Will the Leader of the House clarify when Senator Roche will be called on to conclude?
Freedom of Information Bill, 1995: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We have ordered one hour today and it has been agreed that Second Stage will conclude not later than 3 p.m. Senator Roche will be called upon either after all remaining speakers have offered and completed their contributions not later than 2.45 p.m.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House and congratulate the Leader of the House for allowing Government time to discuss this Bill. This is an innovation. I also congratulate and commend Senator Roche for the work he has done in bringing forward this Bill. It is important that such legislation is opened up and discussed here.
The Bill before the House is broadly based on the Norwegian Act. I would like to outline a few key features which are important to ensure a successful freedom of information system. The main feature of successful freedom of information legislation in other countries is a purpose clause which establishes a legal presumption of openness. This would set out in law a norm in favour of release of information and would enunciate a policy of access to official information. The purpose clause is a powerful reference point of access to official information for the private citizen in any dispute with a Government body as to whether information should be released. It puts the onus back on the bureaucracy to justify to an independent appeals system, or even to the courts, why official information should not be released. The Bill does not contain a strong purpose clause which would establish a legal presumption of openness.
Where definitions of exemptions are loosely cast, experience abroad also has shown that Departments tend to interpret them in their own favour and against the interest of the requester. As a result the interest of the bureaucracy dominates and little information comes in the public domain. The nature of exemptions proposed by the Senator are not clearly defined and would lend themselves to misuse by those eager to protect or withhold the information requested by the citizen.
An independent appeals system is the very heart of effective freedom of information legislation——
There is one in it.
——and under the Act it is proposed that it will be so done by the Bill which again mirrors the provision in the Norwegian Act.
No.
I understand it does . . . but Senator Roche's Bill will only allow the Ombudsman make recommendations to the Department——
Yes.
——and the Department would not be obliged to implement them. On the other hand, the system adopted by the Government in December — the general scheme of freedom of information which was prepared by the Minister present — proposes binding powers for the office of the information commissioner. In addition, experience in the Ombudsman's office to date has shown that Departments should be placed under a statutory obligation to provide reasons in support of decisions and the onus of proof where matters are under appeal should rest with the Department concerned. This constitutes a key provision in the proposals which the Minister has brought to Government and Which are being drafted at present.
Complementing this, the general scheme provides for a system of internal review. Experience abroad indicates that an internal review mechanism is a highly effective way of resolving freedom of information disputes — up to 30 per cent — between private individuals and Government agencies. This also carries the benefit of avoiding a buildup and log jam of cases for the independent information commissioner. A key issue in dealing with people in industrial relations is to allow those in dispute to talk about it first and if they cannot resolve their differences they should go to a higher authority. The two people in dispute, the citizen looking for information and the Department, should have an internal mechanism to resolve it before taking it to the independent information commissioner.
In every country operating freedom of information legislation it is accepted that not all information held by a Government can be readily accessible to the public. Hence, the need for exemptions to protect key areas of Government. There may be instances, however, where information should be disclosed in the public interest notwithstanding the protection afforded by an exemption. It is important to ensure that exemptions are used in a reasonable way. The general scheme proposes that the public interest be taken into account when considering issues under a number of exemptions. There is no similar provision for consideration of the public interest in this Bill.
Senator Roche's Bill is vague on administrative arrangements. The most disappointing practical feature of freedom of information systems in many jurisdictions relates to delays. Delays arise in a number of areas, including failure by Departments to respond promptly with decisions on requests for information, or failure by the appeals system to deal with appeals within a reasonable timeframe. Such delays could result in the public losing faith and confidence in the freedom of information system, which would fall into disrepute and disuse. The Bill's objectives would be lost.
The general scheme, as outlined by the Minister, specifies explicit time-frames within which administrators must process requests. The Bill before the House makes no provision for legal protection for individuals releasing information under a freedom of information system against action relating to defamation. This important provision will be included in the Minister's Bill. I congratulate the Minister on preparing detailed legislative proposals on freedom of information based on best international practice. The general scheme was approved by the Government in December and the heads of the Bill were presented to the Select Committee on Legislation and Security, which considered them in detail. It is hoped that the Bill will be brought forward as quickly as possible.
While we may criticise parts of Senator Roche's Bill, we must commend him for bringing it before the House. When on the other side of the House I often said that if we had the expertise available to us which the Minister had, we would be better able to draft Private Members' Bills. Such facilities should be made available to Senators who want to introduce legislation. I spent months researching legislation when on the other side of the House. Some Bills were found defective and I accepted that in some instances. Senators should have access to the expertise rightly available to Ministers. I commend the Senator on his work.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue as the right to information is close to my heart. It is a fundamental right of every citizen to know what information is kept about him or her on the many files in officialdom. As far as I am concerned, there should be no beating about the bush on this issue. Everybody should have the basic right to know what the various powers in this State are saying about them. The much abused words "openness", "transparency" and "accountability" come into play here in a practical way. These words have been bandied about too much in this and the other House, yet they mean so much in terms of their effect and import.
For too long this State was run like a secret organisation. The system of Government put into place by de Valera, principally, and others was one to serve those holding power and seeking to maintain it with an iron grip. There is much talk now about the independence of persons appointed to independent bodies. We must not forget the persistent policy of de Valera of infiltrating the Civil Service with those who found favour with Fianna Fáil and promoting those of like mind to the higher echelons of the Civil Service in its many divisions.
That is an extraordinary suggestion.
The truth hurts.
It is not true.
The result was that after many years Fianna Fáil held power whether in Government or not. Its supporters were in the right places and could continue to serve their role so to speak. Let us call a spade a spade. The independence and impartiality of many individuals in positions of power today can be questioned because of the nature in which they originally came to those positions.
I am not talking about one or two individuals but about civil servants, county managers, town clerks, planning officials, chief executive officers, etc. That abuse of power fed directly from the lack of information given to the public. Once people were starved of information they were helpless to fight for their rights, to question those in authority, to seek redress for incorrect and improper decisions and so on. We must not forget that information is power.
Freedom of information is about sharing that power and making the public service more accountable to the people it is supposed to serve. At present we have an appalling and frightening lack of access to information, something which must be urgently addressed. Senator Roche's Bill, which is good in certain areas, does not go far enough and for that reason I will oppose it.
I want to see the doors to information flung open to everybody, not only those favoured by those holding positions of power and those who can afford to go to court seeking discovery. Everybody should be able to get information sought by them on matters relating to tax, social welfare, banking, education, health, housing, grants and medical cards. We do not have that right at present.
I would like to put this into context because I speak from cruel experience. I have received numerous queries from individuals who want to know where they are on the housing list in their area. Despite repeated requests, Cavan County Council, Monaghan County Council and many of the UDCs in that constituency failed to give this basic information. They will not disclose where an individual is on the housing list nor the size of the list. That is disgraceful in this day and age. It begs this question: is there a housing list for the area? If there is a list and if it is based on objective criteria, why not disclose it?
People in Castleblayney have come to me with a secret copy of the housing list on which their names are seventh or eighth. Yet when there is an allocation of 12 houses, they do not get one. If freedom of information legislation was in place, there would be a remedy by which they could gain the necessary information to see whether the decision was proper. I am completely frustrated by the secrecy which prevails in the local authorities with which I am familiar.
A county engineer can tell somebody that roads in their area will not be repaired because they dared to criticise the county council on the issue. It is scandalous that nobody can do anything about this. The fact that the county manager in Cavan threatened to sue me last Friday morning because I dared to query a decision made by the planning authority and appeal against it in circumstances where those affected were not given adequate access to files is nothing short of scandalous. The fact that Monaghan County Council sold off or leased a national asset, in the form of Hope Castle and Lough Muckno leisure park, at a pittance to an English private registered company in peculiar circumstances and that the county manager and county councillors involved have refused to disclose information sought by the public about the nature of the transaction is nothing short of scandalous. The fact that certain individuals in this country are treated like gods who cannot be questioned because people are afraid to lose favour with them is nothing short of scandalous.
The legislation cannot go far enough. Many of those in positions of power in this country must not sleep easy with the fear of such legislation coming into force. The fact that they would be forced to actually assist somebody in pinpointing the information sought by them and obtain it for them must make certain individuals sick. If decisions on applications for housing, medical cards, social welfare, business grants or farming schemes are being fairly and properly assessed, those in the public service have nothing to fear. The legislation will only enable ordinary people to see that.
Legislation of this type is not only needed to let people know how decisions affecting them are made and on what information those decisions are based. It would be much more far reaching in its knock-on effect. Such legislation would place an onus on all public bodies and public servants to keep careful, accurate, fair and professional records about individual citizens. It will therefore protect against arbitrary, partial and biased decision making. It will ensure that public servants will be there to serve the public in the best interest of our State without fear or favour. It will make central Government, local government and all public bodies more accountable to the people they are supposed to serve. It will overturn the principle of secrecy by which our bureaucracy and our State have been ruled to date.
I joined the Labour Party because it serves ordinary people, not vested interests, because its believes in the provision of equal rights and opportunities to all our citizens and because it cannot be bought by anyone or any group. If our party was to deliver nothing else in Government, which in point of fact is not the case, I want to see the widest possible Freedom of Information Bill brought into force by us. I am making that quite clear to the Minister because it is so important. The heads of the Bill introduced by the Minister indicate a good Bill, but it is a priority that, as a matter of urgency, it should go as far as possible to deal with the circumstances I outlined.
I want to see everybody having access to information about themselves and about matters of public concern. I cannot wait to see the day when every citizen will be given full access to files and data held about them, when they will be able to see the rules, regulations, internal memoranda and guidelines by which their dealings with the State are assessed and when they will be entitled to see the full reasons underlining any administrative decision which affects them. Then and only then will Irish people know true democracy.
The Programme for Government provides for the introduction of a Freedom of Information Bill. Since the Government took office the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, has on at least six separate occasions indicated in media briefings that the long awaited Government Freedom of Information Bill is imminent. To date we have only got brief headings.
A Fianna Fáil Freedom of Information Bill, based very closely on the Norwegian legislation introduced in 1967, was circulated in March 1995. Senator Roche was a consultant to the Norwegian Government on that legislation, so he knows what he is talking about.
That explains why it is so bad.
The Fianna Fáil Bill covers comprehensively the same ground as the draft scheme circulated by the Government. However, the Fianna Fáil Bill differs from the Government proposals in a number of significant ways. The Fianna Fáil Bill is much more comprehensive in its coverage than the Government proposals. The Fianna Fáil Bill would apply to information on the files of all Government Departments, local authorities, health boards and State-sponsored bodies. The Government Bill applies only to information in the possession of Government Departments. That is an awful loss because it is important that local authorities and health boards should be subject to freedom of information requirements.
That is not true.
The Senator is wrong; it does cover that.
As in the Government scheme, the Fianna Fáil Bill recognises that certain information could not be made generally accessible. The Fianna Fáil proposals differ from the Government Bill in that they seek to identify specifically the areas of exemption and codify effectively from day one all exemptions rather than leave any area of ambiguity.
The Fianna Fáil Bill was discussed in Seanad Éireann in June 1995. The Minister of State indicated that the Government would not be accepting the terms of the Fianna Fáil Bill on the basis that the Government would introduce its own legislation in the autumn of 1995. Indeed, the Minister of State promised specifically that her Bill would be introduced in Seanad Éireann in the autumn. It is obvious that there have been divisions within the Government parties on the significant areas to be covered by the Freedom of Information Bill. Media reports suggest that opposition was particularly vigorous from the Department of Justice and the Minister for Justice.
It is clear at this stage that the Government was not in a position to fulfil its often repeated promise that its own Freedom of Information Bill would be introduced in the autumn of 1995. The general scheme which has been circulated for consideration by a Dáil committee is an incomplete document which contains a number of striking ambiguities.
If the Government parties are truly interested in getting a Freedom of Information Bill on the Statute Book at an early date they should accept the Fianna Fáil proposals as a basic document and allow an all-party Oireachtas Joint Committee, supported by a secretariat from the appropriate Government Departments, to refine and improve the Fianna Fáil proposals. This was the approach adopted when the Ombudsman legislation was first mooted in the Dáil and has proved to be very successful. If the Government parties are truly interested in a Freedom of Information Bill they should accept a proposal along these lines from Fianna Fáil. This approach would have the not inconsiderable benefit that the legislation which ultimately goes on the Statute Book would be the product of political and not bureaucratic minds. Such legislation would reflect the views of the elected representatives of the people rather than the defensive predisposition of a number of Government Departments.
The explanatory information circulated by the Minister indicates that the general scheme of the Freedom of Information Bill proposes to give citizens a legal right to information held by public bodies. This scheme in fact focuses on the Civil Service, not on public bodies in general. The Fianna Fáil Bill more closely fulfils the objectives outlined in the opening sentence of the Minister's explanatory material than does the Minister's own scheme. The Minister outlines four key principles on which the Government scheme is based. The Fianna Fáil Bill covers all four of these principles. However, in the case of the first principle, whereas the Government proposal suggests that access to information should be progressively increased, the Fianna Fáil draft legislation provides that there should be immediate and across the board access.
In adopting an incremental approach to freedom of information, the Government is not only being unduly conservative but is in effect defeating the whole point of freedom of information legislation. Information is either free or it is not free; it is either accessible or it is not accessible. Freedom of information legislation has been around for decades and has not caused consternation in other administrations. The approach adopted in the Fianna Fáil Bill has been well tested over three decades in Norway and has been copied elsewhere. The Minister of State has put forward no logical explanation in support of the idea of the incremental approach to freedom of information legislation.
In her opening comments the Minister of State dealt with the nature of the general scheme of a Bill. The document she circulated explains the general scheme and heads of a Bill. It obfuscates on whether the Government has agreed the headings. The Government should accept this Bill rather than produce the heads of a Bill which will achieve nothing.
I welcome the discussion of any freedom of information legislation. I am disappointed the Minister of State's Bill has not been brought forward yet. It is ten months since we talked about it and I had hoped to have had sight of it by now. There is too much secrecy about information in general in the State. I would like to focus on that related to health boards and health issues. It has been practically impossible for people to get any information on health records, for example. Departments have gone to extraordinary lengths to call upon the doctor patient confidentiality relationship when refusing to give information.
Although I admired Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn when she was Minister for Justice, a particularly sinister example of the use of this excuse took place when she was queried about the use of psychotrophic drugs in prisons. Discussion tends to be concentrated on the use and abuse of illegal drugs in prisons, but we rarely consider the psychotrophic drugs. I remember visiting Mountjoy Prison years ago and seeing a large bottle of Librium which must have been in use. When the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, was asked in the Oireachtas for information on the number of prisoners in Mountjoy Prison on tranquillisers or sleeping tablets, she replied she could not give the information because of the confidentiality of the doctor patient relationship. I do not know how one could describe a global overview of the extent of the prescription of such drugs to about 670 people as breaking that confidentiality. When such lengths are taken to prevent such important information becoming public we have to examine the extent to which matters are covered up in the State.
We in the medical profession have to take some of the blame for the fact that patients could not get hold of their records. However, there has been great change in the level of access now given to patients, which is to everyone's benefit. I remember a time when if a patient dared to look at the chart hanging on the end of their bed they got a dressing down for daring to go beyond their status as patient. Some years ago, when we were very short of money in the Rotunda Hospital, particularly for filing charts, the patients were given their charts to take home. I had visions of the charts being left on the Finglas bus, but as it transpired the charts were never better cared for. It was satisfactory because one could almost ask people to keep an eye on their haemoglobin levels. The only information one did not include on the charts was that which the patient might want kept private — they did not want every body on the bus home reading the chart. It is about time that people were allowed access to a lot of information about themselves that we thought appropriate to keep from them in the past.
We should not underestimate the amount of money which will be needed to make information available. Senator Farrell is right in saying that access should be free, but there will be a cost to the State. When the problems in the Blood Transfusion Service Board first came to light one of the main difficulties was the impossibility of tracing those who had received anti-D immunoglobulin or blood transfusions. About one third of the records were missing because of a lack of co-ordination between the hospitals and doctors. Ensuring information is made available will not be cheap. Record keeping is expensive, although it should be done properly regardless of the expense. Cost should not be used as an excuse to refuse access to information.
Senator Roche's Bill allows for an appeal to the Ombudsman and this is an important provision. If a person is denied information it is essential they have an appeal mechanism. The courts should not be involved because they are slow, cumbersome and very expensive. The Ombudsman's office has established a reputation for fairness and the public's confidence in the office has not been misplaced. It has performed a service for the public which cannot be overestimated.
I hope the Minister of State's Bill will be brought forward rapidly and that she will incorporate some of the best elements of Senator Roche's Bill.
Freedom of information legislation — whether in the form of this Bill or the Government's long promised Bill — cannot in itself create the intended open society. The legislation is a necessary condition for openness but it is not a sufficient condition in itself. In addition, we will need a culture change. I know am speaking to the converted because Senator Roche and the Minister of State served in the Department of Finance and are aware of the culture change needed.
People who hold information need to be convinced that an open information approach is desirable and that one can run a country with that approach. Otherwise, their efforts will be concerntrated on trying to frustrate the legislation, not in helping to make it work. We inherited an exceptionally secretive culture from the British — a culture in which knowledge is regarded as power and is jealously guarded for that reason. If we look at the example of America and the northern European countries we will see that there is another way which works very well. Until I became a Member of this House I was unaware of the Scandinavian tradition and methods. I have since realised how well they work.
I accept Senator Henry's point that the cost may be high, but it is likely to come down with modern technology. The ability to have access to information, not necessarily in traditional written form but on computer, makes it much easier to achieve.
Our secretive culture is by no means confined to Government; it applies just as much in business. In both sectors the prevailing assumption is that at least 95 per cent of all information is sensitive and therefore must be kept confidential. I have always found, however, that the amount of information that is genuinely sensitive is very small. It is probably more like the other way around: at least 95 per cent of information need not be kept confidential. Senator Henry touched on this but I did not accept her point about the Finglas bus. Similarly, when Senator Norris spoke yesterday about middle and upper income groups, he only referred to the south side of the city. I am not sure why Senator Henry mentioned the Finglas bus——
My patients come from Finglas.
Senator Henry works in a northside maternity hospital.
In any case, it is more likely that 95 per cent of information need not be kept confidential. Often the commercial goals of the business are enhanced by releasing it. We need to convince the present holders of information of this point. In this case we are talking about the State and the Civil Service, where what is required is a culture change. We need to convince them that there is life after disclosure, that the work of Government and administration could become easier, not harder, with a more open approach. There is a job of persuasion — evangelistically speaking, a job of conversion — to be done. If the people who walk the corridors of power can become convinced of the merits of openness, any legislation passed will work in practice. However, if they are not so convinced, an enormous amount of effort will be put into frustrating and circumventing the legislation. Few people would doubt it is eminently possible to do that, no matter how the legislation is drawn.
This challenge will face the Civil Service and the State culture. This Bill should pass — although the Minister has tried to convince us that her legislation is an alternative, we have not seen it and we have been waiting for it for some time. However, if the Civil Service remains unconvinced, the cause of greater openness would not have been well served by passing a law. I urge the Minister, in either accepting this Bill or promoting another, to remember this is not the end of the road — it is the start of a long journey to convince those who have the information of the benefits of change.
I support this legislation because in this area we must catch up with a number of European countries. In a previous session of the Seanad we had an opportunity to discuss this matter at considerable length, so, historically speaking, my views are already on the record. Since then, a distinguished former Member, whom we all recall with great affection and regard, Senator Brendan Ryan, published an important book on the necessity to achieve freedom of information in this country in so far as this is possible.
There is a clear need to move in this direction with apparatus to protect the citizen in an era of greater invasion of privacy by various concerns. In the last few days I have received a letter from an insurance company which guarantees my pension. One curiously sinister phrase in the letter was: "We are aware that you have travelled abroad". I would have thought such an activity was exhilarating and bound to do me good. On one hand, some organisations are acting as "Big Brother" and acquiring information about private citizens — for instance, I have been told that insurance companies mount surveillance operations, employing private detectives to monitor people who make claims. On the other, Government is frequently protective of information even where the interests of the State are not threatened.
One Member thought 20 per cent of information is genuinely sensitive — that seems rather high. In Britain, one sees the granting of immunity certificates in a highly politicised way with the intention of affecting the rights of a private citizen in a trial, with adverse effects in the Matrix Churchill case. I hope we ensure the rights of citizens are maintained against Government, bureaucracy and agencies like insurance companies and that the use of a let-out clause covering national security would be so clearly defined that it could not be abused.
I thank every Senator who contributed to this debate. I intended to be provocative when I circulated this Bill on 16 March last year, because we have a fundamentally unhealthy attitude to information. As Professor Paddy Lynch of UCD said, the Irish public service, particularly the Civil Service, guards its most commonplace file as if it contained the last copy of the formula for eternal youth. My intention in introducing this simple Bill was to do precisely what Senator Gallagher suggested should be done — to throw open the doors and windows of every State bureaucracy and make it a statutory right for every citizen to have access to every piece of information, save where on a statutory basis the Houses of the Oireachtas decided the information should, for good purpose, be withheld.
Without being unduly controversial, I must observe that Government foot-dragging is denying Irish people their fundamental right to information. This is not only today or yesterday — it has been foot-dragging by the permanent Government of this State, which is where the problem lies. In the Programme for Government, a firm commitment is given to the Irish people to end the secrecy which has been the hallmark of Irish public administration throughout our history. The undertaking is not a new one — the Government is not entering forbidden or uncharted territory. During the life of the previous Government good spadework was done on freedom of information by the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, and other Members.
I circulated this Bill over 12 months ago. If it were not for the prevarications and failures of the Government and the difficulties the Minister has had with some who are less willing than she is to commit to the liberalisation of public administration, the Bill — no doubt improved and strengthened by parliamentary debate — could now be part of the law of this land. Government foot-dragging, opposition from specific Departments and the hostility of nameless, faceless mandarins, allied to a level of incompetence on the issue, combined to deny the Irish people the right to information, which is a tragedy.
This is not a party political or partisan matter; it is supported by every right-minded public representative at every level in this nation. Senator Gallagher's contribution showed this. Another example is the chairman of Wicklow County Council, who had to take the county manager to the High Court to have access to files which are statutorily open to him. That is an extraordinary waste of taxpayers' money. On 7 June 1995, the Minister of State persuaded this House to still its hand on this matter by informing Members that:
There was a commitment in the Government programme to have my legislation before the House by Christmas.
In the same speech she informed the Seanad that:
Work on my Freedom of Information Bill is at a very advanced stage. We have completed a draft Bill which is now being studied by Departments. . . .
I do not disagree with the Minister of State. However, since that time there has been a truncated and bizarre process where the heads of a Government Bill were given to a Dáil Select Committee. Such action specifically excludes the Members of the Seanad from participating in the debate. In a characteristic flourish of hyperbole, for which her party has become renowned, the Minister of State informed the House that:
What my Bill sets out to achieve is nothing short of a transformation in the way our system of Government works. . . .
I wish the Minister of State well in that regard because this House has not yet formally seen her Bill. The Minister of State concluded her speech with a final promise to Seanad Éireann which persuaded a number of Senators from all sides of the House to suggest that I should not press my Bill to a vote at that time. She stated that she would introduce the Government's Freedom of Information Bill in Seanad Éireann in the autumn of 1995. I have no doubt that she meant to fulfil her promise, but she did not. Instead she circulated the draft heads of a limited and limiting Bill to a Dáil committee. With all due respects to the Members of the Lower House, I would be understating the case if I said that I was anything other than disappointed by the debate which took place on the heads of that Bill. By taking that course of action, the Minister of State deliberately sought to exclude Seanad Éireann from playing any meaningful role in this area. That is a fundamental mistake. Most importantly, however, the Bill currently before the Dáil committee is a truncated measure which will have a limited application and will exclude important areas of public information from freedom of information measures.
I remind Members that the Bill I circulated was uncomplicated and simple. It was closely based on the Norwegian Freedom of Information Act, of which, as a consultant with the Nordic Council, I had some experience. I spoke to people involved in public administration in Norway last spring who informed me that it had had very little impact and implementation of its measures cost a relatively small amount. As other Members stated, the vast majority of information in public files is not really secret and should be accessible. Senator Gallagher should have the right to enter the offices of her local council and gain access to any files she wishes to see. The public also have a right to do so.
The Norwegian Act was followed by the introduction of Freedom of Information Bills in many other countries. It focused on the premise that all information in the public service should be readily accessible unless excluded on a good basis. The point of my Bill was that access to information could only be excluded on a statutory basis. Under this arrangement information could only be withheld if such action were specifically ordered by the Houses of the Oireachtas. This approach meant that there would be no need for an information bureaucracy or a costly infrastructure to implement information measures. In addition to providing the people of Ireland with the right to information, my Bill would provide a right to a written explanation for the reasons for withholding information. A third right granted to citizens in my Bill would be a simple and uncomplicated right of appeal, on refusal of information, to a strengthened Ombudsman's Office.
I firmly believe that the Office of the Ombudsman's has become well established in the Irish mind. As public representatives, we are aware that the Irish people like to deal with complaints on a person to person basis. The appropriate place for the first complaint relating to this issue is with the Ombudsman. I accept Senator Neville's point that the Ombudsman has no statutory right to force an administrative body to go along with his findings. I previously criticised that position and will introduce a Private Members' Bill in the near future to address a number of the lacunae in the Ombudsman Act.
During the first ten months of this Government's term of office, media briefings indicated on six occasions that introduction of the Freedom of Information Bill was imminent. We were promised comprehensive legislation. Seanad Éireann was promised that the Freedom of Information Bill would be introduced last Christmas. Instead of progressive legislation, the Minister of State has circulated a draft scheme which is limited and incremental in its application. It will be bureaucratic in its operation and will be unlikely to come before the Houses during the life of the current Dáil.
The most fundamental difference between the Minister of State's and my proposals is that by enacting the legislation which I proposed the Dáil and Seanad could ensure that the Irish people enjoy the right to information now, rather than waiting for a more truncated right in the distant future. The Minister of State's Bill and the draft heads are not before this House, but have been referred to by a number of Members. The incrementalist approach adopted in this Bill is not the handiwork of a politician interested in liberalising Irish public administration. In my opinion, it is not the handiwork of the Minister of State, whom I have known for some time. It was stated earlier that we shared time in that most mandarinlike of institutions, the Department of Finance——
We did time.
The Minister of State is right, I stand corrected. We did time and escaped. However, the tragedy is that while I escaped entirely because I am now in Opposition——
Whose loss or gain was that?
——the Minister of State must, unfortunately, deal with the realities of Government. The draft heads of the Bill which she circulated have many failings. It would not be appropriate for me to list them now. However, the tragedy is that under the rules we could not do what I proposed last June — merge the two proposals and refer them to an all-party Oireachtas committee. That committee could have been given a free and independent secretariat to produce, as happened in the case of the Ombudsman's Act, a piece of legislation which all politicians could support.
I wish the Minister of State's Bill well, but I do not believe it will be enacted during the life of the current Dáil. I hope I am wrong, because a Freedom of Information Bill is needed. I accept that my Bill has many warts, as does the Minister of State's. However, if both Bills were referred to an all-party Oireachtas committee we could produce something worthwhile to serve the Irish people.
We might combine warts.
I will be pushing this issue to a vote because I have no other option. It illustrates that there are some complications in our procedures which obstruct the route of common sense. It would be common sense if Members from both Houses could come together to draft a piece of legislation. The Minister of State's Bill has many strong points, mine has many weak points. If the two were united, legislation might be enacted of which the Irish people could be proud.
I listened with great interest to the eloquence of Senator Roche and the constructive contributions of Members. In principle, I do not like to take the course of striking down a Private Members' Bill on Second Stage before debate has been fully exhausted. I am a member of the Government's legislation committee and I can inform Senator Roche that the Minister of State's Bill is at a very advanced stage. It is a comprehensive piece of legislation, but does not have some of the defects the Senator seems to think it may contain. Nonetheless, that is not for me to judge.
I have no objection to this Bill being given a Second Reading. At that point, we could then discuss if there could be a merging of the strong points of both Bills. It is good for this House that a Bill be given a Second Reading and therefore I will not be objecting to this Bill being given a Second Reading.
That is a most generous and characteristic response from the Leader of the House. This is not an issue of partisan politics. I remember as a civil servant and at certain times as a local authority and Oireachtas Member being very frustrated by the unhealthy attitude we adopt to information. It is very frustrating. If we could pool our resources on this issue we could help the Minister, because I know from friends and ex-colleagues in the Civil Service the difficulties she has had. It would give me no delight to score political points; we could strengthen her hand greatly.
I am pleased that the House will agree a Second Reading of the Bill. Perhaps the Leader of the House and the leader of the Opposition could discuss some appropriate way in which to involve Members of the Seanad in the discussions on Committee Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Saturday, 27 April 1996.