Seanad debates

Thursday, 18 September 2014

Freedom of Information Bill 2013: Second Stage

 

1:00 pm

Photo of Sean BarrettSean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I know of the enthusiasm the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, has brought to this area. Our briefing note tells us that overall, the Bill has been cautiously welcomed by stakeholders and commentators. The spirit of the Bill is very welcome. In his speech the Minister referred to seven extensions but the Bill refers to 38 exemptions on pages 79 and 80. Each one of those should be discussed on the next Stage. How do people manage to talk themselves out of something which the Minister and Minister of State are persuaded of? The clue I always seek in legislation is who has opted out. Thirty-eight bodies have opted out.

I am nervous about the use of PR people. The executives of State companies to whom we pay substantial sums of money should not employ PR agencies or departments. They should answer questions. I am critical of Irish Water in that regard.

Will the Minister of State confirm the position of Irish Water in this regard? The briefing notes we have state the exclusion from freedom of information of Irish Water has been criticised, in particular due to the fact the agency will have a monopoly on water provision in the State and derive 100% of its income from the public. It was not mentioned in the Minister’s speech but is contained in the briefing notes from the helpful Library and Research Service.

I have seen some of the correspondence concerning Part V planning applications, which is draconian, to say the least. The public is treated with contempt by some county councils, which is against the spirit of this legislation. The absence in the Minister’s speech to local government was notable too and must be reviewed on subsequent Stages. In the past, many decades ago, councillors were corrupt and, therefore, significant local government powers were transferred to county management. This must be brought in under this legislation in the interests of the democratic openness as was intended by Eithne Fitzgerald when she introduced this legislation.

Senator Norris blamed the legislation for introducing a tradition of not writing anything down. However, I do not blame the legislation but the way the Sir Humphreys responded to it in seeking to circumvent what the Houses wished to have implemented. It is a serious problem in the banking inquiry, which the Minister of State knows about as he was on the Committee of Public Accounts which investigated it thoroughly two years ago. At crucial stages, records were not kept, which the Department of Finance told the Committee of Public Accounts. The phrase used by the committee was that it just ran into the sand investigating some matters. Why did codes of conduct for bank directors disappear, for example? There should not be a get-out-of-jail clause because of not writing matters down. The incorporeal Cabinet meeting should also fall into this category.

The misleading answers to parliamentary questions goes right back to work Senator Susan O’Keeffe did many years ago. The hundreds of hours and hundreds of thousands of euro spent on inquiries would not have been needed if people had answered parliamentary questions properly. I hope this culture can be got out of the system. The purpose of a parliamentary question is to give the information to the Deputy, not to conceal it to such a degree that so much parliamentary time and public moneys are subsequently wasted.

Tourism Ireland, InterTradeIreland and Waterways Ireland are exempted bodies but are vital North-South bodies created under the Good Friday and St. Andrews Agreements. All politicians want to get together in a spirit of openness. I do not understand how cross-Border bodies cannot disclose information to either Members, Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly or citizens of both jurisdictions. How did 38 bodies, in the face of overwhelming public and Cabinet opinion regarding the extension of freedom of information, manage to persuade the Minister that they should not be included in it?

I support the Minister’s intentions with this Bill. If there is anything I can do from these benches to assist in introducing the kind of public administration envisaged in the legislation, I would be delighted to do so.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.