DELAYS in meeting requests for environmental information are "particularly serious" because the information can lose some or all of its value over time, according to the Ombudsman's report.
This year, for the first time, local authorities against which complaints were made were named in the report, in the interests of openness, transparency and accountability.
The report cites the failure of Mayo County Council to comply with a request from an environmental organisation understood to be Greenpeace Ireland for information on effluent discharges from a large industrial plant in the county.
When it was approached for the data, the council first sought the views of the company, which said the release of the information would "seriously conflict" with the confidentiality of its processes. Accordingly, the council decided it would "not be correct to release the information".
After "protracted correspondence" and direct contacts by his officials, the Ombudsman was shown the information. He concluded that there was "no evidence to suggest" that the grounds for refusal were justified. Given "the apparent lack of any valid grounds for refusing to release the information", the Ombudsman decided to investigate. As a result, the council decided to release the data, 16 months late.
But Mr Murphy proceeded with his investigation because of the "inordinate delay" involved. In its defence, the council argued that the company's view opposing release "should be respected". It was also "concerned about the use to which the requester would put the information".
The Ombudsman said public authorities were not entitled to "pick and choose" between requesters. He also concluded that the council was "remiss in failing to assess adequately the company's claim that the release of the data would be detrimental to its commercial interests".
In another case he challenged Westmeath County Council's failure to explain to a local residents' association why "year after year" it had failed to complete a footpath along a busy roadway, apart from saying that the work had not been given priority by the elected councillors.
Mr Murphy had doubts about the legal basis of the council's actions. However, after notifying it that he was starting an investigation, the council decided unanimously to defer completing the foot path to the following year. This had the effect of removing the matter from his jurisdiction.
While he could no longer examine the complaint, the Ombudsman emphasised that priorities in the spending of scarce resources must be applied with objectivity and impartiality. Citizens were also entitled to be given reasons for the decisions made by public bodies, he said.
In all, the Ombusdman received 48 complaints about abuses of the 1993 Access to Information on the Environment Regulations. Of these, 25 were upheld, assistance was provided in seven other cases. 10 complaints were not upheld and six were carried over into 1996.
