Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)

The Minister has gone part of the way in delivering on what the amendment is seeking. The inclusion of the name of the board in the appropriate Schedules is not his decision but that of another Minister. I take without reservation his commitment that he will make the appropriate approach to the Minister for Finance or the Minister of State who deals with these matters. Will he give a commitment that he will seek a decision prior to establishment date of the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board in order that when it is being established, we will know the addition to the Schedule will happen within a reasonable timeframe, otherwise we will be left in a situation where the board, in the context of an issue that has become highly controversial in the political arena, may never come within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act 1997, despite the undoubted sincere and good intentions of the Minister? Cabinet reshuffles happen and there may be changes. One never knows what may happen. Those of us who are legislating could be left in a position where the Minister who gave undertakings in good faith could be removed from office. I am not suggesting that the Minister will be but there could be a situation where the Taoiseach might wish to transfer the Minister to another Ministry. He is asking us to leave matters up in the air and not tie them down.

I still reject the argument the Minister made on Committee Stage in regard to the report of the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board to the Minister for Finance. The information that is most vital is not information directly available to the disbursement board in assessing the performance of the Government in the disbursement of funds, particularly in terms of fairness and impartiality. The report will be meaningless and ineffective unless the board has access to all relevant information.

Why projects A and B which are very similar to project C should be selected is the sort of question to which we need an answer. In other words, we are in a situation nach mbíonn aon cara sa chúirt ag Dáil Cheantar éigin. We could end up in a situation where Ministers, coming close to a general election and becoming highly windy about their seats, could act unscrupulously. They could act unscrupulously by choosing one project above another within their own Department or seeking to influence a colleague in the same way. To tell us the report will address this is not good enough because there is insufficient provision in the legislation. It could very well be the case that members of the Government, not necessarily acting in their capacity as Ministers, would communicate with the board, for whatever reason, on issues that should be made known to the public immediately as they arise. I am concerned about this. Everybody would be a great deal happier with the legislation if this issue was addressed. We owe it to the body politic. I will not outline the shadows cast on the body politic over a period. "Accountability and transparency" may be a cliché but nevertheless it is important and relevant to the matter under discussion.

The Minister has certainly not satisfied me that, when the board is established, the Freedom of Information Act 1997 will apply thereto. Lest there be any misunderstanding, I reiterate that I do not doubt the Minister's good intentions in any way. However, I ask him to consider the problem from the point of view of Members on this side of the House. We still have no cast iron guarantee, or a guarantee of any description, that the Freedom of Information Act will ever apply to the board or, more importantly, that it will apply to it from establishment day.

I am prepared to withdraw the amendment if the Minister indicates that he will before establishment day of the board make application to the relevant Minister and seek a decision indicating when the board will be added to the list of organisations which come within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act. I believe the relevant Minister of State is the Minister of State at the Department of Finance who has responsibility for the OPW. This was the case under the last Government but I am not altogether certain who is responsible under the current Government.

We have come a long way in this discussion and there is little enough between both sides. However, there is a huge chasm between us in the sense that everything the Opposition is being asked to accept relates to the Minister's good will, which we do not doubt, and also to how long he will be in office, the life of the Government, etc.

See this speech in context