I raise the plight of first-time house buyers, given the announcement that new charges will range between €6,000 and €28,000 for development works on new houses. Two years ago a first-time house buyer was able to get a €3,000 new house grant, but that was abolished and replaced with a 1% increase in VAT to 13.5% for building materials. Now such buyers face an extra charge of between €6,000 and €28,000. This means that if an average of €10,000 is charged on each of the 50,000 houses being built, that is a direct stealth tax of €500 million which used to be funded from the public capital programme. If 60,000 houses are built, then €600 million will be raised by this direct stealth tax.

Young couples or first-time buyers making arrangements for borrowings of €130,000 or €150,000, now have to raise an extra €25,000 to €30,000. Under the stewardship of the Taoiseach and his Government, house prices have doubled in the last two years and he is now directly imposing serious, crucifying stealth charges on new house buyers and on young couples in particular. How can he stand over this? How does it measure up to his own statements about wanting more houses in rural Ireland and wanting everyone to have the opportunity to own their own home? This decision, brought in two years ago by Deputy Cullen, means there is an imposition of between €500 million and €600 million in stealth charges directly on new house owners and young couples. Where does the Taoiseach stand on that and what does he propose to do about it?

We should acknowledge that the construction industry and Government policies are dealing very adequately with the supply of houses for the first time in a long while, with over 60,000 houses being built.

What about the price?

That is the highest number of houses per thousand people in any country in Europe and it is an extraordinary achievement for the Government to be dealing with this all over the country.

Is the Taoiseach building them himself?

I note that Deputies all over the country say planning is the number one issue raised with them by constituents, particularly by those trying to build one-off houses.

What about the price?

For Deputy Kenny's information, development charges have been part of the planning system in Ireland since its introduction since 1964. They pay for local authority infrastructure necessary for new developments, so this did not come in three years ago but in 1964. Due to widespread inconsistency in their application, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government – it was Deputy Dempsey, not Deputy Cullen – brought in the Planning and Development Act. He introduced new provisions requiring local authorities to prepare schemes setting out how development contributions would apply in their area. The final decision on the amounts levied under these schemes is a matter for the elected representatives in local councils.

People still have to raise the money.

The new power was granted to councillors under the Planning and Development Act 2000 under which the money is ring-fenced to pay for facilities servicing new developments. It cannot be used to pay for any other issue such as benchmarking or other local authority services.

Benchmarking is the problem.

The Taoiseach without interruption.

Development charges pay for the local authority infrastructure necessary to facilitate new developments, such as roads, sewerage services and other amenities. The system of charging development contributions under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963 was widely criticised as being too haphazard, unevenly applied across the country and totally lacking in transparency. It was suggested frequently in this House that the system should be amended, therefore new provisions were brought in under the Planning and Development Act 2000 whereby local authorities have to prepare schemes setting out how development contributions will apply to their area. This is an attempt to bring order to the new system and I hope it does so. The Act also expanded the types of facility and infrastructure which could be provided using development contributions to include recreational and community facilities – cycle ways and so on.

Swimming pools.

This was to ensure that new developments would not be built without proper facilities, which was the problem in the past. Estates were built all over the country, particularly in west Dublin, which had no proper facilities.

More double taxes. It should be funded from the speculators' profits.

Now developers are able to contribute. This is an advance in social thinking and should be welcomed.

I call Deputy Kenny and ask that he be allowed to continue without interruption.

The Taoiseach and his Government were supposed to come up with a way of dealing with house prices but that is not what he is doing here. It is perfectly obvious that the only decentralisation we will have from the Government is decentralisation of the tax burden. I am grateful to the Taoiseach for his clarification as to who introduced this, the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, or the Minister, Deputy Cullen, as confusion reigns abroad because Ministers in the Government seem to abdicate collective responsibility whenever steel is required. The Minister, Deputy Cullen, and the Minister, Deputy Walsh, are against the smoking regulations, the Minister, Deputy Michael Smith, has dispensed with the Hanly report and the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, contradicts the Taoiseach in terms of the price of land.

There is no division between the Minister, Deputy Walsh, and the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, on budgets – they are at one on that.

The Taoiseach promised to deal with house prices for young couples. In two years the position has moved from a point where a €3,000 grant was available to them to it being abolished and replaced by a 1% increase in building materials and VAT followed by a stealth charge of between €6,000 and €28,000. The Taoiseach has failed to deal with a central issue for thousands of people across the country and, in that sense, the Government has been an appalling disaster. The Government has blown the money in recent years that was available for these kinds of developments. It is not the developers who are contributing to this infrastructural development but the person who will have to pay these stealth charges. A sum of €600 million will have to be paid in development charges for houses followed by extra charges because local authorities will not be funded for their benchmarking requirements by central Government. In that context, will the Government decide to contribute or pay the benchmarking element of €160 million to local authorities to save young people and first-time buyers from being imposed on or penalised by even further stealth charges as we move into next year?

I must again make the point – Deputy Kenny would not want the facts to be known – that we are providing more houses for our citizens—

What about all the people trying to buy a house?

More people than ever are trying to do so.

There is only one Leader of Fine Gael and that is Deputy Kenny.

I know the Members opposite have been instructed to interrupt once I have spoken for five seconds, but regardless of that I make the point again that as against the United Kingdom or any other country we are pro rata building more houses than are being built anywhere else – 60,000 houses. The best we ever achieved was 35,000 houses.

They are dearer than anywhere else.

Nobody can buy them. The Taoiseach should answer the question

The Deputies opposite should check that out.

Under the Planning and Development Act, we expanded the type of facilities and infrastructure which could be provided using development contribution schemes. That measure was limited for years in that it could be used only for roads and sewerage schemes. It was correct that in the development of an estate proper facilities should be available. The development contribution schemes now include recreation and communities facilities and other leisure facilities and schemes, and this is a good measure.

Those regulations were only introduced in 2002.

Failures in the past in building large housing estates led to discontentment in communities and to social problems on occasions, but now local representatives are fully involved and local people have a direct input into the process.

They have no option.

That was the purpose of Planning and Development Act 2000 in regard to this area, and it works effectively.

The Government allowed a grace period of two years to enable it to get over the general election and the regulations were only implemented in 2002.

I ask the Deputy to allow Deputy Rabbitte to speak.

The Deputy says one thing at home and another thing here.

The Members opposite are hypocrites on this.

I ask the Minister to allow Deputy Rabbitte to speak without interruption.

Deputy McCormack is not the Leader of the Labour Party, I call Deputy Rabbitte.

The Minister needs to do more recycling of himself.

The only people who need to be recycled around here are those in the Fine Gael Party.

The Minister has more experience of that than anybody else.

The Minister should withdraw that remark.

He should leave the House.

He can go out for a cigarette.

The Minister, Deputy Cullen, needs a smoke break.

Let him out for a smoke.

When a Government is untruthful with the people it is the responsibility of Opposition to hold it to account. On Aer Rianta, the Government has been dishonest with the people, untruthful with those who work in Aer Rianta and misleading of the people in the regions. No business case has been made out for the proposed changes at Aer Rianta and no business plan, not even a screed of paper, has been made available by the Minister, Deputy Brennan.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which I brought into this House a week ago, shows clearly that on its figures Shannon is not viable as a stand-alone airport and Cork is a loss-maker.

I have more faith in Shannon Airport than has the Deputy.

Allow Deputy Rabbitte to continue without interruption.

The response of the Minister, Deputy Brennan, was to deny that there was a PricewaterhouseCoopers report and then to misrepresent its contents.

That is not true.

The Taoiseach's response was to say in this House that he would make it available to both sides in the discussions. The Minister, Deputy Brennan, corroborated that but he refused to do it.

I never did that.

In the information I brought before the House yesterday it is clear that in respect of competition and regulatory implications of this decision—

Where did the Deputy get the memo?

Never mind where I got the memo.

Allow Deputy Rabbitte to continue without interruption.

If the Minister wants to know where I got the memo, I might ask him questions about what he got from Michael O'Leary.

The Deputy might tell us what he got from Frank Dunlop?

The Taoiseach refuses to address the question of the regional airports. In yesterday's report he said that people in the regions want autonomy and separate companies within the Aer Rianta structure. What does that statement mean? He sought to give the impression in The Irish Times this morning that he is moving for autonomy within the Aer Rianta structure. What does that statement mean? How can he reconcile autonomy within the Aer Rianta structure with stand-alone status for Shannon and Cork? Does it mean anything other than an attempt to muddy the waters, or is the Taoiseach rowing back? Is he going for autonomy within the Aer Rianta structure or is the Minister, Deputy Brennan, and Michael O'Leary pulling his strings? What is the business case for this move and why is the Taoiseach not honest with the workers in Aer Rianta and the people of the regions? The regulatory and competition implications for the regional airports—

On a point of order—

A point of order is not allowed on Leaders' Questions.

I got nothing from Michael O'Leary, and I hope Deputy Rabbitte is not claiming that I did.

Deputy Rabbitte should withdraw the remark he made.

The public does not know what statement to believe from the Minister as he makes a new one almost every hour of the day.

The Minister should stop digging.

An allegation was made and it should be withdrawn. The Deputy should prove it stands up, otherwise be a man and withdraw it.

I got nothing from Michael O'Leary.

In response to Deputy Rabbitte, I repeat what I said yesterday, that the proposals for the restructuring of Aer Rianta went to Cabinet on two occasions—

The destruction of Aer Rianta.

—last July when the overall policy issue was decided and again recently when the Cabinet approved the heads of the airport Bill. As is standard practice in memoranda to Government, the documents laid out in detail both sides of the argument contained in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, has made clear, inside and outside the Cabinet, that he is fully supportive of the restructuring measures. He and his Department remain supportive of them, but requested, as they should do, that complex issues arising from the restructuring, such as capitalisation, transfer of debt, the future of subsidiaries, shared services, security of employment and terms and conditions of pension entitlements, all of which are important for the staff, are resolved before the Minister finalises the legislation establishing the three independent and fully autonomous State airport authorities.

I confirm this was a Government memorandum, I believe it was the first memorandum. There were two documents, one of which was left at a meeting, which was picked up by a journalist and returned last Christmas, and another one was attached to a document that was circulated. However, this is the first one that has vanished from a Department and a Garda investigation commenced this morning to establish how Deputy Rabbitte got this document. Whether it was taken, given over or stolen will be investigated in due course.

The Taoiseach would be better off sending a garda to Mulhuddart.

It is the Minister's intention to ensure that all the necessary legislation is completed. Drafting is proceeding along these lines. However, the issues can be resolved. There are ongoing meetings with the company and the trade unions on them. Consultants will advise the Department on how best to resolve these complex issues. I repeat what I said last week, that when market-sensitive issues are removed from the documents, they will be shared with the trade unions and staff representatives of Aer Rianta, and the Government has no difficulty with that.

It is all truly covered.

There is no threat to the subsidiaries for regional airports under the public service obligation contracts, as was stated in the House yesterday. On the contrary, the Minister remains committed to maintain support for the regional airports. Almost €20 million is spent subsidising them. The PSOs are not deemed to be State aids. They are EU-sanctioned and are exempt from State aid. It is not true, as Deputy Rabbitte asserted, that State airports would lose their status if there was a transfer of the debt.

Irrespective of the restructuring process, there are issues regarding the regional airports that need to be addressed and the Minister will deal with them. The Government's position was dealt with properly in Cabinet. The Minister for Transport has up to five reports and I have seen them. He is prepared to share these with Aer Rianta representatives. Deputy Rabbitte may have been given these documents, but it is my understanding that Aer Rianta staff already have them. The Minister for Transport is prepared to share them with all the staff and not just a few.

I have absolutely no idea what that last answer from the Taoiseach means, and I do not think he does either.

That is nice.

There are more useful purposes the Taoiseach might put gardaí to than prohibiting this information from being put in the public domain, information which, in the public interest, ought to have been put in the public domain by the Minister.

It is a memorandum. It is a different issue.

I made no reference to having a Government memorandum.

Unfortunately for Deputy Rabbitte, the text he used was only the text that was in the Government memorandum and not in the other literature.

The Deputy is a slow learner.

This is time wasting.

The Taoiseach is interrupting. He should be called to order.

Order, Deputy Rabbitte without interruption.

The Taoiseach missed his profession as his calling is obviously as a detective. He has plenty of—

Deputy Rabbitte, we cannot have cross-questions between you and the Taoiseach.

I never produced or referred to my having—

That is not the point.

The Deputy should not be so smart in quoting exactly—

You need to get smart if you are to keep these guys in office for much longer.

Deputy Rabbitte, you must address your remarks through the Chair, please. Your minute is running out rapidly.

It was used up by the Taoiseach interrupting.

The Taoiseach used it up.

What do you mean by saying that I should address my remarks through the Chair. You are permitting the Taoiseach to interrupt me.

I called on the Taoiseach to resume his seat to let you continue.

The same rule applies to both sides of the House. This is a change of tune. The Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, in this morning's newspapers suggested that powerful forces are trying to block the break-up of Aer Rianta. What powerful forces caused the break-up of Aer Rianta in the first place?

Hear, hear.

Why, against the advice of PWC, commissioned by the Minister, and of the Department of Finance, information on which I gave the House yesterday, is the Government proceeding with this break-up? Why does the Taoiseach now say casually that he is in favour of full autonomy and independent stand-alone status for Shannon and Cork airports when he gave the impression yesterday that he was in favour of autonomy within the Aer Rianta structure? What is the position? Is the Taoiseach in favour of stand-alone status or independence within the Aer Rianta structure?

Does the Taoiseach know what he is talking about?

That is what the people in the regions want to know. When will we see the business case? Where is the business plan to evaluate this proposal? When will the Minister for Transport tell the workers of Aer Rianta the implications for their pensions in the new arrangement? Does the Minister intend to go to the High Court to bring about the break-up of Aer Rianta? Will he be frank with the House on the obstacles that he has encountered from a legal, regulatory, competition, financial, capital bonding points of view? When will he put this into the public domain? Why is he proceeding against the advice that he commissioned?

Deputy Rabbitte likes the idea of a monopoly.

He must answer the question.

There are ongoing meetings with the trade unions on all the issues to do with the finalisation of pension entitlements, security of employment, terms and conditions, shared services and the future of subsidiaries. All these matters have to be resolved. The Minister—

Why is there not a business plan?

—has engaged consultants on this issue.

How can the Government do this without a business plan?

Deputy Seán Ryan is not the leader of the Labour Party and should not undermine his leader.

There is no business plan.

The Deputy is like a muppet.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers document has dealt with the issues around the viability of this matter, including the debt and other substantial issues. These will have to be dealt with in legislation to be brought before the House. The Minister for Finance has made clear that he would like all these issues resolved before the legislation is introduced.

Big deal. Rubbish.

Obviously, when changing and restructuring one company—

Does the Taoiseach agree with him?

—into three separate companies, there has to be substantial change and it will be implemented in legislation. Deputy Rabbitte is entitled to disagree with this, but all the interested groups in the regions have stated that they want autonomy for Cork and Shannon airports.

Within or without the structure?

For some considerable time they have not been happy that they get a fair shot within the present structure. They want more autonomy to develop their regions—

With security.

—as geographical locations and to do business in a more effective way. That is their stated position and the business plan will help these regions and allow them to develop.

A few shopkeepers in Cork are the only ones to have spoken on this, chambers of commerce.

I want to raise the issue—

What has Noel O'Hanlon got on the Government? He received the most expensive redundancy package in the history of the State.

He must support Fianna Fáil.

Deputy Sargent, without interruption.

I wish to deal with the issue of Cabinet cohesion and confidentiality, or lack of it. Even the Taoiseach's friends must be increasingly concerned at the disarray in Cabinet. The leaking from Cabinet is not dissimilar to the fate of the Prestige which, a year ago, went to the bottom of the sea and continues to leak to this day. We have had examples of action concerning leaks, particularly from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, who has forcefully threatened the Garda Síochána that it will have a considerable price to pay if its members leak information. What will the Taoiseach do to stop leaks from senior advisers and the Cabinet on matters such as the Aer Rianta report, where the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, said considerable forces are working to undermine his plans to remove the State airports' monopoly?

Is the reaction to the Hanly report by the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, an example of gross disobedience by a member of the Cabinet and a lack of Government accountability and cohesion? In a normal Government, would the position of the Minister for Defence not be untenable?

He has to go.

Does the Taoiseach believe that the words of the Minister for Defence in saying that Fianna Fáil plays second fiddle to no other party in its determination to look after the people of north Tipperary refer to the Minister's Fianna Fáil and not to the Fianna Fáil of the Hanly report? Which Government are we to take seriously in this regard? Is there a different Government working within Fianna Fáil? Is the smoking ban an example of this, with the Ministers, Deputies Walsh and Cullen, along with the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, speaking from different policy platforms? The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, have different views on the redress board and there are differences between the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance on funding for Punchestown. Does the Taoiseach not have a serious job to do in investigating this matter?

It would be terrible if we all had the same view.

Uno duce, una voce.

Deputy Sargent, I ask you to conclude.

We are told there is Cabinet cohesion. Where is the Cabinet cohesion to be seen? Is it not the case that we need an investigation and that this should be carried out by the Taoiseach? When will he investigate the lack of cohesion?

We are not shrinking violets. We have our own views.

I am not sure which question the Deputy was really asking. He had not really got any so he asked a whole lot.

If the Taoiseach answered any one of them we would be happy.

The Deputy referred to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on Aer Rianta. This was a report requested by Aer Rianta to assist it in this analysis. It is not a policy document and does not have policy conclusions. The memorandum for Government was leaked which, in the first instance, as I have said, will be investigated by the Secretary General of the Department. If the Secretary General feels it has to go further, then obviously it would be a matter for the Garda.

The Taoiseach should bring in the Garda.

From one sentence to the next we do not know if we can rely on what we are hearing. Is the Garda inquiring into the matter or not?

Is the Taoiseach going to investigate the matter?

I am outlining the procedure. Does the Deputy want the Garda to come in first? I know what the Deputy will say.

The Government has accepted in principle the core conclusions of the Hanly report that compliance with the European working time directive requires a consultant provided model of acute service delivery in place of the present largely non-consultant hospital doctor provided model. That is the main decision. A fundamental reorganisation in acute hospital services is required to provide a safe and high quality service for patients. The proposed changes must proceed in a way that safeguard the training element of the non-consultant hospital doctors' role and the reforms must be subject to achieving specific changes in non-consultant hospital doctor contracts. We approve the implementation of the report on the lines set out in the Hanly report taking geographics and demographics into consideration.

How will that affect Nenagh?

What will the Taoiseach do with the Minister for Defence?

Deputy Gormley, this is Deputy Sargent's question.

The Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, and every other Minister accepts that. In the discussion about demographics and geographics, people are entitled to put forward their views. The Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, totally accepts that.

The Taoiseach is so clear.

No Government could bring forward a report on which nobody is entitled to bring forward a view. Members here have no idea what Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, said on the night and what he said subsequently because they did not even listen to the reports. The Minister totally accepts the Hanly report.

What about collective Cabinet responsibility?

The Taoiseach should take a look at the Minister's face. He would not say that if he saw the look on the Minister's face.

This is Deputy Sargent's question and only he is entitled to ask a supplementary. I ask for ciúnas for the Taoiseach.

That is what would be called a scud.

Deputy Ryan, this is the question of your constituency colleague and out of courtesy I ask you to allow him alone to deal with it.

The Taoiseach is getting funny now.

The Defence Forces will be brought in to ring fence the hospital.

I hope all Members of the Opposition are as wholeheartedly in favour of implementing the Hanly report's recommendations as is the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith. I look forward to their support around the country.

Here we go again.

Deputy Sargent is entitled to the courtesy to ask his supplementary question.

We want to hear from sergeant Smith.

Deputy Ring, please let Deputy Sargent speak.

I got answers from the Taoiseach, but the Minister for Defence might have to answer for the answers the Taoiseach gave. Does the Cabinet have a collective responsibility any more?

Only geographically.

The Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, asked the leader of the Labour Party where he got the report. Is it not up to the Taoiseach to investigate that matter and answering that question? Is that not the Taoiseach's job? Will he investigate the leakage of the Aer Rianta report so that some belief in Cabinet confidentiality can be maintained? Will the Minister for Defence get an opportunity to make a statement on this matter? If we believe the Taoiseach, based on the impression from the newspapers, the Minister was telling big untruths in Tipperary and he does not have a problem with the Hanly report at all. However, the Minister said he did. Will the Taoiseach investigate what the Minister said and will the Taoiseach censure him if he said what he is reported to have said or will the Taoiseach just sack him at the next reshuffle? Will there be any honest investigation or will there be a cloak and dagger business at the next reshuffle?

Under Cabinet procedures—

It is pointless for me to try to answer if people keep talking. I have one minute to answer two questions and I would like to answer them. Under the rules of the Cabinet Handbook, if a memorandum to Government is leaked as has happened in this case – we know the text used yesterday is from the Cabinet document – it is up to the Department that instigated the memorandum to have it investigated through the Secretary General. The Secretary General then, obviously, uses the assistance of the Garda. That is the procedure. That procedure has already started this morning. That is the answer to the first question.

On the second question on the Hanly report, for the benefit of the House, I have given the contents of the Government decision and the Minister for Defence has signed up to that in the same way that I have. He has confirmed that to me. If people listened they would have heard me give the various sections and say on the record that we approved the implementation of the report on the lines set out in the memorandum taking geographics and demographics into consideration. The Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, gave his view on an aspect of the geographics, which was—

He rejected it.

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

—that it is not possible to move from an acute hospital to a hospital with no medical service overnight. The Minister gave his views on that.