Enda Kenny
Ceist: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]
Amharc ar fhreagraTuesday, 16 February 2010
Ceisteanna (4, 5, 6)
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist: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]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist: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]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (120 píosaí cainte)
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.