I understand that. However, this is a day of exceptional work and duty.

I will change tack now. The Minister for Defence is taking the Order of Business. It appears the Government is involved in a deliberate attempt to cover up the truth and to refuse people the right of access to information about the workings of Government and decisions made five years ago. Does the Minister for Defence agree with the analysis of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, outlined in a contemptuously arrogant statement last Saturday, to the effect that the Irish electorate would not understand what he called the intellectually penetrating analysis that goes on around the Cabinet table – that people in Caherciveen, Littleton or Burtonport would not understand this and, therefore, do not deserve to know about it and should stay quiet and accept what the Government does? Surely it is in everybody's interest if Government is open and transparent and Ministers have nothing to hide, which many of them do not, and are there to serve the public and make decisions. Who cares whether the Minister, Deputy Brennan, was for or against an issue that was dealt with five years ago? We are not talking about the issues of last week or last year; we are talking about Government decisions made five years ago and Government decisions from that period onwards.

If the Minister for Defence does not agree with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and if everybody wants to accept views from the public and those who should be involved in this consultative process, why does the Government not allow the civil servants to attend the finance committee, why does it not allow the Information Commissioner to give his view and the various groups to give their views so that we can all have a liberal and open review of this legislation? Does the Minister for Defence agree with the analysis of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? Why is it that Ministers appear to be dead set on running away from opening up a Freedom of Information Act that could have prevented many of the costly tribunals that have taken place in the past few years?

I reject out of hand the contention that the Government is trying to hide anything. We have a Freedom of Information Act which has proved to be successful in promoting openness and accountability. It is a generous system, as far as I can ascertain, in comparison with what is operating in most democratic countries. There are few countries where a licence for opening up everything that happens at Government level is available to the public after five years. In the majority of cases, it is either 20 or 30 years and, here, it has been reduced to ten years.

Five years ago I made proposals to the Government in relation to dealing with the hearing impairment claims in the Department of Defence. I am still the Minister for Defence and I am still dealing with these problems. Deputy Kenny will understand that many issues can continue for longer than five years.

Is that not a case for moving Ministers around and making good decisions in an effective time? Does the Minister for Defence not agree that the electorate is capable of understanding what happens in Government, despite the intellectually penetrating analysis that takes place in the Dublin 4 section of the mind of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? Is it not a fact that the culture of secrecy and silence has given rise to many tribunals that could have been prevented? Is it not a fact that the people know what is good for them and can understand, and that the Government is running away from that?

Regardless of whether issues last longer than five years and are still ongoing, the people deserve to know why, for example, they cannot play their national games in a national stadium, why Eircom Park was shafted and why major tax concessions for developments were given. Why is there a cover-up? Why is the Government running away from opening up the truth to the people? The people have never been afraid of the truth. This is a case of "Animal Farm" in reverse. The Freedom of Information Act applies to everyone except those involved in Government.

The Bill should not be rammed through the Seanad using a guillotine, the Government should accept the Fine Gael amendments and open up the process in the interests of democracy. There is nothing wrong with this unless the Government has something to hide.

There is no question of trying to hide. We are not afraid of any decisions that were taken.

In that case the Government should tell us the truth.

Why is the Government trying to hide them?

Only Deputy Kenny is entitled to ask questions on behalf of Fine Gael on Leaders' Questions.

We want to ensure that only the best things are done for the people—

The Government will not give them the information.

It is a case of "We know best".

There are only limited changes. The bulk of the legislation is still intact and allows for the most open conditions to be found anywhere in Europe.

The period before the release of Cabinet papers is being doubled.

Fianna Fáil had no objections to this five years ago.

I challenge the Opposition to find another country as open as this one. It cannot name one.

The people will find out what the Government did.

Deputy Kenny is only allowed one supplementary question.

It is disgraceful that the House is being reduced to this type of stonewalling by the Minister for Defence.

If the Deputy has a question on the same issue, he is entitled to ask it, but he is not entitled to comment on the first leader's question. Only one question is allowed.

Who told you that, a Cheann Comhairle? You should contain yourself. With all due respect, I will ask my question in the way I choose to ask it.

That is fine, but only one question is allowed.

Is it not disgraceful that, because the Minister for Defence thinks he can assert something to be a fact when manifestly it is not, this side of the House is expected to tolerate that? Is this the reason the Tánaiste is running away from her responsibility to the House, because she has effectively been subsumed into single party Government? The Progressive Democrats are not acting as a watchdog when an issue such as the revision of the Freedom of Information Act can happen in a fashion designed to shut out the public and the media and limit the flow of public information.

Will the Minister consider this quote?

I am aware of some tensions in relation to some provisions of the FOI Act which may be seen as unduly interfering in the process of government. However, open government and greater accountability by definition involve greater scrutiny of decision making; while this may from time to time result in embarrassment for public servants or politicians, the common good of safeguarding against wrong-doing, at whatever level, must take precedence. In any event, I am fully satisfied that the provisions of the FOI Act as they stand are more than sufficient to protect all of the essential interests of government. Nothing in the operation of FOI over the past four years . . . suggests otherwise.

Does the Minister agree with that? Does he know that it is the stated opinion of the Information Commissioner, Mr. Kevin Murphy, on 10 October at a conference on this Act?

When the Act was first put in place, it was decided it would be reviewed after five years. A high level group was established. People of the highest integrity examined it and made a number of recommendations. These recommendations, by any standard, are minor and moderate. All the essential provisions, the information which Deputies and media people are interested in having, is still available. By any international standards, and I would like to be judged by what happens in most other democracies and am not afraid to stand up to that test in any form, we have one of the most open and accountable systems and an excellent democracy which allows the people to make a huge contribution towards making the country as good and strong as it is.

What about the question?

Is the answer "yes" or "no"?

What is the merit of this new facility to ask questions of the Taoiseach or whoever stands in for him if he decides to avoid the question put to him? I asked if the Minister recognises the considered opinion of the Information Commissioner and if he agrees with it.

Why is the Tánaiste absent? Her party welcomed the legislation when it was put through the House by the rainbow Government, specifically by my colleague, Eithne Fitzgerald. Now, instead of being the watchdogs they promised, the Progressive Democrats have become the toothless lapdogs of the Government.

How can the Minister say that this was envisaged when the provision was included to review the Act given that no one was consulted? It was done in private. The Information Commissioner, the arbiter of the independence of the performance of the legislation, was not even consulted nor was any committee of the House.

Will the Minister take the opportunity of the Labour Party Bill which has the support of other colleagues in the House to permit the Act to stay in existence for another year while reasonable public consultation can take place with interested parties, such as the National Union of Journalists, the relevant committee of the House and the Information Commissioner? Will the Minister take on board the Labour Party Bill and provide time for its enactment to extend the Act for one year to allow a review to be conducted as it ought properly to be done?

In drafting the legislation, amendments submitted by the Information Commissioner were considered. The Deputy asked me a straight question and I will give a straight answer. Not for the first time I have disagreed with the Information Commissioner, and I am sure Deputy Rabbitte will also some time.

That is a "no".

Five senior civil servants also disagreed with him.

The turkeys want to postpone Christmas.

On a point of order, was that a "no" from the Minister?

That is not a point of order. I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.