I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive report. I call Deputy Bruton.
Draft Freedom of Information Act, 1997 (Prescribed Bodies) (No. 2) Regulations, 2002.
Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Parlon): This is my first time to come before a committee of the House and I welcome this opportunity. I congratulate the Chairman on his appointment and the members of the committee.
The motion before the committee concerns regulations to extend the Freedom of Information Act to additional public bodies. I am aware of the support among Deputies of all political persuasions for freedom of information and am sure that this extension will be welcomed.
FOI is now seen as an integral part of the legislative landscape and we have clearly moved a long way since those more tentative years leading to its introduction. It is no exaggeration to say that FOI was expected to effect in a profound way access by members of the public to information and that this would help inspire trust and further public confidence in the organs of the State. By and large FOI has achieved these aims. This is not say that the Act always works perfectly or that it is not susceptible to criticism or even the odd mistake. However, I am confident that the public bodies listed in these regulations will find that the influence of FOI is overwhelmingly positive and that it can bring real benefits.
The bodies to be brought within the Act's remit on this occasion span the range of public services. In all, 32 new bodies are to be brought within FOI including the central and regional fisheries boards, An Bord Bia, the National Roads Authority, Bord Fáilte, Teagasc, CERT and the Dublin Transportation Office. When this tranche of bodies are added, there will be over 360 public bodies subject to FOI, compared to 67 when the Act first came into force in April 1998.
Between that time and up to the end of September this year, over 52,000 FOI requests were made of which over 80% were granted either in full or in part. The trend shows a decline in the number of cases going to review. This suggests that public bodies are becoming more proficient in handling FOI requests both at initial decision stage and at internal review. The fall in the number of appeals to the Information Commissioner certainly suggests that review procedures in public bodies have become more robust. The decision of the public body was affirmed in over 75% of the 1,560 cases appealed to the Information Commissioner in the period concerned. Put another way, from 52,000 decisions made by public bodies in relation to FOI requests only 390 have been varied by the Information Commissioner. This would suggest that the approach to decision making within public bodies is broadly in accordance with the Act.
In the period since the Act commenced, the approach has been to extend FOI from the centre outwards as experience has been gained in its application. This is a sensible approach and we are set to continue on these lines. The Government is committed to continuing the extension of FOI up to the end of 2005, by which time all bodies that are appropriate for inclusion are expected to be covered.
Supporting the process of extension and successful implementation of FOI are various administrative arrangements which have worked well. These include the FOI central policy unit in the Department of Finance, the FOI interdepartmental working group and other sectoral networks of FOI officers. The function of these structures is to provide advice, training and other supports to public bodies in relation to implementation of the Freedom of Information Act and to manage the practical implementation of the legislation. The central policy unit has encouraged the establishment of various sectoral networks whereby FOI liaison officers from public bodies performing similar functions meet regularly to discuss issues of common concern and to share experience. Such networks exist in the local authority and health board sectors, for example. The Civil Service Users Network is another example. It meets about once a month to consider issues of common concern, including FOI requests that have been sent to a number of Departments, and to suggest common approaches to such requests.
The structures underpinning FOI have been instrumental in its success and have been the subject of considerable interest abroad, particularly from the UK where the introduction of a Freedom of Information Act has been pending. An example of how these structures operate to underpin the proper implementation of FOI can be gleaned from the response to a report published by the Information Commissioner in July 2001 in relation to the practices and procedures adopted by public bodies for the purpose of compliance with the provisions of the FOI Act. In response to this report, which identified a good level of compliance while also highlighting areas where improvements could be made, a subgroup of the FOI interdepartmental working group was established to prepare an outline action plan. The group's report was finalised and adopted by the FOI networks at the end of September 2002. This group's report sets out a range of measures to address the Information Commissioner's findings including measures relating to internal management, training, records management procedures, quality control and promoting access to information to be taken by bodies individually and collectively. The Minister's annual report to the Oireachtas will provide an opportunity to report on the progress made by bodies in implementing these recommendations.
FOI has been introduced in the context of a wider modernisation programme. The vision for the Civil Service put forward in the strategic management initiative for example saw the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act as key to delivering openness and transparency in Government. As a result of FOI and other legislation affecting the public service, such as the Public Service Management Act, the culture of public bodies is changing to one where they should be more comfortable in dealing openly with their clients and staff in terms of explaining their actions and activities. The important contribution FOI has made in this area was acknowledged in the recent evaluation undertaken by PA Consultants of progress on the strategic management initiative and Delivering Better Government modernisation programme. FOI has also contributed to underpinning a central reform brought about by the strategic management initiative through the reallocation of responsibility and accountability.
Concrete examples of how FOI has changed practices can be found in many areas. In the area of recruitment, for example, the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commissioners have sought to improve the feedback which they give to candidates; the FOI Act now ensures that a candidate can see the remarks of the interview board. Such developments are a recognition that the public recruitment process is not just about selecting the right person for the job. It is also about doing so through a process which commands the trust and respect of the public, gained through operating with the greatest possible degree of transparency.
FOI has undoubtedly produced other important benefits for public bodies. The mere fact of its existence has helped public bodies to refocus their attention on the details of their relationships with their clients. In the light of freedom of information, more public bodies are asking "Why not publish this document?", or "Why not release this information?" or "Why not be prepared to discuss this issue with a member of the public?".
The Freedom of Information Act has also directed the attention of public bodies to the importance of maintaining a high level of quality in the day-to-day tasks of public administration - the processing and maintenance of records. Many public bodies have re-evaluated their basic record-keeping systems in the light of the FOI Act and have also given appropriate training to staff. Furthermore, the requirements on Departments under the Act to publish information about their internal rules and procedures, together with the greater transparency attached to the decision making process, will enhance the quality of decision making generally and in particular the quality of feedback to customers in relation to their dealings with public bodies.
Another good example of this can be gleaned from the experience of the higher education sector, which came under the remit of the FOI Act in October 2001. FOI has prompted universities and institutes of technology to review their examination processes and the issuing of results to students. Many institutions are now offering students the facility to view their examination scripts and to have follow-on meetings with their lecturers. This effectively lessens the need for students to resort to making an FOI request to view their examination papers and increases the transparency of the process.
Secondly, through their personnel office, many institutions now have mechanisms in place to provide feedback to unsuccessful job applicants. By making this information freely available outside the Freedom of Information Act, applicants are not forced to resort to FOI to access interview feedback.
FOI has also prompted many third level institutions to undertake a review of their records management policy. For example, a template for all institutes of technology is being finalised as a best practice model for records management systems. The upgrading of records management procedures will not only enable the institutes to meet the obligations associated with the need to efficiently search and retrieve records as a result of the Freedom of Information Act, but has also focused attention on the necessity of having an efficient records management and administrative system in operation to meet general business needs. The introduction of the Act within the higher education sector has also forged closer contacts whereby the institutes of technology, universities, and colleges of education are co-operating in the sharing of resources and information of mutual interest in relation to FOI.
It is ordinary members of the public that are the prime beneficiaries of FOI. Their daily lives are most directly affected through the services provided by public bodies. These range from the fundamentals of life, such as accommodation, refuse collection and health care, to policy initiatives across the range of Government. FOI has set a new standard for the public service and it is important that this standard should apply to all appropriate areas. It is primarily for this reason that the Government will continue to extend FOI and has set a deadline of end of 2005 by which all areas appropriate for coverage should be included.
Chairman
I welcome the Minister on his first appearance at this committee and congratulate him on his appointment. This proposal will be widely welcomed. While the freedom of information is undoubtedly a valuable instrument, there are still areas where Departments are being excessively secretive. One in which I have had occasion to be interested recently is the profile of Government spending.
Each Department annually provides a profile of how much it will spend in each month during the coming year. Anyone elected to this House has the right to know whether the Government is spending within or ahead of profile. Despite this, the Government and the Minister of State have allowed freedom of information officers to take a view that these profiles are not something to which elected Members should have access. That is wrong and, at a time when control of public spending has been lost, to deny this information to those elected to hold Government accountable is also wrong. The Freedom of Information Act is being abused by this usage.
We need to be more courageous with regard to information such as exam results. There is a huge lobby that wants exam results to remain secret and which believes the public would use the results irresponsibly if they were known. I do not see things that way. Publishing information about performance in any shape or form is good for professional development and better service. I do not understand the rationale for Government to exclude certain areas. It is interesting that the Minister of State should pick out the transparency and openness of higher education institutes with regard to exams at the very time he condones the Department of Education and Science for refusing to do this in respect of the exams it holds. Double standards are being applied and that is not good for the system.
The strategic management initiative, which was a welcome process, has ground down to a slow speed, particularly with regard to performance indicators. The Minister makes reference to the value of a users' council in the context of the Civil Service but, compared to other public bodies, Ireland offers the least information about performance monitoring of any state. There was a recent interesting study by a professor at the University of Ulster at Coleraine showing that Ireland is way behind its counterparts in Northern Ireland in respect of providing information to users and customers. While we congratulate the Minister for this extension, it would be foolish to suggest that everything in the garden is rosy.
The Minister should tell us the agencies that have yet to come within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act and why he thinks they cannot come within it until 2005. That is a long time away.
Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit don choiste.
I welcome the Minister of State to the committee. Regarding the statistics he has offered us in his address, I note that, while emphasis is placed on the 390 cases that were favourably judged on appeal by the Information Commissioner, in excess of 10,000 cases were initially refused. Of the close to 52,000 requests for FOI presented, only about 80% were granted. That means about 20% were not granted and, of those, only 1,560 cases were appealed.
Is it the Minister's view that the signposted fall-off in appeals, which the Minister noted, is solely due to public acceptance of the initial decisions? Might it also be attributable to a lack of awareness of the appeals procedure? What is being done to better inform and guide the public and is this happening on an ongoing basis? We must improve awareness of the procedures open to people following on from first refusal. While it is fine to say that of the 1,560 cases appealed only 390 were subsequently judged favourably by the Information Commissioner, this shows that some 8,500 possible cases were not appealed during the period in question.
Like Deputy Bruton, I am anxious to know what other bodies are being examined for a further extension of FOI, and the detail with regard to the expected timeframe for inclusion.
I welcome the Minister of State. I should also welcome myself as, like the Minister of State, I am a new member of the committee. We have come a long way from the time when the Minister of State's colleague, Deputy McDowell, and Deputy Bruton's colleague, Deputy Dukes, referred to the concept of FOI as the intrusion of the nanny state. Freedom of information has worked and has produced many changes in the attitude of public bodies to making information available. That is important.
There are however, a number of areas which have not yet come satisfactorily within the remit of FOI and these should be examined. Some are obviously limited by the terms of the present legislation but they are important. One such area is that of information on refugee asylum applications and the subsequent process of appeals. It is very important to those making an application, particularly if their applications fail, that they know in detail why that happened. It is also important for groups, organisations and those such as lawyers who deal with this evolving area of law. Does the Minister of State foresee the application and appeals process for asylum seekers being the subject of FOI requests?
The other area, and here I take up what Deputy Bruton said, is information in regard to taxation and the cost of tax benefits and exemptions. It is difficult to get information on who benefits from what in regard to the various existing tax structures. I do not mean information on an individual basis but information on categories of people who benefit and the numbers involved, for example, first-time house buyer's grant as opposed to the benefits which apply to investors in the current tax regime. This lack of information makes things difficult for people analysing policy. The question of information from the Revenue Commissioners and the cost information on various sectors of Government activity are areas that need to be opened up.
An obvious area which deserves publication, not on an individual basis but on a category, income and occupational basis, is those people benefiting from third level grants. Some members of the Government have a strong campaign going to reintroduce third level fees, to which the Labour Party is opposed. There are no solid details available, other than the numbers of grants awarded on a county by county basis, as to who exactly benefits from third level education grants. Most of us are aware, by anecdote, that people in certain categories benefit more than others. In my own county of Fingal it is people such as farmers, self-employed and hauliers who benefit most from third level education grants. I wish them luck and do not wish to see those grants taken from them. However, it is difficult to make a fair analysis of who benefits from State subsidisation of third level education in the absence of information about the categories and types of occupations benefiting from the grants.
There was mention of the publication of information by the institutes of technology. As someone who, until recently, worked in the Dublin Institute of Technology I had an opportunity to observe at first hand how the new system worked. It has worked well. Students are aware that the information is available. Inevitably, when such a right is introduced, there is a high level of demand for the information. Over a period of time that will settle down. For a number of years the Dublin Institute of Technology has run, at the end of the examination process and in the days after results are produced, a series of clinics where anyone who wishes to look at some or all of their papers or to discuss them with lecturers can do so. On many occasions it has bewildered parents who arrive in rather than bewildered students. That climate of openness in the institutes of technology benefits everybody.
Information on school league tables is another area where there should be more openness. What could be released and would be interesting is the numbers of pupils in different schools who stay in school and successfully complete junior certificate and leaving certificate cycles. Those statistics would really show the relative success or failure of schools. It is almost impossible to access that information. It can only be obtained on a local basis where a principal undertakes a study of the local figures.
I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, and wish him well in his new position.
The freedom of information legislation and the opportunity it presents to the public is availed of, as shown by the 52,000 FOI requests there have been. Could we have a breakdown of the make-up of those requests? Are they generally from individuals, organisations or the press? That information would give us an indication of which people see the legislation as a useful tool in the provision of information.
A welcome extension of the freedom of information legislation is the list of bodies being included today. It is extraordinary that up to now bodies such as the National Roads Authority, considering the massive expenditure it had available to it over the last number of years, were not included. I was interested to note, as I had not come across it till now, that we have seven fisheries boards. I would have thought we would be doing well with an inland and a coastal board.
Are any of the boards at local level, such as partnership, enterprise and Leader boards, included under the freedom of information legislation? If not, is it intended that they would be in the future?
I also welcome the Minister and wish him every success. Is the Minister aware of any difficulties with Departments in regard to implementation of this legislation? I understand that in certain sectors of the Civil Service there is a reluctance to administer the Act. Has any work been done on the actual cost to the State and individual Departments of pursuing freedom of information requests and the manpower levels involved in processing requests? Are there certain sectors in the State who resent the fact that this Act is on the Statute Book?
There may be a case to be made in regard to vexatious requests to various Departments. I would be concerned about some requests because they seem to tie up manpower and civil servants' time. Will the Minister address that aspect in legislation? I welcome the legislation and its extension as proposed but we would be fooling ourselves if we did not acknowledge that there is also a downside.
Chairman
Before I ask the Minister of State to respond I refer to the comment made by Deputy Finneran. He mentioned the National Roads Authority had not been included under this legislation. It is as a result of the work of this committee 12 months ago that it is now included. This is an example of initiatives this committee can take to include bodies and that is why the legislation is before us today.
I ask the Minister now to respond to the comments and questions of Deputies.
I thank Deputies for their comments and questions. Deputy Bruton asked about the profile of Government spending and made a comment about spending being out of control. The Minister for Finance said recently that he could practically guarantee now that it would come in at his original budget estimate of 14% or 14.5%.
That is the very point, we are kept in the dark. The Minister makes claims. If we had a clear idea of the profile of spending in November and December we could know whether the Minister was on target and whether this was a phoney bluster such as those we are used to from the Minister or if it was genuine and he had kept spending in line. Because he refused to allow us——
That is speculation.
This is freedom of information. The Minister refused to allow us to see that information and then he blandly gives us assurances. It is our job to hold the Minister accountable and not just to listen to his guff and bluster.
Chairman
We should take the debate through the Chair. On a point of clarification I want to make it clear that no Government Minister has any role regarding the release of information under the Freedom of Information Act. There is a dedicated officer in each Department and body covered by the Act and such matters are the function of that officer. There is no reference to any Minister in any Department as to whether information is made available. I wanted to clarify that. No Minister has any legal authority or power to withhold information under the Act. That should be noted.
It is a question of reforming the Act, because Ministers are withholding from the Oireachtas information to which it is entitled. What proposals does the Minister have to reform the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act to make available this legitimate information that our committee should have?
Deputy Nolan inquired about the profile of the requests. I note that just 1% of the requests have come from politicians. Perhaps the Deputy should submit some more requests under the Act.
I have submitted them, but they were refused.
The Department of Finance is operating totally within the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. Obviously, there are exemptions for very good reasons that were agreed when the legislation was introduced and to reject any request for information requires a very detailed explanation in writing outlining why it has been rejected. If that were the case, I am sure the Deputy got such an explanation.
As the Deputy pointed out, many people have chosen not to avail of the opportunity to appeal. The Office of Public Works recently received some applications for FOI information. When contact was made advising that the information was available, the requester was offered the option of coming in to see it all, thus avoiding the necessity of going through FOI. As Deputy Burton said, at the outset some Ministers were concerned, but I believe the attitudes are changing and that will lead to greater transparency. Opposition Deputies have their own responsibilities to find out information in the public domain about expenditure and making their own decisions.
There was a recent question as to what other bodies are yet to come under the scope of the Act. There are many such bodies. The ones still outside include the Garda Síochána, the commercial semi-State sector and schools along with many others. I am not sure about the enterprise boards, etc. This group along with others appeared before the committee last June. A further 32 bodies have been added today and it is intended to bring all groups in by 2005.
Deputy Ó Caoláin asked about the number of cases that were rejected at point of source. As I said earlier, the attitudes are changing. Obviously some vexatious applications are submitted, which can be rejected on that basis. There is a clear breakdown by the different groups submitting requests. Some 60% come from the general public; journalists make up 18%; business users account for about 10%; about 9% come from members of staff of public bodies who are entitled to see personal information about themselves; and the remaining 3% come from politicians and others. Some 57% of requests to central Government, about 70% of those to local authorities and 20% of those to health boards related to non-personal matters. The majority of requests to health boards were for personal information.
While initially there may have been some concerns and resentment, investments have been made into how information is stored, which makes it much easier now. Personnel must be dedicated to this, which requires substantial investment. Generally this is good for each Department. While it might be seen as a drain on personnel, the Departments find it is very important even for their own information as well as for improving their attitude and delivery.
I do not dispute the accuracy of the figures, but their presentation paints the most positive picture. The reality is that of the 10,000 who were refused initially only 15% subsequently appealed. Does the Minister of State believe some vexatious indulgence was being taken by people in the initial stages? It seems an inordinate number of people did not subsequently avail of the opportunity to appeal. Does the Minister of State believe there is an information deficit in that respect and does this need to be continually highlighted? Is the Minister of State concerned in that regard?
It is just like asking parliamentary questions. Having asked one that is refused, people discover a different angle that can be taken. Experience has been gained on all sides and the details on the letter of rejection may give an indication to people seeking similar information how to approach it in another way. I suspect a number of requests have been successfully resubmitted.
Deputy Nolan asked if there were any difficulties within Departments. As far as I am aware, Departments and other bodies that are obliged to be party for FOI are embracing it enthusiastically by allocating the necessary personnel. These bodies no longer want to be criticised for being secretive. There are no longer any difficulties and it is being embraced. There is a preparation period for new bodies. They are well briefed as to the requirements and by the time I appear before this committee again to announce a new extension, those bodies will be briefed, will have the personnel in place and will embrace the Act with the spirit that is intended.
I asked specifically about information concerning the refugees and asylum processes coming under the scope of the Act. Much of this information is personal to the individual applicants. I see no good reason not to make this available to people and I ask the Minister of State to comment on that. I see no reason there should not be much more detailed information available about the beneficiaries of higher education grants. We are not looking for names and addresses, but we want to know broadly the categories of people who benefit from these grants. Very little information is given, other than the numbers broken down on a county basis.
I apologise for not replying to Deputy Burton's question. The issue of asylum seekers' appeals, etc. is under active consideration and I expect it will be included shortly, if not the next time around.
I do not share the concerns with regard to moves to remove third level education grants. The issue is not about the Freedom of Information Act, it is about a lack of information perhaps within the Departments of Education and Science, Finance or the Revenue Commissioners as to how the grants apply. As I understand it, strict criteria apply - one provides income details and so on and, if one meets the criteria, one is accepted. A number of people who were barely outside the criteria have made personal representations to me but I am advised by the Department of Education and Science that there is a fine line between being on the right or wrong side and it is being applied rigidly. I do not think any breakdown is available to show whether applicants' parents are farmers, truck drivers or politicians but, in any case, that information is not available under the Freedom of Information Act because it is not yet available and that is a deficit within the system.
Chairman
For the benefit of members, it is open to our committee to invite Mr. KevinMurphy, the Information Commissioner, to attend the meeting if we so decide at any stage. His office presents an annual report and it has been discussed by this committee under the previous Administration and members are free to propose the invitation for our work programme.