Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Indeed, and there should be credit where it is due. The Bill's introduction is positive and freedom of information is being extended to more bodies. Nevertheless, amendments to the Bill are required, and the issues were discussed at the finance committee, of which I am a member. The first issue relates to fees. I accept that there are no fees for personal information but there is a €15 fee for non-personal information and an appeal fee of €50, which has been reduced from €150. There is also a €30 fee for an internal review, which has also been reduced from €75. It still costs money to access this information, which can have a chilling effect, particularly in a current climate where people are very strapped for money. This was noted extensively at Leaders' Questions earlier and people may have heard the rather disturbing reports of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul this morning about how many families are in dire financial positions. It should be fairly obvious that people in such cases would not have the money to access information they might want.

Having fees means there is essentially a two-tier access to information, which is not acceptable. If we are talking about freedom of information, it should apply to everybody and there should be no obstacle or deterrent to members of the public accessing the information. Their economic status should not be an impediment to having full access to information.

The Government's justification for not abolishing fees relates to the potential administrative costs and the Minister suggested that public bodies would not have the capacity or may have problems having the wherewithal to provide free access to FOI because of the loss of more than 30,000 workers from the public sector. That is not an acceptable justification. If FOI is a right that the Government seeks to vindicate for the public, then it can hardly say they have the right to FOI but because of other policies it has to cut the capacity of public service to deliver a service it says they should have and, therefore, they cannot have it or there should be an impediment to them having full and free access. That makes no sense whatsoever. If FOI is a public service the Government believes the public should have, it has an obligation to provide the resources to deliver it, otherwise it is not a service; it is just words on a page.

The public service has many aspects to it but surely one of the most important should be its role in providing information to the public. That is what democracy is about and that is what the public service should be there for. It is there to serve the public and a critical part of serving the public is providing people with information about what is going on and how public money is being spent. It is not good enough for the Government parties to say they do not have the means to provide free access and it makes a mockery of freedom of information if one does not have free access to information.

Furthermore, in Britain the possibility of charging fees was discussed and rejected on a number of grounds similar to those I have outlined. It was also pointed out, importantly, that the cost of levying fees might be greater administratively than the cost of not doing so. The UK Government decided not to charge fees stating,

Charging for FOI requests would have an adverse impact on transparency and would undermine the objectives of the Act. A charge would be expensive to administer and may result in increasing rather than reducing burdens on public authorities. This is particularly the case where a nominal charge rather than a much higher full cost recovery charge is being considered.

It makes sense not to have loads of public servants billing people or administering a charging system for request, appeals or reviews.

Perhaps there is also an implication in the Government's decision to retain charges - an issue that was also raised at the joint committee - that there would be loads of frivolous and vexatious FOI requests. Expert witnesses who appeared before the committee rubbished that argument and said a high bar would have to be set to show that a request was frivolous because what the Government might consider to be frivolous, the member of the public seeking the information might consider to be important. It is not up to public bodies or the Government to decide that they do not like a particular request or find it irritating or annoying. If the person feels it is important, he or she has a right to that information.

The exemptions for commercial semi-State bodies are unacceptable. This catch all phrase "commercial sensitivity" drives me around the twist because it is a blanket, get out of jail clause for entities that are fully owned by the public in which significant public money and resources are at stake and the notion that they can get out of jail regarding FOI requests because of so-called commercial sensitivities is just not on. There may be instances where a semi-State body could make a plea that the release of particular information would jeopardise its financial position but the presumption in FOI is that all bodies in which there is substantial public investment or ownership should be subject to the legislation as a general rule and if they want to make an case to be an exception, they should have to do so and outline why particular information should not be given out. It should not be the other way around, particularly in the context of bodies such as Irish Water, which has a monopoly on the sale of water, itself an abomination.

I had desperate trouble trying to get information about industrial relations issues in Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company relating to pay, bonuses, executive expenses, huge sums wasted on ridiculous plans and so on. We need that information.

The joint committee also debated the issue of direct provision, the asylum process, refugee applications and son. Will FOI legislation be fully applied in this area? This is important. We have had a dark and shameful history in the context of the cover up of institutional abuse in the Magdalen Laundries, industrial schools and so on. It is only now that this terrible history is seeing the light of day and restorative justice being offered to those affected. Refugees and asylum seekers are a new version of the Magdalen Laundries survivors. They have been relegated to the status of non-people. Children are spending their entire childhoods in appalling conditions in hostels with no rights. It is vitally important that a light is shone on this area and that it be fully subject to FOI provisions.

See this speech in context