Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am delighted at being back in the Seanad and wish all Members a fruitful new parliamentary session.

I am pleased to bring the Freedom of Information Bill 2013 before the Seanad today. This Bill has benefitted significantly from the detailed consideration given in its passage through the other House and I look forward to an equally constructive and productive debate in this House.

In line with the programme for Government commitment, the primary purpose of the Bill is threefold: to restore the substance of the access to information regime put in place in the original 1997 Act; to extend freedom of information, FOI, to all public bodies, including some noteworthy long-standing exclusions, as well as providing the power to extend FOI to non-statutory bodies that get significant funding from the Exchequer; and to enhance and strengthen our FOI legislation so that it works more effectively and is consistent wholly with the objectives for FOI set out in the initial 1997 legislation.

The FOI Bill is, of course, merely one of a broad suite of political and legislative reforms which the Government has initiated. Since I became Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, I have placed great emphasis on the reform element of that role and I intend to continue to focus on delivering open, accountable and ethical public governance arrangements in Ireland for both the operation of Government and the public service generally. My aim has been to strengthen citizens' trust in Government and in the institutions of the State and to promote a transparent, efficient and effective public system.

Real progress has been made on many fronts, including, as this House will be aware because of its detailed consideration of these pieces of legislation, the extension of the Ombudsman's remit in 2012, the enactment of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Bill in 2013; the recent enactment of the protected disclosures legislation better known as the whistleblowers' Act, the publication of the draft Bill to regulate lobbying, the overhaul of ethics legislation and preparation of a general scheme which is at an advanced stage of preparation and on which I look forward to returning here shortly, significant steps to advance Ireland's participation in the open government partnership, OGP, which I recommended to Government, and the development of proposals to strengthen Civil Service accountability on which front significant initiatives will be advanced in this parliamentary session. The reform of FOI legislation is central to the Government's goal of rebuilding public trust in the State and to enhancing public governance through a significant strengthening of openness, transparency and accountability of government and public administration.

The introduction of freedom of Information in 1998 was a milestone in terms of defining the relationship between the Administration and the citizen. Effectively, it substituted the presumption of openness in relation to official information for the presumption of secrecy which had existed up until then. It also allowed both citizens and commentators to become much more informed on the deliberations which preceded decisions affecting them. Before FOI, the work of the Administration was carried out behind closed doors in accordance with legislation such as the Official Secrets Acts. The introduction of FOI lifted this veil of secrecy for the first time, allowing information relating to the governing of the State to be made openly available to the public. FOI has also been instrumental in bringing issues of vital public concern into the public domain and has facilitated stronger oversight of the actions of Government and the public service.

The 2003 amendment Act introduced by the then Government severely restricted access to records in a number of respects and represented a significant curtailment of the approach to openness and transparency that the 1997 Act had introduced. My starting point in introducing this reforming legislation was to reverse the majority of the 2003 changes so that Ireland's FOI regime could again compare favourably with the best access regimes internationally.

In that regard, I am reversing the wide definition of Government introduced in the 2003 amending legislation. I am amending the strict definition of what constitutes a Cabinet record and restoring the original definition. Communications between members of Government will no longer be exempt from FOI. The ten-year prohibition on the release of Cabinet records is being restored to the original five-year gap - one of the most liberal provisions on access to Cabinet records that exists anywhere. The mandatory power to refuse an FOI request relating to Government records, or records to be submitted to Government, introduced in 2003 Act is being removed. The power for Secretaries General of Departments to certify the existence of a deliberative process with no scope for appeal is being repealed, and the public interest test applying to records relating to the deliberative process is being restored - that replicates what was in the original Act.

The reform of the legislation provides for some liberalisation of the mandatory 'class' exemption put in place in 2003 in relation to diplomatic communications and defence matters. Significant protections for highly sensitive or obviously secret information will be maintained.

The restriction of the Act to the costing by a public body of political party proposals is also being repealed. Where a commercial State body provides a service under a contract to a public body subject to FOI, the records relating to that service will now also be subject to FOI. In addition, I am removing the power to impose an application fee for making FOI requests.

In terms of extending the application of FOI, I am proposing to introduce a generic definition which will allow the Act to apply to all public bodies subject to strictly limited exemptions as set out in this Bill. As I did in other provisions I brought this House, everybody is included unless there is a compelling legislative reason to exclude him or her that must be set out in law. This represents a reversal of the current position where a public body is included only if it is explicitly scheduled in the Bill. This will result in a number of long-standing high profile exclusions from FOI being brought under the scope of the legislation, including An Garda Síochána; public financial bodies such as the NTMA, NAMA, the NPRF, the NDFA and the Central Bank of Ireland; and the refugee agencies.

As a result of this new structure, public bodies excluded either in whole or in part from FOI need to be specifically set out in the Bill. This introduces a high degree of transparency in respect of any body that is not subject to the exclusions and ensures that there is a full examination by the Oireachtas of the rationale for any proposed exclusion in the future. In that regard, I am providing that a positive resolution of both Houses will be required before any orders are made concerning the application of FOI to bodies. If there is any change, including or excluding, it will have to come before the House and stand up on its own merits.

Certain exemptions are proposed in the public interest for some bodies. FOI does need to perform a balancing act between meeting the public need for information while seeking to deliver public administration effectively. In the interests of transparency, I have adopted a policy of providing, to the greatest extent possible, for the exemptions from FOI for public bodies, in whole or in part, in a Schedule to the Bill. It is important to note that the inclusion of exemptions for specific public bodies in the Schedule is intended to facilitate scope for their removal or amendment if that decision was to be taken at any time in the future.

Official information held by the public sector can and should be made available but without compromising citizens or leading to privacy concerns. It is an interesting balance. I gave a talk on FOI at a public forum. As I went into that public forum a group protested on one side demanding transparency while a group protesting at the other side of the door was demanding privacy. There are concerns that we get the balance right, particularly in regard to private information in respect of any individual citizen.