Madam, - When I drew up the Freedom of Information Act, I saw an effective appeals process as a key to its success. Official secrecy had been the code of the public service since 1911. Without an accessible and independent review process, the temptation would be there to exercise the discretions in the Act towards favouring secrecy rather than the release of information, or even to refuse release of information on spurious grounds.
I regarded a strong appeals system as the key to ensuring that the primary decision-making would be in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the original 1997 FOI Act.
The charges regime introduced by the Minister for Finance from July 7th, coupled with the changes in last April's FOI Amendment Act, drastically undercut the accessibility of the appeals process, and thus its effectiveness. The Amendment Act also removed the right to appeal altogether for papers on an ongoing policy issue on the certificate of a secretary-general of a Government Department.
The new charges of €75 for an internal review, the Stage 1 appeal, and of €150 to go to the Information Commissioner are deterrent amounts for individuals, for voluntary organisations monitoring public policy, and for investigative media.
There is a real risk now that, knowing that appeals are expensive, public bodies may be tempted to lean towards refusal rather than release of information where there is discretion to do so. This would undermine the stated purpose of the original Act, set out in its Long Title, "to enable members of the public to obtain access to information to the greatest extent possible consistent with the public interest and the right to privacy".
While a great deal of work has gone into developing best FOI practice in the public service, I have, in my own use of the Act to look for information, encountered some refusals that were simply wrong in law. I have come across the view that if information may be refused then it must be refused, even though, under the Act, the balance of public interest decides the case. Making appeals financially inaccessible is hardly the way to improve practice.
The charge for making FOI requests is less severe, but will still be onerous for those who exercise a watchdog function on the public's behalf - civil society organisations, voluntary groups, the media. Will budget-strapped RTÉ and local media be tempted more towards "infotainment" and away from investigative reporting?
Last September, a group of middle-ranking civil servants drew up an excellent report on how to improve compliance with Freedom of Information legislation. They argued that the most important factors in ensuring genuine openness was the support of senior management, a proactive approach to release of information, and a "why not release?" attitude. Sadly, the leadership being given by the present Government gives the strong signal to the public service that release of information is bad.
The new charging regime supports a return to the old culture of secrecy. - Yours, etc.,
EITHNE FITZGERALD, Clonard Avenue, Dublin 16.
**********
Madam, - In the 80-page review of their first year in government, published last month, the Taoiseach and Tánaiste were uncharacteristically coy about one significant achievement.
Tucked away at the back there is one mention of the Freedom of Information amendment Act 2003, but it is not listed in the commentary as an achievement of the Coalition.
Bertie and Mary are effusive in listing their good works and admit that "major milestones have been achieved". Having torn the heart out of the Freedom of Information Act the Government has now decided to introduce a range of punitive charges designed to put access to public information outside the range of many citizens.
On Friday an Taoiseach will address the biennial conference of the ICTU and will no doubt outline the milestones achieved under the new national partnership programme, "Sustaining Progress". As we await his arrival, here's one delegate who is looking forward to his justification for dismantling the FOI Act. Sustaining Progress. FOI. What Progress? - Yours, etc.,
SEAMUS DOOLEY, Irish Secretary, NUJ, Liberty Hall, Dublin 1.