Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Second Stage (Resumed)
Dr. Henry: I thank Senator Quinn for sharing his time.
I do not know what possessed the Government to introduce this legislation. Was it because the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for Finance were fighting about money? I would think they had gone mad if they were not. It would be better if we knew the Minister for Health and Children was putting up a strong fight to get money for his Department and that the Minister for Finance was saying he had to explain where the money was being spent. Nothing is worse than rumour and nothing could be better than knowing the facts. The aim of the Bill appears to be to try to hide what is going on in government exactly as it should be. I cannot understand the reason we must have this really heavy-handed legislation to deal with this.
What worries me most about the Bill is how it will affect individuals. There will be a huge increase in the restrictions on individuals accessing their personal records. Individuals - this includes staff of public bodies - will, under the legislation, be allowed to have access only to records containing personal information on them. This is defined in the Bill as meaning information known only to family and close friends. However, individuals will no longer have access to legislation relating to them. This is very serious because misleading information is occasionally given out about people. If a serious accusation is made such as, perhaps, that a person is engaged in a paeodophile ring, how will that person gain access to such information relating to him or her? Families or close friends are hardly likely to know that. How can people remove wrong information from their records?
It is extraordinary that this Bill is going through at the same time that a Member of this House and a Member of the Dáil are disputing the claim that their records are required by the Morris tribunal. The tribunal claims it needs the information to make a judgment as to what is before it. That is totally contradictory and I cannot understand why the Government has brought forward this measure at this time, apart from the fact that Government records from five years ago would be known in a few weeks' time. What of that? They will come out month by month only. It is surely possible to take this Bill more slowly.
Individuals will not be in a position to be told about any confidential information held about them by a public body. This may be dangerous for them if the information is malicious or false in any way. I realise that there has only been one vexatious request in the past five years but that shows that the protection is already there. Why are we putting in additional sections?
It is also of concern that more time will be taken to deal with complex cases. Those who have used the Act know how difficult it is to get information from Departments. However, the consultation period will be extended from nine to 11 weeks and the length of time which the Information Commissioner has to determine appeals will be increased from three to four months. This is a long time for an individual to have to wait for a decision, and may be harrowing for them. These matters are important for people's personal lives as well as for their careers.
I am concerned at the exemption of more public policy information from third party scrutiny. Public bodies may not even confirm or deny whether certain classes of information or records exist, such as those given in confidence, those which are commercially sensitive or personal records. This is very difficult for the public to deal with. I have had representations from voluntary bodies asking how they are to scrutinise areas of public policy which may be important to them, and I sympathise with them.
It is also a concern that the records of one public body might be refused if those records could affect the work or deliberations of a separate public body. This is unlimited and could mean that a hospital would refuse records because they would affect a health board or vice versa. These are huge issues and I am not sure that the Government has considered carefully enough how this will impact on voluntary bodies trying to find out what public policy is, which is their entitlement.
The Bill gives new powers to the Secretary General of a Department to issue certificates to the effect that an item is under the deliberative process. I am not sure what that means but, given the situation with the Luas, the metro and so on, the deliberative process could go on for ever as there is no time limit on it.
A new clause is proposed banning release of information if it could endanger the safety of a person. That is a very wide definition. Does it include e-mails from bin Laden? What does it mean? It is a very serious measure. Both of these clauses are open to abuse and are not subject to public interest tests or third party scrutiny.
I cannot understand why certain matters are included in the legislation. One area of great public interest and on which an absolute ban is imposed is the costing of the plans of political parties. This was one of the most important issues in the last election. It is now said that the costing plans of the Government parties - certainly Fianna Fáil - were unrealistic. This is an issue that the public should be able to consider in order to judge how they will vote.
Briefing notes and supplementary information for parliamentary business, and records relating to the business of tribunals or ministerially ordered investigations, also attract a total ban. This kind of record has frequently been used in recent years to broaden public understanding of issues and has generally been prepared at the taxpayers' expense. It is not clear why these records cannot be released.
Visit the Irish Government Website for the full text of this speech: Click Here
