Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the discussion of this legislation. There is no doubt that the butchering of the 1997 Act by Fianna Fáil was absolutely and utterly reprehensible, and it was somewhat amusing to listen to its spokesperson's contribution earlier in this context. That said, the idea that the Minister has moulded himself into some great liberator and defender of democracy, going boldly where nobody else ever has, is really stretching it a bit and does not stand up to any serious examination. In his press statement at the launch of the Bill last week, the Minister stated that the legislation would strongly complement the substantial progress made on a suite of significant Government reform measures to achieve greater openness, transparency and accountability and strengthen public governance and good governance throughout the system. People reading this would have been amazed, wondering what he was speaking about and where this openness and transparency was. He went on to tell us where it was, with a few pretty unfortunate examples. He started with the Bill regarding Oireachtas inquiries into the banking sector, with which problems have already emerged, with talk of the exclusion of Anglo Irish Bank and much other evidence, and people who have authority in these matters have stated that an Oireachtas inquiry will not get to the bottom of what went on. He also cited the whistleblower legislation which has been published. This is also an unfortunate example because the treatment of the most prominent whistleblowers in the State in recent years - namely, the two Garda whistleblowers on penalty points - proves that transparency and openness is not alive and well under the Government, particularly in view of the way in which they were treated by the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Garda Commissioner. These people who had information and wanted an open and transparent society used the mechanisms they had and went to the confidential recipient. The information was brought to the Minister and then went to the Committee of Public Accounts, the Comptroller and Auditor General, Members of the Oireachtas and members of the Road Safety Authority. They should not have had to go to any of these organisations. In any case, their efforts resulted in the unearthing of the scandal of termination of penalty points. They were proved accurate in this sense, and the loss of revenue to the State and the loss of credibility of the system has been exposed. The only people who suffered for it were those who blew the whistle. If this is the openness and transparency we are speaking about, and this is the context in which we are putting the Bill, it really falls short of what is possible and necessary.

When we are discussing the Bill we must start with the absolute right to information. The only information that should be withheld is information which relates to an individual's privacy, and nothing else counts. In some instances one could say that the security of the State should be considered, but in an Irish context this does not count for much. If we were adhering to our role as a neutral country it would matter even less.

We have a peculiar situation in Ireland in which most people get their information from the media. The media have an incredibly cavalier approach to people's individual privacy. They have no problem with invading it every day of the week in circumstances, and with information, of no relevance to the public whatsoever. This same media have no appetite whatsoever to unearth and uncover information that would be in the public good. The days of investigative journalism have been sadly diminished. We had a classic example in which an investigative journalist who did this job was forcibly made redundant - the case of Gemma O'Doherty from the Irish Independent. This is a reflection of the fact that the media is owned by a small number of private individuals who carry enormous political sway and who do not call the Government to account. I am not surprised by this, given the bailouts Independent News & Media has received.

In this context of the privatisation of media information, the State's handling of public information is even more important because it is the people's information. I agree with Deputy Wallace. We had the privilege of meeting Julian Assange during the summer, and what Wikileaks has done shows the power of information. Information released by Wikileaks on corruption and deals behind the scenes in Iceland between the politicians and the banking sector led to the Icelandic people coming out on the streets, which prevented the scenario we ended up enduring here, in which our banks were bailed out.

They are much better off as a result. Information is good and if people are doing their jobs properly, they should have no problem with it being unearthed.

The problem with the Bill is exactly as Deputy Mick Wallace outlined. The Bill in its entirety gives the Minister massive powers to exempt organisations and documents from disclosure. Other sections suggest it is a case of "You do not have to give information if it is a bit too much work for you," "If it is a little bit tedious and if you have to analyse the information, no, you do not have to do that", or "You do not have to disclose the liabilities of State or public bodies." The Bill is based on curtailing information and making excuses in that regard.

We already have a very difficult climate. While it is very good that the fees are being reduced, all of the methods which have been used to prevent people from getting information are alive and well in the Minister's proposals in this new legislation. I know residents who have spent years and probably hundreds of euro - they have been asked for thousands in some instances by the local authority, Fingal County Council - to find documents relating to the planning of homes which have been proved to be a fire safety hazard from a developer who has been engaged in such practices in other jurisdictions also. The idea that somebody should have to pay all that money and be met with the response, "No, we cannot do all that work and we cannot unearth those documents," or "If you really want them, it is going to cost you a couple of grand," is completely unacceptable. I do not believe the Bill breaks from that spirit. In fact, it enshrines that mentality which curtails rather than frees up information.

There are a number of other weakening measures in the Bill which are not to be welcomed. The current position requires bodies to maintain an index of precedents. This is important because it empowers the public to access these precedents and ensures the decisions being arrived at are made in a fair and impartial manner, that like cases are treated consistently and so on. This is the very essence, if one likes, of freedom of information. However, the Bill curtails this. It extinguishes the right to have this record of precedents held, which goes against the grain in terms of what freedom of information should mean. Moreover, it unmasks the Government's intentions in that regard because if people do not know whether they have been treated in an equal fashion, how are they to get the documentary evidence which they can obtain at present? Under this new legislation, they will have to go before the courts to seek discovery. What citizen can do this against the backdrop of austerity?

That brings me to a really important area which is exempt from the legislation, which is, of course, the courts. I cannot credit why they would be excluded from this process unless, of course, one is dealing with sensitive family law or in cameracases. Anything else should be open to the public. This is an enormous area which is in the spotlight because of the backlog of appeals to the Supreme Court. Questions have been raised by some citizens as to why we have such a volume of appeals. Is it, perhaps, that the work being done in the lower courts and the judgments being made are not the best, that more people are looking for appeals as a result and that, therefore, they are looking for relevant information. The State spent €16 million on a digital audio recording system for the courts which has been in place in the Supreme Court since 2005, the High Court since 2009 and the District Court since 2011, but we do not use it. We do not give people access to that information which could validly record what actually goes on in court and undo many of the mistakes which ultimately lead to appeals being taken. Given that the State has invested in a digital recording system to record what goes on in the courts, surely all court documents and information on the courts should be open to the public also. If we were serious about it, we would be looking at these areas.

Another loophole stems from the way in which the Minister has formulated the legislation in that, for the new organisations that have been added on - the Central Bank and the Garda - only records since 2008 will be obtainable. Obviously, the justification is that they did not know they would have to produce them; therefore, it would be a bit hard for them to go back any further. I do not accept that and we now have a problem. What about all the records dating from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s? Obviously, under the 30 year rule, some Government records do become available. However, we are going to have to wait for all the documents between 1984 and 2008, which were very interesting years, that will effectively remain secret. There was no need to do this. We could have included them in the legislation and this should be done on Committee Stage.

A radical overhaul of the freedom of information system is necessary and would have been very welcome, but that is not what this is, unfortunately. It is putting a little sticking plaster on some of the butchery conducted in this area by Fianna Fáil.

See this speech in context