A Brothers of Charity service has said it appointed and trained a
Freedom of Information officer, but a legal loophole means it is unable
to respond to requests.It has written to the Information Commissioner, Emily O’Reilly, and it wants to release documents but cannot not because the law was not updated to reflect its change of name in 2003.
The service told the Information Commissioner it is anxious to respond to the query, from the Irish Examiner, but if it released information it would not have immunity from legal challenges from third parties affected by the documents.
It said if any of the documents it intended to release defamed people or breached data protection issues the service would have no protection.
“This means that if BOC Clare releases records, in circumstances where it appears not to be subject of the FOI legislation, it would not have any defence under the FOI legislation to any civil or criminal proceedings brought against it,” it said.
The service said it was caught in uncertain space because when the FOI law was enacted, and a list of schedule of bodies drawn up, it was part of Brothers of Charity, Mid-West region.
However, in 2003 the Clare service became a unit in its own right and it was registered as different company in March 2006.
The new name was never added to the list but the Clare service appears on the Department of Public Expenditure’s central database of bodies covered under the FOI Act.
The service said it was anxious to comply with the request and was prepared to release two items — its fixed assets register and a record of its income streams — outside of FOI.
However, it said it wants the Information Commissioner to clarify it status before going any further.
It said it cannot release the expenses paid to staff, audit records, the details of high-earning workers.
Neither can it set out the severance arrangements worked out for its former chief executive.
“Following careful analysis of the above it appears to us that BOC Clare does not currently stand prescribed to the FOI Acts and is therefore not subject to them,” it said. The service originally looked for a €73 deposit to allow it to begin gathering together the documents.
However, after this was submitted it returned all the fees with a copy of its clarification request to Ms O’Reilly.