asked the Minister for Education if his directive to civil servants that inquiries from Members of the Oireachtas be channelled through his own personal secretariat applies to every official in the Department.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Departmental Inquiries.
5.
Mr. R. Burke
The directive was contained in an internal departmental personnel notice (fógra teaghlachais) which was circulated to the staff.
I explained in my reply to the debate on the Adjournment on 24th April, 1974, the circumstances in which it was issued and its general purpose. I also stated that I was not suggesting that protocol should be carried to excess or that it should be too rigidly observed in all procedures. I do not consider that there is anything which I could usefully add to my previous statements by way of further clarification of the matter.
Will the Minister give the House a breakdown of what he describes as "office staff"? Perhaps he would indicate if the Secretary of the Department of Education must obey this directive?
Mr. R. Burke
I understand that the practice has been during quite a number of decades that the Secretary of the Department deals with persons such as office-holders who have moved into Opposition, or with anyone who wishes to get in touch with him. In that connection there is no change in the practice.
The Minister may remember that on an Adjournment Debate on this subject recently he acknowledged that he had had discussions with officials of my Department while I was in office without having been referred to my office. I would ask him if he is proposing to deny me facilities that were freely available to him without question while I was Minister for Education.
Mr. R. Burke
No, I am not denying the Deputy the facilities.
May I take it that I may telephone an official in the Department of Education without being referred to the Minister's office?
Mr. R. Burke
The Deputy may refer to the Secretary of the Department of Education if he is unwilling to come to my office. This has been the practice during the years, as the Deputy knows quite well.
Are we to take it from the Minister's reply that he is distinguishing between Members of the Oireachtas in Opposition who formerly held office and Members of the Oireachtas who did not hold office?
Mr. R. Burke
Not necessarily.
What was the implication in the reference to persons who held office?
Mr. R. Burke
The implication was to refute the impression being put about by the Opposition that there is any change whatever in the practice——
There certainly is a change.
Mr. R. Burke
I should like to make that quite clear.
The Minister is a mean, small-minded man.
Mr. R. Burke
I have referred to this on a number of occasions in the House and I spent a considerable time on it during the Adjournment Debate recently. The matter is now clarified to the satisfaction of the House.
Would the Minister consider withdrawing the directive he issued? In this day and age, will he allow for a situation where elected Members can speak with officials of his Department in the same way as members of the public? Let us show signs of growth and responsibility
Mr. R. Burke
If the Deputy will refer to my complete reply to the Adjournment Debate on 24th April he will realise why the directive has been there since the 1930s and why it is being continued under my jurisdiction. I do not think the Deputies opposite should try to give the impression that anything new or novel has been done here.
I have given a considerable amount of latitude to Deputies on this question. We cannot debate this matter now; I would remind Deputies we had an Adjournment Debate on this same matter a short time ago.
Is it not a fact that when I put down a specific question to the Minister asking him if I had issued a directive between July, 1969, and March, 1973, to the effect that Members of this House could not discuss matters with civil servants, the reply was that no such directive had been issued by me when I was Minister for Education.
I am calling on Deputy Gibbons for a final supplementary question.
Is it not perfectly apparent that this is a petty, mean way of policing Opposition Deputies' representations to a Government Department that was never before practised in the history of the State? If I or any other Deputy write to the Secretary of the Department of Education on any small matter concerning our constituents we get a reply on the Minister's stationery or the Parliamentary Secretary's stationery and it must be deduced that the officials are told——
We must pass on from this question. I have allowed Deputies a lot of latitude.
The situation is disgraceful and the Minister knows this.
Mr. R. Burke
First, may I answer Deputy Faulkner's further supplementary question by quoting from the Official Report of 24th April, 1974. In reply to his question I said that no specific directive in this regard was issued by him. At column 168 of the Official Report I said:
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.
Pettifogging.
Mr. R. Burke
Deputy Gibbons must understand that the procedures which have operated in the Department of Education and in other Departments have not been changed in any way by the clarification of this issue.
That is not true.
I am calling Question No. 6.