Vol. 549 No. 1
5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the number of files withheld by his Department from the National Archive in respect of the year 1971; the numbers 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. [2277/02]
6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his Department's policy in respect of abstraction of material from files transferred to the National Archive; if his attention has been drawn to concerns expressed by academics and researchers that some of the abstractions made by his Department regarding the most recently transferred files may not be in accordance with the spirit of the rel evant legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2278/02]
7 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the files of his Department which were recently released under the terms of the National Archives Act, 1986. [3513/02]
8 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach the number of files withheld by his Department from the National Archive in respect of the year 1969; the numbers withheld under section 8 (4)(a) of the National Archives Act, 1986; the number withheld under section 8(4)(b); the numbers withheld under section 8(4)(c); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5732/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, together.
I have no role in decisions by certifying officers under the provisions of the National Archives Act, 1986. The responsibility for certifying files for retention is vested by section 8(4) of the Act in officers of the Department authorised for that purpose in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
A total of 528 files, or part files, were transferred by my Department to the National Archives at the end of 2001 to be released for public inspection on 1 January 2002 and 13 were withheld. Of the 13 withheld under Section 8(4) of the National Archives Act, 1986, ten were withheld under sections 8(4)(b) and 8(4)(c) and three were withheld under section 8(4)(a)(b) and (c). These files therefore contain certain records, release of which, in the opinion of the certifying officer, (a) would be contrary to the public interest, or (b) would or might constitute a breach of statutory duty, or a breach of good faith on the grounds that they contain information supplied in confidence, and (c) would or might cause distress or danger to living persons on the grounds that they contain information about individuals, or would or might be likely to lead to an action for damages for defamation.
Files in my Department which relate to Northern Ireland are released annually to the National Archives, as provided for in the Act. In the case of the 1971 files, there are 58 such files. None of these are among the 13 withheld.
In respect of a number of other documents, some minor abstractions were made under section 8(4)(c) of the Act. The abstractions included either the names and addresses of correspondents, or sentences or paragraphs which referred to individuals or expressed views about individuals which, if released, could cause distress or danger to the individuals or lead to an action for defamation. In addition a small number of abstractions were made under Section 8(4)(b) and (c) or 8(4)(b) of the Act. These related to security matters and or information given in confidence.
Files of my Department in respect of the year 1969 were transferred to the National Archives in 1999 and made available for public inspection on 1 January 2000. No complete files were withheld under section 8(4)(a), (b) or (c) of the National Archives Act, 1986 by my Department in respect of the year 1969. However, some minor abstractions were made from parts of one file series under section 8(4)(b) and (c).
I am not sure if the Taoiseach's reply answers the question I posed in Question No. 6. He is aware that there was a story in the Sunday Independent of 6 January 2002 in which an eminent historian, Ronan Fanning, described as ludicrous the case of a speech by John Hume attacking William Craig and Ian Paisley where the names Craig and Paisley were deleted from the official record yet the entire speech with their names was attached to the record. This seems to be taking section 8(4)(c) to a ludicrous extent. Does the Taoiseach seriously think that Ian Paisley will take an action for defamation against the State because his name is recorded? Can he explain his view because in his reply he does not appear to have answered that part of the question? Will this practice continue or is it an excessive oversight?
What happened in that case is that the abstractions were made on the document and the full speech was put in. The abstractions on that occasion were a mistake. Abstractions are made where people who held strong and trenchant views sent in detailed letters and on releasing those documents the National Archives, not knowing whether those people are dead or still hold the same views, eliminates the names and addresses.
Arising from the story brought to our attention by the media and Professor Ronan Fanning, does the Taoiseach or the personnel of the National Archives have any intention to change the practice of how they apply the legislation in relation to these matters – the sensitivity of and inclusion of names?
The case mentioned was clearly a mistake and nobody was trying to hide anything. In the normal course of events if there are letters stating views or policies the National Archives, to be helpful, issues correspondence that emanated at that time. The correspondence shows different points of view and gives a flavour of what was coming between the public and the Taoiseach of the day. What the National Archives did under section 8(4) (a), (b) and (c) was to extract the names. They allowed the comments but extracted the names. That should not change.
The point was made succinctly by Professor Ronan Fanning that if someone in 1971 was sufficiently self-confident of his or her views to write trenchantly to the Taoiseach giving a full name and address that person has already made a decision as to whether publication of his or her name will cause distress. In that instance is abstraction of the name not an excessive interpretation of article 8(4)(c) of the legislation? Will the Taoiseach consult historians as to what would be best practice in relation to this? We all get letters from people and know that we disregard those without names and addresses and respect those with them. If an original letter has a freely given name and address it is relevant from the point of view of good archival practice that historians should be consulted as to how best to administer this section of the legislation. I quoted one example but it is evident that the practice is more extensive than a few isolated incidents suggest.
Perhaps, but the view has been taken that in those days people wrote letters to the Taoiseach of the day and Departments. It was prior to the legislation on freedom of information. It would be impossible for the National Archives to go back to those people to check whether they want their names released. We are left with the choice of leaving out the letters or leaving out the names and including the letters to give the flavour of what was going on at the time. People can change their views over 30 years and we can see that from some of the comments made and the views expressed then. People might not be so precious on some matters but the National Archives advisory council may be the people to have discussion on the matter.
What arrangements were made to allow the public full and free access to records once released?
They are available and anybody can go in to get the brief. Each year the journalists and historians are briefed before Christmas. The records are available.
I do not mean when they are released initially. On an ongoing basis what kind of staffing arrangements are in place if a member of the public wants to access information?
Many research people do that but, as far as I know, any member of the public can attend the National Archives. I am certain that those involved in research have free access.
(Dublin West): Can I ask the Taoiseach about file No. S17418 of 1969 concerning former-Lieutenant Donal de Róiste who was retired from the Army under section 18(f) of the Defence Forces Regulations? That section removes somebody from the Army against their will with no reasons given and no opportunity provided for them to answer allegations made behind the scenes. It is a section that has since been abolished because of its gross violation of the principles of natural justice. In that regard, will the Taoiseach sort out a conflict between what he said today with regard to the files concerning 1969, which was that no file was withheld under section 8(4)(a), (b) and (c) of the National Archives Act, 1986, and a letter to the Taoiseach's colleague Brian Crowley MEP on 21 May 2001 in which the Taoiseach said that Donal de Róiste's file was withheld from public inspection under section 8(4)(a), (b) and (c) of the National Archives Act, 1986?
A former chief of the Defence Forces has said in a newspaper article that Lieutenant de Róiste was perhaps retired because he visited some Dublin pubs, which in the 1960s we used to quaintly call "singing pubs". Donal de Róiste is now trying to clear his name but has no access to the relevant files. Does the Taoiseach agree that the files should be released to Donal de Róiste so that he can see what he was accused of and vindicate his good name? He should not have to wait 100 years like former Garda Geary, who was vindicated some time back?
I will repeat what I said about files relating to 1969. Files of my Department in respect of 1969 were transferred to the National Archives in 1999 and made available for public inspection on 1 January 2000. All those files are available for public inspection. No complete files were withheld under section 8(4)(a), (b) or (c) of the National Archives Act, 1986 by my Department in respect of 1969. The Deputy will note that I said “no complete files”. However, some minor abstractions were made from parts of one file series under section 8(4) (b) and (c). I do not know if that refers to this matter and I do not know if it was transferred in 1969 or if it is from another period.
This is clearly a personnel matter and one related to a dismissal if I understand the Deputy correctly. He should take the matter up with the Minister for Defence. No files from 1969 were withheld other than abstractions, which would not have included the matter raised by the Deputy. If there are personnel or security issues involved, the Deputy should take the matter up with the Minister for Defence.
(Dublin West): Since there is a conflict between what the Taoiseach wrote in May 2001 and his note for today, will he ask his Department if they can clear it up for me and correspond with me on whether it was an abstraction relating to this particular file? Section 8(4)(b) states that the files can be maintained on the grounds that they contain information supplied in confidence. Section 8(4)(c) states that information in the files might be likely to lead to an action for damages for defamation. Would section 8(4)(b) be covered if the person who supplied the information is not named but the information, on which serious actions were taken and a man dismissed from the Army, was made known to the man so dismissed?
If somebody was wronged, is section 8(4)(c) not an injustice and should it not be changed? Is it not unjust that somebody was dismissed, for example, on the basis of gossip or material that was not put to him so he did not have the opportunity to defend his good name? Does the Taoiseach agree that the moral right suggests that former Lieutenant de Róiste should be made aware of this? For the Taoiseach's information, the Minister for Defence is refusing to give any information on the matter. I look to the Taoiseach to give justice to a citizen who seeks to vindicate his good name and has no problem with all the facts being brought into the open.
Will the Taoiseach confirm what Deputy Higgins is saying? Does the Taoiseach's information indicate what portion of the file was transferred – the Taoiseach indicated that the complete file was not transferred – and what portion was retained? Do the sections of the file retained refer to former Lieutenant de Róiste? Can I confirm that the Department of Defence will not make the information available to Deputies or to the person directly concerned, and that the Taoiseach, who has responsibility for the National Archives, has the power to enable this citizen to see the file which was the basis for his dismissal?
I will raise the matter. I have no particular information on that. Re-reading the reply that I earlier read to the House, I interpret it, perhaps incorrectly, to mean that no complete files, apart from minor abstractions, were withheld. However, I will clarify that issue. I have no information about the individual referred to here although I obviously answered some letters on this in the recent past. In many cases where people were dismissed on security grounds, there is a security difficulty for the Garda Commissioner or the Army Chief of Staff concerning the release of information. I am not sure that is the case in relation to this matter and do not want to wrong the individual concerned. I will communicate with both Deputies who raised the matter.
(Dublin West): I am surprised the Taoiseach does not remember this case because it was prominent. Donal de Róiste is a brother of former presidential candidate Adi Roche. It was in the course of her presidential campaign that this information first surfaced from mysterious quarters in an attempt to damage that campaign. The Taoiseach should remember—
Does the Deputy have a question?
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach believe that, in the interests of justice, this man should have an opportunity to vindicate his good name? Deputies Noonan and Quinn could help by saying that, if they are in Government after the election, they will release the files.
Will the Deputy put us into Government?
I will have a look at this although I do not remember the case. However, I would not say that there is never anything in the files in such cases. In any cases that I have ever followed up, there is usually some reason for the action taken even if those reasons are sometimes harsh. Those were difficult times and difficult decisions were made. I do not know about this matter and I will raise the issue. I am sure the decision was made on the basis of Garda intelligence and by senior officials in the Army.
(Dublin West): Intelligence that some fellow was drinking in a pub.
A similar case was raised in the House some time ago which I remember following up. It did not involve a pub but we found out what happened. In this case, I do not know and do not want to blacken anyone's good name. Perhaps it was hard at the time but I would not discount the Garda and Army intelligence involved and say that it was wrong.
