Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during October 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24771/03]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Freedom of Information.
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the amount his Department has received in freedom of information request fees since these charges were introduced in July 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24772/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the operation of the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003 within his Department. [26334/03]
Trevor Sargent
Question:4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the way in which the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003 is operating within his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27272/03]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:5 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 in his Department. [28301/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
Two freedom of information requests were received in my Department in October 2003, bringing the total so far this year to 133. This compares with 111 received in my Department for the same period in 2002. Of the two received in October, one was part granted and the other was withdrawn. My Department has received €205 in up-front fees since they were introduced on 7 July 2003.
The Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003 came into effect on 11 April 2003 and relevant training was provided for staff dealing with FOI requests. All requests received in my Department are processed in accordance with both the 1997 Act and the 2003 Act and their implementation is kept under constant review.
From the statistics produced here, it is fair to say that the single most spectacular success of the Government has been the strangulation of the Freedom of Information Act 1997. The number of weekly requests from January to the end of September 2003 in the Department of Agriculture and Food was down by 61%.
Sorry, Deputy, this question refers specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach.
I know it does and I will come around to it.
If the Deputy has questions which are more appropriate to the Minister for Finance, he should ask such questions of the Minister for Finance.
The Ceann Comhairle is faster off the mark that Carl Lewis ever was.
The reality is that the questions must relate to the Department of the Taoiseach.
The reality is that the single most spectacular success of the Government has been the strangulation of the Freedom of Information Act 1997. I want to come around to the Taoiseach's Department but I want to visit a few others first.
No. Sorry, Deputy. It is not appropriate to visit other Departments.
It is.
Requests to the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism are down by 85%. It is appropriate.
It is not appropriate. If the Chair rules that questions—
Requests to the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs are down by 85%. Requests to the Department of Finance are down by 85% and those to the Department of Foreign Affairs are down by 72%.
Sorry, Deputy, that does not arise on this question. I have to rule you out of order.
In regard to the Taoiseach's Department, how can he account for a drop of 83% in the number of weekly freedom of information requests in the period from January 2003 to the end of September 2003? I trust that is in order, Sir. It is in the context of similar drops in other Departments that I make the point. The Taoiseach must account for that drop.
I have given the figures. My Department received two freedom of information requests in October, bringing the total to 133. This compares with 111 requests received by my Department for the same period in 2002. I cannot come to a conclusion, nor can the Deputy, until we can see a full year and compare like with like.
I made inquiries with the people involved in this area in my Department and they made the point that there has been no change whatever in respect of personal requests. People do not have to pay for such requests. It seems that many people were involved in trawls or were seeking information just for the sake of doing so. Now that they are obliged to pay for such information, the position has changed. My main concern relates to personal information, in respect of which there does not seem to be any change.
Two requests were received during October. How many were received in October 2002?
I do not have statistics for October of last year. However, in January of this year there were 20 requests and there were nine in April just before the new regime came into play. It ranged somewhere between 20 and six in my Department.
The pattern is clear, namely, that there has been a diminishing resort to the Act since the drastic changes introduced by the Government. The Taoiseach invites us to compare like with like, but we would need to know the figure for October 2002 in order to compare the position this year as against last year. There were two applications last month. It seems extraordinary. Is it not the case, as Deputy Kenny suggests, that the Government has effectively killed off, in certain areas of its operation, the Freedom of Information Act and put it beyond the reach of citizens in many instances? Will the Taoiseach confirm that the staff dealing with this issue in his Department have been transferred to other duties?
The staff in my Department deal with freedom of information requests as part of their ongoing duties. We do not have a dedicated staff for this purpose.
With regard to individuals, personal information, appeals and requests, there has been no change whatever. There has clearly been a change, however, in that those who were either engaged in trawls or making it their mission to seek frivolous information have disappeared from the process because they are obliged to pay to make requests.
That could be rejected under the existing Act.
What the Taoiseach said is absolute rubbish.
It is not rubbish, it is fact. There is no fee for requests for personal information. If there has been a change it is that those who submitted questions as part of a general trawl are no longer doing so on foot of the fees that were introduced. That is the only change in my Department and it probably applies in general.
It is my understanding, I am open to correction from the Taoiseach, that there were people in the Department who were charged to deal, either exclusively or principally, with freedom of information requests. Will he indicate whether these people have been transferred? If they have not been transferred, what were they doing during October?
I have made the point on several occasions that there are no staff designated in my Department to deal with freedom of information requests. Last year there were 146 cases, while to date this year there have been 133. There would be no significant change in my Department, even across two months in which few cases were received. The position would be the same as last year. Staff are designated to deal with freedom of information requests but that is not what they do on a full-time basis. I accept that some Departments may have staff dealing with matters of this nature full-time, but the latter would not be justified in my Department. Even in our busiest year, we would receive approximately four or five requests per week.
Does the Taoiseach accept that there is a direct connection between the charges that were put in place, which can mount up to €240 on appeal to the Information Commissioner in respect of a particular request, and the figures released in October, which indicate that the number of applications has halved since the legislation was restricted in April and that the decline accelerated in July when the charges came into play?
The question tabled refers specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach, whereas the question the Deputy is now posing is more appropriate to the Minister for Finance.
I appreciate the Ceann Comhairle's ruling but I wish to know if the Taoiseach accepts the basic thrust of my question.
With regard to the Government's indemnity agreement, which was the subject of a number of applications, fewer than one third of the 281 known documents held by the State were released to The Irish Times last month. Only one of the 48 documents the Taoiseach's Department holds was released and none was released by the Attorney General's office.
Why were the figures relating to the Taoiseach's Department so low? Government Departments – I wish to know if the Taoiseach's Department is involved in this regard – are posting on the Internet the names, addresses and full content of queries made by individuals and businesses. Is such behaviour acceptable, particularly in light of the fact that some people make inquiries for very personal reasons? Is it a breach of confidentiality, in cases where personal information is requested, to post details on the Internet? Does the Taoiseach accept that there is a need to respect people's reasons for making applications, some of which may be personal in nature and based on information already held by those individuals?
Does the Taoiseach believe that the Cabinet's decision to have a secretive three-year retention scheme on land line and mobile telephone calls is questionable, particularly in terms of the freedom of information legislation? Are citizens entitled to obtain the information relating to their land line and mobile telephone calls? Should the Cabinet decision, which involves the retention of information, not have come before the Dáil to be discussed? I thought the idea was that people would be able to seek information relating to them.
I will try to answer as many as possible of the Deputy's questions. In so far as my Department is concerned, there appears to have been a fall-off in the number of applications since July. It is probably too early to draw specific conclusions, but undoubtedly the introduction of the fee has had an impact. The latter does not affect requests for personal information, however, because there is no fee attaching to such requests. I do not believe that details of requests for personal information are posted on the Internet. We should wait to see how trends develop over a longer period.
I stated on previous occasions that there were a number of people who submitted long and convoluted requests for information and it was not always clear what was required. I am not referring to businesses or journalists but to certain members of the public. Such requests were enormously costly and time-consuming. It was decided that the introduction of a fee structure for FOI was overdue and that a better balance should be struck between the burden and cost of administrating the Act, which is unquestionably significant. We need to allow people to continue to have access to information and a balanced system of charges was needed to deter irresponsible use of the Act. That does not in any way affect people seeking personal information or appeals relating to requests of that nature. That entire category is excluded.
The majority of people make good use of the Act. Taxpayers and public bodies must be protected against members of the small minority who are using it to make frivolous and vexatious requests. I provided facts about the latter in respect of my Department since the Act was introduced.
I wish to outline the position in my Department in respect of internal reviews and the cost of complaints. Of a total of 132 freedom of information requests to my Department, internal reviews were requested only in respect of six. There is no cost attaching in that regard. Of these six cases, the original decision was upheld in five and it was decided to release further records in the other case.
As regards cases refused for fees, only two applications were received that did not include fees so that is not a big issue. Since the introduction of the Act only 2% of applications to my Department were appealed to the Information Commissioner. We had a major debate in the House about the use and abuse of sections 19 and 20 certificates but none has issued under either category from my Department. While it is too early to say, we have only reviewed the past six months but there are no difficulties whatsoever.
I have not had an answer to the three questions I asked. I asked about the posting of names, addresses and contents of queries on the Internet.
I said we do not do that in regard to personal requests.
What about other requests? Is there a question of confidentiality? The Taoiseach might think these are not personal requests but they could well be.
The question refers specifically to the Taoiseach's Department.
I am talking about his Department. I also asked about the Government's indemnity agreement. His Department only released one out of 48 documents relating to the agreement following an FOI request. Why is that figure so low? I finally asked about the secretive scheme involving retention of land line and mobile telephone call records for three years. Can people establish what information is held about them under the Act in regard to such calls?
I remind the Deputy that the information provided is totally a matter for the information officer. I have no control over the information. To the best of my knowledge, all information relating to land line and mobile telephone calls is made available because I regularly read about it in newspapers. I do not have control over what information is entitled to be provided.
Personal requests are not on the system. If I check on someone indirectly, for example, the Ceann Comhairle, the Deputy asked whether I should protect that information but I do not see why I should. That is not a personal issue. My Department does not put these requests up on the system but we do not get individuals spying on others. If somebody asks a question about a matter and it is accessible to publish, it is published and, if it is not, it is not under the regulations. There is no great change in that.
What about the question relating to the release of one out of 48 documents? There was no answer to that.
If it is permissible under the Act, documents are published.
That is a low number.
The Taoiseach will recall that on the last occasion this set of questions was tabled, I pointed out that, following the passage of the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003, the definition of "Government" had been widened. Under the provisions of the Act, a Secretary General can certify a committee or working group of a given Department and, thereby, preclude its deliberations under the Act by virtue of the fact that it is a part of Government. Has that section been invoked in the Taoiseach's Department since the legislation's passage? How many such requests, if any, have been denied on that basis? Which committees or working groups has his Secretary General or any Secretary General prescribed? Is there a list of such committees and working groups within his Department and all other Departments?
The question refers specifically to the Taoiseach's Department.
That is a little addendum at the end.
None has issued in my Department.
Is the Taoiseach fully satisfied with the operation of the amended Act within his Department? Is he happy to discourage what he refers to as "trawls for information" by the imposition of fees? Has he plans to further emasculate the legislation?
I am happy with the operation of the Act and I have provided information. A small number of cases are appealed in my Department and there is no change to personal requests. There are no proposals to amend the legislation. I do not mind people trawling for information but they should pay towards it.
I did not hear the Taoiseach's reply to the second question and I ask him to repeat it. Can I take it there is a designated freedom of information officer in his Department who works exclusively on requests for information? How many staff work on such requests as part of their duties? Has that number been affected since the Act was amended? Will the Taoiseach outline the breakdown of costs to his Department of such requests on foot of the changes made to the Act?
There are designated officers in each section of my Department and the work comprises part of their duties. Under the original legislation, each Department has an FOI officer to whom requests are made and that has not changed. He or she in turn forwards the requests to designated officers in individual areas and, if a case is appealed or reviewed, the designated officer looks after that. The number of FOI requests to my Department does not justify the deployment of full-time staff. It is part of the duties of various staff. The cost of fees to my Department in the six months since the legislation was enacted is the enormous sum of €205. I examined a number of cases last night. Many of the larger cases in my Department were free because they involved personal information.
With regard to applications involving trawls, the fees are a little higher. Many of the trawlers have stopped but perhaps, they will come back again.
That section in the Taoiseach's Department briefs him well. If an FOI request involving the Taoiseach is made to the Department, for example, in regard to meetings he attended, is he informed by the FOI officer? Does he or she make the Taoiseach aware a request has been received regarding a meeting he attended or an appearance he made?
Most of the time he or she does not but, if he or she does, the practice in my Department is that I am informed after the information is released to whoever made the request. The information is requested by journalists in many cases relating to myself. That is a satisfactory way because I do not want to get it.
I am not shown requests relating to travel and telephone calls and most of the requests are straightforward. Requests relating to my diary seek factual information. I do not seek to know because I would rather not. I usually read about the requests.