I welcome the opportunity to address this Bill. I pay tribute to the contribution of the outgoing Ombudsman and Information Commissioner, Mr. Kevin Murphy. In my time in this House, I found him to be extremely helpful, co-operative and efficient in the running of his office and I wish him well in his retirement.
I welcome the appointment of Ms Emily O'Reilly to the position. She has a sharp intellect and her experience in journalism is vast. Is the Government changing the Freedom of Information Act because it knows that she will also be a formidable ombudsperson? Is it afraid that her skills will unearth and allow documentation to be released that it does not want to be released? Is that why it wants to restrict the Bill's provisions?
I wish to comment on what Deputy Devins said. He is a new Deputy. Unfortunately, he was not here in 1995 to 1997 when his colleagues were in Opposition. If he reads the record of the Second Stage debate on the Freedom of Information Bill, as it was then, he will find that one of the Deputies who came into this Chamber this evening and had the cheek to complain about a quorum being called, called for a quorum in 1997. That is Deputy Woods. He called quorums on the previous occasion. Therefore, what kind of hypocrisy does his complaint this evening display? I will quote later what he said about the Freedom of Information Bill in 1997. It is easy to come in here as a new Deputy and point out all sorts of things, but Deputy Devins will find out very quickly that the scripts that are handed to him will blow up in his face and he will soon change his tune about what he is saying.
We are back to the old ways of Fianna Fáil and the old days when its approach was to cover up, conceal and mislead the public. It got away with that at election time, but it will not do so again. If Members opposite believe that this item is passing through this House without the public noticing it, I can genuinely tell them that of all the Bills that went through this House in recent times, I have received more queries in my office on the proposed changes to the Freedom of Information Act than on any other Bill. The Members opposite should not underestimate what the public are thinking in relation to this. They should not be too quick to go through the lobbies to support what the Government said.
I will give Members a sample of what was said in 1997 in relation to all of this. I will start with the great man who frequently writes for the newspapers, the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Dea. In 1997 he was in opposition and very anxious to impress. He was tigerish and anxious because he hoped Fianna Fáil would get into Government and, because he was such a loyal supporter, that he would be made a Minister. He was wheeled out for the debate on the Freedom of Information Bill and, according to column 280 of the Official Report of 11 March 1997, he said:
It is a grave disappointment. It is a minimalist, carefully hedged-in Bill which, if interpreted a certain way, will make very little practical difference to the administration of this country.
He went on to say about section 19, the main section being amended by the new Bill:
This is excessively restrictive. Surely documents which contain analysis, interpretation or evaluation of purely factual material should also be accessible. In addition, there is no valid reason that projections based on factual information should not be acceptable.
The case is made. That is what Deputy O'Dea said in 1997, although he will trudge through the lobbies tomorrow to support the Bill. There is a word for someone who does something like that which begins with "h"– hypocritical. Is that not the word? Deputy O'Dea has moved on from his old position and because he is in government he will row in.
Deputy Woods was also ferocious in opposition and jumped for every ball. He was like a little tiger, running at everything. He also hoped to become a Minister again – we could talk about his performance in that role – so he too was very aggressive. In 1997 he said:
While I am glad this Bill has been improved somewhat in the progress through Committee Stage in the Seanad, its provisions remain deeply flawed and thoroughly inadequate. On careful examination, which I strongly recommend to citizens and the media alike, it turns out to be little more than window dressing exercise in freedom of information.
He went on to say it was a thin pretence at action designed to camouflage the Government's internal confusion and inability to agree on anything of substance or any resolute plan of action. That was great stuff from Deputy Woods. He went on to say: "Despite all the bluster and hype which surrounded its introduction, it is little more than a damp squib, another fine example of the mountain being in labour and bringing forth a mouse." He certainly had a turn of phrase in condemning the Freedom of Information Act as not doing enough. What will he do tomorrow evening? He will trudge through the lobbies again to support restrictions for a Bill he said was too restrictive. He talked of changing the Official Secrets Act but he will go through with this tomorrow.
We then come to Deputy Killeen, for whom I have great respect. I have worked with him on several committees and his contributions are thoughtful. I hope he is listening because if anyone will take a stand, and I have seen Deputy Killeen take a stand before, he might be one of the Fianna Fáil Deputies with the guts to do so. He also spoke on 11 March 1997 and, in column 295, he said:
While I support her [the Minister's] campaign I am worried this is going nowhere and troops are rallying in opposition to it. I do not see any of them on the Government benches but some interests are opposed to the direction in which the Minister is heading. There is a temptation to believe we are deluding the public and engaging in a PR exercise which is not likely to go anywhere.
He went on to say:
The Government parties have failed to grasp the opportunity to create and support a level of openness in the operation of the public service and the running of the State which is urgently needed.
Again, the previous measure did not go far enough for him, but will he go through the lobbies now and support restricting that legislation? I do not think so because I recognise him as a man of integrity.
Another speaker on 11 March 1997 was Deputy O'Donnell of the Progressive Democrats, who were anxious to get into bed in government with Fianna Fáil. She was also anxious to make a name for herself and in that debate, in column 273, she said:
Governments tend to preserve their interests and have gone to enormous lengths to retain information, the release of which would have prejudiced their being in Government. The collapse of a Government must be avoided at all costs and that applies to all Governments. Therein lies the real difficulty with this legislation.
She was referring to what had come out at the beef tribunal and the need for a Government to preserve itself, saying this measure did not go far enough. She also said, in column 274: "I am confident that this or future Governments will be forthcoming with sensitive or explosive information when their skins are at stake." In other words, she thought Governments would look after themselves and that this measure would not work. Will she go through the lobbies? She also said it was important that real work continue on the repeal of the Official Secrets Act.
I have great respect for Deputy O'Donnell, who took a stand here on Third World aid. She had great difficulty getting funding for such aid from the Government of the time and, from the attitude of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform – or Minister for everything, as he calls himself – to Third World aid, I see the reason. That attitude leaves a lot to be desired. Will Deputy O'Donnell troop through the lobbies tomorrow and contradict her past stance on freedom of information? Will she take the shilling and go through the lobbies? I do not think so because she is a person of integrity who knows her own mind. I look forward to seeing what happens.
Deputy Devins raised the issue of fees. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe requested information from the Government on appointments to prison committees under the freedom of information legislation and was told initially it would cost €800, although that was subsequently watered down. While that request was being processed, guess what happened. The great Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Minister for goodness and all things, had a trawl carried out in the Department and he found a letter which Deputy O'Keeffe had sent some years before. He ran off to the press with the letter with the instructions that they should publish it without telling Deputy O'Keeffe its contents. What did it cost the officials to find that letter? What about the integrity of a Minister acting in that way? Was he worried about what would surface in the answer to Deputy O'Keeffe's request or was it done out of malice or for political gain? That is just one example. It is great to hear from these people who are full of integrity and taking the high moral ground. One looks forward to seeing what they will do.
There was no consultation on this Bill. I recently learned that the local authority in my area received a request from a nursery seeking information on quotations sent to the council over the past five years for planting shrubs and trees and the ages and heights of those plants. As it happens, the council has done an enormous amount of planting over the past few years but what was the nursery looking for? Commercial information, which has nothing to do with the ordinary information people seek. The nursery should not be given that information. That is the kind of information which should be restricted to stop abuse of the freedom of information legislation. While I can understand that other parties who submitted tenders for a particular job should be entitled to see the contract awarded to the winner following a tender process, it would not be right to permit a general trawl of all information. These are the kinds of matters on which the Government should impose restrictions rather than issues on which there should be access to information.
The only reason for the legislation is that the first batch of information from the previous Government's deliberations would otherwise come on stream in a month. The Government is afraid that in the years preceding the next election we will have a constant drip of information concerning all the terrible decisions, including the O'Flaherty appointment, taken by the previous Government.
