Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Ministerial Staff.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 24 February 2004

Tuesday, 24 February 2004

Ceisteanna (2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the duties and responsibilities of the special political advisers as appointed by him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1016/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the names of the special political advisers appointed by him and the duties and responsibilities of each; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2896/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

4 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the duties and responsibilities of the special political advisers appointed by him. [3706/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

5 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the responsibilities of each of the special political advisers appointed by him. [4638/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

6 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the special political advisers who are appointed by him; their duties and responsibilities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5655/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (45 píosaí cainte)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, together.

Section 11(1) of the Public Service Management Act 1997 makes provision for the appointment of special advisers to my office. As provided for in section 11(3) of the Act, the terms and conditions of these appointments are subject to determination by the Minister for Finance. Such appointments are exempt from the general rules governing civil servants and politics, for example, they can be members of political parties. The appointments are also subject to the Civil Service Regulations Acts 1956 to 1996 and any other Act for the time being in force relating to the Civil Service.

Currently the advisers who assist me in dealing with Government business are: Gerry Hickey, programme manager; Joe Lennon; Gerard Howlin; Brian Murphy; and Úna Claffey. Carl Gibney is the special adviser to the Government Chief Whip and Katherine Bulbulia is the programme manager for the Tánaiste. They are both based in my Department.

The role of advisers is to keep me informed on a wide range of issues, including business, financial, economic, political, administrative and media matters. Under the direction of the programme manager, their primary function is to ensure effective co-ordination in the implementation of the Government's programme. Each of the advisers liaises with a number of Departments and acts as a point of contact in my office for Ministers and their advisers. They attend meetings of Cabinet committees and cross-departmental teams relevant to their responsibilities. They also liaise, on my behalf, with organisations and interest groups outside of Government. In addition, a number of my advisers have specific responsibilities in relation to speech drafting. My programme manager meets other ministerial advisers on a weekly basis. He monitors and reports to me on the programme for Government.

That reply deserves careful scrutiny. The Taoiseach read it more quickly than he normally reads his replies.

It is the same old reply I have read several times.

One of the important duties of political advisers is to keep the Taoiseach and other Ministers informed and to co-ordinate activities under the Government programme. That seems to coincide with the Taoiseach's ethic of getting in here and staying here.

Does the remit of the political adviser — I recall one of the names mentioned by the Taoiseach — include commenting on letters Ministers should sign, arising out of which substantial amounts of money would be allocated for public projects, even when they have not gone through the full system of vetting for qualifying criteria? In respect of a recent project in Kerry, the Taoiseach's political adviser commented that a certain letter was the kind of letter a Minister should see, sign and issue. Arising from that substantial awards were made. I am not commenting on the validity or otherwise of the project. Is that part of the remit of the political adviser?

In a case where contracts are being awarded by his Department, does the Taoiseach think it appropriate that his political adviser should sit in on the final interview where a decision is made to determine an award of a substantial amount of public money?

With regard to the second matter, my political advisers would not sit in on the awarding of a contract, unless they were directly involved in the matter. I cannot think of any such case in my Department. In line Departments, it could be the case on issues that are directly relevant. In response to Deputy Kenny's first question, the role of political advisers does not remove the full responsibility for accountability and approval by the normal procedures. A political adviser may meet a group on my behalf or receive representations and could send a comment or a report to a Minister, but that does not remove the legal obligations for adherence to the regulations. That is the way that all issues would have to be processed.

In the case to which I referred, because compliance with the regulations was not entirely in line, the structure — for which public money had been paid out — had to be demolished. Is there not a case of double standards? The Taoiseach states clearly that, in his Department, political contacts would not sit on the boards of decision-making interviews, whereas in the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Minister's appointee sat on the board——

The questions refers specifically to the Taoiseach's Department

I understand that, but the question deals with standards in the Taoiseach's Department where a €4.5 million public contract was given to a company. The Taoiseach stated he would not allow this to happen in his Department, but it may happen in other Departments. Does that give the wrong impression to the public? Will the Taoiseach issue an edict that it should end forthwith?

In the case to which Deputy Kenny's first question refers, the individual received a grant on the basis of meeting certain requirements but, when it was brought to the attention of the inspector that he did not comply with the stipulations of the regulation as clearly laid down, a full examination was carried out and the grant was withheld. The procedure was rectified both from the planning and the grant approval aspect and the individual had to reconstruct the building. That shows that the system works effectively. One cannot go outside the stipulations and regulations and that is what happened in that case.

In response to the second part of Deputy Kenny's question, which relates to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, it was not a political adviser, but the communications officer of the Department, who is responsible for the communications of the Department. While much is being made about who won the contract, the reality is that, whereas McConnell's Advertising Services Limited won the contract, it brought in three other companies and less than a quarter of the contract, as I understand it, is divided between three companies. The issues raised in the House on that are wide of the mark.

A Cheann Comhairle——

I will call Deputy Kenny later. He has already spoken twice.

There was still a fair bit left after McConnell's were paid. What is the global cost of the system of political advisers — I do not mean to embarrass any individual — when insurance, expenses and so on are added? Am I correct in presuming that there is now a provision in the public service recruitment Bill that would enable the Government of the day to appoint special or political advisers to posts in the Civil Service? I presume it is redundant to ask the Taoiseach if he thinks that is a good idea since his Government is promoting it, but is it a good idea? From where did the proposal emanate? Did any of the special advisers being discussed in the House now suggest it?

If I understand him correctly, Deputy Rabbitte asked about advisers employed by the Departments of the Taoiseach, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Government. The cost is approximately €750,000.

On the second matter, under the new Bill appointments made by Government under section 13(3) of the 1956 Act, may only be made to unestablished or temporary positions. For the last 50 years they were approved in the public interest. This matter was recently discussed in the House. The appropriate reference in that regard is section 7(1)(e) of the Bill.

In addition, under section 5(a) all appointments to established positions can only take place following a competitive process under a code of practice issued by the independent commission for public service appointments. Accordingly, even if the Government wished to appoint its advisers to established positions, which the current Government does not, Ministers would be required to appoint successful candidates only following a competition under the code of practice issued by the independent commission for public service appointments. This would be a major departure from existing arrangements and would mean Ministers could not select their own advisers.

Furthermore, the provisions of section 19(2) of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 are not being repealed and will continue to apply. This means special advisers must leave office when the officeholder to whom they are acting ceases to hold office. Such people cannot be appointed as permanent officers.

Will the Taoiseach outline the responsibilities of special advisers towards business of State and, in terms of those in his Department, the work they might undertake for the Fianna Fáil Party?

What role did his advisers play in the Fianna Fáil general election campaign of 2002? Will the Taoiseach agree that as his advisers cost €750,000 per annum — €3 million or €4 million during the lifetime of the previous Government — the cost of work done for the Fianna Fáil Party by advisers should be declared and come under the rules regarding spending limits for elections campaigns? Special advisers are governed by the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 and are not allowed to carry on functions or professions which conflict with their position. Does the Taoiseach agree that a person no longer employed by his Department can immediately go into private business and benefit from the expertise, in terms of inside information and knowledge, he or she gained? Is the Taoiseach, therefore, in favour of a time limit prohibiting people from moving from such influential positions with inside information into private sector business?

Advisers to all political parties, regardless of which party is in Government, are bound by strict stipulations under the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 and cannot involve themselves in political activities in the course of their normal work. Such people can be involved in politics but work done for political parties is done outside their normal hours. The rules applying during elections are very clear; such people must cease employment or take annual leave during that period. Most of them cease employment. One adviser, who continued in employment at my Department, was not in any way involved with the last election campaign but was involved in European issues. The rules and procedures in that regard are clear and I have put them on the record. There are always ethical issues involved.

For once, I agree with a point made by Deputy Joe Higgins. There should be rules and they must apply across the public service. It is not just a matter of politicians who leave this House after an election or officials who might have worked with Government. The rules should also cover officials leaving Departments or agencies. We need tighter rules in this area and I have requested that the matter be examined. It creates a difficulty.

The rules must apply across the board whether the person in question is a politician who left the House after the 2002 general election or an official leaving a political party after an election. That occurs across all parties. While it is easy to focus on the political issue, officials are also involved. In many cases, officials of agencies have greater knowledge of the detail of individual projects and there is an argument for tighter rules. I am not saying it happens, but if people stretch their imaginations they will see the system is open to abuse. It does not make much difference whether a person is working in a Department as an adviser or an official if they subsequently take up employment with a company. While you cannot debar them forever, there should be a period.

From a politician's point of view, it would be better if there were a straightforward procedure in place. When a politician is defeated by the will of the people and leaves the House, he or she must find employment. While he or she must do something, we would be better off if there were a straight rule according to which a former politician would have to wait a certain period before taking up certain positions. It is unfair but, if such employment is taken up, there is a suspicion where one is a politician. If one is a senior official of an agency, nobody says anything. I would like to see a rule whereby a bar exists for a certain period across the board. It should not simply apply to former Members of this House whom it is easy to pillory for having been politicians or to political advisers of any persuasion. The rule should be general and monitored by the Standards in Public Office Commission. After a particular period, the barring order would be lifted and one could go back into the system. At the moment, if one is a politician or an adviser, one is jumped on. One could be a much better informed person and no one will say "boo".

Will the Taoiseach advise the House if any of his political advisers are concentrating on matters north of the Border or the peace process, as Senator Mansergh did? If members of the Taoiseach's team are involved in that work, will he inform the House who they are and outline the nature of their activities?

I wished to ask the question Deputy Joe Higgins asked. I acknowledge that the Taoiseach has admitted there is a problem to be addressed. As he has indicated there is a need to tighten up this area by introducing a code of practice for those involved in political life and advising Government who enter the private sector and who may turn their experience to their advantage and that of whichever clientele they serve and against others competing in the same sector? An unfair advantage in this regard may be real or perceived. Either is cause for action on the Taoiseach's part. Will he elaborate the steps he is considering taking to tighten up this area?

To reply to Deputy Ó Caoláin's first question, when Senator Mansergh was in my office he dealt almost exclusively with Northern Ireland. The work is now split. A number of my colleagues would be involved in meetings and the preparation and monitoring of the work. My programme manager does quite an amount of this work as do some of my other advisers, such as Joe Lennon, who has been involved on the press side previously and who has a knowledge of these issues. At present he is doing European work but apart from that, he would also have a close interest and involvement in Northern Ireland with the parties involved.

In regard to the Deputy's second question, I have looked at this for some time. I am convinced we should do something but on examination of it, my point is that it has to be done for former politicians who have left the House, political advisers and officials as it applies equally to them. When I looked at this a year ago I was looking purely at politicians. That is not fair, it should be a rule in the total sense. We are looking at the legislation relating to lobbying and this matter could be accommodated in it. We have not finalised the position on this matter. However, there should be a fixed period when one is out of one's position, whether as a Member of the Oireachtas, a political adviser, a political staff member working for a party — not a political adviser in a Department but a political adviser associated with it — or an official. It applies equally. It is not as if anybody does anything wrong but there would have to be a period when one is out of one's position. It would not have to be a long period because people have to earn a living and I appreciate that. In these days of being sure to be sure and in order that the system is transparent there should be a period of time.We will have to address that issue. I am conscious that one has to watch people's livelihoods. I could give many examples but I would rather not because that presupposes one is giving rise to suspicion. I will not do that.

From the point of view of transparency, one is better off having a period after holding a political, administrative or advisory job before taking up a position with a commercial interest. It happens in every country. I have been trying to do research to see what the rules are but there does not appear to be any particular legislative rule in most countries. It appears as if people leave on a Friday and take up a post on a Monday. Frankly, I do not think that is a good idea. If the Deputy asked me if I would be comfortable with that position, that would give rise to suspicion regarding oneself as an individual if one were to do that. One could be in association with some company and the following day one could be in a different position. As an individual, that leaves oneself open. If there was a rule, people would have to abide by it and nobody could undermine them.

My figures show a cost for special advisers to the Government of €1.4 million and that the Taoiseach's Department had the highest bill of €517,071 paid out to six political appointees. Are those the correct current figures? In regard to the payments, is it correct to say that the position of special adviser is covered by benchmarking? I understand the raison d’etre for such advisers is to help ensure the programme for Government is implemented. Is that part of the benchmarking process to which one would have regard in one’s work?

The answer to my next question may be "Yes" or "No", but it is a matter of concern. Is the Government in any way liable for the couple of hundred thousand euro being levied against the Taoiseach's appointee as the Government press secretary? Will any of that arise under Government charges? I agree with the Taoiseach that we can all agree in principle that rules are needed in regard to moving from special adviser back into the Civil Service or on to the private sector. However, is the Taoiseach aware of the concern surrounding the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Bill 2003, in that it is being read in some cases as an attempt by Government to repoliticise the Civil Service in the context of the deletions of sections of the Ethics in Public Office Act, by which means the new Bill will allow for Government political advisers to be appointed to permanent Civil Service positions? Does this concern not need to be addressed? While every case is different, it is remembered that Mr. Frank Dunlop was a Fianna Fáil press officer.

The Deputy should confine himself to the question. A number of Deputies are offering.

It is an important question to which the Taoiseach has alluded.

It does not take five minutes to ask a question.

I want clarity on this point because there is concern that, no matter what the Taoiseach talks about in regard to distance, the opposite is happening if one considers the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Bill 2003, which seems to involve the repoliticisation of the Civil Service.

I have already replied to Deputy Rabbitte on that matter. While it was raised in the House, it is based on a misunderstanding of the legislation. While the 1956 Act could have allowed for appointments to be made, in the public interest that provision is being removed. Government will not, therefore, be able to do that, as will become clear as the Bill goes through the House. I have put the sections on the record as I received them.

Deputy Sargent referred to a sum of €1.5 million, but the figure for my staff is approximately €500,000. The costs for my Department, including the programme manager to the Tánaiste and the special adviser to the Minister of State and Chief Whip, amount to approximately €700,000 plus. I am not sure what figure the Deputy is looking at.

The matter raised regarding the Government press office is a purely personal one. Any costs or relevant charges are totally a matter for the Government press officer in a personal capacity. No charge applies to the Government.

There should be some regulation or rule on the code of practice. In regard to benchmarking, because the salaries are related to grades in the Civil Service benchmarking applies to them in the same way.

I would like the Taoiseach to clarify some of the language he used earlier. In respect of the case in County Kerry, the Taoiseach said a grant was awarded subject to certain criteria. However, the criteria in regard to that case were not even assessed because the political adviser recommended that a particular type of letter be sent from a Minister in respect of which an award was made. I pointed out in regard to the case of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that a political appointee of his sat on an interview board where a decision was made to award a substantial contract. In the context of standards, does the Taoiseach think it appropriate that either a political adviser or a political appointee should sit on an interview board, in his or any other Department, to make such awards? While I am not saying that a political adviser sat on the interview board of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, it was a political appointee. Is that appropriate, given the perception of the ethics practised here of getting in and staying in? Is there a difference between the involvement, good, bad or indifferent, of political advisers and political appointees?

Is the Taoiseach saying, in respect of the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Bill 2003, that no special adviser or political adviser may compete for permanent appointment to the Civil Service? While I know the history and what may have happened up to now, I ask the Taoiseach whether any given political adviser is debarred from competing for appointment to a permanent post. Second, the Taoiseach remarked that it would be a good idea to devise some procedures or lay down regulations to debar people across the board, both political and administrative, from lobbying on behalf of whoever they wish for a period after they leave Government service. If he thinks that way, what is stopping him? He has been Taoiseach for seven years. My colleague, Senator O'Meara, introduced a Bill in the Seanad that would do precisely what the Taoiseach suggested but his Government voted it down. Is he now saying he has had a change of heart? I agree with him entirely that a distinction ought not be drawn between a serving politician who loses his or her seat and a political adviser——

We are at the end of questions.

I accept that. The Taoiseach must know that people have left the heart of his Administration and——

The Deputy is making a statement.

——come in the other side of the revolving door.

We are at the end of questions.

People have left the heart of the Taoiseach's Administration and come in the other door as lobbyists. If he is now persuaded that there ought to be regulations in this area, is he minded to support the Labour Party Bill on lobbyists? If I get the nod we will promise to introduce it as Private Members' Business.

The point I made about Kenmare was that while approval was given to the project, that did not override any of the accounting or legal standards which had to be complied with. As soon as the Department found that those were not being complied with, although some appropriate work had been done, a stop was put on the contract.

On advisers and political appointments, if someone is appointed to a particular job and a Department is making a decision on a contract, if that person's expertise is in a relevant area I do not see what is wrong with him or her being present. That person does not make the decision. He or she may give his or her views on the decision, but there are procedures for procurement and contracts, and the accounting officer makes the decision. Just because a person has a political responsibility or a political role he or she should not be debarred fully from the decision. He or she should not be the only person making the decision, which is not what happens — the accounting officers must make the decisions.

Deputy Rabbitte asked about Governments appointing advisers to established positions. If the Government wished to do so, which it does not, Ministers would be required to appoint the successful candidate only after competition under the code of practice issued by the independent Commissioners for Public Service Appointments.

So the answer is yes.

In that case the person would not be debarred from the normal procedure for appointment to a position.

The House has the impression that the Taoiseach was saying the opposite.

We have gone well over time.

I read that straight and the remaining part states:

This would be a major departure from the existing arrangements and would mean that Ministers could not select their own advisers. Furthermore, the provisions of section 19(2) of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 are not being repealed and will continue to apply. This means that special advisers must leave office when the officeholder to whom he or she is acting ceases to hold office.

The procedure is that the person must leave but if he or she wants to come back he or she must apply in the normal way, which presumably he or she can do. However, these people cannot just be appointed by an outgoing Minister. Under the 1956 Act one could technically do so but that is being repealed. I do not think anyone ever did so but technically it was possible to do so.

The matter raised by the Deputy's last question was discussed in 1995 during the debate on the ethics Act.

I remember the discussions. I did not take issue with the decision taken for good reasons by the Government not to provide for this period barring people from such work in the 1995 Act. When we drafted the Standards in Public Office legislation, we had this discussion again and decided not to include this provision. There were many reasons for this but the main one was that, if a politician loses his or her seat in Dáil or Seanad Éireann, or if an officer holder is without a job because of a re-shuffle or if a civil servant leaves on early retirement, he or she has to make a living. There has to be a procedure.

Having regard to all the other things we did, a straight period before allowing people to work is a better provision. I agree with the Deputy that it is unacceptable that a politician, political adviser, civil servant or other agent may leave one job to take up another job a week later, having replied to an advertisement or having been head-hunted, and be in a position to deal with a file he or she knows all about from the opposite perspective because he or she has written it. We have avoided it for the reasons——

So do I, and what I am talking about is——

Deputy, we cannot have a debate on the issue. Taoiseach, we have gone six minutes over time on Question Time.

In 1995, the Deputy's party did not provide for this with good reason and I did not provide for it in 1998. However, as time moves on we would be better——

That concludes Taoiseach's questions.

When will there be a reshuffle?

However, if we can fix a period there is protection in the period for everyone.

Before the next reshuffle——

Perhaps it should be six or nine months.

Barr
Roinn