Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Mar 2011

Vol. 728 No. 6

Ceisteanna — Questions

European Council Meetings

Gerry Adams

Question:

1 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his participation the European Council meeting of 24/25 March 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5738/11]

Joe Higgins

Question:

2 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent EU Summit. [5798/11]

Micheál Martin

Question:

3 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach his intended bilateral visits during 2011. [5814/11]

Micheál Martin

Question:

4 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the outcome of discussions at the EU Summit of 24 and 25 March 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5912/11]

Micheál Martin

Question:

5 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the foreign visits he plans to undertake during 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5913/11]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.

Last week's meeting of the European Council discussed two major international issues, Libya and Japan. On Libya, we endorsed UN Resolution 1973, which authorised actions to protect civilians. We reiterated our call on Colonel Gadaffi to step down immediately. The European Union has already moved swiftly to implement sanctions and we stand ready to adopt further measures to ensure that the Gadaffi regime does not benefit from oil and gas revenues. The humanitarian situation, both within Libya and on its borders, remains a source of serious concern. The European Union will continue to provide assistance to all those affected, working closely with the UN and NGOs.

On Japan, we said again that the European Union will support Japan as it strives to overcome the immense challenges it faces after the earthquake and tsunami. We stand ready to provide further support at Japan's request. There are lessons to be learned from what has happened, including in the area of nuclear safety, and the Council has asked for the safety of nuclear plants to be reviewed through a full and transparent risk and safety assessment.

The Council also decided a comprehensive package of economic measures. We agreed arrangements to improve the operation of the current financial stability facility, from which Ireland is receiving assistance, as well as the features of the permanent mechanism which will replace it in 2013. We also finalised agreement on the change to the treaties needed to place the mechanism on a firm and legal footing. We pressed forward with the implementation of the new European semester under which member states will submit programmes, covering budgetary plans and structural reforms, in April. We endorsed the agreement on the six legislative proposals on budgetary and macro-economic surveillance and look forward to their adoption in June.

We concluded the Euro Plus Pact, as adopted by the Heads of the euro area on 11 March and welcomed a further six non-euro member states that decided to join it. Participating member states will present their commitments under the pact in their reform programmes next month. The Council underlined the importance of the European banking stress tests and agreed that member states will have ambitious strategies in place to deal with any consequences prior to publication of the results. We also heard from Prime Minister Socrates on recent developments in Portugal. With regard to issues of particular concern to Ireland, my European Council colleagues agreed with my view that it makes sense to come back to these when the results of our banking stress tests are known. I suggested that Ministers for Finance be asked to take this work forward and this approach was agreed. We want to move forward swiftly once the position is clear and will remain in close contact with European partners, both in capitals and institutions, as the work progresses.

On bilateral or foreign visits, I have not yet finalised travel plans for the year ahead.

Bhí mé ag éisteacht leat, a Thaoisigh, agus ba chóir don Taoiseach seasamh suas ar son phobal na h-Éireann ag an gcruinniú sin. Dúirt sé sa chlár Rialtais gur lorg sé agus go bhfuair sé sain-ordú láidir margadh nua a dhéanamh.

I am very disappointed that the Taoiseach did not take the opportunity at the summit to raise the crisis pressing down on the people of this State, that he agreed to that issue not being discussed and being taken off the agenda. He told the Dáil and the Irish people that this debt was "grossly unfair——

I am sorry Deputy, but we cannot have statements during Question Time. Will you please put questions to the Taoiseach?

Maith go leor a Cheann Comhairle. Go raibh maith agat arís. Why did the Taoiseach not argue, as he did here, that it was grossly unfair to expect Ireland to fork out 100%?

Tá mé buíoch don Teachta Adams as ucht an cheist a chuir sé orm. Bhí mé ag seasamh suas ar son mhuintir na h-Éireann. I did not actually agree that the issue should be taken off the agenda. In fact, I proposed that it be taken off the agenda. I agreed that with President Van Rompuy the day before because I wanted to be clear that we would be in a much better position to do any negotiations about either an interest rate reduction or adjustments to the programme under the IMF and EU package once the extent of the banking stress tests is known here in Ireland. It was not a case of agreeing, but rather a case of proposing and achieving agreement. The decision of the Heads of Government was that as there will not be a full Council meeting again until June, and that it would not be appropriate that the Ministers for Finance should take the next step until we were clear after next Thursday about the scale and extent of the stress tests.

There will be an interest rate reduction. I said that last week. The reality is that the Taoiseach has accepted the IMF-EU deal. He has also accepted the austerity measures that go with it. This includes the very oppressive universal social charge. He also agreed to a pact for the euro at the summit, but did not think to bring it back here to allow the people of this State to decide it in a referendum. Why not?

The interest rate reduction was agreed at the eurozone meeting in Helsinki in respect of countries that are in the EFSF package. That interest rate reduction was extended to Greece, which is not in the EFSF package. The agreement reached in Helsinki by the eurozone leaders was that countries within the EFSF could have their interest rates reduced. Conditionalities for the interest rate reduction were applied to Ireland, but I was not prepared to accept them.

The euro pact is outside the treaties and our political discussions about how to strengthen the euro dealt with qualifications across Europe, competitiveness, dealing with pension problems and so on. From that point of view, there was a general consensus about the "euro plus pact" and countries outside the eurozone were invited to join it on a voluntary basis. Some of them did so. I already mentioned this on the report before the European Council meeting. We will continue with the tradition that applied heretofore of reporting to the House on the consequences and the aftermath of each European Council meeting. The Deputy will appreciate that I have committed myself to coming to the House in advance of such meetings, which is a break with tradition, to allow all Deputies to have their say about European issues of interest to them.

Taoiseach, you say a break. We are broke. You need to tell the European Union that.

That is a great help.

It is a difficult legacy to have to deal with.

Of course the question of the Shylock-like rate at which our so-called partners in solidarity have fixed the interest is a massive one. Is it not true that the critical issue is the tens of billions of euro in bad gambling debts that the European banks placed with Irish banks, speculators and developers? If the next meeting of EU leaders is not until June, why did the Taoiseach not insist on raising as a critical issue the need for those bond holders to take their losses? Was it not reckless or negligent in every way for him to hand something over to the finance Ministers which they, in turn, will probably lob to the next leaders' meeting in June? Why did the Taoiseach propose this should not be discussed? Was it because his colleagues in the European People's Party asked him not to raise the issue so that Chancellor Merkel would not be embarrassed in front of that element of the right-wing constituency on which she depends in Germany?

Can I ask the Deputy not to answer his own questions?

As we generally do not get answers, the only recourse we have is to answer our own questions.

Let us keep trying.

What was it the Deputy once said about playing handball?

I would like to make a final point. Is it credible to suggest that the European Union, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank hammered out a massive deal with the Government, in the process hammering the living standards of our people, without knowing the extent of the disaster in the Irish banks? Is it credible to say we have to wait until next Thursday for some marvellous revelations?

I had thought that because the Deputy was away in Europe for too long, he was not as accurate in his assessments as he used to be when he was in a different corner of this Chamber.

In any event, my approach was neither negligent nor reckless. The Deputy, of all people, should know that one cannot attempt to buy a house unless one knows the price of it and what one has in one's own account. In the same way, I considered it was appropriate that we should not discuss at length the question of an interest rate reduction, or any adjustment to the IMF-EU package, without knowing the extent of the liability following the stress tests.

We do not want to continue in a monthly sea of confusion about where we stand. There was general agreement among the Heads of Government that this be the case. Following my proposal that the matter should not be discussed, there was agreement that the next meeting of the finance Ministers will take it forward after we ascertain the level of liability. The Deputy is aware that long before the recent general election, I made the point that I considered that the IMF-EU deal, which was done with Ireland as a sovereign country, needed to be adjusted in terms of the interest rates and the cost of the banking structure. Clearly, I do not disagree with the Deputy's comment about reckless banking practices. That is why a number of serious investigations are ongoing.

Does the Taoiseach accept that the Fianna Fáil Government agreed this onerous agreement with the EU and the IMF without the EU, the IMF or that Government knowing the extent of the disaster of the debt crisis in the banks?

The previous Government did a deal after denying the IMF was already here making assessments on our liabilities and economic position and that deal was voted on in the House. In my view, as I stated prior to the election and as other Members of the Government have pointed out, this was not a good deal for Ireland. That is why efforts have to be made to restructure the deal so that we are in a position where we can pay our way but at the same time grow our economy, create jobs and provide career opportunities for thousands of people.

Does the Taoiseach agree that in essence the problem has been the failure of European leaders to deal comprehensively and substantively with the euro issue? All of their steps have been too little, too late from the onset of the Greek problem to the present. What essentially happened last week was that the electoral considerations in certain member states took precedence over the objective needs of the European Union and, in particular, the eurozone. I flagged that issue last week as one of the central factors that have in many ways hindered or obstructed a fundamental and comprehensive resolution of this problem.

A fortnight after the previous summit, a well-placed German source indicated there had been no talks between Berlin and Dublin since the last summit. That source stated: "Talking is the only tool we have at our disposal, but if someone doesn't make use of this tool we can't get anywhere . . . With no concrete ideas, there are so many rumours coming out of Dublin at this stage that I [we] have had to stop." That suggests to me a worrying lack of engagement on the substantive issues. We have had a lot of spin and I put it to the Taoiseach this suggests a lack of substantive engagement between Dublin and Berlin in the lead up to the summit.

In its banking document, Fine Gael promised — credit where credit is due — that it would take unilateral action to force losses on bondholders. I stress the words "unilateral action". Did the Taoiseach raise the issue of unilateral burden sharing with his EU colleagues at last week's summit?

I am somewhat surprised there are no plans for bilateral visits. Given the gravity of the situation and the importance of the issue, a quick tour of capitals across the European Union, and eurozone countries in particular, would be worthwhile in the period between now and June in terms of advancing some of these issues and giving a more detailed account of our perspective on a variety of issues that are encompassed by the economic situation.

Does the Deputy recall he was Minister for Foreign Affairs last November and December?

The Deputy's first and last questions are related. It is fair to say that serious self-analysis is ongoing within a number of countries in Europe. The Greek Government is experiencing severe economic difficulties and, as the Deputy is aware, the Portuguese Government has fallen. There is a new trend in many countries that diverges seriously from what obtained heretofore. The CDU lost in Baden-Württemberg for the first time in 60 years, a loss which was exacerbated by the increase in support for the Greens arising from the nuclear reactor difficulties in Japan.

There are no towering political figures on the European stage in the way that people used to consider there were before. I spoke to all the leaders on a number of occasions around the table over the two days at the Council meeting. I held a number of discussions with some of them.

I do not disagree with the idea of arranging a number of bilateral visits. There may be some merit in the suggestion and, obviously, I will discuss it with the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs with responsibility for European affairs. It is necessary in some cases because under the previous Government there were occasions on which Ministers did not turn up for whatever reason. There is a serious need for bridge-building.

The Deputy will be aware that part of our programme for Government is the recall of all our ambassadors to Dublin at an appropriate time to discuss re-motivation and the restoration of Ireland's status abroad and to give them missions they must fulfil in the areas of trade, business and regenerating links. That is something on which we intend to follow through.

There was no discussion about burden-sharing at this meeting. As I outlined, there were discussions about Libya, the problem with the nuclear reactor in Japan, and a number of other issues, including the Euro Plus Pact. I made the point that the European Commission is perfectly entitled to produce its legislative papers at any time and that this country, no more than any other, would participate in discussions on whatever papers are produced. In respect of the proposal for a common consolidated corporate tax base in the Commission paper, while we will discuss the paper in general, I have a healthy scepticism about that proposal. The question of the corporate tax rate was not raised at all.

I did not ask about corporate tax; I asked whether the Taoiseach raised the issue of unilateral burden sharing, which he clearly did not. He has confirmed that he did not raise this at the meeting itself.

We visited other capitals — I certainly did — and the Taoiseach should do that in the period between now and June. That would be worthwhile and constructive. There is no point in making petty political points about it; I just think it is a good thing to do, and should be done.

The recall of ambassadors happens every year. It does not have to be part of a programme for Government. It is a fairly basic thing to recall ambassadors for a general discussion, and this tends to be done anyway as a normal part of operations. There are regular briefings for missions about the objectives of the Government and the external objectives of various Ministers and Departments in economic and foreign policy.

I note the Taoiseach's comments that there are now no towering figures in Europe, as in previous years. I made that point in the debate last week, and it is a serious issue for this country. Every time, the response is too late. The issue with Portugal arose in the 24 hours before the recent summit. The reaction to similar events in Greece was too late. All along, even the changes to the pact and the permanent mechanism have been too late and have failed to convince the markets. The international credibility of Europe and the pact for Europe has been reduced considerably because of this.

Does the Deputy have a question?

I put it to the Taoiseach that outside Europe, people do not believe that Europe is, so far, demonstrating the capacity for a pan-European comprehensive resolution of this problem. He said there was a degree of self-analysis going on in Europe. What we really require is not self-analysis on a member-state-by-member-state basis, but a Europe-wide analysis with the aim of achieving permanent resolution of the issues that face not only Ireland but the eurozone in its entirety.

There is merit in what the Deputy says. Clearly, national political considerations play a part in the activity level and the response of a number of European leaders. That goes without saying. I have made the point at European People's Party meetings for several years that in the production of the Lisbon agenda Europe failed to deal with that — as the Deputy knows, it was a proposal under which Europe was to measure up to the United States on the one hand and countries of the Far East on the other in terms of economic activity and the creation of jobs. There is now a refocusing on what Europe, as a union of 500 million people, can do. There were a number of comments about that.

As the economic situation has become clearer in a number of countries, people are focusing on the necessity of a European response with regard to the protection of the euro. This was a central feature of last weekend's discussions and it will obviously be discussed on many future occasions. I did not raise the issue of burden-sharing individually. However, the programme for Government is committed to it. When the stress-test position becomes clearer on Thursday, we will decide how best to deal with the consequences.

We will move on to Question No. 6 in the name of Deputy Gerry Adams.

May I ask one brief supplementary question?

I am sorry, but I want to move on. We have already spent 25 minutes on this question.

There were four other questions taken with it.

I want to move on to Question No. 6 in the name of Deputy Gerry Adams.

Tribunals of Inquiry

Gerry Adams

Question:

6 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the total cost to his Department of the Moriarty Tribunal. [5739/11]

Total expenditure by my Department from the establishment of the Moriarty tribunal in 1997 to end-February 2011 was €41.96 million. This figure does not include third party costs for which applications have yet to be received and ruled on by the sole member.

Seo an chéad uair ar thug an Taoiseach freagra díreach ar cheist faoi Moriarty. Comhghairdeas leis, tá sin go hiontach.

Thug mé an freagra céanna don Teachta an tseachtain seo caite.

It is great to have some clarity on a question to the Taoiseach about the Moriarty tribunal. If I am correct, €41.96 million has been spent on the tribunal over 14 years. This is a scandal. Recently there was a dispute and much controversy about the cost of the Saville inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday in Derry. The legal team at the Moriarty tribunal was paid over twice the amount paid to the Saville inquiry legal teams. Figures I have been given show two barristers received €8.5 million each. For a working person, such a figure would be in his or her dreams of winning the lottery. Does this not confirm that golden circles are still intact and thriving in Ireland today? Nach scannal mór é seo?

Thug mé an freagra céanna don Teachta an tseachtain seo caite. Bhí sé díreach, cruinn agus fíor. Expenditure by my Department on the tribunal was €41.96 million. I will give the Deputy some other figures to keep him in the know.

That will become clear later.

The full cost of the tribunal's legal team, from its establishment in 1997 to the end of February 2011, was approximately €33 million. At the concluding stages of its work, the legal team consisted of two senior counsel, three junior counsel, a legal researcher and a solicitor. The two senior counsel who have ceased working with the tribunal were paid a daily rate of €1,955 and €1,564, respectively. The two junior counsel who remain with the tribunal are paid €860.20 a day, while the third more senior junior counsel who has left the tribunal was paid a daily rate of €1,050 a day. The solicitor's daily fee is €782, while the legal researcher who has also left the team was paid €391.39 a day. The three senior counsel earned €9.6 million, €9.3 million and €6.8 million, respectively. The three junior counsel earned €2.4 million, €1.8 million and €241,000, respectively. The solicitor earned €1.8 million, while the legal researcher earned €754,000. All these figures include VAT.

A Deputy

They should be named.

I thank the Taoiseach for that answer. I hope he will be just as clear when following the other money trails later when we are debating the Moriarty tribunal report.

As clear as Deputy Adams himself on such matters.

At least we know where it is.

Like the answers the Deputy himself gives.

Would it not have been cheaper to go to the Garda Síochána on this matter?

Several years ago an Oireachtas committee carried out investigative work in the DIRT inquiry at a low cost and within a timescale which brought about real results and savings for the Exchequer. Deputy Adams is aware of the Government's intention to hold a referendum on the Abbeylara case decision to allow investigative work to be carried out by specialist or select Dáil committees.

On the question of the clarity of money trails, I am not sure about the OMO boxes but we might have a look.

I recall well a previous occasion when a Minister for Finance tried to reduce the cost of tribunals. When the current Taoiseach was in opposition, that Minister was met with a hue and cry of outrage that he was attempting to curtail the work of the tribunal.

The Government at that time paid too much and forgot to reclaim it.

Does the Taoiseach agree the costs are excessive? The Minister for Justice and Law Reform is not the party leader and should stay silent for a while. Accepting that the costs are very high and excessive, does the Taoiseach agree that those who failed to co-operate fully with the tribunal and obstructed the work of the tribunal should waive at least a portion of their costs and the moneys they will attempt to recover from the tribunal? I include the Fine Gael Party in that in respect of the Telenor cheque. An attempt was made to hide that information from the tribunal to prevent it acquiring any knowledge of the donation from Telenor.

I ask Deputy Martin to put a statistical question.

It relates to the ultimate figure and the cost of the tribunal because failure to co-operate adds to the costs of the tribunal.

What about the €160,000 Fianna Fáil got? Mr. Haughey made away with €90,000.

Obstructing a tribunal adds to the cost of the tribunal. The parties in that position should waive some of their costs. Their legal advisers were probably paid the same rates outlined by the Taoiseach. They could take a cut as a result of the failure to be upfront with the tribunal from the beginning.

I absolutely disagree with Deputy Martin in his comment that the Fine Gael Party tried to obstruct the Moriarty tribunal. Based on the legal advice to the party in the circumstances, the party took a decision. In my view it was the wrong decision but the decision was taken. When my predecessor as leader of the party, Deputy Michael Noonan, became aware of the situation he transmitted the entire file and everything associated with it to the tribunal for its perusal and examination, in respect of which the tribunal thanked the Fine Gael Party for its forthrightness.

The first part of the tribunal report dealt with a former leader of the Fianna Fáil Party and the comments therein were very clear.

Will the Taoiseach show us the letter of thanks?

We will read it.

I do not speak for the third parties to which Deputy Martin refers. I cannot comment on the extent of claim that will be made or what the sole member of the tribunal will do but clearly substantial amounts may be claimed and may have to be decided upon by the sole member of the tribunal in due course.

Does the Taoiseach agree that ordinary taxpayers will be outraged that, from the figures provided by the Taoiseach, the tribunal investigating four millionaires created six multimillionaires in the legal profession in the process? Is that not an incredible situation? It raises the serious question that most working people and poor people cannot afford to get justice in this country because they cannot afford the massive level of legal fees demanded. In government, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil always capitulated in front of the apparently massive power of the Law Library and refused to deal with the scandalous level of fees demanded generally for law cases and demanded and fixed for lawyers in the Moriarty tribunal.

The fees for senior counsel were fixed in 1997. The tribunal counsel sought a substantial increase in their fees and this went on until 2001 and 2002. On a number of occasions when I was in opposition, I raised the fact that payments of an increased nature were incorrectly sent out and were not reclaimed. I made the point that someone claiming social welfare who had been overpaid by €100 or €1,000 would be pursued by the Department of Social Protection for the recovery of that money over a number of years. This is an issue I felt very strongly about when I was on that side of the House and I would like to pursue it here. Whether it is possible to do anything about that, when these sums have been signed off on completely, is a matter I must pursue. The cost of legal fees at that level is exorbitant. That is why I genuinely believe that this House and the committees of this House, properly set up and with competent people, would be entitled to and could do a good job in the event that situations such as that might arise in the future at a fraction of the cost of tribunals running over a very long period.

Ministerial Staff

Gerry Adams

Question:

7 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has appointed or will be appointing advisers and programme managers and other staff to his Department in addition to the regular departmental staff; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5740/11]

Joe Higgins

Question:

8 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the number and work of special advisers in his Department; and the way this compares with his predecessor. [5802/11]

Micheál Martin

Question:

9 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the number of advisers he has appointed or will appoint to work in his Department. [5910/11]

Micheál Martin

Question:

10 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the names of the advisers and programme managers he has appointed to date and their specific role within his Department. [5911/11]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, together.

I am currently in the process of appointing Mr. Mark Kennelly, Mr. Andrew McDowell, Ms Angela Flanagan and Mr. Paul O'Brien as advisers in my Department. The primary function of special advisers will be to secure the achievement of Government objectives and to ensure effective co-ordination in the implementation of the programme for government.

The role and duties of special advisers are described in section 11 of the Public Service Management Act 1997. In summary, these are (i) providing advice; (ii) monitoring, facilitating and securing the achievement of Government objectives that relate to the Department, as requested; and (iii) performing such other functions as may be directed.

The specific roles for each of the special advisers that I intend to appoint are being finalised at present. My special advisers will give me advice and keep me informed on a wide range of policy issues and perform such other functions as may be directed by me from time to time. I will also appoint a number of personal assistants and personal secretaries in the coming weeks, as will the Ministers of State assigned to my Department.

The Government has not yet finalised all of the appointments it will make. However, I expect that the overall number of appointments will be fewer than previous Administrations and the remuneration involved will be considerably less.

This Chamber seems to be awash with money today. When Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen were taoisigh the Taoiseach, Deputy Kenny, quite rightly gave off about special advisers. It is one of the matters that has helped to bring politics into disrepute. Last year the Fianna Fáil Taoiseach set out the salaries of his special advisers. There were seven of them with salaries ranging from €93,000 to €195,000 per annum. Bhí an Taoiseach ag tabhairt amach faoi sin ag an uair sin, agus tá sé ag déanamh an rud céanna anois. The Taoiseach was giving out about that then, quite rightly, and now he is doing exactly the same thing. This is at a time when social welfare——

The Deputy should ask a question, please.

——and the minimum wage rates are being cut and the universal social charge is being imposed. Would the Taoiseach not stop this gravy train for advisers? Would he not rely upon the very well paid senior civil servants in his Department and on his party staff to ensure that the programme for Government is implemented? Will the Taoiseach set out the cost of those special advisers to the taxpayer who is carrying many burdens at this time?

What I did say is that the numbers and the costs would be considerably less than in previous Administrations. At its first meeting in Áras an Uachtaráin the Government made decisions in that regard. I will publish all of the details when the appointments are finalised. Let me repeat: both the numbers and the costs will be considerably reduced.

If I heard correctly, the Taoiseach said he was appointing four advisers.

Yes, four.

Could the Taoiseach tell me what the annual salary of those advisers will be? I asked in my question how the number of advisers he intends to appoint compares with that appointed by his predecessor.

As I indicated, I will set out the salary scales, terms of reference and work of each of the advisers. That is not finalised yet but I will be happy to put it on record as soon as the details are finalised. Let me repeat: numbers and costs will be reduced in this case, as they have been in all others, in so far as the Government is concerned about such appointments.

The Taoiseach wants to vacate 25,000 jobs in the public service — scandalously so, in view of the mass unemployment and the small weight of the public sector compared to elsewhere in Europe at present. Why would he not find advisers from among existing public servants for his Department?

There is no question but that the Government has set out its programme for Government in respect of reducing the overall cost and size of the public service by means of voluntary redundancy, as the Deputy is aware. The persons involved in the case in question were all working in a party capacity. Fewer are being brought over to Government Buildings than was the case under all other Governments heretofore.

Special advisers have a very constructive role to play in modern Governments and modern policy formulation. They date back to 1992 when the then Fianna Fáil-Labour Government initiated the concept of programme managers. The easiest political game to play is to attack the concept of advisers.

It is the salaries that are being attacked.

Deputy Adams would have benefited from some programme advisers in a different context in terms of working out political issues associated with the peace process and so on. In the peace process, advisers played a noble and significant part.

Regarding political reform and modern systems of government, does the Taoiseach agree that political parties, be they in or out of government, need independent capacity to interrogate policies and issues? While we can talk about value for money and the cost — I accept all that — we should not argue about the fundamental principle of a political party having depth in terms of policy and capacity. When a political party comes into power, there should be creative tension between its policy resource and personnel and what has been described as the permanent government. It works very constructively on many occasions, and that should be acknowledged also. It can be very useful in co-ordination and in developing joined-up government.

It is disappointing that the specific roles for the programme managers have not been identified. We need to value democracy and the input of political parties. That is a perspective I would bring to the discussion on this specific question.

Good, competent people working in respect of the implementation of a programme for Government are always valuable. They interact with each other through the various Departments and with the public service. Ultimately the function of the Government is to determine solutions and make decisions, as the Deputy well knows. In that respect, effectiveness of government is critical to move the country on. I agree with Deputy Martin that it is important that there be objectivity and a different analysis of what might emerge from people being too concentrated inside government in many ways.

The programme manager concept worked very effectively under a number of coalition Governments in that issues that were to be decided by Government were agreed and problems that arose were dealt with before they got to Cabinet, thus making it easier for members to tease out issues and make decisions. This is important. Time is not to be wasted. Good, competent people working effectively in the interest of implementing a programme for Government are working in the country's interest.

In agreeing with the Taoiseach, I point out to him that the Opposition parties are not yet in a position to appoint special advisers or a team because of the absence of any commission or the failure to establish one. It is a pressing issue in terms of how the Oireachtas works. We should address this fairly quickly.

I believe the Deputy will get more resources than might be expected from the Opposition perspective. There are guidelines and rules about this depending on the percentage of the vote and the number of seats each party gets.

The Taoiseach is great.

He will get some assistance in that regard. I like to believe all the members of the parties——

Do not tell Angela Merkel.

——will get some assistance in respect of the work they have to do. I know this because I was in opposition for long enough.

Top
Share