Cinneadh
Mr X and Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: OIC-145486-X1G6W9
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: OIC-145486-X1G6W9
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Whether the Department has complied with the requirements of section 10 of the FOI Act in response to an application for a statement of reasons for its decision to refuse to grant-aid water protection measures as part of a forestry licence application
29 April 2024
This case has its background in a previous review by this Office (reference: OIC-132144-C0L6Q2), in which it was found that a statement of reasons given by the Department was not adequate for the purposes of section 10 of the FOI Act. The Department was directed to conduct a fresh decision-making process in respect of the application for a statement of reasons for the refusal of grant-aid for water protection measures which formed part of a specified forestry licence application.
In a new decision dated 20 June 2023, the Department provided the applicant with a statement of reasons. On 4 July 2023, the applicant requested an internal review of this decision. He made a number of points in relation to the forestry licence application process overall, alleging that named forestry officials acted dishonestly with the intention of causing loss and disadvantage to his company. He described the statement of reasons as a “baseless fabrication” and commented on specific parts of the statement. On 18 July 2023, the Department affirmed its decision. The internal reviewer stated that the reasons provided met the requirements set out in the earlier OIC decision and complied with the provisions of section 10 of the FOI Act. On 18 January 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Department’s decision.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. The Department was invited to make submissions but it has not done so to date. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the submissions made by the applicant and to the correspondence between the parties as set out above. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
In the earlier decision referenced above, it was accepted that the refusal to provide grant-aid for water protection measures was an act for the purposes of section 10. This review is therefore only concerned with whether the statement of reasons, provided by the Department on 20 June 2023, in respect of this act, was adequate for the purposes of section 10.
Section 10 of the FOI Act provides that a person is entitled to a statement of reasons for an act of an FOI body where that person is affected by the act and has a material interest in a matter affected by the act or to which it relates. The statement of reasons must give the reasons for the act and any findings on any material issues of fact made for the purposes of the act. The Commissioner takes the view that a statement of reasons should be intelligible and adequate having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. The statement should be sufficiently clear to enable an applicant to understand without undue difficulty why the FOI body acted as it did. It should identify the criteria relevant to the act and explain how each of the criteria affected the act. However, the Commissioner does not consider that a statement should necessarily have to contain a detailed clarification of all issues identified by an applicant as relevant to a particular act or decision. Essentially, a statement of reasons should be sufficiently clear to enable an applicant to understand without undue difficulty why the FOI body acted as it did.
In the statement of reasons provided by the Department to the applicant on 20 June 2023, in respect of its decision to refuse to grant-aid water protection measures, it said:
“The Water Protection Measure was refused because this area is prone to flooding. The exotic trees (mainly spruce) found in this area are all either dead or at an advanced stage of dying due to persistent high water table and ingress of free calcium during flood events. The exotic removal and following from this the claim for water protection measure is thus not required as nature is taking its course. Due to the environmental sensitivities on site due to flooding and the fact that the exotic trees are dying naturally, this grant aid claim is not justified and does not represent value for money. “
Submissions
The Department made no submissions in this case.
The applicant, in his submissions, said that no decision could be looked at in isolation and that the decision at issue here was in the context of the “corrupt processing” of the relevant forestry licence application. He referred to various alleged actions of named staff members of the Department’s forestry service and said that these were all material issues of fact. More specifically in relation to the statement of reasons, the applicant described it as “a fantasy”, and “not based on any fact, any Forest Service Reports, or on-site information. It is a complete fabrication”. He said that the statement of reasons was based on a telephone conversation on or around 10 June 2021 between two named persons neither of whom had been on the relevant site or had any knowledge of it. He disputed the specific facts contained in the statement of reasons including the reference to calcium, to lime deposits, and to the description of the exotic trees as being mainly spruce. He said that alluvial woodland is rare and a protected habitat that is defined by flooding, and that this is why the water protection measures would be required. In support of this, he referred to other reports and assessments which he said contained recommendations for such water protection measures.
The applicant then provided a detailed description of the involvement of various inspectors, ecologists and other staff in the processing of the forestry licence application at issue, alleging, among other things, corruption, deception, lack of relevant expertise, bias, and a lack of fair procedures. He also attached a detailed timeline of this engagement with the Department on this application.
Analysis
It is clear that the applicant has a number of grievances with the Department and how it has handled his forestry applications, and has made serious allegations against the Department and against specific individuals working for it. As the applicant is aware, this Office has no remit to investigate such complaints, to adjudicate on how FOI bodies perform their functions generally, or to act as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism with respect to actions taken by FOI bodies. Neither should section 10 be considered an alternative appeal mechanism for decisions taken by FOI bodies. Section 10 is concerned only with providing the reasons for the act or decision and any findings on any material issues of fact made for the purposes of the act or decision concerned; it is not concerned with the appropriateness, or otherwise, of administrative actions taken by public bodies. I have no role in examining the appropriateness of otherwise of the Department’s decision, or how it came to its decision, or whether it was justified. While I acknowledge the frustration of the applicant and his deep dissatisfaction with the Department, this Office has no role in examining such matters.
This decision is limited to the question of whether the statement of reasons provided on 20 June 2023 is adequate for the purposes of section 10. Having carefully examined it, it seems to me that the reasons given by the Department for deciding not to grant-aid the water protection measures are clear and understandable and that it has set out its findings on the material issues that formed the basis for its decision. The fact that the applicant disputes these findings and disagrees with the decision and the basis on which it was made, does not negate the fact that the reasons for its refusal to grant-aid the water protection measures have now been given. This Office does not consider that a statement should necessarily have to contain a detailed clarification of all issues identified by an applicant as relevant to a particular act or decision. Having carefully considered the matter, I am satisfied that the statement of reasons provided is adequate for the purposes of section 10.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the Department’s decision. I find that the Department has complied with the provisions of section 10 of the FOI Act and that the statement provided is adequate.
Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Emer Butler, investigator