In the past hour, the Office of the Information Commissioner has produced an 81 page report into the application and operation of certain provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1997. This is invaluable work from a non-political body and deserves every consideration. Given that the high level group set up last June to review the Act has not consulted the Information Commissioner, the National Union of Journalists, the community and voluntary organisations, the public or the Opposition parties, does the Taoiseach not consider it proper that there should be an adequate period of reflection before considered views are taken on the review of the Act? Given that the Government intends to ram the Act through the Seanad this week, will the Taoiseach not do the decent thing and withdraw it so there will be sufficient reflection and agreement on the way to proceed? Otherwise, he will make a shambles of it, as has happened to date.

Deputy Kenny said the Government asked the high level review group to examine this issue last June. It examined it and did so in relation to the deliberative process and collective Cabinet responsibility. Under the Freedom of Information Act, every citizen has free and complete access to every personal, official record concerning him that is held by State agencies. There is no change in that.

The Freedom of Information Act established three legal rights for each person to access information held by public bodies, to have official personal information amended where it is incomplete, incorrect or misleading, and to obtain reasons for decisions affecting him or her. None of these rights has been changed in the Bill before the Seanad.

Out of the 370 bodies, only a small number will be affected by the changes being proposed. The FOI legislation is about allowing the public to continue to have the same access to information on planning issues in An Bord Pleanála, tourism matters in Bord Fáilte, road planning by the NRA, anti-competitive practices investigated by the Competition Authority, issues relating to the environment or the EPA, valuations by the Valuation Office and records held by local and regional authorities, health boards, third level institutes and many of the other 370 bodies. The changes will only affect matters which relate to collective Cabinet responsibility, issues still subject to the deliberative process as designated by a Secretary General, certain information pertaining to parliamentary questions, records relating to tribunals, costs of proposals of political parties and records concerning security, defence and international relationships. The proposed changes do not represent a complete overhaul of the Act, which was examined from a limited perspective.

In preparing the legislative amendments, Departments considered technical measures, the 1999 review conducted by the Civil Service users group, discussions and interactions with the Office of the Information Commissioner and experience of the operation of the 1997 Act. The State has moved quickly to implement freedom of information according to an elaborative system. The freedom of information central policy unit of the Department of Finance chairs an interdepartmental working group and a public service users group on which all sectors of civil and public service covered by the legislation are represented. Below these umbrella groups, Departments and offices, local authorities, health boards and universities meet on an ongoing basis to consider issues of common concern and to share learning and experience. All these networks, groups and arrangements underpinning freedom of information have ensured that the Act has been under continuous review since it came into force five years ago.

The Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill is based on all the experience represented by the foregoing and has been prepared on foot of the Government's consideration of the review by the high-level group which looked at a limited area. The group examined the annual reports of the information commissioner.

The Taoiseach's three minutes are up.

That shows the amount of thought the Taoiseach put into it.

It shows that the Bill is limited and that the amendments it seeks to make apply to a narrow area. Our legislation in this regard is far more liberal than that of any other country.

The Taoiseach is abroad enough to know.

I looked at a number of international provisions over the weekend and other Members should do likewise to understand how liberal is our system. It will be even more liberal when this Bill is enacted.

I regret that this is contemptuous treatment of the Oireachtas.

Hear, hear.

It smacks of the arrogance of a Government which has lost its way, but does not care. If the review in question was limited, why has a reputable, non-political officer of the State produced an 81 page report on it? Surely, his report deserves Oireachtas consideration besides that of the Committee on Finance and the Public Service which is due to consider the matter on Thursday. This Bill will apply in full to each of the 370 agencies with the exception of the Cabinet. Is there something the Government does not wish the public to discover? Is there something it wishes to cover up? During my time in the House, I have seen Ministers come and go, but I have rarely seen a Minister and Minister of State see fit to leave the jurisdiction without Fine Gael pairs when their Department is sponsoring a Bill before the Seanad.

Leaders come and go too.

As do Deputies.

The Ministers in question expect the legislation to be rammed through while they are abroad to cheer on Eddie O'Grady and everything that represents Ireland. It smacks of downright arrogance that the Minister for Finance and the Minister of State should absent themselves from the Houses of the Oireachtas on the very day this Bill is to be rammed through the Seanad. The same is true of the Government's expectation that the Committee on Finance and the Public Service will deal with all these matters in one day. Given that he did not see fit to consult the Oireachtas, will the Taoiseach withdraw the Bill to give us all a decent opportunity to reflect on it? We could then have freedom of information legislation which does not restrict the rights of citizens.

Second Stage in the Seanad was much longer than is usually the case.

It went on until the early hours.

I am pleased to see the Seanad working so late, until almost 3 a.m.

There were not too many of the Taoiseach's people there.

There will also be a lengthy Committee Stage in the Seanad and the Bill will subsequently be debated in this House. This Bill does not seek to amend all areas of the system or those which pertain to the media. It examines what is enshrined in the Constitution with regard to the collective responsibility of Cabinet to deliver the process of government. It makes provisions relating to the working groups which operate in that context. There are a few other technical areas which also fall to be considered. The principles involved are features of legislation worldwide and I see nothing wrong with what we are doing. The Minister for Finance and his officials have all of next week to look at the excellent report the commissioner has produced. If amendments are necessary, they will be formulated in the normal way.

Why did the Minister fail to consult the commissioner before the Bill was drafted?

He consulted any reports which were put forward. We should cease to give the impression that the Bill seeks to change fundamental rights when its scope is narrow.

It will change fundamental rights.

If the Taoiseach cannot see anything wrong with this legislation, the Government must be more remote, arrogant and contemptuous than we imagined. This is the first time the Taoiseach has been in the House since publication of the Bill. It is being processed through the Seanad where it was treated on Second Stage as an emergency measure to be debated late into the night. The sponsoring Minister and the Minister of State are in Cheltenham. What greater contempt could be demonstrated for the Oireachtas? No space has been allowed between Second and Committee Stages, with the latter to be taken by a Minister of State who has probably not even read the Bill.

How can the Taoiseach reconcile this with remarks he made to his annual conference before the last general election? How can he ignore the report of the Information Commissioner who is the referee in these matters? How could the Minister for Defence tell me on 4 March that amendments were submitted by the commissioner when we know from the information secured by Deputy Kenny today that he submitted amendments only after his Secretary General complained to the Department of Finance? He was told at that point to get his amendments in quickly. This is disgraceful treatment of the Oireachtas and the Information Commissioner, and it is designed to protect the Government.

Hear, hear.

There is no other purpose to the legislation. Were the high level group of eminent civil servants aware when they were given this task that they would be used as a vehicle to facilitate the filleting of the Freedom of Information Act 1997? I will leave to the imagination of my colleagues the reaction of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to the Bill were he on this side of the House.

Do not tell us.

He would be out putting up posters at this stage.

He would be on the tree tops.

The legislation is not being filleted. While a few technical changes are being made based on consideration of the reports I mentioned, the fundamental changes are in the area of collective Cabinet responsibility and the deliberative process. The Information Commissioner, who does an excellent job, is not the referee on the Constitution, nor is he the referee in terms of the deliberative process. He realises that and is not arguing contrary to it in the context of his areas of concern. As much as people would like matters to be otherwise to cause a fuss, that is how things stand.

I have received correspondence from various organisations mentioned by Deputy Kenny. People thought provisions were being removed to deprive them of access to many things, but I have pointed out that this is not the case. Anyone can make that mistake, but the Freedom of Information Act established legal rights which continue to obtain. Each citizen has the right to access information held by public bodies, to have official personal information amended where it is incomplete, incorrect or misleading, to obtain reasons for decisions affecting him or her and to obtain information held by other organisations.

Over the past five years, this Government has extended the number of bodies governed by the Act from a handful to 370 and will continue to extend it to the remainder. There is no change in any of that and it is totally misleading people to say that there is. There is a change in the area of the deliberative process which is even conditioned in the new legislation that it has to be authorised by a Secretary General in certain circumstances. The high level group was not asked to reform the legislation, it was only asked to look at the limited area of collective Cabinet responsibility and the deliberative process. It was the only change which it recommended.

If that is true, why was it only given that remit? Of what is the Taoiseach afraid? Why did he not arrange to consult the users of the Act – consumer organisations, the NUJ, the relevant Oireachtas committee? How can the Taoiseach say these are only technical changes when they profoundly change the very essence of the legislation? How can re-designating part-time officials be regarded as merely technical? How can widening the definition of documents that are now considered related to Cabinet business be merely technical? How can giving the authority to Secretaries General to certify business be described as being "ongoing"? Is the business "ongoing" that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, missed when he was Attorney General, when a secret deal was being done between the religious congregations and the State that has ended up leaving the taxpayer liable for the burden, despite documents that we have now seen under the Freedom of Information Act, where the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, at the time, made the same objections I have been making for the past three weeks?

The Deputy's minute is concluded.

How can the Taoiseach say that those are merely "technical"? I ask the Taoiseach if his Government is not demonstrating contempt for the Information Commissioner, for the users, for the media, for this House? What is he afraid of and why can he not take the Labour Bill that would permit the extension of the Act for 12 months to allow proper public consultation and the taking of evidence from interested bodies and then let us see what revisions are necessary in the Act? Are we not entitled to have an opinion on this?

The Deputy has gone well over the minute to which he is entitled.

In reply to Deputy Rabbitte, the reason it was not asked to look at all the other aspects of the Act was that there were no changes to be made in the other aspects of the Act. The Government was not changing—

There should be – 81 pages.

I listened to the Deputy. There were no changes whatsoever in the other aspects of the Act because the main principles of the Act are not being changed. We were looking at Cabinet collective responsibility and deliberative process because that process has been damaged in the past five years. We are trying to protect that process. It is a constitutional process and it should be protected. I would remind Deputy Kenny that the Information Commissioner is not the arbiter of the Constitution; that is not his role.

He should have been consulted.

He reported on the aspects relating to his role. The processes to do with the public and the media remain, they are not being changed. It is in the areas of the deliberative process around Cabinet confidentiality that there is change proposed.

Allow the Taoiseach, please. Deputy McManus, you are not the leader of your party.

It is a bloody lie.

The Deputies wait for a week to listen to me and then they just shout me down. I have had to listen to all the untruths being told about this for the past week.

The odd time that the Taoiseach is here.

I have now clarified the position.

Deputy Connaughton, you are not the leader of your party and you are not entitled to submit a question at this stage.

I have received the views of the NUJ and other groups. If the Information Commissioner has views they will be looked at in the process of the Act going through the House. The House debates any Act from First to Fifth Stages. There will be plenty of time to examine any suggestions.