The Department of Equality, headed by Roderic O’Gorman, now leader of the Greens, has faced backlash for violating Freedom of Information (FOI) regulations by withholding request for government documents related to the family and care referendums. These referendums, which were significantly rejected by voters in March, dealt a hard blow to the Coalition just two weeks before former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar announced his resignation.
73.93 percent of voters dismissed amendments aiming to augment the support for care and remove the constitutional responsibilities of mothers, while another 67.69 percent opposed proposals recognizing familial relations that extend beyond marriage.
The rejection by Mr O’Gorman’s department to acknowledge or address the application was highlighted when FOI documents from other departments cast a shadow on the Minister’s assertions concerning the proposed amendments. As per FOI legislations, organizations must come to a decision regarding requests within a month, and provide written notice if an extension is necessary.
The Department of Equality has been mandated by a final decision from the Office of the Information Commissioner to revaluate the FOI application, indicating that the initial decision to deny file access was illegitimate. The commissioner performs standalone evaluations of FOI decisions enacted by public bodies.
The department under Mr O’Gorman breached the FOI Act by neglecting to respond to the initial request within the legally prescribed timeframe, and likewise by ignoring to issue a determination when a subsequent review was demanded due to the lack of response.
The department in its tardiness, took nearly three months to respond, under directive from the commissioner, yet continued to deny file access owing to the extensive nature of the request.
Senior investigator with the commissioner’s office, Stephen Rafferty, opined that the department’s handling of the applicant’s request was found lacking as per the Act’s standards. He further noted that the office was mindful of comparable recent instances involving the department and arrangements were underway to rectify these problems with the department’s top-level executive.
The ruling delivered on Friday negates the decision previously endorsed by the Department of Equality, which had, on May 31st, recommended that the request, submitted nearly 13 weeks earlier, be revised.
Whilst the plea was lodged five days prior to the vote, the department’s verdict ensured that none of its documents were disclosed during a period when evidence from other organisations contradicted Government campaign assertions. Countering questions about revelations from other branches, Mr O’Gorman quoted counsel from the Attorney General. Ministers maintained that the family referendum proposition would not affect the tax system, however, officials from the Revenue expressed concerns about probable alterations to tax legislation.
Mr O’Gorman insisted that the immigration laws would not be “legally impacted” by the proposed measures, but officials from the Justice Department alerted about the referendum’s potential to instigate continued “legal ambiguity” regarding immigration.
The Minister for Public Expenditure, Paschal Donohoe, cautioned Mr O’Gorman about the “substantial policy and expenditure risks” implied in the care referendum. Furthermore, files from the Department of Finance indicate that the wording of the care amendment was deliberately selected to “circumvent a clear and obligatory duty” from the State.
When questioned about the commissioner’s decision, Mr O’Gorman’s department acknowledged the verdict, stating, “At present, the department has to deal with a sizeable backlog of Freedom of Information applications, largely due to a marked rise in inquiries pertaining to international protection and the housing of temporary protection beneficiaries.”