Cinneadh
Mr. Y and Enterprise Ireland
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: OIC-163390-H5J2Y6
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: OIC-163390-H5J2Y6
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Whether EI was justified in refusing access to records relating to the Back for Business, Going for Growth and ACORNS programmes on the basis of section 15(1)(a) of the Act
On 9 August 2025, the applicant made a request to EI for all records concerning the governance, funding, contractual arrangements, and data processing of the Back for Business, Going for Growth (GFG), and ACORNS programmes.
The applicant specified his request as covering the following eleven points:
1. All contracts, funding agreements, SLAs, or MoUs between Enterprise Ireland and Paula Fitzsimons / Fitzsimons Consulting relating to Back for Business, Going for Growth, and ACORNS.
2. All Data Processing Agreements and/or Joint Controllership Agreements covering these programmes, including those with sub-processors.
3. All correspondence (internal and external) discussing which party is the controller for participant data.
4. All governance and oversight documentation relating to programme delivery, including reporting requirements, KPIs, and compliance obligations.
5. All DPIAs, risk assessments, or legal advice regarding GDPR compliance for these programmes.
6. Records on use of State branding – authorisations, licensing, or agreements permitting the use of State logos, emblems, or ministerial endorsements.
7. Verification records showing whether Fitzsimons Consulting was ever confirmed as an incorporated entity and any due diligence conducted on its status.
8. Appointment records for Paula Fitzsimons as “National Director” of Going for Growth / ACORNS, including basis for title and whether it is ministerial, contractual, or self-assigned.
9. Survey and outcome data collection records for each programme cycle referenced in public statistics, including:
• Who conducted the survey;
• Legal basis for processing;
• Relevant privacy notices, consent records, DPIAs;
• Any steps taken to anonymise or pseudonymise data before publication;
• Related contracts with KPMG or other third parties.
10. All communications with the Comptroller and Auditor General about the classification, funding, or oversight of these programmes.
11. All records evidencing the legal determination of whether these programmes are public or private for FOI/GDPR purposes, including the internal decision-making process and criteria used.
On 8 September 2025, EI refused the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(a) of the Act. EI said that, despite conducting thorough searches of electronic and hard copy files across all relevant business areas, it was unable to identify any records related to GFG relevant to points 1 to 11 of the applicant’s request. EI explained that its involvement with GFG solely relates to being a sponsor of the programme. EI further stated that it is not involved in the Back for Business and ACORNS programmes.
On 16 September 2025, the applicant requested an internal review of EI’s original decision. He said that, given EI’s stated role as sponsor and funder of GFG, it is implausible that it holds no records relating to contracts, data controllership, or oversight.
On 7 October 2025, EI affirmed its original decision, stating that it does not act as controller in relation to the personal data processed as part of GFG nor does it exercise oversight or control over the programme’s delivery. It said that sponsorship of this programme is provided in accordance with EI’s Group Event and Sponsorship Policy. EI provided the applicant with a sample minute from the internal committee responsible for overseeing this activity.
On 9 October 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of EI’s internal review decision. He said that EI’s decision did not demonstrate that all reasonable steps were taken to locate records. He added that, given the programme’s public funding, State branding, and ministerial involvement, EI should reasonably hold records such as funding or sponsorship agreements, procurement or committee minutes, risk and compliance documentation, and data protection assessments.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. During the course of this review, the Investigating Officer provided the applicant with details of EI’s submissions and offered him an opportunity to respond, which he duly did. While I do not intend to repeat either EI’s submissions or those of the applicant in full here, I can confirm that I have had regard to both for the purposes of this review. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
EI refused the applicant’s request for records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, because it considers that the requested records do not exist. This review is therefore solely concerned with whether EI was justified in refusing to grant access to records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
Section 15(1)(a) of the Act provides for the refusal of a request where the records sought do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken. The role of this Office in a case such as this is to review the decision of the FOI body and to decide whether that decision was justified. This means that I must have regard to the evidence available to the decision maker and to the reasoning used by the decision maker in arriving at his/her decision and also must assess the adequacy of the searches conducted by the FOI body in looking for relevant records. The evidence in “search” cases generally consists of the steps actually taken to search for the records along with miscellaneous and other information about the record management practices of the FOI body, insofar as those practices relate to the records in question.
While I do not intend to repeat EI’s submissions in full here, I can confirm that I have had regard to them for the purposes of this review.
In its submissions to this Office, EI confirmed that it is not involved in any way with either the ‘Back for Business’ or ‘ACORNS’ programmes. EI also confirmed that it does have a relationship with the programme called Going for Growth (GFG) which is a programme aimed at building capacity in women entrepreneurs.
EI went on to explain the nature of the above relationship with GFG, stating that its role is restricted to that of sponsor. It said that GFG is not an EI programme, i.e. that it is not designed, commissioned, controlled, owned or fully paid for by EI. EI also said that it is not responsible for any part of the recruitment of participants, delivery of the programme, etc. According to EI, its Group Events and Sponsorship Committee (GESC) has powers and duties to oversee EI’s participation in group events and sponsorships, to consider and review all sponsorship opportunities and to allocate and monitor budgets for these activities based on impact, alignment of corporate objectives and budget availability. EI said that, following each annual cycle, the programme provider conducts a voluntary comprehensive review, including quantitative and qualitative analysis of changes in sales, employment, and exports. EI stated that these findings inform EI’s decision on whether to seek approval for further sponsorship from the GESC.
EI said that, as its arrangement with GFG is not a funding arrangement, the documentation typically associated with a funded programme, such as design, commissioning, control, ownership, oversight, etc., do not exist. EI said that it has no role as a controller with regard to GFG, adding that it has reviewed the Privacy Policy on the GFG website, which states that GFG is the Data Controller. EI said that the records requested by the applicant never existed. EI then went on to deal with each of the eleven parts of the applicant’s request, explaining its reasons for not holding any relevant records. In substance, EI said that as it is merely a sponsor of the programme, it does not hold any records relating to control of data, governance, branding, appointments or any other of the various kinds of records mentioned in the applicant’s request.
EI addressed the applicant’s claim that the GESC meeting minute released to him at internal review stage contradicted its position that it holds no relevant records. According to EI, this release was intended to provide context on EI’s involvement as a programme sponsor of GFG while upholding its original position that the specific records sought by the applicant do not exist.
Notwithstanding the fact that EI considers that it holds no relevant records, EI said that it did carry out searches.
According to EI, due to the specific nature of the request, it was not necessary to carry out a broad search of the organisation as the records are held within a defined area run by a manager who is the sole point of contact for this type of sponsorship. EI explained that a review of its Client Engagement System confirmed that the company providing the GFG programme is not an Enterprise Ireland-supported company. EI said that it then consulted its Leadership, Talent and Skills team, which manages EI-run programmes. EI said that the Leadership, Talent and Skills manager advised that GFG is a sponsored initiative, which led EI to engage with the Start Up & National Enterprise Hub team that typically manages EI sponsorship. EI said that its initial discussion with the Start Up & National Hub team determined that it would be the sole source of records and that, as a result of extensive searches carried out by that team, no records were found.
As set out above, the Investigating Officer provided the applicant with details of EI’s submissions. The applicant responded to say that, on the basis that EI accepts that it sponsors GFG, allocates budget through the GESC, receives annual review material and imposes minimum branding requirements, it is not reasonable to conclude that no records within scope exist.
He said that the fact that EI distinguishes sponsorship from funding does not remove the need for records. According to the applicant, a sponsorship arrangement involving public funds must generate records showing approval and budget allocation, the amount paid, the recipient’s legal identity and any conditions attached to payment. The applicant said that because the GESC allocates and oversees sponsorship, various records such as agendas and minutes, approval documentation and briefing or evaluation material must exist. The applicant reiterated that the release of the sample GESC minute confirms that records do exist.
According to the applicant, it is not reasonable to conclude that no records exist concerning data flow in circumstances where EI has confirmed that it receives participant data, including names and business details.
The applicant maintained that the search details provided by EI do not allow assessment of its compliance with the “all reasonable steps” standard under section 15(1)(a). He said that reasonable steps would include searches of finance and payment systems, committee records, email correspondence with the programme operators and legal or compliance functions.
The applicant concluded that records must exist concerning sponsorship approval and payment, committee deliberations, annual review documentation received, branding conditions applied and internal handling of participant data received. He submitted that EI has not demonstrated that it took all reasonable steps to locate relevant records.
Following the applicant’s response to EI’s submissions, the Investigating Officer asked EI to provide further detail on why it considers that it holds no records relating to various parts of the applicant’s request. More particularly, the Investigating Officer sought further information in relation to the applicant’s contention that, in light of the sponsorship relationship between EI and GFG, further relevant records should exist.
In response to these queries, EI said that part 1 of the applicant’s request was clear and sought access to contracts, funding agreements, SLAs or MoUs in relation to the respective programmes. EI said that sponsorship of GFG is provided in accordance with EI’s Group Event and Sponsorship Policy which sets out the process whereby the project liaison drafts the application and ensures that it proceeds through all stages of approval workflow prior to consideration by the GESC. EI said that the project liaison then ensures that they have a minute from the GESC approving the event before starting work on it. EI noted that this minute was provided to the requester. EI once again stated that there are no contracts, funding agreements, SLAs or MoUs with GFG.
EI further explained that for sponsorships of this value, applications include organising body information, which forms part of the GESC review. EI said that, once approved, sponsorship payments are subject to standard verification checks which are part of EI’s supplier payment processes. EI said that these checks are point-in-time and systems-based, such as current tax clearance, and ensure that payments are only made to the intended, approved recipients. EI said that, as such, there are no records that exist in addition to those already released to the applicant, i.e. the minute of the GESC, which, EI reiterated, it does not consider to be within the scope of the applicant’s request.
Regarding communication surrounding data sharing, as sought by part 3 of the applicant’s request, EI said that Fitzsimons Consulting decides the purpose and means of gathering and sharing information with their sponsors with regard to programme participation. EI said that there are no records relating to formal data sharing expectations or agreements as a result of EI’s sponsorship.
Regarding governance, oversight and compliance documentation as sought by part 4 of the applicant’s request, EI said that this part of the applicant’s request appears to assume that the sponsorship arrangement gives rise to reporting obligations on Fitzsimons Consulting to the deliver the GFG programme on behalf of EI, which it said is not reflective of the nature of the sponsorship.
Regarding part 10 of the applicant’s request, EI said that its relationship with the programme is merely one of sponsorship and that, following comprehensive enquiries, it is satisfied that no such communications with the Comptroller and Auditor General took place.
Regarding part 11 of the request, EI said that GFG is designed, developed and delivered by Fitzsimons Consulting, which is not a public sector organisation. EI’s view is that a legal determination was not required to establish this and concludes that, following all relevant and appropriate searches, no such records exist.
In sum, EI said that the applicant did not submit a broad request for all records relating to the GFG programme. It said that the applicant’s request was specific and detailed and it is satisfied that it has identified all relevant records falling within the scope of the request as framed by the applicant.
EI’s position is that it holds no records relevant to the applicant’s request. The applicant maintains that EI ought to hold records.
EI has explained the nature of its relationship with the three programmes mentioned in the applicant’s request, confirming that it has no involvement with the Back for Business or ACORNS programmes and that it is merely a sponsor of the GFG programme. It has further explained why it considers that its sponsorship role with GFG does not give rise to the creation of the kinds of records requested by the applicant. EI has also provided details of searches it said it carried out in order to locate relevant records. While I note that the applicant continues to maintain that EI ought to hold the records he has sought, I do not consider that he has provided arguments or details that are sufficient to contradict EI’s position that the requested records do not exist.
Therefore, having regard to the submissions before this Office, and in the absence of any evidence to suggest that further relevant searches ought to be undertaken, I am satisfied from EI’s submissions that it is not involved with Back for Business or ACORNS and that it holds no relevant records in relation to these two programmes. I am equally satisfied from the details provided by EI about the nature of its relationship with the GFG programme and the searches it said it undertook that it has provided a reasonable explanation as to why the specific records sought by the applicant in relation to this programme do not exist.
Accordingly, I find that EI was justified in refusing the applicant’s FOI request, as specifically worded, under section 15(1)(a) of the Act on the basis that the records do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm EI’s decision to refuse access to records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
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.
Mary Connery
Investigator