John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to contribute to the debate. I welcome the content of the Bill and the reasons for its implementation. A more mature nation is one that is open, transparent, fair and accountable. Thankfully, we are moving away from a society in which secrecy breeds suspicion and a lack of trust and accountability. A Fine Gael and Labour Party Government introduced the original Act in 1997 and the same parties are now restoring it to what it was. Freedom of information from public bodies and all bodies funded significantly by the State is an integral part of any normally functioning democracy and, as such, information should be accessible and available in a cost effective way for those who require it.

When first introduced in the late 1990s, freedom of information requests provided a window to the workings of State bodies for the ordinary citizen. For the first time, we discovered the inner operations of bodies and organisations that previously we had been unable to access. Between the introduction of the Act in 1998 and the more restrictive and costly Freedom of Information Act 2003, many significant issues of public importance were uncovered. Media outlets, in particular, benefited by informing the public of what was important.

The previous Fianna Fáil-led Government was obviously uncomfortable with the way the Freedom of Information Act had evolved and in 2003 introduced a series of amendments at odds with the spirit of the original Act as it was first introduced. There was general disquiet about the system under which the Freedom of Information Act operated. As there are no Opposition Members in the Chamber, I will not get answers, but it would be interesting to hear how they defend their actions in 2003. I welcome the restoration of the original measures. The changes made it mandatory to refuse access to Government records, even though the information was only remotely connected to a Government decision.

That brings us to the fulfilment of a programme for Government commitment with this Bill. I am delighted to note the significant reduction in fees for requests. It would be ideal if fees were abolished, but that is not possible in the circumstances. We will see an increase in the number of freedom of information requests, which I see as a strength rather than a weakness. An open and transparent nation is a stronger one. A commitment was also given to restore the bodies made exempt in 2003. Full Cabinet papers will be released after five years, which is welcome. This will restore trust and confidence in the system as it will be seen to protect the rights of ordinary citizens.

A recent Supreme Court decision is relevant to the Freedom of Information Bill. The court held that a Garda Síochána superintendent investigating a case could not be the one to issue a search warrant for a house because his concern in the matter was not independent and impartial. Therefore, he could not act judiciously. With regard to a freedom of information request, any person concerned with the decision should not be appointed as the decision maker as the person cannot be considered to be independent or impartial and he or she cannot act judiciously. Such a person should be excluded from making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act. The practice in Ireland is that the person concerned with the matter is generally appointed as the decision maker.

This should not happen and I ask the Minister to look at that area again. I also hope that, because of the increased future demand, there will be sufficient staff and resources to get the information that is requested.

See this speech in context