DAIL DEBATES

Sitting Time
Sitting Date
14:10
27 March 2003

Mr. Kelleher: We are speaking about freedom of information, but a good deal of misinformation has been spread around these Houses in the past few days. Everybody would accept that the Freedom of Information Act has been beneficial to the public, the Opposition and Government and to ensuring openness, transparency and accountability in our political system. The Act was not designed to address some of the problems highlighted in the previous contribution. It has transformed the way we do business in this House and in Government and, more importantly, how the public can get a service from the public service which in the past was secretive, unanswerable and unaccountable. If nothing else, the Freedom of Information Act has at least addressed that issue. There is now accountability in a plethora of public agencies ranging from county councils to health boards right through to the Civil Service. The Act has been of great benefit to people in general.
The major users of the Freedom of Information Act are journalists and it has been beneficial to them in carrying our their function of trying to relay to the people what is happening in Government and in the public service. Some exciting stories have emerged in recent years as a result of the Act.
When this original legislation was passed it was intended that it would be reviewed at some stage and one has been carried out. People have said that there was no consultation on this Bill, but the fact that we have debated it in the Seanad, in committee and are doing so in the Dáil is what consultation and debating an issue is all about. We meet here as parliamentarians to debate issues. This House is the most important forum for any form of debate and to suggest otherwise diminishes the role we have in this Parliament.
The issue of fees for FOI requests is one which the Opposition would like to target, but it does not seem to understand that often spurious requests have been submitted to freedom of information officers in Departments.

Ms Lynch: There have been very few, only a handful.

Mr. Kelleher: In some cases costs of several thousands of euro have been incurred by the Civil Service in processing freedom of information to be almost spurious in that there was no
targeted request but one which required a trawl through a Department to find out some information or story. That has happened in the past and has cost a great deal of money. The Minister stated that he will examine the fees he will charge and will provide a nominal charge for people who do not have the means to pay the set fee. That is a positive step, which responsibility is an important plank of Cabinet. We must protect the confidentiality of Cabinet decisions. Memoranda brought to Government may be discussed and referred to a sub-committee. Discussion on these issues surely deserve the respect of having been made in confidence until such time as a
decision is made-----

Ms Lynch: In secret.

Mr. Kelleher: -----and then the records can be released in the
appropriate timeframe. The previous Government which was in office for five years was returned and, given that it has a large majority, it could run to full term. It is suggested the records of Ministers who have brought memoranda to Cabinet and expressed individual opinions prior to a collective decision being made on an issue should be released. That would undermine the principle of Cabinet responsibility. If we are to have effective Government, Ministers should be free to express their opinions on a variety of issues, not only those that arise in their Departments before decisions are made at Cabinet level. If such documents are released into the public domain, that will not encourage free thinking, debate or individual contributions because they could be misconstrued later where comments were made at the backdrop of a different time. I welcome the ten year provision in this regard.
The ten year timeframe is not excessive. A 20 year timeframe applies in Canada and the timeframe in many other countries is more extensive than the ten year timeframe suggested in the Bill. We must address that issue, on which many people have widely commented. For example, does my party want to know what is discussed at the Labour Party Parliamentary Party?

Ms Lynch: That is entirely different.

Mr. Kelleher: Has it not an entitlement to meet collectively in
confidence to discuss issues, although I appreciate it is difficult to discuss issues in confidence in any parliamentary party? The Front Bench of the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party have an entitlement to discuss their views in confidence. The same should apply to Government. Its members need to be able to discuss issues, reflect on views, comment on issues, come to a decision and stand by it collectively, and later those records will be released. The five year timeframe suggested is too short.

We have come a long way in a short time regarding the accountability of Government. We have had problems in the past, with tribunals being set up to investigate issues, and that has ingrained in the public consciousness the need for open, honest and transparent Government. The Freedom of Information Act is one part of that and the Ethics in Public Office Act is another. The fact that we now have a more targeted view of what Government is about has endeared itself to the Irish people. I am sure those watching this debate will raise questions about freedom of information. Debate is what the House is all about and it is disingenuous of people to say there has not been wide consultation. The fact is that a high-powered group was set up to review the legislation because it was
creating inefficiencies in Government.

Ms Lynch: They said they do not want this.

Mr. Kelleher: I was led to believe Governments decided policy and that it was then up to Departments and other bodies to enact that policy. Some comments about the incoming Information Commissioner have been very unfair, such as the suggestion she would resign if this Act were passed during her term. It is very unfortunate that we are trying to undermine the new Information Commissioner, who is soon to be appointed and it is regrettable that one of the Opposition party leaders suggested this and undermined her independence. We decide policy and pass legislation and I am confident the new Information Commissioner will act in an impartial and
independent manner, as is expected of those appointed to that position. I wish her the best of luck.
Regarding sub-committees and officials, Opposition Members who have been in Government know how the system works. A Minister receives a memorandum from another Department for observations and the Minister's officials comment on it; a Cabinet sub-committee may then be set up to examine proposals coming forward from various Ministers. To have any free thinking or credibility the integrity of that process has to be protected so that Ministers can express opinions with confidence. If all those discussions were available to the public, nothing would happen in Government; the Opposition would be highlighting issues day in day out because one Minister said something to another. Ministers do not make decisions. The Cabinet makes collective decisions.
Many individuals have benefited from being able to access personal
information and that option, whereby an individual can apply for
information, has brought a new approach from the public service. For
example, once a person had to put in a request for examination information under the freedom of information legislation but now that is made available. That shows the Act is not just of benefit to the individual but, because the public service has acknowledged the Act is in place, it is becoming more proactive in giving out information without having to receive an application.

Ms Lynch: A cultural change.

Mr. Kelleher: It is a cultural change - I thank Deputy Lynch.
There has been a lot of misinformation circulated about the amendments to the Freedom of Information Act but I support the thrust of the new Act for the reasons outlined. If we could have used the time allocated for the debate in a constructive manner then more Deputies could have expressed their opinions. I now there are parliamentary tactics used from time to time but calling quorums and manual votes is unfair to Members who want to discuss an important Bill
There are swings and roundabouts in politics and at some point
colleagues opposite will be in Government; then the test will be whether they change the Act. When they look at how Government works, the proposed changes here, such as the extension of time limits on the release of Cabinet documents and the exemption of ministerial notes from publication, will allow them to express their views in confidence, yet openly and honestly among themselves. It is not a question of whether a party is in Government singly or in coalition; it is a matter of individuals making comments privately and those comments being amalgamated into a collective view. That is what Government is about. Anyone entrusted with ensuring that policies are enacted and that there is proper debate would support these provisions. They would not be worth their salt if they did not, as it would show if they were in Government they would be unwilling to make decisions in the first place.
I support the general thrust of these provisions. Regarding the fees, the Minister will ensure that there is a nominal charge for those who may not have the means to pay higher fees. The Minister is anxious that there is some form of charge in order that the service is appreciated and is not abused. A request was once made for the diaries of all Ministers and departmental officials. That would cost the taxpayer thousands of euro.

Ms Lynch: There was one.

Mr. Kelleher: The Act was not passed with that purpose in mind. I hope this Act has a speedy passage to ensure we have collective
governance---

Ms Lynch: All this Government's Bills have a speedy passage.

Mr. Kelleher: ---and that the Government continues to make decisions in the interests of the country. The policies it outlined in the last election will then be implemented and we will have effective Government without fearing the Freedom of Information Act will be abused by individuals to embarrass people. Decisions made in 1999 may be viewed differently in 2005 because of a different historical perspective.
I commend the Bill to the House.