Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests which were processed by his Department during 2006; the number which have been acceded to; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43875/06]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Freedom of Information.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43907/06]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department since June 2002; the number granted and the number refused; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3725/07]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:4 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department in January 2007; if he will provide the figures for the same month in each year from 2002 to 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3856/07]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:5 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department in 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6306/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
I propose to circulate in the Official Report the information requested by the Deputies regarding freedom of information requests received in my Department.
All freedom of information applications received in my Department are processed by statutorily designated officials in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 1997 and the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003. In accordance with those statutes, I have no role in processing individual applications.
|
Month |
Received |
Granted |
Part Granted |
Refused |
No Records |
Transferred |
Withdrawn |
|
January |
20 |
8 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
February |
12 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
|
Mar |
14 |
6 |
5 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
April |
10 |
4 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
|
May |
10 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
June |
9 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
|
July |
10 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
August |
8 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
September |
7 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
October |
13 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
November |
15 |
6 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
5 |
|
December |
18 |
10 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
146 |
49 |
35 |
10 |
25 |
9 |
18 |
|
Month |
Received |
Granted |
Part Granted |
Refused |
No Records |
Transferred |
Withdrawn |
|
January |
21 |
2 |
7 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
February |
29 |
9 |
11 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
|
Mar |
30 |
10 |
9 |
3 |
6 |
0 |
2 |
|
April |
10 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
|
May |
11 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
|
June |
7 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
July |
13 |
2 |
5 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
|
August |
6 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
September |
4 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
October |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
November |
6 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
December |
3 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
142 |
38 |
46 |
11 |
33 |
5 |
9 |
|
Month |
Received |
Granted |
Part Granted |
Refused |
No Records |
Transferred |
Withdrawn |
|
January |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
February |
8 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
|
Mar |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
April |
4 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
May |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
June |
5 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
July |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
August |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
September |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
October |
12 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
November |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
December |
5 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
45 |
14 |
10 |
7 |
9 |
2 |
3 |
|
Month |
Received |
Granted |
Part Granted |
Refused |
No Records |
Transferred |
Withdrawn |
|
January |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||||
|
February |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|||
|
Mar |
1 |
1 |
|||||
|
April |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||||
|
May |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||||
|
June |
7 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
|||
|
July |
6 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|||
|
August |
5 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||
|
September |
5 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||
|
October |
16 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
|
|
November |
5 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|||
|
December |
7 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
|||
|
Total |
61 |
22 |
18 |
4 |
12 |
5 |
|
Month |
Received |
Granted |
Part Granted |
Refused |
No Records |
Transferred |
Withdrawn |
|
January |
9 |
8 |
1 |
||||
|
February |
1 |
1 |
|||||
|
Mar |
4 |
3 |
1 |
||||
|
April |
7 |
6 |
1 |
||||
|
May |
6 |
5 |
1 |
||||
|
June |
4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
||
|
July |
4 |
3 |
1 |
||||
|
August |
5 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|||
|
September |
5 |
5 |
|||||
|
October |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|||
|
November |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|||
|
December |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||
|
Total |
54 |
36 |
10 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
Month |
Received |
Granted |
Part Granted |
Refused |
No Records |
Transferred |
Withdrawn |
|
January |
14* |
2 |
3 |
4 |
*Includes five ongoing cases.
The Government introduced a number of changes to the Freedom of Information Act 1997. Departments other than the Department of the Taoiseach have made it difficult for people to get information and, in a number of cases, the Information Commissioner has overturned the rulings of those Departments.
Is the Taoiseach satisfied that every request made to the official in his Department responsible for freedom of information is processed in an open and flúirseach manner? While the Department clearly would not want to share sensitive information about national security, is every request treated as openly as possible?
Why does it remain the case when a freedom of information request is allowed on appeal that the person making the application has to pay? It seems somewhat harsh that a person has to pay if he or she is first turned down under the Freedom of Information Act but then receives the requested information on appeal.
That is a question for another member of the Government.
I have a third question. The Ceann Comhairle upset me with a shot from the left wing.
When is it proposed to extend the list of agencies and organisations that are subject to the Freedom of Information Acts?
As for the first question, my Department has a centralised system whereby, in the first instance, all freedom of information requests go to a designated official before being sent to the designated officers in various sections. It forms part of their ongoing work and no one is assigned specifically to such duties. While there is a statutorily designated officer in each section, it forms part of his or her duties with a range of other matters.
Last year, only three out of the 54 requests received by my Department were refused. I understand that all the others were either fully or partially granted. Two were withdrawn and three had no records. I am satisfied that such requests are dealt with fairly quickly.
Section 20 certificates provide for a mandatory exemption for records in respect of which the Secretary General of a Department certifies they are part of an ongoing departmental deliberative process. As far as I am aware, no such certificates have issued from my Department and I understand that one was issued by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Hence, this feature has not been used widely. Moreover, only a few refusals pertaining to security matters have been made. The issues were genuine and included issues pertaining to the Special Criminal Court.
The fees structure is a matter for the Minister for Finance in the first instance. However, the current system was introduced following a review that considered all the options. A fee of €15 is very modest, particularly when compared to the estimated average cost of the time involved at €425. This figure would be greater now because it has not been updated to take account of increased salary rates during the four-year period.
It is also important to point out there is no charge for the time involved in making a decision on a freedom of information request although most other jurisdictions have such a charge in addition to the application fee. Moreover, there is no charge for access to personal information. While a significant decline took place in such requests to my Department after the changes in 2004, the subsequent figures have increased by 30% and I understand this upward trend continues.
Regarding appeals, it costs €75 for an internal appeal and €150 for an appeal to the Information Commissioner. Significant reductions apply in respect of medical card holders — €25 and €50, respectively — and appeals concerning personal information are entirely exempt from such fees. An appeal to the Information Commissioner is a quasi-judicial process that may require many months of work to complete and can entail a considerable amount of work for officials. The view is that this fee constitutes a fair reflection of the nature of the appeal process and of the costs and time involved.
It is also important to note that a person who appeals to the commissioner will receive a preliminary decision, which is a fairly good indication of the likely final decision. Even at that late stage in the process, the requestor can withdraw the appeal and obtain a full refund of the fees. This system is understood by such appellants because approximately one third of the appeals are now withdrawn at that point. People are entitled to use the system so they withdraw at this point and secure a refund of their fees.
Why does the Government not apply the Act to the Garda Síochána?
While that is a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, last summer an additional 130 bodies and groups were brought within its scope. Almost all of the bodies under the aegis of my Department, with the exception of the Law Reform Commission which is still under review, were brought within its scope. Each Department must examine it. To the best of my knowledge, there are no plans to extend the Act to the Garda Síochána but I think the position is due for review this year. I do not know whether any change will be made but it is due to be looked at again this year.
Has the time been reached when the Government, consistent with requirements for security, ought to apply the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act to the Garda Síochána?
That matter does not arise from this question. It is a question for the line Minister. I ruled against Deputy Kenny on a similar issue.
Is it time that——
I ask the Deputy to confine himself to questions relating specifically to the Taoiseach's Department.
Is the Taoiseach satisfied with the extent to which legislative provisions are inserted in legislation to circumvent the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act?
The Taoiseach on his Department.
It is not the case in my Department. We have extended the number of bodies which come within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act and I have only one left, namely, the Law Reform Commission which, as I mentioned, is being examined. Other areas are also being examined this year.
As the Taoiseach stated, the Law Reform Commission comes within his Department's remit. There is a relationship also with the Garda Síochána. There is reason to ask the question. I support including the Garda Síochána within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act. On the last occasion this issue arose the Taoiseach also stated he was considering extending the Act to the Law Reform Commission. No decision has yet been made. Will he give an indication of the timeframe within which he will make a decision? It seems pointless for us to keep asking the same question and for him to keep giving the same answer. We are going around in circles and wasting valuable time in the process. Will he give an answer as to when we will know the answer to the question on the Law Reform Commission?
Since we last asked this question, the Department of Finance issued a directive on the implementation of freedom of information requests to do with fees and the number of topics which can be covered by one fee, which it is hoped will make the position easier. Will the Taoiseach elaborate on whether his Department will implement this directive? Has it been implemented? Will he make recommendations to the Department of Finance as to what improvements could be made to ensure greater transparency, given the complaints from the Information Commissioner that following the introduction of fees, there was a considerable fall-off in the numbers of requests made. The number of journalists' requests fell from 3,000 in 2001 to 1,000 in 2005.
The question refers specifically to the Taoiseach's office.
Indeed. Will the Taoiseach provide us with information on implementing the directive from the Department of Finance?
There is no connection between the Law Reform Commission and the Garda Síochána but as I stated, both bodies, with others, are up for review this year. The Law Reform Commission, while under the aegis of my Department, has a certain independence. I understand discussions are ongoing between my officials and the commission. It is a matter for them to resolve. I do not have any difficulty with it, as I stated previously.
Regarding the issue of procedures, as I understand it, all of the improvements suggested by the Department of Finance have been made in my Department. In the case of the Department of the Taoiseach, the functions of general examination and primary decision making have been delegated by order, as envisaged in the Act, generally to assistant principal officer grade. A few higher executive officers are in specialist areas and the function of internal review has been delegated to officials of not below principal grade. That fulfils the criteria set. The number of staff allocated to deal with FOI requests in addition to normal duties is 18. These are key decision makers across divisions, mainly at assistant principal level.
One higher executive officer, the freedom of information liaison officer I mentioned earlier, is responsible for receiving and monitoring requests and general co-ordination of the requirements under the Act as they relate to this Department. That keeps a flow going and the system together.
Two assistant secretaries and four principal officers are responsible for the internal review process. The various stages laid down by the Act, and the criteria set out by the Department of Finance, leave the primary decision with assistant principals in the Department, internal review with principal officers or higher and a review by the Information Commissioner. If there was an appeal it would go to the High Court.
As I said to Deputy Kenny, having stabilised and declined in 2003 when changes were made to the Act, requests made through the Act are up approximately 30% in my Department.
Would the Taoiseach agree that requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act are adversely affected by Departments bringing in Bills that effectively change the Act? That is regularly done without reference or consultation with the Information Commissioner. Has the Taoiseach acted on this recently as the Information Commissioner addressed the matter in her 2005 report? In the case of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, for example——
That is a matter for another Minister.
——it was only brought to the attention of the Information Commissioner by a member of the public.
This question refers specifically to the Taoiseach's Department.
Has the Taoiseach acted to adjust this?
I complied with the Information Commissioner's stipulations and the Department of Finance guidelines. I have not done anything to restrict other issues, which have been covered in legislation. To the best of my knowledge I have not heard of any difficulties with any of them.
Departmental Bodies.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the projected total cost in 2007 of the communications unit in his Department. [43881/06]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:7 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the communications unit in his Department. [1610/07]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:8 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the cost of the communications unit in his Department since June 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3724/07]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:9 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the total costs incurred by the communications unit in his Department during 2006 and the projected costs for 2007; if the unit will continue to operate in the period between the dissolution of the current Dáil and the holding of the general election; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3857/07]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:10 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the cost of the communications unit in his Department in 2006; the cost of the communications unit in 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6307/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 10, inclusive, together.
The total cost incurred by the communications unit in 2006 was €367,740. The total cost of the unit since June 2002 was €1,453,064, with €612,468 being a direct cost to my Department and €168,119 on average being borne by the five other Departments which have staff seconded to the unit. The total projected cost of the unit for 2007 is €388,780, with €173,637 being a direct cost to my Department and an average €43,029 being borne by the five other Departments which have staff seconded to the unit.
The communications unit will continue to operate in the period between the dissolution of the current Dáil and the holding of the general election, as it did following the dissolution of the 28th Dáil. The unit operates on a strictly non-political basis and deals only with the Government press office and press offices in the various Departments. It has no contact with Deputies or the Fianna Fáil press office. The staff of the unit are subject to the usual conventions which apply to civil servants regarding political impartiality at all times. I am satisfied the personnel will continue to observe these conventions in the performance of their work.
The unit provides a media information service to Ministers and their Departments. It furnishes news updates and transcripts which ensure Departments are kept informed in a fast and efficient manner of any relevant news developments. In this way, Departments are able to provide a better service to the public.
The communications unit works an 18-hour day based on a flexible rota of three working shifts. The unit is staffed by six established civil servants, five of whom are seconded from other Departments. The work of the unit means that Departments have greatly reduced their use of external companies and ensures they no longer duplicate work such as transcripts and tapes.
We are back to this round of questions again. The Taoiseach invited Deputy Rabbitte and myself to look at this unit and meet the people there but we did not take him up on that yet.
The Taoiseach stated the total cost of the unit since June 2002 has been approximately €1.453 million. Did the Taoiseach state it would close on the dissolution of this Dáil?
No. He said the opposite.
The opposite.
From whichever perspective one examines the matter, there seems to be an assumption that the communications unit operates for the Government's advantage. The Taoiseach has stated it is a cost-saving exercise because Departments do not need to go to other companies to be supplied with newspaper clippings, but I read a report recently on how the unit was stretched to the limit when the media wrote about him a number of months ago.
To be fair to everyone, will the Government close down the system under which public servants are seconded from other offices from now or St. Patrick's Day until after the general election? This would remove the threat to the Government of comments to the effect that it has an organisation working flat out to collect vital information on what someone in County Wexford said about the Minister for Health and Children——
They would need to work 24 hours a day for me alone.
——or that the unit could be used to bolster the Government's crumbling defences. The public assumes that it pays taxes for a communications unit for the sole advantage of Ministers who are also Deputies. Will the Taoiseach close down the unit, tell its workers to go back to their constituencies and Departments and ensure a level playing pitch for everyone? At least two Ministers and Ministers of State have told me that, with the greatest respect to members of the media, they do not read the Sunday newspapers or many other newspapers because they do not want to be depressed.
For the same reasons, I hope the Deputy does not read the newspapers.
Not for years.
Right.
We have been over this ground. A small group of civil servants replaced a service that used to be bought in. They do their jobs in a non-political way. In so far as I have seen in the past decade, no matter what issue or person is in the news, they operate on the same basis. The one sure thing is that there is news for them to report everyday, whether big, small or indifferent.
There will be no change in the role of the communications unit during the election period. What is likely to change is the increasing references to the forthcoming election across the range of news bulletin programmes monitored by the unit. In keeping with its role, it will not monitor media coverage of a political nature. It does not put a political slant on reports. Its workers do what civil servants do best, namely, they do not include details or such content in the daily reports. They do not report on what is contained in individual parties' political documents. They cover the main news items of the day.
While the people concerned will not be around in the campaign, the Civil Service structure, the sections and units that receive information everyday, will be in place, as will the units which follow up on matters across the Civil Service. That is the function of the communications unit. It does not have a political function. Its news reports go to Ministers and press officers and officials in Departments. There is a range of people who receive the reports.
The unit is entirely apolitical and reflects what one would hear if one turned on the news. If one looks for transcripts or tapes, it will produce them. By and large, the unit monitors the national media and the main stations in Dublin, but it does not monitor local newspapers or data. It does not do the contract work done by outside agencies such as supplying press cuttings from newspapers. Its civil servants move around and staff are seconded from Departments. The same individuals are not there on an ongoing basis. The posts are not senior, data for which I have provided for the House previously. Theirs is not a politically advantageous role for the Government. If there was a change in Government in any form, the same individuals would continue in their posts, as civil servants do in any other section of the Civil Service. There is no difference.
Perhaps the Taoiseach will put our minds at ease by making available a copy of the report he or the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, received yesterday so that Deputy Rabbitte, Deputy Sargent, Deputy Morgan — who is filling in for Deputy Ó Caoláin — and I are aware of what we are up against.
By the way, I do not think I ever got a report from this group.
The Minister never looked for it. That is why she is so out of touch.
I just get clippings from the newspapers from the press office on what the Deputy says every day.
It is of no great significance. I am sure Deputy Kenny's report would be far more sophisticated. I do not want to say anything further in this regard. These people do their job, but in a non-political manner.
The Taoiseach needs to clarify the real role of the communications unit. He is at pains to say that it is totally apolitical, having us believe that it could not distinguish, for example, last autumn between Percy French's Paddy Reilly from Ballyjamesduff and Paddy Reilly from Ballybough, his own Paddy the Plasterer. How realistic is that and how does he distinguish between a function whereby they can be the Taoiseach's personal eavesdroppers as opposed to providing objective reports to Government Departments? I ask him to illustrate the answer with an example. I can see how, for example, departmental issues in education, health or the environment could be monitored as the subjects of debates and so on, with perhaps synopses presented. However, last autumn, what exactly was the role of the communications unit during the controversy over payments in the 1990s to the then Minister for Finance — now the Taoiseach — from business friends? Was the Taoiseach given a rundown by the communications unit on what was a very political issue, but which did not involve Departments, of the speeches and statements made? Did he receive regular briefings on the issue along with political reaction to what was happening?
As regards the issues last year and whether I was given paper cuttings, rundowns, etc, on what was involved, the answer is "No".
Regarding the Deputy's first question on what they do, there are press officers in all Departments across the Civil Service at various levels and in different units. They naturally have an interest as regards what is going on. The unit deals with press officers from the various Departments on an hourly or two-hourly basis. The unit has no dealings with backbenchers or any other Deputies and its staff are subject to all the conventions of the Civil Service. It factually lists headlines from the news media and goes through the newspapers to get an indication of what is topical. Press officers will pick up on such data. If, for example, there is a story on page 16 of one of the national newspapers, the press officers will follow this up. It is a matter of communicating issues to them early and throughout the day which they will follow up. That is all the unit is doing.
If it is asked to get transcripts or the details of an interview on the radio, it can do this and it is not a cost to the Department concerned. Previously, almost all Departments used half a dozen companies separately, which meant two or three might get the same tapes and scripts. It was a very costly operation. The carrying out of this work by these six relatively junior people saves a great deal of money. My colleagues have given me a note of what was on the last list issued. It includes five items, the hospital consultants talks, the Wellington Quay trial involving the bus driver, a new school teachers' report, the PSNI training college and the Iranian nuclear controversy. Such lists are sent to the Departments and they then have something with which to deal if they have an interest in it. That is what is done. The same applies to the newspapers. In the normal course of a day officials in the press offices of Departments do not listen to the media as they are involved in other jobs and events. This is a facility for them to be aware and to communicate with their sections or their people or to submit responses. It is no more than that. It is a good service. If we were to compare the costs of the work of these officials as against the costs involved in 1997 — I keep referring to such costs — these six civil servants who cover an 18 hour day well more than pay for themselves.
Do red lights start flashing in the Department when the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform goes out on the plinth? Is that true?
They have no connections whatever with Deputies. They are civil servants who could be in any place — I do not know where their office is based. They are simply doing their jobs as civil servants in an apolitical way; it is no more than that.
Surely the Taoiseach opened a bar beside that office once.
Does this unit monitor the movements of the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? The Taoiseach mentioned the Iranian nuclear crisis but made no reference to where the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is today. Would it not be desirable at this time with the excitement of the eve of a general election to monitor him before he spends the entire GDP of the country? Did the Taoiseach get a special report from the weekend in Wexford? Has he a committee in Government examining it?
A committee to stop him.
Somebody needs to stop him before he bankrupts the country.
Somebody needs to rein him in.
It is extraordinary that it is not on the list the Taoiseach read out.
With regard to the view the Taoiseach has portrayed a number of times about these typical civil servants who would not know politics if it jumped up and bit them, I have a piece from the Sunday Independent which states “Taoiseach’s communications unit goes into overdrive during Bertiegate”. That seems to be political. It describes the detail the Taoiseach got, the names of the journalists and all that kind of information. Leaving that behind us and putting this into a general election context, that seems to be very political.
Discussions are taking place at another forum about a level playing pitch for the general election as between Members of this House who will contest again, people outside this House who will contest and so on. It seems Members on this side of the House are at a considerable disadvantage in that the same rules do not apply to Ministers. Ministers can proceed to do their normal business on the basis that it is different from their role as parliamentary representatives and representatives of their constituencies. Is it not the case that this unit, at the cost of more than €30,000 for the duration of the election campaign, confers an advantage on office holders on the opposite side of the House that does not exist for the benefit of Members on this side of the House?
No, Deputy. If I thought it did for a minute, I would accept the Deputy's point, but I do not accept it. As the Deputy is aware, I have no control——
Over the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
No, over the tripe that is written in some newspapers by people whom I reckon are in Doheny & Nesbitt's having a few pints who decide to write a story without any basis and get paid for it.
I hope the Taoiseach is not implying that I gave it to them. If I did, I would have only shot myself in the foot.
No, I am not. I would not dare say that because the Deputy would not give such a stupid story. I assure the Deputy that if he asks a question I will give him an answer. During that period, I did not receive any transcript or tape of a report from the communications unit, nor did anyone on my behalf.
The Taoiseach was all over the country anyway. He was ahead of the posse and even with the posse sometimes.
I was doing my work and I had to keep moving. Whatever information I received, it would not be coming from the communications unit. I have to get on with my job, rather than worrying about these things.
Probably 99% of the work done in the unit is released to press officers in Departments, who are civil servants. They are not political animals. They deal with information relating to the Departments as that is their job. They are not involved in the political process. If Deputy Rabbitte was to suggest that we close departmental press offices and also withhold funding from political party press offices during the election, then an argument could be made. However, that is more nonsense. This unit does not play any political role. Any general election candidate, whether a Minister or otherwise, would not use this information.
We are not on the eve of a general election, so Deputy Rabbitte should not get excited about that. Taking into account what he said last weekend and what the Minister, Deputy McDowell, said this weekend, I will obviously have to go elsewhere to cost those issues. However, I would not get it from the communications unit.
Is the Taoiseach saying there is no wing of the Government monitoring the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform?
That does not arise under Taoiseach's Questions.
It is a critical question, Sir.
Deputy Rabbitte is obviously monitoring him, so it is alright.
It is amusing to listen to the Taoiseach at pains to point out that there is no political dimension at all to the communications unit.
Does the Deputy have a question?
I am trying to ask one. Is it true the Taoiseach gave an invitation to Fine Gael and Labour Members only to visit the communications unit? That is quite a political decision, given that the Technical Group does not seem to have been part of his invitation. Can he explain his selectivity?
Does the Taoiseach accept there is no such thing as news that does not have some editorial discretion? Who has the editorial discretion in the news given to the Taoiseach? Is there an equivalent to an editor-in-chief of the communications unit? Can the Taoiseach tell us something about such a person? Do Ministers ever ask the communications unit to keep an eye on any difficulties that might exist with the European Commission, such as coverage on Ireland's failure to comply with various bits of European legislation? Who determines editorial policy of the communications unit?
The editors of the newspapers determine the policy. All they do is take down what appears on the newspapers.
That is some selection.
They try to take something from a good number of the newspapers. The civil servants in my Department that are responsible for the unit will always provide an open invitation to the Green Party, Sinn Féin or to the other parties to look at their work. They have never been anything other than courteous to all parties in the House, regardless of who is in power. Freedom of information requests for copies of the documents which are distributed are frequently made. The documents do not attract much attention because there is nothing in them — they usually comprise paper cuttings which are months out of date. All the information released by the officials under freedom of information could have been acquired by turning on the radio.
It is costing over €388,000 this year.
The salaries of six civil servants have to be paid. We cannot go back to the old system, whereby this information was supplied by outside companies and huge costs had to be paid by the various Departments. We are always talking about achieving value for money and avoiding waste in expenditure when we can do so.
We are paying a great deal of money to turn on the radio.
Some people seem to think it would be grand for every Department to spend €100,000 to avail of the services of outside commercial companies, but then have problems when they learn that six civil servants are doing the same work in an efficient manner. That work is done on a non-political basis. Great references to political slants or spins are not made during election campaigns or at any other time. The civil servants in question merely produce copies of newspaper headlines, or maybe some lines from editorials, to forewarn the officials in the various Departments, who can look at the text of the various sheets to see the issues they should be functioning on and dealing with quickly. It is a quick way for the Government to communicate and deal with things properly. The service exists to inform officials in line Departments of issues which need to be followed up — something incorrect may be in the public domain, for example. It is entirely appropriate to use a small group of people to do that for the Civil Service.
While I have to admit that a part of me almost sympathises with the efforts of the poor old Government to get an advantage as we approach the general election, there is a serious side to this matter. Why is this job not being done by the departmental press officers who are responsible for communication between the line Ministers and the media etc? Why is there a need for the duplication and huge costs which arise from the bundling together of this group of people? I have not heard a proper explanation from the Taoiseach. Can he outline, in good old-fashioned terms, the benefit to Ministers, taxpayers and the media of this huge cost? Journalists usually contact Departments when they want information. Departments are able to use simple modern technology to issue statements and communicate easily with the press. I not understand the need for this infamous unit which, at long last, we have been invited to inspect.
Are provincial or local newspapers monitored by the communications unit on a weekly basis?
The unit does not cover the provincial newspapers or the local radio stations, other than the Dublin stations.
Deputy Morgan asked a fair question. There are two advantages to the work of the unit. The press offices in the Departments and a wide range of public and civil servants get information sheets outlining the main issues on the news early in the morning and again during the day. The information sheets refer to issues which are relevant to individual Departments and may need to be followed up, as well as issues from newspapers which may need to be examined. This information is not just sent to the press office. I think there are several hundred civil servants on the list of people to whom it is sent. Ministers and Ministers of State comprise 30 of the people on the list. The people who receive the information are forewarned about various issues. The information sheets give a good summary of matters of general interest throughout the newspapers. They do not refer just to the headlines and the editorial comments, but other issues in the newspapers. In each case, they just give the headline — they do not put a political slant on it or make a comment about it.
Until the communications unit was established, a Department had to use an outside company when it wanted a tape of an interview or a feature. The Departments had contracts with outside companies which were providing information of this nature, which was very costly. At least four or five companies were feeding off the various Departments. There was duplication of tapes and documents on many occasions. It was decided a decade ago to establish a centralised unit, by seconding people from Departments on a rotational basis, to do a far more efficient job. If one compares the cost now with the cost at the time when there were far fewer radios, I would say they have probably saved their salaries by multiples. It is a question of quick communications. The radio is a means of knowing what is happening quickly. However, hundreds of officials do not have their radios on all day and cannot be informed in the same way as somebody in a party press office.