Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 19 Apr 2018

Vol. 967 No. 6

Leaders' Questions

We are all aware that a case is being taken by the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement about very serious allegations. It is under judicial review. I want to ask the Tánaiste about the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Denis Naughten's actions as he outlined them yesterday in the House and about political accountability. Every Minister is accountable to the House. The revelations in yesterday's edition of The Irish Times which have been confirmed by the Minister that he had given a heads-up to a PR lobbyist acting on behalf of INM, a company involved in a media merger for which the Minister had statutory responsibility, smack of old-style politics and cronyism, the type of politics Fine Gael has always tried to state it is above. The reality is that the PR lobbyist was after one thing and one thing only - a heads-up as to what would happen with the merger application involving INM and Celtic Media. It is not as simple as a phone call between two mates. It is not as insignificant as the Minister and the Taoiseach are trying to portray. The Minister is trying to imply nothing sensitive was discussed when it is clear a heads-up was given. He has confirmed that when he took the call from the PR lobbyist on his mobile phone, he was informed for the first time by the PR lobbyist that the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission had made its ruling on the merger involving INM and Celtic Media. I am sure the Tánaiste will agree that it was highly irregular that a lobbyist had this information and I cannot understand why it did not set off alarm bells with the Minister. What action is the Government taking to ascertain how that information reached a lobbyist before the Minister?

The Minister did not record the call and did not speak to officials about it. He did not inform the Dáil and the public about it. In fact, three weeks after it, he withheld his intentions and personal views from the Dáil during parliamentary questions. He said on the day, "I have not made my views known and I am not going to." That is a direct quote from his contribution. This stinks. The Minister made a virtue of not telling Deputies about his intentions, personal or ministerial, when he had disclosed them to a lobbyist. It is ironic that he has invited any Member of the Dáil to inspect the file when nothing is recorded in it about the personal call with the lobbyist about the merger. Does the Tánaiste believe it is appropriate that the Minister said he had acted in this manner and that his defence was that he had been speaking in a personal capacity, rather than as a Minister with statutory responsibility? Does the Tánaiste accept that as an excuse? Is it not a "dog ate my homework" excuse? Does the Tánaiste accept that the Minister, in the quotes I have outlined, misled the Dáil last December? Does he agree that the Minister's actions were inappropriate and unacceptable?

Before the Tánaiste answers, I am not suggesting Deputy Dara Calleary in any way contravened Standing Order 59(3). I do not say it to any Deputy, in particular, but to the House. Standing Order 59(3) reads, "A matter shall not be raised in such an overt manner so that it appears to be an attempt by the Dáil to encroach on the functions of the Courts or a Judicial Tribunal". Nothing has been said so far that would contravene it. I say it to ensure it will not happen.

The Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Denis Naughten, made himself available yesterday when he made a very clear statement and answered questions for over an hour. The statement and questions, combined, lasted for an hour. He has given a comprehensive explanation of what happened. He made it clear this morning that he regretted the conversation. There is a responsibility on us to put the conversation in context.

To answer some of the Deputy's questions, it is my understanding the CCPC put on its website on 10 November the fact that it had made a decision on the proposed INM-Celtic Media merger. The Minister was not aware of it because it was not publicised. It was simply put on the website. The lobbyist concerned rang the Minister and informed him that the decision had been made. Clearly, he was trying to establish what would happen next. The Minister gave no information that was not already in the public domain. He gave a view, but he also made it very clear that he would be following the advice of his officials to the letter. That is exactly what he did when one traces through the months that followed. While the Minister is right to say it would have been better if the phone call had not taken place, he did not initiate it. He happens to be very accessible; his mobile phone number is on his website where anybody can get it. The lobbyist made a phone call. The Minister gave a view, but he also made it very clear in the context of that view that he would be following the advice of his officials, as he has done in other cases. That is exactly what happened. His view was based on no more than the legislation in place and information in the public domain.

That is the context in which the House should judge the issue, rather than trying to create something that is not based on a fair context and the facts as they have been presented, as some people have attempted to do. I am not suggesting the Deputy who has asked the question is in that category, but others have done so. My position is clear. I have listened to the Minister's explanation and I am satisfied with it. It is comprehensive. It would have been better if the conversation had not taken place.

This conversation did not reveal anything to this lobbyist except what anybody else who was informed about the legislation and who read the newspapers at the time would have said was going to be the likely scenario, that in the second stage of this process there would likely be a referral to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI, but that the Minister would follow the advice of officials on this issue, which is exactly what he did, consistent with the legislation and his obligations.

Was that a personal or a ministerial answer? It "did not reveal anything" – it did. It gave an indication from the Minister as to how he would proceed and the lobbyist then used that information and passed it to his client months before the Minister made his official view known. He revealed to the lobbyist what he would not reveal to Dáil Éireann under questioning and in fact said to Dáil Éireann that he had not expressed any opinion on it. That was the Minister. It was not a personal phone call. It was not a chat between two friends about rugby. This was about ministerial business, and the consequences were that a participant in a commercial process, of which the Minister had oversight, was given information and used that information. The notion that this is something that can be wished away cannot be allowed to continue. I asked the Tánaiste a straight question. Does he think his actions during that phone call were appropriate? Was it appropriate, as a Minister dealing with the specific issue, to have that discussion with a lobbyist?

The Minister has answered that question and I agree with him.

What is the Tánaiste's opinion?

He said this morning that he does sincerely regret expressing a view on it, but he is absolutely clear that he said he would abide by the recommendation of his officials. The Deputy's claim that he gave an indication of how he would proceed needs to be put in the context that he made it clear he would proceed on the basis of the recommendations from the Department and the officials. He gave a view that there was a likely scenario that this would be referred to the BAI because of the significance of the merger, which caused plenty of public commentary at the time. He did not say anything that was new. He was stating the obvious.

I do not believe that the conversation should have taken place in the first place. The Minister accepts that too and regrets it but that is very different from making a claim that the Minister gave information that was inappropriate at the time. I do not believe he did. He said he would be acting on the advice of the officials. He gave a view that it was likely this would be referred to the BAI, no more than that.

Yesterday the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and the Environment, Deputy Naughten, made a statement to the Dáil in which he outlined several facts relating to the ongoing controversy around the proposed takeover of Celtic Media by Independent News and Media, INM. There is no need for further clarity because the Minister has clarified the matter and the facts speak for themselves. The Minister confirmed that he spoke to Eoghan Ó Neachtain in November 2016. He said he knew that Ó Neachtain was acting on behalf of INM. He confirmed that no note was taken and that he did not inform any of the officials in the Department of the conversation with Mr. Ó Neachtain. He confirmed that he informed Mr. Ó Neachtain that the likely course of action relating to the proposed takeover of Celtic Media would be subject to a referral to the BAI.

The notion that this was a purely personal view stretches the bounds of credibility. Mr. Ó Neachtain was hardly phoning the Minister for a personal view. Does the Tánaiste believe that was the reason for the phone call? We all know that he rang him because he was the Minister with the regulatory and statutory responsibility for referring the takeover bid to the BAI. The Minister also confirmed that it was two months before he provided that information to others. This was indisputably commercially sensitive information and INM knew this. Why else would it be referred to in an email to the then chairman of INM as highly confidential? Why else would the then chairman suggest to the largest shareholder that the normal course of action would be for the Minister just to sign it and that a referral to BAI was unprecedented? This all adds to the fact that this was valuable information provided by a Minister to someone acting on behalf of a party interested in acquiring Celtic Media. That is what the Minister has done and it is unacceptable, no ifs, no buts. These are the actions which led to the Director of Corporate Enforcement describing it as potentially constituting inside information, not Sinn Féin, not the Opposition, but the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement and a possible breach of stock market rules.

This is an example of old-style politics of the golden circle variety, the nod and wink culture, the who-you-know mentality, the old boys' club. We all thought those days were over. We disagree on many things but I hope we can agree those days are over and this is not acceptable. Will the Tánaiste stand over that? Does he have full confidence in the Minister and how he handled himself? Last night our party leader, Deputy McDonald, wrote to the Taoiseach stressing the need for him to act and deal adequately with the situation in hand. What is the Tánaiste, as one of the most senior persons in government, personally going to do about this or is he just going to turn a blind eye to the type of practices that have unfolded and that we have been informed of over the past 24 hours?

Nobody is turning a blind eye to anything. That is why the Minister was before the House last night, answering questions and making a statement to clarify what happened. We are here talking about it, taking questions on it, as the Taoiseach was yesterday, and we are providing answers. Yes, I do have confidence in the Minister. I have known Deputy Naughten for 20 years. I know him as a straight Minister, just as he is a straight politician. He regrets the fact that this conversation took place, but in my view he did not do anything that constitutes giving inappropriate information to anybody. The communications between a lobbyist and INM after that are matters for them to explain. The question that I understand has been raised by the ODCE in respect of potential insider information refers to the information flow between one shareholder in INM and a lobby group or chairman of INM. It is not referring to a ministerial intervention.

We need to assess this intervention or conversation that involved the Minister, in the context of what was said, that the Minister intended to proceed on the basis of advice from the officials, as he had done in previous cases. He was asked for a view as to whether it was likely that it would be referred to the BAI and he answered, as I think anybody who was informed on the legislation in this area and would have seen the information that was publicly available at the time, was likely to have done.

He was the Minister.

The Minister was talking to a lobbyist.

There are two issues. The first is whether this conversation should have taken place, and the Minister regrets that it did. The second is whether that conversation constituted the Minister giving any inappropriate information to the lobbyist concerned, and I do not believe it did.

Of course it did.

He made a comment, without knowing any more facts. He knew fewer facts than the lobbyist concerned in respect of the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC, ruling. Later, when he was asked in this Chamber for a response on this issue, it was under consideration in the Department, he was aware of the process and he had been informed on it. He could not of course give an opinion once there was a process under way until he had a full recommendation from the Department.

It is incredible to listen to the Tánaiste talk about the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement and its claim about insider information, making the point that it is between the chairperson and a shareholder of INM. He fails to understand that the information passed between those two individuals came from the individual now sitting beside him. It was the Minister, Deputy Naughten, who provided that information to the lobbyist acting on behalf of INM who provided it to the chairperson who provided it to the senior shareholder. Does the Tánaiste want to ignore that fact? The number one priority he outlined in his policy document during the Fine Gael leadership contest was rebuilding trust. He published with it a Bill to establish an anti-corruption and transparency commission.

The Taoiseach, in his policy document, stated transparency and accountability on the part of those in positions of power are essential to good decision-making and public confidence in our system of government. So much for the promises from the Taoiseach and Tánaiste because what we have here is not a new style of politics, and it is not about new leadership. This stinks to the high heavens of the old style of politics. This is about the old boys’ club. The Tánaiste cannot still stand here and say the conversation his Minister had with the lobbyist on behalf of INM was wrong. He continues to dispute the fact that the ODCE said the information is potentially inside information. Does the Tánaiste have full confidence in the position of the ODCE? His former Minister for Justice and Equality said it was not fit for purpose. What statement will the Tánaiste make? Is he just turning a blind eye to what is blatantly obvious to all of us, that is, that the Minister provided commercially sensitive information to a listed, traded company during an acquisition process?

When trying to rebuild trust in politics, one starts by assessing things on the basis of the truth of what happened rather than trying to create a political environment in which people are going after somebody's head, which is what is happening here. The Taoiseach, the Minister, Deputy Denis Naughten, and I have said it would have been better if this conversation had not taken place. I also said that we need to consider what was said in the conversation. In that conversation, the Minister made it very clear that he would be making recommendations and acting on the basis of advice from his officials. That is exactly what happened when the process subsequently took effect. Deputy Pearse Doherty wants to try to distort that-----

-----to create an impression that the Minister was somehow giving an inside steer to a lobbyist in an inappropriate way. I do not believe that was the case. If one looks at the file, in terms of how the Minister behaved subsequently-----

There is no note in the file on that conversation.

If one examines all the reports that have been published on the Minister's website, one will see that he subsequently took action on the basis of the advice he was given, which is exactly what he said he would do. He was asked for a view and he gave a view based on information that was in the public domain, which was not secret and which was not insider information for anybody.

I know the Tánaiste failed to express confidence in the ODCE in claiming this is insider information, or potentially insider information.

Let us start with the Tánaiste's own words, his statement on assessing the truth and the facts. The Minister, in a private call with a lobbyist, provided commercially confidential information as to his intended course of action on an important matter. That is a fact. That information did not-----

That is not a fact. The Deputy should not mislead the House.

The Tánaiste should not interrupt. He will have three minutes.

Is it not a fact that the Minister told the lobbyist of his intended course of action when he had a statutory duty to make that decision? That information did not become public for a further two months. There was a statutory process in place that the Minister pre-empted. In his own words to the House yesterday, he expressed "a purely personal view that the likely course of action would be a referral to a phase 2 assessment in accordance with the guidelines". As others have said, he did not divulge this information to the House in response to questions weeks later. He correctly said yesterday that this is not a secret process and that guidelines are available. It is now clear, however, that he indicated to the representatives of an interested party his intended course of action in advance of receiving any formal advice from his officials. The House was told this yesterday. The Minister made much yesterday of access to the full file in the Department, as the Tánaiste has done today. The problem is that there is no record of this call on that file, and no official was alerted to it. In simple terms, a statutory process involving the control of the shareholding of the media in Ireland was undoubtedly compromised by the premature advising of one party of the intended course of action of the Minister in a statutory role.

In response to my question yesterday on whether this was the only communication the Minister had with representatives of a PR agency or agents of INM, and on whether there were other calls, the Minister answered only partially, saying he had a discussion with Mr. Leslie Buckley on 3 May. Could the Tánaiste now clarify whether he has ascertained whether there were any other calls or exchanges of views between interested parties and the Minister?

The attempt to separate a personal conversation from the Minister's statutory duty is really a worrying one. A Minister performing a statutory duty is always a Minister. The Cabinet conduct rules are clear that Ministers cannot be private citizens when they choose to be in the middle of carrying out a statutory function. What is clear now is that the Minister should not have taken the call. He should not have provided his views on his likely course of action. He undoubtedly, albeit unwittingly, compromised a statutory function. If the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment does not recognise these facts, responsibility then falls to the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach to acknowledge them. Will they do so?

Let me try to go through the sequence of comments and questions. First, Deputy Brendan Howlin is making the claim that the Minister informed a lobbyist of his intended course of action.

I said "likely course of action". That is what he told the House.

What he said with certainty, which is the important issue here, is that he would act solely on the advice of his officials. That is what he said.

He told the House yesterday.

Deputy Brendan Howlin will have a further minute.

The Deputy will have an opportunity to come back.

I just asked the Minister about the issue of other calls and he said there are none that he is aware of.

The telephone call was one that the Minister took. He had no idea what it was going to be about so he could not have not taken it in the first place.

He should have ended it when told what it was about.

The Minister has made clear he regrets having had the conversation that took place but what we should be assessing here on the basis of what he said clearly last night, and again today, is whether information was given on the basis of his having had knowledge about facts that were not publicly available. I do not believe that is the case. Therefore, the only certainty that came from this conversation was that the Minister said he would act on the basis of the advice of his officials.

He did not say that to the-----

He has, of course, said he felt the likely scenario was that it may end up in the BAI. Most people following the story would accept that was not news to anybody. How that conversation was then interpreted by the lobbyist concerned is a matter for him. We have to judge the Minister on the basis of the facts as we know them in terms of what took place in the conversation.

The Tánaiste is conflating two issues: the outcome of the passing on of the information and the actual fact of passing on the information. There is no doubt that the passing on of his likely course of action — these are his own words; that is what he told the House — compromised the statutory process. Whether it was acted upon is irrelevant to that fact.

Bearing in mind that the failure of a previous Minister to abide by the Department's own protocols on contacts with interested parties during a process such as this was at the heart of the most significant litigation this State has ever endured, these matters are not trivial matters. Whatever the consequence in this case was, the notion that Ministers in the middle of a statutory process would take calls from lobbyists identified as representatives of an interested party and give them their intended course of action, and compound this three weeks later by withholding exactly the same information from the Dáil, and never putting it on the file for inspection, is very worrying.

I said this morning that I would welcome the Minister's acknowledgment of the failings in this regard and that it would never happen again. The Tánaiste, as deputy Head of Government, should say that to the House so we can have confidence in processes that are very important — in this instance, to media plurality in the State.

Much of that is very fair comment. There is certainly no sense that we are trying to trivialise anything.

It was an important process. When the phone call took place though, the Minister's element of that process had not begun. That is the point I am making. He did not have any inside knowledge one way or the other and did not even know that the CCPC had made a ruling, which had been published on its website the previous day.

It would have been much better if the conversation had not taken place. The Minister regrets it; we all do. However, that is different from saying he gave a steer on his intended course of action. He said there was a likelihood that it might be referred to the BAI, but he also said definitively that he would follow the advice of his officials on any decision he would make.

That is a steer.

His subsequent actions show that to be the case to the letter.

He should not have done it.

I would like to move away from what has been dominating Leaders' Questions to an issue that is causing a great deal of concern for many people in both rural and urban Ireland. That concern has been brought about because of the way in which Citizens Information Services, CIS, has been dismantled because of decisions taken by the Citizens Information Board, CIB. CIS comprises 113 local information services and 100 outreach services. Services link clients with Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, Women's Aid and migrant services and address a wide range of issues such as employment, family law, tax and finance. They also source translation services because CIS is used by many of our new communities. In one year alone, there were more than 600,000 callers nationally. In the north east and north west of Dublin's inner city services engaged with 16,000 residents and the figure for Dublin overall was 40,000. Those availing of services have difficulty in dealing with Departments and agencies, local authorities and in understanding Government schemes and services.

CIS has proved to be a trusted intermediary between the public and the State. Staff have been efficient and professional. One of the service's strengths has been their independence but recently the CIB decided to put in place a restructuring implementation committee. The changes it proposed have led to a great deal of disquiet about adverse effects. The concerns of CIS were outlined to the CIB, but they were ignored. The National Association of Citizens Information Services, NACIS, together with the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, national management forum and managers network, brought these concerns to the Joint Committee on Social Protection. Its report concluded that the restructuring plan was "flawed and ill-considered", but it was ignored by the CIB. A motion was passed in the House by a large majority calling for a halt to the proposed restructuring, but it was also ignored by the CIB.

The reasons given by the board for restructuring were that it would lead to efficiencies, save money and improve services, but there was no evidence to support this. It will cost between €8 million and €9 million to dismantle the current system and that money is going to private consultancy firms in accountancy and law. One aspect of the restructuring will create another tier of regional managers and boards which will lead to additional costs. With regard to efficiencies, the organisation has been efficient. The restructuring will damage services, with some having to close. Staff and volunteers are demoralised and demotivated by the total disregard shown for their concerns and the determination of the CIB to bulldoze its way through them. The restructuring goes against everything the service stands for, especially its independence. The joint committee asked that there be a new, inclusive and transparent consultation process. I am seeking such a process before further damage is done to a service that is efficient and professional.

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. There was an almost five-year consultation process before the decision to reorganise and restructure CIS was taken. This is about reorganising governance and providing for more efficiencies, not about reducing services. There will be a smaller number of governance bodies, but the services will not change. Many organisations go through such reviews. It is not about reducing services but about making sure we have a better governance model, better decision-making and more consistency throughout the country in performance and delivery for clients and so on. I agree with the Deputy that CIS provides important services. I have witnessed how helpful, efficient and informative staff can be. These are important services which we are not downgrading. We have implemented a series of recommendations following a long consultation process. When governance is changed in an organisation, some people will not be happy because it changes their role in the decision-making processes and so on. We are trying to provide better outcomes for people working in the CIB and those who rely on its work. I am told that a number of months ago there was a significant meeting in Kilmainham which was attended by 800 individuals in the CIB and that there was no evidence of demoralisation among staff and so on. It is important to give a clear signal that this is not about reducing services. The review is trying to improve services and make changes in the governance model in how management, decisions and governance happen within the CIB. While these aspects have reduced in scale, it is about better governance and delivery by the CIB which, by and large, does a good job.

Nobody disagrees with better delivery or a review, but at a recent meeting in the audiovisual room volunteers and staff disputed what the Tánaiste has outlined. The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General has said nothing which suggests it had concerns about the existing structure, although there may have been an issue about internal capacity. I ask the Tánaiste to read the transcript of the meeting at which CIB representatives appeared before the Joint Committee on Social Protection because he will see the disdain they had for concerns Oireachtas Members raised with them. CIS saves money because it reduces the need for costly processes such as appeals, employment hearings and court cases. Staff work directly with people experiencing disadvantage and there is a huge voluntary input, which saves a great deal of money. They also provide unbiased, impartial feedback for public authorities. CIS recently received a gold star award for service excellence from the European Foundation for Quality Management. It has also been part of a European project as a role model for Balkan countries in respect of its independence and transparency as a civil society organisation. Now it has go back and state what it has been doing has been dismantled. I am concerned by the CIB's total disregard for CIS, the authoritarian way it deals with concerns expressed by Oireachtas Members and staff and the way in which all of these issues are being addressed. The staff and volunteers deserve much better from the board.

In reply to a recent parliamentary question on the issue the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection said:

The CIB have assured me that there will be no job losses, no diminution of existing services, no closure of services and no disruption to services. The rationale for the CIB's decision is to improve its governance arrangements in accordance with the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies and to meet the requirements of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

An implementation advisory group is overseeing implementation of the new changes and so on. Of course, the Government wants to listen and hear about it if there are issues in the implementation of the new arrangements. That is what the House is for. We raise questions to make sure supports for the many people who face disadvantage, and receive assistance and support through CIS, are delivered to the fullest extent possible. However, it is also important to acknowledge that when governance is changed and the structure of decision-making bodies changes, it sometimes creates friction. Our job is to assess whether it is working for the people who rely on the services and those working in them. That is what the Minister will do.

Barr
Roinn