Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is great to see the Bill getting this focus. The Minister and his officials are to be congratulated for generally making a great deal of information available on websites across the public sector. The plan is to continue to do that, which is fantastic.

There are a few points I wish to raise for the Minister's consideration as he proceeds from the heads of the Bill to the draft Bill. The first is the bodies that are included. It is fantastic that the previous exclusions are being included. The National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, has been discussed at this committee many times. The level of secrecy around it is very unhealthy. The same applies to the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA. I understand that while they will now be included there will still be a set of exemptions for them. Deputy Fleming referred to this. In my view, the Bill, perhaps with the exception of security, the Garda and defence, should provide sufficient protections for any organisation and certainly bodies such as NAMA and the NTMA. In the case of NAMA, for example, commercial sensitivity would already be included. I would prefer a situation where these bodies do not get exemptions, with the exception of the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces.

Second, what enforcement powers does the Minister envisage for the commissioner? Will they have the power to sanction or fine bodies which they deem to be non-compliant?

The third issue is commercial sensitivity, which I believe has been abused by one or two State bodies from which I tried to seek information. Bus Éireann, for example, refused to give me passenger numbers. It was making some very important changes and was extraordinarily unhelpful. It refused to give me basic information by hiding behind commercial sensitivity. It is absolute nonsense but it was able to hide behind it. Perhaps the Minister and his officials would look at the potential abuse of commercial sensitivity and how that could be addressed through the legislation or guidelines from the commissioner.

I add my voice to the point about fees. The Minister does not have to respond to this point. There is a great opportunity. In the UK, the new freedom of information legislation has maintained the no fee structure. There are only two reasons for fees, the first of which is to deal with vexatious requests. Section 10 of the legislation already deals with that by allowing the head to say that a request will not be answered because it is vexatious. The second reason is cost. The Minister said the fee charged is a fraction of the real cost and Deputy McDonald is suggesting, I imagine, that the nominal charge does not cover the administrative costs. The UK found the fee did not cover the administrative costs. The Minister's opening statement referred to the public's right to know. The media have a right to know and there should not be a cost. It may be a nominal cost and I note the Minister's reference to the average cost of €23. Local newspapers are very important to a healthy democracy and they really feel the impact of these fees. They are operating on a shoestring. We need local media to be able to get involved in councils and local State bodies, yet some of them will find the fees a problem. The four areas I referred to were no exemptions, the enforcement powers of the Commissioner, a no fees regime and abuse of the excuse of commercial sensitivity.