Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

I welcome the opportunity to support this motion to reinstate Ms O'Reilly as Information Commissioner. I acknowledge the work Ms O'Reilly has done. It is a pity her views and recommendations have not been taken on board by the Government. In March 2007 the Information Commissioner published a list of suggestions aimed at improving the operation of the Freedom of Information Act. These included that fees for internal review of freedom of information decisions and appeals to her office be brought into line with other jurisdictions which do not charge or have only a nominal fee; that such fees be refunded in the event of a successful appeal of a public body's decision; that some of the amendments to the Freedom of Information Act in 2003 be removed, particularly those relating to Government records and the too-wide definition of Government; and that the Freedom of Information Act apply to all records of the Health and Safety Authority, the enforcement records of which were removed from the scope of the Act in 2005.

The Information Commissioner has also called for all new State bodies to come under FOI as soon as they are established. This is especially important for NAMA, which will place a major financial burden on taxpayers and where transparency is essential. None of these recommendations has been taken on board by the Government, although the Minister for Finance made positive soundings on NAMA and its remit under the Freedom of Information Act at this morning's finance committee meeting. The Government has continued to pursue a policy of making freedom of information requests costly and bureaucratic and this allows State bodies to get away with withholding information from the public, to which it should have access.

Recently, I made a freedom of information request to the National Treatment Purchase Fund, which has a budget of €100 million. I requested information on how much private hospitals are charging the NTPF for operations such as knee and hip replacements. The NTPF refused this information because it is "not in the public interest". It is saying it is not in the public interest that information on money being spent by a public body to the tune of €100 million per annum be given to the public. It is an obscene reply. If so-called State bodies can simply refuse to provide information, there is something wrong.

The Ombudsman's remit should be extended to cover the asylum and naturalisation process. Ms O'Reilly has repeatedly called for this power, which is held by every other Ombudsman in the EU. The Government never hesitates to use the excuse of bringing the State into line with the rest of the EU when it wishes to adopt repressive measures on immigration or other matters. The need for independent oversight of these processes was demonstrated again last week when a freedom of information request revealed that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform deliberately held back a number of citizenship approvals last summer so the applicants could be charged the higher fees which came into effect on 1 August.

Regular violations of fair procedure in the asylum process, such as the continued use of www.wikipedia.com as evidence against protective claims, despite stated Department policy to the contrary, show the need for the Ombudsman to be given the power to monitor these processes. Recently, Ms O'Reilly expressed frustration that her repeated request to have the remit of her office extended to cover the asylum and naturalisation process have been rejected by the Government. She has complained that she lacks the jurisdiction of her European counterparts in this area.

At the official launch in Dublin yesterday of the Women's Health Council Report entitled Translating Pain into Action: A Study of Gender-Based Violence and Minority Ethnic Women in Ireland, Ms O'Reilly said:

I have been asking for the remit to be extended in relation to asylum seekers and naturalisation issues. All my EU colleagues have that. I have consistently been told, "No," my remit will not be extended into that area. It is a source of frustration to me that this has not been acted upon.

She said she wanted to monitor the administration of the asylum and naturalisation process rather than become involved in the final decisions in individual cases. She also said: "An Ombudsman does not seek to overturn decisions, which are a matter for the appropriate authorities, including the courts, but to ensure the process has been followed correctly and fairly." Surely that is a very reasonable request. Ms O'Reilly said her proposal was supported by the Council of Europe's Human Rights Commissioner, Thomas Hammarberg, who delivered a report on Ireland last year. Commissioner Hammarberg noted that the Ombudsman has actively sought an extension of her mandate "and is one of the few Ombudsman's office in Europe being restricted in these matters". I support the motion and welcome the reappointment.

See this speech in context