Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am worried about the precedents. The Minister mentioned some of the earlier ones in tourism and quality assurance. That worries me because I think the precedents in both of those were bad, but that is probably not a topic for conversation now. Subsection (8) provides that one can go to the High Court or that the Chairman of the Oireachtas committee, acting on behalf of the committee, can withdraw the request. We discussed this on Committee Stage but I do not know what "likely to lead to" means. It is a get-out clause for the Sir Humphreys of this world to say they are not answering something. There is no assessment of whether the Ceann Comhairle agrees or whether there is a risk assessment stating there is a 10% or a 90% chance there is likely to be a case.

Over the lifetime of this Government, we are steadily finding that reforms of public service are not taking place. These get-out clauses, even if they have precedents, are undesirable for a country which is facing our problems and which is effectively in receivership from the troika. Some of those cosy customs must be questioned and I will question the get out-clause where individuals can say they will not answer a question in case it is likely to lead to litigation. It is time for individuals using that defence to stump up some proof and tell us what it is or convince the Ceann Comhairle, which one has to do in the case of answers in the Dáil. Is not answering questions acceptable behaviour given the dire straits the country is in?