Vol. 617 No. 3
1 Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance his views on the implications of the Labour Court ruling that the FÁS management move to confine promotions in head office only to those willing to decentralise is in breach of existing agreements and in conflict with the voluntary nature of the decentralisation programme; and the options he plans to make available for staff in State agencies who exercise their voluntary option to remain in Dublin. [12756/06]
Both the Government and I have made it clear that participation in the decentralisation programme is voluntary. From the outset guarantees have been provided at Government level that all those employees not wishing to transfer out of Dublin will be facilitated with an alternative public service post in Dublin. That position has not changed.
In the Civil Service, progress has been made in discussions with the general service unions on issues relating to transfer protocols, promotions and arrangements for staff remaining in Dublin. Discussions are ongoing on these issues with the unions representing the professional and technical grades in the Civil Service. I am hopeful these and other decentralisation issues arising in the State agency sector can be discussed with the relevant unions with a view to arriving at arrangements which support the decentralisation process while also meeting the concerns of staff.
Turning now to the issues arising in FÁS, I think it would be helpful at the outset to refer specifically to the Labour Court ruling. In its recent recommendation in a dispute between SIPTU and FÁS concerning decentralisation and FÁS contracts of employment, the Labour Court considered the written and oral submissions of the parties. The court also noted the terms of the company-union industrial relations procedures agreement and said that it was of the opinion that FÁS was in breach of the consultation procedures provided for in that agreement. It made no ruling on the substantive issue of the relocation clause.
The court recommended that the matter be referred back to the appropriate central body, at which level the issues should be teased out with a view to arriving at agreed long-term solutions, in consultation with all the parties involved. I strongly support the full use of existing industrial relations structures by all the parties involved and believe that this represents the best way forward. I therefore encourage all the parties to the dispute to engage in central discussions as recommended by the Labour Court. It is only through dialogue that the issues raised can be addressed. On this issue, I understand that FÁS has accepted the Labour Court recommendation and is available for talks. I hope that SIPTU will also be agreeable to participate fully in talks to facilitate an early resolution of this dispute.
In the context of FÁS, what specific offers are being made to staff who, in almost 99% of cases, wish to remain in Dublin? What is the offer on the table in terms of the options for those who clearly wish to stay in Dublin? What negotiations are ongoing between the Department of Finance and SIPTU, which represents the vast majority of the workers involved, with a view to trying to find a resolution? What are the meaningful elements of that discussion in that this is a voluntary scheme and those who have expressed a wish to decentralise are in a tiny minority?
FÁS has moved against procedures by seeking to impose a condition that all promotions are conditional on staff being willing to move to the decentralised location. Does the Minister agree that he is in breach of all the elements of voluntarism that were to be involved in this process and that he is offering the workers concerned no alternative? As this also appears to be a feature of many other State agencies this case is a crucial one.
Industrial action has been approved by the workers concerned and the date for that action is fast approaching. What initiative does the Minister intend to take to try to resolve this matter?
Regarding the policy on promotions, an agreement has been reached in the Civil Service with the general service unions in regard to the inclusion of a decentralisation condition in a proportion of promotions. Discussions are ongoing with the professional and technical staff in the Civil Service on this issue. In the State agency sector promotions must take account of the reality of decentralisation. In the absence of agreement with staff interests on the issue, management and the boards have responsibility to use available opportunities to progress Government policy on decentralisation.
Regarding the specific options that will be made available to staff remaining in Dublin, it is these issues that we wish to discuss with the staff interests in State agencies. We do not have a tradition of inter-organisational mobility within the State agency group. Progress on this issue will require the engagement of all the unions involved to arrive at an appropriate set of arrangements. The decentralisation implementation group, DIG, stated that it is precisely this type of ground-breaking initiative that is needed to give impetus to the implementation of the programme at State agency level.
However, in the normal course of events, vacancies in Dublin-based posts will continue to arise over the full transition phase of the programme due to retirements, resignations, promotions etc. I have already referred to the initiation of arrangements in the Civil Service for staff who wish to remain in Dublin. The primary mechanism for placing civil servants who are in posts which are due to decentralise but who wish to remain in Dublin is by way of bilateral transfer. As Civil Service staff who have applied to decentralise continue to be transferred into decentralising organisations, the posts they vacate become available to those wishing to remain in Dublin. At present, in excess of 1,200 staff have been assigned to decentralising posts.
In addition, my Department has been in discussions with the Civil Service unions on further arrangements to facilitate the placement of Dublin-based staff. The objective of these arrangements is to provide to the Public Appointments Service details of staff who wish to remain in Dublin at each grade level so that a proportion of vacancies arising in Dublin-based posts may be filled by those staff. These arrangements have been recently initiated for general service grades.
In regard to the specifics of the dispute, the result of the Labour Court ruling was that FÁS did not abide by the consultation clause and that it must do so. The court did not deal with the substance of the relocation clause, as such, and there is a need for discussion on these matters with the State agencies union representatives. The DIG has suggested there is a need for a ground-breaking initiative in that area.
The Minister is ignoring the issue. Nothing he said addressed it. He has not suggested meeting SIPTU, for example, in respect of FÁS, although I read in the local newspapers that the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, stated he would love to meet SIPTU to deal with FÁS. There is nothing on the table for FÁS workers in this industrial dispute. In any industrial dispute there must be some offer from the other side so meaningful discussions can take place, but there is nothing on the table from the Minister's side.
Will the Minister agree to park the provocative system of promotion under these rules that are deemed inappropriate by the Labour Court and will he, as the political head of this decentralisation process, sit down with the representatives of all the State agencies and trash out something that is workable for them all? What is happening now is unacceptable. The Minister is forcing people to move to strike action simply because the Government has not thought through what it has to offer to them.
That is not correct. As I outlined to the Deputy, the Labour Court finding notes the terms of the company-union procedures agreement and stated that it was its opinion that FÁS was in breach of the consultation procedures provided for the agreement and it made no ruling on the substantive issue of the relocation clause. The Labour Court recommended that the matter be referred back to the appropriate central body at which level the issues should be teased out with a view to arriving at an agreed long-term solution in consultation with all the parties involved. I am saying that FÁS management——
Government is the central body that will say what is going to happen.
The Deputy should allow the Minister to speak without interruption. We have gone over time on this question.
Yes, and both the Department, in terms of the public service, and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment officials who deal with personnel matters are available on the basis of being able to get everyone around the table. FÁS management is available to discuss it, as the Labour Court ruling suggested it should, and we hope that SIPTU will also come to the table on that basis.
2 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Finance if, in regard to his statement to Dáil Éireann on 25 January 2006 in which he revealed that €56 million that had been designated as capital spending for the Health Service Executive during 2005 had apparently been used on day-to-day current spending, he has received an explanation from the Health Service Executive or the Department of Health and Children as to the way in which this major breach of financial procedures happened; the steps being taken to ensure that such a breach does not occur again; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12648/06]
The Deputy will be aware that, in December 2005, the Appropriation Act included €56.4 million in respect of capital carry-over from 2005 to 2006 for the HSE. This was based on information received in my Department from the Department of Health and Children to the effect that this capital saving would be achieved in 2005 and available to be carried forward into 2006. On 17 January last, my Department received provisional outturn figures for the HSE for 2005 from the Department of Health and Children which indicated that the capital savings anticipated by the HSE in December 2005 may have been used to meet similar sized costs under the current expenditure heading. Given that an amount of €56.4 million had been included in the Appropriation Act, it was incumbent on me to inform this House that this carry-over might not now be available. Accordingly, I took the earliest opportunity available to inform the Dáil by making a statement on the matter on 25 January last. I also indicated that the Department of Health and Children was awaiting final verification of the 2005 outturn from the HSE and that I was determined to ensure there would not be an adverse impact on the plans for the HSE capital spending in 2006.
Because of the uncertainty in regard to the HSE's capital spending, no provision was made for the HSE in the ministerial order providing for capital carry-over generally endorsed by the Dáil on 7 March last and which I signed on 9 March. I have now been advised by the Department of Health and Children that the HSE's Appropriation Account for 2005 has been completed. It shows there is an overrun of €300,000 on current expenditure and a saving of €51 million on capital expenditure — of course, the Deputy will appreciate that the Appropriation Account is still subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. In keeping with the undertaking which I gave earlier, I will be proposing a Supplementary Estimate of €51 million for the HSE at the appropriate time.
Does the Minister regard as satisfactory the fact that the HSE and the Department of Health and Children should have been party to such a major error in the accounting system, the failure to distinguish properly between capital and revenue expenditure?
I am grateful for his explanation to the House. Does he regard it as acceptable that his explanation is entirely different to that which Deputy Harney, standing in the same place, gave to the House following the debacle when she stated that the previous guess was that the HSE would underspend current expenditure by €12 million whereas some €56 million had gone missing?
Will the Minister comment on a letter from an assistant secretary in his Department, Mr. David Doyle? Did he contact the Department of Health and Children and advise the Secretary General that it was the advice of the Department of Finance that an outside firm of accountants should be brought in to find out what had gone wrong?
Yesterday saw the announcement of a national health emergency as a result of PPARS and the unfortunate people on trolleys. Is an element of that emergency that the HSE and the Department of Health and Children seem unable to do what a first year accountancy student would be asked to do, to distinguish between capital and current expenditure?
By way of background to these events, the Deputy will be aware that the establishment of the HSE in January 2005 with its own Vote, represented a major change in the management, organisation and delivery of health services. It involved the amalgamation of 17 separate health agencies that historically had accounted on an accruals accounting basis into a unified structure, eight of these agencies having had individual budgets in excess of €500 million. Moreover, as a consequence of the HSE being established as a Vote, with the attendant additional demands of accounting on a cash basis, it became necessary to derive a single cash-based appropriation account from these existing systems.
It is also necessary and important to recognise the practical issues associated with balancing an overall budget of €11,500 million during the first year of the HSE's existence. The chief executive officer of the HSE has argued that with the best will in the world, it was not possible in a very dispersed organisation to produce definitive accounts by the end of the first week at year end. Thus the figures available in January were provisional and somewhat different figures have now emerged.
I reject any suggestion of a major breach. Information was made available to me of a carry over on the capital side from the Department of Health and Children of up to 10% of its capital Vote which was €56.4 million and I included this information in the account. When it emerged in mid-January that this figure may not tally with the work being done by the HSE and because it was included in the account, I came to the House and informed the House of that fact. I informed the House that the appropriation account which is required by statute to be issued by 31 March, would clarify the issue as to what the precise carry over figure should be. The appropriation account has been signed off by the chief executive officer which as in the normal course of all appropriation accounts in Departments, will now be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General during the course of this year and will probably be issued in September with his audited accounts.
The capital carry over figure is €51 million. I have given the House the background information. There was a considerable organisational change in the first year of the Vote, not only in personnel but also in structures, over a total budget of €11.5 billion. If the outcome of the appropriation account is as has been communicated to us from the chief executive officer, the current overspend on current account is just €300,000. The actual figure for the capital carry over was not €56.4 million as intimated to me but €51 million. It is important to bring this to the attention of the House which I am doing by way of the reply to the Deputy's parliamentary question. Given the context and the background, what has emerged as the eventual outcome is a difference of €5.4 million on the capital carry over side.
This is a severe embarrassment for the Minister. It is the first time the Minister for Finance has had to apologise to the House——
A question, please, as we are rapidly running out of time.
I have a question. The Ceann Comhairle allowed the Minister speak at great length so I presume I will be allowed put a word in also.
The Chair has no control over the length of time that anybody speaks but we are out of time for this question——
The Minister was forced to apologise to the House——
I ask the Deputy to confine herself to a brief question.
The Minister did not answer the question I asked him, whether the assistant secretary of the Department of Finance, as reported, was forced to advise the Department of Health and Children and the HSE on the use of outside accountants. If this were to happen in a private company quoted on the Stock Exchange——
We must conclude this question because we have already spent seven minutes on it.
——somebody would have to take responsibility and resign. Nobody in this Government takes responsibility. We have PPARS and trolleys and a national health emergency.
The Deputy is making a speech and there is no provision for Second Stage speeches at Question Time. We have gone three minutes over on this question.
I asked a question the Minister has not answered.
A very brief answer from the Minister.
I can only answer when the Deputy has concluded the question. I did not come in to apologise to the House; I came in to notify the House.
The Minister came in to apologise.
I refer the Deputy to my statement in which I set out the technical position.
It was a humiliation.
Does the Deputy wish to hear the answer?
I did not come in to the House to apologise but to notify the House that the €56.4 million was not going into the Revised Estimates volume and that I could only get confirmation of what the precise capital carry over was when the appropriation account due by 31 March was to hand. I have given the background of the organisational changes which took place in the first year.
The real issue is that despite the efforts made by some to misrepresent the position, there is a current account overspend of just €300,000 on a total current capital budget of €11.4 billion and an actual capital carry over of €51 million instead of what was envisaged at €56.4 million. Subject to the audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General confirming that matter, this is something of a storm in a teacup.
3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Finance if he will confirm that relocation for public service workers under the decentralisation programme is entirely voluntary, is not linked to promotional prospects and is based on consultation procedures; the mechanisms in place to ensure that this is the case in practice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12711/06]
As I have stated earlier, both the Government and I have made it clear that participation in the decentralisation programme is voluntary. From the outset guarantees have been provided at Government level that all those employees not wishing to transfer out of Dublin will be facilitated with an alternative public service post in Dublin. This position has not changed.
Progress has been possible in discussions with the Civil Service general service unions on issues relating to transfer protocols, promotions and arrangements for staff remaining in Dublin. Discussions are ongoing on these issues with the unions representing the professional and technical grades in the Civil Service. I hope these and other decentralisation issues arising in the State agency sector can be discussed with the relevant unions with a view to arriving at arrangements that support the decentralisation process while meeting the concerns of staff. In the meantime, practices in decentralising organisations relating to recruitment, promotion etc., must take account of the reality of decentralisation.
Undoubtedly, there are complexities involved in the State agency aspects of the decentralisation programme which do not exist in the Civil Service. The Government and the decentralisation implementation group have always recognised this would be the case. Traditionally there is no experience of decentralisation among State agencies and no tradition of inter-organisational transfer or movement among staff. However, the Government and the DIG remain of the view that these challenges can be addressed through the active engagement of management and unions.
I take it the Deputy's question is in the context of the current dispute in FÁS, which I discussed in response to the first priority question from Deputy Bruton. As I indicated, the Labour Court considered the written and oral submissions of both SIPTU and FÁS. The court also noted the terms of the company-union industrial relations procedures agreement and said it was of the opinion that FÁS was in breach of the consultation procedures provided for in that agreement. However, it made no ruling on the substantive issue of the relocation clause. The court recommended that the matter be referred back to the appropriate central body, at which level the issues should be teased out with a view to arriving at agreed long-term solutions in consultation with all the parties involved.
I restate my support for the use of existing industrial relations procedures and structures by all the parties involved, which represents the best way forward. On this issue, I understand that FÁS has accepted the Labour Court recommendation and is available for talks. I hope SIPTU will agree to participate fully in talks to facilitate an early resolution of this dispute.
The Minister still claims the relocation programme for public service workers is voluntary yet the reality is quite different in practice. Does the Minister accept the situation for employees of State agencies is radically different from that of civil servants? I emphasise that the situation is radically different because there is transferability between Departments for civil servants but those who opt not to relocate can be transferred if necessary to another Department. Does the Minister accept this is not the case for staff of State agencies?
Does the Minister deplore — I have to put it in as strong a term as possible because I see it no differently — the effort to coerce staff at FÁS headquarters to relocate to Birr by linking the move to promotional prospects? A newspaper was cited earlier. The Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, admitted in The Sunday Times last weekend that workers in State agencies, including FÁS, currently cannot be transferred.
The Deputy should confine himself to asking a question.
If the move of FÁS headquarters to Birr is to happen, what career and promotional prospects will apply to those members of FÁS who opt to remain in Dublin? That is the key question. FÁS is one of the most decentralised of the State agencies, with arms and representative offices in many provincial towns.
As I stated in reply to a previous priority question, we require the active engagement of both sides to resolve any dispute. The Labour Court did not make a substantive finding in regard to the relocation clause. It stated the consultation clause in the procedures agreement was not adhered to sufficiently by management in the context of the terms or spirit of that agreement. FÁS accepts that ruling and is available to proceed with active engagement with the unions.
The decentralisation implementation group stated that, given there has not been a tradition of decentralisation of State agencies to the same extent as is the case with the Civil Service, we need a groundbreaking initiative within the State agency sector to deal with this matter. The best way of doing this is by engaging on the issues, listening to the concerns of staff and dealing with those concerns in the same way the Civil Service decentralisation programme, under successive Administrations, found a means through negotiation of resolving matters such as deciding what proportion of promotions would be located among decentralised posts and Dublin posts. The transfer protocols and the range of precedents in Civil Service decentralisation programmes can be the model on which negotiations can proceed.
We need the active engagement of all concerned. The Labour Court has made its findings, which both sides accept. The labour part of the ruling is to return to discussions. The parties which have accepted the Labour Court ruling should accept it in its entirety, re-enter and actively engage in discussions and find whether we can proceed, as the decentralisation implementation group has indicated, with a groundbreaking initiative for the State agency sector. That is the way forward and the way in which these matters can be resolved.
I have a supplementary question.
The Deputy should be brief. We are running out of time.
What proactive measures have the Minister or the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, employed to bring about an early address of the difficulties, given that we have an indication of industrial action being taken by FÁS staff, with all of the serious associated consequences? What steps have been taken in this regard?
I must also ask the following question. While the Minister and the Minister of State will not be comfortable with it, it is better that it is asked and the Minister's response is on the record. There is an inference that political pressure has been applied to FÁS management——
I ask the Deputy to give way to the Minister.
I am asking the question. He can hardly respond until it is asked.
The Chair generously and foolishly allowed the three Deputies to ask supplementary questions when we were out of time on the relevant questions. I asked for a brief question. I call the Minister to make a final reply.
I do not think that either I or the Minister spoke for too long. I rarely do that.
We have spent half an hour on three questions. I call the Minister.
I ask the Minister if he will respond to a charge that has some currency, namely, that political pressure was applied to FÁS management in regard to the move of its head office to Birr. Will the Minister respond to that question?
The State agency boards understand Government policy and are working to proceed with and implement it, as is the case with Departments of State. The Labour Court suggested that the matter should go back to an appropriate central body but did not specify what body that should be. I believe that my Department, together with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, as the responsible line Department, will have a role to play in any negotiations.
The decentralisation implementation group does not have a role to play in this matter. It is leading the decentralisation programme but is not itself involved in the detailed industrial relations matters arising in the context of decentralisation. These are handled through the existing industrial relations structures in place within Departments. Those are the people who can help work with and join the negotiations in——
What is the Minister offering in this creative leap?
Allow the Minister to reply. We have already gone three minutes over time on this question.
Everyone engaging in negotiations will enable us to try to proceed with the matter. We cannot proceed without everyone sitting down around the table. The Deputy will find that when he tries to make coalition arrangements.
We will move to Question No. 4.
Has the Minister been deflected or is he ignoring the point with regard to political pressure?
I have not ignored the point; I answered it. All State bodies support Government policy. That is the oldest rumour in the book.
Offaly would not be higher in the Minister's mind than any other location.
I would never meet the Deputy's high moral standards but I do the best I can.
The Minister is not doing badly.
I thank the Deputy.
4 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Finance the estimate for inflation used in his budget 2006 speech; if he intends to review this figure in view of the most recent figures from the Central Statistics Office showing that inflation had increased to 3.3%; his views on the recent increase in the consumer price index; if his Department has done an assessment of the likely implications for the economy of the increase in inflation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12649/06]
On budget day, inflation as measured by the consumer price index was forecast to average 2.7% in 2006. Part of the pick-up in the annual inflation rate in February reflects the rise in interest rates by the European Central Bank. In addition, the price of oil rose throughout most of last year, which had an impact on the annual rate of inflation in February. We have no control over these external factors. My Department will publish updated forecasts in the autumn.
On an EU basis, Ireland's harmonised index of consumer prices was 2.7% in February compared to 2.3% in the euro area. Ensuring that our inflation rate moves back towards the euro area rate will be important for remaining competitive. I made no changes to indirect taxes in the budget, which will contribute to meeting this objective.
Does the Minister acknowledge that the Government is a major driver of inflation due to cost increases and stealth charges? I refer in particular to the increases in health charges, VHI, the cost of beds etc. announced in the budget. Fuel and gas prices have gone through the roof. Many people, including many older people, have had a €200 increase in their gas bills over the winter. The increase in mortgage repayments will cost many families potentially an extra €200 a month. To cap it all, we were told today there will be a further 4% increase in electricity and fuel costs due to the Government's failure to provide for Kyoto agreement arrangements. Under this Government, electricity prices have risen 61%——
Has the Deputy a question?
I am asking the Minister——
The Deputy may not make a speech.
May I have parity of esteem with Deputy Ó Caoláin for once?
The Chair will not accept that.
Deputy Ó Caoláin was allowed to talk for a long time. I would like parity of esteem with Deputy Ó Caoláin on the bases of gender and party.
This is Question Time and as the Deputy is well aware——
I would like in all sincerity to ask the Ceann Comhairle for parity of esteem with Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Yes, Deputy.
I represent people as well.
The Deputy will obey Standing Orders the same as Deputy Ó Caoláin. The Deputy is entitled to ask questions to elicit information, she is not entitled to make a statement.
Deputy Ó Caoláin is but I am not.
Deputy Ó Caoláin asked questions, although he may have asked more than the Chair would have liked.
Deputy Ó Caoláin made a lengthy statement which the Chair listened to with great interest, maybe the Chair should listen to what I have to say as well.
I ask the Deputy to obey the Standing Order.
Deputy Ó Caoláin is unique.
I am getting it from both sides.
I ask the Minister does the Government acknowledge that it is the major driver of inflation that is impacting on young families buying houses, pensioners trying to struggle to meet increasing refuse costs and gas bills which for many people increased by €200 over the winter period, the increase in the cost of a bed in a public hospital and the swindling increases in VHI? What does the Minister propose to do? There has been a 61% increase in electricity costs under the Government and today a further 4% increase in such costs has been announced. Does the Minister intend to do anything for people?
First, it should be noted regarding inflation in health and education that these sectors have relatively small weights in the basket of consumer goods and services and, hence, their impact on overall inflation is relatively low. Second, inflation in health partly reflects increases in GP and dentist fees which are outside the control of Government.
Regarding the increases in gas and electricity prices, prices in these sectors are determined by regulators. However, I point out that increases in recent years partly reflect the global increase in oil prices, something over which we have no control.
The Central Bank is forecasting CPI inflation to average 2.75% this year while the ESRI is forecasting 2.6%. The most up to date private sector forecasts are typically in the range of 2.5% to 3.2%. It is clear, therefore, that my Department's forecasts are not out of line with those of other commentators.
Regarding the factors to explain the rise in inflation in February, by raising the level of consumer prices, the rise in interest rates in December had an impact on the annual rate of inflation in February. The same applies to the rise in the level of oil prices during the past year.
Services sector inflation rose to 4.4% in February, which partly reflects the level of demand in the economy. Lowering the inflation rate to that prevailing in our major trading partners is in all our interests and that is the reason I made no changes to indirect taxes in the past two budgets.
The Government, therefore, was doing its bit to reduce inflation. Others have to do their bit also. National wage agreements are important in this regard. We must ensure that wages evolve in line with productivity gains while at the same time facilitating a sustainable evolution of profits. A greater role for competition in the economy is also important. It is the best way to protect competitiveness and safeguard employment.
I caution against reading too much into data for one single month. My Department will update the inflation forecasts in the autumn and account will be taken of all published data and other available information when framing those forecasts.
That completes Priority Questions.
On a point of order, I wish to raise the matter of the refusal and transfer of a priority question and a substitute question that I submitted. One question sought the Minister's view on trends in the housing market on which the Central Bank has commented widely, but that question was transferred to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local government, which is not acceptable. The Minister has a legitimate point of view to express in this House.
The second question related to the changes needed in the way in which we consider the Financial Bill, given that his year we succeeded in examining in committee only two thirds of the amendments or the original sectors. That was deemed not to be a matter for the Minister. We need to be a bit more reasonable if we want reform and if we want Ministers to play a role in dealing with important issues in the housing sector and in the way in which we deal with taxation. These questions should not have been disallowed in one case or switched by the Minister in the other.
The Chair has no function in the matter. If a question is transferred it is a matter for members of the Government.
The Chair has a function in disallowing a question. The disallowing of my question was incorrect because the Government has a crucial role in deciding how——
Perhaps the Deputy will raise the matter with the Ceann Comhairle's office.
I will.
