FoI Act report - Ms O’Reilly deserves our thanks

THE announcement that gardaí will have to disclose information under the Freedom of Information Act (FoI), once major reforms of the force are bedded down, represents a feather in the cap of Information Commissioner Emily O’Reilly.

This U-turn came hours after her blistering attack on the Government’s exclusion of An Garda Síochána, as well as several other key State bodies, from the scope of FoI legislation.

Reiterating her demand that police files be opened up in line with international standards, Ms O’Reilly said in her annual report that continued exemption of the garda from the right-to-know laws leaves Ireland out of kilter with the rest of the developed world.

The fact that gardaí were outside the act underlined perceptions that politicians and civil servants were systematically eroding basic principles of openness, transparency and accountability while paying lip service to the concept.

This issue goes beyond the gardaí since people are also denied access to the records of the Adoption Board, the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, the Central Applications Board, Vocational Education Committees and the Financial Services Regulatory Authority. These are all areas of considerable public interest and it is totally unacceptable for Government to maintain a wall of secrecy around them.

This breakthrough is all the more surprising in view of her scathing criticism of the reluctance of the Department of Justice to uncover records requested in the course of her investigations. She had to issue statutory notice to access information and accuses the Department of a “lack of co-operation”.

Now that the Garda Ombudsman Commission is in business, it should also be brought within the scope of FoI accountability. Any doubts about security were dispelled by British success in bringing police forces under FoI since 2005 without apparent negative effects on the policing role.

If gardaí were fire-proofed against FoI demands, it would underline the Government’s denial of the public’s right to know. To use horticultural parlance, the policy to now has smacked of mushroom syndrome whereby people are kept in the dark and fed on detritus.

Politicians know information means power. Thus, it was in the interests of some elements of the administration to ensure that doors remained closed, effectively restricting the access of individuals, communities, and of society at large to information as of right.

When FoI first came into effect it quickly became an important means of enhancing the flow of information to the public on a wide range of issues. Since then, however, the administration has been whittling away at these powers, making it increasingly difficult and more costly for people to peer into the corridors of power and behind the closed doors of faceless bureaucrats.

The fact that its parameters are set by two authoritarian departments, Finance and Justice, probably explains why the scope of the Act was being squeezed. In contrast with other European states, the executive here wields excessive control over the flow of information to the public.

As Ms O’Reilly points out, new restrictions have on occasion been introduced by stealth, without consulting the relevant bodies. Besides making the process more costly, large areas of genuine interest have been hidden from the public gaze and perfectly normal requests for information have been refused. That was unconscionable, hypocritical and inconsistent with manifesto promises of greater openness and accountability.

Improving the flow of information to the public is an important ideal. It follows, therefore, that senior civil servants and their political masters should be in the business of opening up, rather than clamping down on, access to public records. Ms O’Reilly can take a bow.