The Ombudsman and Information Commissioner, Mr Kevin Murphy, has issued a challenging commentary on the legislative changes proposed by the Coalition Government in its Freedom of Information Bill.
In spite of a reluctance to engage in public dispute with the Government, his 90-page report makes it clear - based on a series of past rulings - that existing exemptions for sensitive files have been strong enough to protect the genuine interests of the State. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats should, at this late stage, be aware of the damage they will cause to public confidence in government, and to their own long-term electoral interests, if they ram this repressive legislation through the Dáil and Seanad.
The Freedom of Information Act was introduced by the Rainbow government in 1997 as a direct consequence of the Beef Tribunal. It was designed to reassure the electorate that the political and economic scandals of the past could not easily recur. It was a heartening attempt to end a culture of administrative secrecy and to let in the light on the way governments conducted their business. In contrast, this Bill seeks to roll back those reforms and severely curtail the public's right to know what is being done on their behalf.
The arrogance of the relevant Government Ministers, who have absented themselves at Cheltenham races while the Bill and related issues are being debated, is on a par with the intransigence of a Coalition determined to ignore any and all representations. This unwillingness to respond to genuine public concerns and to vitiate a piece of legislation because of the potential political embarrassment it might cause is a source of some alarm.
This legislation, if enacted, will curtail the authority of the statutorily-independent Information Commissioner while granting new powers to senior civil servants and more protection to Ministers. It was never intended that all Government files should become public after five years. The Information Act specifically provided for the withholding of information where the public interest might suffer damage or Government policy might be subverted. The new Bill, however, aims to suppress Dail briefing notes automatically, all communications between Ministers, Cabinet memoranda and other records. A Secretary-General of a Department will also be able to withhold material - with no appeal possible - when he or she certifies the "deliberative process" surrounding an issue is on-going.
The Committee on Finance and the Public Service will take evidence from the five Secretaries General tomorrow on why they felt it necessary to roll back existing provisions. It will also hear from the Information Commissioner how the legislation operated. Such an exercise, in full public view, should have been conducted before this flawed legislation was drafted. The Freedom of Information Act serves the citizen, not the media, in a democracy. It should only be amended in an open and accountable forum.