I have a copy and I have been working on my speech throughout the debate. This Government, like previous Governments, are well aware of the importance of a well-informed citizenry to the proper functioning of a democratic society. A clear indication of this awareness is the large volume of information on the workings of Government and of Government agencies now available through published sources. Much of this information comes in the form of official statistics as well as departmental reports and policy documents on particular issues.
I should mention, in particular, the important role played by the Oireachtas in securing well-informed public debates on the operation of Government. Ministers are obliged to provide information about the exercise of their responsibilities so that those responsibilities can be accounted for to the Oireachtas. This duty is discharged by many means including in particular Estimates debates, parliamentary questions, legislation, motions, Adjournment debates and Green and White Papers. Ministers in Departments also provide a very considerable amount of information on their activities to joint committees of both Houses and to the Committee of Public Accounts. In addition, the Ombudsman is empowered to examine all relevant papers and furthermore to summon and examine witnesses in the course of his investigations. These are very important powers for the purpose of bringing undesirable administrative practices to the notice of the Oireachtas and for ensuring fairness in administration. I commend the Ombudsman and his staff for the excellent work they are doing.
Senators will also be aware that public bodies in general have various informal arrangements for keeping the public informed, for example, by means of publications, press release and advertising. I am sure Senators will agree that a very considerable volume of information on the activities of the Government and the manner in which the public services are provided is already publicly available. I am confident that with the ever-improving standard of education of our community as a whole, this freely accessible information will contribute increasingly to the standard of debate on public affairs and hence to the national decision-making process through the medium of our representative democracy.
The Bill before us forces us to reflect on the adequacy of the processes by which the Government and the administration generally communicated their policies and operational strategies both to the Oireachtas itself and to the public at large. It also forces us to reassess the conflicts between the needs of the Administration and the private sector to retain information on individuals and the concomitant rights of all individuals to verify the accuracy of such records and to their personal privacy.
Part III of the Bill is concerned with the protection, verification and correction, where necessary, of data held on individuals by public and private institutions. Senator Ryan has referred to the Data Protection Bill, 1987, sponsored by the Government, currently before the Dáil. This measure aims to extend appropriate protection to data about the private affairs of individuals held by public and private bodies in electronic data storage systems. Since the types of personal information which are the subject of Part III of the Bill under discussion are nowadays widely held on electronic systems, I would expect that rights to personal privacy in this area would be more than adequately protected by measures in the Government's Data Protection Bill when it comes into force.
Part II of this Bill provides for elaborate mechanisms to secure a general right of access to unpublished official documents. I compliment the authors for the obvious diligence which they have exercised in attempting to reconcile the complex issues to which the subject gives rise. The resultant Bill is clearly the product of many hours of research and hard work. Regrettably, as I will demonstrate later, some of the mechanisms for which this text provides might well hinder rather than strengthen the official management of Government and our public institutions and foster even greater bureaucracy. I am sure this was never intended and is no reflection on the excellent preparatory work by the authors. It is for such reasons, however, that the Government, while maintaining a positive stance on the principles involved, are obliged to adopt a cautious attitude to the practical effects of the Bill as it stands and the measures which would be needed to put them into effect. They are, therefore, conducting their own detailed examination of the difficult issues involved.
The effect of Part II of the Bill would be to open to immediate public scrutiny either by any individual or the Oireachtas almost the entire range of records held by Government Departments, the wider public service, including the security forces and both commercial and non-commercial State-sponsored bodies. While I would not wish to pre-empt the Government's own examination of this matter, I would question personally the need to include such a wide range of bodies in the scope of such a measure. In particular, I would tend to agree personally with some Senators in their questioning of the effects on commercial competitiveness of including commercial State-sponsored bodies within the scope of this Bill.
Sections 13, 14 and 15 provide for exemptions from disclosure obligations. In practice, the Bill severely limits the scope of exemptions, particularly in relation to access by the Oireachtas. This is a complex area where it would be necessary to strike a fair balance between rights of access to information and the wider public interest. In the case of Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas or committees thereof, section 14 (3) appears to extend the disclosure obligation to all official information except constituency or party political papers of Government Ministers or their Ministers of State, or where the personal privacy of living individuals is at stake.
Are the authors of the Bill suggesting seriously that civil servants should be obliged to publish the existence of the relevant documents and disclose to the Houses of the Oireachtas or committees thereof information which, for example, could serioulsy impair the security of the State, or concern matters which are sub judice, or interfere with legal professional privilege, or cover current non-Cabinet papers on budgetary options? I doubt if that is what is intended but it appears that section 14 (3) of the Bill, as drafted, would impose such obligations. This demonstrates that, even with the most diligent approach to drafting, this subject is a minefield where it behoves one to tread warily. The definition of “exemptions” in the terms of this Bill is just one area which would require the most delicate balancing of new rights of the public and the Oireachtas to information on the one hand and the wider public interest on the other.
As I have already indicated, neither this Government nor their predecessors have failed to recognise the need for citizens to be adequately informed on the workings of Government. Neither would we suggest that improvements could not or should not be made. At the same time, I am sure Senators will appreciate that the type of change proposed in this Bill or, indeed, in any such measure would involve a radical change in the operation of the machinery of Government. No responsible Administration could endorse a change without being absolutely certain that the very machinery of government, including in particular its democratic basis, would be strengthened and not damaged in the process.
There are two principal considerations to be taken into account in determining whether and to what extent it might be possible to open up access to the policy and operational papers of Government Departments. First, we would need to ensure that increased public access would not disrupt the freedom of the Government of the day to plan and devise policies rationally and of the public service, including the security forces, to manage public services fairly and efficiently. Secondly — and this is primarily a technical problem — we would need to ensure that any mechanism for greater freedom of access would themselves be compatible with the existing State records system so that it would be capable of efficient operation without imposing additional costs. This is a very important consideration.
To take the second point first, Senators will not need to be reminded at this stage of the importance of strict control of public expenditure in the context of the Programme for National Recovery. While it might not seem immediately obvious, the procedures advocated in this Bill to increase public access to Government information would, if implemented in the manner proposed, require the separate indexing and cataloguing of every non-exempt document on almost every file in the public sector, a gigantic task by any standard. Processing requests and arranging for access on a global basis would also create considerable additional work for many public servants, quite probably at the critical times when they are needed most for their normal duties. It would be foolish to imagine that this could be catered for without imposing some extra burdens on them, with the consequent and significant increase in Exchequer costs. In their examination of this question the Government will seek to identify other ways by which effect might be given to the principles involved without imposing unreasonable extra burdens on the staff concerned or making demands on the hard-pressed Exchequer finances.
Of more fundamental importance in the longer term is the need to ensure that any increase in the scope of access to increase in the scope of access to information does not undermine the basic freedom of the Government to review policy rationally and to ensure fair and efficient execution of public policy. This is a very complex issue, particularly in present circumstances where public servants are being urged to be more result conscious and are being made more accountable.
Senators have raised a number of examples of cases where, arguably, citizens may have been inconvenienced in the exercises of their rights by the non-publication of such documents as circulars governing the operation of various social welfare schemes. In the light of the case law precedents we are obliged to consider whether it is possible to devise mechanisms to guarantee greater freedom of access in cases such as these. However, I am sure all Senators will recognise that there will always be classes of information, the premature release of which would undermine good government and put public safety at risk. This need arises principally in relation to areas like security and policy formulation. It is recognised already in the exemptions for which the Bill provides.
Unfortunately, the problem of protecting necessarily restricted information in the context of more liberal freedom of information rules is not well understood outside Government. To take an example raised during the current debate, Senator Fallon suggested that under this Bill budget secrets could be prematurely revealed, making it impossible for the Government to conduct budgetary policy in an ordinary rational manner. Senator Mary Robinson in turn suggested that the exemption in the Bill covering Cabinet papers would prevent this happening.
However, the exemption of Cabinet papers or even of those involving the giving of advice by officials would not be sufficient to cover all budget papers. Relevant departmental files and in particular Department of Finance files containing working information on such things as budgetary options could not be classed as Cabinet papers or otherwise be exempt under section 13 of the Bill as drafted. Likewise it is difficult to imagine constructive negotiations on public service pay in a situation where one party would have direct access to all the information. It would be like inviting somebody to play cards, knowing that all the aces were in their pocket.
I would hesitate to speculate on the potential disruption to the administration of justice were all Garda papers, including those on criminal or subversive activities, to be open for scrutiny by Members of the Oireachtas as provided in section 14 (3). These are just three examples of the types of difficulties and the potential problems to which they might give rise. Similar examples can be found in almost every area of the public service. I mention these issues not in a spirit of knocking the Bill but rather as illustrations of the difficulty of the issues to which any reform of this kind would give rise. The striking of a workable balance between the public interest needs for granting and restricting access to information is a highly complex area which we are having examined.
The difficulties I have mentioned convince me that Senators Fallon and Hillery and others are right in stating that only the Government would be in a position to develop a workable scheme of reform in the freedom of information area. The expertise required to handle all technical aspects simply does not exist outside the Government.
Following the introduction of Senator Ryan's previous Freedom of Information Bill in 1985, to which Senator Ross referred, an examination of the possible need for changes in this area was initiated. Unfortunately, due to the pressure of more immediate work, this examination could not be given the priority which it would otherwise have received. However, arrangements have been made to progress this matter further, although I should say that a quick fix is not possible. This is because of the complexity of the problem as I have outlined and because extensive inter-departmental consultations will be required. In this process particular attention will be paid to the points made in the debate on this Bill. It is for this very reason that an opportunity has been given to this very august body to debate this Bill.