Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 27 November 2018
86. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on the 40-plus agencies that are either fully or partially exempt from freedom of information requests; his further views on whether these exemptions are in the public interest with regard to accountability and transparency; if he will consider conducting a review of the agencies that benefit from such exemptions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49198/18]
View answerWhile obviously it would not be possible in this context for me to address each example individually, I am satisfied that there are compelling grounds to justify each of the various exclusions and part exclusions set out in schedule one of the Freedom of Information Act 2014.
Taking the example of commercial state bodies, government policy remains that these should not be subject to FOI because of the competitive market in which they operate. The public interest would be badly served if entities of this nature were put at a disadvantage in their respective markets through being obliged to release classes of information that their privately owned competitors are not.
However, as the Deputy will be aware, the 2014 Act made companies such as Irish Rail, ESB Networks, Gas Networks Ireland, and Eirgrid which operate in a monopoly market or perform network functions subject to FOI in relation to their relevant activities.
These examples illustrate the approach taken in the 2014 Act, whereby even where unassailable policy or legal arguments for the exclusions of certain elements or activities of particular entities, every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that these entities are subject to FOI to the greatest extent possible. The exclusions were carefully crafted so as to strike an appropriate balance between protecting the public interest by providing for exclusions where neccessary, but furthering openness, transparency and accountability wherever possible.
Given the relatively short period of time that has elapsed since the introduction of the 2014 Act, I do not believe that the background facts underpinning the rationales behind the relevant exclusions has changed to any significant extent, and I therefore do not believe that there is any necessity to review these provisions at this time.
