Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Apr 1974

Vol. 272 No. 1

Adjournment Debate. - Ministerial Information Instruction.

Mr. Faulkner

On the 28th of November, 1973, Deputy Tunney asked the Minister for Education whether he had instructed civil servants in his Department not to give any information to Dáil Deputies except through his private secretary and, if so, why? The reply to the question was given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister who spoke about an instruction of longstanding in the Department of Education in relation to telephone and written representations or requests made by Members of the Oireachtas. Some time later, in reply to a supplementary question, the Parliamentary Secretary stated that it was an existing instruction which was in force in the period of office of his predecessor and of his predecessor's predecessor. I happened to have been the Minister's predecessor and I would assume that an instruction could be in force only if I decided that it should be in force. I have already stated that I gave no such instruction. Therefore, the argument that such an instruction was in force cannot be sustained.

On the 6th of December, 1973, Deputy Tunney put down a further question to the Minister for Education and I quote:

To ask the Minister for Education when the instruction to civil servants regarding the treatment of inquiries by Dáil Deputies was first issued; and the dates on which it was subsequently renewed.

This appeared at col. 1,215 of the Official Report, vol. 269 of the 6th of December, 1973. These questions were put down by Deputy Tunney when, on telephoning an official in the Department of Education, he was informed that the official was not permitted to reply to the Deputy's query unless the Deputy first telephoned the Minister's office and, more particularly, when Deputy Tunney discovered that any ordinary citizen, on telephoning the Department, could get this information without any need to get in touch with the Minister's office.

In his reply, on that occasion, the Minister stated that he did not know when the instruction was first issued but that it had been brought to the attention of his Department from time to time and most recently on the 2nd November, 1973, presumably by himself. I then stated that, during my term of office, no such instruction had been issued by me. I pointed out that I regarded Deputies on all sides of the House as responsible people and that I considered the officials of my Department quite capable of dealing with Deputies' queries. I should like to add further that during my three and a half years in the Department of Education not only did I not issue such an instruction but I had never even heard that there had ever been such an instruction.

I then asked the Minister, if during my term of office, he had had any discussions with officials of my Department and, if so, whether he had been referred to my office by the officials concerned before they would discuss a matter with him. I understood the Minister to reply to the effect that he had had such discussions and that he had not been so referred and I continued my supplementaries on that basis. Since then I note that he is reported in the Official Report as saying that he had been so referred, so obviously I did not hear him clearly. I want to state emphatically that I know personally that the opposite was a fact and the Minister knows it. I shall not go any further into that particular aspect.

Minister for Education (Mr. R. Burke)

The Deputy's original understanding was correct.

Mr. Faulkner

Was my original understanding correct?

Mr. R. Burke

Yes.

Mr. Faulkner

In other words, it is not properly reported. I wish to put on record that, unless a Deputy contacted me personally, I never made any inquiry of my officials or of my own office about Deputies' queries. I trusted the officials of my Department and I found that whatever might be the individual political loyalties of the various officials, they returned the confidence I placed in them in full measure. There were occasions when Opposition Deputies got in touch with me personally, particularly Opposition spokesmen on Education, but this was their own decision.

Judging by the very justifiable furore created by Deputies in regard to the present Minister's directive on the matter under discussion, it is hardly likely that each time Opposition Deputies telephoned the Department of Education during the three-and-a-half years I was Minister they would not have raised this matter in the Dáil time and time again if they were informed by the officials that they could not have the information without first acquainting the Minister's office. The fact of the matter is that it was never raised in the House during my term of office simply because no directive had ever been issued by me. During the period when I was Minister the officials did, in fact, reply directly on the telephone to Deputies.

My main reason for raising this matter on the Adjournment is that when I again denied having issued any such directive, on the 6th of December, 1973, the Minister addressed the following question to me:

Could I ask the Deputy if he was Minister on 5th of December, 1972?

And he related this question to a document which he showed to the House and which he gave the House to understand was a directive. The clear implication of the Minister's question to me was that the directive had been issued by me to my Department on the 5th December, 1972 instructing officials to refer all Deputies' queries to my office and not to reply to Deputies' queries until the matter had been cleared by my office or, to put it in very simple language, that I had, in fact, told a lie when I stated that no such directive had been issued by me.

I did not follow up this matter there and then because, while I knew I had not issued any such directive, I could not be certain as to what the Minister was driving at and I decided to investigate the matter further before proceeding. My statement that no such directive was issued by me was true. But the deplorable aspect of the whole matter is that the Minister knew that my statement was true when he referred on the 6th December, 1973 to the 5th of December, 1972, and the directive allegedly issued by me then. The Minister knew that the so-called directive of the 5th of December, 1972 was simply a note, on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary, Michael O'Kennedy, stating that the final decision on free school transport problems was his, as was his right and duty and this particular note, as the Minister well knows, referred to the school transport area only and had no bearing on any other section of this very large Department and we are fully aware of the background.

However, there is another aspect of this matter which to me is a very serious one. On leaving the House after Question Time on the 6th of December, 1973, the Minister travelled up in the lift with Deputy Liam Cunningham who had asked also a number of supplementary questions to Deputy Tunney's question. The Minister showed Deputy Cunningham the document purporting to be the directive issued by me but he did not permit him to read it. He then told Deputy Cunningham——

An Ceann Comhairle

May I interrupt the Deputy? I do not think it is usual to refer in the House to private conversations.

Mr. Tunney

If the Minister would give me an opportunity——

An Ceann Comhairle

A private conversation ought not be referred to in the House.

Mr. Cunningham

This was a public document.

Mr. Faulkner

The point is that the Minister told Deputy Cunningham to tell the Deputies of his party not to pursue this matter any further. I want to make it very clear that neither Deputy Cunningham nor I is betraying a private conversation here because the Minister told Deputy Cunningham to pass this information on to Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party, and, of course, Deputy Cunningham passed the information on to me. I will not deal with that any further.

As soon as I heard of the Minister's threat I was immediately aware of two things: first of all, the Minister was quite obviously skating on very thin ice and, secondly, and much more important, the Minister recognised that in giving such a directive he had gone too far and the liberal image bestowed on the Government and himself by the media was in very grave danger because his action made a mockery of the so-called "open government" promised by the Coalition parties in the election.

When this matter was brought out into the open by Deputy Tunney and myself the Minister's concern was to stop discussion on it and attempt to extricate himself from his difficulty by trying to place the responsibility elsewhere. I deplore the action of the Minister in monitoring Deputies' queries to his Department in the way in which he is quite obviously doing it. I do not care what precedents he can quote. This is 1974 and it is, to say the least, distasteful and a poor reflection on people in public life when an ordinary citizen can get directly from an official of the Department of Education information denied to a Deputy unless the Deputy first acquaints the Minister's office of his query. It is a very sad commentary, though by no means unexpected after the experience of the past year of "open government" by the Coalition.

While I deplore the Minister's action, I want to emphasise I am not denying the Minister's right to instruct his officials to refer Deputies' queries to his office before a reply is forthcoming. If the Minister distrusts his officials and believes they are disloyal to him, or feels they may let him down, then, in such circumstances, one could understand a directive of the type we are discussing being issued but, as I said earlier, I can assure the Minister that, from my long experience, he will not find in any Department of State more loyal officials than those to be found in the Department of Education. However, when the Minister does issue a directive, whatever the reason for it may be, let him stand on his own two feet and take responsibility for it——

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Faulkner

——and not try, as he has done in this particular case, to escape responsibility for it by blaming his predecessor simply because he now realises that the issuing of this directive by himself has tarnished what he would like to believe is his image.

I regret to say that the line pursued by the Minister in this particular case is typical of his general attitude. I am sorry to have to say this. Decisions taken by me to increase the number of primary teachers in training, for example, resulting in a better pupil/teacher ratio, and decisions finalised by me to make more scholarships available to the regional technical colleges, and so on, he claimed as his own. On the other hand, decisions taken my me, which I believed in the circumstances were the correct ones, but which may not have been in the accepted sense of the word "popular", he made sure to refer to my period in office with the well-worn phrase: "I am honouring a decision of my predecessor". The decisions in relation to Skerries school, Clonakilty school and Athenry school come to mind. I made these decisions. I believed they were the right decisions and I was perfectly willing to stand over them. One thing is clearly demonstrated and it is very pleasant for me now to know that the community school for which I fought so hard to ensure its acceptance by the people has now reached the stage at which there is no longer any need to fight to establish them but, rather, the problem is to supply sufficient of them.

I would say to the Minister, if my decisions in respect of such matters were good, then let him admit they were good, or else pass them over in silence. On the other hand, if he thinks they were bad, then it is his duty to change them. Dodging the column will not get any of us very far.

When I was Minister I went through some very difficult times— I think that is generally acknowledged—pursuing policies which I believed to be in the interests of education. I fully recognise that at certain times information prematurely leaked from the Department could have had very serious repercussions and could have created very difficult problems for me. I can honestly say that during my time in office it never entered my head that my officials would in any way betray the trust I placed in them. Those interested must, I am sure, find it hard to understand why the Minister for Education in office from July, 1969, should have waited until 1972 to issue a directive to the officials of his Department regarding Deputies' queries when, at that stage, he had overcome most of his problems and smoothed the way for his successor.

During my term of office many people agreed with my policies. Some disagreed. But there was one thing everybody was agreed on: nobody doubted my integrity and this is one reason why I raise this matter on the Adjournment here tonight. If the Minister has any doubt as to the interpretation of others outside the House of his query to me regarding who was in office on 5th December, 1972, I have already mentioned in reply to a supplementary question what was quoted in The Irish Times of the 7th December, 1973, by the columnist, and I quote:

Yesterday when his hand was strong Dick could afford to be generous—

I hope the Minister will excuse the use of his Christian name, but I am simply quoting—

and when Pádraig Faulkner tried to leave the House with the impression that in his day, Deputies and Senators could come and go as they liked without having their calls routed through the Minister's office, Dick persisted that there was a directive on the matter. The date on the directive was 5th of the 12th 1972. By my reckoning it was in the time of Pádraig's stewardship in Education.

It is clear from that, I think, that the obvious impression was that I had, in fact, issued the directive. I want to say that Pádraig Faulkner did not try to leave anybody under any impression; he simply told the truth and I would have thought the columnist in question, whatever his opinion of my policies or party, would have known me long enough to doubt that I had issued the directive. I fail to see how any other interpretation could be put on the Minister's query.

I note the Minister, in reply to a supplementary question, pointed out that this directive had been in operation since the 1920s.

Mr. R. Burke

The 1920s.

Mr. Faulkner

That is what is in the Official Report here. Surely, in the year 1974, we are not going to rely any longer on directives of the 1920s or the 1930s. Looking at the changes that have taken place in education during the years since the 1920s and the 1930s, it is not too much to ask now that that type of directive should be done away with. In this year of 1974 the Minister should re-think the whole situation. Deputies and Senators who hold responsible positions as elected representatives should not be treated as school children but should, rather, be recognised by the Minister for what they are, responsible people, and they should be given the right to make their queries without let or hindrance. Where a particular difficulty arises, and difficulties will arise, the official concerned could always refer the matter to a higher official, or even to the Minister himself, should that be necessary. But in general routine matters it is humiliating for a representative of the people to be told by an official that he cannot have a reply unless he applies to the Minister first

An Ceann Comhairle

I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy, but his time is running out.

Mr. Faulkner

I am about to finish. It will take courage to change this particular decision but, if the Minister does change it, everybody will be the better for it. If the Minister does not change it, the friction nobody wants is bound to continue and this will be to the detriment of education.

Minister for Education (Mr. R. Burke)

In reply to the original question put to me by Deputy Tunney on 28th November, 1973, I gave the gist of the long-standing instruction which has operated in the Department as follows:

Telephone or written representations or requests made by Members of the Oireachtas will be replied to by the Private Secretary to the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary as appropriate.

I stated that the basis for the instruction to be as follows:

I am sure that the reason behind the instruction was to ensure that the reply would be accurate, complete and prompt.

I added that the identification of the caller also arose in the case of telephone calls and that the instruction applied to all Members of the Oireachtas.

I intend, in replying to this Adjournment Debate, to concentrate on positive aspects and not to enter into argumentation except here and there on negative ones. It is essential, in my view, that information to Deputies should issue through a central office, that being the office of the Minister. Apart from anything else this allows for a good working relationship to develop between Deputies and the staff of my office which, in my view, can only lead to beneficial results for Members of the House.

In the nature of things written representations take longer to answer than do telephone queries. It may well be that a particular section of my Department to which a telephone call has been made by a Deputy may not be aware, due to a time lag, that written representations have been made on the same subject by another Deputy. The Minister's office will be so aware and by dealing with the telephone query by one Deputy can ensure that the written representations of another are replied to at the same time, by telephone if necessary. This, I think all Deputies will agree, is only as it should be. I should stress that this procedure is followed in regard to Deputies from both sides of the House.

In regard to Deputy Faulkner's personal preoccupation with the matter it is to be hoped that it would be considered sufficient that he was informed in reply to his question on 28th March, 1974, as follows:

No specific directive in this regard was issued by the Minister for Education during the period July, 1969 to March, 1973.

It was never suggested that he had issued such a specific directive but his supplementary question on 6th December, 1973 was not in this form. In the Official Report it reads as follows:

Therefore, would it not be proper that it should be recognised that no such directive was issued during my term of office?

Deputy Faulkner must be aware at this stage that the reply to this question in this form could not be in the affirmative. Nonetheless, a directive was issued from the Parliamentary Secretary, as has been stated in the House, in regard to how telephone calls from public representatives should be dealt with. One of the main points in this directive was that information should not be given on the telephone but calls be replied to by letter only and that such letters be issued through the Parliamentary Secretary's office.

In a supplementary question when the matter was last raised in the House Deputy O'Kennedy indicated that he issued a directive for a specific purpose. While it is true that his directive arose out of a specific case, the directive, as Deputy Faulkner knows, gave explicit and general instructions in regard to how telephone calls to public officials should be dealt with.

I wish I could get Deputies to accept that there was nothing sinister in my action in having the staff of my Department reminded of the long-standing procedure for dealing with representation from Deputies, whether orally or in writing. The action was, in fact, taken in connection with my consideration of a situation where I felt that there may have been an undue delay in dealing with certain inquiries which had been received. The directive to the staff was associated with an exhortation and request to endeavour to have information made available as quickly as feasible in all cases. In any large organisation, including a Department of State, certain procedures based on experience evolve over a period of years as the most suitable for the purpose of securing the most efficient, accurate and courteous service in the circumstances of the activities of that organisation.

I find it no more extraordinary to have the staff of my Department reminded of the long-standing procedure with which they were, in general, familiar for dealing with correspondence and telephone inquiries from Deputies than the Parliamentary Secretary in my predecessor's time would appear to have found it in any way inappropriate for him to have a general directive issued to members of the staff dealing with school transport matters where the volume of inquiries, in relative terms——

Mr. Faulkner

That could not have been a general directive.

Mr. R. Burke

——is particularly great. I am not surprised, therefore, that Deputy Faulkner should not have been aware of the directive. I wish the Deputy would now listen to me as I listened to him.

Mr. Kelly

Deputy Faulkner was not interrupted on any occasion from this side of the House when making his contribution.

Mr. Tunney

He was.

Mr. R. Burke

Except to concede to Deputy Faulkner that the point he was making originally was correct. This, I think, was a fair concession to make. I am not very surprised that Deputy Faulkner should not have been aware of the directive issued at the behest of his Parliamentary Secretary and it was precisely to draw his attention to that fact that the incident he refers to here took place. It was precisely to alert his colleague to that particular fact that the conversation referred to by Deputy Cunningham took place in the lift. I had no intention of making Deputy Faulkner appear as if he did not know what was going on in his Department during his period of office. It would appear that the Parliamentary Secretary regarded the matter as being in the interest of efficiency and effective administration and not requiring the specific approval of his Minister.

Mr. Faulkner

In one small section of the Department, but the Minister is trying to give the impression that it was to the Department in general. The Minister knows that only a Minister can do this.

Mr. R. Burke

The Deputy should be patient and let me make my case. I am particularly anxious that Deputies should be supplied with the information to which they are entitled as promptly as is feasible and that this information should be accurate and comprehensive. I accept that I have responsibility to ensure, in so far as it is possible to do so, that information given to Deputies is as reliable as that given in letters issued over my own name or that of my Private Secretary.

Furthermore, in the case of telephone inquiries it is necessary to be satisfied that the telephone call is from whom it is stated to come. If I am to discharge my responsibilities in this regard I must satisfy myself that the required procedures are adopted and observed. I recognise also, and I believe Deputies do in general, that the relationships between Deputies and the civil servants are, of their nature, unusual. The Deputy has a different role and function in respect of inquiries and representations which he may be making from that of an ordinary member of the public. In this connection I stated in reply to a question on the 28th February that no Member of the Oireachtas is denied information which can be obtained by members of the public and I wish that Deputies opposite would stop chasing that hare.

I do not feel that it is necessary for me to expand on this aspect of the matter. It is obvious and incontrovertible. In fact, I would not need to refer to it only that the Deputy cast some aspersions on the suspected loyalty of civil servants.

Mr. Faulkner

That is absolutely incorrect.

Mr. R. Burke

My attitude towards that loyalty is that I accept it as incontrovertible. The Irish Civil Service have a splendid record in regard to their impartial and objective service to all Governments irrespective of party political affiliations. This means, however, that at any particular time the loyalty of the staff of a Department is primarily to the Minister in charge of the Department and not to Deputies, no matter what political party they may belong to.

I believe that an arrangement whereby contact between Deputies and members of the Civil Service is mainly through the office of the Minister is the best one in the interests of avoiding embarrassments on both sides. I am not suggesting that protocol should be carried to excess or that it should be too rigidly observed in all procedures. I stated in my reply to a supplementary question in 1973 that if Deputies got in touch with my ministerial office they would be put through to the section directly and to the person at the highest possible level who would deal with the question and who would give them the information sought. I regret if some Deputies do not find that a fair and reasonable arrangement but I have my responsibilities also and I mean to discharge them. I do not wish to comment on the difficulties which Deputy Faulkner may have had with a commentator who got one impression or another——

Mr. Faulkner

The public got an impression.

Mr. R. Burke

I do not wish to deal with any impression; I deal with facts I should like to stress to Deputies that what I refer to as the directive was, in fact, issued and it was referred to as Na Treoracha. The Deputy is a scholar and he knows what Irish means. He can take his own interpretation from that.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 25th April, 1974.