Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the files which were released recently by his Department under the National Archives Act 1986; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3547/08]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
National Archives.
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of files withheld by his Department from the National Archive in respect of the year 1977; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3551/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of files in respect of the files transferred to the National Archive in respect of the year 1977, withheld by his Department; the numbers withheld under Section 8(4)(a) of the National Archives Act 1986; the number withheld under Section 8(4)(b); the number withheld under Section 8(4)(c); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1134/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of files withheld by his Department from the National Archives in respect of the year 1977; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4974/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
A total of 817 files or file parts were transferred to the National Archives to be released for public inspection on 1 January 2008 — and 12 files were withheld.
Of the 12 files withheld, one was withheld under section 8(4)(a) of the Act, seven were withheld under section (8)(4)(b) and (c), two were withheld under section 8(4)(c) and two were withheld under section 8(4)(a),(b) and (c).
I want to ask the Taoiseach a number of questions about the National Archives of Ireland. Some Departments are slow enough to send their material to the National Archives, principal among which was the Department of Education and Science, although I believe it has improved somewhat. It is a national embarrassment that the staff of the National Archives of Ireland, despite their first-class work, must struggle every year to put material into facilities that are completely inadequate in this day and age. I am quite sure the Taoiseach has received a report on this.
This matter is not just applicable to the Taoiseach's Government in that it has been applicable to other Governments for very many years. The under-funding of the National Archives of Ireland, which succeeded the Public Record Office, is severe. The storage area of the Public Record Office was blown up deliberately by those who were known as the Irregulars in 1922 but the remaining documents have still not been catalogued or examined. They contain the history of our country. I understand one of the documents blown up was 1,000 years old but the staff of the National Archives of Ireland still do not have the capacity or facility to put the remaining fragments together for future generations.
There is scope for building on the site at Bishop Street but, as the Taoiseach knows, national archive buildings require environmental facilities such as temperature controls. Buildings that become available under the decentralisation programme might be considered although a number of them are very old and historic and could therefore not be easily adapted. The Government and all of us as a people should certainly support the rehousing of the archives.
Will the Taoiseach indicate what reports he has received on how conditions might be improved? The staff of the National Archives of Ireland are doing magnificent work. The storage space is incredibly tight and this is just not plausible if the archives are to be maintained for future generations. That the remainder of the records destroyed in 1922 still have not been examined and catalogued speaks for itself. I implicate not only the current Government but all Governments.
I agree that the staff of the National Archives of Ireland do excellent work in the facilities available and in the given circumstances. Over the past 20 years, the volume of files being sent to the archives by Departments and agencies has increased substantially, and this obviously results in pressure.
I would have to get the up-to-date position but I know the Office of Public Works was considering obtaining a very large city-centre location for the archives. However, I believe there were difficulties in this regard because, as the Deputy pointed out, problems arose with access to the building and environmental considerations. The building was an old Georgian building on Parnell Square, the old Coláiste Mhuire site. Afterwards, the Office of Public Works considered some buildlings resulting from decentralisation. I will ask the office for an update on what it is doing in this regard.
It is obviously vital that the existing records be maintained for posterity. The staff of the National Archives of Ireland have done a lot of work in cataloguing. I do not have a record of exactly where that work has been done. The files are enormously important to the State. I do not refer to the current ones but to the historic ones. I understand the staff of the National Archives of Ireland have put a lot of effort into cataloguing over the past 20 years. Perhaps it is not a question of the volume that the staff had to deal with, but I will check.
The real problem concerns the significant increase in the space required to store the archives. I am told a fairly central location is required. Perhaps I will obtain a report from the Office of Public Works and send it to Deputy Kenny.
In finding a more suitable or appropriate location or a solution to the problem, the Taoiseach will have the support of the Fine Gael Party. I feel strongly that the National Archives are the history of our country and of our people and his Government and any succeeding Government should make arrangements to ensure these are properly exhibited and preserved, and that the facilities are made available to the staff to catalogue and detail them so that they are there for the next thousand years.
On the papers that were released, one that I noticed related to the fact that one of the Taoiseach's predecessors, Liam Cosgrave, ended the boycott on royal occasions which had been in place since the foundation of the State. Is it the Taoiseach's intention to have the Government extend an invitation to Queen Elizabeth of England to visit this State at some time in the future? There seems to be much speculation about this issue and perhaps he might comment on it.
I noted that the late Jack Lynch honoured his commitment to abolish domestic rates. One of the matters that seems to have been a cause of lingering difficulty for people is that in law one cannot allow for a reduction of rates. If, let us say citizen Dermot Ahern, who is seated beside the Taoiseach, does up his shop on the local street and improves the street scape, the local authority cannot give him a reduction for the effort made to improve the facade and the facility of his street scape. Is there any intention that, on reviewing the abolition of the rates, such a reduction might apply?
On the first question, a visit from the Queen of England to this country has been a matter of some debate for some time. Obviously, until the institutions were back up and running in Northern Ireland it was not a matter that had moved on any further than an aspiration that it would happen. It was hoped that, with the devolution of policing, the remaining issues outstanding from both the Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement would be complete and it was the Government's view that at that stage we could discuss the matter more seriously.
I know from over the past decade that she would dearly love to come to this country during her reign and that there has been some discussion around that, but she also understands the practicalities and difficulties of it. If the issue of policing is completed — it is scheduled to be completed and I hope that is the case in the very short term — then we could put our mind to that matter in a serious way. We are due to come back on it at that time and we would have an obligation to do so.
She has been around a little longer than the Taoiseach and I know that other members of the British royal family come here on a regular basis. Would that invitation, if it was to be extended, be as a result of a Cabinet decision or on the basis of an invitation from the President? Does the Cabinet make the decision to extend an invitation or does it come from Áras an Uachtaráin?
It relates to Head of State and it would be probably from Áras an Uachtaráin with the agreement of the Government. As I stated, it has been on the agenda for some years, albeit on a low level. It is something to which we should turn our mind, although it is unclear whether it can happen in the very short term. As Deputy Kenny will appreciate, a visit like that in its normal planning would take some considerable time. It will not be in 2008; it would take some considerable time to arrange. However, it is no secret that it is something the Queen would certainly like to do.
Was that an issue the Taoiseach discussed with Prime Minister Brown when he met with him recently or have there been any discussions at governmental level about the possibility of such a visit and how the arrangements might be made for it?
On the National Archives, the Taoiseach told us that 12 files have been withheld this year for various reasons. I appreciate he obviously cannot identify the files, but can he give a general idea as to the subject matter of the files concerned? What is the aggregate number of files now withheld from the National Archives going back over the years? Have any files related to the Dublin-Monaghan bombings been withheld? Have any files relating to the murder of Garda Richard Fallon in 1970 been withheld? The Taoiseach will recall that at the time this was the first murder of a Garda in the State for almost 30 years. Members of the late Garda Fallon's family have been on the public record recently expressing concern that there does not appear to be any file relating to his murder extant in the various Departments and the National Archives. Has any material relating to the murder of Garda Fallon been withheld?
On the question of whether there has been any Government discussion on a visit by the Queen, the answer is "No". It has not got to that stage. There has been no movement and it is unlikely to happen until the devolution of policing is completed. There has been no discussion on the matter over the years. Discussion has mainly been at local, official or embassy level and has not moved from that position.
Of the total of 818 files or part files transferred to the National Archives this year, 65 files were to do with Northern Ireland. Most of the files — I think all of them, subject to correction — from all the other sections of my Department would be given over in full. The only ones held back any year were to do with Northern Ireland. This year 65 files relating to Northern Ireland were released. Last year it was 55. No files were withheld, but of the 65 files, 48 were released without any abstractions. The comparable figure for last year was 44. Some 32 documents were extracted from files and partial abstractions from files were made on five documents. These abstractions were made under section 8(4) (b) and (c), namely, contrary to public interest, might constitute a breach of statutory duty or breach of faith on the grounds that they contain information supplied in confidence, or might cause distress or a danger to living persons, on the grounds they contain information about individuals or might be likely to lead to an action for damages or defamation.
I do not believe my Department would have had any files on Garda Fallon. That issue would relate to Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Any of the files we have are Northern Ireland based from the times and the earlier period of the Troubles and would relate mainly to contacts between officials on the ground, security briefings that would have been given by the police from Northern Ireland, and information coming to the Government during the period from various groups in Northern Ireland. Most of the abstractions identify people by name or would be sensitive information clearly stating who was providing information to the Government at the time.
With regard to files being withheld because they identify the names of people, resulting in distress for the people concerned, I understand from the Taoiseach that much of the withheld information has to do with the withholding of names of people who were supplying information. Over the past decade, has the number of files or documents withheld for that reason been on the increase compared to five or ten years ago?
We have a 30-year rule. Obviously, the period since 1969 would have seen a flow of information that was not there previously or since. We are already coming out of that period from 1969-1971. More files were released this year. Of the 65 files, 48 were released without any abstractions so we are coming to a period where there are not many abstractions and no files are being held back in total. We will see that continue. The period from 1969 to 1971, which was the most sensitive period because of the difficulties at that time, had the highest number.
I have a final supplementary question in respect of 8(4)(c), which relates to the withholding of documents where they would or might cause distress or danger to living persons on the grounds that they contain information about individuals or would or be likely to lead to an action for damages for defamation. If files are withheld for political reasons under that clause, what are the criteria used and is there is any political involvement by the Taoiseach or any member of the Government in the decision as to whether files of that nature are withheld?
We have no involvement. Officials make that determination based on the legislation. From what I have been told in respect of these matters, information at the time would have been given by community and church leaders and other individuals who would name people with no level of proof or examination of proof. It is the same as what happened in respect of the various reports we received from former Mr. Justice Hamilton and Mr. Justice Barron that intelligence from the ground might say a, b or c but that there is no level of proof in that. Information like that could not be put into the public domain.
Can the Taoiseach outline the process employed in making decisions to withhold files? The Act states that a Department may withhold a file if its transfer to the National Archives would be contrary to the public interest. Can the Taoiseach explain if there is a single officer entrusted with this assessment responsibility within each Department or whether there is wider consultation and if so, with whom? Does his Department have a specific overriding role? Is the Garda consulted? If criteria are laid down, have they ever been published? Would the Taoiseach object to publishing them so that we could all have a better understanding of how the process works?
In respect of the 12 withheld files mentioned in his initial response and their relationship to 1977 or previous years, has the Taoiseach, during his period in office, been aware of any of these files having a direct or indirect reflection on matters that would come under the broad umbrella of collusion between British state forces and loyalist paramilitaries, particularly their activities in this State 30 years ago and before then?
The evaluation of files for release is done under the 1986 Act but is carried out by designated officials in my Department. Neither my Ministers nor I have any role in that process. It is done under the legislation. As files are processed for release each year it is normal practice that some are certified by the appropriate official for attention on the grounds set out in the Act but this is a call for the official to make under the Act. I referred earlier to the sections of the Act. On the Deputy's question about provision being made to review closed files, that happens at five-yearly intervals from the date the certificate to withhold records is made and my Department complies with this statutory obligation. Files held back are subjected to a five-year review where circumstances might change and those files can then be released.
I do not have detailed figures but the numbers for the past five years amount to 55 files. There are four certifying officers in my Department, all at least of principal officer grade, as required under the Act. Other Departments have similar arrangements. The names of the certifying officers are published in the annual report of the director of the National Archives.
There is no secret about the process used. All files of more than 30 years old must be released unless they have been certified for attention by the certifying officer. They must be released unless there is a certificate issued by one of the four officers. The certifying officers in other Departments obtain the consent of an authorised officer of my Department so the Act provides for a connection with my Department.
Can we take it therefore that the anchorage of the determination of decisions regarding withholding of files by other Departments is located within the Department of the Taoiseach? The criteria employed——
The files from the other Departments would not end up in my Department.
They would not.
No.
Is it just within the Taoiseach's Department?
Yes.
Would there be corresponding personnel in each of the other Departments but perhaps not of that number? Is it because of the specific potential sensitivities of records associated with the Taoiseach's Department that it has a greater number of officers with that designation?
Have the criteria been published? What are the guidelines given to these deciding officers who issue this certification? Will the Taoiseach agree that publication of these guidelines would help public understanding of the process?
The Taoiseach quoted a number of sections of the National Archives Act 1986. Section 8(11) indicates that the Taoiseach may by order prescribe a particular class or classes of records to which a certificate granted under subsection 204 may relate and may by order, amend or revoke an order under this subsection. Has the Taoiseach ever exercised this power under section 8(11) of the Act to prescribe a particular class or classes of records that may or may not be transferred? If so, will the Taoiseach indicate to the House what classes of records he has so prescribed over his period in office?
I do not think I have ever invoked section 8(11) of the Act. I will check whether I have and I will inform the Deputy.
I ask the Taoiseach to come back to me with the information.
On a point of clarification, my Department has four certifying officers at principal officer grade. Other Departments have similar arrangements. I do not know how many are in each Department but each Department has certifying officers. The names of certifying officers are published in the annual report of the director of the National Archives. They implement the Act and their powers are set out clearly in the Act. Any other issues about what is retained are also dealt with in the report of the director of the National Archives. There are no hidden details.
There is not a list given of the files held back because in many cases the name on the file would give the information. Most of the files held back are not recorded — they are recorded in Departments but not publicly recorded for that reason. Then there is the five-year look-back rule, where it might become appropriate to release these files. Overall, with the exception of Northern Ireland, there are very few files that have been held back. In regard to files relating to Northern Ireland, a total of 55 were released to the National Archives last year. Two files were withheld under the 75-year rule of the European Court of Human Rights, while 45 were released entirely without redaction. Most of the files are now being released. Redactions mainly concern names. I do not know what the two files are withheld under the 75-year rule.
From recent Cabinet activities, it seems all Ministers are completely compliant with whatever the Taoiseach says. The release of the archives prompts me to ask whether the present Cabinet ever has any rows. There was a real spat between Pat Cooney and Richie Ryan about matters that the then Minister, Mr. Cooney, wanted to raise and the then Minister for Finance said he would not waste the time of his officials and would take up the matters at Cabinet directly. I note that the archives indicate that the late Michael O'Leary went on a solo run about a public holiday, that the hunger strikers caused a division with the Vatican and that President Hillery threatened to move out of the Áras if the Government did not deal with his transport problem. I suppose we have moved on from all these issues. When we read the releases, it reminds us of an energetic time in Irish politics. Are there any hidden gems we can look forward to being released in 30 years time from the current stock of compliant brilliant men and women who sit around the table with the Taoiseach?
The Taoiseach to confirm that all is sweetness and light.
The Ceann Comhairle is doing his job.
In 30 years as always there will be some interesting reading material. In fairness to the people who were involved 30 years ago, they had some very difficult issues to deal with. When we look back at some of the records of 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972, they were difficult and dangerous times. Looking back, there was the loyalist strike and some cross-Border issues when the SAS men were arrested in the South. I think a few politicians from the North were arrested in the South. Therefore, they were difficult times. Of course, we have friendly spats. I am not sure the Deputy will have to wait 30 years to read about them.
Interesting.
Legislative Programme.
Enda Kenny
Question:5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for the first half of 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3569/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for the remainder of the 30th Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1135/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:7 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for 2008 and the manner in which these priorities are identified; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4975/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, together.
The legislative priorities of the Government are set out in the legislative programme published on 29 January. My Department has one item of legislation on the C list, the Statute Law Revision Bill, the purpose of which is to review local and personal and private Acts enacted prior to 6 December 1922. While it is not possible to give a final estimate, it is hoped the heads of the Bill will be submitted to the Government in 2009.
I accept this may be slightly outside the remit of the Department of the Taoiseach but eight of the Bills were on the list for 2007, while nine are new. We have not enacted any legislation in this period. Why were nine of the 17 so-called priority Bills on the list of legislation for the autumn 2007 session not published and now reappear in the spring legislative programme? Is there a reason for this or is it that the Whip is being told by various Departments, and the authority that frames this legislation in the first place, that these things will come through although they do not? Of the original list of 17 Bills, nine of them were not published but they now appear on another list. What is the procedure involved and why was the Whip unable to provide accurate information when he published the list last September? In order to set a record in this session and pass some legislation, we may have to sit longer than was intended. The record in terms of productivity does not measure up that well as we enter into pay talks about productivity in many other areas.
Since the Government took office on 14 June 2007, 12 Bills have been enacted. To date this year, six Bills have been published. Legislation is regularly listed as a priority in Departments but it can take longer from the time the heads of a Bill are agreed, to drafting and dealing with legal issues that inevitably arise. Some of the Bills go back to Departments a number of times when trying to finalise agreement. The senior parliamentary counsel can be occupied full-time on some of the major Bills. For example, every year the Finance Bill takes several months of work following the budget. It is four months from budget day to the date of completion of the Bill. The work of the parliamentary draftsman, together with amendments on Committee Stage, and Report and Final Stages take up so much time. The Immigration Residence and Protection Bill, for example, can tie someone up full-time for several months and therefore other Bills can lose out in the pecking order, although they are important to the relevant Departments. Another example is the broadcasting Bill, which will be coming through shortly. The preparatory work on that legislation has been long and detailed. As I said here two weeks ago, there is a range of legal issues surrounding the fair deal legislation, which has taken time. A small number of Bills therefore can take an enormous amount of the parliamentary draftsman's time, with the result that other Bills are delayed. Most of the Bills on the list, however, will come through over the next month or so.
The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, wanted to push the fair deal legislation through in the two days before the Christmas recess. We always had an understanding that rushed law can be bad law. Given that the Taoiseach commented on the fair deal legislation, is it likely to come before the House in this session or shortly after Easter? Do the legal problems concern property ownership or what is the big obstacle?
As the Deputy recalls, we agreed at Christmas to consult the interested groups and the advice of the Attorney General was also sought. The Minister, Deputy Harney, is still dealing with that issue and hopes to bring forward the proposals after Easter. I have not been dealing with it directly but I know from conversations that it is possible to draft the Bill. There is no difficulty about the legality but there are enormously complex issues around it, which is what has taken the time. Having said that, a large amount of people are clamouring to get on with this but it will take a little bit more time.
I agree with Deputy Kenny that a very small amount of legislation is emerging from this Government in its post-general election manifestation. Among the Bills we know will be published is the referendum Bill to deal with the EU treaty. When are we likely to see this Bill? Has the Government set a date for the referendum? Can we now take it there will not be a Bill in 2008 dealing with a referendum on children's rights?
My questions are very much in the same vein as those of Deputy Gilmore. The first two questions he asked are straightforward. Will the Taoiseach clarify whether the referendum Bill on the Lisbon treaty will be published before Easter? Does he intend naming the date for the referendum this week? He must give a clear indication so that the debate can take place.
In regard to Deputy Gilmore's third question on the proposed constitutional amendment on children's rights, will the Taoiseach advise the House whether a final determination has been made to reject the idea of what was described as decoupling one particular area out of the broad raft of issues concerning children's rights? Is the Government determined to go ahead with a single constitutional referendum on children's rights? When does the Taoiseach envisage the Bill will be published? I am aware the deliberations on it are ongoing and that an extension of time has been sought by the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, but will the Taoiseach give us some indication? Is he looking at the end of this year or will it be 2009 or, as indicated in previous responses here, given that it cannot now take place in tandem with the Lisbon treaty referendum, does he foresee it being held back even further?
On Deputy Gilmore's first question, the legislation will be published on Thursday. That will allow us to proceed in setting up the referendum commission and giving it the 90 days it asked for. The election will take place at the very end of May or into mid-June. We did not fix a date.
Is the Taoiseach planning an election?
I refer to a referendum.
I wanted the record to be clear.
Deputy Ó Caoláin certainly would not want an election.
The Taoiseach is full of surprises.
The election will take place in June 2012.
So the Taoiseach keeps saying.
Deputy Ó Caoláin can rest easy.
I have always stuck to my word.
The Taoiseach's smile gets broader every time he says it.
On the referendum on children's rights, it is clear that the committee's work will not be completed until later this year. The decision has been made that we will deal with it in one aspect, without decoupling the issues. In my view, it will be into 2009 before the referendum takes place. Even if the committee finishes its work in the autumn, to allow for discussions between the parties so that we can come to an agreement and have a successful referendum, it will be into 2009. I have spoken to some of the leaders of the various children's interests groups and they want it to be dealt with as one issue. They are willing to wait until 2009 but we certainly hope it does not go anything beyond that.
Many years ago, when the committee system was being discussed, the whole purpose of the exercise was to refer the heads of Bill to committees. That seems to have fallen by the wayside. It is an ideal means of having the general principle of legislation discussed and debated and teasing out possible difficulties at committee level and, thus, on an all-party basis. In many cases, there is little political difference between parties on certain types of legislation. Will the Taoiseach, who is a former Whip, consider the possibility of restoring the original idea of referring the heads of Bills to committees, in line with his overall desire to reform this Parliament?
I agree with Deputy Barrett on this issue. We have been pressing this matter. There was a consultation process on the Internet before the House considered the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill 2006. It was a good exercise. I have asked other Departments to do the same thing. Some Departments are very good. My own view is that it is a very good way of teasing out and debating the submissions at an early stage. Legislation which may seem uninteresting to us all in here will be of interest to groups outside the House and the political system. They can build up a head of steam. The best way to allow them to have an input is to publish the heads of the Bills.
If committee debates on the heads of Bills are televised, special interest groups can see what is being discussed and make submissions in return.
I agree. We have done that with a number of Bills over the past few years. Some Departments seem a little reluctant to engage in this process. I have been pressing for more Departments to do it. It was of great assistance in the case of the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill 2006. There was a broad process of consultation not just within the Oireachtas, but also within the interested groups. It will improve the legislation that comes before the House. There will probably be far fewer issues than there would be if Bills were not considered in this way.
The Taoiseach should take up this suggestion.
I do not doubt that when the next Dáil session commences, some of the Bills which are currently on section A of the legislative list will still be on section A of the list. Deputies asked in the House about the status of the Charities Bill 2007 on numerous occasions before it was finally considered and passed. We were told that the delay in that instance was caused by problems in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. How many draftspeople in that office are putting Bills together at present?
I have previously given a detailed account of the number of parliamentary draftspeople. There are issues relating to the main Bills of the year, such as the finance and social welfare Bills, and other key Bills like referendum and immigration Bills. Such legislation ties up parliamentary draftspeople for a considerable number of months each year. When such Bills are given priority, other Bills are put on the back burner. While each year's social welfare Bill may not be complex, other Bills can take up a substantial amount of time. Each year's finance Bill can tie up senior draftspeople for the best part of four months, which is a significant portion of the year. The drafting of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008 also took a long time.
Delays are not always caused by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel — legislation can be held up by discussions within and between Departments on various issues. All of that has to be agreed before the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel can start to draft a Bill. When compared to other Parliaments, the Oireachtas passes a large number of Bills each year. The point was made earlier that we need to be more concerned about the quality of legislation rather than the number of Bills which are drawn up.