Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)

We have reformed functions and created a new Department, the business of which will be to reform the way public business is done. Senator Jim Walsh is right that we need to learn from what happened in the past and the appalling mistakes made in recent years. That is the clear intention of the Government in its programme for Government, this legislation and the statement the Minister made that he intends to substantially reform the way the public service works.

The amendment is not particularly substantial. The first part simply suggests the Minister should provide a report detailing his powers, delegation orders, etc. The second part is specific to targets set in the budgetary process of 2011. Very good points have been made by both sides of the House in having targets and being clear about the functions of the Minister, but the amendment does not suggest targets the Department should achieve into the future. Targets are needed, but the amendment does not cover them. It is specific to the budgetary process of 2011 in regard to targets, functions and powers. It is not as broad-ranging as suggested.

What we need is ongoing evaluation of the work of the Department and I have no doubt that this is the Minister's intention. It will certainly be the intention of the electorate, a point made by Senator Paul Bradford. The electorate will watch to ensure the Department does the job it has been set up to do. The Minister has said he intends to be vigorous and ensure the Department will be strong in reforming the way the public service works. We must save money and reach targets. That is the Minister's intention.

There is the specific issue of functions of the Minister of the new Department and the Minister for Finance, which was raised by Senator Cullinane and others. The Bill specifically gives function to the new Minister and indicates certain areas where the consent of the Minister for Finance will be required. There are other areas where there must be consultation with the Department of Finance. That is appropriate. Senator Cullinane specifically asked about property exceeding €50 million, and such issues have a significant impact on the Exchequer and require the attention of both Ministers. That is appropriate because of the roles of the respective Ministers. There are other specific functions falling under the power of the Minister responsible for public expenditure and reform.

Senators raised a couple of other issues. Senator O'Brien raised the definition of a public service body at the beginning of the debate on this amendment. He is correct that a public service pension scheme must be in place before the body is within the definition of a public service body.

In an earlier intervention Senator Byrne asked about the Estimates process. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, and I have already stated that it is envisaged that the timetable for this year will be as outlined. It is the normal timeframe for a budget in December, followed by more detailed Revised Estimates in February. In the future that may well change and it will probably do so. Apart from anything else, there are budgetary processes across the EU which will affect us as well as other European Union countries that may affect the process into the future. For this year the intention is that the process will remain as it is.

There have been very good points and the amendment has thrown up a very good debate on the need to ensure that this is an effective Department and that there are targets and measurements. The work of the Department should make a real difference with regard to public sector reform and delivering economies. We must get the country and budgetary processes back on track and this Department will be key in doing so. The amendment is quite specific and does not cover the broad range of areas that Senators on all sides of the House are correctly concerned about.