Enda Kenny
Ceist:10 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during November 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32021/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraWednesday, 26 January 2005
Ceisteanna (30, 31, 32)
Enda Kenny
Ceist:11 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during 2004; the number of these which were granted; the fees received by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34091/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:12 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during 2004; the way in which this compares with 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34606/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (17 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 12, inclusive, together.
All requests received in my Department are processed in accordance with both the 1997 Act and the 2003 Act and their implementation is kept under constant review.
A total of 45 requests were received last year, one of them in November, compared to 142 requests received in the previous year. Some 24 of the 45 were granted in whole or in part. In the case of nine requests, there were no records. Two other requests were transferred to other Departments and three requests were withdrawn. A total of seven requests were refused during the year. My Department received €525 in fees for the whole of 2004. Further information is set out in the following two tables.
|
Month |
Received |
Granted |
Part Granted |
Refused |
No Records |
Transferred |
Withdrawn |
|
January |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
February |
8 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
|
March |
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 |
|
August |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
September |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
October |
12 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
November |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
December |
5 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
45 |
14 |
10 |
7 |
9 |
2 |
3 |
|
Month |
Received |
Granted |
Part Granted |
Refused |
No Records |
Transferred |
Withdrawn |
|
January |
21 |
2 |
7 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
February |
29 |
9 |
11 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
|
March |
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 |
|
August |
6 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
September |
4 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
October |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
November |
6 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
December |
3 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
142 |
38 |
46 |
11 |
33 |
5 |
9 |
* fees introduced
The Taoiseach is probably tired of answering this question. This is probably the eighth or tenth time he has answered a question on freedom of information. Were the seven requests refused because they were not relevant to the Department of the Taoiseach or was the information sought too sensitive? Have personnel in the Department of the Taoiseach taken cognisance of the repeated comments by the Information Commissioner that the restrictions introduced by the previous Minister, Mr. McCreevy, have seriously reduced the numbers of requests being made and thereby diminish the rights of people to have as complete information as possible? Given that we now have a new Minister for Finance, reflecting more equitably the Taoiseach's socialist philosophy, are changes to those restrictions likely?
As I stated before, a fee of €15 for making an FOI request when the cost is in the region of €425 cannot be considered a major deterrent to responsible use of the Act and is modest in terms of the administration of the service. The Minister for Finance is responsible and I am not aware of any proposals he has for making changes. The seven requests were probably ones where no information existed. Even if partial information existed we would have replied to them. I do not have the information on them, but I presume there was no information or they were not relevant to my Department. If that is not correct I will inform the Deputy.
The Taoiseach often argues that the fees charged do not represent a deterrent to people making freedom of information requests. How can he explain the 139——
The questions refer specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach.
I know they do, but I am referring to the Taoiseach's argument and I thought he would be the best person to answer a question on his own argument. On the basis of the number of requests reducing from 139 in 2003 to 45 in 2004, I thought he would explain such a reduction if it had nothing to do with the fees.
In reply to a parliamentary question in November, the Taoiseach said he had received 40 requests of which 20 were granted and no records were held in respect of nine. Are they explained in some official term as relating to matters for which no records existed because they had never existed or have the records gone missing? Is sanction applied in cases where information is sought and the records are mysteriously missing? This happens at county council level, where letters on a planning file may go missing. It has happened very seriously in the case of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital where patients looked for their records, many of which had gone missing or were tampered with. Does sanction exist under the legislation or elsewhere to prevent the spiriting away of records for fear they might be sought?
I am almost certain it is a case of no records existing, and I have not seen any such cases. Sometimes maybe the records are incomplete. It is taken very seriously in Departments if records go missing and immediately detailed searches take place. Most FOI requests relate to current information and do not go back years requiring officials to go to storage boxes. Normally there is no difficulty on FOI with available information and I am sure that is the case here with the nine cases for which no information exists. There is no file and there are no data. It is not a case of mislaid data.
While the €15 fee is one matter, does the Taoiseach agree inconsistencies exist in the charging for searches and other fees across all Departments?
I suggest the Deputy submit a question to the Minister for Finance, who has responsibility for the Act. The questions to the Taoiseach refer specifically to his Department.
I accept the point. Does the Taoiseach believe there is total consistency within his Department regarding when fees for searching are charged? They should either be charged in all cases or in none. Is there a consistency of application of the rules in the Department of the Taoiseach?
Overall guidelines are set down. Liaison takes place between the information officers in each Department. In my Department the officials follow those rules. The amount of money taken in by my Department for the whole year was €525. In all cases a genuine effort is made even with historical records, which are not requested as frequently now. The figures were high early on because people were going back on many of the historical records over many years. Those requests were declining before changes were made. The Departments make an effort to deliver as comprehensively as possible the information the person seeks. That is done in a way that is as cheap as possible for the individuals. While there is a modest fee, the whole programme is designed not to put a burden on the individual seeking the information.
I accept what the Taoiseach says from his experience, but can he confirm that is always the case in every application in his Department or are there exceptions when a search fee is charged? If so, on what grounds is that fee applied?
To the best of my knowledge, this might happen if an individual case had an enormous impact on time. Perhaps not last year but in the previous year we had a few such requests, but people are charged the same fee. I do not think they are charged a higher fee. I am not positive about that, but that applies in my Department. Some Departments may need to do considerable searching and gathering of information, but to the best of my knowledge in my Department the fee is static and no additional fee is applied, which was the Deputy's question.
What does the Taoiseach mean that a very serious view is taken of records that might be discovered to be missing following a freedom of information request? Is that a matter that results in action or is it simply noted? What action would be possible if it was found that somebody had taken or destroyed a file?
Under Civil Service code such a matter would be subject to disciplinary action. Apart from FOI, regarding anything——
Has it ever happened?
Certainly not under FOI. Over the years there have been cases of files having been mislaid in Departments, about which quite serious action was taken. I remember one Department in which I was a Minister where such problems existed.