Like Deputy Kenny, I agreed to the Taoiseach's request. However, it would be important for him to come to the House either later today or certainly by tomorrow to have a discussion on these important developments.

Did the Tánaiste see the quote attributed to Deputy Woods, in which he described the Freedom of Information Act as a half measure, merely window dressing and called for the repeal of the Official Secrets Act when Eithne Fitzgerald was putting through the Freedom of Information Act? Does the Tánaiste not agree it was that kind of humbug, which brought the Progressive Democrats into existence? Did the Tánaiste not make her name on the basis of her espousal of openness, transparency and accountability? Is the record of the House not littered with references by her to the necessity for greater openness and transparency? How does she reconcile this with the repeal of the Freedom of Information Act?

Does the Tánaiste agree that it is not merely the historical role of the Progressive Democrats Party to act as the people's watchdog in Government and ride shotgun on the Fianna Fáil Party? As recently as the last election, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, canvassed on the basis that the Fianna Fáil Party could not be let out alone and required an escort. His slogan was "Single Party Government, No thanks".

I draw the Tánaiste's attention to the words of Deputy O'Donnell when the then Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, was putting the Freedom of Information Act through the Houses. The Deputy stated: "There is little point in legislating for the principle of openness and access to information if everything sensitive to the authorities is to be excluded by exemption." If she was not right then, she is certainly right now.

How does the Tánaiste reconcile her collusion with the Fianna Fáil Party in covering up arrangements made during the lifetime of the previous Government in order to keep them from the prying eyes of the public, journalists and the Opposition? It is a disgrace to which I did not believe the Progressive Democrats Party would assent.

We are not repealing the Freedom of Information Act, but amending it in the light of experience.

They are castrating it.

The Government is rowing back.

I am amused by the laughter as I recall the lack of enthusiasm shown by many Members on the other side of the House when this legislation was being passed.

Now we have the excuses.

The Tánaiste without interruption, please.

Since 1997 we have extended the remit of the Freedom of Information Act from 67 to 370 bodies.

It is being removed from the Government.

Our main priority is effective government. It is important issues are addressed on paper and properly considered and that appropriate communication—

Government secrecy is being reimposed.

I will take a lecture from Deputy Stagg when the Labour Party opens its Front Bench to the press.

The Tánaiste should not reply to the Deputy as he is not the leader of his party.

She is unimpressive when trying to justify a cover up.

Allow the Tánaiste to continue without interruption.

The amendments being introduced make no changes to the rights of ordinary citizens.

There are changes.

There will be no change. Every citizen will continue to have the right to access any information held by State bodies about him or her.

What are the—

Deputy Burton is not the leader of her party. Deputy Rabbitte alone is entitled to ask a supplementary question.

This is a bonfire of the vanities.

The only bonfires we had concerned the Bertie bowl.

Very minor changes are being made to the Act to ensure more effective government. That is what should be important.

I am disappointed the Tánaiste did not make some attempt to justify her change of heart. She knows the Act is effectively being repealed. The new Bill goes far beyond even the recommendations of the five eminent civil ser vants, whose proposals were along the lines one might have expected.

I draw the Tánaiste's attention to a practical example of the legislation. Last November I asked the Taoiseach if it was true the Tánaiste, in her role as Minister for Enterprise and Employment, was contemplating cuts of 13,500 places in the community employment programme. He stated nothing of the kind was being contemplated. Then at the end of December The Irish Times reported that papers released under the Freedom of Information Act showed not only that the Minister was contemplating the cuts, but that she had already agreed to them.

That is not true.

It is crystal clear from the papers released under the Freedom of Information Act. In his reply, the Taoiseach stated he did not believe the figure of 13,000 was under discussion. The papers show the Tánaiste had initially agreed to cut £63 million or 13,500 places and that this was only changed when Fianna Fáil Party backbenchers followed the Labour Party lead in objecting to the proposal in the House.

That is untrue.

Deputy Rabbitte has great confidence in his influence. The case he raises is an example of how certain aspects of the legislation lead to considerable misinterpretation.

The Tánaiste without interruption.

Do Deputies want to listen? The reality is there was never any suggestion of cutting 13,000 places from the community employment scheme.

That is what happened.

The fact is that if, in the context of discussing Estimates, the Department of Finance puts forward figures within which a line Department must live in a particular year, the Minister in question points out the consequences of the decisions he or she must take as a result. This is what happened in the case Deputy Rabbitte raised. At no time did I or my Department consider reducing community employment places by 13,000 in one year. The Deputy knows that as well as I do.

The Opposition is barking up the wrong tree.

As I said earlier, I will accept lectures from the Labour Party when it opens its parliamentary party meetings and Front Bench to the press.

Surely the Tánaiste can do better than that.

Why does the party not open up its meetings to the press to allow us to see what goes on?