Right to Know has won a case where we sought records on pre-budget discussions between An Bord Pleanála (ABP) and its parent department under FOI.
ABP refused to release the records citing Section 40 of the FOI Act which covers release of information that could affect the “financial and economic interests of the state.”
This part of the legislation is generally used for ‘macro’ level information of a type that might be held by the Department of Finance.
At internal review, we told An Bord Pleanála they were misinterpreting the FOI Act and how Section 40 was intended to work.
They upheld the decision.
We appealed to the Information Commissioner who also said An Bord Pleanála appeared to be “misunderstanding” how the exemption worked.
The decision said: “At no point in its submissions to this Office has ABP identified how the conduct of general commercial activity in the State could be disrupted by the release of the records at issue.
“Having considered the matter, it is also not evident to me how the release of 2024 budgetary projections for ABP could reasonably be expected to result in an undue disturbance to the ordinary course of business in the State.”
The case unfortunately highlights one of the glaring weaknesses of how FOI works in that the appeal process can be very lengthy.
The records at the heart of this decision relate to Budget 2024 and have now been superseded by similar correspondence that would have been generated ahead of Budget 2025.
We have sought a copy of the newer records this week and hopefully it won’t take quite as long to get sight of them.
The Office of Public Works (OPW) was hoping the €336,000 bicycle shed at Leinster House could become a model design to be adapted and reused at other historic properties.
New documents also detail how the OPW looked at prefabricated shelters for the parliamentary complex but “none were found suitable for [the] location.”
An architectural heritage impact assessment said the project was proving a “challenge” because of its sensitive historic location.
It said the bike shed needed to be “carefully treated and considered,” so as not to ruin vistas of Leinster House, the National Gallery or the Natural History Museum.
The assessment said the Oireachtas had also asked for the shelter to be “visible” to the public to help “demonstrate leadership in this sustainability action.”
However, the project was beset by delays and ended up costing €335,000, expenditure described as “inexplicable and inexcusable” by Taoiseach Simon Harris.
The chairman of the OPW John Conlon told an Oireachtas Committee last week the cost was “extraordinary” and wasteful public expenditure is likely to be a key issue in the general election.
Records released by the Oireachtas under FOI laws describe how several possible sites were looked at for the project including one that was dismissed on security grounds and garda advice.
The architectural assessment said: “The structural element of the shelter is to be as visually light as possible and of good quality material.
“This design could be adapted and used in other heritage properties. The rain screen will be glazed for least visual impact.”
It also said the shed needed to be “reversible” so that the main part of the shelter could be moved to a different location if needed in the future.
“The design should allow for the shelter to be extended without significant alterations to the existing structure,” said the report. “Shelter should be easy to maintain and repair.”
The assessment said the installation would be for 18 stands, catering for 36 bicycles, and “beneath a bespoke steel-framed, glazed canopy.”
The High Court has found in favour of the Information Commissioner in a Right to Know case over access to records on a land deal involving IDA Ireland.
It’s a landmark victory for transparency in a case where the IDA has already spent more than €80,000 in taxpayer funds to fight disclosure of the documents involved.
The case centres on a request made in 2021 for valuation reports and other documents around the purchase of a 39-acre site in County Louth by the state agency.
It went through the usual appeal process and the Information Commissioner directed release of the documents with a small amount of redaction in this decision.
The case was appealed to the High Court by the IDA with the judgment delivered today (Friday, 15 November 2024) by Justice Siobhán Phelan.
It is a big win for Right to Know, the Information Commissioner, and anybody interested in transparency in Ireland.
The IDA’s primary argument was that the original decision was inadequate and did not engage sufficiently with the arguments they made.
It seemed as if the IDA wanted to turn every FOI review into a highly complex legal process with each argument dealt with line by line in exhaustive detail.
It had the potential to make the work of the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) almost infeasible.
However, Judge Phelan found the OIC had made their decision properly and had dealt with all of the IDA’s arguments sufficiently and fairly.
Some of the highlights of the judgment.
The Information Commissioner is obliged to carry out its review in an informal way and even still, this decision ran to seventeen pages.
On IDA claims that they were not given enough information in the case, and how they had then proceeded “to expound some 21 appeal grounds”.
A completely bizarre part of the case where the IDA argued that folio numbers, publicly available through the Property Registration Authority, should be withheld.
On “notably weak” attempts by the IDA to argue that the records were commercially sensitive.
On the importance of the public interest in knowing how taxpayer funds are spent.
The misuse of Section 40 of the FOI Act which is intended to protect “macro” issues in the financial and economic interests of the state.
A brand review of the state investment agency IDA Ireland found it was often “mis-quoted” and “confused” for other organisations including the Irish Dental Association, Enterprise Ireland or the Department of Enterprise.
It also detailed how it was vulnerable to bizarre fluctuations in internet traffic around events like the catastrophic Hurricane Ida when visitors to their site leapt from 1,000 impressions to 15,000 in a single week.
An internal presentation said IDA Ireland had suffered from “brand drift” where senior managers and marketing teams had become “fatigued” with the existing look and feel of the organisation.
The paper was prepared ahead of a €428,000 rebranding intended to stand for a “contemporary Ireland” for the digital age.
The presentation was critical of how their identity had evolved including a mission statement around winning foreign direct investment.
“It’s honest, direct and explains exactly what IDA are doing. However, it falls a bit flat —how are we going to be number 1?” said one slide.
The strategy document said brand guidelines were lacking in terms of direction and were not being adhered to in any case.
It said the guidelines had missing sections around tone of voice, advice on use of photographs and “many areas need improvement.”
“Effective brands are consistent and recognisable to the client [and] audience at every touchpoint. Materials should be cohesive,” said the paper.
It said colours were being used in a “free for all” and that bright colours introduced after the recession “actually jar” with the older brand.
The presentation raised concerns over confusion and misrepresentation where the IDA would get mistaken for other organisations.
It said search engine optimisation was a particular problem and a simple search for ‘IDA’ online was not always successful.
“When prospects (in the US, in this case) search Google for ‘IDA Ireland’ the click-through rate (CTR) is 42 percent,” said one slide.
“That is indicative that a large number find what they’re looking for, which is our website. When they look up ‘IDA’ the click-through rate is only 4 percent.”
Asked about the project, a spokesman said the IDA continually monitored the effectiveness of their brand in driving awareness of Ireland as a place to invest.
He said: “Our rebrand is a build on earlier successes, capturing our heritage while reflecting our current strategic focus of digitisation and sustainability.
“It is an investment that will support our efforts for the coming decade in securing FDI [foreign direct investment] projects across the country.”
These records were only released following an appeal to the Information Commissioner by Right to Know (decision here).
A briefing on a €9 million plan to buy phone pouches for schools said they were easy to use, cost effective, and better for “equity” among students.
A Department of Education document said it also avoided mobiles being put “on display” which could be divisive for pupils over who had the most expensive or up-to-date device.
Six schools were contacted about their experiences in using pouches with all of them “very positive” about how it worked.
The briefing said there were half a dozen solutions to avoid use of phones, including placing them in school bags, handing them in at a central location each day, or using a locker.
The other ideas were specific transparent phone lockers, mobile lockers in classes, and the controversial “lockable phone pouch” suggestion.
The briefing said: “All schools have indicated that a solution where students retain responsibility for their phones rather than placing them in a central location is preferable.”
Of schools consulted about pouches, department officials said they were paying between €14 and €27 per pouch with some buying them outright and others renting.
The briefing said one school which had been an ‘early adopter’ of pouches had been able to get them for just €11 each.
Department officials said a working estimate of €20 per pouch would lead to a cost of around €8.57 million in the first year of use.
They estimated a replacement rate of around 20 percent each year meaning there would be a further annual bill of €1.7 million into the future.
However, officials said it was probable a discount could be achieved given the scale of the purchase envisaged.
An inspection of the Cliffs of Moher walking trail found visitors ill-equipped for conditions, people ignoring warning signs, and a humanist wedding where participants were standing close to the cliff with their backs to the edge.
The review was undertaken by Sport Ireland in mid-August after two youngsters tragically fell to their deaths at the County Clare cliffs during July.
The inspection report said many walkers were simply ignoring warning signs, climbing over flagstone barriers, and going straight towards the cliff edge.
The report said: “In summary it was observed that walkers were unprepared for this grade of walk [and] warning signs were unheeded.
“The volume of walkers was too high for some sections of the trail and unofficial events were being held close to the cliff edge.”
It said the facilitation of things like wedding ceremonies near the cliff edge gives “the impression that these are officially sanctioned events.”
This in turn led people to believe that it was “safe and acceptable” to go off the official trail and towards the cliff edge.
The review found parts of the trail where it was not obvious which was the “official” or “unofficial” route and people could easily stray onto the wrong one.
It added: “In some locations the official trail was too narrow to cater for the volume of walkers travelling in both directions making the unofficial path, which is often wider, more attractive.”
The inspection highlighted several locations where people were most likely to stray off course, sometimes deliberately and while “engaging in risky behaviour.”
It said the trail was unsuitable for the type of people it was attracting and that the inspector saw multiple examples of “dangerous [or] risky behaviour.”
The inspector’s view was that the trail “be closed immediately” to make it safe, according to a copy of the report that was released under Freedom of Information laws.
Asked about the report, Sport Ireland said “several safety issues” had been identified with some sections of the trail kept open while others were closed for renovations.
They said all issues on the trail that remained open had been successfully addressed and that other sections would remain closed until any unresolved safety issues were dealt with.
The Data Protection Commission (DPC) asked for an extra €4 million in funding to hire new staff and manage potential fallout from AI (artificial intelligence) being trained using people’s personal information.
The DPC said it was facing an uphill battle in hiring suitably qualified employees especially for legal and technology roles while competing with the private sector.
In a pre-budget submission, the DPC said its role was becoming ever “more complex” due to the impact of AI and other fast-developing technologies.
It also said there was a growing expectation on them of “proportionate, timely and effective enforcement” in dealing with big tech companies and others.
In a letter to the Department of Justice in July, the DPC said it was looking for a €32.4 million budget for 2025 which included an extra €2.8 million for pay and just over €1.2 million for non-pay expenditure.
However, the allocation announced in Budget 2025 ended up being €29 million.
Their pre-budget plea said: “There is a heightening weight of expectation from individuals, organisations, peer regulators, legislators and governments across the EU that the DPC must regulate effectively and consistently in a fast-evolving digital world.”
It said artificial intelligence was already presenting challenges as personal data was “prevalent in the development, training, and deployment of AI applications.”
The letter added that while a new AI Act was awaited from government, it was up to them for now to regulate the personal information aspect of the technology.
The DPC said the extra €4 million would allow them to make progress in “clearing older large-scale cross border inquiries.”
They pointed to a “growing caseload” and constantly evolving technology, all of which created “significant challenges for the protection of personal data.”
Leinster House budgeted for a final bill of up to €885,000 for hosting an international conference early this month, more than three times their original cost estimate.
The three-day event took place from October 2 to 4 after being postponed during the COVID-19 pandemic at a time when it was hoped the overall cost would be just €292,000.
Estimated costs for the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) conference have since ballooned with officials describing some of the original figures used to budget it as “fanciful”.
Information released in response to an FOI request shows that by September 26, a few days before the event was due to start, costs were already nearing €330,000.
However, the bill will be much higher with the most recent estimate for the conference – prepared on September 23 – calculated at €884,943 inclusive of VAT.
A spokeswoman for the Oireachtas did say savings had been made “across a number of areas” and it was hoped the final figure would ultimately be below estimate.
An earlier submission on the event from July said “high inflation” had sent costs soaring with an official dinner originally priced at €28,800 in 2021.
A revised estimate said: “[This] was costed at the approved expenditure limits on entertainment per [official government circular] … which is fanciful at today’s prices.
“The Convention Centre Dublin’s cheapest three-course dinner is €75 per person, not including VAT or wine.”
It said attendance at the conference had at first been calculated based on 400 people but that 500 were now expected to attend.
The submission said transport costs had been dramatically under-estimated at just €20,000 in the 2021 documents.
An official wrote: “Either this was a major under-estimate or transport prices have increased very substantially.
“We are budgeting for €100,000 and aiming to reduce this by cutting airport transfers from the transport offering.”
It said “additional economies” were needed to keep the cost of the event at around €880,000.
This included the axing of a promotional reception even though it was “customary” for the host, and which would have cost an added €20,000.
It added that an original proposal was for a “beef-based menu” at €90 per person for the official dinner but this was cut back to a “chicken-based” one for €75, saving €7,380.
There was a proposal as well to host the reception in the Guinness Storehouse, but the Oireachtas opted to stay in the Convention Centre as it would have been €17,000 more expensive to move.
Transport to and from the airport “although customary” was also chopped from the budget and would have cost around €25,000.
A plan for gift bags was also dropped for all but delegation secretaries but this decision was made “as much about sustainability as cost”.
A submission said: “Too many cotton totes are produced, and they are an environmental problem in themselves.”
Even with those savings, the estimated cost for the event was put at €880,000, triple the figure floated in the first business case prepared in 2021.
An updated September advisory on costs said this would be made up of €307,500 in venue hire and €193,536 for venue services.
A further €148,952 would be spent on catering for up to 500 people while €12,423 was budgeted for “culture [and] music.”
Display and printing costs were estimated at €13,323 with gifts expected to cost the taxpayer €18,450.
Other costs listed included €20,499 for interpretation fees in six languages, €12,300 in photography bills, €9,840 for security, €13,000 for staff overtime, and €55,350 for transport services.
This September 23 submission said the estimated total was €884,943 but that there would be significant “reputational benefits” for Ireland and that it would help promote subsequent tourism.
When information on the event was sought from the Oireachtas in late September, around €330,000 worth of invoices had at that stage been received.
This included a deposit of €30,750 for the Convention Centre and three further payments of €92,250 each for hire of the centre.
Other invoices listed were two €5,107 payments for a catering deposit, €2,148 for staff accommodation, and €1,119 for graphic design.
Invoices had also been submitted for €314 for wrist bands with high security considered essential for the event.
An earlier risk assessment on the conference said protests could be “expected” and gardaí would be maintaining a presence.
The assessment added: “Body and bag scanning will be in place and all attending will be badged and no entry is permitted without valid passport ID.”
Asked about the expenditure, a spokeswoman for the Oireachtas said the event offered an opportunity to showcase Ireland to participants from fifty-seven countries.
She said: “Host cities of international conferences and events enjoy an increased global profile as well as immediate and short-term economic benefits and possible growth in local employment.
“Hosting events like these provides an opportunity to demonstrate to the world, through both the experience of delegates and coverage in international media, what Ireland Inc. has to offer.”
The ethics watchdog was told too much time had passed to pursue action over more than €1,000 worth of undeclared election expenses by Minister Paschal Donohoe.
The Minister for Public Expenditure had to make amendments to his electoral statements because of postering work carried out on his behalf by the businessman Michael Stone.
However, it has now emerged that the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO) could not follow up on undeclared donations from the 2016 election.
Previously unreleased internal briefings said that a prosecution under the Electoral Act could not take place more than five years after an offence was alleged to have happened.
An internal briefing said: “As such, several potential offences relating to the 2016 election are statute barred.”
It said however that similar undeclared donations from the 2020 general election – again relating to postering work by Mr Stone – could be pursued.
The briefing said these could be “prosecuted on indictment” but would have to be brought through the courts and proven “beyond reasonable doubt.”
A second course of action was detailed where the undeclared donations would be dealt with by way of complaint to SIPO.
The briefing document said: “The Commission previously received legal advice that it could carry out a similar information-gathering exercise using implied powers to ensure constitutional procedural fairness.”
It also advised there were “more limited grounds” available where SIPO could decline to investigate a complaint.
This included a scenario where the subject matter “is not, in the opinion of the Commission, of sufficient gravity to warrant investigation.”
Mr Donohoe was later informed by SIPO no further action would be taken and that amendment of his election returns was consistent with their approach to compliance.
During the period in which the investigation took place, Mr Donohoe had to recuse himself from ministerial duties relating to the Standards Commission.
The briefing documents were only released by SIPO under FOI laws following an appeal to the Information Commissioner.
However, they provide no significant clarity on how the decision was made not to go ahead with action over the undeclared donations.
The postering work came to light following a complaint by the journalist Liam Deegan.
It led to the disclosure by Mr Donohoe that a commercial van was used during his election campaign in 2016.
This was provided along with the labour of six individuals and was later said by the minister to have a value of €1,057.
At the time, Mr Donohoe said: “I always hold myself to the very highest of professional standards and I profoundly regret that this matter wasn’t dealt with correctly in 2016.
“In light of the information that’s now available to me, I’ve taken the steps to address the issue as comprehensively as I can.”
It also emerged that further undeclared work was carried out on behalf of Minister Donohoe during the 2020 general election.
A SIPO briefing said: “In a statement by [businessman] Michael Stone on 24 January 2023, he claims that he previously incorrectly informed the Minister that he had not provided any assistance regarding the 2020 general election. However, having re-examined the matter he realised this was incorrect.”
Another amended electoral statement was submitted by Minister Donohoe and Fine Gael to include €1,256.20 extra for the “erection of some posters.”
Asked about the investigation and their refusal to release documents about it, SIPO said they had no comment.
A spokesperson said: “It is the practice of the Standards in Public Office Commission not to comment on individual compliance matters.”
A statement from Minister Donohoe and the Department of Public Expenditure said they had nothing further to add and that SIPO was “independent in the performance of its functions.”
An Bord Pleanála replied to say that somebody could come in person to view the records but that scanning and copying fees would apply to be provided with an electronic file transfer.
They later came back and said that the charge for the documents would be €3,234.20 and for us to fill out a detailed form to ensure access.
We sought internal review saying the fee was not allowed for under the AIE Regulations and that there was no obligation to fill out any form.
An Bord Pleanála responded to say they upheld the initial decision and we sought review with the Commissioner for Environmental Information (CEI).
There are two main strands to the decision, the requirement to fill out a form and the outrageous demand for fees.
On filling out a form, An Bord Pleanála said this was done to ensure users complied with “legal obligations, including those related to copyright and data protection”.
The CEI said however that this could not be justified saying: “A person who received environmental information on foot of a request must be free to circulate that to others who might have an interest in the information.
“I therefore find that ABP should not have required the appellant to sign the declaration form when granting him access to information under the AIE Regulations.”
On the fees, the CEI said it was completely unclear how An Bord Pleanála had calculated the total and said the €3,234.20 sum was “objectively unreasonable” and would deter people from trying to access information on the environment.
The planning board were directed to release electronic copies of the information in full and for free.
The decision added: “I do not think it would be reasonable to allow a public authority to rely on its own failure to adequately organise its information to justify the imposition of a charge on the appellant in respect of work which arguably would not have been required had proper document management arrangements been in place.”
