Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during October 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28177/07]
Other Questions.
Freedom of Information.
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information applications received by his Department in the first ten months of 2007; the way these figures compare with each year since 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29413/07]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of requests under the Freedom of Information Act 1987 received by his Department in 2007 up to the end of October and the comparable number for 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30964/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
I propose to circulate in the Official Report the information requested by the Deputies on the statistics regarding freedom of information requests received in my Department. All freedom of information applications received in my Department are processed by statutorily designated officials in accordance with the 1997 and 2003 Acts. In accordance with those statutes, I have no role in processing individual applications.
|
Year |
Jan |
Feb |
Mar |
Apr |
May |
Jun |
Jul |
Aug |
Sept |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
Total |
|
2002 |
20 |
12 |
14 |
10 |
10 |
9 |
10 |
8 |
7 |
13 |
15 |
18 |
146 |
|
2003 |
21 |
29 |
30 |
10 |
11 |
7 |
13 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
3 |
142 |
|
2004 |
1 |
8 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
12 |
1 |
5 |
45 |
|
2005 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
7 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
16 |
5 |
7 |
61 |
|
2006 |
9 |
1 |
4 |
7 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
54 |
|
2007 |
14 |
1 |
8 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
9 |
10 |
— |
4 |
2* |
60* |
*to date
Does the Taoiseach have the numbers concerning how many freedom of information applications were received, how many were rejected and the reasons for their rejection? I know the Taoiseach does not see these matters himself and that there is a process for dealing with them.
The figure for last year was 54, while the projected figure for this year, given that there are just a few weeks left, will be in the order of 60. Most of the applications are either accepted or partly accepted, while others are referred elsewhere. In my Department, however, most of the freedom of information applications concern straightforward issues — they are not quite as complex as those covering other Departments — and are accepted or partially accepted.
I have asked this question before and the Taoiseach will probably answer me in the same way again, but where a person's application under the Freedom of Information Act is rejected and their appeal is allowed, they are still charged. As regards his Department, does the Taoiseach think that, in fairness, where an appeal is allowed a person should be charged?
On a wider issue, but still related to freedom of information, the Taoiseach is aware that one cannot obtain documentation prior to the introduction of the Act. As regards yesterday's business, which is the topic of some conversation, does the Taoiseach consider it appropriate to release all papers concerning the casino issue so that people can make up their minds about it? The casino was never built, yet those papers cannot be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. People have claimed that the Taoiseach was involved in this matter, while he claims he was not involved in any wrongdoing. Would it not be a good idea to release all those papers because the issue is dead as an infrastructural matter? People could then be allowed to make up their own minds on it.
On the first issue, as I said before, there are not many appeals concerning freedom of information applications to my Department, but there is a large cost involved. First, if it is a personal matter, as with most of the cases we deal with, there is no charge whatsoever. The €15 fee is modest compared to the average administrative cost, which is approximately €425. If the matter goes to the appeals commissioner there is a final stage whereby somebody can still get the report before the final report and at that stage there is no cost. People have copped on to that mechanism because I notice a number of cases go to that stage. Other than that, the costs involved must be reflected.
As regards old cases, it is difficult enough to get old files in my Department, not to mention other Departments. The Department of Finance has fairly good records and it gave me a report on that matter, which was a live issue with a number of organisations for an extensive period. While a number of points were made, the issue came down to whether, in 1994, I had given approval for a process to allow a confidential agreement. To be frank, if I had been asked to give approval to that, I am sure I would have, but I was not asked. Nobody was asked at that time. An Post — the national lottery — went ahead and did that for a five-month period in 1994 and in 1998, but I was not involved. If I was asked, however — I will be honest about it — I see no reason that I would not have given it, looking at the papers. In 1998, the then Minister was asked for approval in advance and he gave approval. That is all it was about. The totally unfair allegation was that there was something wrong with that, but there was nothing wrong with it whatsoever. These things get two days' headlines and then the journalist would not admit that he was wrong, but he is wrong. I did nothing wrong and even if I had given approval it would not have been wrong.
Going back over the figures on the number of freedom of information applications made to the Department of the Taoiseach, there is a marked difference in the numbers that were made subsequent to 2003. In 2002, 146 such applications were made, while the figure for 2003 was 142. In 2004, the figure dropped dramatically to 45. There were 54 last year and the Taoiseach says the figure for 2007 will be 60. The one thing that occurred in terms of the higher and lower figures was the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003, which introduced a scale of fees for making applications. It is €15 for the application, €75 for a departmental review and €150 for an appeal to the commissioner. As Deputy Kenny said, that is non-refundable even if one wins the appeal.
The Information Commissioner has drawn attention to these fees and has pointed out that they do not apply in other jurisdictions. She has recommended that they be dropped. What consideration has the Taoiseach given to this recommendation? The fees clearly have an impact on the number of applications being made. Perhaps this was the intent of the amending legislation but it is certainly discouraging people from making FOI requests. Nothing else explains the difference in the figures before and after 2003.
In my Department, the figure has levelled out at approximately 50 to 60. When the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003 was enacted, there was quite a number of people endeavouring to obtain information and there was a huge surge of applications. Second, companies and individuals were doing trawling exercises with a view to using the information they obtained commercially to the benefit of a client base. This is partly why the changes were made.
The FOI system is a matter for the Department of Finance in the first instance and I have no plans to review it. The system that was introduced in 2003 followed a review that considered carefully all the options that were available, as stated correctly by Deputy Gilmore. A fee of €15 is very modest, particularly when compared to the administrative fee for processing an application in 2003, that is, €425. I am not sure if it has been updated since then. Nobody would agree that the fee is unreasonable and discourages responsible FOI requests.
One should remember that all FOI requests for personal information are free. It is also important to point out that there is no charge for the time taken in making a decision on an FOI request. In most other jurisdictions there is a charge levied in addition to the application fee. This would be a bit unreasonable but we do not have it here. There was a significant decline in the number of requests in my Department but the figure has increased again.
It costs €75 for an internal appeal and €150 for an appeal to the Information Commissioner. There are significant reductions for medical card holders, for whom the fees for internal appeals and appeals to the Information Commissioner amount to €25 and €50, respectively. Appeals for personal information are entirely exempt from fees. An appeal to the Information Commissioner involves a quasi-judicial process and in most cases it can take many months and entail considerable work and effort back and forward. The fee is a fair reflection of the work done.
It is important to note that a person who appeals to the Information Commissioner receives a preliminary decision that represents a fairly accurate reflection of the likely final decision. This is the point I was making to Deputy Kenny. Even towards the very end of the process, the requester can withdraw the appeal and obtain a full refund of the fees charged. Some 30% of the appeals made to the Information Commissioner are withdrawn at this stage. The system is fair and not unduly expensive. Requests are entirely free if personal information is being sought. Most requests concern individuals or staff issues.
Will the Taoiseach agree that the fee should at least be refunded where the appeal is successful? This is reasonable. I cannot understand why the fee should be retained if the appeal is successful.
That is a matter for the Department of Finance. In any review that takes place, I will ask the Minister for Finance to take on board Deputy Gilmore's views on the matter.
To return to the kernel of these questions, the statistics, is the Taoiseach aware that the number of FOI requests made across the public sector in 2006 was 32% lower than in 2002? This points to the impact of the amending legislation of 2003. Requests for official and policy information as opposed to requests for personal information, in respect of which fees do not apply, as the Taoiseach stated, dropped by 55% between 2002 and 2006. Does the Taoiseach not accept that the statistics stand very solid in support of a comprehensive review of all the matters pertaining to the FOI process, particularly the impact of the amending legislation of 2003? In light of this information, will the Taoiseach undertake to ensure that a comprehensive review be undertaken to put the FOI system back on track in accordance with the manner intended at the outset? The cold statistics to hand would be damning enough if we were considering comparable numbers of bodies to which the legislation applied between 2002 and 2006 but they are even more grave considering that, annually over this period, more bodies were added to the list of bodies to which the legislation applied. In light of this, will the Taoiseach indicate his intent to carry out the required review and make appropriate amendments to the current legislation to allow citizens, communities and interested bodies make appropriate inquiries as they would wish?
I remind Members that the determination of fees is a matter for the Minister for Finance. The Taoiseach is only responsible for FOI requests concerning his own Department.
Regarding my Department, when the legislation was enacted in 2003 there was obviously pent-up demand on the part of individuals to make FOI requests. This has not changed and any individual seeking information about himself, in the first instance or on appeal, is not subject to a charge. There is no difficulty about this and the changes made in the 2003 Act have no bearing on it whatever. The legislation did have an effect on individuals who engaged in a trawl for non-personal information. The legislation was never designed so people could do this. It was not enacted so somebody could seek information on whatever came into his head and have public servants moved from other jobs in order to find it. Its purpose was to allow people obtain information that was important or which pertained to policy. It was not to allow people to do significant trawls to see if they could find useful information and then try to use it for commercial purposes. This was happening and the Act was to counter it. Such trawling was not unusual and it happened in other countries also. People had to allow the Act to settle down for a while and carry out their search.
The Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003 allowed us to bring about some kind of controllable order to address the matter of people spuriously sending in FOI requests when it was totally free to do so. The extension of the Act to public bodies has brought about a great improvement in the system. It is a matter for the Department of Finance. Last year saw the biggest ever extension of the FOI Act in that it was made applicable to 137 more bodies. The level of openness and transparency is such that there are now 520 bodies covered by the legislation compared to 67 before the 2003 Act. The goal of the legislation has been achieved and it should be hailed as an enormous success.
The Taoiseach made the point very well in his reply, where I had indicated that the statistics do not show the whole picture, that the extent of those bodies to which the freedom of information legislation applies is huge. There is an almost 800% increase in the number of bodies and yet the statistics show a huge reduction in take-up.
Does the Taoiseach not accept that the Information Commissioner's recommendations, based on her experience in that position, merit action on the part of Government? There is a requirement to carry out the review that people recommend. Does he accept that nobody here has suggested that the initial intent was to open up opportunities for people to trawl for entertainment purposes or whatever? Nobody has suggested that all the fees be absolutely scrapped, but they should be more token than punitive. Certainly when one moves towards the appeals process, the fee is prohibitive at €150.
There is a requirement, therefore, for a review, for which people here are arguing. Will the Taoiseach please take that on board and acknowledge the collective lobby of the Opposition groupings that are reflective of the Information Commissioner's recommendations in this instance? Will he indicate whether he will conduct the necessary review? Based on the information he has shared with us, there is a huge increase in the number of bodies and a significant reduction in the uptake so there must be something wrong.
The determination of fees and the inclusion of further bodies in the Schedule are matters for the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, not for the Taoiseach.
Each year the Information Commissioner produces an excellent report which is examined by the Department of Finance. The Department carries out that review on an annual basis and it is a matter for it to make changes.
It is a great honour to be elected to this House and to be able to ask the Taoiseach of this country a question. Does he believe it is right that I, as an elected representative for the people of County Mayo, should have to pay for information that concerns a citizen in this State? Will he consider that in the context of the freedom of information legislation?
I made a freedom of information request to the Minister for Transport on the Shannon issue. A newspaper got the information after I had made the request but it had to pay for it. I am open to correction but I believe I was asked for €300 or €400 for the information. I do not have a budget for that.
A serious complaint was made about a man to the local authority by a neighbour. All the man wanted to know was who had made the complaint. He had to make a request under the freedom of information legislation and had to pay €15. The local authority then asked for a further fee to examine the matter. That is not right. If somebody makes a complaint in a letter and signs it, the local authority should not require someone to make a freedom of information request but should just give the information. If I want information from the Taoiseach or his Department, I should not have to pay for it.
I do not wish to labour the point but the question of the determination of fees——
It is a very good question.
It is a very good question but it is one for the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance. That is the difficulty.
The Taoiseach wants to answer it.
If a Deputy wants information about something relating to my Department, he or she may table a parliamentary question and we will try to answer that.
I made the request to the Minister's colleague beside him and I was asked to pay €400 for the information.
If an individual wants information about his or her records, he or she does not have to pay.
I am talking about public information.
If he or she wants information about somebody else, one is getting into a different area.
The right to ask a question is very important in a democracy.
I agree.
A group from County Kerry made a freedom of information request on operations in Valentia and in Malin Head in my backyard, but that information was not forthcoming even after paying the freedom of information fee. I know it is not directly related to the Taoiseach's Department but the Minister beside him is at liberty to furnish that information.
I suggest, Deputy McHugh, that you deal with the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, during Question Time in that regard. You know as well I as do that we cannot wander all over the place.
I do. I refer to the issue of whether to pay money for information. We talk about Communism and Stalinist Russia, but it is impossible to get information here. A meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will be held next week. As a new Deputy, I find it very difficult to get information.
Sometimes the less one knows, the better.
I am not worried about myself but about the people. The people might not be as understanding on that point.
Sometimes freedom of information requests fall within the ambit of a Government decision, that is, between two Departments. In such cases, does the Taoiseach not accept that his Department has a role to sort the competences as one would expect in regard to a Cabinet matter? It is best if I give an example in regard to the Constitution and the Minister for Education and Science. Every child is entitled to attend school, but the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has argued that if people have student visas, their children cannot attend school. Members of the immigration bureau visited school children in their classes and told them they should be removed and that if they cannot attend private education, they could be deported with their parents. I asked a parliamentary question on that matter and I accept it was sent to the Departments of Education and Science and Justice, Equality and Law Reform. We will leave the contradiction aside, but in such a case, the issue is getting information.
Is the Taoiseach concerned that many of the quangos that have come into existence have made themselves immune to freedom of information requests? This is not about costs but about ordinary citizens submitting requests on policy matters. The process is long and unwieldy.
The Minister for Transport will be aware of issues concerning CIE. It is impossible to elicit from CIE how it decided to sell its property rather than seek money from capital funds for the national development plan. I presume the Taoiseach is interested in the national development plan. Citizens are interested in how CIE decided to sell off its sites to provide money for public transport. The Minister for Transport will answer my letters but how do I get an answer from a body such as CIE that will not answer me? It will answer if the Department of Transport writes to it.
There is a string of quangos to which power has leaked from Parliament. This is a matter for the Taoiseach and the Government. I am very amenable to co-operating in this regard, but I repeat something I said earlier in this session, that is, Parliament is constantly leaking its powers and responsibilities to unaccountable bodies that are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act.
The general policy in regard to freedom of information is a matter for the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, as Deputy Higgins knows.
That is not about cost, it is about scope.
The Taoiseach is only responsible for matters relating to his Department.
Surely his Ministers sometimes express their concerns to him on a good day.
What about a bad day?
If we get a freedom of information request in my Department on which we cannot give all the information, we part grant the information. Rather than ignore it, we at least try to deal with the policy issues with which we can deal. In approximately one quarter of all requests, we would at least give the policy information we can give. In terms of policy and without straying into other areas, Members of the House may ask parliamentary questions and there is the freedom of information process. In regard to CIE and major policy questions, however, such a body is answerable to committees of the House, to which it must answer for its policy decisions. That is a method of trying to get them to answer these questions.
Commemorative Events.
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will institute an annual commemoration of the Famine; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28179/07]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the way the money allocated by his Department for commemoration initiatives during 2008 will be allocated; if he is considering allocating any of this money for a national commemoration of the Famine; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29414/07]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:6 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the commemorative events under the auspices of his Department planned for 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30965/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together.
The Great Famine had a significant impact on Ireland, including loss of life and the transformation of Irish society, as well as establishing an enduring pattern of high emigration and the development of diaspora nations.
The Famine has been commemorated in recent years through the opening of the Famine Museum at Strokestown Park, County Roscommon in 1994; the unveiling of the National Famine Monument at Murrisk, County Mayo in 1997, which was replicated on the UN Plaza in New York in 2000; the installation of Famine figures at Custom House Quay, Dublin in 1997; and a similar installation unveiled last June by the President at the Irish Park in Toronto.
Earlier this year, I informed the House that I was positively disposed towards the establishment of an annual memorial day for the Great Famine. I envisage that the annual memorial day would be organised by various bodies with an interest in famine prevention and-or overseas aid at which the Government would be consistently represented. A recent example is the Holocaust Memorial Day, which was introduced in recent years and which is organised by a committee of representative organisations. I have arranged for the matter to be considered at official level with a view to having recommendations for an appropriate and sustainable commemoration.
Representatives from the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Arts, Sport and Tourism, the Office of Public Works and my Department are considering the appropriate timing and location for a commemorative event and the possible nature of the commemoration, reflecting the historic and terrible loss of life, the significance of the Great Famine for the Irish diaspora and the continuing issues of hunger and food security.
The possibility of financial support for the commemoration of the Great Famine will be addressed in the recommendations being prepared by the interdepartmental group. The interdepartmental group is expected to report shortly on proposals for an annual memorial day.
My Department will continue to co-ordinate the commemorative arrangements with regard to the 400th anniversary of the flight of the earls. The domestic programme this year included, in particular, events in Donegal on the anniversary of their departure in September 1607. Their journey across Europe will be commemorated next year with events arranged along the route and culminating in Rome. Suitable programmes are now in preparation in my Department, working in partnership with the relevant embassies of Ireland.
The arrangements for the annual commemoration of the Easter Rising, the national day of commemoration and the remembrance at the Memorial Gardens at Islandbridge will also be prepared under the auspices of my Department. Other themes and events may be adopted during the course of the year.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. We have discussed this issue on a number of previous occasions. I know it is not possible to have a separate day for every event where requests are made. The Taoiseach's establishment of a committee to look at a memorial day is the way to proceed.
The Great Famine was a catastrophic event, and in its own way was the cause of an outflow of people from here to the US, Australia and other places, which has consequences for the contemporary diaspora. Is there a timescale for the committee to report back? What is the outcome of that?
The Taoiseach has revived the 1916 commemoration day, which was an appropriate thing to do. A very big celebration was held two years ago, while smaller ones are planned for other dates between now and 2016, for which another Government has a long-term series of projections.
I am not sure about what is planned for the commemoration of the flight of the earls. The Taoiseach reminded me slightly of Hannibal's march on Rome. Will it be Ahern's march on Rome in 2009 when all those Ministers behind him tog out and head overland for Rome?
Under the legislation that is available, it is open to any country to mint a special commemorative €2 coin. This has been taken up in Spain, Finland and other countries. Has consideration been given to minting a special €2 coin to commemorate whatever event or person is in question, be it Owen Roe O'Neill, the flight of the earls or some other person from history? It seems to have been very acceptable in Finland and Spain and I believe it has been done in Greece. Perhaps the Taoiseach might comment on that.
In a commemorative sense, I know the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, spent €38,000 on sending out two copies of Judging Dev to every school in the country. Was that a commemorative tactic? What was that about? There is such a range of books about Irish historic figures. I could not contemplate what was the educational value of sending two copies of Judging Dev to every school in the country.
Punishment.
Maybe it was punishment. Perhaps the Taoiseach might comment on that. Was he aware of it? Would he like books about him to be sent out to schools so they could cast judgment on Deputy Bertie Ahern? Is there a strategy in the Department of Education and Science to do this kind of activity in the future?
It was a matter for the communications section.
Maybe it was commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Constitution but I am not sure. I am sure school libraries get a range of books.
Kingstown Republican.
There has been very active community involvement, both North and South, in the commemoration of the flight of the earls. They have just brought their 2007 commemoration to an end. There was an emphasis on the story at home, which is one of a time of change and progress in Europe. The Irish College in Louvain, where the earls found their initial refuge, and the history of the Franciscan scholar, Luke Wadding, were featured this year and will be featured next year. They managed to put a few of these together and I believe they are continuing that next year. I do not think it is a very big event.
In respect of the commemoration of the Great Famine, I think we agree it is appropriate to have an annual memorial. I was pressed here about it last year and earlier this year. There is no doubt about the significance of the Famine in history and our official commitment to humanitarian relief. I would like to make it a meaningful day rather than a day when nothing happens. If we could try to place it in the context of how we suffered from famine, the fact that others still suffer from famine, what we do as a country in respect of overseas development aid which involves one of the highest figures in the developed world and the fact that so many of our NGOs are modern-day missionaries and that lay people are now doing this work, it could be a worthwhile effort. I do not want it to start off and to become nothing very quickly. It requires a bit of thought. I hope the report will be available shortly. I think they were aiming to have it by the end of the year.
I welcome what the Taoiseach said about the plans to commemorate the Great Famine. That is appropriate and the way he proposes to go about it is the right way. Does he anticipate that preparations will be sufficiently advanced to have a commemoration of the Great Famine in 2008?
In respect of the commemoration of the flight of the earls, it is quite interesting to hear the Taoiseach's statement that it is planned to commemorate it along the route through Europe. Does the Taoiseach have plans to emulate the Great O'Neill and Red Hugh O'Donnell and take flight and seek refuge in Europe?
A Deputy
His descendents can make wine.
I hope we can have it for 2008. As soon as I have the report of the committee, I will give it to the House because a number of people have taken an interest in this. We will then see how we can proceed. I hope we would get it going by 2008.
I have a number of quick points. In respect of the so-called Famine, does the Taoiseach have any difficulty in referring to it as such? It was an imposed hunger on the Irish people at a time of plenty. It equated with the genocide of the Irish people at the time and we must not lose sight of that. There was not a famine in Ireland. The potato crop failed and the people died in their millions or were forced to leave our country at that time.
I agree that that terrible tragedy that was visited upon us should be commemorated nationally and by the State. I ask the Taoiseach again to elaborate on what he might consider in that regard. When is it planned to hold a meeting of the all-party consultative committee on the 1916 commemorative programme? There has not been a meeting since the new Dáil has been formed. Has there been any further development in the Taoiseach's thinking and the Government's disposition towards the funding request for the film on the life of James Connolly, which was mooted and which the Taoiseach is on record as welcoming and supporting in principle? Can the Taoiseach provide further information on the Government's position in that regard?
St. Patrick's Day 2008 will mark the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Fenian movement, the Irish Republican Brotherhood, one of the most influential bodies of Irish political thinking in our history. Are there plans to mark the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Fenian movement in Dublin? What does the Taoiseach suggest might be appropriate? As an opening suggestion is it possible we might look again at the quays of this great city, one of which still bears the name, and commemorates the rule on these islands, of the so-called Famine Queen, as she was referred to by many Irish people, Queen Victoria? Is it not appropriate to revisit that quay? As it is directly across from the Croppy Acre, maybe it could become Fenian Quay?
Deputy Ó Caoláin has put forward a number of suggestions and I will give them to the commemorative committee in my Department for examination. I am not aware if there is a particular commemoration or if an organisation has requested funding regarding the Irish Republican Brotherhood.
We received proposals from some organisations on commemorating the great Famine. I stated that the best way to do so was to bring together the relevant officials from the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Arts, Sport and Tourism, my Department and the Office of Public Works, as well as anyone else these officials meet from time to time to examine timing, location and nature of a commemorative event. We must try to do something enduring because the request in the House and outside is to reflect the historic and terrible loss of life, the significance of the great Famine for the Irish diaspora and the continuing issues of hunger and food security. We can examine the role modern Ireland plays and the contribution it makes to the world, particularly where hunger is still prevalent and rampant. I have asked the committee to examine this. I wish to make sure that, if the commemoration is focused on a day, organisations are involved and it becomes a meaningful and respectful day. They are the only terms of reference I would suggest as well as the correspondence we have received from organisations. I await the committee's report.
My apologies to other Members offering but I must move on because, by order of the House yesterday, Private Members' business must take place at 12 noon today.