Mr Kevin Murphy stood his ground yesterday, saying he regarded his commentary as providing expert assistance to the Oireachtas, writes Arthur Beesley, Political Reporter.
The Information Commissioner yesterday mounted a strong defence of his right to issue a commentary on the Government's attempts to restrict the Freedom of Information Act.
Mr Kevin Murphy rejected criticism by the Minister for Justice, Mr McDowell, who said he had overstepped the mark in a paper which pinpointed potential legal difficulties in the changes sought by the Government.
Mr Murphy said he was obliged to identify "flaws" in the Bill and said he would have been in breach of his duties to the Oireachtas if did not point them out.
In a submission to the Joint Oireachtas Committee of Finance and the Public Service, he said he regarded his commentary as the provision of assistance to the Oireachtas from an expert.
His remarks drew conflicting responses from two Fianna Fáil senators. While Dr Martin Mansergh supported Mr Murphy's right to comment on the implementation of the Bill, Mr Terry Leyden accused him of providing fodder for the Opposition.
Having noted earlier in his presentation that he was entitled to call on the Oireachtas for support, Mr Murphy stood his ground.
There was no response yesterday from Mr McDowell, who was travelling to China for St Patrick's Day festivities.
Mr Murphy insisted that he was not making any observations on the merits or demerits of the new regime. But he did say he was proud of the old Freedom of Information Act, which he believed to be an "excellent piece of legislation". Despite his long experience of the Act, he heard only on the grapevine that the Government had established a group to review the Act. Indeed, the review group had been instructed to use one of his reports for its work. For all that, he learned of the legislative changes in the media.
But just as Mr Murphy made it clear that he would have liked to liaise directly with the Department of Finance when the legislation was being prepared, the civil servants who reviewed the Act for the Government said the question of consulting him simply did not arise. When asked why, they said the Government had not sought such a consultation.
Though they said their review was not a root and branch examination of the Act, the responsibility for defining its scope rested with the Cabinet.
In advance of Mr Murphy's presentation, the civil servants spent almost three hours outlining the reasoning behind the changes they proposed to the Government last year. They had no desire to limit scrutiny of the Government or the public service, but believed that a strengthening of the confidentiality of the Cabinet process was in the public interest.
Like Mr Murphy, members of the group said they were unable to comment of the merits of the Government's proposal. They also declined to comment on the restrictions added to the Bill after they concluded their review.
Mr Eddie Sullivan of the Department of Finance said the Department was implementing a "broad Government decision", but he said was unable to help the committee with the details.
Fine Gael's finance spokesman, Mr Richard Bruton, and his Labour counterpart, Ms Joan Burton, attempted to push the committee on lack of consultation. Independent Senator Mr Joe O'Toole said, "I want to see the development of the legislation before it came into the Houses."