Gerry Adams
Ceist:1 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach his plans for Dáil reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5742/11]
Ceisteanna — Questions
Oireachtas Reform Programme
The programme for Government sets out an ambitious and comprehensive programme for Oireachtas reform. A number of proposals in the programme, such as the proposals to abolish the Seanad and reform the electoral system, will require constitutional or legislative amendment.
Such proposals will be progressed by the relevant Ministers. However, some proposals in the programme relate to how the Dáil conducts its business and can be progressed by amending Standing Orders. Such proposals would relate, for example, to Dáil committees, improving the procedures for raising urgent matters in the House and reforming the current system for parliamentary questions. We also propose to improve the processes by which legislation is dealt with by the House, as well as enhancing the role of the Dáil concerning EU affairs.
When I have consulted with my Government colleagues, I will bring forward proposals in relation to these matters for consideration by the Dáil reform sub-committee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
The programme for Government also makes proposals on, for example, increasing the number of Dáil sitting days and shortening recesses. As an indication of the Government's intentions in this regard, the House sat this year in St. Patrick's week.
I thank the Chief Whip for his answer. The programme for Government contains a commitment for a constitutional convention and a variety of measures on Oireachtas reform, some of which the Minister of State outlined in his reply. When will we see a Government programme and timetable in this regard? The Minister of State said he would consider this matter with his Government colleagues and then bring proposals to the sub-committee on Dáil reform. The latter sub-committee can be established immediately to begin some of the preparatory work while the Chief Whip is consulting his colleagues. I ask him to do that so other parties can start feeding into the proposals for change required to make the Oireachtas more effective and efficient.
When will the sub-committee on Dáil reform be set up and when will it meet initially? This matter is urgent given what we saw yesterday involving changes to Standing Orders, which happened in a piecemeal fashion. We do not want to see that recurring.
Will the constitutional convention require legislation and, if so, when will we see that? I did not notice such proposals in the Government's legislative programme, so will it be brought before the House quite quickly? Many of the proposed changes to the way the Dáil works would require extensive amendments to Standing Orders. Consequently, we need to see the draft changes as quickly as possible so parties can have consultations on them.
The programme for Government contains a number of proposals for reform, including the abolition of the Seanad. It is suggested that some of the proposals will be referred to the constitutional convention while others will not. How will the Minister of State distinguish between them? Will he proceed with the abolition of the Seanad, or changing it, prior to the convention or after it?
As regards constitutional changes, the Deputy specifically mentioned the abolition of Seanad Éireann. The Taoiseach has written to the Attorney General seeking advice on the abolition of the Seanad because a number of constitutional changes are involved where the Seanad is mentioned in the Constitution. It is, therefore, not possible to give a straight "Yes" or "No" answer on when this matter will go to a referendum. The issue is in train, however, and the Taoiseach has written to the Attorney General about it. We will have some specifics concerning it later on. As the Deputy rightly said, this matter is in the programme for Government and has been agreed by both parties. This will be a matter of urgency for the Government.
The Deputy also mentioned the sub-committee on Dáil reform. I am hoping to have an informal meeting next week with the other party Whips to discuss changes concerning Dáil reform that we have specifically mentioned in the programme for Government. I would like to see meaningful talks taking place, so that we will be able to implement what is under discussion. I am not sure how many times the previous sub-committee on Dáil reform met, but nothing was implemented as a result of those meetings. As Government Chief Whip, I would like to see a measured approach by the Government and Opposition parties so that the agreed changes will be implemented. The public wants change and, in addition, all political parties promised changes in their election manifestos. I would like to see such changes happening as soon as possible. I will be meeting all the Whips next week for informal talks. We will put proposals on the table and I have no doubt that there will be agreement on some and disagreement on others. However, I would like to see the agreed changes being made as swiftly as possible. I would like to see some changes in the workings of the House following the Easter recess.
I welcome the fact the Chief Whip has indicated he is open to a committee on Dáil reform as we need to examine our working methods. The multiplication of sessions and sitting days will not make the House work effectively unless we have real changes in working methods that allow Members to supervise the work of the Government. Nonetheless, I welcome the Chief Whip's commitment in that regard. When will a committee on Dáil reform be set up?
With regard to the Houses themselves, when will the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission be established? The commission is the guarantor of the independence of the Houses from the Executive and we are entitled to see it established as quickly as possible.
By way of criticism in regard to the reply on the question of the Seanad, the Government does not need to consult the Attorney General to know what the important co-ordinate powers of the Seanad are under the Constitution. They are written out in the Constitution and I assume the Taoiseach can read. The reason, of course, why this reference to the Attorney General has taken place is because, I regret to say——
A question, please.
——Fine Gael is taking a very cynical attitude whereby Seanad Éireann should exist as a subsidy for its political interests for the duration of this Dáil.
On the last question, the mistake of the previous Government was to fail to consult. It is important to consult the Attorney General and that is why that office is in place, namely, to allow for consultation on the Government's behalf. It is no harm for the Taoiseach to consult the Attorney General on the abolition of Seanad Éireann to make sure we bring in legislation that is watertight so we do not have to revisit the issue in the way the previous Government had to revisit many issues. I want to make sure the legislation we introduce is watertight and correctly prepared.
As I said to Deputy Ó Snodaigh, I will have informal talks next week with the Opposition Whips and, as swiftly as possible after that, I will have the committee on Dáil reform established and some changes will be implemented after the Easter recess.
I spoke to the Taoiseach this week on the establishment of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission and I hope that will be expedited as soon as possible. As the Deputy knows, a number of issues need to be addressed in regard to the workings of the Oireachtas, with the political parties coming forward. I hope that too will be expedited as soon as possible.
Will the Minister of State acknowledge that Dáil reform is not synonymous with longer sittings? In fact, it is a dilemma for the left that the longer the Dáil sits, the more damage the Government will do with its right-wing economic policies.
A question, please.
With regard to extending the Dáil sittings to Fridays, will the Chief Whip assure us this is not a trick to have the Opposition in the House doing its work while half the Government, given its huge majority, is off down the country, and that this will be facilitated by the type of business that will be rostered for Fridays? To make the Dáil at least a vehicle where elected Members can raise issues that are of immediate relevance to constituents and to ordinary people generally, what proposals will the Government bring forward with regard to the hint the Taoiseach gave that he and Ministers will be available to answer questions from any Member of the Opposition, not just the leader of a group, with regard to pressing issues of the day, including issues that might arise overnight or be of controversy or relevance?
To facilitate the Members of the Dáil, many of whom have pressing and busy schedules, will the Chief Whip send a calendar outlining his plans for Dáil sittings and business between now and the autumn so we can plan our work and know exactly where we have to be on particular days for the next several months?
I will have that calendar circulated to the Deputy. The Deputy will be glad to hear the holidays and breaks will be much shorter than what we had in the past. He might have one week at Easter to get to the sun in Lanzarote or Spain.
He could join the Spanish protestors.
I will make sure he gets some form of break — I know there was a disagreement over that.
Deputy Higgins mentioned longer sitting times and days. The Taoiseach referred in the programme for Government to the Dáil sitting on Fridays. If the Dáil sits on Fridays, I want to ensure they are meaningful sittings where Members do not come to the House to give glib statements on any issue, although statements can be important at times. I want to ensure sittings mean something, that there is some form of debate and interaction between the Opposition and the Government and that legislation will be discussed, whether through committee sittings in the House or otherwise. We want meaningful debate on those issues.
The Deputy referred to the raising of matters of urgent importance. The only way a Member can raise matters of urgent importance at present is through the Adjournment debate, which is the last business on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. I would prefer if Members could raise matters earlier in the day in order to be able to have the issues highlighted on local or national radio or in their constituencies. There would be an opportunity to raise the issue with the aligned Minister, who would need to have some form of notice of that issue, and there would also be supplementary questions. This can be done in a meaningful way. I want to revamp the Adjournment debate so topical issues can be raised with the Government. Whether this will take place in the morning or early in the day can be worked out by the Whips.
With regard to longer sitting days and shorter recesses, the Dáil resumed one week after the Taoiseach was elected, we sat in St. Patrick's week, we will have a shorter recess for Easter and a shorter summer recess, with the Dáil coming back in the second week of September. There will be a totally different regime from under the outgoing Government. We will increase Dáil sittings by 50% and the Dáil will sit four days in the week, the summer recess will be just six weeks, there will be reduced breaks at Christmas and Easter and no mid-term break at St. Patrick's day or at Hallowe'en.
The outgoing Government used the guillotine too often and I want to stop that practice. We want to give Members the opportunity to speak on legislation and I want to see progress in that area. I would also like to see the overhaul of the committee system. I have been a Member of the House for nine years and I had never witnessed a debate similar to that for the release of the Moriarty tribunal report, when one and a half days was given over to statements. The Taoiseach and the line Minister came to the House to answer questions, which I have never seen happen before.
We are not running away. I have listened to some on the Opposition benches claim in recent days that the Government is running scared. If we were running scared, we would not have given one and a half days to statements in the House or given Members the opportunity to speak, with the Government openly and frankly answering any questions raised.
With regard to these endless sitting days, if Ministers are not present and we just have discussions about tsunamis or tribunal reports, that is not accountability by the Government. Will weeks be set aside for committee business in this proposed reform?
As I said in reply to Deputy Higgins, I would hope some committee work can be carried out in the House, perhaps every second or third Friday, or otherwise. Ministers will be in the House on Fridays if the Dáil is sitting. Ministers must be accountable to the House and, as Chief Whip, I will make sure they are accountable and present to answer Opposition questions. We will not be running scared. The relevant Ministers and Ministers of State will be here when legislation is being discussed, including on Committee Stage. We will make sure Ministers are present in the House.
Census Data
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:2 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement in relation to the company that has been contracted to conduct the national census currently under way and to confirm if this firm is a foreign based company (details supplied) and if his attention has been drawn to the allegations that have been made against this company in the United States that it was involved in torture and interrogation on behalf of the US military in Abu Ghraib Prison and in other US run prisons in Iraq. [6025/11]
Clare Daly
Ceist:3 Deputy Clare Daly asked the Taoiseach the role of CACI (UK) in the current census of population; the financial value of the contract; and the protection that exists for citizens regarding the data collected. [6576/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.
The 2011 census is being organised and carried out by the Central Statistics Office, CSO. The fieldwork is being undertaken by field staff directly recruited by the office while the results will be processed by CSO staff in the CSO census office located in Swords, County Dublin.
The census is a major undertaking for the CSO and contractors have been appointed to assist with specialised parts of the work. An outside contractor, CACI (UK) Limited, was awarded the €6.7 million contract following a public procurement process to provide the CSO with an integrated forms processing system. CACI (UK) Limited specified and procured the hardware, software and subcontracted the printing of census forms optimised for scanning by the system. The system will be managed and operated by CSO staff, with the technical support of a small number of CACI (UK) Limited employees to process the completed census forms in the second half of this year. The completed census forms, and any resultant databases of the returns created during the processing, will at all stages be completely under the control of the CSO and subject to the stringent confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act 1993.
The selection of the contractor was subject to, and complied fully with, European Union open procurement rules. CACI (UK) Limited has developed specialist skills in the area of high-volume forms processing systems and won a similar contract for the 2002 and 2006 censuses. No allegations have been made in respect of any direct involvement by CACI (UK) Limited in the types of activities mentioned by the Deputy.
However, the CSO is aware that in spring 2004 an allegation was made that an employee of CACI International — which is the parent company of CACI (UK) Limited, based in the United States — was involved in the mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq. CACI (UK) Limited states that this allegation was not substantiated by any evidence or proof at the time it was made, and subsequent investigations by both CACI International and the United States Government could not confirm it. CACI International has stated publicly that it takes this allegation extremely seriously, that it does not condone, tolerate or endorse any illegal behaviour by its employees in any circumstances or at any time, and that it has held in the past, and always will hold, itself to the highest ethical standards.
As a public body, the Central Statistics Office is fundamentally committed to ethical and proper conduct in all matters and would never consider any dealings with a company convicted of human rights abuse. European Union procurement rules allow bidders to be excluded if they have been convicted of certain criminal or other offences. However, as none of these exclusions applies to CACI (UK) Limited, or to its United States parent, the CSO has retained the services of CACI (UK) Limited to assist in the efficient processing of the 2011 census returns.
Everybody in this House should be encouraging every household to participate fully in the census and to visit the census website to get a feel for the enormous benefits the census information will bring to Ireland in the coming years.
The Government is not taking on board the serious question marks that stand over the extremely sensitive and comprehensive information about Irish citizens that will be gathered by the census. To say that CACI International has not been prosecuted is not dealing with the issue. CACI International currently has——
This is Question Time; the Deputy cannot make statements or put points to the Minister of State.
I am asking whether the Minister of State——
We had this on the Adjournment last week and now at Question Time. Does the Deputy have a question to put?
I am asking a question. Will the Minister of State explain why the Government does not have greater concern about the integrity of the census given that there are 200 Iraqi plaintiffs seeking to mount lawsuits over CACI International's involvement in Abu Ghraib Prison. There are another four Iraqi plaintiffs before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia. In so far as CACI International has prevented proceedings in other cases that have been taken against it, it is because the United States Court of Appeals ruled that the company falls under the United States military chain of command and thus has Government contractor immunity——
Does the Deputy have a question? I repeat that Question Time is not a time for statements.
I am asking the Minister of State about a very serious matter.
The Deputy must put a question.
He is not responding to the question I asked.
The Deputy cannot use Question Time for statements.
I am not making a statement. I am asking whether the Government takes these matters seriously. CACI International has avoided legal cases against it by seeking immunity on the basis of its status as a defence contractor, with most of its income coming from the Pentagon. These are serious allegations and simply to point out that the company has not been prosecuted is not good enough.
There are serious issues regarding the census. Some people — and I am not suggesting they should do so — are saying they will not fill out the census form because of the questions arising from the involvement of CACI (UK) Limited. What will the Government do to guarantee the security and integrity of the census and to reassure the many people who are deeply concerned about it?
I assure the Deputy that the Government and the CSO have taken this issue extremely seriously. I would be very disappointed if a Member of this House were in any way encouraging people not to fill out the census form.
I said I was not encouraging them to do so.
The Deputy should in fact be encouraging people to fill out the forms.
The Government should be reassuring people about the integrity of the data.
I have encouraged and will continue to encourage people to fill out the forms. I am not sure whether the Deputy fully understands the importance of the census.
I understand its importance.
The results of the census will be used for the benefit of future generations by informing Government policy. I am sure the local authority in the Deputy's area will make use of the data.
I assure him that the company contracted by the CSO is of the highest integrity. This company was employed previously by the CSO, in the 2002 and 2006 censuses, and at no stage did any information go astray. The company has the highest standards of confidentiality. All data from the census forms go back to the central office in Swords and all the information is collated there. The data do not go to any company in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. The company in question is contracted to format the questionnaire and manage the computer system. Under no circumstances will the data go elsewhere.
This company is providing the hardware, software and the data processing systems for the census process. Can the Minister of State assure us that the company has no access to the information in the census? Is he aware that the Registrar General in Scotland, where a census is also being conducted, has observed that the "sneak and peek warrants" provided for in the United States PATRIOT Act would allow the CIA or the United States Government "secretly to enter a business, either physically or virtually, conduct a search and depart without taking any tangible evidence or leaving notice of their presence." That is what American law allows to be done to American companies. Can the Minister of State guarantee that the company in question will not have access to the census information and, consequently, that the American military or intelligence services will not also have access to it?
The CSO has received correspondence from the public expressing concerns that the Irish census data are being processed by a United States company and that this information could ultimately be used by United States national security. I assure the Deputy that those concerns are entirely inaccurate on two counts. First, CACI Limited is a corporate United Kingdom entity and is subject to the laws of that jurisdiction; it is not subject to the laws of the United States. CACI International, an American parent company, is not involved in any way in the preparation or delivery of systems for the Irish census. Second, the United States PATRIOT Act applies only to data held in information technology systems owned and operated by the company. This does not apply to the processing of census 2011 and under no circumstances could the Act be employed to request data held by the CSO.
Just so the Official Report is correct, is it not correct that the Minister of State's reference to CACI was to CACI (UK) Limited?
Yes, I apologise.
While I do not wish to be repetitive, these issues are being raised precisely because of the importance of the census. Citizens have genuine concerns, given the private and medical information that is being collected in it. I do not believe the Minister of State has answered the questions fully. As supplementary questions, where is and what is the interface with the CSO staff based in Swords? As the aforementioned company supplies the hardware and software, how many CACI operatives, for example, will be present when the information goes back to Swords? Thereafter, during the processing of the forms, what will happen to the hardware, where will it be stored and will it be destroyed? What will happen to the software? These are the issues that are causing concern and when one considers the standards that are being adopted, it is not good enough to state that the parent company has never been convicted. It operates under the United States of America's rules of engagement, which permit highly unacceptable practices. While they may not be unlawful, they would be deemed unacceptable by most Irish citizens, such as permitting sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation and so on. The question is, out of all the companies in the world, why did the Government choose one the expertise of which is as professional interrogators and, in the main, as operators of defence contracts? All the companies it owns are military-based and deal with interrogation and defence. This does not sit neatly with the exceptionally important issues that are raised in the census. Consequently, the Minister of State should provide a little more information in respect of the number of staff, the interface and what will happen afterwards.
I assure the Deputy that the contract of €6.7 million was awarded to this company following a public procurement process to provide the CSO with an integrated forms processing system. Everyone and anyone was allowed to apply within that process and this was the successful company. As I stated from the outset, this company was used in 2002 and 2006 and no information from the Central Statistics Office has escaped in any way and the process was completely confidential.
How does the Minister of State know?
I assure the Deputy of this. Only a small number of people have complained to the CSO about this company. Only a minimal number of people have made any form of complaint. Most people, both nationwide and in this House, are encouraging people to fill out their census forms next Sunday evening. It is important to encourage people to so do and to avoid placing doubt in anyone's mind to the effect that his or her information will be leaked or used by a foreign company for any reason.
With respect, one should do this by answering precisely the concerns people have but the Minister of State has not done so. All Deputies have received quite widespread correspondence with regard to raising concerns about this matter. How does one know the data have not been lost? One simply does not know this and they may have been. Moreover, the Minister of State has not outlined how many operatives are involved, what is the connection with the CSO staff or what will happen to the hardware and software thereafter. The Minister of State needs to deal with these issues to encourage citizens to participate in this census but he has not done so. It would be helpful were he to respond by answering some of those questions.
I understand Deputies Boyd Barrett and Daly are the only two Members who have raised this concern with the CSO. I answered questions on this issue during the Adjournment debate last week and have returned to it again this morning. The Central Statistics Office has been answering questions on the national airwaves and on all occasions, its representatives have mentioned the office's confidentiality and the manner in which it runs its business. I reiterate that confidentiality is a huge issue and will continue to be so for the operation of the CSO.