Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

That is good and many people called for it. It would be churlish of people not to acknowledge the second sentence when they get to it.

I tabled an amendment to the section before this, but related to this section, which was ruled out of order. I proposed there should be no application fee but it was ruled out of order because only the Minister can make such a provision. I also proposed a maximum amount of €500 and no fee for the first ten hours. The Minister has proposed five hours but I wanted to change this. It was ruled out of order because it was a potential charge on the Exchequer.

The last subsection - it is subsection (14) - proposed in amendment No. 56 states, "An FOI body shall endeavour to establish a facility by which payment or refund of any fees due under this Act may be made electronically." I am happy with this. I tabled an amendment but was told it would be a cost to the Exchequer. I thought this was interesting and decided to put the point to the Minister in the Chamber rather than arguing with the Bills Office. It made the ruling and I will not argue. I hope that in the public service paying something electronically rather than manually would be a saving for the Exchequer and not a charge on the Exchequer. In conversation this morning with the Bills Office I stated that to my mind, and, I suspect, the mind of the Minister responsible, paying something electronically should be a more economical option, but I was told the system would have to be changed which could cost money. I stated the change to the system would save money.

There is no point in arguing any further, but it is interesting. The Minister is responsible for public expenditure and he is introducing electronic payments and allowing people to deal by electronic means with a variety of State organisations. We want to encourage that system here from the Opposition side. This establishment, the Oireachtas, has taken the view that it is a charge on the Exchequer because there could be a cost in introducing a more efficient way of doing something compared with not trying to introduce a new system. I found it extraordinary that my amendment was ruled out on that basis.

As we are on Report Stage we do not have a great opportunity to speak and can only make a short second contribution. We can argue about the search and retrieval fees. I published a Private Members' Bill on this topic 18 months or two years ago. I specified a cap of €500 after carrying out a full trawl of all Departments. I am sure the Minister has seen that - responses to a series of questions confirmed much the same thing. It is amazing what comes out of the woodwork and people with an interest started e-mailing me stating that the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine had set a maximum fee but they were charged more. We will not argue about the exact accuracy, but the general picture was fairly clear across Departments. That is why I wanted a cap on the search and retrieval fees, as the Minister has done here, which I welcome. The Minister has addressed most of the issues we highlighted. Later in the debate we will come to a few of them relating to partially included bodies etc.

I want to take the Minister through subsection (4) which troubles me a bit. I thought personal information was sacred under the Freedom of Information Act. Personal information is supposed to be free and there was never even an application fee for personal information. The new subsection (4) states: "Where the record or records concerned contains or contain only personal information relating to the requester concerned the charge under subsection (1)shall not be made, unless the grant concerned relates to a significant number of records". We are now putting such a provision into legislation, perhaps for the first time. It goes against the spirit of what the Minister wants.

On Committee Stage I gave the example of medical records. This amendment now provides that if a body has a significant number of personal records relating to the requestor, the requestor may be charged. I thought the principle was that personal information was to be free - not just free from the application fee, but free to get the information. This now facilitates the charging of a fee where the grant "relates to a significant number of records, and in considering whether or not such a charge shall be made, [there is an option not to charge it but it does not mean that public servants across the board will not] the means of the requester shall be taken into account." I believe I raised this issue on Committee Stage.

How is the FOI officer in Carrick-on-Shannon in the Department of Social Protection meant to know the means of everybody in the country? Is the decision maker meant to carry out a means test? This subsection has opened up an issue.

See this speech in context