Gay Mitchell
Question:1 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Taoiseach if he intends introducing a Freedom of Information Bill.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Freedom of Information Bill.
I am sympathetically disposed to such legislation as a means of furthering the aim of open government However, it would require careful study and preparation and the drafting of such legislation would be a complex task. Accordingly, I propose to ask the Law Reform Commission study the operation of freedom of information legislation in the other countries where it exists, such as Sweden and the United States, and to make recommendtions as to how legislation might be introduced here, in a manner that could be adapted to our institutions and system of administration. Any such legislation would have to have regard to the right to privacy of the citizen and to the degree of confidentiality required in any system of government and administration in the preparation of decisions, especially in the financial, security, and international areas.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the former Government Chief Whip, in reply to me in this House on 12 November, said that the question of a freedom of information Act is a matter which the Government intend to examine carefully with a view to the framing of appropriate legislation? Why is the Taoiseach only now referring this matter to the Law Reform Commission? Is the Taoiseach aware that, for example, a youth aged 16, who lives in an inner city flat complex, found as a passenger in a stolen car is disbarred for the rest of his life from a job in the public service?
This elaboration is unnecessary.
A youth aged 19 charged with urinating in public is disbarred for the rest of his life from a job in the public service. Would the Taoiseach agree that those young men who have been given a life sentence should have the right of access to the document on which the life sentence is based? Will the Taoiseach ask that cases of this sort be incorporated in the review?
I am not quite clear as to the connection in the latter part of the question but I will have a look at it. Regarding the answer given by the Chief Whip, I will have that answer examined. I am stating today the exact position as I see it.
Is it not outrageous that citizens can be given such a life sentence without access to the information which is imposing this sentence?
The Deputy is injecting a substantial amount of new matter. I call Deputy McCartan.
May I finish the question? It is important for these two young men who are now in great difficulties.
That aspect might be worthy of a separate question.
Since the Taoiseach is not clear, will he ensure in such cases that those persons are allowed to inspect the files so that they will know why this sentence is being imposed?
Special cases are worthy of separate questions.
The Taoiseach says he is not quite clear, yet when I tell him what it is about he still sits there dumb. It is outrageous.
Would the Taoiseach not accept that if he is serious in his proposals with regard to open government one of the essential prerequisites is the putting in place of a freedom of information Act? There is little point in talking about openness if the information to help people to deal with open government is not there. Does he intend to ask the Law Reform Commission to give priority to this aspect of legislation or will it have to stand in queue along with other requests from Government made to a Commission who have not adequate resources to deal with their current programme?
This question refers only to the introduction of a freedom of information Bill.
Precisely. Any other matters should be raised in separate questions. Deputy McCartan will appreciate that it is a complex task to draft such legislation in relation to freedom of information to fit our system of government. The Law Reform Commission will be asked to take into consideration the freedom of information legislation in many other countries such as Australia, Canada, Sweden, USA, the Netherlands and New Zealand. It is a new departure here and it reflects my commitment to open government.
Let us try to expedite questions. I call Deputy John Bruton.
I have been seeking to speak.
Will the Taoiseach ask the Institute of Public Administration to examine this matter in parallel with the examination by the Law Reform Commission, in view of the fact that one of the main sources of objection to freedom of information legislation in the past has been administrative practicality as distinct from legal drafting. An inquiry solely focused on the legal aspects of the matter would not be complete and could delay matters.
I will certainly do that. It probably is one of the factors which contributed to the non-introduction in the past. I will certainly have it considered.
In view of the long time-scale envisaged by the Taoiseach in the preparation of such a Bill, will he agree as an interim measure to open the files in all the departmental offices as they do in Sweden?
This is a separate question.
Would the Taoiseach agree in general that citizens who are given the sort of administrative life sentence to which I refer should have access to the file to see what it is that imposes this sentence on them and that they should have the right to appeal?
The Deputy is injecting new matter. I am calling Question No. 2.
The Taoiseach did not display very much compassion. It will be answered at the Press Conference on Thursday, at his briefings, but apparently not in the House. It does not say much for change; I can tell him that.
Members opposite have had more changes in the past two weeks than they anticipated they would get in years; that is the problem; they cannot keep up with them.