OPINION:Decisions were made behind closed doors for years. Those doors are at last being prised open
ONE OF the more entrenched Irish cultural problems, which has arguably contributed to this and previous crises, is a cult of secrecy which enables the absence of evidence-based decision-making and permits elite dominance.
This is not simply an Irish problem, but one at which we excelled. As Tom Garvin memorably put it, Ireland prevented the future, remaining poor in the 1950s and beyond because elite veto players ensured obsequiousness to the Catholic Church, a kowtowing to vested interests and a cult of secrecy.
Internationally, it is accepted that increased transparency and accountability leads to better policy outcomes, a better understanding of government, increased public participation and increased trust.
Such moves also contribute to long-term economic sustainability and are increasingly being used by credit-rating agencies and others to measure performance.
Freedom of information is a vital plank in this, along with open government, registration of lobbyists, open budgetary procedures and transparent political funding. Political reform in terms of empowering the Dáil and the people is a separate if related matter.
This Government promised, both in its party manifestos and in the programme for government, to deliver on this agenda. Most likely preoccupied with the scale of the economic challenge and the difficulties engendered by creating a new Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, it found change slow at first.
However, what is most remarkable is the scale of the change delivered. If followed through on, this has the potential to transform the way we do public business. It may not be populist or fashionable to say it, but the combination of all the reforms is akin to a quiet revolution and it is being done when much attention is elsewhere.
Of course, the picture is mixed. The good news is that there are serious moves to introduce a mandatory register of lobbyists as recommended by the Mahon tribunal. The proposed new rules will cover all organisations or individuals – including charities, professional bodies and commercial lobbyists who are paid to make representations to politicians and civil servants about policies or decisions – and will allow for monetary sanctions.
In outline, at least, the proposals are good and are based mainly on the successful Canadian system.
The proposal which is perhaps the most advanced is whistleblowers’ protection. The draft heads of the Protected Disclosure in the Public Interest Bill 2012 aim to ensure that workers are protected from reprisals where they disclose information relating to wrongdoing in their workplaces.
We are learning from experience elsewhere – this new legislation is influenced by moves in Britain and New Zealand, as well as by international principles and research by Transparency International.
There is also reform of the budgetary process under which secrecy was absolute, allowing questionable initiatives such as decentralisation to be announced with much fanfare but no consultation. Now various policy options and their costs/savings are set out in cross-cutting papers on the department’s website.
Spending policy however still leaves much to be desired. There are a few small signs of a move towards evidence-based expenditure policy but there are disturbing cases of Ministers abusing power by delivering projects to home constituencies without producing any evidence of need.
A proposal that received less fanfare is open government, where the department has launched a databank which provides detailed information on all aspects of public expenditure over a number of years. A good deal more granularity is still required but it is a welcome initiative. It is important, however, that this is not mistaken for freedom of information. In some jurisdictions, access to data is being used by governments to explain an absence of such freedom, while they hope data remains hidden in databanks.
The Government has promised that freedom of information will include the National Asset Management Agency, An Garda Síochána, the Central Bank and other statutory agencies, while the Freedom of Information Act will be restored to its original format when introduced in 1997.
The bad news though is that freedom of information has been delayed; the Bill is expected to go for pre-legislative scrutiny to the Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Sector Spending and Reform in the autumn.
The indications are that the 1997 version will be restored and there will be reductions in charges for appeals, often so onerous as to dissuade information seekers. However, it is the small print which will dictate the scale of exemptions that will be vital.
Overall, when all these come into operation, it will be a world away from the secretive, behind- closed-doors Irish decision-making that has done so much damage.
The department, its Minister and its secretary general are to be congratulated for keeping an eye on this agenda. More please.
Dr Jane Suiter is a lecturer in the department of government at UCC