Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The definition proposed by Deputy Murphy and supported by Deputy Boyd Barrett is based on the definition set out in the access to information on the environment regulations which transposed the requirements of EU Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to information on the environment, known as the Aarhus Convention. The definition in the convention and the regulations was left deliberately broad to ensure the widest possible access to environmental information. There is a balance to be struck between providing legal clarity for both requestors and the public authority or body carrying out public services, and providing the widest possible access to environmental information.

Issues have arisen. There were instances where, in the context of the access to environmental information regulations, entities have argued that they are not public bodies, with the determination ultimately being left to the courts. I understand that litigation is currently pending in that regard. The rulings of the Irish courts and the Aarhus Convention compliance committee suggest that the access to environmental information regime could potentially encompass bodies which would not be perceived as "public" in the ordinary course in that they carry out commercial activities and may even, in some circumstances, encompass private companies which also perform some environmental functions and hold environmental information. While ensuring access to environmental information is necessary, providing access to the wider suite of information and data held by bodies involved in commercial activities or by private companies will damage their competitiveness, in my view.

I believe that my own definition of a "public body", as provided for in this Bill, is more precise and ensures that both the requestor and the public body know what we are talking about. The definition strikes a balance in determining and clarifying which bodies are actually encompassed by freedom of information, given the various competing considerations I have already outlined. The Freedom of Information Bill already provides the power to bring non-public bodies which are funded by the Exchequer, directly or indirectly, under the remit of the legislation. It is my intention to work with the various Departments to determine which of these bodies should fall within the remit of the Bill in due course. I would also welcome the advice of this committee in that regard, following the bedding down of the swathe of public bodies that will be encompassed immediately after the enactment of this legislation.