Micheál Martin
Question:4. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has reviewed the recent operation of the Freedom of Information Act in his Department. [40268/12]
View answerTuesday, 23 October 2012
Questions (4, 5, 6)
Gerry Adams
Question:5. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests that have been received by his Department since the beginning of the year. [44449/12]
View answerGerry Adams
Question:6. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he is satisfied with the operation of the Freedom of Information Act within his Department. [44450/12]
View answerOral answers (104 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together.
The statutory framework relating to freedom of information keeps the decision-making process and the operation of freedom of information at arm's length from the political head of the Department. The functions relating to freedom of information are carried out in my Department by statutorily designated officials, as envisaged in the Acts. These officials follow the guidelines set out in the decision-makers manual of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. I am satisfied that the processes being followed by my Department comply with the manual.
As the Deputy will be aware, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform is preparing legislation to implement the programme for Government commitments on freedom of information. My Department will implement any changes required by the new Act.
During the period 1 January to 30 September 2012, my Department received a total of 115 freedom of information requests.
One of the most obvious developments since the Taoiseach has taken up office is how often he makes claims for which he will not provide any backup. More than ever before, the Opposition and the media must rely on the Freedom of Information Act to check his claims and to seek information which should be in the public domain. In recent times the Taoiseach's Department has been invoking every legal route possible to prevent access to information. When I asked for details of the supposed attack on corporation tax, for example, the Taoiseach refused to release the information, claiming a diplomatic exemption.
Today I wish to ask him about a far more serious issue, namely his casting of a slur on his predecessor. In both this House and the Seanad, the Taoiseach repeatedly claimed that he had looked for files about the bank guarantee and how it came about but could not even find a single piece of paper on it. He suggested that perhaps the file was lost behind a radiator. Deputy Paul Kehoe chipped in with the suggestion that perhaps the file had been destroyed. Under a freedom of information request, the Taoiseach was forced to admit that there are actually 17 files in his Department, on top of a further 48 in the Department of Finance. Does the Taoiseach now have the basic decency to withdraw his false attack or will he continue to put partisan attacks ahead of everything?
I remind the Taoiseach that even though both he and the Tánaiste explicitly said, almost three weeks ago, that all information relating to the primary care centres should be released, we are still waiting for that documentation under a freedom of information request. Indeed, towards the end of last week, we received a reply to the effect that the Department wants an extension of a further four weeks before it will give us the documentation requested. This is not open practice. I do not know how the Taoiseach can be satisfied with the operation of the freedom of information procedures when an answer on an issue of such topicality, that has grabbed the imagination of the public for the last five or six weeks, is still not forthcoming. The Government is hiding behind the Freedom of Information Act and using it as a shield to prevent the release of information. The provisions of that Act are all we have left in terms of trying to find out the rationale behind the selection of additional primary care centre sites.
The programme for Government promised additional legislation but it appears that the Government is quite content to use the freedom of information process and to tell Deputies and Senators to utilise the provisions of that Act to obtain information rather than pre-empting such requests and providing information in the House. The Government should be trying to ensure that key questions about important topics raised by parliamentarians are not long-fingered or delayed for four weeks or more, in the hope that by the time the information is eventually released, interest will have moved on to some other issue. I can instance a whole range of issues, from the pension levy onwards, where it has taken months to get basic information as to why decisions were taken. In no way could the Taoiseach be satisfied with the operation of the Act, from an objective standpoint. Perhaps he could be satisfied with it from a narrow, political perspective in terms of just wishing to obfuscate and prevent the release of information.
I do not know whether the Deputy was in this House or was away with his colleagues when his party in government bulldozed through the gutting of the Freedom of Information Act in 2004.
It was put through the House in one day with no submissions sought. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, will bring the heads of the Bill to reform the Freedom of Information Act before the Dáil, hopefully by the end of the year. My Department received 115 requests between January and September, of which 68 were granted or partially granted and nine were rejected. No records existed in nine cases, ten requests were withdrawn and 19 requests are ongoing. The process is pursued at arm's length from the political system. The Minister will introduce changes to restore a sense of credibility to the Freedom of Information Act, which was withdrawn by a previous Government.
Deputy Martin once again referred to the 17 files associated with the decision to introduce a blanket guarantee for banks. Those 17 files have been published. The vast majority of them are meaningless, as the Deputy is aware. The problem is that the Department of the Taoiseach has no evidence on the meetings that took place with the banks, what was said in them or who made what point. Irrespective of whether the files comprise copies of faxes, e-mails or acknowledgements, they are not relevant to the fundamental questions - perhaps the Deputy knows the answers - as to who was in the room, who met with the banks and at what level, what the discussions were about and what issues were decided on in order to determine the background to the most momentous and fundamental economic decision ever made in this country.
When was Deputy Martin told?
I do not know whether Deputy Martin was just the recipient of a telephone call as part of the incorporeal meeting.
You do. You were told.
I do not have any-----
Stop the waffle.
Through the Chair, please.
What did Deputy Martin say?
I do not have a report of meetings between the then Taoiseach and Minister for Finance. Did Deputy Martin raise questions about the matter? Last week he stated during the debate in advance of the European Council that it would be easy to restructure the promissory notes.
I did not.
That is what he said.
He said it would be very easy to restructure them.
We will have that debate tomorrow.
I will be interested in hearing his contribution on how the promissory notes can be restructured easily in a way that is acceptable to an independent European Central Bank. He made that point clearly last week in his contribution. I will listen to him on it tomorrow if he so wishes. If we did not have a problem with this and if it is as easy as he suggests it could be of great benefit to the people.
In regard to freedom of information, there is no concise file in the Department of the Taoiseach pertaining to the essential heart of the matter, namely, who met whom, who came in from the banks, what was discussed, what were the decisions and how was the background put together for a decision that was made in the middle of the night by means of an incorporeal meeting. The Deputy was an important part of the then Government. Did he ask any questions about the promissory notes? Did he say they could be restructured? What questions did he ask about the extension of the guarantee? Did he ask whether it was about liquidity or solvency, or did he just say "Yes"?
Did he take any notes?
I call Deputy Adams. He tabled two questions.
May I ask a supplementary question?
I allowed the Deputy to ask a supplementary question.
You did not.
I did. You came in after the response.
I did not. I had only one question.
That was a supplementary question. Deputy Adams has two questions. I will let Deputy Martin come back in again.
The last time -----
I am just trying to be fair.
On the last occasion I was only allowed to ask one question and the Ceann Comhairle did not allow me to ask a supplementary question. Deputy Adams was allowed to ask a supplementary question.
Hold on a second.
I just want fairness, that is all.
Hold on a minute.
That is what happened.
It is his gentle demeanour.
Deputy Adams tabled two questions and Deputy Martin tabled one. I am calling Deputy Adams because Deputy Martin had his opportunity.
The Ceann Comhairle did not do that the last time.
I am letting Deputy Adams in.
On Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 he did not do that.
For God's sake.
He did not do so.
I sit here listening to speeches every day at Question Time. If Deputy Martin wants me to apply the rules, I will apply them strictly in terms of what can be asked. This is Question Time. I call Deputy Adams and then I will let Deputy Martin in again.
I think the Ceann Comhairle is being very unfair in his comments about people asking questions.
Excuse me-----
I am getting annoyed about the matter.
The Deputy can be very annoyed if he so wishes. I call Deputy Adams.
How many times have you called Deputy Adams on Leaders' Questions?
Cool down.
I have been in this House for a long time but I have never seen anything like the nature and demeanour of the Ceann Comhairle's interventions.
I did not interfere with the Deputy at all. I am calling Deputy Adams because he has tabled two questions.
I have never seen such behaviour in all the time I have been in this House.
I have been here longer than Deputy Martin.
I do not appreciate this type of behaviour from the Ceann Comhairle.
I do not need a lecture from Deputy Martin.
I have never seen this kind of behaviour but from the Ceann Comhairle. I am getting annoyed.
Your bully boy tactics will not work on me.
He has an awful habit of intervening in a very nasty manner.
You are not going to bully me, I can tell you that for nothing.
I have not been in this House as long as other Deputies and it is a revelation to be here.
It is a revelation to be sitting in this Chair.
We are delighted to have you.
These questions pertain to freedom of information.
Tuigim. The Taoiseach, who is the longest serving Deputy, spoke about the dysfunctional nature of this institution while he was in opposition. The purpose of the original freedom of information legislation was to provide citizens with three new legal rights, namely, to consult official records, to update and correct inaccurate personal information and to get reasons for public decisions that affect them. There was a clear commitment in what the Taoiseach said while in opposition to restore the Freedom of Information Act to what it was before it was undermined by Fianna Fáil-----
We will go further.
-----and extend its remit to other public bodies.
That is in train.
The Ombudsman legislation and the Freedom of Information Act was to be extended to ensure that all bodies which receive significant public funds are covered.
I share the concerns that have been expressed about the difficulty of getting information about the criteria for primary care centres. One would need to be Inspector Columbo to get to the bottom of the matter. It must be six weeks since it arose.
Last July the Minister of State at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brian Hayes, indicated that new legislation would be introduced by next April to restore the Freedom of Information Act to its original purpose. One of the problems with the current Act, which Fianna Fáil introduced, is the exorbitant fees charged. These have resulted in a reduction by half in the number of requests under the Act. I ask the Taoiseach to outline the total amount and average fee charged by his Department for freedom of information requests and whether fees can be removed or minimised. These are important rights for citizens but they cease to be rights if one has to pay exorbitant fees for them because then they become privileges.
It is difficult for me to concentrate when Ministers are conversing.
We are listening.
Please speak through the Chair. It is difficult enough without having conversations across the floor of the Chamber.
Earlier this year Deputy Doherty introduced a Bill to bring NAMA within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act. His Bill would have removed the application fee and reverted to the fee structures set out in the original Act. Will the Taoiseach take that on board? It is impossible to get information about NAMA. This is a multi-billion euro agency which has to brought within the remit of the Act.
Another thing I find really interesting is that in October we paid €1 billion to unguaranteed bondholders. I do not know who these bondholders are, nor do I know anybody who knows who they are. The supposition is that they are people from abroad, but they may not be. They could be people living in the Taoiseach's constituency or my constituency. We do not know. Why should we not know?
Will the Government legislation include the extension of freedom of information provisions to NAMA, to the National Treasury Management Agency, the Financial Services Regulatory Authority, the Central Bank and An Garda Síochána?
The reason for the slight disruption while the Deputy was speaking was that the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform was just saying to me that personal information is free under the Freedom of Information Act and that the charge per request is only a fraction of the actual cost of determining the information.
The Deputy said his party had put forward a proposition. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, is dealing with the matter. He has submitted the general scheme of a freedom of information Bill to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform for its views and recommendations. The heads of the Bill were cleared by the Government some time ago and the Minister expects to be in a position to publish the Bill by the end of the year-----
Depending on what comes back from the committee.
The general scheme of the Bill is already on the Department website and can be accessed by the public. The intention is to extend the provisions to cover a number of high profile public bodies, including the Central Bank, the NTMA and NAMA, but not in full. Clearly, commercial confidentiality must be respected. It is the Minister's intention to expand the scope of the Bill, but with restrictions in particular areas. This should deal with the restoration of a more effective, efficient and comprehensive freedom of information Act for citizens and the public at large. I hope that when the Bill comes before the House we can discuss it comprehensively and decide whether it is adequate or how it might be changed. The issue of sensitivity can be discussed properly when the Bill arrives in the House on Committee Stage.
What about the matter of fees?
That will be included in the Bill also.
I regret very much that the Taoiseach refuses to withdraw the false claim he made about his predecessor. He said the papers were shredded. It reflects badly on the Taoiseach that he refuses to withdraw false claims in the face of the facts, as 17 files became available under a freedom of information request from the Office of the Taoiseach.
Acknowledgements are of real value.
The Taoiseach seems to attack all the time and is just cementing his reputation as one of the most tribal and partisan holders of his office. I regret having to say that, but it is the only conclusion with regard to his failure to withdraw that claim.
Will the Deputy get back to the question, please?
On freedom of information generally, I will deal with the issues with which the Taoiseach took great liberty on the European question. I remind him that he voted for the bank guarantee himself and he had a conversation with the then Minister for Finance, the late Brian Lenihan, on the bank guarantee and the rationale for it. The Taoiseach gave him clear approval to go ahead and do what he had to do. Everybody knows the fundamental rationale at the time was articulated publicly in the context of liquidity in the banking system.
Can we deal with the question before us?
Everybody knows that, as it was no big secret.
On other matters, the Taoiseach was quite eloquent and clear yesterday in Paris about the reason Ireland was-----
Will the Deputy please get back to the question?
I will, of course, but the Taoiseach made all these points to me without interruption.
I am not going to take any more smart comments from the Deputy.
I did not make any smart comment.
Will the Deputy please adhere to the Chair and stick to the question?
I am adhering to the Chair. However, the Taoiseach has been doing this forever when asked questions. He goes where he wants to go.
I do not take lectures any day from the Deputy. I ask him to stick to the question.
The Taoiseach makes any statement he wants, but the Ceann Comhairle does not tell him to stick to the question.
Will the Deputy stick to the question?
The Ceann Comhairle did not tell the Taoiseach to stick to the question, did he? Did the Ceann Comhairle tell the Taoiseach to stick to the question?
The Taoiseach may answer the questions asked by the Deputy.
Did the Ceann Comhairle tell the Taoiseach to stick to the question?
Will the Deputy get on with it?
Did the Ceann Comhairle tell the Taoiseach to stick to the question when he went on for ages about Europe and asked me questions that had nothing to do with what was under discussion? That is all I am saying. If he does it, I may have to respond.
Will the Deputy please get on with his supplementary question?
On the issue of freedom of information, the Taoiseach's colleague, Deputy Howlin, who is the Minister responsible, said the fees are not an issue, although they were once. The point is that we paid the fees for the information we received under freedom of information requests. On the question of the operation of the freedom of information provisions and the need to review them, the Dáil should get information without having to make a freedom of information request. We should not be dependent on the Freedom of Information Act for basic information on policy decisions.
There is no question but that in the context of the selection of the primary care sites, we had to go through the Freedom of Information Act, because we could not get the information through the parliamentary questions process. However, even when we used the Freedom of Information Act, we were told - I have here the letters from the Department, not just from the FOI office, on the primary care centres - that it would be another four weeks before we could get the information because the office was availing of the provision to seek another four weeks. This is on top of the six weeks it has already taken. All we are asking for is some basic information. Why is it not possible just to publish the documentation? Why is it not put in the Oireachtas Library where the Members can go through it? What is there to hide? Just publish all the documentation that exists on the selection of the primary care centres.
The Taoiseach is using the Freedom of Information Act to frustrate the genuine and legitimate interests of Dáil and Seanad representatives who seek information on the rationale behind a policy decision on the selection of primary care sites which resulted in the resignation of a Minister of State. This is a very serious issue, yet there is a consistent pattern of denying that information to the House in the hope that, by the time it eventually comes out, the issue will be forgotten and people will not have the same level of interest.
The previous Administration tore the heart out of the Freedom of Information Act. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has had the heads of his Bill approved and it has been sent to the committee and is on the Department's website. We will deal with the question of expansion of the Freedom of Information Act and its restoration to the way it should be. I agree that as much information as possible should be made available. However, the Deputy cannot forget his own argument. He comes in here and says "Publish all the documentation". I make the point to him that I have no file in the Department of the Taoiseach, other than acknowledgments and faxes that are irrelevant to the central issue, on what happened on the night of the bank guarantee. The Deputy knows, as he was a Minister for many years, that on any issue about which people come to see a Minister, never mind senior members of the Government, where an incorporeal meeting must be held-----
I was told I could not address that point because it was out of order.
I will address it again. It was the single most fundamental economic decision ever made in this country, in which the then Government landed €64 billion on the backs of the Irish people, but there is no file in the Department of the Taoiseach that tells me and the public who met whom, who said what or why the decision was made. It is incredible, yet the Deputy comes in here and says we should publish all the documentation about a list of sites for primary care centres.
On a point of order, I mentioned this issue and was told it was out of order. The Taoiseach can do what he likes.
The Minister of State, Deputy White, has responsibility for primary care centres, and we want to build many more of them. If Deputy Martin, in all his wisdom, could take the original list of 300 centres drawn up by the HSE and determine whether 199 should be in place of 75 or whatever, he is a Solomon. However, he cannot come in and demand we publish all this information. He himself will not tell us what notes he took on the night of the big economic decision. I would love to know that and hope I find out some day.
I have already put it on the public record.
If we have an assessment to find this out, I hope the Deputy will come along and give truthful and up-front evidence about what he said when asked a question in the incorporeal meeting.
That was a very relevant answer.