IN SPITE of a gradual recovery in the number of requests made under the Freedom of Information Act, high charges and the exclusion of government decision-making processes from its remit continue to have a malign effect. The damage done to the public’s right to know by a Fianna Fáil-led Government can be judged by a fall of nearly 50 per cent in the number of information requests submitted between 2003 and 2008.
Ombudsman and Information Commissioner Emily O’Reilly comments in her latest report that the FOI Act of 1999 is a progressive, visionary piece of legislation that changed the social contract between the public service and the public from one of secrecy to one of openness. It certainly did that. But when the Act was used to inquire into government and ministerial decision-making, it was crudely amended to exclude such matters. High charges were introduced to discourage its use. And the number of requests fell precipitously. Even now, in spite of an increase in requests concerning Government departments during the past year, the figures are about 40 per cent lower than in 2003.
As people watch their living standards fall and unemployment rise, they want to know how it happened, what went wrong and who is to blame. But the exemptions introduced by Charlie McCreevy and the exclusion of financial bodies from the terms of the Act mean they may never know. This is in spite of the fact that the Act was designed to protect both the public interest and the right to privacy. As Ms O’Reilly observed: “The Act is not there to do harm . . . accountability is a mark of a healthy democracy, while transparency is a cornerstone of accountability”.
Now that the Government is transferring an enormous debt burden on to this and future generations, the decision-making processes and operations of State agencies involved in overseeing, rescuing and recapitalising the banks must become more transparent. That should involve bringing the Central Bank, the Financial Regulator, the National Treasury Management Agency, the National Asset Management Agency and others within the remit of the FOI Act. It does not mean that financially sensitive information should be disclosed. But citizens being asked to pay for past mistakes should be satisfied about the probity of decisions now being taken.
Reform of government and the public service is of immense importance. One way of doing that is by ensuring that relevant decisions are once more opened to public scrutiny. Amend the Act.