Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to be here on behalf of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, who, as Senator Susan O’Keeffe pointed out, was sorry he was unable to take the full debate due to another commitment.

I thank all Senators for the constructive, informed and insightful contributions to this debate. This legislation is a real example of how parliamentary democracy and scrutiny of legislation can work very well.

We would all agree, including the Minister, Deputy Howlin, that the point at which we have now arrived with the Bill is even better than when it was first published. When we consider legislation from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, all too often attention is on the public expenditure side, important as this is, but the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, this legislation, along with legislation on whistleblowers, a register of lobbyists which picks up on the point made by Senator Byrne on who wanders the corridors here, and Civil Service renewal, are some examples of how we have seen true and meaningful reform in how we operate as a State and how the agencies under the auspices of the State operate also.
The broad support for this crucial legislation is most welcome and mirrors the positive response the legislation has received from the current and former information commissioners, which reflects many recommendations made by the office to improve the operation and effectiveness of Ireland's freedom of information regime.
As was highlighted in the opening speech of the Minister, Deputy Howlin, and also reflected in many of the contributions in the debate, freedom of information plays a key role in helping to keep the Government honest. It supports a climate underpinning more open, transparent and accountable government and administration. The Government's commitment on freedom of information in the programme for Government could not have been more clear cut on the restoration of freedom of information and its extension to all public bodies. The Bill delivers on these objectives. However, it should be clear to any person who looks at the Bill in detail that it does much more than just restore the status quo. In addition to consolidating freedom of information legislation, the Bill substantially modernises our freedom of information regime and contains significant innovations and enhancements.
It also strikes the right balance embodied in the Long Title of the original Freedom of Information Act, regarding enabling access by members of the public to official information consistent with the public interest, and we must remind ourselves of this. When the then Minister, Eithne Fitzgerald, introduced the Freedom of Information Act it was with this very purpose in mind, to ensure access for members of the public to official information consistent with the public interest. I am satisfied the Government's proposals navigate a balanced, proportionate and sensible course through the difficult and complex issues which can arise.
It should be emphasised that the principles of openness, transparency and accountability underpinning freedom of information are strengthened in the Bill by its provision for a general right of access to records and that they should be released unless they are found to be exempt. What is more, in applying exemptions the right of access must only be set aside where the exemptions clearly support a refusal of access so the presumption is there that one should have access to records.
The Bill also makes explicit what was always intended, that in performing their functions under the Act public bodies must have regard to the need to achieve greater openness and promote transparency in Government and public affairs and strengthen the accountability of public bodies and improve the quality of decision-making. As an aside, and it was touched upon during the debate, while we welcome the strengthening of freedom of information legislation as a society, State, Government and Oireachtas, we need to move to the point where information is readily available without the need to seek recourse to freedom of information. Every Department has websites and I was struck by Senator Quinn's reference to the US website. Let us put as much information as possible in the public domain to save people the hassle of having to go through freedom of information.
Transparency and accountability must be the yardsticks against which public bodies are measured when we speak of open government. Irrespective of the quality of the legislative framework for freedom of information, if it does not operate effectively the overall value and potential contribution of Ireland's freedom of information is weakened. Therefore, it is not surprising that many significant practical implementation and operational issues related to the implementation of freedom of information were also raised in the debate in this House, the other House and at committee meetings. Contributions made included points on the need for public bodies to have better records management, proactive publication of information in open format, a consistency of approach in dealing with freedom of information requests, and adequate training for staff on freedom of information. I and the Government strongly concur with all of these objectives and the drafting of a code of practice for freedom of information was embarked upon in this context.
As the Minister, Deputy Howlin, mentioned in his opening remarks, the preparation of the draft code was strongly informed by the work of an advisory group composed of experts on freedom of information drawn from the media, academia and civil society, with extensive experience of using the legislation to seek official information. I note this gathering of individuals seems to have upset Senator Norris, but when putting together an advisory group to look at a draft code the balance of people from media, academia and civil society is quite appropriate in terms of harnessing the extensive experience these groups can offer the Government and the Oireachtas.
There is broad acceptance that the implementation of freedom of information is quite uneven, with clear examples of where public bodies have adopted quite different approaches in their interpretation of their legal responsibilities to make official information accessible and available to the public. The code is strongly focused on addressing such inconsistencies and ensuring as much as possible that Ireland's freedom of information regime is operated by public bodies in a common template consistent with the aims and objectives of the legislation. As the Minister, Deputy Howlin, mentioned, the intention is that the code, which is at public consultation phase, will be finalised in tandem with the enactment of the legislation.
As was the case in the Dáil, there was a general welcome for the Government's proposals for the reform of the freedom of information fees regime, although I note Senator Reilly's comments to which I am sure we will return on Committee Stage. Senators would agree that the fee proposals as outlined represent an enormous advance on the current situation, and the abolition of the application fee in particular has been very warmly welcomed by the NGO sector. In terms of the public interest, it is essential to ensure the administrative system has the capability to effectively and efficiently manage the demand for freedom of information while at the same time being in a position to continue to provide a service to the public. The five hours free search and retrieval time and the cap of €500 on such charges should ensure the appropriate balance is achieved. It is about balance and ensuring, as Senator Conway touched on, people can access information and there is no barrier in terms of costs, and that the public service can manage the demand and deal efficiently and effectively with queries and provide the public, in the public interest, with the information required. Charging for actual time spent on search retrieval and copying in respect of a freedom of information request is a key feature of the many freedom of information fee regimes in OECD countries and is not one we propose to remove.
From the tone of the debate I reckon Senators welcome the provision included in the legislation which ensures freedom of information will apply automatically to all public bodies. Several contributions were made on various exclusions in whole or in part included by the Government in the public interest, and I note the comments of Senator Barrett. I am sure there will be an opportunity to debate and stress test these specific proposed exclusions on Committee Stage. As should be clear from the Bill, however, the Government has sought to frame the exclusions as narrowly as possible and target them precisely where it was concluded by the Government there was risk of serious harm to the public interest if particular records of specific public bodies were potentially available for release under freedom of information.
Senators will also note that to the greatest extent possible the Minister, Deputy Howlin, has provided for exemptions in a Schedule to the Bill, so they can be amended by way of ministerial order in light of experience under the legislation, and the Government's intention is to keep the Schedule under regular review.
There will be an opportunity to debate these issues more thoroughly on Committee Stage, but I will attempt to provide some context to the issue raised by Senator Byrne on the differentiation between ports, and I am sure this can be returned to on Committee Stage. All of the ports listed in the Schedule as exempt are those designated as commercial in legislation in the Harbours Act. At the time, a number of harbour authorities were transferred to local authorities and they are now subject to freedom of information. If there are further changes with more transfers to local authorities these can be considered in due course.
Senator Conway referred to electronic facilities. We continue to do all we can to move towards e-Government. We will have e-day on 19 September whereby public bodies will no longer accept cheques from businesses. We cannot compel ordinary members of the public to make payments electronically, but the changing fees regime will assist in this regard.
Senator Quinn made a number of points on record management. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, has acknowledged this and it has been a feature of the debate that improvements can be made on records management, and this is provided for in the draft code of practice. Senator Quinn also spoke about contractors providing services to the Government. Where bodies provide services under contract to a freedom of information body, they will be covered by the regime. I presume this will be a feature of the debate we will have on Committee Stage.
Senator O'Donovan sought clarification on whether An Taisce is covered by the legislation. An Taisce is not covered under the Freedom of Information Act by which we are governed today. Section 7 of the Bill contains a power to enable bodies funded by the Exchequer to be brought under the Act. Consideration will be given to which bodies should be brought in as a priority in due course. Criteria will have to be agreed as we need to ensure proportionality. No Senator or Member of the Oireachtas wishes to see small bodies in receipt of small sums overburdened, but a number of bodies receive significant public funding and such bodies can be brought in under the Act by way of ministerial order with the passage of a positive resolution in both Houses.

Obviously Senator O'Donovan has strong views in relation to An Taisce. While this is an issue he can return to on Committee State, that is the factual position.

Senator Barrett referred to the issue of parliamentary questions. All Ministers attempt to answer them and certainly the current Government is doing so in the most wholesome way possible. Certainly I try to answer mine in that manner. There is recourse for Members who are not satisfied with the answer to seek to have the Ceann Comhairle adjudicate or if a question is disallowed or if they feel the question has not been answered adequately. I take the point he made which is similar to the point I made, namely, that if we can make more information readily available, people will not need to have recourse to FOI.

The six North-South bodies established under the British-Irish Agreement 1999, with Tourism Ireland which was established separately under the framework of the British-Irish Agreement, operate under an FOI code of practice for North-South bodies which has been approved by the North-South Ministerial Council and which has regard to the FOI legislation operating in both the UK and Ireland.

The Government has decided that it would be more appropriate for these bodies to continue to operate under the code of practice approved by the North-South Ministerial Council rather than to bring them under this FOI legislation in respect of their activities in this jurisdiction. Those seven bodies are the language body, the special European Union programmes body, the Food Safety Promotion Board, the trade and business development body known as InterTradeIreland, Waterways Ireland, the Loughs Agency and Tourism Ireland. That is the rationale behind those seven bodies.

I thank Senators for their insightful and detailed contributions. A number of issues have been raised to which we will return on Committee Stage.