Author: Ken Foxe

One lesser-known aspect of the operation of Freedom of Information law in Ireland is the dispute resolution process, which is under the control of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

This is a system whereby decisions over whether an organisation is subject to FOI or not are decided by the minister of the day.

Right to Know had a long-drawn out experience of this in a case involving the Registrar of Political Parties.

We won that case when the Registrar effectively conceded he was subject to FOI and as a result released records to us.

We were lucky though.

During that process, we became aware that there were three other cases involving the dispute resolution process – all significantly delayed as well.

The cases concern the Office of the Secretary General to the President (likely the root of the problem), the Kilkenny Abbey Quarter Development, and the Carlow Arts Centre.

We tried to highlight these delays on social media with both the department and Minister Michael McGrath but they didn’t even acknowledge us.

Frustrated, we submitted an FOI request seeking all records relating to the cases. We knew the request would be refused as part of a deliberative process – among other reasons – but hoped it might at least throw a bit of light on what was happening.

It turns out that an entirely separate process was underway involving a review of the dispute resolution system, which you can read about in the record below.

This was due to inherent weaknesses in how it works (something we had also previously highlighted) and concerns about how robust and comprehensive decisions could be.

It’s important to point out here that in at least one of the cases involving the Kilkenny Abbey Quarter Limited, no information about this was ever provided to the requester concerned until he was alerted to what was happening by Right to Know.

He has spent more than four years trying to access records held by that company relating to controversial redevelopment that is taking place in the city of Kilkenny.

A major concern is that by the time the case is ever decided, much of the development will already be complete.

We also know that the request involving the Office of the Secretary General to the President was first submitted in February 2017.

We don’t know much about the case involving the Carlow Arts Centre except that it too is now on hold until at least next year.

One of the key principles of any Freedom of Information system is access to information in a timely manner. That clearly isn’t happening here.

Right to Know has called repeatedly for a full review of the operation of the FOI Act and the failings we encounter with using it every day. This is just another reason for that to take place.

A €1.8 million Brexit translation bill, €6 million for running Ireland’s seat on the UN Security Council, and €3 million for a referendum on Presidential voting rights were on the budget wish list for the Department of Foreign Affairs this year.

Minister Simon Coveney’s department said they would be hit with a range of new costs in 2021 while facing falling income from passport and visa services.

They also warned Ireland were likely to be affected by “adverse foreign exchange movements” as well as a €20 million bill this year for development of a new Ireland House in Tokyo.

In 2018, the Data Protection Commissioner launched an investigation into the use of cameras by local authorities for law enforcement.

Kerry County Council was one of those examined and had, at the time, 120 cameras in operation around the county.

There were 19 to detect illegal dumping and littering and another 101 – mostly in local authority estates – for “public order” purposes.

This is the investigation report from the Data Protection Commissioner on use of those cameras. It’s the first of its type to be published and is being made available here by Right to Know in the public interest.

The records were released on foot of this decision by the Information Commissioner which followed an appeal by Right to Know and our legal adviser Fred Logue.

These are the agendas and minutes of the so-called Senior Officials Group, a key part of the government’s pandemic response.

We first sought these records back in early June but access was refused using the section of the FOI Act exempting records relating to the Cabinet.

We appealed that case on the basis that these records were not solely prepared for transaction of business at Cabinet.

In his decision, the Information Commissioner ruled in our favour saying: “The minutes reflect that the Group is engaged with dealing with the many practical aspects of responding to and seeking to contain and mitigate the pandemic’s wide impact on the country and the relevant records document and facilitate that work. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that section 28(1)(c) applies.”

You can see them in full here. We have since sought a more recent set of the same records from the Department of the Taoiseach.

Gardaí warned they would face difficulties in finding suitable staff for specialised cyber-crime units because of the extreme and explicit material members would be forced to deal with every day.

The Department of Justice were also told that training up staff to deal with cybercrime would make them vulnerable to being poached by the private sector because of the “highly sought after” skills they would develop.

Separately, some officials at the department queried whether the creation of six regional cyber-crime units was the correct approach and whether a national centre of excellence should not be established instead.

Questions were also asked about why so many of the staff at the centres would be garda officers when some of the roles could be filled by civilians and why a business case for the units was so “light on benefits analysis”.

Another significant landslide on the side of a mountain in Co Leitrim is highly likely according to the latest report into the incident.

Dry weather during the summer caused thousands of tonnes of peat to dislodge inundating local roads and enveloping the Dawn of Hope Bridge near Shass Mountain in the county.

A new report into the incident has now warned of a high risk to land, property, and infrastructure in the area from a further landslide.

It said the risk to life for road users, including those using the Dawn of Hope Bridge which was damaged in June, was assessed to be within the “tolerable range” and unlikely however.

The latest report – released following a request for environmental information – said the landslide took place after a period of prolonged dry weather followed by heavy rainfall.

Tusla expressed serious concerns about taking responsibility for the archive of the Mother and Baby Home Commission fearing they would be blamed for refusing access to records of survivors and adoptees.

The child and family agency were also worried about the accuracy of records which they had not created, how to safely secure the material, and serious reputational issues from being seen as responsible for withholding information.

Concerns were also raised that Tusla were being asked to take more material than originally agreed and that they had a “particularly fragile” legal basis on which to hold and use the records.

Internal records also flag concerns of a high risk of data protection issues relating to “highly vulnerable” people, the very short timeline for taking responsibility for the archive, and inevitable “negative media attention”.

This is a datadump of HSE expenditure encompassing the second half of 2017 all the way up to June of this year.

It’s the most detailed public look ever at tens of millions worth of spending by the health services in Ireland.

The data was released under FOI to Right to Know and is being made available here as part of our transparency work.

Under government rules, every public body in Ireland is supposed to make available a quarterly report on purchase orders worth more than €20,000.

Many public bodies do this as a matter of course, but some have chosen not to. We are trying to address some of those gaps.

Diplomats at the Department of Foreign Affairs have been paid more than €1.65 million in so-called “hardship” allowances over the past two years.

The allowances are paid for international postings in cities including Beijing, Moscow, and Buenos Aires.

The rate is calculated based on the level of hardship in each place, with different cities ranked from A to E according to attractiveness and dangers at the location.

Most cities in the European Union are not ranked at all with only the Bulgarian capital of Sofia given the lightest ranking of E, according to Department of Foreign Affairs records.

An information note from the Department of Foreign Affairs said: “Hardship allowance is paid at certain missions to compensate officers for the level of hardship at a post. The amount payable depends on the level of hardship.

“Hardship allowances are designed to take into account a number of factors at designated locations including climate, health, air pollution, language and culture, goods and services, isolation, social network and leisure, housing, utilities and education, personal security and political tension.”

The Department said they were calculated based on independently sourced data and were the subject of review every year.

Staff working “face to face”, ill-fitted specialist masks, lack of social distancing, and tightly spaced locker rooms were among the issues highlighted in inspections of meat processing plants by the Health and Safety Authority (HSA).

The reports have been released by the HSA with the identity of the specific factories removed along with the dates of the inspection.

In one report, multiple issues were highlighted with face coverings not being used across the site, especially in areas where social distancing could not be observed.

Staff wearing specialist masks had them “ill-fitted” or worn incorrectly while “pinch points” where staff were congregating were observed at hygiene stations, locker rooms, as well as entrances and exits.

As part of this request, Right to Know had taken a case to the Information Commissioner seeking release of these reports.

The HSA offered to release redacted copies of the reports and we accepted that based on the thinking it was better that this information would then be in the public domain more quickly.

However, we do not accept that the identities of the factories involved should be kept secret and we will be taking a new case to seek release of that detail.