Results 201-220 of 1,683 for speaker:Derek McDowell

Seanad: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (11 Mar 2003)

Derek McDowell: There is a substantive issue at stake in section 6 which deserves serious attention. This section is technically worded and takes time to get to grips with, but it is worthwhile doing so. This is one of those sections that could be used – although whether it is intended to be used or otherwise is another matter – to pull down the veil on a great deal of information that should properly be...

Seanad: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (11 Mar 2003)

Derek McDowell: My difficulty is that it is impossible to know whether the head actually considers the public interest or not. In effect this cannot be appealed as one does not know that the information was withheld. If the response one gets neither confirms nor denies that there was information there, then one is not really in a position to appeal it and obviously one cannot scrutinise in any way how the...

Seanad: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (11 Mar 2003)

Derek McDowell: This is where my difficulty lies. It is almost impossible for someone to appeal a refusal of information if they have not been told that information exists in the first place. If I go to the Department of Finance looking for these budget submissions and the Department neither confirms nor denies that there are such things, how can I test whether or not a public interest test has been carried...

Seanad: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (11 Mar 2003)

Derek McDowell: How could one mount an appeal in those circumstances, when one does not know what has been refused?

Seanad: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (11 Mar 2003)

Derek McDowell: But one does not know what has been refused. Surely when people are making a decision to appeal or not they must have some basis on which to appeal; that means they must have some basis to assess the decision that was made. If they do not know what has been refused to them or they are not even told they have been refused particular information, then they may just be told they are getting nothing.

Seanad: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (11 Mar 2003)

Derek McDowell: Let us come at this from a different angle, as I am getting nowhere with this approach. There must surely be an onus on Government to justify the extension into these three additional areas. The Minister of State has said nothing yet which would justify the extension of the "neither confirm nor deny" provision into these three areas. Why is this being done?

Seanad: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee Stage (Resumed). (12 Mar 2003)

Derek McDowell: We were discussing section 6 which extends the number of areas in which a refusal can be made in circumstances where the head neither confirms nor denies the existence of information in the first place. I spoke to some of the Minister of State's officials yesterday after the debate and they persuaded me that there were some limited areas where it was appropriate to proceed in this way....

Seanad: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee Stage (Resumed). (12 Mar 2003)

Derek McDowell: That is helpful. Is the requester explicitly told that this provision is being invoked?

Seanad: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee Stage (Resumed). (12 Mar 2003)

Derek McDowell: They are mentioned in the explanatory memorandum.

Seanad: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee Stage (Resumed). (12 Mar 2003)

Derek McDowell: There appears to be merit in the amendment. It is possible that a detailed application made to a relatively small section, in which two or three people are engaged, would substantially disrupt its work if staff required two or three days to deal with the information request. To refuse a request, the Act, as framed, would require a substantial degree of disruption to the whole Department or...

Seanad: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee Stage (Resumed). (12 Mar 2003)

Derek McDowell: The provision in the existing Act about frivolous and vexatious applications was open to serious abuse by people who wanted to frivolously make applications but there is not much evidence that that has happened. The report of the Information Commissioner is fair and comprehensive in coming to that conclusion. To that extent, I endorse what Senator Mansergh said because it is important that...

Seanad: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee Stage (Resumed). (12 Mar 2003)

Derek McDowell: I find Senator Maurice Hayes's remarks very interesting. They point to the difficulty that it would be possible for someone to make 98 unreasonable requests but the one on which he is finally refused under this section is reasonable. It would be possible to surmount this by simply substituting the word "and" for "or" in that section so that it would be frivolous, vexatious and part of a...

Seanad: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee Stage (Resumed). (12 Mar 2003)

Derek McDowell: I move amendment No. 3: In page 7, paragraph (c), line 10, after "requester" to insert "made within the previous 12 months". This is a minor amendment that seeks to ensure a person cannot be refused an application on the grounds that he or she previously failed to pay a fee. I concede that it is reasonable to take into account the fact that a person did not pay a previous fee, but there...

Seanad: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee Stage (Resumed). (12 Mar 2003)

Derek McDowell: It relates to paragraph (f) of the original section.

Seanad: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee Stage (Resumed). (12 Mar 2003)

Derek McDowell: Only the failure to pay a fee in the past 12 months should be taken into account when refusing an application, rather than trawling through someone's record in the distant past. In the early months of the operation of the Act, I applied to the Department of Finance for records concerning regionalisation. I received a demand for a considerable sum of money from a section of the Department. I...

Seanad: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee Stage (Resumed). (12 Mar 2003)

Derek McDowell: We make them to oblige the Acting Chairman to defend the Minister and Minister of State, time and again.

Seanad: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee Stage (Resumed). (12 Mar 2003)

Derek McDowell: As I understand it, this section deals with requests where some information is disclosed and part of it is withheld in circumstances where it is neither confirmed nor denied that the latter is the case. It would seem to make matters more difficult in circumstances where part of the information is being disclosed. Is the requester also told there may or may not be additional information which...

Seanad: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee Stage (Resumed). (12 Mar 2003)

Derek McDowell: If I apply for a record and am given part of it, will I be told there may or may not be material which I have not been given? Anybody obtaining records would assume they are getting the full record unless some indication is given that there may or may not be other records which are being refused. Obviously, if one gets something and does not know there is something else, one is not in a...

Seanad: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee Stage (Resumed). (12 Mar 2003)

Derek McDowell: That would be the case where one is clearly being refused part of the records, but what we are dealing with in this regard is a situation where one is not being clearly refused part of the records, where, in respect of part of the records, there is a neither confirm nor deny provision in place. Accordingly, there would not be anything as clear-cut as a blacking out of some information.

Seanad: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee Stage (Resumed). (12 Mar 2003)

Derek McDowell: Is the Minister of State suggesting that can be done later?