Noel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I very much welcome the opportunity to speak on the Freedom of Information Bill 2013. As we are all aware, it seeks to reverse much of the regressive, sinister legislation that was introduced by the former Minister, Charlie McCreevy, in 2003 which restricted the 1997 legislation that had been introduced by the rainbow Government.

It is interesting to note that, internationally, the very first freedom of information legislation was passed in Sweden in 1766. It has taken a long time for other countries to catch up. Between 90 and 100 countries have enacted freedom of information legislation, the majority of them doing so in the 1990s and the early years of this millennium. In this country, freedom of information legislation was first introduced in 1997 and, regrettably, in 2003 it was amended so as to inhibit the action of the original legislation. At the time we were in the middle of an economic boom. The country was awash with cash. It could be argued that the Government, politicians, civil servants and the Administration had taken their eye off the ball. The regulatory authorities had certainly taken their eye off the ball. One could question some of the Government decisions and mismanagement at the time. I refer to policy decisions such as the proposed move to e-voting, which has cost €16 million and counting; PPARS, which cost approximately €160 million; the residential institutions abuse deal, which has cost the State €1.2 billion, above and beyond what was predicted; the cost overrun for the East Link and West Link toll bridges, which was in the region of €407 million; the overrun for Stadium Campus Ireland - the Bertie Bowl - which was another €100 million; the overrun on the Luas project, which was €470 million; the overrun for the Dublin Port Tunnel, which was €350 million; the cost overrun and mismanagement of the construction of the five major inter-urban motorway projects, which we all use today, which amounted to €3.25 billion, and decentralisation, which has cost €900 million and rising.

In the context of these decisions, we had a Government that decided freedom of information was not as important as it should be and it restricted the terms. The projects I have listed and ten or 12 others cost the State just over €7 billion over a period of ten years, in the middle of which the 2003 legislation was introduced. This is an enormous sum. When one reflects on what our upcoming budget will try to achieve, one realises it is staggering.

The 1997 legislation introduced the right of access to records held by a public body, the right to be given reasons for a decision, the right to have records amended where personal information was incomplete, incorrect or misleading, and the right to information on acts of public bodies affecting a person. It is fundamental to efficient and transparent democracy to have the right to information on who signs off on decisions in Departments, be the signatories Ministers signing off on policies or civil servants proposing policies or initiatives.

Some speakers have mentioned fees. Rightly, the fees have been reduced in this legislation and I do not have a major issue with them. As freedom of information legislation is developed in conjunction with technologies to store, process and gain access to information, fees become irrelevant. Ultimately, they will not be an issue in accessing information. Departments should make it a policy objective and as easy as possible to make information available through technology and efficiencies to those who request it.

In the 1990s, while many countries were progressive in their legislation, Ireland was taking the opposite approach. There are concerns, however, with any freedom of information legislation. Regarding the 30 year rule about which we often read, we encounter examples of policy documents with annotations, notes or signatures of senior Ministers and civil servants. It is reasonably easy to see who knew what when decisions were taken. I hope this Bill and general freedom of information legislation will not make Ministers reluctant to take notes, sign off on or leave their fingerprint, as it were, on legislation or policy documents in the knowledge that it might be quite clear to historians and the public who knew what when. As we deal with the 30 year rule, it will be interesting to note how decisions from 1997 which will not be available until 2027 will be presented to the public.

As a member of the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions, I was very pleased to have had the opportunity to listen to a presentation by the outgoing Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly. While I am reluctant to name people, I wish her the very best in her new role as European Ombudsman. We share her concerns on the resources issue. There are 180 State bodies now included in the list of bodies included in freedom of information legislation. This is very welcome. The list includes major semi-State agencies and bodies such as the VECs and education and training boards. If we are to take freedom of information seriously, we must have properly funded freedom of information officers within the agencies. They ought to have proactive policies and should be trained. They should operate in an environment in which freedom of information fatigue does not set in. We have seen this phenomenon in some organisations because of the number of freedom of information requests. In some cases where budgets are contracting, decision-makers and financial managers are restricting funding for freedom of information officers. Each organisation falling under the freedom of information legislation does not necessarily need a dedicated freedom of information officer. The role could be shared among some of the organisations. Perhaps some work should be done on determining how such efficiencies could be introduced.

Information is power, as Sweden has realised since 1776. Proper and proactive compliance with freedom of information legislation, according to both the letter and the spirit of the law, will inevitably lead to more open and transparent decision-making, more efficient processing of information and the abolition of an environment characterised by secrecy and obfuscation that foster suspicion and mistrust, not only of public administration but also of politics. Progressive freedom of information legislation such as this Bill is vital to smooth governance and can only help to repair the damage done by the nod, wink and stroke politics that was the oxygen that kept Fianna Fáil in power for decades but stunted the legitimate ambition of the State to take its place among other nations in respect of transparency and open government. I very much welcome the Bill and regard it not as the last step in ensuring and enshrining openness and transparency in government but as part of a progressive approach that will enhance transparency and foster a culture of allowing the citizen to gain access to information and empowering the citizen in respect of decision-making.

See this speech in context