Enda Kenny
Question:4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he plans to change the procedures within his Department for processing freedom of information requests; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7859/03]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Freedom of Information.
Enda Kenny
Question:5 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests which have been received by his Department since April 1998; the number of requests which have been granted; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7860/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 and 5 together.
A total of 985 requests were received in my Department between April 1998 and 4 April 2003. Of these, 297 were granted, 244 were part granted, 60 were transferred to other Departments, 70 were withdrawn, 117 were refused, no records were held in respect of 172 cases and there are 25 cases ongoing. All requests received in my Department are processed in accordance with the Act and its implementation in my Department is kept under constant review. I see no reason to change the process for dealing with FOI requests in my Department as the present system is working well.
If the present system is working well why is it necessary to introduce restrictions on access to information? Will the Taoiseach explain why 117 cases were refused? Is it not a clear case of the Government introducing amendments to the Act to save themselves embarrassment because people might find out the reasons certain papers were prepared leading to Government decisions?
The Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill, when enacted, will increase the range of records which can be designated as Government records. This has been described by the Information Commissioner as loose and unclear. Will the Taoiseach explain by what process such committee records will be excluded from the FOI process in practice? Since such designations are to be made by the Secretary General to the Government, will the Taoiseach be accountable to the House for decisions made in that context? Will the Taoiseach answer here for those decisions which will have a serious effect on the public's access to information?
Will this change mean that the work of cross-departmental committees, such as the committees dealing with infrastructure and deregulation, both of which are under the aegis of the Taoiseach's Department, will be excluded? Will the Taoiseach be answerable in such cases where, for instance, the work or records of both of those cross-departmental committees under the aegis of his Department will be excluded? Will the Taoiseach confirm that he will answer to the House in the event of any such decision being taken?
The reason we are sticking with the system in the Department is that it works well under the existing Act. Obviously, the reason 117 cases were refused was either that they did not concern information or they did not comply with the Act. I have no particular difficulty with the Act and will continue to work with it as amended. While I am not entering into a debate about the Bill now, I will continue to provide information about questions concerning travel, subsistence, entertainment, expenses, use of the Government jet, communications between Ministers and chairmen or chief executives of State agencies, staff employed as political advisers, payments made to public relations and advertising firms, staff employed in Ministers' constituency offices, cost of photographic services to Ministers, expenditure by Departments on refurbishment of offices, correspondence between Ministers and lobby groups, NGOs, appointments to State boards, briefing material prepared for Ministers for interviews, ministerial advisory committee meetings and licences issued by Ministers. All that information, and other information I provide, will continue to be provided.
In so far as I answer for cross-departmental groups, there are limitations on those questions at the moment and the same will apply in future. Thankfully, however, we will have changed from the position of the deliberative process. In my view, that was a mistake in the first place. When a Government is in the process of dealing with a case, working under the Constitution by way of collective Cabinet responsibility, that work goes from one meeting to another and can sometimes take several weeks. It is a ludicrous system to have a debate when documents are coming out and the entire issue is in the public domain. It runs counter to the idea of collective responsibility under the Constitution, and thank God that will be changed.
I am perplexed because the Taoiseach says he has no particular difficulty with the Act. For a number of months we have been fighting the Government's intention to amend the Act to the point where the public's right to public information is being restricted or cut off. Access to information is being denied and the public will now be charged for the privilege of finding out whether they can be given the information.
If the Deputy comes over to this side of the House he will find the answers for himself.
I thank the Minister for backing the Taoiseach. Surely it is a fact of life that the Government is trying to shield itself from political embarrassment.
The Deputy should ask an appropriate question. I would remind the House that the questions refer specifically to the administration of the Act in the Department of the Taoiseach.
The Government is afraid to let the public be aware that Ministers might well have a difference of opinion.
We are not discussing the Bill, which is the responsibility of the Minister for Finance
Maybe we should see what goes on in the Fine Gael Party. Is it all lovey-dovey there?
The questions are about the Freedom of Information Act.
The Deputy's two questions refer to the administration of the Act in the Department of the Taoiseach.
In the event, God forbid, of the Taoiseach bringing a daft proposal before the Cabinet, is there some restriction on the public being aware that other Ministers might have a different point of view? If the Taoiseach has no particular difficulty with the Act, why are all these amendments and denials of access being introduced?
As I said, Deputy, the Bill is the responsibility of the Minister for Finance and it would be more appropriate if you put questions to that Minister.
Yes, but the Taoiseach is the boss and he runs the country. The Taoiseach is in control.
That may well be but the Standing Orders of the House are clear. The Deputy's questions relate to the administration of the Act in the Department of the Taoiseach.
The Taoiseach is in control and he has no problem about photographs, consultants or flying in the jet. Nor do I but somebody over there is paranoid about the public finding out.
That is what it is about.
I can give the Deputy the photographs.
Has the Taoiseach expressed the view to his colleagues around the Cabinet table that he has no particular difficulty with the Act?
You are out of order, Deputy Kenny. You submitted two questions about the administration of the Act in the Department of the Taoiseach.
Yes.
We are now having a general debate on a Bill which is the responsibility of the Minister for Finance.
Has the Taoiseach told his colleagues that he has no particular difficulty with the Act?
We are coming to the end of Question Time and a number of Deputies are offering. We will hear them before taking a final reply from the Taoiseach.
The Taoiseach would have got a job in Napoleon's cabinet because he is a lucky politician. The terrible events surrounding the war in Iraq have buried the fact that the Government has filleted the Freedom of Information Act. In his quieter moments, when he is reading up on basic income over the weekend, has he any regrets about savaging the Freedom of Information Act? Does he not think that it will come back to haunt him? The journalists who are affected have not been writing much about it, although sometimes it is very hard to figure out why journalists write what they do and why they do not write other things, but that is not for us to wonder about. Does the Taoiseach not consider that the attempt he has made to exclude journalists and the Opposition from probing Government decisions might be a watershed for the Government?
As I pointed out to Deputy Kenny, the question might be more appropriate to the Minister for Finance who has responsibility for the change in legislation.
The Taoiseach's response was very wide-ranging. In respect of the operation of the Act as it affects his Department, does the Taoiseach have any regrets about the fact that it has been filleted by his colleague, the Minister for Finance?
I call Deputy Sargent.
What is the answer to my question?
You will get an answer. I am taking the other Deputies who are offering because we are running out of time for Taoiseach's questions.
The question specifically refers to the plans to change procedures. I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the cost of processing requests for information. I understand from the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill that the cost is likely to increase. Has the Taoiseach an estimate of the costs that members of the public will face under the new regime, with reduced access to information but increased costs for obtaining it?
Is the Taoiseach discomforted by the fact that his Cabinet colleague, on his part and the collective part of Government, is endeavouring to deny access to information that has been already catered to in the substantive Act of 1997, the Freedom of Information Act? Does he appreciate the concerns of many in our communities, advocacy groups as well as individuals—
The question before us refers specifically to the administration of the Act in the Taoiseach's Department.
—who are now to be denied access to critical information that may affect their circumstances or the operation of their advocacy work? With the advent of 21 April, does the Taoiseach not believe this is the most inappropriate time—
The Deputy's question is out of order.
What is out of order is the denial of information Bill, Report and Final Stages which will come before this House later today. Does the Taoiseach not realise the enormity and the gravity of what the Government is proposing?
Is it not true that supplementary questions arise from the answer given by the Taoiseach in this case and that if the Taoiseach's or a Minister's answer is wide-ranging, a supplementary question arises from that answer and, therefore, is not bound by the original question?
I accept that, but the questions have strayed outside the range of answers that were given.
They have not.
In reply to questions from Deputies Kenny and Ó Caoláin, there is no change in the system in my Department. It works well and I have no reason to change it. We will continue to work with it, irrespective of whatever is included in the Act. The Minister tabled amendments to the Bill. He has listened to what has been said in the House on the Bill and those amendments will go through today.
Deputy Rabbitte asked if I considered that the Bill has been filleted? I do not. The high level group has looked at it and it has put forward a few amendments. I do not believe they are earth-shattering. I do not want to go back over the ground that has been covered. In the Civil Service users group network, academics, journalists and others frequently give views on it. I have no particular problem with it.
Deputy Kenny said that if I brought a draft memorandum to Cabinet, that people would not find out about it now. If I were to bring one to Cabinet, it would probably be reported in the newspapers before I got to the Cabinet meeting. That is the way we live. If I were to bring it under my arm and put it on the Cabinet, which I would not be allowed to do under the rules, it would be on the 1 o'clock News before I left the Cabinet meeting. That is how the world works.
That shows the Taoiseach's communications system is working well.
I told the Taoiseach that he could not rely on the Progressive Democrats. This is the type of thing they would do.
That is why they did not want the Taoiseach to have a single party Government.
There is no point in getting oneself in a knot that something may come out nowadays. I find that things it did not do come out and everybody believes they happened. That is life. I have learned to live with that at 51 years of age so I just get on with it.
With regard to Deputy Sargent's point concerning personal issues, people do not have to pay for requests for information on those issues. That is an important point to remember. If people were to seek personal information on themselves, there is no cost—
I did not say "personal information", I said "any information". What about non-personal information?
The ordinary citizen usually seeks information on himself or herself. Other than requests from people trawling for information, we rarely charge for requests in my Department. The only charge is made for requests from people involving long trawls of information.
There will be a cost for that.
It is only in the case of requests from people involving long trawls of information. If a person requests information that is easily accessible and not costly to find, the person is not charged. That is how the system works. By and large journalists are not charged for requests.
There will be a cost for some requests.
There will if people seek an enormous amount of data. Some people request an enormous amount of data dating back over many years on a range of issues and they should be charged for such requests. Dealing with these requests is not meant to be a trawling exercise involving civil servants working nights and weekends. If people request a report or information that is easily accessible, there is no charge for such requests. That is how the system should operate.
I have no difficulty with the Act. I wish to make a point about the Act, which I have made here on several occasions, and the amendments that will go through the House today will not change it. It is a long time since I first sat at a Cabinet table and I have been familiar with how the system operates for a long time. What is gone – and the amended Bill will make no difference in this regard – is the system whereby that years ago one got a file from a Department along with the manuscript notes of civil servants setting out their views and different arguments. One does not get that anymore. There was some examination into that to the effect that this is not the case, but as Taoiseach I can tell Members it is the case. It is a sad day that we lost that, but so be it.