Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 20 September 2011
14 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests he has received from members of the Houses of the Oireachtas; and if he has examined these in terms of policy or administrative implications for his Department. [21087/11]
Amharc ar fhreagra15 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has reviewed by the policy and administrative implications of freedom of information cases handled by his Department since 21 July 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24721/11]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 14 and 15 together.
One request from a Member of the Oireachtas was received in my Department from 9 March 2011 to 31 August. The answer was issued within the freedom of information timeframe and was part-granted. The functions relating to freedom of information are carried out in the Department by statutorily designated officials, as envisaged in the Acts, and these officials follow the guidelines set out in the Department of Finance's decision makers manual. This statutory framework is constructed in such a way as to keep the decision-making process at arm's length from the political head of the Department. Accordingly, I have no role in respect of the processing of freedom of information requests. Moreover, there are no plans to change this process.
First, during our last Question Time, the Taoiseach told the House he took no role in seeking the disallowance of questions. I subsequently made a freedom of information request and discovered the Taoiseach had written to the Ceann Comhairle's office 69 times in six weeks directly asking for Members' questions to be disallowed. In the same period, he transferred 98 questions to other Ministers in order that he would not be obliged to answer them. While the final decision was not the Taoiseach's, he followed a clear strategy of reducing the areas on which he is obliged to answer questions. I ask him to withdraw the statement he made in the previous Dáil session that he plays no role in seeking the large-scale disallowance and transfer of questions from Deputies. He should withdraw formally the statement he put on the record of the House on the previous occasion.
In addition, although the Taoiseach has been praising himself for six months for saying "No" to President Van Rompuy's text on corporation tax from the Council meeting last March, he has been refusing to show that text to anyone. In response to a freedom of information request made in August, the Taoiseach again refused to release the Van Rompuy text from the European Council meeting, claiming the rules of the European Council would not allow this. The problem for the Taoiseach is I also contacted the European Council, which stated it could not supply the text directly but would encourage the national Government to release it. In this context, will the Taoiseach release the Van Rompuy text? Will he desist from relying inordinately on freedom of information legislation to avoid putting relevant information before this House on foot of genuine requests from Members?
I have no intention——
Before the Taoiseach answers that question, in case anyone gets the impression from Deputy Martin's statement that the Taoiseach wrote to me 68 times, or whatever it was, and in case anyone thinks I am influenced by anyone writing to me, I wish to make it quite clear and to put on record that all Departments regularly, one would hope through the Minister, seek to have questions disallowed. It goes through a procedure and, in most cases, where possible, we ignore that request. Consequently, it is wrong to suggest or let the public feel that people lobby me in some way to disallow questions. This is not true and I do not wish there to be any misunderstanding in this regard. The only way in which a question is disallowed is if it is not in accordance with Standing Orders.
This practice has been going on for 90 years.
A Cheann Comhairle——
That is the procedure and I want that on the record. The Taoiseach should resume.
May I just——
I want——
What the Ceann Comhairle has just done is unfair.
No, the Taoiseach is replying. I have made my statement. I thank the Deputy.
No suggestion was made and there was no need for the Ceann Comhairle to say that.
I have every intention of saying it.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for his clarification.
The point is, if the Ceann Comhairle listened to what I said——
Deputy Martin, you made a statement that the Taoiseach had written to me 68 times.
Yes, and he did.
That gives the impression——
It does not give that impression.
——that lobbying was carried out on me.
No, that is just the Ceann Comhairle's assessment of it.
I do not want that on the record of this House and I am quite entitled——
How does it give that impression?
The Deputy should resume his seat.
I seek an opportunity to respond.
I am quite entitled, as independent Chairman of this House, to put on record the facts. This is what I have done. I ask the Taoiseach to answer the question.
What the Ceann Comhairle is doing is not acceptable. He is taking sides on such issues and it is not good enough.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for clarifying a process that has been in situ for a great number of decades.
I thank the Taoiseach.
It is Deputy Martin who should withdraw his ludicrous charge. If his questions are placed more accurately in respect of the responsibilities of the Department of the Taoiseach, they will be answered.
I said no such thing as the Ceann Comhairle inferred. However, the Taoiseach did say something the last time.
The clear impression Deputy Martin gave is the Taoiseach was attempting to influence the Ceann Comhairle to transfer questions to other Departments. The system, as has been outlined by the Ceann Comhairle to the Deputy, has been in situ for a long time, as his own record proves.
I am unsure what is biting him regarding the secret of Fatima——
May I explain to the Taoiseach——
——in so far as the Van Rompuy text is concerned. He should at least recognise the interest rate reductions that have been brought about under the EFSF and EFSM are of significant proportions to the Irish people and taxpayers. While President Van Rompuy made a suggestion regarding a compromise in a difficult situation, it was not in a text that was circulated generally and I have no intention of commenting further on it. The result has been achieved and is highly significant for the Irish taxpayers and people. The Deputy should give up from trying to resurrect something that is now of no consequence.
Hear, hear.
In the first instance, the fact I read into the record of the House that on foot of a freedom of request, it was revealed the Taoiseach had written 69 times to the Ceann Comhairle should give no one any impression about anything other than this, namely, the reason——
What was the purpose of the statement?
I will explain the purpose if the Ceann Comhairle would listen to me. As I already stated, during the last Question Time, the Taoiseach told the House specifically that he took no role in seeking the disallowance of questions. This was untrue.
That is not untrue. Deputy Martin is aware the Taoiseach never even sees them.
He should have stated then——
This happens every day of the week.
——that he had written 69 letters. That is the only point I was making.
It is an administrative procedure.
I made no inference about influence, lobbying or anything else. The point is the last time the Taoiseach was in the House, he made a big song and dance to the effect he made no attempt to so do.
It happens every single day of the week that questions are disallowed.
He was oblivious to any attempts, giving the impression he is open to answer any question, but he is not. Since he came to office, the Taoiseach's full track record has been to keep avoiding the answering of questions. Questions are transferred and healways tries to avoid answering them. The same is true in respect of freedom of information requests.
The Taoiseach does not transfer questions.
He has been trying to.
Let me repeat——
Equally, may I state that in terms of——
No, the Deputy cannot. I ask him to resume his seat because he again has implied——
The Ceann Comhairle is interfering all the time.
——something that is totally and utterly inaccurate. Every day of the week, I receive a number of requests either to disallow or transfer a question. This is done strictly in accordance with Standing Orders. On numerous occasions, questions are being asked of the wrong Minister or of the Taoiseach. Sometimes, questions are not in accordance with Standing Orders. This is the only time a question may be disallowed. One should not allow people to think that questions somehow are being disallowed because people do not wish to answer them. Every effort is made by me and by my office to ensure a Deputy who asks a question in this House will get an answer. On many occasions, I request that the Deputy be contacted and a suggestion made to him or her that he or she should transfer the question to someone else in order that he or she may receive a proper answer.
Deputy Martin is on a steep learning curve.
Let us be fair about this. This has nothing to do with freedom of information or anything else and I wish to make that quite clear.
I also was in government and when I was asked questions as a Minister, I made it my business to answer them.
The Deputy made a bad job of it.
I did not seek to write to the Ceann Comhairle or anyone else to get them disallowed. My point merely is the Taoiseach made a statement in the House that he took no role——
There is a misunderstanding here.
——in seeking a disallowance. He wrote 69 times and these are the facts.
The Deputy is well aware the Taoiseach does not. It is an administrative procedure.
He wrote 69 times.
Why does Deputy Martin not ask Deputy Ó Snodaigh, who is well used to what the Deputy is learning for the first time?
The system is as it always was.
As for the Van Rompuy text, the Taoiseach should be aware that I will not give up.
Deputy Martin should go on a FÁS course.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh will give the Deputy a FÁS course.
Would the terms and conditions be the same?
The Taoiseach has gone to extraordinary lengths to hide the Von Rompuy text——
Deputy Martin's colleagues spent their entire lives hiding information. They had 15 years of practice.
——and to prevent it from coming out into the open. He will not even respond to a freedom of information request. This is a trend——
Deputy Martin, this is Question Time. Will you please ask a question?
A Cheann Comhairle, I am asking a question.
You are not; you are making statements.
I am responding——
This is Question Time.
A Cheann Comhairle, this interference is not acceptable.
I am here to control——
The Taoiseach responded to me by simply stating I should give up on asking the question. I again ask him the reason he will not put the aforementioned text before the House. Why will he not do so?
I ask the Taoiseach to reply as to the reason he will not put the text before the House.
Deputy Martin has been talking about questions being transferred from the Department of the Taoiseach to other Departments. Questions Nos. 14 and 15, which are in his name, pertain to freedom of information requests. I have answered that directly. A single request was received from the Deputy at my Department between 9 March and 31 August. It was nothing to do with the transfer of questions. I have already answered the question on President Van Rompuy who wanted to put forward a view in a difficult situation which was not generally circulated and is now completely and utterly irrelevant in that the matter——
Let us know. Publish it and let us see if it is irrelevant.
The public also knows that there are very significant interest rate reductions, something to which the Deputy referred many times during his supplementary question.
Is it not the case that the Taoiseach is afraid to publish it because it might reveal something about which he was not telling the truth?
Those interest rate reductions have achieved a saving of €1 billion every year. The Deputy will not recognise that.
It was nothing to do with the Taoiseach. Why will he not publish it?
