Mr. Ronan Brady:

The key points I wish to make are as follows. The Freedom of Information Acts should be extended to the Garda. The 1997 Freedom of Information Act was carefully drafted so as to allow this. Section 23 of the Act already contains the necessary protection for confidential matters in the struggle against crime. Since 1997, all that has been required for the extension of freedom of information to the Garda has been a decision of the Government. No further legislation has been required.
Ireland is nearly unique, in so far as my studies go, in not extending freedom of information to the Garda. In other countries, progressive policing organisations and police officers have sought to bring their organisations under a freedom of information regime, arguing that it is vital in maintaining public confidence in the policing service. In Ireland, however, the authorities have fostered Garda antagonism towards openness, manifested in the legislation preventing proper contact between the media and serving officers. It would be absurd to claim with certainty that the extension of freedom of information to An Garda Síochána would have prevented the scandals that have recently been unearthed by Garda whistleblowers but it would be equally absurd to deny that a freedom of information regime would have made these scandals less likely.
Members of the committee can see my credentials, such as they are. They are printed for them in the presentation. I will move on to the key points I want to make.
First, the 1997 Act was an enormous step towards openness in a country where bureaucracy and censorship were more normal. In 2003, there was a kind of bureaucratic coup in the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003 which was intended to reduce the effectivity of the 1997 Act. Both parties in the current Government have undertaken to reform that. They are preparing legislation and have already implemented certain aspects of legislation in this regard. However, one aspect does not require additional legislation, that is, this one. It is not a radical measure.
There is what some journalists have pointed to as "a convenient confusion" that in some way freedom of information would inhibit intelligence gathering or crime investigation. That is not the case. The Freedom of Information Act protects the necessary confidentiality of policing work. The more forward-looking police leaders in our nearest neighbour have been positive about freedom of information legislation. Sir Hugh Orde, of whom the committee will be aware and who went on to head the Association of Chief Police Officers, ACPO, in the United Kingdom, states that he pushed hard to place that association under the Westminster Freedom of Information Act 2000, and this was accomplished wholly voluntarily in 2011.
The ACPO website provides easy access to disclosure logs. These are the letters that they send out. They are the documents that they circulate among themselves. They are redacted - material that could compromise confidentiality is blacked out - but, in the course of my studies, I have read letters to chief police officers from ACPO about intelligence training and other highly sensitive matters. The redaction means that no terrorist could possibly divine any information that was useful to him or her, but by openly displaying the existence of these letters, ACPO is enabling serious journalists to ask more serious questions. Of course, ACPO is within its powers to withhold certain information if it is not in the public interest to release it. The logs contain information on such matters as terrorism and allied matters, criminal justice and performance management. I have read the Metropolitan Police's disclosure logs as well. These include, for example, the number of 999 calls which the police have missed.
In 2004, assistant chief constable Ian Readhead of the Hampshire police testified before a committee, not unlike this one, in Westminster. He was asked has freedom of information inhibited police work, and his answer was emphatic. He stated:

No, I do not think so for one moment. There is a clear balance to be drawn here between the right of the public to know and the right of the Service to sustain public safety in general, and the legislation gives ample opportunity for us to be able to secure information and keep information confidential which would threaten public safety if it were exposed. I do not think that is the issue at all.

The assistant chief constable mentioned the culture of the service, whereby there is a tendency towards secrecy, and said he did not think that was sustainable. He concluded by stating: "There are many things that you could say about the way in which the Special Branch carries out its business which would not prejudice public safety at all."
Members will be aware that I also am a representative of the National Union of Journalists and Irish journalists find little evidence of such views among An Garda Síochána. The Garda press office was described by one of my colleagues as a bulwark against openness, which frankly is what most journalists feel about it. Section 62 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 contains a presumption of criminality against disclosing information to journalists, inter alia, without the approval of senior officers. This is enormously disproportionate. The international free speech NGO, Index on Censorship, has stated, quite rightly, that this legislation is “not the behaviour of a European democracy”. It is, however, quite consistent with the hugger-mugger attitude concerning the Garda Síochána. The absence of outside scrutiny contributes to behaviour such as the refusal to co-operate with the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC. It also contributes to a commonplace secrecy tactic whereby one defines a hot topic as an operational matter, even when disclosure would in no way inhibit any operation.
None of what I have said should be construed as anti-garda. Speaking personally, I have good reason to thank gardaí for their kindness and their protection on many occasions. I have also worked with the United Nations internationally and in Asia and Africa I have encountered UN officials who class An Garda Síochána as one of the best police services in the world, based on the work done by gardaí on UN assignments. Regretfully, however, I must agree with my colleague, Ken Foxe, who has stated a genuine argument can be made that had freedom of information, FOI, been in place within the Garda over the past 20 years, it may have made it a more open institution and helped its members to understand that legitimate inquiry is not dangerous. He went on to state that a more open, more questioning culture across the Garda may have helped to avoid some of the enormous reputational damage it has suffered in recent months.