Skip to main content
Normal View

Diplomatic Protocol.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 24 June 2004

Thursday, 24 June 2004

Questions (5)

Ruairí Quinn

Question:

5 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he authorised the circulation of election material for the Fianna Fáil party to Irish diplomats serving abroad through the diplomatic bag, prior to the recent local and European elections; if not, if he will indicate the level at which the decision was made; when the review of this practice will be complete; the terms and remit of this review; the steps he intends to take to ensure that any such facility is made available to all political parties at any future election; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18914/04]

View answer

Oral answers (18 contributions)

It might be helpful to the Deputy if I first set out some background information on the subject of postal voting by departmental officials and spouses serving abroad. Under the terms of the Electoral Acts, and subject to registration in the appropriate manner, civil servants serving at Irish diplomatic and consular missions outside the State, and their spouses resident with them, qualify to cast their ballots by post.

The Department of Foreign Affairs makes arrangements annually to update the official registers of electors of foreign service voters and its own internal postal vote register. The Department's present postal vote register comprises the names and addresses in Ireland of 501 registered postal voters.

On the occasion of each constitutional referendum or election, ballot papers in sealed, individually addressed envelopes are delivered to the Department for each registered postal voter. These are separated on a mission by mission basis by officers of the Department's human resources unit and then forwarded by diplomatic bag to each head of mission for onward transmission to the individual postal voters. Following the completion locally of balloting procedures, the postal votes are returned to the human resources unit by diplomatic bag, again in sealed envelopes, and forwarded to the relevant returning officers.

It is the Department's practice to allow officers serving abroad and members of their families residing with them use of the diplomatic bag facility to send and receive private correspondence. At election time, it has also been the practice to forward automatically to officers serving abroad and their spouses any personally addressed election literature received in the Department.

On 24 May last, an official of the Fianna Fáil party headquarters contacted an executive officer in the Department's human resources unit indicating that the party wished to send election literature to registered postal voters serving at diplomatic and consular posts abroad and their spouses. The human resources official declined a request to provide the party with a copy of the Department's own list of postal voters and instead provided it with the publicly available directory of the names, official addresses and official contact details of officers abroad. That list does not, however, include the names of spouses nor does it give any indication of the constituencies or local electoral areas in which the postal voters concerned are registered. The Fianna Fáil party official asked if the Department would forward to each registered postal voter election literature in the form of a single, generically addressed letter from the party leader. The human resources unit official acceded to that request.

Some days later, a quantity of Fianna Fáil election literature was delivered to the Department's registry and the officer from the human resources unit subsequently prepared diplomatic bags there for dispatch, each containing the relevant postal vote ballot papers and a quantity of the election literature concerned. Later, in the absence of the human resources unit officer concerned who was on duties in connection with the Irish EU Presidency, another officer of the human resources unit prepared further diplomatic bags containing postal vote ballot papers. In those cases, the election material in question was not included.

In the light of expressions of concern about the issue, I announced on 6 June that a review of procedures would be conducted. I also indicated that the outcome of the review would be conveyed to the political parties and made publicly known so that all candidates for election and other interested parties would be fully aware of it. The review is now under way and I expect to be able to inform interested parties of new procedures at a reasonably early date. Neither I nor anyone in my office was aware of the request regarding circulation of election material nor had any involvement in acceding to it.

The Department has always sought to be helpful to Deputies and political parties and it was in line with this that the official agreed to the request in question. The official would have equally agreed to a similar approach from other parties. However, it is accepted that the arrangements now need to be put on a more structured basis. In this regard, the Deputy can be assured that the new arrangements will ensure that the process is fully transparent and known to all interested parties at election time.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I asked at what level within the Department the decision was taken to authorise this facilitation, which I think is without precedent. In his reply, the Minister stated that neither he nor anyone from his office was aware of this matter, and I accept this. Was the Secretary General of the Department aware of it? Will the Minister establish whether the official took the decision on his or her own or whether it was referred upwards, as I would expect from my experience of such matters? If the Minister cannot provide this information now, he can do so later, but we will pursue the matter. Did the Secretary General or assistant secretary of the Department receive a request for guidance on this matter and make a decision? If so, why did the Secretary General or an official acting on his behalf not notify the other political parties of the availability of this facility, which was not previously known?

I have stated the full details of the matter in my reply. It was dealt with at executive officer level in the human resources unit and the decision was taken on the officer's own initiative in an effort to be helpful. The officer did not consider the request unusual as, having served in registry, he or she was familiar with requests to circulate information to our missions abroad, be they addressed directly to officers or for general distribution. The decision was taken on foot of direct contact with the human resources unit and not at any higher level.

I do not wish to make the officer's grade relevant in this regard. The officer did nothing wrong. As politicians, we need to be fair. Over the years, Members on all sides have found that the Department of Foreign Affairs has gone out of its way to be helpful, and it was in this spirit that the official acted. Any party might have made the request. However, structures and procedures have now been put in place.

Is the Minister stating that an executive officer of the Department, on receipt of political material to be circulated, took the unilateral decision, against the culture and tradition of a non-partisan Civil Service, to provide this facility without checking with anyone more senior? Is that what the Minister is trying to tell us?

I am not trying to tell the Deputy anything. That is the situation.

Departments have been politicised. There is total politicisation.

I have come to the House to outline the full facts on this issue. That is the situation.

They do not have to be told anymore.

If that is the situation, does the Minister consider that a more senior officer should have been consulted? The Minister has significant experience. He well knows that the normal practice regarding an unprecedented request of this nature would be for an executive officer to request guidance or direction. If an officer did not request guidance, it suggests a management problem and that should be addressed.

I have explained the situation. The officer involved, having worked previously in registry, often circulated information to missions abroad, be it addressed directly to officers or for general distribution. The officer was simply trying to be helpful. Obviously if the matter had gone higher up the line, the issues which the Deputy raises would probably have been taken into consideration to ensure there was no misunderstanding. That did not happen. The officer tried to be helpful and thought the matter was in order, as I have explained.

The full details are available and I do not like the insinuation that I have drawn up this information for the purposes of getting through this questioning. This is exactly what happened. Rather than dumping on the official concerned, we should accept the official was trying to be helpful. As the Deputy knows, many things can happen in a Department without ministerial knowledge. When an issue arises with such sensitivities, proper procedures are put in place to ensure it does not happen again in that way. That is the best we can do and the official should not be dumped on.

Will the Minister state his opinion that it should not have happened in the way it did?

In my reply, I made clear the situation regarding the Electoral Acts.

However, the perception is that it should not have——

Perception is always a difficulty. I want to ensure that procedures are in place which are fully transparent for all concerned——

They never informed us.

——and that a mountain is not made of a molehill. The official concerned made the decision in good faith in an effort to be helpful. I am introducing procedures to ensure it does not happen again. We should leave it at that.

Does the Minister not agree that it was inappropriate for the Taoiseach to write personally to diplomats and their spouses and families abroad requesting their political support for a particular party? Does he not agree this verged on intimidatory in that they represent the country and frequently represented the Minister and other Taoisigh, and that it was an abuse of the system by Fianna Fáil and should not have happened?

I make the point that, at election time, it has been the practice to forward automatically to officers serving abroad and their spouses any personally addressed election literature received in the Department. That is the situation. A specific issue arose and it was dealt with in a particular way. If it was left open to a perception as the Deputy suggests, I believe it is an exaggerated perception. People will make up their own minds in their own way on these matters. I reiterate that the action was taken in good faith in an attempt to be helpful. I will make sure that arrangements are put in place so that the unfair perception which attached to the actions of the official will not be repeated.

Top
Share