Mr. Michael Brennan:

I have three brief examples for Deputy Boyd Barrett. The deliberative process is used all the time in respect of journalists. Effectively, if the Government is about to make a decision on something, journalists will be informed that they cannot have certain information. It is very welcome that the new legislation will loosen matters up and return us to the position which obtained under the original Act. Hopefully, matters will return to the way they were in the past. What one is doing is seeking is an insight into particular decisions and why they were made and, in effect, there has been a major clampdown in this regard.

The second point relates to unpublished reports. As Mr. Foxe stated, the Department of Justice and Equality often does not publish all of its reports. One could request a report which has been lying on the shelf for a year or two and one might still be refused. There is quite a secretive attitude within the Department of Justice and Equality in respect of many matters.

If one wants to discover what is happening with the Vatican Embassy and whether there is a chance of it reopening, one's requests in this regard will be blocked for reasons of diplomatic immunity. I would be great to see some relaxation in this area but it is probably unlikely to happen. Another example relates to compensation cases. If one seeks details from a State agency as to why someone was paid €90,000 or €100,000 in compensation by the Department of Education and Skills in respect of an accident in a school, one will usually receive minimal information on the grounds that such information is personal in nature. Again, we would argue that there is a better balance to be struck. One does not want the name and address of the person involved all over the newspapers but one certainly would like an explanation of why the settlement was that high and whether there are any lessons to be learned from it.