Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

The detailed application of the Act is a matter for the Minister for Finance but, based on the information I have before me, I will put some facts on the record that may be germane to the questions being asked. The system of fees was introduced in 2003 when Mr. McCreevy was Minister for Finance. A fee of €15 could be regarded as modest, particularly when compared to the average estimated administrative cost of €485 for processing an FOI request. I do not believe anyone could argue that a fee of €15 is unreasonable or discourages responsible requests. It is important to note that there is no charge for the time taken to examine records sought to determine whether they may be released; nor is there any charge for access to personal information. The fees have not increased since their introduction in 2003, although there has been a continuing increase in the number of requests received by my Department in recent years.

An internal appeal costs €75, while an appeal to the Information Commissioner costs €150. There are significant reductions for medical card holders, with fees of €25 and €50, respectively, for internal appeals and appeals to the Information Commissioner. Appeals concerning personal information are entirely exempt from these fees. If the contention is that the objectives of the freedom of information legislation have been thwarted by the introduction of what is regarded as a reasonable fee structure, I do not think this is borne out by the evidence.

An appeal to the Information Commissioner is a quasi-judicial process that can require many months to complete and entail a considerable amount of work. The fee is a fair reflection of the nature of the appeals process and the costs and time involved. A balance must be struck with regard to the availability of information and people's right to seek information, and the seeking of personal information is exempt anyway. In view of the fact that in recent years, in my Department at least, there has been an increase in the number of freedom of information requests, and given the cost to the taxpayer of the implementation of the legislation, a reasonable balance is being struck.

I do not believe the information has been filleted, as has been suggested. The fact that information is now available from 500 public bodies rather than the original 67 is an indication that, over time, there has been considerable expansion of the freedom of information provisions.

Questions about financial matters are best put to the Minister for Finance himself. However, we have implemented significant changes in financial regulatory structures. The Minister, as we know, has introduced legislative proposals relating to the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland. Significant issues relating to the confidential and commercial sensitivity of much of the information within the possession of that organisation, the international framework of its operations and its role in maintaining and protecting the financial stability of the State would have to be taken on board in any consideration of the scope of the Freedom of Information Acts being extended. That would be regarded as a reasonable premise. The question of commercial sensitivity and what is in the public interest is an issue where public bodies have commercially sensitive information given competition, competitiveness and others issues in terms of that information not being available in other jurisdictions.

The scope and application of our Freedom of Information Acts compares favourably with our nearest neighbour and other jurisdictions. A balanced view would suggest that the overall scope and application of the information legislation is significant and at the same time sensitive to obvious factors that must be considered in the context of what in the public interest as well.

See this speech in context