Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

If effort is taxing I suppose we do. It is a source of shared frustration. In deliberating on what is the difference between a parliamentary question and a freedom of information request, I would say it is none other than that the former would be on the record of the House. One of the difficulties we as parliamentarians have is when one tables a question on a matter such as the National Transport Authority which extends beyond the immediate remit of the Minister concerned, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, one will receive a reply to the effect that this is a matter for such an agency.

It is not appropriate to make reference to the officials but, to take the approach of Sir Humphrey, I have heard the mental reservation response been used to such requests. Whenever I hear that type of response it reminds me of Peter Sellers in the sketch "Does your dog bite" where he said, "No, my dog does not bite". Eventually the man walked up to the counter and dog bit him and he said, "I thought you said your dog does not bite" to which he replied, "That is not my dog". The mental reservation response is different from deliberate obfuscation, deliberate hiding or deliberately removing files or destroying them knowing that a request for the information will be submitted. If such practices were to be found out, there are sanctions and penalties to be applied. Would the witnesses have ideas regarding the mental reservation response which is a response we would get to information sought in parliamentary questions? I refer to where the questioner would know the intent of the question and even though it does not fall specifically within the remit, they would deliberately avoid giving a response to it. Would the witnesses have a suggestion on protocols in that regard?