Sir, - The Freedom of Information Bill which is now before the Seanad sets out to maximise access to information held by public bodies. Every person is given a legal right to see public papers, and a corresponding legal duty is placed on public servants to supply information on request. Journalists will have the same right as ordinary citizens to ask for and see public files, no more and no less. The Bill specifically states that the reason a person is believed to be seeking information shall not be a factor in deciding - what they are entitled to see.
I appreciate that navigating a legal text of some complexity is not always easy for those of us who are not lawyers. Dr Michael Woods (letter, January 2nd) appears to have misunderstood certain provisions of the Bill. I am happy to assure him that the Bill is far from being as restrictive in its access to information as he tears.
The independent appeals authority under the Bill, the Information Commissioner, will have full powers to review and to overturn decisions made by public bodies to withhold information (s.34). He will have powers akin to a High Court judge to send for papers and to summon witnesses and failure to co operate with his reviews will be a criminal offence.
Where the head of a public body personally refuses a request for information, the appeal goes direct to the Information Commissioner, who has full powers to overturn that decision and release the information (s. 34(1)(b). Where a junior official gives the initial refusal, there is first an internal appeal to a more senior officer.
If the decision is still no, the appeal goes to the Informational Commissioner who again has full powers to release the information. Based on experience in other countries, we expect that about a third of all refusals would be overturned on internal review, allowing the Information Commissioner more to deal with the more difficult cases.
The power to ask public bodies to give more precise reasons for their decisions (s.35) is an extra power of the Commissioner, not a substitute for the power to release information as Dr Woods appears to believe.
There are a number of commonsense exceptions to the release of information, and these are similar to those in the Freedom of Information laws in Sweden, the US, Canada, Finland, Australia and New Zealand. It won't be possible to get the codes for the prison gates or for the Mint at Sandyford. The Leaving Cert papers won't be available on request the previous Easter. Your writer, Ronan Brady of the Let in the Light Campaign, acknowledged in his recent article that these exceptions have been framed so as to maximise the amount of information which can be released.
Normally, therefore, the exceptions only apply where the public interest would be damaged by the release of the information. Specifically, the protections referred to by Dr Woods in s.20 and 21 of the Bill can only be invoked where the public interest can be damaged by the release of the information involved. Ultimately, the decision about where the public interest lies will be a matter for the independent Information Commissioner where a refusal to release information is appealed.
I look forward to as lively and informed a debate on the Bill in the Dail as has taken place in the Seanad, and I will listen carefully to any constructive suggestions which Dr Woods has to make which would further strengthen the Bill's intention to maximise the right to know. - Yours, etc.,
Minister of State, Office of the Tanaiste,
Government Buildings,
Dublin 2.