The House will be aware that the Freedom of Information Act 1997 was enacted for good reasons. I raise this matter today because I am concerned at reports that the Government wants to amend this legislation in a way that would amount to a denial of the right of access, the right of transparency and the right of accountability to the people in respect of Government papers after 1998, which would coincide with the period of office of the Taoiseach's first term as Taoiseach. It is fair to say that the Act has been a major success and has added to the transparency and accountability, both of Departments and of Government. Today's reports suggest that the Government intends to amend this in a way that will make it not as accountable as it should be in the people's interest, given that the Act was passed by the entire House. I would ask the Taoiseach whether it is his intention to proceed in this manner and if he will confirm the truth or otherwise of the reports contained in today's newspapers.
Leaders' Questions.
Arising from the recommendations of the high level group on the operation of the Freedom of Information Act, the Government has instructed the Minister for Finance to prepare amending legislation to give effect to the group's recommendations and to provide for related matters which have arisen since the enactment of the original legislation. There is also the report of the commissioner who has had the job for the past five years of overseeing cases of dispute and other aspects which the commissioner believes would assist the legislation. The Department of Finance is preparing that draft legislation, which the Minister will bring to Government for approval in due course. Until the Government has approved the heads of a draft Bill, I cannot comment on any provisions which may or may not be included. There is speculation but at this stage it remains speculation.
The high level commission was not made up of Ministers but of officials who had the job of operating the Act for the past five years. The legislation will come before the House in due course, when everybody will have an opportunity to debate it.
We will oppose any proposal to amend the Act in a way that would restrict the right of the public to such information. While the Act may have been written by civil servants, it is up to the Government to implement it. It is not a matter for the Department of Finance. It appears from newspaper reports that applicants for information under the Act are treated differently, according to whether they are members of the media or the public. The Act specifically provides that the head of the information section in a Department must disregard the source of the application for information. In other words, there must be no discrimination in how it is treated. It is a breach of the law by Departments if they are restrictive in the way they provide information.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that there will be no change in the five year rule which, under the Act, came into force in April 1998? The section the Taoiseach referred to in respect of the commissioner has not yet come into force. If this does not happen and the Government proceeds to amend the Act, the public will see it as nothing short of a cover up.
The legislation will come forward in due course. It was always intended that there would be a review of the Freedom of Information Act after five years, when there would be an opportunity to examine its implementation. The suggestions from the information commissioner and some of the people who have worked on this will improve the Act.
With regard to changing the 30 year rule to five years, we will have to wait and see what is proposed. My view on the matter is clear and on the record. I believe changing the rule from 30 years to five years is too much.
It is too transparent.
It is not a matter of accountability or transparency. Changing from 30 years to five years would not be a good idea. I have outlined my views in that regard but I will have a further opportunity to do so. I cannot recall what the high level group stated in its report but that will come to light in due course.
With regard to the process, the issue of who makes the freedom of information request is not taken into account. An independent official in each Department deals with the applications and the matter does not go near the political system. I do not believe a request should be treated differently because of where it originates.
Two days before the last Government left office, an indemnity was signed by the State, the all-embracing nature of which had not previously been seen. In the Sunday Independent last Sunday a story was run under the headline: “PDs say taxpayers will face €2bn abuse bill”. This is the response of a party in the Government. The State settled, nominally, for €128 million from the religious congregations but the minor party in Government says the cost will be €2 billion. I refer the Taoiseach to the clause quoted in the report from a memorandum to the finance committee. It states:
The initial negotiations with the religious institutions were conducted by a group consisting of officials from the Departments of Education and Science (Chair), Finance and the Office of the Attorney General; however, the final negotiations and agreement in principle were concluded by the then Minister for Education and Science, Michael Woods.
Why does that communication to the finance committee seem to draw a distinction between the process of negotiations that involved the Department of Finance and the Attorney General's office and the deed that was negotiated by a Minister who was due to lose office in two days? Why did it happen in that fashion?
If the Taoiseach says he will not publish the advice of the Attorney General, will he tell the House that the Attorney General was involved? Why would the Progressive Democrats claim that it will cost €2 billion, since they are partly responsible? Are they saying that the Attorney General, while shimmying up lampposts, could not apply his mind to a deal that provides for the greatest exposure in the history of the State? Everybody wants the victims to get their compensation as speedily as possible, but can the Taoiseach reassure the House that a memorandum was brought to Cabinet, the Attorney General advised on it and that these terms were approved?
I can do so. These matters were discussed by the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Finance and the Attorney General's office. The discussions continued over a long period. There was no rush deal in the last days of the previous Administration. The negotiations with CORI and the 18 religious congregations on the extent of the contribution began at the end of 2000 and concluded in the beginning of 2002. The drafting of the legal documents took time to complete and the matter was brought to Government on 5 June and made public that day.
The Government's approach on this issue was to see what was best for the victims in terms of redressing the wrong that was done to them. There was a clear view that many of their cases would not succeed in the courts because of the passage of time and the unavailability of witnesses. That led to the proposal of a scheme of redress based on medical evidence. The agreement with the organisations was that there would be €41 million cash. A total of €27 million has been lodged and a further €7 million is due this week. There would be €77 million in property transfers and the State can refuse any property offered and seek alternative proposals. That puts the State in a strong position. There was a further €10 million for counselling victims, with a commitment to continue the service over time.
The view of the agreement with CORI was that the contribution had to be meaningful but could not be so high as to destabilise the congregations, who do not have a bottomless pit of resources. The House will also remember that these congregations looked after the people in their care on behalf of the State. If there were deficiencies and problems, they were partially, and perhaps fully, the obligation of the State. Everything was done in an orderly fashion. Now, however, there are more cases than anybody expected. I well remember the day I made the apology on behalf of the State. I was told that day there would be no cases because it had nothing to do with financial redress but required an apology. However, that is how these things develop.
The Taoiseach has rambled far and wide. I already have that information. I am asking about the indemnity deed, not the agreement. I am not asking what matters were discussed with the Department of Finance and the Attorney General. I am asking if the Department of Finance and the Attorney General's office were involved in respect of the indemnity deed. A reply to a parliamentary question on 19 February 2002 gives the terms of the agreement but makes no reference to the fact that there is a global indemnity. It is so wide that it applies not just to putative cases that might be coming down the track but to anything that might have been forgotten and that cannot be thought about. The State has indemnified the congregations in those circumstances. I ask the Taoiseach, with the full consciousness of what he is doing, to tell the House whether a memorandum went to Cabinet, whether the Attorney General advised on the deed of indemnity and whether the Government approved it in the knowledge that the exposure of the State could be anything from a factor of five to, if you take the Progressive Democrats' position, a factor of 15-plus. I am puzzled as to why the Progressive Democrats would want to go public in disowning this if their own Attorney General was the central figure in approving it.
To the best of my recollection, all of the people I have mentioned were involved. The indemnity deal, which I presume was the final legal document which was completed, was obviously discussed and dealt with in the legal section – it would not have been dealt with by a Minister. In terms of exposure, it was never clear what the figure would be. Various figures were mentioned over the past number of years, and they are still being mentioned. At one stage the figure was to be quite small, as I said, but then it went up by a sum in the region of €100 million each time. I do not know what the ultimate figure will be, but as far as the arrangements, negotiations and the legal indemnity are concerned, I am certain these matters were always brought to Cabinet.
To follow up on earlier questions to the Taoiseach, to what extent is he aware of the sorties being carried out by US and UK war planes over southern Iraq on a daily basis and of the bombing of radar stations – which obviously leads to casualties – and civilian areas? To what extent is he aware of that aggression and the fact that it does not have a UN mandate? By participating in that aggression, Ireland is in breach of Article 28(3) of its Constitution which states: "Ní dleathach cogadh a fhógairt ná páirt a bheith ag an Stát in aon chogadh ach amháin le haontú Dháil Éireann". In other words, Ireland shall not declare or participate in a war save with the agreement of Dáil Éireann. Will the Taoiseach bring the Government into compliance with the Constitution on this matter, given that the State is already paying the Irish Aviation Authority for every military landing at Shannon and is thereby fully involved in the movements to date? Regarding international law, is the Taoiseach willing to support an escalation of the war in Iraq if a new UN resolution is not in line—
This is not questions to the Taoiseach, this is Leaders' Questions. The Deputy may address one question, not three, to the Taoiseach on a topical issue.
This is a topical issue.
Yes, they are all topical, but the Deputy may only ask one such question under Standing Orders.
My question is about compliance—
The Deputy has already put two questions to the Taoiseach.
Is the Taoiseach prepared to comply with Article 2(4) of the UN Charter which states that all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state—
Sorry, Deputy, I cannot allow you to go on.
I presume the answer will be—
The Taoiseach to reply.
As I said earlier during questions to the Taoiseach, it is the Government's view that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 of 8 November 2002 should be complied with. We have not changed our position on that. Hopefully, following the events of the weekend, more time will be given to the weapons inspectors. It is now expected that they will report back on 14 February, so we must wait to see what happens then. It is the Government's hope, as we have always stated, that there would be a new UN Security Council resolution. That would of course have to be based upon what the inspectors say in their report, and I cannot say now what the likely position will be.
In the meantime, the Government hopes that Saddam Hussein will listen to what the inspectors stated to him on 27 January, when they made it absolutely clear that while he was very good on the substance of some of the debate, he was not delivering on other matters. They asked in particular that he consider allowing scientists to talk to the weapons inspectors without the presence of Iraqi intelligence at such meetings. They also stated that they should be free to fly over parts of the country where they obviously wish to carry out checks. We will just have to wait and see what happens in this regard.
I do not have any security information on what is happening on the ground in Iraq or on its borders beyond what is in the public domain. The latest information I have is that inspectors will return to Iraq on 8 February to discuss their requests with the Iraqi authorities. Hopefully, they will get a positive response on those issues that will then form the basis of their report on 14 February. It will then be for the UN Security Council to decide on the way forward. The Government's position remains the same. We await developments and will then return to the issue here. As I have always said, my preference is that Saddam Hussein would start behaving himself and give a break to his people and everybody else. This issue could then be resolved.
Checking radar stations is different from bombing them, unless the Taoiseach means the same thing, I am not sure. Why was it only in January that the Air Navigation Order 1973 and section 3(17) of the Defence Act 1954, were signed in relation to munitions and uniforms from a foreign state passing through the country? In signing these, has the Government taken a view as to whether it will agree to participate in any further actions against Iraq if weapons of mass destruction are used by, for example, the United States, the UK or any member of the coalition? Which weapons of mass destruction would be unacceptable to the Taoiseach: the nuclear weapons that are allowed for in a classified US presidential directive; the daisy cutter bombs that incinerate everything within 300-600 yards; or the depleted uranium missiles which burst into flames on impact and disperse an aerosol of particles? Which of those weapons of mass destruction are unacceptable to the Government?
The Minister for Transport has made it absolutely clear that we have followed national aviation law and our Constitution, and we are getting reports now on every aircraft entering the State. We reminded the relevant authorities that they have to comply with these provisions and they are being complied with. If they were not being fully complied with before, they are now. I do not think there is any difficulty with that position.
I asked about weapons.
The Deputy would like to draw me into equating the Americans or any of the other armies hopefully involved in enforcing a UN resolution with the Iraqis, and their weapons of mass destruction—
A bomb is a bomb.
They used those weapons against their own people in the Iran-Iraq war—
Which we condemned also.
They used them to kill thousands of Kurds some years back, weapons they obviously still have—
We all condemn that.
They have failed to explain the disappearance of these weapons. If Deputy Sargent was asked about the disappearance of 6,500 chemical bombs he would at least be able to advance an explanation. The Iraqis have failed to do that. I am far more worried about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction than about anybody else's at this stage.