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

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 11, line 11, after “law” to insert the following:“, save where such disclosures may be deemed to be in the public interest, particularly where such disclosures are made in the interests of sustainable forest management”.

This amendment concerns disclosures and confidentiality. One could call it a whistle-blower's amendment. Section 9(1) states: "Save as otherwise provided by law, a person shall not, without the consent of the Minister, disclose confidential information obtained by him or her while performing, or as a result of having performed, duties as a member of a committee unless he or she is duly authorised to do so." Therefore the Minister has the right to silence or impose confidentiality on the committee. That may or may not be justified in some circumstances, but that power for the Minister to impose confidentiality has to be qualified. My amendment provides that it should be qualified "save where such disclosures may be deemed to be in the public interest, particularly where such disclosures are made in the interests of sustainable forest management".

This is important because, as we know, we have had too much secrecy in State institutions in general, which has cost our society dearly in a range of institutions and sectors. They include the financial sector, schools, churches and various State institutions. The secret society approach to running an economy, a society or a state has to end.

This is something the Government has indicated should happen. We need greater accountability and transparency, and to encourage whistle blowing when it is in the interest of society. It follows logically that the Minister should not have the power to unconditionally impose confidentiality clauses. If a member of the relevant committee believes it is in the public interest and in the interest of sustainable forest management to blow the whistle, he or she should not be prohibited from doing so. That is a general reason why the Government should accept this amendment.

There are concerns about the decision making process in the forestry sector, particularly by the biggest owner of forests in this country, Coillte, and its impact on the national forest estate and adjoining communities. The Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, has pointed out that a lot of people are doing a lot of good work in Coillte. I recognise that Coillte employs a considerable number of dedicated people who love what they do and care passionately about our forests. However, one could say that about many dysfunctional institutions. There were lots of good people in the church and I am sure they did a lot of good work. There were also some not so good people who did terrible things. The culture of secrecy meant that whistles were not blown when terrible things happened.

This is an important debate. I did not get an answer to my question on why Coillte is not subject to freedom of information. The Minister of State indicated that the Bill is not about Coillte but it is about forestry and Coillte owns half of our forests. It is by far the biggest owner of forests and it has a decisive influence on forestry nationally. It is odd, therefore, that it would not be subject to freedom of information. In the debate on Irish Water, the Government conceded on its initial plan to exclude that company from freedom of information. I do not see why the same argument should not apply to Coillte. Why would it not be subject to freedom of information?

The Minister of State also did not respond to my point that Coillte employees have a confidentiality clause, which means that if they are concerned about certain aspects of what might be happening in the organisation, their contracts of employment precludes them from speaking about their concerns. If we want to give strength to the many good people who work in Coillte, we need to give them legal backing if they decide to speak out about what is going on in this big organisation, which controls 7% of the landmass of this State. The argument that we need greater levels of transparency and accountability is unanswerable. Any power the Minister might have to impose confidentiality has to be qualified in the way this amendment suggests.

See this speech in context