Skip to main content
Normal View

Departmental Records.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 3 March 2004

Wednesday, 3 March 2004

Questions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

Enda Kenny

Question:

1 Mr. 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. [1022/04]

View answer

Enda Kenny

Question:

2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of files withheld by his Department from the National Archive in respect of 1973; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1026/04]

View answer

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the files transferred to the National Archives in respect of 1973; the number of files 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. [1191/04]

View answer

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Question:

4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of files for 1973 in his Department released to the National Archives under the 30-year rule; the number withheld; and the subject matter of the files withheld. [1579/04]

View answer

Joe Higgins

Question:

5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the number of files in respect of 1973 withheld by his Department from the National Archives; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3708/04]

View answer

Trevor Sargent

Question:

6 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the number of the National Archives files in respect of 1973 which have been withheld by his Department; the subject matter of the files withheld; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5657/04]

View answer

Oral answers (24 contributions)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.

The evaluating of files for release to the National Archives is carried out by designated officials in my Department. I have no role in that process. It is usual, as files are processed for release each year, that some are certified by the appropriate official for retention on the grounds set forth in the Act. I am informed that the number of files certified in this way in respect of the January 2004 release was six. In all, a total of 720 files or file parts were transferred to the National Archives by my Department to be released for public inspection on 1 January 2004.

Of the six files retained, one file was retained under section 8(4)(a) of the Act, four were retained under sections 8(4)(b) and (c) and one under section 8(2) of the Act. It is also the responsibility of the statutorily designated officials to determine the particular subsection in accordance with which files are certified for retention.

The National Archives contains information on myriad topics relating to the past 30 years. I note that one file concerns a paper presented by Defence Forces intelligence which prepared a confidential document entitled, Military Implications of Ireland's entry to the EEC. That document predicted that the future development of the then EEC would result in the adoption of a common security or defence policy. It stated that no country can realistically hope to participate in all the activities and benefits of the Community and withhold her contribution in this one field. With the benefit of the passing of 30 years of history, will the Taoiseach comment on this?

In the context of a European constitution with which the Taoiseach is attempting to grapple, we are moving towards a common defence and security entity becoming a reality. Does he consider that as a member of the European Union, Ireland should participate in the discussions that will lead to the setting up of that architecture, whatever it may be, rather than standing idly by and having agreement reached on some form of common security and defence entity without any participation by this country in those discussions or on its make-up?

This has nothing to do with the National Archives Act 1986 or the release of papers under the 30-year rule. However, if Deputy Kenny wants a short reply, under the discussions on a European constitution, which took place following the Convention, we did engage in discussion. The paper Deputy Kenny discussed from the archives is the old paper from the Cold War period. I have no comment to make on that. Thankfully, those times are long gone. The Deputy can take it that we will participate in the discussions on a common foreign security and defence policy as we go forward, but it is not relevant.

Can I ask another question?

Not on the same line. The Deputy has gone well outside the scope of Questions Nos. 1 to 6.

I did not hear all of the Taoiseach's reply due to the noise of Members leaving the Chamber. Will he repeat the outline of the contents of the documents withheld from public access and the reasons for this?

As I understand it, one was withheld under section 8(4)(a) of the Act; four were withheld under subsections (b) and (c) and; one was withheld under section 8(2). The ground for retention under section 8(4)(a) is public interest; the ground in 8(4)(b) relates to information obtained in confidence; and section 8(4)(c) relates to the stress or danger of defamation. Section 8(2) relates to where a file or files are in regular use in a Department and their transfer to the National Archives would seriously interfere with the administration of the Department. The latter case is rarely used. Perhaps one file a year is retained on that basis.

Some 720 files were released this year and only four were withheld. The grounds for retention always relate to security grounds or where information has been given in confidence, which is the case with all four files retained on this occasion.

Will the Taoiseach explain the validation process for documents transferred to the National Archives? Is it the Secretary General of each Department who stamps whatever documents are transferred? Who makes the final call on files that may or may not be transferred? I ask this in the context of the Barron report on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in regard to documents due to be released next year. Unfortunately some files are inexplicably absent.

I saw the Taoiseach give evidence before the House sub-committee on that grave issue. I do not know if he has any reason to believe that any of the files missing, particularly those from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, are likely to be found, mislaid or misfiled or if there is any explanation for how files on such a critically important issue are not available.

The current position in my Department, which I think is the same as in other Departments, is that certifying officers are in charge of the process. In my Department there are four certifying officers, all of at least principal officer grade, as required by the Act. I am told that other Departments have similar arrangements. The names of certifying officers are published in the annual report of the director of the National Archives. The procedure for many years has been that all files are handed over to the National Archives unless there is a security content.

On the issue of the files referred to in the Barron report, I said in the past that I understood investigations took place in Departments. I said this in the House and before the sub-committee. I probably should not have used the word "investigations". I do not think there was much investigation. This took place a long time ago and there is confusion as to whether the files ever existed. That seems to be the argument. Whatever files exist will be put in the public domain. It leaves a lot to be desired about how things were done during that period. I find it difficult to obtain clear answers as to whether the files ever existed and if they did not exist, why people said they did in the first place. It seems an extraordinary period when loggings of the records were there but there is no clarity as to the actual existence of the files. References suggest that they may have been added to other files, but it is not clear. As I said in the House previously and to the sub-committee, this is an undesirable position. That applies both to the Garda files and those of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Am I to understand from the Taoiseach's last response that he is now wrestling with the possibility that the files that have gone missing might not have existed at all, despite statements on record to the effect that they existed and have gone missing? In my question, I purposely asked the Taoiseach to outline the subject matter of the files withheld, but he has not done so in his reply. He indicated that six files were retained under a range of sections. Will he outline their subject matter, in line with the practice of the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is one of the few Departments that outlines the subject matter of files withheld?

Given that a number of files in the list of files that other Departments, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, have withheld related to incidents in Border counties, do any of the files withheld by the Taoiseach's Department relate to similar matters, such as the damage to property in Cavan caused by the British Army in 1973? This is one of the indications in the withholding note of the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Department of Defence issued newspaper cuttings recently about the Littlejohn brothers. Given that the Taoiseach's former colleague and former Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, had been briefed on the Littlejohn affair——

The Deputy does not have to discuss the files in detail.

If I finish my sentence, it will become apparent that my question is in order. Are any of the files withheld now or previously by the Department of the Taoiseach relevant to the issues I have directly alluded to, particularly given that these people were involved in clandestine activities on this side of the Border?

Given the renewed focus on collusion, can the Taoiseach tell us if relevant files in his Department have been withheld recently or otherwise that would shed more light on all the various areas of collusion that have been raised and addressed in this House, not only in recent times? Will the Taoiseach now consider this given the importance of the full exposure of whatever detail he may have at hand?

Deputy Ó Caoláin has asked me a number of questions. The procedure in my Department and others is that officials decide what is released under the National Archives Act. As I said, the policy is to release as much as possible. One will see from the figures that this was the case this year and every year. A total of 720 files or parts of files were transferred to the National Archives this year and only six were withheld. I do not see those files and I have no call regarding what is released, but I am given information on the sections of the Act under which the files are withheld.

As I stated, the six files were retained under section 8(4)(a), (b) and (c), which state that an officer may certify that making files available for inspection by the public would be contrary to the public interest, might constitute a breach of statutory duty on the grounds that they contain information obtained in confidence or might cause distress or danger. I am told that almost all the retained files were withheld on security grounds and concerned information given in confidence. The names of the files are not given because this would identify the individuals in question. They are not the subject matter.

Other Depart-ments——

Allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

He is inviting me——

Deputy Ó Caoláin is entitled to contribute only when the Chair calls him.

Other Departments do.

My Department could release a file on a public office, one of the museums or the Royal Hospital, for example, but if a file was on Joe or Mary Bloggs, its release would involve identifying that person. That is the only reason for withholding them.

On the basis of a question I asked, I can say to Deputy Ó Caoláin that all the files withheld in my Department in recent years, including this year, were given to Mr. Justice Barron. Even though they were withheld from the archives, he had total access to them and nothing was withheld from his report. As I replied to Deputies Rabbitte and Ó Caoláin, Mr. Justice Barron has investigated these matters and there is no point in my saying any more about missing files. The Garda and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform have also considered the matter.

The Deputy asked about files released in recent years. Very few files would be withheld. The Jack Lynch files for last year were all released. Nothing from them was withheld and there were no distractions from any of these papers. This brings us to the end of all the Jack Lynch files for this period. The files from 1973 are now all in the public domain.

Does the Taoiseach believe there is a clear likelihood of further problems regarding the National Archives, not unlike those referred to this morning, given that the capacity problem will worsen as the number of State papers doubles, as expected? My figures, which pertain to the years up to 2030, suggest the number will double from 265,000 at present to 600,000. A considerable number of files will be very difficult to keep for 30 years under the 30 year release arrangement because of the lack of space. Does this problem not need to be addressed urgently by the Government?

Does the Taoiseach believe the criteria for the withholding of information need to be re-examined? The Department of Defence has certainly a reputation for restricting many files and there may be justifiable reasons for this. However, is there not a danger that serious injustices will be perpetrated if there is a culture of restricting files? There is a case before the court which I do not want to allude to, but if an Army officer lost a job over 30 years ago and this was left to cloud over——

That certainly does not arise out of Questions Nos. 1 to 6.

I am talking about the criteria for releasing files under the National Archives Act, and that does arise. When somebody has not been able to clear his name on the basis of a mysterious decision to restrict files, it is a very serious matter and needs to be dealt with. Will the Taoiseach reconsider the criteria and the culture of restriction of files, particularly on the part of the Department of Defence?

The questions deal with the Taoiseach's Department, not the Department of Defence.

In my Department, the culture is certainly different. Even in recent years, which have comprised a difficult period in Irish history, my Department has attempted to release as much as possible. One can see that only six files were withheld this year and 720 files or file parts were released. This has also been the order for the past few years.

On the capacity issue, the volume of business of the State and Departments has obviously grown dramatically. Obviously this must be kept under review. The Act is not yet 20 years old but I am sure it will be kept under review.

On personnel matters in my Department, the practice is that former members of staff and certainly current members have access to their own files even without the freedom of information. However, access to files would be linked to the Freedom of Information Act. Except where there is a security ground, there is no difficulty in these issues.

Top
Share