Opposition agrees with Bill but has reservations

The opposition agreed with and would be voting in favour of the Freedom of Information Act but it had reservations on certain matters and could vote against certain clauses at committee stage where it believed that doing so would be in the interest of the people, Labour MP Gavin Gulia said yesterday.

Speaking on the Bill to set up the Freedom of Information Act, Dr Gulia said the Prime Minister made political comments which had nothing to do with the substance of the Bill.

He listed electoral promises but failed to mention instances in the past three months which it implemented in spite of not being mentioned in its electoral programme. Such was the Partnership for Peace, the u-turn on the income tax bands, the removal of the equity sharing scheme and the rebate on household goods.

Dr Gulia said that the opposition was still waiting for a political statement from the Prime Minister on Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando's Mistra scandal, for which it had been waiting weeks.

The development permit for Fort Cambridge was another fiasco since Mepa had prepared the statement saying that it had been approved before the board had even started discussing the application. But for the Prime Minister this was as if nothing had happened. This was symptomatic of what used to be done in the last legislature.

The Prime Minister, Dr Gulia said, also made political statements on proposals made by the leader of the Labour Party but to make such statements during debate on this Bill was denying the opposition the right to ask questions on the Prime Minister's proposal.

He said that the opposition agreed with the Bill generally but might be voting against on certain clauses at committee stage where it believed that doing so would be in the interest of the people.

Parliamentary questions were not answered because the government contended that it would cost a lot to collect the requested information. He pointed out that he was already seeing similar replies and hoped that, from now on, Parliamentary replies would be answered quickly and in full.

Dr Gulia noted that, according to the Bill, residents of Malta for at least five years and who were Maltese citizens were eligible for information. He asked if this was excluding expatriates or if it meant that non-Maltese residents who would have been living here for five years were also being made eligible for information. All Maltese should be eligible, he pointed out.

He said that while it was being indicated that payment should not be more than the cost, this had to be made at the time of application, although it was perhaps impossible to calculate how much getting such information would cost at that stage. He pointed out that the Prime Minister also did not say anything about the regulations on payment that could be set up.

The Bill, he said, was giving the people a limited right of appeal. There was nothing wrong in this but it was worrying that the people were not being given any right for civil action. Was this for personal responsibility from the payment of damages? Or was it excluding the people's right to go to a civil court and request a judicial review of administrative discretion? If it was the latter, the quality of the Bill was being weakened.

It was also worrying that the Prime Minister had the power to override the Data Protection Commissioner. There were circumstances where the head of the authority could decide not to give information according to law. In this case the Data Protection Commissioner could syndicate that decision which could also be taken to the tribunal and the Appeal's Court and hopefully to the Civil Court.

But if the Data Protection Commissioner decided in favour of the people, the Prime Minister could decide that certain official documents not be made public in line with section five of the Bill.

This section included a long list of exemptions of at least 30 instances where documents could not be published. While he agreed with some of the exemptions, he did not agree with others.

Concluding, Dr Gulia pointed out that by deciding himself which information could not be given, the Prime Minister was undermining the essence of the Bill. Even the Data Protection Tribunal was excluded and the people could not appeal to this tribunal, let alone the Appeals Court. In doing so, he said, the Prime Minister was taking over too much control.

Nationalist MP Francis Zammit Dimech said the Bill signified a radical change from the time when people were told that "it was not in the public interest" to divulge information to saying, today, that getting information was in a people's right.

He noted that Dr Gulia found it easier to approve parts of the Bill, than to find parts he disagreed with.

When speaking of the term of residence necessary to make one eligible, Dr Gulia had proposed something which was unrealistic in today's world, as it would discriminate. The Bill stated that the price to request documents had to be stipulated beforehand, but set at no more than it cost to get it.

Dr Zammit Dimech said that this was an ideal set-up as people were aware of how much something would cost.

He said that it was time to do what was necessary to strengthen the Maltese system, and look at other countries for an example stop Malta from making the same mistakes.

Dr Zammit Dimech said the clause which dealt with avoidance of the concept of damages, was important as it was more important to safeguard the right to information than to make a big deal about damages.

A number of principles in the Bill, such as the explanation of how a request should be made, were rarely seen in other Bills. If a mistake were made, even in this simple process, the authority was duty bound to contact the individual and help him through it.

When one requested a document, he added, from a mistaken authority, they had to refer the request to the authority concerned.

The Bill also did away with the applicant having the need to give any reason or justification for the request of information.

The short term within which an application must be processed emphasised the importance given to the citizens' right for information.