The Government, in a move spearheaded by Ms Smyth at the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, is planning to prevent public access to the usual residential addresses of directors. The changes were recommended by the Company Law Review Group.
Ms Smyth and the Government have provoked significant opposition from the media with the proposals.
The proposed changes significantly threaten transparency and open democracy, the media outlets warned.
Today’s News in 90 seconds – Saturday, February 28
If journalists are denied on-demand access to the usual residential addresses of company directors, it has serious consequences for their ability to report the news accurately.
A total of 32 submissions to the government consultation on the proposed changes to the Companies Act were received.
They were from a range of entities including the media, legal firms, the Law Society of Ireland, the Criminal Assets Bureau, Ibec, AIB and DAA.
Media organisations and leaders including RTE’s Kevin Backhurst, the editors of the Irish Times and Irish Examiner, the head of media industry group Newsbrands and Mediahuis Ireland, which owns the Sunday Independent and this newspaper, all raised major concerns about the plan.
The country’s top law firms including William Fry, Arthur Cox and McCann Fitzgerald have all backed the move to shield company director details.
Apart from media outlets, the majority expressed a desire to prevent the public from having access to documents containing the residential addresses of directors.
Address details have played a valuable role in assisting journalists… to expose a range of wrongdoing
Media outlets typically use such details to verify identities of individuals, especially when undertaking investigations where such information is of vital importance.
Securing that information immediately is also often vital in the day-to-day running of a newsroom.
If the Government prevents access, it will be a blow to transparency for the public and impede the types of investigations that are often of significant public importance.
It its submission, Transparency International noted that it was broadly in favour of the proposal, but argued that media and other specific entities should continue to have access to directors’ residential details.
“Whilst we recognise the validity of privacy and security concerns relating to the publication of company officers’ residential addresses, it is equally important to highlight that residential address details have played a valuable role in assisting journalists, academics and civil society organisations to expose a range of wrongdoing, including bribery, corruption, fraud, money laundering and various other illicit activities,” its submission said.
“The European Court of Human Rights has recognised journalists and civil society organisations as ‘public watchdogs’ who play a vital role in reporting on matters of public interest.”
Media outlets said the proposal to hide directors’ residential addresses presents a severe risk to transparency.
“The recommendation of the Company Law Review Group represents a significant threat to transparency and would create a major impediment to business journalists’ ability to report accurately and safely on Irish business affairs,” noted the Business Journalists’ Association of Ireland.
The National Union of Journalists echoed that view in its submission.
“We believe the proposal to remove the requirement for directors’ and secretaries’ usual residential addresses from company filings [is] a gross overreach which would only benefit those who wish to avoid scrutiny,” it said.
“It is damaging to transparency and to the practice of public interest journalism. It also runs contrary to the spirit of the Programme for Government, which commits to strengthening democracy and supporting journalism, and to the principles of the European Media Act.”
Ibec was among the bodies supporting the proposed change to the Companies Act. “The current requirement for companies to maintain and publicly disclose the ‘usual residential address’ of directors and secretaries raises significant concerns regarding personal safety and security,” it said.
We believe these amendments are crucial in safeguarding the privacy and personal security of individuals
AIB also claimed that the removal of directors’ usual residential address will maintain transparency for “public purposes”.
“We believe these amendments are crucial in safeguarding the privacy and personal security of individuals serving in these roles, whilst maintaining necessary transparency for regulatory and public purposes,” it said in its submission to the department.
The Co-Operative Society claimed that public access to the usual residential addresses of directors hinders the hiring of members to act as directors on co-ops.
“Many co-operative societies rely on directors and secretaries drawn directly from their membership, who often serve in a voluntary or low-paid capacity,” it said.
“In this context, the requirement to provide a usual residential address to the Registrar as part of the annual return for publication can act as a disincentive to serving as a director of a co-operative society.”
source