Madam, - You report in your edition of April 14th that the Government used an early-signature motion to curtail the time within which the President could consider whether to sign the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003 or to refer it to the Supreme Court.
The purpose of the constitutional provision for early signature of Bills is to cater for the enactment of emergency legislation in gravely exceptional circumstances - such as, I would imagine, the invasion of the State.
In the present situation, the Government's furtive truncation of the time available to the President to carry out her solemn constitutional duties suggests that something either very dangerous or very shady was done in the political realm five years ago which must not be allowed to come to light.
What else could explain all the energy and time spent on this regressive piece of legislation, when poor Michael McDowell cannot snatch an hour of parliamentary time to introduce even one of his great raft of supposedly urgently required Bills? - Yours, etc.,
HUGO BRADY BROWN,
Stratford on Slaney,
Co Wicklow.
****
Madam, - Seamus Dooley of the National Union of Journalists complains (April 17th) of the emasculation of the Freedom of Information Act, and of the unseemly haste in signing the amendment into law.
I agree in most respects.
But Freedom of information should apply to journalists also. Few of the public are aware that the union has campaigned, for instance, for divorce, or for the recent increase in the TV licence fee, or is campaigning for abortion, or that certain members of the profession are members also of particular organisations.
The people are entitled to expect that freedom of information is two-way. - Yours, etc.,
DONAL O'DRISCOLL,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.