Mr. Séamus Dooley:

There are circumstances within many public bodies where FOI requests are not appropriate. For instance, I would welcome the extension of the legislation to cover VECs but VECs are also employers and at VEC meetings - I am speaking as someone who spent his early career as a journalist attending VEC meetings - staff matters are dealt with along with issues that relate to personal rights and issues that are covered by data protection. Those issues are outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act and that was used as a means to keep the VECs out for years. That does not mean there cannot be protections for dealing with those issues. There are also issues of the security of the State which are recognised but they are all capable of being dealt with.

I cannot think of an organisation that should not be covered by the freedom of information legislation. The original Act excluded the Office of the President of Ireland out of deference to the office but knowing all of the office holders in my lifetime, there is no reason why freedom of information should not be extended to the President so we would know what invitations he receives. We can understand that meetings of the Council of State would be excluded.

We seem to operate on the basis of "if in doubt, leave it out". My colleague, Daniel McConnell, from the Sunday Independent has said that in his experience the ethos is to deter, resist and refuse. That is a fair description. There will be circumstances in many organisations where exclusion is appropriate but it should not be the norm.