Author: Gavin Sheridan

Back in March 2011, just as the new government came in, I blogged about the programme for government.

…I trust not the words of politicians, but their actions. I will be closely watching how things are done, and indeed if necessary lobbying for greater transparency or changes to proposed legislation where I think such changes are flawed, or do not go far enough.

That scepticism, it turns out, was well placed. Now I take into account that no new government, no matter how well intentioned, can achieve legislative reform within the 14 months since March 2011. But could they have done more? Definitely.

Let’s take one example, which clearly is the focus of this blog, The Freedom of Information Act. The Programme for Government promised:

We will legislate to restore the Freedom of Information Act to what it was before it was undermined by the outgoing Government, and we will extend its remit to other public bodies including the administrative side of the Garda Síochána, subject to security exceptions.

Including:

We will amend the Official Secrets Act, retaining a criminal sanction only for breaches which involve a serious threat to the vital interests of the state.

The first thing the government set about doing was establishing the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. This Department, headed by Brendan Howlin, would take over responsibility for the FOI Act from the Department of Finance. So let’s focus on the core promises of reform promised by Howlin:

We will legislate to restore the Freedom of Information Act to what it was before it was undermined by the outgoing Government

We will extend its remit to other public bodies including the administrative side of the Garda Síochána

While I understand that some 14 months later the Minister has a Heads of Bill drafted (that he doesn’t seem to have consulted civil society on at all) it seems a bit odd we have waited this long. Now Mr Howlin might retort that he wants to bring substantial reform via an FOI amendment, and that takes time, and he may have a point. But there is also this. Both of the precise reforms he has mentioned, and has mentioned persistently in PQs since March 2011, could be achieved without amendment at all.

If Howlin wanted to remove the fees and reduce them to zero, all that is required is a signature. Back in 2003 when the fees were introduced it was done using a Statutory Instrument (SI 264/2003). All that is needed is:

1) Copy and paste SI 264/2003
2) Where a euro figure is mentioned change it to €0
3) Sign it

Job done.

Next on the prescribed bodies. What about:

1) Copy and paste any of the dozen or more SIs where the Minister has the power to add bodies as prescribed under the Act
2) Add a list of bodies such as the NTMA, the Central Bank, etc.
3) Sign it

Job done.

Total time taken, probably less than 10 minutes. Total time it’s taken thus far: 14 months. And of course once the 10 minutes are up, you could spend the next 15 months drafting a new Bill to radically improve FOI overall, or bring in other legislation that was promised, like amending or repealing the Official Secrets Act, or Whistleblowers and Lobbying legislation. (I do appreciate it is a little more complicated than this, but not much).

Back on March 8 journalist Chris Lowry wrote an article for the Irish Independent about Celtic Football Club. The article was an opinion piece about Rangers and Celtic, and how both need each other to survive. He concluded:

But actually, without Rangers, the whole house of cards could collapse. Celtic would be the hardest hit. What would point of them if their fans had no pantomime villain to boo?

What, come to think of it, would be the point of Scottish football?

Discuss.

The next day on March 9, IN&M minority shareholder Dermot Desmond (a long friend of this blog) sent a letter to then IN&M chief executive Gavin O’Reilly. In it he complained about the above mentioned article saying:

I was very disappointed to read the above article in the opinion section of the Irish Independent website yesterday. The high standards of journalism, that the IN&M claim to uphold, were clearly ignored when this article was published. It is frankly a disgusting piece of journalism that does a disservice to the IN&M Group. This type of gutter press is not what I would have expected from a company in which I have invested a substantial sum of money.

And concludes:

Mr Lowry’s article is not based on fact. Therefore, any response from you to the effect that “this is ‘fair comment”‘ simply will not stand up. I am calling on you to retract this opinion piece without delay and to issue an apology to both clubs. In the absence of a suitable apology, I will be recommending that Celtic FC make a formal complaint based on incitement to hatred.

Of course, as Mr Desmond admits, he is a significant shareholder in Celtic FC. After reading of Denis O’Brien’s spokesman James Morrissey’s letter to Karl Brophy, one has to wonder just how often current IN&M shareholders Dermot Desmond and Denis O’Brien (or people acting on their behalf) are sending letters like this to management, or indeed to individual journalists working at Independent Newspapers.

Thanks to a reader, here is Dermot Desmond’s letter, on the paper of IIU, his investment company: