Freedom of Information—One Year On
Dublin Castle, 23rd April, 1999

The Role of FOI Networks in the Decision Making Process in the Wider Public Service

Mary Barrett, FOI Central Policy Unit, Department of Finance

The use of networks has been a noteworthy feature of preparation for and implementation of FOI in the Irish public service. Today, I would like to focus on the role of these networks in the FOI process in the wider public service by considering:

• what it is about FOI that makes networks so important;
• the experience to date with FOI networks, and
• the future of these networks.

FOI implementation in the wider public service is my main area of responsibility in the Central Policy Unit (CPU). In this context the wider public service comprises the local authorities, health boards and public bodies under the Act which operate under the aegis of various central government departments (varying from the Irish Medicines Board to the National Museum, for example).

Prior to joining the CPU, I was FOI Officer in the Department of Public Enterprise. I attended the Interdepartmental Working Group chaired by the CPU and the Civil Service Users’ Network, chaired by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. From that perspective I cannot overstate the importance of the support of a local network. It helped me ensure that my Department was in a position to effectively process and make decisions on applications from the implementation date.

The Irish public service has traditionally experienced difficulties in dealing with cross-departmental issues. Yet the experience with FOI has been successful in an environment where networks do not normally flourish. Why is this?

Firstly, FOI was a brand new concept with a clear implementation timetable which had to be achieved. The training FOI officers received from FOI practitioners abroad was invaluable in making the whole FOI project seem less daunting. However also networks brought about:

• pooling of research from abroad;
• shared legal advices from the Attorney General’s Office;
• input from different departments on possible organisational arrangements;
• practical ideas for FOI publications; and
• common IT solutions.

These provided support and saved valuable time as the implementation date loomed ever closer.

Secondly, FOI Officers knew that the FOI decision making process was based on the provisions of a new piece of legislation. It was a process which others, both within and outside their Departments, would be likely to scrutinise and review. Furthermore, public service clients would expect a consistent approach to FOI applications across departments. Therefore, it soon became clear to all FOI Officers the important role that effective networks could play in facilitating:

• common approaches to various aspects of requests; and
• clients who wished to submit the same requests to many government departments.

Thirdly, while the day to day business of the wide range of public bodies affected by FOI might vary greatly, the FOI issues facing them are broadly similar. Informal contacts made at an FOI network can provide a source of support for teasing out issues or exploring all angles of a decision.

In sum, my experience as an FOI Officer was that the civil service group was very beneficial to the implemenation of FOI across and within Government departments. Can we assume that networks brought similar benefits to the wider public service? Let us first consider the range of FOI networks in place across the public sector.

In the local authority sector a steering committee, established under the aegis of the Local Government Management Services Board, has been meeting with Local Authority FOI Officers since October, 1997. Sub-committees of this FOI Officer’s Network worked on FOI publications, training, records management and exemptions.

The Network continues to meet to discuss and develop approaches to issues of common interest, new FOI developments, training requirements and to produce key reports. The Network is attended by CPU representatives as required and also organises informative presentations, for example, by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

In the health board sector, a working group comprising FOI Project Liaison Officers from each Health Board has been meeting since November, 1997 to facilitate co-operation and networking between Boards. This served to share tasks, ideas, and resources and to co-ordinate liaison with the Department of Health and Children in the areas of FOI training, publications and organisational arrangements.

This network continues to meet on a monthly basis and serves to:

• facilitate the discussion of issues arising from FOI requests;
• raise these with the Department of Health and Children or the CPU as appropriate;
• monitor training needs;
• review documentation;
• produce key reports and statistics; and
• provide assistance to decision makers.

In May, 1998 the FOI Interdepartmental Working Group agreed to establish a pilot public service users’ network. This comprises public bodies within the scope of the FOI Act but not represented on the Working Group. The purpose of the network is to promote understanding, compliance and best practice, consistent with the FOI Act and policy as provided by the Working Group and the CPU. The Network comprises 26 FOI Officers from public bodies, 8 Local Authority and 2 Health Board FOI Officers and is chaired by the Central Policy Unit of the Department of Finance.

In general, FOI officers in the wider public service, excluding the health boards and Dublin local authorities, would have the following in common:

• a comparatively small number of FOI requests received to date;
• time gaps between the receipt of requests; and
• other administrative responsibilities outside of FOI.

This means they face the following challenges:

• random opportunities to practice their FOI decision making skills;
• lessons learned on a request may be forgotten when a subsequent one is received; and
• limited time to devote to keeping up to date with new FOI developments such as new regulations or Information Commissioner findings.

The factors which I have outlined could be less than helpful to developing and sustaining best practice in FOI decision making. However feedback from members of our Public Service Users’ Network indicates that this is where an FOI network proves so valuable. By attending regular network meetings a busy official with FOI responsibilities can benefit by accessing common approaches emerging in FOI cases, new regulations and Information Commissioner findings. Strategies for actively making information available outside of FOI may even emerge.

I believe that FOI Networks will continue to play a vital role in securing the effective implementation of FOI over the years ahead. There will continue to be a need for fora where best practice can be identified and information can be shared on FOI developments.

Networks will also continue to provide an opportunity for FOI officers to act on lessons they have learned from decision making on the ground. Such lessons can be fed back into the policy loop through the chairs of the various Networks.

The Networks will also be able to learn from each other—given that they are all at different stages of development and drawing on different aspects of public service experience The Civil Service Users’ Network has a six months head start on the Public Service Users’ Network. It has met with the Public Service group and presented on its experiences. The Health Boards’ Network is currently assisting the voluntary hospital sector to prepare for the application of FOI to that sector from October of this year.

What we are talking about therefore is pure organisational learning through networks.

Given the geographical spread of public bodies now coming within the scope of FOI, I would predict an increase in the number of FOI Networks. The local authority sector, having experienced the benefits of its own and the Public Service Users’ Network is currently considering setting up regional FOI Networks. These would have the added benefit of flexibility, allowing meetings about particular issues to be organised at short notice. This is not a practical option for a national network with a large number of members.

I feel there will also be a role for FOI Networks in allowing members of the public to input to these fora. In this way networks can evaluate if their aim of ensuring the highest standards of FOI decision making is being achieved from the perspective of their clients. Such input through regional meetings could enable FOI networks to ensure that the provisions of the FOI Act were being implemented to a consistently high standard in all parts of the country.

The basis of FOI is that the public is entitled to obtain access to official information to the greatest extent possible consistent with the public interest and the right to privacy.

The role of networks in the FOI decision making process in the wider public service is to ensure this comes about by:

• providing key support for FOI decision makers;
• ensuring continuous improvement of FOI structures and procedures; and
• enabling best practice to be applied across public bodies to the benefit of the public.

I greatly welcome the advent and development of FOI networks. I believe they represent an effective end to demarcations and fiefdoms, which have been the curse of the public service in the past.

FOI networks harness the collective talents and commitment of public servants. They create synergy, imbue energy and focus effort. They constitute, in my view, a model of change for the future.