Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)

I will not accept this amendment as it would mean that a clear pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests from a single requester or a group of requesters acting in concert could not constitute grounds for refusal. The need for such protection was adequately demonstrated by the Minister for Finance in his speech to the House on Second Stage, when he drew attention to the example of a requester who made scores of requests to a single public body within the 18 months of the Act coming into force. These requests alone were estimated to have cost the body concerned in excess of €127,000. Each request from that requester had to be considered as a totally new request and there was no basis for dealing with the reality by linking those requests.

As already stated, the Information Commissioner has oversight and he will look at the meaning of frivolous or vexatious by reference to the Oxford English Dictionary. The commissioner has already stated that repeated requests for the same information with the intention of causing obstruction to the body in its day-to-day operations are vexatious. The central policy unit of the Department of Finance will give guidelines to public bodies on the use of this provision, as it does on various issues on the correct application of the Act.

We have no problem with the example cited by Senator Higgins. If public bodies misuse the provision of the Act it is right for the Information Commissioner to point this out. That is his role and this will not change.