Personal tools
You are here: Home CPU Analysis CPU Analysis 98098 : Mr. Mark Henry and the Department of Tourism; Sport and Recreation.
Document Actions

CPU Analysis 98098 : Mr. Mark Henry and the Department of Tourism; Sport and Recreation.


CPU Analysis 98098 : Mr. Mark Henry and the Department of Tourism; Sport and Recreation.

Records held by a Department include those under the control of the Department,the right of access conferred by the FOI Act is to records held by a public body,records held by bodies providing a service under a contract to public bodies are covered by the FOI Act

98098

Section 2(5)(a) : Records held by a Department include those under the control of the Department Section 6(1) : the right of access conferred by the FOI Act is to records held by a public body Section 6(9) : records held by bodies providing a service under a contract to public bodies are covered by the FOI Act

2(5)(a),6(1),6(9)

2,6,6

2,6

1. The Commissioner found that the records of the Management Board were not held by the department for the purposes of FOI, in the light of such factors as:
- the independence of the board relative to the department,
- the nomination of an alternate member when the official was appointed. This was found to effectively restrict circulation of board papers to just two officials,
- the role of the appointee on the board. The official was not maintaining a watching brief for the department, but was rather contributing by virtue of his expertise,
- the storage of the records involved away from departmental premises (not a determining factor).

Please see CPU Notice No.14 of July 1999
2. The Commissioner also found that the management board was an independent body undertaking functions in its own right. It was not providing a service for the department under a contract for services, hence section 6(9) did not apply.


Mr. Mark Henry and the Department of Tourism, Sport & Recreation. Requester sought access to records concerning the tendering for the National Conference Centre. The Department refused access on the grounds that the records relating to the tender competition were not held by the Department. The Information Commissioner found if favour of the Department.