In the programme for Government, the Government promised to restore the Freedom of Information Act.

It said it would extend the remit of freedom of information "to other public bodies including the administrative side of the Garda Síochána [and] all bodies significantly funded from the public purse". The Bill that is currently being considered on Committee Stage does not extend the remit of the freedom of information regime to include the Garda, nor does it include the National Treasury Management Agency, the National Asset Management Agency or the newly formed Irish Water company. Instead, it increases the fees so that it will cost more to get information from the limited areas covered by freedom of information. I am reminded of what the Tánaiste's colleague, the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, said about freedom of information when he was in opposition. He stated:

Freedom of information is not a service, it is a civil and political right. It is a democratic instrument through which citizens exercise their right to hold the Government to account. Charging an up-front fee for freedom of information requests is like charging an up-front fee to vote in a general election.

The Government seems to be ignoring what the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, said. It is breaking yet another promise it made to the people. I ask the Tánaiste to resile from that position, to rectify the situation by including in this system the agencies of State that are benefitting from the public purse and to ensure prohibitive costs are not applied.

I remind Deputy Ó Fearghaíl that it was the parties on this side of the House that first introduced the freedom of information legislation in 1997.

It was.

His party filleted that legislation in 2003.

It was filleted.

We are restoring the Freedom of Information Act to which the Deputy's party did so much damage. Approximately 70% of freedom of information requests are made by members of the public who are seeking information on their own files, etc. No charge at all applies to such requests. The amendment mentioned by the Deputy relates to cases in which multiple applications are made in the same letter. It costs approximately €600, on average, to respond to a freedom of information request. That is taxpayers' money. I do not think it is unreasonable for the Minister, Deputy Howlin, to propose an amendment to deal with an anomaly or loophole that facilitates those who try to make several unrelated freedom of information requests in the same letter or application. As we consider the Freedom of Information Acts, we must strike a balance between the right to information and the considerable cost to the taxpayer of responding to freedom of information requests. Essentially, we are restoring the position that existed before the Deputy's party pulled apart the freedom of information system.

The Government is doing the direct opposite of what the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, said it would do.

The Deputy's party neutered it.