Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill. In researching for this contribution one of the things that stood out the most and which the last two contributions highlighted very starkly was the caution with which the Bill was welcomed by those such as the Information Commissioner and other commentators. It is very telling, when legislation is brought forward, that it can only be welcomed with caution. How we will gauge the success of the Bill depends on how its spirit is implemented after it is enacted. When we are introducing legislation, we should be very clear on what it seeks to achieve and what needs to happen with it. We should not see caution expressed in welcoming a Bill and the changes to take place. This is particularly the case with something as important as a freedom of information Bill which is one of the few ways in which citizens can acquire information to see how decisions which affect their daily lives are being made in their names or on their behalf. The Bill needs to be amended on Committee Stage to remove some of the uncertainty and some of the get-out clauses that the Minister and public bodies have with regard to the information they can release to members of the public. This is very important and the issue needs to be addressed.

When the original Freedom of Information Bill was introduced in 1997, it started a real culture of change within public bodies. I was working with Donegal County Council at the time and remember that it caused a lot of concern for council officials because they would have to be accountable, keep records and be able to stand over decisions they had made. It did start that process of cultural change and changed how bodies dealt with matters and operated their decision making processes. It opened up decision making to transparency such that it could be looked at by citizens who could gauge whether it was effective and it made officials do their jobs properly.

In 2003, however, Fianna Fáil infamously amended the Freedom of Information Act, put all of the restrictions in place and introduced fees which undermined all of the provisions included in what had been progressive legislation. While this Bill undoes many of the amendments brought forward by Fianna Fáil, which has to be welcomed, again, we come back to how its spirit will be implemented after it becomes law. That is the key point. It will probably only be in two or three years time that we will actually be able to see how effective this legislation has been, if at all, and how it has opened up decision making in the State to transparency.

I welcome some of the Bill's provisions, particularly the inclusion of a range of new bodies under the remit of the freedom of information regime. The Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal are especially important inclusions given that the operation of the refugee system in this country in the past 11 or 12 years has brought the State into disrepute. There has been no transparency or openness, with decisions apparently made on an entirely arbitrary basis. Some of the most vulnerable people in the State have been left in a state of uncertainty for long periods, with no access to recourse. Some have been living in direct provision for more than ten years without any sign of a decision being made to clarify their status. If the possibility had been there to submit freedom of information requests on behalf of these people, it might have speeded up the entire process.

I also welcome the inclusion of the Garda Síochána under the remit of these provisions. Again, however, the question arises as to why that remit is limited to the force's administrative records. There are already sufficient provisions in the existing legislation in terms of State security to allow Garda authorities ample scope to refuse requests. That safeguard is already in place. The Garda Síochána should be opened up fully to freedom of information scrutiny. No public body should be afraid of accountability. Rather, all public bodies should be striving to provide as much accountability as possible. This particular restriction is perhaps reflective of the power of the Garda Síochána to insist that its role in our society, as it sees it, be protected.

The omission of Irish Water is puzzling. The reason given is that to include it would potentially lead to the release of commercially sensitive information. Consider, however, that Irish Rail, which, like Irish Water, is a semi-State monopoly operating on behalf of citizens, does come under the remit of these provisions. It does not make sense that one should be included and the other omitted.

I welcome the removal of the restriction which precluded the provision of information regarding the deliberative processes operating within Departments. It is important to see how particular decisions are arrived at and ultimately agreed. In that context, will the Minister indicate why the exemption in regard to parliamentary briefings and draft replies to parliamentary questions is to be retained? It would be very interesting to have access to the original drafts of replies before they go on the record. I am not convinced by the argument that the Official Report provides all the accountability that is required. It seems very likely, for example, that some parliamentary question replies would go through several drafts before being released. Removing this restriction would open Departments up to a great deal of welcome scrutiny in terms of how decisions are made and how replies can be made woolly by filling them up with useless information in order to disguise the failure to provide the information that is actually being sought.

While I welcome the reduction in fees, the provision in this regard does not go far enough. If we want to be entirely open and transparent, there should be no charge associated with the submission of a freedom of information request. In particular, Departments should no longer be allowed to set their own retrieval fees. If there is to be a fee at all, it should be a set fee.

As I noted earlier, it is interesting to see Members on all sides welcoming this Bill with caution. Unfortunately, however, it will take at least two or three years before we can really see how it is working in practice.

See this speech in context