John Bruton
Question:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the number of requests for information to his Department under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, which have been refused; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1732/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Freedom of Information Act.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the number of applications to his Department in 1998 under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997; the percentage of those applications from members of the public as opposed to public representatives; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1913/99]
Trevor Sargent
Question:7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the number of requests made to his Department under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, since it came into effect; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3481/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 together.
Some 102 requests under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, have been received in my Department between the commencement of the Act on 21 April 1998 and 3 February 1999. The breakdown is as follows:
|
By Source |
||
|
Media |
61 |
60% |
|
Members of Oireachtas |
12 |
12% |
|
Other |
29 |
28% |
|
By outcome |
||
|
Granted in Full or Part |
44 |
|
|
Refused |
13 |
|
|
No recordsStill under considerationTransferred to otherDepartmentsWithdrawn |
221265 |
(Deemed “refused” in accordance with Section 10(1)(a) of the Act.) |
All FOI requests are dealt with in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Act by staff designated pursuant to Section 4 of the Act.
Has the Taoiseach made any assessment of the way in which working methods in the public service have changed since the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act? Has it resulted in more or less things being put on paper, given that things on paper are now open to inspection?
By comparison with other countries the implementation of the Act has been relatively smooth. In the view of those involved in freedom of information legislation and the public servants involved in drafting this legislation it has gone well. The framework set out for processing requests and for defining the extent of the right of access to various records has also worked well.
I do not believe the practice of civil servants has changed. From my extensive experience the note taking, briefs, questions and data has not changed. Speaking for my Department, the structure of keeping the provisions of the legislation at arms length from Ministers is a good idea and is well constructed in the Act because it means that the system, including the appeals system, rolls on without interference. While those unhappy with the decisions made in some Departments can go to the information commissioner, the legislation appears to be working smoothly.
Has the Taoiseach's attention been drawn to an article that appeared on the front page of the Sunday Tribune of 7 February in which members of the media, which constitutes 60 per cent of requests under the Act, were asked to pay £1,000 in respect of an inquiry. Does he not consider this to be against the spirit of the Act?
I can only answer on behalf of my Department. I do not believe we receive any money because the questions are straightforward. I understand there is a charge only if an enormous amount of information is required which necessitates a huge amount of overtime or additional work. In terms of the matter referred to by the Deputy, I assume an assessment was made of what it would cost to obtain the information requested. That was always envisaged in the Act.
Given the nature of the Act and that it is helping to throw light on areas of the Administration which had been hidden, is it not the case that if it will take time to compile the information requested by those seeking it, they should be told rather than be required to pay a substantial sum up front? In this case £1,000 was sought, albeit £500 in the first instance. Will the Taoiseach examine this aspect to ensure that finance does not become a barrier to getting information that should reasonably be in the public domain?
I understand it costs £16 per hour to compile information following a request. If an assessment is made that whatever information is sought will take a certain number of hours to compile, that will be reflected in the cost. The information I have seen requested under the Act is straightforward and there are no costs involved.
Given that the media and politicians are the primary users of the Act would the Taoiseach agree that the public is not as well informed about the Act as it ought to be? Is there any measure he would envisage taking to ensure the public is better informed in an effort to ensure that the legislation is more fairly and generally used?
Does the Taoiseach expect the number of inquires under the Act to decrease in time? For example, information may be made available more generally as the culture of transparency becomes more established.
Does the charge for compiling information apply to all members of the public or is there any selectivity—
These questions relate specifically to the Taoiseach's Department.
Does a charge apply to the public or is it the case, as I have heard, that if a charge is over a certain amount inquirers are informed in advance so they are able to determine if procuring the information they seek is worth the expenditure?
They are informed. The fact that approximately three quarters of the requests for information are made by the media and Members of the House is in line with the experience in other countries. I am unable to advise the Deputy on what will happen in the future. When the legislation was enacted it was anticipated there would be a high level of demand in the period after enactment which would then level off.
It appears that some people are operating a business in requesting information which will then be used for some purpose. It should be emphasised to members of the public that they are entitled to use the Act. It is not meant for a select few but for the wider public. People will tire of asking some of the questions that have been submitted.