Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 7 July 2004
1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during May 2004; the way in which the figure compares with the same period in 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17222/04]
View answer2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the total number of applications received by his Department under the Freedom of Information Act in the first five months of 2004; the way in which this compares with the same period in 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18309/04]
View answer3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the total amount received by his Department in freedom of information fees for the period 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19005/04]
View answer4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the total number of freedom of information requests received by his Department in the periods 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004 and 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19006/04]
View answer5 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during the first five months of 2004; the way in which this compares with the figure for the first five months of 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19008/04]
View answer6 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the total amount received in fees for freedom of information requests to his Department since the enactment of the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20248/04]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
A table showing the information requested by the Deputies will be included in the Official Report. The total amount received in fees by my Department from 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004, is €593.80, consisting of €510 in application fees and €83.80 in search and retrieval fees.
|
Time Period |
Number of Applications Received |
|
|
(1) |
May 2004 |
1 |
|
May 2003 |
11 |
|
|
(2) |
Jan — May 2004 |
16 |
|
Jan — May 2003 |
101 |
|
|
(3) |
July ’03 — June ’04 |
52 |
|
July ’02 — June ’03 |
182 |
Last month the Information Commissioner published a report on the effects of the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003 and the introduction of fees on the use of freedom of information legislation. Her report echoes what I said to the Taoiseach on numerous occasions in the House. The report stated that usage of the Act had been cut dramatically. She found that overall usage of the Act was down by 50%, with requests for non-personal information cut by 75%. Does the Taoiseach accept that if a person successfully appeals a refusal of access to information, he or she should be reimbursed the fees in respect of the appeal?
Is the Deputy suggesting we should look at introducing a system of refunds for successful appeals? It is a constructive suggestion that will be looked at.
On the first part of the question, the fee for making a FOI request is €15. I do not believe that can be considered a major deterrent to a responsible use of the Act. It is modest when set against the cost of administering the service, which when it was calculated some time ago by the Department of Finance, was about €425 per request. I will pass on the Deputy's comment about appeals.
Every time I say this it tends to come across differently outside, I repeat that the service is free for people who wish to seek personal information; they do not pay fees.
Does the Taoiseach agree with the view of the Information Commissioner when she said: "The decline in usage of the Act has gone far beyond what the Government had intended when it decided to introduce fees"? I do not agree with that because I think that is what the Government intended. I would like to hear the Taoiseach's view on that.
I would also like to hear his view on whether it is right that, of the other jurisdictions surveyed, only three imposed a fee for FOI application requests, none charged for internal review and only one, namely, Ontario, charged for an application to the information commissioner's office. That fee was less than half the Irish fee.
What is the response of the Taoiseach's Department to the recommendation from the Information Commissioner, given that Ireland is "substantially out of line with practice abroad" on fees for reviews of decisions and so on? She called for a reappraisal of the €150 charge that applied to reviews carried out by her office. Will the Taoiseach indicate if it is the Government's intention to carry out such a reappraisal?
There is no doubt that the numbers are down; they have been falling since 1999. In the first year of the operation of FOI a total of 207 applications were received in my Department. The numbers peaked in 2001 at 279 applications. When FOI was first introduced, people were looking for information from the past and there was a flood of requests for both personal information and information on other issues. Even before the changes were introduced a year ago the figures were substantially down and they have continued to come down. There is no doubt that it is not being used to the extent that it was.
Over 66% of requests to my Department were from journalists but since the fee was introduced they have not been using it to the same extent. In the other areas, the number of requests from academics, business and others has not changed significantly. The figure for personal cases is still the same.
A study in my Department revealed that less than 10% of cases go for internal review and, from the beginning, only 4% of cases have gone to the Information Commissioner, which is quite a low number.
As the Deputy knows, the original Act was based on the Canadian model. The United States does not charge anything for FOI requests but according to information available to me, which I do not have to hand, all of the other areas were charging. If the Information Commissioner stated the charge for reviews made to her should be examined, the Department of Finance will do that. It will look at that figure.
What did the Taoiseach mean by saying the Department would "look at" the figure? Did he say FOI requests from journalists had declined by as much as 83% between the first quarter of 2003 and the first quarter of 2004? I take it that is the extent to which he referred when he said, "not to the same extent".
Does the Taoiseach agree with the Information Commissioner's statement that the Act has gone far beyond what the Government intended when it introduced fees? Others would have their doubts but giving us the benefit of the doubt, does he agree with that statement? Will he indicate in more detail what he meant when he said the Minister for Finance might look at the fees and perhaps introduce some of the recommendations suggested by the Information Commissioner to bring the system more into line with international practice, given that we are out on a limb in this country and open government is not being practised as a result?
The figures are not down to the extent indicated by Deputy Sargent, although there has been a decline in recent years. The costs are not out of line with what happens in other countries. For a period, the media, business and others were using the Act to a great extent. In other countries that is not the case, it is used by the public. By and large, FOI was introduced for the benefit of the public and it is settling back to that being the case. For some time, the situation was that over two thirds of cases were from journalists but that has reduced substantially. We also had vexatious applications and business interests using the system to obtain information. A small number of them were using it to a considerable extent. The change in fees has stopped that.
The Minister for Finance, who has overall responsibility for the Act, will examine closely the report of the Information Commissioner. We have only operated this system for a year. I have no doubt he will take account of and examine what the commissioner has said and ultimately it will be a matter for decision. I believe only the United States has a free system. I have found the note I sought for Deputy Rabbitte a few minutes ago. In Australia, 574 Australian dollars, or €335, applies to an appeal to the administrative tribunal. That is broadly equivalent to an appeal to our Information Commissioner. Statistics suggest that the fees for internal review and review by the Information Commissioner will not be affected and that most users are getting the information they request.
The Freedom of Information Act was introduced to allow members of the public to be able to get information about themselves freely and easily. The Act works very well in that regard. In some areas information cannot be given. Last night I reviewed the section 20 certificates, which relate to the mandatory exemption of records where the Secretary General of the Department certifies that the deliberative process of the Department is ongoing. While we had considerable debate on that matter when the change was introduced last year, no Freedom of Information Act request has been refused under this or other sections. Some matters before Government would be refused, as was provided for in the original Act. The Act has settled down and will need to be reviewed after a few years.
The main purpose of the Act was to allow people to get information that the State or agencies of the State held about them and that has happened. While I know this is away from the question, it offers some clarity to point out that, outside Departments, the figures relating to individuals seeking information from local authorities and health boards have not reduced, because they seek information about themselves. We need to leave this for some years and see how it operates.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the Freedom of Information Act was designed to hold Government and public servants to account for their administrative actions? Does he agree with the Information Commissioner in saying that the scale and structure of the charges should be reviewed because the media represent a key element in an open and properly functioning democracy? Given the 83% decline in journalists' inquiries under the Freedom of Information Act during a five-month period, does the Taoiseach not accept that the fees inhibit journalists and others who scrutinise the workings of Government, the Civil Service, etc. from advancing democracy and accountability?
If members of the public wish to get information about themselves, they do not pay. A fee of €15 for making a request under the Freedom of Information Act cannot be considered a major deterrent to responsible use of the Act. It is a very modest fee. The cost of processing a request is approximately €425 and the fee is a very small fraction of that. The Long Title of the Freedom of Information Act confers a right of access to information to the greatest extent possible consistent with the public interest. A modest system of charges which strikes an appropriate balance between the public's right to obtain information and the administration of the Freedom of Information Act and all other services must be provided and is in the public interest. The system the Government has introduced does this and it would not be appropriate to change it, notwithstanding any decline in the number of requests being made.
As was asked, the Taoiseach should inform the House what he regards as the purpose of the freedom of information legislation. He said it was to allow people to obtain information about themselves. Is it not the case that this legislation is designed to make Government more open and transparent, and therefore the workings of Government are to be open to public access? Is the Taoiseach not overlooking that point?
The questions to the Taoiseach refer specifically to his Department and are statistical questions.
I appreciate that point.
I suggest that the Deputy submit a question to the line Minister responsible, namely, the Minister for Finance.
The Taoiseach seems to think it is only about personal information. Does he not realise it is about more than that? Does he not realise that journalists are also members of the public and may well seek information in the public interest?
The practice of my Department during the Presidency, which will continue, was to put most reports and documents on the website so that they were available. I accept that, in the past, people had to trawl and ask questions to get such information, but that is not happening now and the information is on the website within half an hour. That is a change in the position. We can see where the world is going. We estimated that 10 million to 15 million hits during the Irish Presidency would indicate good use of the website, but we had 46 million hits. This is how the world seeks information.
If they are not in the deliberative process of Government, most other reports and information that people might seek are put on the website. More Departments are doing this. The view of my Department's Secretary General and the management advisory committee is that any matter, even one of interest only to a select group, should be made available. There is no great secrecy about most of this information. I accept that used to be the attitude in the past, but it is not the attitude now. This has changed the position.
I only made the point about the individuals because the freedom of information is important for them. It represents a major change from the past and was a real breakthrough. I saw how it was being used by some vexatious individuals and business interests. Some businesses, which were established for this purpose, are now gone. They submitted in a substantial number of requests under the Freedom of Information Act at considerable cost to the State. They are out of the system now.
