Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 189:

In page 24, line 2, to delete “to which the application relates only”.

This is similar to what we were discussing, so I do not wish to be repetitive. One of the key things in this regard, however, is what people might interpret as information "relevant to health". As Deputy Ward said, when I read this provision I see it as potentially restrictive. The Minister, though, has said that he sees this as referring to the health of the person concerned and that he or she should be able to access all of his or her information. Since the subject access request forms have been available, I have found that my constituents seeking information have achieved a good level of success with them. I have encountered one or two cases, however, and I have contacted Ms McGarrigle a few times in this regard, where people have received documents where everything has been redacted. I have come across people who had been looking for records for 40 years and got them and it was fantastic and great that they were able to get that information. I have also met people, however, who were left much more frustrated when they got ten or 12 pages of information, but where only three or four lines were intelligible because so much was redacted. In those cases, people tend to ponder what information exists about them because they wonder why so many pages have such little information.

I gave that example to show what can happen when something is potentially left open to interpretation and how one group of officials can respond to a request by deciding to agree to give all the information, while others can refuse and decide they do not believe the person making the request is entitled to the information being sought. That is why we are so focused on the language of "relevant to the health" of a relevant or qualifying person and this is important. It reads to me and others as if information may only be relevant if people know what they are looking for. I refer to a situation where a person might potentially have a diagnosis of cancer or could be going for a battery of tests, but is not yet 100% sure of the prognosis. It is for that reason that we are so focused on this aspect of the legislation.

The Minister might say something different about this phrasing, but I think it is still open to interpretation. I do not want to go over everything we have said again, but this is why, similar to what Deputy Bacik said earlier, we believe the provision of information should not be restricted to it being "relevant to the health" of a relevant or qualifying person. It is, unfortunately, open to interpretation and it would be possible to have very willing and accommodating officials, but, equally, other officials who might think very differently. That is why we believe this is the opportunity to ensure that the legislation is strengthened in that regard. If the Minister is of the same belief, I do not see why he could not accept some of the amendments in this grouping.