Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

336. To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he is aware that some Departments and agencies are setting down inordinate search fees in response to precisely formulated and subsequently refined Freedom of Information Act 2014 requests, and then using them as the basis for the denial of such requests; if instructions have been issued, or signals provided, to officials to carry out exhaustive searching far beyond the immediate information fields sought; the way applicants are expected to make and refine requests, in the absence of information required under section 58.2 (d) of the Act; if he will re-affirm that the purpose of the Freedom of Information Acts is to make requests for information easier rather than more difficult; if he will issue guidelines to the effect that the level of searching should be proportionate and responsive to the information requested; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29028/15]

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

337. To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he is aware of the practice whereby Government bodies under the Freedom of Information Act 2014 effectively deny, through substantial redaction, freedom of information requests to them, concerning funding applications by voluntary and community organisations, on the basis that any such information could reasonably be expected to result in a material financial loss or gain to the organisations, or could prejudice the competitive position of those organisations in the conduct of their business; if such denials are in accordance with the intentions of the Act; if he will reconcile such denials with the requirements of the Charities Acts for voluntary organizations to be fully transparent in their financial operations; if he will issue guidance to bodies covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2014, that it is improper to rely on such arguments to deny such requests made under the Act; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29030/15]

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 336 and 337 together.

I am not aware of the details of specific cases to which the Deputy's question refers.  

In light of the objectives of the FOI reform legislation, it would clearly be a matter of concern if the circumstances set out by the Deputy pertained in practice in relation to any FOI request. 

However, it is important to recognise that in practical terms given the volume of records that may exist in relation to any specific issue, their dispersal across different areas of the public body, and also on account of the priority that a public body will inevitably attach to seeking to ensure that all records that could potentially fall under a FOI request are retrieved, it is likely to be the case in certain circumstances that broad and extensive searches need to be undertaken by public bodies in response to particular requests, notwithstanding that the request may be regarded by the requester as precisely formulated.     

In relation to the search, retrieval and copying charges issue, the Deputy will be aware that the FOI Act 2014 resulted in the abolition of the upfront FOI application fee and a significant re-design of the search and retrieval fees regime allowing for up to five hours search, retrieval and copying time at no charge and cap of €500 on the amount of such fees that can be charged. 

There is a further upper limit on estimated search, retrieval and copying charges of €700 called the "overall ceiling limit" above which an FOI body can refuse to process a request, unless the requester is prepared to refine the request to bring the charges below the limit.  Alternatively a public body can decide to process such a request but full charges will then apply (no benefit of appropriate maximum ceiling available if charges attaching to the records actually released exceeds €700).  There is a requirement under Section 27(12) that, before a request can be refused on this basis, the requester must be given the opportunity to refine his/her request so that it comes within the overall ceiling limit. 

Requesters may be asked to refine their requests, however it should be noted that requesters may also submit a number of different requests.  It is important to note that requesters will be charged only for the documents or information they receive on foot of a request, and if a public body's estimate of the costs and the deposit paid by the requester exceeds the actual cost, the public body will repay the difference to the requester.

Section 27(2) of the FOI Act 2014 sets out parameters as to what may be deemed to be classed as search and retrieval. This includes time spent by the FOI body determining whether it holds the information requested; locating the information or documents containing the information; retrieving such information or documents; extracting the information from files, documents, electronic or other information sources containing both it and other material not relevant to the request; and preparing a schedule specifying the records for consideration for release.  There is of course an onus on requesters to ensure that their requests contain sufficient particulars in relation to the information sought to enable the records sought to be identified by the taking of reasonable steps. 

My Department's attention has not been drawn to any specific problems for FOI users relating to the new reformed FOI fees regime.  Indeed, the change in fees has been received favourably by requesters.  If the Deputy has been made aware of problems in this area and if she provides me with details of same, I will ask my officials to examine the matter and I can advise the Deputy of the outcome.

In relation to use of exemptions under the Act to redact material, I provided a new section 11(3) in the Act which sets out that in performing functions under the Act, FOI bodies must have regard to the need to achieve greater openness in the activities of FOI bodies and to promote adherence by them to the principles of transparency in government and public affairs; and the need to strengthen the accountability and improve the quality of decision-making of FOI bodies. 

That said, each request is dealt with on a case-by-case basis and there are specific exemptions set out in the Act which each FOI body will assess to see if they are relevant or applicable.  I have no role in reviewing the decisions made under the Act.  As the Deputy will be aware, the Act provides the requester with recourse to appeal internally if he/she is not satisfied with the initial decision.  Once a decision on Internal Review has been received by the requester, he/she may appeal to the Information Commissioner if he/she is dissatisfied with that decision.

As regards the provision of guidance, the FOI Central Policy Unit (CPU) in my Department has responsibility for formulating policy and issuing guidance in relation to FOI matters.  The publication of the Code of Practice for FOI is a positive step in that it promotes best practice in the operation of FOI and seeks to bring about greater efficiency and consistency throughout public bodies in dealing with FOI requests. 

The FOI CPU website has been redeveloped and is an important resource for public bodies and the general public. In addition to the provision of manuals on the processing of requests, the CPU has issued notices on a range of topics, including on the application of search, retrieval and copying charges.  Such Notices also provide practical guidance on how to process requests and how the various exemptions should be interpreted and used by the decision maker.  This information is all available on the FOI website.  In addition, the CPU, in conjunction with the Office of Government Procurement, has also put in place a single FOI Training Framework which provides a panel of trainers from which FOI bodies can procure quality-assured training in a consistent and cost-effective manner and which covers all aspects of processing requests. 

Finally, work is almost completed on the development of a model publication scheme for FOI which I propose to make this year.  Publication Schemes will bring about more proactive publication of information by public bodies. 

I believe that, taken together, the new FOI Act, the new fees regime, the publication schemes once in place and other transparency initiatives including the Open Data Initiative and other Open Government Partnership (OGP) actions currently being implemented, represent a fair and equitable balance between maximising the level of access to information for citizens while maintaining the ability of public bodies to deliver services, including FOI services, in an efficient and effective manner.