I want to move on to the Ombudsman's report. We can conclude promptly on this by acknowledging that amendment No. 93 to the Finance Bill which was discussed in the House a couple of hours ago fully addresses the issues specifically covered in the Ombudsman's report. I do not think we circulated the draft report and motion. My view is that this is unnecessary, except to note the conclusion.
Ombudsman’s Report.
I have a concern in regard to cases such as this one that may come to light which pre-date the Finance Act 2003. I know the Ombudsman has been dealing with these cases for some time but there may well be other cases that come to light. The debate this morning was so curtailed that we were unable to get any clarity from the Minister as to how he regarded these. He kept saying they were ex gratia payments in respect of the cases concerned and this would not be considered in any other case. The committee needs to get some assurance that should the Ombudsman unearth other cases that occurred prior to the passage of the Finance Act 2003 that similar arrangements would be sympathetically considered by the Minister when the Ombudsman made a report.
As I understand the amendment, there are probably up to 1,000 widows affected whose cases have been highlighted by the Ombudsman's report and these are specifically being dealt with by the introduction of amendment No. 93 to the Finance Bill that is going through the Houses of the Oireachtas. In regard to the ten other miscellaneous cases, the Minister has asked the Revenue to deal with them on an individual ex gratia basis because it would have been too difficult to frame an amendment to the Bill to deal with those. The Deputy has a point, but the committee has to deal with the Ombudsman’s report as presented, which we have done. We cannot deal with what was not in the report or what might arise. The Deputy’s point has been made.
The committee should say to the Minister for Finance that it is our view that, should another case like that of the ten arise, he should not consider he has pulled up the ladder behind everyone and that anyone who comes along subsequently, no matter how unjust the treatment they receive, will not get treated in the same way. It would be a bad principle of public administration, and he should leave a window open so that such ex gratia payments can be made without prejudice or commitment.
I congratulate the Chairman for gaining access to the Minister for Finance. It was a good day's work by this committee. Wringing this concession from the Minister for Finance is a good example of the work this committee can do. I am concerned that there is an issue of principle here. The Ombudsman presented a report to the Houses of the Oireachtas about the refusal of the Revenue Commissioners to accept his ruling. Amendment No. 93, which was passed today, deals with a substantial part of the issue from a monetary perspective, but we should issue a report. The Chairman presented the committee with a draft report to which I propose we append with comment the amendment to the Finance Bill passed today. We should outline our support of the amendment which we consider meets some of the requirements of the Ombudsman. For completion, we should send the proposed report to both parties who made presentations to the committee because there could be an element of unfinished business involved. This principle is important to the future operation of the Ombudsman's office and its inclusion would not add greatly to the report. The Minister has responded and this committee should do the same. The motion Senator O'Toole and I put to the committee concerned upholding the principle of respect for the recommendations of the Ombudsman. I move that the draft report be amended to reflect developments in terms of this morning's consideration of the Finance Bill.
I concur with the Deputy. Amendment No. 93 concerns widows and we should append also the comments of the Minister which referred to the ten cases not dealt with by it. He has asked that they be dealt with by an ex gratia payment. The Ombudsman presented a clear example of injustice and the Revenue Commissioners have failed to respond by implementing his recommendations voluntarily. Parliament has now taken action to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations, which is wonderful, but it was fortunate that a Finance Bill was before the House. If the issue had related to a health board, local authority or Government Department that was not the subject of annual legislation, the House would not have had the opportunity to make amendments to resolve the problem. It is fortuitous that the Ombudsman’s report related to an area covered by the Department of Finance. That the people involved are getting satisfaction is thanks to the Dáil and the Seanad.
As a committee we should proceed to issue the report as a point of principle even though the substantial issue has been dealt with.
The committee is agreed on that point.
In what terms will the Chairman address the Ombudsman and the Revenue Commissioners? If the Ombudsman is of the view that many issues are outstanding, we should be made aware of them. Will he be invited to comment?
We will invite both parties to comment. I am advised that there was a phone call from the Ombudsman this morning which expressed gratitude for the work of this committee in highlighting the case in question. The exposure and discussion of the issue here influenced the actions of the Minister and put me in a stronger position. The draft report will be revised.
The motion moved by Senator O'Toole and I is redundant and should not be appended.
Now that the Chairman has managed to take on the Revenue Commissioners, is it time to take on the Committee of Public Accounts?
I am dealing with that. We have received a letter from the Committee of Public Accounts regarding its view that it is better placed to deal more effectively with the issue of redress for victims of child abuse in State institutions in the context of its examination of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the 2002 appropriation accounts of the relevant Department. This report will become available to the Committee of Public Accounts at the end of September 2003 at which stage witnesses and the respective accounting officers will be called. In the circumstances, the Committee of Public Accounts will not consider the matter at this time. I would like to hear the views of committee members on this.
I realise we have been through a busy time with the Finance Bill, but we should invite the Minister and officials from the Department of Finance to discuss in detail the Department's role in respect of the agreement with the religious orders, as I originally proposed. We do not have much time available to us which is why we should draw up, with the clerk, the terms of a meeting and outline the work to be done to identify the questions we should ask and the people to whom we should put them. It is a serious matter. I propose that the committee agrees to take this action in principle. We should request documentation and insight into the discussions which led to the agreement. I would like to know if the Department carried out a due diligence examination of the assets of religious orders and, if it did not, its reasons for failing to do so.
According to previous answers to questions I asked, the Department initially indicated that it would pursue a 50-50 compensatory arrangement. The terms of the deal that was made are far different. I would also like to be informed of the Department's estimate of the likely compensatory and legal costs to the State of the agreement. There are clauses in the agreement which provide for legal actions to be taken. My understanding is that if the likely final cost exposure to the State exceeds the indicative costs given to us it may invoke the review clauses in the agreement with the religious orders.
I have no problem with the approach Deputy Burton is proposing. It would be useful if we flagged a request for papers, and answers to certain key questions, in advance of a hearing and that we would receive those and have a chance to absorb them before we invite people to come before the joint committee. It has been trailed by the Minister for Finance that the legal advice was that they were 100% liable and to get anything out of the institutions was a bonus. They decided they would have redress and this was their redress party and, as such, the institutions were separate. I saw a similar redress in the case of the Stardust. The understanding at that time was that Butterly's who were the operators of the Stardust might be subsequently pursued but I am not sure that ever happened. There is a need for the joint committee to have information about how redress established by the State worked in the past. Would the State have had to establish criminal negligence as a basis for getting a contribution if the institutions had not been willing to participate? There are a number of things I would like to see in terms of papers presented so that when we come to question people we have the fullest information and we are not asking questions that a casual reading of the papers would have answered for us.
I accept where Deputy Burton is coming from and I have been following her position on this matter. Fundamentally the Department was the employer of these organisations and they are ultimately responsible. I think the correct decision was made. The discussion about it in the media is not productive in helping those who have been abused. On a matter of principle, I respect the Deputy's opinion but I disagree totally with it. The Government should pay up and hope the people will be honest in seeking retribution because the most heinous crime against anybody is to be sexually abused. I would like to think the decision at Christmas was not to embarrass the Government. I studied the paper by the Minister for Education and Science and in all honesty I hold the view that the Government should pay up.
I have had some involvement in this issue over a number years because of knowing a number of persons personally affected. In many of my contributions I would have been guided by what they represent as being in the broad interest. My concern is that there is an important difference between indemnity and impunity. One of the strange features of this deal - this has happened in our jurisdictions - is that religious bodies and religious orders in the context of the politics of the time demanded the right to control areas such as health and education. A great deal of the early political history of this State was taken up with the conflicts between Church and State, where the Church demanded absolute control over certain areas of Irish life. In that context, having won that control which they politically argued for, it is a rather large claim that they now say, as the Senator said, they actually had no responsibility. I would distinguish between two levels. The inspectors who were employed by the Department of Education and Science went into various institutions. There are records of institutions being fixed up when inspection was about to take place. One could reasonably say, nonetheless, the State inspectors or people from the Department of Education and Science ought not to have been fooled by that and that it was their job to say this is not as it seems. There is a difference between that and what happened in the dormitories in Letterfrack at night when certain brothers had control over the dormitories. No reasonable inspection regime by an agency would probably uncover that. To suggest the religious orders should be entirely indemnified from that is to suggest we move from indemnity to impunity. In terms of the healing process, which is important in all of this, while monetary compensation may assist a number of people, certainly for some of those with whom I have been dealing there is the question of accountability and explaining to victims, by those who were in positions of control in these religious institutions, why it was allowed to happen, how it was allowed continue and why they should not come forward and give an explanation. That is central to the healing process and that is why full accountability by the Government as to how the various elements of this agreement were reached is of critical importance to victims and the organisations which represent them.
I cannot disagree with anything the Deputy has said. I hold the view that the Government has to pay the price as it was the ultimate employer. Because what has happened is such a tragedy it has to face the music. If I was involved I would have instinctively sought an audit of Church property. However, the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, did not make the decision on his own but went to Cabinet which made the decision. The Government should pay up.
In the history of the State this indemnity agreement is extremely strange. For various reasons Irish Catholic institutions around the world have had similar problems. In other countries where the State paid the compensation the State then correctly reserved the right to sue the religious orders as part of the process of bringing out why abuses happened and as part of redress.
Much of what I have said is based on my contacts with various people directly affected by this abuse. It will not be solved simply by monetary compensation. I made a distinction between indemnity and impunity. Indemnity is like insurance, putting in place monetary schemes to compensate for loss, while impunity allows people to walk away without explaining why something happened and how it can be prevented from taking place in the future.
In a separate area, large numbers of people are currently coming forward looking for explanation from the Catholic Church in relation to the actions of members of the Catholic Church who abused their position in relation to altar boys, children of very religious Catholic families, particularly in Wexford. I do not like the notion of allowing a situation of impunity to develop.
What is important for this committee is that it has the opportunity of applying some independent scrutiny to the way in which this decision was reached, the legal advice that led to it, and the legal liabilities of different parties. The public at large will look to us to sift through that evidence and satisfy ourselves and the wider public that the way this is being handled is the right way. The Senator may be correct that everything was right, but the function of this committee is to give everyone the opportunity to hear and see the evidence and get some degree of satisfaction that this was a sound decision based on sound financial and legal principles and that there was due process for all. That is why it is important to start this process.
I agree with the Deputy's sentiments, but I look at it in a different light. For the sake of moving on, money will help people to obtain counselling and psychiatric help.
I do not know what point of the Laffoy Commission hearings the Senator has reached, but there is much evidence to suggest that the religious orders, through their legal advisers, are fighting every step of the way, as they are entitled to do, the accusations and memories of people arranging to appear before the commission. The State has offered a historic and extraordinarily generous indemnity. However, an indemnity is not the same as impunity. Justice, in terms of the people who were incarcerated in these institutions, demands that they get what they have asked for, which is an explanation of the background to the Government's entering into this extraordinary arrangement with the religious orders, and information as to who drafted the agreement. It has been suggested that the agreement was drafted by the legal advisers to the religious orders, Arthur Cox Solicitors, in their offices and subsequently agreed by Minister Woods and then by the Government. These are areas that we must probe, as well as the financial scrutiny the Department of Finance applied to that agreement.
I do not like to read accounts in the newspapers about how big the bill will be. I would be quite happy to go along with the Deputy if it could be done quietly without going to the newspapers and seeking to have a go at the Government if it is felt that the decisions were helped along or made hastily. As a matter of principle, I believe the Government made the decision and it should pay up.
I want to conclude the discussion.
It is important in relation to what has happened in the past to bear in mind that there are still many people who are currently in the care of the State in long-term geriatric hospitals, long-term psychiatric hospitals and even general hospitals, foster care, community care and so on. Such care may also be subcontracted out to other people. There is no reason to suppose something like this could not happen again in the future. A decision made behind closed doors about how to deal with it——
We are examining how the decision was made and the inference is that this is not the way to deal with it. I totally agree with the Deputy, but I would not see this as the route to follow. I feel very strongly about the prison situation. The poor are dumped in prison, as are the mentally ill, the dysfunctional, alcoholics and neurotic people. Society does not give a damn about them.
They are people who cannot look after themselves.
We in this room are part of the society that is guilty, that is insensitive to the plight of people who are locked up in prisons. In 50 years time, people will look back to 2003 and say we were barbaric.
That is also an issue with which we must deal. However, the issue being highlighted here relates to the provision of redress where there has been a problem. If the State is involved it must be done transparently. It cannot be done quietly and behind closed doors, as seems to have been done.
I was not around at the time. Could the other members not have found out what was going on?
I was not here at the time either.
The Government pushed ahead with its proposals and did not consult with the Opposition. At a very early date, the Opposition representative at the time, Deputy Michael Creed of Fine Gael, raised questions about the decision. The Opposition was not party to the decision.
It was allowed to slip through.
No. Apparently the Minister, Deputy Woods, went on a solo run together with Arthur Cox Solicitors, the legal advisers to the religious orders. That is now acknowledged in terms of all the information we have dragged out of the Government. Where the Government is committing to very significant expenditure to right a wrong, essentially there are two elements to it. One is the monetary aspect, the other the way in which the wrong is righted. The secrecy that has attached to the agreement, the very beneficial way in which the religious orders were dealt with, has hurt many of the people who are victims and who are anxious to receive monetary compensation. This committee wants a degree of accountability on the part of the Department of Finance which had an important financial oversight role in the agreement. My experience as a Minister of State was that if I looked for £100,000 from the Department of Finance, the Department came down like a tonne of bricks with all sorts of reasons. I am sure Deputy Bruton had the same experience——
Did you draw any conclusions?
No. I am not drawing any conclusions at this stage. I want the background and detail to this agreement out in the broad light of day where we can all make a judgment on it and see how the Department of Finance carried out its oversight role, how it calculated the moneys, whether it performed due diligence on the assets of the religious orders and, as Deputy Bruton said, get the papers surrounding this decision and then bring forward witnesses from the Department of Finance to examine the way they approached their role.
I am going to conclude this discussion now. We know what information we will seek in advance of calling anybody before the committee. We will put that in train and proceed with the drafting.
In relation to other correspondence, there was an invitation to the Chair of the committee to attend a meeting of the European Parliament on Tuesday, 22 April between the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and representatives of the national parliaments of member states on the examination of national convergence and stability programmes. Is it agreed that the Chair attend this meeting? Agreed. We will prepare costings for approval at the next meeting.
We also received correspondence from Deputy Bruton regarding and amendment to the original motion on redress for taxpayers put down by Deputy Burton and Senator O'Toole. That will be taken into account in drafting the revised report.
We have received notification of an ECOFIN meeting 7 March 2003. It is sent to us as a matter of courtesy.
The other item of correspondence is a letter from Deputy Bruton. I received a letter from Deputy Burton on the same topic, namely, the Freedom of Information Act. Their letters have been circulated.
This amendment to the FOI poses very serious problems for the Oireachtas. There is a very high degree of unease about the way in which it came to birth and how quickly it was pushed ahead. After the election the Government set up a high level group of senior civil servants to consider the Freedom of Information Act, and there was no problem that. The problem is that the high level group of public servants did not consult widely. The National Union of Journalists, the Information Commissioner, Mr. Murphy, Opposition parties and representatives of civic society have not been consulted. We have been presented with a Bill and the Government keeps talking about its schedule to get it through.
Such radical changes in our law should only be made on the basis of proper consultation. Undoubtedly, these are eminent civil servants but it is like asking turkeys if they want to put off Christmas. Senior civil servants have a certain vested interest in not having considerable obligations in relation to freedom of information and the publication of memoranda at early dates. The people who were consulted were inevitably going to put one side of the argument forward. The Oireachtas should not proceed to make final decisions on this Bill until it has had proper hearings and has heard the views of those who have different views and who would be concerned that it is eroding public freedoms to obtain information in a timely way and that it is not helpful or in the public interest that these changes be made.
I have requested that this committee have hearings and bring before it all those other bodies and the members of the high level group as that would be the appropriate way to go. This matter was raised on today's Order of Business by Deputy Rabbitte initially and then by ourselves. Deputy Rabbitte's proposal was to give one year's grace before any decisions would be made, which would give us ample time, or, alternatively, to postpone the so-called schedule, which is not urgent as there is no obligation to have this Bill passed by any date but it appeared the Tánaiste was determined to push ahead with the schedule. The Minister, Deputy Ahern, said earlier this week that he would welcome hearings by this committee.
I am keen to have hearings but I do not want to be made a patsy in this whereby the committee has hearings just for the sake of giving the appearance of being open to alternative views but that in reality the Government is determined to push ahead with its own amendments on its own schedule regardless of what the committee is doing. As I said, I am keen to have hearings but I would like the Chairman to get assurances from Government that if we go down this road, which has been welcomed by the Minister, Deputy Ahern, we will be given time and space and that our findings will be taken seriously as they were perhaps belatedly in relation to the Ombudsman. The reason we are going to end the dual mandate and are going to make the Dáil more important is so committees such as this can do worthwhile work. This is an excellent area in which we could make a real contribution to getting good and balanced legislation.
I wrote to you, Chairman, to request that this committee take up this issue. I published a Bill yesterday on behalf of the Labour Party to give the Government one year's breathing space and to allow it to review the operation of the Freedom of Information Act, as it is entitled to do. The Government, in its decision to carry out a review, had a study carried out by a group of high level civil servants. I think four Sir Humphries and one Lady Humphrey carried out the review. It was only deposited in the public domain on Friday of last week.
I had an opportunity to briefly look at the report. One of the things which shocked me was that the Government's Bill, as presented, goes far further than the report of the high level group of civil servants. For that reason, it is important we have the opportunity to get the papers on the work carried out by this group to find out in some detail who it consulted because the indications in the report are that its only consultation was a report, now some years old, by the Freedom of Information Commissioner on the operation of the Act. Government spokespersons are citing references in the high level report to older comments by the Freedom of Information Commissioner as if there was consultation with the Office of the Freedom of Information Commissioner in relation to this Bill when, in fact, no such consultation took place.
The Freedom of Information Act has become a cornerstone of our democracy. It was hard on politicians from all parties to have details, such as their salaries and expenses and so on, in the public domain, but we have moved past that point. People now accept that information is available. While people may still bridle a little at such information being public, by and large, everybody has accepted it.
I would particularly like to question the group on the following matter. Quite a large number of public bodies, including health boards and institutes of technology, have altered their way of working to make specific provision for the operation of the Freedom of Information Act. For example, the institutes of technology, including the Dublin Institute of Technology, decided that because of the operation of the Freedom of Information Act, students would be entitled to their records, including their examination papers. To avoid people making freedom of information requests to all the institutes of technology, the freedom of information officers, installed under the Act, properly recommended that the institutes of technology put the information in the public domain. That happened two years ago and the sky did not fall. It has operated perfectly well. That is just one example of how institutional structures have changed for the better. Health boards have also made many changes so that people can access their records.
I am concerned that the assault which has been launched by this Bill on the Freedom of Information Act gives the Secretary to the Government the power to say documents before Cabinet are part of Government deliberations and are exempt. Anything and everything, including the operations of the South-Eastern Health Board, could be included as Government deliberations. It is important the high level group comes before the committee and that we invite the other bodies affected, particularly the users of the Freedom of Information Act, the representatives of the National Union of Journalists and of the media, public bodies and community groups which use the Act.
I am also concerned that the schedule of charges introduced in the new Bill is potentially so onerous that it will put the use of the Act out of the reach of many community and local groups which want to use it to get information about the health risks associated with environmentally sensitive discharges.
I ask the members to agree on what is being proposed. As I understand it, Committee Stage of the Bill is due to be taken in the Seanad next week. It is due to be taken in the Dáil the week commencing 24 March. It has been indicated that Committee Stage will be taken on 1 April.
That is April Fool's day.
Second Stage is due to be taken in the Dáil on Tuesday, 25 March. Committee Stage is due to be taken here one week later. Any input this committee would want to have into the debate would need to happen before then. I am conscious of what Deputy Richard Bruton said. I do not have any control over the scheduling of the debate in the Dáil. It is intended to have the Bill passed before Easter.
The Government's haste is totally misplaced. The Freedom of Information Act is not the exclusive property of the party or combination of parties in Government at a given time or of a high level group of senior public servants. It is the property of the people. I am disappointed at the schedule the Chairman outlined in good faith. Notwithstanding the extremely tight schedule the Government has presented, we should make every effort to hear from the information commissioner, who is dealing with bodies and who has a unique insight into this area, from the National Union of Journalists, which is one of the most frequent users of the service, and from the high level group. The time schedule outlined suggests we will not be able to throw the net much wider. However, perhaps we could consider some written submissions from other groups which would like to make their views known. We should make every effort to deal with this so that when we discuss Committee Stage, we are well informed and are able to table amendments, as we did during the Finance Bill when we did some work on the issue of the Ombudsman. I ask the Chairman to make every effort to schedule some hearings to allow us to get to grips with the issue.
Perhaps we could schedule initial hearings with the freedom of information commissioner next week.
The Dáil is not sitting on 13 March.
I understand the Dáil is not sitting the week after St. Patrick's day. I would be willing to come here on the Thursday and Friday. We could structure the hearings to allow an hour and a half for comments from the freedom of information commissioner and an hour for the NUJ. We could also ask the national newspaper proprietors if they would like to put forward a spokesperson. Other bodies, such as the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, might be invited to make a short presentation. We should ask the high level group to send us copies of its papers and who it consulted for the high level report. We could also have a short session with that group. Because the Government is rushing this Bill through the Houses, the time available is short. However, it is important that we give some of the interest groups an opportunity to address the committee about their concerns with the Bill. If they are delighted with the Government's proposals, so be it. However, it is important to have consultation and to make it accessible if the House is not to be treated as a joke.
Are Thursday, 20 March and Friday, 21 March suitable? The Dáil is not sitting that week, but the committee can sit. We could also sit on Thursday, 13 March, which is next week.
Will that cut across Cheltenham?
I do not know.
When I hear that word in the House, I get sick. I do not give a damn about Cheltenham. People do not need to go to it.
I assure the Senator I am speaking ironically. The Minister for Finance said he was going to Cheltenham.
That word should not be mentioned. It is abhorrent.
The Senator's colleague, the Minister for Finance, told us last week that he was going to Cheltenham and we wished him good luck.
Will we suggest Thursday, 13 March, which is next week, and/or Thursday, 20 March? I will ask the clerk to find out when the freedom of information commissioner, the high level review group, the NUJ, the media and anyone else we suggest can attend.
The Irish Council for Civil Liberties takes a broad interest in this area.
That is fine. We have enough with which to deal.
In terms of the time we have available, the national newspapers proprietors group may also be interested. Some of the bodies may be delighted with the changes to the Act.
We can schedule the meeting from 10.30 a.m until lunch or longer if other people can come in the afternoon. If some people cannot make it on that Thursday——
Would it be possible to get an undertaking that we will get the papers of the high level group and at reasonable notice? We only got that report on Friday. I would like the chairman to ask the Department of Finance to make the normal briefing arrangements available to Opposition spokespersons in relation to the Bill and the high level group report. That courtesy has been afforded to me in relation to legislation. I have a number of specific queries about the high level group report, particularly the departures between it and the Bill.
I will request that. Sometimes the Department of Finance officials find it easier to deal with the Deputy directly rather than coming through the committee.
I would like the opportunity to get that briefing.
A request for that information will be sent tomorrow. I hope people will be available.
If we cannot get the full complement, will we still go ahead with three?
Yes. I am sure we will have the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach, the Secretary General of the Department of Finance and I am not sure which other Department.
It is of the utmost importance that the Secretary General to the Government comes before the committee. The definition of Cabinet papers, Government discussions and the all embracing term "deliberations", has been employed in the proposed legislation. The Secretary General to the Government has been vested in the Bill with extraordinary additional powers to certify what Government deliberations will be excluded from the Freedom of Information Act. I would like to question the Secretary General to the Government about how they envisage that section will operate. My fear is that vast areas of information will be closed off from public scrutiny. One of my greatest regrets is that under the term "Government papers and Government deliberations", ministerial replies to parliamentary questions, which are available under the Act, will be excluded under the new legislation. I would like to ask the high level group and, in particular, the secretary to the Government why that is necessary.
We are privileged to have a man of the calibre and integrity of the Secretary General at the Department of the Taoiseach, Dermot McCarthy, and I have difficulties with the distrust of members in senior public servants, which I have also experienced in the Seanad. I am absolutely amazed at the lack of trust.
All the public servants on the working group are of the highest calibre and nobody has a problem with that. I worked with Mr. McCarthy as a Minister of State and I worked well and closely with other members of the working group. I have the height of regard for them. Their political masters, the parties in Government, have decided to publish a Bill and they published a review of it on Friday. The legislation goes much further than what is contained in their report. I have the height of confidence in their integrity, intelligence and commitment to public service and that is not at issue. What is at issue is this draconian legislation that will dismantle freedom of information, which is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. It has been good for us.
The fundamental point relates to who conducts such a review. Is it the property of Ministers and a few senior civil servants, as is the case with this review, or a wider range of people representing civic society, the Opposition, the fifth estate and anyone who has a view on access to information? A review must encompass the beneficiaries and not just the poachers who might want to maintain a certain way of doing things. The issues are the inadequacy of the review and the guillotine approach to ramming the Bill through because that is not conducive to good legislation.
It is important that we should know why they want to restrict the freedom of information so much. We have all seen how it has worked. There are certain vexatious issues relating to the Act such as expensive applications and so on. However, GP fees from health boards have been published for donkey's years and, after a few years, that had only nuisance value. We should be big enough to deal with our expenses and salaries in the same way. However, the benefits of the FOI Act should be examined. It has made a substantial difference to the quality of life of our people.
Access to information is being closed off and, for example, Members of the Oireachtas will find it difficult to operate if this draconian measure is pushed through. We should be forceful in obtaining reasons for the introduction of this legislation. This has nothing to do with our opinion of senior civil servants. The question arises as to why the Act has been introduced and what has gone wrong over the past number of years to necessitate its initiation. The legislation is not a comment on senior civil servants. They are often given briefs by their Ministers and they report back. They are not asked about their ideologies or in what they believe. They are supposed to be impartial and it is expected that they always are and will be.
I find the caricature, Sir Humphrey, totally unrealistic in this context. It is my experience in 40 years of dealing with the public sector, that Secretaries General and senior civil servants love a strong Minister who has vision and who will lead. We have gone over the top in terms of freedom of information. There is a reluctance among bureaucrats to take risks and put innovative, visionary ideas on paper if they appear to be foolish, etc. I was chairman of a particular organisation and I witnessed abuses of the FOI Act. I found the references in the Seanad last night to democratisation and how good the Act is and having it available to be extreme. There should be access and transparency but the attitude that once it is in place, one can get everything is extreme. Public servants are not writing down——
The problem is once the date for disclosure comes up, the door is slammed shut. I am worried about that.
This is an important discussion. If a bureaucrat makes a mistake, his head is chopped off and his promotional opportunities are stymied. I worked in this area and know all about it. If I ever idle, I would conduct a study on bureaucracy because it is the most destructive force in the world.
That has nothing to do with FOI.
It has because people are reluctant——
There was poor administration in the public sector long before the FOI legislation was enacted and that will continue. Many of the problems referred to by the Senator are caused because people who are supposed to be undertaking managerial roles act like administrators. Managers are allowed to make mistakes but many of the issues to which the Senator refers relate to the taking of political decisions, which have nothing to do with FOI. I could use the way the health boards are run to fit the Senator's argument.
I do not know anything about health boards.
Health boards are run like administrations, which do not allow for innovation or making mistakes. That is a problem because senior officials act like administrators rather than managers who are able to make decisions or mistakes. This debate is about access to information that may be important in the lives of our constituents. Sections of the Act may be abused through vexatious applications but we should not close off access to information because there has been a few problems.
Dr. Ken Whitaker stated in a radio interview at Christmas that the Act would stymie creativity. I worked in the public sector.
Did he say freedom of information stymies creativity?
No, I am——
This is one reason a detailed discussion in necessary. Senator White referred to doubts about the benefit of democratisation. I was part of the Government that introduced the FOI Act. Open government is good government. There is no doubt it can be awkward for those who are subject to this openness because it involves an important change in culture. FOI is part of the reason Ireland has changed from being a laced curtain, closed society to a much more open society. Great democracies such as Sweden and the United States have freedom of information legislation. Sweden's has been in place for 150 years while the US has operated FOI legislation for almost 50 years. Both have different political structures and societies. No Government Member has given me an example of a Government decision, project or ambition that has been thwarted by the Act or has had significant costs added to it. No evidence has been produced to outline what has gone wrong, what has not happened and what extra costs have arisen. Secrecy has cost the State much more than freedom of information. It is important that we should be open to debating these issues and hearing the views of users.
I agree with the Deputy regarding transparency, that everybody should know what is going on and everything must be of the highest integrity and above board but there will be fear at middle management level in the public sector——
We are not dealing with that.
What about the evidence from the Civil Service unions and freedom of information officers? I have dealt with FOI officers. There is a structure in place. I gave the example of the institutes of technology and Deputy Twomey referred to health boards. I am aware of a number of institutions where the culture has changed, where they have deemed information to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act and have made it public so that people do not have to go to the trouble of making a request for it under the Act. That is a great change of culture from the secrecy that existed before.
Essentially the argument put forward by the high level group is that Ministers are wimpish and weak-kneed and will not put forward their views if they fear that, in five years time, someone might discover that they had strongly advocated a certain view. Such Ministers do not deserve to be in office if that is the way they approach their obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.
Yes.
That is the key change. Now that we are approaching the time for disclosure, Ministers are saying they do not want certain information released. It is not that they have not been courageous, rather that they do not want information released. It is a resistance, but society has moved on. We live in a different era and people expect to have that type of information. I cannot support the weird thinking that people should be protected from disclosure in the hope that Ministers will be more courageous.
That is a different matter. The Deputy is referring to the calibre of people who become Ministers.
That is the argument.
The Deputy is being most provocative in saying that perhaps there are many people in politics who should not be in it and many others who should and who would be good Ministers.
This measure has been put forward to protect weak-kneed Ministers.
But based on information that they will make good future Ministers.
It is not often as bad as it sounds. Patients can often access their medical records by writing to their doctors. Before that measure came into force, we thought it would change the world and wondered what would happen and if the whole system would collapse with people walking out with their files. Not one patient in ten years has asked me for their file. They are not remotely interested. If something goes wrong or a mistake is made, there is no possibility for people at fault to hide the information or to make it inaccessible. It must be released. There is merit to the point that some people might be in fear of this provision, but when it is implemented properly and becomes part of the culture, it is not a problem. That is how I feel as someone who must deal on a daily basis with the decisions I make being accessible to patients, possibly within 20 minutes. I do not have a problem with it.
There are great issues in this country, primarily relating to, for example, how we spend money on the health services. It is perfectly justifiable that the public should be able to know the views of the Ministers for Finance and Health and Children on how public money should be spent on the health services. That is fundamental and critical to debate, not to spin. People want to organise the distribution of information and spin the stuff.
I am opposed to that.
The Government has 81 spin doctors that spin every single aspect. I think that, unfortunately, Senator White has listened to some of the spin and believes it.
Public servants have adapted down the years to vast numbers of challenges and have adopted them extremely well. I have every confidence in the freedom of information system in many Departments. I have made about ten requests for information in my time to different Departments, especially the Departments of Health and Children and Education and Science. I have found the freedom of information officers in Departments to be, by and large, extremely helpful.
There was reference to vexatious inquiries being made. There are exemption clauses galore in the current Act that give the freedom of information commissioner power to rule on and bar vexatious issues.
He has never ruled to restrict information.
He has. The freedom of information commissioner, when he comes before the committee, will, I am sure, give his report. Departments, by and large, have not referred complaints to him.
The Act has worked very well. It is worthy of review and I say this to Deputy Conor Lenihan who previously worked as a journalist. We do not contest that it is in need of review, but it should be given a year. The Labour Party's proposal is to allow breathing space to give interested parties and the public the opportunity to come together, not just a bunch of high level civil servants putting forward their exclusive ideas, as happened in this case, and the Government on the basis of the report, which we only received last Friday, producing a Bill which goes much further than the report the high level group made. Open government is good government. It has been good for Ireland and I do not see why we should close it down now.
It is good that the committee will give some opportunity to the relevant groups to have a wider debate on this issue. It is important given that we value freedom of information and the access it gives the citizen. That said, there has been a vexatious aspect to the working of freedom of information.
I do not want to harp on the point because I have said it before but, for example, the most requested item by the media about ourselves as Deputies has been our expenses. Freedom of information has allowed people to trawl and run through Deputies' expenses. I do not have a problem with the expenses system being reviewed, examined and pored over, rather with the repetition of the request several times a year for our expenses, which produces the same result. It is a relevant issue for the media to inquire into but I wonder about the repetition of the request. As a former journalist, something to which Deputy Burton referred, I am very much in favour of freedom of information, but it must be used in a policy sense and not for the more mundane aspects that are already known. There must be some——
What information is not——
Can I just reply to Deputy Conor Lenihan?
I have not finished.
Sorry.
The question must be asked if we can give freedom of information legislation more focus and direction so that a genuine public good is served by requesting information. We should not open all the files of State so that everyone can pore over them endlessly. There is a serious issue about people enunciating and putting across views at Cabinet and whether it is relevant or in the public good for those views to be made public.
Discussions at Cabinet remain absolutely privileged.
They remain confidential and are outside the scope of the Act.
There is an argument, and I put it forward to prompt debate and not in a confrontational way because I respect the view both Deputies enunciated earlier, that we need to give focus and direction to the legislation. It is easy to access background documents and documents that contribute to Cabinet and wider public debate, but one must wonder about the efficacy of doing so within a certain time period and whether that is a good idea.
There are enough show boaters in our profession, and I have been critical of my former profession in this regard, who are only too ready to show boat on the basis of a limited disclosure and make a mountain out of a molehill. If I have been critical of my former profession, I am critical of my current profession as well in that there are enough politicians on all sides who love to show boat on selective disclosure of documents. It is not just the media who have this habit. That is one of my reservations.
I am not convinced that the current freedom of information commissioner is ready to listen to appeals. I know people who have written documents to him and received standard replies stating that the appeal is not accepted. I am not convinced that the appeals process is sufficient either, that people who do not wish a specific disclosure to occur have the rights or the wherewithal to challenge realistically rulings of the freedom of information commissioner and have their case heard. That is a serious point of view.
As we see in terms of both technology and the intrusion of the State into the lives of ordinary citizens, privacy issues will become increasingly important. Privacy and confidentiality are important issues. That arises in the context of the contemplated reform of the libel laws. We need to consider privacy issues with regard to ordinary citizens and how they are affected by disclosures of one kind or another from the freedom of information office. I am not trying to be confrontational. There are serious issues to be discussed and I am glad the committee will pore over them and bring the interested parties before it so that it can hear wide and varying views on this matter.
There was a very good example in one of the national newspapers this morning of the kind of work that journalists do using the Freedom of Information Act although that may, in many respects, irritate politicians - particularly Ministers and, perhaps, the Taoiseach. The story was concerned with information gleaned under FOI with regard to the Government jet and was a good example of the working of the Act, though I presume it would be excluded under the revised Act.
Members know that the Government is planning to spend, whether by lease or purchase, in the region of €100 million on jet transport and the ministerial air service. There is debate about how necessary this is with the Irish EU Presidency coming up, among other issues. The current Government jet, although it has flown a limited number of hours, is continuously having maintenance problems, some of them embarrassing. Due to the work of one journalist, it emerged from documentation received under the Freedom of Information Act that the Government jet is making a number of short hops between Baldonnel and Dublin Airport, because the Taoiseach and other Ministers live on the Northside and prefer to use Dublin Airport.
It may not comfort the Taoiseach that this information came out but it is a very important contribution to the debate about the Government jet. This and other committees may set standards as a consequence of that information becoming available, whereby the Government jet is not allowed to make 15 minute trips across Dublin merely for the convenience of Ministers when that results in a significant deterioration in the life span of the jet——
There were 30 minute trips to Tralee when the Labour Party was in Government.
They were all disclosed.
That information about the jet is not necessarily true.
I am making the point that freedom of information has changed the culture. I accept that many politicians, including myself, may be irritated by it but it is a change of culture that has been good for Irish society. There was the example in The Irish Times last year of the important story about the difference of opinion between the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Health and Children as to how the health services were to be funded.
Some of the stories that have emerged through the work of journalists and the media, while they may have been uncomfortable for certain politicians, have made a great contribution to the debates in the Houses and our understanding of how decisions are made. We must take a stand and protect it.
Deputy Lenihan seems to be uncomfortable with the rulings of the information commissioner in respect of certain requests.
I am not.
His discomfiture, which he expressed a moment ago——
The Deputy is misrepresenting what I said, which is not untypical of him.
The Deputy said that he felt that those who want to prevent the disclosure of certain information were not getting a proper hearing from the information commissioner. Those were the Deputy's words, though he may wish to withdraw them.
The appeal process is not visible and it should be strengthened.
The proof that the information commissioner is doing his job well is that Deputy Lenihan and others in Government are uncomfortable with the decisions he is making.
I am not uncomfortable and am very happy with freedom of information.
The law has set out the grounds on which the commissioner makes his decisions. There are vexatious and frivolous applications but they do not include those which embarrass or make uncomfortable those such as Deputy Lenihan. The commissioner is not obliged to take into account the views of those who want to protect information. He must interpret and apply the law and this is done in a fair manner. The commissioner sets out exactly the grounds on which he can make refusals and these are founded in the legislation already in place. It is good to hear that he is making decisions and making some people uncomfortable. That indicates the culture is changing.
The Deputy is misrepresenting the position.
I am not misrepresenting it.
I am not uncomfortable with any decision that the information commissioner has made. I thought we were having a free-ranging, non-partisan debate. I am not being partisan but simply point out that there could be a much broader review. I am not necessarily looking to constrain the Act but I have certain reservations about the way it has operated. It is fully valid to express such reservations. Are we not to be free to make any comment unless——
That is not at all what I said.
I am not in any way uncomfortable. I am a backbench Deputy and am not uncomfortable about disclosing my salary, remuneration and expenses. I do so in compliance with all the relevant Acts. However, I feel that the constant repetition of these requests over a period adds nothing to the public debate because the same figures are repeated year after year. I would like some discussion of how this would work. It might be better to publish such figures every year through the Dáil record as that would obviate the cost of repeated requests for such information. I agree with Deputy Burton that it was positive that the differences of opinion regarding the health strategy came out by way of FOI.
I think the Deputy has moved on from clarifying the point. The point I was making was that the Deputy indicated he was unhappy with the way some appeals were being heard by the information commissioner.
Yes.
I am not unhappy with that. The Act is clear and I have not found, and the Deputy has not drawn my attention to, any instance where the commissioner failed to apply the terms of the Act. It is clear that there can be vexatious requests but, under section 10, a head of Department can refuse a request if he or she believes it is frivolous or vexatious. There is ample protection against vexatious requests and I have found no evidence that the information commissioner is supporting frivolous or vexatious requests. He should be protected by this committee for the quality of work he is doing on this Act and it should not be suggested that he is not properly hearing cases that come before him.
I agree with Deputy Lenihan that our expenses is a non-issue. The doctors' fees from the GMS have been published for years and I do not think a change to the Freedom of Information Act will stop their publication. At this stage, they do not even make the local papers because everybody has lost interest.
The new openness in Departments, such as the Department of Social and Family Affairs, is very positive. That Department was extremely awkward to deal with some years ago but it is not now as difficult. A more open society has come about. Deputy Lenihan is correct that we should be prepared to admit if there are problems with FOI appeals, and the information commissioner might come to the committee to explain matters in that regard. Nonetheless, the Freedom of Information Act has been very good for society and we should continue in that direction.
I agree that the Freedom of Information Act has been very welcome and positive. Some weeks ago, I inquired as to whether officials were happy with its operation. The article in this morning's Irish Independent is typical. We did not need the Freedom of Information Act 1997 to get that particular information. Down through the years, parliamentary questions submitted by Opposition Deputies——
It might be worth looking at.
One point missed in the article is that up to a year and a half ago, there was not a hanger in Baldonnel that was suitable——
The point of the article today is that the life of the jet has been shortened as a result of the very short trips being made from one side of Dublin to the other.
If I might just clarify——
The information revealed today is new and concerns the unwillingness of the Taoiseach to travel to the airport on the southside.
This information could have been acquired through a parliamentary question. The Air Corps has stated, through parliamentary questions, that until some time ago it did not have a hanger in Baldonnel that could accommodate the GIV jet, and it had to be hangered in Dublin airport. This was particularly so when high storms were forecast. One of the reasons for the high cost of maintenance on the G4 was that when they hangered it at Baldonnel, the tail stuck out and became rusted. All those cycles talked about in the article were not because of the Taoiseach or any other Government Minister seeking to have the jet stationed at Dublin airport.
The Deputy has been very well briefed.
I have not been well briefed, I just read parliamentary questions.
I will conclude the discussion on this. It is proposed to meet again on Thursday 13 March, at 10.30 a.m., and the list of people indicated earlier will be invited to attend. I expect that meeting will run into the afternoon. It will not be possible to conclude our deliberations with all the various groups in the morning. If that day does not suit, we could complete the process the following week if necessary. Are there any other matters members wish to raise? No. The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Bill has been referred to the committee since October 2002, but I expect we will be unable to deal with that until April.
We should take it before the Government's Bill to reform the freedom of information legislation reaches Committee Stage because it is well ahead in the queue.
The joint committee adjourned at 18.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 13 March 2003.