The Order of Business is No. 3, National Asset Management Agency Bill 2009 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 9 p.m.; the proceedings on Second Stage of No. 3 shall be taken today and the following arrangements shall apply: the speeches of the Minister for Finance and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 40 minutes in each case, and the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case. The resumed Second Stage shall be taken at 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 17 September 2009, and shall commence with speeches by the Taoiseach and the leaders of Fine Gael, the Labour Party, the Green Party and Sinn Féin, or Members nominated in their stead, who shall be called upon in that order, which shall not exceed 30 minutes in each case, and the speaker in possession shall resume thereafter; the Dáil shall sit later than 4.45 p.m. tomorrow and business shall be interrupted not later than 7 p.m. There shall be no Order of Business, Oral Questions shall not be taken and matters may not be raised under the provisions of Standing Orders 21(3) and 32 on that day; Private Members' business, which shall be No. 32, Criminal Law (Home Defence) Bill 2009 — Second Stage, shall be taken tomorrow on the conclusion of the speeches by the Taoiseach and the leaders of Fine Gael, the Labour Party, the Green Party and Sinn Féin on Second Stage of No. 3, and shall be brought to a conclusion after three hours on that day.
Order of Business.
There are four proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. today agreed to?
I oppose the Order of Business on the basis that the Bill being presented to the Dáil today — namely, the National Asset Management Agency Bill — is not the Bill that will emerge at the end of the process, for the simple reason there is no common agreement on this Bill among the constituent parties of the Government or even among the members of the major party in Government. I am also opposed to it on the basis of my deep concern about the proposed overpayment for the acquisition of assets, which is now commonly seen as a massive bailout for the banks——
Hear, hear.
——with no bailout for mortgage holders or taxpayers. I am equally concerned about the absence of any independent review by the Oireachtas of this or any other proposal that may come from the Bill. In essence, it is a proposal to shift between €50 billion and €60 billion onto the backs of Irish taxpayers. This is not how we should do business. I am opposed to the Order of Business for these reasons.
I, too, on behalf of the Labour Party oppose the Order of Business presented by the Government. The Bill before us, the National Asset Management Agency Bill, is the most important economic legislation that has come before the House since Independence. Not only today's taxpayers but future generations of taxpayers — our children and even our grandchildren — may pay for decades to come for the measures proposed by the Government today. The Labour Party is opposed to this legislation and we have proposed an alternative.
The circumstances in which we are dealing with this legislation are extraordinary. First, it is still unclear as to what exactly the Government will put through the House by way of this legislation. We were told it would be introduced last April. A draft of the Bill was eventually published at the beginning of August, but that was changed again and the legislation was published a few weeks ago. We now have been told that further changes may be brought forward, but it is not clear if the Government is in agreement on that. In any event, we have not got an assurance from the Government as of yet as to what arrangements will be made for debating the Bill in the House. Up to today the Government was insisting that this Bill would not be debated in the House next week. I am glad to hear that position may have changed. The Taoiseach should take this opportunity to confirm to the House that arrangements will be made for the Bill to be debated in the House next week.
Arrangements have not being made for the continuation of the debate. I want an assurance that all members of the Labour Party who want to contribute to the debate on this Bill will have an opportunity to do so and that there will not be an attempt by the Government to introduce a guillotine to the debate. We have got no assurance in that regard. Neither have we got any assurance that Committee Stage will be taken in the Dáil Chamber rather than in the bowels of the building in a committee room where it will not get the same degree of either parliamentary or public attention.
The arrangements for the taking of this Bill are not satisfactory for the Labour Party. This is fundamental legislation. On behalf of the Labour Party, I oppose the Order of Business the Taoiseach has proposed for today.
I join earlier speakers in opposing the Order of Business as presented, which covers not only the business of the House today but tomorrow's business. There are real concerns that the NAMA proposition — in regard to which we may be merely going through the motions in terms of the taking of the various Stages of the legislation on which there is already a done deal in regard to the Government formation — will be foisted on the Irish people. It is a proposition that spells economic disaster potentially not only for this but for future generations. It is as if the Minister for Finance had stood before a slot machine and pulled its arm in the hope that things would turn out right.
This is a serious matter and the Taoiseach's continual referencing to this being the only way in which the current difficulties can be addressed is simply not the case. Alternative propositions have been put forward by all the Opposition parties, including Sinn Féin, for their meritorious scrutiny and debate in this Chamber. In the way the debate is structured, there will not be an opportunity in the course of the passage of Second, Committee, Report and Final Stages of this legislation to question much of its detail. We can make our respective contributions but we will not have the facilitation of a question and answer session with the Minister and the Taoiseach to go into the core, nitty gritty and fine detail of the legislation, aspects of which they can, and may, withhold from the Members of the House.
The Government does not have a mandate to introduce NAMA. That is a fact. It is something on which the Irish people should be asked to pass judgment. The only way that can be done is in a referendum. I ask the Taoiseach to indicate here today that he will request that the Government support a request of the President — which she is entitled to do under the Constitution — to refer this matter to the people. If there is opposition from the Government to such a proposition, there is within the Constitution the right of one third of the Members of this House and in excess of a majority of the Seanad Members to appeal to the President to refer the matter to the people by way of a referendum. The people, ultimately, should be given the opportunity to pass judgment on this proposition. We hold strongly to this. I appeal particularly to the Fine Gael, Labour and Independent Members of the Opposition to append their support to this proposal to petition the President.
I, too, have concerns about the ordering of the passage of the further Stages of this legislation. We have no indication as yet on what is to happen next week, post the week's recess, in order to facilitate the final week of campaigning on the Lisbon treaty. What are the Government's intentions on ordering this legislation's passage through this Chamber and the Upper House?
This Bill is being brought forward by the Government as its response to the necessity to ensure that we have financial stability in this country so that we bring forward in a transparent way the means of solving the problems that have been bedevilling the credit system in the banking sector for some time, and that we do so on the basis of a very considered proposal, which is the National Asset Management Agency Bill, for discussion before the House. There continues to be a lot of misrepresentation — for whatever reason — about the motivation and purpose of this Bill, none of which is supported by the facts, as will be outlined by the Minister for Finance when he opens the debate today.
The Chief Whip has informed me that in the normal course of events the Whips will meet this evening to decide on next week's business. That is a matter for decision by the Whips. The Government has made no prior decision on the business for next week. We decided to come back this week because of the urgency and importance of this legislation to begin the legislative process. The Minister provided a draft Bill to the House more than seven weeks ago and because of the importance of the legislation he indicated his preparedness from the outset to listen to all and any constructive comment and to see in what way people wished to assist in making sure that we provide a response commensurate to the challenge that faces the economy at this time. This Bill is a full, comprehensive response by Government to meet the scale of that challenge. It has the support of the European Central Bank and the IMF and it is in compliance with EU state aid rules.
How does the Taoiseach know?
It is a considered proposition put forward by the House. As has been said by others, it is a matter for this House in its democratic debate to decide on the merits or otherwise of this legislation. We are very strong supporters and advocates of this legislation. We believe it is essential as part of the response of this country to the challenges we face today. That is the Government's position and we wish to proceed with it on that basis. We look forward to a debate that can be constructive, if people wish it to be. People can hold strong views one way or the other, but it is through the democratic debate of this House and the primacy of this House in compliance with the rules that apply to us all that we willperhaps ensure that the people of this country see that this Assembly discharges its duty properly.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McDaid, James.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, George.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- O’Sullivan, Maureen.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 3, National Asset Management Agency Bill 2009 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage, agreed to?
I repeat that no piece of legislation that has gone through this House since the foundation of the State has ever cost in the region of what this is likely to cost, whether €40 billion, €50 billion or €60 billion. The Bill presented to us today will eventually be debated by force of vote in the House. As I understand it, the Bill does not have the total support of the Government, nor does it have the full support of members of the Taoiseach's party, some of whom have pointed out that changes should be made. This Bill, therefore, is not an agreed conclusion of the Cabinet. This is not the way we should do business regarding a matter that is as fundamentally important to our country and all our citizens and taxpayers as this one.
I ask the Taoiseach to respond on the basis of whether this is the agreed position to be debated. As an Opposition party, we have not had full disclosure of the circumstances in which this arose. I am concerned by reports that some people seem to have freedom of access to the higher echelons of Government on a regular basis. I am concerned that there is no independent review by the Oireachtas of the appeal system. On that basis, I oppose the taking of the Order for Second Stage.
On behalf of the Labour Party, I too oppose this proposal. In doing so, I take issue with the patronising remarks of the Taoiseach in responding to the words of opposition that were expressed on the previous proposal. He rather patronisingly referred to his willingness to listen to constructive proposals and ideas. He and the Minister for Finance have been getting constructive proposals in regard to this matter for months. The problem is that they are not listening to those proposals. The difficulty we have today is that the Taoiseach and his Government got the country and our economy into this hole in the first place. We do not have confidence that he, his Government and the measures they now propose will get us out of the difficulty we are in. We have been putting forward serious proposals and alternatives for some time. The rather condescending way in which the Taoiseach responded to them in his earlier contribution does not augur at all well for the way in which this debate will be conducted.
We again object to No. 3 on the Order Paper. As Deputy Gilmore said, it is not only a case of the same political faces who have presided over and deepened the economic crisis the Irish people currently face; it is the advisers and those with whom they consult who have been, over this period of time, an integral part of the writing of the script for where we are today. Neither these advisers nor the faces opposite should determine how we will get out of this mess. The Irish people have no faith in this proposition or in the Government. Although opinion polls are not the best way of measuring public opinion, I have confidence in the recent poll which showed the Government at the lowest ever recorded support level of 20%, with 17% for Fianna Fáil and 3% for the Green Party. This is a close reflection of the anger and anguish of so many citizens across the length and breadth of the State.
If the NAMA proposition is to pass, it should be referred in a call for a referendum to the President. The most appropriate response the Taoiseach could offer today would be a decision to tender his resignation and to allow the people to have a full opportunity to pass judgment on NAMA and the myriad issues he is currently considering in the context of the preparation of a budget that will significantly affect the least well-off, the most marginalised and those who are finding it difficult to make ends meet.
I have called the Taoiseach to respond.
This is a time for the people to have their say. I call on the Government to resign forthwith.
As I said earlier, this is the proposal brought forward and approved by Government. I was simply making the point in my previous contribution — which was neither patronising nor condescending but simply a statement of fact — that we are open to listening to the points made in this debate because of the importance of the legislation for the country. I also made the point in my previous contribution that there may be others who wish to put a different proposition, and that the House will divide and decide on that. I was simply referring to the fact that rather than some of the juvenile behaviour we have had at the beginning of this session, we must get down to the serious business of doing this work because it is what the country requires at this time.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McDaid, James.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, George.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Is the proposal regarding tomorrow's sitting agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business tomorrow agreed? Agreed. I call Deputy Kenny on the Order of Business.
I wish to put a question to the Taoiseach.
Is it agreed to move on to Leaders' Questions?
On the Order of Business, I note from the publication today of the Government's legislative programme that the section on the Department of Health and Children——
Order please. We must have silence.
I note again from the section on the Department of Health and Children in the legislative programme signalled for the coming term that the status of the eligibility for health and social services Bill is described as "not possible to indicate". This is yet another failure on the part of the Department to present very important legislation on the rights of citizens to access health and personal social services. The legislation in question has been promised for many years. Earlier indications were that the Bill would be published, Second Stage addressed, etc., but in recent years the only answer we receive from the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Mary Harney, and her Department is that it is not possible to indicate when the Bill would come before us. This is simply not good enough. What efforts is the Taoiseach employing to ensure that entitlement and eligibility for health and personal social services will be addressed substantively in the presentation of this long-awaited legislation?
While proposals on this issue are being worked on, as has been stated, it is not possible to present a Bill to the House. Many of the proposals will be much better developed by the end of the year.
I failed to find two items of legislation in the Government's legislative programme. Given the urgency of the issue, is it proposed to introduce amending legislation to change the timing of the Exchequer's rebate of 60% for redundancy payments to provide that such rebates be reduced in cases of profitable trading companies and that payment would only proceed when a company had complied with any findings of the Labour Court or Labour Relations Commission?
In light of recent controversy, is it intended to introduce amending legislation to allow Ministers to be held to account for the expenditure of public money in the form of expenses, including excessive expenditure? Will the Government amend the Standards in Public Office Act to provide for an annual statement of ministerial expenses and to allow the Dáil to question Ministers or former Ministers, regardless of whether they occupy the Office of Ceann Comhairle, about such expenditure?
Legislation is not promised on the first issue. In recent times, changes have been introduced on internal and foreign travel, as is proper in the new circumstances in which we find ourselves and given the need to ensure we use taxpayers' money and scarce resources in the best possible way. It is also the case that all such expenses are audited by the Accounting Officers of the respective Departments.
My questions refer to secondary legislation. Has progress been made over the summer months on the issue of adoptions from Vietnam? Hundreds of families are waiting a decision in this matter and action from the Minister of State with responsibility for children. What is the current position and when is progress likely to be made on the issue?
When does the Minister for Finance intend to introduce regulations to give effect to the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act passed in June this year?
I will have to revert to the Deputy on the second matter. On the first matter, the Minister of State visited Vietnam where he dealt directly with his counterpart on the question of foreign adoptions. As we all know, this is an important and sensitive matter and one on which the Minister of State has been seeking to make progress. The Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, is active in that area but we have not yet resolved the issue to everyone's satisfaction.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach about two matters. First, when does he propose to introduced the promised European defence agency Bill? Second, the report of the Standards in Public Office Commission was made in the context of the referendum in July last year. A request was made to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that legislative sanctions be introduced concerning third parties who failed to provide information on their spending. Will the Minister introduce legislation to ensure that third parties engaged in referenda will have to respond to statutory requests by the Standards in Public Office Commission to provide adequate information? If appropriate sanctions were in place they would have to comply with such requests.
As regards the first matter, I understand the European Defence Agency Bill has been published and is awaiting Second Stage. I will have to revert to the Deputy on the second matter, when I have spoken to the Minister about what, if any, his intentions in this area might be.
The request concerns Mr. Ganley who on four different occasions refused to provide the information requested by the Standards in Public Office Commission.
We cannot deal with a matter concerning a person outside the House who is not here to defend himself.
The commission requested the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to introduce amending legislation to impose sanctions so that third parties of that nature would have to provide the appropriate information as requested.
We cannot mention an individual outside the House who is not here to defend himself.
The Minister for Education and Science has suspended Committee Stage of the Student Support Bill because he is to integrate into that legislation proposals for the reintroduction of third level fees which will affect more than 100,000 students who will start their studies next week if they have not already commenced them. Have the conclusions on the proposals from the Minister for Education and Science been presented to the Cabinet? When will a decision be made on third level fees?
There has been no Government decision on that matter. It is up to the Minister for Education and Science at any time to bring forward proposals for consideration by the Government. There has been no formal decision by the Government, however.
On a point of information, my understanding is that the Minister for Education and Science has informed numerous players in the education sector that he has presented five options to the Cabinet, and that he was going to give a deadline of 15 September. The Minister's press officer, Mr. Mallee, carefully arranged for the details to be leaked to the public so that the rest of us could share the documents the Taoiseach received confidentially. Has the Taoiseach had an opportunity to choose his preferred option? When will the damage and punishment be inflicted on third level students?
Deputy Quinn is aware that we cannot discuss what happens at Cabinet meetings.
The Deputy was a member of the Cabinet himself and will be aware that time limits are not imposed on Cabinets by anybody. It is a question for the Government to consider at any time any options put forward by Ministers. I am simply making the point that no decisions have been taken in that matter.
He is a very junior member of the Cabinet and has a lot to learn.
He is a very respected member of the Cabinet and a very good Minister, too.
Mark Anthony.
More like Pontius Pilate, I would say.
Will the Taoiseach commit to taking Committee Stage of the NAMA Bill in this House?
It is a matter for decision by the Whips as to how this is dealt with.
You are the Taoiseach.
I am aware of that but if we could start Second Stage we could get on with deciding how we might deal with Committee Stage.
Can he have a preferendum and tell us the result?
I did not hold it up.
It is taking an hour and a half to get to Second Stage.
It is a straightforward question.
Of course it is.
There are many Deputies who want to contribute on Committee Stage on the floor of the House. That is all I am asking.
Yes and it will be a matter for the Whips to decide on that in due course.
It is a matter for the Government.
I have no problem with it one way or the other.
What is the view of the Government Whip?
I wish to get on with bringing the proposal to the House for its consideration.
As the Taoiseach knows well, the Government orders the Business of the Dáil.
Deputy Rabbitte has made his point. I call Deputy Tuffy.
During the local elections, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government announced that he would bring in a planning Bill to curb bad rezonings by councillors. He has announced it a few times before and since, but I cannot see it on the list of Bills for the coming term. When will that Bill come before the House?
Is there a new planning Bill, Taoiseach?
The list provided by the Whip today concerns the legislative programme for the forthcoming session. It is a matter for the Government to consider any other proposals for Cabinet in the interim.
On a number of occasions the Government has indicated that it was about to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. When is it proposed to ratify that convention? Is it proposed to ratify it within the lifetime of this Government, given that it is referred to as a commitment in the White Paper on development?
Second, is it proposed to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Disabled in the lifetime of this Government?
I will revert to the Deputy having spoken to the Ministers concerned as to what progress has been made in those areas.
There is a very large file on this issue. Most of the letters end with the same sentence — that signature by Ireland is imminent. It is now nearly two years since the first commitment was made. In the current atmosphere it would be salutary if we could sign and ratify those UN conventions. If that was done, with supporting legislation, it would create some public trust.