Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during November 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37777/05]
View answerTuesday, 7 February 2006
Questions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests processed by his Department during 2005; the number which have been acceded to; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39751/05]
View answer
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during the months of November and December 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40276/05]
View answerCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of requests to his Department which have been refused under section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 since January 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter [1127/06]
View answer
Trevor Sargent
Question:5 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests to his office in 2005; the number of fees collected in respect of these freedom of information requests in 2005; the way in which these figures compare to 2003 and 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1750/06]
View answerOral answers (58 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
I propose to circulate in the Official Report the information requested by the Deputies on the statistics regarding freedom of information requests received in my Department.
In 2005, a total of €780 was collected in fees in respect of 52 applications. A further €225 was collected in respect of internal review fees for three applications and €35 was collected for search and retrieval fees in respect of one application. The Freedom of Information Acts 1997 and 2003 established an independent process for consideration of freedom of information requests. I have no role in how the provisions of the Acts are applied in specific instances. While I am pleased to provide general statistical information about the operation of freedom of information in my Department, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the outcome of specific requests or to answer questions about how the provisions were applied in any specific area. To do so would undermine the independence of decision makers and may be prejudicial to the conduct of the appeals processes provided for in the Acts.
|
Month |
Rec’d |
Granted |
Part Granted |
Refused |
No Records |
Transferred |
Withdrawn |
|
Jan |
21 |
2 |
7 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
Feb |
29 |
9 |
11 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
|
Mar |
30 |
10 |
9 |
3 |
6 |
0 |
2 |
|
April |
10 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
|
May |
11 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
|
June |
7 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
July |
13 |
2 |
5 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
|
Aug |
6 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
Sept |
4 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Oct |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Nov |
6 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Dec |
3 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
142 |
38 |
46 |
11 |
33 |
5 |
9 |
|
Month |
Rec’d |
Granted |
Part Granted |
Refused |
No Records |
Transferred |
Withdrawn |
|
Jan |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Feb |
8 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
|
Mar |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
April |
4 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
May |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
June |
5 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
July |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Aug |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Sept |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Oct |
12 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
Nov |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Dec |
5 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
45 |
14 |
10 |
7 |
9 |
2 |
3 |
|
Month |
Rec’d |
Granted |
Part Granted |
Refused |
No Records |
Transferred |
Withdrawn |
|
Jan |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||||
|
Feb |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|||
|
Mar |
1 |
1 |
|||||
|
April |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||||
|
May |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||||
|
June |
7 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
|||
|
July |
6 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|||
|
Aug |
5 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||
|
Sept |
5 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||
|
Oct |
16 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
|
|
Nov |
5 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|||
|
Dec |
7 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
|||
|
Total |
61 |
22 |
18 |
4 |
12 |
5 |
The Department of the Taoiseach must, like any other Department, be subject to various inspections, including those investigations by the Health and Safety Authority, if necessary. Why did the Information Commissioner report that a member of the public had had to let her know that the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 had been changed? Why is the Taoiseach's Department excluded from any inspection or investigation by the Health and Safety Authority that might be warranted? I understand that the Information Commissioner is to highlight that all new legislation apparently includes growing numbers of non-disclosure provisions that will affect the Department of the Taoiseach among others. That is neither transparent, progressive nor in keeping with the stated Government aim of being open and accountable in all its affairs. Regarding those three elements of change——
Questions on the legislation should be addressed to the Minister for Finance.
I know that.
The questions referred specifically to the Taoiseach's Department.
I understand that, but I am asking the Taoiseach whether he was aware that the Freedom of Information Act 1997 had been changed to exclude Health and Safety Authority investigations in his Department. Why did a member of the public have to tell the Information Commissioner that? Is the Taoiseach happy that there now appears to be evidence of a growing number of non-disclosure provisions in legislation? That is not good.
To the best of my knowledge, it is the other way around. I do not know whether the change has yet occurred, but another long list of bodies was to be made subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1997. Regarding health and safety issues, I am not aware of any change. Whatever was the position remains such. The Health and Safety Authority, if it was ever on the list, remains so. It has not been removed from it. I will check for the Deputy regarding my Department, but I am certainly not aware of any change. For example, if someone tabled a question on health and safety issues in my Department, I cannot understand why it might go unanswered.
The Information Commissioner said in that regard that the circumstances through which her office had become aware of the amendment to the Freedom of Information Act 1997 were highly unsatisfactory.
The question refers specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach.
Yes, and so does this.
I suggest the Deputy submit his question to the Minister for Finance.
This refers specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach which, like all the others, is now excluded by changes to the Freedom of Information Act 1997 from Health and Safety Authority investigations. That was not brought to the attention of the Information Commissioner but, according to her comments, made known to her by a member of the public. That is not good enough, and she also mentions an increasing number of non-disclosure provisions. While the Taoiseach refers to the growing list of bodies included in the Act, the Information Commissioner refers to a significant number outside its remit, including the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland, the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority——
The question refers specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach.
——the National Treasury Management Agency and the State Claims Agency.
The question should be raised with the Minister for Finance.
There are also 33 vocational education committees. As with the Department of the Taoiseach, why is it taking so long for those to be rolled out?
It does not arise from these questions, and the Deputy knows that.
With due respect, the Department of the Taoiseach is now excluded from Health and Safety Authority investigations. The Act was changed.
That question has already been raised and dealt with.
Yes, but it has not been answered. I have drawn to the Taoiseach's attention the fact that the Information Commissioner herself has said that this was changed without her knowledge.
I ask the Deputy to raise the matter with the Minister for Finance.
It is an important element of Government competence and transparency.
That is why it should be dealt with properly.
Yes, but it affects the Department of the Taoiseach. I am asking him a question, and the Ceann Comhairle is trying to rule me out of order.
Deputy——
The Ceann Comhairle is doing his damnedest to rule me out of order.
I am trying to rule the Deputy out of order because he knows that questions on the Freedom of Information Act 1997 are a matter for the Minister for Finance. This question deals specifically with the Department of the Taoiseach.
Yes, and my question is if the Act has been changed to exclude the Department of the Taoiseach from Health and Safety Authority investigations without the Commissioner's knowledge, the change later being brought to her attention by a member of the public.
The Deputy has already raised that question. I call the Taoiseach on the question relating to his Department.
The Information Commissioner has said that this was a most unsatisfactory way to proceed with business.
As I said, I will check for the Deputy whether there has been any change in processing health and safety queries from the inception of Act. I do not believe that there has been. If someone asked regarding health and safety in my Department, I cannot imagine why he or she should be refused the information. My reply to the next question will contain information on what is covered by health and safety issues in the Disability Act. I do not understand there is any secret about that or that it would not come within the normal issues of security or court matters or any of the matters that are excluded from the Act. I will check for the Deputy on whether there has been any change but I do not think there has been.
I thank the Taoiseach.
Does the Taoiseach recall that during the recess it was reported that requests made to his Department under the Freedom of Information Act regarding the use of Shannon Airport by the US military and related matters, were refused? Will the Taoiseach advise if such a request or requests were refused and if they were refused under section 24 of the Act? Will the Taoiseach agree that section 24 allows for refusal of information if a head of a Department believes access to the information could adversely affect the security of the State, the defence of the State, international relations or matters pertaining to the Six Counties area of our country? Under which of these headings did the refusals fall and did any of them relate to the Six Counties? Does the Taoiseach agree with the Information Commissioner that the FOI law has become too restrictive and that it is very much against the public interest that information sought on projects involving major public expenditure — of which there are several examples——
That is a question for the Minister for Finance.
This question is in the context of the Information Commissioner's commentary. I am merely asking a question about the Taoiseach's position on this matter and whether he shares the view. I was just giving examples of matters relating to public spending.
I ask the Deputy to deal with the questions before the House.
I have already asked the Taoiseach a number of questions. With regard to the comments by the Information Commissioner, I ask whether the Taoiseach has any view regarding the Information Commissioner's commentary, particularly regarding matters of major public expenditure.
The Information Commissioner produces an annual report which is examined in detail by the Department of Finance and by an interdepartmental group. I am not involved in the process.
The Deputy asked a question concerning section 24 of the Act which provides protection for records whose disclosure would reasonably be expected to damage the security of the State, defence of the State, international relations and matters relating to Northern Ireland. The security of the State would have been the reason such requests were disallowed.
The Department of the Taoiseach in common with every other Department imposes fees for requests under the freedom of information legislation. Is the Taoiseach aware the European Commission would regard Ireland as being out of line on that matter? I refer to fees of €15, €75 and a fee of €150 if the matter is appealed to the Information Commissioner under section 7 of the Act. Is the Taoiseach satisfied that a decrease of 32% over the 2003 figures for requests under FOI is a healthy sign?
I prefer the Deputy to deal with the questions before the House.
I am referring to the freedom of information legislation which is the subject of these questions.
The fees are a matter for the Minister for Finance.
I am asking for the Taoiseach's opinion on the matter because it applies to his Department. Is the Taoiseach minded to extend the number of bodies subject to the freedom of information legislation following the meeting of the committee on 15 February, considering that 150 bodies are excluded from the freedom of information legislation? Does that not give further credence to the belief that there is a culture of secrecy in Government?
I have raised the issue of fees before and we have examined the matter in other jurisdictions. There is a range of fees in other jurisdictions, particularly for appeals. If it concerns a personal matter there is no fee here, otherwise a fee of €15 applies, which is a modest sum. It is estimated that the average administrative cost of processing an application is €425, so the fee is small by comparison. I do not think it has anything to do with the early flow of requests in the first case. With regard to an appeal, while a preliminary judgment is given, a person can withdraw right up to that stage and get the fee back. It is only if it goes all the way to a final appeal, which is not usually much different from the preliminary one, that the fee is payable. Therefore, I do not think the fee is excessive.
Following my earlier questioning, the Taoiseach acknowledged that at least one question was refused by his Department under section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act. Will he advise us how many questions have been refused over the 12 month period from January to December 2005 under section 24 of that Act? Will the Taoiseach advise us also in what way the security of the State would be compromised by the release of the information sought? Is the Taoiseach's answer not tantamount to an admission on his part that the very fact that the US military continues to use the Shannon Airport facility is, in fact, the compromise of the security of the State? As a result of the questioning and further revelations about Shannon Airport, will the Taoiseach indicate whether he is re-thinking that arrangement?
The Deputy has misunderstood the Act. As I said in my earlier reply, I have no role in the processing of individual applications. I am not consulted on applications that come to my Department, nor am I consulted on replies that emanate from it. It would not be appropriate therefore for me to comment on any individual cases or on specific matters.
The Taoiseach is the head of his Department.
No, I have no——
These are questions about his Department.
They are not. As political head of a Department I have no role whatsoever. The whole purpose and objective of the Freedom of Information Act is that I am neither consulted on what comes in, nor am I consulted on what goes out. That is the way it has been since 1998.
The Taoiseach is accountable to this House concerning valid and legitimate questions.
Ceist a sé. I call Deputy Rabbitte.
It is a smoke screening of everything.
Please allow Deputy Rabbitte to contribute.
The Taoiseach's reply to Deputy Kenny about the Information Commissioner's remark that she had been taken by surprise by the exclusion of Health and Safety Authority investigations from the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, is unclear to me. Is the Taoiseach saying that is not the case? This is an important question and I am posing it in the context of, for example, the suggestion by my colleague, Deputy Howlin, that the Health and Safety Authority might take over the role of invigilating standards in industry generally, which is currently done in a more amorphous way by labour inspectors. In that way, they might work to a single authority, rather than creating a new authority. In those circumstances, the exclusion of health and safety investigations from the terms of the freedom of information legislation would not make any sense. The Taoiseach should take this opportunity to clarify the matter. Is he saying the Information Commissioner is wrong and that these matters are not excluded, or is he querying some nuance of that, which I do not understand?
I am not aware of any change in how health and safety issues have been dealt with. Whatever way they were dealt with in the first place, I understand they are dealt with in the same manner now. I am not aware of what was in the 1997 Act regarding health and safety but if a freedom of information question was asked regarding health and safety, to do with lifts or stairs, or other related disability issues, I cannot understand why that information would not be given by my Department. I am aware of no change in how queries regarding the Health and Safety Act are dealt with.
There must be a note on the file. Otherwise, what was the Information Commissioner talking about when she made her remarks?
There is absolutely nothing on the file. However, as I said to Deputy Kenny, I will check to see whether there has been a change, but certainly I am not aware of any change in regard to health and safety issues.