I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. The number of speakers offering in the House shows the interest that has been generated by the amendments put forward by the Minister for Finance.
The Freedom of Information Act 1997, which came into force in 1998, has made a valuable contribution to the working of the State and public administration. Since the early 1990s there have been great improvements in the deliberative process of this House with the establishment of legislative committees, both select and joint committees. Prior to the establishment of those committees, a person had an opportunity to contribute on a Bill only on Second Stage, Committee Stage and Report Stage. The establishment of the committees gave Members of the Oireachtas, both of Dáil and Seanad Éireann, the opportunity to engage with officials from Departments and with Ministers in committee on the subjects of the day. It has led to increased and better partici pation by Members of the Oireachtas in our administrative system in general.
Over the past number of years Deputy McCreevy, as Minister for Finance, has provided additional resources for the working of this House, particularly for the individual Members of the Oireachtas. It is not many years since each Deputy had to share a secretary, and before that three to four Deputies had to share a secretary. The Minister brought in some very valuable improvements, both with allowances and additional personnel and resources for the Houses in general and for the political parties represented in this House. This has enabled the parties to do a better job in their work in public representation, both in advancing their own political platforms and in representing the needs of their constituents. I am very appreciative of those additional resources the Minister has given to the Oireachtas in general and to individual Members.
There is a need for further improvement in this regard. One of the big drawbacks for Deputies and Senators, as representatives of the people, is the inadequate support they have for their own particular needs. Any of us who has a secretary based in his or her constituency knows that after spending three or four days here during the week we return to find nothing but calls missed and calls to be returned. It can be very frustrating. I sympathise particularly with Front Bench spokespersons of Opposition parties, who bear a particularly heavy workload. They should have proper research and secretarial assistance to enable them to examine more thoroughly the different legislative issues that come before them.
We should consider the extra resources that have been given to many voluntary organisations. Many people who are working in these or in the many groups that have been established over the past few years have much better personal resources available to them than do individual Members of this House. I know of people in community groups who have a personal assistant as well as other support staff. I see that Deputy Burton is nodding in agreement – I am sure that many of those groups working in the community sector have much better resources available to them than Deputy Burton has as spokesperson for her party in the important area of finance.
Examining the very welcome growth that has occurred in non-governmental organisations throughout the country, we can see that these organisations are much better resourced than some of the Members of this House. Ministers rightly have a fine complement of staff and their own personal offices, and such staff are obviously needed. Departments can also provide necessary back-up for their Ministers. The Houses of the Oireachtas, however, should also be better resourced. The Minister, Deputy McCreevy, is the one Minister for Finance who has addressed that issue, but I would like to see him provide additional resources.
The importance of the Freedom of Information Act is evident. It is proposed to extend the number of bodies covered by the Act from 67 State bodies in 1998 to about 370 today. The Government is right to propose to extend coverage to other appropriate State and semi-State bodies by 2005. There has been a welcome improvement in the area of public administration and there is a more open culture in the Government and in our system of administration than there was in the past. The Office of the Revenue Commissioners holds clinics in different towns throughout the regions. Sometimes people might rather not see the Revenue Commissioners coming to an area, but we all know that many people have gone to those clinics, met the inspector of taxes and the support staff and, instead of having to seek professional assistance, received help from the officials of the office in dealing with their concerns about certain tax matters.
In the area of agriculture a whole new range of schemes has been established, particularly since the early 1990s. The Department of Agriculture and Food holds open days and evenings, and officials participate in public meetings organised by farming organisations. Fifteen or 20 years ago, this would not have been heard of. It is a welcome development and should be improved upon.
In the early years of the State, certainly in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, there was a 50-year rule in relation to the release of Cabinet papers. This timeframe has been dramatically reduced in recent years, which is right. I do not know where people came up with the idea of having Cabinet papers available after five years. That is much too short a duration. If Government is to be effective, its debates must be vigorous. No Minister should be constrained in what he or she says in Cabinet or in the arguments he or she uses based on beliefs or the viewpoint of a particular Department. Healthy debate at Cabinet level is essential if proper decisions are to be reached.
In many instances, the release of Cabinet papers after five years could create difficulties for people who are still serving at high level in government. I am sure that Ministers often have to set aside their constituency interests to support decisions at Government level that may have a negative effect on their areas. It would not serve Government, public administration or the role of the public representative well if the detail of such instances was available after five years. It could compromise a person's work at local level as a representative of his or her constituents.
We have a very good public service, which has served Governments of all political hues and has never been compromised. Great credit is due to the public service in general for its work on behalf of the people. Regardless of what political party or parties form the Government of the day, public servants carry on their work with due diligence and attention. They work as they see fit, giving honest service to the people. Often we do not give due regard to the work of the many public servants who go beyond the call of duty to serve their Departments and the wider interests of the public. The Ceann Comhairle and I, representing Border counties over the years of the Troubles, had much contact with officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in relation to difficulties along the Border. I found the officials in both Departments to be extremely competent and committed to helping the people in those areas who were facing difficulties in going about their business on a daily basis. I record again my appreciation for the civil servants in both Departments who did so much good work over the years when the political climate on this island, especially in Ulster, was not as favourable as it is today.
I mentioned earlier the need for better resources in the Houses of the Oireachtas. We need this if we are to decipher and give the necessary examination to legislation and policy statements from Departments. The Opposition needs proper resources and Government backbenchers should have better resources available to enable them to conduct proper research, to prepare for debates and to prepare policy statements. I welcome the Minister's strong reiteration that there will be no limitations on a person's seeking personal information. It is very important that records of a person held in any Department, semi-State body or hospital should be readily available to him or her.
If fees are introduced, we should ensure that students, people on low incomes or no wages and pensioners are exempt in all reasonable circumstances from incurring such charges. I noted recently that one person had made 466 requests under the FOI legislation in 1998. I do not know who could genuinely have so many interests that they would need to make that number of requests. We should ensure that the legislation is adequate to ensure that vexatious requests are not made.
Many people in the House and outside it have mentioned that the FOI legislation will be restrictive after this Bill has gone through the House. I understand the Canadian Legislature applies a blanket restriction for 20 years over a wide range of records under the general heading of "Cabinet confidentiality". We often think of the Scandinavians in their various systems of governance having very liberal regimes. However, in Sweden detailed memoranda are never brought to government. That surely precludes much examination of the records of government or the discussions that took place at government.
In introducing this legislation, the Minister is striking the right balance. He is ensuring that the legislation will be extended to cover other State and semi-State bodies. If governance and government is to mean anything, we must ensure that the deliberative process within Cabinet is open and that participants at Government meetings are assured that the different arguments they bring on behalf of their Departments or the arguments they put forward personally will, rightly, not be available to the public for a number of years. Five years in politics is a very short period and it is appropriate to change that section.
We have seen some journalists do some very good work by using the Freedom of Information Act to carry out research and to follow different policy trails. We have also seen issues being addressed that are not major issues. There have been newspaper headlines about booking a meeting or a flight on a credit card. Such expenditure was not incurred for the personal benefit of the individual office holder, but as part of their work as Ministers. In this House we would be the first people to criticise Ministers if they were not moving around and going to different parts of the country to listen to different groups and constituents and to see at first hand the different issues of the day whether in coastal or rural communities, or in urban areas that have suffered economic decline over the years.
I am glad to have had the opportunity to speak in this debate and to voice my support for the general workings of the Bill. The relatively minor amendments proposed to the original Act will improve the legislation and will not be as prohibitive as many people would lead us to believe.