In the Seanad on 6  April 2000, I said:

I have drawn attention on many occasions to the fact that, too often, we consider it the end of the matter once we have passed legislation and we put it behind us. We are often asked to pass new and untried legislation, the impact of which it is not possible to forecast precisely in advance. I have often called for the introduction of a mechanism which would allow us revisit an Act after it has been in operation for a certain length of time to see if it could be improved in the light of experience. My remarks on this subject have not generally been very successful and they seem to be swiftly forgotten in the rush to a get a Bill passed and onto the Statute Book.

However, on the basis of that principle, I welcome today's debate and that we are going to have another look at the Freedom of Information Act. I wish the practice of taking a second look at legislation was more general. It is very interesting that this is the only Act, of all the legislation passed in the seven years I have been a Member of this House, that is receiving this review.

There will be those think that the energy behind revisiting the Freedom of Information Act comes from those who were against the Act in the first place. I hope that is not so and that we will lay any fears in that area to rest by resisting strongly any suggestions, even those which appear well-intentioned, to restrict the operation of the Act in any way. The Act is too important a development and too fragile and delicate to risk its future by messing around with its operation at this early stage. Let us listen carefully to any problems that have arisen, but let us be very slow to circumscribe the operation of the Act in any way.

My other general point is a little embarrassing for those of us who were Members of the House a couple of years ago, but it is one we should face up to. We legislators, particularly the Members of this House, should cherish the Freedom of Information Act as a major step forward towards open government and a better democracy. However, we must admit that, collectively, we have behaved quite disgracefully in regard to a particular matter, that is, the ill fated effort to keep from the public the details of the expenses drawn by Members of the Oireachtas.

I plead guilty to this mistake for the very worst of reasons. The first time the particular piece of paper passed over my desk I did not read it carefully. There seemed to be a strong body of opinion among Members that we should not reveal individually the information that was being sought. Without thinking much more about it, I went along with the general opinion. I only thought about it seriously after the matter was appealed to the Information Commissioner, who upheld the appeal. Our opinion was then canvassed again. We were asked if we wanted to continue to object or if we would give in. I began to think about it seriously at that point and I realised clearly the damage we were doing to ourselves by taking that attitude.

That is not to say the arguments against disclosure were not good, because I think they were. However, the truth is that in the real world, we, as legislators, could not afford to be seen to be holding back this information, however misleading or embarrassing its publication would be. As it turned out, many other Members felt the same way about it and the matter was settled without any further confrontation.

I mention that matter now because I think we should be perfectly open about the fact that we made a serious error and misjudgment on that occasion.

I want to exorcise this demon so that it does not leave in either House any sentiment against the Freedom of Information Act itself. I hope Oireachtas Members will prove over time to be the staunchest supporters, advocates and defenders of the Freedom of Information Act.

Over the past ten years, the political process in Ireland has received many body blows. This has created an attitude of cynicism among the public which continues to grow with every passing month. As a result, it has become almost a cliché to talk about restoring public confidence in the public system because, unfortunately, most of what is done is nothing more than just talk. Over the past decade, there has been very little action to improve our democracy. We have talked about open and transparent government. However, every political decision in that regard is conservative and almost backward looking, rather than being forward looking and progressive.

The famous tribunals are a very good example. They were set up very reluctantly and in the most restrictive way possible. I do not blame any one political party for that. In the seven years I have been a Member, almost every party has been in Government and I cannot say that any one of them is more transparent and open than any other. Something happens as soon as they go into Government and their attitude appears to change. Perhaps they are got at by some sort of secret brotherhood - although I am sure that does not exist - the sort that believes knowledge is power and that it must be kept at all costs from those outside the corridors of power.

There have been just two shining lights in this sorry saga. The first is the office of the Ombudsman, which has gone from strength to strength and we should be proud of it. It grows more valuable every day. We have been fortunate in the calibre of the two people who have held that office since it was established.

The second shining light in that area of democracy has been the Freedom of Information Act. Over the past decade, it has been the only real action we have had to put alongside the rhetoric about openness and transparency. These Houses passed a vast amount of reforming legislation in that decade. When the stony eye of history casts its glance over all that legislation, the Freedom of Information Act will emerge as the jewel in our crown. We will look back on this and say we can be proud of it.

Despite all the dire predictions that were made, the Act has worked well. It has revealed information that it has been proved to be useful to have in the public gaze. It has brought into the light of day many matters that had not been seen before and which people did not know about. The country is better served and is a better place as a result.

The operation of the Act has, by and large, worked well, despite a little foot dragging here and there. The provisions of the Act have not been misused or abused. Any shortcomings have been trivial and something we must keep an eye on rather than being too concerned about.

I am pleasantly surprised at the extent of progress that has been made in such a short time. The passing of this Act was a watershed in Irish public administration. Overnight we sought to change a culture of secrecy that had existed over many centuries of British rule and to move to a culture of openness. With few exceptions, we moved away from a regime where everything was secret and it is recognised as having been a great step forward.

I am not saying that the full transformation to such an open culture has been made yet, but what we changed overnight were the rules. The Act stated that from now on this is how it would be. We always envisaged that old habits would die hard and that for some people from the old school, particularly in the Civil Service, the idea of openness would be difficult to handle and would go against the grain. Given the examples of the Scandinavian countries, the United States and Australia and Canada we know that direction we sought to take was not only practical but highly desirable. It was the direction we knew we should take because there were examples of others who had done so before and it had proved successful for them.

It is not enough simply to pass a law, however, and it will be an ongoing task to make the Act work on a broader basis. Little by little we are extending the list of bodies to which the Act applies. I am delighted to hear from the Minister of State that the legislation will apply to a further range of bodies. We should be doing this to strengthen the Act and broaden its application.

I would like to see certain actions taken as regards the Act. The first relates to its timescale. A wise judge once said that justice delayed is justice denied and that is relevant to information. Sometimes it can take so long to obtain information that it is useless by the time it is revealed. Some information by its very nature is valuable only when it is fresh and if it takes too long to get it is not of the same value. We have not acknowledged that fact in the Act as it currently stands. While there are various provisions to guard against foot-dragging in general, the legislation is lacking in other respects. Some information should be accessible to the public much more quickly than the general run of information. In an ideal world, all information would be available instantly. Perhaps we are getting closer to that ideal with the Internet and other electronic means of communications, but we are a long way from it just yet.

In addition to speeding up the overall process, we should also provide for a fast-track approach that would bring information on time-sensitive issues into the public domain much faster than the general run of information.

We also need to address the danger that some people will try to get around the Act by refusing to commit things to paper. We have heard of such instances occurring. I am no great fan of paper myself and we had a former Taoiseach who wanted everything on one page. However, I was shocked to learn from the Committee of Public Accounts that no records whatever were kept of strategically important meetings in the Department of Finance at the very time when decisions were being made on matters of the highest national importance. That is the type of example I am talking about - somebody who decides not to put anything on paper as a way of avoiding disclosure.

The legislation should provide for the fact that certain things must be recorded and these records must be kept. If one runs a business, however small, one is required by law to keep certain information and records which must be available for inspection by, for example, the Revenue Commissioners or others. Not even the smallest business has the right to dispense with keeping those records, they must do it. We should impose the same requirements on public service decision-making.

We should try to encourage and perhaps even reward a more proactive approach to the question of releasing information. In other words, not doing so reluctantly but proactively as with the work of the Ombudsman. In that case, the ideal would be that eventually there would be nothing to complain about at all and, ideally, the Ombudsman would not be needed any more if that were so. With regard to information we should aim at a situation where no one has to seek information because it is released automatically. That may appear to be too much but it is possible to do it with modern communications. One would not have to seek the information any longer, it would be there automatically at the touch of a button.

A positive aspect of the unfortunate business over the Oireachtas Members' expenses was that, as a consequence, it was decided to release that information on a regular basis without having to wait for journalists to dig it out. I think that is good and it is what we should aim to do in general rather than in specific cases only. I am not sure legislation has a role in this matter at all. It may be that there are other means of encouraging Government agencies to be proactive in this way. For instance, I can see the merit of having an annual reward for the Department or other body that has taken the most innovative and imaginative way of putting information into the public domain.

When I was involved in An Post, we tried to have our annual report win the Leinster Society of Chartered Accounts' prize for the most open and best presented report. It was a great competition and, although we never actually won it, we tended to come near the top. There was competition between the various bodies to see who could have the best annual report with the most readable information. Such an award might be the way to go about recognising the provision of information in the public service. The creation of such an award could be driven by the Government itself or by an outside sponsor such as the accountants' society. I hope the Government will take action of this kind because it would be an excellent way to show that the Administration's heart lies where its rhetoric claims it to be. It would demonstrate that it was doing what it claims to, in addition to achieving something more.

As we consider the early workings of this fine legislation, there is much to be proud of. Much can and should be done to extend the Act. We have heard about some of that today and it is happening. We need to strengthen the legislation's defences against that diminishing band who would seek to defy, decry or weaken the Act in some form. All the energy we have to bring about change should be focused positively rather than negatively.

This is not a time to restrict the workings of the Act. The message should go out to everybody that the Freedom of Information Act is good legislation, the like of which we want more, not less.