Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am shocked that we are here after the trumpeting of the introduction of freedom of information legislation. We are proceeding to unravel freedom of information legislation. We are introducing new exemptions and changing effective dates. It is a serious rowing back, a U-turn on the promise to reform and expand freedom of information legislation. This raft of changes introduces secrecy in a range of areas that were intended to come under the freedom of information legislation when it was announced. It excludes the performance of the new Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, certain aspects of the National Treasury Management Agency, the entire Shannon Group, the Irish Red Cross and investigations by An Coimisinéir Teanga. It also restricts the effective date for the Private Residential Tenancies Board and the effective date for making information available from the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. It amounts to eight restrictions being introduced today. I had hoped the Minister would expand freedom of information legislation, not curtail it. This is a serious change in approach and I cannot contemplate how we can support it in the Dáil tomorrow.

We received a briefing note on the effective date. I heard what the Minister had to say about the effective date and retrospective requests for information. He is changing the effective date in respect of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to last October. The briefing note we received from the Department in the context of the motion to be taken in the Dáil contained a paragraph which was left out by the Minister today. The note states, "In the case of the refugee bodies an additional concern communicated by the Department of Justice and Equality is that third party FOI requests would have the potential to delay judicial reviews of the organisations' decision making, giving rise to significant additional cost and direct provision". That is the real reason for the change, but the Minister studiously dropped that sentence from his statement today. Some will agree with him, but I did not think he was in the position where he wanted to send people home earlier and not allow them the full protection of the law applying in Ireland.

On potential judicial delays, I understand third parties who might request this information are probably the legal teams acting on behalf of the individuals concerned, rather than the persons themselves. The legal adviser would be seeking information on other cases and how matters were dealt with in the past. As that information might have helped them with the judicial reviews, it seems the Minister is bringing forward this change to help the Department to defeat applicants in cases of judicial review. He really let the cat out of the bag in the briefing note from the Department of Justice and Equality, which shows that his aim was to reduce the significant costs associated with direct provision, meaning we can send people home earlier. There is a market for that action, but I did not think it was the Labour Party's. New parties around town might agree with it, but I did not think the Minister was in that camp and I am shocked that he is going down the road of reducing direct provision system costs and reducing people's ability to seek a judicial review.

There is also a change to the retrospective date for the Private Residential Tenancies Board. Again, we received a note from the Department on the matter. It stated the organisation would be too busy handling the new deposit scheme which involved a significant amount of additional work. It also stated something which was left out of the Minister's statement today, namely, that the Private Residential Tenancies Board was in the process of taking on significant additional responsibilities in taking security deposits. These will come to approximately €1,000 per tenancy and relate to 300,000 tenancies. The board will be dealing with the regulation of approved housing bodies, approximating to 28,000 households, and there is a concern that the resource implications of full retrospection of FOI legislation to 2008 may encompass large numbers of files which would have the potential to impact adversely on the organisation's ability to successfully discharge these roles. The briefing note stated the body would be very busy in dealing with all of the new deposits and setting up the new system and that it could not possibly be expected to deal with FOI requests. I do not think the board has started to take deposits yet and do not think the legislation has even been finalised yet.

The Minister could have taken another option. A couple of weeks ago he pushed the effective date for EirGrid back from April 2015 to the end of October and that would have been a more honourable way of doing it. If the Private Residential Tenancies Board would have had an administrative problem for six months, the right thing to have done would have been to give it an extra six months. I do not know for how many other bodies the Minister did this. I only came across the information because EirGrid was a big issue in my constituency and I received it by way of a parliamentary question.

On the Irish Red Cross, the Minister might have a point. I do not know, but I understand that organisation is in some turmoil. That is probably the real reason for this and if it is, we would be happier if the Minister said that. I am aware that several senior positions have not been filled but the Minister said he intends bringing this in under freedom of information, FOI, legislation in due course. I do not understand why we are taking it out now only to bring it back in later.

I have an issue with exempting the State Claims Agency from this process because nothing can be disclosed. Adjudicating on bills and costs is essentially an administrative function. There are no legal implications here. It has nothing to do with the substance of the cases before the various tribunals. My view is that if there is an area where there should be more transparency it should be with regard to considering how bills and costs presented for payment by third parties awarded costs by tribunals are being adjudicated on. It is shocking that the Minister wants to put a veil of secrecy over an area that should come under this proposal, even though they are working for the Attorney General. That is an administrative area that should be subject to FOI.

There might be a valid case to be made regarding the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland in terms of who will lend money, who it will lend money onto and market confidentiality. Various ombudsman offices are already subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The Minister said he is making Oifig Choimisinéir na dTeangacha Oifigiúla consistent with that. He might explain where it is currently inconsistent and how it will be made consistent with the other ombudsman offices.

The Minister might have a point on the School Exemptions Board. Generally, however, I am very disappointed that he, as a Labour Party Minister in government, is bringing forward some of these proposals to prevent people in the asylum process getting information that could help them with their judicial review. There is also the underlying issue of the cost of direct provision, and the issue of the Private Residential Tenancies Board. We would be better off giving them another six months to get their houses in order internally rather than changing the effective date, which will apply from now on.

I have asked for some clarification on one or two points but it is not a question and answer session. I have read the briefing note but I disagree with the approach being taken.