Freedom of information

AMENDMENTS TO the Freedom of Information Act are being considered within the Department of Finance

AMENDMENTS TO the Freedom of Information Act are being considered within the Department of Finance. As one of the most secretive of all government departments, its officials are likely to favour minimal change rather than reinstatement of the Act’s original remit along with the extensions being sought by Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly. That would be a mistake and Minister for Finance Michael Noonan should ensure it does not happen. Secret dealings facilitated some of the worst aspects of the boom years, and greater transparency and accountability are urgently needed to repair public confidence.

Eight years ago the government rejected a promising culture of openness and transparency arising from the new legislation. Substantial fees were charged for dealing with requests for information. Cabinet deliberations and memoranda, along with ministerial decision-making, were ruled to be outside the scope of the Act. Complaints from the Ombudsman and appeals to open up political and official activities to scrutiny were ignored. Requests from the Standards in Public Office Commission for the power to inquire into matters of significant public interest received similar treatment.

The Act was designed to protect the public interest by shining a light on political decision-making and official practices. It was intended to uphold a right to privacy – sensitive information regarding security and financial matters would be withheld. Yet its powers of inquiry came to be regarded as a dangerous and damaging intrusion into the operations of government. The cavalier attitudes that led to the banking and building crash, accompanied by inadequate oversight, encouraged this approach.

Ms O’Reilly has complained for years about the exclusion of important areas of administration from the terms of the Act. She sought better record keeping by official bodies and more co-operation from civil servants.

READ MORE

A free flow of information represents the lifeblood of a healthy democracy. Individuals should be entitled to access official records to vindicate their rights. The media, on their behalf, should hold bureaucracy and governments to account. Public administration and political decisions must be open to formal scrutiny. Anything less will damage public confidence and could facilitate corruption. Recent governments behaved badly by reducing the effectiveness of the Act. Those mistakes should be corrected.