Deputy Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform ( Brendan Howlin:

I apologise to Deputy Sean Fleming and other Members for not being here earlier. I am sure they will forgive me when I explain I was at meetings with the president and senior officials of the European Investment Bank with a view to enhancing and developing investment in the State's infrastructure. I can report progress to the House on this matter.

I welcome this debate on freedom of information legislation and am interested in hearing the views of Deputies on this matter. It is useful during the formulation of legislation to have a debate of this sort. The Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform finished its conclusions on whistleblower protection legislation yesterday. Lobbying legislation was subject to a seminar yesterday at which Deputy Sean Fleming's colleague made a valuable contribution on foot of a Private Members' Bill he sponsored. This is the collective way that legislation in this critical area should be developed.

Restoration and extension of freedom of information, along with whistleblower protection legislation and lobbying regulations, comprise a central element of the Government's radical and broad-ranging programme of political reform. Enhanced openness and transparency in the conduct of policy-making, along with the development of legislation in political and administrative decision-making, is integral to strengthening public governance. In the current circumstances, at the point where proposals are being finalised for the Government in this area which would encompass the proposals contained in Deputy Sean Fleming's Bill, the approach being proposed by the Government is both straightforward and sensible. It is proposing the House should postpone the Second Reading for nine months with a view to enabling a more comprehensive approach to be fleshed out and brought to the House. I ask that we all work together to achieve this and that Deputies on all sides support the Government's amendment as proposed earlier by my colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes.

In his contribution, the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, dealt with the individual provisions of Deputy Sean Fleming's Bill, including its extension to specific public bodies. He explained the Government's plans for the extension of freedom of information to all statutory bodies and to other bodies in receipt of significant State support. Significant work has been undertaken to seek to design a legal mechanism which will achieve once and for all the application of freedom of information to all public bodies. This will replace the current approach where these bodies must be scheduled in regulations on a case-by-case basis, a process which is administratively cumbersome, inefficient and slow. The Minister of State also drew attention to the Taoiseach's recent statements in the House on where the process stands, which highlighted that the Government has already given consideration to these matters.

The House will understand that, just as the Taoiseach could not on Wednesday seek to prejudice these discussions and the Government's final decision, neither can I. I want this debate to be informed of the views of others.

The debate on Deputy Fleming's Bill has also extended into important issues relating to the restoration of freedom of information, notwithstanding the fact that the Bill does not deal with this matter. I have vivid memories of the debate on the 1997 legislation, which was introduced by the then Minister of State at the former Department of Enterprise and Employment, Ms Eithne Fitzgerald. I was part of the team of Ministers from the three parties which formed the Government of the day assigned to refine the proposals contained in that legislation. In my opinion, the 1997 Act is ground-breaking in nature and Ms Eithne Fitzgerald deserves great credit for what was achieved. However, there is a need to revisit the legislation, remove the limitations that were placed on it and then go beyond that.

The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, set out the clear Government position on the restoration agenda as recently articulated by the Taoiseach. I do not believe it serves any useful purpose to amplify or interpret what, objectively, is a strong statement of the Government's intention to meet the specific commitment contained in the programme for Government in respect of this matter. Although the term "restoration" is used in the programme for Government in respect of the Freedom of Information Act, a better word to characterise the Government's objective in respect of freedom of information in general would be "reform". The latter, of course, reflects the mission of my Department. It also reflects the fact that in conjunction with the restoration of the legislation, we are also engaging in an appropriate modernisation thereof.

The review process that has been carried out sought to ensure that our legal framework for freedom of information would meet the requirement for enhanced openness and transparency both now and into the future in order that we will not be obliged to continually revisit the legislation. The approach taken in this regard is consistent, of course, with the necessity of ensuring that the public interest in safeguarding sensitive and confidential records will be maintained.

As was the case in 1997, the fundamental objective of freedom of information is - as expressed in the Long Title to the Bill - to enable members of the public to obtain access, to the greatest extent possible and consistent with the public interest, to information in the possession of public bodies. When the Freedom of Information Bill was introduced in the Dáil on 11 March 1997, the then Minister of State, Ms Eithne Fitzgerald, stressed that access to information was seen as fundamental to the reform of democratic institutions in order to create genuine openness and empower ordinary citizens As the then Minister of State indicated, the Act was intended to ensure that the culture and practices of secrecy in public bodies would be set aside for good and replaced with a legal presumption that the public has a right to know.

The question of the Government's plans to extend freedom of information beyond public bodies, in circumstances where significant public funding is provided to such bodies, was raised during this debate. It is appropriate to highlight that this will undoubtedly give rise to a need for careful consideration to ensure that the approach adopted is sensible and evidence-based and that it will not lead to a proliferation of bodies being brought within the terms of the freedom of information legislation where a clear public interest in doing so is not easily discerned. The House will be aware that existing provision allows for non-statutory bodies to be brought under the Act. This power has been exercised to bring, for example, voluntary hospitals and voluntary bodies which cater for persons with an intellectual disability within the scope of the Act. I am of the view that the approach adopted in respect of the health sector serves as a good guide for other sectors. It is necessary to identify relevant criteria to govern which non-statutory bodies should be brought under the scope of the Act.

To return to the Bill before the House, Deputy Sean Fleming's proposals dovetail with my own. What we need to do now is to consider how best we can achieve the outcome we all desire and how to legislate effectively for that. We fully appreciate the work the Deputy has done in respect of his proposals - I commend him for that - and the huge contribution he has made to the debate. However, the Government believes that the various political parties must leave aside their differences and work together on this matter. I am aware there was some discord earlier in the debate. Let us not make a party political issue of this because we need to achieve a substantial goal in the context of the democratic agenda.

Freedom of information law is a fundamental pillar of open government. I am confident that all of those present believe in the principles of openness, transparency, enhancing Government accountability in decision-making and promoting informed participation in policy-making. Restoring and further extending the freedom of information legislation will help us achieve these valuable goals and, as a result, more effective governance. The Government believes that there should be a comprehensive approach on freedom of information and is determined that our legislation in this area should rank alongside the best of such legislation which obtains in peer jurisdictions.

I commend the Government amendment, which was tabled by the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, to the House. I again congratulate Deputy Sean Fleming on the introduction of his Bill and for engendering debate on the general matter of freedom of information in the House.

See this speech in context