This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 103, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question "That the Bill be received for final consideration", the Minister may explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil. This is looked upon as the report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. The only matters, therefore, which may be discussed are the amendments made by the Dáil. For Senators' convenience, I have arranged for the printing and circulation of the amendments. Senators may speak only once on Report Stage.
Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003 [ Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil ] : Report and Final Stages.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
Minister for Finance (Mr. McCreevy): I am pleased to have this opportunity to report back to the House on the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003, as passed by Dáil Eireann. The Bill completed all Stages in this House on 20 March 2003 after some 27 hours of debate. Yesterday, the Bill completed all Stages in the Dáil after a total of 39 hours debate, comprising 11 hours on Second Stage, 24 hours on Committee Stage and four hours scheduled for Report and Final Stages.
The Bill was also considered by the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, which heard oral evidence from a number of interested parties including the members of the high level group, the Information Commissioner, the National Union of Journalists, the One in Four group and others. These hearings lasted for a total of 11 hours. In addition, the Labour Party Bill was discussed for one and a half hours in Private Member's time in the Dáil. This Bill has been discussed by the Oireachtas for some 78 hours in total. Senators will agree that ample time was devoted to the passage of the legislation, despite repeated criticism from members of the Opposition that it was being rushed through the parliamentary process without proper examination.
As I indicated previously, this is a narrowly focused Bill, the purpose of which is to extend necessary protection to certain sensitive Government records to ensure the effective functioning of the Cabinet process, to ensure the efficient operation of the FOI legislation and to clarify certain technical procedures under the Act.
Despite some of the more dramatic comments made in both the Houses and the media, the Bill does not represent a fundamental overhaul in the operation of FOI legislation. It is a balanced package of limited measures which has been framed on the basis of five years of experience of operating the Act. It strikes the right balance between openness and transparency, on one hand, and proper functioning of Government, on the other. In common with other organisations, the Government must be able to ensure that its examination of important issues can be concluded effectively and that its collective responsibility for decisions can be exercised.
One of the cornerstones of the current FOI legislation is that members of the public should have access, to the greatest possible extent, to records held by public bodies which contain personal information about them. There is no change in the definition of personal information in the principal Act. Consequently, access to personal information will remain unchanged after the enactment of the Bill.
I wish to report to the House on the amendments which have been made to the Bill during its passage through the Dáil. Senators have copies of the full text of the Bill as amended by the Dáil. A list of the amendments passed by the Dáil has also been circulated.
Senators will recall that one of the proposed amendments contained in the Bill, as initiated and discussed in this House, was the provision to amend section 6 of the principal Act by substituting the word "contain" for the phrase "relate to" in paragraph (b) of subsection (5) dealing with personal information. The purpose of this amendment was to clarify the position regarding the right of access to personal records in the light of a judgment delivered by the High Court. It was not the intention to limit access to personal information, but rather to provide decision-makers with clarity in making decisions on foot of requests for access to this type of information and to ensure consistency of approach in this area. This amendment became the subject of public controversy during the passage of the Bill through the Oireachtas. Members on both sides of the House expressed concerns that the amendment would result in a diminution, however unintentional, of an individual's right to obtain personal records. These concerns were particularly articulated in the submission of the One in Four group to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service during its public hearings.
While I continue to hold the view that the original provision would not have interfered with the right of access to personal information, I listened carefully to the concerns expressed about the amendment. In light of these, I decided that it was important to provide reassurance to the public about the Government's total commitment to the principle of full access to personal information to the greatest possible extent as enshrined in the Long Title to the principal Act. This is in line with the Government's track record when related concerns about the interaction between individuals and public bodies have arisen in other contexts. As no alternative solution for achieving clarity in this area was proposed during the debate on the Bill, I agreed on Committee Stage in the Dáil to accept the proposal to delete the relevant section.
The question of access to personal information also arose during the debate on the proposed amendment to section 22 of the principal Act which relates to the work of tribunals and inquiries. The general intention here is to provide protection for records relating to the work of tribunals and inquiries. Concerns were expressed that, because of the mandatory nature of the proposed exemption, access to personal records would be denied to individuals if the records in question held by public bodies had been submitted to a tribunal. In order to redress this situation, I accepted an amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil to provide for a discretionary "may refuse" provision rather than the mandatory "shall refuse". This will enable decision-makers to release personal information to a requester, even if the records in question have been submitted by a public body to a tribunal. I also moved an amendment to clarify that the exemption for records relating to tribunals and inquiries will not apply when the tribunal or inquiry has completed its work.
In response to an Opposition amendment, I brought forward an amendment on Report Stage in the Dáil to provide that records relating to the general administration of tribunals are not covered by the protection of section 17. This is in line with the existing situation under section 46 of the principal Act covering tribunals established under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act 1921.
I am fully satisfied that the changes I have outlined will facilitate access by individuals to personal information to the greatest extent possible consistent with the spirit of the Act. Senators will recall that, on Report Stage in the Seanad, I indicated that I would be bringing forward amendments in two areas. First, an amendment was made to section 47 of the principal Act to give specific power to the Minister for Finance to vary the up-front fee for certain categories of requester. Second, amendments were made to sections 17 and 18 of the principal Act to permit applications by parents, guardians or the next of kin for amendment of incorrect personal information, and for statements of reasons for decisions taken by public bodies. These amendments are contained in section 30 – at paragraph (d) – and sections 12 and 13, respectively.
I also introduced two amendments on Committee Stage in the Dáil to provide for annual reporting to the Information Commissioner of certificates issued by the Secretary General to the Government in respect of committees of officials established by Government and certified to support the work of Cabinet and of certificates issued by Secretaries General of Departments of State in respect of deliberative processes. The relevant provisions are in sections 14 and 15.
In addition to the amendments already outlined, I have included a number of operational amendments dealing with issues that arose since the publication of the Bill. While these are technical in nature, I will outline them briefly for the information of the House: incorporation in the Bill of the three regulations, made under the 1997 Act, which deal with the FOI commencement date for local authorities, the operation of section 6(9) of the principal Act covering records held by persons providing services under contract to public bodies and the protection of personal information in the case of records containing joint personal information – section 4 refers; an amendment to section 17 was made to provide that a head cannot release a record where he or she ought reasonably to have known that the record had already been released under a court order of discovery – this has been recommended by the Office of the Attorney General as a protection for decision-makers against committing contempt of court; amendments were made to section 25 to address an anomaly in the principal Act whereby a person holding both the Information Commissioner's and Ombudsman's offices can hold a third office, while a person holding only one of the two offices is barred from holding a second office; an amendment was made to extend the time allowed for appealing decisions of the Information Commissioner to the High Court from four weeks to eight weeks, this has been recommended by the Office of the Attorney General as the four weeks is considered insufficient in the context of the legal complexity of the issues arising – section 27 refers; and an amendment was made to section 28 to provide that a decision of the Information Commissioner should not, in itself, reveal exempt information. For example, in a case involving a risk to personal safety, this amendment will allow the full grounds for a decision to refuse to be withheld. The principal Act already contains such a provision for public bodies. There are also a number of drafting amendments proposed by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to bring legal clarity to the Bill.
I am satisfied that the Bill is a balanced approach containing sensible and practical measures to allow the Government and the public service to work effectively and maintain access by the public to information, particularly any personal information that may be held about them. I thank Senators from both sides of the House for their contributions to a very lively and constructive debate on the Bill.
Mr. Higgins: I will be very brief because we know this is already afait accompli and that we simply have to go through the motions. I am at a loss as to the reason the amendments introduced in the Dáil, welcome and all as they are, were not brought forward on Report Stage in this House. If it was proposed to change the Bill or relent in any way, the Minister could have done us the courtesy of introducing whatever ministerial amendments were going to be made on Report Stage in the Seanad. After all, this is a Seanad Bill, yet only on Report Stage in the other House, the Bill having passed through the select committee, did the Minister to decide to bring about these changes, small and all as they are. Rather than having a game of legislative ping pong from this to the other House and back again, it would have made absolute sense to introduce whatever amendments the Minister was prepared to concede in this House in which there was an extensive debate on Second, Committee Stage and Report Stages.
My attitude to the Bill has not changed because it is one of the most pernicious ever to come before either House of the Oireachtas. The decision to withdraw the section that would have prevented victims of child sexual abuse from accessing relevant records is welcome. This would have prevented grieving parents, for example, from getting details of organ retention from hospitals. It is a sensible move. Even though the Minister still holds the line that there would not have been interference with the existing processes, procedures and rights, he has, by virtue of the fact that he brought forward this amendment, accepted the persuasiveness of the arguments made not alone by the Members of these Houses but by the other groups which appeared before the joint committee to make their arguments on the contents of the Bill. It is a small but sensible and welcome concession.
The Minister's amendments fail to address, however, the central thrust of the Bill – to impede the public's right to know. They also fail in that there has not been adequate consultation. The Minister has listed the bodies which appeared before the joint committee but a host of other bodies did not have the opportunity of appearing before it because of the deadline and time restriction involved. In eight days time, on 18 April, the five-year rule would have come into operation and Cabinet documents from five years ago would have been made available.
The amendments fail to take cognisance of the legitimate views of the Ombudsman or the Information Commissioner. One of the bodies to have come out of the closet in the past week or ten days has been the Human Rights Commission, one of the products of the Good Friday Agreement. As I said earlier, we wish the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister well in their ongoing deliberations today. We hope they bring matters to a satisfactory conclusion and that the Assembly and the Executive in Northern Ireland will again be up and running shortly, giving power back to the people of Northern Ireland rather than having direct rule.
By comparison with our counterparts in the North, we were very tardy in introducing the Human Rights Commission. However, it came out very forcefully last week and stated it felt affronted at the fact that it was not consulted on the Bill. After all, there are fundamental human rights involved in this insidious, pernicious legislation and the commission should have been consulted.
We acknowledge that the 1997 Act was ground-breaking and went much further than its equivalent in other jurisdictions. It did a public service. First, it exposed massive incompetence in the conduct of ministerial business, for example, in relation to how the national stadium, or "Bertie bowl," was handled. This Bill does something that will be undoubtedly challenged by extending the concept of government. It broadens the definition of what constitutes government way beyond what would seem to be provided for in the Constitution. There is no doubt that in this area the Bill would seem to fly in the face of the Constitution but that remains to be seen and tested.
In addition, the Bill blocks access to Government records for a ten year period. It blocks access, for example, to ongoing dialogue between Ministers. As I said before in the House, from the point of view of openness and transparency – the buzz words again used by the Minister today – it is good that the people should see clearly how things operate. This builds public confidence in the process of government and how it works, yet details of even the most trivial, menial exchanges between Ministers will be blocked by the Government. This is an assault on the concept of open government.
I will briefly deal with a number of the amendments the Minister is now proposing. The proposal, for example, to provide details of the number of certificates is a concession but of what relevance is it to give the number of certificates without giving the actual content or the topics involved therein? It is totally unsatisfactory. It is only right that all certificates linked to tribunals be made available. In the other House, Deputy Richard Bruton made a very strong argument that, for example, a harm test could be put in place to determine whether the release of particular documents in relation to tribunals would prejudice the workings of a tribunal. There should be absolutely no question whatsoever of personal records linked to a tribunal being protected from the individual concerned. Again, in the case of a child being abused, parents should have access to the relevant records. Access to records relating to general administration, for example, should not be closed down. For example, the Director of Public Prosecutions should be obliged to account for the official administration of his office. Surely nobody could claim that calling the Director of Public Prosecutions to book in relation to the management and administration of his office presents in any way a security threat to the State.
The President should refer the Bill to the courts to test its constitutionality. As has been asked repeatedly in these Houses, what is the Government afraid of in relation to the provisions of the existing legislation? They have worked well and been lauded by all and sundry here and abroad and held up as a good model in the attempt to bring openness and transparency to the process. What skeletons lie in the cupboard that would have been revealed on 18 April?
In procedural terms, I am at a loss as to the reasons the amendments brought forward by the Minister today were not made initially in this House. The Minister said this was a balanced package of measures – far from it. This is an iron curtain measure. It brings the iron curtain down on the fundamental right to access to information that is important in terms of understanding how the process of government works. I am as vehemently opposed to the Bill now as I was when we dealt with it here on Second, Committee and Report Stages.
Mr. Moylan: I welcome the Minister back to the House. He has outlined the detailed examination this Bill has gone through and noted the length of time devoted to it here, the select committee and the Dáil. He has said that, to date, we have spent 78 hours debating it. It has been dealt with in great detail.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Bill. As a member of a local authority and a health board, I am aware of the huge amount of time spent unnecessarily as a result of cranks making freedom of information requests. There have been huge costs in areas where people have been very busy trying to get information, a lot of it simply requested by people with a chip on their shoulder to try to embarrass someone. They had little clear sense of the reason they were looking for the information. I accept the Opposition point that people are entitled to reviews. If people read the Bill in detail, they will see it is a good measure which will substantially improve the principal Act.
The most relevant section of the Bill relates to Cabinet confidentiality and Cabinet records. Information would have been released into the public domain after five years while Ministers were still in the same Departments. It would have caused a real problem and, therefore, I agree wholeheartedly with the extension. In my opinion, the timeframe should have been extended further.
I support the Bill. Many of the Opposition opinions and views were expressed to play to a particular gallery. I compliment the Minister and the Ministers of State who participated in the debate on the Bill while it was before House. A lot of muck was thrown in regard to why people took particular stances.
Mr. Higgins: Not by this party.
Mr. Moylan: This is a top-class Bill on which much time was spent. The Leader allowed as much time as was necessary to enable people to discuss it and I understand the same was the case in the Lower House. Every section was gone through with a fine-tooth comb.
I compliment the Minister and his officials on a first-class Bill. No Bill has come through the House which has not had to be looked at again or changed in some way. This is excellent freedom of information legislation for the people.
Dr. Henry: I welcome the Minister but not the Bill. I am as opposed to it as I was in the first instance. I am sorry I was not here for the Order of Business this morning to vote against the speed with which the Bill has gone through both Houses. The reason I was not here is rather ironic. I was in Dublin Castle at the Forum on Europe, which is chaired by Senator Maurice Hayes who also has concerns about this Bill. At the meeting in question, we addressed the proposed charter of rights for Europe. Baroness Scotland, one of the UK delegates to the Convention on Europe, spoke, as did a former Minister, Dick Burke. One of the conclusions reached during the debate was that rights were of little use if one could not vindicate them. This is another instance of where the people will be less able to vindicate their rights than heretofore. I very much regret the passage of this Bill.
I am glad the Minister changed the situation which would have impinged on the individual and against which I and others spoke, namely, whether a file had to contain information on or information relating to an individual which would also have been considered a sufficient reason to allow them to look at it.
The Minister is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut in regard to much of the remainder of the Bill. I have not heard one person in either House speak against extending, from five to ten years, the confidentiality period relating to Government papers. No one was concerned about that, but people are concerned about the extension in regard to what can be described as Government or Cabinet papers. As stated on Second Stage, if two or three officials gather together in the Government's name provisions relating to the confidentiality of Government papers can be invoked.
I cannot understand why the Government is so intent on bringing in the legislation. Rumour is always much worse than fact and the only facts which could be any way embarrassing are the exchange of letters between the Minister for Finance and the Ministers for Health and Children and Transport. If the Minister for Finance did not write to the Minister for Health and Children to ask him what he was doing with the money he was sending him on behalf of the taxpayer, I would think it was very peculiar. If the Minister for Health and Children did not write back requesting more money, I would think he was equally in dereliction of his duty in terms of trying to do something on behalf of the patients and staff with whom he must deal in the health service. The same applies to the Minister for Transport.
I cannot think of what information has come into the public arena which has caused anyone in the current or previous Government any embarrassment. I do not know the reason for this change unless there is something that people think will come out which they do not want to come out.
I very much regret this Bill because our freedom of information legislation was considered very useful, although occasionally it reached pathetic levels when questions were asked about who spent what on meals on the Visa card – matters one is obliged to list under expenses in any event. The situation was very satisfactory and I do not see how it was damaging the Government. I very much regret the changes the Minister has made.
Ms Feeney: I welcome the Minister. My remarks will echo those of Senator Moylan.
I commend the Minister on the Bill, particularly on the amendments. Unlike Senator Higgins, I believe they are welcome and important, regardless of what stage or in which House they were accepted. As Senator Moylan pointed out, there are areas of Departments and of Cabinet business which are so sensitive that there must be more than a five-year ban. Every right-thinking citizen accepts that. In the early stage, I had a concern about personal records but it was laid to rest when I read the Bill.
Like my colleagues, I have no hesitation in welcoming the Bill. I say well done to the Minister on what is excellent legislation.
Mr. Quinn: I, rather like Senator Henry, spoke strongly about the Bill on Second Stage. I was very upset not so much by the detail of the Bill, but by the way in which it was sprung on us. This Bill was published on a Friday, we received it in the post the following Monday and we came in here on the Tuesday and had to pass it within days, which is not the way legislation should go through the House. We then discovered it was being taken quickly today.
Listening to the Second Stage debate and the explanations on Committee Stage, there was much logic in what the Minister was attempting to do. As Senator Henry said, there were some areas about which we had no concerns.
Senator Henry has just come from the Forum on Europe, while I was with the Vice-President of the Commission, Neil Kinnock, for the past hour or so. He said his job was administrative reform in Europe and he talked about the need for administrative reform, transparency, openness and the need to sell Europe to people. It is much easier to do that if people understand what is going on.
We could have done a much better job with the Bill if we had taken our time, if it had not been sprung on us and if we had ensured that the aspects of it which are worthy got the attention they should have received. We had set high standards for the rest of Europe to follow, but we have lowered them to a certain extent. We could have made this a better Bill. I am sorry it has come through the House in this way. It is seldom a Bill goes through the House after which we do not stand up to congratulate everybody on it. I hope we will look at the Bill every five years – as we should do with all legislation – to see if it needs adjustment. Let us make sure the next time we do that, we give the Bill our full attention and have the time to do so.
Mr. Leyden: I welcome the Minister and his excellent staff who brought this Bill through both Houses. It is extraordinary that 27 hours were spent debating the Bill in this House and 39 hours in the Lower House.
There was much misinformation about the Bill, not from the Minister but from the Opposition.
Ms O'Meara: It is freedom from information.
Mr. Leyden: Freedom of information. The Bill was to be amended according to the Act. Much has happened since.
I have never availed of the Freedom of Information Act in my work as a public representative, chairman of the Western Health Board or in any position I held as a councillor. I have never received a request from a constituent to avail of it. Only a small minority do so. There is a tremendous opportunity to obtain total information through the Oireachtas and parliamentary questions, of which I availed often in my time as a Member of Dáil Éireann and to which I replied as a Minister of State. Those answers were given freely and openly with all information provided.
The Government made a great decision in appointing Ms Emily O'Reilly as Information Commissioner. In anticipation of the recommendation of this House to the President, I welcome her appointment. If ever the Minister wanted to ensure freedom of information, he would appoint an eminent journalist such as Ms O'Reilly. The appointment is proof of his bona fides in this regard. One could not find a more independent minded person to become Information Commissioner and Ombudsman. If the Minister had any intention of trying to limit freedom of information, he would not have appointed somebody as eminent and independent as Ms O'Reilly. The recommendation of this House to the President for her appointment will be unanimous.
Those in this House and anyone with experience in public life will know that Ms O'Reilly has been extremely effective as a journalist. She did not have to rely on the Freedom of Information Act to write her stories because she had good access and wrote well. One year from now, when the commissioner brings forward her report on the workings of the Bill, we will be pleasantly surprised to find that it has been working extremely well. I commend the Minister for supporting the Bill but also for being prepared, when issues arose, to make amendments to be doubly sure. If anyone had concerns, he made it quite clear that information had to be made available.
The changes have clearly not affected the rights of individuals to access information. The Minister might confirm that charges were dispensed with in regard to individuals seeking their own records. I think he accepted this in regard to the 1997 Act.
Mr. McCreevy: There were no charges then.
Mr. Leyden: What more does the Opposition want than freedom of information for individuals without charges? Where are we going?
I realise that members of the Opposition are keen to be well in with the press and the media – RTE, INN, etc. Freedom of information provides a great means for journalists. They think up an idea and put in a freedom of information request on, for example, what took place between the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, and the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, with regard to the health service. It is a great idea; the report comes out and the journalist publishes his or her exclusive in, for example, theSunday Independent without even having to write the story. All he or she has to write is the byline.
Members of the Opposition are anxious – some are more anxious than others – to be well in with the press. That is understandable as one must have something when in opposition. The Members opposite do not have much else going for them.
Mr. P. Burke: It is hardly the Opposition which is leaking the information.
Mr. Leyden: The Opposition is a desperate group.
Ms O'Meara: Did the Senator read the polls recently?
Mr. Leyden: I sometimes think a preservation order should be put on Fine Gael which will be as obsolete as the corncrake if something does not happen soon.
Mr. P. Burke: The Senator has the corncrakes in County Roscommon smothered.
Mr. Leyden: Fine Gael cannot change its leader because pretty soon every member will have been leader. Every member will become party leader for six months and the party will then find out who was the best. The party will probably revert back to Mr. Alan Dukes or Deputy John Bruton at that stage.
Acting Chairman (Mr. J. Walsh): The Senator should make his points relevant to the debate.
Mr. P. Burke: The Senator is taking a keen interest in Fine Gael.
Mr. Leyden: I am, because I am concerned about the party. The Government needs it because it is easier to handle than some of the new parties such as the Green Party and others. They have access to a lot of information.
The Labour Party is an excellent one, despite its links with Democratic Left. I would like to put in a freedom of information request to find out what happened in Moscow when the current Labour Party president went over to collect a few bob, or when he wrote to North Korea for a little fund for the party of which he was then a member.
Mr. McCreevy: That information has been burnt.
Ms O'Meara: Ansbacher would be more relevant.
Mr. Leyden: Even the typewriter used to type Mr. De Rossa's letter has disappeared.
Acting Chairman: These amendments must be more extensive than I thought.
Mr. Leyden: When I was a Member of Dáil Éireann, I said to the current president of the Labour Party that I believed he had been a member of the IRA. He denied it emphatically to the extent that I had to withdraw the allegation. Some years later he freely admitted that he had been a member but that is another story.
Mr. P. Burke: The Senator might go any way on this Bill yet.
Mr. Leyden: We can go further. I have a lot of information on what happened in Moscow at the time. The million was there. I also remember a machine that produced £5 notes on the quays.
Ms O'Meara: Were they in the Ansbacher accounts?
Mr. Leyden: The man who produced them was never caught and is still on the run. The machine was captured, as far as I remember.
Mr. McCreevy: The man was caught also but he disappeared.
Mr. Leyden: The Minister for Finance who must ensure fiscal rectitude is the only person who can produce euros in this country, not a political party which thought itself free to produce its own money at one stage. It was a wonderful idea in that the money did not have to be returned to the commission.
The Minister and the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Michael Ahern, put tremendous effort into the Bill when they were also otherwise engaged.
Mr. McCreevy: I could have done with a free printing press for that week.
Mr. Leyden: We were very impressed with the Minister's representation of a constituency that has a great interest in the equine industry. It is vital that industry is developed in every possible way. However, very unfair comments were made during that period. The Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, and his staff were excellent with regard to the presentations made to this House.
I make no apology to the outgoing Information Commissioner, Mr. Kevin Murphy. I reiterate that it is not the commissioner's task to comment on any Bill before this House, as I said publicly to him. Furthermore, at the time of the commissioner's recommendations, Government officials did not have an opportunity to assess and process his views on the Bill before the House. When they had that opportunity, they came back with logical explanations with regard to the views expressed by the commissioner and his views were considered by the Minister and his officials.
I commend the Bill to the House. I thank the Minister for the great effort he has put into it. He has taken a lot of unfair abuse. Those who know him would never accuse him of suppressing information about anything. He has spoken openly about his views on fiscal rectitude and his parliamentary party since 1982 or 1983 when he was in the wilderness. He suffered all kinds of abuse at the time.
Mr. Higgins: Was the Senator backing him at the time?
Mr. Leyden: I was a good friend of his then as now.
Mr. Higgins: Did the Senator back him?
Mr. Leyden: The difference was that I was where he is now and he was where I am. A Minister must bear collective responsibility. The Minister for Finance has brought forward a Bill which is more than adequate to satisfy the needs of the Irish people. I thank him sincerely for the effort he has put into this Bill. I am delighted that it was initially introduced in the Seanad, as it has given rise to great debate and division in both Houses. Some Opposition Members felt that it was a straw to be grasped, but it was a very small straw. I sympathise with the Opposition—
Mr. Higgins: We thank Senator Leyden.
Mr. Leyden: —because it has so few reasons to criticise the Government. The Opposition felt that the Bill was an opportunity to have a go at the Government. Fianna Fáil is the party that brought forward freedom of information; we are in favour of it. The Minister has brought forward an excellent Bill and I think it will work very well.
The appointment of Ms Emily O'Reilly as Information Commissioner is commendable. The Minister was very conscientious in recommending to the Government that she be appointed. I do not think any person in this country could say anything other than that she will be an extremely good Ombudsman. Another possible Ombudsman I would like to mention is Mr. Joe Duffy, who, I believe, would do well in the position. His radio programme does tremendous work on many issues. Many good people were available, but the Government chose Ms O'Reilly, a great and eminent journalist who will work this Bill 100%. She will be an excellent ombudsperson. The job title will have to be changed from "Ombudsman"– perhaps the Opposition will bring forward an amendment to change it to "ombudsperson".
Ms O'Meara: I have no problem with the title of "Ombudsman".
Mr. Higgins: Senator Leyden should bring forward the amendment.
Mr. Leyden: When the new Information Commissioner brings her reports to the Oireachtas, I guarantee that she will have no hesitation in making clear if this Bill is not working to her satisfaction. The Government will have to consider the issues at that time and bring forward changes if they are necessary, although I do not think they will be. Knowing Ms O'Reilly, she will tell it as it is and bring forward recommendations to the Minister. I know he will be very receptive to any views she might express.
Mr. P. Burke: The Senator is not gagged yet.
Mr. Leyden: I will never be gagged and neither will the Minister for Finance.
Ms O'Meara: Will the Chair confirm that it was agreed on the Order of Business this morning that two motions will be brought before the House this afternoon relating to the appointment of Ms Emily O'Reilly as Ombudsman and Information Commissioner? It was my understanding that we will be allowed to comment on that matter when the motions come before the House after this debate, so there is no need to comment on it now.
Acting Chairman: Absolutely.
Ms O'Meara: I will make my comments then.
Ms Feeney: Go to the front of the class.
Ms O'Meara: In the meantime, I will comment on the amendments that have come back to this House from the Dáil. I agree with Senator Higgins that it is a pity, to put it mildly, that these amendments could not have been brought forward when the Bill was being discussed on Report Stage in this House. This would have given us time to tease them out in great detail, an opportunity we do not now have. That is wrong and I cannot agree with it, particularly as the Bill was initiated and considered extensively in the Seanad. We had a long Second Stage debate, but it was guillotined on Committee Stage. I deplore the fact that we have not had an opportunity to debate the amendments in great detail, although I know that the Dáil has done so. This House is being asked to consider the changes as a group.
This Bill remains largely unchanged from the version that originally came before the House, although there has been some "tweaking", to use the phrase used by the Minister on the last occasion that he was here. He said that there would be some tweaking rather than substantial changes and we have seen the tweaking, most of which has taken place in the sections of the Bill dealing with personal information. I welcome the Minister's minimal change of heart in relation to the substantial issues that emerged in the course of the public debate on access to personal information. The Minister has made concessions in the face of substantial pressure, particularly from the One in Four group and in relation to families' access to records and the right to correct records relating to family members.
These matters are important, but the Minister has not responded to the other considerable issues that have arisen, particularly in relation to information on Government decision-making, the conduct of such decision-making and how such information relates to public bodies. The greatest undermining has taken place in these parts of the Bill. The changes to the 1997 legislation that were originally published remain in place and the Act is, therefore, in tatters. The framework of accessibility to Government decisions, particularly in respect of how it arrives at those decisions, has been entirely undermined. The fundamental principle of openness contained in the 1997 legislation is now, in effect, gone.
The change in relation to committees is so minimal as to be almost meaningless. We will be given numbers, but we will not be told who is on the committees or what those committees will be doing. This legislation completes the blanketing in secrecy of the business of Government. I ask once more why this is happening. What harm was done by the 1997 legislation? The Government's argument could have been made if the only change was to extend the Cabinet rule from five to ten years, although I would not have agreed with it in principle. That is not the only change being made in the Bill, however, because extensive alterations are being designed to shroud the operations of the Government and public bodies in secrecy. The major difference the Bill will make will be seen in the coming years.
Senator Leyden mentioned that his constituents do not approach him about using the Freedom of Information Act. The figures show that the media is not the biggest user of the legislation, as more requests are made by private individuals seeking to access information. The use of the Act by the media is a critical part of its operation. This has been the case in all democracies where similar legislation operates. Despite what some people think, the media operates largely in response to the demand of the public or in the public interest.
The media is not called the Fourth Estate for nothing. It is one of the pillars of our democracy. Is the media operating in a way that allows the public to make a judgment on how decisions are made and on how taxpayers' money is spent when it decides to access information about the cost of the Bertie bowl, for example? The public should be able to make an informed decision about the spending of its money by the Government, but it will be unable to do so in future because it will not be in a position to access information and the media will be unable to do so on its behalf.
It is clear that insufficient time has been provided for a satisfactory debate on this matter in the House. The fact that we were not allowed to debate these amendments on Report Stage is unsatisfactory. One cannot determine the quality of a debate by counting the number of hours devoted to it. Legislation has passed through the House in a short period because it was uncontested and because all Members agreed with the fundamental principles contained in it, how it was drafted and what it set out to achieve. When a Bill as monumental as this comes before the House, it should be given the amount of time it needs.
Senator Higgins drew our attention to the availability of the Information Commissioner's document, which contained vital information, when the Report Stage debate was taking place. The Oireachtas committee did not have enough time to hear from all the interested bodies, such as the Human Rights Commission. It is clear that enough time was not provided for this debate. I reject the idea that the quality of a debate can be measured by the amount of time allocated for it.
This is a regrettable day, just as this entire business has been regrettable. The legislation that will remain after this Bill has been passed is a shadow of the original 1997 Act. The principles underlying the 1997 Act have been so fundamentally undermined as to render them almost meaningless. The Government has shown clearly that it is intent on doing its business behind closed doors, blanketed by a shroud of secrecy to ensure the public does not know what decisions are being made on its behalf.
Minister for Finance (Mr. McCreevy): I thank Members on all sides of the House for their valid and constructive contributions to the debate on all Stages of the Bill's progress through the House. The debate was often trenchant and heated but this is a measure of the seriousness of the Members' commitment to carrying out their responsibilities, as legislators. I welcome the contributions made.
I was a little surprised and disappointed that when Senator Leyden was referring to the Office of Ombudsman and Information Commissioner, he did not put forward the name of his former constituency colleague, Seán Doherty, for one of the positions.
Ms O'Meara: I think he is going to Europe. He would prefer to be in Brussels.
Mr. Leyden: I made representations.
Mr. McCreevy: The Senator did make a late case for former Deputy Doherty.
Mr. Leyden: We would then have freedom of information.
Mr. McCreevy: I have considered the views of the House on all Stages and all sections of the Bill. I have equally considered the amendments proposed. I have also taken into account the Government's needs and requirements. It is essential that the operation of the freedom of information legislation does not impede the process of government, the primary focus of the Bill. It is also my responsibility to ensure that legislation operates to provide maximum possible access by the public to information consistent with good government and cost-efficient administration. I am satisfied that both responsibilities are met in this Bill which I am confident will stand the test of time and continue to provide Ireland with one of the most liberal freedom of information regimes in the world.
Mr. Leyden: Hear, hear.
Question put.
Tá
|
Bannon, James.Brady, Cyprian.Brennan, Michael.Callanan, Peter.Daly, Brendan.Dardis, John.Dooley, Timmy.Feeney, Geraldine.Fitzgerald, Liam.Hanafin, John.Kenneally, Brendan. |
Kitt, Michael P.Leyden, Terry.MacSharry, Marc.Minihan, John.Morrissey, Tom.Moylan, Pat.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Phelan, Kieran.Scanlon, Eamon.Walsh, Jim.Walsh, Kate.Wilson, Diarmuid. |
Níl
|
Bannon, James.Bradford, Paul.Browne, Fergal.Burke, Ulick.Cummins, Maurice.Hayes, Brian.Henry, Mary.Higgins, Jim. |
McDowell, Derek.McHugh, Joe.O'Meara, Kathleen.Phelan, John.Quinn, Feargal.Ryan, Brendan.Terry, Sheila.Tuffy, Joanna. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators Minihan and Moylan; Níl, Senators Higgins and O'Meara.
Question declared carried.
Question, "That the Bill do now pass," put and declared carried.