Vol. 564 No. 3
128 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs 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. [9300/03]
Section 20 of the Freedom of Information Act 1997, refers to records relating to the deliberative process. A decision maker can only apply the exemption provided for in section 20 after he or she has concluded that the public interest is better served by refusing to grant access to the record.
There were two instances within my Department where it was decided not to release records under section 20, which the Information Commissioner subsequently decided, on appeal, should be released. As regards public bodies under the aegis of my Department, there were no such instances.
129 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs 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. [9315/03]
132 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the instances where communications between Ministers in relation to a particular matter which have been submitted to the Government for their consideration, has 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. [9360/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 129 and 132 together.
130 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs 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. [9345/03]
Section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act 1997, refers to records relating to the security, defence and international relations.
This section does not provide for the application of a public interest test, except in so far as it relates to the disclosure of the existence of a record. A decision maker can only apply the exemption provided for in section 24 after he or she has concluded that release could reasonably be expected to affect adversely the defence, security or international relations of the State. In five cases my Department decided not to release records under section 24, which the Information Commissioner subsequently decided, on appeal, should be released.
131 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs 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. [9331/03]
Sections 26 and 27 of the Freedom of Information Act 1997, refer respectively, to information obtained in confidence and commercially sensitive information. A decision maker can only apply the exemptions provided for in sections 26 or 27 after he or she has concluded that the public interest is better served by refusing to grant access to the record. In one case my Department decided not to release records under sections 26 and 27, which the Information Commissioner subsequently decided, on appeal, should be released.
Question No. 132 answered with Question No. 129.
