Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I should have said but am happy to do so now that when the Minister appoints directors, they go before the joint committee. That has been of immense use to all sides. It is one of the innovations introduced in recent times that has worked. I think there has been a very strong welcome for the people whom the Minister has sent before the joint committee and there has been useful dialogue between the members and the appointees. I missed the Minister's last nominee, as I was in Belfast with some constituents, but Michael Cawley, his tourism nominee, appeared before the joint committee recently.

As the Minister suggested, I would have to think about the other ramifications of notification. Notification would be sufficient, subject to thinking about it between now and Report Stage. The complaint previously was that there was never notification, except when the commission directed it on its website. The Department did not put it on its website, so the fact the directive had been issued kind of leaked out, for example, when people like Paul Gorecki of the ESRI were doing research. I will think about it between now and Report Stage. I thank Senator Darragh O'Brien for his support.

The amendment is in line with the Minister's general approach of openness, which is the spirit in which it was put forward. Government behind closed doors is not a good idea. It would take the secrecy out of it because members of the committee could tell people. It would no longer be a secret and would probably lose its value as the term "top secret" would not be on the document. The wisdom the joint committee would have would be able to respond to the directive.

As I said earlier, I was hoping the era of secret direction of State companies by Ministers when security of the State is not a concern would end. There is nothing to be lost by involving people in the decision.

For today I will withdraw this amendment and consider an appropriate form to achieve what we want on Report Stage. This has been an interesting review of it.

As Senator O'Brien said, this Minister has a philosophy that we like but he may not be in his post forever. His successor may have other thoughts on the need to keep things secret, in which case we would like to constrain him with our amendment.