Minister praised for dropping proposal

DAIL COMMITTEE/Finance: In a surprise move last night, the Minister for Finance dropped one of the most controversial proposed changes to the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act dealing with access to personal information.

Mr McCreevy told the Finance Committee that it was nobody's intention to restrict access to personal records, but the section dealing with such information, if left as it was, "is open to mass misinterpretation and mass unclarity" because of a High Court judgment two years ago.

However, taking the Opposition parties by surprise, he said he had "no hang up" about the issue. If the Opposition wanted to leave it as it was, he was "open to that", and he dropped the proposal which the Opposition had vehemently objected to.

The planned change would have restricted access to records which "contained" personal information about an individual, rather than the existing provision, which extended to records "related to" personal information.

Mr McCreevy had during an early reading of the Bill said he was open to suggestions to create a better wording, but each of the Opposition parties believed that the section should remain as it stood.

The Minister said the proposal to change the wording from "relate to" to "contain" arose from a High Court appeal in 2001 where a man accused of sexual abuse sought files from the Eastern Health Board on himself, his former partner and his child.

He also sought related information from other public bodies. He was denied access, and appealed to the Information Commissioner, who upheld the original decision. He then appealed to the High Court, which accepted his right to access the information.

Issues arose such as what constituted a sufficient or substantial link between records and personal information.

There was also the question of what was in the mind of the creator of a file, and if the creator had the individual in mind when creating a file. Nobody could know what was in the mind of somebody who created files up to 50 years ago, and the change was an attempt to create clarity.

Labour's spokeswoman, Ms Joan Burton, commended the Minister for his change of heart as he was "not somebody who wants to hide information".

She thanked him on behalf of organisations such as One in Four, representing people who had suffered abuse as children in State institutions. It had expressed particular "fear and trepidation" about this change.

Fine Gael's spokesman, Mr Richard Bruton, said it was a measure of the strength of an individual that "he can accept that he is not always right".

Mr Bruton believed that the High Court case was very clear on the issue, and that the Minister should "leave well enough alone".

He added that these records had been relied on heavily by people who suffered at the hands of the State, and in one quoted case an individual sought the records to validate his memory of his experiences.

The Green Party's spokesman, Mr Dan Boyle, who described the proposed change as "Orwellian", said the decision to drop the new wording marked the first time he had seen such an accommodation in the Dáil.

Sinn Féin's spokesman, Mr Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, had asked what information was available since 1997 which the Government wanted to "shroud in secrecy".

Mr Ó Caoláin and the other spokespersons had proposed a number of amendments which were rejected by the Minister, including a requirement to publish relevant information every year relating to usage of Freedom of Information.

The committee, with some 100 amendments to deal with on the legislation, resumes today.