Vol. 655 No. 3
1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the interdepartmental group established to monitor the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10011/08]
2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if the interdepartmental group established to monitor the terrorist threat in the aftermath of September 2001 is still functioning; when the group last met; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11367/08]
3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the purpose and remit of the interdepartmental group on security established in the wake of the 11 September 2001 atrocities in the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15229/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
Having regard to the confidential nature of the work of the National Security Committee, it would not be appropriate to disclose information about the dates of individual meetings nor any of its proceedings.
The committee is chaired by the Secretary General to the Government and comprises representatives at the highest level of the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Defence and Foreign Affairs and the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces. It is concerned with ensuring that I and the Government are advised of high level security issues and the responses to them, but not involving operational security matters.
The committee meets as required and will continue to do so. In addition to their meetings, the members liaise on an ongoing basis to monitor developments that might have national security implications, in particular in the international arena.
I raised this matter with the Taoiseach's predecessor on several occasions and was informed that people with direct links with al-Qaeda cell groups were living in this country and were under close scrutiny by the Garda. Since his accession has the Taoiseach been briefed by security authorities on this matter? Will he comment on whether there is any evidence of al-Qaeda-linked cells operating in or living either in the Dublin area or in the country?
Is he also aware of the clear threat of international terrorism in that al-Qaeda has threatened to target the forthcoming European football championships? In view of our proximity to the west coast of Britain, is the Taoiseach satisfied that the protections in place at Sellafield will stand up to any possible threat or attack? Has he consulted on this matter with his counterpart, Prime Minister Gordon Brown? If he has not discussed this with Mr. Brown, is it his intention to do so, in light of the statement from al-Qaeda to target the forthcoming European championships?
We are all aware in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks and other more recent outrages of the scale of the threat posed by international terrorism. While there are no grounds to suggest that Ireland is at particular risk, the security services maintain a high state of vigilance. They are also in regular contact with other security services and there is an ongoing exchange of information and intelligence through fora such as Europol and Eurojust. It would not be appropriate to speculate on the matter of what persons may or may not be linked to terrorist organisations, except to assure the Deputy that the Garda Síochána closely monitors the security situation on an ongoing basis. This would include any activities that might pose a threat to international security.
The committee has an advisory role to ensure the Taoiseach and the Government are apprised of high-level security issues and the responses to them. The security services keep in close contact on these matters.
Can I take it the Taoiseach will raise the matter of security with his counterpart, Gordon Brown, when the opportunity presents, particularly in light of the European championships?
On the Order of Business in the House last week I raised the matter of damage to a number of vehicles during transportation to Chad. The Taoiseach will be aware that this is a logistically complex and very dangerous operation. Can I take it he has spoken to the Minister for Defence and that the necessary arrangements are in place to ensure our troops there are properly and fully equipped and that if these vehicles have either to be repaired or replaced this would be done forthwith?
What is the view of the Taoiseach and the Government of the threat posed by dissident republican groups on this island? He will be aware of the Independent Monitoring Commission's 18th report which refers specifically to Óglaigh na hÉireann. It states that in the period of the 18th review, this group was more than likely responsible for the murder of Andrew Burns in County Donegal on 12 February 2008. This is the first murder attributed to this group. The Taoiseach will be aware that in December 2007 Óglaigh na hÉireann launched a pipe-bomb attack on Strabane PSNI station. The report also refers specifically to the Irish Republican Liberation Army, the IRLA, and its involvement in the centre in the Ardoyne area of Belfast. The report is very specific in its references to these two groups. The IMC states in the report that all of these groups are aware of the publicity attracted once an incident occurs. Has the Taoiseach had discussions on this 18th report of the Independent Monitoring Commission? This is an objective and independent report. There is a clear threat of whatever magnitude. Has the Taoiseach an up to date position on this matter? Has he a current estimate of the numbers involved, whether it is ten, 20, 50 or less than 100? Is it the Taoiseach's considered view that either of these groups, or both of them, have the capacity to carry out a major act of violence either in the Republic or elsewhere on the island of Ireland? Is that the information available to the Government? Perhaps the Taoiseach could comment.
Earlier I said in relation to terrorist threats that the security services are constantly monitoring and liaising with other security services, as appropriate, to deal with that matter. I do not think there is any benefit in saying more about it, other than that, so it will not be misinterpreted one way or the other.
The situation in Chad is outside the remit of these questions. Operational matters are dealt with by the Minister for Defence. If the Deputy tables a written or oral parliamentary question to that effect, he will get an accurate reply.
As regards the question of dissident activity, the IMC report was positive but there is always a problem with some small dissident groups. Thankfully, our security services, including the Garda Síochána, have been very successful to date in ensuring the nefarious activities of such groups have not brought about the mayhem, or worse, that they have been contemplating. Monitoring has been taking place successfully in this respect and we are glad to report that such attempts have been thwarted. Gardaí will be particularly mindful of that issue in their efforts to quell any activity from that quarter, which has no mandate from anyone and must be dealt with firmly within the law. That includes bringing criminal proceedings where necessary and where evidence can be obtained and collated. It is an ongoing operational matter that the Garda Commissioner and his senior colleagues are co-ordinating. I commend them for the work they have been doing so far. I hope they will continue to be successful in thwarting those who seek to undermine everything that everyone else is trying to achieve.
What are the numbers?
I will come back to Deputy Kenny, but I am calling Deputy Gilmore.
The specific questions are about the operation of the committee and I appreciate that, for understandable reasons, the Taoiseach does not want to get into the committee's operational work. However, will the Taoiseach provide a general assessment of the extent to which people may feel reasonably secure that the Government and the State's security services, working with other security and intelligence services, are on top of the threat from terrorism? People are going about their normal business and are travelling abroad on planes or ships, as well as attending major events. Can the Taoiseach give them an assurance that our security services, working with other security services, are on top of the threat from terrorism? What is the Taoiseach's assessment of the situation in this country? Are we talking about a relatively small number of people who are posing, or are likely to pose, a terrorist risk?
The Government is satisfied that the necessary structures are in place to obtain, assess and act on intelligence concerning the threat posed by terrorism, including international terrorism. The highest priority continues to be placed by the Government and the security services on identifying and countering any threats that may have implications for this country. Obviously, there is ongoing liaison both bilaterally in terms of working with other intelligence services and also in the context of Europol and Eurojust, which is another indication of the importance of the European connection in this matter in terms of security and justice matters generally. Given the nature of terrorism and what it represents, there are absolutely no grounds for complacency. One must be mindful of the need to continue to monitor to the greatest possible extent. There are no guarantees in this line of work but, as I said, we are satisfied the necessary structures are in place to obtain, assess and act on intelligence and considerable resources are devoted to that effort. This has become more complex in view of the international nature of it. The source of that terrorist activity has changed. Clearly, it poses continuing challenges in terms of being able to track people who may be suspect or who may need to be monitored for any period they happen to be here. That depends very much on the level of co-ordination with services outside this jurisdiction.
A significant effort is being applied internationally and within the European Union also to deal with that matter. I do not think it serves any purpose for me to say any more than that since it is an operational matter dealt with by those charged to deal with it who are expert in that area and who have considerable experience, unfortunately, in terms of our own domestic situation in trying to keep tabs on some of these activities.
I wish to pursue a little further with the Taoiseach the extent, or his assessment of the extent, of the terrorist threat or the terrorist related activity within the State. The Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 allows the Garda to obtain the personal telephone records of persons who are suspects for terrorist offences which carry prison sentences of five years or more. The last year for which figures are available is 2006. According to those figures, 10,000 requests were made by the Garda in 2006 for access to personal telephone records. That is approximately 30 per day, which would suggest that the extent of terrorist related activity is much higher within the State than most of us would have thought. Will the Taoiseach indicate why such a high number of requests were made by the Garda for access to personal telephone records in its investigations on terrorist related activities in 2006?
We cannot draw an inference from the numbers mentioned by the Deputy as to the number of people who have been genuinely suspect; in other words, that relates to calls as I understand it. Therefore, in terms of a question, the matter could best be placed before the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who would have a more direct line of responsibility for this matter than me. I am simply advised generally as to the situation through the national security committee. I do not think the inference the Deputy may be drawing is necessarily the case in terms of the numbers being monitored.
Has the interdepartmental group in question discussed the implications of the Government's ongoing accommodation of US military flights at Shannon Airport en route to its war in Iraq? Given that we are currently hosting an international conference that is addressing the whole issue of cluster munitions, whose intent I wish every success, what assurance can the Taoiseach give that the flights using Shannon Airport are not themselves transporting cluster munitions to its war arena in Iraq?
Does the Taoiseach agree that, as these questions are all in the context of post-11 September 2001, there are, indeed, security implications and that we would have justification in being concerned for the people who are employed at Shannon and those who live in close proximity to it by the ongoing presence, regular and recurrent, of US military aircraft and with all the questions that have arisen and have not been satisfactorily answered in relation to the potential use of that facility and those planes for the transportation of prisoners by means of rendition, a term which has entered into the vocabulary? Does the Taoiseach not accept that the assurances of what I regard as the discredited Bush regime in relation to the whole matter of the war in Iraq are not sufficient, are simply not good enough and do not quell the justifiable concerns, questions and fears of the Irish people? Does the Taoiseach not believe that it would be appropriate to assuage public fear and establish the truth of the matter that the Garda should be instructed to carry out routine and regular checks of these aircraft to establish whether they were transporting prisoners and whether unacceptable munitions such as cluster munitions were being accommodated on such flights?
The role of the committee that is the subject of these questions is to ensure that I and the Government are kept advised of high level security issues and the responses to those issues. The committee has no role in relation to the wider policy or political issues of the type raised by the Deputy and, therefore, they are not relevant to this question.
I do not understand how these matters would be irrelevant to the remit of the committee. Our understanding is that this is an interdepartmental group on security established in the wake of the attacks of 11 September 2001. Surely the potential for an attack, which has been raised on many occasions by different voices in the wake of the events of 11 September 2001 and in the fact that the Government continues to accommodate US military overflights and landing opportunities at Shannon Airport, is very much within the remit and context of the interdepartmental group's brief.
We cannot have a debate on the issue.
I am asking the Taoiseach to clarify the reason he can make the claim that the interdepartmental group does not have a function or role in addressing these matters. Surely the group should have such a role if it is tasked with addressing national security issues. Surely this is a matter of national security concern which would merit address by this interdepartmental group. Will the Taoiseach explain why the group has apparently not addressed these matters heretofore? Will he not now consider that it should address them?
No, Ireland has made overflight and landing facilities available to the United States for more than 50 years. This matter had nothing to do with the setting up of the interdepartmental committee, nor is it relevant to it. Aircraft wishing to carry munitions of war on Irish territory can only do so with the permission of the Minister for Transport in the case of civilian aircraft and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the case of foreign military aircraft. There have been no applications for the transport of such munitions. As I said, the arrangements that are in place in Shannon Airport have been in place for decades under successive Governments.
Will the issue be irrelevant until something happens? The Taoiseach's answer is incredible.
As Members will be aware, Ireland, as a neutral country, is not part of any common defence pact and there are no plans to change that position in the immediate future. While I do not intend to overstate the position, does the Taoiseach agree that if the interdepartmental group were to examine the attacks of 11 September 2001, it would immediately ascertain that we could do nothing in the event of a similar incident taking place here? Are plans in place to deal with the possibility, however remote, of a similar event occurring here? Are there plans to purchase equipment to permit us to deal with such an event?
The Deputy will be aware that emergency planning is a separate issue which comes under the aegis of the Department of Defence. The Department deals with contingency planning in that area and what the military would be required to do to assist in the event of any such attack taking place. Considerable work has been done in the emergency planning area. The office of emergency planning was set up shortly after the events of 11 September 2001 to co-ordinate the work of the various emergency services in preparing contingency plans. The task force on emergency planning, which is chaired by the Minister for Defence, meets frequently to assist in that role. If the Deputy has further queries on the policies formulated since then, he should direct them to the Minister for Defence. The national security committee informs us of high level security matters, but we do not get involved in the operational aspects.
If evidence became available that an aircraft was coming in over the Atlantic with a terrorist intention, such as flying into a building, has this committee a plan in place to deal with it? We have no capacity to deal with it at present. Was a specific plan put in place by this committee to call in assistance so that the State could deal with such a situation?
A few years ago there were a few scares about the circulation of anthrax and other poisons in Ireland. Is there a plan to deal with that element of terrorist activity, be it by al-Qaeda or any other group? Has the committee any contingency plans in place to deal with these admittedly unlikely situations? Rather than just saying it is somebody's responsibility, are there plans that can be put into operation if something like that happened?
Military contingency planning is about making preparations for these worst case scenarios. That is precisely what our military people do. They put in place arrangements in the context of contingency planning. I do not have that detail here, but the Defence Forces are very professional and they are in a position to provide for all eventualities. I do not know the specifics of what assistance would be obtained in dealing with that matter, but it would be in place.
4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during February 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10013/08]
5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department in the first two months of 2008; the way this compares with the same two-month period in each year from 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11368/08]
6 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department in the first three months of 2008 compared to the first three months of 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15230/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together.
I propose to circulate in the Official Report a table showing the figures requested by the Deputies regarding freedom of information requests received in my Department. All FOI applications received in my Department are processed by statutorily designated officials in accordance with the Freedom of Information Acts 1997 and 2003. In accordance with those Acts, I have no role in processing individual applications.
|
January |
February |
March |
Total |
|
|
2002 |
20 |
12 |
14 |
46 |
|
2003 |
21 |
29 |
30 |
80 |
|
2004 |
1 |
8 |
2 |
11 |
|
2005 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
6 |
|
2006 |
9 |
1 |
4 |
14 |
|
2007 |
14 |
1 |
8 |
23 |
|
2008 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
10 |
|
Total |
71 |
59 |
60 |
190 |
Does the Taoiseach agree that the changes introduced by the Government to the Freedom of Information Act have seriously curtailed the right of the citizen to find out what is going on in certain areas, agencies and organisations? The Taoiseach is always interested in outcomes and delivery. Is he happy that many of the Departments in the public service fail consistently to provide on time the information sought under the Acts? There is a specific requirement that even if the information is restricted, it should at least be delivered on time, but that is not happening in a range of areas.
The Information Commissioner issued a report at the tenth anniversary conference on 15 May. She stated there is no good reason that key bodies, such as the Garda Síochána, the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, vocational education committees and their schools, the State Examinations Commission and the CAO, should not be subject to the scrutiny which is provided for under the Freedom of Information Acts. She says there is no justification for this state of affairs in Ireland and that we are the only country where practice is significantly out of line with virtually all of the 70 other countries where freedom of information legislation applies. It is not that these bodies are deliberately doing something illegal but should it not be the citizen's right to find out what is going on, why and how decisions were made?
Does the Taoiseach agree with the Information Commissioner's report on the tenth anniversary of the Freedom of Information Act that it should be extended to bodies such as those listed so that this can be made more open? We are campaigning in favour of the Lisbon treaty on the basis that the Council, the Parliament and the Commission will sit in public and let people see what is going on and how decisions are made. In our country, we are out of line with 70 other countries where freedom of information applies. While nothing illegal is being done, does the Taoiseach agree it should be made more open?
I remind Deputy Kenny and other Members that freedom of information issues are a matter for the line Minister, the Minister for Finance. The Taoiseach is not the line Minister but if he has a contribution to make I will not prevent him.
I was about to make the point that the Minister for Finance is responsible for its implementation, review and extension. When freedom of information legislation was first introduced, it applied to 67 bodies or agencies. The largest extension took place in 2006 when I was Minister for Finance and I extended it to a further 137 bodies, giving a total of 502 regarding the number of bodies to which freedom of information applies. It has increased from 67 to 502 bodies in ten years. While the Information Commissioner speaks of it being out of line with 70 other countries, my recollection of the Bill being brought before the House by a previous Administration was that it was quite progressive in terms of the method by which information can be sought. My recollection is that it is far less restrictive than is the case across the water. I cannot discuss that in detail today but I can give my impression.
There has been a broadening of the bodies to which this legislation applies and whether and how it should be extended beyond the current number is a matter for ongoing consideration by the Minister for Finance. There is nothing axiomatic about the figure of 502 at present. It may well be extended in the future. The report to which the Deputy refers was issued recently and may obtain consideration within the Department and by the Minister in due course.
I do not agree that the 2003 changes greatly restricted freedom of information. It is quite the contrary; there are far more bodies to which it applies. The idea was to bring balance to the situation and ensure that we have appropriate use of the Act. Personal information is available in all situations for people to whom the Act applies. It is important that this is done in a timely manner, that there is an internal review situation and that appeals can be made. I am not aware of the specifics to which the Leader of the Opposition refers. In the main, the Act, as applied by various officers in charge of its implementation, is applied at arms length from the heads of the organisations concerned and works quite well.
The Taoiseach referred to the Minister for Finance, who attended and spoke at the tenth anniversary of the Freedom of Information Act event. He caused a great deal of depression by his refusal to countenance any reversal of the charging regime for the making of applications under the Freedom of Information Act and for——
The Deputy will be aware that the issue of fees is a matter for the Minister for Finance.
Yes. I am drawing the two issues together. The Minister is refusing to change the fee regime. The Information Commissioner has stated that the fee regime is causing people not to make applications. The table which the Taoiseach promised to circulate, of which we have not yet had sight but which I presume will be in line with previous replies, will show there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of applications made under the Freedom of Information Act since the introduction of the fees.
Another aspect of this is the review of the legislation. The Information Commissioner has asked for the extension of the Freedom of Information Act to additional bodies and the Taoiseach has responded to that request. The commissioner, in the course of her address to the tenth anniversary event, asked for a thorough review of the Freedom of Information Act. Does the Government intend to carry out a thorough review of that Act? What direction will such a review take? Will it focus on increasing or further restricting application of the Freedom of Information Act?
I do not accept application of the Act has been further restricted given we have been extending the numbers of bodies to which it applies. I have just explained to the Deputy that in 2006 alone, during my time as Minister for Finance, I extended it to a further 137 bodies. I do not accept, therefore, that our attempt is to restrict it.
Deputy Gilmore referred to fees which are, in the first instance, a matter for the Minister for Finance. I understand there are no plans to review fees. The current system of fees was introduced in 2003. A fee of €15 is modest particularly when compared with the estimated average administrative cost of €485 for processing a freedom of information request. I do not believe anyone could argue this is unreasonable or that it discourages responsible FOI requests.
It is important to point out that there is no charge for the time taken to examine the records sought with a view to determining whether they should be released. There is no charge for access to personal information. The fees have not been increased since their introduction in July 2003. Regarding appeal fees, it is €75 for an internal appeal and €150 for an appeal to the Information Commissioner. There are significant reductions for medical card holders, the fees for whom are €25 and €50 respectively. Appeals concerning personal information are entirely exempt from these fees.
An appeal to the Information Commissioner is a quasi judicial process that can require many months to complete and can entail a considerable amount of work. The fee in this regard is a fair reflection of the nature of the appeals process and of the costs and time involved. It is important to note that a person who appeals to the commissioner receives a preliminary decision which is a fairly good indication of the likely final outcome. Even at this late stage in the process, the requester can withdraw an appeal and obtain a full refund of fees paid. I understand that approximately 30% of appeals made to the Office of the Information Commissioner are withdrawn.
Arrangements are in place to examine whether the Act can be extended to other groups of bodies including the Law Reform Commission, the last remaining body under the aegis of my Department to be included. The Minister for Finance reviews these matters on an ongoing basis. As I understand it, there are no proposals to extend the Act to the Garda Síochána. While this has not been ruled out in the future, the matter is not currently under consideration.
Is the Taoiseach considering any changes to the Freedom of Information Act, in particular, in respect of the claims expressed in the OECD's recent report that requests for freedom of information should be free? Has that particular section of the OECD report been brought to the Taoiseach's attention? It acknowledges that applying fees has addressed some of the frivolity involved in requests but it also knows and has evidence that it is a prohibition to genuine information being sought and accessed. I know the Taoiseach is holding to one line of reply, but this is not only about the Information Commissioner. The OECD report and substantial independent opinion believe the fee structuring is prohibitive. How will the Taoiseach reply to the OECD report recommendations?
Is the Taoiseach aware of the issues highlighted by the Information Commissioner with regard to the roles and functions of Departments or other bodies prescribed under the FOI Act being moved to newly established bodies with the records moving with them? Heretofore, the records were under the attention of the FOI Act and were accessible. Now that they are under a new body not yet listed they are not accessible for FOI inquiries.
Two examples were cited. Records previously held by the Department of Transport transferred to the Road Safety Authority on its establishment in September 2006. The Road Safety Authority is not one of the listed bodies. Records once accessible under the FOI Act are no longer so. The establishment in 2006 of the Property Registration Authority which took over the functions of the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds is another example of public record information previously accessible under the FOI Act no longer being the case. Does the Taoiseach consider that part of the core criteria of establishment of new bodies such as the Road Safety Authority and the Property Registration Authority should be that they are automatically registerable under the terms of the FOI Act?
These are questions proper to the Minister for Finance and there is no compulsion on the Taoiseach to answer them.
We will not compel him.
If the Taoiseach wishes to give a view it is a matter for him. Deputy Ó Caoláin is asking the wrong man.
Questions on these matters are more properly put to the Minister for Finance.
The Taoiseach was there himself.
Having held the office, in fairness I suppose the point made by Deputy Ó Caoláin should receive due consideration. If records were available under the FOI Act and are now held by new bodies not in the existing orders I am sure the Minister for Finance will examine the logic of having people in the new agencies competent to deal with the matter. This may involve a short period of training people and acquainting them with what is required and in due course bringing them into the FOI regime. I do not see any reason this should not be the case.
One of the Taoiseach's responsibility is contact with Northern Ireland. Under the Freedom of Information Act in Northern Ireland, there is widespread availability of information for citizens on the PSNI. This is denied only in specific and exceptional circumstances. Now that the Garda Síochána is being reformed, does the Taoiseach have a view on whether the FOI Act should be extended to it?
I look forward to the Minister for Finance coming to the House with a new and broad range of proposals on the Freedom of Information Act. In the past, he expressed himself as a liberal on these issues, stating that people should have access to this information, that the Government, its agencies and public departments do not do anything illegal and therefore citizens should be aware of these things. I look forward to the Minister for Finance, with the imprimatur of the Taoiseach, telling us what he will do.
I welcome the Taoiseach's reply which indicated an acceptance of the merit of what I sought to establish out of the question concerned. Will the Minister for Finance heed the point on the establishment of these new bodies? My supplementary question was not answered. While the Information Commissioner's position has been discussed, will the Taoiseach take on board the OECD report recommendations? Does he intend, on the collective weight of all these independent views, to re-examine the FOI legislation?
As the Deputy will be aware, I have established a task force to advise us on how we should go about implementing the OECD report and we should await the outcome of its deliberations. We want a situation where public services are provided as efficiently and effectively as possible and in the spirt of FOI legislation, which balances the issue of people having access to information in the public interest and preventing a range of requests that put the public system to considerable expense and time, but may not have a public interest element. The information might be interesting to some people but whether it is of public interest in the wider commonly understood sense of that term is a different question
