Dáil debates

Tuesday, 29 January 2013

Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed)

Freedom of Information Requests

4:30 pm

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Taoiseach the number of Freedom of Information requests received in his Department in 2012; the number refused and the number granted; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50871/12]

Photo of Gerry AdamsGerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Taoiseach the total number of Freedom of Information requests his Department has received to date in 2012; the number granted and the number refused; the total fees that have been charged in processing these applications including search and retrieval fees; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [55214/12]

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.

My Department received 153 FOI requests in 2012. Of the 153 requests received, 97 were granted or part-granted, 14 were refused, in 15 cases no records existed, 18 requests were withdrawn and there are nine requests ongoing. The Department applied €3,918.96 in charges to FOI requests made in 2012. Of this, €1,750.57 related to search, retrieval and photocopying charges.

As I have stated before, the statutory framework relating to FOI requests keeps the decision-making process and the operation of this at arm's length from the political head of the Department. Therefore, I never see these requests when they come in.

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I put it to the Taoiseach that the strategy of the Government since it came into office has been the antithesis of everything it said before the election, in terms of transparency and the provision of information in a timely manner to Deputies and the public at large. We have repeatedly had to use the freedom of information process to garner information on a whole range of Government decisions.

That information could easily have been provided in response to parliamentary questions, but the Government chose not to do so. On many occasions I have asked the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste during Leaders' Questions whether they will publish documentation on a particular issue and furnish information to Members of the House, but the answer has invariably been "No."

I would like to mention a range of issues in respect of which it took us nearly one year to find out what was really going on behind the scenes. I refer to what happened when we asked for details of the advice Ministers received before Government decisions were taken on a range of issues. In the case of the primary care centre debacle, for example, it is worth reflecting on the fact that we would not have found out the truth about the decisions made by the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, in the Department of Health if freedom of information requests had not been made by Members of this House and journalists. That revealed the chaotic manner in which the Minister, at the eleventh hour, had added primary care centres in his constituency without any reference to the advice of departmental officials. It took us nearly nine months to gain access to the advice received by the Minister for Finance before the Government decided to raid pension funds to secure €500 million for its so-called "jobs initiative". We found out that the Minister for Social Protection and others had advised against the decision to raid the pensions of ordinary people. We could not get any information on the pros and cons of that decision until we used the freedom of information mechanisms to do so.

In the light of the horsemeat saga and debacle of the last couple of weeks, I have asked for correspondence between the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, the Department of Health and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to be published and furnished. The drip-drip nature of the process means we have not yet received that documentation and there is no transparency. The same applies to the technical paper on the bank debt that the Taoiseach told me 18 months ago was being negotiated with the troika. I do not know whether that paper is available. When I asked the Taoiseach previously to state whether it was, he smiled at me and indicated that it really was not. We sought information on these issues and the Taoiseach's discussions with the President of the European Council, Mr. Van Rompuy, through the freedom of information process, but again we were denied it. The same happened in the case of the discussions on corporation tax.

In many instances, when we have submitted freedom of information requests on claims made by the Taoiseach about certain matters and issues, in order to allow us to check the evidence for these claims, the Department of the Taoiseach has fought the release of such information and we have not received it all. I will ask a basic question about the reform of the freedom of information legislation which, apparently, is under way. We have been waiting for it for quite some time. In the light of the clampdown on the release of meaningful information to Members, can the Taoiseach give a clear instruction to his Ministers to be accountable to the House? He should demand that they provide total and comprehensive information on issues in response to requests made by Members and spokespeople, particularly through the parliamentary questions process. The degree to which it has tightened up on information, by using the freedom of information facility as a way of preventing people from getting at the truth, is a severe indictment of the Government which seems to hope that by forestalling the release of information, the issue of concern will have passed by and will no longer be the dominant centre-stage issue by the time the truth gets out. A change of culture on the part of the Taoiseach and his Ministers, whereby they provide information for us in a much more timely manner, should be a fundamental part of any reform of the freedom of information regime.

4:40 pm

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point I am making is that the real emphasis of the Government should be on reducing the need for Members of the House to have to use freedom of information requests in the first place. Freedom of information legislation is used as a delaying tactic by those who want to prevent information from getting out. When the pension fund raid happened, for example, we raised the matter during Leaders' Questions and asked parliamentary questions to try to get details of the advice the Minister for Finance had received from the Minister for Social Protection and generally.

It would have taken very little time to produce that answer. If there was true transparency and a genuine desire to give us information, it could have been given. However, months had to go by before we found out the truth, namely, the advice from the Minister for Social Protection was negative in regard to that pension raid, which netted €500 million for the Government and which was a penalty on workers and their pensions, to which they had contributed over the years.


The reason the Taoiseach and the Minister did not give the information is that they did not want the public to find out at that particular time. That is the point. It is the same with the primary care centres. After more information had come out via The Irish Timesunder freedom of information, I asked the Tánaiste on Leaders' Questions whether he could agree, at that stage, to publish all documentation in regard to the primary care centres. Of course, I got the same kind of equivocal, almost disingenuous, response along the lines of "I have no problem with that", but it never got out and no one ever published anything in regard to it. Again, it took months before the real truth came out about how the Minister, Deputy Reilly, almost an hour before the Cabinet met, slipped in Swords and Balbriggan.


It is a deliberate ploy. The Government is not being forthcoming and is not being transparent at all. This week, it was Reuters that told us there was some problem with the promissory note discussions with the European Central Bank and that the ECB had rejected a Government proposition. We have been asking in the House for 18 months what is the specific Government proposal that is being put and we have been trying to find out generally what is going on but we do not get answers. Were it not for Reuters, I do not believe we would have had the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, telling us on "The Week in Politics" about what happened last week in regard to the proposition the Government put to the ECB which the ECB did not accept. We found out via Reuters exactly what was going on.


The point I am making is that, while the extension of freedom of information legislation and the inclusion of new bodies is welcome, the culture needs to change. This is particularly the case in terms of the Government and Ministers providing a maximum amount of information to Members of the House, not the bare minimum and not by kicking it into freedom of information and hoping that, by the time it eventually comes out, the heat will have gone out of the situation and they can carry on with the next issue. The real focus and emphasis should be on reducing the need for Members to have to use freedom of information to get basic information about policy decisions.

4:50 pm

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for that. Let me assure him there is no attempt to deny the people the truth as to how the situation evolves. Let us practise what we preach here. The Deputy put a very accurate and straightforward question: "To ask the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received in his Department in 2012; the number refused and the number granted; and if he will make a statement on the matter." In the same sphere, Deputy Adams wanted to know about the total fees that have been charged, including search and retrieval fees, and if I would make a statement. The information is being given as was requested in the question.

I have said to every Minister that they should talk to their Secretaries General and, in so far as the generality of the question is concerned, to answer it, and in so far as the facts or details are concerned, to answer it where that is appropriate. When the Minister comes in with the new Bill in this session, let us have a discussion about that. If the Deputy had the time to read the report of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform of Thursday, 10 January last, he will know the committee had quite a discussion about semi-State bodies and commercial bodies dealing with the Freedom of Information Act, where the Deputies attending the committee gave their views. It is not a case of wanting to have an inferior form of parliamentary question; it is that the entire range of material can be exhausted in many cases.

I would like to think Ministers see to it that the Secretaries General provide for the accuracy of the information and the extent that is appropriate. Of course, it is a good thing that the Freedom of Information Act, which was made more restrictive in 2003, will be opened out again to make it more transparent and more accountable.

Photo of Gerry AdamsGerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Taoiseach has just reminded us, the programme for Government contains commitments to restore the Freedom of Information Act to what it was before it was restricted. I presume that was a genuine effort by those who made up the Government to correct what they saw as something which was wrong. They also committed to extend the remit of the Freedom of Information Act to other public bodies, including the administrative side of the Garda Síochána, and to extend freedom of information in the Ombudsman Act to cover all statutory bodies and all bodies significantly funded from the public purse. All of that is good.

I sometimes sit here in stupefaction listening to the exchanges between the Taoiseach and the leader of Fianna Fáil that "the culture has to change" and so on. I will tell the Taoiseach of my own experience, of which I can give numerous examples. One example arose today, when I asked the criteria for fast-tracking decisions regarding necessary upgrades in the hospitals in Wexford, Carlow and Kilkenny ahead of other necessary upgrades in other hospitals. I am no wiser as to the criteria that was used. The Taoiseach went off on a solo run around Sinn Féin not wanting to see Wexford people being treated the way they should be treated, as opposed to being treated out of a pharmacy or a Portakabin, and so on. Similarly, in terms of the decisions taken around primary care centres, which, as we all know, led to the resignation of a Minister of State, our spokesperson on health - the Taoiseach knows him quite well and he is very good at his job - asked numerous questions, including in freedom of information requests. Again, we did not get any scale or clarity on any of that.

I am trying to convince the Taoiseach to see this in the way he used to see it when he was on this side of the House. I was not here, of course, but it appears to me it has not changed very much. Commitments about transparency, accountability, openness and changing the way things once were come to nothing. With regard to this entire issue, when we stand up here and ask questions in regard to the use of public funds, can we not simply get straight answers, as the Taoiseach promised to give us?

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Politics is about people, essentially, and government is about making decisions. Far from my going on a rant about Sinn Féin, Deputy McDonald was beside Deputy Adams, making peculiar facial expressions about Wexford and Kilkenny, and obviously could not resist the temptation to comment on that. The point is that it is about moving things along in the interests of people. The projects to which the Deputy referred were already approved for full planning and were in the capital programme in time to move them on.

This question is about the Department of the Taoiseach, which actually publishes quite a deal of information on its own website. The minutes of the IFSC Clearing House Group, for example, are published on the website yet they do not attract any attention because they are published and, therefore, they are available for everybody. People seem to want to get a bundle of freedom of information information because there might be some gem or some piece of information that was not public and that might be spectacular in its impact-----

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have got them.

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of course.

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister, Deputy Reilly's late, late intervention.

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That seems to be the rationale for putting in a lot of this stuff. Also on the website of the Department of the Taoiseach are the expense reports on foreign travel by the Taoiseach and Ministers of State, and reports on payments made to the Department's suppliers.

My understanding is that most complaints in regard to freedom of information relate not to the processes of obtaining information but the restrictions which apply on the information which can be released. It seems to be a matter of "Why don't you release this?" or "Why don't you release that?" We undertook in the programme for Government to change and extend the Act and to broaden it out so many of the issues raised by the Deputy and others can be dealt with.

I look forward to those discussions when we have them in the House.

5:00 pm

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know that there is no time limit on these questions, but if we had shorter questions with shorter answers we might make more progress.

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A wise observation.