Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I wish to speak to amendment No. 15, which really deals with the same issue but elaborates further on it. It was put forward by the environmental pillar but goes beyond environmental issues in terms of freedom of information. It refers to public bodies, not excluding the semi-State bodies. The particular concern of the environmental pillar is that the semi-State bodies have an enormous impact on our natural environment, our amenities, on biodiversity and other important areas of public interest. To exclude organisations like Coillte, Bord na Móna and others is unacceptable in their view and I completely agree with them. We have debated at length at other committees, for example, the goings on inside Coillte, notwithstanding the fact that many of us campaigned against its privatisation. There are real issues involved here. I do not see a good reason for their exclusion. The Minister has argued that it is about commercial sensitivity and competing in a commercial environment and so forth but that is not a good enough reason to insulate these very important bodies, which have such a huge impact on our society and our environment, from the provisions of the freedom of information legislation. This amendment has been tabled in that context.

I wish to make a philosophical point regarding our earlier discussion with the Minister. The inevitable logic of the Minister's argument is that if an entity or body is operating in a commercial environment, secrecy is justified. That means that the more we commercialise areas of endeavour in the economy, the more secrecy we have and the less access ordinary members of the public have to information. To put it in very simple terms, it means more privatisation, more secrecy, less accountability and less information. The Minister's argument is an admission of that. He is admitting that privatisation equals secrecy, lack of public oversight and an erosion and undermining of democracy. I believe that is actually the case but surely that is not something we should accommodate. Surely we should be doing the exact opposite of accommodating the proposition that commercial activity insulates commercial entities from any requirement to be properly accountable, transparent and open to scrutiny by members of the public.