Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 4 May 2005
4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if a special unit within his Department to evaluate proposals for the appointment of public relations consultants by Ministers, as recommended in the recent report of Mr. Dermot Quigley, has been established; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8774/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the steps taken to date to implement the recommendations of the recent report of Mr. Dermot Quigley in so far as they relate to his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11821/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra6 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress in the implementation of the Quigley report’s recommendations in regard to the appointment of public relations consultants by Ministers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11884/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra7 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the action he has taken within his Department on foot of the recent report of Mr. Dermot Quigley with regard to the appointment of consultants by Ministers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11938/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, together.
As I outlined to the House on 1 March last, in so far as the report makes recommendations for improvements in the procurement procedures, additional procedures have been approved by the Government for incorporation into the Cabinet handbook and are available on my Department's website. Those procedures will give the Secretary General to the Government and the Government secretariat a role in examining certain procurements. These procedures were brought to the attention of all Secretaries General who were asked to implement them and bring them in future to the attention of all newly appointed Ministers or, where relevant, Ministers of State in their Departments or offices. They were effective immediately upon announcement on 17 February. In doing this, I have implemented all the recommendations by Mr. Quigley which were relevant to my Department.
There is no special unit in my Department for the application of the procedures and there was at no time an intention to establish such a unit. Any workload arising from the application of these guidelines is being handled within existing resources in the Government secretariat.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. I read recently about the extraordinary amounts being paid to some personnel dealing with Departments. May I assume that circumstances in which a person such as Mr. Quigley will be called in to investigate the antics of an individual Minister or Minister of State who decides to take business into his or her own hands, as it were, will not arise again and that the Taoiseach has instructed all Ministers and Ministers of State to this effect? I am not sure whether the Taoiseach's comment regarding new Ministers and Ministers of State indicates he plans to have more of them. In the event that he has such plans, I am sure the new appointees will have to comply with the same regulations.
They apply to existing and new Ministers — and will forever, I hope. I have implemented the recommendations Mr. Quigley made regarding my Department. He also made recommendations about other Departments which I hope have also been implemented. They have certainly been given to the other Departments to implement.
The guidelines apply in particular, as Mr. Quigley asked and recommended, in the area of public relations and communications, where there is a significant element of direct service to a Minister or where a Minister suggests the name of a person or enterprise for a consultancy or contract. It was in these circumstances, in particular, that Mr. Quigley highlighted the need for a different procedure. In these circumstances the Secretary General of the relevant Department is required to inform the Secretary General to the Government who will arrange, if necessary, for the Government secretariat to inquire about any aspects of the proposed procurement that it considers necessary. Arising from this, the Secretary General will then make recommendations to me as to whether any special conditions should be observed in the procurement process. This means an issue can no longer be processed without first being highlighted and examined. If necessary, recommendations will be made. This process by itself should, I hope, diminish the numbers.
To take an example, if a Minister travelling with a number of officials to the United States, Europe or elsewhere decides he or she needs a consultant or consultants to travel with him or her to provide specialist advice, does the procedure require that the consultant or consultants in question will pay their way and charge the Department subsequently, as distinct from the Department paying their way in the first instance? Is the procedure in this regard clear?
If somebody is working in or associated with a Ministry, normally the group travelling is cleared beforehand. In the case of a European Council meeting, the full delegations from all Departments are put to me for approval before they go. If a Department was making a case for an outside expert to come, a rare occurrence, my consideration is that it is not a good idea. It is better that the person should go directly in those circumstances and send his or her bill the normal way. It is the only way to get a clear line of distinction.
As the Taoiseach knows from two recent examples, the papers on file are examined when the likes of Mr. Quigley or Mr. Travers are sent in. Knowing the quality, diligence and experience of our civil servants, the files are usually kept in order. The substance of the matter being inquired into, if it cannot be supported by paper work, is deemed not to have happened. The Taoiseach and I, as men of the world, know that is not what happened in either of the two cases here. Has the Taoiseach issued or caused to be issued from his office a circular to his Ministers and Ministers of State arising from the Quigley report drawing their attention expressly to the matters with which they must comply from now on?
Are there consultancy contracts of whatever character being awarded below a certain threshold in any Department that are not going through the procedure of requiring a tender or raising it to the level envisaged as a result of the Quigley report?
Is Deputy Rabbitte asking if there is a procedure if the tender is under a certain amount?
If it is a small contract.
Regardless, if it is directly associated with a Minister, it still should be checked. That is my understanding, subject to correction. I do not think there is a monetary amount on it.
It is up to individual Departments and Ministers to satisfy themselves whether particular tenders or contracts need to be referred to the Secretary General. It is, however, now a requirement of the Cabinet handbook and I have made that known.
In any of these investigations, and we have seen a number of them in recent times, it was not just the record that was examined, individuals were interviewed at length, certainly in the case of the report by Mr. Quigley. He did not just follow a paper trail.
Deputy Rabbitte made an interesting point that I have made and I hope it does not become an issue in future. He correctly said that normally the files and records are in good order. This is an exposed area for politicians. Regularly, I walk around my Department and people ask me for a decision, direction or view and I give it. Politicians do not have the benefit of writing detailed memos and often, as good as a person thinks his or her memory is, one has no recollection of it when it is raised. That worries me in this day and age, where everybody else will be writing detailed memoranda but politicians must do their best to keep things moving. There lies a question for politicians to focus on because it will arise again.
Is the political activity that was the subject of the inquiry absolutely forbidden for outside consultants now? Is it a necessary condition of employment that is the case? Apart from a circular, are the procedures arising from the report now in the Cabinet handbook? Are they to be inserted and when will that happen?
Following a previous question on this matter, has the Taoiseach had the chance to review if his Department is the most appropriate place for adjudication of the procurement process? He may answer that the Cabinet secretariat undertakes this function but is that not part of his Department as well? Does the Taoiseach think there should be outside adjudication of such matters so their integrity is beyond doubt?
It has been implemented in the Cabinet guidelines. The book has not been reprinted but it is on the website.
The Deputy asked if an adviser can be of a political nature. The report does not mean an advisor cannot be of a political nature. Quigley highlighted that if someone is being appointed on that basis, the appointment must go through the procedures. That is what is set down, not that a person with a political affiliation or association is banned. That was not the spirit of the report. If such a person is going into a contract like this, there is a procedure that should be followed.
The Cabinet secretariat prepares and is responsible for the work on Cabinet guidelines and other procedures and rules so it is the obvious place to do this. The civil servants in that section are familiar with this work. They probably would prefer not to be engaged in this kind of checking but there is not another suitable place unless an outside contractor is employed to check the work of an outside contractor. That would not be a good idea either. In the absence of a more suitable place for arbitration, the Cabinet secretariat is a good location.
Does the Taoiseach accept that lessons have been learned from the Quigley report? What were those lessons? Will there now be fewer contracts between Departments and public relations companies? Is the Taoiseach comfortable with the amounts spent on these lavish PR exercises? One company was paid more than——
That does not arise out of these questions.
I am making the point that some companies have been paid a fortune for this. Is the Taoiseach comfortable with that?
We are dealing with the Department of the Taoiseach.
I am asking about the report itself and it is reasonable to ask about the amounts of money spent.
The next question deals with the communications unit and the Deputy should ask his questions then.
Has the Taoiseach learned any lessons from the report, particularly in regard to many of the companies and the amount of money spent? I am sure he is aware of many projects in his own area where that money could be well spent.
The relevance of the issues raised has served a useful purpose. Government guidelines and procedures have been changed to deal with these issues and to ensure they do not happen again. If public relations or communications issues arise, they go through a different procedure, particularly if they are associated or there is a direct service element to the Minister or Minister of State.
In complying with the Ceann Comhairle's ruling, any consultancy or public relations exercises involved with the Department of the Taoiseach, which are minimal enough, are based around the presentation of data to the public. It is not public relations in the sense referred to by the Deputy. The work mainly involves compiling reports or researching and gathering data. I do not have large public relations launches or strategies in my Department.
