Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during April 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16025/06]

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests his Department has received to date in 2006; the way in which this compares with the comparable periods in 2003, 2004 and 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20714/06]

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.

The information requested by the Deputies about the freedom of information requests received by the Department of the Taoiseach is in the following table. All freedom of information applications made to the Department are processed by statutorily designated officials in accordance with the 1997 and 2003 Acts. In accordance with those Acts, I have no role in the processing of individual applications.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Department of the Taoiseach received 45 freedom of information requests in 2004 and 61 such requests in 2005. Those figures represent a dramatic reduction from the 142 requests which were made in 2003. That the number of requests continues to fall proves that the amending legislation that was introduced by the Government is working. Why are so many public bodies exempt from the freedom of information legislation? Public agencies spend almost one third of State moneys and employ as many people as the Civil Service. It is obvious that it is in the public interest that information about what might be called the core work of Government is covered by the legislation. I refer to bodies such as the Health Service Executive and the National Treasury Management Agency. Does the Taoiseach have a list of the public agencies that are not covered by the legislation? Perhaps he does not have that information to hand. Will he indicate when the various agencies will be covered by the legislation? Why are new agencies not automatically covered by the freedom of information legislation when they are established? As the Taoiseach rightly pointed out on many occasions, it is only right and proper that the public should know how the Government and agencies of Government do their business.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There were 45 cases in 2004, but that number increased quite substantially last year and that trend is continuing. There was a period when the number of applications stabilised, but the relevant figure increased by almost 30% to 61 last year. It seems that the trend is continuing this year. The numbers decreased for a while, but they are back up again. A number of bodies have been added to the list. A few weeks ago, 137 public bodies and groups, under the aegis of a number of Departments, were brought within the scope of the freedom of information legislation. The only body under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach that is outside the scope of the legislation is the Law Reform Commission. All the other bodies are within the scope of the legislation.

The question of whether the LRC should be brought within the scope of the legislation is being considered. There has been a big change in this regard. The joint committee recommended that just two legislative provisions under the remit of the Department of the Taoiseach should stay outside. I refer to section 8(4) of the National Archives Act and sections 32 to 35(5) of the Statistics Act. The Information Commissioner has indicated that she agrees with the joint committee's recommendations. Other than one, they are all outside. It is under the Minister for Finance. It will take some time to see how it operates. The Deputy asked about the scope of all these bodies and groups when they come under the legislation. There has been a considerable addition to the number of bodies which are now within the freedom of information legislation.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Information Commissioner has made it clear that the freedom of information legislation does not operate as it should in terms of the fees charged and the number of bodies that are not covered by the legislation. Does the Taoiseach think there is a need to undertake an exercise of comparison with the UK? The police forces in that country are covered by its freedom of information legislation. An extraordinary omission was made in this jurisdiction when it was decided that our freedom of information legislation would not cover so many bodies. As the Information Commissioner said, the heavens did not fall in across the water when it was decided that the freedom of information legislation there would apply to the police.

Can the Taoiseach offer any opinion on the reason for this country's restrictive approach? I accept that the number of bodies covered by our freedom of information legislation has increased. Given that our approach is quite limited compared with other jurisdictions, will the Taoiseach respond to the recommendations in a recent report published by the think tank for action on social change? The report recommended that the "fog index" surrounding the accountability of approximately 500 public bodies which operate with a national remit should be addressed. It also referred to 5,000 appointments, many of which are in the Government's gift, which are made to public bodies at national level alone. Will the Taoiseach respond to the TASC report by outlining the criteria which are used in respect of freedom of information? It seems that the views offered by the Taoiseach and the various Ministers are given greater weight than any statute of criteria which are independently adjudicated. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether the pattern that has developed since the introduction of fees is evident in the Department of the Taoiseach?

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Fees are matters for the Minister for Finance.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, I want to ask about the pattern of freedom of information requests to the Department of the Taoiseach. It seems that three times more requests are being received for personal information than for non-personal information. Is that pattern reflected in the Department of the Taoiseach? Requests for personal information are far more numerous than requests for non-personal information because fees do not have to be paid for personal information. Non-personal information relating to the operations of the Law Reform Commission, for example, would be extremely useful as a public service. In that context and given that he mentioned that it was under consideration, has the Taoiseach any other news regarding the Law Reform Commission? It might have saved the Government much embarrassment had there been more public scrutiny of the Law Reform Commission.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As already stated, the Law Reform Commission is the only agency under my aegis which is not included at present and this matter has been under consideration for some time.

As for the fees issue, I have stated on numerous occasions that personal information is free and the same is true of appeals. The figures are rising again and the majority of cases involve journalists. While there has never been any analysis carried out, the numbers of applications are not high, apart from during the initial period after the Act was first introduced, when people tried to gain access to older information. While there was a significant rush from the public initially, demand has eased off. The incidence of people using the Act for other information purposes has also more or less stopped. The fee of €15 is modest, particularly when one considers that previous fee in respect of such an application was €425. However, as that figure is a few years old, I presume the actual figure is closer to €500. Hence, when the work and preparation involved in an application are taken into account, the fee is modest.

Various countries have different ways of approaching this issue. The criticism of the legislation in Ireland was that an insufficient number of agencies were covered by the Act and this issue has now been dealt with. Although an independent review of the information by the Information Commissioner does not support some of the contentions regarding record-keeping, people generally use the Act as they require and the fee does not discourage them.

A fee is payable in respect of the appeal mechanism. It costs €75 for an internal appeal and €150 for an appeal to the Information Commissioner, with reductions for those with medical cards. An appeal to the Information Commissioner involves a quasi-judicial process, which can require many months to complete and which can give rise to a considerable amount of work. Hence, the fee is viewed as a fair reflection of the costs involved. Moreover, one receives a preliminary report from the Information Commissioner. If one accepts this report, one may withdraw one's case without incurring a cost, which people sometimes also do.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Has the Taoiseach addressed the issue about which the Information Commissioner complained in her December 2005 report, in which she highlighted the point that Departments introduce legislation that amends the Freedom of Information Act without any reference to her position? The Taoiseach will recall that in the case of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, the Information Commissioner only discovered the amendment to the Freedom of Information Act when it was brought to her attention by a member of the public. What procedures have been put in place in the Department of the Taoiseach and other Departments to ensure that there is proper consultation with the Information Commission regarding any legislation which may be planned or intended and which will have the net effect of an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act as it currently or has previously operated? Does the Taoiseach agree with the commissioner that it is obvious and sensible for consultation with her office to take place?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do. I understand from my officials who are involved in this area that they take account of it. Admittedly, it may be easier for my Department because it is not obliged to deal with much legislative change. The Department of Finance monitors the rest. However, people should take into account fully the views of the Information Commissioner.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Has the Government ever considered extending the remit of the legislation to the Garda Síochána? Is it not the case that the comparable legislation in the United Kingdom extends to the police there and that adequate safeguards in terms of security and confidentiality exist which would enable Ireland to take the courageous step to extend otherwise the remit of the Act to the Garda Síochána?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not know. Monitoring of the Act is carried out under the aegis of the Department of Finance. I do not know whether there have been any discussions in this regard. To the best of my knowledge, however, it was not in any of the most recent reports in which the bodies I mentioned previously were discussed. Hence, I do not know whether there have been any discussions in this regard. It would be useful for those trying to get information.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sure the Taoiseach's party colleagues are happy to see him return to quell the malicious rumour that he had sought sanctuary at the United Nations. No one could deny that he had a well-founded fear of persecution when he fled the State last week. The Taoiseach's problem is that the persecution was also more than well-founded.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Deputy wish to ask a question?

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Regarding the Freedom of Information Act, does the Taoiseach ever take a personal role in determining freedom of information requests to his Department? Is he ever consulted before a decision is made? Has he ever been consulted on any particular issue? Can he outline the nature of the requests that have been refused in the past? Do they relate entirely to the National Archives or are there other refusal trends about which the Taoiseach can inform Members?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The process in my Department is carried out by a number of senior staff without any recourse to me regarding either the question or the reply. It is an entirely independent function, as per the Act. There is a database in the Department which allows it to know the details of every request. It is monitored by the freedom of information liaison officer, who receives all the requests, logs them to the system and refers them to the appropriate division. The division then gives its reply. However, under the legislation, this process does not involve the office holder. This is the process which is followed.