I want to draw members' attention to some items of correspondence. A letter was received from Mr. Aidan O'Flanagan regarding the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill, which was circulated at the last meeting. Can we take that as noted without discussing the contents? Agreed. We received a further letter today from Mr. O'Flanagan, which is being circulated. I ask it be noted.
Business of Joint Committee.
I have a fundamental problem. We received a letter from the Adopted People's Association and we have heard evidence from a number of groups this morning, including Mr. O'Gorman and people representing The Wheel voluntary group. I know the Government is in a big rush. Cheltenham is over and the Minister is probably on his way back to Ireland. However, we must take time to deal with these matters. Because of the responsible way all of us in this committee have conducted these hearings, we have all been educated on matters about which we were not aware. Deputy Lenihan said that as a result of what he has heard he has changed his view in relation to the impact of the Bill on personal information.
The committee must hold further hearings with representative organisations who deal with important elements of the Bill. We should seek out these organisations. The Adopted People's Association wrote to us today indicating that tens of thousands of people are affected by the legislation. There are the two Civil Service unions, the Congress of Trades Unions and the voluntary organisations. The Wheel representatives said they only heard yesterday, probably as a result of this committee's hearings last week, that the Bill is on the stocks and is proposing dramatic changes.
I propose that the committee hold further hearings and place an advertisement in the newspapers indicating that we are prepared to hear from more groups of citizens about how this important legislation will affect them. If Mr. McCreevy could travel to Cheltenham last week, surely we can take a couple of weeks to hear from bodies and organisations. The Labour Party offered the Government a way out by postponing the legislation for a time to allow consultations to take place. I am of an even stronger view now that the committee should go back to the Government and say that we have received important information during the hearings so far and we should be allowed to carry on with our work for another couple of weeks because we are performing a public service.
For the record, the letter from the Adoptive Parents Association was received by e-mail approximately 20 minutes before the meeting commenced. There was no possibility, therefore, to do anything more than bring it to members' attention.
I only heard about it because of the press coverage of our last hearing.
Can I make a suggestion? As this is a joint committee, there may be some items in relation to the work we conducted last week and today on which there may be some agreement but there may also be items on which there will not be all-party consensus. Report Stage will be taken in the Seanad tomorrow and it is listed for Second Stage in the Dáil next week. To some extent, events may overtake any further deliberations on our part. I suggest that we lay a report before the Dáil as quickly as possible saying that the high level group has appeared before the committee, has acknowledged that its input into the overall legislation was minor, has endorsed the Information Commissioner's presentation and has supported him in what he said. The report should also comment on the NUJ, the newspapers' association and the other organisations which appeared today. The committee has done good work to date and I would not like that to be lost as the debate on the Bill proceeds. I would like to report on our hearings to date. We may do as you are suggesting, Deputy Burton, and we may file a second report. We have done good work in the past two days and I do not preclude what you are saying.
I know you are in an awkward position, Chairman, as a member of the Government party. This is an all-party committee. We have done very well and no one has played politics with this question. However, from what we have heard and particularly from the evidence we heard today, there is need for wider consultation. This committee must say to Government that it is in the Government's own interest that wider consultation is permitted. We could facilitate that consultation, probably in as little as two weeks. From the bodies that have made public statements, made approaches to individual members of this committee and have written to the committee we could almost draw up a shortlist of the further bodies from which it is important to hear, from the point of view of democracy.
I second Deputy Burton's suggestion. I do not wish to play politics. The deliberative process is an integral part of the Bill. If there ever was a need for a deliberative process there is now. A huge number of bodies are active and are directly involved in and affected by this legislation. We have seen the letter which has come from the adoptive parents, and other bodies are in similar positions. I hope the spirit in which this proposal is made is accepted by the committee as a whole and that it is adopted. I hope the legislative process is put on hold until we hear from these bodies.
I note that the deadline of 18 April is looming but this issue is too important to be rushed through without adequate deliberation. I am not talking about allowing tomorrow's process go through. The Seanad is also entitled to be informed before we pass Report Stage and Final Stage. I ask the committee to adopt this resolution. I second Deputy Burton's proposal.
The report you propose, Chairman, is very commendable. We are proposing to build on that report and to make it more comprehensive and substantial.
We do not have the authority or ability to change the Order of Business in the Seanad tomorrow. We are only one group of Members of the Oireachtas. Events may bypass our good intentions. I am trying to be practical.
We are a very influential all-party committee. We are trying to move from a position of accepting, as quasi county councillors, whatever the Government says. We are trying to put the Government under greater scrutiny. The Government has created a schedule for itself and is doing things it has not properly thought through. I heard speakers from both sides of the argument in the Seanad who were clearly perplexed by the way the definition of government is being extended to bodies which are not even official. There was clear perplexity here today about the closing off of people's ability to get files which relate to their own history and which pre-date the introduction of the Act. There is concern about the certification process by Secretaries General, which will have no appeals mechanism, no requirement to justify its reasonableness and no time limit. The one thing we can usefully do is tell Government that to accelerate the process would be a disservice to itself and the Oireachtas. We are in a position to wield that influence and if we do not seek to wield it no one will. We are the ones who are standing in that gap.
Rather than pick one amendment where we feel there is consensus on all sides and leave others, on the basis that half a loaf is better than no bread, we should seek to do what any proper Legislature would do and ensure that sufficient time has been given for people to reflect on the impact of the Bill and make a decision. I am convinced that people will vote in the Seanad tomorrow based on the Whip system although not happy that the arguments have been properly teased out. We have an opportunity to put down a marker. We should seek extra time to have additional hearings and, more important, to give Government a chance to reflect on some of these changes. The Government postponed Report Stage very suddenly last week and it cannot have had a chance to tease out the implications of the Bill in the past three or four days. The Government may come up with an amendment on one of the issues and leave the others.
The proposal made is the correct approach for this committee. We will have done a good day's work if we make that request. If the decision is turned, that will be another day's work. From the point of view of Government Deputies and Senators we should, at least, make the request because it is the best way to proceed.
Last week this committee met from 10.30 a.m. until 8 p.m. Today we have sat from 10.30 a.m. and it is now 1.30 p.m. It is important that we keep the bigger picture in mind. Surely we have informed ourselves of what is in the document and have listened attentively to what the issues are. Further consultation sounds ideal in theory but I am clear in my head and I am sure the other members of the committee feel the same. The members of this committee will do the best we can. There has been much repetition, and bringing in further groups will not help. It is very clear what the issues are. We heard them from senior civil servants and from the commissioner. Senator Mansergh, who is the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on this issue in the Seanad, said he had no problem with the commissioner's comments on the legislation. The comments made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the Seanad were exaggerated in the media. Extreme positions and disagreements have been highlighted by the media and this is not condusive to the enactment of good legislation. We should concentrate on the bigger picture and keep moving.
With due respect to Senator White, I accept that, with other members of the committee, she was here for ten hours last Thursday and has been here faithfully throughout this morning's proceedings. The point is not what civil servants or Members of the Oireachtas learn from these hearings, although I have learned a huge amount about the Act, the point is what our citizens learn. We have just heard very powerful presentations, particularly from the community and voluntary sector and from Mr. ColmO'Gorman of the One in Four organisation. This legislation has a huge impact on individuals, who are only now learning about it. We also have a letter from the Adopted Peoples Association. There are more than 40,000 adopted people in the country. The association says it has extensive experience of dealing with the Act and it wants to come and talk to this committee.
I heard things this morning I did not know before. Deputy Lenihan said it changed his mind in relation to the clause.
I do not think he said that.
I would appreciate it if Deputy Burton did not misquote me. I will clarify this matter in a minute.
He said he would make strong representations to the Minister on the impact on personal records. That is a change from his attitude at the end of the debate on Thursday last.
It is not a change of attitude and I ask Deputy Burton not to misrepresent me or appoint herself as my spokesperson.
The Deputy said he would make representation. We had a clear indication by Senator Mansergh, whom I respect enormously and who was an experienced public servant prior to becoming an adviser and subsequently Senator, that he was extremely concerned by what was said about the extent of the definition of Government. He is mandarin enough to couch his language carefully but as someone who has served in Government, what he said clearly indicated to me that he was personally perturbed by the widening of the definition of Government.
This committee is working well and doing the Government's business of conducting the consultation process. All I am saying is that we need to hear more from the people affected. Maybe some of it will be repetitive but these are the people paying taxes. They have a right, if they represent and deal with 40,000 people, to come in and talk to us and tell us how the Bill affects them.
In The Irish Times on Thursday, 13 March, Mark Brennock and ArthurBeasley said that the Taoiseach and the Government Chief Whip said the previous day that they were open to amendments.
It is not my intention to pick up on what Senator White or Deputy Burton have said but I would like to make my position clear. I believe that institutional abuse is the one area we have heard about in submissions where there is a real issue in regard to the Freedom of Information Bill as currently drafted. There may be need for clarification or for clear indication from the Minister or his public servants as to the intention of the Bill and what they believe to be the implications and of their response to the One in Four group.
As a joint committee we move by way of consensus and I hope there is consensus that we move quickly because the timetable is parliamentary and select committee driven. There will be huge discussions on Committee Stage of this Bill. The Government has indicated it is prepared to look at detailed changes where required. As a committee we need to prove our relevance. Deputy Burton is correct that we have been relevant as we have been extremely relevant in the level of consultation we have had and with the people we have met. Of course it has been contentious but that is how these committees should operate.
We need to get an agreed position as a committee that makes observations and recommendations. Where there is agreement on an all-party basis for a recommendation let us make a recommendation and where there is disagreement let us make an observation from the committee. The one thing we want to get across is the sense of urgency mentioned by Deputy Burton. There is a sense of urgency about getting a message back to the Minister and the civil servants about the views that have been expressed here. Some good views have been expressed, even those I do not agree with. They have been well expressed by members from both Fine Gael and the Labour Party.
It is important we get our observations and recommendations to the Minister, to quote or misquote a former Ceann Comhairle, quan celerimme, as quickly as possible. That is how we become relevant as a committee and how we will have some impact in terms of how this legislation develops.
The key observation, which was brought out clearly by Senator Higgins earlier is that the Government has been defending these things, about which we have serious concerns, to the hilt in the Seanad. There is a momentum now to push ahead with Report Stage tomorrow in the Seanad. The one thing this committee should be able to achieve some consensus on is that the attempt to make those decisions so quickly is not a good idea. We should give both Government and ourselves the time to look over some of these highly contentious issues, including the one which has the greatest impact with the Deputy. There are others that make a big impact such as the issue with which Senator Mansergh was clearly uncomfortable.
Tomorrow we will have the Government amendments in the Seanad and we will have to like them or lump them. The committee should at least try to seek consensus on that. It is not a good idea that tomorrow should be a fait accompli and that whatever the Government gives has to be accepted and that is an end to it. That is not good because it will carry on into the Dáil debate and will shape how that debate takes place. Our opportunity to shape a better debate will have been missed. That is my concern.
Members from the Government side of this committee are put in an awkward position if we are to take up the Opposition's work in criticising the timetabling of this. As Deputies and individuals we have issues about this Bill which we have expressed here in committee. We would like to see the committee proceed by way of consensus rather than adopt what is, essentially, a controversial claim on the Deputy's part. I have no objection to him making the point from a political or other point of view about the timetabling issue but that is not our responsibility. We are responsible to a Whip as well as he is. He would be better off leaving that issue and sticking to making observations and recommendations. These recommendations will have their own impact on a Minister. It is my experience that when recommendations come from an all-party basis, including points made by Deputies from the Minister's party, they have an impact on the Minister.
What one sees happening in the Dáil and Seanad is that a majority Government can railroad legislation through the Houses. We will start reducing our own relevance if we partake in that by just rubber stamping everything and then rushing it through the House. We have seen from the meetings here that this is an incredibly important issue. We should take time to reflect and should not participate in railroading through the House legislation that is so important. We should sit back and think about what we are saying. If that means we need more time to reach a consensus and think about things we should take the time to do that. I know the legislation is pressing but for our own relevance and for the sake of the hard work that has been done, we should be prepared to take time to discuss it.
We can take as long as we like as a select committee. We are meeting now as a joint committee. If this comes before us as a select committee I have no doubt that it will be teased out in detail with amendments from the Opposition and perhaps the Government itself. The select committee can give it all the time in the world. What I am talking about is the business of this joint committee. We need to get observations and recommendations to the Minister. The point is that we should make those recommendations as a joint committee and hopefully we will get a response. On an interim basis if we need further hearings we should be flexible on that matter depending on how the timetable pans out in terms of the legislative process. This is a joint committee which deals with policy formulation and observations and recommendations. It does not deal with legislation as such.
I would love to accept in good faith what Deputy Lenihan is saying but the reality is that the Government has set a definitive deadline in regard to getting this legislation through. Last Thursday in the Seanad the Committee Stage debate was guillotined with only 12 of the 27 amendments actually debated. We will have exactly the same experience in the select committee. Nobody should delude themselves into thinking that there will be a long deliberative process.
Senator White made the point that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance had given undertakings that they would look favourably on the possibility of amendments. It is less than 24 hours before we embark on Report Stage of this Bill, yet we have seen no Government amendments. It is clear, therefore, that the Government has no intention of bringing forward amendments. The reality is that the Bill will go through unamended tomorrow evening. It will be in the Dáil next week and the consultative process that was started here which has been extremely useful and informative will not be allowed to go to its logical conclusion. I plead with the Members who have talked about consensus that this is surely an issue where we can get consensus. We will co-operate in regard to getting the Bill through once we have ended the consultative and deliberative process. That is something we have an obligation and a duty to carry out.
I want to say to Deputy Conor Lenihan in particular that the hearings we have held so far have produced a large amount of previously unknown information about the Government Bill, starting with the important fact that the high level group saw its contribution as an input. When the Bill was presented everyone understood that it was substantially the product of the high level group. We had the high level group here and it told us that it was making an input into the Bill. In terms of the long-term working of committees what we are doing is not Committee Stage of the Bill. We agreed, and it worked well, that we would largely confine ourselves to questions to let the people appearing before us speak.
We have had a consultation process which has been good. What has become clear is that because the Government has given the Bill such an extraordinarily rushed life large numbers of relevant organisations and individuals are barely aware that it is coming through. The Taoiseach and the Leader of the Seanad were at pains to stress their belief about the Bill. I believe the Leader of the Seanad when she said that she was satisfied that it had no implications for personal information. I accept her bona fides in saying that but the information from the people we are consulting is radically different.
We need to give other people who are essential to the consultation process the time to present their views. We could be talking about a week or two. It would only take a week if we agreed to hold hearings on two days. If we were to decide for next Thursday and Friday I think we would be able to undertake the bulk of the consultation process with the important groups which ought to be consulted. We have learned interesting new details from almost every group we have consulted. Senator Higgins is right when he says that if this Bill is guillotined in such a tight way as the Government seems to feel is necessary large sections of the Bill will never be discussed. That is a tragedy in terms of democracy.
As Chairman, I want to make a few points. In regard to the guillotine, Second Stage is scheduled for the Dáil next week, 25 and 27 March. It is scheduled to come to committee on Tuesday, 1 April. Unless the Dáil decides to guillotine Committee Stage it will not be guillotined - this committee will not guillotine it. The only legislation ever guillotined on Committee Stage is the Finance Bill and that is due to the sheer volume of it. We spend three full days on it and then close it up. This committee has no power to impose a guillotine on Committee Stage so it will not be done unless the Dáil decides that.
I want to make a suggestion. I believe this committee will not be able to stop Report Stage from going to the Seanad tomorrow nor has it the power to stop Second Stage in the Dáil next Tuesday. We could do like we did in regard to the Central Bank legislation when we met the credit union after Second Stage and before Committee Stage. We could agree to put off consideration, even though Second Stage debate is due to take place next week, and commence our hearings before Committee Stage. In reality, no amendments will be made on Second Stage. Amendments will be made on Committee Stage of select committee. What I am suggesting is that we allow a few days before we get into select committee for Committee Stage and that we shove the proposed date back by a number of days to give more time for consideration. If there are amendments on Committee Stage, which I expect there will be, this legislation which was initiated in the Seanad will then return to the Seanad for a final vote on it.
That is the problem. The Government is unlikely to allow significant amendments on Dáil Committee Stage because of the Seanad timetable. The critical thing for the Government is to give the Seanad a breathing space while this committee undertakes the consultation process - we are all being educated by this process. The Government will then be able to put its amendments to the Seanad and the Dáil can then consider them. The problem is that because it is a Bill initiated in the Seanad the timetable is even tighter than would normally be the case with legislation that originated in the Dáil, which would then go to the Seanad and back again. That is the problem.
May we talk about scheduling and when we will have these meetings?
I acknowledge there is a difficulty from the Seanad point of view if there are no amendments listed for Report Stage tomorrow. The amendments will be taken on Committee Stage going through the Dáil. When it is completed in the Dáil it has to go back to the Seanad. That is the option available. I do not think this committee of 16 to 20 members will succeed in rescheduling Dáil business for next week and Seanad business for tomorrow. The best we can do from a pragmatic and practical point of view is complete our hearings before it gets to Dáil Committee Stage. We will not have it done by next Tuesday when Second Stage is due to be taken, but we can postpone Committee Stage to give us time to complete our hearings. As Chairman, I cannot offer much more.
It is not just a question of getting a few more people in so that people can say they had their say. It is a chance for both sides of the House to engage in a deliberative process. We are trying to deliberate on what is best in terms of this Act. The people who have come in so far have enlightened us and there are probably others who could further enlighten us. The issue is that we need the time and space to come to the right conclusions. There is an artificial anxiety. The Labour Party and Fine Gael have offered to change the date of 18 April if that is the obstacle.
Let us be real, that was voted down.
Tomorrow the die will be cast and the Senators will adopt amendments. If we are honest none of us would be happy with the amendments adopted. Are we saying now that we have to accept that because it is the best the Government can give or are we willing to say that we should at least ask for something a bit better? The consensus of anyone who has been here is that this is not perfect legislation. It will not be perfect tomorrow but we will be lumbered with something with which we are uneasy.
The best this committee can do is seek that it be much improved before the legislation is completed in both Houses. We will not achieve that before Report Stage in the Seanad but we can complete our consideration before it fully passes through the House. It had already commenced in the Seanad before we commenced our hearings. We will not succeed by tomorrow but we can succeed before it is completed in committee and before its Final Stages in the Dáil. Then it has to go back to the Seanad for a final vote.
I have here the speech of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It says clearly that this Bill has no impact for personal information and access to records. The Minister is a highly qualified lawyer but he got it wrong. The Taoiseach also got it wrong. They did not get it wrong in bad faith but presumably because they were advised by the Department of Finance that the Bill had no implications for personal information other than a very slight change of clarification.
It must be acknowledged that we have done major work in this committee. All the members from the various political parties have done major work. We have brought new information and new insights to light through the people who have presented to us. Surely we can tell the Government that its timetable is inadequate and ought to be reconsidered in view of the work we have done. That would be an example of the committee system working well. We will not then have to pay hundreds of thousands of euro for an inquiry. We are doing this in advance to try to get things right.
I want to make an observation on the hearings I have heard to date. I consider the extensive report by the Information Commissioner the seminal document. I believe any amendments required to be made are in that. This is my personal opinion. I believe that what we heard this morning draws from his report and that if we have hearings next week they too will draw from what we already have in the commissioner's report. I do not mean this disrespectfully, but I have not heard anything substantially new emerging that is not already in the Information Commissioner's report. I suggest that we have most of the information in front of the committee in terms of practical amendments and improvements that can be made. If the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, or some other public sector body, comes in next week, as mentioned this morning, it will draw on what is already in the commissioner's report. That has been the practice of the three groups represented here this morning. That is a personal observation.
The problem is that we do not know what the attitude of the Minister for Finance will be.
No. That is why I suggested we should complete our work before the matter goes to the select committee. I am anxious to have it completed as early as possible.
It is important that this joint committee should signal to the Minister for Finance our concerns, observations and, eventually, I hope, recommendations and the Minister should take those into consideration in dealing with the Bill in select committee. It cannot do any harm to make him aware of our views.
I am trying to bring this part of our discussion to a conclusion. I suggest the joint committee issues a holding statement to the effect that we have carried out certain work and we believe significant amendments are required before the legislation is completed, and that due to time constraints outside our control, this cannot be completed by tomorrow——
I agree with that.
——and we will insist that we complete our deliberations before Committee Stage.
I suggest we amend that to say that in view of what we have heard, we consider it strongly advisable to facilitate further limited hearings with key parties affected by the Act. If the Government would agree to that, it would be treating us as grown ups who have carried out some serious work. There are two elements involved. One is that there are citizens' organisations and bodies which have a right to be heard. The normal consultation process did not take place in this case, despite the Government's professed commitment to accountability and transparency. The high level group informed us that its paper was only one input and it had no brief with regard to consultation. Instead, we are undertaking that consultation. Can we not ask the Government to allow us to complete that process relatively quickly? I believe we could undertake to do that within one or two further days. It is then a matter for the Government to take a decision. Our Chairman used a very good formula of words when he referred to important areas on which, as an all-party committee, we agree there is need for amendment.
I agree with the Chairman's suggested holding statement to the effect that in the corporate view of this committee, significant amendment is required. Indeed, that is more in the nature of a definitive statement than a holding one.
Absolutely.
I believe we are in agreement but we have a logistical difficulty in relation to timing. I do not believe we can change what is to take place in the Seanad tomorrow - we have no power or authority to do so. Taking a practical view, if the Bill is to complete its passage through both Houses and be signed into law by the President by 18 April, our time is limited. The Government has voted down the proposal for a one year extension and I see no point in revisiting that.
That was before we heard the inputs from witnesses to these proceedings. Before the committee resumes at 4 p.m., will the Chairman consult the Government Chief Whip? There has been another development since the Bill was published, namely, the war in Iraq. The Government has, quite rightly, changed the Order of Business in the Dáil to allow time for a debate on that tomorrow. I believe we need to seek a better sense of capacity to influence this legislation, which was unduly rushed, even if the Government regarded itself as being within its rights. The Minister for Finance said the election determined the Government's right to act in this matter. However, what we have heard from witnesses so far indicates there is need for some space, particularly in relation to the Seanad. What is the point of having the Seanad go through with its debate on the Bill tomorrow, having regard to what we have heard and the fact that there may not even be provision for amendments?
When the Bill has concluded in the Dáil, it will go back to the Seanad again approximately three weeks from now. Senators will have an opportunity to vote on it after it has completed its passage through the Dáil, presumably with amendments. As it was initiated in the Seanad, it must go back to that House following completion in the Dáil.
As a minimum——
We are in agreement, on the substance of the matter, that further consultation should take place and that there should be significant amendment of the Bill. The only outstanding question is with regard to the timetable.
May we request the Government to allow space for this committee to continue the consultation process for, say, two further sitting days?
We still cannot change the arrangements in the Seanad for tomorrow.
That is for the Government to say, but I genuinely believe that is needed. I was particularly struck by the comments of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to the effect that this Bill did not impact on personal information. No doubt, they made that statement honestly, believing it to be true, but we now know the situation to be different.
We need to reach agreement on this. I am glad this discussion is taking place in public session rather than in private as is normally the case in such matters.
As members will have noticed, none of this committee's business has taken place in private session since I became Chairman, even when we discussed travel arrangements, which other committees deal with in private session. All our business is discussed in public.
That is important. In terms of freedom of information, we are facilitating our friends in the media. This discussion would normally take place in private session and perhaps that would be helpful in some respects. However, there is no political agenda from my point of view or that of my colleagues on the Government side.
Nor on our part.
All of us have experience of dealing with Whips. As the Chairman has indicated, there is agreement that further consultation is needed and that there should be significant amendment of the Bill. It is important that we set down on paper the significant amendment we envisage. I am quite clear from what I have heard from the Opposition - I will not praise my own colleagues for the moment - that there are ideas for discussion, and we should make the Minister aware of those ideas. While there have been accusations of the Bill being rushed, extra time was made available in the Seanad. Of course, I do not claim responsibility for the actions of any relative in that House in the matter of timetabling. The reality is that the Bill is not now being rushed. The Select Committee has all the time in the world to go through it. In that regard, I reassure the members opposite who, not unnaturally, may be suspicious of anything emanating from the Government. The select committee will have as much time as it needs to deal with the Bill. I would certainly not agree to it being guillotined on Committee Stage, nor do I believe our Chairman would agree to that.
We should not regard it as the end of the world if the debate on the Bill proceeds in the Seanad tomorrow, following which it will come to the select committee which can make appropriate amendments before it returns to the Seanad. In the meantime, the joint committee can have further meetings with interested bodies before Committee Stage in the select committee.
The Seanad should proceed with its scheduled business tomorrow, having stood back last Thursday, as a matter of courtesy, to facilitate the business of the joint committee. Following Second Stage in the Dáil, there will be a window of opportunity to defer Committee Stage for a few days to allow for completion of hearings by the joint committee. In any event, amendments can only be taken on Committee Stage rather than on the floor of the House.
We have a motion to put forward from this side of the committee. We are anxious to retain a consensus, all-party approach. This meeting is scheduled to resume at 4 p.m. today. In the meantime, will the Chairman consider contacting the Minister for Finance, the Minister of State at that Department or the Government Chief Whip to investigate the possibility of deferring tomorrow's debate on the Bill? In terms of progressing the Bill successfully, it is eminently sensible to streamline the process. Otherwise, we will have a form of legislative ping-pong, with the Bill going through the Seanad without amendment tomorrow and from there to the Dáil. We are being told there will be significant amendments on Committee Stage in select committee, following which the Bill will return to the Seanad once again for further deliberation. The obvious course would be to defer consideration, introduce whatever substantial amendments are necessary on Report Stage in the Seanad and let it go to the Dáil. It would then have gone through as opposed to putting it back and over.
Committee Stage has been completed in the Seanad.
Yes.
The Government cannot introduce an amendment on Report Stage in the Seanad unless it was indicated on Committee Stage. There is a clear precedent. The Government cannot unilaterally introduce amendments on Report Stage.
It can indicate its intention very clearly.
Committee Stage is complete. We are moving to Report Stage.
Our process is different from the Dáil in that it can do it anyhow. However, with the agreement of the Dáil, it can be done there also.
We will resume at 3.45 p.m.
Will we issue a statement in the interim?
No.
If it would be helpful to you, Chairman, the Opposition parties could ask their Whips to contact the Government Chief Whip in the context of what we have come across. It is unusual not to have consultation with regard to legislation. This committee has done its members proud by having a consultation process but we should allow it to be more full and complete in order to give members a rounded picture for which the Minister for Finance will thank us.
We now will suspend the sitting until 3.45 p.m. Following the discussion this afternoon, there will be a briefing for members of the committee by officials of the Department of Finance. It will not be a committee meeting, simply an informal briefing for those members interested in meeting with officials. We will meet as a committee at 3.45 p.m. The briefing will be in private; it will not be a meeting, simply a briefing for individual members of the committee by officials of the Department. It will be outside the committee structure.
To clarify, it will not be a committee meeting. They will not be able to answer——
They will only give factual information. There is confusion as to what different certificates mean. The officials can explain this.
Sitting suspended at 2.05 p.m. and resumed at 3.45 p.m.
I made inquiries about the schedule as indicated before lunch. Report Stage will take place in the Seanad tomorrow, 20 March. Second Stage in the Dáil will take place on Tuesday, 25 March and Thursday, 27 March. We will be discussing local government and the dual mandate on Wednesday, which means it will be a busy week. Committee Stage is scheduled for 1 April and may go into 2 April. Report Stage is scheduled for the following week, starting on 9 April, and if there are amendments, it will have to return to the Seanad. Once amendments are made in the Dáil the full list of those amendments have to be notified to the Seanad for discussion after Report Stage.
Does the Chairman think there is a racing chance of that?
I think there could be some amendments. I thought there was some flexibility, but neither the Dáil nor the Seanad is sitting on Holy Week, which commences on 14 April.
In view of the Chairman's statement that significant amendment was required to the Bill——
What the Deputy calls significant and what I call significant have yet to be determined.
It was the Chairman's statement that it was significant.
I would consider it significant.
Based on what SenatorHiggins has said, nothing can go to the Seanad tomorrow and the Government's parliamentary counsel may have not yet worked it out. Are we likely to get the amendments on Second Stage on Tuesday and Thursday in the Dáil or will we get them on Committee Stage?
Committee Stage is scheduled for Tuesday, 1 April. We would normally have the amendments on the previous Friday, 28 March.
Will we be going through a farce tomorrow and next week whereby everybody has now agreed, to use the Chairman's terminology, that significant amendment is required?
I have not spoken to the Minister. I have spoken to the Government Chief Whip.
Is he absent?
I am told he is at a Government meeting this week so I have not spoken to him and I have not seen him.
Will there be Government amendments in the Seanad tomorrow?
There may be Government amendments.
I assume the list of them will be available to us in a few minutes. It did not come in just to wish us happy Easter, did it?
On Committee Stage in the Dáil the Minister has to indicate if he is going to introduce Government amendments on Report Stage.
As long as it has not been voted to the contrary on Committee Stage, any amendment may be tabled on Report Stage. There is a requirement that it has to be referred to on Committee Stage but in 16 years here, I have never heard of anybody going back over Report Stage, and changes regularly come in on Report Stage that have never even been mentioned.
It happens religiously here on Committee Stage of the Finance Bill that the Minister indicates he will introduce amendments on Report Stage. I am being upfront in saying there is nothing I can do to change those dates. I had asked that Committee Stage be moved to Thursday, 3 April and Friday, 4 April, but the Minister will be at an ECOFIN meeting. I think it would be better to have the Minister here on Committee Stage. If we moved Committee Stage without agreement, the relevant Minister would not be here resulting in a less fruitful discussion. It would be better to have it early and have the Minister here.
Because the Seanad is a smaller House it is as easy to hold Committee Stage before the whole House as refer it to a select committee. There is a very strong case for technical legislation in particular to be dealt with on a select committee basis also. I want to ask one technical question on that because there is no reason it could not be done. I am not suggesting that it should be but I want some clarification on it. If it were the case that it were referred by the Seanad to a select committee of this committee could the present Chairman continue to chair it? In my view he could, but it has never happened.
What was the question again? I do not understand what the Senator is saying.
Could Committee Stage of a Seanad Bill be referred to a select committee as opposed to a committee of the whole House, in other words, the Seanad members of this committee? It has never been done but it could be done.
The Seanad has passed Committee Stage. It is on Report Stage now.
I am talking about the future so that we do not get into this mess again.
The only example of that which I have seen was the Capital Acquisitions Tax Consolidation Bill. Committee Stage was taken on a joint basis, staffed by the Bills office, and I think there might be exceptional provisions for that Bill. I do not have Standing Orders and I do not profess to be an expert on this.
I have the Standing Orders.
I do not recall Committee Stage ever being taken in joint committee. I stand corrected.
There has never been a select committee of the Seanad but the select part of this committee comprises members of the Dáil.
We discussed the Capital Acquisitions Tax Consolidation Bill here recently and that happened because it was not new legislation. Standing Orders provides for that, but to do the same for other matters probably would require a change in the House Standing Orders. I do not think that we as a committee could initiate it.
It would ensure that we did not have this problem of a House and a committee dealing with one matter at the same time. Two possible solutions would be for the committee to deal with the business or to deal with Committee Stage as a joint committee.
It would involve a change to Standing Orders.
We can come back to that again.
The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, will be at the ECOFIN meeting on 3-4 April - in that week he will be available only on 1 and 2 April. The Dáil will not sit holy week so we will not be here but the Bill has to be completed. The plan is for the Seanad to take Report Stage this week, the Dáil will take Second Stage next week and the week after that we will take Committee Stage here. The week after that the Dáil will take Report Stage. This allows one week for each process and then the Bill goes back to the Seanad for discussion of whatever amendments are made.
I understand there is a guillotine for Second Stage in the Dáil but not on Committee Stage. This committee does not have power to impose a guillotine as it did on the Finance Bill. The Dáil can give us a timetable but it does not normally do that.
I appreciate the efforts the Chairman has made in contacting the Chief Whip and I understand that in effect he is acting under Government orders but I want to make it equally clear that from the Labour Party's point of view, and that of the Opposition in general I believe, we reiterate our objection to, and dissent from, this Bill being rushed in this manner. The committee may disagree on this point because I hold to my previous position that further consultation should be provided for and the Bill should not be rushed. I respect what the Chairman tried to do at lunch time but obviously the Government was not amenable to that. While I accept what he is saying I regret I do not agree with it.
The Independent Senators support the Opposition in that matter.
Our view is very similar. We are preparing to draft some bad legislation here by putting ourselves under very severe time pressure when I think each of us knows that many of the implications of these provisions have not been worked out. Some of them seem to be as much of a surprise to the Government as to the Opposition. To say that these things have been well thought through and are justified by either a high or low level assessment would be a gross exaggeration. We have a serious problem on our hands and, like Deputy Burton, I believe this is wrong. It is a particular insult to the Seanad whose members will be asked to sit like dummies in the absence of Government amendments to what we all know is a defective Bill. Our Seanad friends will not behave like dummies but it makes a nonsense of the process if there is a consensus here that there are mistakes in this Bill. We are expected to push it through within an artificial timescale although the House is willing to accommodate the Government's central concern about 18 April triggering the release of sensitive documents.
I share the consensus in so far as it exists. I cannot understand why, if we are due to give the Bill proper consideration on Committee Stage, it cannot remain on this Stage while we give it that due consideration. The various presentations we have heard have shown the Bill to be defective in many respects and the committee should have regard to the request of some of its members that it be part of an ongoing process of consultation until a proper Bill can be submitted for our consideration.
I share that view. Based on what we have heard I believe there is a very clear case for hearing more. I will save my more stringent comments in the hope that when the Department of Finance representatives come before this committee they will say something positive. I am ever an optimist. If they do not I will cut loose at that stage.
Do members see scope for carrying out additional hearings given the Dáil and Seanad timetables as I have outlined them? Second Stage should be passed by 27 March and the Bill will come before this committee on the following Tuesday.
I said earlier that there are a number of significant groups who may have wished to make a presentation. Last weekend I read a statement by the ICTU. I do not know whether it wishes to make a submission to the committee but there are a number of public interest groups which are part of the partnership process. Maybe the committee should keep next Friday free and if a significant number of groups come forward that wish to make a presentation we could arrange to hear them.
Would it not be possible for us to meet interested groups while the Bill is being debated on Second Stage? It is not being debated on Wednesday, 26 March so we could spend that day or Friday listening to them.
There is no point in wasting the time of the people making submissions and of the committee if there is no signal from Government that it is willing to entertain serious amendments. We have heard the bases for substantial amendments but we would need to have an early signal that the Government believes that this work is worthwhile, that it will contribute to its view of the Bill and that the work we do will inform sensible amendments. If such were the case I would be delighted to have hearings. The committee could then try to polish up proper proposals under each heading but if we are simply providing a form of famine relief work for members whereby we listen to people, knowing that nothing will come of the process, I would not want to be involved.
I suggest that we will soon know the Government's intention, if not tomorrow in the Seanad then certainly when the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, speaks on Tuesday. If the Minister is amenable to having a serious debate and is open to making significant amendments as Deputy Bruton suggested, we can review the situation then.
If the committee were to come forward with some agreed amendments it should spend time working, not listening to other groups. Much of what needs to be proposed is in the Information Commissioner's report and most groups coming in now reiterate whichever aspect of that report they agree with. Few of the groups have shed new light on this issue. I commend the Information Commissioner on a very thorough analysis. That is the document from which most people want to work. If we were to meet again we may be better employed trying to agree those areas which we think need amendment. If we just sit and listen to six more groups when will we formulate an agreed position in respect of the amendments with which we are unhappy? That is the most important job facing the committee.
Deputy Richard Bruton made it very clear that that is the logical thing to do if we are sure the Government is open to considering amendments. It actually doubles the public works time or the "famine time", as he called it, if we simply hear groups and take Committee Stages. I have looked at Kevin Murphy's report and I have tabled four or five amendments for Report Stage in the Seanad tomorrow based on the first three or four points he has raised to allow for discussion. However, there is currently no indication that the Government is willing to consider amendments and that is the difficulty.
Over lunch, the Clerk of the Committee drafted the following statement by the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service:
In the light of the hearings held by the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service to date and the report of the high-level group of the Government on the Freedom of Information Act 1997 and related matters, the joint committee strongly recommends as a matter of urgency that sufficient time be allowed for further limited hearings to be held as important areas have been identified in the legislation which the joint committee agrees will need further significant amendment.
Without specifying a timetable, we are requesting some space.
That implies that tomorrow——
It will not apply to the Seanad. If amendments are made while the Bill passes through the Dáil, those amendments will go back to the Seanad for debate.
If they are——
The Senator might not achieve the desired outcome tomorrow, but he will achieve it.
The crucial date is 18 April. If the Bill has to return to the Seanad at some stage, a week will be lost.
Report Stage is due in the Dáil on Wednesday, 9 April, and obviously the Bill will return to the Seanad on Friday, 11 April. The Dáil will go into recess on Thursday, 10 April.
I just want the Bill to be changed and I do not mind where it happens. Tomorrow will be a waste of a day if no changes are made.
The Senator should adopt a pragmatic view. I will not advise——
We are standing on principle and the Chairman is urging me to be pragmatic. I am not even a member of Fianna Fáil.
The only principle involved concerns trying to improve the legislation by the time it passes through the House on or around 11 April.
The proceedings of the committee and the submissions made to it should form part of the report. They would be useful for many Deputies and Senators who did not have time to attend. I think a cut-and-paste job is all that is required and the technology is up to putting such a report together.
(Interruptions.)
I want to hear in full Deputy Conor Lenihan's comment about myself and intellectual dyslexia. He said he was as intellectually dyslexic as I am.
Should we approve the motion as drafted by the secretariat?
Can we attach to it the proceedings and submissions we have received?
It may not be possible to lay them before the two Houses tomorrow.
A cut and paste job could be done. It is quite important that the proceedings and submissions we received be recorded in full in fairness to those who made the submissions and to ourselves. This will allow Members to see the detail.
That cannot happen this evening. It will be Tuesday before the report can be laid before both Houses. It will take the secretariat some time and there is a time requirement concerning the laying of a report before the House tomorrow. There is insufficient time to do what the Deputy is suggesting between 4.15 p.m.——
Is it possible for me, as a woman, to change my mind slightly? The report laid before the Seanad tomorrow should be the briefer report and the proceedings plus the submissions should be laid before the Dáil on Tuesday.
I support that.
The Deputy wants the proceedings to be laid before the Seanad tomorrow morning and the more complete report laid before the Dáil for Tuesday morning.
What is the more complete report? It is spreading like a virus through the committee.
The report comprises the "blacks" of everything that has been presented to the committee over the past two days.
I was going to tell Deputy Conor Lenihan that the great value of suffering from intellectual dyslexia is the ability to see things backwards.
I will sign the motion on behalf of the committee. It will be laid before the Seanad in the morning and before the Dáil on Tuesday along with the full transcript of the proceedings and submissions.
What did the motion state after "as a matter of urgency"?
It recommended that "sufficient time be allowed" for further hearings. We will circulate copies.
That is a very significant statement. From the point of view of the Seanad, tomorrow's proceedings will be a nonsense. I do not blame the Chairman for that but it is important that the agreed position of the committee be that the Bill "will need further significant amendment".
We will stick with this.
It requires the Senators doing considerable work.
The Senator is really saying that the Seanad will have a more productive debate when the amendments come back from the Dáil.
Tomorrow we will say, "At least our committee listens to us if the Government does not".
I do not know the response of the relevant Minister, but an agreed joint statement probably strengthens our collective hand.
Sitting suspended at 4.19 p.m. and resumed at 4.20 p.m.
I am advised that it might not be possible to have all the "blacks" completed. Obviously, they would be unedited. The practice at joint committee meetings is that they are sent to those who make presentations in order that they can verify how they were recorded. None of this will have happened by next Tuesday.
Will they be available on the Oireachtas website?
Yes. The officials are advising that the full details of what we are referring to will be available on the Oireachtas website.
Not everybody reads the material on the website. Having the document can be important for people's understanding.
It will be printed as quickly as possible.
That is fine.
We have received correspondence from Mr. Eamon O'Flanagan and the Adoptive Parents Association. The information pack supplied today also includes details of correspondence between the Office of the Information Commissioner and the Department of Finance in relation to the issue of consultation on the freedom of information amending legislation. All of the correspondence received should be noted for inclusion in the report. I also formally note that members received a letter last week from the Ombudsman thanking the committee and the Chair for the consideration given to his special report on redress for taxpayers. We will formally complete consideration of the report at our next meeting.
The joint committee adjourned at 4.25 p.m.