Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Apr 2003

Vol. 564 No. 3

Written Answers - Freedom of Information.

Richard Bruton

Question:

226 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government 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. [9307/03]

Under section 20 of the Freedom of information Act 1997, records are exempt records if they relate to the deliberative processes of the public body concerned and their release would, in the opinion of the public body, be contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, there should have been no instances where records relating to the deliberative processes of the Department were released by my Department where the public interest was not on balance better served by granting rather than refusing the request and my Department is not aware of any such instance.

Richard Bruton

Question:

227 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government 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. [9322/03]

Under section 19(1)(a) of the Freedom of information Act 1997, a record is an exempt record if it was submitted or intended to be submitted to the Government or to a committee of the Government. Accordingly, there should have been no instances where such records were released by my Department and my Department is not aware of any such instance.

Richard Bruton

Question:

228 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government 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. [9352/03]

Under section 24 of the Freedom of information Act 1997, a record is an exempt record if, in the opinion of the public body concerned, access to it could reasonably be expected to affect adversely the security of the State, the defence of the State or the international relations of the State. Accordingly, there should have been no instances where such records were released by my Department and my Department is not aware of any such instance.

Richard Bruton

Question:

229 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government 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. [9338/03]

Sections 26 and 27 of the Freedom of information Act 1997 provide that information obtained in confidence and commercially sensitive information, respectively, may not be released unless, in the opinion of the public body, the public interest would, on balance, be better served by granting than refusing the request, and consultation has taken place with the third party, who has a right of appeal to the Information Commissioner where it is proposed to release such information. Accordingly, there should have been no instances where information obtained in confidence or commercially sensitive information was released by my Department where the public interest was not on balance better served by granting rather than refusing the request and my Department is not aware of any such instance.

Richard Bruton

Question:

230 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government 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. [9367/03]

Communications between Ministers in relation to a matter which has been submitted to Government may be exempt records under the Freedom of Information Act 1997. This would be the case if they were deemed to come within the provisions of section 19 of the Act, i.e. they were records that were submitted or were proposed to be submitted to Government and were created for that purpose or contained information for a member of the Government for use solely for the purpose of the transaction of Government business at a Government meeting. It would also arise if they came within the scope of any of the other exemption sections of the Act – for example, relate to the deliberative process of the public body, contain commercially sensitive information, etc. – some of which contain a public interest test. Such communications would, accordingly, only be released by my Department only if they were not exempt records or if they came within the scope of an exemption where a public interest test applies and the public interest in releasing the records was considered greater than the public interest in withholding them.

It is not feasible to provide details of cases where communications between Ministers on a matter which has been submitted to Government have been released by my Department. To do so would involve reviewing all FOI cases since April 1998 to check whether any inter-ministerial correspondence was among the records released and whether, if any such correspondence was released, it related to a matter which was submitted to the Government. It would then be necessary to examine all such correspondence and seek to apply retrospectively the criteria referred to in the question. This would not be a practicable exercise at this remove.

Top
Share