Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 36, lines 25 and 26, to delete “to the appellant subject to such redactions”.

This amendment is on transparency. I thank Deputy Barry for his support and remind him that it is entirely possible for him to submit his own amendments rather than to be disappointed in me deciding to withdraw mine but we can talk about that another day.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are broadly similar. They are about sparking a discussion and debate on transparency, which, as I said, is very much in vogue. Section 46 is on the treatment of certain material of relevance to security or public order of State in appeal against decision under section 4. On the treatment of evidence in appeals against the decision of an adjudicator specifically, will the Minister of State outline why the information in question would be redacted? How does that square with the commitments he is giving on transparency, bearing in mind that we are not immune to what is going on outside the Houses? I understand that this may not be the most-watched committee proceedings of the day but people are talking about transparency. A report has just been published. While I will not refer to it in detail, significant annoyance was expressed by Members of the Dáil and others outside because substantial chunks of relevant information had been redacted. The proposal in this section is that some of this information would be redacted. Parts of the Bill are specifically designed to include transparency and remove secrecy. All I am seeking to do is put that into this section. There should be no secrecy around the appeals process. It strikes me this process, of all the measures, should be the most open and transparent. Why would the information I have referred to be redacted and how does that square with the commitment to transparency?