Having listened to Deputy Andrews, I feel rather old and battle weary. I find his description of public servants who are willing to give out information all day, every day, is a bit surreal. My experience of 23 years with a local authority and over ten years in this House is rather different to what he has described. The reality is that legislative change has brought about a cultural change in terms of information. It is a process that certainly has not finished yet and could go forwards or backwards. Unfortunately, in this case, it appears to be going backwards as a result of a Government that is committed to drawing a veil of secrecy down again after a period of great progress and change.
Through the decades, there have been major legislative reforms that have served to define us as a society since the foundation of the State. The Freedom of Information Act is one such Act. It is a great modernising mechanism which reflects a modern Ireland that has moved out of times of ignorance, corruption and abuse both in the public and private spheres. More than anything, it is a republican measure that recognises the public right to know how and why it is governed by those entrusted with power.
We inherited a Civil Service system from the British administration which was renowned for its secrecy and hierarchical structures. Historically, the system was inimical to the principles of accountability and open Government. While changes were introduced over the years, no legislation has been as extraordinarily transforming as the Freedom of Information Act. Now we have the political party that claims to be republican, setting about to dismantle the Act. Fianna Fáil is taking away rights from the Irish people for one reason only – because it suits Fianna Fáil. There is no demand for these measures from the public. The Act is both popular with and respected by the people, and the 15,000 inquiries initiated under it last year are a testament to that fact. Only a handful of what may be vexatious or trivial requests have occurred. There is no demand for these measures from the retiring Information Commissioner, Kevin Murphy. I, too, would like to pay tribute to Mr. Murphy's work. I wish his successor, Emily O'Reilly, the very best in her new role.
When the 1997 legislation was enacted the general members of the Civil Service found it so congenial that in the first year of its operation civil servants themselves constituted the largest group using the Act to access information, seeking personal records in particular. Having listened to some Fianna Fáil speakers, it is important to make clear that in his report the commissioner does not in any way endorse the general thrust of what the Government is doing. If time permits, I will refer to his report in more detail because it is clearly and deeply critical of the approach that has been adopted by the Government. It is wrong and misleading of Government Deputies to try to paint a different picture. This is, pure and simple, a political choice to bring down the shutters. The clear unswerving light that the Act casts on Government is creating discomfort for Ministers and for a party that prefers to keep the electorate ignorant of what it is doing.
The hallmark of Fianna Fáil is its obsessive efforts to manage and control the media. Freely accessible information has the capability to subvert the flow of Government propaganda and to interfere with its selective leaking. I want to put the record straight because Government speakers have tried to make out that it is senior civil servants, who were asked to give their opinions, who are driving this and are responsible for the changes being proposed, but the changes, as we all know and as has been stated over and over again, go well beyond anything that the top civil servants produced by way of change.
I will cite an example from my experience. We know the real situation about the management of the health care crisis largely because of the Freedom of Information Act. The official version, as told by the Minister, Deputy Martin, is that there is no feud between him and the Minister for Finance. However, the record shows over and over again that there are deep divisions between the two Ministers, whether on funding, management or manpower issues. This conflict has clearly led to paralysis in the system. Instead of the long overdue reforms and restructuring that our health service so desperately needs, there is a deepening crisis and lengthening queues for public patients across the board. We know the cause of much of the difficulties because of the existence of the Freedom of Information Act. It provides access to knowledge that will soon be denied to us if this Bill is passed. In my experience the Department of Health and Children is one of the most secretive and unco-operative of all Departments. I dread to think how little we will be able to learn about it in the future.
We certainly cannot depend on parliamentary questions to get the facts we seek and that we are entitled to have. I will give an example of my experience. I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister for Health and Children in early February seeking information about the number of reports, committees and expert groups established since the election of the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government in 1997 and their costs. On 11 February the Minister for Health and Children said it was not possible to compile all the information sought within the time available. I waited a suitable length of time but nothing came back to me. I tabled my parliamentary question again and to this day I am still waiting for a reply. I intend to raise the matter in the House to ensure that it is dealt with. This is unacceptable and it is also in direct contravention of the rules of this House that are laid down not to protect us as Deputies but to protect the entire democratic process.
There is a culture of secrecy that corrodes good government and good opposition. As public representatives, we can choose to acquiesce to it or change it. Fianna Fáil has made its choice and it should not surprise us that it is driven to emasculate the Freedom of Information Act, but it is not doing it on its own. Not for the first time is a respectable cover to a shameful Government project being provided by the Progressive Democrats. When the Government embarked on the constitutional amendment on abortion in 2002 that reactionary, dangerous proposal was dishonestly and staunchly defended by the Progressive Democrats as being progressive and protective of women. The weasel words of Progressive Democrats Ministers then are reflected in their weasel words now on this Bill. Again, they are supporting the emasculation of the rights of citizens instead of using their power within Government to protect the public interest. Many of those people who voted for the Progressive Democrats must now be asking themselves what is the point of voting for a party to prevent one-party government, as the Minister, Deputy McDowell, exhorted them to do before the election, if one ends up with that party being a mirror image of the main party – Fianna Fáil – after the election?
I listened to Deputy Fiona O'Malley's contribution. She was not a Member of the House at the time of the abortion amendment campaign. She came out against it and that did not do her any harm at election time. However, now she is a Member of the House, on the one hand she is attacking this Bill while leaving herself plenty of wriggle room to support it, despite the fact, as she said, that it is a flawed Bill prepared in haste and without proper consultation.
Members should remember that the rainbow Government was responsible for this important Act. As a Labour Party Minister in that Government, Eithne Fitzgerald was the architect of the original Act. To her credit, she worked diligently to construct a complex legal framework whereby doors and windows could be opened for ordinary citizens in a way that for many has been a liberating experience. For the first time knowledge about personal records about themselves but also knowledge about those who govern them was accessible to the public. Her work has withstood the test of time and the rigours of considerable usage of its provisions.
At the time of the Act's introduction, the then Minister, Eithne Fitzgerald, had to take some flack from Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats Deputies for not going far enough in her proposals. What an irony that is now. Those same individuals now on the Government benches are unravelling her good work and jettisoning some of the most important elements of the Act, those which relate to the scrutiny of Government.
The Labour Party took the lead in delivering this legislation then and we are offering a lead to the Government now. We have published alternative legislation to the Government's hurried, ill-conceived and untested Bill. We have set out a timeframe of one year during which the current Act would be frozen and during which systematic, open and thoughtful consultation can take place. There is no reason the Government could not accept this more reasonable and reflective route, yet its determination to bulldoze through this Bill regardless is unrelenting.
The final outcome will be a complete negation of the fundamental principle that underpins the existing Act. The definition of Government will be altered in a way which puts it at risk of a constitutional challenge. Documentation of sub-committees with officials, ministerial correspondence and material compiled principally but not solely for Cabinet for the first time will be exempt. Clearly, this will reduce significant access to knowledge that the public enjoy at present and which is necessary in a fully functioning and healthy democracy.
The Government has never explained satisfactorily why this or other measures are justified. Its failure to do so simply fuels public suspicion and creates a sense of betrayal that this Act was designed to tackle in the first place. The Act was a confidence-building measure. It was designed to give people hope, appreciation and trust in a political process that has been severely damaged by corrupt politicians and people who used the system who were not fully accountable, but now a measures is being drawn up by those who are on the inside, senior political figures in Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats and top civil servants. In effect, they are designed to keep the public excluded.
If there were a real and present danger to the public interest that required such changes, we would have read all about it in the report produced by the Office of the Information Commissioner. Instead the dangers outlined in this report arise from changes being proposed by the Government Bill. Section 13 provides that a Minister cannot release a record under the Freedom of Information Act if the Secretary General of another Department issues a certificate in writing stating that the contained matter related to the deliberative process of a Depart ment. This provision undermines the authority of a Minister as head of his or her Department. It has serious consequences for how Ministers are to be held accountable for their duties and responsibilities. When reasons are given for the proposed changes they are not always true, let alone justifiable.
The Taoiseach said in the House that it was necessary to abandon the five year rule because the release of some documents could undermine the Northern Ireland peace process. He was misleading the House as it is impossible to make that statement stand up. The current Freedom of Information Act contains a clause which specifically excludes this kind of material from being released.
With such misleading statements from the Government's most senior Minister, is it any wonder the Opposition, the media and the public simply do not believe these changes are either necessary or desirable? We need to remember what those changes are and to look at the assessment carried out by the architect of the Act, former Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald.
She says the changes denying access to briefing documents for parliamentary questions and accountability to Parliament will revert to putting the right question and we know where that led. The changes would deny access to the costings of party political proposals and she says this would surely restrict true democratic choice. To paraphrase another section of the Act, that is purely factual information such as statistical or econometric information.
Regarding the charges for information, she says:
When I drew up the Act I was careful to include a provision that no charge could be levied where the cost of collecting it was not worth it. This was to ensure that no charges would be levied for simple requests where the material could be retrieved easily. If there is a charge for requests then many NGOs and individuals would be unable to afford to exercise their rights to information. Reluctant Departments and bodies would challenge requesters to pay fees rather than issue information outside the Act in accordance with the spirit and indeed the letter of it. If there is a fee for appeals this may encourage bodies to withhold information despite the terms of the Act in the hope that charges may deter an appeal or indeed this may be seen as a way simply to raise money.
It is clear that by charging unnecessarily for information one is excluding people who under our laws should be treated equally but who cannot exercise their rights due to a lack of funds. We know we live in a deeply unequal society where many people's rights to health care, education or a decent home are restricted or denied because of a lack of income. It is unacceptable that a right to information which was established in the past should now be thwarted and distorted because of the issue of charges.
It is interesting to look at the Information Commissioner's report. He cites cases appealed to him where a Department refused individual applicants – Eithne Fitzgerald herself in one case. The commissioner goes carefully through the process by which she requested copies of minutes and a policy paper prepared for the interdepartmental strategy group on employment and unemployment. Access was refused on the grounds that the records contained matters relating to the deliberative processes of the Department. The commissioner went through the matter very carefully and found in favour of Ms Fitzgerald and found that the Department was wrong to deny her the information. I do not recall the sky falling when someone with a distinguished record like hers was able to access information. It is interesting to note the commissioner's comments:
Had the 1997 Act been framed as now proposed it would have been sufficient for the Department to have shown that the background paper was part of the deliberative processes of a public body, as opposed to having been part of the deliberative process of the public body concerned with the request. While some further clarification would be desirable it seems that this amendment is designed to enable greater co-ordination or perhaps centralisation of decision-making across the public sector.
Secondly, had the Secretary General of the Department been in a position to certify that the record at issue related to an ongoing deliberative process I would not have been in a position to even review. Finally, rather than having to satisfy me that the release of the records would be contrary to the public interest, the Department would only have been required to satisfy me that public interest would, on balance, be better served by refusing the request.
That is a total negation of the original spirit and thrust of the Act. It is now simply a matter of the Department arguing that the public interest would be better served by refusing a request rather than an issue of the public interest being better served by access to information. Regrettably, the sample case I cited is only one of a number of cases.
This is a sorry proposal from a Government which clearly has something to hide. It does not want the light shone by Eithne Fitzgerald to continue to burn in a way that ensures the public is included in the democratic process. The public's rights are not being respected by a party which calls itself a republican party. That party is not ensuring we have a Government and State which operate as a true republic.
