David Norris (Independent)

I support Senator Burke's amendment. My concern is that presenting the report to the chairperson alone will create the possibility for the chairperson to withhold all or part of the report from members of the board. No one should think this is a farfetched idea. For example, it happened in the neighbouring island at Cabinet level. It is perfectly clear that the advice of the Attorney General was not made available to the Cabinet concerning the Iraq war. Ten days elapsed between the provision of the Attorney General's report on the legality or otherwise of the Iraq war to Mr. Blair, as chairperson of the board, namely, the Cabinet, and the report being made available to the Cabinet; Mr. Blair deliberately withheld it. A castrated and politically useful version of the report was made available to the Cabinet on a limited basis ten days later.

We have had a situation where the Minister, Deputy Michael McDowell, indicated that, even though he is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, he was not able to get hold of a full copy of the Carty report, which placed him in difficulties. In this very House, the then Cathaoirleach, the late Seán Doherty, lost a case in which I was involved, because he concealed part of a report containing legal advice which indicated that I was right and he was wrong. These are three political examples where parts of a report have been withheld — by a Prime Minister in Britain and a Cathaoirleach in this House and from a Minister.

I would like the Minister to give us a reassurance, if possible, that we could not have a situation where all or part of a report is withheld from the full board. Alternatively, perhaps she will give us clear examples of where it is in the general public interest where all or part of a report should be withheld. I cannot imagine such circumstances but perhaps the Minister has a more fertile imagination than I possess.