Micheál Martin
Question:1. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he is satisfied that his Department has maintained its records in accordance with its legal duties under section 2(2) of the National Archives Act 1986. [8923/14]
View answerTuesday, 24 June 2014
Questions (1)
Oral answers (17 contributions)
The National Archives Act 1986 places an obligation on Departments of State to preserve records created or received in the course of performing official functions; to seek authorisation from the director of the National Archives prior to the destruction of any of these records; and from among its record holdings, to transfer to the National Archives those records worthy of permanent preservation because of their ongoing value for administrative and historical research purposes when the records are 30 years old in order that they can be made available for public inspection and research use. I am satisfied that there are suitable procedures and facilities in place in my Department for the preservation and archiving of its records and that my Department complies with its legal duties under section 2(2) of the National Archives Act 1986, including as regards the transfer of records that are 30 years old.
Within weeks of entering office, the Taoiseach had begun to engage in a process of playing low partisan politics on the banking issue, particularly the banking inquiry. He came into the House and threw out snide comments that files might have disappeared or been shredded and that nothing could be found. I have since been doing what he perhaps did not do - checking the facts. A freedom of information request established that large numbers of files related to the bank guarantee were in the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Finance. I have a full list of these files, but when confronted with this information, the Taoiseach refused to withdraw his partisan slur. I have taken up this matter with the person legally charged with the maintenance of records, including those of political staff, in the Department of the Taoiseach, namely, the Secretary General. He is a person of high standing whom the Taoiseach promoted and who was a senior official when the bank guarantee had been agreed to. He has confirmed that, as far as he is concerned, the Department is fully in compliance with its legal responsibilities to keep records. The question is whether the Taoiseach is capable of withdrawing his partisan slur. The records are in place and have not been tampered with in any way. The Taoiseach can say there should be more, but he cannot leave on the record of the House his slur that records might have disappeared. He has already done a bit to prejudge the banking inquiry and at the weekend insisted that he did not want to prejudge anything. If this is true, surely he will confirm that, contrary to he said before, there is no evidence that records are missing. I have the correspondence with the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach which confirms that what the Taoiseach said was not true.
I do not engage in low partisan politics. We set up a non-partisan, all-party Oireachtas committee to deal with the banking inquiry. When it starts its work, it will get down to No. 119 and many of the items listed are inconsequential. They were the days leading up to the most momentous economic decision in the history of the State and the records have all been released under freedom of information legislation. I would have expected, at a time when the country was entering into a difficult economic recession, that there would have been regular meetings about the seriousness of the matter, but that was not the case. There is a faxed cover sheet regarding a Iris Oifigiúil notice, No. 87; an Iris Oifigiúil notice regarding the NTMA delegation of functions order; a letter from the Clerk of the Seanad; a memorandum for the Government and a submission slip regarding a memo, No. 79.
These things are available under the Department's system for examination by the Oireachtas committee and I am sure it will go through each of them. There are notes of a telephone call by the Taoiseach with the then British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, points for telephone discussion with the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, an e-mail from the Office of the Attorney General including a letter to the Taoiseach, and so on. These are all elements of what is on file. I had expected that when it came to the most serious economic catastrophe that ever befell our country, I would have access to whatever discussions took place with banks or bank officials who were calling in to Government buildings for discussions with the Taoiseach and so on. There is a note of a telephone call between the Secretary General and the general manager of DEPFA Bank.
In that sense, I found that of all the information I read, most of the notes are completely inconsequential. There was one letter of substance, which I think Deputy Martin has in his possession.
Again, the Taoiseach has been and is still being very selective. There are some very consequential documents in this, such as Government memos. There is a full list there - well over 150 at this stage - of documents obtained under the freedom of information provisions, which proves there are records in the Taoiseach's Department.
The Taoiseach said records had been disappeared. He used the word "shredded". That was a slur on the previous Taoiseach. There is no other way of putting it.
I would not cast a slur on the previous Taoiseach.
That is what the Taoiseach did. He should withdraw the term "shredded".
There might be a difficulty trying that.
Deputy Harris obviously has a different view from what he just said. He should withdraw that too. It is not on that the Taoiseach should persist in this -----
Sorry; we have a number of questions to deal with. Question No. 1 has been asked and answered.
There are records, very substantial records, in the Taoiseach's Department and the reply from the Secretary General is very clear. Martin Fraser's letter stated:
As I said in my letter of November 22nd, documentation relating to the bank guarantee is held in this Department. That documentation was listed in the Schedule provided under the Freedom of Information Act, a copy of which I enclose in my letter. I can confirm that this documentation is still retained in this Department and that to the best of my knowledge, the Department is in compliance with its obligations under the National Archives Act.
There was no attempt to disappear any records. There was no attempt to shred any records and the Taoiseach should be man enough to accept that that is the case. He should withdraw his assertion. Will he do that?
Before the Taoiseach responds, the question was to ask the Taoiseach if he was satisfied that his Department had maintained its records in accordance with its legal duties under section 2(2) of the National Archives Act. Has that question been answered fully?
Yes.
Then let us move on. We cannot have a conversation about other documents.
All I did was to ask a supplementary question, but the Ceann Comhairle is shutting down the debate. I have never seen such restricted debate.
We have now spent eight minutes on one question.
Eight minutes, yes. Big deal.
There are other Deputies here and we are too far behind on questions to have a general debate on what records are in the Taoiseach's Department. We are moving on to Question No. 2, in the name of Deputy Adams.