It is proposed to take No. 12, motion re ministerial rota for parliamentary questions; No. 13, motion re by-election for Dublin South; No. 14, motion re by-election for Waterford; No. 15, motion re by-election for Donegal South-West; and No. 16, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the terms of the draft scheme entitled Credit Institutions (Eligible Liabilities Guarantee) (Amendment) Scheme 2010.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. and business shall be interrupted on the adjournment of Private Members' business which shall be No. 76, motion re economic strategy, to be taken on the conclusion of No. 16, to adjourn after 90 minutes, to resume tomorrow immediately after the Order of Business and to be brought to a conclusion after 90 minutes on that day; No. 12 shall be decided without debate; in the event of any of the motions for by-elections being moved, Nos. 13, 14 and 15 shall be moved and debated together and decided separately the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 28 minutes and speeches shall be confined to the main spokespersons for Fine Gael, the Labour Party, Sinn Féin and to a Minister or Minister of State, who shall be called upon in that order, may share their time and each of whom must not exceed seven minutes; and the proceedings in regard to No. 16 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 9 p.m. and the following arrangements shall apply — the speech of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Sinn Féin, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case, the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed ten minutes in each case, Members may share time and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed 15 minutes.

There are four proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 12, motion re ministerial rota for parliamentary questions, to be taken without debate, agreed to?

I wish to comment on this. The Minister concerned has been in the news in recent days. The point has been made that the conference the Minister is attending was arranged by her predecessor and that there was no facility to change the position of these questions on the rota because this is the first day of the Dáil session after the summer recess. If it is true that this matter was arranged before the summer, then surely the facility existed to have the rota changed back in July. I make this point to the Chairman of the House for accuracy. It is not true to say that these questions could not have been changed. If this conference was arranged, agreed and set up during the tenure of the Minister's predecessor, then there was ample opportunity to change the rota in July. I make this point for accuracy.

Is the proposal agreed? Agreed. Are the arrangements for the motions re the three by-elections agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 16, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the terms of the draft scheme entitled Credit Institutions (Eligible Liabilities Guarantee) (Amendment) Scheme 2010 agreed to?

The Labour Party does not agree to the arrangement for the taking of No. 16. This is the proposal the Government is bringing to the House to extend the blanket guarantee that was introduced two years ago. Whatever justification there might have been two years ago — that the Government was up all night and had to bring the matter before the House in a rush and put the gun to our heads to agree to it — there is no justification whatever for the same procedure being used in 2010. This House has been closed down by the Government for the past 12 weeks. I would have expected, at a minimum, that if the Government wanted to put this motion before us the Dáil would have been reconvened earlier than today and that adequate time would have been allowed to tease it out and discuss it, thus allowing us to represent the people who elected us to this House.

Second, this proposal is, extraordinarily, being put to us the day before the Financial Regulator will publish what we are told will be the final figure in respect of Anglo Irish Bank, a figure which the Taoiseach tells us he does not yet know. The Dáil is being asked to write another blank cheque following which we will be told tomorrow what was the size of the previous blank cheque. This is the wrong way to go about dealing with what is a serious motion before the House. The scheme introduced two years ago tied the State to the banking system at the hip, the consequences of which we all know, and we are now being asked to extend it and to have this all done and dusted in a couple of hours. The Labour Party will not agree to that.

I share the sentiment that extra time should be allowed to deal with the motion. Perhaps I can be helpful to the House. This is an important matter. It is important we distinguish between the Credit Institutions (Eligible Liabilities Guarantee) (Amendment) Scheme 2010 and the original guarantee put through the House two years ago. It is fundamental that we have a banking system that works in the interests of keeping the life blood of the economy moving. There are difficulties in this regard in terms of credit and the unavailability of loans to businesses, hundreds of thousands of whom are hanging on by their finger nails. To be of assistance, Fine Gael is prepared to reschedule its Private Members' Business re proposals for jobs to tomorrow if the Taoiseach is willing to commence the debate on the Credit Institutions (Eligible Liabilities Guarantee) (Amendment) Scheme 2010 this evening at 7 p.m. and conclude it at 9 p.m. This would provide us with an extra hour and a half to debate the motion. The Order of Business for tomorrow could be changed to allow Fine Gael's Private Members' Business to be dealt with in a three-hour session.

Having listened to Deputy Kenny, I must state that what is at issue is not time provision. Apart from the fact that a guillotine of 9 p.m. is being applied, which is objectionable in itself and is an action usually the preserve of Government towards the end of a session rather than on the first day back, we are once again being asked by this Government to buy a pig in a poke. I do not need to have explained to me the importance of having a credible banking system in which we can have confidence. Sinn Féin demonstrated its acceptance of this when it participated in the vote on 30 September 2008. What went wrong subsequently is that the commitments received from the Minister and our reasonable expectation of how the guarantee would be presented, advanced and legislated for was totally at a remove from everything we were given to believe.

The record of the House shows that I repeatedly asked the Minister for Finance on the floor of this House on that evening if he had any further information that was pertinent and relevant to our taking whatever decision we were to take in regard to the proposition and that he did not state any reason for further concerns. We have since learned that the Minister then had critical information in regard to Anglo Irish Bank, which he learned on the evening before from representatives of the two main banking institutions in this State, namely, Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Bank. The Minister withheld critical information from Deputies on the floor of this Chamber, which is a damning indictment of him and the Government. We cannot trust the Government. The people do not trust the Government; that is a fact.

Sinn Féin was prepared to, in good faith, accepting the basic principles of the argument——

The Deputy cannot make a Second Stage contribution at this point.

The Ceann Comhairle could reserve closing me down for another time.

I intervened in case the Deputy was planning to continue.

I want to make a couple of critical and relevant observations.

The Deputy should respect the Chair.

The Deputy can make those points when the debate commences.

That which I share is absolutely relevant.

All of those points can be made when the debate commences.

No. I will not make them during the debate. I am stating them now. I am objecting to the taking of this proposal, as is my right under Standing Orders. Let us get that right from day one of this session.

Once again, we are being asked to agree to an extension of what has proven to be a disastrous proposition in relation to an almost gilt edged bank guarantee that has been used by many to serve their particular interest and is running totally contrary to the interests of the overwhelming majority of people in this State. We are on the one hand being asked to continue the bail-out of a toxic bank, namely, Anglo Irish Bank, and on the other hand to accept yet another dollop of cuts to be introduced by Government on 7 December next which will add further pain and penury to people already burdened with both.

I do not know the name of the toxic bank protestor outside this institution this morning——

The Deputy is taking liberties with the consideration of the Chair.

——and who is being detained in Pearse Street Garda station since. I hope he is not detained too long. I can tell the House the names of those who should not alone be detained at that Garda station for questioning for a long time but who should be put through the rigors of the courts of this land for what they have done and have inflicted not alone on this generation of Irish people but on future generations. I refer to those at the helm of the toxic Anglo Irish Bank and other banking institutions in this State who have never been called to heel or account.

Deputy, please.

They are turning their nose against the people's interest——

I ask the Deputy to co-operate with the Chair.

——with the connivance of Government. That is the situation. It is the reason people protested outside the gates of this House today——

Deputy, please.

——and the reason they will do so in ever increasing numbers. This proposition is totally flawed and absolutely unacceptable. The Government has no credibility coming before this House expecting us to endorse it.

I reject all of Deputy Ó Caoláin's assertions made against the good faith of the Government in relation to dealing with these matters. They are totally without foundation. The situation——

The facts of 30 September are on the record of the House.

The Taoiseach, without interruption, please.

The guarantee period expires tonight. On the recommendation of the Governor of the Central Bank we want to renew that guarantee. We are seeking to put it forward for renewal tonight as it must be confirmed tonight. Attracting funding remains difficult for banks, not least in light of stress on sovereign debt markets. The Governor of the Central Bank has recommended extension of the eligible liabilities guarantee scheme to 31 December 2010.

I say again to those who suggest it was an option to allow this bank to go — as people are suggesting now in retrospect — to look to the conclusions of the report confirming its systemic nature, the impact that would have had on the economy generally and on the banking system generally. Every Government——

The Government did nothing when the share price collapsed the previous March.

Deputy Burton.

——has had to deal with recapitalisation of the banks.

The Government sat on its hands. It knew in March 2008 that the share price had collapsed.

Deputy Burton.

Approximately a dozen other EU countries also recently extended their guarantee schemes to 31 December, including Austria, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Spain and Sweden. Sweden is often mentioned by some Members of the House in terms of how one should try to deal with a banking crisis. The guarantee applied in Sweden was for about four and a half years.

It is important to point out that the State has earned approximately €1 billion from guarantee fees from those who have participated in the scheme, a point of fact which I am glad to put on the record.

I am putting the question.

What about Deputy Kenny's proposal for a time extension?

The question is, "That the proposal for dealing with item No. 16, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the terms of the draft scheme entitled Credit Institutions——

A Cheann Comhairle, Deputy Kenny has put a proposal to the House.

An offer has been made in regard to an extension of time.

I will put the question.

The final figure with regard to Anglo Irish Bank is to be made known by the Government tomorrow. Will the Taoiseach see to it that adequate time is provided in the House next week to discuss the implications of this issue? Second, will the Taoiseach confirm again the date of the budget? Third, in February of this year, the committee dealing with children's rights agreed a wording for a children's rights referendum. This wording has been with the Attorney General for quite some time. I note that the referendum Bill is not in the legislative programme. Does the Taoiseach expect the Attorney General to complete his analysis of the wording in the foreseeable future and is it still the intention to hold a referendum on children's rights in 2011? Finally, on a number of occasions this week, the Taoiseach spoke about parliamentary democracy and how a Government majority is maintained by parliamentary democracy. Will he save himself having to vote on three separate motions regarding the pending by-elections? If he is so convinced of the importance of parliamentary democracy and the maintenance of his majority in the House will he not tell us he will hold the three by-elections and get on with it?

The budget date has been mentioned. It is 7 December. With regard to the children's referendum, that work is continuing. I understand the Minister of State with responsibility for children's rights was before the joint committee recently and updated it on some of the thinking and the work that is ongoing with the Attorney General. He will be reverting to the committee as soon as further work is completed. Until that work has been completed and considered by the Cabinet, I cannot give a date on anything.

It is on no list of promised legislation. It has been completely excised.

The question of the by-elections will be debated in a few moments. Deputy Kenny's first question was about Anglo Irish Bank. The precise figure has not been conveyed to me or to the Government. I will not know it until the person whose statutory duty it is to deal with it — the Financial Regulator — conveys it to us. It is expected that it will be forwarded to us formally tomorrow. If that is the case I would like to facilitate a debate for the Deputy tomorrow.

I noted the Taoiseach's reply to Deputy Kenny's question on the budget date. Deputy Kenny asked if the Taoiseach would confirm that the budget date is still 7 December. The Taoiseach, in his reply, said something to the effect that the budget date that has been mentioned is 7 December. Will the Taoiseach confirm that the date of the budget is 7 December, or does the Government have any plans to bring budgetary measures before the House before that?

I did not realise there was any significance to what I had to say. The Government made a decision, I think in September, for a budget day on 7 December.

In relation to the children's rights referendum, there is growing concern that the Government is endeavouring to unravel the good work done by all parties and voices over a long and protracted period in the committee on children's rights. When one looks at the legislative programme published today one sees the National Vetting Bureau Bill, which is an outworking of the first report of the committee on children's rights. In the summer legislative programme, a promise was given for publication in 2010. The report to which I refer is the first to be produced by the relevant committee and it deals with various issues relating to vetting, soft information, etc. However, there appears to be a further delay on the part of the Department of Health and Children in bringing forward the essential legislation in question. The position is the same with regard to the referendum on children's rights. There have been worrying indicators with regard to these matters in the recent past.

In light of the importance and seriousness of the issue involved, is there nothing that can be done to bring forward the national vetting bureau Bill in order that we might, at the earliest opportunity, give legislative effect to some of the work of the committee? Will the Taoiseach provide a clear undertaking to the House that the referendum on children's rights will take place, if not before the end of this year — that would have been my preference — then during the first Dáil session of 2011? All Departments have been given ample time to consider the ramifications for and impact on their areas of responsibility to which the adoption of the wording that was unanimously agreed by the members of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children would give rise.

It must be borne in mind that during the joint committee's deliberations, each of the political parties undertook to——

There really is no need for the Deputy to engage in so much elaboration.

——give their respective weight to the effort to secure public endorsement of the proposals that were agreed by the members. It is the responsibility of the Government to bring forward the question to be put to the people in the referendum. I ask the Taoiseach to give assurances to the House in respect of both of the matters to which I refer.

Complex policy issues arise in respect of the national vetting bureau Bill. However, the Bill is being treated with priority by the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. In conjunction with the Department of Justice and Law Reform, the latter is drafting the heads of the Bill for submission by the Minister to Government at the earliest possible date.

Work is ongoing in respect of the referendum on children's rights. The Minister has brought the matter to the attention of the relevant committee and he will be reverting to the latter in due course. I cannot provide a commitment until matters have been progressed further.

Apropos the point raised by my colleague in respect of the national vetting bureau Bill, I wish to emphasise that I and other Members have referred to this matter on numerous previous occasions. It appears that other legislation is being given precedence. In order to be given precedence, the name of a Bill must appear on the pink pages of the legislative list. A classic example in this regard is the legislation listed at No. 10 on the pink pages. The purpose of the legislation to which I refer is to provide for a directly elected mayor for the Dublin region and for the powers, functions and election of the mayor and regional authority. That legislation is more important than the national vetting bureau Bill simply because it is listed on the pink pages. In light of all the issues that have arisen regarding this matter and in the context of the various replies the Taoiseach gave to Members in respect of it, why should the legislation relating to the direct election of a mayor for Dublin be given precedence over the national vetting bureau Bill?

And there is not one Member from the Green Party in the Chamber.

The second matter to which I wish to refer is one with which only the Taoiseach can deal. I know he will be sympathetic when I outline the position. In June or July, like other Members I tabled a series of questions to the Department of Health and Children seeking information on the number of hospital wards throughout the country that have been closed, decommissioned, shut down or whatever. I also asked the Minister of Health and Children to indicate the number and location of hospital facilities, including wards, beds, theatres or other backup facilities that have been decommissioned——

Deputy——

The Ceann Comhairle should wait for it because this is a matter which is dear to his heart.

Those questions are very——

The Minister, Deputy Martin, dealt with them when he was in that Department.

The Ceann Comhairle will love the response I received. It states that the acute service team of the BIU does not hold information on theatres or hospital wards that have been decommissioned or are only partially functioning. It proceeds to state that assuming that decommissioned and partially functioning is a permanent arrangement——

Deputy Durkan——

——it collects data on temporary bed closures——

Deputy, please.

——and reports on a weekly basis. It indicates that permanent closures or changes in bed designation must be sanctioned through the regional director's office. The BIU is, therefore——

It was never intended that parliamentary question would be recycled in such a manner in the House. If the Deputy is dissatisfied, there are other ways in which he can raise this matter. I ask that he avail of the other avenues open to him.

I know the Ceann Comhairle is a better man than I am. He would not be sitting in the seat he now occupies if that were not the case.

Yes.

However, I must ask him a serious question in respect of this serious matter. The Minister for Health and Children is present in the House.

Deputy, please. This is not a theatre.

In God's name, the Ceann Comhairle should not allow the House to be brought into disrepute in this way.

This is not a theatre. We are in the Houses of Parliament.

The Minister is present and she should deal with this matter now.

The Deputy should resume his seat. If he wishes to discuss the alternative ways of obtaining the information he is seeking, he should call to my office.

For God's sake, will the Ceann Comhairle stand up for Members and give them some degree of credence and respect?

Will the Deputy please resume his seat?

If he does not do so——

Deputy Durkan should resume his seat or I will be obliged to ask him to leave the Chamber. He is disrupting the business of the House.

The Ceann Comhairle has been asking me to leave the House for many years.

Will the Deputy please resume his seat?

Is the Ceann Comhairle in a position to resolve the problem?

The Deputy can call and see me about the matter. He should now resume his seat.

Come up and see me sometime.

On the matter to which Deputy Durkan refers——

I will call Deputy Ring when the time comes. He should resume his seat.

——I received a reply earlier today in respect of a parliamentary question I had tabled and in it I was informed that I should look up the website. If I want to look up a website, I have no difficult in doing so.

The Deputy should resume his seat.

If I want a reply from a line Minister, then that is what I seek.

Deputy Ring should resume his seat.

It is insulting to tell Members that they should consult a website. Members should be shown some respect with regard to matters of this nature.

Hear, hear.

The Deputy should resume his seat. If he does not do so I will be obliged to ask him to leave the Chamber.

Look up the website.

There will soon be no one in the House if the Ceann Comhairle continues to ask people to leave.

Look up the website, for God's sake. No one wants to answer questions anymore. All people do is inform one to look up the website.

Deputy Ring should give way to Deputy Creighton.

On a related matter, I wish to put a question to the Taoiseach in respect of the Local Government (Dublin Mayor and Regional Authority) Bill. It is important to state that it is quite appalling that a vanity project of one Cabinet Minister is being prioritised above everything else.

Hear, hear.

A Second Stage contribution on matters of this nature is not contemplated by the Order of Business.

A commitment in respect of this matter is contained in the programme for Government and the Bill itself is contained in the legislative programme.

Yes, but the Deputy is going to be obliged to find some other way of making her points.

I am entitled to ask questions about the Bill.

The Deputy must make her points at a different time.

Is the Ceann Comhairle stating that I cannot ask questions about the Bill? As Deputy Durkan pointed out, the Bill is listed on the pink pages as a prioritised item of legislation.

Yes.

An article in which the creation of this new vanity project is justified appears in today's Irish Independent.

We cannot have a Second Stage debate on the promised legislation at this time.

The article does so by stating that the role of the new mayor for Dublin will be to make cuts of €40 million——

Will the Deputy please resume her seat?

——which have already been identified by the local authorities in Dublin.

It is very important and it should be made at a different time.

This is an extremely important point.

Will the Deputy resume her seat?

Why does the Government intend to bring forward legislation——

If she does not resume her seat, I will be obliged to ask her to leave the House.

——the effect of which will be to duplicate the roles of the existing four mayors in the Dublin region?

The Deputy is displaying scant respect for both the Chair and the House.

This legislation will give rise to another layer of bureaucracy and will see the establishment of a new regional authority that will be additional to the four local authorities that are already in existence.

I will ask the Deputy to leave the House if she does not resume her seat.

Is the Government serious?

The Deputy should resume her seat.

This matter merits an explanation from the Taoiseach. The Bill is contained in the list of proposed legislation.

The Deputy should resume her seat.

It is a waste of public money.

Will the new mayor carry out operations in hospitals? Is establishing the post more important than protecting health services?

Following his meeting with Commissioner Alumunia, the Minister for Finance announced that the plan for Anglo Irish Bank had changed from the good bank-bad bank scenario proposed by himself and the board of the bank to one where an asset-recovery bank and a funding bank will be established. I wrote to the Minister some weeks ago to clarify whether legislation would be required in this regard. I received a reply last evening in which the Minister stated that it is not clear at this stage whether legislation is required or whether the plan can be implemented fully within the parameters of existing legislation. The reply further states that this matter is being explored in the detailed work to develop the plan. Government Members have all been on holiday, and working in their offices and at meetings for the past 12 weeks or so. It was extraordinary to get a response last evening from the Minister for Finance.

Does the Deputy have a specific inquiry about legislation?

This is within——

I ask the Deputy to get to the point.

This is about legislation. The Minister for Finance tells me he is exploring — he thinks he is Shackleton — legislation on Anglo Irish Bank. In response to the leader of the Labour Party, the Taoiseach said earlier that he did not have a precise figure on Anglo Irish Bank.

Deputy——

Now his colleague, the Minister for Finance is on some exploratory trip around the Department of Finance.

Deputy Burton——

In terms of the voyages we have to undertake, will the Taoiseach clarify if the Government has decided and the Attorney General advised whether legislation is required for the funding bank and the asset recovery bank for Anglo Irish Bank? When will the Minister for Finance return from his exploratory travels wherever they are?

I cannot answer for the Minister for Finance's correspondence to the Deputy——

I will send it to the Taoiseach.

——except to say that whatever proposals are required, if legislation is required it will be provided and brought into the House.

I call Deputy Shatter.

Is the Taoiseach indicating——

We have spent——

Anglo Irish Bank is the biggest liability and undertaking the State has. I ask the Taoiseach, as Head of the Government, about the new plan, announced by the Minister after Commissioner Almunia turned down the good bank-bad bank proposal for Anglo Irish Bank as not being acceptable. As the Government has had several weeks to digest the Commissioner's decision, has it decided whether the proposed funding bank and asset-recovery bank for Anglo Irish Bank require legislation? I believe that question is perfectly in order.

The Deputy will have ample opportunity to raise that matter after 7 p.m. when the debate starts.

As I have just explained, it will be a matter for proposal by the Minister to come to the Government in respect of any requirements. There are already banking licences in existence in relation to Anglo Irish Bank. On the splitting of the bank as agreed by Government, if there are legislative requirements, they will be brought forward by the Minister for Finance.

Does the Taoiseach not know?

As a former member of the committee dealing with children's rights chaired by Deputy O'Rourke, I wish to ask about issues which have already been raised, but which are important. The vetting legislation on the legislative list has already been referred to. It was said that it is now expected to be published some time in 2011. The Oireachtas joint committee published a report in September 2008, unanimously recommending that the legislation be published by December 2008. Why is legislation on a mayor for Dublin being given priority over protecting children from child abuse? Is it the case that the Government is happy to pay lip service to child protection but is incapable of prioritising the legislative changes necessary to ensure children are truly protected?

I have already explained to a previous Deputy that issues that arise are being discussed by the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, and the Department of Justice and Law Reform. That is being handled as a matter of priority. It is hoped that the Minister of State will be able to bring heads of a Bill to the Government soon. That is the up-to-date information and any further information should be sought from the line Minister of State.

That is not priority; it is bureaucratic constipation.

I wish to raise two matters. During the summer period, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform announced the creation of a house price register database. Has legislation been drafted in this area and when is it expected to be before the House?

On the day we broke up for the summer recess, a report was published by a working group investigating mortgage arrears. The report contained a series of recommendations many of them legislative to deal with the issue that is affecting a minimum of 35,000 households at present. Will the matter be debated in the House? Given that the report was published several months ago on the day the House went into recess, can we now get an opportunity to debate the report and its recommendations? Will there be legislation——

That will be discussed by the Whips.

Given that the report contained legislative recommendations, will we see such legislation before the House?

On the first matter, I do not believe legislation would be required for the establishment of that database, but I am sure the work is ongoing as the Minister has stated.

On the second matter, there was an interim report from the group that was set up to look at that issue and some recommendations taken on board. I understand a further report will emanate from that group in due course. Of course it is open to the relevant committee to call in the chairperson and members of that group to discuss anything further with them if it wishes.

I call Deputy Reilly.

Given that the Taoiseach has acknowledged that there is no legislative need for the creation of a house price register database——

We simply cannot have a debate on this matter.

A Cheann Comhairle——

The Deputy has had an inquiry about promised legislation and has received an answer. He will need to find an alternative way to raise it.

When the Dáil goes into summer recess, we have Ministers making announcements outside the House and when we come back to the House in September——

I ask the Deputy for his co-operation.

——we cannot get a response from Ministers to acknowledge the announcements they made several weeks earlier.

I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.

Very simply——

I ask the Deputy to resume his seat, please.

I ask the Ceann Comhairle to indulge me for a moment.

The Deputy should submit a parliamentary question to the line Minister to ascertain the information.

The Taoiseach has acknowledged that there is no legislative requirement for the creation of a house price register database, which is contrary to earlier information we got on the matter. When will the database be put in place given that there is now no legislative hindrance on it?

The Deputy should submit a parliamentary question to get the information required.

The Taoiseach has not responded to my second question on whether time will be given in the House to discuss the report published on the day the House went into recess, which affects 35,000 mortgage holders.

That is a matter for the Whips in the normal course of their discussions as to how they order the business. Any requests to deal with those issues are considered in that context. I said I am not aware of any requirement for legislation on the first matter and it is not on the list. It is not contemplated that there would be legislation during this session. If the Deputy has further queries on the legislative side, he should submit a parliamentary question.

Can we take it a Cheann Comhairle——

Please, Deputy.

The Deputy cannot take anything. All he can take is the reply I have given him as being the situation.

It was just a bad news week during the summer when the Minister came out and made the announcement.

The Deputy has been advised to raise the matter through his party Whip.

At a time when we are seeing massive health cuts across the country, with waiting lists doubled, people lying on trolleys and nearly 20,000 cancelled operations, can the Taoiseach explain why, when I asked when the drug prescription Bill and the drug reference pricing Bill would come in, he said that they would happen on the one finger when I suggested he was putting them on the long finger? The drugs prescription legislation has been introduced and it might save €20 million, but it hurts the oldest, sickest and most vulnerable in our society. The drug reference pricing Bill, which could save hundreds of millions of euro, is now no longer to be taken this year, but some time in 2011. When will it happen in 2011 and why is it not being taken in this session?

I do not have the information as to when in 2011 it will be taken; that is the estimated time when it will be taken. The Deputy should refer to Minister concerned.

When will the Bill to ban corporate donations come before the House?

That is a matter for continuing consideration by Cabinet.

I would say it is.

Can I take it it is a dead duck?

We are lucky there are no Members from the Green Party around.

Many modified or souped-up vehicles driven on the roads are a danger and have resulted in a number of fatalities and serious injuries. Has the Government any plans to introduce legislation to ban what are termed as boy-racer vehicles?

I am not aware of any proposals on this matter.

I asked the same question today of the Minister for Transport. I received a reply from the Ceann Comhairle that the Minister has no official responsibility to Dáil Éireann for this matter which is one for the Road Safety Authority.

Trick questions are not allowed.

Since when did responsibility for legislation on this matter transfer to the Road Safety Authority?

We are aware of the provisions of the Constitution on such a matter.

How can I receive a reply stating the Minister for Transport has no responsibility for legislation in this area? What is his responsibility?

The Minister has handed everything else over to quangos.

Hear, hear.

The Deputy should submit a matter for the Adjournment and it can be considered then.

Why did Deputy Costello ask the Taoiseach then when he already got a reply ten minutes ago?

Where would we be without Deputy Martin?

Deputies we must move on.

Deputy Rabbitte should go back to "The Frontline".

This is unedifying and gives the public a bad impression of us.

To give an answer like that is contrary to Standing Orders and contradicts the Constitution on ministerial responsibility. It is wrong. It is not the responsibility of a quango to deal with legislative matters. It is just not good enough that Members on this side of the House get these types of reply.

If the Deputy submits the matter for the Adjournment debate, it can be sympathetically considered.

It is not a matter for the Adjournment. It is a matter concerning legislation.

The Deputy can deal with it in that context.

It is specifically for the Order of Business.

There is much flexibility when items are considered for the Adjournment.

Will the Ceann Comhairle take this matter seriously?

I am taking it seriously. I have advised the Deputy to submit the matter for consideration.

For what?

For the Adjournment. We will consider it sympathetically.

It is an issue for the Ceann Comhairle to rectify, not for an answer on the Adjournment.

I have suggested to the Deputy to submit it for consideration.

Will the Ceann Comhairle agree——

Why is Deputy Costello's microphone switched off?

——this should be submitted to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for determination? A Minister cannot——

Deputy, please.

——withdraw himself from his responsibilities in making legislation.

Deputy, please. There are so many other ways to pursue this matter. I have suggested one already. If he does, we will endeavour to facilitate him.

Will the Ceann Comhairle put this matter to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges?

Will the Deputy resume his seat? I call on Deputy Seán Power.

On a point of order.

Why is the Deputy's microphone switched off?

I support my colleague on this matter. This issue has been raised on the Order of Business on several occasions over the past few years. It is getting worse. The right of a Member to get a reply to a parliamentary question — the traditional way for the Opposition to get information — is now being excluded from the Order Paper. We are now being told by the Ceann Comhairle to raise it on the Adjournment. No one comes in to answer the Adjournment debates anymore. No one cares any more. The public expects the Ceann Comhairle to preside over a House that is accountable. We cannot be accountable if we are refused information.

Okay. I call on Deputy Seán Power.

Before we move on, this has to be clarified. This is the first day of the new session and a Minister has claimed he is not responsible for a legislative matter. That is incorrect. Will the Ceann Comhairle agree that it be put on the agenda for the next meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges?

If the Deputy makes a written request for it to be considered——

No, the Ceann Comhairle has responsibility to ensure the Government, as well as the Opposition, obeys the Standing Orders of the House.

——it will be considered.

In this case, the Minister is not obeying the basic rule of the House, which is to answer a matter dealing with legislation.

There are several options which the Deputy can consider. If he wishes to submit it for consideration——

I will submit it to the Ceann Comhairle to be put on the agenda of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Do so. I also suggest the Deputy might put it down for the Adjournment.

I must express my satisfaction and appreciation that the issues relating to the RACE apprentice school in Kildare have been resolved and that its courses will resume next week.

What progress has been made on legislation for funding the racing industry? Will the Taoiseach guarantee that this particular legislation will not penalise bookmakers based or licensed in this jurisdiction?

This matter continues to be worked on by the relevant Ministers concerned. We will take on board the Deputy's points.

In an earlier reply the Taoiseach indicated the Government will allow time tomorrow for a debate on the final figure for Anglo Irish Bank when it is published by the Financial Regulator. In light of this undertaking, what time does the Taoiseach expect the information to be announced?

I do not have that information to hand. We can arrange it with the Whips.

Will it be before the markets open or after they close?

The Taoiseach must be expecting it early in the day if he is in a position to tell us we can have a debate on it in the House tomorrow.

I was talking to the Minister for Finance when I was replying earlier to Deputy Kenny. He said we could possibly take it tomorrow. I will take it up with him again and come back to the Whips.

The Taoiseach knows more about this report than he pretended earlier on.

I do not.

On the pink list of the Government's legislative programme, there is a proposed Bill to deal with the abolition of the Dormant Accounts Board and to give additional functions to the Minister responsible. Is this legislation to be preceded by the publication of the final report of the Dormant Accounts Board or does the Minister propose to take function to himself without any transparency? When are we likely to see the printed version of the legislation?

I am surprised the Taoiseach is searching through his file for this legislation. This relates to the moneys that were taken over after the Committee of Public Accounts investigation into DIRT and which were scattered up and down the west coast. It served the Government well so it should know what the story is.

It has been described as a dripping tap or a leaking pipe.

It was used particularly in Connemara.