Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I again welcome the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, and his officials. The purpose of the meeting is to resume our consideration of the Freedom of Information Bill 2013 which was referred to the select sub-committee by Dáil Éireann on 3 October. Is it agreed that we will try to conclude our consideration of the Bill today, if possible? Agreed.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 33 and 47 to 52, inclusive, are in the name of the Minister and will be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 27, to delete lines 33 and 34 and substitute the following:“(9) (a) Where a request to an FOI body under subsection (1) is made up of 2 or more parts seeking separate and distinct information relating to functions and responsibilities carried out by different functional areas of the FOI body, the head of the FOI body concerned shall treat each part of the request as a separate FOI request. The requester shall be required to pay a further fee for each separate request under this paragraph, or the requester shall pay the fee for whichever request or requests he or she may specify or modify the request so that no further fee is payable.
(b) A head shall assist or offer to assist the requester concerned in amending the request so that it no longer comprises more than one request.”.

There are several principles captured by the legislation: the establishing of several key statutory principles governing the operation of FOI legislation, all of which incorporate international best practice; creating a legal presumption that official records requested will be released; strongly promoting the proactive release of official information by public bodies; and requiring public bodies to draw requesters' attention to the scope to obtain records other than through FOI legislation. The freedom of information legislation is important, but I hope we are moving towards a different type of regime where we have open data.

I made some commitments at the open government partnership, OGP, in London some time ago to indicate that our objective was to move towards an open data regime. There are logistical and technical issues, but there should be a presumption that the default position is that information is in the public domain. I will be relaunching my own departmental website shortly with more data on it, including all invoices and so on. That is part of the regime we are working towards. However, couched within this is the issue of reforming the FOI regime. I said last night that I thanked the members of the committee for undertaking a lot of detailed analysis of the legislation and their thoughtful report. The Chairman mentioned last night that he was not overwhelmed by the interest garnered by the report once it was published, but it certainly was important work and is instructive in terms of what we want to do and what is being proposed.

The one point of contention from the very beginning was whether there should be a charge system for accessing information. I have indicated from the very beginning of this process that in the current climate I think that would be reasonable. It should be remembered that it has been, in some shape or another, a feature of the FOI system in this country from the very beginning. While the 1997 Act did not contain an up-front charge, there was a retrieval fee system that imposed a charge in recognition of the actual cost involved in the retrieval of information.

I thank all Deputies for their contributions on this net issue. We had a long debate on the fees issue at the outset of Committee Stage yesterday. I am conscious that it is a very small subset of what overall I regard as acknowledged progressive legislation, but it is an important one. I have listened very carefully to everything that has been said. In my response I made clear the Government's decision, following a very careful examination and taking into account the observations provided in the committee's pre-legislative scrutiny report, to maintain the FOI application fee, while providing for a significant reduction in the fees for internal review and any appeal that may be made to the Information Commissioner. The €15 fee was not a particular hurdle, but the higher charges for internal appeals or going to the Information Commissioner were. I am making proposals to provide for very substantial reductions in these fees.

As I said yesterday, there were a number of important considerations that informed the Government's decision-making, including the principle that there should be a charge, recognising the often significant and real cost of processing requests for non-personal information. Of course, requests for personal information which comprise the bulk of FOI requests will remain free of charge.

I heard clearly the views expressed by a number of members that there should be no application fees or no fees of any kind for standard freedom of information requests. I have indicated that in principle I broadly share that perspective, but there are realities that I must address, including the State's current fiscal position, the substantial reduction in public sector numbers, including Civil Service numbers, and the pressures in these circumstances on our administrative system in providing priority public services. The conclusion that the Government drew on the issue of FOI application fees was, therefore, that maintenance of the fee was required for the time being to ensure the administrative system would have the capacity to effectively and efficiently manage the demand.

This is a reality recognised in other countries. In that regard, I have noted the information reported in today's newspapers indicating that one in five of 94 countries with FOI laws in place have FOI application fees. This is broadly the same percentage as applies to the OECD countries. The right to information international rankings of national legal frameworks for FOI report that, in addition to Ireland, OECD member countries with FOI application fees include Canada, Switzerland, Japan, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Turkey and Israel.

I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by members of the committee which were articulated clearly and well yesterday about the specific proposals contained in the Bill to unpackage entirely separate and unrelated issues included in a single FOI application and apply a separate charge for each. If we accept the principle that there should be an individual charge which I have said from the beginning I am proposing should remain - there is an up-front charge of €15 - we really have to follow through and acknowledge that it is not possible to simply bolt on completely separate and extraneous matters and bundle them together as one request. That undermines the principle of the fee system. If the fee system is to be used, this will be a requirement.

I have listened carefully to the views of members of the committee but also to what has been written in the past few days. There is a genuine fear that the actual amendment I put forward will not be interpreted in that way, in other words, that, somehow, requests for subsets of the same issue would be individually charged for. That is not the intention of the Government; it is not my intention, nor is it the intention of the legislation. Where there are separate, clearly unrelated issues bundled together, they should be disaggregated. However, where there is a very long set of questions on the same issue - as long as one likes - that is one issue, one request. That is the way I intend it to be and that is the way I have explained it to be. However, it is clear from much of the public comment on the proposal that there is confusion and a misinterpretation of the provision I have set out and its objective. Today I read one article, a dislodged article because I had written an op-ed piece on freedom of information which was not carried, but the alternative piece which was carried referred to fees runnimg to thousands of euro. There are a lot of €15 fees in a sum running to thousands of euro, even with search and retrieval fees and so on. That is not the intention, nor will it be the consequence of what I am suggesting. Such estimates are based on a wrong interpretation of the intention of the legislation.

It is very important that the very great leap on freedom of information in Ireland which is being advanced by the Bill is not overshadowed by unnecessary uncertainty or lack of clarity on what is a simple and straightforward intention. An FOI request on a single issue or related issues requires the payment of one single fee. Where multiple unrelated requests are received, of which I provided examples for the committee yesterday - I can provide further examples today because they come in all the time - the principle of charging for a FOI request must apply. It is incumbent on me to take full account of the level of concern that the application of the legislative provision would in practice go much further than I have intended in a situation where there is such a sea-change in the legislative provision set out by me. While I firmly believe that will not be the case, I am committed to having the legal drafting of the provision reviewed and refined to ensure there can be no doubt, no uncertainty and no misinterpretation by anyone who subsequently reads the Bill, such as an information officer or agent or applicant, about the objective I have put to the committee. I hope that is crystal clear. A single up-front fee of €15 is required to capture as long an FOI request as is required on the same issue, but where there are separate, clearly distinct issues, they will be treated as such.

My priority is to ensure the final provision, as enacted by the Oireachtas, will not support unreasonable concerns that the cost of freedom of information requests in Ireland is unaffordable, through requiring a single fee to be paid for entirely separate and unrelated FOI requests.

I have given some consideration to the views expressed by colleagues and, with my officials, re-examined the text of amendment No. 33. On a simple, plain English reading, I am confident that it will achieve the purpose I have set out. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that there are genuine concerns that the provision might be used by some on the administrative side of the house to implement a charging system that is not intended. To that end, with the permission of the committee, I propose to withdraw the amendment and, in co-operation with my officials, devise a form of wording to take it beyond confusion, doubt or misinterpretation that what I have set out is what I intend to be achieved. We have already begun working on it with the Parliamentary Counsel; had we been able to do so, I would have brought forward the revised amendment today. I ask members to facilitate me to that end, with the objective of continuing our discussion on Report Stage.

I also acknowledge that some people hold the view that there should, on principle, be no fee regime. It is a perfectly legitimate point of view. However, I put it to the committee that if we accept that a contribution of €15 for a distinct application is reasonable, we cannot allow that provision to be circumvented by bolting entirely separate, extraneous and distinct matters onto the same FOI request.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have listened carefully to the Minister and I am very pleased that he has been willing to listen to common sense and do a complete U-turn on this issue. I admire his courage. Some here seem to consider this a laughing matter, but others of us do not. I said I admired the Minister's courage before the skits came from the other side. It is unquestionably a U-turn, but it is a good man who is willing to change his view. One can look at it both ways.

In regard to the amendment, I was surprised that the Minister had referred to the State's fiscal position, as though charging a few additional €15 fees would somehow have a significant impact on that position. It is an argument I do not accept. The Minister went on to say one of the reasons he was seeking to maintain the fee structure was, to use his words, to "manage demand". What that means, of course, is keeping down the number of requests. The Minister is afraid that demand would increase in a situation where no fees applied. To reiterate, he is saying one of his reasons for preferring the retention of fees is to manage the demand for freedom of information requests, in other words, to restrict the number of requests.

The amendment deals specifically with the issue of multiple possible fees at the application stage. In due course, as we move through the amendments, we will deal with the broader issue of fees. I am pleased at this point that we are at least getting some honesty from the Minister in so far as he acknowledges that one of the purposes of fees is to keep the number of requests down or, as he has put it, manage demand. It seems clear that this is the Minister's and, by extension, the Government's position.

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

What was the objective of the Deputy's party in introducing fees in the first place?

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We did so for a variety of reasons. The Minister opposed our doing so when he was in opposition, but he is reinstating that provision now and proposing in this section to add to it. He pointed out in the course of his contribution that one fifth of countries in the European Union and the OECD charged application fees in respect of freedom of information requests. That means, of course, that fourth fifths do not and I argue that we should come into line with these countries.

I welcome the Minister's proposed withdrawal of amendment No. 33. However, it behoves me to point out that this provision could not have been read by any reasonable person in any other way than the way in which we have described it. Whoever drafted it is bound to say that was not the intention, but the reality is that the amendment goes even further than merely dealing with multiple requests. It provides that where a freedom of information request is made up of two or more parts seeking separate and distinct information-----

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

That is the key point, that separate and distinct items of information are being sought.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes and I understand from where the Minister is coming on that issue. However, the amendment refers to separate and distinct information on functions and responsibilities carried out in different functional areas. I gave the example yesterday which seemed to surprise the Minister somewhat that an FOI request to do with pensions might end up going to the human resources section, the audit committee and the corporate affairs section of the same FOI body. My concern is that the amendment, as drafted, deals not only with separate and distinct requests for information but also refers specifically to requests going to different functional areas. That in itself creates a separate layer of opportunity for a second level of fees. One of the related amendments refers to the same issue and, I assume, will also have to be withdrawn.

In terms of where we go from here, the simplest thing would be for the Minister to give us sight of the revised amendment which, as he has indicated, is already being worked on. We might very well require an opportunity to amend his amendment on Report Stage. It should not simply be dropped on us with very little time to review it before the debate. I further suggest that between now and Report Stage, we have a separate session to deal specifically with this and the broader fees issue. These matters were examined in the report, but we did not have sufficient information on the cost of processing fees. Most people accept that, for many of the relevant organisations, the cost of processing the fee is greater than the fee charged. In fact, it is damaging the fiscal position of many organisations to be obliged to have an accounting system in place for a €15 fee. If the argument is being made that it is nothing to do with money at all and is really about managing demand, at least if we got down to the net issue at the committee, we might arrive at some consensus or at least come to our separate views on the matter.

I hope the Chairman and colleagues will agree to my proposal that we have a special meeting of the committee before Report Stage to discuss the fees issue. I would have liked to have seen a report at this point, from whatever source, showing the amount of fees collected in each of the public bodies that come under the FOI regime and the associated processing costs. That basic information would contribute significantly in informing our debate on the fees structure.

I do not accept the analogy the Minister made yesterday linking this issue with the prescription fees payable by holders of medical cards. It is not sound logic to argue that because people have to pay a prescription fee even though they have a medical card, there should also be a charge for FOI requests. If one accepts that people with medical cards have to make a contribution to the services they receive - I do not accept it, but I am trying to follow the logic - it follows that a fee should be payable, even where a person is making a request for personal information under the FOI system.

I do not accept the parallel to which the Minister refers. If we were to use his logic, we would be moving towards introducing higher fees. I do not believe that is what he intends. Neither do I believe that anyone would agree with an increase in the fees. Trying to link what is involved here to the cost of medical cards is not the right way to go about it. I suggest that we agree to the withdrawal of all the amendments in this group and that we revisit and discuss them at a meeting to take place before Report Stage.

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not make any contribution to yesterday's proceedings, which went on quite late into the evening. I welcome the fact that the legislation is before us. Regardless of the position in respect of fees, there has been an enormous gap in this area since the removal of the relevant provision approximately ten years ago. There are those who may wish to concentrate on the issue of fees but for most people this is but a small aspect of the overall scheme. We have heard two narratives on this matter today, namely, during Taoiseach's Questions in the Dáil and at the very beginning of this meeting. In the report produced following the joint committee's hearings last June, it is stated that the greatest amount of debate and concern related to the issue of fees. There has been an attempt to suggest that this issue has been parachuted into the debate. I attended the joint committee's hearings and not only were fees discussed, they were the first issue of concern. I accept, however, that a recommendation was not made.

The Minister has indicated that he is going to reconsider this matter but I do not see what he said as constituting a U-turn. For what it is worth, I am of the view that a fee should be charged. In light of the prevailing economic climate and given the workload involved, it is not unreasonable to expect people to pay a small amount of money. As has already been stated, there will not be a charge in respect of personal information requests or subsets thereof. These represent in the region of 70% of the overall number of requests. Any private citizen who requires information on himself or herself will not, therefore, be obliged to pay a fee. We are currently charging people for all sorts of things for which we do not want to charge them. Given that the Minister is frequently credited with issuing requests to his colleagues in Cabinet in this regard, I am of the view that it is correct that there should not be a fee for personal information requests.

In the context of managing demand, the report relating to the joint committee's hearings refers to more automatic publication. The way to manage demand is to increase supply. We must get the message across that taxpayers are paying an average of €600 per request. I do not taxpayers want this to be the case. The document submitted by the Minister in respect of multifaceted requests is very interesting and, perhaps, somewhat amusing. It highlights the fact that a large amount of the information involved should be made available as a matter of course in order to reduce the amount - currently €600 - which the taxpayer is obliged to pay. We have failed in this regard. The position which obtains in the United Kingdom in respect of an expense of over €500 for a local authority is reasonable. The figure could perhaps be higher and it could automatically be put in place. The Chairman and I previously served on the same local authority in Cork. That authority frequently received FOI requests in respect of councillors travel and expenses, etc., and it eventually made a decision to publish these on its website. That people were previously obliged to submit requests for this information implies that it was hidden. Clearly journalists must be in a position to access such information.

The debate on this issue has been quite one-sided in nature to date. I am of the view that the fee is modest and reasonable and that personal information requests will not be affected. I accept that the Minister is reconsidering the position. We must continue to encourage all the public bodies which come under the stewardship of his Department to publish information because this will reduce expenditure. I spoke to the FOI officer of a large public body about the workload involved and the issue of the fee. He informed me that it may or may not be a cost to him but that the real cost emanates from being obliged to access the same documents year after year. The information contained in these documents should be published on the Internet at the start of each year in order to reduce the both amount of work and the costs involved.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased the amendment is being withdrawn. I share the view that it does not contemplate the intention as set out earlier by the Minister. I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Counsel will find suitable language to clarify the matter. The Minister will not be surprised to hear me repeat that I am opposed to the imposition of any charge for freedom of information requests. He has conceded that the sum of money involved - namely, €15 plus the search and retrieval fees - is tokenistic. If one sets the money involved against the big mathematics relating to the State's finances, one will see that it does not even count as peanuts. However, for people - not just journalists but also ordinary citizens - who might seek information through FOI, a charge of any nature will act as a barrier. That is why the Minister, quite correctly and accurately, stated that the charging of a fee relates to demand management. Of course that is the case. I am of the view that this is wrong and that it runs contrary to his position of openness and of having open data and open government. As he is aware, these are all matters on which I am very happy to support him.

In addition to withdrawing amendment No. 33, it would be useful if the Minister also withdrew all of the other amendments relating to this matter and reconsidered the entire position prior to Report Stage. For example, he needs to re-examine the position regarding the upfront payment of 20% of search and retrieval fees in light of the considerable concern that exists. The Minister referred to media reports which referred to me as seeing an open goal and being over the moon at the opportunity to have a go at him. That is not what this is about; what we are seeking to do here is get the legislation right. The Minister threw his eyes up to heaven when Deputy Sean Fleming took him to task on the issue of fees. Why should the Minister not have done so, particularly when we know who did the damage to the FOI legislation? His job is to put the matter to rights and I am of the view that the elimination of any fee should be part and parcel of what he does. The argument to the effect that what is being done involves easing the economic burden on the citizens of the State simply does not stand up to scrutiny and I believe the Minister knows that. I do not know why he continues to repeat that argument because it is ludicrous.

I am glad amendment No. 33 is being withdrawn and I invite the Minister to withdraw all of the other amendments, which he tabled very late in the day, relating to fees.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not care whether it is a U-turn or a clarification, it is very welcome. I will leave the discussion on fees, upfront charges, etc., until we reach amendment No. 53 because we will be able to deal with them in some detail at that point. I will, however, use an example in order to clarify what I think the Minister as saying to us.

I occupy an office in Agriculture House, the headquarters of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Let us imagine that someone submits an FOI request to that Department in respect of the inoculation of cattle throughout the country. The officer who receives the request will recognise the need to contact local offices throughout the country - so there is a geographic break in functional area - the office charged with looking after the national herd, pharmaceutical experts, etc.

If a single request, not a multifaceted one, is submitted and the receiving officer has to send it to multiple offices and functional areas to get a response to it, is it the Minister's clear intention that such a request will be treated as a single request with a single upfront fee of €15? I think that is what he is saying to the committee.

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

Yes, that was always my intention. That is what I am advised is the import of what I have included in the Bill. For the avoidance of doubt, I will make it crystal clear and put it beyond doubt.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. That is very welcome. Irrespective of what the new amendment will be, I echo the request that we be given it well in advance of Report Stage in order that if we want to tease it out at a committee meeting, we could do so.

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

Yes, as soon as the Government approves it.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While we have had a substantial discussion on the issue of fees and in response to Deputy Dara Murphy's question-----

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Deputy to address his comments through the Chair.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The word "freedom" includes the word "free", for which there is a good reason. If information is to be freely available and the Title of the Bill is to means anything, the accessing of information must be free, otherwise some people who do not have the money required will not have access to information. That is as simple as A, B, C, as the Minister knows. That was the position of a previous Government, of which the Minister's party was a member, that brought forward the freedom of information legislation.

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

There was-----

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not the €15 charge.

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

It would actually be more in that it would be €21 an hour, as opposed to €15 for two hours.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To my mind, "freedom of information" means free access to information.

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

Sure everything is free.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

According to Emily O'Reilly, the full amount realised from all of the charging, whether of retrieval or up-front fees, in 2011 was €87,000. That is peanuts in terms of the public finances. I ask the Minister not to make fools of us by suggesting this is important for the finances of the State. Clearly, it is not. If it not about raising €87,000, it must be about something else. The Minister should be open and up-front on what that something else is. Deputy Sean Fleming was right when he said it was about managing demand. A sum of €15 is a good deal of money to some people, while €87,000 is not even small change for the Government. Applying a charge is a disincentive for ordinary people.

On a point of clarification - I do not care whether this is a U-turn or a climbdown; it does not make any difference - I gather that the outcry is that pressure is being experienced, but that is what this committee is for and if the Minister listens, that is excellent. That is what democracy is supposed to be about. Nobody should be ashamed to say, "I am responding to pressure in the media or from the public." That is precisely what we are all here for - to respond to that pressure.

I draw the Minister's attention to examples he gave yesterday. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly gave a hypothetical example, to which the Minister gave a clear answer. He provided examples - I have only had a chance to look at them now - of what he described as multifaceted requests which ran foul of his concerns and which, presumably, even with the new amendment he is proposing, involved multiple charges rather than a single charge. FOI 213 1882 is a request I randomly read, a request for all records within the Department within the timeframe 9 March 2011 to 14 May 2013 related to a list of items. It is clear from these eight items that they all relate to expenses incurred by the Taoiseach during the Minister's party's period in government. That is what they are all about.

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

The Deputy should read them.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will read them. They cover the use of Farmleigh-----

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

On the use of Farmleigh, that concerns use by all Ministers, foreign guests, international visitors and all the rest.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. It is about the use by the Taoiseach and Ministers of what one might call-----

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Presidency.

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

The EU Presidency. We have also used it twice for conferences-seminars.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but the point is-----

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

That is linked with the exercise equipment.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a coherence. It lists laundering, cleaning and ironing services for the Taoiseach-----

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

Go to the next line.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----new clothing orders for the Taoiseach, parking-----

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

Go to the next line.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Stop interrupting me.

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

The Deputy is engaged in selective reading; he should read it fully.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister want me to go through all of them? The list also includes the helipad on the roof of Government Buildings; parking within the quadrangle of Government Buildings; exercise equipment for use by the Taoiseach or any member of his Department; new clothing orders for the Taoiseach - suits, ties shirts, cufflinks, etc.; refurbishment-extension-purchase of any office, room, accommodation, fixtures, fittings, furnishings and decorations intended for principal use by the Taoiseach.

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

The Deputy forgot takeaways.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a consistent theme running through the list; the Minster knows damn well there is.

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

There absolutely is not.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Come on Minister.

Arthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is outrageous.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will invite the Deputy to make whatever rebuttals members want to make to Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett's comments.

Arthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are all the one, are they?

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. That was probably a request made by a journalist looking for a particular story about the costs incurred by the Taoiseach and perhaps Ministers - I acknowledge that point - which people might perceive to be superfluous or because there was controversy around such expenditure because it might have been perceived to be excessive and indulgent against the background of an economic crisis. That is the logic behind that question and it is consistent through the eight parts. The Minister is now telling us that in the case of such a request which was almost certainly submitted by a journalist with a particular story in mind to reveal information that the public might want to know about this expenditure, there will be eight charges instead of one, which would be problematic, or is he telling us that there will be only one charge? His answer to that question will clarify if he has changed his position.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not comment on the Deputy''s position as to whether it is correct or incorrect, but I note the period covered in the request is two years, two months and two days.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, the period of office of the Government.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It relates to the period from when the Government came to power to the date of the question.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was pointing to the timeframe involved in the request.

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

Thankfully, it will not be me who will make that determination. One judgment is that a reasonable person would not link the use of Farmleigh, including the steward's house, grounds, accommodation and overnight guest accommodation, all functions for which it is used, which would involve an extraordinary trawl of every Department, agency of State, the records of Farmleigh on who stayed there and all the rest - that is a very broad and distinct area - with the exercise equipment that might be used by the Taoiseach and then move on to the helipad and use of Government buildings-----

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mostly by the Taoiseach.

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

The Deputy does not know that. I suppose one could say any question with the word "Taoiseach" in it is the same; that seems to be the logic of the argument. I do not think so, but the bottom line is, thankfully, that it will not be the Deputy or me who will make the determinations. There will be a code of conduct set down which, as I promised yesterday, we will bring to the committee. There will then be an appeal to the independent Information Commissioner who is probably more objective than either of us in these matters. He will make the determination on what it is appropriate to link.

Deputy Fleming started off with talk of a U-turn. I have tried since I became a Minister and previously when I had the honour to be a Minister to engage on Committee Stage. I accepted the second amendment proposed by Deputy McDonald yesterday. I did not see the fireworks or U-turns announced when I accepted it because it was a sensible suggestion. That is what Committee Stage should be about. If we moved away from talk about U-turns and engage as mature people in a parliamentary committee, we could have more engagement and more sensible responses from both sides. One has to listen to the arguments made. I was never of the view that this side of the House or the Government in any guise was the repository of all wisdom. The purpose of the parliamentary system is to parse and analyse legislation. Let us grow up and stop trying to make political points on these matters.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister interrupted me constantly-----

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Boyd Barrett.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----when I was making my point.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Boyd Barrett.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He did.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Boyd Barrett, please.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, Chairman.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Boyd Barrett is not a member of the select committee but I am accommodating him because he is a member of the joint committee. Deputy Donnelly is the Independent representative and it is fine if Deputy Boyd Barrett wants to use his time but I will invite him to do so.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Chairman.

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

I shall refer briefly to a number of points made by Deputy Fleming. He talked about managing demand. What I meant by that was ensuring that the system works. We could have a Rolls Royce system that just does not work because we do not have the resources, capacity or wherewithal to do it. We must ensure that we are practical as well in terms of all the things we do. There is no point in us in any sphere of activity pretending to be able to do things we cannot. We must ensure that what we put in place is practical.

Deputy Fleming and Deputy Donnelly both asked for sight of the amendment. I will ensure they have adequate sight of it before we come to Report Stage. Charging is a feature of the legislation from its inception in 1997. It is a moot point whether one charges an upfront fee of €15 or an hourly rate of €21, which is what was specified in the original legislation. There is a real cost attaching. It does not make sense for Deputy Boyd Barrett to talk in terms of it being free. I know he comes from a tradition that thinks everything is free but there is a real cost.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister used to come from that tradition as well.

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

There is a real cost. I do not mind Deputy Boyd Barrett interrupting. However, there is a real cost and somebody is picking up the tab. If it is not the requester it is someone within the organisation.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it €87,000?

Arthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How much did the FOI request that Deputy Boyd Barrett made cost to research?

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I suspect it was a fraction of the €87,000.

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

There is a dialogue going on.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister should deal with the response to questions that have been asked.

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

The average cost is €600 and we are asking for a contribution towards that of €15, which is modest. Deputy Dara Murphy made a compelling and clear case that there should be fees. He is correct that in the context of my Ministry it is reasonable that I would ask for a contribution to maintain it. He made a much more profound and important point, namely, about the automatic publication of data. That is the direction in which we are going. Embedded in the legislation is a move towards having open data. I hope that in ten years’ time FOI will be a resort most people will not have to reach. The default system is that information should be published. We are working towards that now as part of the Open Government Partnership. I have asked the chief information officer to work on systems that will allow that to happen. We are working in my Department to do that.

The final point Deputy Murphy made, which is a very good one, is that the main users other the general public seeking personal information are journalists. By and large, it would rank against the need of journalists to have open data because they want to have their own ownership of the data because if it is not an exclusive for them and everyone has the information, it is not worth printing. We must reflect on how we have open data.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister have information on the level of requests that come from journalists as opposed to non-journalistic sources?

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

I am told that it is approximately 15%.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that 15% of the non-personal requests, which is 70% of the total?

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

No, it is 15% of the total, which is 70% plus 15% and the rest are from the general public.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Half of the requests are personal.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is 15% of the €15 fee category because for persons seeking personal information it is fee-free.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it 15% of the non-fee paying requests?

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

I will get the data for Deputy Creed. I do not have the information with me. Deputy McDonald has restated her view on fees generally and I understand and accept it. I thank Deputy Donnelly for his contribution. We will debate the issues. I have dealt with Deputy Boyd Barrett.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the spirit of what the Minister said about trying to genuinely engage and be co-operative and non-confrontational, I wish to ask about the example the Minister gave. One of the eight clauses does not refer to the Taoiseach and expenditures related to his activities. That is a fair point. However, seven of them do. Clearly, the logic of it is that it relates to the period since the Minister entered office. It is the trappings of the Taoiseach’s office that is in question. According to the significance of the amendment proposed by the Minister, would the request encompass one charge, two charges or eight charges for the question?

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

I am not going into get into parsing and analysing that. I would have to look at it in some detail. The bottom line is that there are clearly a number of questions involved that are distinctly separate. That is my judgment, but it will ultimately be a matter for the information officer who will be trained-----

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I worry about that.

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

I am sorry but I have not finished. The information officer will be trained and will work to an agreed code. It is important to say that there has been a huge disparity of interpretation. That has worked against applicants both from the general public and the media because different agencies and Departments had slightly different interpretations of FOI. One of the things I have said from the very beginning and on which we have worked in the drafting of the legislation is that we must have a parallel code of conduct so that every information officer knows what is expected, that they are all trained properly and as the Deputy will have seen there is a requirement in the legislation on Departments and agencies to train staff. They will work on a common basis and that will greatly improve the handling of requests, the certainty of the applicant, the way Departments and agencies deal with requests and have consistency across the system which is important.

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The document the Minister gave us is interesting. The request selected by Deputy Boyd Barrett is interesting. Some of the questions in FOI/2013/1882 are linked. Given that it is being re-examined, could the Minister take this as an example? I estimate that the cost of the request would be somewhere between €60 and €90. It would be interesting when the Minister comes up with the changes to take this as an example and to say that it would end up costing whatever amount. Equally, the public would be interested if he could tell us the cost to the Exchequer of compiling information. Every body that has a FOI officer is a public body. The cost to a journalist or someone else would be between €60 and €90 by my reckoning. If the Minister could provide the information I would love to see what the taxpayer will pay for it.

Many of the requests are very good. I do not wish to create any ripples with journalists as most of my best friends are journalists, but is there any scope once a request is returned that at some point it would be published?

It may even be possible to have a lag or whatever and then that it would be republished the following year. If it is worth finding and publishing in 2013, it probably is worth publishing in 2014 and 2015. Many of course are once-off requests about specific events about the Presidency or whatever but this reverts to the point I made on managing the supply of information and it may be a starting point to consider.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To summarise the position, the Minister is signalling that he will take away amendment No. 33 to refine it and that there has not been a change of intent but that further clarification is to be given to intent. Along with that intent and drawing on Deputy Dara Murphy's point, because freedom of information, FOI, legislation is about serving the public interest in the broadest terms, could consideration also be given that when the freedom of information request is published, the cost of putting it together is placed into the reply? In other words, were a freedom of information reply to be published in the morning, it would include the cost. Thereafter, if such requests come that have cost €5,000, one will note it took €15 to get it and €5,000 to produce it. Perhaps the Minister might consider that in this regard.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the cost is to be included, may I make an additional request on the other side of the equation? While I acknowledge it cannot be done on the spot, could one come back with the same question and state how much it would cost?

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what I asked.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That has been asked already.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I mean how much would it cost a customer, that is, a member of the public or a journalist to ask that question?

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be €60 to €90.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, two things are being mixed up, namely the cost of-----

Arthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Murphy asked both questions. He estimates it may be €60-----

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could I encourage members to listen to other members when they are talking, rather than simply listening to themselves? That might clear this up. We will move on.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That did not stop Deputy Murphy.

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

I also wish to indicate that with the permission of the sub-committee, when amendments Nos. 47 to 52, inclusive, are reached, I intend, because they all are related, to move and withdraw each one.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The other amendment, No. 53, that Deputy Donnelly indicated, is different.

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

It is a different one but again, because it is related, it is my intention when that amendment is reached, to withdraw it. The amendments that are related to amendment No. 33 and which are under discussion here, that is, amendments Nos. 47 to 52, inclusive, will be withdrawn. However, when amendment No. 53 is reached-----

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That also will be withdrawn.

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

----- I intend to withdraw that amendment and will explain the reason when I get to it.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 34 in the name of Deputy Sean Fleming, has been ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a quick question on the process. If the grouping was amendments Nos. 33 and 47 to 52, inclusive, are members not going through them?

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will withdraw them as we come to them.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The other ones must be gone through first.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They must be taken in sequence. When we come to amendment No. 47, we will then deal with it and when we come to amendment No. 52, we then will deal with that.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So how are they grouped?

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are grouped for discussion, not for voting.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does that mean members have just had the full discussion on all that then?

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

Yes.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does that mean members have had the full discussion on the issue of fees?

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

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

The issue of fees will be raised in the discussion of amendment No. 53.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will reach amendment No. 53 in a minute.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 53 is a big fees issue.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have had a discussion on amendments Nos. 33 and 47 to 52, inclusive.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise, my mistake.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 35, in the name of Deputy Mary Lou McDonald, has been ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 36 and 40 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 28, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:“(3) Subject to section 16, where a request is granted under subsection (1) the head shall ensure that access to the record is provided as soon as may be possible but no later than 10 weeks from the date the request was made.”.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am picking up a buzz from a telephone. I do not know whose telephone it is but there is a buzz affecting the microphones.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman and will be brief. I am merely drawing a parallel and that time-limited system works well. However, in the case of an application that reaches An Bord Pleanála, that body does not have such a time limit and it keeps extending matters ad nauseam. The same can happen in this case and I believe the adoption of legal time limits would lead to good public administration. When a system is left without such limits, matters can be left to run on for ages. The particular limit I included in this amendment was ten weeks and while some might suggest this is too long and I should have opted for a shorter period, at least it would provide absolute certainty. I acknowledge people probably would work to the ten-week clock when they saw such a limit in place but I believe it is better to have such a time limit. I would be satisfied, were the Minister to state he agreed with the principle and would agree to an eight-week time-limit. As for amendment No. 40, it is the same issue and I seek a time limit in respect of publishing these matters. The essence of these amendments is a time limit.

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

I checked when I saw these amendments and as I am not advised that there are serious problems with timelines being met in general in the provision of records and on that basis, I am reluctant to accept the amendments. As the Deputy is aware, the Act already provides deadlines for the processing of requests and these are set out. If the request is straightforward, with, for example, no third-party consultation involved, then the public body must respond within a four-week period. I would be concerned that the Deputy's proposal would lead to public bodies actually moving towards a ten-week norm, instead of the four weeks. There are a number of circumstances in which it is permitted to take longer than four weeks. These include cases in which a request may need to be transferred to another public body, which can add two further weeks to what is promised. If third parties are involved, an additional three weeks can be added. If the party does not agree with the release of his or her information in the public interest, then a further two weeks are permitted before release of the records is permitted, to allow for the third party to make an appeal. If a deposit is required, the clock stops until the requestor pays the deposit. The public body may negotiate with the requestor, explaining, for whatever genuine reasons, the reason a request cannot be processed within a particular timeframe and a requestor himself or herself may extend the timeframe for a response, if he or she so chooses. If there is an internal review, the reviewer has three weeks in which to make a decision and even more time is permitted in the event of an appeal to the Information Commissioner. All this is set out, it is working reasonably well, and I do not discern valid reasons for setting new timelines, particularly ones that, for the generality of requests, might actually prolong, rather than shorten the process.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister might add up all those timelines without-----

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

If one pushed it all the way to the Information Commissioner-----

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, leaving the appeal to one side, I seek the timeline for requests only.

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

Involving third parties?

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

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

If one involves a third party, that third party must be consulted. If he or she indicates a reluctance for information to be released about him or her, the third party also can appeal it. Therefore, it depends and one must allow for due process.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Right, however my main concern was with the Minister's first statement, whereby there must be a response within four weeks.

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

Yes, that is the generality of it.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While that deadline is by and large being met, that sometimes is no more than simply an acknowledgement that the request has been received. It regularly can just be-----

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

No, that is not my information.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On that response, people often tell me they just get word back that it is being dealt with.

It is a response, but I am really trying to tie down the period of time after that.

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

For a straightforward request, the current legislation requires one to give the answer, not an acknowledgement, within four weeks.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister used the word "response", which is the bit that gets me.

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

Give the information requested.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know whether every freedom of information officer thinks a response means the answer, if the Minister understands what I mean.

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

That goes to the other point I made already.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Consistent training.

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

There is a haphazardness about it.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

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

"Haphazardness" is too strong a word. There is a lack of consistency about the application now. That is why this new legislation will require a standard code of practice and training for FOI officers so that they are all on the same system, understand what is required and understand the law.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is satisfied the system is working well and there is no undue delays.

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

When this is enacted, we will review it in a year.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that built into this legislation?

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

That is a promise in terms of all new legislation now.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 37 is in the name of Deputy McDonald. This has been ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 29, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:"(7) Every six months, a head shall, submit to the Minister's FOI Data Manager all FOI decisions and determinations in a format to be agreed by the Minister
prior to enactment of the Act. Failure by a head to submit information, in the absence of a business case for the same, will incur a €5,000 fine.".

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 29, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: "(4) Every six months, a head shall, submit to the Minister’s FOI Data Manager all extensions of time for consideration of FOI requests in a format to be agreed by the Minister prior to enactment of the Act. Failure by a head to submit information, in the absence of a business case for the same, will incur a €5,000 fine.".

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 30, line 7, after "concerned," to insert the following:"and in such an instance the head will consider in consultation with the Minister publishing the requested information no later than six months after the request has been refused,".

I propose to insert with my amendment that "in such an instance the head will consider in consultation with the Minister publishing the requested information no later than six months after the request has been refused", in other words, rather than simply saying this is causing disruption and is unmanageable at this point and simply making a blanket refusal on that grounds, that there would be a capacity to return to the issue in different circumstances to see whether that information could be provided. Clearly it would involve a consultation between the head and the Minister. That is a more reasonable way to proceed. It is to take a necessary, but blunt, provision and add to it, merely in terms of the effectiveness of FOI.

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

Deputy McDonald is correct in recognising that there will be circumstances where a request would be so burdensome that it is legitimately refused. I am of the view that if the processing of such a request is likely to cause substantial and unreasonable interference with the work of the body concerned, then it is correct that such a refusal be made. The Deputy has acknowledged that. If the FOI officer of the body is of the view that processing the request would cause substantial and unreasonable interference and disruption to its work, that would be the case six months hence as well.

Another concern I would have is that if somebody makes a request and it is viewed by the information officer of the body concerned that it should be refused on the basis that it is unreasonably disruptive of the work, the person has the right to appeal that to the Information Commissioner. Where the person appealed it, the independent Information Commissioner might make a determination that it was perfectly correct to refuse it, and yet the body would be required to provide the information under Deputy McDonald's amendment. That would be unreasonable.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will clarify what I am suggesting here. I recognise the right of appeal. I suppose there are a number of grounds upon which a request might be refused. For instance, we discussed at some length the issue of commercial sensitivity at yesterday's meeting. The grounds for this refusal is an excessive administrative burden. I am suggesting in that instance that there would be something short of a formal appeal which allows for a simple review. It could be that a review would prove that six months hence the administrative burden or the circumstance of the unit or function are still such that the request is excessively burdensome, but not necessarily so. Workplaces and units have a rhythm to their work. They have peaks and troughs. What could be burdensome in December might not be the case in June. I am offering this to avoid, if at all possible, a situation where the rationale for refusal is excessive burden and to allow merely that there would be that review process. It is in an attempt to be helpful to the Minister.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I concur with the Minister's observations in respect of it cutting across the appeals process.

The amendment is equally dangerous in so far as it seeks to involve the Minister in politicising access to freedom of information requests and determination of such requests "in consultation with the Minister". That would be flawed. There is merit in what Deputy McDonald argues and the Minister's response is comprehensive in respect of why it should not proceed. Equally, the amendment is flawed in respect of involving the Minister, which would politicise the process and is something we should be getting away from. Even if we were to accept it, freedom of information officers should not be obliged to consult the Minister.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If it were the Data Commissioner instead of the Minister, what would be the Minister's view?

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

As we have seen, there will be cases of completely unreasonable requests, for example, a person who wants to do a PhD and would like somebody to research it for him or her. Where there is a decision that the request is so unreasonable that it would be disruptive of the work and that is a discernment made, the correct approach is to address it at that level.

One aspect in all the discussions I have had of late is something I have instituted in my own Department. Sometimes one gets FOIs which are not clear on what the requester is looking for. What happens is that significant chunks of information are gathered on the basis the staff hopes that within all of this the information is there. What I hope we will be working towards instead is that the freedom of information officer - this will be a matter for the training - will telephone, for instance, Deputy McDonald, to ask what specifically she needs so that the officer can identify it, and address it in that way. If it is not possible in terms of a request like this and it would be disruptive, then the correct procedure is for that to be appealed to the independent Information Commissioner. That is the process.

There should not be a parallel process. It certainly should not involve the Minister. I do not want to be involved at all in those determinations. I have enough on my plate, but I thank Deputy McDonald very much. It would not be proper in any event.

Even with somebody else involved, there is an established mechanism for determining these matters, namely the mechanism of appeal to the Information Commissioner.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept all that in respect of the appeals procedure. I note the points of Deputy Creed about the insertion of the Minister into the mix. I will withdraw my amendment on this and introduce a different formula on Report Stage, albeit with the same concept at play.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 30, to delete lines 13 to 16.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My question relates to the previous amendment, so I will ask it when discussing the section. I have a similar question about Deputy Mary Lou McDonald's amendment, which proposes the deletion of lines 13 to 16. Are there guidelines available on frivolous or vexatious requests?

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

With regard to Deputy Mary Lou McDonald's question, it is important that an FOI body be in a position to refuse certain FOI requests on administrative grounds. The ability to refuse a request on set administrative grounds is not a new provision but has been in the legislation since 1997. The Information Commissioner specifically supports the provision. The outgoing commissioner made this clear. There needs to be a clear administrative basis for making a refusal.

The question on frivolous or vexatious requests arises in respect of a number of legal instruments. There are definitions that we can provide. I am advised that there are very few occasions on which the measures on frivolous or vexatious requests are invoked. Clearly, a vexatious or malicious request is manifest when it is manifest. All these matters are subject to appeal to the Information Commissioner if the determination is not reasonable.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If someone is refused on the basis that his request is frivolous, is he told that?

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

Yes. One must quote the legal basis for the refusal. As I stated, the provision is in the original Act of 1997. I believed it would be in this Bill but it is not.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When a requester receives a reply, is any guidance provided to him or her? Is there a link to a definition of "frivolous or vexatious behaviour" so the decision can be challenged and so one can determine whether the matter is worth taking to the Information Commissioner?

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

I believe one would appeal to the Information Commissioner. This is not a court of law; it is very open. As I stated in reply to the previous question, proper dialogue with a trained FOI officer would give pointers to people such that they would know what cannot be asked because it is vexatious. If a requester believes an official was rude to him and if he can point to a series of occurrences that are demonstrably vexatious on which he wants to make a request, that would be pointed out. That is a matter of the normal dialogue.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What I am suggesting might prevent some cases that are doomed to failure from going to the Information Commissioner. If a bank writes to a distressed borrower at present, self-empowering information must be given. The bank must state the law and the customer’s rights and give links to relevant information. Similarly, an FOI officer should state the reason for refusal to the maker of a vexatious claim and direct the latter to where he may gain an understanding of what is meant by “vexatious”. He should be told that, on gaining this understanding, he may appeal the matter to the Information Commissioner.

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

That is the norm.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is normal.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with the amendment, as I believe the lines in question should be deleted. Let me refer the Minister to one of the expert witnesses we had from England, Mr. Hammond. Perhaps the Chairman could remind us of his credentials. He was an expert witness during the pre-legislative discussions.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He was from the Centre for Public Scrutiny from the United Kingdom.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To the members of the committee, he stated:

On fees and vexatious requests, the issue is understanding what makes a vexatious request vexatious. We should not be conflating a vexatious request with one that is a little difficult, annoying, embarrassing or persistent. For example, one cannot have a vexatious requester. The Commons justice committee examined how someone who made a lot of freedom of application requests could be classified as a vexatious requester. That is a point we strongly argue against. Just because someone makes a lot of requests does not necessarily mean they are not valid or valuable. Just because a person may have made a vexatious request once before does not mean future requests will be vexatious.

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

I would have said "voluminous" rather than "vexatious".

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

From the point of view of the requester, the information sought might be considered pretty important in that it might pertain to expenditure on hospitality in local authorities.

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

The Deputy makes it sound like the “Life of Brian”.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Maybe so, but Mr. Hammond was the expert witness making this argument, not me. I am simply reminding the Minister of what Mr. Hammond said. He made the point that what the Minister, I or a majority here might consider to be vexatious might be considered very important by the individual making the request. He stated that we should not second-guess the individual's right to gain access to that information. The point Mr. Hammond is making is that the notion of the vexatious requester is so problematic that we should not use it at all.

Mr. Hammond stated that there is no evidence that if there is no provision blocking so-called vexatious requests, there would be a massive avalanche of so-called vexatious requests. Therefore, the presumption should be one of free access to information. Mr. Hammond, the expert witness called in by the committee, was absolutely spot-on in that regard. The clause should be removed because its interpretation is too subjective.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My reading of the matter was that Mr. Hammond was differentiating between a vexatious request and a difficult request. That was his real intent.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I read it differently.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not believe he was advocating the accommodation of vexatious requests. He was saying that we should differentiate between a difficult or problematic request, or what might be described as a nuisance request, and a vexatious request. That is my recollection and what the report’s recommendations indicated when we put the report together.

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

We all understand what "vexatious" means in general terms.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I probably vex the Minister.

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

Never, Deputy.

Let me give an example from outside the FOI area. I am aware of an individual who decided that he did not like a particular planning authority and declared publicly that he would forever more appeal every planning application granted by that local authority other than applications for a garden shed.

When one makes that declaration in advance, obviously one is not looking at the merit of any other things. One can construe that as a vexatious view. There are issues where people can put in so many freedom of information requests on a small outfit that it would stop it functioning. That goes back to the previous discussions.

I am advised that this has been used in our system very rarely. I think it is necessary to have it and it will be independently determined by the Information Commissioner. If people are not happy with that, they can have recourse to law, if they determine that the law is not being properly implemented, even by the Information Commissioner.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I respond? Maybe such people exist but I put it to the Minister that there are not that many of them.

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

True.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is of concern is that there is the potential for the Minister to be using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut because there are not many of these people. This particular wording gives a hell of a lot of discretion for people to make quite a subjective judgment about people or issues that they may be annoyed by. They may consider them to be frivolous and vexatious, but the requestor may genuinely consider them to be really important. The point that Mr. Hammond made was that the bar should be very high. If the Minister believes that section must be included, he should consider reframing it in such as a way that it is made clear that the bar is very high. I do not know how we would put it. We will have to think about a wording.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious that it is Deputy Mary Lou McDonald's amendment.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am nearly finished, Chair. I am just making a proposal.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are moving into the area of repetition.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not repetition, it is a proposal.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Deputy is repeating his point several times, then it is repetition.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am just making a proposal.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious that we have agreed to try to finish the Bill this evening. I welcome people talking on other people's amendments, but when the person who has moved the amendment has indicated that she will not be speaking any further on it and is awaiting the Minister's response, I would advise other committee members - although I cannot direct them - to facilitate the lead person who has moved the amendment.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fair enough. Nobody wants to stay in here all day but our job is to scrutinise legislation. Any Deputy is entitled to come here and do so.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, they are and they are entitled to table amendments as well and speak to them.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Indeed, and I have tabled amendments. As the Chairman knows, I cannot table amendments in my name so they must be submitted via Deputy Donnelly. Committee Stage is also an opportunity for us to go through the legislation line by line and discuss issues as they arise. Therefore, my proposal to the Minister is-----

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To come back to the Deputy's earlier question, he cannot propose because Deputy Donnelly tables the amendments for him. Perhaps Deputy Donnelly can make a proposal.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am asking the Minister to consider reframing section 15 to put a higher bar for frivolity.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This was one of the areas I had flagged in my own notes. It struck me that one person's frivolous and vexatious issue may be another's burning issue of public interest. In so far as possible, I think we should avoid subjective decision-making on such matters. One of the freedom of information requests the Minister cited yesterday sought the menu for every lunch and dinner at the Irish embassies in Washington, London, Canberra, Ontario and Pretoria since April.

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

That was from a gourmand.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That does look like a pretty vexatious or frivolous request. It comes back to the information officer's code of practice. It is a pity we do not have that code concurrent with the legislation because it would inform us better.

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

In fairness, we must have the legislation to shape it.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have the bones of the legislation, by and large, and that should contain some reference to a public interest being served. In many respects, that would mitigate against the worst excesses of a subjective interpretation of "frivolous" and "vexatious".

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The provision in the legislation allows for refusal on the basis of the opinion of the information officer that the request is either frivolous, vexatious or both, or that it forms part of a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests. If one wanted to be literal in one's interpretation of that, it may not be the frivolity or vexatiousness of that particular request, but that it forms part of a pattern of such.

The Minister should re-examine that wording. We can all claim that we know what is frivolous or vexatious, and in the mind of a reasonable person that might be the case. It may also not be the case. It could be used as a pretext for not providing certain forms of information. The section should be re-examined. I will be pressing this amendment and will seek a vote on it. More to the point, I ask the Minister and his officials to re-examine and pick apart the wording of the section because it is subjective in its nature. It also allows three avenues for refusing a freedom of information request: frivolity, vexatiousness or being part of a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests. The last bit could give cause for most concern, so the Minister should reconsider it.

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

As I said, "frivolous" and "vexatious" are the terms that were in the original legislation. They have been in existence since 1997 and have not caused a difficulty. I do not think anybody here has heard of a difficulty concerning them. The Information Commissioner has given guidelines on what would constitute "frivolous" and "vexatious" requests. We will incorporate those into the guidelines we give to all information officers when we get to that point.

"Manifestly unreasonable" is a very strong term. It does not just refer to "unreasonable". Beyond that, it is not only that the request is manifestly unreasonable, but it has to be a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests. There have not been issues concerning that terminology. When these things arise - and they are rare - there has to be some mechanism whereby requests which are demonstrably vexatious can be refused. Whether or not that refusal is correct can be objectively tested through the Information Commissioner and, if necessary, through the courts. The courts will determine these matters ultimately.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We all understand what "frivolous" and "vexatious" mean. I accept the Minister's important point that we are not all hearing from serious freedom of information people that this is something that is being abused. None the less, given Deputy Creed's point, in individual cases an information officer somewhere could abuse something that is open to interpretation. I was thinking about the example used by the Minister of a person who has stated that they will oppose every planning application. We deal with similar wonderful characters in Wicklow. Even though they have stated they will do this, is the Minister saying we are going to deny them the right they have as a citizen to do this because we do not think they are serious about it and, in fact, they have said they are doing it for reasons we do not deem to be correct or appropriate. On that basis, I wonder if we are not entering dangerous territory by denying them the rights that other citizens have.

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

To be vexatious?

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. I have not fully thought this through.

Are we going down a dangerous path in saying that because someone is going to use this in a way that we do not think is appropriate, we will deny them the right to do it?

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

There is the element of practicality, public administration, costs and the general public good. We all have rights, but we must site things in the general public good. I am advised that it is very rarely used. If this section was to be used in the future, the individual would have the right of appeal to the independent authority - the Office of the Information Commissioner. If the individual was not satisfied at that stage, he or she could have the matter adjudicated on by the courts. We have a very open system of public administration. If this is a rare issue, we need to provide for it, but that it would never arise is not a reasonable conclusion to reach. There must be protections for the general good where it does arise. If there is a situation where a section might be abused, that is why we have the checks and balances of the appeals mechanisms throughout this process.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 43 has been ruled out of order.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to go through a few of the subsections with the Minister, but I have not tabled amendments to delete them. I just want to discuss them. As I looked at them, I thought there was good stuff in them if I was an officer or an official who just did not want to give out any information. We have talked about section 15(1)(c) which states that a request may be refused if:

In the opinion of the head, granting the request would, by reason of the number or nature of the records concerned or the nature of the information concerned, require the retrieval and examination of such number of records or an examination of such kind of the records concerned as to cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of work (including disruption of work in a particular functional area) of the FOI body concerned.

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

I am informed that there are extensive guidelines.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are they publicly available?

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

Yes, from the Office of the Information Commissioner.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Great. The request can be refused on the grounds that publication of the record is required by law and is intended to be effected not later than 12 weeks after the receipt of the request. Why is that included? Why not just release it under the FOI legislation anyway?

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

It is because there is a timeframe for patterns of annual releases that can be written into primary legislation. One does not use the FOI process to undermine what is included in statute law.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Minister give an example?

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

I cannot think of one instantly, but we can provide the Deputy with one.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Publication record required by law.

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

There is a timeframe for different pieces of information to be published. One can submit an FOI request that would upset this.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Or get a scoop.

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

It is going to be published in an orderly time line in any event.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With the quarterly assignment statistics, probably.

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

Again, this has been the law since 1997 and it has not caused a problem.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is stuff like the register of electors and quarterly unemployment statistics.

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

They might not be available instantly.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure that this one has not caused problems. Certainly, some of the people to whom I have spoken would talk about delaying tactics being used in order that if something is live and a story has momentum, if the information can be sufficiently delayed, although not ultimately refused, it becomes less useful. Is this just a reiteration of what in contained in the 1997 legislation?

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

Yes.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can give Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly one case that this committee would deal with. There are requirements under law regarding information on bank statistics and targets which are subject to omerta because of stock exchange rules. For example, when we were looking for the banks to come before the committee in July after the targets had been set, we could not see them until September owing to stock exchange and company law. One could argue that because AIB is under State control, one should be able to request those statistics under FOI legislation, but there is a requirement in law that does not allow one to receive that information. This committee which was anxious to see the banks could not see the statistics until September because of the same requirement.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 15(1)(f) states "the FOI body intends to publish the record and such publication is intended to be effected not later than 6 weeks after the receipt of the request by the head".

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

Again, it relates to somebody saying he or she is going to do this is as a matter of course and somebody saying he or she is going to pre-empt it by submitting an FOI request to upset the normal orderly work of individuals who want to be proactive in giving information. It is a case of "I want me scoop."

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The minutes of this committee's meetings are published on its website. Administration tries to have this done as quickly as possible. They would be available under FOI legislation if we were not doing this, but somebody could say he or she wanted the minutes of a meeting as quickly as possible. There is a time line for when I would expect the clerk and the administration to have this done. Therefore, it is just a matter of the sequencing.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That seems reasonable. My last point relates to section 15(1)(i)(ii) which states the request will be refused if "it appears to the head concerned that requester is acting in concert with a previous requester". That is subjective, is it not?

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

I have to recheck my notes in that respect. I think the argument was that the information was already available. I cannot think of a reason it should not simply be re-presented, if that is the case.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are other reasons for a refusal which include the fact that the information is already in the public domain or has already been provided. I am not hugely concerned. It is just that in the spirit of creating as transparent a process as possible, we should-----

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

If one looks at the actual catching phrase in section 15(1)(i), it reads, "the request relates to records already released". That is the key point.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It states it applies "where it appears to the head concerned...". This one does not work for me.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let me give an example. It would be like requiring Deputies by law to respond to every single person who contacted us. We not required to respond and do not respond to every single person who contacts us. There is a filtering system, particularly if it comes as a spam e-mail all the time. If there was a request and a constituency colleague of the Deputy decided to send him 1,000 e-mails every day, he or she would just bring the Deputy's office to a standstill. He might give the same reply to the 1,000 e-mails, but his office would come to a standstill.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That seems reasonable.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The offices are required by law to give a response. If 1,000 people send in the same FOI request, they would bring the Deputy's office to a standstill. That is just common sense.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is why I am here. I am not being vexatious; I am providing clarification.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman for those answers.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do sections 15 and 16 of the earlier Bill still stand or are we changing them?

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

They will be subsumed into this Bill.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The existing sections will be subsumed into the Bill.

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

They have been consolidated.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is in the same vein. It is not something about which I am terribly concerned, but I would like an explanation. It relates to section 16(1)(c) which states there is a deferral on the basis that the record concerned is held by a Department of State where the record or part thereof or any matter to which it relates is of such interest to the public generally that he or she intends to inform either or both Houses of the Oireachtas of the contents of the record or part thereof.

It seems convenient to a given Minister of State. I am slightly nervous about this because it gives a Minister or a Minister of State a get-out clause. If a brilliant FOI request finds something, the Minister can get out ahead of it. It is quite loose: "the record or part thereof or any matter to which it relates". It allows the Minister to go into the Seanad, say something vaguely related to one part of the record and then it can be deferred. It seems handy.

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

This is part of the consolidation, a replication of the law since 1997. It seemed good and appropriate to the Oireachtas then; it has stood the test of time and not been abused, to my knowledge.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the then Minister of State, Eithne Fitzgerald, thought it was handy.

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

The former Minister of State did a sterling job on this legislation in 1997.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This looks like a handy clause for a Minister. What is the rationale for it?

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

If a Minister determined that a particular piece of information, because of its sensitivity, importance or standing, should be divulged in the first instance to the Oireachtas rather than through an FOI request, it would be deferred. If I planned to launch something in five weeks time and received an FOI request, I could defer it for one week until I had brought it first to the Dáil. That sounds reasonable.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would sound reasonable to me if I had the Minister's job. I thank the Minister.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 are alternatives to amendment No. 44. Therefore, amendments Nos. 44 to 46, inclusive, will be discussed together. If amendment No. 44 is agreed to, amendments Nos. 45 and 46 cannot be moved.

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

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 32, to delete lines 30 to 39, and in page 33, to delete lines 1 to 6 and substitute the following:“(4) Where an FOI request relates to data contained in more than one record held on an electronic device by the FOI body concerned—

(a) subject to paragraph (b), the FOI body shall take reasonable steps to search for and extract the records to which the request relates, being steps that involve the use of any facility for electronic search or extraction that existed on the date of the request and was used by the FOI body in the ordinary course, and
(b) if the reasonable steps referred to in paragraph (a) result in the creation of a new record, that record shall, for the purposes of considering whether or not such new record should be disclosed in response to the request, be deemed to have been created on the date of receipt of the FOI request.”.

The provision, as originally drafted and included in the published Bill, was designed to take account of technological developments since the 1997 Act in so far as the searching for and extracting records from data banks was concerned. We had a discussion about this issue on Second Stage. The provision was intended to confirm that FOI bodies were required to take reasonable steps to search for and extract electronic data using the search and extraction facility available to them, but they were not required to develop new programmes or code to interrogate databases. Since the current Act is silent on this issue, public bodies have found it necessary on occasion to have programmes coded to meet particular FOI requests which often do not seek particular official records but rather request information that can sometimes only be obtained by interrogating data banks of official information requiring analysis of the records contained in them.

In addition, the current legislation provides for access to official records which are available and do not require the creation of new records. This provision can represent an impediment in responding to FOI requests as the argument could be made that extracting information from a data bank of necessity required the creation of a new record. To continue to provide access to the extracted data from data banks of electronic records, the amendment allows bodies to reproduce the relevant data in a new record and in such cases the record shall be deemed to have been created on the date of receipt of the request. The proposed amendment is intended to make the same provision, but it uses more straightforward text.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is coming up to 6 p.m. and on the basis that we might try to complete the Bill this evening, I propose that we take a 35 minute break on completion of section 17. Once we move beyond section 17, there are some matters that will require time and I would like to take them together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a technical question.

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

The Deputy is asking a non-technical person.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry. Let us say we have a big relational database and a SQL code is required to extract the information-----

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

I have no idea what a SQL code is.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It can be thought of as a few lines of-----

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

Does anybody know what a SQL code is?

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

SQL is-----

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

Is it a sequential code?

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a query language, a type of code used to extract information from large data sets. My concern is that this amendment states that if pulling information from a large data set requires a few new lines of code, the small programme that finds the information, that code will not be required to be written.

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

I am afraid I am not very technical. The mechanism to interrogate data and create a new database will not exempt information on the new database from being released. I do not know if there are technical issues that are so unreasonable that one has to write a new code that is so burdensome that it has to be excluded. I will ask somebody technical to respond to the Deputy.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, please. I am sure that is not the intention, but the amendment states, "being steps that involve the use of any facility for electronic search or extraction that existed on the date of the request". Therefore, if 20 lines of new code are required to obtain the information, the organisation may state it is a new tool, that it does not have to create it and the applicant cannot have the data.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the tool was available-----

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

No, the data are available. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly is talking about the mechanism to extract the data. I presume that would be fully covered. The issue is reasonableness. If it is extraordinarily convoluted and complicated to write new code to extract the data, that is a reasonable line for refusal. I do not understand the systems to which the Deputy refers, but normal interrogation systems to extract the data and provide it by creating a new record are perfectly provided for.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If an entirely new programme is required that calls for months of coding work, that is fine. If it requires a reasonable amount of code, a few lines of new code, that should not be grounds to refuse an FOI request.

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

That is captured by the notion that it is reasonable to do it. The organisation does not have to get IBM to write a new system for it.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly is learning. He has just received an IT lesson and has a question.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, great. For one person, coming up with ten new lines of code might be highly unreasonable, while for someone else, it might be ten minutes work. A new search algorithm being required to extract information falls within an FOI request. No FOI request will be refused on these grounds.

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

Correct, if it is a matter of normal usage.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, it is.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A database is designed to extract information; therefore, if a question is submitted, it should be extractable. If there is a difficulty with extracting information from a database, there are questions about the viability of the database.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I shall talk to the Chairman outside about this.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please do not open up that conversation again or we will be here for months.

I support this amendment. It is much more tightly drafted than what went before and it answers my concern and the reason for my amendment No. 46, which I will withdraw at the appropriate time.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The essence of the section is that someone can refuse a request that he or she might normally grant because it is connected to another record that is exempt. He or she can redact or edit it, but he or she may believe that might give misleading information. It is another way to not properly release information. The information being sought would normally be granted, but it relates to a record that is exempt.

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

It is the application of the law since 1997 to avoid building a Trojan horse around an exemption.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is "fall to be granted" correct rather than "fail to be granted"?

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

"Fall to be granted."

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The section provides that if the decision is not made within the legal timeframes referred to by the Minister, it is deemed to be a refusal. Can the applicant make an appeal straightaway?

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

Yes. This is designed to prevent people from sitting on them forever.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are many decisions deemed to be refusals because a deadline has been missed? I am sure this issue must have been discussed with bodies. Does this happen often?

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

I am informed it does, but I do not have numbers.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The applicant can then take it further.

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

Yes.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This section relates to internal review. One of my requests has been the subject of such a review and in fairness to the person who wrote the review, it was fine and thorough. It should not be charged for, but we will get to that issue later. Two of the committee's recommendations are tangentially related to this issue. The first was that a user group be set up to review the operation of the legislation, while the second was that an oversight group be set up within public bodies, which is related to the section. Is the Minister considering the establishment of a user group to review how all of this will play out in the coming months? Did he do anything about the recommendation to establish an internal oversight group to do the same from the perspective of officials?

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

We had an external review leading up to this legislation and it was indicated that it might be useful to have a user group in tandem with the recommendation of the committee. I am giving consideration to this recommendation. It is not necessary to provide for it in legislation.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Great. What about the second recommendation in respect of having an internal version called an oversight group?

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

I prefer the Houses of the Oireachtas to operate the committee system to oversee these issues, to discuss how they are working with the Information Commissioner and to seek and make recommendations rather than having a parallel process.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The advantage of an oversight group which would not replace the need for Oireachtas oversight, as an internal working group, is it would allow officialdom to review how the regime was working and to continuously improve, share best practice and so forth. Is there an ongoing review in that regard?

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

I am advised that it is intended to provide for this in the code of practice. There will be a users network.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will it be an internal network of officials?

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

Yes.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When I refer to users, I mean requesters.

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

Many bodies follow this regime closely and we have heard from a number of them in the past few days. They work with a variety of networks, including the Open Government Partnership, for example, and review the operation of the system, make recommendations, network and comment on them all the time.

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

I move amendment No. 53:

In page 43, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:“Fees and Charges
27. (1) (a) A fee of such amount (if any) as may be prescribed shall be charged by the FOI body concerned under this subsection and paid by the requester or, as the case may be, the applicant concerned to the body in respect of an FOI request, or an application under section 21 or an application under section 22.

(b) A fee under this subsection shall be paid at the time of the making of the request or application concerned and, if it is not so paid, the head concerned or, as the case may be, the Commissioner shall refuse to accept the request or application, and it shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to have been made.
(c) Fees of different amounts may be prescribed under paragraph (a) in respect of different classes of requester or different classes of applicant.

(2) Such amount as may be appropriate having regard to the provisions of this section shall be charged by the FOI body concerned under this subsection and paid by the requester concerned to the body in respect of the grant of an FOI request. The amount of a charge under this subsection shall be equal to the estimated cost of the search for and retrieval and copying of the record concerned by the FOI body concerned for the requester.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) “search and retrieval” includes time spent by the FOI body in—

(a) determining whether it holds the information requested,
(b) locating the information or documents containing the information,
(c) retrieving such information or documents,
(d) extracting the information from the files, documents, electronic or other information sources containing both it and other material not relevant to the request, and
(e) preparing a schedule specifying the records for consideration for release.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a) the amount of the cost of the search for and retrieval of a record shall be calculated at the rate of such amount per hour as stands prescribed for the time being in respect of the time that was spent, or ought, in the opinion of the head concerned, to have been spent, by each person concerned in carrying out the search and retrieval efficiently,
(b) the amount of the cost of the copying of a record shall not exceed such amount (if any) as stands prescribed for the time being, and the determination of that amount shall be in compliance with any provisions standing prescribed for the time being in relation to such determination,
(c) the total amount of a charge under subsection (2) shall not exceed the maximum amount prescribed for the time being as the appropriate limit for search and retrieval and copying,
(d) there shall be no charge under subsection (2) if, in the opinion of the head concerned, the total amount of the charge would be less than the amount (if any) as stands prescribed for the time being as the appropriate search and retrieval and copying minimum, and
(e) different maximum and minimum amounts may be prescribed under this section in respect of public bodies and prescribed bodies.

(5) Where the record or records concerned contains or contain only personal information relating to the requester concerned—

(a) no fee under subsection (1) shall be payable, and
(b) the search and retrieval and copying charge under subsection (2) shall be disregarded unless the grant concerned relates to a significant number of records.

(6) Subject to subsection (4), where, in the opinion of the head concerned, the estimated cost, as determined by the head, of the search for and retrieval and copying of a record
the subject of an FOI request is likely to exceed the appropriate minimum level as prescribed—

(a) a deposit of such amount as may be determined by the head (not being less than 20 per cent of such cost) shall be charged by the FOI body concerned and paid by the requester concerned to the body,
(b) the process of search for and retrieval of the record shall not be commenced by the body until the deposit has been paid, and
(c) the head shall, not later than 2 weeks after the receipt of the request aforesaid, cause a request in writing for payment of the deposit to be given to the requester and the document shall include an estimate of the length of time that the process of searching for and retrieving the record will occupy and a statement that the process will not begin until the deposit has been paid and that the date on which a decision will be made in relation to the request will be determined by reference to the date of such payment.

(7) A head may reduce the amount of or waive a search and retrieval and copying charge or deposit under subsection (2) or (5) if, in his or her opinion, some or all of the information contained in the record concerned would be of particular assistance to the understanding of an issue of national importance.
(8) In a case to which subsection (6) applies, the head concerned shall, if so requested by the requester concerned—

(a) assist the requester if the requester wishes to amend or limit the request in order to reduce or eliminate the charges that arise or are likely to arise under subsection (2),
(b) if amendments are specified under paragraph (a), make such of them (if any) to the request as the requester may determine.

(9) Where a deposit under subsection (6) is paid, the amount of the charge under subsection (2) payable in respect of the grant of the FOI request concerned shall be reduced by the amount of the deposit.
(10) Where a deposit under subsection (6) is paid and, subsequently, the grant of the FOI request concerned is refused or is granted in relation to a part only of the record concerned, the amount of the deposit or, if a charge under this section is payable in respect of the grant, so much (if any) of that amount as exceeds the amount of the charge shall be repaid to the requester concerned.
(11) Where a charge or a deposit under this section is paid and, subsequently, the charge or deposit is annulled or varied under section 21, 22 or 24, the amount of the charge or deposit so annulled or, as the case may be, any amount thereof in excess of the amount thereof as so varied shall be repaid to the requester concerned.
(12) Section 13(1) shall be construed and have effect—

(a) in relation to a case in which a deposit is payable under subsection (6), as if the reference to 4 weeks were a reference to a period consisting of 4 weeks together with the period from the giving of the request under subsection (6) concerned to the requester concerned to the date of the receipt of the deposit,
(b) in relation to a case in which such a deposit is annulled following a review under section 21 or 22 or an appeal under section 24, as if the reference to 4 weeks were a reference to a period consisting of 4 weeks together with the period from the giving of the request under subsection (6) to the requester concerned to the date of the decision under section 24 or, as the case may be, of the giving to the requester concerned of notice under section 21 or 22 of the decision, and
(c) in relation to a case in which an amendment pursuant to subsection (8) has the effect of eliminating such a deposit, as if the reference to the receipt of a request under that section were a reference to the making of the amendment.

(13) Where the amount of a search and retrieval and copying charge under subsection (2) exceeds or is likely to exceed the maximum amount prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) the body concerned shall so inform the requester,
(b) the body shall assist the requester if the requester wishes to amend or limit the request in order to reduce the charges that arise or are likely to arise under subsection (2) to an amount less than or equal to the amount prescribed under this subsection,
(c) if the requester does not amend or limit the request such that the charges that arise or are likely to arise under subsection (2) are reduced to an amount less than or equal to the amount prescribed under this subsection, the body may refuse the request, and
(d) where the body decides to process the request, the requester shall be required to pay the full cost of the charges likely and subsection (6) shall apply.

(14) An FOI body shall endeavour to establish a facility by which payment or refund of any fees due under this Act may be made electronically.".

The concept of a cap, as members of the committee will recall, was first suggested by Deputy Fleming in his Private Members' Bill on freedom of information. Having reflected on the provision further, in light of the debate on the application fee, my assessment is that the same objective can be achieved by allowing a public body make the case, if it considers it appropriate, that a request exceeding the threshold of 25 hours in search and retrieval time, and €500 in fees, is voluminous, and such a request can be refused on this basis under the relevant provisions of the Bill. I propose retaining the €500 cap on maximum search and retrieval fees and removing the provision allowing a public body refuse a request on the basis that the search and retrieval costs to the body would be above €500.

This will complement the further provision included in this amendment to provide that the first number of hours of search and retrieval time be free of charge to the requester, as I have indicated. This is a significant confirmation of the fundamental objective of the legislation to facilitate access to public information to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the public interest. It is my intention after this debate to withdraw the amendment and restate it with the cap but removing the capacity of the public body to refuse to process an application that would involve work beyond the 25 hours or the €500 cap.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take it that what will be the case with amendment No. 53 will also apply to amendment No. 33, in a reformatted sense, as indicated earlier.

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

We are going to restate it in the way I am now describing. I will hold the cap but am removing the notion that the public body could refuse to process an application if it was determined that the volume of work involved would exceed the cap that could be charged.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did the original section in the legislation have the €500?

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

No, it was in the amendment.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister's amendment included the €500.

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

The cap.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a cap.

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

Yes.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very pleased, as that is the figure I recommended in my Private Members' Bill last year, as the Minister acknowledged. On Second Stage of that Bill I detailed the replies of a parliamentary question to every Department on the maximum and average fee charged for search and retrieval. Some of the averages were approximately €7. One or two exceptional cases were in thousands of euro. My concern was when a requester was told a search and retrieval fee would be €3,000. I put in a request once to the Department of Finance and was told that the search and retrieval fee was €1,200, so I abandoned my request. That is how I have first-hand experience and believe there should be a cap. The Department of Social Protection does not charge a search and retrieval fee, as the overwhelming majority - although not all - information would be personal. It is important that in the code of practice, Departments are told that €500 should not be a standard search and retrieval fee. It should be the cap.

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

It is related to hours worked.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps it will be included in the code. I am pleased the amendment is being redrafted. The Minister is essentially indicating that if the search and retrieval fees to get information become expensive and venture into thousands of euro, there may be a way of dealing with the issue by refining the request.

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

Exactly.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is probably why he got into the other issue of separate requests.

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

Sleeping dogs, Deputy.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One follows the other. I know the Minister is withdrawing the amendment but fees and charges are detailed at section 27(5). I tabled an amendment and thought it would be grouped for discussion purposes. Subsection (5) of the amendment indicates:

Where the record or records concerned contains or contain only personal information relating to the requester concerned—
(a) no fee under subsection (1) shall be payable, and
(b) the search and retrieval and copying charge under subsection (2) shall be disregarded unless the grant concerned relates to a significant number of records.

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

That is in the law already.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose that we could revisit that. There is an amendment-----

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

It is only where there would be significant cost and where somebody would have to do much retrieval and copying, etc. It is so the cost could be charged.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has examined the matter and felt the €500 fee was more reasonable than €200, €300 or €1,000. It is a balanced figure. Deputies on the committee may have disagreed in saying that €500 was too high. The Minister has accepted the figure and is establishing a ceiling. It is moot as to whether it should be €500 or a lower figure at this point. The ceiling will give great certainty to people putting in a request, and they will not get a bill for €2,000 or €3,000.

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

It will make the provision I am coming back to all the more necessary.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand how they are linked as one may have to aggregate a request in order to get search and retrieval fees below the €500 cap. That is another issue. Overall, I welcome that the Minister is taking up my suggestion and returning with refined wording.

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

I will give adequate time to the committee to have a look at it.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The committee might discuss the fees issue on its own.

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

That is a matter for the committee.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the change, as I was concerned about amendment No. 53. To clarify, if somebody submits a freedom of information request and the estimated or actual cost is €2,000, the request will go ahead, notwithstanding issues around vexations etc., and the requester would be charged a maximum of €500.

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

I will start from the back. The maximum charge permissible when the Bill becomes law will be €500 but whether the request will go ahead depends on whether it fits the other criteria. If it fits into those, it should go ahead, although the cost - rather than the amount charged - might be greater than €500.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. He is withdrawing this substantial amendment, which has probably received the most commentary over recent days. The paragraph he refers to is 27(13)(c), which states:

if the requester does not amend or limit the request such that the charges that arise or are likely to arise under subsection (2) are reduced to an amount less than or equal to the amount prescribed under this subsection, the body may refuse the request, and

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

Yes.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the cap of €500 inclusive of the €15?

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

No, it is separate.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It could be €515 in total.

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

This refers to search and retrieval fees. They are a separate entity.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will any other changes be made to the amendment?

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

I have indicated my intention and we will get the draft of the proposal in good time in order that the committee can have deep consideration of it before Report Stage.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My understanding of the Minister's intention is that this is the only change being made. The amendment lays out the fees regime.

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

Yes.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is reasonable for us to engage in the rest of the amendment and the issues it raises.

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

We would probably be as well to do it when we see the context of the new draft.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I ask a procedural question? That is fine if we can engage in Committee Stage.

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

That is not a matter for the committee as it would be a matter for the Dáil at that Stage. We can have a good debate on Report Stage.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Or now.

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

Yes.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We could do it now. I am going to be discussing the amendment as it stands but without the paragraph described by the Minister. That is section 17(13)(c), although there may be other bits and pieces.

I and others disagree with an upfront fee for a variety of reasons. The Minister has indicated two reasons to the committee for having a fee regime. The first is that in the current economic reality, where citizens are being asked to undergo much hardship as public services must be reduced in certain areas, it would be unreasonable to take away the fees of the freedom of information regime. A second reason, as given at the start of the meeting, is that this would also help manage the workload when the new Bill comes in. Are these the two reasons for the fees?

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

They are among the reasons. There is a real cost to doing this.

Asking people who avail of a service to contribute to its cost is a principle that I do not disagree with. If we were in the time when, as a Tánaiste of long ago described it, the country was awash with money, we might have a different focus. As of now, we are required to charge for a variety of services, many of which I would like to see to delivered free, but it is reasonable to maintain that principle.

Much was made of my comment about managing the process. That is done to ensure that the service we provide and the expanded requirement that is implicit in the legislation is delivered and that we are not being tokenistic by providing a legislative base for a service that we do not have the resources to provide. In essence, when the legislation is enacted I want to provide the service that we have promised in it.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. The first issue is cost, which comprises two separate aspects. The first is an issue of principle which says that as one is availing of a public service, it is reasonable that one contributes to the cost of or pays for the service. I contend that such a measure amounts to double taxation because we will already have paid for the service through taxes. One would not expect a garda to say to a person who reports a crime that the additional work will incur a fee, or a social welfare officer to tell the person who goes into a social welfare office to get something processed that he or she will have to pay a fee. It is fine that the Minister and I disagree about the matter. In my opinion, access by citizens to information held by public bodies for which they already pay is a service that has already been paid for. I would prefer to see a regime under which the only additional cost - as in international best practice - is a that of reproduction, be it photocopying or whatever. That is simply my opinion.

The second aspect is quite relevant, regardless of one's opinion. Dr. Nat O'Connor has provided analysis that suggests that the revenue generated by charging fees is used entirely to administer their collection. Does the Minister have data on the total projected revenue from the proposed fee structure? Has it been compared with the total estimated cost of administering the fee structure?

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

With regard to the Deputy's first comment, the same argument was made about water charges and a variety of other services - that people have paid their taxes over time, so a service fee is a double tax. The claim that one has already paid for a service is an argument that can be applied at will.

We will bring in a new fees regime but we do not know how much revenue will be generated. As the Deputy can see from the attached schedule of fees, we will charge a fixed €15 fee that has been place since 2003, and we will reduce the fee for appeal, including the review fee and the fee for appeal to the information commissioner. I do not know what the take will be. The cost structure depends on the organisation. It would be onerous to embark on the analysis.

I have not read the TASC report referenced by the Deputy, but perhaps the officials accompanying me have done so.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, TASC.

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

I understand, though I did not hear it myself, that the Deputy mentioned the report during Leaders' Questions earlier. I do not know what that analysis was based on.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is unacceptable to propose a fee structure for a service such as freedom of information without knowing how much money will be generated or how much its administration will cost.

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

How can one possibly predict how the service will be used in the next period?

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Really?

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

Yes.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I suggest that the Minister take the current volume, apply the new fee structure, multiply the first figure by the second one and add. I am not being smart, but one can estimate the projected revenue.

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

We did. We asked for various projections-----

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Everybody is covered under the new legislation, so one cannot assume that the pattern of usage will be the same as at present.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One can still make an estimate-----

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

As the Deputy probably knows, we have established in my old Department-----

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----just to work out whether it is worth the fee.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Excuse me; I ask Deputies to comment through the Chair. They can have their own conversation outside the meeting.

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

Sorry; I thought I was interrupting.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputies had a cosy little chat.

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

The economic evaluation unit found it difficult to make projections. There are all sorts of projections that are very difficult to nail down. In truth, I cannot give the Deputy reliable data.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the Minister give a range of estimates?

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

Nothing reliable.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister could give us a list of State services to which a charge already applies and to which citizens have an entitlement. Citizens pay for birth certificates, planning applications and passports; these are some things to which an Irish citizen is entitled. Perhaps the Minster can provide a list.

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

Sure we all know the list.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What was the take for last year?

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

Does the Deputy mean for the whole system?

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

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

I shall try to get the answer for the Deputy. I do not carry such information with me.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In 2011 it was €85,000.

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

I did not realise that the Deputies would give me information, as opposed to asking me for same. Deputy Donnelly now has the information.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Emily O'Reilly told us.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With respect, I do not believe that is acceptable. It is pretty easy to produce a ballpark figure for the projected revenue from the scheme. One takes the current volume, applies the new fee schedule, makes some sensible assumptions on how the volume will change and comes up with a range. That would mean we would know whether we are talking about €10,000, €100,000 or €1 million.

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

With all due respect to the Chair, Deputy Donnelly is badgering me. I have answered his question.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Minister accusing Deputy Donnelly of being vexatious?

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

No. The Deputy can do his own research. The Information Commissioner annually publishes the factual information produced by the statutory body charged with doing the work.

With regard to projecting into the future, when we establish the new regime, I do not know what the impact will be. I do not know whether there will be a new awareness of FOI, and the broad new range of bodies encompassed might be particularly attractive for FOI, but I do not know-----

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They might be.

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

-----and the Deputy does not know.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know. With the analytical resources available to the Minister for projections of national finances over the next number of years for taxation purposes, expenditure and all sorts of stuff, the calculation would be a doddle.

On the basis that the Minister has no idea how much the provision will cost or whether it will save the State money, and based on the report that says it is almost cost-neutral, it is not unreasonable to say that it is cost-neutral.

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

I answered the questions but I do not want words put in my mouth. Of course if one sets up a new fee regime one expects that it will be a plus to the State. I am saying that there are economic terms for fundamentally altering a regime by broadening the scope in the way that we are doing. It is a structural break and we do not know what the consequences will be. I do not know whether all of the publicity generated will result in vast interest and an increase in FOI applications.

With loads of respect to the Chair, we are saying that this is the regime and one can accept or reject it, but to parse and analyse it in the way the Deputy is trying to do will take us all night and will have little effect. I did answer his question directly.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think it is unreasonable to ask how much money the Minister thinks he is going to get out of a new fees regime and how much it is going to cost to administer the scheme. He may think I am being unreasonable, but I do not think I am badgering him. I think my line of questioning is reasonable.

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

No; the Deputy's comment is entirely unfair. I never objected to his asking the question. The problem is that he rejected my answer.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No; I have not rejected his answer. I said his answer was unacceptable.

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

I will parse and analyse the Deputy's response. He did not reject my answer but said that it was unacceptable. I shall contemplate his response for a while.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We do not know how much the new scheme will cost or how much revenue will be raised, yet the Minister is comfortable making the assertion that it is required even in these challenging times. Clearly, analysis has not been carried out. The Minister clearly said there had been no analysis. Dr. Nat O'Connor has carried out an analysis and concluded that the fees regime was cost-neutral. I do not know whether it is cost-neutral.

If it is cost neutral, the first argument, that we cannot afford to do this because it comes at too much cost to the State, is a nonsense. Maybe it is not a nonsense but the Minister cannot back it up as a credible argument.

The second argument concerns the workload. The Minister said that he is bringing in a new regime and that the fees will help to deal with the workload and the volume. In 2003, the introduction of fees by Fianna Fáil halved the number of freedom of information requests. It is reasonable to assume the fees regime will significantly reduce the volume of requests.

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

It reduced it by 75%.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, it was 75%. It is reasonable to assume that is what the Minister is doing.

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

Again, I am not increasing fees. I am decreasing appeal fees. I am not increasing any fee.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is maintaining a fees regime. There will be fees. The Minister had the option to abolish the fees regime but is maintaining it.

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

Deputy Donnelly says that reducing the appeal fees will have a further impact on altering a regime that has been in place for a decade.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister said that one of the reasons for keeping the fees in place was to manage the workload, to keep down the volume of freedom of information requests.

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

I said no such thing.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister said so at the start of the meeting.

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

I said no such thing. The Deputy is interpreting what I said. I said "manage", I did not say "keep them down". These are Deputy Donnelly's words.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What are the Minister mean by "manage demand"? Did he mean increase demand?

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

If Deputy Donnelly is going to answer his own questions, there is no need for me to be here.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What are the Minister mean by "manage demand"?

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

I have answered that question but I will do so for a third time. It is to ensure the structure is in place to work properly.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will move on to a less contentious issue. It concerns electronic versus paper records. I talked to someone involved in trying to retrieve a record. It was a 400-page document and the answer the person received was that a charge would cover the cost of finding, retrieving and printing a 400-page document. Someone else had seen that the official in question had the document in electronic format. It probably does not happen very often but it is a single example. Is the Minister satisfied there is sufficient meat in the legislation to stop this happening, whereby fees are applied as if documents were paper records when, in fact, the electronic version is available?

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

The current freedom of information regime is patchy, as I said already. We will have a single code of practice and all freedom of information officers will be trained in it. We will have simplicity and consumer focus in respect of training. I have said repeatedly that a freedom of information officer will propose that a document can be sent electronically and ask whether that would be better and have a dialogue about whether the person wants all of it or part.