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

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach the number of occasions since June 1997 to date in 2009 on which officials in his Department, or in the agencies under his aegis, were granted either a discretionary payment or pension top-up on retirement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35609/09]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach the number of occasions since June 2007 to date in 2009 on which he enhanced payments made to persons retiring or otherwise leaving his Department or an agency operating under the aegis of his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37274/09]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.

All civil servants retiring from my Department are entitled to an annual pension and lump sum, in accordance with the relevant legislation and conditions of service.

Since 1997, there have been two occasions when discretionary arrangements were made in accordance with comparable terms applied previously in similar circumstances, and were so approved by the Department of Finance. In both cases, the position vacated was that of special adviser to my predecessor. In the Central Statistics Office, the terms applicable to completion of their contracts were applied on the retirement of two former directors general.

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

Were the guidelines set down by the Department of Finance ever breached in the case of any official from the Taoiseach's Department? I ask because the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, told the Dáil that in the case of the former director general of FÁS, Mr. Molloy, the €1.1 million golden handshake was in accordance with the rules of the Department of Finance. When Deputy Varadkar received the full information about that under the Freedom of Information Act, the internal memos revealed clearly that the assistant secretary in the Department of Finance told the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment and his counterpart in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment that the terms given to the former director general were not in accordance with guidelines. He went on to say that he wanted to convey sanction to the proposed terms on condition that it was an exceptional case.

The Minister for Finance told us this was in order. The internal memos of the assistant secretary and the Department show that it was not in order. Is the Taoiseach concerned about this, given the amount of money involved? I heard a young woman say on radio this morning that she lives on €67 a week. Here is a golden handshake of €1.1 million, outside the guidelines laid down by the Government and the Department of Finance. Has this happened in any other Department? Is the Taoiseach satisfied that he is on top of this matter and that these things are not being sanctioned behind his back by Ministers where they consider that exceptional circumstances apply?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not want to paraphrase or repeat what went on at the relevant committee but it is clear that in respect of the matters to which Deputy Kenny's question refers there were issues about entitlement on the basis of dismissal and a person ending his service, and to avoid the prospect of litigation, although that had not been formally put to the authorities at the time. However, in an effort to deal with a situation where we would have a changeover of leadership in that organisation, one would move the issue quickly so it would not get bogged down in legal problems. Taking into account the conditions of service and what people were entitled to upon retirement, that package was worked out on that basis. It has been well articulated here in the House and in committees and I do not wish to say anything further about it except that it was regarded as the best way of dealing with the situation in all the circumstances.

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

I do not want to drag up the individual case either. It is history now - costly history. The point is that guidelines are laid down by the Government and the Department of Finance, and those guidelines were breached in this case. The Minister for Finance told us they were not breached when clearly the internal information showed that they were breached. Since that issue arose and since that matter was dealt with in the way it was, have these guidelines changed? If a case is deemed to be an exceptional one, is that brought to the Taoiseach's attention as Head of Government so he can be satisfied that Ministers down the line from him are not deeming cases to be exceptional and these guidelines can be breached, with large amounts of money paid out as golden handshakes to people?

The Taoiseach should talk to the young woman I heard on radio this morning, who lives on €67 a week, and tell her if she leaves a job she will have a proportionate golden handshake equivalent to €1.1 million. It is a very significant sum. Since that matter arose and was dealt with in the way it was, namely, the guidelines were breached, the Minister said they were not and the case was covered up on the basis of it being an exceptional case, have other such issues been brought to the Taoiseach's attention? Has he changed the rules so that he is fully in charge of this issue?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

These matters were dealt by personnel staff in the respective Departments working within the overall guidelines. As I said, the circumstances that were outlined and the particular issue raised by the Deputy have been well articulated, discussed and debated in the House. The rationale for it has been explained in the House, if it is not accepted by some. This is an issue that will be carefully watched in the future to make sure we can avoid any controversy in regard to these matters. However, there is always the question of trying to avoid a situation where, by taking another approach, one might end up not being able to achieve the objective, which was to move the people on in a way which was consistent with the overall requirements of the situation.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I can understand that the Cabinet was very keen to get Mr. Molloy off the pitch as quickly as possible given the controversy he caused and the ongoing embarrassment he was causing to the Cabinet. However, the fact is that the Cabinet is not above the law. It is required to adhere to the law and to guidelines which cover these matters. The guidelines which came from the Department of Finance in 1998 cover situations where chief executives leave their positions and the terms under which they can receive packages. Not only do those guidelines apply to all chief executives leaving their posts, but those same guidelines were an appendix to Mr. Molloy's contract, so there is no question or doubt about the fact that those guidelines should have been applied to the severance package.

Those guidelines set out the terms in which a severance package might be enhanced in the event of a contract being terminated. That was not the case in regard to Mr. Molloy. He had tendered his resignation and, before the deal was done, his letter of resignation was with the Department of Finance.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should address this point to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, not the Department of the Taoiseach.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am coming to that. The guidelines state very specifically that unless the person concerned has had his or her contract terminated, Government approval is required for an enhanced package. It seems that the Minister for Finance took it upon himself to give approval to the package without bringing it to Government. Is the Taoiseach aware of the fact the Minister for Finance acted ultra vires in this matter? At this stage, having had an opportunity to consider all of the issues surrounding this, does he accept at this point that the Minister for Finance did act ultra vires, that a Government decision was required for the enhanced severance package of €1.2 million that was granted to Mr. Molloy, that the package was outside of the law and that the Taoiseach now retrospectively needs to obtain approval for that package?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have not dealt with that specific matter since then. As the Deputy said, this matter has been dealt with by the line Department. I have received no advice to the effect that the retrospective-----

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Did the Taoiseach take any advice?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy made an assertion that retrospective Cabinet approval is required for that package. That is not anything I have been advised of. I will check out that matter but I would not accept that the Deputy's assertion is correct.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Who did the Taoiseach take his advice from?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If I may be allowed to answer the question, I will give my opinion, if the Deputy wishes. If she wants to answer it herself, that is fine. I will sit and wait for her answer.

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

She asked the question of the Taoiseach. She is not going to answer herself.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a fair question. I just want to be allowed to reply, that is all. The Deputy made an assertion that this was an illegal payment and that it requires retrospective Cabinet approval. I certainly have not been advised of that and I do not accept the Deputy's assertion that that is the case. Neither do I accept the assertion she makes that the Minister for Finance acted ultra vires. That is not my understanding of the situation, nor has anyone suggested to me that it is the case.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I call Deputy Shortall for a brief supplementary question.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have several supplementary questions to ask. Any fair reading of the guidelines would establish, and my legal advice is to the effect that, the terms of the package came outside of the normal guidelines and, in that event, where there was an exceptional case, Government approval was required for that package. I know there was a big rush to deal with Mr. Molloy and get him out of the way as quickly as possible but the fact is that Government approval was required. The Taoiseach states he is not aware that this was the case. What advice did the Taoiseach take? The Attorney General's office is available round the clock to provide advice. This was a package that has cost the taxpayer €1.2 million and nobody thought it warranted obtaining legal advice from the Attorney General's office. It is outrageous to behave in this manner.

Will the Taoiseach undertake to go back and get legal advice on this matter? It seems he and his Ministers have bluffed their way out of this over recent months. Is he prepared to actually take legal advice on this matter?

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I must draw attention to the fact this is a matter for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, not the Department of the Taoiseach.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, it is not. It is a matter for the Government, with all due respect.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The line Department is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. If we are getting into specific detail-----

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With all due respect, Government approval was required and that is the legal advice on it. The Taoiseach is responsible for the fact that this was not obtained and he needs to take action on that now.

With regard to enhanced severance payments generally, what is the basis for making an enhanced payment to somebody who leaves under a cloud? It seems that this option is being used in situations where somebody has not performed properly and needs to be taken off the pitch. That is completely unacceptable. The Committee of Public Accounts, in examining the whole FÁS debacle, made recommendations that new guidelines needed to be drawn up which ensured that any enhanced pension package would relate to performance. Is it the Taoiseach's intention to bring forward new guidelines to cover this kind of scenario? Does he accept that it sends out all the wrong messages if the Government intends to financially reward somebody who has not performed his or her duties properly?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

First, any revision of guidelines would be a matter for the Minister for Finance and the public service in the first instance. To come back to the specific point, I want to make it clear that the situation as it stood at the time was that the person concerned had certain rights and entitlements under the existing contracts he had as an employee of that organisation. The issue then arose on the basis of a meeting between the chairman of the board at the time and the chief executive. They discussed with him settlement terms concerning how he would move on. That was put to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and then referred to the Department of Finance. The Department of Finance advised the Minister on the matter and approval was given on that advice. That was the situation.

The extenuating circumstances surrounding the issue had something to bear on it but there were basic entitlements. There is this idea that if people were dismissed they would not have certain entitlements but they would have entitlements. The issue was that if we went down that route, would there be a legal challenge and to what extent would that halt the means by which a move could be made and a new person put in place. All of that had to be taken into account.

I do not accept the Deputy's contention that there was something illegal about this, that is not the situation. The decision was made on advice based on discussions between the chairman and the chief executive, referred to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, referred then for approval to the Department of Finance, and approved by the Minister on that advice.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We really must move on.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is an important issue, it cannot be swept under the carpet.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should bear in mind that the line Minister is in a different Department.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Taoiseach aware that three senior officials in the Department of Finance provided advice to the effect that Government approval would be required for this package for Mr. Molloy? Does the Taoiseach accept there is a need for new guidelines covering severance packages so they relate to the person's performance in the job?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not have the file in front of me but I want to make clear that the advice the Minister took came from the senior official in the Department.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Who advised the Government that approval was required.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have not been before the committee listening to the ins and outs of this in the way the Deputy has been. I would rather have the full file in front of me because I would then have no problem answering the questions.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps the Taoiseach will have a look at the file some time.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps if the questions were put down for the relevant Minister, the Deputy would get the full answer. I cannot be expect to have all of that in front of me.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This has been in the public arena for long enough. The Taoiseach should have checked the file.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We must bring this to a conclusion.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy cannot ask me a question and then decide if I have the information. The purpose of questions is to table specific questions to get specific answers. I have sought to extend the courtesy of replying to the Deputy based on the knowledge available to me without notice but if the Deputy wants to play another game that is her business.