Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Mar 1988

Vol. 119 No. 2

Freedom of Information Bill, 1988: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Professor Hillery

This issue of freedom of information is an important and complex area. I commend Senator Ryan for bringing the Bill before the Oireachtas. It gives us an opportunity to express our thoughts on the issue at this time.

Successive Governments obviously have been aware of the need for a well-informed electorate and do provide a considerable amount of information for the public on the operation of government. There are devices within the parliamentary system, obviously that lead to the disclosure of more and more information, for example in the other House, parliamentary questions, in both Houses adjournment debates and, of course, the proceedings of various committees, like the Committee of Public Accounts, and the Joint Committee on Commercial and State-Sponsored Bodies, of which I am a member.

Part III of the Bill is already addressed through the Data Protection Bill, 1987, which is before the Dáil at present. To the extent that Senator Ryan may, for example, like to see that Bill improved or whatever, there will be an opportunity to discuss that Bill when it reaches the Seanad after the Dáil has completed its deliberations. We will have a chance to discuss Part III of the Bill before us on personal privacy and data protection, which is the subject of a Government measure in the Dáil now.

The more complex area relates to disclosure of information itself. This could be regarded as rather separate from data protection. The key issue here is what might be exempt or not. In the Bill Senator Ryan recognises this problem and, in fact, has exempt information under section 13. The concern I have in reading the Bill — I am not a lawyer — is that when you read section 13 in conjunction with sections 14 and 15, it raises the question straight away as to what information would, in fact, be really exempt particularly in relation to access to that information by the Oireachtas and its committees.

Clearly what is involved here is the striking of a balance between the rights of access to information and the dominant or wider public interest. That public interest would not be served if the security of the State were impaired, or if the administration of justice were compromised, or if the commercial secrets entrusted to the State by the Government agencies were in turn compromised. Senator Ryan clearly attempts to exempt these areas except, of course, that a very considerable amount of information will be available to the Oireachtas and to its committees. I continue to have the concern that, while the question of exemption is identified and provided for in section 13, it seems that section 13, when linked to sections 14 and 15, does not provide the kind of protection I think would be necessary in achieving the overall balance I have already referred to as between access to information and the public interest.

One could argue that the Government are uniquely positioned to identify this balance given their access to the whole range of Government administration and issues. Certain issues can be specifically exempted. Cabinet papers were mentioned in the course of the debate the last day, and the content of Cabinet papers would be exempt. Take the budget for example. The budget is something we normally think about as containing very sensitive type of information and very sensitive issues. If the Cabinet papers in relation to budgetary matters were indeed exempt, there is a whole plethora of budgetary material in the non-Cabinet area and files in the Department of Finance and what about the sensitivity of disclosing such information?

I welcome the opportunity to say these few words on the Bill. Senator Ryan has undoubtedly highlighted a very important area. A Bill, however, would have to be workable and the public interest would have to be protected. That raises the question as to whether the Government can produce a Bill that would meet the necessity to protect sensitive Government information.

In summary, I feel that personal privacy issue is catered for in the Government's Data Protection Bill now before the Dáil, and which we will get an opportunity to debate here. Freedom of information I regard as a very complex separate issue requiring profound examination by the Government who have access to all the material and all the issues that are involved. I would wish, therefore, to be positive about the Bill in the context of freedom of information in principle and I ask the Minister what is the state of the Government's mind or Government thinking at present on freedom of information? If this requires further examination and further investigation I would certainly welcome any indication that the Government are going to give the type of priority which past Governments have not given to the issue of freedom of information. It has not been a top priority and there has not been this profound examination by any Government in the past. I would like to see that happen and I think the Bill before us may serve as a stimulus to movement in that direction.

Mr. Manning

At the outset, I must make a slightly political point to Senator Hillery, in that probably the most revolutionary act of any Government in recent years towards providing greater freedom of information was the decision to open the Cabinet papers, the archives, taken by Liam Cosgrave as Taoiseach back in the middle-seventies. Further — speaking perhaps more professionally than as a politician — I welcome very much the Archives Bill which was brought in by the last Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald, and which he personally guided through both Houses and which lays down very important guidelines as to how public papers and State papers will be processed, will be archived and will be made available to the public. These were two very important developments which were very significant. However, that said, probably they are not central to the discussion on the core of this Bill this evening.

It is a Bill which bears very little resemblance to its author, because it is a Bill which I find to be conservative, moderate and indeed eminently reasonable in all ways. It is a Bill which, if enacted, would bring us up to date with developments in some of the European countries, some of the European democracies. It would leave us still very far behind the developments in the legislation of the US which, perhaps, goes too far for most people but, none the less, is a very interesting example of what should be available to a citizen in an open democracy.

This legislation, if passed, would put us way ahead of the UK. It is frightening to observe many of the developments in the UK under this present regime, where there seems to be a very conscious, deliberate attempt by the Executive to claw into powers which were traditionally reserved to the Judiciary or to Parliament itself. It will certainly lead to a climate of opinion which I believe will be injurious, and is injurious to many questions of civil liberty, among which the right to know is one of the more important. We have seen all of this surface in recent times in the Spycatcher and allied sagas there. It is something which I believe is doing profound harm to the whole fabric of democracy in that country. I must also be fair to the British tradition, a tradition of openness and investigation in the better sections of the British media. We in this country, either on our television, radio, or in our newspapers, have not matched them at the top ends of the British market.

When we compare ourselves as a parliament, under the heading of the right to know and access to information, we compare very poorly with the established practices in the House of Commons. They are well established. We find a series of very powerful investigative committees which have the right to send for Minister, to question Ministers, to send for civil servants, to send for papers. We saw, for example, in the celebrated Westland affair a couple of years ago the way in which some of the top Ministers were brought in — there were even questions of sending for the Prime Minister herself — and where the Ministers were forced to answer to their peers in the public interest about their discharge of public duties.

One of the sad aspects of the current parliamentary session is the way in which the initiative taken in the development of committees under the last Government has been allowed to atrophy. Not alone has there been no development of the committee system but, indeed, most of the then existing committees were not re-established and it is virtually not possible for Members of either House to ask questions about the discharge of public business by the Government. It is impossible to sit down in a detailed way to cross examine and to question the public service about the way in which they carry out their work.

This is a conservative Bill and it shows a great deal of realism and commonsense on the part of Senator Ryan in being a conservative Bill.

Mr. B. Ryan

I think the Senator is happy to see it.

Mr. Manning

I am always happy to see a conversion no matter how surprising and short lived it may prove to be. This Bill in its origin is like the Third French Republic. If it was to exist at all it had to be conservative; there was no other way it could come into existence. Senator Ryan knows that, in a community like ours, a very radical measure which would provide very major departures in rights of access would not have much chance of success and consequently and very wisely he has produced this very sober, moderate measure here this evening.

When we think of this whole subject, to persons in their twenties, people who have grown up with the computer revolution and the information revolution, the need for this legislation probably is obvious and straightforward. For those of my generation, the pen and ink brigade, it is probably a case one has to argue with one's friends and contemporaries. For those of an older generation it is probably very difficult to comprehend. We have seen over the past number of years this extraordinary revolution in the provision of information, information which would not have existed, would not have been needed, could not have been conceived of 30, 40 or 50 years ago. What this has meant is that all of us are vulnerable in a variety of ways, sinister ways, to the misuse of this information which becomes available.

There is no doubt that there are large numbers of unscrupulous persons and agencies who are quite willing to use this information or to abuse the availability of this information, whether it be for financial gain, whether it be for blackmail, whether it be for whatever reason. There is a growing need to ensure that, as far as possible, individuals and institutions are protected. It is that desire to ensure that we move at least towards achieving this goal which lies behind this Bill. It is an objective which all of us would share.

Senator Hillery was right to ask the Minister if he would indicate the mind of the Government on this issue. There may not be very many votes in this issue; there may not be even much awareness but I am quite certain that four or five years down the line, we may very well regret if this Bill is not taken seriously and if it is not seen as the first step in important developments in this area.

Of course, there is a need for care. Of course, we have to be very careful about the type of information which we make available. I believe, and, I am sure Senator Murphy could confirm this for me, that, for example, in the making available of information from the public records office the names of Fenian informers, 100 years ago plus, are not made available, the names of police spies and so forth are not made available because we are a country with a very long memory. If that information were made available, the third, fourth and fifth generation descendants of these people could be damaged. That may be an extreme example of the sort of information which should never be made public.

I would like to give an example from my own experience of the way in which information and the withholding of information can be very damaging. It goes back quite some years ago. A student of mine at University College, Dublin — it is a very good example of how insidious this absence of access to information can be — he was a very good student. I had given him a very good degree, given him reference after reference. He applied for a job with the public service. He had passed the medical tests. This meant that, to all intents and purposes, he had been accepted and the medical test was normally a formality. It meant that he had passed. Yet every time he went for a job after the medical test, different Departments came back with a note saying he had been rejected.

Professor Brian Farrell, a colleague of mine and I fought this case. We knew there was something fundamentally wrong with what was happening and eventually we were told, after much perseverance, that this person was being rejected by the public service for security reasons. We knew the fellow fairly well. We knew he was a reasonably harmless sort of individual and it struck us as strange that there should have been some security objection to his coming into the public service. There was some further probing on our part and eventually we were told he had connections with a subversive organisation. At this stage, finally, we got access to the Minister and eventually what transpired was that this fellow had been at a number of student demonstrations. He wore a duffle coat, read the New Statesman and probably had read James Joyce as well——

Professor Murphy

A deviant, obviously.

Mr. Manning

He certainly had been seen by some Special Branch people in strange company, probably with some university lecturers, I do not know, but he was dubbed at that time as a subversive. His name entered the police files as a person who had subversive tendencies, or was associated with subversives, or was a member of some subversive organisation.

At that stage and, this is factual, the NUJ was even regarded as a subversive organisation partly because members of the NUJ were seen turning up at all sorts of strange fringe events. The frightening thing about this was that we were able in this case to assure the Minister that the information on the files was not correct, that this person was not a subversive, but it was only because we pushed the case as far as we could go that we got the situation reversed. I wonder how many people there are who were rejected for places in the public service because their name appeared on some file. This file may not have been verified. The information initially may have been exaggerated. It may have been incorrect. It may even have been put in maliciously. We never know.

It is simply the absence of the right to know which can lead to a frightening situation like this. We do not know what intelligence there is. We do not know if it has been updated. We do not know the quality of the intelligence. We do not know whether there was a malicious intent. Clearly there is a great deal of information which must be kept secret, but there must be some appeal mechanism. An appeal mechanism does not necessarily mean that the information has to be made public, but at least those who gather the information must ensure that it can be verified and that somebody is not having an injustice done to them, an injustice which can last their entire life time because of the type of incident, a very well-documented incident, which I have just related.

This Bill addresses itself to that most fundamental of democratic rights, the right to know, the right to privacy, the right to protection. As I mentioned earlier, the potential for the invasion of privacy in this computer age is frightening. The possibility of people being manipulated is ever present. Before we can even come to tackle this problem we almost have to think ourselves out of the old modes, the old ways of looking at information, information as always a good thing, information as a tool for progress, for change or for whatever, and come to think of information now, the power which it places in the hands of those who control it.

The Bill is not a comprehensive Bill in that it does not set out to be the last word on the subject. I do not think Senator Ryan would even pretend that it is. Nevertheless, he had done us all a great service, for example, in drawing attention to the number of public reports which were never published. Reports were commissioned in the public interest, at public expense to help towards some public objective which then, because the results did not suit the Government or the public service of the day, were left unpublished. He mentioned these. He could have mentioned a few more of them. He could have mentioned, for example, the SKC report into the reorganisation of the Garda Síochána over a decade ago.

In conclusion, it is not possible to go into the details of the Bill. Perhaps it is not even necessary because I doubt that the Government will accept it, but its publication is a gesture and an important one. It is an issue which this House could deal with in detail and deal with very effectively, indeed. It is the type of issue on which, if we would invite in outside experts and interested groups, the quality of the ultimate legislation could be very high and very lasting indeed. This House has the capacity to come up with a balanced and valuable Bill. I know this will not happen. I know the Government does not accept Private Members' Bills. That tradition has been broken in the Dáil by the present Government and it would be a very important gesture if they were to break that tradition in this House this evening by allowing this Bill to pass its Second Reading, bring it into Committee, refer it to a specialist committee which could send for outside expert information and then finally present it to the Dáil as a Bill which is eminently worth putting on our Statute Book. Again, I salute Senator Ryan for bringing in this Bill. I think it is one which would enhance our Statute Book, enrich the quality of life of the ordinary citizen and our Government would not lose in public esteem were they to accept Second Stage this evening.

Professor Murphy

I simply want to put myself on the record as entirely supporting Senator Ryan's initiative. I shall be very brief. Our traditional society in Ireland has been a particularly secretive one. That may well have to do with the rural way of living, perhaps, or more likely, the historical circumstances in which a large part of the population was alienated from the governing powers, so that there was a total dichotomy, as it were, between society and Government. In those circumstances where society had to evade the law and had to have recourse to all kinds of strategems to cope with oppression, it is understandable that a kind of mentality grew up which expressed itself in such peasant saws as: "Say what you like, say nothing", or "What you do not know, will not trouble you." That does characterise the kind of society which Ireland was up to quite recently, at any rate.

I echo Senator Manning's observations about the historian's view of this in that we are glad that at long last access to archives has been granted here, but even the reluctance up to that point again illustrates what I am saying. There was a reluctance to make records available. I think again on the principle that well it was just as well to keep them locked up. Perhaps there were particular circumstances there again having to do with the Civil War, for example. As Senator Manning pointed out, in all countries there is a prudent selectivity in operation when documents are released to historians. If any documents can incriminate people or can lead to any kind of trouble involving present generations, such documents are properly withheld. That illustrates the principle, of course, that availability of information is and must always be tempered by prudence.

Up to a particular point, Irish historians were disadvantaged and still are disadvantaged when compared with the rich material which is available to them from other sources. In fact, one of the problems in writing Irish history and, of course, it largely remains to be written since we had to make do for the most part with mythology up to now is that they have to draw disproportionately on foreign archives. Frequently for something that happened in Ireland we have to depend disproportionately on the Cabinet sources in Whitehall or, perhaps the archives in the State Department in Washington. To some extent at least that has been remedied, but it is still notable that the records which have been released tell us comparatively less than the corresponding records elsewhere. It was, indeed, a principle of Mr. de Valera in his long years in office that, the less you put down in the nature of Cabinet minutes, the better. Again I suggest this illustrates the kind of peasant mentality about which I am talking.

The public interest is too easily invoked in this matter. Senator Hillery very properly observed that a balance has to be maintained in the right of access to information and in the public interest. The public interest is a very vague kind of commodity which may be cited in far too facile a manner. What it suggests is that we in power know better; we know better than you and we will keep this information under wraps, as it were. When the public interest is cited without any real explanation it can lead to the kind of situation which you have increasingly in what I might call Thatcherite political culture where the public interest is cited per se as an adequate reason for immoral actions and for the refusal to proceed according to the proper principles of democracy. We have seen at least one example of that in recent weeks. The citation of the national interest without any proper development of that is not good enough.

I would be appalled if the attitude of the Government and the Government party to this Bill was simply to give Senator Ryan a pat on the head and say: "That is a very good thing you thought of but leave it to us. We are much better equipped and we have the resources and personnel to deal with it." What that means is that the attempt would be to put it to one side indefinitely. I support Senator Manning's plea that the adult way to treat this Bill is to allow Second Stage to proceed and to be completed and then to have the Government coming in with their resources on Committee Stage.

We are talking here ultimately about the principle of an open society. We may even be talking about something much more fundamental. Never in political history were people under so much scrutiny from their Governments. Never did Big Brother watch us so much and I think we need the safeguard of being able to watch Big Brother as well. We are all aware that in some respects this political society, this polity in which we live, is a very sick one and that part of the sickness is the alienation of a large section of people from the process of parliamentary democracy. They do not know what is going on; they think that what is going on has nothing to do with them. There is that very dangerous indifference or fatalism among large sections of our population.

Our democracy is by no means a full one or a perfect one. The reason freedom of information is available in other democracies is that they are more developed than ours. They are less paternalistic. They have thrown off that paternalism in Church and State which is so much a characteristic of Irish society and they are on the way to a fuller and more participatory and more meaningful democracy. That is another good reason for supporting Senator Ryan's Bill.

Thomas Davis is often quoted for nationalist purposes. I like always to recall the most significant of his maxims which he uttered for a particular propaganda reason but which I think has very large application: "Educate that you may be free." I would say that what this Bill suggests to us is that you should say to people: "Be informed that you may be free". Daniel O'Connell used to enjoin his audiences to "Know your grievances, know your wrongs" and that is vital to a properly functioning democracy.

I would like to pay tribute to Senator Ryan. In my years in the Seanad I never had the opportunity, or perhaps never had the determination indeed, to take this kind of commendable step. I think it is of the essence of the lifeblood of Parliament and of this House and I commend him highly for it. I trust that the Government will take him seriously.

Mr. Ferris

On behalf of the Labour Party group in the Seanad, I want to welcome the fact that an Independent Member of the Seanad has introduced this Freedom of Information Bill, 1988. Like Senator Murphy, I would like to put on record our appreciation of the obvious work and detail Senator Ryan has put into the Bill. It would be a major breakthrough if, in the interests of the freedom of an open society which we hope we represent in the Seanad, the Government were to agree in principle to the passing of the Second Stage of this Bill here tonight. It would be a major achievement for the Government. It would certainly be complimentary to the Independent Senator who obviously put a lot of legal and hard work into the preparation of this Bill with limited resources. The Government have available to them expertise which people on this side of the House do not have.

It is a major achievement to arrive at a stage where we have a Bill containing 41 sections all dealing with specific areas of information all of us feel should be available as of right to members of the public, particularly if that information is garnered by the Government, by the State, or by public bodies. Most of us accept the absolute right of people to have access to information, in particular information relevant to themselves. Most of us accept that as a human right, as a basic right. If the Government have individual problems with individual sections, they will find that people on this side of the House will be open to reasonable amendments which would improve this Bill.

The Government have been open and frank with us concerning legislation in this House which we have amended for the betterment of the Bill. When all our minds and efforts come together in dealing with legislation in this House — and that happened during the term of office of the former Government and this Government — legislation has been improved by its very passage through this House. What a wonderful thing it would be if the Government were to accept the Bill and were amenable to accepting amendments. Why should they not repeat that procedure in reverse? Why should not the Government accept this Bill in principle. I have read all the sections of the Bill. It is a reasonable Bill.

They are reasonable exemptions and exceptions to some of the requirements in some of the sections in the interests of the public and the security of the State. Fundamentally I see nothing wrong with the philosophy that people should have a right to information. I exhort the Minister to be generous enough to allow a fine legislative document to at least complete Second Stage in this House. Then we could have an excellent Committee Stage debate where amendments could be fought and argued from the Government's side or otherwise to help to improve the Bill.

That is all I would like to say on the Bill because it is technical. I accept the principle of what Senator Ryan proposes to do and I support it. The Labour Party are totally supportive of it and any assistance we can give on Committee Stage will be given. I am sure Senator Ryan is open to suggestions from all sides of the House but we must have regard to the Government's overall control in this area. Their overall control in the area of Private Members' Bills is not a good one. It is very difficult to get a Private Members' Bill beyond this stage and this is almost a disincentive to people who go to the bother of putting down Private Members' Bills. That would be a tragedy in the Houses of the Oireachtas, particularly this House, which is well known for its progressiveness in the area of legislation. Many controversial areas of legislation were originally touched upon in this House and tackled here by Members on this side of the House. That is a record of which we can all be proud and it is one of which the Government should take note.

I hope the Minister does not have a closed mind to this Bill. I hope that Senator Ryan's reply to the debate will reflect all our views and the welcome that is being generally given not alone in this House but by the media generally and by people to whom we have spoken. There is a general feeling that this is necessary legislation and the Government will do a good day's work if they allow it to go to Committee Stage where we can debate whatever anomalies there might be in it.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Mullooly)

I call Senator Joe O'Toole.

Mr. J. O'Toole

Does that mean there is no other speaker on the Government side of the House. It is an extraordinary way of doing business. I would like to put on the record that on the Order Paper at present there are four Bills from the Independent group: the Homeless Persons Bill, the Criminal Justice (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Bill, the Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill and the Freedom of Information Bill which we are discussing here tonight. It is disgraceful and shows a lack of involvement, it is regressive and unenlightened that the Government side of the House do not consider this legislation important enough to discuss it. That is not meant to take from the contributions made by a small number of Senators on the Government side of the House. I consider that it is hardly a very progressive or a very responsible way of doing business. I can understand the Government saying: "We do not agree with this Bill. We feel we should oppose it," and giving us the reasons. There is absolutely no case whatsoever for not presenting themselves for discussion, for not putting forward arguments and proposals and for not giving the Bill the type of treatment to which any Bill put before this House is entitled. Having said that, I also feel it reflects very much on the legislative procedure.

In the past couple of weeks in the other House the Government have been forced to accept a Private Members' Bill simply because they are in a minority position. That is probably one of the saddest things because having a minority Government opens up the opportunity for the introduction of proper legislation. It recognises that not all wisdom is invested in the Government, not all wisdom is invested in those who represent the Government party. We have seen very good examples of people making contributions to Bills which were taken on board by the Government and changes were made. We are now at a stage in our history where, for the first time, Governments and Oppositions have to change their tune, and all for the good. Many people have asked how a Government without a majority can rule but I believe it concentrates the mind wonderfully on things like legislation. We should never have anything but minority Governments in the future when people have to stand up, make their proposals, sell their point of view, make their arguments and convince people they are right. That is the way legislation was meant to be introduced and developed as envisaged in the Constitution.

Similarly it also makes the Opposition stay on their toes. It makes them consider opposition not purely for opposition's sake but for the sake of getting good, positive and progressive legislation. This is an opportunity for us to grasp. It is significant that, under pressure in the lower House, the Government have been prepared to respond to it. In this House we see a total lack of response, and empty benches on the Government side of the House. This should be noted and considered and given its due place as this is a highly progressive Bill.

This Bill opens up so many different areas that it is difficult in 15 minutes to try to cover all those areas. I would like to put on the record some of my thoughts on it. The Bill came into my mind the other night while watching the unfortunate individual on "The News" charged with the graveyard killings of last week. He stood up in court and said: "I read the files; they were legitimate targets." I reflected on the fact that the files have always been used as the instrument of suppression, as the medium of oppression. Information gives control. It has always been the weapon of repressive Administrations. It is used in South Africa. It is used in countries where there are repressive Administrations. Information is built up on people in the hope that they will step out of line at some stage — and who does not at some stage in their lives make mistakes which can be taken completely out of context and misrepresented?

People do not recognise the different ways in which information is dealt with in the State, in the public service and in the Civil Service. I want to give an example of the dual approach to information in Ireland. If we take the members of the Garda Síochána who are obviously in a very sensitive area involving the security of the State, there is a recognition in their conditions of service that information kept about them — about mistakes they have made and about misdemeanours of which they have been guilty — will be kept on their files only for a period of five years. In other words a misdemeanour of which a Garda is found to be guilty is recorded in his or her file and remains there for five years. It is cleared after five years and no record is kept beyond that point. The Garda also have the right to inspect and have access to their personal files in the Department.

I always felt that was important because it meant that people passing judgment and people keeping a record of that judgment did so on the basis that it would be examined and perhaps they would have to justify it at a later date. I contrast that with how my own profession, teachers, are treated. They are treated in a far more regressive way. There still is no access to the files kept on members of the teaching profession in Ireland. People may wonder if that is important. Sueing teachers and complaining about teachers has become somewhat of a national pastime. A problem arises and is not dealt with properly and the teacher is blamed. We are all familiar with the saying: "If the kid has no manners, send him to school where he is supposed to learn manners." Everything that goes wrong is blamed on the school at the end of the day.

Very often people send in a totally unfounded complaint about a teacher. It could be something very serious like sexual molestation of children, or it could be something relatively minor, but it is irrelevant what the nature of the complaint is. Quite regularly a complaint goes to the Department of Education from a parent saying: "I believe this teacher is guilty of this, or has done that, or should not have done the other." There is a requirement on the Department of Education to investigate any such complaints.

Let us say a complaint goes in that a teacher has been guilty of, say, sexual interference with young children. That complaint is put on that teacher's file. The response to that is an investigation. I believe that every complaint should be investigated provided it is properly signed. The difficulty is that somebody carries out an investigation, takes all the available evidence and comes to the conclusion that the complaint was totally unfounded. One would imagine that that would be the end of the matter and in all justice that should be the end of the matter. Once the person is found not to be guilty of something, that should be the end of the matter.

What goes into the teacher's file is that the complaint that the teacher was interfering with young children was investigated and no evidence could be found to sustain the complaint. Perhaps the person who puts that into the file thinks in good faith: "There was nothing to it; it was not true; it was completely unfounded". But it remains on the file. The person who investigated it and put the matter on file goes about his business and in five years' time on reaching the appropriate age, if he or she has not been thrown out as redundant, leaves the service and is replaced by somebody else. Some years after that, the teacher applies for promotion. Having applied for promotion, as is written into the rules, the management of the school to which he is seeking the appointment may refer to the Department about the suitability of the teacher for the job. Somebody who knows nothing about this teacher says: "I must respond to the board of management of the school. I must see what is the background of this teacher" and he goes to the file. Among other things he sees that there was a charge of sexual molestation against this teacher many years ago. It was investigated but no evidence was found to sustain it. Of course we all know there is no smoke without fire and some of the mud sticks. I give that as a real life example of something that actually happened.

I chose that example to illustrate the kind of problem that can be created by lack of access to information being kept about a person. That example illustrates the need for us to take particular care about the way information is kept, the kind of information kept and the people who have a right of access to that information. Of course, the whole idea of not allowing people access to information reflects very carefully what all rulers have known since the dawn of history, that is, that information is power. Information has always been power and has always been more powerful than money, wealth, or anything else. Throughout history information has been powerful. Whether you know the horse is being held in the races or the stock will double in price tomorrow morning, information is always power. Similarly if people know about legislation and about people and have privileged information, information without right of access can be and is abused.

Of course this reflects the mushroom policy which many Governments have implemented to keep their people under pressure. The mushroom policy is to keep people in the dark, to throw manure on them so that they can grow quietly and in the dark without access to information. We have talked here about the Stalker-Sampson report and its non-publication. That report is of vital importance to many people in three different Administrations. It is important that it should be published and it is important that we should have access to that information and the process by which we could gain access to it should be firmly established.

Similarly, I accept that it is important that the security of the State should not be put at risk by freedom of access to information. Therefore, there needs to be an honest broker to decide whether the access to or the giving of information would constitute a threat to the security of the State. In this Bill it is made absolutely clear that the courts could do that. That is above and beyond any suspicion anybody might have. The courts would make the honest judgment and people could then have access or not.

In conclusion, it is my opinion that hand in hand with freedom of information should be the right to privacy. Senator Ryan referred to that in his opening statement on Second Stage. I believe both go together. I regret that the Government have not taken a more serious interest in this Bill. I would like to record my compliments to Senator Ryan on bringing forward this Bill. I wish him luck with it and I assure him of my support.

Mr. Ross

Like Senator O'Toole I am very disappointed not with what he described as the less than serious reaction of the Government to this Bill but the total lack of interest by the Government. Because they find it uncomfortable, the Government have virtually ignored this Bill in the Seanad. It is no coincidence that the numbers in the Chamber this evening are slightly lopsided in favour of the independent Senators. I found it disappointing as well that those who have spoken on the Government side have given very flimsy, spurious reasons for their opposition to this Bill at this time.

I listened to Senator Hillery on the monitor. His speech was certainly well delivered. He said this is not for some reason the right time to introduce this Bill. If it is not the right time to introduce this Bill Senator Hillery might have told us when the right time to introduce this Bill will be because I know, he knows, the Minister knows and anybody else on the Government side knows that, as long as they are in Government, it will never be the right time to introduce this Bill. While they feel safe and happy to pay some sort of lip service to the principle of a freedom of information Bill, we can be absolutely certain that they will never allow it.

I was disappointed also the last time this was debated to hear what Senator Fallon — who was put in to bat and I am sure he did not want to go in to bat — said about the Bill. He said it was not a Bill he would quarrel with, but it was a matter for the Government to introduce a Bill of this sort. That is something with which I would agree and with which most members of Fianna Fáil and most Independent Senators would agree. We do not have any indication of the fact that the Government will introduce such a Bill. We know they will not. What they have done is to play for time on this Bill. They will vote it down and we will not hear any more about it for a very long time except from the Independent benches.

It also entertains me — although it was very nice to hear Senator Manning talking about Senator Ryan's conversion to conservatism — to see converts to this Bill in the Opposition here today. I want to remind those on this side of the House who are supporting this Bill of the total lack of interest shown in this Bill by both the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party when they were in Government. It is very easy to support these principles in Opposition and then to forget about them when in Government.

Mr. Manning

On a point of order, is Senator Ross saying I am less than sincere in my motivation?

Mr. Ross

No, I am saying the Senator is very pragmatic. That is said in a highly pejorative sense. The principle behind this Bill is to release us from the philosophy of big Government which is to keep the people ignorant and to keep power in their own hands. Senator O'Toole said quite rightly that information is power and the great power that would be released from Government hands by this Bill is its principal point.

There is a temptation to which Governments in this country have yielded more than in other countries, to keep the people ignorant and keep power in their own hands. The people are incapable of judging a Government if they do not have the necessary information on which to judge them. I do not understand how there is any explanation for our being behind the Europeans, the US and behind many other civilised countries in the constant conflict between the individual and Government unless this is the case. There is a tendency in this country to keep the people as ignorant as possible because it is very convenient for those who are in power.

Senator Manning said quite rightly that this is a very conservative Freedom of Information Bill. Senator Ryan who is not known for sympathies in that direction, has very sensibly pitched it in such a way that it will get the support of all those of moderate opinion, as well as of those who hold opinions like his own.

Mr. Manning

The Senator is very self-righteous.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Ross

This Bill makes some very important exemptions. It is not a free-for-all. It is not a Bill which entitles a citizen to come in and find out any information he wants. It makes important exemptions in areas which I would not necessarily think are necessary but which are prudent in order that the Bill should be passed. The two important areas are the areas of an individual's privacy and the area of security and these are covered, along with minor areas like Cabinet meetings. We believe the citizen has the right to this information by constitutional right and by democratic right and it is up to the Government, to give good reasons why this information should be withheld from the citizen.

This is an excellent Bill which has, I am afraid, exposed once again the inadequacies of the Government and the hypocrisy of the political parties in this House. I would like to put on record my personal congratulations to Senator Ryan for drafting this Bill and for bringing it before the House.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. N. Treacy)

First of all I would like to commend Senator Ryan for bringing this important issue before the Seanad and for the obvious care and consideration exercised in the drafting of this Bill. Regrettably, for reasons which I will outline later, the Government are not in a position to support a measure of this type at this time. So I must ask the House to reject this Bill on Second Stage. Having said this, I can assure the House that the Government recognise the importance of the issues raised in this Bill and are conducting their own examination of the complex issues involved. The fact that the Bill is now being debated clearly illustrates the openness of the Government's attitude to such matters and this has allowed the opportunity for debate on this Bill. This Government, like previous Governments, are well aware of the importance of a well-informed citizenry.

Mr. B. Ryan

On a point of order, I would be very grateful if there was a copy of the Minister's script since I will have to reply.

An Cathaoirleach

That is a matter for the Minister.

Mr. N. Treacy

I have only one copy.

Mr. B. Ryan

Most unhelpful. It is a tradition in this House—

Mr. N. Treacy

I have a copy and I have been working on my speech throughout the debate. This Government, like previous Governments, are well aware of the importance of a well-informed citizenry to the proper functioning of a democratic society. A clear indication of this awareness is the large volume of information on the workings of Government and of Government agencies now available through published sources. Much of this information comes in the form of official statistics as well as departmental reports and policy documents on particular issues.

I should mention, in particular, the important role played by the Oireachtas in securing well-informed public debates on the operation of Government. Ministers are obliged to provide information about the exercise of their responsibilities so that those responsibilities can be accounted for to the Oireachtas. This duty is discharged by many means including in particular Estimates debates, parliamentary questions, legislation, motions, Adjournment debates and Green and White Papers. Ministers in Departments also provide a very considerable amount of information on their activities to joint committees of both Houses and to the Committee of Public Accounts. In addition, the Ombudsman is empowered to examine all relevant papers and furthermore to summon and examine witnesses in the course of his investigations. These are very important powers for the purpose of bringing undesirable administrative practices to the notice of the Oireachtas and for ensuring fairness in administration. I commend the Ombudsman and his staff for the excellent work they are doing.

Senators will also be aware that public bodies in general have various informal arrangements for keeping the public informed, for example, by means of publications, press release and advertising. I am sure Senators will agree that a very considerable volume of information on the activities of the Government and the manner in which the public services are provided is already publicly available. I am confident that with the ever-improving standard of education of our community as a whole, this freely accessible information will contribute increasingly to the standard of debate on public affairs and hence to the national decision-making process through the medium of our representative democracy.

The Bill before us forces us to reflect on the adequacy of the processes by which the Government and the administration generally communicated their policies and operational strategies both to the Oireachtas itself and to the public at large. It also forces us to reassess the conflicts between the needs of the Administration and the private sector to retain information on individuals and the concomitant rights of all individuals to verify the accuracy of such records and to their personal privacy.

Part III of the Bill is concerned with the protection, verification and correction, where necessary, of data held on individuals by public and private institutions. Senator Ryan has referred to the Data Protection Bill, 1987, sponsored by the Government, currently before the Dáil. This measure aims to extend appropriate protection to data about the private affairs of individuals held by public and private bodies in electronic data storage systems. Since the types of personal information which are the subject of Part III of the Bill under discussion are nowadays widely held on electronic systems, I would expect that rights to personal privacy in this area would be more than adequately protected by measures in the Government's Data Protection Bill when it comes into force.

Part II of this Bill provides for elaborate mechanisms to secure a general right of access to unpublished official documents. I compliment the authors for the obvious diligence which they have exercised in attempting to reconcile the complex issues to which the subject gives rise. The resultant Bill is clearly the product of many hours of research and hard work. Regrettably, as I will demonstrate later, some of the mechanisms for which this text provides might well hinder rather than strengthen the official management of Government and our public institutions and foster even greater bureaucracy. I am sure this was never intended and is no reflection on the excellent preparatory work by the authors. It is for such reasons, however, that the Government, while maintaining a positive stance on the principles involved, are obliged to adopt a cautious attitude to the practical effects of the Bill as it stands and the measures which would be needed to put them into effect. They are, therefore, conducting their own detailed examination of the difficult issues involved.

The effect of Part II of the Bill would be to open to immediate public scrutiny either by any individual or the Oireachtas almost the entire range of records held by Government Departments, the wider public service, including the security forces and both commercial and non-commercial State-sponsored bodies. While I would not wish to pre-empt the Government's own examination of this matter, I would question personally the need to include such a wide range of bodies in the scope of such a measure. In particular, I would tend to agree personally with some Senators in their questioning of the effects on commercial competitiveness of including commercial State-sponsored bodies within the scope of this Bill.

Sections 13, 14 and 15 provide for exemptions from disclosure obligations. In practice, the Bill severely limits the scope of exemptions, particularly in relation to access by the Oireachtas. This is a complex area where it would be necessary to strike a fair balance between rights of access to information and the wider public interest. In the case of Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas or committees thereof, section 14 (3) appears to extend the disclosure obligation to all official information except constituency or party political papers of Government Ministers or their Ministers of State, or where the personal privacy of living individuals is at stake.

Are the authors of the Bill suggesting seriously that civil servants should be obliged to publish the existence of the relevant documents and disclose to the Houses of the Oireachtas or committees thereof information which, for example, could serioulsy impair the security of the State, or concern matters which are sub judice, or interfere with legal professional privilege, or cover current non-Cabinet papers on budgetary options? I doubt if that is what is intended but it appears that section 14 (3) of the Bill, as drafted, would impose such obligations. This demonstrates that, even with the most diligent approach to drafting, this subject is a minefield where it behoves one to tread warily. The definition of “exemptions” in the terms of this Bill is just one area which would require the most delicate balancing of new rights of the public and the Oireachtas to information on the one hand and the wider public interest on the other.

As I have already indicated, neither this Government nor their predecessors have failed to recognise the need for citizens to be adequately informed on the workings of Government. Neither would we suggest that improvements could not or should not be made. At the same time, I am sure Senators will appreciate that the type of change proposed in this Bill or, indeed, in any such measure would involve a radical change in the operation of the machinery of Government. No responsible Administration could endorse a change without being absolutely certain that the very machinery of government, including in particular its democratic basis, would be strengthened and not damaged in the process.

There are two principal considerations to be taken into account in determining whether and to what extent it might be possible to open up access to the policy and operational papers of Government Departments. First, we would need to ensure that increased public access would not disrupt the freedom of the Government of the day to plan and devise policies rationally and of the public service, including the security forces, to manage public services fairly and efficiently. Secondly — and this is primarily a technical problem — we would need to ensure that any mechanism for greater freedom of access would themselves be compatible with the existing State records system so that it would be capable of efficient operation without imposing additional costs. This is a very important consideration.

To take the second point first, Senators will not need to be reminded at this stage of the importance of strict control of public expenditure in the context of the Programme for National Recovery. While it might not seem immediately obvious, the procedures advocated in this Bill to increase public access to Government information would, if implemented in the manner proposed, require the separate indexing and cataloguing of every non-exempt document on almost every file in the public sector, a gigantic task by any standard. Processing requests and arranging for access on a global basis would also create considerable additional work for many public servants, quite probably at the critical times when they are needed most for their normal duties. It would be foolish to imagine that this could be catered for without imposing some extra burdens on them, with the consequent and significant increase in Exchequer costs. In their examination of this question the Government will seek to identify other ways by which effect might be given to the principles involved without imposing unreasonable extra burdens on the staff concerned or making demands on the hard-pressed Exchequer finances.

Of more fundamental importance in the longer term is the need to ensure that any increase in the scope of access to increase in the scope of access to information does not undermine the basic freedom of the Government to review policy rationally and to ensure fair and efficient execution of public policy. This is a very complex issue, particularly in present circumstances where public servants are being urged to be more result conscious and are being made more accountable.

Senators have raised a number of examples of cases where, arguably, citizens may have been inconvenienced in the exercises of their rights by the non-publication of such documents as circulars governing the operation of various social welfare schemes. In the light of the case law precedents we are obliged to consider whether it is possible to devise mechanisms to guarantee greater freedom of access in cases such as these. However, I am sure all Senators will recognise that there will always be classes of information, the premature release of which would undermine good government and put public safety at risk. This need arises principally in relation to areas like security and policy formulation. It is recognised already in the exemptions for which the Bill provides.

Unfortunately, the problem of protecting necessarily restricted information in the context of more liberal freedom of information rules is not well understood outside Government. To take an example raised during the current debate, Senator Fallon suggested that under this Bill budget secrets could be prematurely revealed, making it impossible for the Government to conduct budgetary policy in an ordinary rational manner. Senator Mary Robinson in turn suggested that the exemption in the Bill covering Cabinet papers would prevent this happening.

However, the exemption of Cabinet papers or even of those involving the giving of advice by officials would not be sufficient to cover all budget papers. Relevant departmental files and in particular Department of Finance files containing working information on such things as budgetary options could not be classed as Cabinet papers or otherwise be exempt under section 13 of the Bill as drafted. Likewise it is difficult to imagine constructive negotiations on public service pay in a situation where one party would have direct access to all the information. It would be like inviting somebody to play cards, knowing that all the aces were in their pocket.

I would hesitate to speculate on the potential disruption to the administration of justice were all Garda papers, including those on criminal or subversive activities, to be open for scrutiny by Members of the Oireachtas as provided in section 14 (3). These are just three examples of the types of difficulties and the potential problems to which they might give rise. Similar examples can be found in almost every area of the public service. I mention these issues not in a spirit of knocking the Bill but rather as illustrations of the difficulty of the issues to which any reform of this kind would give rise. The striking of a workable balance between the public interest needs for granting and restricting access to information is a highly complex area which we are having examined.

The difficulties I have mentioned convince me that Senators Fallon and Hillery and others are right in stating that only the Government would be in a position to develop a workable scheme of reform in the freedom of information area. The expertise required to handle all technical aspects simply does not exist outside the Government.

Following the introduction of Senator Ryan's previous Freedom of Information Bill in 1985, to which Senator Ross referred, an examination of the possible need for changes in this area was initiated. Unfortunately, due to the pressure of more immediate work, this examination could not be given the priority which it would otherwise have received. However, arrangements have been made to progress this matter further, although I should say that a quick fix is not possible. This is because of the complexity of the problem as I have outlined and because extensive inter-departmental consultations will be required. In this process particular attention will be paid to the points made in the debate on this Bill. It is for this very reason that an opportunity has been given to this very august body to debate this Bill.

Mr. B. Ryan

That is not true. I used my rights.

Mr. N. Treacy

An opportunity is being given to debate a Private Member's Bill.

Mr. B. Ryan

I have used my rights. Nobody gave me an opportunity. I have a right to do things as a Member of this House which I do not get from the Minister.

Mr. N. Treacy

And I have a right to do things which I do not get from the Senator. The Seanad may be assured of our determination to ascertain in a positive fashion the extent to which change may be desirable and practical in this area and that the Government will give due consideration to any proposals which emerge from this examination.

At this stage it remains only for me again to commend Senator Ryan and the other sponsors of this Bill for bringing this important question before the Oireachtas. This debate has made an invaluable contribution to the public debate on this question and it serves to focus all our minds on the great principles and difficulties involved. I have, I hope, made it clear why it would not be in the interests of good Government or effective management of our public services for the Oireachtas to proceed with legislation on this subject, at least until the Government have completed their own detailed study of the matter which is now under way.

I should also say that many illustrations have been given of other countries where freedom of information is so readily accessible. In my own limited way, as a public representative over the past six years I have had the pleasure of visiting some of these countries and, despite the fact that they have this freedom of information opportunity, they too would share many of the thoughts and sentiments which I have expressed. Accordingly I ask the House to reject the Bill.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Brendan Ryan has 15 minutes to reply and conclude.

Mr. B. Ryan

After a slow start the debate on this Bill has developed immeasurably in the past couple of hours. Since I have only 15 minutes, I hope Members will forgive me if I do not refer individually to each Members' contribution. I am very grateful to the Members of the House who spoke on the Bill, to Senators Fallon, Hillery, Robinson, Manning — I forgive Senator Manning for some of his comments but I will discuss them later — Senators Murphy, O'Toole, Ross and Ferris.

In general I do not need to argue with all of those Members because, with the exception of Senators Hillery and Fallon, they all welcomed the Bill and its principles. Both Senator Hillery and Senator Fallon also accepted the principles behind this Bill, just as the general objectives of the Bill were accepted by the Minister, speaking for the Government. I do not need to take much issue with the Members of this House for their replies or for their contributions. They were most welcome and I am very glad to have had the opportunity to facilitate and perhaps to encourage a debate on an issue which deserves to be debated in this House and which justifies the existence of this House, the sort of important issue that will inevitably be pushed down very low on the ordinary timetable in the hurly-burly of politics. That is not a criticism of politics. It is part of reality. It is most welcome that many Members took the trouble to talk about this issue and to reflect on it and I hope the Bill has contributed.

With the exception of one phrase I was very pleased and grateful for the Minister's reply. It was a thoughtful and well-considered reply. It was full of compliments and indeed it was almost full of flattery. I am too long in the tooth to be totally taken in by flattery. Nevertheless, it was a sincere contribution. I did take exception to one phrase and I am sorry if I expressed by exception too strongly by interrupting the Minister. I was not allowed to introduce the Bill. It is my right as a Member of this House to use the procedures of this House and, if the Government did not like this Bill at all, I would still have the right.

Mr. N. Treacy

There may be a slight misinterpretation. Basically what I was saying was that we did not stymie debate on this Bill.

Mr. B. Ryan

I for one would not accept that a right exists in this House for the Government to decide what issues Members in their Private Members' time can have discussed. I had a falling out with my good friend Senator Ferris during a previous Administration on this same issue and I am not prepared to concede it now. Nevertheless, having said that, I want to get on to deal with the substantive issues raised by a number of people.

I have been in this House for almost seven years now and in those years I have seen a considerable amount of legislation come through. I remember two Bills in particular introduced by the previous Government, the Status of Children Bill and the Clinical Trials Bill. I remember two more introduced by the present Government, the Companies Bill and the Insurance Bill. They all had in common the fact that as introduced they were far from perfect. The Status of Children Bill and the Clinical Trials Bill were fundamentally rewritten between the time they were introduced and the time they were passed at Second Stage and the time they left this House. There were of the order of 40 or 50 fundamental amendments accepted to the Status of Children Bill. There were of the order of 40 or 50 amendments accepted to the Clinical Trials Bill. The best part of 50 or so amendments are already accepted to the Companies (No. 2) Bill and we are only halfway through it. There are a considerable number of amendments now in from the Government on the Insurance Bill. I simply use this to indicate that the fact that a Bill has flaws or has some defects in it is no argument about the principle of accepting the Bill on Second Stage. The people who devise parliamentary procedures devise them precisely for that reason, so that you first of all discuss the principles in the Bill.

The principle of this Bill is to maximise the access of the public to a huge body of public information which is not in any way threatening to any fundamental public interest or to any fundamental interest of a private citizen. All we have argued about here and all the Minister has argued about with me are some of the details involved.

If the Minister is worried about budgetary secrets, or some commercial aspect of semi-State bodies, or about the provisions of section 14 (3) concerning the right of the Houses of the Oireachtas, then I will accept verbatim whatever amendments the Minister wishes to put into the Bill to cover those issues. I will not argue. I will give the Government a blank cheque to write amendments on those three issues to cover the problems they have. I have no problems whatever about the details of such legislation.

I have three fundamental principles. The first principle is that all information other than exempt information should be available to the public. The second fundamental philosophy is that there are categories of exempt information and the third is that the determination of what is meant within the legislation by exempt information should be made by an independent agency. It should not be left to the Executive to decide ultimately what is covered by the exemptions in this Bill.

I have chosen in this Bill the route which has been chosen by the United States, which is the route of using the courts to interpret or assess areas of conflict. Other countries have set up what they call information ombudsmen. That was the proposal contained in the British Bill which never made much progress in the House of Commons. I do not really mind if it is an information ombudsman provided the person is independent and has a guaranteed access to all the documentation required to take a decision.

The Minister referred to our own Ombudsman, but the truth is that the Minister can at any stage direct the Ombudsman to cease an investigation. That is a reserved power in the Ombudsman legislation. Therefore, the Ombudsman does not have any absolute right to access to information. If a Minister sees fit, he can direct the Ombudsman not to carry on an investigation. We, therefore, do not have one of my three fundamental principles, which is that whatever exemptions, whatever protections, whatever provisos are written in, they should be enforceable by an independent agency with the power to see and look at the documents and make a decision. In my view, the best authority for that is the Judiciary.

I can give the Minister a list because I have thought of a number of areas of deficiency. For instance, the whole area of public exeminations under the Department of Education is uncertain in the Bill as drafted. One of the great functions of Parliament — and most Governments find this difficult to accept — is that Parliament actually does improve legislation. That is what Parliament is for — to improve legislation. The Members of this House with their varieties of background and the Members of the other House with their varieties of background serve that function. They identify deficiencies; they identify oversights; they identify possible consequences. Many Members of this House who have been here longer than I, talk with enormous respect of some of the earlier members of this House who, by the sheer capacity of their intellect to think logically, forced reluctant Ministers to accept amendments to legislation simply because they identified glaring deficiencies in Bills that had passed through all of the Government's expertise, all the stages of such Bills in the other House and came in here and, nevertheless, were proved by Members of this House to have serious defects in them.

There is nothing in the least bit contradictory in advocating a Second Reading for a Bill and accepting that the Bill is far from perfect. That is the one disappointing aspect of this whole debate. The Government have said that they agree with the principles in this Bill. They accept that a lot of work has gone into this Bill and that they would like to see this issue progress, but because they have identified a number of deficiencies they are going to oppose it. It would have been a most magnificent opportunity to let this House and the Members of it be extremely constructive, bearing in mind that the Government have an overwhelming majority in this House.

I would like this House to be extremely constructive and to have a select committee of this House go through this Bill, clause by clause, and consider amendments from various members of the committee and also of the Government and, at the end, come out with a Bill which presumably would be written in the form which suits the Government. Subject to three fundamental principles which I have already outlined being accepted, I would not argue with a Government who were prepared to accept those fundamental principles but wanted the details changed.

Let me talk about another problem which the Minister identified. He identified the necessity to have any freedom of information system made compatible with the existing public records. Much to my amazement, though I have heard it said before, he raised the problem of the cost of indexing public documents. Will somebody please explain to me how any Government know what they have in their records if they are all in a totally unindexed jumble? Is it actually true that we have masses of records in Government Departments and nobody knows, or can find, what is in them, because they are not already indexed? If that is true, it is such an indictment of the efficiency of the Government as to call for a public inquiry into the way we are being governed. It is quite appalling if there are masses — perhaps hundreds of thousands of documents — and nobody has any ordered way of finding out what is in them because they have not been indexed.

If they are indexed, and if there is a way of knowing, then the argument that it would be a costly exercise is meaningless. You cannot have it both ways. Either they are accessible to the people who run these Departments or they are not. If they are accessible, the sort of information that they use is obviously not necessarily complete but, nevertheless, it is a basis for indexing. Therefore, we are not talking about starting from scratch and putting public servants into the position of having to produce complex indices or otherwise buried and lost documents. If people running the Departments know what is on their records, they must have some sort of formal or informal index. If they do not, it is about time they did it for the sake of their own efficiency, whatever about the needs of the public to have access to information. I find some of the wording that the Minister used so heavily qualified as to be meaningless.

May I say about section 14 (3) and the Members of the Oireachtas that I will happily delete that provision from the Bill and leave it so that the Members of the Oireachtas have no special privileges and they can go and fight along with everybody else through the mechanisms of this Bill, if it is unsatisfactory to the Government? It is clearly inadequately worded. It could do with rewording. The fact that one four-line section of a Bill, which is 19 pages long and which contains 41 sections, may, perhaps, be defective is hardly an argument on which to reject the Bill.

I am happy that the Minister went through a detailed refutation of this Bill. I accept that freedom of information is a complex thing, but there is nothing more complex than democracy. There is nothing more complex in terms of assistance to the Government than democracy. The most uncertain part of democracy is the fact that nobody can foretell in advance the outcome of any democratic discussion on any issue. That is the ultimate uncertainty. It is also one of the reasons why Stalin was reputed to be not madly keen on democratic election. One could not foretell the outcome. That is the truth about democracy. This argument that because something is complex we cannot have it is actually, though it is not conscious or is not intended, an attack on democracy.

Democracy is cumbersome. It is unwieldy. It is expensive, complex and also the best system of Government humanity has ever invented. It is by far the most humanity-affirming system we have. Built into that is a complexity which makes life difficult for those who are given the opportunity to govern and for those who are given the opportunity to advise those who govern. That does not get us away from the fact that democracy is complex and difficult. To argue that something should not be done because it is complex is to argue that democracy is somehow suspect because of the complexities it implies.

The truth of the matter is that this Bill is an attempt to restore the balance between the Government and the public. It is an attempt to do what Jesse Jackson has been talking about in the United States. It is an attempt to empower the ordinary citizen to answer back by saying to him that everything for which there is not a justifiable reason for keeping secret, is your property, not theirs, and by saying that everything that they have about you that there is not a justifiable reason for keeping secret is yours, not theirs. It says that everything about your environment, your welfare rights and industrial policy for which there is no good reason for keeping secret is yours, not theirs.

This Bill is not about the niggly details or mistakes I may have made in drafting it. It is not about whether I may have omitted certain areas of concern to the Government. It is about the rights of a citizen to know what his Government are doing for him, on his behalf and to him. The Government said they are in favour of those principles but they attempted to duck behind what I would regard as trivial details, so I must insist that this Bill be given a second reading in its present form. I will give the Minister carte blanche to write the amendments to the sections he does not like.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 24.

Tá

• Bradford, Paul.
• Bulbulia, Katharine.
• Daly, Jack.
• de Buitléar, Éamon.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Harte, John.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Kelleher, Peter.
• Kennedy, Patrick.
• McDonald, Charlie.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Murphy, John A.
• O'Toole, Joe.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Robinson, Mary T.W.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Ryan, Brendan.

Níl

• Bohan, Edward Joseph.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Cullimore, Seamus.
• Doherty, Michael.
• Eogan, George.
• Fallon, Seán.
• Farrell, Willie.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Fitzsimons, Jack.
• Hanafin, Des.
• Haughey, Seán F.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Kiely, Rory.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• McKenna, Tony.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• Mulroy, Jimmy.
• O'Callaghan, Vivian.
• O'Connell, John.
• Ó' Conchubhair, Nioclás.
• O'Toole, Martin J.
• Ryan, William.
• Wallace, Mary.

Tellers: Tá, Senators B. Ryan and Robinson; Níl. Senators W. Ryan and S. Haughey.

Question declared lost.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. W. Ryan

On Thursday, 24 March 1988.