Dáil Report: The Taoiseach refused to be drawn on the absence of the Minister for Finance and his Minister of State in Cheltenham while the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill was being piloted through the Seanad.
The Fine Gael leader, Mr Enda Kenny, said the Bill was a legislative priority and was being dealt with, though neither sponsoring minister, Mr McCreevy nor Mr Tom Parlon, was present.
"I am asking the Taoiseach, as somebody who has been around here for almost as long as myself, about the practicality and mechanics of dealt-with legislation when neither Minister is present," he added.
Mr Kenny, who raised the matter during Taoiseach's Question Time, was told by the Ceann Comhairle, Dr Rory O'Hanlon, that it did not arise in relation to the Taoiseach's Department.
However, Mr Kenny continued to press the issue, declaring that if the Taoiseach wanted to give the best kind of leadership to his Government, he was not doing so when both sponsoring ministers were "across the water".
Mr Ahern said a question had been tabled on the European Council meeting next week, which he would like to answer because it would be irrelevant when he next got the opportunity to answer it.
Earlier, the Labour leader, Mr Pat Rabbitte, asked why the Government persisted in railroading its proposed changes to the Act through the Houses of the Oireachtas. "I ask the Taoiseach whether he will, even at this stage, recall Cheltenham Charlie to at least defend the Bill amid the charade that is going on in the Upper House."
Mr Ahern said the Government's proposed Bill had no implications for collective Cabinet responsibility, which was a constitutional provision, or for the deliberate process or working groups in Cabinet.
"As I have outlined, information relating to matters of public interest, personal matters, travel and subsistence, use of the Government jet, communications between ministers and chairmen and chief executives and staff employed as political advisers, will continue to be available," he added.
Mr Rabbitte said it was simply not true that the Information Commissioner, Mr Kevin Murphy, did not concentrate on the deliberative process. "At the heart of his criticism is the situation whereby a secretary general can certify documents as being related to the deliberative process, and thus, not available for release," he added. "That is a fact."
Mr Ahern said he would totally object to anybody abusing the deliberative process. "Let us be straight about the fact that the deliberative process ends at a particular period, so it cannot be abused within the legislation if the secretary general certifies documents," he added.
"I accept that somebody could allow the deliberative process to run for years, but that would be entirely against my wishes." He added that Mr Murphy issued reports all the time, "but he is not the referee of the Constitution".
