Michael Moynihan
Question:1. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the newly formed Cabinet committees. [40543/17]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Cabinet Committees
Gerry Adams
Question:2. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the reorganisation of the Cabinet committee system. [41637/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
I have reorganised the Cabinet committee structure to streamline political oversight and to focus the work through a smaller number of Cabinet sub-committees which are convened as necessary.
The Government has established the following six Cabinet committees, all of which I chair:
Cabinet committee A, dealing with the economy; Cabinet committee B, dealing with social policy and public services; Cabinet committee C, on the European Union including Brexit; Cabinet committee D, dealing with infrastructure; Cabinet committee E, dealing with health, and Cabinet committee F, dealing with national security.
To date each Cabinet committee has met once.
Under this new structure some committees now have broader terms of reference than before and this is reflected in their membership.
Committees may on occasion meet in different formations depending on the agenda, with additional members being invited to attend as necessary.
There is no change in the practice of substantive issues being referred to Government for approval and a report on the work of each Cabinet committee will continue to be submitted to Government annually.
Its is established practice for the Cabinet committee on the European Union and Brexit to meet the week before a European summit to agree on key changes of Government policy. On a number of occasions in the last two weeks, the Taoiseach has said that the Government is not contemplating or preparing for anything other than a close customs union between the United Kingdom and the European Union. In one of the scripted off-the-cuff replies which the Taoiseach supposedly hates so much, the Taoiseach said that the call for this contingency planning was tantamount to calling for border dogs to be trained. That was an intemperate response last Wednesday. Yet, in Derry on Friday night, the Taoiseach said something completely different. On that occasion he said that we were planning for different contingencies and "we will seek a unique solution for Northern Ireland". Will he explain why he said one thing in the House last week and then something completely different in Derry? Will he confirm that he is preparing proposals for a situation where the United Kingdom does not have barrier-free access to the European Union?
The Taoiseach has repeatedly spoken of his being open to full briefings for pro-European parties regarding the Brexit talks. We have sought such briefings but from what the Taoiseach said in Derry, it is becoming clear that there is nothing open or candid about these briefings. Is it the position that the Taoiseach has given instructions that certain matters are not to be admitted in briefings if they are not in tandem with what he says in public?
On the Cabinet sub-committees, does the Taoiseach believe it is wise or appropriate for Brexit to be put alongside European issues? I understood that international affairs also featured in that sub-committee. Will the Taoiseach clarify this point?
Brexit issues require a singular focus and effort. When we last spoke on these on 3 October, the Taoiseach told us that the previous sub-committee meeting had taken place on 11 September, that is some three and a half weeks earlier. The idea that any sub-committee that engaged in a serious piece of work, and especially Brexit, would meet almost monthly is ludicrous and irresponsible.
I disagree with how Deputy Mícheál Martin has dealt with the threat of a border on the island of Ireland. The Taoiseach is correct to hold firm on the line and the understanding that there can be, and will be, no border on the island. The efforts to secure what Sinn Féin has described as special designated status - it does not matter what it is called, it only matters what it does - in order to ensure that Ireland in its totality remains within the Single Market and the customs union is what is important. I do not believe that it is beneficial or appropriate to debate what the electronic border might look like.
The idea of mimicking toll free traffic on the M50 which I think is Fianna Fáil's brainwave-----
No; I am sorry, but that is not Fianna Fáil policy.
I do not think that is helpful or appropriate.
Stop distorting the truth once again. It is asinine commentary.
It is the job of the Taoiseach to protect the interests of the country and the island as a whole and it is absolutely and resolutely squarely in the region of having no border. The Taoiseach might answer my question about the sub-committee and my proposition to him that he has a Brexit sub-committee that is in session and meeting all the time, not monthly.
The Taoiseach will recall that in the Government of which both he and I were members there were ten Cabinet sub-committees which were very effective at pursuing the reform agenda in each area of operation, with direct accountability to the Taoiseach, which was good. If there was any criticism of them, it was probably that there were too many people attending each of them, but that was a general complaint. The problem with reducing the number and broadening the scope of each of the reduced committees is that we will have an extraordinarily large number attending. That waters down their effectiveness.
I would like the Taoiseach to answer on two specific issues, one of which is climate action. Should there be a stand-alone committee dealing with the issue if we are to give it the sense of priority to which the House referred during Leaders' Questions? Justice reform was a major part of the reform agenda and most people in the country would still regard it as critical. Where in the six committees the Taoiseach has set out is it housed and how often does the reform committee meet?
On the questions put by the two previous questioners, all of the meetings I have attended on the island of Ireland and in Britain have had far too many generalisms about what we are facing. Bluntly, I would like to have a real debate about the options we have to face because we are galloping towards the edge of a cliff and talking in generalisms and making assertions that something will not happen. It will be too late if we actually reach the edge of the cliff and there is no solution.
Absolutely.
We need to have real debate about these issues now.
All expert opinion suggests the formation of hurricane Ophelia was due to rising ocean temperatures which are related to global warming. Does that not prompt the Taoiseach to think we need a far more seriously focused approach to dealing with climate change, rather than what we are doing, which is engaged in special pleading as to why we should be allowed to continue with increased CO2 emissions and not meet targets and run the risk of fines? The Citizens' Assembly stated we should be global leaders. That is what it recommended to the Government and we are the opposite. The fact that the Taoiseach does not have a dedicated Cabinet sub-committee suggests he is not taking the issue seriously. Should he reconsider after the weekend?
The next issue I want to raise which is of critical importance and requires the emergency response we saw at the weekend from the Government is housing and the need for a special committee to deal with what continues to be a crisis that is out of control. We need an emergency focused, dedicated, all-Government response to the housing and homelessness crisis. It justifies having a special Cabinet sub-committee which the Taoiseach would chair.
I agree with those who have spoken about the need for greater urgency and action to deal with climate change, but those involved realise it also requires us to take many more dramatic steps to protect the environment and the social system in a variety of ways. In that regard, I understand the Taoiseach has abdicated responsibility for implementing the sustainable development goals to the line Minister, Deputy Denis Naughten, but I do not see how that can work. I am interested in this issue as it affects the committees. It is the type of issue that comes in under every committee, in education and justice, as well as dealing with environmental issues. Will the Taoiseach outline what role, if any, his Department has in overseeing implementation of the sustainable development goals? How does it fit across the five Cabinet sub-committees? Does the Taoiseach agree that if, as he stated in the Time magazine article, we have to, as a country, be at the centre of the world, in other words, be open to what is going on in it, the biggest hope for it is that this manifesto for the north, as well as the south, the sustainable development goals, which were negotiated by an Irish civil servant shows us the path? That being the case, why is it that I see them nowhere in his or his Department's agenda? Why is it that he is not taking responsibility? Where do they sit within the Cabinet sub-committee system?
It is important to say the Cabinet held a special meeting in Cork on Friday in UCC to deal with two issues, namely, Brexit and health reform. It is fair to say Brexit took up the majority of the day's deliberations. I did this because it was important to include the Cabinet in the discussion on Brexit, particularly with the European Council meeting coming up this week, rather than just a Cabinet sub-committee. We will have another full Cabinet meeting tomorrow to deal with the Finance Bill. As Deputies will probably see, between last Friday and Wednesday of this week, we will have had three Cabinet meetings, which is reflective of the different approach I am taking as Taoiseach, which is to have the full Cabinet meet more frequently and for longer periods of time in order that we can have genuine collective responsibility, whereby all Cabinet members will be across the big decisions being made. It will be the total reverse of what happened during a previous Government, of which I was a member, when a sub-committee called the Economic Management Council made lots of decisions and informed the rest of the Cabinet of them. That is something I never favoured and was never part of. It is not the way I propose to lead a Government.
Separate to the Cabinet committee on Brexit, the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee, and I also meet regularly to discuss European affairs and European policy. Actually holding a Cabinet sub-committee which we can all attend is very difficult. For example, today the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, and the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee, are at the General Affairs Council and the Foreign Affairs Council; therefore, it would be impossible for us to have a Cabinet sub-committee meeting today. On Thursday and Friday the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee, and I will be at the European Council and it would not be possible for us to attend a meeting. Whereas Deputy Mary Lou McDonald may suggest Cabinet committees should meet all the time, in practical reality that is not achievable because we are all coming and going all of the time because of the nature of our jobs. That is why I want to centre more things around the Cabinet and the bilateral and trilateral meetings involving the key Ministers.
On contingency planning, it is appropriate for any Government in office to plan for worst-case scenarios. Some years ago we had a plan for what we would do if the euro fell apart; of course, therefore, Governments have to engage in contingency planning. Doing a desktop exercise and engaging in due diligence on worst-case scenarios are very different from what seems to be Fianna Fáil policy. Perhaps RTÉ misreported what had happened at the Ard-Fheis, but I distinctly read an article about a motion being passed calling for an electronic border with gantries and M50 style tolls. I think that is to what Deputy Mary Lou McDonald was referring. It seems that it is Fianna Fáil's policy-----
I think the Taoiseach's position in the past couple of weeks has been-----
That is what RTÉ-----
The Taoiseach knows full well what my position is.
That is what RTÉ reported, but perhaps it misreported what had happened.
To be quite frank, I think the Taoiseach's response is asinine. It does him no justice in terms of his seriousness.
It also reported comments on "The Week in Politics" that Fianna Fáil would prepare for a hard Brexit. How else would it prepare for a hard Brexit other than by going around the place scoping out sites for customs posts and truck stops and training border guards and dogs?
I would not start to train the dogs just yet.
That is not the policy of the Government.
Neither is it-----
Those things are self-fulfilling prophecies. If Deputy Stephen Donnelly, as Minister of Foreign Affairs or European Affairs, was to go to London to negotiate with the British authorities the details of how an electronic border might work, he might find soon enough that it would actually become a solution. That is why it would be very unwise to have a Fianna Fáil government in London discussing with British officials what an electronic border might look like, how big the toll gantries might be and where they should be placed. That would be a very unwise political strategy and it is something I absolutely would not support.
Briefings are absolutely open to party leaders.
I have given no instruction other than to give people full information.
Climate action is an important issue. I totally acknowledge that but there are any number of issues on which one could have a dedicated Cabinet sub-committee. We could have one for every single issue for which there is a Department, and then some more, but then we would be back to where we were before, with 15, 20 or 30 Cabinet committees. It is just too many and it becomes unwieldy. Justice reform is dealt with by Cabinet committee B but the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Charlie Flanagan, and I also meet bilaterally. I disagree with the view, often expressed to me on Taoiseach's questions, that if an issue is important, one must have a dedicated Cabinet sub-committee do deal with it. I am not sure that is true. I have seen governments from ten or 20 years ago, and maybe more recently, for which setting up a committee was a way not to deal with something. It was just a consultation exercise or talk-shop exercise. The way one tends to get things done in government is either at Cabinet, where Ministers are all present so one can actually make decisions, or in much smaller groups.
The Taoiseach is letting himself down with the asinine comments he made both last week and today on Fianna Fáil's position on Brexit. He was present when I gave my speech at the All-Island Civil Dialogue. I spoke at Cambridge at the British-Irish Association meeting in the presence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Simon Coveney. I have been very serious and constructive about Brexit. The Taoiseach should ask his predecessor, Deputy Enda Kenny, how constructive I have been on Brexit since it was voted for. I have been serious about wearing the green jersey for Ireland. Our clear position has always been to have a special economic zone on the island of Ireland to ensure full trade and no border. Treating Question Time like some smart-ass university debate is not doing justice to the seriousness of the issue.
The Taoiseach said at the outset in answering me that we should engage in contingency planning and that everybody should prepare for worst-case scenarios. The Revenue Commissioners did their work. I was not raising the Revenue Commissioners today. They did serious work. In my humble opinion, it was work that should have been shared with people. I see no rationale as to why it would not have been shared with people. It could have informed public debate, not to become a self-fulfilling prophesy but to warn those affected, including those in SMEs in Ireland and Britain, about the horrendous impact of what Brexit will mean for them in their daily lives, economically and in terms of jobs, for example. It would have been advantageous to public debate. Lest there be any doubt - it is one thing for Sinn Féin to try to distort the truth but I suggest it is something different for the Taoiseach to try to do so - our position has been very consistent, from the referendum onwards, in terms of avoiding a hard border in Ireland. That is why we are putting forward the propositions in all seriousness. I ask the Taoiseach to acknowledge that.
I do not believe an M50-type solution to the Border is a serious proposition at all and I do not believe it demonstrates any kind of political nous or understanding of the job that needs to be done. It is a very significant challenge to ensure that not only the economic life of the island but also the political life and the Good Friday Agreement infrastructure are not completely undermined.
On the issue of the report from the Revenue Commissioners, I see no reason it would not be shared. I suggest, however, that there is a deep understanding among SMEs, businesspeople, the agrifood industry and farmers of the massive disruption Brexit potentially represents.
Not in Britain.
Although the Revenue Commissioners carried out the exercise, I do not believe the exercise was necessary to put what I describe up in lights.
The Taoiseach gave the reasons the Cabinet sub-committee is not meeting as regularly as would be optimal. Given this, he needs to ask himself the purpose of the sub-committee and the effectiveness of its work.
May I ask the Taoiseach about the briefing of other political parties and leaders on these matters? Whatever our differences, I believe we can all work together constructively.
The Taoiseach should not imagine for a second that light debates about what a border might or might not look like would be lost on the Government in London and by others. It would be absolutely detrimental to send out a signal other than the fact that, politically, socially and economically, we cannot and will not entertain any border on the island. That needs to be said explicitly. Nonsensical positions on M50-style toll-free traffic certainly do not assist in that regard.
This House voted by majority to have special economic status for Northern Ireland and to maintain the customs union on the island of Ireland. The Government voted against it. I have done everything I can to explain the consequences of not having both parts of the island in the same customs union, certainly to my colleagues in the British Labour Party. We need reports such as the one prepared by the Revenue Commissioners to underscore that work because there is extraordinary naivete, if not blindness, to this reality among politicians in Britain.
That is a fact. All of us in this House have to face up to this. In the words of Mr. Michel Barnier, the clock is ticking. If we continue as we are, with Britain saying there will be a soft or seamless border and us saying there will be no border, what will happen when, suddenly in March 2019, we will be in different customs unions? What will physically happen then? Rather than talking around the issue, we need to have concrete proposals. The only solution that works for us is the maintenance of a single customs union on the island of Ireland. I hope that, between Britain and Ireland, that is achievable, but we need to explain the consequences of it not happening.
I am keen to get an answer to the question I asked, on the role of the Taoiseach's Department and his committee system in the implementation of the sustainable development goals, signed off on by this country, along with most others, in September 2015. The goals provide a perfect roadmap for the future for this country. What is the Taoiseach's responsibility and what is the role of the committee system in delivering on the goals?
On the final matter, the sustainable development goals, the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment, is the lead Department. As is the case with all Departments, mine has oversight of its work.
On the solution to the Brexit conundrum, I am in broad agreement with what has been said by others. I believe the only solution that is workable for Britain and Ireland is that the United Kingdom as a whole should remain in some form of customs union. One could call it a customs partnership if one wanted. It should be some form of customs union involving the United Kingdom and the European Union. It is not just about the North and South. The east-west trade is really important also. If one talks to anyone involved with an SME, or an exporter involved in agrifood, one will realise the trade between Britain and Ireland is much greater than the trade between the North and South. We need to bear that in mind. In my conversations with my colleagues across Europe and on the telephone yesterday with Ms Theresa May, to whom I spoke for 40 minutes, I emphasised my view that the United Kingdom should remain in a customs union with the European Union. If it wishes to call it something different, because the term "union" has particular connotations, it would be the best solution. It could call it a customs partnership; I do not mind. If it cannot be achieved, we then need to consider a secondary, less-favourable solution, but that is one that would involve special arrangements for Northern Ireland. That is what I said to Ms May when we spoke yesterday and what I have said before on many occasions.
Using the term "special status" is not helpful. It is seen by the DUP and other unionist parties as an attempt to diminish the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, using the term actually makes the objective harder to achieve. This is because of the sensitivities around language. Deputy Martin, as a former Minister for Foreign Affairs, will know how unbelievably sensitive people in Northern Ireland can be about language, even in regard to whether a word is spelled with a capital letter. It is not helpful, therefore, to use the term "special status". Unless one is deliberately trying to undermine and to annoy unionists, I ask that one not use it.
I have not used the term "special status".
Yes, but the Dáil voted for it. It did not help. It was not helpful in trying to achieve a good outcome for the Irish people that the term was adopted by the "Oireachtas". The Deputy will know that it is not helpful at a European level more widely. The European Parliament motion using the same language, backed by Sinn Féin MPs, was voted down at European level because other countries saw it as potentially giving rise to regionalism and nationalism within their regions. That is another example of where people pushing agendas for political gain from Brexit did harm to our national interest.
It is something I asked Sinn Féin MEPs to reflect on. There is no point in putting a motion to the European Parliament demanding special status for Northern Ireland only to have it voted down. That undermines our case in negotiations.
I thank the Taoiseach. I have to move on.
Finally, I wish to touch briefly on the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis. I fully accept that the media may have misreported this.
The Taoiseach knows my position.
I accept absolutely that the media sometimes get these things wrong, but the reports are that Fianna Fáil called for an electronic border with Northern Ireland post-Brexit, similar to the toll system on the M50. The motion suggested an auto-logging system for goods and services traded. If that is Fianna Fáil's policy, I disagree with that policy.
Now, we move to a bit of housekeeping. We ran over time because of the importance of the matter. I can be blamed. We have 20 minutes left. The next question is on Seanad reform and the following question is on political staff and advisers. I want Members to decide which question they want to take, or whether we should give ten minutes to each.
Let us take the first question and see how far we get.
Seanad Reform
Michael Moynihan
Question:3. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Taoiseach the status of the reform of Seanad Éireann. [40544/17]
Gerry Adams
Question:15. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the status of the implementation group on Seanad reform. [42740/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 15 together.
As the Deputy will be aware, in A Programme for a Partnership Government, the Government stated its commitment to pursuing the implementation of the report of the working group on Seanad reform, also known as the Manning report. That report was published in 2015 and it is available on my Department's website. One of the recommendations of the report was the establishment of an implementation group to oversee implementation of the reforms contained in the report.
As my predecessor previously said in this House, he agreed with a suggestion made here some time ago by Deputy Martin that this group should be based in the Oireachtas and should comprise Members of the Dáil and Seanad from all parties and groups, with access to independent expert advice as required. He wrote to party leaders in September last year seeking their agreement to this approach and their intention to participate. I have reviewed matters in this regard and am keen to progress them. I will contact leaders shortly with a view to having the group up and running as soon as possible.
I think the Taoiseach has answered the questions that were on all our minds because the dates speak for themselves. Last September 12 months we had a commitment to set up this group on Seanad reform. The Taoiseach's own Department's statement of strategy says there is a commitment "to fully implement the Manning report on the Seanad". Given his comments on the Manning report I am surprised that statement is still on the statement of strategy. The Taoiseach might review that and consider deleting it because I am not so sure it is such a commitment now as it may have been.
The Taoiseach's statement that he intends to be in contact with us has a familiar ring to it. The previous Taoiseach said on numerous occasions over a three-year period that he would shortly be in contact with us in terms of setting up the group. I ask that the group would be set up as a matter of urgency and a chair appointed.
There is a further matter in regard to the referendum on the Seanad that was held many years ago, namely, the issue of amending legislation in terms of extending its franchise. Is that plan now completely on the back-burner?
On the question of referendums, the Taoiseach said on the previous occasion we asked that, given that the holding of referendums is a matter for the Oireachtas there would be consultations with party leaders on the range of referendums the Government felt might take place next year. Could he indicate when that consultation with other party leaders will take place?
The abolition of the Seanad is a well-trodden path which then turned into the reform of Seanad but none of the above has happened. I do not detect any great political appetite or urgency for dealing with the issue. My questions, much like the previous speaker, are around when all of this will be actioned and who will chair the implementation group. There have been 12 separate reports proposing Seanad reform and yet here we are pondering this issue again. If this is something that is going to happen - I believe it should - then we need to see evidence of action and we need to see it very soon.
My first question is in regard to intent. I know the programme for Government and I have the reply to a question by me on 4 October, which I expect is exactly what the Taoiseach has just told the House now, namely, that the programme for Government is committed to implement the Manning report. I am looking at the executive summary and recommendations of the Manning report. Does the Taoiseach support them? In his view is this the blueprint or is it the basis for a further discussion on what the Second Chamber in this Oireachtas should look like? I am interested in hearing his own view. Will the report be implemented? I was not convinced, once the proposal to abolish the Seanad was defeated by the people, that there was really a firm political commitment to have a reformed Second Chamber and what that reformed Second Chamber would look like.
The Taoiseach has a reputation for speaking directly. Perhaps he would very directly say what in his view the Second Chamber should look like and if the Manning report is the blueprint he would like to follow.
I would like to echo that question because although it is difficult to interpret referendum votes, I felt that at the time, when campaigning against the referendum presented by the Government, there was a clear sense that people were not voting to keep the Seanad as is, but they were voting for reform. For us to ignore that, in particular at a time when we are looking at a range of other referendums that we are considering putting forward, would be a mistake. We should have this on our agenda and in the timeline for future referendums in the next two years. I am very keen to hear the Taoiseach very broadly outline what is his position; whether it is abolition, reform or the status quo? If it is reform then we can get down to the details of it but if it is one of the other two then at least we will know where we stand. I am keen to hear an answer to Deputy Howlin's question.
I will set up the implementation group in the next few weeks. It does need a chairperson who would have broad respect and be broadly accepted across the Oireachtas. I have not yet had an opportunity to approach anyone but I intend to do so once I get a moment if I can to do something that is not already top of the agenda in the next couple of days or in the next week or two.
The programme for Government commits to reforming the Seanad in line with the Manning report and I will honour that commitment. I am bound by the programme for Government, just as all my Ministers are and everyone who is on the Fine Gael and Independent Alliance benches and some Independents as well. That is why it is included in the strategy statement.
I will not lie to the Deputy. I will not lie to anyone in this House. Frankly, I do have reservations about the Manning report. The Manning report proposes that there would not be a referendum on the Seanad and that it would be reformed within the confines of the existing constitutional provisions. That requires retaining the panels, which date back to the 1930s, and which to me are archaic. I cannot remember all of them but they cover administrative, industrial and commercial areas.
Agriculture.
Perhaps they do not reflect the Ireland of 2017, never mind the Ireland of 2027. They are corporatist and date from the 1930s. They date from a particular model of Catholic democracy that to me is out of date. What it proposes is re-registering the entire country to vote again because everyone would have to nominate which of those five panels they want to be an elector on, or whether they would prefer to be an elector on one of the two university panels. The first thing we would have to do is re-register the entire country to vote and hold a major educational exercise explaining to people whether they should ask to be on the administrative panel, the education panel or the industrial and commercial panel. Frankly, I am not sure that is the best solution we can come up.
That is why I asked the Taoiseach about it. He just said he is committed to it.
Why has the Taoiseach committed to it?
Deputy Howlin asked me my personal view and I have only just started to give it. I have genuine reservations about the process. However, I fully accept the commitment in the programme for Government. I will honour that commitment and the implementation group will be set up.
If the Taoiseach does not believe in it why does he not change it?
I look forward to the proponent explaining what a great idea it all is.
He is an eminent member of the Taoiseach's party - Maurice Manning.
Departmental Staff
Brendan Howlin
Question:4. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach to set out the number of political staff and advisers he has employed; and the role of each. [41631/17]
Gerry Adams
Question:5. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach for details on the political staff and advisers employed by him in his Department; and the name, title, function, salary, terms of employment and location of each. [41636/17]
Micheál Martin
Question:6. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach to outline the policy areas that his appointed advisers have. [41864/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together.
There are 20 politically-appointed staff employed by my Department. Nine of these are advisers, including two special advisers to the Government Chief Whip. Those based in my Department in Government Buildings are Brian Murphy, chief of staff, paid at deputy secretary grade; John Carroll, head of policy and programme implementation, paid at assistant secretary grade; Nick Miller, spokesman and communications adviser to the Taoiseach, paid at assistant secretary grade; Patrick Geoghegan, special adviser, paid at assistant secretary grade; Angela Flanagan, special adviser, paid at principal officer grade; Philip O'Callaghan, special adviser, paid at principal officer grade; Jim D'Arcy, special adviser, paid at assistant principal grade; Lisa Tavey, personal assistant, paid at higher executive officer grade; Feargal Purcell, Government press secretary, paid at assistant secretary grade; Catherine Halloran, deputy Government press secretary, paid at principal officer grade – she is principally press officer for the Independent Ministers; Sarah Meade, assistant Government press secretary, paid at principal officer grade; Tony Williams, chief strategist for the Independent Alliance, paid at principal officer grade; Dónall Geoghegan, political co-ordinator for the Independent Ministers, paid at principal officer grade; Mark O'Doherty, who is adviser to the Chief Whip, paid at principal officer grade; Gregory Harkin, special adviser to the Government Chief Whip, paid at principal officer grade; Seosamh Ó Ducháin, civilian driver for the Government Chief Whip; and John McClafferty, civilian driver for the Government Chief Whip.
Those based in the Houses of the Oireachtas who fall under my Vote are Ian O'Brien, civilian driver for Leader of the Seanad, Edward O'Connell, civilian driver for Leader of the Seanad and James O'Grady, personal assistant, paid at higher executive officer grade, who is based in my constituency office. With the exception of Patrick Geoghegan, who is a public servant, all are unestablished civil servants.
The special advisers working in my Department provide briefings and advice on a wide range of policy matters, as well as performing other functions as I may direct from time to time. They also liaise with other special advisers in each Department so that I remain informed on developments throughout Government.
I remind Deputies that we have approximately seven and a half minutes left. I want to ensure the three Deputies get to contribute so please be brief. Deputy Howlin is first.
I have actually lost count of the number. Does the Taoiseach now have eight special advisers? Is that right?
Yes, if we include the Chief Whip and Independent Ministers' staff. They do not actually work to me.
How many actually work to the Taoiseach? I want to get this correct in my head. He has the chief of staff, Brian Murphy, Nick Miller, Angela Flanagan, Professor Patrick Geoghegan, John Carroll, Philip O'Callaghan, the former Senator, Jim D’Arcy, who is an advisor on the Border and Brexit, and Sarah Meade. Is that right? Are they all the Taoiseach's staff?
They are.
That is eight. Is that correct? Is Feargal Purcell still in place? That is another one. On top of that, we have the strategic communications unit. How many staff are in that unit?
I do not know.
There are six.
Is that six more?
That is a matter for the Secretary General.
Normally, the Taoiseach would answer questions in the House on the staff. We have done it always over the years. There is a formidable volume of additional special advisers and staff over and above those employed by the Taoiseach's predecessor. Do we have a running cost? I would exclude civilian drivers obviously. How much are the political staff going to cost?
I too would like a sense of the costs associated with the Taoiseach's political staff and advisers. The Taoiseach might provide that to us.
Nick Miller is a communications person. Is that correct? There are two press secretaries. What are they doing? What relationship do they have, if any, with the strategic communications unit? Where is the division of labour?
I want the Taoiseach to address another issue. He previously made a claim that the strategic communications unit was cost-neutral. As we know, in the budget the Taoiseach allocated €5 million to that unit. That is hardly cost-neutral. Can the Taoiseach explain that contradiction?
I know the former Senator, Mr. D'Arcy, is the Taoiseach's adviser on the North, the Border and Brexit. Of course it is very good that the Taoiseach has specialist advice on that area. I understand that in a "Spotlight" programme due to broadcast tonight the Taoiseach raises an issue and an objection to the 50% plus one basis for a Border poll or a referendum on Irish unity. I wish to advise the Taoiseach that, although all of us would wish to see such a proposition built consensually and democratically to far exceed a 50% plus one threshold, such is the provision in what is an international legally binding agreement.
When a civil servant is put into a quasi-political role or when he is appointed to a position without normal procedures, he is appointed under special adviser legislation. This was the practice followed in the past by all Ministers and taoisigh. It is a practice I followed myself. Can the Taoiseach explain why the top two positions in the strategic communications unit were not appointed in the accepted manner? The Taoiseach conceded to the House last week that he went to the head of the strategic communications unit in advance to check his availability and that then, technically, the Secretary General of the Department appointed him. In my view, in the real world, the Taoiseach decided to appoint him. It is a worrying trend that the rules do not apply to the Taoiseach in respect of the appointment to such key positions.
I would appreciate clarification on the case of the deputy head of unit. I stand to be corrected but our information is that the person was appointed originally from outside the civil and public service to the Department of the Taoiseach by the Taoiseach's predecessor as part of the European Council Presidency. Then, subsequently, he was appointed to promote the Action Plan for Jobs. The Taoiseach might clarify whether that person has ever undertaken a competitive interview to be appointed. Is that person still deemed to be a political appointment? Is the person now an established civil servant, as the Taoiseach has claimed? Can the Taoiseach explain how that progression occurred and how that happened? Does the Taoiseach think it is acceptable to politicise Civil Service positions in this manner? I believe that is the core issue. What we have been witnessing in recent times is a blurring of the divide between civil servants who, since the foundation of the State, have always had a non-political role, with the political objectives of the lead party in government.
Thank you, Deputy Martin.
Finally, will the Taoiseach indicate, in respect of the work of the strategic communications unit, why any adverse statistics are released on Friday afternoon? Anything to do with waiting lists, housing lists and so on are released on Friday afternoon or the Friday of a bank holiday.
Thank you.
Will the communications unit be issuing statements providing us with information that is as clear as it possibly can be about record hospital and housing waiting lists?
The level of paranoia about the strategic communications unit really is extraordinary. First, it has absolutely no role whatsoever in producing or issuing statistics. Statistics on waiting lists are released by the HSE and the National Treatment Purchase Fund. The Central Statistics Office releases other statistics. The Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government releases other statistics. These bodies have been releasing other statistics long before the SCU was ever created. My Department has no role in telling these bodies when they should or should not produce their numbers.
The top two positions are not political appointees. They are not special advisers. That is why they did not follow the special adviser process. That process is only for special advisers. The head of the SCU was seconded by the Secretary General of my Department. The other position was a re-assignment by the Secretary General of the Department. I did not even know that Ms Pappin was being assigned to that post until after it had happened, which gives a real indication of the extent to which I am involved in these matters.
That is inappropriate.
When it comes to staffing, it is a matter for an office within my Department. Decisions on the number of staff and on the appointment of individual staff members are made by the Secretary General.
That is not right.
I am not going to be interfering with it. The only role I had whatsoever in it was what I have already put on the record of the House, that is to say, I suggested someone for the head of it. I suggested someone who, as we all know, had done a great job already for Creative Ireland, The Gathering and the 1916 commemorations.
That is not right.
I do not agree that it is inappropriate. For example, when we are appointing Secretaries General to Departments we are given a list of names to choose from.
We do not give the names. The names are given by the Top Level Appointments Committee.
There is a much greater political role in the appointment of a Secretary General than there is in suggesting that somebody get a position.
The Taoiseach is wrong.
Let the Taoiseach speak without interruption.
To answer the other questions, since I thought this would come up-----
That is not true.
-----the list of staff I read out includes staff assigned to Independents, to the Chief Whip and drivers. For comparison, that adds up to 20, compared with 23 under the former Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny. I have fewer staff than did my predecessor and the total cost of their salaries is considerably lower than the cost of salaries under former taoisigh, former Deputies Brian Cowen and Bertie Ahern. I spend less and have fewer staff. I hope somebody will report on that since it is a fact.
On the matter of the cost of running-----
Does that include the strategic communications unit?
It is costly. That does not mean it will cost nothing-----
It was six by our count.
-----particularly when it comes to running campaigns but that is entirely met by existing resources in my Department. The Deputies will know that from the budget book because my Department is one of the few taking a reduction in its budget in 2018.