Vol. 702 No. 2
1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests which were processed by his Department to date in 2010; the number which have been acceded to; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48383/09]
2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of applications made to his Department under the freedom of information legislation during 2009; the number of requests that were granted; the way these figures compare to each year from 2002 to 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3176/10]
3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests acceded to; the number refused in his Department to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3455/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
Seven freedom of information requests were received in my Department to date in 2010. Of these, two were part granted and the remaining five are still being processed.
As regards FOI requests received in the years 2002 to 2009, the following table shows the number received in each of those years and the number that were granted and part granted.
All FOI requests received in my Department are processed by statutorily designated officials in accordance with the Freedom of Information Acts. I have no role in processing requests.
|
Year |
Received |
Granted |
Part Granted |
|
2002 |
146 |
49 |
35 |
|
2003 |
142 |
38 |
46 |
|
2004 |
45 |
14 |
10 |
|
2005 |
61 |
22 |
18 |
|
2006 |
54 |
36 |
10 |
|
2007 |
71 |
23 |
17 |
|
2008 |
83 |
38 |
26 |
|
2009 |
99 |
51 |
28 |
Note regarding table: Decisions on the remainder of requests received are categorised as either no records, withdrawn, transferred or refused. (Records are refused when they are exempt from release under the FOI Act.)
Does the Taoiseach attribute any validity on the comments of the Information Commissioner, Ms Emily O'Reilly, and the Department of Finance in respect of freedom of information, FOI, and the structures and costs relating thereto? Ms O'Reilly stated:
If FOI is about replacing a culture of secrecy with a culture of openness in the Irish public service, I have to say that this objective is being frustrated by the continued exclusion from FOI of several key public institutions.
At a conference on FOI held in June of last year, comments made by the Information Commissioner and officials of the Department of Finance are extremely relevant to the Taoiseach's initial reply, particularly in the context of his and other Departments. On that occasion, the Information Commissioner stated that the Ryan commission's inquiry into the abuse of children in institutions might not have been required if freedom of information legislation had existed. She also inquired as follows:
What might have been the outcome if 30 years ago, FoI legislation had allowed the public to rip away the secretive bureaucratic veils that hid the industrial schools and other institutions from clear view and exposed the practices therein?
She further stated: "Other records would have revealed the complaints made and ignored, the low levels of educational attainment and other issues that took until the year 2009 to emerge into the daylight."
The Taoiseach is not responsible for the fact that freedom of information legislation did not exist 30 years ago and the Information Commissioner made that point. Given that she was appointed by the Government, the remarks made by Ms O'Reilly should carry some weight. At the conference to which I refer, a senior official from the Department of Finance made the point that FOI requests are costly to process and that the Government would be obliged to consider ways of improving the Freedom of Information Act. The same official made the point that this would include publishing information outside the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
What weight or validity does the Taoiseach attribute to public comments made by the Information Commissioner? What weight does he attribute to the formal advice offered by the Department of Finance to the effect that information should be provided outside the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, particularly in view of the costs involved in processing claims? What additional information could, as suggested by the Department of Finance, be published by Departments of State in order to make the Act more relevant and more meaningful?
The policy in respect of freedom of information legislation is decided initially by Government and then subsequently by the Oireachtas. While one takes into account what might be stated in the annual reports of the Ombudsman or the Information Commissioner to the Minister for Finance — who deals with these matters — ultimately it is the responsibility for the Government and the Oireachtas to make decisions on these issues.
As the Deputy will be aware, there have been many major extensions to the Act — and various bodies — since it was first placed on the Statute Book. That has been a good development because it has been possible, as a result of experience gained, to broaden the remit of the legislation and prepare Departments and agencies which come within its remit for the statutory duties imposed upon them. I am of the view that the current system works satisfactorily. Compliance is achieved by means of the work done by the various statutorily designated officers whose task it is to compile the necessary information on foot of requests received under the legislation.
I would surmise that the official from the Department of Finance to whom Deputy Kenny referred was highlighting the need to provide as much information as possible — through websites, policy documents and the review documents that emanate from Departments and public bodies — on an ongoing basis rather than having a system whereby the Freedom of Information Act is used for obtaining general information. The Freedom of Information Act was originally introduced to benefit citizens by ensuring their rights in interacting with the State so that personal information would be made available to them in an appropriate way. We have extended its remit considerably since then.
The question related in part to the response given by a Department of Finance official who stated that freedom of information requests are costly to process. I can understand that because if the Freedom of Information Act has a structural impediment whereby information that might be relevant is not given out freely, it means that further information is requested and therefore officials must spend further time compiling it. In respect of what was stated by the Department of Finance, which is the Department with responsibility for the Freedom of Information Act, what is the Taoiseach's view on publishing information outside the Act? This would lessen the requirement for requests within the Act which are costly to process. Does the Taoiseach have a general view that it would be in everybody's interest for relevant information to be published outside the Freedom of Information Act readily without having to resort to it in the first place?
I am quite sure that as a Minister who served in many Departments over the years, the Taoiseach discussed with the Secretaries General of those Departments the fact that Deputies who table parliamentary questions should be given as much information as possible. The replies to many of the questions, which are vetted on behalf of Ministers by Secretaries General, are meaningless. This means that Deputies or other interested persons must then resort to freedom of information requests, which mean further time and cost and more red tape. If the Taoiseach were to tell his Cabinet colleagues to instruct the Secretaries General to be as flúirseach as possible with the information and make it as relevant as possible in the first instance, it might lessen the number of freedom of information requests.
The point to make on freedom of information is that the idea that some issues require freedom of information requests does not suggest that people are unduly secretive about the information that is available. The nature of some of the requests under the Freedom of Information Act is by definition personal or confidential; those requests may relate to the health records of the individual seeking them. The idea of the Freedom of Information Act is to make what would normally be confidential, such as personal records, available to citizens as and if they require. Therefore, that fact that one must make a freedom of information request to get the information is good; it should not be something that is available in the normal way.
Information obtained through the channel of freedom of information legislation is appropriately dealt with in that way; it is not appropriate simply to put everything up on a website. There is personal and confidential information, and there is information that is more general. Issues of general policy and general reporting requirements can be provided on a website and should be available. It does not stop Deputies who table parliamentary questions or people making freedom of information requests using those opportunities even though that information might now be available in other formats for people to look for it or to check the websites. One cannot legislate for every person's personal preference on how they want to obtain information.
The fact that we do not have any real parameters for parliamentary questions means that many parliamentary questions are diverted for the purpose of being answered. Some are important and some are of lesser importance. Some can be provided for by way of ordinary correspondence if statistical information is required. As we know, the preference of Deputies is for the limited timeframe in which a parliamentary question has to be replied to, as it gives them access to the information more speedily than through a normal correspondence process. Again, it is a question of us using the privileges we have as Members in a way that is appropriate and not in a way that would be wasteful of taxpayers' money.
We cannot legislate for that. It is an entitlement people have and a discretion that some use wisely and others, I would suggest, less wisely.
Arising from the Taoiseach's reply and his reference to the remit of the Freedom of Information Act, I ask him to respond to the Labour Party's proposal that the financial regulatory bodies of the State should be covered by that Act. We have proposed that the Central Bank, the Financial Regulator, the NTMA, the NPRF and the State Claims Agency should be subject to freedom of information provisions. Specifically in regard to the NTMA, which is at present not subject to freedom of information provisions, what are the implications of the Government's decision, which is still to be acted on, to delegate some of the Minister for Finance's functions pertaining to banking to that agency? Currently, these functions are subject to the Act but this will no longer be the case if they are transferred, unless the NTMA is brought within the Act's remit. What is the Government's intention for these functions in regard to the application of the Freedom of Information Act?
I am not aware of any intention to accommodate that. The issue in question could well be addressed by parliamentary questions in any event. The functions of the NTMA are a matter of organisation for the Minister for Finance. Obviously, the Minister and other agencies, such as the Central Bank, will continue to advise generally on these kinds of matters in so far as they are appropriate to their remit. In the context of the engagement that is currently taking place, the Minister believes the NTMA has the expertise and wherewithal to deal with these functions efficiently. Rather than allowing the possibility of people going to five or six different places to make entreaties, it is best to deal with one organisation and the NTMA is best placed to manage this issue. That is the thinking behind that decision. At the end of the day, the Minister is accountable for all actions that will derive from those arrangements.
On the Labour Party's proposal to extend the Freedom of Information Act to cover a range of matters which could have clear implications for commercially sensitive information, it is not my function as Taoiseach to give detailed answers regarding possible extensions of the Act. That is the line responsibility of the Minister for Finance. However, my initial instinct would be to tread cautiously before extending the Act to some of the areas referred to by the Deputy.
I understand that it is the Taoiseach's natural instinct not to extend the Freedom of Information Act. That has been clear for some time from the responses he has given on this subject. It is probably a fair summary of his position to say that he does not like it, but that is not a good reason for not extending it.
I want to specifically pursue the functions which are going to the NTMA. We have not yet seen a delegation order for the transfer of these functions but clearly they are at present covered by the Act. The Taoiseach will recall a recent freedom of information release which caused some embarrassment because it made clear that the IMF had not given the green light to NAMA to the extent claimed by the Government. If the Act is not extended to cover the NTMA after these functions are transferred to it, that kind of freedom of information request will no longer be possible. That may be good news for the Government in that it can conceal information that would otherwise be in the public domain but I do not think it is in the public interest to transfer matters that are at present subject to the Freedom of Information Act to the NTMA, at which point they will no longer be subject to the legislation.
I do not subscribe to the Deputy's conspiracy theory. First, as Minister for Finance, the terms of the freedom of information legislation were historically widened beyond those set by any of my predecessors or successors. I have broadened the application of the Freedom of Information Act to far more bodies than was the case when Deputy Gilmore's party introduced it. I contend that my record on the extension of freedom of information is far better than anyone else in the House. The record will show that. The fact that is the case does not mean I believe it should be extended willy-nilly if there are good policy reasons why it should not be. Therefore, one's commitment to an effective and efficient freedom of information legislation is not determined by the number of bodies to which one applies it. It is determined by those bodies to whom it has been extended and the good policy reasons why it does not have to be extended to everyone. I have given an initial reaction. It is a matter for the Minister for Finance to reply to in detail by way of parliamentary question on what the policy considerations would be regarding the hesitancy of applying it to some of the institutions referred to by Deputy Gilmore. I can think of a couple of obvious ones off the top of my head.
On the question on the International Monetary Fund and National Asset Management Agency, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the correspondence to which Deputy Gilmore referred confirmed that the IMF said that if NAMA was not being formed by the Government it would have suggested something of that kind in any event. It was fully supportive of NAMA. Again, when the full correspondence is considered the interpretation which Deputy Gilmore gave to the release of that information is at variance with the facts.
On the question of the delegation orders for the functions of the National Treasury Management Agency, as I indicated the Minister will be fully accountable to the House for all actions in the normal way. That is an arrangement he has brought forward in an effort to ensure that the dealings with the banks and the issues that are under consideration at present are carried out efficiently and effectively and are not done by a variety of bodies that would be listening to the same sets of arguments.
Could the Taoiseach confirm that the Freedom of Information Act allows for a citizen to seek information on salaries, expenses claimed, travel abroad, a whole raft of issues relating to remuneration and expenses of all employees in his Department? Could he also advise that no such provision applies to those who have been entrusted to oversee and manage the National Asset Management Agency?
What is his reaction to the revelation last month that the banks lobbied extensively to ensure that on its establishment NAMA would not come under the freedom of information legislation? What is the factual position in regard to that? Is the Taoiseach willing to look once again at the recommendation of the Information Commissioner, that all State bodies and agencies should come under the remit of the Freedom of Information Act immediately on their establishment and that the logic of that is that NAMA should be included under the FOI? If it is the case that the Taoiseach is unwilling, because of commitments made to the banks or any other position he may have adopted, to include the business of NAMA under the remit of the FOI, would he include the administration and management of NAMA under the FOI, in other words that we would not have a situation where this body, that is now being entrusted with the risk management of billions of taxpayers' moneys, now and perhaps generationally into the future, will not be amenable to information requests? Will he advise us of what action he proposes to take in that regard, and his clarification regarding the banks' lobby?
I have not received any such lobbying whatever from the banks on that matter. It is clear that bank confidentiality rules have to apply for the efficient and effective running of these bodies. The same applies to any other operation of this kind and, for a whole lot of obvious reasons, that is the rationale behind it. The FOI Act should not automatically apply to every body that is created. It is a matter for decision and consideration by the Minister for Finance and the public service in the first instance before, ultimately, being brought before the House. I do not believe the Act should be applied to the financial institutions, as suggested by the Deputy.
It is a little ironic that under the FOI Act we have evidence, contrary to the Taoiseach's response, that the representatives of the banking interests lobbied that the Act should not apply to NAMA.
They did not lobby me.
It is not a case of only lobbying the Taoiseach.
I refer to the facts within my knowledge.
Is the Taoiseach not aware, for example, that the Irish Banking Federation, in an explicit statement to the Department of Finance described as a "confidential submission", argued strenuously that the FOI Act should not apply to NAMA? There was no reference whatsoever to freedom of information in the legislation presented regarding NAMA. We had to depend on a query under the FOI Act to even know that such a submission had been received in the first place and this was exposed last month. It strikes me as strange that the Taoiseach would not know this because it is not an unimportant matter.
We are looking for transparency surely. I thought the collective objective in matters pertaining to banking institutions and their management and conduct is that we would have complete transparency but, only for the FOI query, we would not have known. If that evidence had not been exposed last month, the Taoiseach's reply would have scotched the very notion. That is most unsatisfactory. There was an extensive lobby of the Department of Finance on the part of banking interests through the Irish Banking Federation. Is the Taoiseach indicating to the House that he had no knowledge of that matter at any time, that the Minister for Finance did not discuss this matter with him at any time and that, up to my tabling the question this afternoon, he had no knowledge whatsoever that there had been such a lobby to hold NAMA out from under the scrutiny of the FOI Acts? These are important matters and they require an indication on the Taoiseach's part that he is willing, at the very least, to ensure the same scrutiny that applies to employees in his Department applies to the management-administration of NAMA, if not the business itself. It should apply to the business also, but the Taoiseach is not of a mind to do so.
The Deputy is correct. I do not subscribe to the view that there should be freedom of information in regard to the operations of NAMA for obvious reasons such as bank confidentiality and so on. To enact legislation contrary to bank confidentiality rules would ensure the agency would not work at all. Perhaps that is what the Deputy wants to happen since he does not support the operation of NAMA but if the agency is to be effective, it has to have those arrangements in place. It is no different from other financial institutions and financial information that applies. There is full accountability by the Minister for Finance to the House and that would probably be the view of the Department of Finance as well for obvious reasons. The fact that people in the industry were of that view does not mean that is the reason the Department of Finance takes that view. It may well coincide with a view already held by the Department on the matter. I can see good and objective reasons for that, quite apart from the view of the Irish Banking Federation or any other organisation.
4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the projected cost in 2010 of the communications unit in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48388/09]
5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the projected cost of his Department’s communications unit for 2010; if he is planning a change in the role of the communications unit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3177/10]
6 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the cost of the communications unit in his Department in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3456/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together.
The projected cost of the communications unit in 2010 is €242,269, with a direct cost to the Department of €112,220 and the balance being paid by three other Departments which have staff seconded to the unit. The projected cost for 2010 represents a reduction of 6% on the 2009 cost, 20% on the 2008 cost and 27% on the 2007 cost. In fact, it is the lowest cost since 2003. This has been achieved through greater efficiency in the operation of the unit and the application of Government policy on reducing staff numbers. I have no plans at present to change the role of the unit.
The Taoiseach has explained many times the role of the communications unit, which is to alert him, as Head of Government, and the Ministers in his Cabinet to issues emerging in the media about which they should be informed. I thank the Taoiseach for his response on the cost of the unit. Arising from this, did the communications unit alert the Taoiseach to media reports on 21 December last to the effect that a Minister had been forced to admit he had submitted a sworn but false and defamatory affidavit to the High Court, and that he had been forced to apologise to the injured party?
I must advise the Deputy——
I am asking the Taoiseach——
This matter will be the subject of a personal statement later.
I am asking the Taoiseach if the communications unit——
It is not intended to allow any discussion to develop on this subject.
I am well aware of the regulations and I am not making a personal charge against anybody. I am asking the Taoiseach if the communications unit brought it to his attention on 21 December last that a member of his Cabinet had apologised to an injured party for having submitted a false affidavit to the High Court. What did the Taoiseach do when that information was brought to his attention? Did he call the Minister involved before him? Did he discuss the matter with the Minister? Is he happy, as the person who lays down standards, that the code of ethics and the code of conduct for officeholders were not breached and that the law was not breached?
This matter will be the subject of a personal statement later today and much of the detail sought by the Deputy will be contained therein.
Arising from the fact that this may have been brought to his attention by the communications unit, is the Taoiseach happy that there is not a person sitting at his Cabinet table who may be guilty of perjury?
I must advise the Deputy that if any allegation against a Member of this House is to be made——
Did I make an allegation?
There was the suggestion of an allegation. If an allegation is to be made, it must be done by substantive motion.
This is about the communications unit. I asked the Taoiseach if this had been brought to his attention by the communications unit, as is its remit and responsibility. I want to know whether the Taoiseach received the reports of 21 December indicating that a Cabinet Minister had admitted that an affidavit submitted by him was false and that he was obliged to apologise to the injured party. Arising from the reception of that report by the Taoiseach, what did he do about it? Is he satisfied that the code of ethics and the code of conduct for officeholders were not breached and that the law was not breached? I want to know the answer to that question.
As a matter of interest, I do not recall being informed of this by the communications unit, but I am satisfied the Minister is not in breach of any of those arrangements.
The Taoiseach has explained to the House on more than one occasion the role and responsibility of the communications unit for which the public pays. The Taoiseach has outlined the costs that apply to the communications unit. This was a matter of national and public interest, and I assume the communications unit did bring it to the attention of the Taoiseach. Is he confirming to me now that it did not do so?
I just said to the Deputy that I did not recall being informed of this matter by the communications unit on 21 December.
I ask the Taoiseach to check his records and confirm whether this was mentioned in the daily bulletin to him, as Taoiseach, from the communications unit. This was public information, given that it had been broadcast and that subsequent media reports referred to the decision, the withdrawal and an admission by a member of the Cabinet that he had submitted a false affidavit to the High Court. He is not just a Joe Soap. He is a constitutional officeholder and a member of the Taoiseach's Cabinet.
It is more than two months since this matter would have been brought to the Taoiseach's attention by the communications unit. Either we are discussing blatant neglect of responsibility or the Taoiseach's usually sharp memory has slipped somewhat. Will the Taoiseach confirm that he will examine the bulletin of 21 December given to him by the information unit to verify whether it contained this information? This is a matter of standards, trust, belief and national importance at a time of great depression.
Certainly, if it is a matter of standards, perhaps the Deputy will defer a little bit from some of the more obvious intimations he is making in terms of what he has to say. I have already said that I believe there has been no breach by the Minister in any of the issues that arise. He will make a personal explanation of that in the House today.
All I asked the Taoiseach was——
Deputy Kenny.
This is my final comment.
I must tell the Deputy that I will not allow him to circumvent——
I am well aware——
——the long-standing principle in the House that allegations against a Member must be made by a substantive motion.
The Ceann Comhairle is overstepping the mark.
I will not allow it.
It is not an allegation.
It is a fact.
The Ceann Comhairle is overstepping his mark.
I am not.
I have not made a personal allegation.
I am protecting the interests of Members of the House.
The Minister admitted to making a false statement. It is not an allegation.
I have asked the Taoiseach whether the communications unit brought this public information to his attention on 21 December. The Taoiseach has stated that he does not recall it being brought to his attention.
It is not relevant whether it did or not.
It is relevant.
No, it is not because I do not believe that anything has been breached by the Minister anyway.
If the unit brought it to the Taoiseach's attention that a member of his Cabinet had admitted to making a false sworn affidavit to the High Court,——
I must advise Deputy Kenny that we will have a personal statement on this matter later today. I ask him to await that statement.
——then this is a matter of the most serious import.
When is the Taoiseach going to make a statement?
If the communications unit failed to bring the matter to the Taoiseach's attention, it should be abolished. This is a matter concerning a Cabinet Minister.
We need to move on from this matter. It will be dealt with adequately later in the House.
I repeat — I have not made personal allegations against anyone. I have asked the Taoiseach to confirm whether the communications unit, for which the taxpayer pays, brought this public information to his attention. He has replied that he cannot recall.
Yes, but it is not relevant one way or the other.
It is relevant.
It is not.
Maybe the Taoiseach is like previous taoisigh, he cannot remember.
We must move on from this matter.
I could give the Taoiseach a list of times when Ministers were dismissed from office for a hell of a lot less than this.
Deputy Gilmore is next.
Deputy Charles Flanagan has pointed this matter out numerous times.
Perhaps the Taoiseach has a bad memory. Selective.
In response to Deputy Kenny, the Taoiseach stated that he does not recall the communications unit bringing the issue of the Minister, Deputy O'Dea, to his attention. Did the communications unit bring this issue to his attention at any time? His response related to 21 December when the matter first appeared in newspapers. If he does not recall the communications unit bringing it to his attention on 21 December, when was he informed about it? Did he know about it before——
I must advise Deputy Gilmore, as I advised Deputy Kenny, that I will not allow this question to be used to pursue the issue of the Minister, which both Deputies have been doing.
This matter will be the subject of a personal statement later.
It is a matter of public record.
If Members of the House are dissatisfied at that stage, they have a remedy.
Statements.
Will the Minister take questions?
I am not——
I am dissatisfied with the correspondence I have received so far on this issue. I have sought further information from the Ceann Comhairle's office and I must regrettably say that I am not hopeful.
There is a remedy.
I am not getting into the detail of the issue of the Minister, Deputy O'Dea, at all. I am sticking with the communications unit.
May I point out to the Ceann Comhairle that there is precedent for this? I distinctly recall that Deputy Kenny and I pursued questions about the withdrawal of the London flights from Shannon Airport——
That is right.
——and the respective state of knowledge of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Transport. This is a value for money question. Given that €250,000 of taxpayers' money is being spent on the communications unit, we are entitled to probe what is value for money of that expenditure.
The issue here is did the Taoiseach get any information from the communications unit about this matter and, second, when was he told about the Minister O'Dea issue? He seemed to imply to Deputy Kenny that he did not know anything about it on 21 December. Did he know about it before 21 December when he cannot recall whether the communications unit told him about it, or was he told about it after 21 December?
I am sorry if I do not have the recall the Deputy would have about what he read on 21 December from whatever briefing he would get from his press office. If that is what I am expected to have, fair enough. However, the bottom line is that when this matter was brought to my attention, I spoke to the Minister about it and I am satisfied that the personal explanation he will give later this evening will clear up the matter.
Even before the Minister makes his statement? The Taoiseach has made up his mind already even before the Minister makes his statement.
The Deputy has his mind made up already.
I have not.
The Deputy must be joking.
That is why I have refrained from doing so because this is place to deal with the issue.
Deputy Flanagan, please desist.
This is a farce. The Taoiseach knows that because he has orchestrated it.
Deputy Flanagan, Deputy Gilmore has possession.
I know the Deputy too long. Senator Regan——
I know the way the Taoiseach operates.
If the conversation with the Minister for Defence, to which the Taoiseach referred, took place before the Minister made a settlement with the person involved in the allegation and it was subsequently reported by the newspapers——
No, it would have been afterwards.
It took place after it was reported in the newspapers.
It was after the settlement was made.
That was after it was reported in the newspapers.
I presume it was.
Did the Minister not tell the Taoiseach before——
I just explained to the Deputy when I had the conversation with the Minister.
Did the Minister not tell the Taoiseach about it before——
lf it was before, in the middle or after the settlement, it does matter to the Deputy. It was afterwards and I spoke to the Minister about it.
It is a matter of public interest, it is not about whether——
That is the answer I have given the Deputy. I have answered his question.
A personal statement will be given later, therefore, I ask Members to let the matter rest until then. I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
This is a gravely serious matter. If the communications unit did not bring the information regarding Minister O'Dea's withdrawal of the allegation in the affidavit he presented to the High Court earlier in the year and the Minister did not inform the Taoiseach prior to his apology and retraction in the High Court——
I will not allow a debate develop on this matter. There are recognised procedures for dealing with it and I will not allow a debate on it now.
The Minister was acting in his private capacity, not in pursuance of his ministerial duties.
I will ask the questions and the Taoiseach can then answer them. On where does the Taoiseach rely for information flow if his Ministers do not give him at least a heads up regarding such a serious matter or the communications unit does not bring it to his attention? It brings into question the Minister, in the first instance, and the focus of this set of questions regarding the communications unit. If the unit is not bringing such matters to the Taoiseach's attention, what matters does it bring to his attention? What is its role or function? This is a situation where a Minister had wrongly damned a citizen in the full prose of an election campaign——
I will not allow the Deputy to make allegations across the floor, if he wishes to make allegations like this——
It is not an allegation.
——this will have to be done by way of substantive motion.
It is a fact already established.
That is the way this is going to be.
In terms of the focus of these questions, sadly there is more that should be addressed here at this point. Will the Taoiseach offer the House a sample of exactly what the communications unit presents and brings to his attention? We have no evidence of what it does only what we have learned today, namely, that it does not bring such matters of grave importance to the Taoiseach's attention.
They are not signed by P. O'Neill.
That is what the Taoiseach has indicated to us.
There is no P. O'Neill working in it.
What does the communications unit do and what does it report to the Taoiseach? What information does it provide to him on a daily basis to justify the expenditure on it of so much public money?
I have answered this on a number of occasions regarding the communications unit. It is on the record of the House every time I am asked about it so I do not have to repeat it.
With regard to the matter raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin, in this case the Minister was acting in a private capacity. It was not in pursuance of his ministerial duties that this issue arose. He has dealt with the matter and will give a personal explanation to the House later.
The Taoiseach is stating that Ministers have two different lives; they can divorce political commentary in their respective constituencies from their role as Ministers. I find the answer incredible. The code of ethics and conduct that applies to Ministers must be in effect at all times with regard to their holding an office. There cannot be a relaxation to the point that they can publicly — in an interview with the media — falsely accuse an innocent party who happens to be a candidate for election at the same time as the Minister. That is an outrageous claim on the part of the Taoiseach.
The Ceann Comhairle has ruled on this. He has already indicated how this matter must be dealt with.
It is outrageous to claim the Minister has no accountability for such actions and utterances. Ministers should at all times be accountable.
I will allow a brief final reply.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is shutting the Deputy down.
We are now into the time for Priority Questions but I will allow the Taoiseach the time to reply.
To clarify, the Minister was acting in a private capacity as it was a private action that arose.
He was not. He is a public representative.
If I may be allowed to continue, there has been no breach of the code under which he operates as a Minister.
Mr. Haughey sacked people for less.
The last days of the Roman Empire.
