1. Attendance: In attendance were Ms Maeve McDonagh, UCC, Ms Emer O'Siochrú, Consumers' Association of Ireland, Mr Tony McQuinn, National Social Services Board (Deputising for Ms Leonie Lunney), Mr Seamus Dooley, NUJ (Deputising for Mr Ronan Brady), Mr Gerry Kearney (Department of Finance, FOI Central Policy Unit), and Mr Sean Garvey (also CPU).

2. Minutes: The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed.

3. Presentation by Mr Gerry Smyth from the Information Commissioner's Office:
Mr Smyth advised as to the experience of his Office to date in dealing with appeals. He made the following points:
 

• The effectiveness of the internal review mechanism was demonstrated by the fact that only 175 of over 2,500 requests were appealed to his Office,

• While settlements between requesters and public bodies are effected where possible, only 12 cases have been dealt with on that basis thus far. To date, there is a broad split between personal and non-personal appeals, which differs somewhat from the experience in other FOI jurisdictions. The position may change over time as experience is gained in the operation of the Act.

• Particular issues which have arisen so far are:
  • i. personnel records: – the Commissioner's Office position is that unless pre 21 April 1995 personnel records are sealed, or otherwise dissociated from other records on file, it is difficult for public bodies to argue that they could not be used against officer's best interests in the future. Therefore, such records are more likely to be released on foot of FOI requests,
  • ii. some public bodies mistakenly fear release of material may set unwelcome precedents,
  • iii. The appeals process can be slow,
  • iv. Statistics on the use of the Act show that among others, journalists and public servants were frequent users of the Act. As journalists tended to be strong users of the Act Mr Dooley and Mr Smyth agreed that it would be desirable that they should credit the Act in their articles. The NUJ has been making this point in their FOI training courses.

• As regard the next steps Mr Smyth indicated the following was under consideration by his Office:

(b) organising a series of meetings with various interest groups, such as community groups, individual local authorities and health boards etc., and

(c) securing feedback on section 15 and 16 publications.

(a) the feasibility of fast-tracking certain appeals

4. General Discussion
In the subsequent discussion the following points were made:
 

• Mr Dooley enquired as to why VECs were not subject to the Act. Mr Kearney advised that VECs would fall for consideration in the context of the incremental extension of the Act across the wider public sector. The issues of North/South bodies and section 24 exemption were also discussed.

• Ms McDonagh raised the following points:

(b) adherence to "as soon as may be" requirement {section 8(1)} was being generously interpreted by public bodies towards 28 days.

(c) there was no obligation on public bodies to acknowledge receipt of requests for internal review. Because of this, requesters often had no idea whether their appeal was being dealt with.

(d) Whereas the website links to civil service Departments was generally fine, she was uncertain of the position in relation to local authorities and health boards.

(a) the position regarding section 15 and 16 manuals of one or two departments appeared less than satisfactory from the point of view of apparent omission of internal precedents and completedness of the documents

Mr Kearney undertook to pursue with departments the particular points raised by Ms McDonagh. He also suggested that group members directly contact the public bodies concerned where particular issues arise in relation to section 15 and 16 publications, and copy correspondence to the FOI Central Policy Unit.

As regards section 8(1), Mr Kearney pointed out that the processing of FOI requests has placed a new and in some instances significant additional workload on line managers. It would be reasonable to expect delays in dealing with FOI over this initial learning period. It was also desirable that FOI takes its place as an integral part of routine administrative duties performed by civil and public servants. However, he undertook to raise the matter, along with the issue of website links, with departments/ public bodies at their regular monthly meetings.

He further indicated that the CPU would issue a notice to departments/public bodies on need to acknowledge requests for internal review.
 

• Ms O'Siochrú suggested that there was little evidence of the Act having filtered down into her client group consciousness. Mr Kearney agreed that the CPU would work with the Consumer Association in holding a seminar to deepen awareness of FOI.

• Mr McQuinn indicated that there was little feedback from Citizens Information Centres on the Act. However he indicated there was some evidence of Community Welfare Officers refusing to release records to citizens funnelling requests through CICs. He experienced varied success in attempting to access section 15 and 16 publications on websites. The need to integrate FOI with the ordinary information activities of public bodies was emphasised. Mr Kearney undertook to take up the points raised with the Health Board interests.

5. Regulations: Mr Kearney briefed the group on draft regulations which had been circulated. Ms Mc Donagh suggested that the text of guidance notes on section 28(6) should more explicitly advise that access under these regulations does not impede with the right of access to third party information in the public interest in section 28(5). This was agreed.

6. Information Commissioner findings: Mr Garvey summarised the findings that had been circulated to group members. The findings are now available on the Information Commissioner's Website [http://www.irlgov.ie/oic/].

7. AOB. Mr Kearney outlined the FOI autumn radio advertising campaign. Tribute was paid to Ms McDonagh and her UCC colleagues for an excellent Cork conference. Mr Dooley suggested that it might be appropriate to have an event to mark the first anniversary of commencement of the Act. Group members were invited to revert to the next meeting with suggestions for such an event. Mr Dooley also commented on the positive feedback received on CPU FOI training seminars.

Next meeting: The next meeting has been set for Thursday, 25 March at 3.00 pm at the same venue, Room .3, Ground Floor, South Block, Government Buildings, Merrion Street.

[D.Health and Children regard a document they produced on a summary of their functions as adequate for the purposes of section 16 - contact Ray Smyth, ph 6354255].

[Justice, Equality and Law Reform - their position is that internal precedents are adequately covered - contact Brendan Foy, Press and Information Office, ph. 6028541]