David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)

That is somewhat at odds with the Minister's statement that the legislation would be reviewed after one year. On what basis will it be reviewed after one year, if not on trends and data that become available? Why can a report not be published? Reports will only be as significant as the information available and I accept the first report may not be as significant as subsequent reports. The amendment would require that we do not walk away once we pass this legislation. We must not wait for the Minister to decide at some point in the future to publish a report. We do not know whether he will publish a report or what will be the nature of any review carried out, nor do we know the timescales involved. We seek only the publication of an annual report on the effectiveness of the scheme or otherwise. If it is successful and the costs incurred by the State are minimised, it may be possible to expand it.

As I noted, the explanatory memorandum states the Minister will have the power to review and revoke the scheme. We all hope it will not be necessary to revoke it. Information is important if the Minister is to determine whether the scheme should be built on. For Senators to decide whether they should support a ministerial decision to revoke or amend the scheme, they will need evidence, information and reports on its operation. It is useful and a move we have to make in the State. We appear to fear accountability and publishing reports. It is a case of when a Minister is ready, he or she will come back and report to us. There should be a standard practice for reports. For a scheme of this scale which has cost the State money, there should be an annual report indicating its effectiveness. On that basis, I will press the amendment.