asked the Minister for the Public Service the total cost of providing the phone-in service on the Budget, 1985; the number of people involved; their rank and the Departments from which they were drawn, including people from Bord Telecom Éireann; the duration of the phone-in service and the cost of media advertising of the service; the number of consultants employed and the firms they represented, if any; the total amount of moneys due to consultants for their service; and the number of people who availed of the service.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Budget Phone-in Cost.
2.
The information which the Deputy seeks is as follows: The cost of the Freefone Budget Information Service which was provided under the auspices of the Government Information Services was approximately £30,500, excluding VAT.
Approximately 56 Civil Service staff were involved in providing the service on a rota basis. They were drawn from the Departments of Agriculture, Environment, Finance, Public Service, Social Welfare, Taoiseach and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. The grades ranged from clerical to executive and administrative. Telecom Éireann provided technical facilities at a specified global cost.
The service was provided on the Thursday, Friday and Monday following the budget on Wednesday, 30 January 1985. No consultants were employed. Approximately 14,000 calls were processed during the three days of the service.
Will the Minister agree that this was a wasted exercise, a public relations exercise on behalf of the Government? While I welcome the concern to ensure that the public receive all the relevant information and assistance possible——
A question, Deputy.
Would the Minister agree that because of the radio and television coverage given to the budget and the fact that every economist in the country wrote articles on every aspect of the budget and every journalist wrote articles in the newspapers continually for almost a week, explaining every detail of the benefits and disadvantages——
A question, Deputy. The Deputy must confine himself to a question.
The question is, was this a wasted exercise on behalf of the Government?
That is a statement.
Fifty civil servants were used. When we know that in these Departments——
The Deputy will find opportunities for making a speech on the information which he has been given but he cannot make that speech here.
I sought information because it is necessary that this be pointed out. I do not want to have a repetition of this public relations exercise next year and a repetition of the waste of public service employee's time in dispensing Government information.
The Deputy cannot make a speech at Question Time.
On a point of public information——
Deputy Wallace, please let us not have controversy on this. You cannot make a speech at Question Time. You put down a question, you have got information and no doubt you will make use of it, but this is not the place to do it.
Surely I am entitled to put a supplementary question and ask the Minister if he will agree——
You have done so three times.
——that this was an unnecessary exercise. Will the Minister answer that question?
In relation to each of the three questions the answer would be no. The situation is probably highlighted quite well by the fact, if the Deputy casts his mind back to the previous question, that Deputy Mac Giolla suggested that there should be greater access to information held by public bodies; yet now Deputy Wallace seems to be suggesting that the Government ought not make information available regarding one of the most important events of the year, the annual budget. I would have thought that the plethora of comment emanating from many sources in the immediate aftermath of the budget could sometimes have the effect of confusing the general public as to the implications of the budget which is quite a complex document from the point of view of the general public. The fact that 14,000 calls were received and processed during the three days of the service is evidence and proof that this service was welcomed by the general public and availed of very widely by them. My only regret is that greater information services are not made available by Government Departments on all aspects and facts of Government services.
The Minister indicated that the phone-in cost was £30,500. Has he any figure for the total wages cost of officials? I do not think it is sufficient to say that they were seconded from other Departments. They still had to be paid and I would like to have a figure for that. Also, is the Minister satisfied—he seems to indicate that he is—that the exercise was worthwhile? We can all have our views on that and I am doubtful about it. In the likely event of a supplementary budget being introduced will the same facility be accorded in the days immediately after the supplementary budget?
That is another separate question.
I am not in a position to deal with hypotheses. The total cost of the service was £30,500 excluding VAT. I have not got a separate figure for the cost of seconded officials who would in any event be carried on the payroll of their parent Departments.
In view of the fact that the embargo on recruitment to the public service is still in operation, if we were able to manage to have some staff plucked out from the various Departments to provide this service——
That is comment.
It is a preamble to the question I wish to ask.
I discourage preambles, Deputy.
The preamble will not be too long. Anyhow I want to make the point——
So do I.
We all accept and everybody knows that there is a shortage of staff in various Departments. Is it not extraordinary that we could pluck some people out to do this exercise? Is the Minister satisfied that the secondment of staff from various Departments did not leave any void in those Departments? If such is arising, will he ensure that in the event of this exercise taking place again the plucking out of staff from the various Departments will not affect adversely the performance of the Departments?
It was, if I may say so, a rather desultory amble in the event. The Deputy can be satisfied that the staff came from five or six different Departments and the Offices of the Revenue Commissioners, and their absence did not in any way impinge on the normal working of those Departments.
They were not missed; you could do without them.
The Deputy can rest assured that, whatever else we would do in providing a service like this, the last of my intentions would be to pluck staff from anywhere.
Deputy Lyons and then Deputy Wallace and then I will give no more questions on this.
I am not complaining about the Revenue Commissioners and people being taken from that Department to provide this service, but does the Minister not feel that the staff of the Revenue Commissioners would be better employed in processing the 50,000 unprocessed documents there for the collection of tax unpaid?
Particularly by the farmers.
That is argument.
I am sure the Minister's last reply will be most unwelcome to public service employees.
A question.
He suggested that they were not missed from their Department and did not affect the smooth running there.
A question, Deputy, Please.
In fairness, I am making my contribution——
You are not.
I am entitled to ask a question.
I invite the Deputy between now and next week (1) to read his supplementaries and (2) to read the relevant Standing Orders. Then we will discuss it.
The Minister is comparing Deputy Mac Giolla's question with mine and there is no comparison. I am concerned that the public relations that have gone on here——
That is not a question.
I want to ensure that we do not have a repetition. My point is that this is an unnecessary exercise.
That is not even a first cousin of a question.