Author: Gavin Sheridan

The Tribunal contacted me today to say that they had received a number of requests for transcripts over the past few days, and that they had decided to contact DCR to stop the release of a disc to me containing all transcripts of the Tribunal.

They have decided that rather than sending discs out to everyone who had asked for it, they will instead publish all transcripts onto the website of the Tribunal. They have said this will happen next week.

Here’s hoping.

Update: I was contacted by the Tribunal, who said they had contacted DCR, who have said “a disc is being prepared”. I await with bated breath.

Last month I put an FOI request in with the Department of the Taoiseach for the following:

(1) All transcripts of public sittings of the Moriarty Tribunal from its inception to the date on which this request is received.
(2) The contract for transcription services and a breakdown of fees charged for transcription services.
(3) The breakdown of fees for the maintenance and building of the Moriarty Tribunal website, and the contract for this.

Today I received the reply. I had to read it twice to let it sink in.

Moriarty reply

I can, in some way, live with the fact that the taxpayer spent the bones of €1 million on transcription fees since the inception of the Tribunal in 1998. But I cannot fathom how a) the transcripts are not available online and b) that I have to pay (again) to see the transcripts of the Tribunal and c) that Doyle Court Reports retains copyright on transcripts of public sittings of a Tribunal of Inquiry setup by the Department and paid for by the Irish people.

I called Doyle Court Reporters this morning and they were very courteous and helpful. I asked for a quote as to how much I would have to pay for digital (.doc) copies of all 370 days of public sittings of the Moriarty Tribunal. They called me back a short time later, stating that for all days the cost would be €16,600 @ €45 per day. But if I was bulk buying they would be prepared to offer a discount of 25%.

I did suggest to DCR that since the public had already paid nearly €1 million for the transcripts, it seems a little odd that I would, as a citizen, have to fork out another €16,600 to get copies of the transcripts. DCR were again courteous and helpful, and suggested I speak with the Moriarty Tribunal.

I then called the Moriarty Tribunal, where I spoke with the registrar, Siobhan Hayes. First I asked if the Tribunal had copies of all transcripts, to which the answer was yes. Are these subject to FOI I then asked… to which she eventually replied no, and that copyright was with DCR. I then asked why other Tribunals, such as Mahon and Morris, had published transcripts on their websites, and Moriarty ones were unavailable. I was told that the original agreement was that copyright would stay with DCR, and that was the way it was. I then asked for a copy of the contract or agreement between the Tribunal and DCR in relation to stenography services. Siobhan said she would get back to me on this issue.

Of course a couple of questions arise. First is whether the Department of the Taoiseach does hold the transcripts, but simply pointed me in the direction of Doyle Court Reporters for copies of them. Second is how, exactly, copyright on transcripts of a public sitting of a Tribunal applies.

Third, and most importantly, is why the transcripts are unavailable for public consumption as a matter of public record. These are historically important transcripts containing the sworn evidence of former Taoisigh including Charles Haughey and Bertie Ahern, as well as other former senior ministers, civil servants and businessmen, all in relation to extremely serious issues of public concern. Indeed when a Tribunal is established it is invariably included in the Terms of Reference that it concerns “definite matters of urgent public importance”.

Yet in relation to a matter of urgent public importance, for a Tribunal that is shortly to issue its second and final report, I can’t see who said what in relation to anything on any given day, whatsoever.

Mad, isn’t it?

Related post:
Morris transcript FOI

I started the process of gaining a full picture of how much the houses of the Oireachtas cost the taxpayer some five months ago. I’m still working on it.

It is no easy task. For anyone who is interested in the practicalities of the FOI process, read on.

Three FOI requests have been submitted. One appeal for internal review has been submitted, and granted successfully. Thus far the process has cost €120 (despite an original quote of nearly €2,500). Despite seeking all the records in a digital spreadsheet format, I have almost always been given bulky physical hard copies, or scans thereof. And even when I do get digital formats, I have been given scans of printouts from digital spreadsheets. This makes the job of digitising the data far more time consuming and difficult.

As of now I am waiting on expenses data for 2000 and 1999, which I expect to receive in hard copy, and not even in table form. This will mean a huge amount of manual effort to tabulate the data. The Oireachtas also sought an extension on releasing this data. After that it’s 1998 data. And a huge effort to tabulate it correctly so we can understand how much our representatives cost us.

But a number of things have emerged during the process. Hold onto your hats.

As I blogged before, my original request for 2002/2001 expenses data was refused under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Act – that “in the opinion of the head, granting the request would, by reason of the number or nature of the records concerned or the nature of the information concerned, require the retrieval and examination of such number of records or an examination of such kind of the records concerned as to cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of the other work of the public body concerned”. I immediately appealed this for internal review. Two weeks later my review was successful and is it turned out, part of the expenses record was missing:

“I am refusing access to the records for 2001 and 2002 in relation to the expenses
claimed from the Grants-in-aid in respect of inter-parliamentary activities and the
British Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body as it has not been possible to find the records in
question – which would have been created in hard copy format only. These records
are outside of the main electronic accounting system for the office so details of claims
paid are not available through this system. I should point out there is a general rule
that permits the destruction of records, particularly hard copy records, relating to the
accounts for a particular year once those accounts have been audited by the
Comptroller and Auditor General and reported on by the Committee of Public
Accounts. This process would generally conclude within 2/3 years of the end of a
particular accounting year.

Fine, we can get over that. I have sought an explanation from the Oireachtas, and it is pending. But something else has also emerged, which perhaps I should have known, but failed to notice. There is a whole other set of data related to how much our TDs and Senators spend, that is not included in the expenses system. This is the system of costs.

When TDs travel under Irish Parliamentary Association or other committee travel or parliamentary travel, they do not necessarily go through the expenses system. In other words not everything is claimed. And since I only sought “expenses” details, that is all I was provided with. Letter of the law, and all that jazz. But in the costs system, the Oireachtas pay up front for certain things, without a TD claiming for them. This skews the figures just a tad.

For example, it throws British Irish Parliamentary Association TD data for 2007 out by some €16,000. That’s €16k more than I thought on the basis of expenses data. Other figures are bigger. And I am not including the costs of sending anonymous (so far, anyway) civil servants with TDs on such trips, be it to Mexico, Oxfordshire or other far flung places.

So the process of getting a full picture, at least for 2005 to 2009, is going to be a while yet.

When I originally scanned the expenses documents of former Minister for Tourism and Ceann Comhairle John O’Donoghue, they were images only, and individuals pages were uploaded as individual documents. To make it easier for reference, I have combined and OCRd the expenses.

Department of Tourism

JOD Turin
JOD Manchester
JOD New York
JOD London/Ascot
JOD India
JOD Berlin
JOD Venice
JOD Stuttgart
JOD Birmingham
JOD London
JOD Paris

Ceann Comhairle

Explanatory note and schedules (21 pages)
Domestic travel and one stop shop constituency expenses (935 pages)

As part of my previous FOI for the Taoiseach’s diary for 2006, I also sought a breakdown of expenses and receipts for expenses incurred by the Department of the Taoiseach as part of a trade mission to India in early 2006. I have previously sought details from Enterprise Ireland and the Department of Education for their expenses in relation to this trip.

This is not a complete breakdown, I have some more left to scan. I will add those shortly. Taoiseach8 details some expenses occurred in relation to car hire from Cartel Limos, the same firm that brought John O’Donoghue from Terminal 1 to Terminal 3.

Travel and subsistence breakdown, India 2006
Taoiseach1
Taoiseach2
Taoiseach3
Taoiseach4
Taoiseach5
Taoiseach6
Taoiseach7
Taoiseach8