• Tá Tú Anseo:
• Baile /
• Archived /
• Press Release - Environment/Local Authority Case Summaries (Annual Report 1995)

Press Release - Environment/Local Authority Case Summaries (Annual Report 1995)

Press Release - Environment/Local Authority Case Summaries (Annual Report 1995)

Environment/Local Authorities - Notes

• Information on the Environment

The Ombudsman continued to receive complaints about the delay or failure to release information under the Access to Information on the Environment Regulations.

In 1995 he received 30 complaints in relation to this issue, which when added to the carry-over from 1994 resulted in a total of 48 complaints to be dealt with. Twenty five (25) of these complaints were resolved in favour of the complainants, assistance was provided in 7 cases and 10 complaints were not upheld. A further 6 complaints were carried forward into 1996.

In his report the Ombudsman highlights the following cases as examples of where information was either delayed or incorrectly withheld from requesters.

• The first case concerns Kildare County Council, where a newspaper editor complained to the Ombudsman's office after three unsuccessful requests to the Council for information on effluent discharges. Following lengthy correspondence between the Ombudsman's office and the Council, the information was eventually released to the newspaper, but not until 7 months after the original request. The Council said that it was not clear initially what information was being requested by the newspaper, and also that staff shortages had resulted in regrettable delays.

The Ombudsman expresses concern that any public body would fail to meet its statutory obligations under the Regulations and points out that delays in meeting requests for environmental information are particularly serious because the information sought can, over time, lose some or all of its value to the requester.

• A second case concerned a complaint made to the Ombudsman about the failure of Mayo County Council to release information under the Access to Information on the Environment Regulations. The requester wanted data on effluent discharges from an industrial plant. The Council refused the request because of concerns about the use to which the requester might put the information and because the industrial plant felt that the release of information would be detrimental to its commercial interests. As soon as the Ombudsman started his investigation, the Council released the information in question. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman proceeded with his investigation and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the Council's original decision to withhold the information on the basis of protecting the company's commercial interests, that the Council had not conducted a full assessment of all available evidence in reaching its decision, and that public bodies cannot pick and choose between requesters for information under the Regulations. He also expresses concern about the delay which his staff experienced in their dealings with the Council and the delay of some sixteen months in releasing this information. The Council accepted his recommendations for improving its procedures for dealing with similar cases in future.

• Openness and Transparency

The Ombudsman makes the point, in his 1995 Annual Report, that public bodies must apply their powers with objectivity and impartiality and that at the heart of this principle are the concepts of openness and transparency. To illustrate this he uses the following case:-

• A complaint was received from a residents association in Athlone that Westmeath County Council had, year after year, failed to approve the completion of a footpath along a busy roadway and had also failed to explain to the association the reasons why the footpath had not been completed. The residents had approached the Council over a number of years and had been given estimates of cost but apart from being told that the footpath had not been given priority, they were given no other reason for the subsequent failure to allocate the funds.

Apart from the failure to give reasons, the Ombudsman had doubts about the legal basis for the Council's actions. However, after the Ombudsman notified the Council that he had decided to commence an investigation of the complaint, the Council replied that the question of prioritising works had again been considered at a Council meeting and a decision taken to defer provision of the footpath to next year. This decision had been endorsed by the full membership of the Council at a subsequent meeting. The effect of this was that once a vote on the matter had been taken by the Council, it became a "reserved" function of the Council. While this gave proper legal effect to the Council's actions, "reserved" functions are not within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction to examine.

While he could no longer examine this complaint, the Ombudsman emphasises that, while there are areas of public administration where scarcity of resources means that some order of priority is necessary, it is very important that these priorities be established objectively so that individuals can determine whether or not they have been treated fairly. He notes that in this case there seemed to be little transparency in the way in which individual projects were prioritised and he is unable to say whether or not the complainants were treated fairly.