Freedom of Information - does it exist?

[Helium Three]

What are posters' experience of dealing with freedom of information requests?

The question is prompted by the news of the 70 per cent reduction in requests since the price rise.

By the way the UK government is about to be seriously embarrassed by an FoI decision (that would not happen here thanks to our ridiculous Constitutional cloak of Cabinet confidentiality):

UK must release legal advice on Iraq war

Britain's information watchdog today ordered the government to release the minutes of cabinet meetings held in March 2003 at which the legality of war in Iraq was discussed.

"The public interest in disclosing the cabinet minutes in this particular case outweighs the public interest in withholding the information," the office of Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, who adjudicates on contested Freedom of Information Act requests, said.

Mr Thomas was ruling on a request from an unidentified member of the public for the government to release confidential records of two cabinet meetings held between March 7th and March 17th, 2003 - just three days before the conflict began.

The advice of then-attorney general Lord Goldsmith on the legality of invading Iraq was discussed at the meetings.

In 2005, Channel Four news published what it said was the text of a secret opinion by Lord Goldsmith in March 7th, 2003, stating that "a court might well conclude" UN Security Council resolutions did not authorise war without a further resolution.

www.ireland.com - breaking news.

[EvotingMachine0197]

There was an article in one of the Sundays about a month ago, quoting the price of some of that paper's FOI requests. They were running into thousands of Euros for some fairly straightforward requests.

Really only big media can afford any level of ongoing FOI. But at least they can I suppose.

[Geekzilla]

They started charging a few years ago - I remember John Waters writing an incredibly patronising piece about how they had to - ignoring the fact that previously it was paid for out of taxes.

[constitutionus]

havent used it myself but im not surprised the gutting of it that was implemented when FF was returned to power 6yrs ago resulted in such a drop.

we dont have transparet accountable gov. and theyve done everything in their power to ensure FOI is as tough as possible to attain.

its particularly disturbing when you see how many big stories have been broken on the back of it. just look at the parents for justice case recently where we found out some angel in the HSE thought it was a wonderfull idead to stuff the dead bodies of children whos organs theyd plundered without consent with SANDBAGS .

FOI should be strengthened. if only to get tossers like that honest.

[bobbysands81]

There was an article in one of the Sundays about a month ago, quoting the price of some of that paper's FOI requests. They were running into thousands of Euros for some fairly straightforward requests.

Really only big media can afford any level of ongoing FOI. But at least they can I suppose.

Newspapers, and especially journalists, use FoI to do their research for them, it is abused by journalists at times.

There is a search and retrieval fee that is fair.

An individual does not have to pay for information about themselves.

[essexboy]

There was an article in one of the Sundays about a month ago, quoting the price of some of that paper's FOI requests. They were running into thousands of Euros for some fairly straightforward requests.

Really only big media can afford any level of ongoing FOI. But at least they can I suppose.

Newspapers, and especially journalists, use FoI to do their research for them, it is abused by journalists at times.

There is a search and retrieval fee that is fair.

An individual does not have to pay for information about themselves.

Bollocks! two developers and some local councillors are trying to rezone land on my doorstep. The developers have had several meetings with the council planners. What did they discuss? cannot say - "commercial confidentiality". By the time the plan is made public it wil be a fait accompli.
The County Council charged me €15 to tell me that they could not (would not?) release the information. I would have to pay another €75 just to have another council official review the decision, and €115 to appeal to the Information Commissioner. As a pensioner I cannot afford these sums.[/i]

[bobbysands81]

Where am I talking "bollocks"?

It costs €15 to apply, that's not prohibitive, it would have cost the county council far far more than that to process your application, why do you think it should be done for you for free?

The County Council should have given you the papers with the commercially sensitive bits blacked out but the rest of the info intact. Seems your problem is more about the system than the charging.

[essexboy]

In the UK, there is no charge for information that costs public bodies less than £450 to produce. And for central government, the cost ceiling is set at £600.
Members of the public who are dissatisfied with either the response or the handling of their request can appeal , free, to a panel.
Costs are not, normally a major concern of the Republic's public sector and, if they were, there are more pressing areas in which to act.
Fees were introduced to deter the public from asking how policy is made in all of the bodies, which affect so critically our daily lives. And in the case of schools the Government has gone even further: HSA reports on schools are kept secret. Your child could be taught in an unsafe building but you are forbidden from obtaining this information.

[JCSkinner]

There was an article in one of the Sundays about a month ago, quoting the price of some of that paper's FOI requests. They were running into thousands of Euros for some fairly straightforward requests.

Really only big media can afford any level of ongoing FOI. But at least they can I suppose.

Newspapers, and especially journalists, use FoI to do their research for them, it is abused by journalists at times.

There is a search and retrieval fee that is fair.

An individual does not have to pay for information about themselves.

Nonsense, as per usual from you.
Cite one example, just one, of how any journalist has 'abused' FoI.
Secondly, please explain how fees running into hundreds and thousands of euro can be deemed fair, especially when such fees include hourly rates for photocopying and the like which are multiples of the gross hourly pay of those doing the task.

[bobbysands81]

There was an article in one of the Sundays about a month ago, quoting the price of some of that paper's FOI requests. They were running into thousands of Euros for some fairly straightforward requests.

Really only big media can afford any level of ongoing FOI. But at least they can I suppose.

Newspapers, and especially journalists, use FoI to do their research for them, it is abused by journalists at times.

There is a search and retrieval fee that is fair.

An individual does not have to pay for information about themselves.

Nonsense, as per usual from you.
Cite one example, just one, of how any journalist has 'abused' FoI.
Secondly, please explain how fees running into hundreds and thousands of euro can be deemed fair, especially when such fees include hourly rates for photocopying and the like which are multiples of the gross hourly pay of those doing the task.

Ah the sectarian bigot responds to some of my posts!

Journalists use FoI to do their research for them. As a Civil Servant in the 26 counties I think I'm quite well placed to make an assertion such as this.

I'm all in favour of FoI and would like to see it strengthened but I also feel there should be charges to deter frivellous queries... of which there are many.

Many FoI's don't have any search and retreival fees.