Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

No single person in the Department of the Taoiseach makes all decisions on freedom of information requests that are received. When such requests are received, they are assigned to the relevant section of the Department. Staff deal with requests in addition to their normal duties. The functions of general examination and primary decision-making have been delegated to assistant principal officers and a few higher executive officers in specialist areas. The function of internal review has been delegated to officials not below the grade of principal officer. All requests that are received are monitored by the Department's freedom of information liaison officer.

On the specific question of whether responsibility for requests lies with me or with my officials, section 20 of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 provides for the delegation from a Minister to his or her officials of functions relating to the processing of freedom of information requests. While there is no formal delegation order under section 20, the long-standing practice adopted by the Department and by successive taoisigh, including me, is that the political head of the Department has no role in processing freedom of information requests or determining the timing of the release of information on foot of such requests. When freedom of information requests are received in the Department, the functions of general examination and primary decision-making are delegated to assistant principal officers and a few higher executive officers in specialist areas. As I mentioned earlier, the function of internal review has been delegated to officials not below principal officer grade. All requests are monitored by the Department's freedom of information liaison officer.

I have been asked about the most recent release of documents relating to the strategic communications unit. As Deputies will be aware, there have been a number of freedom of information requests and releases. I have not seen or reviewed the documents in question, but I have seen the online coverage of their release from The Irish Times. Its report confirmed that the director of the unit, John Concannon, insisted that all Project Ireland 2040 advertorials should be clearly marked as being from the Government of Ireland. Having read that story, I formed the opposite view from that of the Deputies. If I had been given a say in the matter, I would have had these documents released on a slow news day so that they would have received more coverage.

If the report in The Irish Timesis correct, the documents in question provide further confirmation that many of the allegations made by Deputies against the strategic communications were false. It is regrettable that I have yet to hear any of the false allegations being withdrawn by the Deputies in question. False allegations were made in respect of regional newspapers. It was suggested that the strategic communications unit leaned on the editors of certain publications in some way to ensure prospective candidates were included in advertorials. We know from the report that was compiled by Assistant Secretary Canavan and from documents that have been provided by newspaper editors that this was not the case and that these decisions were made by the editors themselves. Unfortunately, I have yet to hear any of these false allegations being withdrawn by the Deputies who made them. I would welcome the withdrawal of some of the allegations. It has also been alleged that the Civil Service code or the public sector standards code may have been breached. We know from the Canavan report that such breaches did not happen. Rather than being precious about this - I certainly do not feel like a victim in this regard - I am asking the Deputies who made the false allegations that have been refuted in the Canavan report or in documents released under freedom of information to go back over the various allegations they made and have the decency to withdraw those that were false.

See this speech in context