Culture of secrecy - FoI a figment of former ambition

IT WOULD be too easy to react to the news that 10 weeks after the tragic deaths of the Dunne family in Wexford an internal Garda inquiry has not been completed by questioning Garda efficiency.

That an independent Government inquiry into how State agencies responded to the all-too-obvious plight of Adrian and Ciara Dunne and their two daughters cannot begin its work until it has all the relevant information from the gardaí and the Health Service Executive adds to that sense of frustration with an apparent lack of commitment to bring these matters to a speedy conclusion.

But we should not be surprised. Our culture of secrecy and a visceral reluctance to put public information in a public forum has not served us well and has acted as a shield for at the very least inefficiency and possibly even corruption.

It has fostered a cynicism about public affairs and the objectivity of decisions made on our behalf that is neither admirable nor healthy.

Our tribunals, so important but so susceptible to an accusation of unexpected longevity, have become the perfect metaphor for our culture of secrecy and hall-of-mirrors ways of doing business.

This week’s Supreme Court ruling that may preclude the Mahon Tribunal from hearing in public certain matters it has been investigating in private is just another argument supporting that view.

A mere 10 years ago the Freedom of Information Act was introduced with great fanfare and declarations of transparency and openness. It was to be a vehicle to restore confidence in the administration of public affairs, a catalyst for reform.

Most of all, it was to shine a light into the process through which public policy is administered by government, to show us how the policies we elect politicians to implement are executed.

A decade later, the act is a sad remnant of that noble ambition. It stands like a once-great prize fighter at the doors of a shabby Los Angeles casino, punch-drunk, greatly reduced and all but neutralised.

The information commissioner Emily O’Reilly has pointed out that an increasing number of organisations are placed outside her remit and that government has continually added to the off-limits list.

Ms O’Reilly has described how in 2005 the act was used to access reports from the Health and Safety Authority on school inspections. These reports embarrassed the Department of Education.

In 2006 the reports for that year were sought, along with the HSA reports on hospitals, nursing homes and other public buildings — maybe even the one for the Natural History Museum in Merrion Square — but it was ruled that they were no longer within the remit of the act.

The commissioner has also pointed out that there is an increasing tendency to conduct government business through agencies such as FÁS, the Environmental Protection Agency, the HSE and many others. Ms O’Reilly suggests that there may be as many as 450 of these bodies, and only a handful are under her remit.

“They are subject to little or no parliamentary oversight and there has been a diminution in ministerial responsibility and control over functions that were part of the relevant department,” she has warned.

As if those warnings were not enough it should be pointed out that the Dáil’s financial watchdog has complained that it cannot accurately evaluate the effectiveness of public-private partnerships as it can’t get the information needed to make a decision.

Ambiguity and discretion may well be the tools of successful diplomacy but engendering a culture of an ever-deeper omertà does no service to our society.