Vol. 434 No. 3
7 Ms McManus asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the progress, if any, that has been made with regard to the promise in the Programme for Partnership Government 1993-1997, to consider the introduction of a Freedom of Information Bill; if such a Bill will be introduced; if so, if he will give its main provisions; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Deputies may recall that the Tánaiste told this House in the course of the Adjournment debate on 9 July 1993 that proposals for a Freedom of Information Bill are being developed by me in the Office of the Tánaiste. As soon as the proposals are finalised they will be submitted to Government for approval.
In developing the proposals, we are examining in detail how similar legislation works in other jurisdictions and what is best practice in this regard. It is also intended that there will be extensive consultations with interested groups.
If Deputy McManus, or any other Deputy, has specific proposals for inclusion in legislation, we would be glad to consider them.
I thank the Minister of State for her reply. Is it intended that the Freedom of Information Bill will amend the ruling on Cabinet confidentiality given that the confidentiality rule has impinged in a major way on the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry? We do not know whether similar circumstances may arise again. Is it intended to make provision for an appeals system in the Bill where a Department refuses to provide information because they consider it to be sensitive? Will the Minister consider using the Ombudsman's Office as a means of ensuring that the information sought would be provided?
The practice in other jurisdictions has been to provide an appeals procedure and at this stage of the proposals we also envisage providing one. The Deputy referred to the possibility of using the Ombudsman's Office as a means of obtaining information, there is also the possibility of using the Data Protection Office or an independent office. These details will be studied and investigated with a view to deciding the best option. The first issue raised related to a finding of the Supreme Court in relation to Cabinet confidentiality. The Supreme Court found that Cabinet confidentiality was a constitutional requirement. It would require a constitutional amendment to change this. In the proposals which I am preparing we are examining freedom of information legislation, not a constitutional amendment, because, it does not arise in relation to these proposals.
Will the Minister of State indicate whether the Supreme Court decision on Cabinet confidentiality can be taken as being open-ended? Will there come a time, say, after 40 or 50 years when, on the Minister's best legal advice, Cabinet papers cease to be confidential? Are there any circumstances in which the Cabinet can waive confidentiality requirements? Do they apply only to the present Cabinet or to previous Cabinet papers? Will Cabinet papers continue to be deposited in the national achieve as long as that judgment stands in its present unsatisfactory form?
The emphasis on Cabinet confidentiality would appear to be a very specific matter, worthy of a separate question.
I agree, the Deputy should table a question in relation to Cabinet confidentiality.
This is what is called freedom of information.
What about the National Plan?
I am sure the Deputy has expert legal advice available to him in relation to this and other issues.
Question No. 8 please.
May I ask, only half facetiously, if the Bill guarantees the right of TDs to information, particularly in relation to circulars which the Department of Social Welfare sent to community welfare officers? At present the Department refuses to circulate them to Members?
That is a very important separate question. Question No. 8 please.
