I have been presented, as other Members have, with the second report of the Commission on Electronic Voting on the secrecy, accuracy and testing of the chosen electronic voting system. This is another nail in the coffin of the Government's claim to competence, good judgment and ministerial capability. Just over two years ago, the Government tried to foist a dud electronic voting system on the people at a cost of €60 million. I remember the Taoiseach chiding us for not trusting this new wonderful facility. Everybody in the House was deemed to be a Luddite. On 17 April 2004 the Taoiseach said, "I am told that the reliability of the system has been tested and that it is good". All the technical experts who questioned this system were derided and sneered at. The then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, said it was "secure, reliable and can be trusted by the people".
Leaders’ Questions.
It was more reliable than the Deputy.
Allow Deputy Kenny to speak without interruption.
I know Deputy Johnny Brady is warming up. He is a modest man with modest ideas, but he should keep them to himself. On the basis of today's report, arising from a €60 million expenditure, I would not be inclined to trust the words of a large number of Ministers. The software system that the Government wants to use to count votes is a dud. This report clarifies that beyond "yea" or "nay". It is a dud system. This is an independent report dragged out by Opposition claims that the Government do something about it. The report tells us it has not been developed in accordance with any recognisable standard. It is, therefore, open to major counting errors. It is less accurate than the paper system which the Taoiseach often referred to as the peann luaidhe system; they are not gone away yet. It is not good enough for what one might call a mission critical system. What can be more mission critical than the sending back to this House of the representatives of the people to form a Government with a mandate to govern?
Did any discussion take place at Cabinet on the accuracy of the software in respect of the counting system which cost €60 million of the public's money? That €60 million would have provided 7 million hours of home help throughout the country for those who need it. Does the Taoiseach accept any responsibility for spending €60 million on what this independent report says is a dud counting system that could subvert the democratic decision of the people in three, four or five-seat constituencies? Surely, as leader of the Government it is time to stand up and accept some responsibility and blame for this €60 million debacle.
It is the old story. The report came out at 2.30 p.m.
The Taoiseach without interruption.
The report came out at 2.30 p.m., experts have spent two years preparing it and the Opposition is an expert on it in half an hour and issues statements that are totally at variance with what it says, even on the courtesy remit.
Did the Taoiseach read it?
This is a Fine Gael question. I ask Deputy Howlin to allow the Taoiseach to make his reply without interruption.
Deputy Howlin is worse than Fine Gael. The only co-operation between the Labour Party and Fine Gael is when they keep making noise whenever I stand up to speak.
Deputy O'Dea could comment on it yesterday.
After only a quick look at the report, we are an hour debating it here. I hope people study and examine this report and give it comprehensive consideration. Off the top of the head remarks, which are possibly based on reading just the first few pages, are an unsatisfactory way to deal with it.
Allow the Taoiseach speak without interruption.
On behalf of the Government, I thank the chairman, Mr. Justice Matthew Smith and the members of the commission for their thorough work and the resulting second report on the Nedap-Powervote electronic system. The report is, undoubtedly, one of the most comprehensive official reports ever produced on the matter of electronic voting.
I am particularly pleased with the commission's overall validation of the €46 million investment in the voting machines and associated software, which is clear to anyone who reads the report. I have had the opportunity to do that because the report was given to Deputy Roche over the weekend.
I hope Deputy Cullen reads it.
The commission's overall validation of the €46 million investment in the electronic voting machines and the associated software is very pleasing and I hope Deputy Kenny will acknowledge that is the view of Mr. Justice Matthew Smith's report. That is clear to be seen.
The commission concludes that the main hardware components of the system, including the voting machines, are of good quality and design. They are robust against failure.
They should be, they are rust proof.
They are like the Government backbenchers.
A Cheann Chomhairle, there is no interest. I hope the national media that attends here will take more interest than the Opposition which is not prepared to look at an independent report produced over two years.
The Taoiseach, without interruption.
I hope that a responsible media will see the cynicism of an Opposition that is not prepared to consider it. This is the usual outrage of an Opposition that will read nothing, understand nothing and put forward nothing.
The machines have been validated beyond question by an international commission, but Deputy Kenny will not recognise that. I want to give him the opportunity to recover himself on round two. He stated that the software cost €60 million. He does not understand that less than €500,000 was spent on the election management software.
The Taoiseach should check the record or ask his people in the communications area to check it. I did not say the software cost €60 million. I said the software was dud software and that it was the cause of the problem. I agree the hardware is recommended as being of sound structure but it is like building a house of blocks and putting in an inferior heating system or having a shell of a car with no engine.
In the minute I have to recover, as the Taoiseach said, let me give him the facts behind the "off the top of the head" remarks from the Opposition. On page 150, the report states "The chosen system does not offer the same levels of transparency in the gathering, translocation, sorting and counting of votes since these processes are carried out by electronic means, largely out of sight." Furthermore, "The potential for an inaccuracy in the counting of votes to go unnoticed is greater under an electronic system than under the paper system." Page 153 of the report mentions trust and states: "However, the voter has no way of verifying that what appears on the display is what actually is recorded electronically on the ballot module within the voting machine." This is what the Taoiseach calls a "top of the head" remark.
With regard to an audit, page 154 states that the system "is not subject to any meaningful independent audit of its voting recording function. Thus the paper system is superior in this regard." Paper is best. On page 167 the report points out "the paper system provides a higher level of secrecy than the chosen system." Who chose the system? It was the Government and it spent almost €60 million on it. Page 206 points out: "There is an increased need, in the context of electronic voting, for the establishment of a single independent statutory electoral commission for Ireland."
These are not "top of the head" remarks from the Opposition. They are quotes from the report which was dragged from the Government through embarrassment and political pressure. The Taoiseach has not said who chose the system nor has he accepted any responsibility for spending €60 million of the public's money on a hardware system and a software system that is now proven to be dud. Nobody doubts the authenticity of the recommendation in the report that the hardware is of sound physical structure. The dud system is the software, an engine that will not work. The Taoiseach intended to foist that on the people despite the fact the counting system could subvert their democratic decision. They will exercise that right in the next 35 weeks and remove the Government from office. Whether or not the Government intends to introduce an electronic voting system, the peann luaidhe will rule Ireland on the next occasion. The Taoiseach and the Government will be removed, not by just 1,000 strokes, but by more than 1 million.
My colleagues allowed Deputy Kenny make his point, so I hope the Opposition will allow me do the same. The Deputy said there was a negative conclusion in the report relating to the election management software. We have removed some €46 million out of the equation for the machines, and I am grateful to him for acknowledging that.
Is the Taoiseach going to get it back?
The commission states it is unable to recommend the election management software. However, it goes on to say that alternative election management software compatible with the existing voting machine and other hardware and software components for the system could be developed at a reasonable relative cost.
The overall cost of the entire software component——
Deputy Kenny, please be serious for two minutes, if you cannot do it for any longer. The total cost of that software is €500,000. So, the Deputy has now acknowledged that the hardware is acceptable. He quoted the commission——
I did not say it was acceptable. I said it was of sound structure.
Sorry, I thought the Deputy said it was of sound quality. The commission says the main hardware components of the system, including a voting machine is of good quality and design which is robust against failure and well suited to its purpose. Let us move on to the commission's criticism, which relates to the election management software. It states that election software to be used with the existing voting machines and other software components of the system could be developed at a reasonable cost. The overall cost of the software was approximately €500,000. Their point is that it is at very little cost.
Deputy Kenny referred to the paper voting system and correctly quoted from the report. The report states that the paper voting system is moderately superior overall to the chosen electronic system as currently proposed and in some respects only marginally so. The conclusion at the end of that section of the report is that subject to the commission's recommendation being implemented, — which the commission recommends should be implemented — the chosen system has the potential to deliver greater accuracy than the paper system and can provide similarly high levels of secrecy. This is the commission's conclusion.
The Government has not made a decision because we have only received the report and my colleagues have not read the report. I ask Deputy Kenny to be fair.
Is the Government going ahead with using the system?
I have already given the House a commitment that the system will not be used in the next election. The commission has stated that these machines have a life span of 40 years, that the hardware is fine but that in its view the software has a minor defect which can easily be put right. Deputy Kenny may wish to make a political comment about the system; I am stating the views of the commission and the facts of this report.
Allow Deputy Rabbitte without interruption.
This is a shocking Government debacle and a shocking waste of taxpayers' money. The first thing that strikes me as odd is that the commission's terms of reference require it to present its report to the Taoiseach. I am surprised to learn that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, was given the report at the weekend.
The Taoiseach stated the Government has only read the first few pages. Judging from his effort to defend the system, it is clear he has only read the first few pages——
He did not read it at all.
I refer the Taoiseach to page 107 of the report which among other things, points out that in a tied vote, the system eliminates the wrong candidate. It also states:
It was noted that, in addition to selecting the incorrect candidate for elimination, the software makes a further error by reporting incorrectly through its user interface that a different candidate has been selected.
Is that the way Fianna Fáil do it?
Deputy Rabbitte without interruption.
It further stated that the software is not of sufficient quality to enable its use to be confidently recommended and that functional testing has revealed programming errors. It states there are significant and important vulnerabilities:
Firstly, it was found, when reading in votes at a count centre from a CD received from a service centre, that it is possible to read in the votes from an incorrect service centre. It was also possible to read in votes from the same service centre twice and those from another service centre not at all. This suggests that there are no checks carried out within the software to ensure, for example, that election data, including votes, are attributed to the correct candidates . . . . Thirdly, and most significantly, it was found possible to manipulate vote data by directly editing entries in the election file stored in the Microsoft Access database.
Is the Taoiseach seriously and with a straight face standing up in the House and defending this system? Is he telling the House that the hardware works well but not the software? It is like his Government; the hard necks work well but there is no software.
The Taoiseach comes into this House and says we can go on and work this system. Is the Taoiseach saying he will spend the extra money to try and find a software system that would meet the requirements set down by this commission? I remind him that when his Minister rushed this through the House the first time, he made it a charge on the Central Fund. The entire €52 million was a charge on the Central Fund with the purpose of escaping scrutiny by the Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General. He did that deliberately and knowingly, with all this blather from himself and the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey about us being at the frontier of the intelligent island. There is nothing very intelligent about having wasted €52 million of taxpayers' money and where we now find ourselves tied into 25-year leases when the lifetime of the machinery is 20 years.
As I said to Deputy Kenny, the Government will consider the report in detail. The report has just been made available. We will report to the Government on the full implications of the commission's recommendations and we will consider the composition of a peer review group drawn from international electoral reform bodies and the IT industry to supervise any design. The decision remains to be made whether we will decide to use the design. We will report to the Government on confidence building measures and we will identify any other improvements that might need to be built into the system if we were to go ahead with it. These decisions will need to be considered when members of the Government, like everybody else, have an opportunity to read the report.
In answer to Deputy Rabbitte, three issues arise. There was an examination and investigation as to whether the hardware was a waste of money and a waste of time and whether it was deficient and I have answered that question. I have not answered the question but rather an independent report has answered the question. On the issue of software, the Deputy quoted a number of instances where the commission was not satisfied with the software. The commission has made it clear in its recommendations it is unable to recommend the election management software and I accept that recommendation. From the commission's detailed examination and analysis of alternative election management software compatible with the existing machines which it has examined, other hardware and software components could be developed at a reasonable relative cost. The existing cost of that software is €0.5 million. This country is the world's greatest exporter of software and there are many people available here who can deal with these issues for a very moderate cost. That is the position.
The commission also notes the errors, as referred to by Deputy Rabbitte. The commission's report states that the chosen system eliminates the casting of invalid votes which comprise 1.6% of all ballots cast at elections and referenda over the past 20 years. It also states that strong evidence suggests that minor counting errors are widespread and most inevitable in the paper system. The report points out how these issues should be dealt with and we should examine that. The commission is also of the view there is an increased need in the context of electronic voting for the establishment of a single independent statutory electoral commission. The commission would hardly make such a recommendation if it did not believe electronic voting should be introduced. The Government has not considered this issue but the Minister has stated on many occasions that he supports the principle. I hope all Members will consider this report. The Government will do so and will further discuss it next week and the following week. In the cool light of day and based on the hard work of a commission that has been working for two years, the Government will examine the issue and come to a conclusion.
To what €500,000 is the Taoiseach referring? He said it would cost €500,000 to improve the software. How did he arrive at that figure?
I am glad that Deputy Roche had the opportunity to read the report but that figure is not in the report, nor does the judge say how much it would cost to renovate this system, if it is capable of renovation. I do not know from where the Taoiseach tosses up the sum of €500,000.
Every day of the week I meet people, as I am quite sure the Taoiseach does, who point out how much €52 million of taxpayers' money would do for respite care for women — it is usually women — who are charged with the responsibility of caring for people with intellectual and other disabilities, or as Deputy Kenny said, how much €52 million would do for the provision of home help. This cavalier decision was made not by one Minister but by two, and approved by the Government in the face of trenchant criticism from outside, impartial experts.
That is right.
These were non-partisan who came to offer advice in advance that what was being done was folly——
Hear, hear.
——but the Government ignored them and ploughed on. Tossing out a figure of €500,000 is entirely misleading. The commission never recommended anything of that kind. It stated that the system is rescuable, but it does not state whether rescuing it has merit.
Deputy Gilmore has drawn my attention to a very interesting final report from the returning officers in Dublin West and Dublin North, where the system was used in the last general election. It indicates a very significant and unexplained difference between the number of votes cast as recorded by the returning officer and the number of votes recorded on the ballot modules. This was not previously known to me. The number of votes are theoretically greater than the outcome in the two constituencies.
The Deputy's time is concluded.
The terms of reference state: "The Commission, which shall be independent in the performance of its functions, shall prepare a number of reports for presentation to the Ceann Comhairle . . . . . on the secrecy and accuracy of the chosen electronic voting and counting system." The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, may be the Ceann Comhairle in the next Dáil, but he is not in the current Dáil.
Did Nora Owen lose her seat at all?
The Taoiseach, without interruption.
What would Deputy English say?
I have been listening. I was not the fifth Deputy.
I wish to answer Deputy Rabbitte.
Will the Taoiseach apologise to Nora Owen?
In the interests of democracy in this House, Deputy McManus should allow the speaker called by the Chair to speak.
On Deputy Rabbitte's first point, I was quoting the commission's report. It states that the main hardware components of the system, including the voting machine, are of good quality and design, robust against failure and well suited to their purpose. That is an overall validation of the €46 million investment in voting machines and the associated hardware.
Deputy Rabbitte asked me where I got the figure of €500,000 to fix the software.
It was a dud.
I made the point on two occasions that the election management software only cost €500,000 in the first place.
Yes, but it was a dud.
That was the cost.
Is it just €500,000?
That was the cost.
It was unnecessary.
The report states that the election management system only cost €500,000. The commission has indicated that it is unable to recommend the election management software as it is.
Why not sell it?
Will we spend another €500,000 to try to get the equipment working?
I listened to the Deputy and I should be allowed to answer. The commission then stated that the alternative election management software compatible with existing voting machines and other hardware and software components of the system could be developed at a reasonable relative cost.
It is waffle.
The overall cost is €500,000, and we should not mix up the software figure with the hardware figure.
I realise this does not suit the Opposition's argument.
It is a better argument than that.
The Taoiseach's argument is waffle.
Deputy Gogarty's leader will have an opportunity to speak. He is not the leader of his party.
The hardware comes from a company that exports billions of euro worth of such equipment. The report states that it cost only €500,000, and to amend it is a relative cost. According to the report, the chosen system can potentially enhance and deliver real efficiencies in the administration of elections in Ireland.
It was not needed.
Deputy English's leader has finished his question. The Deputy should be quiet.
Perhaps Deputy English will tell us what he stated to his constituents about the system?
Since the Deputy keeps interrupting, he reminds me that in the last election in which he was elected, he and his colleagues put out a leaflet highly recommending the system in Meath.
I did not.
This is aimed at Deputy English.
We explained it, we were not recommending it.
Members on both sides of the House should allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
The system was not usable in the first place.
The poster read, John Bruton, Damien English, John Farrelly, 1, 2, 3.
The party stated——
There was no fifth Deputy.
Deputy English should resume his seat.
I have a point of order.
The Deputy should obey the Chair. I call the Taoiseach.
Deputy English put out literature that helped him to get into this House endorsing the equipment, and he stated that it was as easy as 1, 2, 3.
The Deputy can tell us the score.
I have a point of order.
I ask Deputy English to resume his seat. There is no provision for the Deputy to intervene on Leaders' Questions.
Will the Ceann Comhairle guarantee that the Taoiseach will answer my questions?
When the Deputy is the leader of Fine Gael he will have an opportunity.
I have a point of order.
There is no provision for a point of order on Leaders' Questions except from the leader submitting the question. This is Deputy Rabbitte's question. Perhaps if the Deputy did not interrupt he would not draw attention to himself. I ask him to resume his seat.
The Ceann Comhairle has a responsibility to protect my rights as well as those of the Taoiseach.
The Deputy must resume his seat. He must find another way of raising his point.
We explained how to use the system.
The Deputy cannot raise the matter on Leaders' Questions. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat. The Chair does not wish to ask the Deputy to leave, but if he wishes to leave, the Chair will facilitate him.
The Deputy is being bullied.
The Chair has a responsibility to protect my rights.
There is no provision on Leaders' Questions for intervention by anybody but the Chair and the leader whose question is being asked.
The literature explained how to use the system.
If the Deputy does not resume his seat, I will ask him to leave the House.
I wish to ask a question.
The Deputy cannot ask a question at this stage.
I wish to raise a point of order.
There is no such thing as a point of order on Leaders' Questions——
The Ceann Comhairle must protect my rights too.
——except by the leader who submitted the question.
When may I ask a question?
The Deputy cannot do so at this stage. If the Deputy wishes to leave the House, the Chair will facilitate that. The Chair will look after the Deputy's rights but the rights of the House take precedence.
I wish to put my side of the argument on the record. I wish to clarify the issue.
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat. If he does not do so, he will have to leave the House. I call the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
We have spoken before about this matter.
The same applies to Deputy Gogarty.
Is it true the contracts were signed before the matter was brought before the Dáil?
I am sorry to frustrate the Ceann Comhairle. I would not have mentioned anything about Deputy English if he had not kept interrupting me. It was reported in the national newspapers that the Fine Gael candidates, including former Deputy John Bruton, endorsed the machines and stated they were as simple as 1, 2, 3.
We explained how to use them.
The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to speak. If he continues to interrupt he will continue to draw attention to himself. The Taoiseach, without interruption.
I was trying to answer the point raised by Deputy Rabbitte that this was a system which everybody was against from day one. This was satisfactorily used in elections.
We do not know that.
People were very happy with the system.
The people who got in were very happy.
The Government will make its decisions in due course, based on the report when it is examined. The Nedap electronic voting system was used satisfactorily on the Continent, for example, in the recent elections in the Netherlands and in Germany.
Was it used in Russia?
Angela Merkel told Deputy Kenny she thinks it is an excellent system.
Not with our dud software.
The system is currently used in 90% of the electoral areas in the Netherlands. It is used in Cologne, Dortmund, Brandenburg and Anhalt.
Perhaps they could use our duds.
There would be no difficulty in getting rid of them.
The machines have been used in elections in the Netherlands. The system was used in the EU referendum in 2005 and it has gained federal certification in the US which enables the product to be used in elections there.
The Taoiseach should not mention the US, Florida is there.
Is the Deputy anti-US as well?
Allow the Taoiseach without interruption.
Since nobody in the Opposition is thankful for the work of Mr. Justice Smith and the commission, I thank them for producing this report. The Opposition is upset that it has not given them the ammunition that they wanted, but perhaps at least they will deliberate on the system, as the Government will, in the weeks ahead.
He should be a comedian.
The Taoiseach will be relieved to hear I will not be calling for a recount in Dublin North this close to a general election but many people will want to know where the 1,294 missing votes have gone.
As this is the last Leaders' Questions this session in which the Green Party will have the opportunity of posing a question, I ask the Taoiseach to reflect on what his Government is elected to do. The Constitution, in its preamble, requires him "to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured". Dignity and freedom, for many, means the wherewithal to afford a house and the 2005 reality was a housing waiting list of 43,864 applicants, that is, over 100,000 people, and others mortgaged up to their eyes and in ever increasing debt. Under his Government, debt has increased from 40% of disposable income to over 130%. The total personal debt in the country is just shy of €130 billion, that is, €32,000 for every man, woman and child. Essentially, an industrial wage is owed before a person starts earning a euro.
The OECD states the housing market is overvalued by 15%. Given the average house price is €300,000 and one third of that price comprises the site price, I ask the Taoiseach to acknowledge that if that house was built on a site priced as agricultural land, that is, approximately €10,000, rather than the inflated price currently allowed, the price of the house would be approximately €210,000. Does the Taoiseach accept that by not acting on the report on building land by Mr. Justice Kenny of 1973, his Government is standing over——
Deputy Sargent's time has concluded.
This is the important point. Does the Taoiseach accept he is standing over a kick-back for the builder for every house built of about €90,000? I ask the Taoiseach, over the summer, to try to square that kick-back for land speculators and developers with his conscience and his responsibilities and tell us whether he will consider at long last implementing the Kenny report on building land from 1973, as recommended by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution of 2004. A number of Deputies from the Taoiseach's party were members of that committee and I ask if he will listen to them for a change as well.
I will answer Deputy Sargent directly on this issue. I was in favour of the Kenny report many years ago. I am still in favour of it.
He is the Taoiseach.
Can I answer, please? I am in favour of the conclusions of the report of the all-party committee. The report of the all-party committee states that we should be able to deal with the fundamental issues by legislative means.
Where is the legislation?
It is being drafted. I am pressing to get on with it and I do not disagree with what Deputy Sargent stated in that regard.
A significant number of people state that such legislation, on which I hope we will come to a conclusion over the summer, could well be challenged. If that is the case, we would need a constitutional referendum——
Let us do it.
——of which I also would be in favour of trying. It was put forward by the committee — we debated the matter many times in the House — that we should try the legislative route and we are trying it. The Attorney General has not given me a final version of the report, but I hope we can do it by legislation and we will try to do it by legislation.
I will try to address it over the summer. Deputy Sargent has asked me a serious question for once and I am trying to give him a serious answer.
For once, he is trying to give a serious answer.
I am aware he asked a serious question.
The answer would be to tell me when the legislation is to be published and I ask him that. If the Taoiseach wants to give me a serious answer, I want to hear it. Fianna Fáil has been in Government for 20 years, apart from a short respite, and life continues to be unbearable for many of the people the Taoiseach claims to represent.
When it comes to building land, following rezoning in Shankill the value of land rose from €2 million to €200 million. If that had been done in accordance with the Kenny report, the land could have been acquired for €2.5 million. The local authorities must go cap in hand to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, for funds to acquire lands for housing at open market prices.
Why has the Taoiseach continued to allow the obscene profiteering, rack-renting, management company extortion and the cruel indebtedness by which people, even those with third level qualifications and good jobs who he states are doing quite well, are affected? Why has he continued to favour many people who, perhaps by coincidence, are his key supporters in the tent at the Galway Races? If, today, 4 July, I may paraphrase Lyndon Johnson, the Taoiseach's interpretation of the common good so far has depended on whether he is inside or outside that tent. As an act of good faith, perhaps when he gives me his answer he might add that he will donate the proceeds of his party's tent at the Galway Races to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul or the carers of whom Deputy Rabbitte spoke, to compensate not just for the wasting of €60 million on e-voting but also his lack of action in this area.
Deputy Sargent, you have moved on to another question. You are entitled to a single question on one topical issue.
That is very much a topical issue.
Obviously what prompts this question is that Deputy Sargent has seen yesterday that 200 affordable houses were handed over for between €145,000 and €195,000.
A drop in the ocean.
But it is a significant development. Deputy Sargent should not see everything as a Z grade.
Less than 1%.
This was a considerable achievement, that——
Not when compared to the developer's cut.
Deputy Gogarty, your leader is entitled to hear the answer to his question.
When the Taoiseach gives a decent answer.
——yesterday almost 200 people got houses for €145,000 under the affordable housing initiative. We want to see far more of that.
I ask Deputy Sargent and his colleagues and every other party to help local authorities, which in so many areas of the city want to build social and affordable housing——
They cannot afford to.
——and are being blocked by Members of this House.
The Taoiseach is joking.
Members are publicly used to block it. It is sad that Deputies come in here asking for affordable housing and then use their efforts outside to block them in many parts, including the parts of the city that Deputy Sargent mentioned.
It is shameful.
The Government will press on with the legislation. We hope to have it ready shortly. I hope we will be able to move to deal with this issue.
Before or after the corporate donations.
Deputy Gogarty, your leader is quite competent to ask his own questions and he does not need any help from you. The Taoiseach without interruption.
It is almost impossible, a Cheann Comhairle. They all ask questions every time one answers them.