Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

I also support the amendments. If we are to believe media reports, which are, unfortunately, the most reliable source of information about this increasingly opaque Government, not only is one of the Minister of State's senior party colleagues in Cabinet having difficulties introducing the civilising influence of café bars but the larger party in the coalition is also reluctant to accept his proposals to reform the libel laws. While some degree of discomfort may arise from the tone of questioning taken by the media or the interpretation of reportage, in a democratic society we should make every effort to encourage the release of information into the public domain. Thereafter, we should use our critical faculties to interpret such it correctly. The same applies to information which comes to light through the Civil Service.

These are considered amendments which do not even go as far as to encourage civil servants to adopt the shout it from the roof tops approach common in some other democratic countries. Both amendments specifically provide that the entity to which the concern is reported should be a person or body with a legal function in respect of the presumed illegality which has been exposed. I fail to see how any Administration with a sincere interest in open government would have difficulty with amendments of this type. Unfortunately, however, a slew of legislation, starting with the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003, has shown that we do not have such a Government.

I am not confident that the Minister of State is amenable to accepting the amendments. If, however, he wants to bring about the type of reforms we require, he would do well to start by accepting either amendment, both of which demonstrate a confluence of thinking. If he does so, he will have taken one small step to improve the quality of the Bill.

See this speech in context