We are halfway through the Committee Stage debate on the new freedom of information legislation. I accept that the new Bill contains some meaningful reforms. Unfortunately, all of the potential good that the Bill could do will be eradicated by the changes in the fees regime. I believe the Government set out to do the right thing. I remind the House of what the current Minister, Deputy Bruton, said in 2003 when Fianna Fáil sought to eradicate the then freedom of information regime. He said there should be "a right to make requests without a fee upfront, with a person only paying for the cost incurred by his or her request". In the same year, the current Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, said "it is abundantly clear that the fee is primarily intended to discourage requests being made in the first instance".

He has changed his mind.

In 2008, when the current Minister of State, Deputy White, was a Member of the Seanad, he said "the presumption in any democratic society...should be to make the information available". He argued that "it is not good enough for a Minister to point to the extraordinary cost or how onerous it is on us". The changes that are proposed in this legislation are contrary to the position of the UN Human Rights Committee and the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents. International experts are no more ambiguous. Article 19, which is a human rights organisation that focuses on freedom of information, has said it "strongly opposes the current Irish policy...as well as the pending bill before the Dail to expand fees". It believes it violates international law. According to a Canadian journalist and author, Cory Doctorow:

Irish politicians have taken extraordinary measures to protect the state from the people finding out what it's up to. This is alarming on its face, and would be bad news even if Ireland was a paragon of good governance, and not a nation in economic meltdown.

The Government's new Bill introduces a range of new charges and impediments. It retains the up-front fee of €15 for non-personal records. It provides for a retrieval cost of €21 an hour. It introduces multiple fees for multifaceted requests. It introduces multiple fees for single requests that have to go to more than one functional area. It retains a fee for internal appeal and a fee for appeal to the Information Commissioner. In short, the freedom of information legislation that is before the committee will make freedom of information more expensive. Why is the Government increasing freedom of information costs even though domestic and international experts are clear and unanimous on how bad that is? We have unparalleled information on how and why secrecy is bad in this State.

Can the Minister, Deputy Bruton, answer that?

Thousands of national and international experts have been available to us in respect of many matters.

Just answer the question.

It is quite incredible. They have been telling us what is going to happen about the economy and various matters relating to Europe for a long time.

What does this have to do with the question?

Sometimes, experts do not get it right either.

Present company excluded.

Deputy Donnelly's first point is correct here. Along with his Government colleagues, the Minister, Deputy Howlin, has extended the remit of the Freedom of Information Acts to a range of areas that were not covered before. I think that is welcome.

The Minister, Deputy Bruton, has done a U-turn.

It should be borne in mind that 70% of applications received by freedom of information offices relate to personal matters and are therefore dealt with for free. It should be recognised that the first two hours of analysis of any freedom of information request is done for free. If the issues involved can be dealt with in that timeframe, there is no charge at all. Many freedom of information officers have informed me of the current position, which is that a page asking about a certain issue might contain a further 20 or 40 requests that are hidden behind the first request. It can take a great length of time for the relevant official in the relevant Department to deal with it. An itemised charge will apply in such circumstances if it takes more than two hours to deal with each item and if the matter in question is not of a personal nature. Dealings with such matters will of course remain free. When I was on the other side of the House, a Deputy submitted a freedom of information request relating to a justice matter and the estimated cost of dealing with it was over €9,000. It was a very complex case going back a number of years.

What happened in that case?

People are fully entitled to send in freedom of information requests. When lists of things that are completely unrelated are sent in on a single page, the view taken is that each separate matter constitutes a separate request. If it takes less than two hours to deal with any of those matters, or if any of them relates to a personal matter, there is no charge. It is a case of reflecting that reality. The freedom of information regime is being extended to reverse the measures that were introduced some years ago with regard to Cabinet records, communications between Ministers, the scope to withhold all records pertaining to the deliberative process and the mandatory blanket extensions that apply to security, defence and international relations matters. The new freedom of information Bill reverses a great deal of these measures. I think that is in the public interest.

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. Unfortunately, he did not answer my question. The only rationale we seemed to get from the Minister, Deputy Howlin, yesterday was that at a time of economic hardship, we cannot make freedom of information, which is an essential part of any modern democracy, free. We have received a very thorough report from Dr. Nat O'Connor which estimates that the cost associated with charging money in these circumstances is at least as much as the money that is received. That is before many of the savings that are made on foot of investigative journalism are factored in. As we know, such good work saves the State millions of euro. There is no argument that says we have to charge fees because it costs money. The amount of money it costs to charge the fee is as much as the fee itself. Therefore, my question stands. If the State does not get a cash benefit from charging citizens to access information, why are we charging them? Why is the Taoiseach standing over legislation that will increase the cost of people getting that information? That is the question.

Freedom means free.

As I said, 70% of the claims that come in relate to personal information and are therefore dealt with for free.

This is a power grab.

If it takes less than two hours to deal with a freedom of information request about a single issue, there is no charge.

That is why it is called freedom of information - it is free.

The legislation makes it clear that in the case of a single request, if other requests are made on the same page and are related to the initial request, they are all seen as part of the same claim. It appears that significant numbers of claims that include various unrelated matters are being made. Other countries that are deemed not to have upfront charges have other charges during the process. I think I should repeat that we have changed elements that were blocked off before.

Not the semi-States.

The areas that were off limits for a long time include the National Treasury Management Agency, the National Asset Management Agency, Garda Síochána, refugee agencies-----

Deputy Finian McGrath was in government with Bertie when that happened.

-----and a very broad range of quasi-judicial bodies to which freedom of information only applied to their administrative records.

It should not be called freedom of information if it is not free. That is about the size of it.

That is all being opened up.

The Government will be charging us for parliamentary questions next.

As the new legislation takes effect, given that the average cost of retrieving information is about €600, a €15 charge is relatively small.

It is not free; it is not freedom of information.

It is centralising power.

I believe that when people make claims, they focus on a single issue with related matters or a series of different issues. That is the reason the legislation is framed as it is in extending the remit of freedom of information.