Don’t ask because they don’t want you to know what they were up to

WHATEVER else you may say about the present Fianna Fáil–PD conglomeration, their innate sense of political preservation is very sharp.

While they may be in fact, are tentative about other policies like cutting hospital waiting lists, their long-term policy in relation to hanging onto power is rather more focused.

Generally speaking, most of us haven't any specific plan as to what we will be doing in 2007, and we certainly don't reckon on anything we may have said or done in the past year having an impact on our future at that stage, unless that great route of escapism the Lotto happens to spit out our numbers.

But Bertie Ahern and his colleagues don't leave too much to chance. Well, not the things that really matter to them, like clinging onto their positions of power and influence.

And if, along the road, our rights get in the way of that objective, then tough luck on us because a bit of tinkering with the law can remove or delay those same rights.

Which is exactly what they intend to do with the Freedom of Information Act, unless there are some among their ranks who may recognise it for what it is another bit of rot about to set in.

At the moment you and I would be entitled next April to find out how decisions on various issues were arrived at by the Cabinet. Under the Freedom of Information Act we would have that right as certain records would be made available five years after the decisions were made.

The Act came into effect in April, 1998, so we could expect some interesting revelations to be made fairly soon.

Even at the moment, there is a certain reticence experienced by people who endeavour to seek information about themselves from a government department or body which comes under its remit.

Anybody who experiences such resistance can appeal to the office of Information Commissioner Kevin Murphy whose main role, under the Act, is that of deciding appeals made by people whose requests under the FOI Act have been refused or only partially granted.

The aim of the Act was to give greater public confidence in the way our state and semi-state bodies conduct their business, which is vital for any citizen who may find themselves at what they consider to be the wrong end of a bad decision.

Instead of being fobbed off by some officious public or civil servant who might not have the wit or interest to help somebody find an important document relating to them, there is now a legitimate avenue for people to over-ride official, and too often officious, red tape.

Currently, the FOI Act applies to 280 public bodies, including all government departments and offices, the health boards, the local authorities, publicly funded hospitals and health service providers, as well as a wide range of other public bodies.

Also within its scope is the courts service, RTÉ and its subsidiaries (for non-programme related functions only) and a number of health and social service organisations.

According to Kevin Murphy, the role of FOI is in informing the general public about what is being done in its name by public bodies. It can be an instrument to promote openness and transparency in public administration.

Importantly, he suggests that the sensible use of it by the media can make a real contribution to the creation and maintenance of open and accountable government.

Apart from long-fingering our right to know about government decisions, interfering with the Act could also restrict the time period within which people could access personal information held by State bodies.

An expert on the FOI Act, UCC law lecturer Maeve McDonagh said that introducing time limits for people to seek health, education, tax or social welfare records would be a backward step.

At the moment, personal files stretching back indefinitely can be accessed and this accounts for a large proportion of requests under the Act.

This part of the Act can have the most immediate impact on the ordinary person, but trawling through old records can be a massive chore for public bodies.

It would suit them to have a certain cut-off point, so that they would not be compelled to go back too far in the search for the information that a member of the public may be seeking.

That would certainly be a step backwards. Preventing a person's access to files simply because it might be too much bother for some public servant is certainly not in our interest.

The public you and I have a right to know what's going on in the corridors of power, but those who occupy them have a vested interest in preventing that.

What would suit them would be an emasculated Freedom of Information Act, one rendered impotent to dispel the guarded secrecy that affects all our lives.

They would rather it went away altogether, or at least far enough to ensure that potential political landmines would not explode in their faces before the next general election.

Politicians are already well-insulated from public scrutiny in the media they have the most draconian libel laws to protect them, and they are not shy about using them.

That is why no government, of any colour, has ever done anything to amend the laws of libel. They see them as an adjunct to the privilege they enjoy in the Dáil where their utterances are totally immune from the laws which they so often invoke.

Those laws will not be changed, or liberalised, until there is a popular move to do so by those who need them most but can least afford them the ordinary people of this country.

If the Government is allowed to take away this important avenue of information from the public, then it will be a victory for the perpetuation of the worst excesses we have been trying to get away from in recent years.

And have no doubt about it: if that were to happen it would certainly not be in our interests.

It would be in the interests solely of a government which wants the cloak of secrecy to protect itself from scrutiny.

The Government, in trying to justify its reasons for interfering with the FOI, is telling lies.

The Taoiseach said last week that releasing Cabinet papers after five years would create major difficulties for issues such as the Northern Ireland peace process.

Wrong.

Papers relating to Northern Ireland are exempted from disclosure under the existing Freedom of Information Act.

The Government argues that Cabinet records should not be disclosed in order to protect the unanimity of decision-making.

Wrong again.

Cabinet discussions on issues would not be disclosed as these documents would be exempted under the existing provisions. Specific sensitive material is also still excluded. What's true is that the Government wants a blackout of information which could give the public the truth about some of its more controversial decisions for at least the next ten years if not thirty.

But certainly until after the next general election.