Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 25, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

"(4) The Freedom of Information Act 1997 shall apply to the Board with effect from the establishment day.".

We have come very neatly to this section on freedom of information. The Minister of State has already referred to freedom of information in the context of the previous amendment. Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 are essentially designed to ensure that the Freedom of Information Act 1997 applies to the greatest possible extent to the workings of the board of the health service executive rather than what is contained in the legislation. We do not know when the Freedom of Information Act 1997 will be applied to the operations of the board of the health service executive. It is not stated anywhere and perhaps the Minister might clarify that matter.

Regarding amendment No. 8, I draw the attention of the House to section 30, which appears in the first 10 lines of page 28; the amendment is to delete lines 1 to 10. Essentially, the section creates such an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act 1997 applying to a substantial body of work of the board that it simply goes too far. It creates a situation whereby the Freedom of Information Act 1997 will not apply to records containing the corporate plan, an amendment to the plan not approved by the Minister, a preliminary or other draft of all or part of the contents of a corporate plan, and an amendment to one or any unamended version approved after being amended in accordance with the direction of the Minister.

Under those ten lines, that entire area will not be covered by the Freedom of Information Act 1997. The specified period is five years, beginning on the date of the creation of the record. We have seen how the Freedom of Information Act 1997 has been emasculated. To a large extent we should not be surprised to see that kind of provision in the legislation, since the Government is absolutely determined that "freedom of information" should mean nothing in the context of the workings of public bodies such as this. No one will be able to get at one of the cornerstones of information regarding the board, namely, the corporate plan.

I do not support the wide dissemination or availability of early versions of corporate plans so that they might be read in The Sunday Tribune or appear in any other media outlet. That serves no one. However, what damage would it do to have a public discussion about early drafts of such a plan? What would be so wrong with that? I remember the debate on the original Freedom of Information Act 1997 because I worked with the then Minister of State, Eithne Fitzgerald, at the time on protecting the process of consultation and preparing plans. In that case legislation and Cabinet memoranda were specifically protected, even under the original legislation.

However, here one is talking about the corporate plan of the health service executive, a body with a budget of €11 billion. What would be the harm of early versions being available for discussion? What would be so bad about that? What would be wrong with having public debate on the plan? There would be nothing wrong with that. In many cases, people would not be particularly interested. Why is it necessary to shroud it in secrecy? That creates exclusivity around the board's work rather than openness and transparency. It undermines the concepts of openness and transparency which do not seem to be part of the ethic of the Department regarding the work of the board. It will certainly not be part of the ethic of the board itself.