Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during October 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41190/10]
Ceisteanna — Questions
Freedom of Information
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of applications received under the Freedom of Information Act in the first ten months of 2010; the way this compares with each year since 2002; in respect of the 2010 applications, the numbers granted and the numbers refused; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42573/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
Ten freedom of information requests were received in the Department of the Taoiseach in October 2010. Some 91 requests were received during the first ten months of the year, of which 70 were granted or part-granted and four were refused. No records were held in nine cases, while three requests were withdrawn. Five requests are ongoing. The comparative figures for the first ten months of each year since 2002 are: 2002, 113; 2003, 133; 2004, 39; 2005, 49; 2006, 48; 2007, 58; 2008, 59; 2009, 82; and 2010, 91. All freedom of information requests received in my Department are processed by statutorily designated officials in accordance with the Freedom of Information Acts. I have no role in processing requests.
The Freedom of Information Act 1997 applies to the Department of the Taoiseach in the same way that it applies to every other Department. It was introduced as a means of bringing transparency and accountability to governance. Some time ago, the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, Deputy Allen, said that although the Freedom of Information Act provides for information to be given to individual private citizens, legal difficulties arise when the same information is sought by a body like the Committee of Public Accounts. I am sure the Taoiseach, as a former Minister for Finance, would not be pleased with such a situation. The intent of the Freedom of Information Act was to allow citizens and anyone else to access information about the way the Government is run. We support that. Surely there is something wrong when the HSE says it might encounter legal problems if it provides to the Committee of Public Accounts information that it can provide to John Citizen on the street. There seems to be something wrong there. I know it is not directly related to the issue of costs, or the number of requests that are made to the Department of the Taoiseach. In certain circumstances, these problems with requests could arise in that Department as well. Does the Taoiseach not think we should examine the system and free it up so it operates in the manner that was originally intended?
The Freedom of Information Act provides for citizens to obtain relevant data and information regarding their own particular position, as set out under the legislation. That is fine for people who require their own personal data and information. As the Deputy knows, data protection legislation means that not everyone's personal records or data should or could be available to a wider audience. Various countervailing provisions in legislation ensure those rights are respected as well. The wider issue of the possibility of prejudicing existing legal actions comes into play when decisions are being made on what information is available and when it can be made available. These constraints apply to freedom of information legislation, in line with the general principle that constitutional and natural justice should be afforded to all concerned, including State agencies against which suits have been taken and the individuals concerned, or whatever the case may be. These general principles are applied in each individual case. Therefore, the level of information that is available has to work within the broad legal parameters that exist. The overall position is that freedom of information legislation has been extended to various agencies over many years. That continues to this day. We have seen extensions of the legislation in a whole range of areas. That happened as the legislation bedded down and evolved. We gained experience of how it was working, what way it was working effectively, and how we could move it along. We cannot postpone legal considerations. At the same time, we obviously have to try to ensure there is as much transparency as possible, consistent with those legal principles.
On the general principle, obviously the Freedom of Information Act has been constrained by amendments introduced by the former Minister, Mr. McCreevy. The Freedom of Information Act was used by the Fine Gael Party to gain information about FÁS and the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and had that not been so, a lot of things might have remained covered up, as it were. As the Information Commissioner said, the Ryan commission of inquiry into the abuse of children in institutions might not have been necessary had the Freedom of Information Act been in operation a number of years ago. Given the number of quangos and agencies still outside the scope of the Act and based on the Taoiseach's comment about the general principles, does he agree it would be a good idea to have all of these covered under the Act so that any citizen wishing to obtain information about governance or the activities of authorities or agencies should be able to do so, an exception being very sensitive information?
The Deputy is broadening the question.
I realise I am slightly off the question but I am only following on the Taoiseach's own comment about general principles and it is something that Members of the Oireachtas should take as a matter of course.
When the Freedom of Information Acts were introduced they applied to about 67 public bodies and they now extend to more than 500 public bodies, an eightfold increase in the number of organisations to whom the legislation applies. This indicates to me that there has been an extension over time to include many areas of activity which were not initially contemplated to be included. I am sure they were contemplated but the legislation had to start somewhere and these were included over time with a wider application of the Act. I do not think there is any disagreement on that point. Some changes were introduced arising out of the operation of the Act as there were indications that the freedom of information legislation was being used almost as a trawling exercise all over the place. This resulted in a significant use of time and effort with no specific objective in mind other than to find a whole heap of information. The purpose of the legislation has to be to provide information but to do so in a way that meets objectives. It was designed for individuals or others seeking information rather than people having to trawl all over the place and people not being sure what information was being sought. In my view, the appeals mechanism and fees process put in place have not compromised to any extent the work of legislation and, quite the contrary, as there has been a few extensions of this legislation.
Now that the Government appears to have agreed to requests for a reform programme for Ireland in the context of the discussions with the European Union and the IMF, will the Taoiseach agree that one of the critical items for reform will be to restore the Freedom of Information Act which was pretty much filleted by the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act which the then Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, introduced in 2003? This amendment significantly increased the charges——
The Deputy is really broadening the range of questions. The questions are, by and large, of a statistical nature and they are being broadened out to the policy position.
No, I asked if the Taoiseach agreed that in the reform programme or reform agreements that are mentioned, there is mention in the documents and in the four-year recovery plan of a reform of practices. Does this reform include the reform and reinstatement of the Freedom of Information Act which was filleted by the then Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy? Second, a number of the institutions——
The line Minister for freedom of information requests is the Minister for Finance.
Institutions that are specifically excluded from the Act or are not comprehensively covered include the National Treasury Management Agency, the National Pensions Reserve Fund and the Central Bank.
With regard to the issue of cost, I have put in a number of requests since the establishment of the bank guarantee about interactions between the Department of Finance and Anglo Irish Bank, and have been obliged to go through appeals and reviews. Does the Taoiseach think that Deputies who are members of committees and so on should be obliged to spend considerable amounts of money making requests under the Freedom of Information Act? So little information is supplied to this House that we have no alternative. This is quite important information that should be in the public domain.
The Deputy will need to table a separate question on this issue——
It is a Second Stage speech.
——which, although important, is not contemplated under this range of questions.
The detailed application of the Act is a matter for the Minister for Finance but, based on the information I have before me, I will put some facts on the record that may be germane to the questions being asked. The system of fees was introduced in 2003 when Mr. McCreevy was Minister for Finance. A fee of €15 could be regarded as modest, particularly when compared to the average estimated administrative cost of €485 for processing an FOI request. I do not believe anyone could argue that a fee of €15 is unreasonable or discourages responsible requests. It is important to note that there is no charge for the time taken to examine records sought to determine whether they may be released; nor is there any charge for access to personal information. The fees have not increased since their introduction in 2003, although there has been a continuing increase in the number of requests received by my Department in recent years.
An internal appeal costs €75, while an appeal to the Information Commissioner costs €150. There are significant reductions for medical card holders, with fees of €25 and €50, respectively, for internal appeals and appeals to the Information Commissioner. Appeals concerning personal information are entirely exempt from these fees. If the contention is that the objectives of the freedom of information legislation have been thwarted by the introduction of what is regarded as a reasonable fee structure, I do not think this is borne out by the evidence.
An appeal to the Information Commissioner is a quasi-judicial process that can require many months to complete and entail a considerable amount of work. The fee is a fair reflection of the nature of the appeals process and the costs and time involved. A balance must be struck with regard to the availability of information and people's right to seek information, and the seeking of personal information is exempt anyway. In view of the fact that in recent years, in my Department at least, there has been an increase in the number of freedom of information requests, and given the cost to the taxpayer of the implementation of the legislation, a reasonable balance is being struck.
I do not believe the information has been filleted, as has been suggested. The fact that information is now available from 500 public bodies rather than the original 67 is an indication that, over time, there has been considerable expansion of the freedom of information provisions.
Questions about financial matters are best put to the Minister for Finance himself. However, we have implemented significant changes in financial regulatory structures. The Minister, as we know, has introduced legislative proposals relating to the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland. Significant issues relating to the confidential and commercial sensitivity of much of the information within the possession of that organisation, the international framework of its operations and its role in maintaining and protecting the financial stability of the State would have to be taken on board in any consideration of the scope of the Freedom of Information Acts being extended. That would be regarded as a reasonable premise. The question of commercial sensitivity and what is in the public interest is an issue where public bodies have commercially sensitive information given competition, competitiveness and others issues in terms of that information not being available in other jurisdictions.
The scope and application of our Freedom of Information Acts compares favourably with our nearest neighbour and other jurisdictions. A balanced view would suggest that the overall scope and application of the information legislation is significant and at the same time sensitive to obvious factors that must be considered in the context of what in the public interest as well.
Following my request with regard to Anglo Irish Bank it was revealed to me that in late December 2008, some months after the guarantee, the talks between Anglo Irish Bank and the Department of Finance involved discussions on €1.5 billion of funding from the State and €1.5 billion to be raised by the bank through private capital. It is useful to get such information.
The programme for Government contains a reference to obtaining environmental information through the Aarhus Convention. I realise this was probably an item from the Green Party but, if it was not, has the possibility been pursued in Government by either Fianna Fáil or the Green Party that freedom of information should be extended under the Aarhus Convention?
We cannot broaden this segment of Question Time as you are trying to. You are going to have to find another way.
We addressed these questions last February. At the time I called on the Taoiseach to comment with regard to the view that the banks had lobbied strongly, and apparently successfully, not to have NAMA included under the Freedom of Information Act. The record shows the Taoiseach indicated at the time that there was no evidence of this and that the Taoiseach's view was that it should not be included. Has the Taoiseach been presented with any evidence since that the banks were indeed proactive in this regard? Has the Taoiseach's view changed in any way in the period since then? Does the Taoiseach agree not only that NAMA but also the banks should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act given that they are now almost all in State control?
We are broadening the base of the questions.
This was alive in February and I can only bring it forward in a natural tangent. The Taoiseach indicated at the time that we were suggesting that people's accounts be opened up to public scrutiny. That is not the case nor was it then. However, I am referring to the management of the banks, the remuneration of management, detail on interest fees and other charges, the value of the banks and balance sheet information.
Deputy, you are moving too far from the base of the question.
Has the Taoiseach noted the evidence given by the representatives of NAMA to the Committee of Public Accounts in recent weeks in which they indicated that the banks had been supplying them with false information? Surely, this is a serious matter.
Deputy, will you co-operate with the Chair?
Were the Freedom of Information Act to apply it would help to ensure that the banking institutions operated under full scrutiny and transparency in this regard. Let there be no doubt, these are the same banks which have brought the economy to virtual ruin at this stage and into which we are pouring billions of euro of taxpayers' money.
As I said earlier regarding making financial information available, banking laws and legal parameters are set out. We are operating in a commercially competitive environment. No one would suggest, given the investment taxpayers are making in intervening to maintain a viable banking system, that we should put the banks at a commercial disadvantage.
Freedom of information legislation does not apply to commercial State bodies. If increasing public ownership of our financial institutions comes as a result of the financial crisis and the need to provide a way forward, we would not suggest putting those institutions at a commercial or other disadvantage against those with which they are competing. It is not sensible when there are other companies in the same sector being excluded from the ambit of the freedom of information legislation. Why should one put one's organisations at such a disadvantage, particularly when it is an area with issues of legitimate commercial sensitivity?
NAMA has a commercial mandate to obtain the maximum return for the taxpayer. It is required to enter into complex commercial negotiations and settlements with financial institutions and must be in a position in which it can do so. I do not hold any brief for false information or people not being frank. That is an issue that will have to be dealt with by NAMA in its dealings with the various institutions.
We must take into account issues of our own interests and commercial sensitivity in these matters. We cannot defend these if we decide to throw open all information regarding the institutions, given that there are other institutions in the same market which could gain a commercial advantage as a result. We must work within existing laws to maintain confidence among depositors and ensure a viable financial system.
It would be better for the Deputy to table a direct question about the Aarhus Convention to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I understand the Department is working closely with the Office of the Attorney General to complete all the necessary steps to ensure Ireland's ratification of the convention as soon as is practicable. In 2010, the High Court made a judgment in a case the Government took against a decision of the Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information, details of which I have given in previous replies.
I have a beagáinín supplementary question.
I will allow it but the Deputy must be brief.
The Taoiseach spoke about confidence in the banking system but people have no confidence in it. We need certainty. This proposal would not disadvantage the banking institutions or NAMA. There is basic information which should be readily available, I believe, given the banks are now, to all intents and purposes, State institutions and we are bailing them out at enormous cost.
Questions Nos. 1 and 2 relate to freedom of information legislation but the Deputy is moving into another area entirely.
Regarding the banking system, the people have been asked to buy a pig in a poke. The people have no idea of the risk factors involved; it is like looking into a dark hole. Each and every family has been severely affected by the banking crisis. There is not only merit but an absolute case for ensuring basic information on the governance and activities of the banking institutions is made compulsorily available in the public arena. That is not to disadvantage one against the other; it should apply to them all.
Will the Deputy submit a question to the line Minister on this matter?
They all ought to be treated the same. Will the Taoiseach, accordingly, give my proposition his serious consideration?
Is that a beagáinín question?
It is for Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Questions for the operation of financial institutions are a matter for the Minister for Finance to ensure up to date and accurate information. There are valid and legitimate issues of commercial and financial sensitivities regarding freedom of information and the banking institutions.
The wider policy issues are to be considered on a continuing basis by the Dáil through a series of parliamentary questions and legislation.
With regard to freedom of information requests tabled to my Department, I have indicated that the ambit of the legislation is considerable. There has been a history of expanding it to cover a wider group of public bodies over the years. Issues relating to commercial State bodies are different to those concerning non-commercial State bodies. However, that does not mean that they are not accountable. They are accountable through their boards and to Oireachtas committees and various investigations are ongoing in that respect. With regard to freedom of information requests, the situation is as I have outlined it.
National Reform Programme
Joan Burton
Question:3 Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach the preparations his Department has undertaken in preparation for the implementation of Ireland’s national reform programme in the context of the Europe 2020 agenda; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41649/10]
The Europe 2020 Strategy has been adopted as a successor to the Lisbon Strategy for Jobs and Growth. Its goal is to enable Europe to emerge stronger from the current economic crisis as a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy. The strategy addresses the major challenges facing Europe today, including the economic crisis, climate change, globalisation and an ageing population. The June European Council confirmed the five headline targets which will guide member states in preparing and implementing national reform programmes, along with integrated guidelines for economic and employment policies.
An initial draft of Ireland's national reform programme is expected to be submitted to the Commission shortly, with the final version due next spring. Clearly the national reform programme will be strongly informed by the four year plan, which the Government published last week. There have been recent discussions between Irish officials and relevant officials from the European Commission on the draft national reform programme and these discussions will continue concerning the national targets and finalisation of the national reform programme next year. Arrangements for the implementation of the national reform programme will be established following its publication in the new year.
I understand that the first draft of the national reform programme was due to be sent to the European Commission by 12 November 2010. Will the Taoiseach confirm to the House whether or not such a plan has been submitted? Will the Taoiseach elaborate on the interaction and overlap between the national reform programme and the four year plan? Is the latter plan, in effect, the same as the national reform programme?
There is a reference in the national reform programme to stakeholders — including parliamentary oppositions and civil society — being consulted. Will the Taoiseach comment on whether he proposes to do so?
It was agreed that we would hold back the draft programme until the four year plan was agreed because that was the priority as far as the European Union was concerned. Arising from that work, we can now turn to the draft reform programme, which will incorporate the four year plan.
The five headline targets that have been set out are for employment, research and development, climate change and energy, education and social inclusion. Work is ongoing on the formulation of Ireland's national targets. Targets in some areas are close to finalisation but work remains to be done in other areas. Initial considerations of the national targets will be submitted to the European Commission as part of the draft plan. The final one, to be submitted in the spring, will contain definitive targets for Ireland.
It is clear that some of the targets in the Europe 2020 process will be challenging for us. We are working closely with the European Commission to ensure that national targets are meaningful, achievable and sufficiently ambitious. It is not a requirement that the targets for Ireland should match EU targets. Instead, each member state, including Ireland, is expected to set national targets based on its own particular circumstances. We will continue to engage positively in the process. The targets are not legally binding. However, they are focused on areas the Government has prioritised and, as such, they are complementary to existing policy. The reform programme will contain an introductory section, a section on the macroeconomic scenario and surveillance and a section on horizontal and methodological issues. National targets will form the centrepiece of the programme and work is ongoing. The reform programme should be seen as complementary to the wider economic strategy.
In the context of the national reform programme and targets, does the Taoiseach accept the view of the European Commission, given yesterday, that the most Ireland can hope for growth in 2011 is 0.9%, as opposed to the Government's forecast in the four year plan of 1.75%? The Commission's view yesterday is significantly lower than what the Government set out in its four year plan. Does the Government accept the European Commission's view as stated by Commissioner Olli Rehn on the likely growth forecast?
With regard to the Stability and Growth Pact, will the national reform programme have to be in agreement with it? I asked the Taoiseach about the role of stakeholders specifically referred to in the plan, including national parliaments, Opposition parties and stakeholders in civil society. The reform programme strongly suggests all of these should be consulted. Where stands the reform programme and the four year plan in respect of the European Commission's revised estimate for Irish growth at 0.9% if the four year plan has priority?
Various targets and scenarios are set out by various organisations, including the European Commission, the OECD, the IMF, the ESRI and the Department of Finance. One can consider a range of growth scenarios. The assumptions we made in respect of our plans reflect a knowledge of the flexibility of the Irish economy, its resilience and its broad base. In many cases, the models used in continental Europe, which has a different demographic profile, do not take into account the flexibility of the labour market in this country compared to some continental countries. That has always been a difference in the modelling that takes place.
Regarding engagement with various stakeholders, the process represents a framework at EU level, which allows for a structured approach to measures and initiatives likely to be needed over coming years. In this context, engagement with the social partners is desirable and worthwhile. Initial contacts began before the summer break, when meetings took place at official level. These were an opportunity for social partners to express the views of their sector on the strategy as was emerging at that time. A number of them have recently made written submissions in respect of the preparation of Ireland's draft national reform programme. As the Government continues to prepare that programme for submission next April, I anticipate further engagement with social partners and other stakeholders.
With regard to engagement with the Oireachtas, a cross-departmental delegation of officials discussed the Europe 2020 strategy with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs on 3 June. I expect further engagement with that committee early in the new year. Regarding engagement with regional government, officials from the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Finance attended the joint meeting of Ireland's representatives on the Committee of the Regions and the Association of Irish Regions last Friday. Officials briefed delegations on the process and invited written submissions. We anticipate further consultation with regional interests in the new year.
When he met the Opposition parties some ten days ago, Commissioner Olli Rehn indicated that he accepted the Government's growth forecast of 1.75%. Yesterday, very shortly after he made that statement, he said he had changed his mind and his view of Irish growth is that it will be 0.9%. Given that the Commission is the one who appears to be acting very toughly in terms of the bailout for the banks and the cost to this country, can the Taoiseach just brush aside Commissioner Rehn's view that growth next year will be only 0.9%? Can he simply put that down to differences in calculating growth between the mainland of Europe and the island of Ireland? When Commissioner Rehn came to Dublin, he met the Opposition parties. He met the Government as well. He said he was standing by the Government's growth forecasts but yesterday he repudiated those forecasts and cut them in half. Is it sufficient simply to say that he counts in a different way? It seems very odd to me. It also seems quite damaging.
I urge the Deputy to ask a short supplementary question, as promised.
How does one square that circle? What growth forecast will the Government use for the national reform programme? Does the Government take the Commission's view on the Stability and Growth Pact or does it pick whatever it feels like picking?
It is not a question of picking what one feel's like picking but of looking at the various assumptions that are made in various forecasts. As the Deputy is aware, forecasts are based on various assumptions. Whether one agrees with them all or not depends on what one's experience of the economy has been. Prior to this crisis, in the previous ten or 15 years the Department of Finance on annual averages has been as close to actual outcomes as anyone else. By definition, forecasts are forecasts. The four year plan has been adopted by the Government. It has been agreed as the basis for the reforms that must take place and the fiscal policies that have to be implemented. We have signed up to the targets of €6 billion by 2011 and €15 billion by 2014 that have been outlined in it. The issue that arises from the programme, as the Deputy is aware, is that while doing that, if at the end of that process — these programmes are subject to annual review so this clearly will be a matter——
Quarterly review.
There is an annual review in the programme itself and surveillance and monitoring on a quarterly basis.
Very detailed monitoring.
Yes, of course.
A policeman riding shotgun.
It will be a matter for Governments between now and the end of the programme to decide if they wish to take up the funding based on the terms and conditions that apply. That is the issue. One cannot predict too far into the future given the volatility of bond markets at the moment but one would hope at some stage that some degree of normality would return and we could go back into the markets at a time when rates will better than are now available from any source. These are issues that must be considered and dealt with in the appropriate way as we go forward, but on the basis of providing a security of funding for the country in order to find the time and space in which to deal with the reforms that must be implemented for the purpose of bringing financial stability and obtaining a way forward that will provide us with sustainable growth. There is no doubt that based on market conditions at present that this is the best option for the country. The forecasts that we have set out are based on the Department of Finance's proposals having listened to all and looked at all of the issues. We must proceed along those lines. There have been times when the forecasts from the Commission have proven to be correct or incorrect. It depends on market conditions and many other factors. We have seen very fast moving issues in the past 12 months which confounded all of the best forecasters.
Three of the Europe 2020 goals are reducing the number of Europeans living below the poverty line by 25%, in other words by 20 million people, of the 80 million currently in poverty across the European Union, raising the employment rate and reducing the number of early school leavers. How can the Taoiseach square these goals with his Government's intention of cutting social welfare payments and the minimum wage? It is hardly going to assist people getting out of poverty. How can the number of early school leavers be reduced when capitation grants to primary and secondary schools are to be reduced and third level student registration fees are to be increased? How can an IMF-EU deal and a four year plan with no job strategy or stimulus for growth raise the numbers in employment? Everything the Government is about runs contrary to the stated objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy.
I do not agree with the contention made by the Deputy. The policy framework that we are setting out is about stabilising the economy and then moving forward to growth for the economy, albeit recognising that very serious adjustments must be made. A precondition for growth, investment and increased resources for the State is the establishment of a growing economy, which cannot be established if there is a failure by Government to put to rights the financial stability of the State. No one could suggest that an investment profile would be positive if we are not prepared as a country to bring our finances into order.
If one considers our successive budgets, even in difficult times, the redistributive effects of much of what we have done has shown that, up until recent times at any rate, we have been able to provide standards of social transfer that far exceed European averages. If one looks at the progressivity of our tax system, where the top 8% pays 64% of income tax and 40% on working wages do not pay tax at all, it has been the result of a considerable effort made to improve the situation. Regarding the question——
It is the effect of reducing supply. The austerity cuts——
Please, allow the Taoiseach to respond.
The issue is what is sustainable for this country in the present circumstances and how do we ensure that we are in a position to promote policies of social inclusion. That last can only be done on the basis of sustainable finances. If one does not have sustainable finances, what one is really saying to people is that we will maintain the present level of provision for as long as we can but, as soon as we run out of funds, we will have to cut that by 40% or 50%. It is a far better proposition to get a sustainable level going forward and an adjustment over a period of years that would be sustainable and that would still compare quite favourably with our European counterparts.