Seanad debates
Tuesday, 4 March 2003
Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Second Stage (Resumed).
2:30 pm
David Norris (Independent)
There is a lack of balance and the Government needs to convince legislators that there is a sense of proportion in the Bill. I deliberately emphasise that I have not shown myself to be totally antagonistic, but I understand the practical working reasons. From this position of sympathy with that of the Government, I ask that it examine closely and address the practical issues I have raised in terms of the Bill's impact.
The Government has not done a particularly good job in respect of the method of introduction of the Bill. Its arrival in the House was precipitant. I am not impugning the personnel at all, but questions must be asked about the fact that five wise persons were charged with the responsibility of making recommendations and that there was no public consultation and that the very people represented by the National Union of Journalists, which is the largest block of requesters, were actually refused the opportunity to discuss this matter with the responsible Ministers. Most significantly, the Information Commissioner was not involved. These facts demonstrate an astonishing run-up to the production of the Bill. However, having said that, I understand the necessity, in terms of good governance, to control access to information.
As a long-suffering Member of this House, I note that there is much nonsense in respect of ethics in public office, etc. I am blistered from filling out forms exposing my financial inadequacies to the people. I see no reason why they should be entitled to such information and I assure the House that anybody like me who lists a few ould shares on a form is the last person who will defraud anybody. Who is that little man with the glasses who used to be Government press secretary?
No comments