I would be delighted to co-operate if I thought the case being made by the Minister was a justifiable one but quite honestly I think the case he is making does not stand up. Section 8 which deals with the disclosure of personal data in certain cases states:
Any restriction in this Act on the disclosure of personal data do not apply if the disclosure is—
(a) in the opinion of a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of chief superintendent or an officer of the Permanent Defence Force who holds an army rank not below that of colonel and is designated by the Minister for Defence under this paragraph, required for the purpose of safeguarding the security of the State,
Section 26 which relates to evidence in proceedings states:
(1) In any proceedings—
(a) a certificate signed by the Minister or the Minister for Defence and stating that in his opinion personal data are, or at any time were, kept for the purpose of safeguarding the security of the State shall be evidence of that opinion,
It goes on to state that a certificate signed by a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of chief superintendent or an officer of the Permanent Defence Force who holds an Army rank not below that of colonel shall be evidence of that opinion. It is a chief superintendent or a colonel in the Army who would actually sign the certificate saying that in the Minister's opinion this is confidential information.
It is not accurate to say that if it became known that the State had information in regard to any person, particularly in dealing with subversives, it would endanger life or limb because all that anyone would have to do is make an application and get a certificate signed by a chief superintendent or a colonel in the Army to say that they are not getting the information because in the Minister's opinion the information which they have about them is confidential and there would be a security risk involved if they were to disclose it. One cannot make an argument that if people got to know that the State had information about them it would endanger other people's lives because it is very simple to get information. All that one needs to do is to apply and obtain a certificate signed by a chief superintendent or a colonel in the Army. Therefore, that argument goes out of the window.
We are now down to the issue at stake, whether the opinion formed by the Minister for Justice or the Minister for Defence is the correct one. That opinion will be formed on the basis of the information supplied to those individuals from records established by other people. I am saying that because in certain exceptional cases the withholding of information about an individual could have serious consequences for that individual's future and that of his or her family, or his or her security for that matter, it is reasonable to test whether that opinion is accurate by allowing that person the right of appeal to, say, the Chief Justice or the President of the High Court. That is not going to affect security one little bit. The only other person who will have seen the information will be the President of the High Court. There is no point in the Minister saying "I would love to accept this amendment but by doing this we would let people know we have information about them". They can find that out quite simply at present and the procedure is there for them to find it out. However, all they will find out is that it is only a certificate which has been signed by a chief superintendent or colonel who will tell them they cannot have it because, in the Minister's opinion, the information they have would affect the security of the State.
I do not want the Minister to give out information about high security matters to anybody or to force him into the position where he would have to do that. I do not want to force him into the position where he would have to widen the net of those who know about this confidential information which is of a high security nature. I do not want him to do that; I just want him to build into the Bill a mechanism whereby the public, if they believe an opinion that has been formed on information supplied to the Minister for Justice or the Minister for Defence is wrong, can go to somebody else who holds a very high position in the State and is appointed by the Government. The Minister can choose whether it is a Supreme Court Judge, a Circuit Court judge, the Chief Justice or the President of the High Court.
I will withdraw these amendments if the Minister comes forward with an amendment in the next couple of hours which settles either on the Chief Justice or the President of the High Court. I, and I am sure everybody in this House, would be perfectly happy with that. It would be good for democracy and for the workings of the Government, the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána to know that when they put down information on a file about somebody which has serious consequences for that person they are not immune from that information being disclosed if it is inaccurate. Serious consequences can exist for individuals when such information is held about them. Nobody can tell me that that has not happened in the past. It has happened and we all know it has happened.
We have condemned other jurisdictions who have not disclosed information and used the excuse of its security nature for not disclosing it. We recently criticised our neighbouring jurisdiction because a law officer used that excuse for not disclosing information. We in this country were very quick to criticise him. What I am saying is that if in one instance an opinion is formed and someone wants to challenge it — and I suggest it would be very seldom challenged — at least one would have a right to go to the President of the High Court and say "I want you to have a look at this". The President of the High Court will look at it and he will not disclose the information to the individual or to anybody else. He is the only one who will see it and if he decides at the end of the day that the Minister is right and the information should not be disclosed because it is of a high security nature that will be the end of it and the only person who will have seen the information is that judge.
That is not going to endanger the security of the State because if a member of the Special Branch leaves and is replaced by somebody else that person will find out the information. If a civil servant from the Department of Justice leaves, goes on holiday, gets sick or retires and is replaced by somebody else or if the Minister is booted out of office or decides to give up politics and is replaced by somebody else that person will find out about the information. All I am asking is that one other person who has been appointed by the Government and who has a very high office should be able to say "I confirm the Minister's opinion and he was right in not giving that information because of its security content". I believe that is good for democracy and this is all I am arguing. I will withdraw these amendments if the Minister comes forward with another amendment.