Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Being contrary must be a fundamental part of what we are trying to do because too much groupthink was a feature of the time. Freedom of information, the extension of the Ombudsman's power, the work done to regulate lobbyists and whistleblowing legislation is a fundamental part of the reform that will lead this country back to health. We must radically overhaul the way in which we view information for people because, as Deputy Durkan rightly stated, this is the public's information and we must encourage absolute accountability at all levels of government.

Major international companies consider the openness of a country's public administration system so this is not just good for ourselves and our citizens, it is also good for the reputation of this country abroad as a place for people to come to do business. Companies will not invest in a country with restrictions on information and which does not operate to international norms, which is also important. I am a great believer in giving the public as much information as possible, which takes away the sometimes distorted view of information that elements of the media sometimes like to present.

The firm view of the Minister, Deputy Howlin, and the Government is that this is an essential part of our programme of reform and the negotiated programme for Government. Some colleagues suggested that this is simply restoring the status quo that obtained before the previous Government butchered the legislation some years ago. We contend that this is not a restoration of the status quo but an extension of those rights and that legislation. There is a significant number of improvements and enhancements in the Bill which we will have the opportunity to go through on Committee Stage. Some very fine contributions have been made on all sides and it is the firm intention of the Minister to consider those ideas on Committee Stage to see if we can improve the Bill according to what colleagues are suggesting. With freedom of information, there must be a general right of access to records, which should be released unless they are found to be exempt. That is the cornerstone of the legislation and what we are trying to achieve.

Many contributions referred to implementation issues. People want to see much better record management across public bodies and there should be proactive publication of information in an open format. There must be a consistency of approach in dealing with freedom of information requests across the public administration system and there must be adequate training on freedom of information. With this in mind I inform the House that it is the intention of the Minister, Deputy Howlin, to shortly bring before the Government a draft code of practice for freedom of information for the first time. That is important to note as we often see a different approach with freedom of information, depending on the public authority with which one deals. This will provide more streamlining and consistency in the approach, which I know colleagues have sought, and it comes on foot of some significant work on the advisory group, which is composed of experts on freedom of information drawn from some of the groups referred to by Deputy Durkan. The work is not yet completed and we hope the code, which is to be approved by the Government following the Minister's proposal, will help to bring about consistency in the area.

The issue of fees has been raised consistently and we have attempted in the legislation to apply the international standard to the matter. The application of fees applies in a minority of cases and not in personal cases whatever. Our view is formed by the 2002 report of the Canadian access to information review task force, which states:

Fees were not intended as a cost-recovery mechanism and should never be an obstacle to legitimate requests. They should act as an incentive for focussed requests and as a safeguard for the sustainability of the system.

In the way we are focusing the legislation, fees are not supposed to be a disincentive to people obtaining information. There must be some balance with regard to the non-personal information being sought, and we believe we have obtained that balance. We will discuss the matter in greater detail on Committee Stage.

With regard to exemptions, Deputies have welcomed the provision included in the legislation which ensures that freedom of information applies automatically to all public bodies. It is worth saying that exemptions form part of a Schedule to the Bill, which is important. Based on our experience of how this works, rather than waiting for a new piece of legislation, the Minister can by ministerial order take out some exemptions. Essentially, if a Minister believes the exemptions should be amended, he or she can do so by means of ministerial order; the issue would come before the House but would not require separate legislation. This is a realistic approach to the exemption question based on the experience of the legislation and how it works in a real sense.

There was a third discussion across the Government with regard to commercial State bodies and the Minister spoke with Cabinet colleagues before the Bill was published. There is now a regulatory oversight with regard to semi-State companies, which are key strategic assets for the country. They are not normal public bodies, as some would suggest, and much of the information is commercially sensitive; therefore, there must be a balanced view on how much information would go into the public domain. It should be said that representatives of virtually all these bodies now come before committees of the House and make their information available to us. Such information is also obtained by regulatory function in one shape or another. As they are assets of the people, we cannot limit the potential growth of commercial State bodies by making it so onerous as to give all information to the public domain.

This has been a useful and fair debate, and I know it is the firm intention of the Minister to deal with all these issues on Committee Stage. Points were made about genealogy etc. and we will have the opportunity to debate those in greater detail at the next Stage. This is a key part of what the Government is trying to do in freeing information and ensuring the public has access to that information. We must send a strong signal across public institutions that the public has a right to know what is going on. I take the point made earlier by Deputy Eoghan Murphy that by giving the information to the public in the first instance and making it available through the web and other sources, the number of requests for freedom of information will be diminished. That is the gold standard we must obtain and the Government is setting it now. There is major support for this legislation, which is not just revisiting the original amendments to the law but rather it is setting out a vision for freedom of information into the future.

See this speech in context