Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am not currently au faitwith the status but certainly on occasions in the past, it was a committee of some substance. I assume that is still the case, until I am convinced to the contrary.

Section 19 of the Data Protection Act 2018 provides for the accountability of the Data Protection Commissioner to Oireachtas committees other than the two committees mentioned as regards the general administration of the Data Protection Commission while section 30 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 again specifically provides for the accountability of the chief executive officer to an Oireachtas committee in respect of the general administration of the authority. In this instance, it is the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality. I readily accept that statutes are somewhat dissimilar. It is often a matter of stye of the individual Parliamentary Counsel with ownership of the Bill as to the expression of a particular matter. Across the board we see a number of common aspects of accountability before an Oireachtas committee in respect of the general administration of the body when asked to do so. Accountability is confined to "general administration" of the body while accountability to the Committee of Public Accounts in respect of accounting matters is dealt with by way of separate provision, as is mentioned in section 21.

Another common thread is the specified exemption from reporting to an Oireachtas committee on judicial matters as set out in section 22(3)(a) together with a mechanism for the High Court to rule on any disputes that may arise between the Oireachtas and the State body as to whether a matter rightly falls within that exclusion. There is a process in this regard again which will be known to Senators. Other exemptions from reporting to Oireachtas committees are any other matters statutorily excluded as appropriate in the case of the Bill. Such matters relate to the confidential information as specified and defined in section 28, which we did touch on on the previous occasion but which we will discuss later, and a provision that states that a person attending before the committee "shall not question or express an opinion on the merits or objective of any Government policy, as set out in section 22(8) of the Bill". This exercised some Senators but I remind the House that there is an identical provision in section 24(2) of the Property Services (Regulation) Act 2011, which prohibits the chief executive officer of that authority from expressing an opinion on Government policy when giving evidence to a committee under that section. I acknowledge that these are broad exemptions and that the remit of the section what may be accounted to the Oireachtas committee is somewhat narrow, but section 22 provisions apply only in the context of attendance before a committee other than the Committee of Public Accounts, which is dealt with in section 21. The commission in an independent body and I am not sure if it would be appropriate for us to make changes that would in any way impinge upon, or restrict, that independence. I am not sure that we should dilute some of the specified exemptions or delete them. I do not see a reason for that and I am keen that we would follow precedent in other not dissimilar legislation. Let me assure Senators that this is not new; this is not without precedent.This is not ground over which the Oireachtas has not gone before and, having regard to maintaining the independence of the new body, I do not wish to make changes which could be perceived to require a greater level of accountability to an Oireachtas committee for matters which would extend beyond the general administration of the commission. Issues were raised on the last occasion we discussed the Bill which are more applicable to sections 27 and 28, and to which we will return.