Vol. 564 No. 3
121 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance the instances in the past five years where a record relating to the deliberative process of a public body under his Department was released under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 where the public interest was not on balance better served by granting rather than refusing the request; and in each case if this release was made by the head of the public body, or on appeal to the Information Commissioner. [9299/03]
122 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance the instances in which records relating to a committee appointed by the Government to advise it on a particular issue have been released under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 where the public interest was not on balance better served by granting rather than refusing the request; and in each case if this release was made by the head of the public body, or on appeal to the Information Commissioner. [9314/03]
123 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance the instances in which records relating to security, defence or international relations have been released under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 where the public interest was not on balance better served by granting rather than refusing the request; and in each case if this release was made by the head of the public body, or on appeal to the Information Commissioner. [9344/03]
124 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance the instances where the existence of information which was either obtained in confidence, or commercially sensitive was released under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 where the public interest was not on balance better served by granting rather than refusing the request; and in each case if this release was made by the head of the public body, or on appeal to the Information Commissioner. [9330/03]
125 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance the instances where communications between Ministers in relation to a particular matter which has been submitted to the Government for their consideration have been released under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 where the public interest was not on balance better served by granting rather than refusing the request; and in each case if this release was made by the head of the public body, or on appeal to the Information Commissioner. [9359/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 121 to 125, inclusive, together.
Under the Freedom of Information Act 1997, where a record is covered by the Act and its exemption is not mandatory the Act requires the public body to balance public interest factors for and against disclosure in deciding whether a record should be released. As the Act requires a decision maker to refuse access where the public interest test favours non release, there should be no instance where records are released where the balance of public interest favoured non release.
It is, however, assumed that the questions are meant to relate to instances where access to records were initially refused primarily under sections 19, 20, 24, 26 or 27 of the Act, but on a further consideration of the public interest were later released, or part released, at internal review or on appeal to the Information Commissioner. In this regard it must be recognised that, in making their decision, an internal reviewer or the Information Commissioner normally takes a range of factors into consideration, including passage of time and the appropriateness of the exemption or exemptions used, not just the public interest consideration on its own. Consequently, it is difficult to say with any precision the number of instances where further records were released at internal review or by the Information Commissioner solely on the basis of a reconsideration of the public interest test.
