Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I note what the Minister has said with some interest. There are legitimate and genuine concerns surrounding the current freedom of information regime, which are shared by journalists, researchers, citizens and victims of institutional abuse. Yet, instead of building on the 1997 introduction of FOI and ensuring that there would be a complete and robust mechanism to access information, what we have now is a flawed system that feeds directly into a lack of transparency and accountability. It is crystal clear that urgent action is needed to address the shortcomings in FOI. That is why myself and my colleague, Deputy Mairéad Farrell, drafted the FOI (amendment) Bill. Those shortcomings are being exploited in a manner that is simply wrong. They are being exploited with a view to limiting public access to information. The belief is now that there is a culture of loophole-seeking in order to obstruct requests. The public has a right to know. Yet, when they utilise legislation, the wagons are effectively circled to ensure that little or no information is provided.

We have seen FOI eroded, almost under constant threat, and altered to protect political elites. Information relating to former taoisigh's pensions is no longer included in FOI. Yet, at the same time, the Government tried to lock away the records of the mother and baby homes scandal. The recent admissions by the Tánaiste and the Minister for Foreign Affairs that they have both deleted relevant material from their phones erodes any level of public confidence in FOI. That erosion will continue without urgent action. It also begs the questions: "who else?" and “what else is being deleted?” Ministers are using disappearing messaging apps on their phones, or worse, having conversations with their Secretaries General, knowing full well that when there are no records, there is no accountability. We need robust procedures in every Department to ensure that Ministers can no longer destroy records that should be maintained. FOI requests, appropriately, should be dealt with and relevant material should be provided when requested.

The Minister quoted internal reviews in his contribution. Is he aware that there are public bodies that ignore FOI requests, even at internal review level, to the extent that that is then sent to the Office of the Information Commissioner?

I am sure the Minister will agree with annual reviews of all bodies to which FOI applies for consistency with principles, oversights, transparency and accountability. He has said that guidance documents are produced, manuals are produced and standardised training frameworks are in place. Would he not like to think they are being adhered to? Would he not like to have proof that they are being adhered to?

The powers of the Information Commissioner need to be enhanced because that body needs to be able to refer complaints under FOI to SIPO for investigation where a Minister or a relevant person has intentionally and recklessly failed in their obligations. I echo what Deputy Mairéad Farrell said earlier; democracy dies in darkness. The Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath, should not be the Minister who sees FOI die. That is not something he would want as a legacy. If he is genuinely serious about wanting to work with the Opposition to fix FOI, I would expect him to support our Bill when it comes forward. After all, our proposals are also contained in his statement.

See this speech in context