John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

There are three strands to this issue. The first is the public policy stand. The main reason the committee took on this issue was to weed out any potential conflicts of interest when it came to very serious cases and incidents, particularly regarding the care of children. The committee has been dealing with specific incidents or circumstances for the past year. That is the public policy part of the issue that is being dealt with. I genuinely appreciate the work everyone has put into this. It is good work which will help to protect children in the years ahead.

The second strand is related to the senior counsel who, I understand, has been appointed to examine certain aspects of this matter. The individual in question will not examine everything because we have issues with regard to the terms of reference. We will allow the senior counsel to do his or her work.

The third strand is the release of the Conal Devine report. The landscape keeps changing in this regard. I refer to the response the Chairman received from the Garda when he asked whether criminal prosecutions would be taken. It was clearly indicated to him that there would not be criminal prosecutions. If the Director of Public Prosecutions has made clear that there will not be any criminal prosecutions in this case, one must ask what is the problem with releasing the report. It is now my understanding that the Office of the Information Commissioner has investigated this issue. A senior investigator who examined the matter under the Freedom of Information Act found that the reasons for non-publication of the Conal Devine report were completely different from the reasons cited previously. It is interesting to note what the investigator found. I will read out fragments of the findings because it is important that members are aware of this information given that we have been dealing with the issue for the past year. In a lengthy decision letter, the senior investigator outlined that the HSE did not present any meaningful argument to the Information Commissioner as to why the report should be exempted from release owing to the ongoing Garda investigation.

Indeed, the senior investigator found that the mere assertion that release of the report will affect ongoing investigations without explaining precisely why or how the harm to these investigations will occur from the release of the report is inadequate. In respect of justification for refusing access to the report, it was stated that it was the view of the senior investigator that the non-personal parts of the report do not contain any information which would give rise to any of the harms envisaged by this section of the Act. Nothing in those parts could, if released under freedom of information, be reasonably expected to prejudice or impair any Garda investigation. Accordingly, the investigator found that the HSE was not justified in refusing access to the report under this section of the Act.

I learned this last night and it changes the rationale and reasons we have always been given when it comes to the non-publication of this report. It is my understanding that one of the individuals involved will now get the recommendations of the Conal Devine report almost intact and some general information. This will be released to that individual. Where are we going with this? We dealt with Mr. Breslin a couple of weeks ago. This committee is not going to stop. The excuse that is now being given is that third-party information is involved in this that would be potentially injurious under the Data Protection Act. That has been thrown into the mix. Where is the HSE with regard to this? How does it see this going when it comes to the ultimate publication in its entirety in an unredacted form? Our intention has been made clear over the past two or three months to Mr. Breslin and he accepted that we are not going to stop until we get the publication of that report because we think it is important in the public interest for that report to be published and viewed.