Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We will come to the levy in Deputy Gould's next amendment but I have not heard a convincing argument as to why they do not come under freedom of information. We know that a lot of freedom information requests do not work anyway. We wait months to get to get answers and on many occasions we get an answer back that it is considered commercially sensitive or so on. A lot of this would not be subject to freedom of information - the basis on which the levy is calculated. I understand that but what would be subject to freedom information is, for example, if a large operator was arguing with the authority that the definition in the Act does not allow it to do X,Y or Z, or it could be the case that the authority says a dominant player in the industry requires that a number of factors would be taken into account, as set out in the legislation. When we name them they have to be taken into account and they have to form the basis of it. I believe that advertising is one of the factors, as I understand it, but a dominant operator may not advertise that much because it is the dominant player. It could argue, therefore, that because this factor is referenced it should have a reduction. None of that communication would be available to members of the public. The authority may decide to side with it in relation to that. I do not understand. All commercially sensitive material is not subject to freedom of information anyway, but ordinary communication between the authority and the individuals should be, if it is not commercially sensitive, or the parts that are commercially sensitive could be redacted. These scenarios could unfold and the public should know about it. We are trying to lift the curtain and let people see exactly what is happening. I strongly support Deputy Gould's amendment.

See this speech in context