstances. Mr. John McNulty, an excellent candidate in every respect, understands that and has therefore formally requested Oireachtas Members not to vote for him.

That was not a big ask for most of the Taoiseach's backbenchers.

Order, please.

There is a legal position here in that a candidate in these circumstances cannot actually withdraw. As Members know, the ballot papers are printed and the names are on them so it is not possible for Mr. McNulty to withdraw his name. He therefore formally requests Oireachtas Members not to vote for him.

This is the candidate who is not a candidate. The Taoiseach said earlier that he was the first to accept responsibility for anything on that side of the House. I have to say that he made our friends in Fianna Fáil blush with that answer. Let us get real about all of this. There is a deep disillusionment among the general public about jobs for the Fine Gael boys. I note the absence of Labour Ministers here today. There is even the failure of Labour to face down such blatant cronyism at the heart of the Government. This is an abuse, or a possible abuse, of the public appointments process. The appointment to IMMA was, as the Taoiseach has acknowledged, to secure a Seanad seat. It is an extremely serious matter, especially when it involves the Taoiseach, never mind his other persona as uachtarán of Fine Gael.

Will the Taoiseach explain what public interest was served by John McNulty's appointment to the board of IMMA? How were the arts advanced by this appointment? Where are the accountability, transparency and openness in that appointment? Did the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, follow the Taoiseach's example by appointing a former Fine Gael councillor to the board of Irish Water? Was this done at the Taoiseach's request in either of his two capacities?

In the absence of a Labour Minister, did the Labour Party follow suit by asking the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, to appoint a former Labour Party councillor to the board of the Irish Aviation Authority?

Given what the Taoiseach has just said, and his stated wish to restore credibility - credibility which was undermined by him - would it not be better to cancel this election and re-run the election process?

The election process is under way and cannot be stopped; it goes through to its conclusion. Candidates who are named on the ballot paper cannot withdraw their names. For that reason, given what I have said to the Deputy, Mr. McNulty has formally requested that people should not vote for him. When I speak of acceptance of responsibility I do so from this chair. I will not go into the history of a number of incidents that applied here.

The appointment of Mr. McNulty in his own right to the board of IMMA brought with it business acumen, regionalisation and a different voice. A second appointment was made to IMMA on the same day for those reasons.

He claimed he did not want it.

There was no vacancy.

One cannot close down the election process or withdraw one's name. Collectively, however, Fine Gael and Labour in government have now set in place the structure-----

What about these other appointments?

-----by which all appointments for public, non-remunerated, semi-State and special boards will be assessed externally. Assessments will be made on the appropriate skill levels required. In respect of the boards under their responsibility, every Minister will have to set out what are the requirements and credentials that people being appointed to these boards need. Where they are non-remunerated they all apply under the StateBoards.ie site for every Department.

For instance, in the case of NewERA, where there are a number of specialist boards to be appointed, such as Ervia, Irish Water and Bord Gáis, it will be a matter for consultation with NewERA as to the specialist qualifications they need before applicants are invited and before they are determined for appointment by the Minister of the day. They will be ring-fenced for those companies. The same will apply in the case of other semi-States.

It may well be that some persons may have to be asked specifically because of their particular credentials. After I spoke to Mr. McNulty I deemed him to be a person of first-class credentials and good character who would make an excellent representative.

You made a show of him.

Because of the way this has drifted, because I accept that my own standards were let slip, and because my own sense of integrity and the trust given to me here did not measure up in this case, this seat should not be accepted in these circumstances.

This week, people have been outraged by the most recent display of stroke politics. While that particular fiasco plays out, however, the Taoiseach has managed to pull off another fairly big stroke. That is, as of tomorrow, he has shifted the burden of taxation from the Exchequer balance sheet on to individual households by way of the introduction of water charges.

The Government tried to force this on us by telling us that it was first and foremost an exercise in conservation. If that were true, every single person in the State, rather than every household, would have been given a free allowance, such that only wastage exceeding the allowance would be paid for. However, this is not about conservation; the goal is to develop a new funding model. It is a simple as that. Rich and poor will be treated equally and there is no real ability-to-pay clause.

This morning's reports of average costs are essentially an opening salvo, but the caveat is that the rate will be capped only for the first nine months. By then, Irish Water will have achieved its stated aim of turning citizens into customers who will blindly accept their liability and pay water charges. Is that the Taoiseach's plan?

To add further insult to injury, it has been decided that PPS numbers have to be applied. That was in the legislation. The numbers are no longer deemed to be personal. If one does not provide a PPS number, one is essentially fined by way of additional charges. That is what the commissioner said on "Morning Ireland" this morning.

I have repeatedly heard people say to me they feel they are living in a dictatorship. I can understand why they are saying that. We are now in circumstances in which Irish Water has a more complete set of data available to it than any Department, which is crazy.

Has the Deputy a question?

My question is whether it is fair to penalise citizens for exercising their right to privacy regarding PPS numbers. What assurances can the Taoiseach give people, both now and in the future, about the security of their personal information? How can he describe the system as a system of water conservation when everybody does not get a basic free allowance? Does he admit that the purpose of the water charges is not to conserve water but to transfer the burden of taxation from the Exchequer to the individual householder?

The Government has made it clear for a very long time that the intention was to make water charges as fair, equitable and affordable as possible. Previously in the House, the Deputy spoke in favour of them herself. The regulator has determined today that the average water bill will be less than €240 per year. It is confirmed, further, that 80% of all bills will be less than €24 per month.

That is absolute rubbish. Irish Water has underestimated the amounts used, and the Taoiseach knows that.

We welcome the regulator's decision that a free annual allowance of 30,000 litres will be issued for water usage in every household and an additional 21,000 litres for every child under 18. Those who live alone, of whom there are many, will have approximately 40% of their water needs provided by the allowance. They will pay €138 per annum, or less than 50 cent per day. The 411,000 recipients of the household benefits package, including pensioners, carers and disability benefit recipients, will receive an additional allowance of €100 per year to assist with water costs. Charges will be capped for people with particular medical conditions who may require the use of a higher volume of water.

The regulator has changed the condition in respect of boil water notices. There will be no payment required until 24 hours after the lifting of a notice.

What about people with hard water?

The PPS number is required to determine the household allocation and, if applicable, the children's allocation. Irish Water is a public entity. It will not be sold. It is prescribed in law that the information-----

That is rubbish.

We did not come down in the last shower.

The second last.

The second last, maybe. What did Deputy Durkan come down in? A hurricane-----

-----in regard to PPS numbers will be used solely and specifically for the purpose intended, that is, to determine accurately the allowances for households, including where there are children involved.

For the Deputy's information, I understand that Sinn Féin has suddenly come forward with a brand new policy of keeping Irish Water but not having any water charges for domestic consumption. We should realise that this decision would require €850 million extra in cuts if the party were ever to get its hands on the levers of power.

First and foremost, I am most certainly in favour of conserving water. It is expensive to produce and we should not be allowing 40% of it to leak into the ground.

Hear, hear.

I am absolutely in favour of conserving water. What is happening here is not about conservation but about the transfer of a tax burden from the Exchequer to the individual householder. I refer to people who would not be in a position to pay the tax if it were levied under an income tax regime.

The Taoiseach stated that Irish Water would not be sold. The State will not be selling it soon. Who is to say, however, that it cannot and will not be sold in the future? Legislation changes all the time. People do not believe it cannot be sold. One is required not only to provide the PPS number of adults in a household but also those of children. These numbers could potentially be used and sold as an asset, as I stated previously.

What the Government is not telling us is that it is charging students with means-tested grants who are from households that are not wealthy. It is charging social welfare recipients - those under 25 - in receipt of just €100 per week. There are many categories for whom €130 represents a lot of money. It is a full week's income. The ability-to-pay clause has not been included. It is not a conservation measure and I challenge the Taoiseach to tell me that it is.

Five hundred euro for a family of four.

The Deputy is well aware of the situation where water in Ireland is concerned. Some €1.2 billion in costs are funded by the taxpayer and around 40% of the water is leaking away. Around 20,000 people are subject to boil-water notices. Three or four dozen treatment works are substandard and need to be attended to. There is a requirement for major regional infrastructure throughout the country. The Deputy made reference to the greater Dublin area in particular. Clearly, the investment of approximately €300 million per year is less than 50% of what has been required to deal with this. This was the reason for the Government's decision to set up Irish Water as an entity that could borrow-----

Jobs for the boys.

-----and invest and make a contribution that would be as fair, affordable and equitable as possible.

The PPS numbers are used to determine the number of children in a household and who is receiving allowances in respect of children. They are used to determine the appropriate allowance to be granted, including for children. Irish Water will not be sold, and that is enshrined in law, as is the protection of the data in respect of PPS numbers. The data can be used only for the purpose intended.

Clearly, the regulator's decisions and announcements today have been broadly accepted by people-----

No, they have not.

-----in the knowledge that the regulator is now implementing the decisions and directions given to it by the Government in respect of policy in so far as average metered charges are concerned and policy on allowances per household and per child. From that perspective, the capping at the rate of the assessed charge for the first nine months has been broadly accepted by people also. They will get used to a changed culture in respect of the use of water. People in Roscommon who see the works on water treatment infrastructure will be very glad to see an end to boil water notices, which have applied in that county for over ten years in some cases.