More than 90 cases of Government Departments refusing access to information under the Freedom of Information Act are being appealed to the Commissioner for Information, Mr Kevin Murphy.
Mr Murphy has deliberated in 10 cases and, barring one, has found in favour of the person seeking information. In one case, against the Department of Enterprise and Employment, he found the individual seeking information about his company was not looking for personal information and so did not believe he had a right to information before the Act came into force on April 21st.
Although statistics are not yet available on the number of people who have sought information, the commissioner's office believes it is about 500. There is likely to be increased interest in the Act next month when local authorities and health boards come within the legislation.
Most applicants would appear to be satisfied with the information given to them. In a small number of cases Mr Murphy has intervened and convinced civil servants to give information.
Mr Murphy, whose role is to ensure the public interest is protected and to adjudicate on appeals against the decision of a public body, said the number of applicants for information "has not been overwhelming".
Many of the requests to Departments have come from public servants, including gardai and prison officers, seeking their personnel files. There have also been requests from unsuccessful applicants for public service or civil service positions, seeking the reasons they were not appointed.
The latter have, so far, been refused. A number is appealing the decision. It would appear they will probably be successful as the only criteria for refusing is that to give the information would not be in the public interest.
The Department of Enterprise and Employment has received a high number of applications, , about 160, half of which were from journalists.
One TD who has used the Act is the Labour Party's Finance spokesman, Mr Derek McDowell. He believes the civil servants have been unnecessarily strict in interpreting the exemptions to allowing access to information.
The Department of Finance has interpreted the exemption allowed for information still part of the "deliberative process" as being all-encompassing.
Rather than use this exemption in exceptional circumstances where it would not be in the public interest to release it, the Department of Finance has interpreted this to always be the case.
In some cases journalists have found reports that have remained as draft reports and therefore can be withheld from public gaze, even though in wide circulation. In one case the journalist used the tried and trusted journalistic method of the leak to obtain the same information.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the civil servants are wary of implementing the clause that allows access to documents that were created before the Act came into effect. This is allowed if it is necessary to understand documents in the public domain that were created after the Act came into force.
A spokesman for Mr Murphy's office said information covering a wide range of issues had been sought. "Topics have been limited only by the imagination of the requesters. That is how it should be," he said.
The process was going "well enough", he said. It has been a huge change. Given the culture of secrecy that existed, the civil servants had adapted. "No one is saying `no, we do not want to operate this act'. "
The Act came into effect for central Government departments and some major public bodies on April 21st. From October 21st it will apply to local authorities and health boards for the first time. Government ministers responsible for both areas are to launch the Act for their areas on different days as part of a Department of Finance campaign to make the public more aware of the legislation and of people's rights to information.