In the name of transparency
Related Articles
INFORMATION Commissioner, Emily O'Reilly, displayed remarkable restraint yesterday as she once again expressed concern about the operation of the Freedom of Information Act.
Given her repeated protests in recent years about the restrictions and difficulties that have reduced the effectiveness of the Act, an angry outburst might have been expected.
Freedom of Information was introduced ten years ago as an instrument to end a culture of secrecy and to promote transparency in government.
Hailed as a major achievement of John Bruton's Rainbow government, it was to "replace the culture of secrecy within the public service with a culture of openness".
However, since then, it has been subject to many crude amendments which have reduced its effectiveness, narrowed its scope and made it less accessible to the public it is supposed to serve.
The introduction of fees in 2003 was an unsubtle discouragement to the public.
It is quite astonishing to learn that changes continue to be made without consultation with the office of the Commissioner, or even the courtesy of notification.
This smacks of contempt for the office and, consequently, for the very concept of open government.
The Commissioner emphasised yesterday that the information law is still effective. It is true that newspapers have used it to bring many dark secrets into the public domain.
A reminder that the Garda force remains exempt from enquiries under the Act attracted most attention yesterday. However, it is equally odd to discover that other bodies excluded from the Act include VECs, the Personal Injuries Board, the Central Applications Office, the Refugees Appeals Tribunal and the Financial Services Regulatory Authority.
All of these bodies would be expected to have a high degree of interaction with the public and, if transparency means anything at all, their files should be open to the people they serve.
The Freedom of Information Act was meant to make Government more transparent and accountable. The outgoing Government stands accused of undermining it. Now the incoming Government must stand up to those forces within the public service which would prefer secrecy. And enhance the Act's effectiveness.
