State secrecy fuelling public cynicism

“THE original Freedom of Information Act may have been winded but hasn’t yet been stretchered off the pitch,” Ombudsman and Information Commissioner Emily O’Reilly told a UCC conference at the weekend.

One sensed that her use of the word “yet” had a particular poignancy in relation to the Freedom of Information Act (FoI).

“FoI is going through a rather fractious period and needs, cool, clear and to some extent, disinterested voices to remind us of it original rationale,” she explained.

Hence, she welcomes academic interest in order to raise the standard of debate on the issue.

Although access to information is now considered a basic human right, this has only been recognised here and in other common law countries in relatively recent times. FoI was intended “to enable members of the public to obtain access, to the greatest extent possible consistent with the public interest and the right to privacy, to information in the possession of public bodies,” according to the original legislation.

This was seen as fundamental aspect of moving from an era of official secrecy to one of greater openness and transparency, when the legislation was first enacted in 1997. Earlier this year, the Oireachtas amended the act by restricting the public’s access to records. This legislation weakened FoI in the opinion of the Information Commissioner, who questions whether there is any other area of social policy in this country where rights, once legislated, “have been rescinded to the same extent or in a similar manner?” She noted that “the bulk of the amendments were concerned with limiting public access to much of the recorded thought-process around government actions.”

New fees have been introduced, and an appeal to the Information Commissioner will now costs €240, and she has “little doubt that the scale of the charge will provide a disincentive to accessing what is a right”. In fact, there has already been “a significant reduction in the number of requests for non-personal information to Government departments”.

Providing accountability was one of the key objectives of FoI. If it were not for it, the State might now be locked into a contract to build a national stadium that would cost over €700 million, according to Ms O’Reilly.

Under the provisions of the 1997 Act, the public would now be entitled to examine the early Government documents relative to the LUAS, but this information will remain now secret for another five years.

Instead of seeking to limit FoI we need a public policy on the release of information without formal FOI requests. Providing information should be seen as a way of improving the quality of public service, rather than as a burden on public bodies.

It is fundamental to the proper functioning of a democracy that the electorate should be properly informed about the activities of government. For too long our system was underpinned by the mentality that consultation was the privilege of a few insiders who supposedly understood the issues. Public confidence was undermined, and this has led to a whole series of tribunals.

Yet FoI was amended without conducting a fundamental review, or even consulting Ms O’Reilly’s office. It’s no wonder that public cynicism is reaching epidemic proportions.