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.