Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 18, line 9, to delete "general administration of the".

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 arise from pure frustration. I am sure many Opposition Members, as well as Government backbenchers, have experience of tabling questions to Ministers only to receive the reply that they have no responsibility to the House on the matters in question.

On Committee Stage the Minister gave a commitment to consider a mechanism to allow the relevant spokespersons, or any Member of the House, to put a question to the authority which would have to be answered within a specified period of time. This would go some way to resolving the problems which Opposition spokespersons have. There is nothing as frustrating as receiving a one-line reply to the effect that the Minister has no responsibility to the House for the matter in question, which we have seen over the years. It is not good enough that such a mechanism is used by many Ministers. In recent weeks the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government said he would not organise any more committees on the matter. The Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, said that, despite the fact that a number of State agencies and boards are under his aegis, he always ensures an answer is given to a particular question, even if he did not have responsibility to the House for the issue involved.

A mechanism such as the one proposed must be put in place. The Minister said it would mean the chief executive officer of the Abbotstown board would have responsibility to the House as well as to the Minister, and that his position would not be tenable in such circumstances, which I accept. Amendment No. 4 proposes a mechanism whereby ordinary Members of the House and Government backbenchers could receive replies to questions on the Abbotstown development.

See this speech in context