Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Harris. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, explained the Bill well before the Minister of State arrived. I remember well the introduction of the 1997 Bill and I was doubtful as to whether we should support it. I have now become an enthusiastic supporter of freedom of information and I wish to make some suggestions for improvement.

I got some information yesterday from the Genealogical Society of Ireland - it raised a number of questions and suggestions and, like Senator Byrne, I would like sufficient time to go through the Bill properly to table amendments on Committee Stage. I very much welcome the legislation because the general feeling is there has been some regression in the area of freedom of information. The FOI system has been of great benefit to society in uncovering scandals and it should be viewed in a positive way.

As was widely noted, Ireland is the only country in Europe with mandatory, up-front charges for all freedom of information requests. According to reports, the only other country permitting such charges is Malta but they are not routinely applied. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, explained the steps that will be taken to cover this issue.

There is a need for legislation on electronic records and an amendment in this area may be necessary. I am interested in State institutions that keep electronic records. Article 19, a human rights organisation, has stated that in many countries one of the biggest obstacles to accessing information is the poor state in which records are kept. There is, therefore, a need for legislation on electronic records. Despite this being the era of e-mail, there is still much confusion around how Government Department records are stored. I notice the Bill requires public bodies to prepare and furnish publication schemes consistent with international best practice to promote the proactive publication of information outside of FOI. There are other important questions on this. Who oversees a Department's records and decides which documents to keep? Is it normal for a Department to move its papers regularly? Perhaps the Minister would accept an amendment requiring State bodies to store electronic communications, especially e-mails. This would contribute to the freedom of information by serving the public and setting conditions for the future.

There is a need for a public spending website. The key principle underlying the Freedom of Information Act 1997 was allowing the public access to official information. This principle can be achieved in ways other than parliamentary questions, which are inefficient, and freedom of information requests. To cut down on freedom of information requests I have argued on several occasions that we should include all public bodies in a simple, easily accessible public spending website. This website would be based on the US Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act 2006, which was introduced by Barack Obama when he was a Senator. It has worked well in the US.

The number of FOI requests would fall dramatically if the public had access to more raw data. It would not be necessary to ask a local TD to raise questions in the Dáil if the data were available. Patients should be able to access medical records more easily as this relates to freedom of information and transparency. They could then keep track of their health and make more informed decisions. A study conducted for the European Commission states that only 4% of European hospitals grant patients online access to their medical records.

Could Government contractors be subject to FOI?

I suggest this could be an amendment.
It is interesting to note, in the context of the extension of FOI by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform as contained in this Bill, that the Scottish Government considered extending its transparency laws to major Government contractors. While the plan was overwhelmingly popular, it was dropped on the grounds that the contractors themselves were opposed to it, understandably. Does the Minister of State have a view on this? If a contractor is in receipt of millions of euro in taxpayers' money, surely the public is entitled to get an insight into that business? The Minister explained earlier that bodies such as charities in receipt of significant sums of public money will also be covered by the FOI provisions.
Would it be possible to provide for the naming and shaming of State bodies that do not release information? There is an interesting example of this from the United States of America in the form of the foia.govwebsite, launched in 2011, which allows people to see whether agencies are fulfilling their obligations to disclose information under the freedom of information legislation of that country.
Can businesses use FOI more?I believe that is an interesting question to consider. Can businesses make more use of information generated by the State and turn such information into successful business ideas and create jobs? I believe there is an opening there.
I would also like to raise the issue of the wiping of information from Google searches by employees of State bodies. I note that under the legislation it will be an offence to "wilfully and without lawful excuse" either destroy or alter a record that is the subject of an FOI request. While there are sanctions for bodies that destroy their own records, do we need sanctions or fines if public bodies do not keep records? Do we need to get State bodies to do more in this area to ensure that they keep records? On a related note, as we have seen in recent months, private citizens now have the ability to wipe certain information from Google. Last May, a court ruling reinforced people's "right to be forgotten". However, I wonder if people employed in State institutions could ask Google to "forget" certain information. Do we need to include something in this legislation to ensure that civil servants do not simply apply to Google to make certain information that is not to their liking less accessible? That is a legitimate question. If we do not include a provision in this legislation to protect against such action then the public's access to information could be limited. For instance, if a Department was involved in some sort of scandal, staff could ask that this information be removed from a Google search. Should this be allowed? It is an interesting question to consider in the context of this legislation.
The Bill covers a broad area and it is only when we get down to studying it in detail that we will realise how much is in it. I urge that we be given adequate time to consider the Bill. Senator Byrne said earlier that he is concerned that we might not have enough time but I am sure the Leader and the Cathaoirleach will give us enough time to debate the legislation properly in this House. I welcome the Bill and believe the legislation is in good hands - its provisions were explained very fully to us today.