The reason I tabled this matter on the Adjournment is that I have been frustrated by Departments and councils, and I am now being frustrated by Government in the case of FOI requests. It is wrong that an elected representative would have to pay to get information on behalf of the people on what the Government is doing.
Adjournment Debate. - Freedom of Information.
Hear, hear.
It is a disgrace that the Government has dismantled freedom of information. I am glad it is the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, who will respond because I am surprised that the Progressive Democrats allowed this. This was the party which told us it was going into Government to keep an eye on Fianna Fáil, but since it went into Government with Fianna Fáil it has been as polluted by that party as anybody else.
They are worse.
It is a disgrace that the media and elected representatives are now asked to pay. I saw in a recent case that a journalist from the Sunday Independent had to spend €2,500 to get information that belongs to the people.
When I contact the council its first utterance is "Will you please forward your cheque"? It draws a number out of air to decide how much to charge.
That is how they controlled the media and the people in Russia in the bad old days. In Russia, the state officials used to keep all the information to themselves and they would not give it to anybody. They then had total control of the people because they only gave the information to the media that they wanted to give so that they could indoctrinate the people. That is now happening in this country.
Between 1916 and 1921, the people of this country fought for the Free State. We are no longer in a free state. We are now in a state where we have dictatorship by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, where they will not give the people the information they need and request without imposing charges they cannot afford.
A Member of the Oireachtas or of the media should not have to pay for information which belongs to the people. I call on the Minister of State, his party and the Government, to return to the old system of FOI requests immediately.
I also call for more powers for the Information Commissioner. She should determine whether local authorities or the Government have the right to charge elected representatives, the media or anybody who requests information belonging to us. I am a Member of this Parliament and I should not be deprived of information.
What has the Government to hide? I suppose we saw this week what it has to hide. We saw the €15 million that was given to Punchestown. We saw how the media over the past number of years, through freedom of information requests, has obtained information and details of what officials were actually saying to Ministers. At least they did their job. They did their duty and they put in writing what was happening.
Under the FOI process, I obtained information on a school in Newport which outlined clearly that every departmental official concerned stated there was no need for this school – a third level school – seven miles from three third level schools, and that it was a waste of public money. They put that in writing. The Minister came along and was going to approve that school before the general election, but I can tell the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, that that was another broken promise.
One more.
He never meant it.
The Minister of State joined a party of broken promises.
Another Minister, Deputy Fahey, ran around this country making promises. I have kept all this information, the Fahey file, and I am waiting for the next election. I believe that the Attorney General has now been contacted because some of these commitments are legal and the Government may have to stand over them on the basis that they were made by a Minister.
I want to finish where I started. What has the Government to hide? Freedom of information was put in place on behalf of the people. The media has a job to do and to it I would say the following. Do not give up on the Freedom of Information Act. Do not allow this Government do this because you are getting briefings from friends in the Government – the spin-doctors. Do not be taken in by that. You should be out there every day writing editorials stating this is not right and you should be carpeting this Government until the decision it took on freedom of information is reversed. This does not need legislation because the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, can extend it by ministerial order. He can exempt elected representatives from these charges imposed by local authorities, health boards and Departments. Elected representatives should not have to pay for any information. We are not cranks; we are elected representatives. We are the people's messengers and we should not have to pay to get the people's messages.
The Government should go back to the old way and let the media and elected representatives have access to FOI. What it is doing is wrong. We are now living in a police state.
One should not forget what happened to the Russians. Look where they are now.
I am concerned about the Deputy's deep degree of frustration. I hope it does not affect him too much before the next election.
I am pleased to reply on behalf of the Minister for Finance. It is important to state at the outset that there are no plans to exempt FOI requests made by public representatives on behalf of third parties from FOI fees.
Why?
I am coming to that.
Public representatives are in a unique position to access information on the activities of public bodies and to hold Ministers and their Departments accountable. They have a variety of different means of doing so at their disposal, including debates such as this and the parliamentary questions and representations systems.
The responsible use of the Act was one of the principal reasons for introducing the new scale of fees this year. There had been evidence of questionable use of the Act previously. There was, for example, a case that came to light within the first year of the introduction of the Act whereby a single individual made 466 freedom of information requests, 101 internal appeal applications and 35 appeals to the Information Commissioner. Some 194 of the requests were made to a single public body.
He was not a public representative.
I am not in a position to confirm that.
The Minister of State knows he was not a public representative.
This person's extreme usage of the Act is estimated to have cost the taxpayer well in excess of €127,000 in an eight month period following the introduction of freedom of information legislation.
That is less than half the price of consultants that the Minister of State has to pay.
It is worth making the point that there are existing grounds in the Act that permit fees to be waived. For example, fees that apply to the search, retrieval and copying cost of records may be waived where the records concerned would be of particular assistance in terms of understanding an issue of national importance. It is also important to underline the fact that FOI requests for personal information do not attract any fee, save in very exceptional circumstances. The Department of Finance has been advising public bodies of the need to ensure that the fees regime and the exemptions are fully complied with.
The Deputy also asked why it was necessary to make changes to the charging system for FOI requests. He will recall that the principle of what has been termed "up-front" fees for FOI requests was fully debated during the passage of the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003.
At that time, the Minister for Finance made clear his belief that changes to the system were long overdue in order to strike a better balance between the burden and cost of administering the Act, which is unquestionably significant, and the need to allow people to continue to have access to information. The Minister also made it clear that, apart from requests for personal information, he wanted a fee to be paid by everybody in order to encourage appropriate use of the Act.
Dealing with freedom of information requests has inevitably had an impact on resources and service delivery. To divert an undue proportion of resources to any particular service can adversely affect the other services being provided. An appropriate balance which results in a better appreciation of the service must therefore be struck between the application of these resources and the rights conferred by FOl. An appropriate balance has been struck by the Government. About half of all FOl requests are from people seeking their own personal information and who are not charged either for the initial request or for appealing a decision if a public body denies the request.
For requests for other information, a fee of €15, or €10 if the requester is a medical card holder, is not unreasonable if the service being provided is understood and appreciated.
The local authority charged me €75.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
Order.
Perhaps the Deputy is making an application under that category of a person of limited means.
The Minister of State is being so smart. He was not here for the Bill. He was at Cheltenham. Perhaps if he was here it would not have happened.
I was here every day.
He was not. He was at Cheltenham along with the senior Minister. He let somebody else do it. Maybe if he was here it would not have happened. He went to Cheltenham instead of being here in the House.
Together with some of Deputy's colleagues.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
Order.
A person of limited means can expect to pay a significantly reduced fee—
We should not have to pay for any information.
—and it ought to be borne in mind that approximately one third of the population is covered by the medical card.
Higher fees will apply for appeals, with significant reductions for medical card holders. This principle is not new, it is a feature of FOI legislation in other jurisdictions. For example, while in Ireland the maximum fee for an appeal is €150, I understand that in Australia a fee of $574, approximately €356, can apply in respect of an appeal under the federal FOI Act to the administrative appeals tribunal. The latter could be seen as the equivalent of the Office of the Information Commissioner here.
In Ireland, the majority of FOI requests are granted either in full or in part and there are relatively few appeals. For example, less than 9% of FOI requests have gone to internal review, the first stage of appeal, and less than 3% of cases have gone to the Information Commissioner.
A modest system of charges, which strikes an appropriate balance between the public's right to obtain information and the administration of FOI and all other services provided by public bodies, is in the public interest. The system the Govern ment has put in place does this. It would not be appropriate to change this approach.