Ms Emily O'Reilly:

The 2003 amendments drove a coach and four through the original Act. Many people who were seeking public records lost their appetite to do so because many of the more important or relevant public records were taken off the table. That had a huge impact on matters. In general, public bodies behave well in respect of it. As Mr. Rafferty explained and as I stated earlier, issues have arisen in respect of training and capacity. For example, some decisions can be very poorly drafted. There are instances where the public body involved may have forgotten the need to consult a third party or that there was a public interest potential override with which it was obliged to deal. That is why I stated that it can become sloppy on occasion.

When we consider the statistics at the end of the year - I refer to all freedom applications in this regard as opposed to those which come to us for review - we find that the further away one goes from the centre of power, the more records are released. The lowest percentages would be in respect of central government and the higher percentages would relate to local authorities and other public bodies. The further away one gets from where the game is at, the more records are released. When the original Act was amended, one heard anecdotal complaints to the effect that it was taking longer for records to be released. People were wondering whether this was being done deliberately. There were also many complaints about the search-and-retrieval fees and people wondered if these were being used in a particular way. Whenever we examined this matter, we did not find systemic issues as such. However, with respect to the many excellent officials who deal with this matter, it would be fair to say that there was a general lowering of standards across the board.