Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Mar 2010

Vol. 703 No. 4

Ceisteanna — Questions.

Appointments to State Boards.

Enda Kenny

Question:

1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the appointments made by him since June 2002 to State boards or other agencies within his aegis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48401/09]

Enda Kenny

Question:

2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the names, occupations and dates of appointment of those appointed to the boards of State agencies and bodies under the aegis of his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48406/09]

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the appointments made by him to boards or agencies operating under the aegis of his Department since June 2002 to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3181/10]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Question:

4 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the appointments to State boards made by him since June 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3461/10]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.

The information requested by the Deputies relating to appointments made by me to State boards and agencies since I became Taoiseach on 7 May 2008 is contained in a schedule that I propose to circulate with the Official Report.

Schedule for Inclusion in the Official Report in reply to Parliamentary Question Numbers 48401/09, 48406/09, 3181/10 and 3461/10 regarding Appointments to State Boards by the Taoiseach

Name of State Board / Agency

Name of Appointee

Occupation

Date of Appointment

Ireland Newfoundland Partnership

Billy Kelleher

Minister for Trade and Commerce

June 2009

National Centre for Partnership and Performance

Mary Connaughton

IBEC

July 2008

Dermot Curran

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment

July 2008

Brendan Duffy

Department of Finance

July 2008

National Economic and Social Council

Edmond Connolly

Macra na Feirme

March 2009

Siobhan Masterson

Irish Business and Employers Confederation

March 2009

Tom Parlon

Construction Industry Federation

March 2009

Oisin Coghlan

Friends of the Earth

May 2009

Pat Smith

Irish Farmers Association

June 2009

Tony Donohoe

Irish Business and Employers Confederation

January 2010

Kevin Cardiff

Department of Finance

February 2010

National Statistics Board

Professor Philip Lane

Trinity College Dublin (TCD)

March 2009

Mr. Fergal O’Brien

Irish Builders and Employers Confederation (IBEC)

October 2009

Dr. Patricia O’Hara

National Institute for Regional and Spatial Analysis (NIRSA)

March 2009

Was the Taoiseach contacted recently by members of the Green Party about appointments that were made of former or failed Green Party candidates to State boards? The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, appointed Mr. Vincent P. Martin and Ms Gene Feighery who lost their seats in local elections to serve on the Private Residential Tenancies Board. Mr. Niall Ó Brolcháin was appointed a Senator by the Taoiseach. Ms Burrell, who lost her seat in the local elections, was appointed to the National Disability Authority. The former Green Party secretary general, Mr. Nutty, was appointed to An Foras Orgánach, the new organic food group. A further Green Party politician, Ms Davidson, who failed to win a seat in last year's Dublin South by-election, is a classifier with the IFCO. There are also a number of assistant classifiers who are former Fianna Fáil politicians, including Mr. Sheridan and three ex-Members of the Seanad, including former Senators Bennett, Fitzgerald and McGuinness. I note that the Minister for Transport, Deputy Noel Dempsey, recently appointed a friend and well-known active Fianna Fáil canvasser to the board of the National Transport Authority. Did the Green Party consult the Taoiseach about those appointments? In his capacity as Head of Government, does the Taoiseach think this is the way to conduct the nation's business? Does he think it would be appropriate to advertise these positions? Does he have any belief in Fine Gael's proposal that the chairpersons of such organisations should at least be asked to appear before the appropriate Oireachtas committee to tell members what they have to offer in terms of their appointment? Does the Taoiseach not think that would be a broad and more comprehensive response? He is the Taoiseach and while there are many people who do not vote for him or his party, he is still their Taoiseach.

That is right.

He is the Taoiseach for all the people. If I represent a half a million people who do not vote for him, he is still the Taoiseach. If appointments are to be made to these boards, does he not think it would be appropriate that, in respect of the chairmanships, there should at least be a broader and more comprehensive strategy than merely appointing failed politicians or, in this case, members of the Green Party or Fianna Fáil?

I am not contacted concerning every appointment to every board. As regards appointments to the Seanad, I am obviously satisfied about Senator Ó Brolcháin's suitability for the post. The fact that someone is a current or former public representative does not disqualify them from service.

Certainly not.

I am sure there are many other occupations, including accountants, solicitors, farmers and doctors, which may be suitable depending on the tasks undertaken by a given board. That should determine the suitability of any person to be a member of the board. I have no reason to believe that, in respect of any of the organisations the Deputy mentioned, those people would not be qualified to do such a task.

Nor am I suggesting that former political, public representatives should not be appointed. I am not suggesting that at all. I am just naming ten or 12 who happen to be persons who either failed to hold their seats or belong to a particular political party. We discussed this matter before with the Taoiseach's predecessor on many occasions. It is difficult to get good people to serve on boards in many instances. Would the Taoiseach not take into account what the Minister for Finance said about this in response to questions I asked him? He said it would be useful for the Oireachtas to involve the appropriate Oireachtas committee at some stage in some of these appointments.

When there is a vacancy on a State agency's board, one can go through a list of party supporters, or Green Party supporters. However, there may well be others who might have something genuine to bring to that board but they never get a look in. Such positions could be advertised, although one might get too many applications. Alternatively, to get the best from the appointments to be made, one could say: "These are important positions. I'd like you to go before the Oireachtas committee and tell the members what it is that you will bring to the job with your expertise and experience, be you a former public representative or not."

The Deputy should ask a question.

Many of the bodies are probably quangos that are going to go anyway. However, in the interests of having the very best people who want to participate, it should not just be confined to selected personnel. Does the Taoiseach agree it is appropriate that the Minister for Finance, by accepting my recommendation following the publication of Deputy Varadkar's Bill some time ago, should involve the relevant Oireachtas committee with regard to some of these appointments, perhaps not all of them, but certainly the more important ones?

The point I was making was that membership of the boards is not limited to specific personnel or people of a specific background, nor does it exclude people with a political background. The majority of the people appointed to the boards are not known to me personally, but if they are vouched for by the relevant line Minister as people he believes suitable for appointment, I accept that the people with the line responsibility have made inquiries and appointed them on the basis of their skills, qualifications or general experience. As the Deputy knows, dealing with the non-executive functions of a board and governance of an organisation does not require technical executive types. It requires people with an overall understanding of the role and remit of the organisation who can bring something to the table to assist that organisation execute its remit. Also, the person's own experience is part of the relevant criteria in being able to contribute to a board.

It is open to any Oireachtas committee to invite a chairman and chief executive to appear before a committee at any time to discuss issues regarding general governance and the areas of expertise applicable to board structures or membership. There is a provision under the Broadcasting Act for involvement. Therefore, the remit and scope of these things varies from Department to Department and board to board. The overall criteria we need to apply is that people be appointed on the basis of relevant skills, qualifications and experience and that they are people whom one would trust in terms of their public service and the role they will play on the board. It is open to any member of the public or any person at any time to represent himself or herself as suitable for a board appointment and it is a matter for the relevant Minister or deciding officer to decide in any particular case whether the people available are suitable for appointment.

The Taoiseach's predecessor admitted to me here that a number of the appointments he made were based on friendship, not ability. For example, the chairman of the Dublin Port and Docks board was appointed on the basis of friendship, not ability. I am glad to hear the Taoiseach say appointments should be on the basis of people's credentials and the quality of what they can bring to the board to which they are appointed. It is open to any of the relevant committees to call in chairmen — who may refuse or consent to appear — but these chairmen have already been appointed.

Does the Taoiseach agree that in the case of important appointments the persons proposed should appear at the relevant Oireachtas committee before their appointment? This would allow them put forward their assessment of what they can bring to the board to which they are to be appointed. In the case of at least six of the people I mentioned who were appointed to various boards, did the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government consult with the Taoiseach to get his imprimatur for the appointments? They are very confined and narrowly based. I am not saying they are not good people, but Deputy Gormley has six of his either failed or current supporters appointed to boards. He did not do that off his own bat and had to have the Taoiseach's consent. Will the Taoiseach confirm whether he gave that consent?

I thought I made it clear that appointments to some boards do not require my consent. I do not micro-manage board appointments by Ministers. Certain appointments to statutory bodies must come before the Government, other appointments are dealt with by Ministers. There may be some occasions when a board is being constituted where discussion takes place with me, but in the main I leave the decisions to the Ministers concerned. Where appointments are to be made in which the Government has an interest, this will be brought to the attention of the Government as a matter of course. However, for certain bodies, Government approval of appointments is required under legislation, although these are a minority.

The general criteria for suitability are qualifications and experience. The Deputy mentioned some names that, as far as I can recall, were not brought to my attention. However, I will leave it to the Minister concerned to deal with those issues.

The Renewed Programme for Government contains a commitment that the Government will introduce, on a legislative basis, a more open and transparent system for appointments to public bodies. It states that this legislation will outline a procedure for the advertising of all vacancies and the inviting of applications from those interested in being appointed; it will also allow for the creation of a panel of suitable applicants and provide a mechanism for consideration of appointments by the appropriate Oireachtas committee. When will we see that legislation?

If this is Government policy on appointments to public bodies — I presume it is, otherwise it would not be in the programme to Government — why can the Government not practise it now, rather than preaching it? What is to prevent the Government from applying these principles immediately and on a continuing basis, rather than waiting for the legislation? Why, for example, did the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources recently make an appointment to a post at the Commission for Energy Regulation, with a salary of €165,000, without any advertising? I understand around a third of all Green Party councillors who lost their seats at the local elections last June have now been appointed to State bodies. Why does the Government not apply its proposed policy now?

The Taoiseach responded to an earlier question by saying he did not want to micro-manage his Ministers. It is widely expected that the Taoiseach will have an extensive Cabinet reshuffle and realignment of Departments. What steps is he taking in anticipation of significant changes in the Cabinet? Is he taking steps to ensure that those he does not intend to reappoint will not be appointing people all over the place before the reshuffle?

Especially the Green Party members. They have learned a lot.

I commend the Deputy on his dexterous attempt to introduce a supplementary question that has nothing whatever to do with the question. I cannot answer any speculation about that matter and I have no comment to make on it.

With regard to the question that was relevant, I stated previously in the House that the detail and scope of the legislation envisaged in the programme for Government has yet to be worked out; therefore, the commitment is to put the changes on a legislative basis. In the meantime, as with all commitments, the existing arrangements apply until the new arrangements are put in place, which will be during the remainder of the period covered by the programme for Government — that is, the next couple of years.

Who is preparing the legislation? When I asked this before, the Taoiseach seemed to think it would come from the Department of Finance. Which Minister will present the detailed proposals to the Government?

The policy mentioned in the Renewed Programme for Government is very explicit. It would provide for the publication of all vacancies likely to occur, the inviting of applications from the general public and, from the responses, the creation of a panel of suitable persons for consideration for appointment. The legislation will also specify the number of persons to be appointed by Ministers and facilitate the appropriate Oireachtas committees in making nominations to the panel.

Why is this practice not being followed? I presume it is Government policy and although we will have to wait for the legislation to come forward, why is the Government not practising what it preaches? The policy was put in the programme for Government so why are the appointments made by Ministers not subject to what is now meant to be Government policy?

I understand the Cabinet handbook has an arrangement where when appointments are made, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and any other party leader in Government will be informed separately in advance of any such proposal. Is that still the practice? How many leaders of parties are there in Government? At one stage this was——

We are drifting.

I want to know who is consulted.

We are essentially meant to be talking about appointments to State boards.

Who is consulted? The Cabinet handbook mentions the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and any other party leader. Do I understand from this that the consultation process is confined to the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government or is any other Minister included in the arrangement for approving appointments to various State bodies?

That relates to the two leaders of the Government and the Tánaiste where appropriate. Programme managers are put in place to deal with some of the mechanics of these issues. To return to the Deputy's points on the legislative basis for systems of appointments to public bodies, that will have to be pursued and the scope will have to be worked out in the first instance. It will then be ready for assignment and until that happens we will proceed with existing arrangements. The programme for Government has a reference to the matter and we will work through it on that basis.

Why does this need legislation at all? The only people who can make these appointments make up the Government, therefore, it must be asked if legislation is needed to govern what should be good practice. If the practice that should apply has been agreed among the parties in Government, as is reflected in the programme for Government, why is it not put in place? Is legislation really needed to give effect to something already agreed in the programme for Government? There is nothing to stop it being implemented.

A commitment has been made to put it in legislation.

Somebody got codded when this was being written.

No. There is already a Broadcasting Act provision that relates to a reference to Oireachtas committees in respect of appointments to boards. Some issues arose even when the committee dealt with that issue so there is a need to ensure the matter is handled properly and appropriately.

I also wish to reflect on the revised programme for Government. Deputy Gilmore quoted from the particular section of the programme which appears under the heading "Enhancing our democracy and public services." I agree that we should work towards legislation. Out of a renegotiated programme for Government, do both Fianna Fáil and the Green Party recognise that enhancing our democracy and public services could find a contribution from the proposals laid down in the section as already put on the record by Deputy Gilmore? Surely in that recognition both parties could agree to practice what they have already negotiated and agreed? That would be a contributory factor to, as the heading states, enhancing our democracy and public services.

Will the Taoiseach give an indication this afternoon that he will speed up the processing of the legislation? At what stage is the preparatory process? Has preparation of the legislation even begun?

Concerns have often been expressed over many years by Members of the Opposition, including me, about the appointment of citizens to State bodies. Will the Taoiseach speak to the leader of the Green Party to bring about the respective changes in advance of the legislation? Will he ensure that the legislation is fast tracked to give legislative status to the specific areas such as the number of appointments to be made by Ministers, and the number who should appropriately be nominated by Oireachtas committees? There are people out there who could bring a wealth of experience to many of these bodies, yet whose names do not appear on the short-lists that come into circulation from within a very closed shop vis-à-vis the respective Departments. In the renegotiated programme for Government, Fianna Fáil and the Green Party agreed that the process should be opened up significantly and that the conduct of this business should be improved. Will the Taoiseach undertake to initiate the practice and fast-track the legislation?

I have stated in previous replies that the scope and detail of this legislation have yet to be worked out. To give any commitment before that is done would be rather speculative, so I will not do that. I have already outlined the approach for the bodies provided under the Broadcasting Act 2009. Different boards require different approaches, and each needs to be treated on an individual basis. When bringing forward proposals on any future State boards, I am satisfied that each Minister will provide for the most appropriate bases from which to draw their membership. We have to bring forward legislation on this, but we have had a tried and tested system in place. From my ministerial experience, I have often acted on recommendations by people who I personally did not know. Obviously, I knew the person in some cases, but in other cases I did not.

It is all about finding people with the relevant qualifications and criteria that are needed to fill the vacancies. We might need somebody with accountancy skills, somebody with proven business acumen, or somebody who has acted as some kind of public interest director. It depends on the board we are talking about or the vacancy that has arisen. All these criteria must be examined and a balance found when a board is being constituted. I usually find that is the case. There is often a problem in finding a suitably qualified person who would give his or her time to serve on a board. There is an open invitation to all citizens who feel they could play a constructive role to contact the relevant Minister or Department concerned, and then they can be considered in the event of a vacancy arising.

It is not my experience that there is a closed shop. It is all about trying to find people who are eminent in taxation institutes, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Law Society and so on who might have something to contribute and whose skill sets are relevant to ensuring that the board discharges its governance duties and keeps executives to account. That has to be continuously monitored.

Having already acknowledged the importance of making these changes, one would feel there would be no resistance to moving ahead with some speed to implement them, either in practice now or following legislation. However, the Taoiseach's reply did not indicate that there is any urgency on his part.

Will the Deputy put a question to the Taoiseach?

The Taoiseach provided an affirmation in respect of the good sense of making these changes. Does he accept that, under the current system — and as Deputy Kenny highlighted in outlining a list of recent appointments to a number of State boards and agencies — the likelihood is that political parties will——

Will the Deputy ask a question?

I have asked a question. The only way to open the system up to the wider public is to place the relevant information in the public arena and invite applications. Such applications could then be given due consideration and appointments could be made. It is a fairly straightforward proposition. Will the Taoiseach provide Members with a little more hope to the effect that the stated commitment in the programme for Government to enhance our democracy and public services is something which both parties in the current Administration intend to honour?

I indicated that there are many statutory duties which Ministers must fulfil. One of these duties, which must be discharged, is to make appointments to State boards. If there are those inside or outside the House who know people who might possess the relevant experience and who would be suitable for appointment to State boards, they should bring the matter to the attention of the relevant Ministers.

Deputy Ó Caoláin referred to the commitment in the programme for Government to establish a more transparent system for appointments to public bodies that will facilitate the appropriate Oireachtas committees to make nominations for consideration for appointment. Under this system, the relevant committees would simply put forward names for consideration. I respectfully suggest that names can be put forward without the "by your leave" of Government. It is possible to submit names at any time. The argument that has been used with regard to the Government introducing legislation can also be used in this instance. Committee members can put forward names for consideration. The scope and remit of the new system must be developed in accordance with the experience relating to nominations under the Broadcasting Act.

Ministerial Travel.

Enda Kenny

Question:

5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the procedures in place in his Department in respect of the use of the Government jet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48405/09]

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of occasions during 2009 on which sanction was granted by his Department for use by Ministers or Ministers of State of the use of Air Corps aircraft; the number of occasions when such requests were rejected; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3182/10]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Question:

7 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the criteria set down by his Department for use of the Government jet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3462/10]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, together.

Procedurally, requests for use of this service are made by Ministers' private secretaries to my office and are dealt with, in the first instance, by the staff of my office. Requests are examined by my staff with regard to the need for and purpose of travel, the destination and other logistical details. Any necessary clarification or further information is sought at this point. All screened requests are then submitted to me for consideration and approval, if deemed appropriate. Once approved, all operational matters are settled directly between the office of the relevant Minister and the Department of Defence or the Air Corps.

In 2009, I approved 105 requests for use by Ministers or Ministers of State of Air Corps aircraft. I have considered the requests submitted to me since I became Taoiseach to be appropriate and have approved them. All applications for use of such services are considered in the context of the demands of official duties with due regard to costs and efficiencies.

I thank the Taoiseach for clarifying that the Government jet moves on his authorisation. Will he clarify the position with regard to what happened on Sunday, 3 February 2008, when the Government jet was in the United States as a result of a visit there by the Minister for Health and Children? On that date the Minister and her husband had a private day, to which both are entitled. The Minister attended the Super Bowl in Phoenix, Arizona, that evening and stayed in the city of Prescott, which is approximately 100 miles from Phoenix. For some inexplicable reason — perhaps there is a reason — the Government jet flew from Phoenix to Las Vegas, Nevada, and remained there overnight. We are informed that no one other than Air Corps personnel were on board at the time. On the following day, the jet flew back to Phoenix to collect the Minister and her party. I understand a case was put forward that this was due to meteorological conditions. Yet a map indicates that Tucson, Arizona and San Diego, California are closer than or as close as Las Vegas. If a request for movement of the Government jet comes before the staff of the Taoiseach's office and clarification must be sought by him, can the Taoiseach explain the reason the Government jet flew from Phoenix, Arizona to Las Vegas, Nevada and stayed overnight if there were no personnel on board?

The Deputy is going into detail that may be more appropriate to the Department.

This is about authorisation for flying the Government jet at €7,100 an hour. Was clarification given to the Taoiseach for that movement of the jet and did he authorise it?

My function is simply to approve the use of the service. If Deputy Kenny wishes to have detailed records of any flights undertaken I understand they are maintained by the Department of Defence and that question should be tabled specifically to that Department.

I thank the Taoiseach for his comment that his function is to give authorisation for use of the service. The service was used from Phoenix, Arizona to Las Vegas. If the Taoiseach's function is to give authorisation for the use of the service, was he asked for that authorisation and did he give it?

The meteorological records from the US National Agricultural Statistics Service provide a national weather summary for the period from 3 February to 9 February 2008. It shows that in Arizona on 3 February and 4 February 2008 snowfall totals were as high as 27 inches in a place called Happy Jack — I do not know where that is.

In any event, I am anxious to find out from the Taoiseach whether he was asked for authorisation for the use of this service to move the Gulfstream jet from Phoenix, Arizona to Las Vegas overnight. What was the purpose of that movement? Did the Taoiseach authorise it? We know from records that the jet flew from Las Vegas to Phoenix the following day to pick up the Minister for Health and Children who had travelled from Prescott to Phoenix by limousine at a cost of more than €500. As I stated, the Minister was entitled to her private day with her husband. Has the Taoiseach been informed of the reason for the movement of the jet from Phoenix to Las Vegas? Why was it requested? Was he told about it and did he authorise it?

I authorise the provision of the aircraft for the purpose of ministerial visits to a country. I do not deal with operational matters that occur when people get there. If the Deputy has any questions on operational matters a phone call to the Department of Defence will get him the answer rather than looking up the Internet.

I have a question on operational matters. In another incident, for some reason the same jet flew to Kingston, Jamaica with a previous Taoiseach.

The Deputy is getting bogged down in detail.

The Taoiseach stated in his reply that when a request for movement of the jet comes in it is dealt with initially by his staff. Thereafter, the clearance is to be given by the Taoiseach. In answer to a supplementary question, he stated his job in this regard is to authorise use of the service. He has now asked me whether I have a question on operational matters and I do. What was the purpose of moving the Government jet from Phoenix, Arizona to Las Vegas, Nevada? The newspaper reports from the time indicated that only Air Corp personnel were on board. Why was it necessary to move the jet from Phoenix, Arizona to Las Vegas? Was the Taoiseach, as the person who must give authorisation for the use of the service, consulted about this and did he authorise it? If he was not asked or did not authorise it, can we get from him or his office a follow up response as to why the jet travelled to Las Vegas and back to Phoenix?

I am trying to figure out where Deputy Kenny is coming from in all of this.

Phoenix, Arizona.

I was appointed Taoiseach on 7 May 2008. Deputy Kenny referred to a flight that took place on 3 February 2008. I had no involvement in the matter. That is the first point.

The second point is that in my reply to Deputy Kenny I said that any Taoiseach of the day provides the authorisation to use the Government jet for ministerial visits abroad. As Deputy Kenny knows ministerial air transport services are needed for the proper conduct of Government business. When the Deputy raised a query about a technical issue that arose while Air Corps personnel went from one airport to another, I made the point that operational matters and details have to be taken up with the Department of Defence. The Taoiseach is not involved in any change of arrangements that take place for whatever technical reasons that arise on flights. If Deputy Kenny does not know that, he should know it. It is absurd to indicate that people would have to ring my office at 3 a.m. to find out whether they can move from one airport to another. That does not happen. Decisions and operational responsibilities are taken by the flight personnel themselves. Answers to any queries on the matter can be directly obtained from the Department of Defence. For the record, I did not hold the office of Taoiseach at the time but that is not to say any issue arises either.

I accept that point. The Taoiseach is also now the acting Minister for Defence. He can take it that I will ask him, as Minister for Defence, to find out how and why this happened. I accept he was not Taoiseach at that stage but on an operational matter this jet did move from city to city.

As I explained, nor would the Taoiseach of the day have been involved in that issue.

Yes, but the Minister for Defence is the person who has the record. As the Taoiseach is now the Minister for Defence, I ask him that question. We will see how he responds to it.

No problem. I will get the file.

I heard the Taoiseach's reply to Deputy Kenny and I understand from it that there was no request for approval of a flight from Phoenix, Arizona to Las Vegas and that no such approval was granted.

Deputy Gilmore cannot take that as being the case.

But that is what I heard.

Deputy Gilmore did not hear that.

Which is it then?

That is what I am saying——

Was it approved or not?

It is very simple. As I have explained and as Deputy Gilmore is aware, the Taoiseach of the day authorises the use of the jet. When the jet takes off from Baldonnel on its ministerial visit or other trip, the decisions on whatever technical issues or operational details that arise are taken by the flight personnel themselves. The Department of Defence holds the records and if people have any queries on those records they put the question to the Department of Defence. No Taoiseach of the day is involved in clearance of the subsequent details that arose. The question that arises in the first instance is the authorisation by the Taoiseach of the use of the Government jet for the trip to America.

Thereafter, whatever arises is dealt with by the Department of Defence. That is what I am saying.

It is not a case that when the jet is out of Irish airspace it is free to go where it likes. Presumably, there is a procedure in place for when a Minister who has been approved for, let us say, a flight from Dublin to Madrid on Government business then decides he has to fly to Rome on Government business. What is the procedure? Is the Minister free to go on the flight from Madrid to Rome or is he required to seek additional approval from the Taoiseach's office for the second flight? It would be helpful if we knew that.

I also wish to ask the Taoiseach about his visit to Copenhagen for the climate change summit. There was a report in the Irish Independent that the Government jet had to make two return trips to bring him to and from that event. Apparently, when the Government jet got to Copenhagen to bring the Taoiseach to the climate change conference it could not find anywhere to park and it had to come home and go out again to bring him back. That was a total of four flights when there otherwise might have been two. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, who is seated beside the Taoiseach, will be interested in this issue. I understand it is Government policy that there will be a carbon off-set for the use of the Government jet. Will the Taoiseach confirm whether the jet had to do a double run to bring the Taoiseach to and from Copenhagen? If so, has the carbon impact of that been calculated?

We are getting far away from Arizona.

I understand the impact of the use of the jet is to be made up by way of growing trees in urban areas. In which town can we find the urban forest that compensates for the double trip to Copenhagen?

Deputy Gilmore is in a facetious mood today whatever is wrong with him. The decision to return to Baldonnel Aerodrome before travelling back to Copenhagen was made by the Air Corps for operational reasons. The Copenhagen Airport authority advised the Air Corps that due the large number of aircraft expected for the summit, the GIV jet could not overnight in Copenhagen. Having regard to this, the Air Corps received permission to return to Baldonnel on 17 December and reposition to Copenhagen on 18 December to complete the mission. This was done in order to facilitate essential pilot training and for reasons of operational expediency.

All Government flights are taken into account in regard to carbon off-sets and I am sure this particular flight will be included in that.

Will the Taoiseach respond to the first part of my question? If, for example, a Minister has permission to go to Madrid by Government jet but then has to travel on to Rome, would he or she have to apply for a second clearance from the Department of the Taoiseach?

I will have to check with my office what the technical arrangements would be in that case. Ministers who have use of the jet are on official business and that is fine. However, I will have to check the details of the hypothetical scenario set out by the Deputy.

I accept there will be times where the schedules and responsibilities of the Taoiseach or a Minister will not coincide with the schedules of commercial flights. Rather than going over what has already been said, I have a simple question. Has any cost analysis been done in respect of the possibility of chartering a jet in order to meet the occasional need for travel beyond what the commercial schedules will accommodate? Is there a cost saving involved in using commercial flights in the main and chartering a jet only when required rather than having to maintain a dedicated aircraft? It is reasonable to assume there might be. If such a cost analysis has not been carried out, will the Taoiseach undertake to ensure it is done so that we may be better informed as to what savings might be achieved?

As I said, there is a requirement for a ministerial air transport service. There is an ongoing requirement for the Government and the President to maintain active economic, political and cultural relations with countries not only in Europe but across the globe. We regularly have to participate in international discussions and negotiations with bodies such as the European Union and the United Nations. Fulfilling those international obligations necessarily involves substantial air travel by members of Government and the President. The travel arrangements required cannot always be met by commercial airline companies, which is why we need the service we have. It provides the Government and the President with an independent, flexible and effective air transport service that helps us to meet our international obligations.

Maintaining a dedicated aircraft has several advantages over a reliance on commercial air travel. The service is more flexible in that it is not tied to set routes, timetables or schedules. For example, where European Union meetings end up taking longer than expected, it is vital that departure times can be altered as required at short notice. The service helps Ministers to fulfil all their duties both at home and abroad to the greatest extent possible and to carry out those duties with the maximum efficiency having regard to increasingly busy portfolios and the availability of the service for special tasks. In times of crisis it ensures independence of movement for those who require it. In short, it is a matter of recognising that the commercial airline industry does not provide sufficiently for the workings of modern government in any country. This service is necessary to ensure people can attend to their duties and do their business on behalf of the country and can return as quickly as possible once those duties are fulfilled.

Will the Taoiseach undertake to perform a cost analysis in this regard?

As for a cost analysis, one instance pertains to the loss of days and times, as well as the overnight stays that would be involved in being obliged to stay overnight in other locations, rather than getting back to fulfil duties at home. The commercial airline industry does not fulfil all the requirements for a flexible and efficient service with which Ministers can do their jobs, both at home and abroad, as one would expect them to.

It might be an exercise worth doing.

Top
Share