The purpose of the meeting is to consider the Revised Estimates for the Department of Finance group of Votes and the Office of Public Works. A draft timetable was circulated with the agenda. Is the timetable agreed to?
Business of Select Committee.
I suggest that we truncate the timetable to complete our work by 6.30 p.m. at the latest. Am I correct in saying the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, is taking both sessions?
Yes, he is taking the entire session.
There seems little point in having two presentations by him in different capacities. We should have one opening statement.
I want to keep the Office of Public Works Vote separate.
We do not need separate opening statements.
If the Minister of State circulates his statement on the OPW during the afternoon, we can peruse it when we are not enraptured by the proceedings. That would save time because we would stay here while doing so.
Are the Deputies saying we should follow the format in the timetable but move more quickly?
We do not need the second set of statements which will broadly cover the same ground. We can save time to deal with the Votes. Neither in the manner of its presentation nor the information available does the material before us warrant four and a half hours of debate.
Will we take the opening statements at the beginning?
Yes but we do not need a second set of opening statements between 5.30 p.m. and 6 p.m.
The statement on the OPW will be quite different from the first opening statement. There will be no overlap between the two. The Votes are separate, as are the statements.
We can read it.
It will save time if we can do so.
We will keep the discussion on the OPW separate but can accelerate as we proceed.