Brendan Ryan (Labour)

I record my usual objection to the meaningless provision in section 42(8). How could the chief inspector answer a question in an open manner while, at the same time, not questioning or expressing "an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy"? I would love to dig out a manual on quality assurance, of which I have several in my office in Cork, to find out how one can have a genuine quality assurance system in which a senior manager who is part of the quality loop is not permitted to talk freely about another participant in the quality loop, in this case, the Government. Quality assurance in public provision is not possible without Government commitment and it starts at the top rather than bottom.

In my experience, while most public sector managers believe quality assurance is a great idea for the minions, they are reluctant to operate under such procedures themselves. It is a pity the elaborate academic quality assurance system operating in the institutes of technology does not have an equivalent in the non-academic sections, which are obviously staffed by importantpeople.

To be more apposite to the section, the procedure for resolving a dispute through the High Court appears cumbersome. Section 42(3) states: "The chief inspector shall not be required to give an account before a Committee of any matter which is or has been or may at a future time be the subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal in the State." While I thank God for the High Court, we demand a great deal of their lordships when we ask them to forecast the future. I have no problem precluding matters from discussion when good legal advice shows they have been or will be the subject of litigation. However, the insertion in legislation of the words, "may at a future time be the subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal", is wrong because courts, by definition and as constitutional agencies, exist at all times.

Does the word "tribunal" encompass the Employment Appeals Tribunal? Given that many tribunals are established to perform a specific function, they do not have a permanent institutional existence. For this reason, I am curious to ascertain what the word "tribunal" means in this context.

How does the Minister of State envisage the courts will adjudicate on what may happen in the undefined future? Instead of the words "at a future time", if we were to specify a timeframe of six or 12 months, I might have some sympathy with the provision. However, I would love to know how the courts will interpret it because it cannot be interpreted and is unenforceable. The courts will send it straight back to the Oireachtas asking us to sort it out.