Dáil Éireann

Vol. 702 Tuesday, No. 2 16 February 2010 DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES DÁIL ÉIREANN TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised) Tuesday, 16 February 2010. Ceisteanna—Questions Taoiseach ………………………………… 205 Minister for Foreign Affairs Priority Questions …………………………… 218 Other Questions …………………………… 229 Adjournment Debate Matters …………………………… 237 Leaders’ Questions ……………………………… 237 Requests to move Adjournment of Dáil under Standing Order 32 ……………… 243 Order of Business ……………………………… 244 Suspension of Member……………………………… 249 Order of Business (resumed) …………………………… 250 Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Powers of Inquiry) Bill 2010: Order for Second Stage 255 Order of Business (resumed) …………………………… 255 Social Security Agreement: Motion ………………………… 262 Referral to Select Committee: Motion ……………………… 262 Private Notice Questions Job Creation ……………………………… 263 Personal Explanation by Minister ………………………… 279 Private Members’ Business Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Powers of Inquiry) Bill 2010: Second Stage … … 282 Adjournment Debate Mental Health Services …………………………… 300 Departmental Staff …………………………… 302 Social and Affordable Housing ………………………… 304 School Staffing ……………………………… 306 Questions: Written Answers …………………………… 309 DÁIL ÉIREANN ———— Dé Máirt, 16 Feabhra 2010. Tuesday, 16 February 2010. ———— Chuaigh an Ceann Comhairle i gceannas ar 2.30 p.m. ———— Paidir. Prayer. ———— Ceisteanna — Questions. ———— Freedom of Information. 1. Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests which were processed by his Department to date in 2010; the number which have been acceded to; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48383/09] 2. Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of applications made to his Department under the freedom of information legislation during 2009; the number of requests that were granted; the way these figures compare to each year from 2002 to 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3176/10] 3. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests acceded to; the number refused in his Department to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3455/10] The Taoiseach: I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together. Seven freedom of information requests were received in my Department to date in 2010. Of these, two were part granted and the remaining five are still being processed. As regards FOI requests received in the years 2002 to 2009, the following table shows the number received in each of those years and the number that were granted and part granted. All FOI requests received in my Department are processed by statutorily designated officials in accordance with the Freedom of Information Acts. I have no role in processing requests. Year Received Granted Part Granted 2002 146 49 35 2003 142 38 46 2004 45 14 10 2005 61 22 18 2006 54 36 10 205 Ceisteanna — 16 February 2010. Questions [The Taoiseach.] Year Received Granted Part Granted 2007 71 23 17 2008 83 38 26 2009 99 51 28 Note regarding table: Decisions on the remainder of requests received are categorised as either no records, withdrawn, transferred or refused. (Records are refused when they are exempt from release under the FOI Act.) Deputy Enda Kenny: Does the Taoiseach attribute any validity on the comments of the Information Commissioner, Ms Emily O’Reilly, and the Department of Finance in respect of freedom of information, FOI, and the structures and costs relating thereto? Ms O’Reilly stated: If FOI is about replacing a culture of secrecy with a culture of openness in the Irish public service, I have to say that this objective is being frustrated by the continued exclusion from FOI of several key public institutions. At a conference on FOI held in June of last year, comments made by the Information Com- missioner and officials of the Department of Finance are extremely relevant to the Taoiseach’s initial reply, particularly in the context of his and other Departments. On that occasion, the Information Commissioner stated that the Ryan commission’s inquiry into the abuse of children in institutions might not have been required if freedom of information legislation had existed. She also inquired as follows: What might have been the outcome if 30 years ago, FoI legislation had allowed the public to rip away the secretive bureaucratic veils that hid the industrial schools and other institutions from clear view and exposed the practices therein? She further stated: “Other records would have revealed the complaints made and ignored, the low levels of educational attainment and other issues that took until the year 2009 to emerge into the daylight.” The Taoiseach is not responsible for the fact that freedom of information legislation did not exist 30 years ago and the Information Commissioner made that point. Given that she was appointed by the Government, the remarks made by Ms O’Reilly should carry some weight. At the conference to which I refer, a senior official from the Department of Finance made the point that FOI requests are costly to process and that the Government would be obliged to consider ways of improving the Freedom of Information Act. The same official made the point that this would include publishing information outside the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. What weight or validity does the Taoiseach attribute to public comments made by the Infor- mation Commissioner? What weight does he attribute to the formal advice offered by the Department of Finance to the effect that information should be provided outside the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, particularly in view of the costs involved in processing claims? What additional information could, as suggested by the Department of Finance, be published by Departments of State in order to make the Act more relevant and more meaningful? The Taoiseach: The policy in respect of freedom of information legislation is decided initially by Government and then subsequently by the Oireachtas. While one takes into account what might be stated in the annual reports of the Ombudsman or the Information Commissioner to 206 Ceisteanna — 16 February 2010. Questions the Minister for Finance — who deals with these matters — ultimately it is the responsibility for the Government and the Oireachtas to make decisions on these issues. As the Deputy will be aware, there have been many major extensions to the Act — and various bodies — since it was first placed on the Statute Book. That has been a good develop- ment because it has been possible, as a result of experience gained, to broaden the remit of the legislation and prepare Departments and agencies which come within its remit for the statutory duties imposed upon them. I am of the view that the current system works satisfac- torily. Compliance is achieved by means of the work done by the various statutorily designated officers whose task it is to compile the necessary information on foot of requests received under the legislation. I would surmise that the official from the Department of Finance to whom Deputy Kenny referred was highlighting the need to provide as much information as possible — through websites, policy documents and the review documents that emanate from Departments and public bodies — on an ongoing basis rather than having a system whereby the Freedom of Information Act is used for obtaining general information. The Freedom of Information Act was originally introduced to benefit citizens by ensuring their rights in interacting with the State so that personal information would be made available to them in an appropriate way. We have extended its remit considerably since then. Deputy Enda Kenny: The question related in part to the response given by a Department of Finance official who stated that freedom of information requests are costly to process. I can understand that because if the Freedom of Information Act has a structural impediment whereby information that might be relevant is not given out freely, it means that further information is requested and therefore officials must spend further time compiling it. In respect of what was stated by the Department of Finance, which is the Department with responsibility for the Freedom of Information Act, what is the Taoiseach’s view on publishing information outside the Act? This would lessen the requirement for requests within the Act which are costly to process. Does the Taoiseach have a general view that it would be in everybody’s interest for relevant information to be published outside the Freedom of Information Act readily without having to resort to it in the first place? I am quite sure that as a Minister who served in many Departments over the years, the Taoiseach discussed with the Secretaries General of those Departments the fact that Deputies who table parliamentary questions should be given as much information as possible. The replies to many of the questions, which are vetted on behalf of Ministers by Secretaries General, are meaningless. This means that Deputies or other interested persons must then resort to freedom of information requests, which mean further time and cost and more red tape. If the Taoiseach were to tell his Cabinet colleagues to instruct the Secretaries General to be as flúirseach as possible with the information and make it as relevant as possible in the first instance, it might lessen the number of freedom of information requests. The Taoiseach: The point to make on freedom of information is that the idea that some issues require freedom of information requests does not suggest that people are unduly secretive about the information that is available. The nature of some of the requests under the Freedom of Information Act is by definition personal or confidential; those requests may relate to the health records of the individual seeking them. The idea of the Freedom of Information Act is to make what would normally be confidential, such as personal records, available to citizens as and if they require.

Load more