Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I was not sure of the Deputy's intention in tabling these amendments. My Department has communicated with the General Register Office to ascertain whether any difficulties arise in this regard. The office is part of the Department of Social Protection and, as such, it is covered by freedom of information provisions. I note that the committee's report recommended that the General Register Office be brought within the ambit of freedom of information legislation. This is already the case. The legislation will not prevent access to the registers as provided for under the Civil Registration Act. Legislation governing birth, death and marriage certificates held by the General Register Office is laid out in section 61 of the Civil Registration Act 2004. As I stated, we have communicated with the office and I understand it responds to both personal and non-personal freedom of information requests and publishes a substantial amount of information outside the freedom of information request framework. I am assured by the office that it is not aware of any problem in accessing records it holds.

The definition of the term "personal information" in section 2 sets out what, at a general level, constitutes personal information. It is information that would be either known, in the ordinary course of events, to the individual and his or her family or held by the freedom of information body on the understanding that it will be treated as confidential by that body. The definition sets out examples of what this type of information this could entail. It includes such information as relates to the educational, medical and psychiatric history of an individual; the financial affairs of an individual; his or her membership of a trade union; the criminal history of a person or proceedings that were taken against him or her; an individual or a person's entitlement to or claiming of social welfare benefits; or any matter relating to the religion of an individual. This is personal information and is regarded as personal.

Section 37 protects personal information held by the freedom of information body against third party access. Given issues such as psychiatric history, there is good reason this should be the case. A public body has discretion to consider the release of such information to a third party where, on balance, the decision maker is of the opinion that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the right to privacy. Prior to making a decision on any such release, the consultation procedures that are set out in section 38 must be followed. Public bodies, including the General Register Office, must respect the right to privacy in handling freedom of information requests. However, the Bill makes clear that where the personal information relates to the requester, with some exceptions such as medical or psychiatric records, the exemption from the provision of personal information does not apply. Cases could arise in which information of this nature would not be released to the individual in question but to the person's doctor if it is believed it would be in the best interests of the individual in question to do so. As such, there is nothing in the Bill that would prevent the General Register Office or any other public body from giving access to personal information, provided it does so in compliance with the legislation. For this reason, I do not propose to accept the amendments.