Results 3,681-3,700 of 4,085 for speaker:Dan Boyle

Seanad: Order of Business (Resumed) (3 Jun 2010)

Dan Boyle: Members will be here for several joint committee meetings that are taking place in the House next week.

Seanad: Order of Business (Resumed) (3 Jun 2010)

Dan Boyle: It is a regular occurrence for the Dáil and Seanad to have different sittings. This is why we sit when the Dáil rises and why we come in before the Dáil rises. It has been a long tradition that this House arranges its own sitting times. It had been expected that there would not be sittings next week, but in lieu of that there will be additional sittings in July.

Seanad: Order of Business (Resumed) (3 Jun 2010)

Dan Boyle: Senator Bacik asked about the climate change legislation and I will clarify what I said yesterday. The current situation is that heads of a Bill have been prepared and a series of meetings is scheduled over the next week. One might have already occurred involving senior departmental officials and a Cabinet sub-committee before heads are submitted to the Cabinet. It is hoped we shall see...

Seanad: Order of Business (Resumed) (3 Jun 2010)

Dan Boyle: That is exactly what I said yesterday.

Seanad: Order of Business (Resumed) (3 Jun 2010)

Dan Boyle: It seems no date I mention is being heard properly this morning. Senator Mary White and Senator Bradford called for a debate on alcohol awareness and alcohol abuse. The House's time would be well served to have such a debate and I shall work to see that time is made available in the immediate future. Senator O'Reilly asked about isolating cancer patients, on foot of a report that showed...

Seanad: Order of Business (Resumed) (3 Jun 2010)

Dan Boyle: I have just two more Members to refer to. I could have concluded five minutes ago if I had been given assistance by Members on the other side of the House.

Seanad: Order of Business (Resumed) (3 Jun 2010)

Dan Boyle: Senators Ó Brolcháin and Coffey asked for a debate on small businesses and the economic effects on the high street. That is a useful and necessary debate and I shall seek to have time put aside for it. The other issues have been responded to.

Seanad: Order of Business (15 Jun 2010)

Dan Boyle: I welcome the last point made by Senator Alex White and agree with him that we need several debates on the banking reports. However, since this process has started, there have been questions, in particular from the Opposition side, about whether we would have an investigation and if we had whether it would be done by independent people, and if so whether such reports would be published, and...

Seanad: Banking Reports: Statements (15 Jun 2010)

Dan Boyle: These are two very sobering reports. I use the word "sobering" in its widest sense because the reports describe the behaviour of financial institutions which acted as bartenders at a free bar that lasted for at least a decade. The resulting hangover is one for which the country is now paying the price. That said, the two reports are open and honest in their assessment of what has happened...

Seanad: Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (16 Jun 2010)

Dan Boyle: The Senator should speak through the Chair. I call Senator O'Reilly.

Seanad: Confidence in the Taoiseach: Motion (16 Jun 2010)

Dan Boyle: This august Chamber has developed traditions, a proud history and a sense of character in determining how the nation should be defined at different times and in different circumstances in its history. Debates have taken on a particular significance. Confidence debates are meant to fall into this category. They offer an opportunity for a Government to justify its actions and continue in...

Seanad: Confidence in the Taoiseach: Motion (16 Jun 2010)

Dan Boyle: This view concerns not only how errors and mistakes may be made in government but also how the Opposition——

Seanad: Confidence in the Taoiseach: Motion (16 Jun 2010)

Dan Boyle: ——attributes to them motives and characteristics that never applied.

Seanad: Confidence in the Taoiseach: Motion (16 Jun 2010)

Dan Boyle: The surrealism of this debate is further exemplified by its being made personal in regard to one person, although it concerns issues that merit collective responsibility, not only in a political sense——

Seanad: Confidence in the Taoiseach: Motion (16 Jun 2010)

Dan Boyle: ——but also in how State agencies have been operating and the performance of our financial institutions. We must also consider international circumstances that have informed our current economic well-being. I refer to circumstances that have not emerged in the term of the Government but which the Opposition seems intent on using to inform the debate.

Seanad: Confidence in the Taoiseach: Motion (16 Jun 2010)

Dan Boyle: There have been three obvious contradictions already: a motion of no confidence being tabled by a party which does not have confidence in its own leader; the focus on a set of circumstances that do not apply to the Government; and the tabling of a motion of no confidence in an individual, although it is a question of collective responsibility. I was an Opposition spokesperson during the...

Seanad: Confidence in the Taoiseach: Motion (16 Jun 2010)

Dan Boyle: I will repeat the policies in question because my party and I were most correct about how they were being pursued. The policies being pursued in 2002 to 2007 resulted in an overheated economy. They were the collective responsibility of the Government in office and the Minister for Finance had a role to play in that regard. I attribute more blame for the overheating to the Taoiseach's...

Seanad: Confidence in the Taoiseach: Motion (16 Jun 2010)

Dan Boyle: The Senators can check the budget response speeches in the Dáil. The three budgets introduced by the Taoiseach, when Minister for Finance, were far more distributive than the six which had preceded them.

Seanad: Confidence in the Taoiseach: Motion (16 Jun 2010)

Dan Boyle: I spoke against them.

Seanad: Confidence in the Taoiseach: Motion (16 Jun 2010)

Dan Boyle: The circumstances in which we found ourselves after the 2007 general election were such that all political parties bought into the rationale. I do not accept——