Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 27 October 2004
156 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Education and Science the way in which her Department will respond to criticisms from the Information Commissioner regarding the suppression of the consultancy report on the future of a college (details supplied). [26149/04]
View answerAt the outset, I would like to emphasise that there is no question of the consultancy report conducted on the future of the college in question been suppressed.
The Deputy will be aware that the issue of the future of the college, which is the subject of the question posed by the Deputy, arose in the context of a decision by the trustees of the college that, due to personnel and financial considerations, they were no longer in a position to fulfil the role of trustees of the college. Following discussions between the trustees and my Department, it was agreed that a consultant, a former senior official of the Department, would be appointed who would meet with relevant parties and prepare a report on the options for the college's future.
The consultant's report, which was completed in July of 2002, was thoroughly examined in my Department and the options for the future of the college were set out for my consideration by my predecessor, Deputy Noel Dempsey. Having carefully considered all of these options and having taken into account other factors such as the national spatial strategy, relevant costs in a time of financial constraint, a Government decision to restrict public service numbers, the need to secure value for money and a better allocation of resources, the then Minister, Deputy Dempsey, decided that these considerations would be best served by the closure of the college and the designation of St. Angela's College, Sligo as the sole centre for the training of home economics teachers.
The report and any related advice were amongst a number of factors considered by the then Minister, Deputy Dempsey, when making his decision on the future of the college and the future of its subject area.
Having examined the issues relating to the freedom of information request, it is clear that the official who initially refused the request — November 2003 — and the official who upheld that refusal — December 2003 — were acting in good faith and that there is no question of these officials suppressing the report and other requested material in relation to this case.
As the Deputy is aware, Ms Madeline Mulrennan, President of St. Catherine's College, requested in October 2003 the release of the consultant's report along with a number of all related papers amounting to 26 in total.
The refusal by my Department to release these documents was based on two factors:
"(i) access to the documentation could have a significant, adverse effect on the performance by the Department of any of its functions relating to management, including industrial relations — Section 21(c), and
(ii) access to the documentation could disclose positions taken, or to be taken, or plans, procedures, criteria or instructions used or followed, or to be used or followed, for the purpose of any negotiations carried on or being, or to be carried on by or on behalf of the Department — Section 21(c)".
While I accept that the Information Commissioner, Ms Emily O'Reilly, disagreed — August 2004 — with the position taken on the request, I can only reiterate that the officials were acting in good faith when they made their decision not to release the material. I do not think any purpose will be served by making any further comment on this particular case.
The Deputy will be aware that the consultant's report and all papers relating to this case are now in the public domain.
