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

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach Taoiseach the number of Freedom of Information requests received by his Department during May 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22703/10]

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

Question 6: To ask the Taoiseach Taoiseach the number of requests under the Freedom of Information Act received by his Department in May 2010; the number acceded to; the number refused; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24331/10]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 6 together. Nine requests were received in my Department during May 2010. One was granted, three were partially granted and five are currently being processed. All freedom of information requests received in my Department are processed by statutorily designated officials in accordance with the Freedom of Information Acts. I have no role in processing requests.

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

This question is not directly related to the Taoiseach's Department but concerns freedom of information requests. I note the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, Deputy Bernard Allen, made the point recently that the HSE, in transmitting information to the committee, would have legal problems. Giving the same information under freedom of information rules to an individual citizen would not be a problem. Given the historic importance associated with the public accounts committee in all Governments, it should be possible for the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts to seek information in regard to an issue under Freedom of Information Acts.

We have put forward a view that the Act should be amended in this regard, which would be easy to achieve. Does the Taoiseach agree that the public accounts committee, which has for years been the most well regarded committee in the Houses and is completely independent, should not have a standing of lesser importance than any citizen in respect of the Freedom of Information Acts?

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is really a matter for the line Minister.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For a considered reply it would be best to put down a question to the line Minister in the Department of Finance outlining the considerations that need to come into play. I do not have sufficient knowledge to give a considered reply at this point.

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

Notifications of freedom of information requests with regard to Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas indicate if the request has been received but there is no identification of where the request comes from. I do not know if it is the same across the board. Freedom of information is a two-way street and what is the Taoiseach's view in that regard? If freedom of information is to be given with regard to any matter here or an external issue, surely the identification of those people inquiring and the purpose of the information should also be offered in the exchange. That is not currently the case.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sometimes there can be a statement of the obvious. I do not know the answer to the question. When freedom of information requests are received, the purpose is to give objective information. Until a time when they are deemed eligible, there is no need for further information. Perhaps it is just the way the information is given out. I will make inquiries.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the case he won recently in the High Court, where the Information Commissioner and Ombudsman had ordered the release of a document containing information on a 2003 Cabinet discussion on greenhouse gas emissions. The Information Commissioner ordered the document released and the Taoiseach appealed that decision by the Information Commissioner to the High Court. I note the Taoiseach was successful in that appeal to the High Court.

The regime concerning access to information about environmental matters is governed by the Aarhus Convention, which was signed by Ireland in 1998 but never ratified. It has been a matter of concern, particularly to environmental organisations and people with an interest in the environment, that Ireland never ratified the Aarhus Convention. I am surprised that three years into the life of this Government the Aarhus Convention has not yet been ratified. In the revised programme for Government it is stated that the parties would ensure that Ireland can ratify the Aarhus Convention by March 2010, which has come and gone. When will Ireland ratify the Aarhus Convention?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am at a slight disadvantage but I understand some aspects of the convention have been ratified. I am not sure but I recall some documentation coming before us. I will check on the matter. With regard to the freedom of information aspect, it is true that on the Attorney General's advice, the Department appealed the commissioner's decision to the High Court and the case was delivered on 4 June. It upheld the Department's appeal and in summary found that the commissioner does not have the jurisdiction to determine whether the regulations are in conflict with the directive. The High Court has such jurisdiction and decided that the regulations are not in conflict with the directive.

With regard to the regulations governing this issue and the access to information on the environment regulation, SI 133 of 2007 transposed an EU directive on public access to environmental information. It came into force in 2007 and the regulations are in compliance with the directive. The High Court has jurisdiction to decide on that, rather than the commissioner, and we wanted clarity on the point for future reference. The court found the regulations are not in conflict with the directives.