John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will not delay the Taoiseach. In terms of Brexit and bolstering the number of officials in Brussels during this time of critical discussions and plans being made, is it not an issue for those who are permanently in Brussels on the official side - this is no reflection on them - that they have almost turned native? What is required there is a particular defence of the citizens of the different states within the European Union. It has become very focused on institutions rather than on solutions for the individual citizen we represent. That is where the disconnect started. Therefore, our officials and our politicians and Ministers who go there, should do as the Taoiseach described this morning, in terms of the leaders' meeting, that is, make sure that it is all about the citizen and the people we represent.

In terms of free movement and our reaction to Brexit, this country relies heavily on the transport of goods across the UK to Europe. We have to make sure that whatever happens, there is not a further difficulty for our exporters in delivering our goods to Europe as they cross through England into France and other parts of the European Union. At one stage, I was a member of the Irish Road Haulage Association. Its concerns and those of independent operators need to be considered and understood at this stage in terms of involving them in whatever approach the Taoiseach will take with the UK authorities and Europe. If the hauliers' activities are affected, it will cause further difficulties for our EU clients and for smaller businesses that are linked to, and rely on, Europe. They must be central to any discussions that the Taoiseach might have.

The Taoiseach mentioned housing in his opening remarks. It crossed my mind that there was a €3 increase in the old age pension in last year's budget but the interesting thing was that most local authorities took more than that €3 back from the pensioners in rent increases. I mention this in the context of housing and the Taoiseach's comments. Many difficulties are being experienced by individuals who are before the courts facing eviction from or repossession of their homes. They find it difficult to represent themselves. I mentioned this to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, earlier. A call has been made to suspend the activities of the courts while people get to grips with their situations. It is not that they will not deal with their situations. I have heard what is going on. These people find it hard to engage with the system. Their family home is at stake and it is as though the State has abandoned them. They need far greater support than what they are getting at the moment. A suspension of those court cases might be necessary while the Government, through legislation, tilts the balance in favour of the family and the citizen. The banks pay absolutely no heed whatsoever to what is being said in those courts. Requests for original documentation are almost always ignored by the banks. One can see at first hand the plight of those families.

I now turn to the tribunals of inquiry. The Taoiseach has indicated €4.5 million for the Moriarty tribunal. Will the Taoiseach indicate if that figure is for this year's Estimate? What is the total? Are other Departments involved in expenditure relative to that tribunal? Who is assessing the total costs and the likely costs of the third parties?

My final point is on banking and the SMEs, which I made to the Minister, Deputy Noonan, earlier. It is extremely difficult for micro-businesses in this country to get access to finance. I know the statistics present a different story but the reality is extremely difficult for family-owned or individually-owned businesses. They also find that engaging with the banks has, in general, been a very difficult experience.

On a housekeeping note, and seeing as I have mentioned it to every other Minister who has appeared before this committee, there are two sides to the balance sheet. One is this forum where we discuss Estimates - at least that is the impression we give but, in fact, we do not. If there is one area in need of reform, which I believe is absolutely necessary, it is this type of committee setting where we can ask questions but where everything is predetermined. Members cannot talk to the officials. According to the Constitution, the Taoiseach is the person responsible but the process needs to be reformed. We need more time. If this committee gets it right in terms of what is proposed to be spent, there might not be losses at the other end. At the last meeting we had with the Minister for Finance, we discussed the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts. I firmly believe that until such a time as committees, such the Committee of Public Accounts and this committee, are reformed and given real powers to chase the money or, in our case, look after the money or understand what is being spent, we will continue to see huge losses of taxpayers' money. I appeal to the Taoiseach to look at Standing Order 50 which states that the only role we have is to consider and the only role after that is to send a message to the Dáil that we have considered when, in fact, we have not done so. In the last session, the committee dealt with an Estimate for €379 million in an hour and a half. The same can be said of the other Departments.

In regard to the expenditure for legal services within the State and the different accounts being presented to the sectoral committees, every one of them has legal fees. Is it not time to reform that element of the administration of the State in terms of having one legal department to take control of all the other Departments' legal expenditure? The Taoiseach can revert back to me on some of those questions as I know he is pushed for time.