Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during October 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32251/06]
View answerTuesday, 28 November 2006
Questions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Joe Higgins
Question:2 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department in October 2006. [35934/06]
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 October 2006 and the comparable number for October 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36320/06]
View answer
Trevor Sargent
Question:4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests he has received in October 2006; the revenue generated by associated fees and charges; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37082/06]
View answer
Pat Rabbitte
Question:5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information applications received by his Department during October 2006; the revenue generated from such applications; the equivalent figures for October 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38682/06]
View answerOral answers (34 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. All freedom of information applications received in my Department are processed by statutorily designated officials in accordance with the 1997 and 2003 Acts and, in accordance with those statutes, I have no role in regard to processing individual applications.
|
October 2002 |
October 2003 |
October 2004 |
October 2005 |
October 2006 |
|
|
No. of applications |
13 |
2 |
12 |
16 |
3 |
|
Revenue generated |
€125.70* |
€30.00** |
€135.00** |
€195.00** |
€45.00** |
*Search & retrieval fees.
**Application fees (introduced 7 July 2003).
I have three questions. First, what type of requests are made to the Department of the Taoiseach under the Freedom of Information Act? While I do not want to know individual details, what is the nature of such requests?
Second, as I understand it, the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the six North-South Implementation Bodies under the Good Friday Agreement. As the Taoiseach is aware, that deals with Tourism Ireland, the Food Safety Promotion Board, Waterways Ireland and Foras na Gaeilge, with which no issue of national security is involved. As the Taoiseach rightly pointed out in England yesterday, we face the opportunity and challenge of a future of developing the island of Ireland. Those four areas are central to economic development, North and South, and they are not——
The question refers specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach.
I know that, but the Taoiseach is in charge in respect of the Good Friday Agreement.
The Minister for Finance is in charge of freedom of information.
You are always at this, a Cheann Comhairle. I do not know whether you deliberately want to pick these issues.
No, Deputy. There are five questions, all of which refer to the Department of the Taoiseach.
The Good Friday Agreement is the responsibility of the Taoiseach.
A long-standing rule of successive Cinn Comhairle——
The Good Friday Agreement, which is so important to the people, North and South, is the responsibility of the Taoiseach. He has the support of all of the House in——
The legislation is the responsibility of another Minister.
I understand that. However, these are North-South issues which deal with four particular items.
My third point is one I have raised previously. The Information Commissioner referred in her report to the fact that under consumer legislation the cost of goods that are proven to be defective is refunded to the consumer. She went on to state that similar rules should apply to freedom of information fees which apply in the Department of the Taoiseach. If a public body at internal review overturns an earlier decision by the same public body, it seems iniquitous that the requester must pay an additional €75 to which he or she was entitled from the outset. In the case of an appeal to the Department of the Taoiseach, if the freedom of information officer refuses a request which is then granted on appeal, does the Taoiseach not think it would be logical and good manners, to say the least, in view of the falling numbers of applications for information to repay the initial amount in respect of information to which the person would have been entitled in the first place?
The Deputy asked a number of questions about the type of applications which are made. A majority of the applications received by the Department of the Taoiseach comes from journalists. The second biggest percentage of applications comes from members of the public. Very few sections in the Department are excluded under the legislation. The last examination by the joint committee of the non-disclosure provisions under section 32 of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 related to two areas of legislation. It was recommended that section 8(4) of the National Archives Act 1986 be included in the Freedom of Information Act and that Part V — sections 32 to 35, inclusive — of the Statistics Act 1993 continue to be excluded from the Act. In her report, the Information Commissioner indicated that she agrees with the recommendations. They are the only two that are excluded. All of the other legislative areas in the Acts are covered.
The Department of the Taoiseach has received almost 1,200 freedom of information requests to date. Just 98 requests have been received for internal review. Approximately 1% of that has been investigated by the Information Commissioner. A small number of Acts are referred to the Information Commissioner. A sum of money is paid during the Information Commissioner process. The Information Commissioner produces a provisional report in the first instance. In the provisional report, one can more or less see what the answer is going to be. One can still claim a refund at that stage. There are no difficulties in cases in which people want to claim back the money. Difficulties arise only in the small number of cases which go the entire way. It is a quasi-judicial process. Such cases involve a large amount of expenditure. It is estimated that each ordinary freedom of information case involves costs of just €475. Cases which go to the Information Commission are far more costly.
Has the Department of the Taoiseach taken note of the Information Commissioner's recent decision in the case of a woman job applicant to the former Southern Health Board? A previous employer was asked for a reference——
The Deputy's question does not apply to the Department of the Taoiseach.
If I am allowed to finish, I will demonstrate that it is directly applicable.
The Deputy would want to demonstrate that.
Has the Taoiseach taken note of the Information Commissioner's decision in the case I mentioned, in which an adverse or negative reference was made by the former employer? Have any such cases been experienced by the Department of the Taoiseach, in one or more such instances? Can the Taoiseach tell the House whether the Department independently seeks references from previous employers? Would the Department release pertinent information under the Freedom of Information Act in respect of an applicant for a job about whom an adverse point had been made? Would the Department have acted differently and in line with the Information Commissioner's ruling?
Do I understand correctly that the Deputy is referring to personal information about an individual?
Yes.
There is no restriction under the Act on the transmission of personal information about an individual. There is no cost in such circumstances. If an individual wants to find out what is in a former civil servant's file in the Department of the Taoiseach, for example, he or she is entitled to access that information. There are no restrictions in that regard, to the best of my knowledge. Sometimes there can be security restrictions, but I do not think that has happened in my Department. Normally, the information would be given to an individual.
Last October, the Taoiseach said that consideration was being given to extending the terms of the Freedom of Information Act to the Law Reform Commission. Can he give an update today on that consideration? What impact will the proposed Privacy Bill 2006 have on freedom of information legislation in his Department? I refer in particular to section 13 of the Bill, where a court injunction could prevent information being published.
The Information Commissioner revealed that there were 447 freedom of information appeals in 2005. Did any of those appeals relate to the Taoiseach's Department? If they did, what was their nature?
In 2006, an additional 130 bodies and groups were brought within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. The bodies under the aegis of my Department, with the exception of the Law Reform Commission, are already within the scope of the Act. The question of extending the freedom of information legislation to the Law Reform Commission is currently under consideration. There has been no decision yet. I understand that the situation has been discussed with the commission's chairperson and that it is a question of figuring out the extent of the Law Reform Commission's remit that can come under the freedom of information framework. Much of its work would not be crucial and could come under it, but other aspects might be different.
Of the 447 appeals that went to the appeals commissioner, the figure for my Department is very small, if there were any at all. There is none mentioned in my briefing note. There have certainly been no appeals in the most recent period.
Will the Privacy Bill impact on the Taoiseach's Department?
No. All of the agencies under my Department are covered. I do not think it would make any difference, with the exception of the National Archives Act 1986. Section 8(4) of that Act is the only section we withheld and it is the only section that would cause difficulty.
Is it not the case that, whatever the motivation, the legislation passed in 2003 has acted as a deterrent to interested members of the public exercising their right to obtain information? Is that not the view of the Information Commissioner? Does the Taoiseach agree that the extension of the remit of the legislation to the Garda Síochána could be an important element in——
That does not arise in this question. The question refers specifically to the Taoiseach's Department. In fairness to other Deputies, I ask Deputy Rabbitte to stay within the rules.
Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. The measure of this question time under your strict ferule, sir, means we would be as well off staying at home.
I am interpreting the rules as my predecessors have done for many years.
Maybe we could e-mail the questions to you beforehand and not bother coming in at all. You could then send the answers home to us.
I ask the Deputy to obey the rules like everyone else.
I will finish with Deputy Sargent's question. Over 1% have been investigated by the Information Commissioner since the Act was introduced almost nine years ago.
Was that in the Department of the Taoiseach?
Yes, in my Department. That is 1% of the 1,200 that happened in the period. The Ceann Comhairle has ruled on other agencies.
On Deputy Rabbitte's question, while there was a slight decrease for a while in the number of requests in my Department, they went back up again. There was an increase of about 30% last year. There was a slowdown in the use of the legislation for a considerable period, but that has gone back up again.