Freedom of Information requests will cost €15

Cork

Originally posted by bonkey
And if you want to see that your elected officials aren't abusing their positions, etc....you have to pay for it?

jc

Good point, but they should be checks & balances within the system to ensure that this not happen.

It should not be the responsibility of individual citizens of this country.

Sparks

Cork,
I'm actually impressed - you managed to acknowlege and ignore my point in the one sentence!

It may not be an additional service but they are associated costs.

Quite correct. And we pay those costs already, because we pay the salaries of the civil servants doing the work. We did before the '97 act, we did after the '97 act and we do now, after the amendment. The civil servants weren't being paid more because of the work. And frankly, you don't charge more for a fundamental service, you include the cost as part of your fundamental operating budget.

Charging will only ensure that Freedom Of Information is not duly abused.

The charges themselves have been described as an abuse of the FOI act by the FOI ombudsman allready. They don't prevent abuse - they simply discriminate between those entitled to the service on financial grounds.

Good point, but they should be checks & balances within the system to ensure that this not happen.

Really? Well, gosh darn it, why didn't I think of that? A system of checks and balances to prevent corruption! Why, we must tell the world - just think, they could institute that in every nation and end corruption forever....
:rolleyes:
Sorry Cork, but that was really weak

It should not be the responsibility of individual citizens of this country.

On the contrary. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" and all that. Or our version, "you get the government you deserve"...

Originally posted by Sparks
The crucial point however, is that that service is not an extra service - it is part of their fundamental duties, or at least should be - which is the principle that the 1997 FOI act codified.

It is an extra service, in that Civil servants/front desk staff are doing an extra job since 1997.
In the meantime personal taxes haven't gone up to pay for this job.
Exchequer returns may have merited overlooking this up to recently, but they certainly don't now.
I'm saying there, that it is an extra service, for the money we are providing to the government in personal taxes,( as they weren't doing this prior to the enactment of FOI ) but not disagreeing with your assertion that FOI should be part of their duties.
mm

Sparks

It is an extra service, in that Civil servants/front desk staff are doing an extra job since 1997.

In that very strict sense, yes. But in the sense that this is a service provided above and beyond their standard duties - it is not an extra service and should not be referred to or though of as one.

In the meantime personal taxes haven't gone up to pay for this job.
Exchequer returns may have merited overlooking this up to recently, but they certainly don't now.

So raise personal taxation. That's a non-discriminatory means of funding the service. And frankly, I doubt that the FOI fees are being ring-fenced to go into civil service paychecks.

I'm saying there, that it is an extra service, for the money we are providing to the government in personal taxes,( as they weren't doing this prior to the enactment of FOI ) but not disagreeing with your assertion that FOI should be part of their duties.

Then the obvious thing to do is add the FOI costs to the budget prior to determining the necessary tax take for the year.

Originally posted by Sparks
In that very strict sense, yes. But in the sense that this is a service provided above and beyond their standard duties - it is not an extra service and should not be referred to or though of as one.


So raise personal taxation. That's a non-discriminatory means of funding the service. And frankly, I doubt that the FOI fees are being ring-fenced to go into civil service paychecks.


Then the obvious thing to do is add the FOI costs to the budget prior to determining the necessary tax take for the year.

Mostly agreed on where you are coming from on this issue Sparks.
The thing is though , you will not get any politician in the main parties to persue rising taxes.
They may hint at it, but it leaves them too open to being described as a party of rising taxes, exposing them to a potential drumming at the ballot box.
One of the issues here, is funding, whether it be a relatively small service like the FOI, or something Huge like the health service.
You can pay for extra work either through effeciencies,raising taxes or more borrowing.
Government organisations can be very bad at the first, and the other two both take money out of the public's pocket and the public don't like that.
I can see, a typical politician asking themselves, when deciding how to pay for an extra service, will we raise taxes or charge the user for it.
The latter is easier, especially if , the charge, isn't going to impact too much on the ordinary citizens pocket,in the way a tax rise would.
mm

Sparks

Man,
Yes, but those aren't valid reasons to charge people for FOI requests.

Well, it's not dissimilar to the bin charges issue, what with much more rubbish being collected and the bin men getting higher wages.
Or the fact that you or I have to pay a road tax,or paying to take out library books, or hospital charges.

It's valid if the people find it more acceptable, if you pay in relation to your use of certain services provided, rather than pay extra taxes for an enhanced or extra service you mightn't use at all.
It's well mooted that people might find increased personal taxes to improve the public health service acceptable ( subject to effeciencies of course ), but would they agree to an increase in taxes to specifically pay for FOI requests, I'd think not.
mm

gandalf

Man as far as I'm concerned the majority of the civil service is inefficient, over populated and underworked (this is based on my dealings with them on a personal and professional basis). The amount of work that goes into the FOI requests that I would engage with them for is minimal.

On one occasion a FOI response I got was a printed out email from the IT Department to the FOI officer. Most of what I am looking for is available with 1 or 2 emails or memos. If I and the company I work for have spent time and money responding to their requests for tender we should not have to spend money to make sure they are running these competitions in a fair manner.

To charge for FOI is a pathetic, is this governments first move to hobble FOI requests which is hardly surprising as they are about to hobble the tribunials as well. Looks like there must be some interesting material about to surface in the near future.

Actually has anyone any figures on how much FOI requests have cost the country since it was brought into effect?

Oh and Cork what "checks & balances within the system" would you have to ensure politicians and people in public positions did not abuse their power? AND NO BLOODY SOUNDBITE ANSWERS !

Gandalf.

Cork

Originally posted by gandalf




Oh and Cork what "checks & balances within the system" would you have to ensure politicians and people in public positions did not abuse their power? AND NO BLOODY SOUNDBITE ANSWERS !

Gandalf.

Well, the Dail. TDs question time in the Dail.
Social Partnership- the trade unions can get information.
& the Controller & Auditor General looks at government expenditure.

Apart from the above we have the Ombudsman & Michael McDowells subsitute for investigating various topics which will proove more speedy and less costly on taxpayers than the current system.

& personal information will remain to be FREE.

Sparks

Well, the Dail. TDs question time in the Dail.

Acknowleged by all the Opposition as being a bit of a joke really, as all that happens there is that TDs wander in, read prepared speeches and avoid questioning. Even Leaders Questions is a highly artifical and rather limited affair. The closest the Dail's been to a debate in recent years is when Joe Higgins gets into a slagging match with Michael McDowell over whether or not Stalin's USSR was an example of Communism or Stalinism...
And even in the Dail, as we've recently seen over shannon's usage by the US, it's not a given that an answer to a straight question asked in the Dail will be truthful.

Social Partnership- the trade unions can get information.

Through the FOI act?

& the Controller & Auditor General looks at government expenditure.

So you want to take a system that lets the entire country look at how the government works and replace it with two guys that are politically appointed?
Why, do you you think the EU needs an Irish Berlusconi to match it's Italian one? :rolleyes:

Apart from the above we have the Ombudsman

Whose power has been "adjusted" in the amendment

& Michael McDowells subsitute for investigating various topics which will proove more speedy and less costly on taxpayers than the current system.

Attributes shared by Guantanamo Bay. I'd like to see more details to McDowell's "star courts" before I state that I support them.

& personal information will remain to be FREE.

Really? Well, whoop-de-dooo-da. You mean information about me is going to remain freely available to me? Wow.
:rolleyes:

Cork

Oh - I forgot Emily O reily - Information Commissioner.

Go into the government publications office - you'd expect to pay for most publications.

But, people expect to pay for publications in the Government Information Office & the very same government should provide them with non personal data under the Freedom of Information Act.

The government is right to charge for services that it provides while allowing people to access [personal information without charge.

Sparks

Oh - I forgot Emily O reily - Information Commissioner.

From here:

The Information Commissioner has warned that new fees for appealing decisions under the Freedom of Information Act could act as a 'financial disincentive' to people exercising their right of appeal.
In a statement, Emily O'Reilly said the scale of charges may distort the level playing field provided for in the Act, and runs counter to the Long Title of the Act which says its purpose is to enable members of the public to obtain access to information to the greatest extent possible.

Go into the government publications office - you'd expect to pay for most publications.

Yes - and don't get me started on that. I've no problem paying for the printing costs, but I think the americans have the right idea here - any document their government produces is by law the property of all US citizens. It should be likewise here - otherwise, we're paying for the civil servants to produce the document, and again to get access to it.
Hell, just make the damn .pdf or .doc available online!

But, people expect to pay for publications in the Government Information Office

People also expect to be attacked if they walk through some areas of Dublin at night - neither their expectation nor their being accustomed to it makes it right or desirable, nor are they excuses not to fix the problem. Likewise here.

the very same government should provide them with non personal data under the Freedom of Information Act.

Yes, because they paid for that infomation to be produced in the first place. Dunno 'bout you Cork, but if I pay for something I feel I have a right to see it.

The government is right to charge for services that it provides while allowing people to access [personal information without charge.

Indeed, they must charge to prepare the information. Thing is, they're doing it twice - once through income tax, and then again through fees. Now if a company did that, they'd be shut down.

Cork

Well, Spanks - Good Point.

More information should be available online.

I am in complete agreement with you on this. Excellant Idea.