Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the issue the Deputy is raising relates more to the accuracy or succinctness of the questions tabled for parliamentary reply in the first place. In the vast majority of questions Ministers are asked to make statements on individual issues. As a general rule, Ministers are anxious to supply information that should be public knowledge. The changes made in 2003 increased the exemption period for Cabinet records from five years to ten, protected communications between Ministers on matters relating to Government business, protected documents relating to parliamentary questions, tribunals and international relations, and introduced fees for freedom of information applications. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has discussed the legislative proposals and the drafting of the Bill by the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel with the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform. I expect that a Bill to deal with this issue will be published during this session.

The Deputy will know from his own experience that Ministers never see the freedom of information requests that come into their Departments. I suppose they will see them if they ask for them specifically. I told my officials in the Department of the Taoiseach to put all of the requests on the website in order that everybody would see what was being requested. I have noted a tendency among some members of the media. A charge is levied when a freedom of information request is received. The emerging trend is for a long lost of questions to be submitted as part of a single request. As they might be of relevance to various sections of Departments, it can take a significant amount of time to deal with them.

In 2011 Deputy Micheál Martin submitted a request relating to the briefing material prepared in advance of the European Council meeting of March 2011, including the form of words used by President Van Rompuy. That request was part-granted. Following an internal review, two further documents were released with minor redactions. The Deputy appealed that decision to the Information Commissioner but later withdrew the appeal. A request was received in June 2012 seeking all documentation held by the Department on the banking guarantee. That was part-granted on 10 August. The volume of records involved necessitated an extension of time. More recently, a request was received on 25 September seeking all documentation held by the Department on home care medical supplies. That was part-granted and answered on time.

The Bill that the Minister intends to introduce during this session will bring certain public financial bodies, including the NTMA, the NAMA, the NPRF and the NDFA, within the jurisdiction of the Freedom of Information Acts, subject, in particular, to the maintenance of strict confidentiality on their engagements with their commercial counterparts; for example, in securing external private finance for the State. It is not proposed to bring other banks under the legislation as they do not have policy or regulatory functions such as those held by the Central Bank. It is a case of not wanting to keep information from Members of the Oireachtas or the public. As far as I am aware, the freedom of information legislation is operating reasonably well within the current constraints. The Minister intends to change the legislation to make it more accessible, open, transparent and flexible. I do not have a great objection to Ministers making available as much information as they deem appropriate to the nature of the questions asked by Deputies. Obviously, it takes time to get some of the information together. It depends on the nature of the request. When the new Bill is introduced, we can have a rational discussion on the most effective way of providing information for the public through parliamentary questions. The Deputy will recall a famous comment - it arose from tribunal proceedings - about the need to ask the right question. God knows all Deputies, particularly Opposition Deputies, have had recourse to the parliamentary question as a weapon during the years when raising issues of concern to them and the public.

See this speech in context