Ruairí Quinn
Question:1 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the terms of reference and job description of his programme manager; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5970/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Departmental Staff.
My programme manager-special adviser, Mr. Gerry Hickey, is employed on a contract basis in line with the Civil Service Regulation Acts, 1956 and 1958, for the duration of the current Government.
The terms of reference and the job description of my programme manager-special adviser are no different than those of his predecessors. He advises me on a wide range of matters including administrative, business, social, financial and economic issues. As programme manager he meets other advisers, on a weekly basis and reviews the papers for the Government meeting of that week. With his colleagues, he monitors and reports on the programme for Government.
The Taoiseach stated in his reply that his programme manager, as part of his responsibilities, meets with another adviser or advisers. Apart from the Tánaiste's programme manager, what other advisers would he meet on a regular and structured basis?
There are only two programme managers, mine and the Tánaiste's. Regarding people who work closely with Ministers, one such person meets with the programme managers every week while they review what is going on and most Ministers have a personal representative for that.
Has the old system of programme managers been reinstated? If I heard the Taoiseach correctly, he said there is one adviser, whom he did not specify, who meets with the two programme managers, and the other advisers to Government Ministers meet on a regular basis.
They are not advisers similar to previous programme managers because they are not in addition to staff. Most of them are staff from Ministers' offices and most of the issues they deal with are ongoing ones of Cabinet, not broad political ones.
Does the Taoiseach agree a reputable journalist wrote an article on advice she received from a named adviser to him and that the Taoiseach subsequently described the report in the House as lies and a ball of smoke? Does he agree that, if there was any ball of smoke or misrepresentation, it was based on fact as the journalist understood it and as advised by the Taoiseach's spokesperson? Will the Taoiseach take the opportunity to apologise to the House, to the journalist and to the newspaper concerned for his statement?
The Deputy should deal with that matter in another way.
Does the Taoiseach agree the statement his spokesperson made to which this question relates caused the journalist to include what she understood to be facts because she heard them from his adviser?
The question tabled relates to programme managers. We will proceed to Question No. 2.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:2 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the number of staff in his personal office who are authorised to have regular dealings with the media; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his views on whether the Government Information Service and the Government press office have met the divisional goals set for them in the Department's strategy statement, 1998 to 2001; the number of television, radio and print media interviews he has given since 1 January 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
John Bruton
Question:4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if members of his private office staff who discuss matters with the media must clear their comments in advance with him; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, together.
Those authorised in my office to have regular dealings with the media are the Government press secretary, the deputy Government press secretary, head of the Government Information Service and press officers in the GIS. From time to time some political and background briefing is done by my special advisers at my request. Inevitably, in the absence of the Government press secretary, the same people may be drafted in as the occasion demands to brief the media on my behalf.
The Government Information Service and the Government press office are meeting the divisional goals set in my Department's strategy statement. The Government Information Service and the Government press office provide a comprehensive information service on Government policy to the public through the national and international media on my behalf and on behalf of my Department and the Government. Through regular contact with departmental press officers, the GIS ensures there is a co-ordinated approach to media matters.
The press secretary and his staff are in daily contact with news desks. Political correspondents are briefed daily by the press secretary and deputy press secretary and foreign correspondents receive a weekly briefing. Press releases, statements and speeches are faxed simultaneously to news desks daily and all important speeches and policy documents are posted on the GIS website. Staff of the GIS and departmental press officers are available after hours and at weekends to answer media queries. The press secretary and his staff strive to ensure the business of implementing Government policy is communicated accurately, speedily and efficiently to the media.
Since 1 January 1999 I have conducted 11 pre-arranged interviews with the media, comprising three for television, two for radio and six with different publications. I have given numerous interviews to radio, television and print media while carrying out official functions at home and abroad in that period, including nine to Irish and international media during my recent visit to the United States.
In the context of the structures outlined by him I wish to ask the Taoiseach about two incidents. I understand the word "diverted" was used by the Taoiseach's programme manager, Mr. Gerard Hickey, in a telephone conversation with a particular journalist regarding the controversy that arose in relation to the passports for sale scheme and the role played by Mr. Lindzon and Mr. O'Carroll. Was this word used with the Taoiseach's authority or did Mr. Hickey speak prior to consulting the Taoiseach on the matter? On the morning of Sunday, 14 February, some hours after the article appeared in the Sunday Times, a civil servant in the Department's press office – I do not propose to name him – gave a briefing to journalists in which substantial clarification was given. Who briefed him?
I have answered questions in great detail about the ICC accounts. In so far as it is relevant, discussions took place between my programme manager and the journalist in question. They acted in good faith. Nobody tried to mislead anybody else. I do not know what words were used. Some of the discussions took place before I had knowledge about the issue. As I said in the House, what I was objecting to was that money, like IDA money, should have been used by the party that I lead. There is no need to go back over the second issue that I dealt with on the day.
As I have said numerous times, I have no difficulty with the lead article in the Sunday Times of 14 February. However, the word used in the trailer throughout Northern Ireland –“banned”– misconstrued totally what I had said in the interview, which was given some days previously. That is not a word anyone familiar with the Northern situation would use as it would straightaway introduce a precondition. I informed the official concerned that I had not used the word “banned”. I also telephoned Mr. Martin McGuinness.
In extensive questions and answers in the House the Taoiseach described the newspaper story which derived from the conversation in which the word "diverted" was used as a load of lies and a ball of smoke. Subsequent clarification of the events shows that the story was not a lie and was far from being a ball of smoke. Does he now think the programme manager perhaps inadvertently misled the journalist in using the word "divert" when, in fact, the substance of the published story has been substantiated?
I do not want to rerun it, but I do not think the story was substantiated or that the impression was given—
Was it a load of lies?
The idea that I would try to use my position, if I had any influence with the DPP, to change how he would deal with a witness to a tribunal was what I was extremely annoyed about on that morning. I would not involve myself directly with the DPP to try to decide the immunity of an individual who happened to be a former colleague.
Where did the allegation originate?
I have no idea. I have no wish to continue this. To the best of my knowledge, those who work for me and others do their best and the journalists also tend to do their best. If sometimes a story becomes unstuck, so be it. We need not go on about it.
We all get annoyed from time to time and say things we do not intend to say but, in the cold light of day and having reflected on the issue, will the Taoiseach withdraw the terms he used in the Dáil, "lies" and "a ball of smoke", given that the article concerned was substantially accurate and, whereas some of the information may have been inaccurate, the source relied upon for that information was the spokesman for the Taoiseach so that if any misleading was done, it was by the Taoiseach through his spokesman? He should now put the record straight and be decent enough to withdraw the allegation which he made in the House.
If the Deputy, before he came in to ask the question, was good enough to read the "blacks" of that day, he would see that I already said that if I was over annoyed that day at anyone, I apologised. I did so on that day. I do not consider now or then that those were the facts but I do not intend to go on about it.
Is it not the case that the reference to IDA funds did not appear in the story? It was a comment on radio. Is the Taoiseach disowning the use of the term "divert"? Why is he still saying the story was not substantiated when the allegation was that the funds were diverted and his term was "transferred", which I accept? Funds were transferred from the investment account of the person who was the beneficiary of the passport to a Fianna Fáil account in the Taoiseach's name and that of the former Taoiseach for Fianna Fáil purposes? Is that not the fact? How is that story then not substantiated?
The way something is put in the cold light of day and the way it is put on another occasion, as Deputy Rabbitte would appreciate, are often two very different things. How the story was put on that day was very much as if money, like IDA money, was diverted into a Fianna Fáil account. What happened was that a member of our national executive, trying to assist the party, had gone around looking for donations and a person had given a donation to the party which was transferred into the Fianna Fáil account.
It came from the investor. It had nothing to do with the member of the party.
It came from a joint account, if the Deputy will recall, which was held in the two—
No. He opened the account.
He did, but it was a joint account which was transferred on. It was a donation. Perhaps if I had known that this person even had made an application, I would have had a row about it but, as it happened, it still is a loan in the Department's records. What happens in due course is neither here nor there. I could go on and look into what happened to the investment afterwards which is a far more interesting story. That aspect is being examined by Forfás or one of the State agencies. The Deputy is correct in saying that there was no great substance in the newspaper article but I was annoyed by two things which were said that day on the "Morning Ireland" radio programme, which is listened to by one million people, and which were not true.
Is it the case that the member of Fianna Fáil concerned said the money belonged to the investor? None of it was his money. Is it not the case that the account was expressly opened for the purpose of transferring money to the Fianna Fáil Party in return for the subsequent issue of a passport? Is this not the aspect which the Taoiseach ought to repudiate and condemn? This man was mainly involved in passport brokering and it has never been established if this was a habitual practice? Did it happen when my party was in Government and when the Taoiseach's party was previously in Government? Was it part and parcel of applying for a passport under the scheme that this man caused a separate account to be opened for the purpose of transferring payment to any political party?
The individual did seem to be involved in a number of cases but to the best of my knowledge the person who was investing money was a bona fide investor who did not need to invest money in any way other than the way he did. Some of the investment advice he was given may not have been the best advice.
(Dublin West): The Taoiseach now accepts that it is highly unethical for a large donation to be accepted by a political party from someone who is looking for a substantial concession from the State, that is, citizenship. The Taoiseach has also said that the money given was a loan. Will he tell the House the time limit for the repayment of the loan by Fianna Fáil?
Given my party's financial position, probably as long as possible.