Vol. 441 No. 6
3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach in regard to the revised Estimates for 1994, the reasons for the 255 per cent increase over 1993 in the allocation for consultancy services for his Department; the purposes for which this money will be allocated; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The increased provision in Subhead A7 of my Department's Vote arises mainly due to the provision of a sum of £250,000 to meet the cost of the consultants, engaged by the efficiency audit group, to carry out a review of the Defence Forces.
The amount spent on consultants has been increased to £405,000. On what is the remainder of the money spent? Was it put out to tender? If not, why? A team of consultants was given £257,000 to assist the Taoiseach in preparing his case before the Beef Tribunal. Was that discharged in full or is some of it contained in this provision?
It is strange for a Deputy who is a member of the Committee of Public Accounts to ask if my Department has discharged this liability when he should know it is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture.
Deputy Mitchell and I get confused occasionally.
The consultancy firm was not known to me until I went to the Beef Tribunal.
It was known to Gerry Danoher.
I knew the Deputy might not like the reply. They were not known to me but they were known to every other Department involved.
I do not believe that.
The record will show, if the Deputy delves deeply into the records of the committee of which he is a member that they were known. There has not been an increase of £409,000. The figure is £250,000 for the efficiency audit group which operates under my Department.
Deputy Bruton.
I wish to ask——
I have called Deputy Bruton. If necessary, I will call the Deputy again but the Chair must be obeyed.
Why were the consultants who assisted the Taoiseach in his appearance at the tribunal in his capacity as a politician paid out of taxpayer's money? Why were similar facilities not extended to other politicians appearing in the same capacity as the Taoiseach? If the Taoiseach did not know who the consultants were, does he have any idea what they were doing and why they were paid all this money?
The Deputy knows well it is the responsibility of each Department to know what payments are made and how they are justified. I did not seek to have a public relations company engaged and they were not acting for me in my capacity as a politician. The taxpayer is not being asked to fund anything in relation to my appearance at the tribunal as a politician. When I asked for and was granted my own personal representation I told the Beef Tribunal I would pay that bill. It would be better if instead of making these loose allegations, Deputy Bruton and others told the taxpayer if they will pay their own bills regarding their appearance as politicians.
I did not receive a penny from the taxpayer.
What about 1960?
The consultants are looking at the role of the Defence Forces and why the money is not in the Department of Defence Estimate? Who are the consultants and who appointed them?
The consultants are Price Waterhouse. The efficiency audit group operate under the jurisdiction of my Department and report to it. Consequently, we take responsibility for covering its cost.
Since when?
Since before my time.
Is the Taoiseach denying what the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture told the Committee of Public Accounts that it was on the explicit recommendation of the Department of the Taoiseach that these consultants were recruited? The Taoiseach told the House he had nothing to do with it but that is what the accounting officer told the committee.
Questions, please.
Can the Taoiseach account for the discrepancy of £291,000, not £250,000, in the amount paid to consultants this year as compared to last year? Where is the remainder of the money going? Will the Taoiseach reply to my initial question? Were these contracts put out to tender and, if not, why not?
Deputy Rabbitte should know that not everything in the State system is put out to tender. Many Ministers and I have made this point.
I know it from recent events but I do not agree with it.
Let us hear the Taoiseach's reply.
Is Deputy Rabbitte suggesting that the consultancy services provided by a retired Government Secretary, Mr. Dermot Nally, who has experience of working on the Joint Peace Declaration, should be put out to tender?
Mr. Nally made an initial contribution and I fully support that.
That is fine. It amounts to £36,000. The amount paid to Carr Communications was £5,000.
Yes.
The amount paid to the consultants engaged by the EAG was £250,000. This gives a total of £291,000.
It is a commercial company.
I want to correct one point made by the Deputy. The request for a public relations firm for the Beef Tribunal did not come from me, it came from the State's legal team at the tribunal on its own initiative. I had absolutely nothing to do with this request——
Is the Taoiseach seriously saying that?
——and the Deputy should not make such allegations in the House.
Deputy Jim Mitchell.
Who is accountable for the State's legal team?
Not I.
I have called Deputy Mitchell.
The Attorney General is accountable for the State's legal team.
I want to add for the benefit of Deputy Rabbitte that the contract awarded to Price Waterhouse was put out to tender. I have been told that by the Minister of State.
The Attorney General, whose remit comes within the aegis of the Taoiseach's Department, is responsible for the State's legal team.
As the Taoiseach introduced the subject in his supplementary reply, I would like to go back on the question asked by Deputy Rabbitte. Is the Taoiseach saying that he and his Department had no hand, act or part to play in the appointment of consultants to the State's legal team? Is he aware that the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry told the Committee of Public Accounts that this request was made by the Secretary of the Department of the Taoiseach on 3 March 1992, the day after they had already started work, without tax clearance certificates or any tenders?
I do not have a problem with that. If Deputy Mitchell would listen——
Order, please.
This point is important.
We should not go into any detail in respect of the Committee of Public Accounts.
An incorrect statement should not be put on the record, and it is this——
Please, Deputies.
Deputy Rabbitte said that I, and not my Department, made the request. I stand over my statement in the House that the request for those consultants by the State's legal team came to my Department, not to me.
Is the Taoiseach seriously telling us that his Department——
I said I did not know about that firm and I stand over that statement.
Was the Taoiseach not notified by his secretary?
The Deputies should not try to twist the facts.
I now understand why the Taoiseach tried to silence me last week and the week before.
I have given the Deputies the facts and I stand over them.
The Deputy must restrain himself. I call Deputy Bruton for a brief supplementary before moving on to the next question.
We do not have the facts.
Is my hearing failing me or is the Taoiseach unwilling to take responsibility——
No.
——for the decisions made by his Department and legal team any trying to hide behind his civil servants and barristers? Is he saying that he does not accept personal responsibility?
I accept full responsibility for my Department and everything it does. The accusation was made against me personally that I sought out this team and had them employed. I have made it very clear in the House that this was not the case. The State's legal team operated on behalf of everyone, not just on my behalf.
A Ceann Comhairle——
I want to dissuade Members from the notion that they can debate this matter now. It may well be that certain matters appertaining to these questions can be developed in the debate on the Finance Bill which is in train in the House.
It should be referred to Deputy Jim Mitchell.
I will call Deputy Rabbitte and Deputy McDowell for two brief supplementaries before proceeding to Question No. 4.
The Taoiseach is not off the hook yet.
I will debate the matter with the Deputy any day.
The Taoiseach may have to debate it with the man beside him in due course.
The Taoiseach is blushing a bit.
I have a good tan.
Having regard to the answer he has just given to Deputy Bruton, is the Taoiseach seriously telling the House that his Department, on its own initiative, decided to dispense £257,000 of public money in hiring consultants, whose role is not clear to anyone else, to defend his case when he had the entire panoply of the Civil Service at his disposal? Is he saying that his Department, without his knowledge or direction, made such a request or decision?
I must dissuade the Deputy from making a speech.
Is the Taoiseach asking us to believe that?
That should be sufficient.
The Efficiency Audit Group which has been operating for a number of years under the aegis of my Department is given the overall task of looking into the structures of the Defence Forces, its guidelines——
I accept your waffle, Sir, but the Defence Forces, which, with all due respect, were needed at the tribunal——
Instead of getting so excited the Deputy should listen to the facts.
I am not talking about the Defence Forces.
I would be glad to give the Deputy the facts but he does not want them.
Not about the Defence Forces.
There is an aspect of courtesy involved in this. The Deputy asked some questions and he should be good enough to listen to the reply.
The problem is that he does not want the facts. The Efficiency Audit Group requested consultants to assist it in the job it was asked to do and the contract was put out to tender.
That is not the question the Taoiseach was asked.
I will ask a simpler question which perhaps the Taoiseach will understand. Who bears the political responsibility for the decision to retain those consultants at the Beef Tribunal?
I have answered that question in detail.
The Taoiseach has not.
I do not intend to go any further in the matter. If the Deputies carried out their jobs properly they would know more about the facts.
The Taoiseach has disowned responsibility for the decision.
Question No. 4.
Case dismissed.
