Ms Emily O'Reilly:

That is a very good question. I have been reading the exchanges that have been taking place, particularly those with the Minister when he came in here and I noticed there has been significant concern with regard to commercial sensitivity and how that is handled. We find this too. This is not so much a systemic issue for us, but we know there is great disparity between public bodies and how they deal with requests for records in which commercial sensitivity is an issue. Officials do not have great confidence in dealing with the issue and they often tend to take the word of the body that something is commercially sensitive and do not explore it further. Therefore, when it is appealed to us, we explore it. In issues of discretion, the discretion tends to be used in favour of the public body.

That is a somewhat sweeping statement. The training of officials was excellent at the beginning of the FOI process. The central policy unit had very good regimes in place and senior high-level staff were placed in those particular positions. When FOI ceased to be the flavour of the month, shall we say, there was a little less enthusiasm for it and standards slipped to some degree. However, it is the case that there are excellent FOI officers in all public bodies. The new bodies being included under the FOI Act means there will be an onus on the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to ensure that staff are properly trained. I refer in particular to training in those areas where there is discretion, such as with regard to the harm tests. It is necessary that they do not blindly and without doing an examination take the word of a public body that a particular harm will emerge.