Under the heading of Oireachtas scrutiny of EU proposals, the first item is the draft report on COM (2002) 207, a proposal concerning the commercial exploitation of public sector documents. Members have before them that document, on which we had a discussion at our last meeting when some observations were made about it. We have a draft report which members will locate when they go through their documentation. Have they seen this document? The heading is "Draft - Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, Second Scrutiny Report. Report of meeting, 5 March 2003".
Scrutiny of EU Proposals.
Was this not addressed by the committee on 5 March?
Yes.
The decision was that copies would be forwarded to the sub-committee on European scrutiny in the Department of Finance.
We have to present a report which was discussed. It is mentioned in the minutes. On the last occasion we discussed two documents, one of which related to the financial services directive which we agreed to and about which we had no substantial comments to make. We will come to it. The other was the draft report I have mentioned. I ask members to glance through its recommendations which we discussed at length. It has been presented to the committee for our consideration today in order that we can complete our report on the matter.
I clearly remember voicing an objection to data and information held by public bodies being open to commercial exploitation.
By the private sector.
You agreed with me, which I welcome. My position has not changed.
I can read the draft report which comprises only a couple of paragraphs. Many views were expressed on the day in question and the committee secretariat has presented a draft report to take account of our views. Since then the Department of Finance has responded to the secretariat. Therefore, the draft report before us indicates where we stand. If members have the document, they are free to read it for themselves. It relates to COM (2002) 207. We have presented the recommendations as the committee reached a consensus. It agreed that any potential gain arising from the release of such information through the private sector for subsequent use would allow the State body, on the taxpayer's behalf, to benefit from such a release. Since then and following our meeting, the Department of Finance officials who gave us the briefing have sent back documentation to us which was circulated with the agenda for the meeting. The latest information from the Department suggests that public sector bodies will continue to be able to refuse to re-use but that where re-use is allowed, the provisions of the directive will apply. It suggests that there is no support in the Council, the European Commission or the Parliament for public bodies to benefit financially from the release of such information.
As regards the recovery of costs at a reasonable return on investment constituting an upper limit on charges, the latest advice from the Department of Finance runs contrary to the views expressed by the committee at its last meeting. Also, because the non-obligation principle was discussed extensively at the Council's working group and as there was considerable support for it, the Department does not believe it will be possible to overturn this principle as certain members of the committee would wish.
That is where we stand today. We expressed a view but the Department of Finance stated that in its opinion that view would not run. It is now up to us to restate our opinion which they can accept or reject. Otherwise we can accept what the Department is saying. That is the net point.
I commend you on the construction you have put on the committee's deliberations. You were tasked with making a summation which proved to be a little difficult at the time but you have more than adequately catered for it subsequently.
I note in the second paragraph that the Department suggests there is no support for public bodies to benefit financially from the release of such information. Our concern was not primarily focused on whether public bodies would benefit but on whether private sectoral interests accessing the information would be able to make financial gain. As I recall, that was our very clear position. What is expected of us as a committee other than to reaffirm the position that you have already articulated on our behalf? To regurgitate the entire debate is to waste time. We have clearly articulated our position which you have very adequately reflected. I propose that you restate the position of the committee and that we proceed with our business.
The summary reflects the debate reasonably accurately. There should be a presumption that where there is information that could be of benefit to others, including members of the public, and where there could be an opportunity to use it as an asset to create employment and in other activities, the State ought not sit like a dog in the manger on that information source. There should be an expectation that it would be released and that the opportunity for creating employment and wealth should be exploited. In that sense, I differ from Deputy Ó Caoláin. While I have no objection to people creating jobs or making financial gain from a resource, we would agree on the fact that the State should not be confined to recovering its costs alone. It should have an opportunity to participate in joint ventures in this or any other way.
It seems that the Department is stating there is no support for our views on either issue. I have no reason to alter my view that the State ought to facilitate opportunities for commercial development. Whether that is based on information resources, natural resources or any other resources, one might quite acceptably say commercial exploitation is great and creating jobs is good. There should be such an expectation.
We should express our view, even though the Department of Finance states it is unlikely to fly. So be it, we have expressed our view. The difficulty is that there is no consensus and it seems opinion is divided in the committee on both issues. I do not know what you are going to do. As there is no consensus, we will just be reporting divided opinion. Therefore, our report will not have much impact one way or the other.
Opinion might not be as divided as it appears. There is nothing wrong with a consultant pulling information from a document in the public arena to provide useful condensed information. If clients are willing to pay the consultant for this, so be it, we cannot stop it. That is life. However, allowing the State to benefit from participation or involvement in the provision of such documentation, if an arm of the State chose to do so, was, specifically, not provided for. The private sector will always do what it does but the State should not be excluded from the process if it wants to charge or engage in that level of business, if it chooses to do so. We might not disagree as much as we first appeared to do.
There is no directive for release involved. There is still the right to refuse. Is this not affirmed in the information the Department has provided?
The use of what is generally already on release is allowed. There are documents already on release.
Already.
Yes. One will often see on documentation a statement it cannot be reproduced without consent. There is the ability to block re-use.
There is also the right to withhold consent.
Yes.
Heretofore public bodies were restricted in allowing the information they held to be turned into an asset in the service of their interests. I am happy to accept your elaboration on the position we have already discussed at length. It is unacceptable that a public body is denied the opportunity to use its resources into which it has put time and effort compiling. That is the critical point.
Can we reach agreement on the general conclusion to facilitate the State in participating?
We disagree on whether the State should be the arbiter on dog in the manger questions but agree that there should be vehicles whereby the public sector could participate if it wanted to. This would have to be under fair competition laws in order that a new entrant would have an equal opportunity. We should not debar the participation of the State. We can probably agree on this. The report, as you have it, stands but the Department of Finance is telling us that our position will not be accepted.
All we have to do is note the latest information while reiterating the committee's view. We can conclude on that basis. We will lay the report before the Houses with the addition of that final conclusion.
The next item under this heading is the draft report on the document, COM (2002) 625, a proposal for a new financial services directive, a matter we discussed at our last meeting. The following recommendation was made:
Following detailed examination of document COM (2002) 625 the committee would like the Minister for Finance to take note of the following and reflect them in his deliberations with the Council. The committee is fully satisfied that the approach being taken and currently being pursued by the Department of Finance on this matter is a correct approach.
We agreed this recommendation the last day and must formally lay the report before the Houses. Is that agreed? Agreed.