Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the point about documents being laid before the Oireachtas. However, I am concerned as to why there is a reluctance to have a record of those the commission consults. It is not the same to say the joint Oireachtas committee can bring people before it. Any of us who sit on a committee know there are two hours in which to cover every issue at a meeting. We should not have to ask people to read out a list of everybody with whom they have met. This is basic information that it should be possible to request and access. It should not be a matter of having to put in freedom of information requests to find out who was consulted or having to drag that information out through committee work. That is a waste of everybody's time and energy. The information should be part of the record.

I accept the Minister's point that it is not usual practice to lay an internal document from a public body before the Oireachtas. However, there should be a rationale given as to why the commission decided to meet with somebody. Even if she does not want to include the rationale, because that is something that could be asked about in a committee, the idea of not specifying that there be a record of the consultations is a problem. There should be such a record. As I said, the same principle has been established in regard to other legislation. It is part of a general improvement in how we do things and part of building public confidence. The State's job is not simply to hand everything over to bodies and say it hopes they will do their best. We regulate such bodies and, as part of that, we should be specifying what kinds of records are required.

It is important that there be a record of consultations. I would like to see a requirement for providing a rationale, but I understand the concerns in that regard. However, the simple requirement for a record of consultations made is important. It relates to what Senator Malcolm Byrne said earlier. We have given a lot of time to this and everybody has loads of places to be and lots of things to do. This is part of the Committee Stage process. We have been engaging by not pressing a large number of amendments where there is some scope to work with the Government. The success of Report Stage is in the gift of the Government because it has indicated it is willing to work on lots of aspects of the Bill. We have all taken that in good faith. Nobody has pressed any amendment where there is any indication of potential progress. Everybody has indicated that we would much prefer the Government to bring forward its own amendments to tackle issues of mutual concern. The success of Report Stage will be down to whether there are constructive proposals brought forward. We are all hoping for that.I do not want to have to table hundreds of amendments on Report Stage. That is why I am hoping the Government will indicate its amendments before we reach Report Stage. That will save all of us unnecessarily duplicating each other’s amendments. We have seen so many areas that overlap.

I want to clarify a question raised by Senator Malcolm Byrne on the online safety designated person. Would that be separate from the data protection officer? I think it is a separate role. That it is a constructive proposal. We know from the Data Protection Act that the inclusion of a named person has made a difference in terms of where data protection has been applied successfully. Similarly, having a designated online safety person could prove key to things being effective.