It was ironic that the Department promoting the rolling back of the Freedom of Information Act this week felt it useful to give out an internal memo to explain its Minister's actions, notes Mark Brennock
On Wednesday, reporters thought they were onto something fishy. A Naas GP - a constituent of the Minister for Finance, Mr McCreevy - had come to see him last November and told him of his plan to build a private hospital to cater for day-case surgery. What about extending to his project the capital allowances already given to private in-patient hospitals?
Mr McCreevy sent him to see his officials, and a meeting took place on February 24th. Ten days later, as the debate of the Finance Bill reached its conclusion, Mr McCreevy amended the Bill to extend the scheme. This measure has the potential to save the constituent €9 million over seven years.
The Opposition complained that Mr McCreevy had fixed up a constituent with a lucrative tax break through a last-minute amendment to the Finance Bill. The Department of Finance moved quickly to diminish the suspicion that this was an act of cronyism. It released to the press a copy of the memo written by the officials who had met the promoters of the scheme. The memo shows the officials saw some benefits in the scheme. It suggests private day-surgery hospitals could take pressure off normal hospitals. The only comment under the heading "Conclusion" is: "You may wish to discuss with officials". This hardly suggests a ringing endorsement. However, the document reveals the officials saw some merit in the idea.
The release of the memo served the public interest. It revealed how much this scheme is likely to cost (€63 million in tax foregone over seven years if seven such hospitals are built). It added to public debate on Government policy. Mr McCreevy and Ms Harney argue that the growth of the private health sector eases pressure on the public hospitals. Labour and others argue that the Government's tax relief policy is bedding down for generations the system whereby the better-off use one health service while the less well-off use another. The memo gave the public some insight into the Government's rationale.
The release of the memo also served Mr McCreevy's interest. It gave a number of coherent reasons why this change might be a good thing. It substantially reduced speculation that this change was brought about merely to benefit a constituent of his.
The irony is that anyone seeking release of this memo under the Freedom of Information Act this week would have been refused, as it is part of the "deliberative process" and will remain so until the Finance Bill becomes law.
If the Government gets its restrictive amendments to the Freedom of Information Act through, such papers may be locked away for a decade - unless it suits the Government to get them into the public domain.
The proposed restrictions include one that conceals for 10 years papers created "primarily" for Government business. This time the Department chose to give out this document. On another occasion, the document could well be seen as one created "primarily" for Government business, and therefore withheld.
In the Seanad debate this week, Mr McCreevy said restrictions on Freedom of Information were necessary in the interests of "effective government all organisations have the right to decide how to organise their business and the Government is no different", he said.
The proposed changes shift the balance of power over the control of information substantially towards the Government and public service. This week the Government decided to "organise its business" by releasing an internal memo. Next week they could refuse to release the same one. And if they get this legislation through, they will have even greater freedom to pick and choose what we know and what we don't.
They have no intention of changing their plans either. Next week as the Oireachtas begins intensive consideration of the changes, the Minister for Finance, Mr McCreevy, plans to be in Cheltenham. His Minister of State, Mr Tom Parlon, may be in Cheltenham too, but has not made a final decision, a spokesman says.
If he is, the Committee Stage debate in the Seanad will be taken by a Minister of State from another Department. This person will have nothing to do with the Bill, and will have the sole function of sitting in the Chamber, rejecting each and every amendment, no matter how sensible, as the Ministers responsible watch horse races.
As this charade goes on, senators will have to absent themselves from time to time to attend a meeting of the Finance and Public Service Committee. That committee hopes to hear from senior civil servants and others on whether these changes are necessary at all. But the Government intends that no proposed amendment in the Seanad and no evidence unearthed at the Committee will alter a line of its legislation.
Which reminds me to put in that Freedom of Information request quickly on the progress the Government is making in its plans to make the Oireachtas more relevant.