Sir, I do not share in any misunderstandings concerning the Freedom of Information Bill, either on the part of The Irish Times or in the fevered imagination of the Labour Party's political adviser, Mr Fergus Finlay (December 21st). It is quite clear to me that the Government's so- called Freedom of Information Bill is a carefully contrived sham, designed to mislead the public into believing that we are entering a new era of openness, transparency and accountability. Your editorial of December 17th, headed "No brave new world", was much closer to the mark.
It is true that the Bill applies to the information held by some 120 public bodies. The exemptions are contained in Sections 19-32. These range from the clearly desirable exemptions, viz., law enforcement, public safety, security and defence, to the extraordinarily wide exemptions provided for in Sections 20 and 21 which apply to all the public bodies concerned (for enlightenment, Mr Finlay might like to read Minister for State Ms Eithne Fitzgerald's speech to Seanad Eireann on December 19th, pages 5 and 7).
These sections, taken together, enable the head of any of the 120 public bodies to refuse to disclose any information where the record sought contains information relating to "the deliberative processes or the functions or management of the public body concerned," and where the head of that public body is of the opinion that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. Notwithstanding the exceptions to this general provision, in sub section 2 of Section 20, these wide ranging exemptions are designed to prevent the public from having access to the information which forms the real basis for decision making in the public service, and as such are to be condemned.
Of even greater concern are the procedural deficiencies for enforcing the right to information which, when taken together, could result in the entire purpose of the Bill being frustrated by a head of any of the 120 public bodies. This arises from the failure to provide any effective appeal to the Information Commissioner from a decision taken personally by a head of a public body, under Section 8 of the Bill, to refuse to disclose information requested. This glaring deficiency is to be seen in Section 34, which sets out the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner and from which decisions under Section 8 are omitted.
The practical result of this omission is that it is open to every head of the 120 bodies to select the information that they wish to keep undisclosed, and then to reserve to himself or herself the decision on any request from the public for disclosure. A decision to refuse disclosure under Section 8 could not then be reviewed or overturned by the Information Commissioner.
The maximum extent of the powers of the Information Commissioner in relation to a decision taken by a head of a public body under Section 8 is to direct, under Section 35, a fuller or better statement of the reasons for a refusal, where he is of the opinion that the statement of reasons for refusal is inadequate, or where the public interest has been relied on as a ground for refusal. In the absence of a power to review, or overturn, the decision under Section 8 of the head of the public body concerned, the remedy of a better statement of the reasons for refusal is of little or no value and contributes little to openness.
Whether the omission of these decisions from the review of the Information Commissioner is a genuine mistake, or an attempt to mislead the public about the true nature and extent of information provided by this Bill, or an effort by the old order to preserve itself, is a matter for speculation. The Minister, from whom we would much prefer to hear rather than the unelected adviser, should reconsider the Bill. Not only does it not dispel the culture of secrecy, it gives it a new lease of life. There is a better way, and we will press for it in Dail Eireann. - Yours, etc,
Kilbarrack Grove,
Dublin 5.