Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

In the majority of Departments, however, that did not happen. There is a mechanism in place under the legislation, whereby, if a request is too voluminous, the person concerned can be asked to be more specific in order to obviate the need to charge such high search and retrieval fees. In the response of the Department of Finance the highest search and retrieval fees charged last year were €83. I do not know how many requests were abandoned when people were given a much higher search and retrieval fees estimate, like I was. The information is contained in the responses to my parliamentary questions. A figure of €500 should be the maximum. There are only a handful of cases each year in which the search and retrieval fees charged are in excess of this amount. It would be very easy, therefore, to cap the fee and require people to refine their questions. Others mentioned higher charges, including journalists such as Deputy Shane Ross.

I refer to the fee charged to make an appeal to the appeals commissioner. This is an issue that must be examined. I submitted a parliamentary question to Departments during the year and the reply suggested I should submit a freedom of information request. Obviously, the official in question wanted me to have the information, but he or she believed he or she would not be fully covered in providing it in a response to a parliamentary question. That is further evidence of the point I am making.

Regarding new bodies, I am pleased at the general approach of the Minister and that he will extend the legislation comprehensively, even though I did not list every public body. I referred to extending it to bodies significantly funded from the public purse. The Minister mentioned voluntary hospitals as providing a template. We must analyse the matter carefully because many housing bodies are not public bodies and as such their tendering processes do not have to match those of a public body. They can offer projects to a handful of people they pick. A range of issues arise when we get into bodies which are significantly funded from the public purse.

I understand the Minister is accepting the Bill in principle and delaying final approval for a period of nine months. I hope that at the end of that time period everything else will be in place in order that this legislation can be incorporated into new measures and will form part of the discussion we will have when legislation is before the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform.

The Minister referred to a discussion of the whistleblower's legislation. We did not get to finish it because of the appearance of witnesses from the Central Bank and the Ulster Bank. We had to postpone it for one week and are looking at the matter in the context of the lobbyists legislation, to which the Minister also referred. He mentioned referring the Bill relating to the Ombudsman to the Joint Committee on Investigations, Oversight and Petitions. They are all connected and will help in the overall process of public administration.

It is important that all public bodies keep proper files. I cited as an example my interaction with a public body on behalf of a citizen and we exhausted all avenues. The person concerned was not happy with how the file was being processed. Eventually I drafted a freedom of information request which the person signed and sent it in. A few weeks later I received a letter from the public body in question informing me that it had received a freedom of information request and asking if it could release a letter on file sent by me. That was good practice and I was delighted to agree to do so. I then asked about the other three letters sent to the public body in the past year. It responded that they were not included in the file. I said that surely they were in some file, but the response was that it would only release what was in the file, that it did not have anything else. I let the matter go, but it was educational. I am able to draw on that specific case as an example. There are different files in the HSE, local authorities and the Department of Social Protection and staff change over time. It is important, therefore, that there is a proper filing system to keep everything together. I single out the Department of Social Protection time and again because it is the only Department, from the responses received to my parliamentary questions, which charged no search and retrieval fees last year for freedom of information requests. It is the busiest Department in this respect and most queries involve personal requests. The Department has decided that its purpose is to serve its customers and clients and as such, it charges no fees. That gives good example, for which the Department should be given credit.

The debate for the past few hours has been very good. Seven Opposition Members spoke, as did seven Members of the Government side. Remarks are made about Friday sittings and it is a little unusual and surreal because a vote can be deferred. Some Friday sittings have not been a success, but today's has been. Some 14 Deputies have spoken and agreed with the Bill in principle. If there is an impetus to bring this legislation forward sooner rather than later, it has been a good day's work. I thank the Minister for attending to listen to the debate on the issue. I look forward to working with him in ensuring the principles outlined in my legislation are enacted in legislation in the months ahead.

See this speech in context