Private Notice Question.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Leader of the Opposition gave notice in the House this morning that in view of the continued publication of certain advertisements he wished to repeat the two questions which I had refused yesterday to accept on private notice. Discussions and arrangements between Ministers which, of course, involve the collective responsibility of the Government, are not matters for which they are officially responsible to the Dáil. In accordance with the Standing Orders and precedents questions on these matters are not admissible. One of the questions by the Leader of the Opposition asks whether the Taoiseach "authorised or approved" the advertisements in question. Clearly this question falls within the category mentioned above and is out of order on ordinary notice not to speak of "on private notice" for which it also would fail on the ground that it was merely seeking information on a past event.

The other question seeks information as to whether a certain form of Press advertisement is now Government policy and does not carry in its text the element of urgency which by long standing practice is required of a question to qualify it for private notice. The Leader of the Opposition has, however, in his statement in the House today introduced an element of urgency in as much as he has made an allegation of a continuing misuse of public funds. Notwithstanding that the question is not in due form and that I have some doubt that the information available fulfils the urgency requirement of the Standing Order, I am giving the Deputy the benefit of the doubt and am permitting him to ask the Question now.

Mr. J. Lynch

I acknowledge your action of yesterday as being wrong and not properly based. I do not accept the qualifications that you have put on that acknowledgment today nor do I accept the thesis of what you have just said, that arrangements between Ministers are not subject to questioning in the House, either in Private Notice Question form or in ordinary form. However, that is another day's work. The Question you have allowed—again I fail to see how it can be allowed without any qualification on your part—is as follows:

To ask the Taoiseach if it is now Government policy to insert in newspapers on behalf of Government Departments at public expense the personalised form of advertisement which appeared in the Sunday and evening newspapers of 8th and 9th May, 1977 respectively portraying the photograph of the Minister for Labour and a facsimile of his signature.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Kelly)

I propose, with your permission, Sir, to answer the question on behalf of the Taoiseach. I am sorry the Taoiseach is not here. I should explain to the House that at the moment he is addressing the Confederation of Irish Industry in response to a long standing invitation and agreement to do so.

The advertisement referred to by the Deputy was published on the strong recommendation of an advertising agency as being necessary to ensure the full utilisation of the employment incentive scheme. The Taoiseach is satisfied that advertising of this nature may be necessary in particular circumstances. In this case it is an appeal to employers to get as many people back to work as soon as possible and the strength and impact of the advertising campaign is designed to achieve this objective.

Mr. J. Lynch

Will the Parliamentary Secretary accept that this is a departure from normal practice, that when Government Departments see fit to advertise matters of this nature it is done over the signature of the secretary, the permanent head of the Department rather than the Minister?

Mr. Kelly

No, I do not accept that. I refer the Deputy, perhaps when I get away from the contentious atmosphere of politics in this State, to a precedent which I am sure he will recognise as a respectable one. I have come across an advertisement taken from The Economist of May, 1974, which shows a large photograph of Mr. John Hume, at that time a Minister in Northern Ireland, doing a very similar job to that now being done by the Minister for Labour here, trying to induce, by an advertising campaign which personalised him, foreign industrialists to invest in Northern Ireland. I also do not accept that the addition of a Minister's name to a statement, even if it is an invitation or whatever it may be, on the part of a department, is improper and that the secretary's name should be substituted. If that were the case, the former Government would have to explain how over 500,000 booklets costing, in the prices of 1969, almost £30,000 were delivered into the letter-boxes of every household in the country before the general election of that year and how that booklet, which purports to be instructive, in regard to the changes made in the educational system, was personalised by the facsimile signature of Brian Lenihan, at that time Minister for Education.

Mr. J. Lynch

May I say that this is not abnormal practice? The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs the other day circularised every telephone subscriber along similar lines and no objection has been taken to that form. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the personalised form in the advertisement, to which he has just referred, that of Mr. John Hume, who apparently inserted that advertisement in The Economist as Minister for Industry in the Northern Ireland Executive, is the only precedent of that nature he can quote?

Mr. Kelly

I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that your permission for asking this question was communicated to the Government shortly before 1 o'clock today at a time when the Taoiseach had already left. The time available to the Taoiseach's staff and to myself to answer the question and, in particular, to deal with supplementaries which we might have foreseen, was accordingly very limited. I undertake, if the Leader of the Opposition wishes to press the matter, to find other precedents. As a matter of principle, quite apart from precedent, I would not accept that it is necessarily to be ruled out that a Minister's photograph or facsimile signature should accompany an advertising campaign. I can conceive that, as in this case, there would be solid technical reasons of an advertising publicistic kind which might recommend that approach. I understand from the Minister's people that the particular campaign which is going on at the moment and which Deputy Lynch is trying to torpedo has produced very promising results so far.

Mr. J. Lynch

I want to repudiate entirely that I wish to torpedo any genuine and above board efforts to put people back to work.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. J. Lynch

I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that this is a nefariously political method of trying to publicise a particular Minister and, in the wake of that publication, publicise the Government as well for political purposes. May I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that, contrary to notice being given only this morning of my intention to raise this matter by way of Private Notice Question, I gave my notice of intention yesterday morning? May I suggest to him that it is, as I alleged yesterday, a misuse of public funds for the Minister to purport to promise to pay personally to employers certain employment premiums if they give employment to people?

Mr. Kelly

I want to clear up, first of all, a misunderstanding in the Deputy's mind. Of course, the Deputy raised this matter yesterday. I heard him myself. I said it was not until a few minutes before 1 o'clock that the consent of the Ceann Comhairle to the raising of this matter in this form now was communicated to us. That is the reason which I offer for not having a longer string of precedents, perhaps even more respectable ones, with which to answer the Leader of the Opposition. In regard to the second point, of course, it is open to the Leader of the Opposition to allege that the form in which this matter is presented is designed also to secure publicity or favourable reaction from the public for a particular Minister or for the Government in which he works. That is inseparable from a Minister's work and the party which the Leader of the Opposition leads have made as much use of that in their time as anyone possibly could have.

Mr. J. Lynch

If the Parliamentary Secretary had examples of the allegation he has just made that we as a party and as a Government had made use of funds in this way, I am sure we would have an indication of what they are as of now but the Parliamentary Secretary apparently failed to dig any of them up. I am repeating my allegation that this is a misuse of public funds. It is an attempt to personalise the Minister for Labour by projecting his photograph and a facsimile of his signature, by projecting what appears to be a promise to pay personally a specified sum of money to certain employers under certain conditions. That is a gross misuse of public funds. It is a matter which, ultimately, we as a party will bring to the attention either of the Committee of Public Accounts or of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Kelly

I refuse absolutely to accept in any way or to any extent Deputy Lynch's allegation that this was a misuse of public funds. I trust the Deputy will not pretend that it is a misuse of public funds to advertise the scheme concerned. From the latest information that I was able to receive I can tell the Deputy that the total cost of the series of advertisements for the scheme is about £20,000 which represents only a very small fraction of the overall cost of the scheme which is in the region of £4 million. Surely the Leader of the Opposition would not argue that if the personalised element were missing, the advertisements would be a perfectly proper use of public funds. If the addition of the personalised element makes the advertisement more effective surely the public funds are being even better spent.

Mr. J. Lynch

It is much less effective as it is because people are objecting to it. Since the Parliamentary Secretary has suggested that it was the opinion of the advertising agency concerned that the personalised form would be more effective, would he be prepared to identify that agency in the House?

Mr. Kelly

On the papers that I have seen in the past hour I have noticed the name of the agency. There is no sinister secret in this. I understand that the agency is the one that has always been used by the Department. However, I am not prepared to trust my memory entirely but I can undertake to ascertain the information for the Deputy within a matter of minutes.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 May 1977