Some ‘secrets’ are public property
A highly placed non-resident, who is a major owner of news media, and other businesses, in Ireland, took exception to RTÉ being given what he claimed was stolen, inaccurate, personal banking information that would lay bare to the world his financial details with IBRC.
He felt that releasing this information would infringe on his right to privacy and undermine his banking relationships. He obtained an injunction.
However, independent TD Catherine Murphy, who had access to this information, decided it should be brought to the attention of the Dáil.
No doubt she was aware that IBRC majorly contributed to our economic collapse and we can only surmise she thought that anything about that bank should be made known to those who suffered.
Fortunately, she was protected by Dáil privilege and so we could hear the not-so-lurid details. Mind you, that did not stop her being vilified.
The episode raised what was seen, up to Tuesday, to have been a mini storm in a tea cup, but it forced a reluctant taoiseach and finance minister to agree to a deeper inquiry into IBRC than had been intended. It was a good result, even if it kicked the can down the street. Unfortunately, the can was not kicked far enough, as a new, far more serious action has been commenced by the businessman.
On Monday last, one of the articles in this paper outlined the amount and dispersion of the Common Agricultural Policy basic payments to farmers.
It made for mildly interesting reading. An initial reaction was to ask how long it would be before someone complained about privacy and how they would sell it to a public too used to having business folk and government trying to hide information.
So I read with interest an article by ICMSA president, John Comer, with the title ‘Unfettered access to details is a bad idea’. While the headline was loaded and pointed in one direction, the bulk of this article sought to explain why farmers in Ireland were receiving payments for the Common Agricultural Policy Single Payment Scheme. His intent appeared to be to convince us that, rather than this being a ‘farmers’ dole’, it was a payment to ensure affordable food for the rest of us.
It became clear that the title did indeed indicate where this article was going. While Mr Comer claimed to have nothing against transparency, he suggested that printing such information could put at risk the lives of elderly farmers living in remote areas.
Both the IFA and the ICMSA have stated their concerns that publishing such information represents a security threat, as well as an ‘infringement’ of farmers’ rights to privacy concerning their personal financial data.
It all seems a bit OTT. Firstly, farming is a business, not a hobby. Secondly, the only data being published is what farmers receive from the public purse.
Whatever else they earn is between themselves and their bank manager.
Surely, they cannot argue that we are not entitled to know how our money is spent and where it is going.
In any event, given that anything below €1,250 is not shown, the vast bulk of recipients still remain confidential.
For long enough, we have had State-owned organisations, some of them effectively monopolies, hiding financial data, on the basis that it is ‘commercially sensitive’, even when they have no competition and thus no-one to take advantage of that information.
Government regularly redacts information from documents released under FOI (freedom of information) on the basis of commercial sensitivity, the risk of doing reputational damage or of impacting on a legal action. However, to most of us the real reason is to hide embarrassing information.
Openness, transparency and accountability were fathered by a Fine Gael/Labour government that introduced the Freedom of Information Act. A Fianna Fáil government neutered it and the current government put it out of its misery, much to our regret. We get what we vote for. Thankfully, we will have another opportunity soon.
Paul Mills
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
