THE Department of Finance hid the existence of documents for two years until an investigation by the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC).
This is the second time in a year the department has been found to have wrongly withheld information from someone using the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act.
In 2013, The Sunday Times sought details of internal records relating to a decision by Michael Noonan, the finance minister, to pass a law prohibiting companies in Ireland from being “stateless” for tax purposes.
Apple, the technology company, was found to have made some of its Irish-incorporated companies stateless.
In response to the FoI request, the department released a series of records, but only one summarising which companies had been consulted. All the names on the list of 14 companies and their representatives were redacted. When The Sunday Times insisted that more documents relating to the consultations must exist, the department claimed that there were no other records.
Advertisement
It invoked section 10(1)(a) of the FoI act which allows it to refuse a request when a record does not exist or cannot be found. No further records were revealed following an internal review.
However, following an appeal to Peter Tyndall, the information commissioner, the department has revealed there were three more relevant records it had not declared previously. It includes a list of companies and notes of discussions with two of them.
Tyndall’s office said the Department of Finance “felt it was not appropriate to reveal the existence of these records” so as not to “breach the confidentiality it says it agreed with the parties”.
“The department now accepts it was not appropriate not to reveal the existence of these records in response to your request, at least in general terms,” said the information commissioner.
He will now require the department to decide whether the newly revealed records should be released.
Advertisement
The department said both officials who handled the FoI request acted independently and on the basis of the act. It denied that lies were told.
The department said an official decided the three extra records were confidential, and fell within the provision of section 26(4) of the act which allows a refusal to release records and requires the officer “shall not disclose to the requester concerned whether or not the record exists”.
The department said the officer believed describing the records being withheld would have breached the duty of confidence it owed third parties.
The information commissioner told the department it could have said the records were being refused without describing their nature. “The deciding officer was unaware of this interpretation at the time of the FoI request, but now accepts the view of the OIC. The alternative approach still [allows for] the records to be refused under section 26 of the act, but their existence is acknowledged.”
Last week this newspaper revealed that a FoI request to the Department of Finance relating to IBRC’s handling of the sale of Topaz returned just one record. However, following an internal appeal, the department found a further 13.
Advertisement
This happened after “expanding on the interpretation of the original request, in particular the term ‘relating to’ ”.