|
|
Amendment of section 20 (deliberations of public bodies) of Principal Act.
|
15.—Section 20 of the Principal Act is amended—
|
|
| |
(a) by substituting the following subsections for subsection (1):
|
|
| |
“(1) A head may refuse to grant a request under section 7 if the record concerned contains matter relating to the deliberative processes of a public body (including opinions, advice, recommendations, and the results of consultations, considered by the body, the head of the body, or a member of the body or of the staff of the body for the purpose of those processes).
|
|
| |
(1A) (a) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a head shall refuse to grant a request under section 7 in respect of a record in relation to which a Secretary General of a Department of State has issued a certificate in writing stating that the record contains matter relating to the deliberative processes of a Department of State.
|
|
| |
(b) Where a certificate under paragraph (a) is in force and the Secretary General of the Department of State concerned is satisfied that the deliberative processes concerned have ended, he or she shall, by certificate in writing, revoke the certificate and, thereupon, paragraph (a) shall cease to apply.
|
|
| |
(c) A certificate under this subsection shall be final and, accordingly, an application for a review under section 14 or 34 in relation to a decision under paragraph (a) shall not lie.
|
|
| |
(d) A Secretary General of a Department of State shall, in each year after the year 2003, furnish to the Commissioner a report in writing specifying the number of certificates issued by him or her in the preceding year under paragraph (a) and the number of certificates so issued under paragraph (b).”,
|
|
| |
(b) in subsection (2), by substituting the following paragraph for paragraph (b):
|
|
| |
“(b) factual information,”,
|
|
| |
and
|
|
| |
(c) by inserting the following subsection after subsection (2):
|
|
| |
“(3) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a case in which, in the opinion of the head concerned, the public interest would, on balance, be better served by granting than by refusing to grant the request.”.
|
