Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

My retort would be that one should hire a researcher. There can be discreet bespoke FOI requests that would take less than 25 hours of search and retrieval by a public servant. That is a more reasonable way of proceeding. I am also providing for the introduction of a minimum threshold of €100, five hours work, below which no search, retrieval and copying fees would be charged; that would mean that for the majority of requests there will be no fees whatsoever. However, if search, retrieval and copying of records are required above that level the full cost of search, retrieval and copying would apply subject to the cap of €500. The idea is to have a focused rather than a general trawl for information. This will enable a person to ask for sequential information in discreet bites as opposed to a general trawl that would take a number of civil servants days to work through it.

From having spoken to colleagues internationally, that is the way to go.
There is also the introduction of a definition in the Bill to ensure there is clarity on the activities for which search, retrieval and copying fees can be applied fully in line with the intention in the original legislation, which includes all activities carried out leading up to the finalisation of a file containing the records for review by the decision maker. The reduction in costs for internal reviews and appeals to the Information Commissioner had been agreed by Government from the outset. Appeals will also be much cheaper. I am strongly of the view that my freedom of information fees reforms complement the overall thrust of the freedom of information reform legislation and other key initiatives such as the open government partnership, which I think is a very important international initiative, the planned revision of re-use of public sector information legislation, and open data to increase significantly the volume of official information made available to all our citizens. These measures should be acknowledged as a far-reaching reform of freedom of information in Ireland.
This freedom of information reform legislation is being introduced in tandem with the development of a code of practice in relation to its operation. This is the outcome of a short, focused and targeted operational review of freedom of information which I initiated last year. The review was carried out by an expert group comprising academics, journalists and other users and a public body review group consisting of freedom of information experts in the public service itself. The draft code, which is currently out for public comment, is an essential development. It will support the implementation of freedom of information and promote best and, I hope, uniform practice in its operation. It will guide and inform the performance of public bodies in relation to their responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act and help to minimise the administrative burden, particularly on smaller organisations that will now be subject to it. It will seek to ensure appropriate consistency and standardisation of approach for the benefit of both requesters and the public bodies themselves, and will deepen and widen the expertise and capacity of public bodies in freedom of information and assist them in handling requests effectively and efficiently. I believe implementation of the code, due to be finalised on enactment of the Bill, will enhance the overall efficiency of Ireland's freedom of information regime and secure a sustained improvement in the performance by public bodies of their responsibilities under freedom of information.
I will now briefly outline the provisions of the Bill. Part 1contains sections 1 to 5, inclusive, which deal with preliminary and general matters - Short Title, definitions, etc. Part2 contains sections 6 and 7 which enable freedom of information to apply to all public bodies unless they are specifically exempted, and to other bodies that are significantly funded by the Exchequer.
Part3 contains sections 8 to 27, inclusive, relating to central elements of the legal framework. Section8 deals with the publication scheme. Sections 9 and 10provide for the amendment of records relating to the personal information and the right of a person to information regarding an act of a freedom of information body affecting that person. Section 11has been amended to provide key principles to guide freedom of information bodies in the performance of their functions under the Act. It also repeals the 2003 provision which limited the potential for access to records relating to services provided under a contract of service to a public body by a commercial State body or other private bodies.
Section 12deals with requests for access to records and contains a new subsection enabling requesters to be advised of other regimes for access to official information, thus potentially reducing the cost to the requester. Section 13deals with decisions on requests and section 14relates to the extension of time for consideration of freedom of information requests. Section 15provides for a refusal of an freedom of information request on administrative grounds and section 16permits deferral of access to a narrow range of records.
Section17 covers the manner of access to records. It requires freedom of information bodies to take reasonable steps to search for and extract electronic data from databases. It also clarifies that where records are available in electronic form, they may be released in electronic and searchable format. Sections 18 to 20, inclusive,relate to access to parts of records, failure to reply to a request within the timeframe specified, and the delegation of functions relating to freedom of information to enable more effective operation of the Act. Section 21provides for internal reviews.
Section22 provides for reviews by the Information Commissioner of decisions of a freedom of information body. A number of technical changes are being proposed in section 22 to improve the functioning of the Act, as has been requested. Section23 allows the commissioner of Information to require a freedom of information body to provide more detailed reasons for refusal to grant a request. Section 24provides for appeals to the High Court. Some amendments have been made including broadening the grounds for appeals.
Sections25 and 26set out precautions against the disclosure of exempt information and a stay on certain decisions which may be subject to appeal. Section27 relates to fees, and I have already set out those in some detail.
Part 4contains sections 28 to 41, inclusive, providing a series of exemptions to protect sensitive information. Section28 relates to Government records. I have reversed the restrictions on the release of such records that were made in the 2003 Act. Section 29relates to deliberations of freedom of information bodies. I have restored this to what it was originally in the 1997 Act. Sections 30 to32, inclusive, largely re-enact the current sections 21 to 23, inclusive.
Section 33relates to security, defence and international relations. The absolute exemption from such records relating to the tactics, strategy or operations of the Defence Forces and certain diplomatic communications is removed and made subject to a harm test. The mandatory exemption remains only for highly sensitive confidential communications relating to, for example, negotiations between the State and international organisations, and for information relating to intelligence in respect of security or defence of the State.
Section 34re-enacts the existing section 25 relating to the issue of ministerial certificates. Sections35 to37, inclusive, retain the original exemptions in the 1997 Act for confidential, commercially sensitive and personal information held by a freedom of information body. Section38 outlines consultation procedures to be followed if a head proposes to release, in the public interest, information referred to in sections 35 to 37, inclusive.
Section 39maintains the original exemption for information relating to research and natural resources, subject to certain conditions. Section 40protects information where disclosure could reasonably be expected to have serious adverse effects on the financial interests of the State or the ability of the Government to manage the economy. Section 41upholds the operation of specific secrecy and non-disclosure provisions in other enactments unless such provisions are based on Schedule 3, in which case they are all subordinate to freedom of information.
Part5 contains section 42 which, as in the 1997 Act, restricts application of freedom of information to administrative records for a number of limited public bodies. There are some additions to this section including highly sensitive crime, security and intelligence activities carried out by An Garda Síochána which are excluded from the scope of freedom of information. The section also excludes records held by the Central Bank of Ireland which are subject to professional secrecy obligations under EU law, which cannot be overridden by national law.
Part 6contains sections 43 to47, inclusive, relating to the Information Commissioner in terms of his or her powers, reviews, and so on. Some new provisions are included in section 45such as to allow the Information Commissioner to apply for a court order to oblige a freedom of information body to comply with a binding decision of the commissioner where the body has failed to do so.
Part7 contains sections 48 to 55, inclusive. Section 48provides the Minister with the power to draw up and publish a code of practice and guidelines to assist freedom of information bodies, and that is what I intend to do. Section 50amends the Central Bank Act 1942 to allow the Bank to furnish information to the Information Commissioner in the performance of the commissioner's functions. Section52 provides that it will be an offence to destroy or alter, wilfully and without lawful excuse, a record that is subject to an freedom of information request and sets out a fine on summary conviction. Section 54is a saver provision. Regulations made under the 1997 Act relating to the scope of the application of freedom of information to particular public bodies, other than those listed in Schedule 5, will cease to be in operation on the commencement of this Act. Section55 provides for transitional arrangements for any actions commenced but not completed under the 1997 Act. For example, if legal proceedings are pending to which the Information Commissioner is a party, the proceedings may continue as if the 1997 Act had not been repealed.
In the Schedules, as I have indicated, Schedule 1, part 1 details the bodies included, in part, under freedom of information, while Schedule 1, part 2 is a list of bodies exempted from freedom of information in full. Schedules 2 and 3 re-enact current Schedules but have been updated. Schedule 4 details the repeals of both primary and secondary legislation affected by the Bill, and Schedule 5 lists the statutory instruments made under the 1997 Act which are to continue in force on enactment.
I trust that Senators will strongly support this very significant reforming measure and that they will welcome the positive set of measures which I place before them in this Bill. I commend the Bill to this House.