Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 4 February 2014
1. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the number of Freedom of Information requests his Department received in 2013; the number that were fully processed and replied to; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41827/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraMy Department received a total of 91 freedom of information requests in 2013. Of the 91 requests received, 60 were granted or partly granted; six were refused; in 11 cases no records existed; ten requests were withdrawn and the remaining four requests are ongoing. All requests received in my Department are processed by statutorily designated officials in accordance with the Freedom of Information Acts. If a requester has difficulty with a decision, he or she may seek an internal review, followed by appeal to the Information Commissioner.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. The figure of 91 freedom of information requests is quite a sizeable number for the Taoiseach's Department. Throughout the past three years the Taoiseach has articulated his full commitment to the concept of freedom of information, and he has often come to the Chamber and promised to release information in advance so that there may not be need for recourse to freedom of information processes. There was a famous meeting in Brussels of which I could never get to the bottom because I could not get access to freedom of information either here or in Brussels. The issue was ping-ponged between both headquarters.
The Irish Water debacle really reveals the problem we have as for two years there was complete secrecy on the issue. The Department has had 91 freedom of information requests and if there was a far greater degree of voluntary and upfront disclosure and transparency, there would be no need for 91 requests. We only found out about Irish Water because of an interview on RTE 1 between the chief executive of Irish Water and a reporter, Mr. Sean O'Rourke, despite many parliamentary questions tabled by various Deputies, including Deputy Barry Cowen. The proposal was not to include Irish Water in the freedom of information process and exclude it from the ambit. That was the decision of the Minister until the likes of Deputies Fleming, Stanley and others raised the matter; the Minister has now conceded the point in light of the controversy surrounding Irish Water, hidden costs and secrecy.
The Taoiseach last week told me he did not know whether county managers had retired with lump sum pensions and got jobs in Irish Water. He sort of feigned that he did not know anything about that but everybody knew about it. The indication was that the chief executive would write to the Minister and give me the information, and through a circuitous route I would eventually find out. If we had far more voluntary disclosure, we would not need to table so many freedom of information requests, which are quite costly, with the cost maintained by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin. He has spoken much about it but he has not delivered much. Deputy Sean Fleming has had to put down a Bill relating to EirGrid, for example, and whether it will be subject to freedom of information requests.
Is the Taoiseach concerned that voluntary disclosure of information is now so rare in Government administrative circles? If Deputies and citizens really want to get to the bottom of something, in general they must have recourse to freedom of information as a first rather than last resort.
As a general rule I have always favoured giving instructions as a Minister to Secretaries General that when parliamentary questions arrive, they should be answered, where possible, in as comprehensive and full a fashion as possible. Deputies are entitled to information that is not secret in any event. I do not see the freedom of information requests at all as they are dealt with by officials in every Department. I do not know what is the difference between what would be answered in parliamentary questions go flúirseach and what else is available under the freedom of information documents that are released. From speaking with some Ministers, I know there may be pages of individual requests that may include ten or 15 entirely different requests.
In the case of Irish Water, freedom of information could not be applicable until the body was set up. It took up responsibility on 1 January and the Minister has backdated that to its official inception. As it had not been set up when people were seeking information, there were claims of secrecy. The Minister has already included full parliamentary accountability, although I do not know about the issue here. When requests came for replies to parliamentary questions, they were transmitted to Irish Water but were not followed through. I think the Minister issued an apology about that. The Minister has since answered questions in the House about Irish Water and will continue to do so. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, made that very clear when he addressed the matter in the Dáil debate.
When the Minister, Deputy Howlin, introduced the freedom of information legislation last July, it provided for the process to be extended to a number of high-profile financial bodies, including the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, the National Pensions Reserve Fund and the National Development Finance Agency. They have all been brought within the jurisdiction of the Act for the first time, and they will be subject to the maintenance of strict confidentiality in engagement with commercial counterparts and so on.
The Minister, Deputy Howlin, addressed the matter of Irish Water last week when he indicated it would be made subject to the freedom of information legislation and rather than wait for the enactment of the new freedom of information Bill, arrangements will be made to provide for this by its inclusion under the existing freedom of information regime from its date of legal establishment in 2013. He will do that as soon as possible.
Full inclusion in the freedom of information system is achieved faster or more expeditiously by using existing freedom of information legislation rather than by amending it or including the body in the freedom of information Bill going through the House. That is the assessment the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has received. What I describe will happen as quickly as possible.
In general, I do not disagree with the Deputy. I would like Deputies who ask questions to be given as much comprehensive information as possible, except where it is sensitive or commercially sensitive. In a previous role the Ceann Comhairle was a strong proponent of Deputies having access to information through parliamentary questions. It would be a great advantage if a response to a parliamentary question included everything a response to a freedom of information request included, where possible. I am not sure what the difference is, but perhaps I will examine in my Department the difference between responses given to questions and replies to freedom of information requests where information was released.
The new freedom of information legislation is very welcome. It is a pity that the Taoiseach has decided to stick with a charge for requests. He remarked on multiple requests. Very often they are a consequence of the fact that the State charges for information, which is a great pity. When questions were asked of Irish Water, the Taoiseach made the case that it had not been fully established. Many of the parliamentary questions related to its set-up budget and costs, but time and again Deputies were deliberately frustrated and left in the dark. Of course, we had to obtain from a media outlet at least some of the information Deputies had sought. It is welcome that Irish Water is now subject to the freedom of information system. Will the Taoiseach clarify absolutely that where parliamentary questions on Irish Water are asked, they will be answered fully and that there will be no more smoke and mirrors, or games and messing? The deliberate strategy to keep information from Deputies should not happen again.
The answer to that question is "Yes". If the Deputy were to ask a question here, raise a Topical Issue or private notice question, the Minister would have to answer it. It is a public utility and there is nothing to be hidden, except where there are commercial sensitivities. I do not mean this as a cliché covering a range of circumstances. Until Irish Water becomes a fully operating semi-State entity, rather than a brand new organisation in the set-up state, I will be the first to say there could be confusion, as there certainly was. Confusion leads to uncertainty and uncertainty leads to suspicion. The set-up costs were given in great detail over several hours during the proceedings of the committee which the Deputy attended. The answer to her question is "Yes". The Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, or the Minister of State, Deputy Fergus O'Dowd, will answer questions in the House for all Deputies on Irish Water. I trust the answers to their requests will be full and comprehensive.
The Taoiseach referred to the difference between replies to parliamentary questions and responses to freedom of information requests. The matter is very simple. In some instances, very basic requests were not answered, which is why the apologies were made. I presume the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government apologised to the Deputies concerned only because no information at all was forthcoming. That was acknowledged by the Department. With regard to the transition office established, who was on the transition team and what was the cost? What is the detail on the service level agreements, for example? These agreements were not laid before the House and we learned more about them last week in the media. This makes the House continually irrelevant and marginalises the Parliament which is catching up all the time with revelations in the media. It is not for the want of asking but because of the lack of genuine transparency or an unwillingness to volunteer the information at hand. All of the information was at hand, but it was not presented to the House over a 15-month period. The Taoiseach said during Leaders' Questions on one occasion that any question on Irish Water would be answered and that there would be no necessity for freedom of information requests. That very night the Minister of State stood up and said the complete opposite. He said the Minister would not answer questions on the entity because of something to do with the NTMA or the EMC, the economic management committee of the Cabinet.
It has now been cleared up.
It has been cleared up because, as I heard on the grapevine, the Taoiseach went back to the Minister. The point is that the instinct of the Minister and the Department is to tell people nothing. They believe they do not have to account for this and that it is not their business. They believe it is someone else's business, although they are setting up the utility. They believe that, technically, they can get out of it and do not have to be hung on a hook on it. They believe it is someone else's hook. That is what went on. If the Taoiseach was honest, despite what he said, which I welcome, he would admit the deadline for the local elections was a key factor. The idea was to keep as much of this as possible buried until well after the local elections. The Government believed Mary and Joe Murphy might find out a lot after the elections and that it should ensure they would not find out anything before them.
The most dreaded person on the horizon is the one coming to install the water meter. I know this from having been on doorsteps. People are awaiting with dread the arrival of the meter man who is to install the meter in the footpath. This is the feeling in estates because of the lack of transparency and voluntary disclosure. There were 91 freedom of information requests. When people make such requests, they generally get to the bottom of some of the issues concerned and determine what is occurring within Departments and between Ministries. That is the difference. There is a fundamental lack of voluntary disclosure on many issues.
I have given my view. I like to see accurate responses that contain as much information as possible. This is appropriate when Deputies ask questions. I have discussed this issue with the Secretary General and, in a spirit of openness, the Department of the Taoiseach publishes on its website a range of details on a quarterly basis. They include details of foreign travel expenses, purchase orders in excess of €20,000, minutes of the IFSC Clearing House Group, minutes of the Department's management advisory committee, the Secretary General's diary and a log of freedom of information requests. This is published normally and there has never been a question about it. In a voluntary sense, if one offers these items of information, it may well deal with the issue the Deputy raises.
The new legislation will require public bodies to prepare and publish publication schemes that are consistent with international best practice in this area to promote the proactive publication of information outside the freedom of information system. My Department will do this following enactment of the legislation. If one wants to ask a parliamentary question, one should receive the same response – whatever the question is – but I have seen pages of entirely different matters, not one consequent on the other. The charge is being reduced. The reduction of fees for internal review is from €75 to €30, while for an appeal, it is from €150 to €75. Applications in respect of personal requests remain free of charge, while the €15 application fee will remain in place for non-personal requests. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has said on many occasions that it is not unreasonable to expect a small contribution to be made towards the cost of information retrieval in respect of requests for non-personal information. I hope that as we proceed, other Departments will follow suit and put as much information as they can on themselves on their websites and make it available to everybody. There is always a culture of saying one received information from the Department through the freedom of information system that one could not get through a parliamentary question and that there is, therefore, considerable secrecy about matters. If information on these matters is published on the website for the general public to see, there is no great scéal in it, no secrecy. Therefore, it is in line with the issue raised by the Deputy. If Ministers or Secretaries General have no concerns about the way their Departments are run, that is fair enough.
Deputy Burton might want to let The Irish Times know about the great battles she fights.
In any event, questions from Members will be answered here by the Ministers concerned with the environment and Irish Water, and that is as it should be. This is a public utility. There is nothing secret about it and all of these issues will be teased out as appropriate. Deputy McDonald is aware from meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts of the full, exhaustive lengths that were gone into about these charges. As this moves on, when the financial and business model is presented by the Government, people will be fully aware of exactly how this is structured and set up to operate in the interests of the Irish people, the Irish consumer, as a public utility. This is an issue to which we will return again.
I welcome the Taoiseach's commitments to a greater level of transparency and accountability, although we can debate what led to them. Some of us feel that the scandal of the consultants at Irish Water is what forced his hand on this, but whatever the reason, we are moving on with the commitment from the Taoiseach to open things up and to have more information in the public domain and on his and other Departments' websites.
One of the issues that emerges from all of this, in the context of Irish Water and the recent discussions on the Estimates, which contain fairly significant sums for consultants, is that there is a gap in information concerning what is behind the headline payments to consultants. Let us take Irish Water as an example and the sum of €44 million-----
The Deputy must ask a question.
It is a question. It is absolutely a question and I want the Taoiseach to answer it. What is behind that sum of €44 million? When one considers the level of scrutiny of other areas of public expenditure, including how much public servants are paid, their hourly rates, what the Taoiseach's salary is, what my salary is, what our expenses are and so forth, then the same level of detail should be provided, as a matter of course, on the remuneration for consultants who are paid out of the public purse. No issue of commercial sensitivity can insulate people who are in receipt of large amounts of public money from the requirement to provide detailed information as to their hourly rates, how many people they are employing and so forth. When one looks at the scale of the figures, one must conclude that they are being paid massive amounts of money.
Deputy, please co-operate.
The public are entitled to that information. Will the Taoiseach furnish us with that level of detail?
I know that the word "consultant" is like a red rag to a bull and causes absolute rage. The companies that tendered services to Irish Water were not sitting in an office telling Irish Water what it should do. They tendered for the provision of services, facilities and equipment. IBM, for example, provided hardware and software to put a system in place that actually works. We can be penny wise and pound foolish and invest in an entity like Irish Water but find that it is completely inadequate as time goes on. If we do not invest properly and put in the proper foundations, it will never operate in the way we want. The consultants here are not people sitting in offices with aluminium briefcases saying, "Tell them this is what they should do." It is a tender process for the provision of a service and a facility as a component for providing a platform so that Irish Water can deliver what the Government wants it to deliver - a service for our people, for business and private consumers all over the country - a service that they can be very happy about.
A number of years ago in the west of Ireland I attended the bundling of three rural water schemes. All three schemes were metered, the pipes were all checked and the sources of leaks were dealt with. The 1,200 consumers there were exceptionally happy about this because not only were they metered, but the meters showed that they saved half a billion litres of water in the first year. We cannot go on with the situation in which water is leaking into the ground. Our systems are inadequate and in some cases have been in place for more than 100 years. That is not adequate for the future.
That is not what I asked about. Can we know the hourly rate for the consultants?
Hold on, Deputy.
The Deputy was asking me-----
Comments must be directed through the Chair.
The Deputy was asking me about a tendered service by some of the major companies for software and hardware as part of the provision of the facility. The salaries of the engineers who work-----
The original question was about freedom of information requests.
-----for Irish Water and of those agents of local authorities are known. All the details of the hours they work are known because they are all logged in. As I said earlier, the charges involved are driven by the needs of Irish consumers, not Irish Water or anybody else. The consumer is the priority here.
