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 October 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41190/10]

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

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach the number of applications received under the Freedom of Information Act in the first ten months of 2010; the way this compares with each year since 2002; in respect of the 2010 applications, the numbers granted and the numbers refused; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42573/10]

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

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

Ten freedom of information requests were received in the Department of the Taoiseach in October 2010. Some 91 requests were received during the first ten months of the year, of which 70 were granted or part-granted and four were refused. No records were held in nine cases, while three requests were withdrawn. Five requests are ongoing. The comparative figures for the first ten months of each year since 2002 are: 2002, 113; 2003, 133; 2004, 39; 2005, 49; 2006, 48; 2007, 58; 2008, 59; 2009, 82; and 2010, 91. 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

The Freedom of Information Act 1997 applies to the Department of the Taoiseach in the same way that it applies to every other Department. It was introduced as a means of bringing transparency and accountability to governance. Some time ago, the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, Deputy Allen, said that although the Freedom of Information Act provides for information to be given to individual private citizens, legal difficulties arise when the same information is sought by a body like the Committee of Public Accounts. I am sure the Taoiseach, as a former Minister for Finance, would not be pleased with such a situation. The intent of the Freedom of Information Act was to allow citizens and anyone else to access information about the way the Government is run. We support that. Surely there is something wrong when the HSE says it might encounter legal problems if it provides to the Committee of Public Accounts information that it can provide to John Citizen on the street. There seems to be something wrong there. I know it is not directly related to the issue of costs, or the number of requests that are made to the Department of the Taoiseach. In certain circumstances, these problems with requests could arise in that Department as well. Does the Taoiseach not think we should examine the system and free it up so it operates in the manner that was originally intended?

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

The Freedom of Information Act provides for citizens to obtain relevant data and information regarding their own particular position, as set out under the legislation. That is fine for people who require their own personal data and information. As the Deputy knows, data protection legislation means that not everyone's personal records or data should or could be available to a wider audience. Various countervailing provisions in legislation ensure those rights are respected as well. The wider issue of the possibility of prejudicing existing legal actions comes into play when decisions are being made on what information is available and when it can be made available. These constraints apply to freedom of information legislation, in line with the general principle that constitutional and natural justice should be afforded to all concerned, including State agencies against which suits have been taken and the individuals concerned, or whatever the case may be. These general principles are applied in each individual case. Therefore, the level of information that is available has to work within the broad legal parameters that exist. The overall position is that freedom of information legislation has been extended to various agencies over many years. That continues to this day. We have seen extensions of the legislation in a whole range of areas. That happened as the legislation bedded down and evolved. We gained experience of how it was working, what way it was working effectively, and how we could move it along. We cannot postpone legal considerations. At the same time, we obviously have to try to ensure there is as much transparency as possible, consistent with those legal principles.

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

On the general principle, obviously the Freedom of Information Act has been constrained by amendments introduced by the former Minister, Mr. McCreevy. The Freedom of Information Act was used by the Fine Gael Party to gain information about FÁS and the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and had that not been so, a lot of things might have remained covered up, as it were. As the Information Commissioner said, the Ryan commission of inquiry into the abuse of children in institutions might not have been necessary had the Freedom of Information Act been in operation a number of years ago. Given the number of quangos and agencies still outside the scope of the Act and based on the Taoiseach's comment about the general principles, does he agree it would be a good idea to have all of these covered under the Act so that any citizen wishing to obtain information about governance or the activities of authorities or agencies should be able to do so, an exception being very sensitive information?

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

The Deputy is broadening the question.

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

I realise I am slightly off the question but I am only following on the Taoiseach's own comment about general principles and it is something that Members of the Oireachtas should take as a matter of course.

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

When the Freedom of Information Acts were introduced they applied to about 67 public bodies and they now extend to more than 500 public bodies, an eight-fold increase in the number of organisations to whom the legislation applies. This indicates to me that there has been an extension over time to include many areas of activity which were not initially contemplated to be included. I am sure they were contemplated but the legislation had to start somewhere and these were included over time with a wider application of the Act. I do not think there is any disagreement on that point. Some changes were introduced arising out of the operation of the Act as there were indications that the freedom of information legislation was being used almost as a trawling exercise all over the place. This resulted in a significant use of time and effort with no specific objective in mind other than to find a whole heap of information. The purpose of the legislation has to be to provide information but to do so in a way that meets objectives. It was designed for individuals or others seeking information rather than people having to trawl all over the place and people not being sure what information was being sought. In my view, the appeals mechanism and fees process put in place have not compromised to any extent the work of legislation and, quite the contrary, as there has been a few extensions of this legislation.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Now that the Government appears to have agreed to requests for a reform programme for Ireland in the context of the discussions with the European Union and the IMF, will the Taoiseach agree that one of the critical items for reform will be to restore the Freedom of Information Act which was pretty much filleted by the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act which the then Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, introduced in 2003? This amendment significantly increased the charges -----

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

The Deputy is really broadening the range of questions. The questions are, by and large, of a statistical nature and they are being broadened out to the policy position.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, I asked if the Taoiseach agreed that in the reform programme or reform agreements that are mentioned, there is mention in the documents and in the four-year recovery plan of a reform of practices. Does this reform include the reform and reinstatement of the Freedom of Information Act which was filleted by the then Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy? Second, a number of the institutions-----

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

The line Minister for freedom of information requests is the Minister for Finance.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Institutions that are specifically excluded from the Act or are not comprehensively covered include the National Treasury Management Agency, the National Pensions Reserve Fund and the Central Bank.

With regard to the issue of cost, I have put in a number of requests since the establishment of the bank guarantee about interactions between the Department of Finance and Anglo Irish Bank, and have been obliged to go through appeals and reviews. Does the Taoiseach think that Deputies who are members of committees and so on should be obliged to spend considerable amounts of money making requests under the Freedom of Information Act? So little information is supplied to this House that we have no alternative. This is quite important information that should be in the public domain.

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

The Deputy will need to table a separate question on this issue-----

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a Second Stage speech.

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

-----which, although important, is not contemplated under this range of questions.

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

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.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Following my request with regard to Anglo Irish Bank it was revealed to me that in late December 2008, some months after the guarantee, the talks between Anglo Irish Bank and the Department of Finance involved discussions on €1.5 billion of funding from the State and €1.5 billion to be raised by the bank through private capital. It is useful to get such information.

The programme for Government contains a reference to obtaining environmental information through the Aarhus Convention. I realise this was probably an item from the Green Party but, if it was not, has the possibility been pursued in Government by either Fianna Fáil or the Green Party that freedom of information should be extended under the Aarhus Convention?

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

We cannot broaden this segment of Question Time as you are trying to. You are going to have to find another way.

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

We addressed these questions last February. At the time I called on the Taoiseach to comment with regard to the view that the banks had lobbied strongly, and apparently successfully, not to have NAMA included under the Freedom of Information Act. The record shows the Taoiseach indicated at the time that there was no evidence of this and that the Taoiseach's view was that it should not be included. Has the Taoiseach been presented with any evidence since that the banks were indeed proactive in this regard? Has the Taoiseach's view changed in any way in the period since then? Does the Taoiseach agree not only that NAMA but also the banks should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act given that they are now almost all in State control?

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

We are broadening the base of the questions.

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

This was alive in February and I can only bring it forward in a natural tangent. The Taoiseach indicated at the time that we were suggesting that people's accounts be opened up to public scrutiny. That is not the case nor was it then. However, I am referring to the management of the banks, the remuneration of management, detail on interest fees and other charges, the value of the banks and balance sheet information.

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

Deputy, you are moving too far from the base of the question.

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

Has the Taoiseach noted the evidence given by the representatives of NAMA to the Committee of Public Accounts in recent weeks in which they indicated that the banks had been supplying them with false information? Surely, this is a serious matter.

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

Deputy, will you co-operate with the Chair?

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

Were the Freedom of Information Act to apply it would help to ensure that the banking institutions operated under full scrutiny and transparency in this regard. Let there be no doubt, these are the same banks which have brought the economy to virtual ruin at this stage and into which we are pouring billions of euro of taxpayers' money.

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

As I said earlier regarding making financial information available, banking laws and legal parameters are set out. We are operating in a commercially competitive environment. No one would suggest, given the investment taxpayers are making in intervening to maintain a viable banking system, that we should put the banks at a commercial disadvantage.

Freedom of information legislation does not apply to commercial State bodies. If increasing public ownership of our financial institutions comes as a result of the financial crisis and the need to provide a way forward, we would not suggest putting those institutions at a commercial or other disadvantage against those with which they are competing. It is not sensible when there are other companies in the same sector being excluded from the ambit of the freedom of information legislation. Why should one put one's organisations at such a disadvantage, particularly when it is an area with issues of legitimate commercial sensitivity?

NAMA has a commercial mandate to obtain the maximum return for the taxpayer. It is required to enter into complex commercial negotiations and settlements with financial institutions and must be in a position in which it can do so. I do not hold any brief for false information or people not being frank. That is an issue that will have to be dealt with by NAMA in its dealings with the various institutions.

We must take into account issues of our own interests and commercial sensitivity in these matters. We cannot defend these if we decide to throw open all information regarding the institutions, given that there are other institutions in the same market which could gain a commercial advantage as a result. We must work within existing laws to maintain confidence among depositors and ensure a viable financial system.

It would be better for the Deputy to table a direct question about the Aarhus Convention to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I understand the Department is working closely with the Office of the Attorney General to complete all the necessary steps to ensure Ireland's ratification of the convention as soon as is practicable. In 2010, the High Court made a judgment in a case the Government took against a decision of the Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information, details of which I have given in previous replies.

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

I have a beagáinín supplementary question.

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

I will allow it but the Deputy must be brief.

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

The Taoiseach spoke about confidence in the banking system but people have no confidence in it. We need certainty. This proposal would not disadvantage the banking institutions or NAMA. There is basic information which should be readily available, I believe, given the banks are now, to all intents and purposes, State institutions and we are bailing them out at enormous cost.

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

Questions Nos. 1 and 2 relate to freedom of information legislation but the Deputy is moving into another area entirely.

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

Regarding the banking system, the people have been asked to buy a pig in a poke. The people have no idea of the risk factors involved; it is like looking into a dark hole. Each and every family has been severely affected by the banking crisis. There is not only merit but an absolute case for ensuring basic information on the governance and activities of the banking institutions is made compulsorily available in the public arena. That is not to disadvantage one against the other; it should apply to them all.

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

Will the Deputy submit a question to the line Minister on this matter?

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

They all ought to be treated the same. Will the Taoiseach, accordingly, give my proposition his serious consideration?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that a beagáinín question?

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is for Deputy Ó Caoláin.

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

Questions for the operation of financial institutions are a matter for the Minister for Finance to ensure up to date and accurate information. There are valid and legitimate issues of commercial and financial sensitivities regarding freedom of information and the banking institutions.

The wider policy issues are to be considered on a continuing basis by the Dáil through a series of parliamentary questions and legislation.

With regard to freedom of information requests tabled to my Department, I have indicated that the ambit of the legislation is considerable. There has been a history of expanding it to cover a wider group of public bodies over the years. Issues relating to commercial State bodies are different to those concerning non-commercial State bodies. However, that does not mean that they are not accountable. They are accountable through their boards and to Oireachtas committees and various investigations are ongoing in that respect. With regard to freedom of information requests, the situation is as I have outlined it.