Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the appointments made by him since May 2008 to date in 2009 to the State boards, or other agencies under his aegis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30622/09]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Ministerial Appointments.
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the appointments made by him since his election as Taoiseach to the State boards, or other agencies under the aegis of his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32526/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The information sought by the Deputies concerning appointments made by me to State boards and agencies under the aegis of my Department since May 2008 to date is set out in a schedule.
Additional material not supplied on the floor of the House.
The following appointments were made by the Taoiseach from May 2008 to date: National Economic and Social Council, NESC: Tom Parlon, director general, Construction Industry Federation; Siobhan Masterson, director, Financial Services Ireland; Edmond Connolly, chief executive officer, Macra na Féirme; Oisin Coghlan, Friends of the Earth; Pat Smith, general secretary, Irish Farmers Association; and Orla O'Connor National Women's Council of Ireland. National Economic and Social Forum, NESF: Senator Maria Corrigan. National Centre for Partnership and Performance, NCPP: Brendan Duffy, assistant secretary, Department of Finance; Dermot Curran, assistant secretary, Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment; and Mary Connaughton, HR Development, IBEC. The National Statistics Board, NSB: Dr. Patricia O'Hara, Western Development Commission; Professor Philip Lane, Trinity College, Dublin; and Mr. Fergal O'Brien, Irish Business and Employers Confederation. The Ireland Newfoundland Partnership Board: Deputy Billy Kelleher, Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Clare Dunne, assistant secretary, Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
We have asked these questions before. There have been two scandals, or embarrassing situations, recently. One was the illegal appointment made to the Residential Tenancies Board, the other the resignation of the new chairman of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority within a couple of days of his appointment. As the Taoiseach will be aware, in order to clear this up, Fine Gael published the Public Appointments Transparency Bill. This is not a Bill of interrogation but seeks that those who are announced to be in a position of some authority would come before the relevant Oireachtas committee and indicate to members what they would bring to the particular board or agency to which it is proposed they be appointed.
Does the Taoiseach agree with or favour that proposal? Does he approve a facility whereby those who are to take chairmanships of agencies or State boards should be in a position to be able to say, concerning their own merit or credit, "This is what I bring to this board. These are the qualifications and attributes I have. This is what I want to do". It would be helpful for everybody. The Taoiseach might indicate his views on that.
Many people are available for public service who have served on State boards with much distinction. We must look always to obtain people who have the talent and expertise to do the job and ensure we have a good cross section of people who are not only technocratically capable to deal with issues but also have a broader public service experience. Appointments should be made on the basis of merit, taking into account the skills, qualifications and experience of the person to be appointed, as well as any other relevant criteria, including requirements in respect of gender balance.
I am glad to hear that. In answer to a question I asked in this Chamber, the Taoiseach's predecessor said people were appointed on the basis that they were "friends". I am glad the Taoiseach takes a very different view, namely, that people should be appointed to these positions on the basis of merit. I agree with that.
Does the Taoiseach consider that some of these chairpersons might wish to go before an Oireachtas committee in respect of the agency or State body they have been asked to chair to outline the priorities they would accord to it and explain why they are accepting the job? It is not an interrogation business but intended to help persons proposed as chairpersons.
When he was Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern said he wanted to introduce some measure of involvement from Oireachtas committees in respect of people who would be appointed to State agencies or boards. This is a matter to which the Taoiseach might give consideration.
It depends. I would not make a general rule about it but it is important we acknowledge that boards act independently and have certain fiduciary book duties. Too often I find this issue comes to the House or to a committee and, unfortunately, can become very politicised. I do not know the reason for this. We should be in the business of encouraging people to make themselves available for service. Sometimes I get the impression that unless people have a prior approval rating they are regarded by many as unacceptable. Former leaders of Deputy Kenny's party and the Labour Party have been appointed by this Government to important positions and they may hold different views on some of the issues raised.
The revised programme for Government promised the Government would introduce legislation to provide for a more open and transparent system for appointments to public bodies. It stated the legislation would outline a procedure for the publication of all vacancies likely to occur, invite applications from the general public and, from the responses, create a panel of suitable persons for consideration for appointment. When will the Government introduce that legislation?
As I said, the programme has only just been agreed in the past few months. Obviously, individual Ministers have a responsibility to take forward any proposals that are in the proposal.
With regard to the legislation, I will read directly from the revised programme, which states, "Introduce on a legislative basis a more open and transparent system for appointments to public bodies". It then sets out the way in which this will be done. Which Minister will be responsible for introducing this legislation?
It probably will be the Department of Finance.
Has it been agreed by the Government? When the revised programme for Government was agreed, was it agreed that the Minister for Finance——
The Government will take it forward.
Which Minister?
It will assign the duties in due course.
Will the Minister for Finance have responsibility for it?
I was given the indication that that may be the case, but we will have to see exactly who is taking it forward. I am just giving the Deputy the best answer I can from the information that is in front of me.
Is it intended that it will apply to all Government appointments to State bodies?
That is yet to be decided. The detail and scope of the legislation will have to be worked out.
When the revised programme for Government was being negotiated, what was agreed?
What is in the document was agreed.
The Taoiseach does not know what that means.
I do.
Does the Green Party know what it means?
We know what it means.
Can the Taoiseach tell us what it means?
I have just told the Deputy that it will be taken forward by Government in due course.
I will revert to it.
It is not as complicated as it sounds.
Lighten up; the Taoiseach is in a bad humour this morning.
We would need a dentist to extract the information. Nevertheless, I welcome this section of the new programme for Government in which the Taoiseach's party and the Green Party have given a commitment under the heading "Enhancing our Democracy and Public Services". Does the Taoiseach acknowledge that the essence of what is committed to in terms of legislation is something for which my colleagues in Sinn Féin and I have argued in the House for many years, namely, opening up to the wider public the opportunity for appointment to various State boards, sending invitations to apply and setting in place a panel of suitable persons for consideration for appointment?
The programme states that the legislation will also specify the number of persons who will be appointed by a Minister and will facilitate the appropriate Oireachtas committee in each case to make nominations to the panel for interview and selection. Is it the case, based on the Taoiseach's responses to Deputy Gilmore, that he does not have at this point in time the detail as to the numbers that may apply in each instance to a Minister's appointment or the Oireachtas committee's role and function? Has any of the meat been worked out in terms of the bones of the proposition under this heading? During questions to An Taoiseach and in amendments to numerous Bills, we have argued for a transparent appointment process.
I ask that the Taoiseach give the House some indication of when the legislation will be worked on and presented before the House. Will it be in place before he next exercises his role in appointing people to various State boards under his Department's aegis? Are there vacancies in the State boards for which the Taoiseach is responsible and what are they?
A lot of the appointments I make in the Department of the Taoiseach come from nominating bodies. Regarding the legislative commitment, as I said, the renewed programme for Government is to extend out between now and June 2012. We will take forward the proposals agreed in that programme in due course.
Regarding the question of Oireachtas involvement in this area, I am aware of an approach adopted by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources in respect of bodies provided for in the Broadcasting Act 2009. There may be merit in giving some consideration to involving committees of the House in appointments to some boards. However, different boards require different approaches and each needs to be treated on its own basis. I am satisfied that, when bringing forward proposals on any State boards that may be established, each Minister will provide for the most appropriate basis from which to draw membership.
While acknowledging the Taoiseach's reply, I also asked for an indication of the timeframe he expects to apply to this matter. I know these questions arise frequently——
Within the term of the Government.
Not necessarily within 2010.
No. Within the term of the Government.
Perhaps not before the Taoiseach next makes appointments to State boards. If the Taoiseach is in a position to answer, are there vacancies in State boards, what are they and when does he intend to fill them?
I do not have before me information on vacancies. I was asked to say which appointments I had made. This relates to the National Economic and Social Council, the National Economic and Social Forum, the National Centre for Partnership and Performance, the National Statistics Board and the Ireland Newfoundland Partnership board. These are the boards to which I have made appointments, but I am not aware of which vacancies have come before me in recent weeks or months.
Freedom of Information.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:3 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department since January 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30630/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:4 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department to date in 2009; the way these figures compare with the same period in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32527/09]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the total fees charged by his Department for freedom of information requests during the first nine months of 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36766/09]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during October 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38348/09]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:7 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the procedures in his Department for assessing the fees to be applied to freedom of information requests; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38349/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive, together.
A total of 84 freedom of information requests have been received in my Department since January 2009. Of these, 40 were granted, 15 were part granted, four were refused, four were withdrawn, there were no records in respect of six and 15 are currently being processed.
As to comparisons with previous years, my Department received in the period to the end of November in each year 40 requests in 2004, 54 in 2005, 51 in 2006, 65 in 2007, 73 in 2008 and 84 up to 13 November in 2009. I have included a table of the number of FOI requests received in my Department each month from January to November for each of the years 2004 to 2009.
A total of €1,009.59 was received by my Department in fees for the period January to September 2009. This is made up of €840 for application fees, €150 for internal review fees and €19.59 for search and retrieval fees. Where search and retrieval fees are likely to apply, officials in my Department usually consult with the requester and agreement is usually reached on more closely specifying the request so that search and retrieval fees can be reduced or eliminated.
All FOI 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.
|
Year |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
|
Jan |
1 |
2 |
9 |
14 |
4 |
8 |
|
Feb |
8 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
14 |
|
March |
2 |
1 |
4 |
8 |
1 |
2 |
|
April |
4 |
2 |
7 |
4 |
5 |
7 |
|
May |
1 |
2 |
6 |
2 |
12 |
6 |
|
June |
5 |
7 |
4 |
6 |
1 |
6 |
|
July |
3 |
6 |
4 |
9 |
5 |
10 |
|
August |
3 |
5 |
5 |
10 |
7 |
10 |
|
September |
0 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
8 |
10 |
|
October |
12 |
16 |
3 |
4 |
11 |
9 |
|
November |
1 |
5 |
3 |
7 |
14 |
2* |
*To 13/11/09.
Several times, the Information Commissioner, Ms Emily O'Reilly, has stated her concerns about the lack of transparency in the FOI business. She stated, "If FOI is about replacing a culture of secrecy with a culture of openness in the Irish public service, I have to say that this objective is being frustrated by the continued exclusion from FOI of several key public institutions." In June, she and the Department of Finance made some interesting comments. She stated, "The Ryan commission inquiry into the abuse of children in institutions might not have been necessary if freedom of information legislation existed". This may or may not be so. She went on to ask, "What might have been the outcome if 30 years ago, FOI legislation had allowed the public to rip away the secretive bureaucratic veils that hid the industrial schools and other institutions from clear view and exposed the practices therein?"
At the same conference, a Department of Finance official stated that FOI requests were costly to pursue, which may be true in some cases, and that "Government Departments would have to find ways of improving the FOI operation". This might entail explaining to the public that questions seeking information might be written more accurately.
Does the Taoiseach have any comment to make on Ms O'Reilly's observations on the Freedom of Information Act as the Information Commissioner? While he may not have the answer in his brief, a number of State agencies and quangos are still outside the Act's remit. Is work being done in the Department or by the Taoiseach to allow a number of these institutions currently outside the ambit of the Freedom of Information Act to be included under the scheme?
Before I call the Taoiseach, parliamentary questions might be a more appropriate way of eliciting information on questions specific to Departments, and particularly about agencies immediately under particular Departments.
The Taoiseach is well able to answer that one.
These relate specifically to my Department. Generally speaking, there has been a considerable extension of the freedom of information legislation to a range of bodies. I am aware of the annual reports of the Information Commissioner and the views expressed, but this Administration has ensured a significant increase in the range of bodies which now come within the freedom of information ambit. From the perspective of how this has developed over the years, it has been about taking on more work and more bodies rather than the contrary. In 2006, there was the biggest ever extension of the Freedom of Information Act when a further 137 bodies were included. This means that over 520 bodies are now covered by freedom of information legislation compared to 67 when the Act first came into operation in 1998. That indicates that there are far more in than not.
Given that being the case, would the Taoiseach be prepared to accept the Labour Party proposal that all bodies should automatically be covered by the freedom of information legislation unless there are specific reasons for them not to be covered? That would avoid the necessity to add bodies to its ambit from time to time as new bodies are formed, etc.
Is it true that the Government is considering increasing the charges for freedom of information requests and appeals as part of the financial considerations it is undertaking at present in the context of the budget and the public finances?
I would not be aware of the detail in that respect or if it is a budgetary or Estimates matter.
I would make the point, however, that it is an expensive and time consuming aspect of Government work. As I say, I have no problem whatsoever with the legitimate use of the Freedom of Information Act for individual citizens or, indeed, for others. However, the idea of the Department trawling every question that comes in from people who, perhaps, regard the Departments of State as a source of generating information was not within the contemplation of the Freedom of Information Act and, to be honest, it is an abuse of the process. If the fee structure has done anything to help stop that sort of activity, all the better.
The freedom of information legislation is one of the most liberal in the world in terms of access for citizens of relevant information, and quite rightly so. I have no problem whatsoever with freedom of information, but it is important that everyone acts responsibly and that it is not used for reasons which were beyond the contemplation of the legislation, although perhaps technically within its remit. Anyway, I suppose such is life. If it must be handled that way, so be it but I just make that observation.
Arising from that observation, the Taoiseach states that there is abuse of the freedom of information process. Of the numbers of freedom of information requests made in respect of his Department, roughly what proportion would he consider were abusing the freedom of information process? I am not asking him to identify an individual request, but could he give the House an indication of the type of request he considers is an abuse of the freedom of information process?
No, I am making a general observation. For example, people come in and ask, for purposes that are obvious, how many of this, that and the other were involved in the Department for the past 20 years. A range of information is thrown out there and then one finds out that someone thought it interesting and it made a quarter of a page in some newspaper. The amount of time spent doing that is wrong. It is my opinion. They might be entitled to look for it, and I suppose we will not change it, but I think it is an abuse of process.
There was a question asked here of my father when he was responsible for the Board of Works about how many seagulls flew over the Phoenix Park in a year.
Many public servants could be doing much other work.
The Information Commissioner's annual report for 2008 showed an increase of 18% in freedom of information requests to all public bodies in 2007. Over the period from 2004, there was an 84% increase in freedom of information requests to the Taoiseach's Department. How would the Taoiseach characterise the increase in freedom of information requests for that extended period and, quite specifically, in the public bodies over the period up to 2008?
Does he share the view of the Information Commissioner that this is indicative of an increased hunger for information and that, of itself, it should cue a reappraisal of the bodies already under the terms of the legislation with a mind to extending it to ensure that there is full accountability in all public entities? For example, is the Taoiseach aware that major State institutions are still outside the scope of freedom of information, including the Central Bank and Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ireland, the National Treasury Management Agency, the National Pensions Reserve Fund Commission and the State Claims Agency? Has he plans to bring any of these bodies under the terms of freedom of information?
During the recent debate on the NAMA legislation, the Government voted down an amendment to ensure that NAMA came under the terms of the freedom of information legislation. That was bad judgment on the part of Government. Does the Taoiseach have any plans to overturn that decision and to make NAMA accountable under the terms of freedom of information?
One must balance the question of client or patient confidentiality in a health or financial matter against the need for the principles of public accountability to be established and maintained. That is the balance here, and that balance must be respected as well. There is a Data Protection Commissioner and many others who seek to protect information belonging to people, but the idea that one can only have open and transparent Government when everyone knows everyone's business is not my idea of what this is about.
It is about public accountability and people having access to records that are relevant to their own details, family, history or whatever it is they wish to get from the Department. They are entitled, in the event of matters not working out for them properly, to get the information and to be able to assess whether the proper standards were applied. I have no problem with any of that. We all are committed to that.
The idea, however, that every piece of information on anybody should be available to somebody else because he or she just has the curiosity to inquire about the person's business is not what freedom of information is about; that is an invasion of privacy. There are privacy and public accountability issues which must be considered in this context, but, in fairness, that balance has been reasonably well struck and I do not have an issue with it. However, the contention that the freedom of information legislation is inadequate because one cannot get access to everything whenever one wants it is not my idea of what freedom of information is about. It is about relevant information in the public interest where that is required, and for the private citizen who is dealing with the State through its agencies, boards or Departments so that he or she can have access to relevant information pertinent to him or her and how he or she was dealt with by the State. In both cases, I have no problem.
As I stated, there has been a much increased expansion to a range of bodies. It is the job of the Minister for Finance in terms of his responsibility for the public service to consider any further extensions to freedom of information legislation based on the requirements and the public interest. For example, there are issues concerning the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, such as security files. Should they be made available to everyone who wants them? I would not think so.
I do not disagree with the Taoiseach's view as to the significant difference between rights to privacy and public accountability. We are seeking to have freedom of information applied in the realm of public accountability. We should recognise that it played a significant role, if not the primary one ultimately, in exposing abuses in FÁS. That is just one example of how it has been utilised correctly in the public interest. I see no conflict between the right to privacy, on which I would broadly agree with the Taoiseach, and the need to ensure public accountability in the examples I gave concerning the Central Bank and Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ireland.
If we had more public accountability concerning the regulatory authority for the financial services sector here we might have had a little more exposure of the serious fault lines that were clearly endemic within that structure. We must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We must get to grips with the broad principle behind freedom of information which is, as the Taoiseach said, public accountability. We must also ensure transparency, as well as scrutiny in all matters pertaining to the public finances and actions affecting the broad public interest. Freedom of information is crucial to all of that. I ask the Taoiseach for a reappraisal of his earlier response and his acceptance that none of us is arguing for everyone's rights to privacy to be thrown out the window. That is not the case. People are giving a measured view on the current and future role of freedom of information.
Formerly, as Minister for Finance, I presided over the biggest expansion of the Freedom of Information Act since the inception of the legislation in 1988. My record in this area speaks for itself, but that does not mean I agree with every view of others who have a responsibility in this area. They are entitled to bring their views to the attention of the Minister of the day. It is then a matter for the Minister and the Government as to whether or not they will use their legislative powers to extend the application of the Act. When one can accept the vast majority of recommendations, one proceeds thus. However, there may be other recommendations which are not considered to be appropriate or relevant, so one does not proceed with them. The fact that there is disagreement between various people does not mean that anyone is more or less committed to freedom of information. There are differing views as to how the public interest can best be served in respect of how the Freedom of Information Act would apply.
However, the freedom of information legislation is not the only source of public accountability. There are Government mechanisms within organisations, including the responsibility for board members to hold executives to account. This House is responsible for holding agencies and others to account. Where things go wrong, they must be fixed. However, the idea that there was some perfect model of accountability in place that would have prevented things from going wrong in the first place is not a realistic assessment of what happens. There are failures, but one does not condone or accept them as being inevitable. When they happen, it is important to get them fixed and ensure they do not recur. Through that process of learning and experience one also ensures that public accountability is exercised.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach a brief supplementary question. In the course of his replies to us on this subject, he has been exercised about abuses of freedom of information legislation. Will the Taoiseach give the House some examples of the kind of abuses to which he refers? He spoke in general terms about this. Is he contemplating any changes in the Freedom of Information Act to address those alleged abuses?
No, I am making a general observation. From talking to colleagues and from looking at the situation generally, I know that a lot of time is expended on this issue by many public servants. That time is inordinate to the significance of some of the requests coming in. There is an effort to trawl through everything. If someone has a specific problem they should make a request and we will get the information, but this idea that the public service is in a position to do this all the time is beyond what was contemplated by the legislation. The former Minister of State, Eithne Fitzgerald, worked assiduously on the draft legislation for much of that Administration. She had various ideas about bringing the legislation forward and with the support of the Government we proceeded with it. We have had to adapt and learn from the Act's operation. We want to operate it as it was contemplated and for the purposes for which it was enacted.
We have attempted to make the legislation as comprehensive and accessible as possible. In terms of its legislative intent, the Act is far more accessible than freedom of information legislation in other jurisdictions, which are often cited as great, liberal democracies. The fact is, however, that people are able to use the scope of the legislation in ways which were not contemplated. That can often happen and it is not unique to this legislation.
I wanted to make that general comment but not because I am not a supporter of freedom of information. That is the other problem — if one says anything critical one is assumed to be against it, but I am not.
I am not accusing the Taoiseach of anything.
I know that, but I am not against freedom of information, in case it is portrayed that way subsequently. I extended the legislation more than any other Minister.
That was great.
I would not say I got too much praise for it. The next question will be: "Why don't you extend it to another 27 bodies that you did not include the last time?" It is the same old story. We all know how difficult things are in the country at the moment. People have work to do and they must get on with it. While this is an important part of that it should not dominate.
I call Deputy Kenny briefly. We need to move on from these questions. There are time limits.
I share the Taoiseach's view about the rights of privacy and those of public accountability. It is important to make that distinction. In recent years, while a lot of good and useful material has emerged though freedom of information requests, many replies to parliamentary questions do not provide the expected information. I do not know whether this suggests a trend. It used to be an unwritten rule that Ministers would tell their Secretaries General: "Parliamentary questions are the ultimate democratic weapon for an elected representative, so answer the question and give them the information". When that does not happen it leads to freedom of information requests, which can be broad and extensive, as the Taoiseach has pointed out. In his capacity as Taoiseach, it might be no harm to remind Ministers——
We need to move on from this issue, Deputy.
I am saving the State a lot of money. We would not have to make freedom of information requests if the information was provided in written answers to Dáil questions. The Taoiseach should remind his Ministers that they have a duty to see that information is supplied to Deputies, in so far as is possible, without infringing on State security.
I agree that the parliamentary questions procedure is a good one for Members, but it should be used appropriately. In many cases, Members table parliamentary questions because if they use the normal correspondence route they feel they do not get the information quickly enough. That causes a lot of work in the PQ system. I do not mind that, however, because at least those concerned are public representatives and have a democratic mandate to ask what they like, which is fine. A process began whereby questions could be submitted on Tuesday morning and responded to by Thursday evening, thus resulting in fewer people in Members' clinics the following Saturday.
Even in Clara, they have the answer.
It is surprising how well it works.
The system can sometimes be defensive in the provision of information. A predecessor of mine and former leader of Deputy Kenny's party made the famous point in the House that if one does not ask the right questions, it is very hard to get the right answers. That is not because the then incumbent was not as committed as others to providing full information; he was merely making the point that the system can be as described.
I agree with Deputy Kenny that the purpose ought to be the provision of useful, relevant and accurate information rather than vague replies. This requires Members seeking answers to ask questions clearly and on specific subjects.
National Security Committee.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:8 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the national security committee established to monitor the threat of a terrorist attack will next meet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30631/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:9 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach when the national security committee which was established in the aftermath of the September 2001 terrorist attacks will next meet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32528/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 9 together.
Having regard to the confidential nature of the work of the national security committee, it would not be appropriate to disclose information about the dates of individual meetings or any of its proceedings.
The committee is chaired by the Secretary General to the Government and comprises representatives at the highest level of the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Defence and Foreign Affairs and of the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces. It is concerned with ensuring that the Government is advised of high-level security issues and the responses to them, but not involving operational security matters.
The committee meets as required and will continue to do so. In addition to their meetings, the members liaise on an ongoing basis to monitor developments that might have national security implications, in particular in the international arena.
With regard to the high-level committee, of which the Taoiseach is a member, is he informed of terrorist threats that arise regularly in Britain? Last week, for instance, there were further arrests of suspected terrorists in Britain. The case is made that, with the new programme for the provision of nuclear facilities in Britain, including at Sellafield, the areas in question are always the centre of discussion in terms of international terrorism. Does the British Government or its equivalent of our high-level committee keep in regular contact over terrorist threats or whether the status of a threat is moving from red to green, for example? Is there a flow of information between the two countries? The point is often made that if a plane were hijacked and approaching a target in Ireland, we would have to rely on assistance from the United Kingdom, our nearest neighbour. Is there two-way contact on terrorist threats?
I am not a member of the national security committee. It comprises senior officials of various Departments and agencies. It meets periodically and the members are in touch on an ongoing basis. Its role relates primarily to classic security issues, particularly those associated with international terrorism. It does not have any formal role in emergency planning. Co-ordination in this respect is the function of the Office of Emergency Planning in the Department of Defence.
The committee liaises with other jurisdictions and agencies charged with combating international terrorism and such issues. There is a separate arrangement whereby I, as Taoiseach, am briefed by senior security personnel from time to time on more general matters of a criminal nature and other domestic issues. However, the international terrorism elements are dealt with through the committee.
The Taoiseach indicated that the national security committee, which deals with the threat of international terrorism, briefs him as required. How often has it briefed him since he became Taoiseach and when was he last given a briefing by it?
I would not be given a briefing by the committee but by its chairman, who is also Secretary General of my Department. That would consist of an ongoing appraisal, where relevant, of issues as they arise. I am not briefed very regularly but there is ongoing contact at official level on these issues.
When did the Taoiseach last receive a briefing on the work of the committee?
It would have been some time ago but I would also have had formal briefings from senior gardaí and Army personnel since then on issues generally, including issues relevant to the committee.
Does the security committee have any role or function in assessing the threat to the security, health and safety of the Irish people arising from the recent announcement by the British Government to establish a new string of nuclear power plants along the western coasts of England and Wales? Did the Taoiseach or his Department initiate any evaluation of the British Government's proposals in the context of Irish interests, including the security, health and safety of the people, in light of what would occur if — God forbid — something were to go wrong, be it an attack or accident of some nature? Does the Taoiseach agree that we have traditionally reflected the Irish people's concerns to the British Government in regard to Sellafield and that we now face a multiplicity of Sellafield situations along the western seaboard of the island of Great Britain? Has the Taoiseach given any time to or thought about this and has he raised or does he intend to raise the matter with his counterpart, the UK Prime Minister? Has he instructed some Department here to raise the matter with its counterpart in the British Government set-up?
That is an issue for the Minister in the relevant Department. Any views we have on this would be conveyed in this way.
I do not wish to say much more on the national security committee than what I said in my primary reply given the nature of its work. It liaises with relevant parties, it is an informal group and it keeps in regular contact. Issues such as international terrorism or a serious environmental discharge are part of its remit. However, the co-ordination of planning in respect of emergencies is dealt with by a unit in the Department of Defence.
In the context of the recent announcement by the British Government, will the Taoiseach indicate to the House a willingness on the part of the Irish Government to request an assessment of the British plan? Will he indicate at some time to the House or the leaders of the Opposition parties the results of the Irish Government's evaluation of the circumstances that would arise if the plan were implemented along the western seaboard of Britain?
The question relates to the Departments of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which continually monitor developments, the prospect of developments and policy issues that arise in neighbouring jurisdictions in so far as they affect us. These matters are brought to their attention in the manner I outlined.