Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach the duties and responsibilities of the special political advisers appointed by him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24229/05]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 6: To ask the Taoiseach the number of special political advisers appointed by him; their roles and responsibilities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27307/05]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 7: To ask the Taoiseach the responsibilities of the political advisers in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27681/05]

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 8: To ask the Taoiseach the responsibilities of the special political advisers appointed by him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28640/05]

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, together.

There are six special advisers appointed by me and there has been no increase in their number since I took office. Under the direction of the programme manager, the primary function of the advisers is to monitor, facilitate and help secure the achievement of Government objectives and to ensure effective co-ordination in the implementation of the programme for Government. They are also tasked with giving me advice and keeping me informed on a wide range of issues, including business, financial, economic, political, administrative and media matters and performing other such functions as may be directed by me from time to time.

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. My advisers 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 with regard to speech drafting. My programme manager meets other ministerial advisers on a weekly basis. He monitors and reports to me on progress in implementing the programme for Government.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Are there guidelines for the work of the six special advisers in the Taoiseach's Department and, if so, do such guidelines apply to other Departments? When a special adviser is appointed, does he or she get a list of regulations or conditions that he or she must abide by? How is the monitoring function of the special advisers implemented? Do the advisers visit other Departments to see if the programme for Government is being put in place?

On advisers liaising with special interest groups, does one of the six advisers liaise with the group of Independent Deputies in the House, just in case the Taoiseach needs them at some time in the future?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The advisers are governed by the Public Services Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004. They are governed by ethics legislation from 1995 and 2004 and they also have written contracts. Difficulties occurred some years ago and procedure was tightened as a result. Advisers in other Departments are also governed by these measures. Each year these people must fill in a full range of forms declaring any interests and send them to the ethics commission. They do not tend to go to meetings in other Departments when meetings are held in Government buildings, but they meet on a weekly basis with the advisers from other Departments. None of those mentioned is involved with the independents. An official from the Whip's office meets them from time to time, but that was more relevant to the last Government.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Are individual political advisers assigned particular policy areas? Do any of the Taoiseach's political advisers have a sole, focused responsibility for health, or for the peace process, or for international affairs? Does the Taoiseach agree that it would be better if such a focused approach existed? In that way, attention to key areas that reflect poorly on this Government would help to ensure that matters moved forward expeditiously in the interests not only of the Government, but more importantly, of the wider electorate.

What system of accountability exists for these advisers? How are they assessed in their stewardship or in their value for public money, other than for the project of the next general election?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The advisers are focused on individual areas. They do not duplicate effort and are designated to individual Departments because that is the sensible way to do things. Some work on foreign affairs issues, on Northern Ireland issues or on health or education issues and they liaise with people in those Departments. The Deputy's view is that some of these areas are not well run. I am glad to see, however, that the IMF stated today that the country is doing well because of the success of Government policies. The Deputy obviously disagrees, but he is entitled to that view.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I note that there are 13 employees in the Taoiseach's private office and eight in his constituency office, under the general term of advisers or staff. Can the Taoiseach clarify the breakdown, if it exists, between Civil Service positions and appointees from outside the Civil Service in that number? What pay scale is being followed for these staff? Is it totally separate from anything in the Civil Service? I have seen salaries of €192,784 and €144,064. Is that scale benchmarked against any other performance, or is it unique to the Taoiseach's Department?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I listed the individuals and their salary scales in the answer to the original question. The special advisers are linked to Civil Service grades. The Department of Finance set these scales when the advisers are taken on. My programme manager is allowed a top-up, but all the salaries are linked to Civil Service or Department of Finance scales, such as assistant principal and principal officer.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about the breakdown between appointees and civil servants?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

None of the six appointees is a civil servant. They all must leave when I leave.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I read that one of the Taoiseach's people concerned was recently decorated by the French Government. If that is true, I extend my congratulations.

He clearly thinks this policy brings a valuable dimension to governance. The way things are going, I agree with him. It brings a valuable dimension and I am happy we are agreed on that. However, does he think the idea should be extended? For example, what is his view about recruiting senior managers in the private sector for certain jobs, not just in his own Department but in the Civil Service generally?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Secretary General in my Department made a speech about that over the weekend. He put forward the circumstances and the case as to how it could be done on the basis of public service reform. I had a chance to read half of his speech. As far as bringing in expertise from the private sector is concerned, he made the point that while it has been carried out in a limited way for many years and a small number of people have been recruited, it has not been done in any major way. As many recent reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General have revealed, expertise is lacking in many areas of the public service. There have been many arguments about consultants and advisers but he made the case that the public service does not have the expertise. The Secretary General argued that in some cases, there are areas to which outside expertise should perhaps be introduced.

My view is that one could do so and it might be even argued that in certain areas, it might be cheaper than hiring outside companies. However, I do not believe that top class experts in some areas could be secured cheaply. There are always arguments about benchmarking between the public and private sectors, when one considers the various grades. However, one should examine the salaries of financial specialists working in Dublin and compare their earnings to the salary of an Accounting Officer. Deputy Rabbitte is aware that people working in the top stock market houses or who manage funds in the IFSC earn salaries that seem extraordinary to the Deputy, to myself or to anyone else in this House. I am well remunerated for my job, but none of these people would do my job for the salary I receive and the best of luck to them.

Therefore, I do not believe it would be easy to recruit top class experts. One could recruit people into the middle ranks, but it would not be easy. How would ten high level people arriving with enormously large salaries fit in with others in the public service? Nevertheless, an argument exists and it is an argument against the costs of consultants. Public servants feel aggrieved from time to time, much as they admire the expertise of consultants, when they see the rates being charged, possibly not to the individuals but to the companies. This area also requires some examination. The Secretary General of my Department, who has been an eminent public servant for many decades, has made the point that there are arguments to be considered as part of strategic management and public performance management. I do not discount his view that there are areas which should be examined. He has not come to this view recently but has been articulating it for the last decade or more.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When the time comes for Members to pay tribute to the Taoiseach, undoubtedly Members from all sides of the House will have to compliment him on his unremitting courtesy to the House, even in the face of provocation. Hence, I do not mean to be rude by stating that I know what his Secretary General's view is as I have read the speech. I am asking the Taoiseach for his view. Does he agree with the recruitment of outside people to managerial posts in the Civil Service, or may I draw the inference that the question of salary is the only obstacle? It has been a pattern and we cannot have it both ways. The Taoiseach's Ministers continually run away from any decisions that go wrong. They have a quango, an organisation, a civil servant or something else to blame. They seem to take the attitude that such problems were caused by operational decisions that should have been taken by civil servants. Perhaps we need more skilled managers. I am trying to establish the Taoiseach's view of this matter as I know the Secretary General's view.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was trying to balance my comments. There are many morale and industrial relations issues throughout the public service. Deputy Rabbitte and I have both spent much time dealing with the service in one way or another. I know the system and how its members other than the top 1% think.

It would be difficult to implement what the Deputy suggests. Exchanges take place at present, in which people come into the system from a commercial company for a period, which is not the same as advertising the number two post in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to outsiders, for example. For those who work hard in the system and do their best at executive officer, higher executive officer, staff officer, assistant principal officer and principal officer levels, what happens to their morale when they reach 52 or 53 years of age after serving committees of the Oireachtas and the public service and undertaking evening degrees, which many do, only to have someone from outside come in? It is a significant dilemma.

To get a person comparable to someone who, by that stage, has 25 years of public service experience and a large amount of knowledge in dealing with Brussels, Luxembourg and so on, would not be cheap for the system. If this person entered at a very high level, what would happen vis-À-vis other levels and assistant secretaries in other Departments? My honest opinion is that this seems a grandiose proposal to table but I do not know how it could work. I have spent many years working with civil servants on the old relativity claims, equity claims and others and can foresee a nightmare of arguments against this move. On the other side of the argument is the cost because we do not have the expertise.

I have answered in writing a number of parliamentary questions on a certain issue. If one were to take my Department, which is relatively small, as an example, there are eight people doing postgraduate studies and a total of 33 at university level who get some assistance from the State's taxpayers this year. I welcome this activity as we should help them in their training and knowledge. This is a fair way of achieving something. It is not simply a case of advertising and bringing people in at the top levels. The Deputy has asked for my view as Taoiseach and someone who has watched the system. This proposal is easily put forward but I have difficulty believing it would work in the public service.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am interested in what the Taoiseach has said. However, is it not reasonable to draw the conclusion that the reason we have such frequent resort to outside consultants is that we do not have the in-house capacity or knowledge? The Comptroller and Auditor General carried out a report on this matter four to six years ago or longer in which he examined the service. There have been some very stark examples in recent times. Is this because we do not have the in-house capacity or is there a fear in the modern Civil Service in that, owing to the nature of public affairs today or whatever reason, civil servants are afraid to make decisions on certain matters without the cover of a consultant's report, so that even a relatively straightforward matter will not go up the line or reach the Minister's desk unless it instances one of the top five consultants claiming the idea put forward is good? I draw from the Taoiseach's answer — he can tell me whether I am correct — that he has thought about this and has concluded the implications for IR and staff morale are such that he does not see how we can easily do it. A crying need exists for this type of expertise and resorting to consultants is an extremely expensive way of achieving it.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not disagree with Deputy Rabbitte's analysis. It is a fact that we do not have the expertise in certain areas, sectors and disciplines. That is undoubtedly true. We saw recently that in IT we do not have the type of expertise that can design a system afresh. I am sure Members of the House are aware that in the private sector, developing and enhancing the quality and content of what a system will deliver is an enormously well-resourced job.

We use consultants in these areas because expecting existing members of staff to do their regular jobs and then do a little work on enhancing a system would not be possible. While they are capable of designing complicated systems, the resources are not available. For many years the Comptroller and Auditor General has stated that we do not have the expertise in many areas. I have no doubt he would consider this one such area. It is not easy to introduce that expertise. One could create specialist appointments, which has been done before. A grade could be created whereby if a person entered in that grade he or she could not move out of it. Ringfencing the position would avoid some of the IR problems. A person would enter as an expert in a particular area and that would save some money on some consultancy fees.

Regarding the point on whether public servants are afraid to act or make a decision, we are lucky to have honest, efficient public servants who are able to carry out their roles. This House has changed dramatically during the past decade, as has the country. Public servants are now subject to the rigours of parliamentary democracy, accountability and scrutiny and are answerable for the enormous amount of money, approximately €42 billion, being spent.

It is in people's nature to make the best possible decisions. As we have seen during the past few years, when things go wrong they and the Government get it in the neck. However, while it is a fact that people are more careful and cautious, that is not the primary reason for it. Decisions have become far more complex. In many situations involving State contracts, public servants deal with outside agencies and sophisticated companies with vast resources, expertise and specialists. They deal with experienced professional people on matters such as procurement and cost structures and they must be careful. In terms of contracts for roads and rail, for example, public servants have to deal with professionals from companies which have vast resources and expertise and specialists.

Most of the Irish professional procurement agencies are linked to international offices. Increasingly when I chair the cross-departmental team on infrastructure, I see companies bringing with them gurus who have completed megabuck contracts from Spain, France or Germany. Our public servants must deal with these people and it is not easy. To ensure they get it right they seek whatever advice they can. That is in the ethos of people trying to do their best. They do it to protect not themselves, but the Departments and finances, and they do it in as sophisticated a way as possible. Their attitude is not that they will not make a decision in order to avoid making a mistake.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What lessons would the Taoiseach draw, for example, from the apparent success of the National Treasury Management Agency?

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should please confine himself to the question.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach asked me what I was referring to. I was just explaining that it was the National Treasury Management Agency, which was established initially to manage the national debt. It has acquired a number of very important areas since then. Even insurance was added when we got into difficulties in that area. Now, the new development finance agency involving certain dimensions of infrastructural projects for the future is included and so on. Is it because the NTMA is free to employ top-flight personnel at the market rate and, therefore, we can entrust tasks to it that could not be done within the Civil Service any longer? If that is the conclusion, it seems to me to have certain implications for this debate.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The National Treasury Management Agency commenced its operations when I was Minister for Finance, when the national debt/GNP ratio was frightening to say the least. The resources of the State were being gobbled up, as the Deputy knows, and matters had to be managed in another way. What the Deputy said is correct. We were able to use top-class people who not only had previous experience but had reached the top commercially as regards the management of debt, re-financing, the gilts markets etc. These were people with long experience in those areas who were able to build a significant team.

One of the major problems when the economy improved in the last decade was how to hold on to people. Even though the NTMA was paying significantly more than the normal Civil Service rates, it was not able to match market rates and some of its best and brightest young people — many of them from the public service and the Department of Finance — were attracted to the private sector.

Nonetheless, the NTMA had the flexibility to cope, as it did with the new claims agency, public private partnerships and the new roles created for it by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen. It was able to bring in expertise, to get legal, insurance and other professional advice on a buy-in basis and have access to actuarial and process maintenance consultants in a way that a Government Department could not. Because it possessed such a degree of flexibility and streamlining, the NTMA was given these responsibilities. It is not subject to the same strictures as Departments in the Civil Service, which has given it the necessary freedom to do the job it does.