Dessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am deputising for my colleague Deputy Mary Lou McDonald who has other engagements.

This is good legislation. Coupled with the Protected Disclosures Bill, or the whistleblowers Bill, and the lobbying Bill, it goes some way to recognising the heightened expectation of accountability and transparency from the political system. The programme for Government committed to restoring the Freedom of Information Act to what it was before Fianna Fáil butchered it in 2003. Naturally, the Labour Party in government has sought to undo the damage done to the legislation it first introduced in 1997.

My colleague, Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, described Fianna Fáil's gutting of the legislation in 2003 as a major step backwards for our democracy. He was correct and let us not forget that Deputy Micheál Martin was a senior Government Minister when he and his colleagues discussed and agreed to hollow out the 1997 FOl legislation. Last night the current Fianna Fáil leader blamed complacency for his party's failure to introduce the kind of political reforms for which he now calls. What a crock. The Deputy and his then Cabinet colleagues very deliberately sought to restrict democratic oversight of public spending and Government policy making. That is a fact and the Deputy's actions speak much louder than his words. The Government's record on reform is not exactly something to write home about.

This is important legislation, as is the whistleblowers Bill currently before the Seanad and the lobbying Bill, yet to be finalised. If we are honest with each other, these items of legislation have long been sought and are hardly at the cutting edge of open government. We are bringing ourselves into line with other developed democracies. However, legislation is not enough. As former Information Commissioner Ms Emily O'Reilly has warned, this legislation is a good move for transparency, but its full effectiveness will only become clear when people start using the laws to make requests for information. I add a further word of caution. If public bodies are not adequately trained and resourced to deal with FOl requests, the shift to an open government culture will not happen. We also need to see Ministers take a full and active role in oversight. Open government strengthens democracy and empowers citizens, bringing them into the political system. People's increasing disengagement from politics is a problem and challenges social cohesion in a particularly corrosive way that can take decades to reverse. There is no questioning the fact that decades of Fianna Fáil-led Governments fundamentally damaged the State. Money was squandered, social solidarity was hindered and the culture of a nod and wink and looking after one's own man bedded itself into political life and beyond. Things have changed, but we need to harness that change if we are to show we are serious about opening up government and politics to all citizens.

The Government's reputation on reform is not good, as the Minister knows. It is the sharpest criticism of decision makers and opinion formers, even those who are generally well disposed to both parties. Take the current debate on the Seanad. The Labour Party and Fine Gael have again limited their vision to the bottom line and merely rejigged the Dáil schedule and tinkered with the committee system. That is the best they can rustle up on Dáil reform. Sinn Féin has published a package of Dáil reforms as part of its campaign to abolish the Seanad. We are serious about Dáil reform and committed to giving citizens a real say in how politics works. We want to open up government. That is why we believe the scrapping of freedom of information fees will lead to better governance. As was stated by Mr. Gavin Sheridan, journalist and open data advocate, during the hearings of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform Committee, Ireland is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to fees. This is one of just three countries that charge upfront fees for access to information where FOl or similar legislation is in place. This is the only country in the European Union to do so. The British House of Commons justice committee reviewed existing British FOl legislation last year and its conclusions on costs and fees are instructive. They state FOl legislation is a significant enhancement of democracy, giving people a right to access information on the way public institutions are governed and taxpayers' money is spent. This can act as a deterrent against wastage of public moneys or deliberate wrongdoing. It is a health check and balance in the political system. It is recognised that the focus of the legislation is on whether the disclosure of information is justified, not on who is asking for the information. This is a really important point. The media's use of FOl is sometimes portrayed by decision makers as a problem, a hindrance to the system. Much of the information journalists seek through FOI requests can and should be put in the public domain as a matter of course. Regardless, it should not matter who has made a request for information on the work or spending of a public body or Department. The citizens put us here and pay our wages. We would be horrified at the prospect of a company deliberately withholding information on fundamental business decisions from shareholders. Why should we take a different view on the media or others seeking similar information from public bodies?

The British justice committee recognised that fees at a level high enough to recoup costs would deter requests with a strong public interest and defeat the purpose of the legislation, while fees introduced for commercial and media organisations could be circumvented. It also found that future reconsideration of the economic argument for charging would need significantly better data for the numbers of requests made under the Act and the costs incurred in responding to them. This is of particular relevance as the Minister told the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform that his Department had not carried out an analysis of the fee regime in place. In March last year the British Information Commissioner, Mr. Christopher Graham, told the Commons justice committee:

It is a bit rich to have public authorities saying, "We are assailed by unreasonable freedom of information requests," when they do not have an adequate publication scheme, they have not got their act together in terms of records management and they have a rotten website and so on. There are things that you can do before you ever get to charging.

Our former Information Commissioner, Ms Emily O'Reilly, speaking in 2011 on publication of her annual report, said, "The punitive regime relating to fees should be overhauled so as not to discourage people from seeking out information." It is worth remembering that following the introduction of increased fees by Fianna Fáil, the number of freedom of information requests halved, which was, of course, the desired effect of the legislation. I acknowledge that the Minister has reduced fees for an appeal to the Information Commissioner from €150 to €75 and promised a review of search and retrieval fees. However, he did commit to restore the freedom of information legislation to what it was before it was undermined by Fianna Fáil and application fees remain.

TASC estimated in 2010, based on figures provided by the Government, that the cost of freedom of information requests to the State was 0.012% of overall expenditure, correctly noting that this was far from an exorbitant price to pay for stronger democratic oversight. Then there is the cost of administering the application fee, a cost the Minister has been unable to provide as such data are not collated centrally by his Department. There is a real problem with open data formats which are currently limited to budget and expenditure data, as the Minister has acknowledged. Again, TASC noted in its 2010 discussion paper that it was highly probable that the fees regime was counterproductive and cost more money to operate than it generated in most cases.

Retaining application fees also tells us that the closed culture associated with Fianna Fáil prevails within the Government and across the civil and public service. The retention of application fees tells us that the Government and the senior civil servants who advise it still perceive freedom of information legislation as a gifting of information, rather than a fundamental right of citizens in a mature democracy. This is a problem. If the Minister cannot shift his mandarins on this issue, what hope does Ireland have of full participation in the open government partnership when and if it happens?

Moving on from fees, there is much in the Bill that is welcome. The reduction of the period of exemption for Cabinet papers and the extension of freedom of information legislation to a new layer of public bodies significantly funded by the State are welcome. The restriction on information on the Garda is something at which we need to look, as we need to look at some of the other exemptions. There are provisions in the Bill that appear to facilitate refusals, but we can explore these matters on Committee Stage. The obligation on public bodies to produce a "publication scheme" to replace previous freedom of information manuals will not in itself shift the culture to an open government environment. I cannot emphasise enough the real need for resourcing, training and oversight. This is a theme to which we must return.

The introduction of the Bill is a positive step and I look forward to dealing with the issues raised on Committee Stage. I hope the Minister will come to it with an open mind. We will submit a number of amendments at that stage.

See this speech in context