Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

I accept one fair allegation. If we do our job well and we take care of the finances and affairs of the State well as a Government, it will help us get re-elected. Such is the way of matters. I have not heard of a Government or any system of politics that did not expect the electorate to vote on performance and the proposed performance of the Opposition. I have no doubt that if we spend this money wisely, well, fairly and equitably and the dormant accounts board gives the Government a super report, it will reflect well on the Government. I have no shame in saying so. I also hope the money I have spent in the Gaeltacht, the RAPID areas, the islands, Leader companies and elsewhere reflects well on the Government and helps to re-elect us. As far as I am concerned, it is on this activity that we should be re-elected.

I disagree that the Government needs to be rescued. The most recent election in my area was for Údarás na Gaeltachta. Taking the Galway constituency as an example, not one of the Sinn Féin, Green Party and three Fine Gael candidates was elected. Another candidate was independent but he was really running for the Labour Party and I congratulate him on his election. Fianna Fáil had four candidates elected and the Progressive Democrats had one candidate elected. Five seats out of six is an incredible achievement in an election. When one analyses the figures, the Government is not suffering from voter rejection.

People should be given any information they seek. My objection regarding the decision to change the freedom of information legislation was about time being wasted by so-called "fishing expeditions", whereby someone asks for every letter sent from one Minister to another in the past five years, hoping they will find a letter of interest to them. Many hours have been spent at the taxpayer's expense doing this. People who requested such letters received a room full of material, examined it all and threw it aside when they found nothing interesting. Such a waste of time in Departments and many agencies needed to be done away with because it was not serving the public good. However, as anyone who contacts it knows, my Department's approach to freedom of information is to follow the formal route if necessary but to give the information more quickly if we are told what to look for. I believe in openness in what I do. It is Government policy that all appropriate statutory bodies operate within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Acts. These Acts provide the framework for including State bodies within their scope. The Minister for Finance can, by regulation, as I explained previously on Committee Stage, prescribe organisations to be included within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Acts. This is the appropriate device to bring bodies within the provisions of that legislation. Both the Attorney General's office and the Department of Finance agree with that approach.

If the board — to which Deputy O'Shea refers in his amendment — is to brought within the ambit of these Acts, the way to do that is as I outlined. However, I further add — this is key because the Deputy's remarks and submissions in this regard all related to possible actions not by the board but by Departments and Ministers — that following the enactment of this legislation, the provisions of the Freedom of the Information Acts will apply in regard to the operation of Departments involved in the process of receiving and assessing applications. Access to freedom of information will automatically apply because of the change we are making in regard to actions by Departments in terms of application for assistance from the dormant accounts board. In addition, all correspondence, analysis and advice provided by the board to me, my Department or the Government will come within the scope of the Freedom of Information Acts. From the date of enactment of this legislation anything done in respect of it by the Government or Departments will come within the scope of the Freedom of Information Acts. Anything we get from the board will come within the scope of those Acts. That aspect is already covered and therefore there is no need to introduce legislation to cover it. That leaves the actions, not of a Department or Minister but, of the board not covered by the Act. If the board wanted to make a public criticism it could. I agree with the Deputies that it is not different from us in that independent groups are not any more sacrosanct than elected representatives. I have great respect for the elected status. Therefore, following the establishment of the new board, I intend to put arrangements in train with the Department of Finance for the board to be included within the scope of the Freedom of Information Acts for this reason.

I wish to clarify that with effect from the date of enactment of this legislation any actions by Departments or Ministers in this regard will be automatically covered by the provisions of the Freedom of Information Acts. That was a concern of the Deputies but there is no concern regarding that aspect. However, there is an issue concerning the actions of the board, which will not be covered by the Freedom of Information Acts. The board will prepare a plan and publish a critique of what we do in this regard at the end of each year. It is my intention because it is good and equitable practice to bring the actions of the board within the remit of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Acts. I will approach the Department of Finance to make that happen.

I have no problem with the principle of this amendment but I have a difficulty with the way the Deputy proposes to do this. I am advised it is not the correct way. I will oppose the amendment but I accept the spirit of it. The independent board should be accountable by way of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Acts and I will make it accountable in that respect.

See this speech in context