I thank the Vice Chairman and members of the committee for agreeing to set aside the time this morning from the busy schedule of the Committee of Public Accounts for me to make this brief statement and answer any questions they might have about the matters that have come into the public domain between the end of April and now. We have dealt with some of these issues but I am quite prepared to deal with them and the new issues that have emerged. In doing so, and in agreeing to allot the time this morning to allow this to happen, I am conscious of the importance of the work of the Committee of Public Accounts and its members. I am also conscious of the importance of the committee itself in relation to the House. I believe it to be the most important committee in this House and it has carried out its work down through the years without fear or favour and in a non-political way. During my time on the committee from 2002 to 2007 I experienced the challenges that can present to a member of government. I had to get over those challenges and work with the other members as they did the important work of scrutinising spending for the State. I admire the work of the current committee in carrying on that tradition. It is true to say that since 21 April there has been a certain distraction from that work because of public comment or public media reports about the position that I held in 2007 for a brief period of 18 months as Minister of State at the then Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, with responsibility for trade and commerce.
The first issue that arose in respect of that appointment was the provision of an office. I believe the Accounting Officer dealt fully and adequately with that in the past few weeks. I quoted at the end of that meeting from the freedom of information request I had put in to the Office of Public Works, OPW, the reply to which stated clearly that it was senior officials within the office of the OPW who scrutinised this work, provided the plans, carried out the tendering process and delivered the finished office. The Accounting Officer and that written reply to my FOI request clearly demonstrated, in my opinion, that I had no hand, act or part in the decision-making about the materials used in that office, its size or its extent. I am quite prepared to answer any other questions that might have emerged for members since then.
There were other reports after that which came into the public domain. I apologise to members of the committee because I know that Deputy Harris asked publicly why members were not informed or why I had not informed members of what the FOI request was about and the response to it. I will start with 21 April, or sometime around then, and what happened afterwards. I did not receive from the Department any copies of that FOI request by way of that process. I had to go to the Fianna Fáil research office to ask if it could get a copy. I was not quite sure of the procedure but I did not have copies. That is why no one was informed. I tried to respond as best I could to those articles by casting my mind back six years by way of preparing myself and so on. It was hard to do that when, day after day, something different and significant appeared without my knowledge and without my having the paperwork to back it up.
Last Friday - this relates to current events - I received a telephone call from the Department to say that certain information was being given in response to an FOI request. That was on 7 June at 5.34 p.m. That is when I received the e-mail. I studied that e-mail and its contents on Saturday and I spent all of Sunday trying to respond directly to the reporter concerned by e-mail. Sometime late on Sunday night, I think, I finished providing information in response to the queries addressed to me. I regret that I did not have the opportunity to forward the information to Deputy Harris and the other members of the committee, but I did not have it until that late hour. At that stage the articles were ready for publication and the information was put into the public domain. It consisted largely of what was known about the office and about toilet rolls, and then it touched on some other subjects, including the fact that I had employed my son when I entered the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, as it was known then. That was in 2007. In the course of 2008 a key member of our staff went on maternity leave and we had staffing issues during most of my time in that office. In order to compensate for the work that was required to be done, overtime was claimed. It was claimed in the normal way according to the standards of the Civil Service. It was not signed off by me, as was suggested in different places. I did not have anything to do with that process. It is true that in hindsight I could have managed things better in terms of staff, and I accept that, but I ask members to understand that during that time I ran a busy constituency office on one side, and when one is appointed a Minister - I hope some members will enjoy that some day - one's constituency office workload doubles or trebles. I took on the Department role as well and I expected my staff at local and national level to be able to respond to the massive number of queries that we received from organisations and individual business people who were facing difficulties in doing business abroad and at home. All of us in that office dealt as best we could with all of those issues. As I said, the overtime was appropriately and properly claimed. My regret now, looking back, is that maybe we could have organised things better, but all of this was within the guidelines that were set down.
I am in politics since 1979 and my record will show for itself that I am not a traveller by nature, particularly with regard to long-distance flights. In 2007, when I was appointed Minister of State, I recall raising the issue with the Secretary General and posing the difficulties I had with travelling - I recorded this in my book too - and I was told I would have to overcome that.
With a trade mission approaching at the time, I asked - looking back now at it, I was probably naïve and simple - could my wife travel with me and that I would pay all her costs. This is recorded in the e-mail response to other e-mails on 27 August. It was a simple question. It was a question put more recently by a more senior Minister when he went to travel. He was told the same - a Minister’s wife cannot travel on a trade mission whether he pays for her or not. My wife did not travel on trade missions. I served 18 months in that Department and I know what trade missions are about. I respect the decision on spouses travelling.
At the end of August, it came to my attention that the simple request I made had civil servants writing to civil servants asking for clarification. Most of the e-mails, I think, start with the Minister may be contemplating bringing his wife. They then go on to seek clarification on rules, regulations and protocols around wives travelling. When these were brought to my attention, I decided, if they were sharing these e-mails about my contemplation about maybe bringing my wife on a trade mission, that I should respond. When I read my response six years later, it was probably written in frustration with a bit of anger. Maybe I was having a bad day and it was not expressed as it should have been. It was nothing only a philosophical discussion within that e-mail about the protocols and so on relative to travel. I accepted the point that even if one paid, one could not bring one’s wife on trade missions. Within that e-mail, the question of travel generally, aside from trade missions, was being discussed by civil servants. I gave the opinion at the time that maybe in exceptional circumstances for other than trade missions, it should be considered that wives should be allowed to travel and the Minister could pay for it or the State should in some cases consider it. Reading the e-mail now, it was a poorly presented opinion. However, that is all it was. I expressed an opinion.
The next item that appeared in the media concerned travel on St. Patrick’s Day in 2008. My understanding back then was that these arrangements were announced at the Cabinet, the Taoiseach had a say in it, they were then presented and the Ministers travelled. Junior Ministers were also nominated to travel. Some travelled with their wives and some without.
The work abroad was generally of a nature of improving the relationship between Ireland and the country in question being visited. The trip which was commented on was to Seattle. My wife came with me. I considered it to be a busy working trip. I did what I was required to do in terms of the work that was necessary. The Department paid for the trip, as was reported, and it was arranged in accordance with the guidelines that existed at the time. I am not the only Minister who travelled with his wife abroad at that time and, indeed, before and after that time.
Looking back at it now, it was a different country then in 2007. What was accepted back then is not acceptable now. I accept that. It is a different economy now than it was then. It is a different set of rules and guidelines that guide each and every one of us now than was the case back then. I accept that. What I was doing in the correspondence is something that is done right across this House. I was challenging old ways. It was only recently that I got the 1959 document on travel and it is interesting. It was signed by T.K. Whitaker and addressed to Seán Lemass, which shows how far back it dates. Why not ask about it? Why not have an opinion about it? Why not be prepared for that opinion to be changed for the better? It was always in the interest of providing better value for money which is what we talk about at this committee. I talk about it more than most or that is what I am accused of anyway. This was a travel arrangement.
The question in all of this, in each and every one of the cases or instances that were cited, is did I personally go out to do something wrong. Did I do things that were deliberately to benefit me or were to deliberately access the public purse in any way? They were not.
I will go back to the beginning again. Was the cost of the office that was created as a State office with me as the first occupant excessive? I did not know then but I know now the price of that office. As I have said twice before at these meetings, yes, it was excessive and something far less would have done. That was the way those offices were delivered at that time. Maybe we should check or question how these offices are delivered. Was the management of staff in my office handled correctly? Again, in hindsight, it could have been done more efficiently and better.
However, I would suggest, in the context of the staffing arrangement, that at the end of the day it may have cost even more if permanent staff were to be recruited, but I agree that things could have been done better.
Regarding the hiring of a family member, this yesterday, and I do not want to be misrepresented in the media would I do it today? For his sake, I probably would not, but if asked whether I would do it in terms of his ability, the skills we were looking for and the loyalty I got, the answer is, "Yes, I would". Is it being done across the system? There are examples of it, and we have to admit that. Perhaps that needs to be changed. We may need to set down appropriate rules and guidelines that will guide us through that process.
In terms of foreign travel for spouses, of course it needs to be looked at because we are in a different place.
I want to say to the members and to the public that I take my job as Chairman of this committee seriously. I take seriously the comments I make about the committee in regard to value for money, good governance and so on. We are reflecting today on something that happened six years ago. I am sure all of us in our lives would do things differently or better out of experience, and I am no different from any of the members or anybody else.
In general, I believe I have covered the issues that were raised. There may be questions members wish to ask but the final question that needs to be answered is if my credibility has been damaged and should I continue on as Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts. I have to say, frankly, that I do not consider that my credibility has been damaged because within all of what was there six years ago, I acted appropriately. In terms of credibility, I believe that is a matter for other members to judge, but I do not believe that what has been printed about me regarding these matters damages how I might chair this committee. I do not think it changes my views on what needs to be done by the Committee of Public Accounts. It will certainly sharpen my view on the standards being applied today and what might happen for the future. That is a fact. I can say no more but to put that case before the members. On reflection, I would say that for any appointment in this House, I would prefer to go through an inquiry like this one in front of my peers and for them to ask any questions they wish to ask at the time of appointment to uncover anything they could uncover about me, personally or otherwise, than go through what I and my family have gone through since 21 April. I respect fully the Freedom of Information Act, the scrutiny that is applied, and the views of the members here.
