How freedom of information has become a farce
THE revelations in this newspaper last weekend about the excessive spending in Fas represented a notable victory for the Freedom of Information act. However, such successes are increasingly rare because by changing the law, this Fianna Fail/Progressive Democrat-led Government has managed to make it so difficult to obtain information as to render the act largely defunct. In truth, Freedom of Information in Ireland is a farce.
The information uncovered by the painstaking efforts of Shane Ross and Nick Webb is a tangible example of why FoI is so important.
Established by John Bruton's Rainbow government in 1997, the FoI act sought to "replace a culture of secrecy within the public service with a culture of openness".
Today, the Sunday Independent catalogues some of its recent experiences with various government departments, State agencies and public sector bodies to illustrate how dysfunctional the FoI system now is.
But why is FoI so vital?
One only has to look at the major stories that have come to light because of FoI to see its benefit. In addition to last week's story on Fas, which led to the resignation of its director general Rody Molloy, FoI has in recent years provided such major revelations as the health board inspectors recommending against the registration of Leas Cross nursing home, the annual list of TDs' expenses, school league tables, the MRSA scandals and many more.
Then came the sneaky changes to the act.
The government, following the lead of then Finance Minister Charlie McCreevy, in April 2003 amended the FoI act in a number of key ways.
Crucially, as part of the changes, fees were introduced for the use of FoI. People requesting information now had to pay €15 in advance for non-personal information. Internal and external appeals of a decision on such a request cost €75 and €150. Also introduced was a series of non-disclosure clauses, which allowed huge tracts of information to be kept from entering the public domain.
A five-year moratorium was imposed on draft strategy statements and ministerial directions from Government departments.
The immunity from disclosure of these decisions has been vigorously opposed by the Information Commissioner Emily O'Reilly.
The impact of the changes has been severe. The number of requests, particularly from journalists, has plummeted. In her latest annual report, O'Reilly says requests from journalists last year were down 20 per cent on the level before fees were introduced.
"Before the fees, a journalist could simply rattle a request off from his desk, whereas now the additional red tape of getting the fee puts many of them off, as is proven in the drop-off in requests," Ms O'Reilly told the Sunday Independent.
Last year 10,700 requests for information were made, compared to 18,500 in 2003.
Also, a huge number of requests are now only being partially answered, often with most, if not all, of the crucial information left out.
Also, we now see additional charges being sought for the release of the information.
For example, two requests sent by Sunday Independent reporters into the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance recently have been approved, but to receive the information, we have been charged well in excess of €2,500. Before the 2003 changes, the same requests would have been released free of charge.
Three of my requests sent in this year to various departments were rejected on the grounds of commercial sensitivities, and a further three have been rejected without me being informed. The date of reply simply passed and when I called, I was told that my requests had been rejected. No explanation, that's it.
Just last week, I received notification from the Department of Education telling me that my request about budget cuts and their impact on the pupil/teacher ratio was rejected. While I had sent similar requests to other departments, which were approved, I was told that the release of such information "could compromise this department's attempts to maximise funding in subsequent years".
So now requests are no longer just being rejected because some private firm's commercial operations would be revealed, they are being rejected because it may compromise the budget negotiations between departments.
I am now forced to appeal this decision at a cost of €75, but appeal it I will.
On another occasion, the Sunday Independent sought inspection reports on hostels for asylum-seekers from the Department of Justice. The department at first refused to release the reports because they were "commercially sensitive". Even after the Information Commissioner granted our appeal, the department initially refused; this time because it was simply too much work.
In September 2005, the Government quietly passed legislation to ensure that embarrassing Health and Safety Authority reports into teacher working conditions wouldn't get published, again by removing them from the scope of FoI.
Many of the newly established semi-State boards have also managed to remain outside the scope of FoI, and O'Reilly has unsuccessfully called for the gardai to be included. Both Fine Gael and Labour have said they would roll back on the 2003 changes, but it is easy to say that in Opposition.
The Government, in response, said the changes were made because of the costs to administer the FoI act, and said that average cost to process a request was €425. The fee of €15, according to the Government, strikes a balance between the burden and cost of administering the legislation and the need to allow people to have access to information.
But that simply isn't the case. Cost has never been the reason for this Government to cut anything. The politicians were being hammered because their foul-ups and greed were being exposed in the newspapers and they didn't like it.
The Fas scandal has shown why Freedom of Information is so worthwhile. When you're voting the next time, perhaps you should bear in mind which politicians have sought to get rid of it.
