Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)

I thank the Minister of State for his response to amendments Nos. 5 and 8. I will withdraw amendment No. 5 based on his clarification of that issue. However, the Minister of State's response to amendment No. 8 is hilarious. I accept it is his personal view that what is proposed would damage the process and that every written document cannot be floating in the public domain. However, the Minister of State might take this issue up with some of his Government colleagues because some Ministers are past masters at releasing early drafts of proposals. We know that happens. All we need do is read the Irish Independent on a Monday morning to note that Ministers float proposals. There is one rule for the board but there will be another one for the Minister.

If what the Minister of State said is his personal view, I accept that, but it is not my view. I do not take the view that it would damage the process in any way to publicly discuss early drafts of proposals. How could it? How could it colour decision making? Is the Minister not capable of making a decision based on the merits of an argument put by the public service? What would be wrong with having a view from another body on the draft of a corporate plan, the views of members of the public in that regard or letters in the letters page of newspapers responding to it? How in heaven's name would that damage the process?

I have a very high opinion of public servants and civil servants. I have worked in a Department and have seen decision making at senior level. I have never seen anybody being influenced by a headline in a newspaper. We can reply on our Civil Service and public service in that regard. However, by inserting what is almost a gagging subsection in this section — we talked about other paragraphs on Tuesday evening which will also have a gagging effect on the CEO — we create a culture of secrecy of which the Minister of State said he is not in favour. We have had an overweening culture of secrecy here. We are not over it yet, in fact, we seem to be desperate to cling to it.

I do not accept for one second that a situation whereby one could have access to early drafts of a corporate plan will make a difference. However, the Minister of State will be aware that by creating a shroud of secrecy around this issue, journalists will wonder — I know this from having been a journalist — why the Government wants to keep it secret, what was in the early draft and if there is any way they can get their hands on it. If the draft is in the public domain, it will not be of any consequence. That is how many journalists would think. If they have access to such a draft, it is of no great consequence. However, if they do not, that is when they want to get access to it.

Failure to make such information available leaves matters open to manipulation. If one learns about part of such a draft and does not get the full context, to which Senator Henry referred, that can be damaging because one can give the impression that a decision was made on a particular basis when it was not. Then the board does not have the option of putting such information into the public domain. The board does not have the option of saying that is not what its members were thinking, if somebody leaks information into the public domain in a twisted, misinterpreted or misunderstood way. These things happen, but there is no way back. There is nothing to be gained from that subsection and leaving it in the legislation could potentially cause damage.