Mr. Séamus Dooley:

The American lawyer and biographer James Huneker once stated: "Lawyers earn their bread in the sweat of their browbeating." It strikes me that, in this environment, politicians and journalists also have this in common. Today is the committee members' turn to question the questioners, particularly the practitioners. Ms O'Kelly, Mr. Brennan, Mr. Foxe and Mr. Ó Mongáin are more regular users of the Act than I am as a full-time official, although I use FOI legislation as a union official.

Our submission deals with the proposed legislation on a head-by-head basis. Rather than going through our written submission, which the committee has read, I will deal with one section in particular and explain our thinking on the matter. We have dealt at length with the issue of fees. Our strong preference is for the abolition of fees. Access to information, personal and public, is a feature of a modern functional democracy. Eithne FitzGerald, in drafting the original legislation, was clear that freedom of information was a right, not a privilege. Over the years, this culture has been reversed.

In the past 24 hours, we have learned - not for the first time - some of the lessons of what can occur when the State and powerful institutions collude in secret under cover of darkness. It is no coincidence that the National Union of Journalists, NUJ, campaign, that led to the first Act was called "Let in the Light". Freedom of information is an ethos. It is not legislation or an administrative mechanism. In this context, the total abolition of fees would be our preferred option.

I am a trade union official, though, and we sometimes deal in compromises, but only sometimes. We realise that, in the current environment, abolition may be a difficult argument to win. If winning is not possible, I suggest that there should be a public interest element that would enable the waiving of fees where the query was demonstrably in the public interest. The reality is that many organisations, on a grace and favour basis, use a common-sense approach, but common sense is a commodity not always guaranteed. Therefore, we need to consider a public interest defence with a possible appeal where an organisation refuses. What do I mean by this? There are people around this table, Mr. Foxe being an example, whose work was clearly in the public interest, but the organisation should not have been required to pay to serve that interest.

The current fee structure, particularly the insistence on up-front payments, is a problem for freelance journalists, small independent organisations and regional newspapers. If the committee needs an example of the value of small media organisations or freelance journalists working with the power of a media organisation, I will provide one name - Ms Mary Raftery, who did much to highlight the abuse of vulnerable women. Ms Raftery was a freelance journalist who, in making freelance queries over the years, was required to pay for information. Who would have doubted that the information she used in her daily work was in the public interest? We represent people like her throughout the country.

The editors and reporters of regional newspapers with whom I have spoken in the past week admit that the current charging structure and the up-front nature of the payment - this was one of the changes brought about by the "Cheltenham Two" when they introduced the amendment before heading off to the Cheltenham races, leaving a Cabinet colleague to present the Bill despite the work of Deputy Sean Fleming and other Members on the previous committee - act as disincentives. Our members in the regional and national media as well as online journalists are united on one issue, namely, that the current charging structure is a disincentive. Coupled with the ethos, one is buying a pig in a poke. Sometimes, one cannot even find the pig.

Due to the deadline, our submission does not deal with every section of the Bill, but I reiterate Mr. Curran's concerns about the exemptions regarding commercial bodies. For example, we do not believe that Irish Water should be exempt from public scrutiny. The Act makes provision for commercial sensitivity without the imposition of a blanket exclusion. I cannot understand why communications between Irish Water and a regulator cannot be deemed to be in the public interest.

The initial legislation was the result of widespread consultation with stakeholders. The establishment of a users' group was a valuable mechanism for giving stakeholders, including the NUJ and citizens' groups, a forum for feedback. It enabled the promotion of training in the use of FOI, and sometimes training in the need not to use FOI. It gave users a role in monitoring the Act's implementation. The users' group was never abolished. Surreally, it just disappeared. When the Act was amended, we raised the issue - in this room, I believe, under the then chairmanship of Deputy Fleming - of why the groups had not been consulted. The former Deputy Conor Lenihan blamed the group for a failure to be convened. Without access to FOI, I tried to get the minutes of the group. Surreally, even some of those cannot be found.

I ask the committee to give consideration to restoring the group. I hope the committee will raise the matter with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin. The group would be a useful way to monitor on an ongoing basis the use of the Act, including its unnecessary usage, and to assist in the development of the ethos to which Mr. Curran referred.

While FOI legislation is useful for journalists, it is not designed for them. Rather, it is designed for all citizens. The mechanisms and procedures involved in the appeal systems mean that it is not the most efficient method of securing public information in a 24-hour media environment. As a trade union official and someone who deals with community groups and is involved in civic society, I am aware of the potential value of FOI as a tool of citizenship, but my comments on charges also apply to those who may be deterred from making requests concerning information about their local communities because of costs.

The proposed changes are welcome despite our stated reservations, but without an ethos of open government that permeates the system of public administration, journalists and citizens will continue to encounter barriers in accessing information that by definition, as they are citizens of a republic, is their property.

We will now take questions from members of the committee. Questions would more usefully be directed to the users, but Mr. Curran and I are also available.