Call for cut in FOI fees rejected

MEMBERS OF the Oireachtas Public Accounts Committee got more information about expenses in the State agency Fás through freedom of information (FOI) requests than from documentation the agency supplied directly to the committee, the Dáil was told.

Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny said that was a justification for the FOI system as he called on Brian Cowen to ensure “State bodies provide the fullest possible information when freedom of information requests are made”.

He raised the issue as the Taoiseach rejected calls for fees for FOI requests to be reduced to a flat rate of €10 for requests, reviews and appeals.

Sinn Féin Dáil leader Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin also called for the implementation of a recommendation by the Information Commissioner to end charges for requests and appeals. “In light of the scandals in banking and Fás” he said it was the “absence of scrutiny that has given rise to much of what we have witnessed”.

Requests cost €15, which Mr Cowen said was “modest” when the administration cost of processing a request was estimated at an average of €485.

Earlier, Mr Cowen said he would consider a call by Labour leader Eamon Gilmore that there should be a “wall” between a Minister responsible for a scheme of expenses and any agency implementing the scheme. However, the Taoiseach said “why not have greater transparency from the State agency in the first place”.

The Labour leader said it was “not a good idea that a Minister who has a statutory responsibility to approve a scheme of expenses, should himself be the beneficiary of an expenses regime in the State agency concerned”.

Mr Gilmore pointed to the controversy surrounding expenses at Fás, including travel by the Minister for Enterprise on Fás trips paid for by the State agency.

“Where a Minister is invited on a mission of some kind by a State agency, the expenditure incurred by the Minister and his or her staff should be accounted for in the department’s own budget” and be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This would distinguish between the agency’s spending and “the extent to which Ministers benefit”.