Vol. 522 No. 2
2 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the number of applications made to his Department under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, in 2000; the number of applications currently outstanding; the average time taken to process and adjudicate on applications; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16771/00]
3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the number of requests made to his Department under the Freedom of Information Act in 2000; the average length of time it takes to process an application; the number of applications refused; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17597/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.
Since 1 January 2000, my Department has received 98 freedom of information requests. Of these 98 requests, only three were refused. In 17 cases there were not any records in the Department to release. There are seven requests on hand awaiting decision. It is not possible from the records available to give an average time taken to process and adjudicate on requests.
Does the Taoiseach now agree that the Freedom of Information Act is positive legislation which has benefited the citizens? Is he aware of the concerns expressed by the commissioner for that institution as recently as 8 June about the serious backlogs of processing caused, in part, by a substantial increase in the number of applicants, up from 3,000 to approximately 11,000, but, more critically, because of a chronic shortage of staff? Is he aware of that utterance by Mr. Kevin Murphy and does he have any intention, as Taoiseach, to address the problem of staff shortages?
As I said it would, in the House last year, the Act is settling down. While there were some concerns, as the commissioner's determinations are made, it is giving more confidence to the various officials dealing with the Act. A constructive approach has been taken by the staff and the information commissioner and that has helped ease the concerns which were there at an early stage. The Act is running far more smoothly.
The Deputy is correct that the number of cases is up because of the extensions outside the original remit. The workload is up. Those concerns have been signalled by the Information Commissioner in this regard in view of the average monthly increase which he said was 60% last year over 1998. He also made the point that he would continue with the issue of staff. He has received an increase of 75% in the number of investigators. However, with the additional areas and the expansion in the number of bodies within the remit, I gather that is an ongoing discussion.
Has the Taoiseach's attention been drawn to the Information Commissioner's comments to the effect that there was anecdotal evidence at least that decisions and discussions that previously would have been recorded in writing are no longer recorded in that form for fear of possible disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act? Will he make a statement indicating his disapproval of any such tendency to deal with matters orally or by telephone where they are without the purview of the Freedom of Information Act, rather than as is appropriate in writing where they are more certain as to their meaning and more accessible under the Act?
The Information Commissioner indicated that he had anecdotal evidence that this might be the case in some instances but that he had never come across an actual case. He also indicated that he expected Departments to keep a proper audit trail of documents to enable them to give reasons for decisions.
In reply to the Deputy, I consider it essential that Departments maintain adequate records to enable them to carry on their business. As a Minister I found the traditional records very useful because a file goes through a Department and different sections of the Department have different views on legislative proposals, answers to correspondence, budget submissions or whatever. The practice over the generations has been to write manuscript notes on the files. I always found it very useful because it was only when one received the file and followed the manuscript notes that one got a sense of the arguments for and against within the Department, the pluses and minuses. I always went back through those notes rather than reading the final note which is obviously written by one individual. The assessments are always in the manuscript notes.
Did the Taoiseach write on files?
Yes, many times. All my replies would have been manuscript notes. I do not think I ever used a typed note. I would not like to see that and I hope that practice, which was very good and helpful, is not ceased.
I wish to return to the issue of staff and the massive delays referred to by the Information Commissioner in the report I cited. I asked the Taoiseach if he had any plans to increase the staff numbers above and beyond what is currently in the pipeline, and I am not sure he replied. Perhaps he might reflect on that question given the extension of the application of the Freedom of Information Act and the fact that 62% of members of the public are using this democratic facility, and not journalists, business people or other groups who might have a professional interest. Citizens are using this facility, as was intended, but that is not to take away from other uses. Will the Taoiseach agree the Act is being spancelled through lack of staff? Will he indicate that extra staff will be made available, above and beyond what has been promised or is in the pipeline?
I totally refute the idea that the Act is being spancelled. There has been an enormous increase, from nil to 11,000 cases. In my Department practically all the cases and requests have been dealt with within the statutory period. I cannot answer for every Department but I have seen replies from other Departments which would indicate the same. The figure is 11,000 questions, which is an enormous amount. The bodies and their remit have been extended. Last year the Minister for Finance gave approval for an additional 75% of staff. I know informally that further approaches are to be made to the Minister for Finance about staffing in the light of the expansion this year. I think that fully answers the question.
Percentages are one thing but numbers are another. We are talking about three in four people in terms of absolute numbers. Does the Government support the implementation of this legislation which 62% of the public wishes to utilise? The commissioner stated in his report, published on 8 June this year, that staff shortages are grossly delaying the response and the information cannot be given within four months. Will the Taoiseach raise with the Minister for Finance, if he is still talking to him, the question of additional staff to enable this legislation to be properly and efficiently implemented?
My note indicates there is no application for additional staff. I do not like to say that. The number of investigators has been increased to seven. There is an informal note that there may be an approach—
He admitted the office is grossly understaffed.
I am sure if there is an approach it will be favourably considered by the Minister, as he approved 75% extra staff last year.
Arising from the Taoiseach's reply to my earlier supplementary question, how will it be possible for the commissioner to get evidence that officials are not putting matters in writing to avoid disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act? Surely by definition, when matters are not put in writing there is no record of them and, therefore, the evidence of their exist ence cannot be ascertained. What steps does the Taoiseach propose to take to ensure that this matter is dealt with and that people put matters in writing which were put in writing before the Freedom of Information Act?
I do not think we should be making decisions on anecdotal evidence. Outside my Department, notes are still being received in writing. I do not see any change. The practice of the Departments I have served in was that one would get as much on manuscript notes as one would on written memos. I took the commissioner's comments to relate to the fact that this process might have ceased. He mentioned anecdotal evidence, there is no factual evidence that I know of.
One could not have factual evidence. One cannot prove the existence of something that does not exist.
He said he had not seen any file.
They do not exist.
They do. If one picks up a working file which goes through any Department, one will quickly see if the practice of manuscript notes has stopped. The commissioner said he has not seen that the practice has stopped but he has heard anecdotal evidence that it has in some areas. He would deal with an enormous amount of files so obviously it has not stopped in the files he has seen, which is clear from his comments.
Does the Taoiseach accept the issue is not whether notes are in manuscript or typed form because obviously they can be in either? What would suggest a change in practice is if each officer on the ascending level through which a file passes did not write his or her opinion on the file. For example, if there was an executive officer recommendation and no expression of a view from the higher executive officer, that would indicate the higher executive officer did not want to be recorded on the issue. Whether that was recorded in handwriting or type is irrelevant. The issue is whether an opinion is recorded at each level. Is there evidence of gaps in the chain of expression of opinion in the preparation of a decision?
There is no evidence of that, certainly not in my Department.
