Wednesday, 10 Oct 2012

Other Questions

Public Sector Reform Review

Ceisteanna (6)

Bernard Durkan

Ceist:

6. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the extent to which public service reforms embraced to date have resulted in the achievement of specific budgetary targets; if he has identified a means of rewarding those sectors that have achieved the best performance under this heading to date; if programmes of incentivisation to encourage net beneficial reform have shown results or need to be further enhanced; if he expects to be in a position to specifically focus on particular areas that may have given rise to concerns; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43387/12]

Freagraí ó Béal (1 píosaí cainte)

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I am happy to confirm that the public service reform agenda has contributed to the Government's success to date in meeting all the budgetary targets we set under the medium-term fiscal statement of November 2011 and the broader EU-IMF programme. In particular, the move to introduce a medium-term expenditure framework, as set out in last December’s comprehensive 2012-14 expenditure report, marks an important reform in terms of establishing multi-year expenditure ceilings for each ministerial area to guide policy planning over the medium term. As regards the question of incentives for those sectors that perform well in meeting their budgetary and reform commitments, it is relevant to note that the medium-term expenditure framework envisages a new "carryover" facility for Departments that manage their allocations within budget in any year so they can use these savings in the following year. Those Departments that are proactive in driving reform, innovation and structural planning will naturally be best placed to avail of this facility.

As the Deputy will be aware, a key commitment of the programme for Government is to modernise, renew and transform the public service to enhance service delivery and achieve greater value for money. The Government’s public service reform plan, which was published last November, outlines key commitments to radically change the public service in terms of how it is managed and organised and how it manages expenditure. Last month, I published an update on the implementation of the reform plan, which shows that good progress has been made in delivering on the commitments we set out last year. The reform plan is making a vital contribution to the achievement of our budgetary targets. As of mid-2012, public service numbers had fallen by approximately 28,000. The reduction in numbers is delivering major savings to the pay bill, estimated at €3.8 billion by 2015.

I would like to give a couple of examples of the implementation of the reform agenda. A strategic mandate for shared services in the Civil Service has been agreed by the Government and the major sectors are also finalising their own shared services plans. Shared services will eliminate duplication and mean fewer staff and resources will be required to maintain many back-office functions. From next March, Civil Service human resources functions will begin a phased transition to a new human resources shared services centre. All Civil Service bodies will move to this centre by the end of 2014. The Government has agreed to implement the main recommendations of the review of the central procurement function that it commissioned. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, is driving that reform, which includes the establishment of a national procurement office that will be headed by a chief procurement officer. It is estimated by external advisers that the implementation of these recommendations over a three-year period could yield savings of between €249 million and €637 million.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

The Government has also agreed a strategic mandate for external service delivery of non-core processes to reduce costs and focus staff on priority areas. Work is under way to identify and select a number of major external service delivery projects for priority implementation. The four major sectors of health, education, justice and local government will prepare and implement a detailed benefits-driven external service delivery plan in their sectors. These are just some of the major projects under the public service reform plan that are driving greater efficiency and better value for money and contributing to achieving our budgetary targets. As I have said, this is a key priority for the Government. While good progress has been made, there remains a need for management across the public service to further develop their reform plans and drive implementation to build a public service equipped to meet the challenges we face as a country. I will meet the Committee of Public Accounts tomorrow to discuss progress and will also meet the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform in the coming weeks in this regard.

Public Sector Staff Remuneration

Ceisteanna (7)

Seán Fleming

Ceist:

7. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on the payments of salary increases by means of increment to public servants earning more than €100,000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43388/12]

Freagraí ó Béal (21 píosaí cainte)

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Current estimates indicate that those on annual salaries of more than €100,000 represent less than 2% of the 292,000 whole-time equivalent staff who are employed in the public service at present.

Deputy Brendan Griffin

On a point of order, is this question being taken with Question No. 28?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have not been informed of that. It is on its own.

Deputy Brendan Griffin

Question No. 28 also relates to increments and salary differentiations.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

This question is being taken individually. The number of staff on salaries of more than €100,000 who are eligible for increments is much smaller than the number of staff on more than €100,000. With regard to the payment of increments to this cohort of staff, my Department has access to detailed data on increments only in the Civil Service, for which I have direct responsibility. Data for the Civil Service that are available to my Department indicate that of the 31,514 staff in the sector, just 104 staff on annual salary ranges in excess of €100,000 in this sector, or 0.3% of all civil servants, will become eligible for an increment payment next year.

Deputy Sean Fleming

While I thank the Minister for the figures, the question sought to ascertain the Minister's views on the issue. By way of parliamentary question to the Department of Health, I obtained the information that 185 people in the HSE on salaries in excess of €100,000 will receive increments this year. The HSE represents approximately one third of the entire public service so we can assume the overall figure is approximately 500 people across the entire public service, not just in line Departments. This could amount to €40 million or €50 million per annum in increments this year.

All I am asking for is equality and social justice. I am not asking people to take a pay reduction. However, does the Minister think it right that approximately 500 people in the public service, or approximately 2% of the total, who are on salaries in excess of €100,000 should be getting salary increases this year? Call it an increment or whatever one likes, it is a salary increase. The other 98% are not on those salaries and, let us be clear, I am very concerned about equality for the other 98%.

I do not believe the word "increment" is mentioned in the Croke Park deal so I cannot see how somebody can unilaterally say it is part of pay when this has not been tested by the Labour Court. I suggest the Minister would consider the issue. He has taken the issue of sick pay to the Labour Court so why not take the issue of increases to high pay and perhaps the Labour Court will introduce some common sense to this issue? He might consider giving me his views on that small group of people who are getting salary rises.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I am taken by what the Deputy says. Needless to say, it is something I have considered. I have argued in general terms it is an increase and I know people sometimes categorise it as a wage increase. By and large, the great bulk of people who are on increments are at the lowest level, the starting grade, as I have argued. I have looked to whether I could just disaggregate that sector at the top and not pay their increments, and I have taken advice on that. I will be very honest with the House. I am advised it would take legislation analogous to the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation. The two pillars on which that legislation is built are, first, that the legislation has general application and, second, that it makes a contribution to the financial recovery. The problem with targeting a couple of hundred people is that it does not have general application and the money that would be saved could not be argued to make a substantial contribution to national recovery. Nonetheless, there is an equity issue with which I fully agree. Bluntly, I was not willing to risk the entire FEMPI legislation if it could be pulled down by virtue of a case for the tiny sum of money that would be involved in the context of the big recovery programme we have under way.

Deputy Sean Fleming

I am pleased to hear the Minister is personally well disposed to the issue if he can find a legal mechanism to do it. While it is only 500 people this year, it is another 500 next year and so on. In fact, the figure is about 6,000 or 7,000 over a period of a few years.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Some come in and some come out. They have reached the top.

Deputy Sean Fleming

It is approximately 500 this year and I have no reason to believe it will be any less than 500 next year or the following year. If it is €40 million a year, that is a significant contribution over a couple of years. I suggest the Minister might take a case to the Labour Court and see what it decides and whether this can be negotiated. I would much prefer to see the public sector unions defend low paid workers and their increments. If this was taken to the Labour Court, they might see the Minister's point of view.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

It is an important issue. I have an open mind in addressing all of these issues but I want to do it on the basis of what is fair and reasonable. I want to make sure I am not making decisions where the optics look good but which would actually put at risk a far bigger prize in terms of the importance of the FEMPI legislation and the contribution it is making to the national coffers. The total of increments for all staff is €170 million so the Deputy can work out what 1% or 2% of that would be annually, and it is not an enormous sum. As I said, I keep all of this under advisement and I have to tread carefully in ensuring the big prize is not jeopardised, namely, reducing the public pay bill by €3.8 billion and getting all the flexibilities I can. However, I take careful note of what the Deputy has said.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

I absolutely agree the Minister should not even consider using a blunt axe in respect of increments for the very reason he states. The lower ranks, for example, clerical officers, have 13 pay points whereas Secretaries General of Departments have a single pay point - these are the extremes within the system.

This question brings us to the heart of the equity issue I raised earlier with the Minister. If legislation is needed, as he says, he should bring that legislation forward. I am frustrated at hearing continually an argument as to why the upper reaches cannot be touched, whether in respect of pensions or of these increments. The equitable and proportionate thing to do, where one has to make savings in the national economic interest, is to target them at exactly that cohort of people. Rather than making excuses, taking fright or perhaps being captive to the advice of some of his own senior civil servants on these matters, he should grasp the nettle. This will not solve the entire economic problem but it could prevent, for example, the €8 million in cuts to home help and home care packages, which is a worthy thing to do.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I want to ask the Minister a question and I would be grateful if I could get a "Yes" or "No" answer. Would the Minister approve of a higher band of income tax for moneys over €100,000 in Ireland while we are in such difficult circumstances, even for a set period of three or four years?

Deputy Brendan Griffin

It is very important we get as much information as possible in regard to the area of increments, in particular data with regard to how many people are getting increments, what level they are at and in what Departments. This needs to be made available as quickly as possible in advance of the budget and I ask that it be provided across the entire public sector. With €170 million involved, perhaps there is scope for savings to be made which could be distributed towards very needy projects and protecting services for vulnerable people.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I am sure we will have wider space for discussions on these matters at committee. I have discussed this issue with Deputy McDonald in general terms in regard to high pay. She and I differ in that she has an absolutist view that nobody should be paid more than €100,000 in the public service - that is her general principle.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

In a time of crisis, yes.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

My problem with that is that we would not get people to work in certain categories. We would not get doctors and consultants so we would have a private health system, and either the public purse would have to pay to get access to it or there would be an American system-----

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

How does the NHS manage it?

Deputy Brendan Howlin

It pays more than €100,000. We will debate this. I assure the Deputy we are facing real challenges. We have a way to go to get to the 2.9% deficit target. I will certainly keep under advisement all of the issues that contribute towards the very difficult objectives we have.

Deputy Wallace asked about paying tax. What can I say?

Deputy Mick Wallace

The Minister could answer the question.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I am trying to formulate a response. I am not the Minister for Finance and taxation matters are a matter for him. However, I would encourage everybody to pay the taxes that are properly levied by this Oireachtas. Again, taxation matters are a matter for the Minister for Finance.

Deputy Griffin referred to increments generally. All of the information is available in line Departments about the categories of public servant and the amounts each are paid.

Office of the Ombudsman Status

Ceisteanna (8)

Peadar Tóibín

Ceist:

8. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will amend the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill 2008 to extend the remit of the Ombudsman to prisons and all issues relating to asylum, refugees and naturalisation. [43490/12]

Freagraí ó Béal (10 píosaí cainte)

Deputy Brendan Howlin

These issues were, in fact, debated in some detail in the course of the Committee Stage debate on the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill 2010 in the Seanad last week. Since the debate is ongoing in the other House I am not sure how far we can stray into it. I intend to debate as widely as you will allow, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

In relation to the prisons, the Minister for Justice and Equality has confirmed his intention to introduce a new, credible prisoner complaints system to deal with genuine complaints in an open, transparent and independent way. Robust new procedures will be implemented, with priority given to complaints causing most concern, namely, those alleging ill-treatment, use of excessive force, racial discrimination, intimidation or threats. Such complaints will be examined by investigators from outside the Irish Prison Service. Given the proposals of the Minister for Justice and Equality, the Government does not consider it appropriate at this time to bring an action taken in the administration of the prisons for the custody of persons committed to custody by the courts within the Ombudsman’s remit.

The Deputy will be aware that the programme for Government contains a commitment to introduce comprehensive reforms of Ireland’s immigration, residency and asylum systems which will include a statutory appeals system and set out rights and obligations in a transparent way. This is intended to provide for the efficient processing and determination of citizenship applications within a reasonable time period. These reforms will be progressed through the enactment of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010.

The provisions of the Bill will radically reform the asylum and immigration process, including the introduction of a single procedure for the processing of "protection cases" which will allow for all aspects of asylum, subsidiary protection, leave to remain, etc. to be dealt with together rather than separately and in sequence as is the case under the current system. This will streamline and speed up the entire process.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

The Minister for Justice and Equality intends, following the development of key Government amendments to the Bill, to return to the Oireachtas with this comprehensive legislation as the centre-piece of a wider programme of immigration reform. It is his objective to be in a position to bring the new Bill to the Government for approval and publication later this year. In view of his intention to embark on a deep and extensive programme of reform in this area, the Government has decided that it would not be the appropriate time to introduce a review of administrative actions in this area by the Ombudsman. The Deputy should, however, be aware that while it is not proposed to extend the remit of the Ombudsman to prisons and all issues relating to asylum, refugees and naturalisation at this time, the Government has agreed to these bodies being brought under freedom of information legislation. This will play a role in strengthening the openness, transparency and accountability of these bodies.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

That answer is a fudge. Let me quote from the Ombudsman's annual report for 2011.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

The Deputy should not quote at Question Time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald is not allowed to quote at Question Time. She should know this.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

Let me paraphrase it then. I thought it would be more effective to quote directly from the report. The Ombudsman has consistently said the remit must be extended to include prisons and all matters pertaining to asylum and related justice issues. Given that the Minister is a member of the Labour Party with what I understood to be a particular view of these matters, I would have thought he would be enthusiastic to ensure people who are either in custody or going through an asylum, refugee status or naturalisation process would have fair recourse to the Ombudsman. He has said he will initiate various processes, which begs the question as to why he would duplicate a system in place. It does not answer the fundamental issue. What is he hiding? Is he so afraid of what might come out of the prison system or what people within the asylum system might bring to the attention of the Ombudsman that he is making a deliberate calculation to keep them out of the system? That is the only way I can logically account for his approach. It appears that he has buckled under pressure from the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, which is a pity.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

According to the Deputy, I must buckle an awful lot.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

The Minister does.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I do not think so. I have taken great care in dealing with the issue. This is an area in which I have an open mind. The Deputy is correct. It may well be appropriate to include it within the remit of the Ombudsman. I have engaged with every Minister on the extension of the Ombudsman's remit. This is the biggest extension of the Ombudsman's remit taken since 1970 when the office was created. We are adding 140 bodies. I am working closely with the Ombudsman on all of these matters, so much so that she has assigned a member of her staff to work with me in the preparation of the legislation, on which we are working hand in glove. The Bill is before the Seanad and we will have an opportunity to debate the two issues to which the Deputy referred when the Bill is brought to this House. In this narrow area I propose to put in place a proper statutory complaints procedure which has been sought repeatedly by the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention. When we see it, we might need to have another port of call in the Ombudsman. However, we should first examine how such a statute would work. Significant and fundamental reform is under way in the immigration and naturalisation service. Let us see how it beds down. At a later stage it might be appropriate to extend the Ombudsman's remit to include it.

I wish to make two important points in response to the Deputy. The Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill which is before the Seanad is an important part of the reform agenda I am driving. It will place a major demand on the Ombudsman and we are discussing how this need can be met. Not only does it involve a considerable extension in the number of bodies within the remit of the Ombudsman from 35 to approximately 180, we also intend to provide for automaticity in respect of any new body created. Instead of having a requirement for a statutory provision to include a body, the only ones excluded will be the ones specified in the excluded category. Every other body will be automatically included.

I intend to give a role to the Public Service Oversight and Petitions Committee of the House, which is chaired by a colleague of the Deputy and who is a very fine Chairman, in determining who should be included within the remit of the Ombudsman. Its members could well be the ones who will make a judgment call. I will be minded to listen attentively to their decisions once we have the new regime in place.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

The Minister is telling me he has an open mind on the issue. I am trying to read the tea leaves. I take from what he said that he sees the good sense in proposing that the prisons, asylum seekers, refugees and those seeking naturalisation be included within the ambit of the Ombudsman. I am still at a loss as to why, having extended the scope of the office so broadly, the Minister would shield these particular areas from the remit of the Ombudsman. For many of those involved in the asylum process, the system is wholly inadequate and, in some respects, disgraceful. I refer, in particular, to the system of direct provision, on which the Government has made commitments that have not yet been met. For those within the prison system, many of whom are Irish citizens, this sends a message that the light will not shine on whatever complaints are made. The Minister has said he envisages an alternative statutory route being taken to address complaints in the prison system. Why do this? He is all for streamlining, working smarter and doing more with less. Why is that not the case in this regard?

Deputy Brendan Howlin

It is because the reports of the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention which I am sure the Deputy has read call for immediate action to deal with complaints within the prison system. To put it bluntly, writing to the Ombudsman, causing reports to be made and involving inspectors, is a long-term process. What is recommended is the immediacy of a complaints system to deal with allegations of racial and physical abuse and other complaints. That is what the Minister for Justice and Equality will provide for. Providing such a system does not amount to duplication. If it does not prove satisfactory, we could have a further appeals mechanism in the future. People will see having a proper independent evaluation, external of the Irish Prison Service, of any allegation of wrongdoing within the prison service as a necessity in a modern democracy.

Croke Park Agreement Issues

Ceisteanna (9)

Robert Troy

Ceist:

9. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the date on which the Croke Park agreement expires; if he has indicated to the public sector unions if and when talks on a successor agreement will commence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43415/12]

Freagraí ó Béal (5 píosaí cainte)

Deputy Brendan Howlin

The public service or Croke Park agreement negotiated by the previous Government is stated to be for the period from 2010 to 2014. The agreement requires staff co-operation with productivity, cost extraction and reform measures in the public service. The Government has reaffirmed the key commitments under the public service agreement on pay rates and job security for serving public servants. These commitments are contingent on delivery of the necessary flexibilities by public servants. The agreement provides for an annual review process, while the implementation body is charged with making regular reports on the implementation of the transformation agenda across the public service.

No decision has been made by the Government regarding a successor agreement to the Croke Park agreement. The current agreement continues to facilitate, against a background of industrial peace and the maintenance of vital public services at a time of extreme demand for these services, a structured and sustainable reduction in the cost of the Exchequer pay bill through falling numbers and other measures. The implementation body has concluded that the agreement is delivering substantial savings and change, but it will continue to be measured against its ability to accelerate the pace of change across the public service and its potential for extracting further pay bill and non-pay savings. I strongly agree with that sentiment. The priority must be for all stakeholders to concentrate on maximising the contribution of the Croke Park agreement and a successor to the agreement, if any, to the transformation of the public service to enable it to make a continuing and sustainable contribution to our economic recovery.E

Deputy Sean Fleming

I asked a broad question on the Croke Park agreement which, as the Minister noted, was introduced by the previous Government. It has helped to achieve, in industrial peace, the reduction of staff numbers from approximately 320,000 to 292,000 and is intended to bring about savings of some €3.5 billion. It is important to put that on the record because people complain now and ask whether we should cut salaries instead of cutting numbers. Before we started on the formal process of the Croke Park deal there had been pay cuts in the public service as well as new pension levies. On average, public servants are taking pay cuts of 20%, depending on grade. That has been forgotten by current commentators who say there should be pay cuts instead of job cuts. We did the pay cuts, we have made the job cuts but the job is not yet finished, as we all know. Unfortunate as it may be, by and large we are seeing increased efficiencies. I will not go into the exceptions. By and large, public services continue to be provided with fewer staff even though this obviously places more stress on those staff.

Does the Minister have a date in mind in 2014? People keep asking about that. I assume it will be the end of March.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

There is no date in the agreement.

Deputy Sean Fleming

The first annual report covered the period from 1 April to 31 March so one can conclude the same again if it is a four year agreement. Can it extend to the end of 2014? The Minister might clarify that point because people continue to ask that question. Would he be minded to bring forward that date, as some Members on the Government side have suggested, in order to get an earlier deal on which the current Government might stamp its position on the Croke Park agreement? The Minister of State beside the Minister, Deputy Brian Hayes, has referred to this on numerous occasions.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

The Deputy asked a profound and important question. The Croke Park agreement, which I acknowledge was negotiated by the preceding Government, has made a very substantial contribution to the transformation agenda in the public service, allowing us to downsize and reduce the pay bill in the terms I talked about and in industrial peace, which is extremely important and valuable in itself. If we did not have that I believe we would have a different dialogue. The perception of Ireland would be quite different.

However, I am also conscious that we have a way to go yet. One thing that has concerned me for a number of months is that despite the extraordinary contribution of the public service to the recovery we still have very significant hills to climb between now and 2015 to arrive at a deficit of 2.9%. It is clear to me there will be a requirement for dialogue if that particular steep hill is to be climbed. I have been thinking about that and dialoguing within my Department on the issue over a considerable period of months.

The specific running time of the current agreement is understood to be the end of next year although that is not specified in the actual agreement. Whether we engage with the public service unions before that time in regard to a successor agreement is obviously important because the horizon I want to reach is 2015, with a reformed public service and a pay bill that is sustainable well beyond 2015.

Freedom of Information Legislation

Ceisteanna (10)

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

10. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans to introduce the Freedom of Information Bill before Dáil Éireann goes into recess in December. [43494/12]

Freagraí ó Béal (4 píosaí cainte)

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Securing greater public access to official information has a critical role to play in strengthening the openness, transparency and accountability of the Irish administrative and political system. The reform of the freedom of information legislation and its extension to all public bodies is therefore a central pillar of this Government’s political reform agenda. In its July decision on freedom of information the Government endorsed the principle that the Freedom of Information Act would be expected to apply to all public bodies consistent with the original objective of the Act to enable access to information in the possession of public bodies to the greatest extent possible.

Subject to some specific conditions, freedom of information legislation will be extended to a number of high profile public bodies previously entirely outside of the scope of the Act, including An Garda Síochána, public financial bodies, including the NTMA, NAMA, NPRF, and the NDFA, the Central Bank of Ireland, public bodies with important regulatory, quasi-judicial and investigative functions, to include the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Applications Tribunal, as well as vocational education committees which are key bodies in the education sector. Any limitations to its implementation will apply only in the most exceptional cases where there is a clear public interest in safeguarding particularly highly sensitive and confidential information.

The Government has also agreed to significant reforms to restore freedom of information legislation in the following ways: reversing the very broad definition of Government records introduced in the 2003 amending legislation; curtailing the time period within which Government records cannot generally be considered for release from ten years to five years; restoring the discretion available in specific circumstances to release Government records within five years where they relate, for example, to factual information already in the public domain; prioritising the reduction of very high levels of internal review and appeal fees for non-personal requests; and the liberalisation of the mandatory class exemption put in place in 2003.

I have submitted the general scheme of the freedom of information Bill to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform for its views and recommendations. I believe the committee will have an important role in advising me in that regard and I look forward to hearing such advice. When I hear it I will be able to determine the timeframe for producing the final Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is time for just one supplementary question.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

I share the Minister's views as to the great importance of this legislation. My question follows remarks he made today around transformation, renewal and all the rest of it, in the public service. I suggest he reads an article in The Irish Times today by Simon Carswell who tells a very interesting story of a particular freedom of information request submitted by him to both the Department of Justice and Equality and the Department of Finance, in respect of the Personal Insolvency Bill and any lobbying that may have taken place between third parties and those Departments. He got short shrift.

In amending the legislation we must be mindful that government does not hide from disclosure behind technicalities. The challenge, as seen by some within the Civil Service, is to evade answering any questions and being very awkward in terms of how they "re-understand" a question and answer it. The FOI legislation is incredibly valuable but is only so if the system has undergone the kind of cultural change the Minister tells us he champions in order to ensure that the people concerned understand transparency, give the answers and let the information flow.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I look forward to getting the views of the committee, of which both Deputies opposite are members. Separate legislation on the register of lobbying is mentioned in the article in The Irish Times instanced by the Deputy. It, too, is groundbreaking legislation and will be important.

We have to see the entire suite of legislation as a new reform architecture. The last time my party was in Government we were anxious to do that and Eithne FitzGerald, as Minister at the time, introduced the freedom of information legislation, the Ethics in Public Office Act and the Electoral Act. We need to augment these with the lobbying Bill, further freedom of information legislation, the Ombudsman (Amendment) Act and all such others on the political reform agenda that, hopefully, will be enacted in the coming period.

Written Answers follow Adjournment.