We will now deal with the draft report on the review, under section 32(2), of certain provisions under the Freedom of Information Act 1997, as amended by the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003. The draft report has been circulated to members and we intend to clear it today. There are only one or two substantial issues to be dealt with. As we go through the report, I will highlight the issues and matters of concern discussed previously.
The first item is the table of contents which lists three tables, namely, Table A, Table B and Table C, which we will discuss in due course, as members have concerns about them. Appendix 1 is a list of members; Appendix 2 is the terms of reference, while Appendix 3 is a report from the Ministers concerned under section 32 of the Freedom of Information Act. The latter appendix contains part of the large volume of reports we received last year. They are voluminous documents which we all received. Appendix 4 is the report of the Information Commissioner submitted last Christmas to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service which we have all seen and discussed at length. Appendix 5 is the response from the Ministers concerned and observations on the views of the Information Commissioner which we all received several months ago and have discussed several times. Appendix 6 will contain the proceedings of the various meetings at which we discussed the report we will finalise today. The report also contains an introduction written by me. It is one page long. The remainder consists of items such as the legal framework, the tables and appendices mentioned.
I propose to read through the report. It is only when we reach the tables that members will have issues they wish to raise. The report states:
The Joint Committee sought reports from each Government Minister under Section 32 of the Freedom of Information Act. These reports are included as Appendix 3.
The Joint Committee forwarded these reports to the Information Commissioner for the purpose of the review of the non-disclosure provisions in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act. The Information Commissioner's report is included as Appendix 4.
We then sought observations from Government Ministers where the views of the Information Commissioner were at variance with Ministers' original report. These responses are included as Appendix 5.
Section 32 of the FOI Act requested a committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas to review non-disclosure provisions other than those already included in the Third Schedule of the Act; i.e. those non-disclosure provisions not in the Third Schedule.
The reports from the Ministers and Information Commissioner dealt with all non-disclosure provisions including some of those already in the Third Schedule and those not included in the Third Schedule.
The role of the Joint Committee was to review only those non-disclosure provisions not included in the Third Schedule.
On the page headed "Legal Framework" it specifically states our role was only to examine items not included in the Third Schedule. The Ministers concerned had a wider brief. They were looking at all provisions, including items included in the Third Schedule and secrecy provisions not included in it. Therefore, their reports to us were broader than our specific task. That is why the point is highlighted in the draft report. It continues:
During the course of our deliberations we considered items which were already in the Third Schedule but these are necessarily not part of our report. The transcripts of these debates are available on the Oireachtas website, www.oireachtas.ie
The Joint Committee agreed to meet with one Department to assist it in its consideration of the opinions within the remit of the Department. The Department of Health & Children was selected and that meeting took place on 20th April 2006.
Overall, we summarised the work of the Joint Committee in 3 Tables as follows.
As members can see, Table A contains a list of 29 enactments not currently included in the Third Schedule and where the relevant Ministers, the Information Commissioner and the joint committee all recommended their inclusion. Can I take it that Table A is agreed and that nobody has any problem with it? The Ministers concerned, the Information Commissioner and members of the committee all agree that the 29 provisions in question should be included in the Third Schedule. Agreed.
Table B includes a list of 38 enactments not currently included in the Third Schedule and where the relevant Ministers, the Information Commissioner and the joint committee all recommend their continued exclusion. The Ministers concerned wanted to exclude these provisions; the Information Commissioner concurred fully and the committee has agreed to this. Is Table B agreed? Agreed.
With regard to Table C, I alert members to the point raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin. The draft report states Table C includes a list of 48 enactments not currently included in the Third Schedule and where the relevant Ministers recommend their continued exclusion. In these cases the Information Commissioner disagrees with the Ministers' recommendations. I am proposing that we support the Ministers' recommendations. We had two discussions on this table. During the first one approach was adopted but the majority of members adopted a different approach in the subsequent discussion in supporting the Ministers' recommendations for their continued exclusion. The schedule I have prepared is in keeping with the approach adopted during the second discussion. There is clearly a difference of opinion and votes were called on the matter at the last meeting.
