At the time of the budget, the Parliamentary Budget Office in the Oireachtas and the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council both calculated that an additional €7 billion per year is needed to meet inflationary costs and allow public services just to stand still. They calculated that the bottom line with regard to the budget was that just €2.2 billion was allocated for that purpose. That obviously leaves a huge shortfall. The implications are that as the year goes on, we will see inevitable cutbacks in key public services. D…

That is fine except the Minister's partners in Government have signalled a direction of travel with regard to further tax cuts and the substantial costs those will entail. Does the Minister accept the figure from the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council and Parliamentary Budget Office that the Government needs €7 billion in the current year for public services to stand still? What does the Minister expect the shortfall will be? Is he again going to rely on being bailed out with corporation taxes? My principal question, ho…

This question has been overtaken by events. I welcome the announcement last Saturday by the Minister that he intends to waive the 23% VAT on antigen tests. I would like more detail on that from the Minister in respect of the timeline for the legislation. I note he has introduced it on an administrative basis. For what length of time does he expect the waiver to be in place?

Does the Minister expect to legislate in a stand-alone Bill or is he waiting for another finance Bill of some description?

The Taoiseach said twice earlier that the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, would be answering questions. The Order of Business as the Ceann Comhairle circulated this morning does not allow for that. It allows for five-minute statements from each of the Opposition parties. Can we get clarification on whether each of those five-minute slots can be used for back-and-forth questions and answers from each of the Opposition parties and the Minister? It is important for that to happen. There is no reason, as I understand it, tha…

The proposal the Ceann Comhairle has set out is entirely unsatisfactory.

The idea of aggregating the questions and then giving replies or otherwise in the wrap is just not acceptable. The time is scheduled. We are asking that each of the Opposition slots allow for a back and forth or statements, whichever the Member chooses. If we are serious about accountability, we have to have those sessions.

Can we take a reasonable approach to this?

I understand the Ceann Comhairle was asked about that particular Standing Order. Can we set aside the ongoing spat between Fine Gael and Sinn Féin?

That is their business. It is nothing to do with the rest of us here. We are talking about the session this evening at 5 o'clock and the need for accountability on the part of the Minister, Deputy Donohoe. The Taoiseach knows that what he is proposing is not satisfactory. Let us try to avoid dividing the House on this-----

It was a Government request; a Minister's request from the Government.

We have put a reasonable request to the Taoiseach to allow for that accountability so that we have back-and-forth and it is not a case of banking questions where the Minister may or may not answer them in the wrap-up. That is entirely unsatisfactory. I think the Taoiseach would accept that if he was on this side of the House. To avoid dividing the House, can we be reasonable about this? Can the Government show it is serious about accountability and agree this? It may need a change in the order but let us do that. I…

It is the back-and-forth that is required, not the banking of questions. In all fairness, I would ask the Taoiseach to consider that reasonable proposal from the Opposition.

Here we are again with another Fine Gael Minister who seems to have problems with filling out statutory forms. First, we have the revelation that Deputy Damien English submitted a planning application which included a barefaced lie. Now we have a Minister for Finance who cannot keep track of his election donations and expenses. I will first remark on this process. Facilitating Opposition Deputies in making statements but declining to answer their questions in real time is designed for just one thing, namely, to giv…

All the signs are clear. We see all the signs of reverse engineering of the figures in order to fit within the spending and donations limits. I am sure the Minister will agree with me when I say it is important our electoral laws and spending limits are strictly adhered to. I just hope he shows more respect for and engagement with SIPO if it opens an investigation than he has shown this House.

Why did the Minister think they were doing it?

To pick up on the last point made by Deputy Sherlock, there is an excellent example of what a community pharmacy can do in Cloyne. I am very familiar with it. That is a model that should be replicated all over. I very much welcome this motion. It is timely given the horrendous few weeks we have come through. At this point, after the last two or three weeks, some of the measures taken have kicked in and they have been relatively successful insofar as the indefensible figure of 930 people being on trolleys has been r…

I know the Minister did, but the Minister has to listen to him.

The Minister has to listen to him and follow the advice he has given. In the view of the committee, that is sound advice. People were very taken, when Mr. Kearns came in, and said this is such a breath of fresh air and makes sense and asked why we are not doing this quickly. That is where things have to go, and quickly. On the memorandum that went to Cabinet on this, the decision of Cabinet was flawed. The three options in that memorandum were, basically, do nothing, do a little bit, or do the job properly. Unfortu…

Good. I thank the Minister of State.