Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Oct 2001

Vol. 541 No. 4

Ceisteanna–Questions. - Freedom of Information.

Michael Noonan

Question:

6 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach the number of requests under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, received by his Department in the first half of 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19156/01]

Michael Noonan

Question:

7 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach the number of staff in his Department who are engaged in processing freedom of information requests; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20924/01]

Jim Higgins

Question:

8 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Taoiseach the number of requests his Department has received regarding copies of records requested under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, in the past three months; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21121/01]

Joe Higgins

Question:

9 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach the number of requests received by his Department in 2001 under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997. [22967/01]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, together.

A total of 230 requests under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, were received in my Department in the six month period ending 30 September 2001. Some 170 were received up to 30 June 2001 and a further 60 were received up to 30 September. Of the total, a decision was taken to grant the request in 59 cases and to part grant in 54 cases. In the remaining cases, 33 requests were refused, no records were held in respect of 43 cases, seven requests were transferred, 17 requests were withdrawn and 17 cases are ongoing.

The number of staff in my Department allocated to deal with requests for information under the Act, in addition to their normal duties, is 13 key decision makers across the divisions mainly at assistant principal level; one HEO, who is the freedom of information liaison officer and who is responsible for receiving and monitoring requests; and two assistant secretaries and four principal officers who are responsible for the internal review process. Requests received in my Department are processed in accordance with the Act. The implementation of the Act in my Department is reviewed on an ongoing basis.

The Taoiseach will recall that on 3 July last I asked him why the Government had left it so late to inform the ESB of its rejection of its plans to invest in Poland. He replied that the scale of the project and the size of the investment was not known until prior to the decision. Deputy Jim Higgins submitted a freedom of information request to his Department which revealed that the Government was aware of the full implications of the investment plan last February. Will the Taoiseach take this opportunity to correct the record of the House and to indicate that the information he gave in the House to Deputy Quinn and me on 3 July was incorrect? Will he also take this opportunity to make amends to the ESB which regards what he said as a slur on its professionalism? Given that the Government had been fully informed of the true position last February, the Taoiseach has an obligation to correct the record to show the error was on the side of the Government and not the ESB.

That matter should be pursued separately.

(Mayo): It concerns a freedom of information request.

That is so but all freedom of information requests could not be raised under these questions.

(Mayo): On 3 July the Taoiseach told the House: “There was no divergence regarding the view of the Cabinet sub-commit tee.” The Cabinet sub-committee comprised the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Enterprise. Did the Taoiseach not receive a letter—

The questions referred to statistics on freedom of information. It is not appropriate to raise particular cases under these questions.

(Mayo): I have already written to you in relation to this issue and you said I would have an opportunity to raise the matter in this House.

This is not that opportunity. The questions were statistical.

(Mayo): This is not a statistical question. It relates to the accuracy—

That is the reason it is not in order. The Deputy agrees that it is not statistical, therefore it is not in order.

(Mayo): How many times did the Taoiseach give false information to the House in relation to this issue, which was raised by Deputy Noonan?

That is statistical.

The Deputy should not imply that any Member gives false information.

(Mayo): The Taoiseach is very forthcoming about the number involved in his Department. Did he not receive a letter from the Minister for Public Enterprise on the eve of the Cabinet sub-committee meeting which stated: “I would regard it as a complete vote of no confidence in our semi-State, the ESB, if permission were not given to proceed to the next stage”? By virtue of the fact that the Taoiseach told the Dáil there was no divergence of views in the sub-committee—

I have pointed out to the Deputy that—

(Mayo): Why did he mislead the House?

—under these questions we cannot deal with individual cases. They are general questions regarding the search for information on statistics. It is not in order to pursue the matter.

(Mayo): Why did the Taoiseach mislead the House? Why did he not give accurate information? He said there was no divergence of views.

The Deputy should not accuse a Member of misleading—

(Mayo): This was a clear lie.

The Deputy should stop using the word "lie." I ask him to withdraw it.

(Mayo): The Taoiseach deliberately misled the House.

Withdraw it.

It is out of order to accuse any Member of deliberately misleading the House. The Deputy is out of order and should resume his seat. He cannot ask the Taoiseach that question.

Withdraw the word "lie."

The Deputy is out of order.

(Mayo): Could we not get a more strict—

The Deputy has made a number of disorderly comments and should withdraw them.

(Mayo): The Taoiseach received a letter from his Minister on the eve of the meeting telling him that—

The Deputy is out of order and should resume his seat. If he does not resume his seat, I will ask him to leave the House.

(Mayo): Can you ask the Taoiseach—

The Deputy continues to be disorderly. If he carries on, I will ask him to leave the House. I ask him to resume his seat.

(Mayo): Can I ask the Taoiseach how many other—

The Chair is on his feet. The Deputy should resume his seat when the Chair is standing. As the Chair is on his feet, the Deputy should be seated.

(Mayo): The record speaks for itself.

On a point of order, will you permit a question on the ESB to the Taoiseach?

Any question submitted will be considered.

No, it is being transferred to the Minister for Public Enterprise.

That is not a point of order. It is totally disorderly to ask the Chair if he will allow a question or not.

Will you provide guidance for the House that the Taoiseach—

The Deputy should resume his seat. That concludes questions to the Taoiseach. We now come to priority questions.

On a point of order—

As the Chair is speaking, the Deputy should wait. I now move on to priority questions to the Minister for Education and Science.

Will you hear me now?

On a point of order, I will.

It has been indicated to my office that in his next phase of questions the Taoiseach intends to take 30 questions together. The questions are about different topics. On a point of order, if that is the way we are to proceed tomorrow, the House will be quite disorderly.

I want to facilitate Question Time and the Chair. My office has likewise been told that the bulk of questions up to Question No. 40 are likely to be taken together. Even a Chair with the Ceann Comhairle's skills would find it difficult to provide for all the supplementaries arising from such a variety of questions.

The grouping of questions is not a matter for the Chair.

I ask that the Taoiseach reconsider the grouping of questions.

On a point of order, the procedure followed in the Taoiseach's Department has been the same for about 30 years. If one has any suggestions about questions, the procedure will be the same.

Could the Taoiseach separate the two?

Top
Share