The Order of Business is No. 20, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the National Economic and Social Forum and National Centre for Partnership and Performance Dissolution Order 2010; No. 23, Fines Bill 2009 — Order for Report Stage, Report and Final Stages; No. 1, Communications Regulation (Premium Rate Services and Electronic Communications Infrastructure) Bill 2009 — amendments from the Seanad; No. 22, Road Traffic Bill 2009 — Second Stage (resumed); No. 24, Criminal Procedure Bill 2009 [Seanad] — Second Stage (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 20 shall be decided without debate. Private Members’ business shall be No. 38, Civil Liability (Good Samaritans and Volunteers) Bill 2009 — Second Stage (resumed), to conclude at 8.30 p.m. if not previously concluded.
Order of Business.
One proposal is to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 20 agreed to?
The Labour Party cannot agree to this motion being taken without debate. The National Economic and Social Council, NESC, has existed since the 1970s. The National Economic and Social Forum, NESF, was established with a wider remit. Some time later, the National Centre for Partnership and Performance was established. Then the Government decided that it would establish an umbrella body for the three organisations, the National Economic and Social Development Office, NESDO. This required legislation, which took years to trundle its way through the House. Now, we are apparently being presented with a formula in which the umbrella will be kept and the bodies under it will be amalgamated.
There is probably a good rationale for doing this, but we should hear it. The Minister with responsibility should state the case in the House and provide an opportunity to Opposition parties to comment on whether we support or disagree with the rationale or whether the Government got things wrong in the first place by having a multiplicity of bodies that, in some instances, deal with the same public business. Having set up all of those bodies through legislation, it is not acceptable for the Government to tell the House that it wants to dissolve them without debate.
My objection is to the proposal that No. 20 be taken without debate. If the Taoiseach will say that an hour or whatever will be provided for a debate, the Labour Party will be happy to have it taken, but we will not agree to it being taken without debate.
The Sinn Féin Members do not agree to taking this motion, which seeks approval for the dissolution of the NESF without debate. It is not acceptable, as this matter should be debated. When one considers it against the backdrop of the Government having already abolished the Combat Poverty Agency at a time in which more and more people are being driven into poverty, it would appear that the Government is intent on abolishing all of the watchdog bodies that have been established over the years. This is simply not good enough.
Over the years, the NESF has produced many fine reports. Some of what it has produced has found its way into Government policy, but much of its focus, which is mainly concentrated on issues of equality and social inclusion, has not been taken up by the Government. More than likely, it was an embarrassment to the Government. This is what is behind the proposition to abolish the NESF.
From the Sinn Féin point of view, it is not only taking the matter without debate that would be opposed by our Members. We would oppose the proposition full stop. This body has played a useful and worthwhile role and the quality of its material over the years, including the 2002 report on equity in acute hospital care, the 2005 report on the large child care deficit and its last report in October concerning the home care package scheme, which the NESF claimed was being stymied by bad implementation, has been critical. The reports were valued and welcomed by those who want to see equity and social inclusion in this State.
This decision arises out of consideration of a value for money review on NESDO and its constituent bodies carried out by the Department of the Taoiseach and also the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes. It is in this context that we are seeking to bring forward the order. If Deputies want to debate it between 6.30 p.m. and 7 p.m., I could offer that time. Otherwise, we will have to take it now.
Is that an offer of a debate?
Half an hour would do it.
The Taoiseach has indicated 6.30 p.m. to 7 p.m.
That is what the Taoiseach stated.
I accept that. In principle, there should be a debate on it. I accept having a debate between 6.30 p.m. and 7 p.m.
The Taoiseach has indicated his willingness——
Do Deputies agree with the proposal on the Order of Business?
Subject to that amendment.
The Taoiseach has indicated his willingness to accommodate a debate. Accordingly, I withdraw my objection to this matter proceeding without debate because a debate will now be accommodated.
Is the proposal agreed to?
As amended.
Is the proposal, as amended, agreed to? Agreed.
I thought this was subject to agreement by the Whips.
If it had been brought before the Whips' meeting in the first place this would this would not be necessary. The Government was slipping it by us.
Deputy Stagg must be joking. We can get nothing by him. It would have had to come to me in the end.
I know it is the prerogative of the Taoiseach to appoint whoever he wishes to serve in his Cabinet. Is he aware of an apparent internal or secret arrangement which might oblige him to make other adjustments to the personnel in his Cabinet? What has been leaked from the Green Party is its own business, but if it is true this is a matter of considerable public importance. It is important that Deputy Cowen, while he is Taoiseach, has the best possible working arrangement with his coalition partners. An arrangement whereby the Taoiseach relies on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on one day but finds, without any direct input by himself, that there is a different Minister the next day, does not seem to be a suitable one.
Deputies McManus and Coveney have tabled questions about the statutory instrument, under the Broadcasting Act, made by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources in respect of an increase in a levy which will mean redundancies in local radio stations throughout the country. These local radio stations do not object to the payment of a levy but what is involved here is excessive. I ask that the Dáil have an opportunity to discuss this matter.
Deputy Kenny, you should address this matter to the Minister. It is not appropriate to raise it on the Order of Business.
It is a statutory instrument. Deputy Kenny is seeking a debate.
Under what standing order are you making that ruling, a Cheann Comhairle? This matter is strictly in order. I merely seek Government time for discussion of the details of this statutory instrument. It is a matter of considerable importance to people throughout the country. I respectfully suggest that there be some discussion on it. We cannot amend a statutory instrument. It is either passed or not. If the House decides to reject the statutory instrument a different one, with a lower levy requirement, could be made. I ask the Taoiseach to deal with this matter.
On 11 December 2009, the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament wrote to the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Transport. This followed a petition, facilitated by Mr. Jim Higgins MEP, by the parents of three young women who had lost their lives in road accidents in Ireland. The Committee on Petitions listened to the parents' arguments about the requirement for road safety standards and signage in Ireland. While the appropriate directive refers to trans-European networks, the members of the Committee on Petitions nevertheless decided to write to the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Transport to ask that the parents of the three young women who lost their lives be invited to give the evidence they gave to the European Committee on Petitions to the Joint Committee on Transport. There has not been a response and I suggest that, out of public interest and because of the commitment shown by the parents of those young women in following this matter through, that the Chairman of the joint committee, Deputy Frank Fahey, invite them to attend the joint committee for a discussion on road signage, road safety and road alignment, arising from the fact that their daughters lost their lives in accidents because of incompetence by local authorities.
It would be appropriate to get away from hiding behind the fact that statements were made in the House about the lost at sea scheme. Deputy Michael Creed raised this matter on a number of occasions. Questions remain to be asked and answers can be given.
This matter was dealt with yesterday.
I know you said yesterday, a Cheann Comhairle, that you do not interfere in rulings by Chairmen of committees. However, we cannot gloss over this issue by making statements on it in the Dáil. There is only one other instance of a parliament refusing to accept the independence of an ombudsman's request or to act upon it. There is conflict here between a Member of the Dáil and an independent ombudsman's report. In everyone's interest, this should go back to the joint committee for discussion.
The Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can deal with this matter without reference to the Dáil sitting in plenary session. There is also the option of a debate in Private Members' Time.
Yesterday, I raised the issue of Statutory Instrument No. 7 of 2010 which deals with the levy scheme which will affect local radio stations. Events have moved on significantly since yesterday. This morning, at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, a motion proposed by the Chairman that this scheme be annulled was unanimously agreed. The motion received all-party support from Government and Opposition members. In light of the fact that Opposition and Government Deputies have lost confidence in this statutory instrument, the Government must either withdraw the measure or put it to a vote.
We cannot allow local radio stations to be bled dry because of decisions made at Government level. An authority has been set up and a levy scheme instituted in which Members on neither side of the House have confidence. We all support the principle but I ask the Taoiseach to ensure that the statutory instrument is withdrawn and a full review carried out. The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI, is already committed to carrying out a review but this cannot be done on the basis that the scheme stays in place. We have time but it is limited.
The joint committee has unanimously agreed that Statutory Instrument No. 7 of 2010 be annulled. I urge the Taoiseach to listen to his own Deputies, as well as those on this side of the House, who want to make sure that broadcasting is regulated but also that the cost of that regulation is appropriate to the times and fairly distributed on the broadcasting industry.
We do not need to divide on this issue if the Government is willing to facilitate a revocation of the statutory instrument, which was put before the House on 28 January. The levy order will take effect if we choose not to annul it within 21 working days of the Dáil. That period runs out next Thursday.
Following significant discussion this morning, the BAI has agreed to come back to the joint committee to discuss its budget for 2010 and the levy required to raise it. On that basis, the joint committee has submitted a motion that the order be annulled, pending further consideration of the authority's budget by the joint committee. That motion was proposed by the Chairman, who is a member of a Government party. We request that the Government facilitate that annulment order before next Thursday.
It is unusual that events develop in this way but it is appropriate that the joint committee's proposal be followed at this point.
I support the case presented by the previous speakers. We must recognise that the levy, as proposed by the BAI, is on top of what is a very straitened economic situation for all of these local radio stations. There has been at least a 30% reduction in advertising revenue as a result of the downturn in the economy and this is presenting even more in terms of local rurally based radio stations than the national broadcaster.
It is very important that any imposition is evaluated in the context of the ever more difficult economic situation presenting where staff numbers have already been reduced and where the risk is that one could see some of these stations being forced out of business, and that is not a result anyone here would want to see.
The annulment should be supported as it has already been recorded as being supported by all political opinion at committee. It should be reflected further here and action should be taken, as appropriate, within the short time remaining.
In regard to the issues raised at the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport, that is a matter for it. If there is communication, I am sure the Chairman will consider whether it is appropriate for that to happen.
In regard to the scheme on which there were statements in the House, the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, has set out the Government's position. That is our position on the policy issue raised.
On the matter raised by Deputies in regard to the broadcasting levy, I am sure the Minister would be more than willing to discuss the issue further with the committee arising out of where things stand currently.
I do not know if the Taoiseach appreciates what is involved here.
I appreciate it.
There is limited time. There is a motion on the Order Paper for the annulment of the statutory instrument. That is what we are dealing with. It is not a matter of doing a bit of this and a bit of that.
I am aware of that.
A motion has been tabled to annul this order in order to have a full and appropriate review. It is really up to the Taoiseach to ensure this matter is dealt with. We have already seen widespread concern on the Government side and it cannot simply be ignored, which is essentially what the Taoiseach is doing. He is kicking to touch. Time is running out on an issue which does not have the support of Government Deputies.
We are labouring this issue.
What is the Deputy's point?
It relates to secondary legislation.
I have explained to the Deputy that the Minister will attend the committee and have a discussion with members about it. That is as far as I can bring it.
We must move on.
I seek the Ceann Comhairle's assistance on how best to deal with an issue where the House must make a decision on the annulment of an order before it. I understand the House must do that by having a debate and potentially a vote on a motion for annulment, which must be dealt with before next week.
The Deputy has the option of Private Members' time. It can be expedited that way.
We do not.
The motion can be moved in Private Members' time.
We are not talking about a proposal coming from this side of the House. We are talking about an all-party proposal, namely, a requirement to annul S.I. No. 7 of 2010. It is not just coming from Deputy Coveney and myself. This is a request from an all-party committee set up by the Oireachtas. The statutory instrument is in the name of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and not of the Minister.
The Taoiseach is responsible for what happens in Government and we now have a situation where a piece of secondary legislation does not have the support of the Government. What is he going to do about it?
I explained already that the BAI makes a levy order which it lays before the Oireachtas. That is the procedure. It has a right to lay a levy order before the Oireachtas. It has done that for 2010. The order sets out the method of calculating the levy which is then applied to the BAI budget for the coming year and applied across the broadcasting sector on a pro rata basis based on each broadcaster’s net turnover. Any surplus of levy income or over-expenditure in a given year can be offset against levy obligations the following year or refunded to the industry. The BAI makes the levy order and the committee has spoken to the BAI.
The Oireachtas disposes of it.
The Minister has indicated that he is prepared to talk to the committee about it but the BAI made the levy order.
The Taoiseach has advised——
What are committees for?
I do not want to labour this point because it is wasting time.
A Cheann Comhairle, are we moving on here?
With respect, the Ceann Comhairle needs to make a determination. This House has a——
I do not have a function.
The Ceann Comhairle has one.
The Taoiseach has advised the House that the Minister is prepared to listen to Members in committee.
The House must deal with it. With respect, it is not up to the Minister.
I am sure the question of the committee reporting back to the plenary session can be considered——
It has reported back. It sent a message today.
——subsequent to the discussion with the Minister Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. I call Deputy Gilmore as we need to move on.
On a point of clarification, this was raised in the House on Question Time and the Minister gave his response. We know what he will say, because he said it. It is on the record of the House. We have moved on from that. We now have the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources coming to a conclusion——
The Taoiseach has advised the House that the Minister is prepared to discuss this matter in committee later.
I do not believe the Taoiseach is fully informed.
I am very informed.
We should leave it at that and allow the matter to rest.
On this subject, although there are one or two other matters I wish to raise as well, it is not a matter for the Taoiseach and the Minister. It is now a matter for the House. A committee of the House has a agreed a position unanimously and the report from that committee should be heard and considered by the House.
With the greatest respect, this is an occasion where the Ceann Comhairle, in his capacity as Chair of the House, must defend the rights of the House. A committee has made a decision and the Ceann Comhairle must make the necessary arrangements for the report of that committee to be considered by the House.
In view of the urgency of the matter, I suggest that report should be considered by the House tomorrow and that the necessary arrangements should be made by the Whips to provide time for a debate on it.
We cannot wait for Private Members' time.
The Chair cannot order the business of the House.
I am asking the Taoiseach.
I must also advise the Deputy that the committee has yet to report back to the House on its deliberations.
The Ceann Comhairle has heard from two distinguished Members of the House who have given us advance notice of the report coming from the committee. The Taoiseach should consider the suggestion I made and have the report from the committee considered by the House tomorrow because of the urgency of the issue.
I wish to raise two other matters with the Taoiseach. These reports we have been hearing overnight that there is an arrangement in one of the parties in government, the Green Party, for a rotation of its Ministers and Ministers of State and the suggestion——
Is this promised legislation?
It is the business of Government.
I know the rights of Parliament have been diminished a lot in recent years but one of the constitutional rights we still have is to nominate Members for appointment to Government. We heard overnight that there is some suggestion that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will step aside and some other member of the Green Party will be proposed as Minister.
I want to establish whether this is true or whether it has just been put out there. Has the Taoiseach been informed that there is an arrangement for the rotation of Ministers in the Green Party? If he has been notified of that arrangement, why has he not informed the House of it before now and if on foot of it, he expects to come before the House to nominate new members for appointment by the President to be members of the Government? Is the Taoiseach aware of the arrangement Senator Boyle announced to the nation last night that the Green Party is to have a second Minister of State appointed?
The next issue I raise also relates to the Constitution. The Government is responsible to the Dáil under the Constitution. One of the ways that responsibility is exercised is by Members of the Dáil asking parliamentary questions of Ministers. It has been the case from time to time that a question is tabled but a Minister cannot answer it or he or she must take time to assemble the information or whatever and we all understand that. However, in recent weeks there has been a pattern in the replies to Members. For example, 58 parliamentary questions were tabled to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs yesterday.
Parliamentary questions are a matter for Dáil reform. While I do not disagree with the Deputy on the importance of the issues involved, a committee is sitting to deal with this issue.
The issue is critical to the operation of the House.
I am entitled to ask questions about the business of the House on the Order of Business.
When the Ceann Comhairle is sitting on the back benches he also wants answers to his questions.
Of the 58 written questions tabled to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs yesterday, 43 or 74% of the replies were along the following lines: "Due to staff action currently being taken, I regret that I am unable to provide the information sought by the Deputy". Of the six questions tabled to the Minister for Defence, a role the Taoiseach recently assumed, a similar reply was provided in three cases.
Deputies who table a question to a Minister are asking the Minister for a reply, not the Civil Service. Ministers are constitutionally obliged to respond to questions by providing a real reply rather than the type of reply to which I referred. If they are unable to fulfil their constitutional obligations to the House and its Members and cannot organise, administer and manage their Departments in such a way that they are in a position to provide replies to the Dáil, the Government is dysfunctional and perhaps it should consider options on how to deal with the issue.
Deputies, as Members of Parliament, are entitled to receive a reply when they ask a parliamentary question and Ministers are constitutionally obliged to provide a reply to the House. While Deputies may be sympathetic when a Minister has a problem with staff in his or her office or whatever the case may be, the Minister is still obliged to provide an answer to the House. If Ministers are in a position that they cannot provide a normal written reply to the Dáil in the manner sought by Deputies, alternative arrangements will have to be made for them to come into the House and provide the answers orally.
On both the issues raised by Deputy Gilmore, will the Taoiseach confirm what exactly is taking place in relation to the signalled Cabinet reshuffle? Are we looking at a simultaneous——
The Deputy is anticipating the debate on a motion which will come before the House at some stage.
No, I am not anticipating a debate because there is no motion at this point. Is a simultaneous process taking place here, one under the aegis of the Taoiseach and another, a Lanigan's Ball type affair, at the behest of the Green Party? Will the Taoiseach clarify exactly what is taking place because it appears, from media reports, to be a case of someone stepping in and stepping back out again?
It is a case of Cabinet jigs and reels.
The Deputy may make his points when he contributes to the motion.
Failure to respond to parliamentary questions presented for written answer by Dáil Deputies is a serious matter. I add the Sinn Féin voice to the call made by Deputy Gilmore for an alternative facilitation of Members' inquiries and questions which are, in the main, relevant and important to the circumstances of individual citizens or groups of citizens.
A protest is under way with Government and it is a matter the Government will have to address. I urge it to do so. In the interim period, while the current position is maintained, there is a responsibility on Ministers to provide Deputies with replies to the critical questions we have been requested to ask on behalf of people who are, in the main, in difficulties. What is the Taoiseach prepared to do about this unacceptable situation?
As Deputies know, we would like to see this industrial relations issue resolved. On the handling of the dispute, there are channels of communications open. I make the point again that Members feel strongly that the availability of information and representational duties should be respected. These areas are being affected at the moment and we will take up the matter.
The Taoiseach did not answer the specific questions I asked about the appointment of members of the Government and whether he knows about the crop rotation arrangement the Green Party has——
I am sure the Taoiseach will introduce a motion on the matter. The Deputy may raise these points at that stage.
While I am sure the Taoiseach will table a motion, I want answers to my questions now. Does a rotational arrangement exist? Is the Taoiseach aware of it and will he tell the House about it?
I know all about the current industrial relations dispute and the difficulties it is causing for making representations and so on. That is not the issue I am raising with the Taoiseach. My question is how Ministers will fulfil their obligations under the Constitution to give answers to Members of Dáil Éireann who ask questions of them.
On the same matter, I have asked what will be the interim arrangements pending a resolution of the difficulties, while the current protest by public servants vis-à-vis the Government, through the various Departments, is unresolved? What measures will be introduced to facilitate responses to Members’ questions?
We must move on.
Perhaps Deputy Gogarty will be of assistance in the matter.
I thank Deputy Lynch for his advice.
To answer the question again, we are trying to see in what way we can resolve the matter in order that the services available to Deputies are resumed as quickly as possible. On matters relating to the Government, notice of a motion will be brought forward, due notice will be given and we will deal with the issue at that point.
I call Deputy Deenihan.
My questions have not been answered.
It is 12.30 p.m. and we are still discussing the Order of Business. There is much to be debated in the House today.
If I had been given answers to my questions the first time I put them, I would not have to ask them three times. Is there a secret agreement codicil of some kind to the programme of Government which provides for a rotation of the Green Party Ministers? If so, why did the Taoiseach not inform the House of it when he was introducing the programme for Government and forming his Government? Those are my questions.
It is the Taoiseach's prerogative to table a motion proposing new members of the Government or changes in its composition. I am sure such a motion will materialise.
It is the prerogative of the Opposition to ask questions.
If the Taoiseach abolished the relevant Department, it would save a great deal of money.
We have been labouring this matter for too long.
Did the Taoiseach first hear about the issue last night? Does he use Twitter?
The rotating principle originated with the Labour Party. Does Deputy Burton remember Dick Spring stepping in and stepping out again? The Labour Party supported rotation on that occasion.
I am all for rotation.
Bring back Tommy Broughan, a decent man.
My question is also about rotation, albeit in a different sense. As acting Minister for Defence, will the Taoiseach confirm a commitment made by the former Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, to introduce legislation to reform the Irish Red Cross in view of the fact that three Government nominees, including a barrister, judge and former Minister have resigned from the organisation?
The matter raised would be suitable for a parliamentary question to the Minister for Defence.
If the Ceann Comhairle allows me to finish, he will note that my question relates to promised legislation. In view of the fact that three of the Government's nominees to the board of the Irish Red Cross, namely a prominent judge, a barrister and a former Minister and Government employee who was the Chairman of the Irish Red Cross and secretary general have resigned from the organisation and the Government provides the organisation with €1 million per annum, surely some form of investigation of the organisation is warranted.
The Deputy should raise this matter by means of a parliamentary question or on the Adjournment. Legislation is not promised in this area.
The former Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, promised legislation in the House. Will the Taoiseach enlighten the House as to whether legislation will be introduced to follow through on the commitment given by the former Minister? Did Deputy O'Dea initiate legislation or ask the parliamentary draftsman to consider legislation?
I would be one of the last to try to rotate around one of the great corner backs of our time.
I thank the Taoiseach very much.
I knew he would like that compliment.
The Taoiseach is not such a bad ground hurler himself.
A man who never failed to surprise as a wing forward, sped by him. I will check on the matter the Deputy has raised and will revert to him.
I call on Deputy Naughten and hope it is about promised business.
It is about secondary legislation. Yesterday, the Cabinet approved secondary legislation to ban a number of toxic chemicals on sale in head shops. The Taoiseach told the House previously that he has to get approval from the European Commission before such legislation can be implemented. I raised the matter the week before last with the Tánaiste. Would it be possible to sign the statutory instrument, pending approval from the European Commission, in light of the fact that it is similar to legislation that has been passed in the UK and has already been with the Commission for the past two months? It is also similar to legislation that has already been enacted in other EU countries to ban some of these toxic chemicals. It would address the issue of these shops advertising their products as being legal. Will the Taoiseach ensure that the secondary legislation is signed, even on a temporary basis, pending formal approval?
Can the Taoiseach revert to me on pending secondary legislation under the Planning and Development Act 2000? I understand the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, is examining the possibility of drafting secondary legislation requiring head shops to have planning permission. When will that secondary legislation come before the House?
On the specific matter, a decision has been taken by the Government so that the legislation will come into effect in June, after the three-month period required under the European Technical Standards Directive. I understand that a three-month period must elapse for the legislation to take effect.
The Taoiseach made that decision.
Perhaps the Taoiseach could confirm that no such stipulation would apply to the planning regulations.
I wish to raise two other issues. At a time when the HSE is planning cutbacks in emergency admissions, operations are being cancelled and waiting lists are becoming longer, when is the drugs——
Deputy——
If the Ceann Comhairle would wait, he will get the legislation. All good things come to those who wait. Drugs reference pricing would save this country upwards of €200 million. When will that legislation come before the House?
Last week, I asked the Taoiseach to correct the Dáil record concerning statements he made the previous week. On the Ryanair situation and hangar 6, he said there was a competition. For whatever reason — it is their own business — Mr. Michael O'Leary and Ryanair did not compete for the hangar.
It is not in order to raise that matter.
No, hold on. The Taoiseach has been a Member of the Dáil for more than 25 years. I have been here for two and a half years. He knows better than I do, in this regard. In his response to me last week, he said the only place to correct the official record is in the House. I invite him, yet again, to correct the record of the House.
The Deputy must find another way to address this matter.
There is no other way.
As regards the planning legislation, I will have to check up on that matter.
Reference pricing is a matter that will be dealt with later in the year.
When will the Taoiseach correct the record?
I do not have to correct anything.
It is in the record.
An bhfuil sé i gceist reachtaíocht a thabhairt isteach chun déileáil le toghchán Údarás na Gaeltachta má tá sé le bheith curtha siar i mbliana? Caithfidh an toghchán sin a bheith ann roimh Dheireadh Fomhair 2010. An bhfuil aon reachtaíocht nó an bhfuil gá le reachtaíocht má chuirtear siar é?
Tá an cheist á plé ag an Aire Oideachais agus Eolaíochta agus beidh cinneadh déanta aige in am tráth.