Joan Burton
Ceist:7. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests his Department has received to date in 2018. [21442/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraWednesday, 30 May 2018
Ceisteanna (7, 8, 9)
Mary Lou McDonald
Ceist:8. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department to date in 2018. [23290/18]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Brendan Howlin
Ceist:9. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests his Department has received to date in 2018. [23582/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (12 píosaí cainte)
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, together.
To the end of April this year my Department received 206 freedom of information, FOI, requests. Of these, 121 were granted or part granted, 12 were refused and no records were held in relation to 25 requests. Six requests were withdrawn or handled outside FOI, one request was transferred to another public sector body and 41 requests were ongoing at the end of April. There has been a significant increase in the number of FOI requests received in my Department since the new Freedom of Information Act came into operation in 2014. In 2013, my Department received 92 requests while this figure rose to 290 in 2015 and to 344 in 2017. This represented an increase of 374% over 2013 and the upward trend is continuing this year.
The majority of requests submitted to my Department are non-personal requests and come from the media. All requests received in my Department are processed by designated officials in accordance with the FOI Acts. If a requester is not satisfied with an FOI decision, he or she can seek an internal review followed by appeal to the Information Commissioner. The FOI statutory framework keeps the decision-making process at arm's length from the political head of the Department. I have no role in the decision-making process for requests received in my Department nor do I see copies of decision letters issuing.
There are two members of staff working in the Department’s FOI unit, both of whom perform other duties. Staff from across the Department are also involved in processing requests in addition to their routine duties, for example, in relation to searching and retrieving records and making decisions on requests received. At times detailed and complex FOI requests are received which involve significant time and resource implications for the staff involved.
Section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 2014 requires each FOI body to prepare and publish a publication scheme. My Department's scheme is published on its website and sets out a range of information about the type of records it holds. My Department also publishes a range of information on a quarterly basis on its website. This includes details of foreign travel expenses, details of invoices paid in excess of €20,000, minutes of the Department’s management advisory committee meetings and a log of non-personal FOI requests.
Who makes the decisions on when to release information on foot of FOI requests? I ask this because on Friday evening last, while the country was voting in an historic referendum, the Taoiseach's Department released a long delayed batch of records for which journalists had been waiting for some time. These records related to the strategic communications unit advertorial controversy which the Taoiseach may recall. Was there a specific reason for choosing Friday evening? Was this an effort to bury the bad news over the weekend? Separately, is the Taoiseach concerned about how long it is taking sometimes to release records.
One of the controversies of note in recent months has been the operation of the strategic communications unit in the Taoiseach's Department, as Deputy O'Sullivan has just noted.
It was noticeable that the Department chose last Friday evening to release a number of documents under freedom of information that had been requested by many journalists for several weeks. Was it entirely coincidental that they were released on the day of the referendum? Was Friday chosen as the release date for these documents because of the inevitable distraction of the media focus on the referendum? Is it the case that the spin unit might be gone, but the spin is continuing?
The documents that were released show that a so-called sentiment analysis was carried out by PHD Media to ascertain the perceptions of those who interacted with online advertisements about Project Ireland 2040. It appears that PHD Media planned to track online users who engaged with Project Ireland 2040 content so that they could be targeted for future campaigns. It was also planned to use the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste in future advertisements. Surely the Taoiseach will accept that this blatant politicisation of Government communications flies in the face of his previous remarks on this issue. We are glad that the strategic communications unit has been scrapped, but there are still questions to be answered. Does the Taoiseach accept that the strategic communications unit was a political operation? Does he accept that it was an inappropriate vehicle for him and his Ministers to influence the media and, by virtue of that, the citizens of the State?
The reason the Department of the Taoiseach was swamped with freedom of information requests about the strategic communications unit was that the information was withheld for quite some time. Media inquiries, Dáil questions and letters to senior officials failed to secure the necessary information. Considerable time and expense was required to obtain information which should have been made available more freely. The Taoiseach should not stand over the extraordinary cynicism of releasing a dump on documents on the day of an historic referendum. The documents sought under freedom of information were released at 5.38 p.m. last Friday.
I remind the Taoiseach that his predecessor confirmed previously that while decisions on what to release are taken by officials, it is regular practice for the Taoiseach's political and communications staff to know in advance about potentially controversial releases. Which members of the Taoiseach's staff were aware of the timing of this release? Why did they do nothing to ensure the information was not buried on a busy news day? We know that ministerial advisers in Britain have been obliged to resign over the years as a result of this kind of behaviour. Will the Taoiseach admit that this should not have happened? Will he give a commitment that it will not be allowed to happen again? It falls entirely within his remit in the Department to instruct that no action should be taken which might be construed as trying to reduce coverage.
I know the Taoiseach sees himself as a victim in this issue. He believes his commitment to modern communications has suffered at the hands of a sinister opposition. What has been revealed, and particularly what has been alluded to by Deputy McDonald, confirms that blatant politicisation was involved in this entire exercise. It was an abuse of taxpayers' money for a political project.
No single person in the Department of the Taoiseach makes all decisions on freedom of information requests that are received. When such requests are received, they are assigned to the relevant section of the Department. Staff deal with requests in addition to their normal duties. The functions of general examination and primary decision-making have been delegated to assistant principal officers and a few higher executive officers in specialist areas. The function of internal review has been delegated to officials not below the grade of principal officer. All requests that are received are monitored by the Department's freedom of information liaison officer.
On the specific question of whether responsibility for requests lies with me or with my officials, section 20 of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 provides for the delegation from a Minister to his or her officials of functions relating to the processing of freedom of information requests. While there is no formal delegation order under section 20, the long-standing practice adopted by the Department and by successive taoisigh, including me, is that the political head of the Department has no role in processing freedom of information requests or determining the timing of the release of information on foot of such requests. When freedom of information requests are received in the Department, the functions of general examination and primary decision-making are delegated to assistant principal officers and a few higher executive officers in specialist areas. As I mentioned earlier, the function of internal review has been delegated to officials not below principal officer grade. All requests are monitored by the Department's freedom of information liaison officer.
I have been asked about the most recent release of documents relating to the strategic communications unit. As Deputies will be aware, there have been a number of freedom of information requests and releases. I have not seen or reviewed the documents in question, but I have seen the online coverage of their release from The Irish Times. Its report confirmed that the director of the unit, John Concannon, insisted that all Project Ireland 2040 advertorials should be clearly marked as being from the Government of Ireland. Having read that story, I formed the opposite view from that of the Deputies. If I had been given a say in the matter, I would have had these documents released on a slow news day so that they would have received more coverage.
If the report in The Irish Times is correct, the documents in question provide further confirmation that many of the allegations made by Deputies against the strategic communications were false. It is regrettable that I have yet to hear any of the false allegations being withdrawn by the Deputies in question. False allegations were made in respect of regional newspapers. It was suggested that the strategic communications unit leaned on the editors of certain publications in some way to ensure prospective candidates were included in advertorials. We know from the report that was compiled by assistant secretary Ms Canavan, and from documents that have been provided by newspaper editors that this was not the case and that these decisions were made by the editors themselves. Unfortunately, I have yet to hear any of these false allegations being withdrawn by the Deputies who made them. I would welcome the withdrawal of some of the allegations. It has also been alleged that the Civil Service code or the public sector standards code may have been breached. We know from the Canavan report that such breaches did not happen. Rather than being precious about this - I certainly do not feel like a victim in this regard - I am asking the Deputies who made the false allegations that have been refuted in the Canavan report or in documents released under freedom of information to go back over the various allegations they made and have the decency to withdraw those that were false.
Is the Taoiseach serious?
We need to move on to Question No. 10.
Will the Taoiseach answer the question I asked? Who knew about the timing of the release of these documents?
I do not know who knew. I did not know. I honestly do not know who knew. I guarantee the Deputy that I was much too busy with the referendum.
Did the Taoiseach's adviser know?
Possibly, but not to my knowledge. We were all pretty busy with the referendum, as the Deputy can imagine.
I know.