Charlie McCreevy (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)

The purpose of this provision is not to restrict information, but to achieve clarity. The meaning of the term "relate to" in section 6(5)(b) of the principal Act has already been the subject of an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act to the High Court in the case of E. H. v. the Information Commissioner. My officials have summarised a copy of the High Court judgment, but Senator McDowell is a lawyer who makes a good fist of tax matters and legal judgments in the House. If the Senator and his good legal friend who advises him can come to a clear position on what Mr. Justice O'Neill meant and if he can provide me with a clear synopsis of the judgment and of how it is to be interpreted, I will recommend the Department of Finance pays him a fee.

The relevant official from my Department has done a great job summing up what he thinks the judgment means and I hope Senator McDowell arrives at the same interpretation. The purpose of this section is to clarify the situation. In his submission to the committee, Mr. O'Gorman was not too clear either. In his statement he said he could not get the information under the existing process. This new section is designed to bring a degree of clarity as a result of the High Court decision.

According to my summary, in the view of the High Court the test to be applied to determine if a record relates to personal information is whether there is a sufficiently substantial link between the requester's personal information, as defined in the Act, and the record in question. My officials have decided that the determining factors identified by the court were the circumstances in which the record was created, the purposes behind the creation of the record – particularly if it was created with the affairs of the individual in question in mind, notwithstanding the fact that the record may not specifically mention or refer to that individual – and what was in the mind of the author at the time of creation of the record, particularly if the requester was in the mind of the author.

Senator Mansergh has paid attention to what was said – he may even have read the judgment – and he is not too clear about it either. I have worked closely with Senator Mansergh for a number of years, and there is no clearer mind in deciphering decisions of courts and experts. I have often preferred to obtain the opinion of Senator Mansergh than many of the legal experts to whom I have paid large fees. This is the best we can make of that particular judgment.