Vol. 568 No. 2
10 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the procedures within his Department to ensure that all records required to be preserved under the National Archives Act 1986 are so retained; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13490/03]
11 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the systems in place within his Department for ensuring that the provisions of the National Archives Act 1986 are fully complied with; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15227/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 11 together.
The National Archives Act 1986 stipulates that all departmental records – i.e., records made or received and held by a Department of State in the course of its business – must be preserved. My Department operates a central registry record keeping system comprising the registry file tracking system and a central repository for the storage of all departmental records. Within this system, documents created are held in official departmental files. The system ensures that all files created in the Department's divisions are recorded centrally.
Guidelines on record keeping, which reflect best practice, are issued to all staff in my Department to ensure that all papers, correspondence, memoranda, notes, etc., either created or received, are filed in the appropriate departmental registry file. When files are 30 years old, in compliance with the National Archives Act 1986, they are transferred to the National Archives on an annual basis, where they are made available for public inspection unless they are withheld under section 8(4) of the Act. As files are processed for release each year, it is normal that some are certified by the appropriate official for retention on the grounds set forth in the Act. My Department has established its own archives liaison unit to implement the transfer of records to the National Archives and liaise closely with staff therein, including the director, to ensure proper compliance with the Act.
My colleague Deputy Stagg, the Labour Whip, made an application under the Freedom of Information Act for copies of the documents used by the Taoiseach during Leaders' Questions. In due course, the freedom of information officer, I presume, in the Taoiseach's office replied to the Deputy saying that these documents are not retained. My legal advice is that this is in breach of the National Archives Act under the precise section to which the Taoiseach referred, and that the very documents listed by him ought to be retained. The Act defines records as books, maps, plans, drawings – including any doodling by the Taoiseach – papers, files, photographs, films, and so on. I am advised that the creative work of his eager beavers in the morning early, on every matter under the sun, is appropriate for Deputy Stagg to seek to access under the Freedom of Information Act.
Hear, hear.
It could well be and I wish anyone well reading it in 30 years' time. They will be very well informed. The people who decide what is bound by the National Archives Act and the FOI commissioners are totally independent and I go by whatever they say and do not interfere with them.
The Taoiseach is gifted—
I thank the Deputy.
—in the manner he replies to questions. What in the name of all that is holy does his response mean?
It means what it says.
What has 30 years to do with it?
One would not get the documents for 30 years if they were in the archives.
I am talking about the Freedom of Information Act—
Deputy Rabbitte's question is "to ask the Taoiseach the procedures within his Department to ensure that all records required to be preserved under the National Archives Act 1986 are so retained". His problem is that he is talking about one Act although his question is about another. This is not my problem.
Not at all. Deputy Stagg sought access to these documents under the Freedom of Information Act. The Taoiseach or his information officer replied to the effect that he was not entitled to them because they are destroyed. I am merely drawing the Taoiseach's attention to the fact that this is in breach of the National Archives Act. Once they are not destroyed, it is entirely a matter for his freedom of information officer, in the first instance, to judge whether some or all of the documents should be released to Deputy Stagg. After that, we may have to go to the Information Commissioner.
There is no conflict at all. The application was made under one Act and the reason the Deputy Stagg cannot access the documents is because they are destroyed. The reply states as follows:
The nature of such material is that it is requested and prepared for the Taoiseach's appearance at Leaders' Questions on a day-by-day basis. Once it is no longer of relevance, it is not retained. Consequently, it is not possible to identify all records that may have been available on these dates.
That is very logical.
I understand why the Minister for Defence would be fully in support of this, but with all due respect, it has nothing to do with him. Will he be quiet for a minute?
Deputy Stagg cannot access the documents. If this is in breach of the Act and the documents are retained, at least some of them – they cannot all be matters of State security – ought to be released to the Deputy. What is the Taoiseach's response to this?
The information I would have any morning in the file in question is made up either of items—
Allow the Taoiseach to speak.
It is made up of either newspaper cuttings or data that come from other Departments. The Deputies are not really interested in getting an answer.
We are.
Deputy Rabbitte, the Taoiseach is entitled to the same courtesy as every other Member of the House when he is called by the Chair to speak.
I agree with you and he now ought to be given—
I am afraid that many Deputies do not agree with the Chair in that regard.
I agree with the Chair.
The Taoiseach is entitled to the same courtesy as every other Member of the House.
I did not interrupt him but it is now important to—
There were a number of interruptions.
There were, but there was unreasonable provocation. The Taoiseach ought to be given an opportunity now to clarify what he meant by saying that the notes used every morning are "made up"—
The Deputy has made his point. If the Taoiseach wants to comment, he may do so.
The documents I bring into the House for Leaders' Questions or the Order of Business are "copies" of items in the national newspapers, since people do not like me to use the term, "made up of". They have no relevance to archives or freedom of information. Alternatively, notes I receive from other Ministers are part of the archival notes of other Departments. I do not present new documents from my Department. If there was a new document on something prepared in my Department, it would be part of the archival data in my Department.
The archival officer in my Department decides what goes into the archives and the freedom of information officer decides what comes under the Freedom of Information Act. They are totally independent and adhere to the statutory regulations set out the National Archives Act 1986 and the Freedom of Information Act 1998. They follow the procedures set down in law.
What the Taoiseach has just said about the documents prepared for him for Leaders' Questions being allocated to the appropriate Department or his Department completely contradicts the reply under the Freedom of Information Act, which states that they are not retained. Are they retained or not?
I do not retain them but they are retained in the Department where they are put together.
Allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
Let us not try to be smart. If a document is prepared in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, is from its records and relevant to that Department, it is retained in that Department.
That is not what it says here.
It does not say that there because it is not retained in my Department. There is no reason for it to be retained in my Department as it is not a document of my Department for FOI or archival purposes.
But it says here—
I ask the Deputy to allow Deputy Kenny to put his question to the Taoiseach.
There is still some confusion which the Taoiseach might clear up for Deputy Rabbitte. If this bible the Taoiseach has every day is made up of newspaper cuttings and data collected from other Departments, does it mean there is not an original thought of his own therein?
I did the rest.
Can I take it that the reply from the information officer in the Office of the Taoiseach—
Is correct.
I do not want to name the civil servant but perhaps I should not call him or her the information officer as no title is given on the document. The letter of 9 April 2003 to Deputy Stagg states that once the documents are no longer of relevance, they are not retained. They are prepared for the particular morning. Do I understand from the Taoiseach that the documents are retained, but in the Department appropriate to the subject matter under question? If that is what the Taoiseach is saying, does it mean, for example, that on a matter appropriate to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister for the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice, Deputy McDowell, Deputy Stagg can make application to the Department and get the note the Taoiseach might have on the given issue?
That is the position. If, for instance, there is a question on legislation or on some substantive issue, the note that I would receive would be a mere few paragraphs from a more substantive document. The present position, which we did not have until I became Taoiseach, is that the leaders of the Opposition can ask a question about anything. That cannot be done in any other parliament throughout the world.
The Taoiseach is off on a solo run now.
The Deputy is not too bad at that himself.
If the Deputy wants me to go on a solo run, I will; my colleagues in Europe cannot understand how I spend five hours a week in Parliament when they spend an hour a month at maximum. The Deputy knows that.
The Deputy is privileged.
The Deputy is part of a socialist group in Europe. Prime Ministers of that group continually urge me not to spend so many hours here because they might be forced to do the same. Now that I come in and answer party leaders' questions, the Deputy is bothered because I have answers. The Deputy really wants to come in and ask questions for which I have no answers. He cannot have it both ways.
Arising from the Taoiseach's reply, are we to understand that the material used on the Order of Business is not retained in his Department but in the relevant Departments? How are we to know that the material is one and the same?
Ask the right question.
The Taoiseach says his morning file comprises newspaper cuttings and notes submitted to him by ministerial colleagues in anticipation of the issues that might be raised. The notes to which he often resorts, in order to reply to whatever issue Deputy Kenny or I raise on a given day, are understandably clearly prepared and political in orientation. Is the Taoiseach saying that it is untrue that these notes are not retained, as indicated in this letter? Is he saying that they are retained but are allocated to the Department under whose aegis the matter appropriately falls? Is he saying that if Members seek to access them under the Freedom of Information Act, normal freedom of information rules will apply, that the documents are extant and there is no breach of the National Archives Act?
The information officer in an individual Department will have to deal with queries. My Department is totally independent but I do not think there is any breach of FOI or the archives Act. Often the documents are sent to me and I do not, as Deputy Rabbitte implies in his question, apply a political nature to them. Normally, if we are in the House at 10.30 a.m., I am lucky to get a note from a Department at all. The note would be straight. This morning I was asked a question and the note I received was last night's Adjournment reply from the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Callelly.
The Taoiseach had a long note on it.
There was only a sentence at the end from the Minister of State's secretary. That is as much as I received and was the extent of the note. Sometimes I get a detailed note from a Department, which would outline a full position. It would come directly from the Department and would be retained in the Department. However, 95% of the notes I receive are short and skimpy and might refer to a trade dispute or some other issue. They would be in the Departments. That is how the procedure works. I am trying to be as helpful as possible.
I accept that.
For the record, most of Deputy Rabbitte's colleagues in Europe have long since abandoned any commitment to socialism so their example does not impinge on us.
Maybe that is why they do not want to answer.
The Taoiseach should not take their example as a good example.
They only turn up for half an hour. I turn up for four hours a week just to listen to the Deputy.
A genuine socialist would be available every day to answer elected Members' questions.
The Deputy should ask his question.
Following on from Deputy Rabbitte's query which, despite the mirth which has permeated the exchanges, is important, could we agree that if such notes are sought from the Taoiseach's Department he will tell the questioner from which Department they emanated or to which they were returned in order that the Member can access them?
I wish the sophisticated system the Deputies seem to think exists were as good as Opposition Deputies believe it is, but such a system does not exist.
It is just that the Taoiseach is doing so well.
That explains the answers.
Maybe it does. Perhaps the Deputy wishes to change tack now. Most of the time I deal with general and extremely vague notes—
And some extremely vague answers.
—and lose sleep about what Deputy Kenny might think up in the morning. It is a terrible thought. To think that I have freedom of information officers and national archive officers working on my behalf is a long way from the reality of the job.
It is important that the Taoiseach understands that, a bit like the mini-skirt, just because the notes are short and skimpy does not mean we are not all the more interested in them.
If I read it out, it is on the record.
A brief question, Deputy, as we want to move on to the Order of Business.
I want to know if he will give us a peek at them. No matter how short and skimpy the documents, are they retained under the Freedom of Information Act and may we apply to see them? Is he now saying that, short and skimpy though they may be, they are retained?
