Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháíl leis an Teachta Rabbitte as a chuid ama a roinnt liom.

I support the legislation in general. I am a little bemused as to why it has come before us in this way and why it took until almost the last minute for somebody to realise there was a problem and that a licence was needed for the national conference centre. We have no problem facilitating the quick passage of the Bill, although it is being rushed despite the fact that the centre does not open until September.

The conference centre is welcome and it will be a boost to Dublin's facilities and, hopefully, a boost to the tourism industry in the city, given many hotels are closing because of a lack of business. The centre might attract additional national and overseas conferences to the city. However, this is a PPP project and the State will pay Treasury Holdings €380 million over a period. This company is currently putting a business plan together to transfer properties to the National Asset Management Agency. On the one hand, the State has to bail out Treasury Holdings, while, on the other hand, it will pay the company €380 million, which seems odd. Is there no circumstance in which the rental could be revoked in order that the State could run the conference centre and gain the profits from day one of its operation? That would be worth considering.

With regard to the urgency of the Bill, many other Bills are as urgent, if not more urgent, and they could be prioritised at this stage without rushing this legislation. It was only at 9.30 a.m. that I received a text message saying a financial resolution had to be put to the House to facilitate the Committee Stage debate on this Bill. I have said time and time again that rushing legislation usually results in mistakes. It is a short Bill and we will manage to ensure it is accurate and covers its intention but rushing it in this way should be frowned upon. When I attended the Whips meeting, I was given an indication the Bill needed to be passed by June but the Minister stated it does not need to be passed before September.

While I welcome the legislation, we could have debated other urgent legislation such as the Bill to end the practice of imprisoning people who cannot pay their debt, the legislation to recognise the preferred gender of transgender people as directed by the High Court two and a half years ago or the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005, which is awaiting Report Stage. A poll conducted three years ago found that 88% of people wanted a new law to curb the cost of tribunals. In addition, the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008, which must be reintroduced in its entirety, and the Adoption Bill 2009 are urgent, yet the Minister is concerned with granting a liquor licence to a facility, which says something about the Government's priorities. Is the fact that the Government is rushing the legislation a consequence of the debacle concerning the DDDA, the planning problems in the Spencer Dock area and the attempt to ride roughshod over residents? In the middle of all of that, did somebody forget to include the provision for a liquor licence, which meant the legislation had to be rushed at the last minute?

See this speech in context