Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator for tabling these amendments. Part of this discussion relates to the issue of the use of the word "may" versus the word "shall". I have made the point that we believe we are using the correct terminology.

In reference to amendments Nos. 73 and 77, the Bill places obligations on relevant bodies to provide a summary of all relevant records it holds, including information to which the application does not relate. As such, the amendments proposed here are not necessary as relevant bodies will already provide a supporting statement in all cases where it makes sense to do so. As I said, there may be a situation where just a single piece of information has been sought or provided. A statement seeking to list all that is being provided is not really relevant in that situation because we are dealing with just one document. However, I made the point during our previous discussion that ministerial guidelines to be made under this legislation will stipulate that an enabling approach should be taken whereby bodies should release information over and above the categories of information set out in this legislation, except where they would be prohibited by law from so doing.

I cannot accept amendment No. 74, which seeks to amend section 27 in order that records to be released would include those held by other data controllers. As I have said when speaking to previous amendments of this nature, to oblige one of the relevant bodies set out under this legislation to search for records held by other data controllers is just not feasible. Tusla cannot be asked to look for records held by another organisation. Such an approach just will not work. As we know, this Bill is carefully constructed in order that applicants apply to the body that holds their particular records. To oblige such bodies to do so, which is what we are talking about by using the word "shall", would be to put a statutory obligation on a relevant body to search for records held by other bodies. It would be resource-intensive and time-consuming and would take the relevant body away from focusing on providing information it does have to applicants who have come forward to it. As we know, the Bill allows for access to records where they are held, and I think an alternative approach would not serve applicants.

I draw the Senator's attention to section 63. Subsection 63(1) states, "The Agency and the Authority shall, insofar as practicable, provide assistance to a relevant person who wishes to". It then sets out a number of categories. Category (b) states, "for the purposes of making such an application, identify a relevant body that may hold the categories of information relating to the relevant person sought by him or her". There is therefore an obligation on both the authority and the agency, where, perhaps, an applicant has come to them and is not able to get information from them, to advise the applicant of other places where the applicant can search for information. That is a "shall". It is an obligation. That is there already in the legislation. That speaks to assisting people to find information, wherever that information might be.