FOI Unit

Houses of the Oireachtas Commission

Kildare Street
Dublin 2

October 17, 2009

Appeal under the Freedom of Information Acts 1997 and 2003

Dear Sir/Madam,

In accordance with the above mentioned Acts, I wish to appeal the decision to reject parts 1) and 2) of
my request. My request sought:

1) A complete breakdown of all expenses claimed by TDs broken down by TD for the following
calendar years: 2002, 2001

2) A complete breakdown of all expenses claimed by Senators broken down by Senator and by the
following calendar years: 2002, 2001

My request was rejected on the basis of Section 10 (1) (c) of the Act, that:

"in the opinion of the head, granting the request would, by reason of the number or nature of the
records concerned or the nature of the information concerned, require the retrieval and examination of
such number of records or an examination of such kind of the records concerned as to cause a
substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of the other work of the public body
concerned".

This rejection is without merit.

My request is limited in scope to two calendar years. The quality of the information I am seeking is
relatively poor, given that the data is tabulated under very broad headings. The quantity of information
sought is also relatively small. No receipts exist or are sought for this request.

The information sought contains information relating to the spending of taxpayer monies. There is an
overwhelming public interest in the administration and spending of expenses and allowances by
politicians. A complete record of expenditure would go some way towards creating a more transparent
system.

It goes to the heart of all democratic values including, openness, accountability and transparency of
dealings. There is a significant public interest in knowing exactly where taxpayer funds have been
spent and by whom.

In Deely v. Information Commissioner [2001] 3 I.R. 439 Justice McKechnie said "that, subject to
certain specific and defined exceptions, the rights so conferred on members of the public and their
exercise should be as extensive as possible, this viewed, in the context of and in a way to positively
further the aims, principles and policies underpinning this statute, subject and subject only to
necessary restrictions. It is on any view, a piece of legislation independent in existence, forceful in its
aim and liberal in outlook and philosophy."

In Sheedy v. The Information Commissioner [2005] 2 I.R. 272 Mr Justice Fennelly said, "The passing
of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 constituted a legislative development of major importance. By
it, the Oireachtas took a considered and deliberate step which dramatically alters the administrative
assumptions and culture of centuries. It replaces the presumption of secrecy with one of openness. It
is designed to open up the workings of government and administration to scrutiny. It is not designed
simply to satisfy the appetite of the media for stories. It is for the benefit of every citizen. It lets light in
to the offices and filing cabinets of our rulers."

I respectfully submit that seeking a complete calendar breakdown, year by year, of the expenses,
salaries and allowances of our public representatives goes to theheart of the Freedom of Information
Act as discussed by both justices. This information benefits every citizen and helps us to understand
how our democracy functions.

The public interest would, on balance, be better served by granting a request for all expenses data
relating to our representatives. This would ensure the resources of the taxpayer are used efficiently
and effectively; it would enable the public to assess the merits and shortcomings of practices within
the Oireachtas; it could potentially disclose where the Oireachtas may have failed to act in an
accountable way and it would be an effective mechanism to maintain public confidence in the
Oireachtas by access to information on their performance of function.

Any attempt to create administrative hurdles to gaining access to this information will only serve to
undermine public trust in the Houses of the Oireachtas, and further damage the integrity of our
parliamentary democracy.

Sincerely

Gavin Sheridan