Vol. 714 No. 1
1 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if his Department pays allowances to former taoisigh to maintain personal assistants; the former taoisigh to whom such allowances are or have been paid; the amount per annum of each allowance; the cost of the allowance in 2010; the cost since their introduction; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24328/10]
2 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the facilities and allowances provided by his Department to former taoisigh; the cost of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24329/10]
3 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the facilities provided by his Department to former taoisigh; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27648/10]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
Under the terms of an initiative introduced by the Department of Finance in August 2001, my Department pays the salary of secretarial assistants employed by former taoisigh up to the maximum of the higher executive officer standard scale. The initiative provides that a former Taoiseach may employ two secretarial assistants for a period not exceeding five years from the date when he or she was last Taoiseach. After the five year period has elapsed, only one secretarial assistant may be employed. The initiative also includes provision for purchase of computer equipment necessary for this type of service.
While there are no guidelines in regard to the type of work for which secretarial assistants are employed by former taoisigh, I understand that they carry out a normal range of secretarial duties to support the former taoisigh in carrying out those aspects of work associated with their former roles which remain after their period in office has ceased. However, under the initiative, the secretarial assistant cannot engage in constituency or active party political work.
In the Taoiseach's response he indicated that former taoisigh are entitled to the service of two secretarial assistants for five years following the completion of their terms of office as Taoiseach and also to have one secretarial assistant thereafter for whatever length of time for their lifetime. Is it the case that if they also continue to be serving Members of the Dáil — each of us as Members of the Dáil is entitled to the services of a parliamentary assistant and a secretarial assistant — that they are also entitled to the further services of two additional secretarial assistants, as the Taoiseach's reply suggests? Will the Taoiseach clarify the situation?
Will the Taoiseach accept that the recent reply to the parliamentary question I submitted to him has caused considerable interest? My read of the situation is that people are aghast that former taoisigh, irrespective of whether they are actually serving Members of a current or future Dáil or have retired from the post, would be entitled to two secretarial assistants for a full five years and one thereafter indefinitely. Does the Taoiseach not think that this scheme, which was introduced by the former Taoiseach in 2001, is wasteful and beyond the acceptance of people? It did not have merit in 2001 but in the current economic times when serious downturns are affecting everyone's circumstances, what justification does the Taoiseach believe there is for the scheme continuing, given that what is involved is not small change?
Is the Taoiseach aware that last year alone the former Taoiseach, who happens to be a current Member of this Dáil, secured——-
Is there a question, Deputy?
Yes, I am asking the Taoiseach if he is aware that a sum of €114,000 was allocated for the provision of the additional secretarial assistants because the former Taoiseach was in that post. Is he aware that a sum in excess of €300,000 has been claimed by the former Taoiseach, Garret FitzGerald, since the introduction of the scheme? Is he aware that over the past decade the former Taoiseach, John Bruton, has availed of the scheme while also involved during the greater part of that time in senior European Union representative roles?
I put it to the Taoiseach that this is a wasteful scheme which has little or no justification. The extent of the generosity if not the entirety of what was introduced in 2001 requires immediate review. Will the Taoiseach accept that this is on top of the pension entitlements of former taoisigh? I understand that it also——
The Deputy has spent a long time imparting information. We need a question.
——includes the provision of a car and Garda driver. Whether that applies or is utilised in all cases I cannot say. Will the Taoiseach indicate how he feels about this scheme at this point in time, against the fact that there have been very considerable cutbacks in terms of the salaries and expenses of all sitting Members of the current Dáil and that this scheme has held in place and is now entering its tenth year?
What, if anything, does the Taoiseach intend to do about it?
I note that Deputy Ó Caoláin's questions concerned the allowances paid to former taoisigh. This gives the impression, repeated in his supplementary question, that the money is allocated to individual officeholders and subsequently dispensed. These sums are the wages paid directly to the secretarial assistants employed by former taoisigh. The money is not given to former taoisigh; it pays the salaries of people who work for them, as outlined in the scheme.
The Deputy may take the view that former taoisigh should not be accorded any assistance or support. Former taoisigh remain public persons and continue to play roles under the Constitution and as former incumbents of the highest political office in the land. I do not make any distinction and hold all former taoisigh in the same esteem, as we all should. I regard this as an issue to be dealt with in the context of the work they do and the employment of secretarial assistants to support them in doing that work. It is not correct to suggest that the money is an allowance or payment in order to feed into a cynical view that it is intended as an aggrandisement. I do not agree with that suggestion and would like to accord some dignity to the matter.
I do not know where the Taoiseach encountered that view. I have at all times spoken about the provision of two secretarial assistants, which is the entitlement from the 2001 scheme. If anybody is putting a spin on this issue, it is the Taoiseach. I am trying to deal with the facts of this scheme, which was introduced by a former Taoiseach and, as it happens, applies to all former taoisigh, at least four of whom are availing of it and, therefore, one exception is not.
I ask the Taoiseach once again about this important matter. He himself will be a former Taoiseach some day. Does he not think now is an appropriate time to pose responsible questions as to the suitability of two additional secretarial assistants, particularly if one is a serving Member? It is quite incredible and seems over the top in terms of the supports required. The issue merits at least a review of the curtailments that could be introduced, although a question mark remains in my mind over the entire project. Does the Taoiseach even accept that in the context of a significant economic downturn, it is not justifiable to maintain the level of support of indefinite secretarial assistance for the lifetime of a former Taoiseach?
Speeches cannot be accommodated on Question Time.
I am not making a speech. I am putting a question and the Ceann Comhairle's comfort with it is neither here nor there.
Speeches may be made at other times.
I posed a parliamentary question and received a response which revealed details of the issue. I am now asking the Taoiseach how he views the issue and whether he believes it merits an immediate review given our current circumstances, the serious cutbacks that have already been imposed on so many sectors of Irish society and the further cutbacks pending in budget 2011. I urge him to revisit this scheme and to take a responsible approach to it if it is to continue.
I emphasised in my earlier reply that these are not the allowances the Deputy suggested in his question for obvious reasons. They are payments to secretaries who work.
All areas of expenditure are, of course, kept under review. However, previous incumbents of the office who have utilised the scheme have not done so on the basis of a full-time secretarial assistant every year. The Deputy did not make that point in his contentions. A former incumbent incurred a cost of €1,766 so far this year and €11,000 in a previous year. Another former incumbent incurred a cost of €12,365 this year, €19,000 three years ago and €14,000 in the previous year. In other instances, a full-time, full-year secretarial assistant was clearly utilised. That could be said in respect of all the incumbents and a reduction in the costs are also clear as time goes on.
Former taoisigh can be assisted in a cost-effective way. They have a role to play in society and we should provide support where it is required and accord dignity to the office. It is not a question of providing benefits to former incumbents; it is about the office and what it represents.
Does the Department of the Taoiseach provide former taoisigh with facilities other than the allowances which the Taoiseach has clarified are for secretarial assistants? In the circumstances which used to apply in Northern Ireland, former taoisigh were provided with Garda security on a full-time basis. I do not know if that continues to apply and perhaps the Taoiseach will clarify the matter. If his Department provides other facilities, how does this operate? If former incumbent X says his computer is broken, is there a service agreement to provide facilities? The Taoiseach's immediate predecessor is entitled, as a Deputy, to a personal assistant and a parliamentary assistant and I am sure the facilities to which the Taoiseach referred are for additional secretarial assistance.
The secretarial assistants are included on my Department's payroll as an administrative convenience but it is not their employer. The scheme is as I have outlined it and all these matters will be kept under review. The provision of cars to former taoisigh is a security matter as far as I am concerned and, as Deputy Kenny noted, gardaí or security drivers look after that, which is as it should be.
I did not table a question on this subject but I ask whether the terms of the public service recruitment embargo apply to these posts. If there will be another former Taoiseach in the near future, will he be prevented from recruiting under the embargo?
The contracts of employment are drawn up with the individuals concerned and are not part of the public service complement. As I explained in a previous response, they are on the payroll of my Department for administrative convenience but they are not departmental employees. The Deputy should be under no illusion, however, because I do not expect any changes in the foreseeable future.
4 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the constitutional referenda he intends to hold during the remainder of the current Dáil [23056/10]
5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the constitutional referenda he plans to hold during the remainder of the current Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26375/10]
6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the constitutional referenda he plans to hold during the remainder of the 30th Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27647/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together.
The renewed programme for Government envisages the following potential referenda during the lifetime of the current Dáil, subject, of course, to appropriate Oireachtas approval: to consider children's rights, based on the work of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children; to consider amending Article 41.2 of the Constitution to broaden the reference to the role of women in the home to one which recognises the role of the parent in the home; and to consider the establishment of a court of civil appeal.
In addition, the renewed programme for Government states that the proposed electoral commission will suggest reforms to the electoral system, including outlining new electoral systems for Seanad Éireann. Such proposals could give rise to constitutional amendments.
We have had to press repeatedly to get clarity as to the Government's intentions regarding the proposal put forward by an all-party Oireachtas committee on a referendum to enshrine children's rights in the Constitution. This has taken many forms in the House in recent months, including a Private Members' motion tabled jointly by the Labour Party and Sinn Féin. There is a continuous and consistent effort on the part of all of those who gave service in the all-party Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, including its former chairperson, the Taoiseach's party colleague, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, to urge certainty as to the Government's intention regarding the children's referendum in the current year. Will the Taoiseach give a clear indication of when he proposes to hold the referendum? Have deliberations between the respective interested Ministries and the Office of the Attorney General concluded? Is the Cabinet of a mind to proceed with a referendum to enshrine children's rights in the Constitution? Will the Taoiseach, with but a week remaining in the current Dáil term, give certainty and clarity on this issue? On our return after the summer recess, all political parties and independent voices in the House have a collective and shared job of work to do in ensuring the successful conduct of a referendum with an ultimate positive result in the interest of children first and foremost.
The senior officials group has met twice on these matters and has almost completed its work. A range of implications have been identified by the Office of the Attorney General and Departments. It is incorrect to assume that the proposed wording should go straight to the people, as is, and there are no implications or there is nothing for the Government to do. The Government must check out what are the financial implications, whether resource or other issues arise, if the acknowledgement of rights is sufficient and correct and whether the constitutional language provides the necessary clarity.
Many issues are involved in this matter and any Government would have to look at them. There are a range of implications. For instance, are there unintended consequences? All these issues have to be teased out. This is a constitutional referendum. While I know a great deal of good work was done by the committee which came to a view on the matter, the Government has a responsibility, before bringing legislation to the House, particularly on a constitutional referendum, to make sure we know and understand what exactly is involved. We are agreed that we want to bring forward a referendum but we want to make sure we do so correctly and get the work done departmentally and interdepartmentally. When the Cabinet has been able to deal with the issues that arise, we will come and discuss the matter.
There was unquestionably a sense of urgency expressed by all of the political voices involved in the 60 or more meetings of the all-party Oireachtas committee in which its members engaged. This was reflective of the very serious backdrop to our deliberations and the ongoing revelations about serious failures of care in relation to children in State care and across the board. Does the Taoiseach not accept that several months later, this sense of urgency does not appear to have translated into Government action in moving towards the implementation contained in the third and final report of the joint committee? The Taoiseach is indicating that he disagrees with me.
Very much so.
I do not propose to make politics on this issue. The critical issue is that we have worked together and I am expressing no less a sense of urgency and commitment to the realisation of the joint committee's recommendations than members of the Taoiseach's party. I am acknowledging that to their favour and indicating that we are all of a mind that this matter needs to be given the urgency it truly deserves. That is the expectation of people in the non-governmental organisations who for decades have been campaigning and working tirelessly in the interests of children in this State who equally reflect those same opinions.
Accepting that a job of work is under way and remains to be done——
The Deputy accepts that.
Of course, we all understand that will be necessary.
There is no provision for making speeches when asking a supplementary question.
It is most regrettable, a Cheann Comhairle, that you continue to interrupt me when I am asking relevant questions.
I am trying to establish order in the House. The Chair does not interrupt; the Chair intervenes.
The Chair should exercise a little consideration towards Members seeking information. Accepting that there was a job of work to be done, does the Taoiseach not accept that the urgency is not reflected in any stated intent on his part or the part of the Minister that the referendum will be realised in the current year? Is it not within his gift to give the House certainty that we will have, in 2010, a referendum that will enshrine children's rights in the Constitution?
I assure the Deputy that I am as anxious to fulfil my job in this process as he is, as a member of the committee. If it being suggested that when the committee brings forward a wording, the Government should step aside and we should get on with the referendum, that is not the process. The Government has to work out what are the implications of the referendum and what unintended consequences could arise from it. Every statement must be constitutionally right.
I understand the work that was done and the wording proposed, some of which is very long. However, this is not simply a matter of inserting the wording. Judges will have to decide what was meant when this, that or the other was stated. What are the financial implications? Have the resource requirements been worked out? One has to do this work. One cannot simply decide that the committee has done a great deal of work on this matter and reached an agreement on it.
This process started in 1993 with Catherine McGuinness and the Kilkenny incest case and much work has taken place since. Wording was also proposed in 2007 and the joint committee was asked to see if it could reach a consensus on the issue. It did two years' work on the matter, which came before the Government in February. We must now get into the detailed work behind what has been put to us and see what are its implications, as any responsible Government would do. It is also what those who have worked on the matter would expect the Government to do.
I had a meeting on this issue with the Attorney General, the Minister of State with responsibility for children and the Ministers for Justice and Law Reform and Education and Skills at which we were updated on the issue. This is not a simple matter. While we are all agreed that we want to acknowledge the rights of children in our Constitution, we have to do this in a careful and considered way. I recognise the work done by the joint committee. To suggest that the Government is prevaricating, sitting on its hands or that this is simple stuff and we should have the referendum by September is to ignore the reality. Let us give all sides some credit for taking our responsibilities seriously.
The Taoiseach makes it sound as if the Government was not a party to the committee that produced the wording for the referendum. It was represented on the committee. The Taoiseach referred to a number of matters on which homework needs to be done. I am surprised, as he appears to acknowledge, that no homework was done on the implications of the referendum — financial and resource implications and so on — in preparation for the Government's participation in the committee.
This is the first time that I can recall that the Taoiseach has introduced financial and resource implications as a reason for delaying the holding of the referendum. My understanding up to now was that the Government's position was that it was taking advice from the Attorney General in respect of the wording agreed by the all-party committee. It seemed to be taking an unusually long period of time to take that advice. I believe the all-party committee reported on the wording in February and we are still awaiting the advice. The Taoiseach is now adding a new dimension into this, the financial and resource implications, which seems to be a way of basically blocking the holding of the referendum at all.
The Deputy should ask his supplementary question.
Let me ask the question. The question on the Order Paper asks what referenda will be held in the lifetime of this Dáil. Will this referendum be held in the lifetime of this Dáil and if it will be, will it be held in 2010?
This is one of the issues we are dealing with and which we would like to bring forward, obviously during the course of this Dáil, but the work needs to be done. All parties were represented on the all-party committee. Is it suggested that, as the Fianna Fáil party is represented on every committee in the House, when that party comes forward with proposals the Government must accept them because there were members of the party on it?
The Minister of State was on the committee.
Yes, but the idea was to try to find consensus. A consensus emerged that was different, if one likes, from what we had in 2007, which is why the committee was set up. What are the implications of the consensus wording that has come forward? What are the sectoral implications for education, health or any area involving children's rights? What is the nature of the interventions that are being suggested in the wording? What impact does that have on family rights or on children's rights? What express further acknowledgement of existing rights beyond what exists in the Constitution are we talking about? As the Deputy knows, constitutional law needs to be very carefully considered. We do not do a service to the children of Ireland if we do not bring forward something that we know can be validated and acknowledged in our Constitution. We do not want to end up in a situation where the words we propose could involve judges' interpretations that were unintended or could have consequences beyond the ability of an Executive to deal with. These issues need to be very carefully considered.
It is not for the purpose of making something simple complicated. It is not for the purpose of wasting time or not being committed to it. It is because the Government — as I am personally — is very committed to it. I want to be able to stand over what is coming forward and do it right. There are adoption issues and social protection issues. The Deputy has seen the draft that has been proposed. From other areas of family law or involving fundamental rights, he has seen what the implications and sometimes unintended effects of wordings can be. He has seen that himself. It has been our constitutional experience. We need to work through this issue.
I say to the House that this is an issue I take seriously and is being worked upon. It in no way detracts from the work of the committee that was established to see what consensus could be built up. However, the Government now needs to get into the business of working out the implications of what is being suggested. It is a responsible thing to do to ask Departments, as I have now done, to consider what has been proposed here and, in so far as one can obtain a constitutional interpretation, see what are the implications.
Can we give a broad figure of the resource requirements? We need to know before we decide we are all in favour of putting a constitutional referendum on children to the people. Then the people are entitled to ask subsequently whether we realised this, that and the other about it. They could ask what our view was and whether we checked it out. That is what is involved. It is not in any way to be, as has been suggested for months, that we are simply messing around. There is a lot of detailed work. There are legislative implications beyond that regarding what is coming forward.
The Members know that this is not a simple area; it is a very difficult area because it is also about the interaction of rights and children in the context of the family and what interventions are proposed, and the adoption issue. I assure the House that we are working on this.
The Taoiseach has said that Departments have been asked to identify the resource implications and to identify the legislative implications of the proposed wording. Has any Department flagged resource or financial implications, or legislative implications that are causing difficulty?
At last night's meeting I made the point that the question of financial resources should be checked because the issues that arise are quite considerable. If one were to look at what areas identified initially would require new legislation, it is not an exhaustive list. Legislation on adoption would need to be published in advance of a referendum so that there would be a detailed understanding of what is proposed. Legislation is required regarding the rights of fathers in non-marital families, which would require amendment of guardianship, adoption and family law legislation. The explicit duty placed upon the State to provide care and protection to children would require extensive amendment to Child Care Acts, including, for example, the Child Care Bill currently going through the Oireachtas, if one were to take the wording as it stands at the moment. The Government needs to come to a decision based on legal and other advice on the scope. We do not want to end up with judges making allocations of resources. The separation of powers must be respected. We need to ensure we introduce something that will acknowledge the rights of children and the scope of that taking into account all the implications. That work is ongoing.
In adoption, the current focus on the best interests of the child would be changed to a focus on continuity of care, which could become paramount for the consideration of adoption decisions based on the wording we have at the moment. Is that what we want? If a right to continuity of care became the paramount duty, over and above the best interests of the child, a child could be left in an abusive or neglected situation. That would be a very unintended consequence of what we are talking about. If we gave constitutional status to continuity of care, how would that relate to inter-country adoption? These are very complex and difficult issues. That is only one area that arises.
Looking at the wording itself, there is a lot of detailed work to be undertaken with some of the wording that is put forward. That is work in progress. I am not being definitive about this. I am just trying to give an indication to the House of some of the issues that arise when one gets into the details of what is proposed.
From the Taoiseach's reply do I understand that there will not be a referendum on children's rights until the Government has settled in its mind on the resource and financial implications, and until it has published and put through the legislation the Taoiseach has now identified as arising from such a referendum?
We are in the throes of discussions. The scope and content of what we are discussing is of far wider implication than simply what one would expect just reading the report. When one gets into it, this is an area that is becoming very complex and not easily resolved. When we become clearer as a result of the work that is ongoing, we can come back and discuss it more cogently based on a clear view of where we are.
I bring these matters to the attention of the House in an open, honest and transparent way to explain to Deputies that it is not just a case of producing the wording of the Bill. That is not to in any way detract from people's work. The job of the committee was to see if a consensus could be arrived at in what we would like to see in the Constitution and come forward with some appropriate wording. That must be tested by the system and by the Attorney General. We must determine the constitutional and resource implications and how we will do this, whether it is the right action to take and if we will be able to take some action.
I have mentioned continuity of care over the best interests of the child and we must get the issue right because we do not want unintended consequences. We are committed to the issue.
The only way I can interpret the reply from the Taoiseach today is that it is new. The Taoiseach is now saying there is a range of issues, including financial and resource implications. There is a body of legislation that does not yet appear to have been worked out or considered. It appears the Bill is a long way from being agreed by the Government and published. Therefore, the only conclusion to be drawn, and it is new, is that the Government is today telling us, in effect, that there will not be a referendum on children's rights in the lifetime of the Dáil.
Given the Government's record in dealing with, prioritising and preparing legislation, it is clear the body of legislation described by the Taoiseach now will not be ready in time for a referendum on children's rights in the lifetime of the Dáil. There is a pretence that somehow the all-party committee comprised representatives of political parties who came to some kind of view before the issue went to the Government. Through a Minister, the Government was represented in an official capacity on the all-party committee and was part and parcel of it. What has happened over the past 15 or 20 minutes on the issue is not just that the goal posts have been changed; they have been taken down and off the pitch.
The playing field is gone.
The Taoiseach is now, in effect, telling the House that because there is such a range of resource and financial implications for legislation that must be prepared, etc., the Government has dropped the referendum on children's rights. That is a very sad day for the Government and the House, and it is certainly a very bad day for children of the country.
I am not playing politics like that with the issue at all.
I am not playing politics with it either.
The Deputy is if he is questioning the commitment of the Government.
There was all-party agreement on the matter.
If the issue was put unabridged as it is, issues would arise that would have to be dealt with. The examination is taking place currently at Government and interdepartmental level. A senior officials group is working on it and I had a discussion about it last night at a ministerial level, getting a full view of where the work is currently. I am coming to the House today to explain the scope of the issues, which are not insignificant. If the Deputy were in my position, it would be his role to do the exact same exercise or he would not be doing his job, with respect.
Whatever is required for us to do the detailed work, we will continue with it and bring forward ideas and proposals on the basis of that ongoing work. I am trying to indicate our intentions in a frank and open way, out of the respect for the work others have done in this area, and to disabuse people of the idea that there are political shenanigans involving prevarication or putting the issue on the long finger. It is a detailed and complex area of law that must be dealt with in a very considered and careful way. I am saying it must be worked through thoroughly and that we are committed to this work.
Based on Deputy Gilmore's observations, I accept this will be a difficult area to resolve and push through but this is not to in any sense dilute the commitment of the Government to the issue. It is out of consideration of the commitment we have for the area that we act properly and correctly, as would be expected in addition to the work done by the committee in trying to build a consensus around the area. We must now work out the implications of that work, any unintended consequences and the interaction of rights. This is the work the Government is expected to do and I would not expect an all-party committee to have the resources to do this. It is a different responsibility and a different job.
