Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I commend Deputy Mairéad Farrell and Sinn Féin on bringing forward the motion, which is important. There is no doubt that the FOI legislation is in need of review. I welcome the Minister's statement and his commitment to ensuring that a review takes place. It is curious that we are talking about a review of freedom of information this week, given all that has happened in recent weeks with the Zappone debacle. An excuse put forward by several Ministers was that we needed to review freedom of information. That was put forward as some kind of explanation for why some of our Ministers did not comply with freedom of information. It would be a mistake to get into that kind of mindset, saying that we need a review and that the FOI legislation is problematic, which is why it was not handled properly. That is not the case and this should not be used in any way to distract from the mishandling of FOI requests by both the Minister, Deputy Coveney, and the Tánaiste.

I will talk about what is needed in the review but will first address what has happened in recent weeks regarding non-compliance with freedom of information. This started when questions were asked about how this famous envoy position came up, with the fact that there was no transparency. When the Minister, Deputy Coveney, was asked about that and for records of the communications that he had had with and about Katherine Zappone, he told us that he had deleted those text messages from his phone. The excuse that he gave the first time was that he needed to create storage space on his phone. The following day, he completely changed his story and said he did it for security reasons, because he had been hacked. He did not seem to realise that the FOI legislation applied to him as an officeholder. It is incredible that he did not seem to know that digital communications are covered by legislation on freedom of information. At what point did he delete those text messages? If he deleted them after FOI requests went to his Department, that is a serious offence.

We never really got satisfactory answers about that on either occasion when he came before the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. It was because his responses were so inadequate and untrue on the first occasion that he had to come back the second week to provide further explanations about what happened. That point has not been addressed adequately. If he did it after the request came into his Department, that is an offence. If he did it before the FOI request came into his Department, it is poor practice, at best. Ministers and office holders are required to ensure that any records, digital or otherwise, relating to Government business are retained.

If there was any reason for clearing his phone, and it is hard to imagine what reason there could be that would stand up, he was required to keep those texts to ensure a record of Government decisions or proposals was retained. He did not do that. His obligations are quite clear in that regard. What is extraordinary is the fact that he did not understand what his obligations under FOI were, despite being a Minister for ten years. If he did not understand those obligations, that is a serious matter. It indicates a certain attitude and approach to FOI that is not acceptable on the part of a Minister. We never got any proper explanation for that.

The other aspect of this recent saga is the attitude of the Tánaiste to FOI. Early on in this whole debacle, FOI requests were sumbitted. Jack Power from The Irish Timeswas one of the earliest people to submit a request to the Tánaiste's Department. After some time, he received a letter from the FOI officer in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. That letter, which Jack Power published, was very specific. It outlined in quite a bit of detail the lengths to which the officer had gone to respond to the request. He made it very clear that everything possible was done to try to identify whether records existed. He said that he carried out a comprehensive search within the Department. Not only did he do that, he also carried out interviews with a number of the Tánaiste's advisers who said there was nothing. Questions need to be asked about that. How was it that advisers to the Tánaiste gave replies? Surely, they would have checked with him. I accept he was on holidays but, nonetheless, an FOI request, especially in the circumstances in which those FOI requests were made, is a serious matter. Did the advisers check with the Tánaiste? Why was it so badly and inappropriately handled within the Tánaiste's Department? Again, we never got an explanation for that. Either the request was seriously mishandled and inaccurate responses were given or there is a similar lax and sloppy attitude to legal requirements on Ministers, and those advising them, in terms of compliance with FOI legislation.

Either way, these are serious developments in the two Departments. There are serious questions about the Minister, Deputy Coveney, and the Tánaiste in respect of their non-compliance. I would add it was curious that within a short space of time the FOI officer in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment left his post. You just have to wonder about that. This whole matter just does not stack up and leads people to believe that this was, at best, a lax attitude to FOI and, at worst, a cover-up. We still do not know which it was. It is unacceptable behaviour either way on the part of senior Ministers, or any Minister for that matter. That, along with many other things, was the reason many Deputies could not possibly vote confidence in the Minister tonight. There has to be a mechanism for ensuring there is close compliance with FOI requirements by all office holders. Steps have to be taken to ensure that that is the case. Is there adequate training for staff, Ministers and advisers? Can a system be put in place to ensure they are aware of their legal obligations? There is a serious chance they are not and that is being charitable to them.

On the general issue of FOI, there is a need for a substantial review to be carried out for other reasons. That is because of the frequent frustration of politicians and journalists when trying to access to information, which should be available to them as a matter of course when a parliamentary question is tabled or when a request for information is submitted to a Department. It is not acceptable that on so many occasions requests for information are flatly turned down and people are left with no option but to submit an FOI request. That is not what open government and transparency are about. The Minister has an obligation to ensure that while it is good that FOI legislation is there, it should be an absolute last resort. A culture should be developed within government. There is no indication whatsoever that that exists. An open government culture has to be created, which is about making as much information available as possible.

See this speech in context