Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

All three clauses covered by this first amendment are to do with facilitating good and consistent government. The problem with the word "may" as opposed to "shall", although I accept that it would prevent the release of information only rarely, is that it implies an element of discretion: it opens up the possibility of people reaching different decisions on similar cases. It is about clarity and consistency of practice in government.

I agree with the points made by Senator Higgins about how government has become more complex, with pre-discussion of issues and differences. The essence of this Bill, for the most part, is consistent with freedom of information also having freedom of deliberation. The difficulty is that if everything right up to the discussion at Government level went out to the media, differences would be blown up. It is entirely natural to have differences between a Minister for Finance and any other Minister, the Minister for Health and Children being the most current example, but it could be made out to be a deep, personalised rift. Differences such as this are absolutely normal.

At the committee tomorrow we will hear distinguished public servants who have an interest in good government speak about whether there should be a space in which people are free to discuss and debate without differences being distorted or exaggerated. This puts an onus on them because, if all this is going to become public immediately, it may distort behaviour as people believe they have to cover themselves vis-à-vis one constituency or another.

Senator Henry made some comments about the first few lines of page 28. In practice the pre-discussions of Government decisions involve senior officials and occasionally non-senior ranking experts in a particular field. This is not a blanket definition that covers everyone, down to the most junior entrant to the Civil Service.

The word "solely" is too restrictive. This is a question of practicality. The amendments are informed by the experience of operating the Act over a four or five year period and clearly the word "solely" is too restrictive. The notion that the public service and the Government want to drive a coach and four through the legislation is untrue. There are clear safeguards against the abuse of the legislation. No one can muzzle the Information Commissiner or stop him making strong comments about refusals. I do not see the dangers because there are safeguards built in.