Derek McDowell (Labour)

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 available to the public.

The normal procedure for securing the release of information is that one makes a request which is either granted or denied. In the event that one is not given the information requested, under most sections there is an obligation on the person refusing it to provide reasons for doing so. On those occasions where there is a public interest test, there is an obligation on the Secretary General or whoever is making the decision to tell one why it is not in the public interest to give one the particular information requested. That is a very important guideline and provision which gives a certain amount of security to people making requests. It ensures at least that proper consideration is given to requests because a reason must be given for a request being refused.

Under the 1997 Act there are four sections where there is no obligation on the person making the decision to give a reason or disclose whether the information requested exists. In essence, it is a neither confirm nor deny response. The reasoning behind this is relatively obvious. However, there is a problem with this type of provision because it is not possible to make a serious appeal if one does not know that the information exists in the first instance. It is not possible to test whether something is in the public interest if one is not being told whether such information exists. I understand that some of the existing provisions – such as those relating to security in Northern Ireland, international affairs, etc. – are already governed by the type of neither confirm nor deny response to which I refer.