Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I refer to the issue of public private partnerships, which I have defended and proposed on many occasions. I have looked for details regarding the regeneration projects in Dublin but cannot find any, which is why I am raising the matter in the House. I ask the Leader to provide Members with information or invite the appropriate Minister to the House. My understanding is that decisions on public private partnerships are in the gift of the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA. The idea was that the NTMA would examine any proposal from all points of view.

What is the nature of a contract that allows a party to walk away from it seven or eight months later without the imposition of any penalty clauses? We went through this process a few years ago with the cost of roads and it was sorted out by the insertion of clear timelines and penalty clauses. I am not making any accusation until I have the information, but we are entitled to know what the NTMA put into the contract for this development, the penalty clauses and timelines and whether the people involved are right or wrong. We can have a discussion when we have the facts. It certainly raises extraordinary questions.

It seems we are fated here everyday to correct yet another piece of misinformation regarding the European treaty. For the record, the European trade union movement has been fighting for years to get the charter of rights enshrined, or reflected as closely as possible, in European law. Any information that appeared to be given this morning which was at odds with that is incorrect. The European trade union movement has been pushing for many years for the charter of rights to be included in European law. It considers the charter to be a major prize, as do all people who are committed to human, civil and other rights. Therefore, anybody who says otherwise is misleading the public. I do not want to get bogged down with words mentioned yesterday, namely, the difference between the word "lies" and the word "misinformation", but what I said is fact.

On another issue, despite what is provided in the Constitution, somebody has taken the opportunity to make direct contact with the President. There should be a clear indication from the Houses that the appropriate procedure in this situation is for the President to remain silent, not to respond, react or reply. That is what would be expected and in that way nobody could read any implication into her actions, and nothing could be read into the fact that she choose, should she do so, not to reply to that communication, which should not have occurred.