Louise O'Reilly
Dublin Fingal West · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“I welcome this debate this afternoon and am happy to be able to make a small contribution to it. I grew up in a Border town. I ended up in that town because my father was a trade union organiser who represented workers on both sides of the Border for a long number of years and, in fact, went on to be based in the North for a long time.”
“I am fortunate enough to represent a constituency that is very firmly in the Dublin–Belfast economic corridor. Before partition, as we know, Belfast was a thriving industrial powerhouse. Partition put a lid on the potential of that city to grow and flourish.”
“When we talk about Irish unity, we should frame that discussion as one about potential for growth, the potential for all-Ireland working and all-Ireland business. Between Belfast and Dublin, there are five universities, numerous colleges of further education and training, and businesses that are ready to scale up.”
“As the debate on Irish unity advances, and it is advancing despite what some of the people opposite would like to happen, we need to frame that discussion in a positive way. We need to look clearly for those opportunities while acknowledging the challenges. We are not blind to the challenges.”
“If her letter does not have any impact - let us be honest; it has not had any impact - the Minister of State might outline what he will do that might go a bit further than writing a letter. We know that devices are essential. We know that parents want their kids to be able to participate.”
“I thank the Deputies for bringing forward this motion. I was chatting to my dad as I was coming in and told him I would be debating this motion in relation to supports for parents this morning. He reminded me, of course, that it was the Labour Party in government that cut those very supports.”
The complete record
Every one of 855 lines we hold for Louise O'Reilly, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 18.
“Therefore, there is scope for us to look at that. I will engage with the Chair of the social protection committee and I would be grateful if the Department would assist us in our work on that.”
“I think so. I respect the reply that the Minister has given and I do not disagree necessarily. However, there are instances increasingly where parents can demonstrate, either with a mandate from the court or, indeed, with an informal arrangement, that they split the custody, the care and, more importantly, the bills - as I said, children are not cheap - 50:50. There is an unfairness there. The reasons child benefit goes mostly to the mother are obvious. I absolutely respect those, but we need to start that conversation to encompass the fact that, increasingly, it is 50:50. The regulations state that the benefit goes to the place where the child resides mostly but when it is 50:50, the child is in both and it could equally be one or the other. We both know that children who grow up in lone-parent houses at more at risk of poverty.”
“I want it to be clear before I put this question that I understand completely why the default is that child benefit goes to the mother. I absolutely respect that. I appreciate where it comes from. However, increasingly I have people coming into my office and contacting my office here in the Dáil to say that they are co-parents, children are not cheap, they split the bills 50:50 and they have access. In some instances, there can be an informal arrangement, but that is not always possible. I wonder if the Minister has given any consideration to how this can be split in a 50:50 co-parenting situation.”
“If the Minister is going to look at waste and get feedback from schools, perhaps he would consider asking that question as well. He might also give guidance to the providers regarding right-sizing the portion sizes.”
“On a related note, in the context of waste within the hot school meals programme, I understand the relationship is between the school and the provider but the Minister's Department issues guidelines and those guidelines refer to things like portion size and calories. Will the Minister issue some guidelines regarding age appropriateness? A child of four does not eat the same portion size as a child of 12. They just do not. If there are to be guidelines and guidance issued in relation to waste, this would be very appropriate to include because, at the one end, you have a child who is not getting enough and, at the other end, you have a child who is getting too much. You cannot ask them to meet up and swap over so that kind of guidance needs to be issued.”
“If the Minister does not have it, his Department should provide, in writing, a clear timeline and an explanation of why parents got absolutely no warning. I would also like to know what is being done to ensure this does not happen again, since we all agree on the importance of kids being able to access a hot school meal in the middle of the day.”
“I will give the Minister another chance to tell me what the timeline was regarding when the Department knew about the service withdrawal and when the parents knew. This came as a bolt out of the blue. When you are living on a low income or a fixed income and you are trying to feed kids, you plan ahead. Parents had planned ahead on the basis that their kids would be getting a hot meal in the middle of the day. That has not happened for many. I am interested to know the details of the timeline between when the Minister's Department found out and when parents found out. Many parents had absolutely no warning and no chance to put contingency arrangements in place. Indeed, there was possibly no money to finance the kids to bring food to school.”
“My understanding is this information was available to the Department in advance of it being available to parents and that there was something of a time lag. Will the Minister outline that? Given that we know there are children living in poverty, and consistent poverty, access to a hot school meal is more important than ever before.”
“We have known for months that at least one in five parents skip meals or reduce their own portions to ensure their children have enough to eat. That underlines the importance of this programme. The Minister's colleague, An Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin, has said he will personally intervene in the case of one school in Cork. I have just read a newspaper article in which he confirms that. I do not think a nationally available hot school meals programme is appropriate for that type of parish-pump politics. Deputy Calleary, as the Minister, should be intervening directly to ensure that where kids are not getting a hot meal, it is made available. The Minister said his Department is engaging to provide support. Will he outline in his next response what form that is taking and if extra funding has been provided?”
“The question relates to the sudden cessation of an element of the hot school meals programme. I am specifically interested in the number of schools impacted that are DEIS schools or that exclusively cater for children with additional educational needs. The Minister has to be aware that this news came as a bolt out of the blue for parents. It seemed there was no contingency in place when it happened. Will the Minister outline the steps taken and the contingency that will be in place for the future?”
“Maybe when he comes back in, the Minister can tell me when the dashboard, which will allegedly contain a number of child poverty measurements, will be available. I know it will come from the child poverty unit so is not, strictly speaking, the Minister's Department, but I am sure it will be involved in it. Here is my difficulty. The consistent poverty rate for children is running at 8.5%, double what it was in 2024. When we add in housing costs, we find that 17.6% of children were at risk of poverty in 2024. The Minister is missing a key part of what he should be tackling. I welcome the fact the Minister is open to considering housing costs. They have to be considered. When looking at the whole picture, of course any supports available will be included in that.”
“If the Minister is not taking housing into consideration, he is missing that key measurement. He said these measurements are relied on by his Department for the actions it takes. It needs to be measuring all the things that contribute to kids living in poverty.”
“The problem is that the level of children in consistent poverty is currently 8.5%, that figure having doubled since 2024. However, the consistent poverty measure, in and of itself, does not account for housing costs. The Minister and I both know that for reasons of Government policy, housing costs are out of control. People who are at risk of poverty or living in consistent poverty are not having the extent of that poverty measured because housing costs are not included in it. These are people who are forced to pay among the highest rents in Europe. If we look at the study from Barnardos, the parents are saying that by the time they pay for housing, in particular, and energy, the cost of which, again, is among the highest in Europe and we are told no energy credits are coming, they have nothing left at the end of the week.”
“In keeping with my form, this question is fairly straightforward. It is to do with the use of the measurement of consistent poverty, which obscures the full number of people both at risk of poverty and in material deprivation. I hope the Minister tells me he will do what I am asking, which is to consider alternative measures. We all have an interest in tackling poverty but we cannot do that unless we are measuring it properly.”
“I qualify my remarks, as I did at the start, by saying I am someone who believes in decent pensions and I am the daughter of somebody who believes in decent pensions, but that is not what this is.”
“I am sure the Minister can appreciate that people who are on or close to minimum wage, whom we could refer to as the working poor - a phenomenon created by the policies of successive Governments and one which we should not, but do, see in a relatively wealthy state - wonder at the timing of this. They see the memo that went to Government, they know the motivation, they see big business will benefit and they scratch their heads and ask themselves what is in this for them, other than the capacity to maintain their status as people who are barely getting by in the face of exorbitant rents. There is a cost-of-living crisis. Workers need a hand up. They need a break and a cost-of-living package. They need to make provision for their retirement but this is not necessarily the right way to do that.”
“It would have ensured that workers now would not have to pay into a fund they know will be a €1 billion-plus bonanza for the private sector. The working poor in this State are already put to the pin of their collar. What they hear from the Government is they are going to have to pay more because it is putting up the carbon tax, meaning it will cost more to drive a car even though there is no bus coming. They are going to pay more just for the privilege of living in a house. They are going to have to pay more for groceries, which have gone up by about 30% in the last number of years and now there is another bill.”
“Yes, but there are nine minutes left so we will have three each. I probably will not even take that. I want to use my words to conclude. I think there might have been too much time put up, but we can only go with what is on the clock. In short, the Government's scheme for auto-enrolment is unfortunately and regrettably a missed opportunity. That it did not take our suggestion to task the NTMA with managing the fund is a missed opportunity. It would have been a chance to put in place secure renewable infrastructure that would make a real and meaningful difference to people who are paying some of the highest electricity bills in Europe. It would have been a chance to invest in social and affordable housing, which would have made a real difference to people who are paying some of the highest rents in Europe.”
“It is just another thing they have to pay for. It should be a good and positive thing to put money aside for your retirement, but the fact people cannot opt out of it is a mistake. The money that is being collected could and should be used to invest in projects that would make a real and meaningful difference. We can look at what workers are having to stretch their wages to pay. Rent is number one for an awful lot of people and they see the motivation of the Government is not about them being comfortable in their retirement but about maintenance of current levels of discomfort. It is about the maintenance of the high rents. It is about ensuring people do not have the comfort in their retirement that they have worked for but that their landlord has the comfort of knowing there will be some money. That is what was motivating the Government.”
“We know what the motivation behind that was because the former Minister, Heather Humphreys, received a confidential Government report on how prepared people were to continue to pay the eyewatering rents. The alarm bell sounded not because workers were not going to be comfortable, or indeed able to relax and enjoy their retirement. The alarm bell sounded because there was some question over whether or not they would be able to continue to pay the sky-high rents that are the hallmark of this Government. This Government does things like refusing to ban rent increases, starving the tenant in situ scheme of funds and ensuring the vulture funds making exorbitant profits do not have to pay tax. That is all very well, but the people who are on the business end of that will only view this as another cost.”
“People are worried and when they look at how this scheme is constructed, they are more worried. As the Minister is aware, Sinn Féin proposed that we would use the NTMA to manage the fund on behalf of the State and do more than that and actually use the money in the fund to generate capital projects, invest in renewable energy and make a real difference to offset what people are going to have to put into this. Instead, people are going to have to pay more from wages they are finding it hard to make stretch to the end of the week. I am concerned about the children growing up in emergency accommodation now who will, when they start in the world of work, have to pay into this. I wonder what the advantages will be beyond those the Minister’s Government and his predecessor have mentioned.”
“Poverty is at levels unseen or unheard of, particularly given the wealth within this State. In the face of that, the Minister has made it very clear that there will be no cost-of-living supports. There will be none of the lifelines that were advanced to people in advance of last year's general election. A cynical person might wonder whether with the election behind us, they will be advanced to those same working people. The Minister needs to understand that notwithstanding the motivation he says is behind this, there are so many people who are literally that close to not being able to make it to the end of the week who will regard this as just another bill. It will be seen as just another thing that has to be paid out of a wage packet that already is not going far enough. That is a worry.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak this afternoon about auto-enrolment pensions. I acknowledge my dad in the Public Gallery. Both of us have spent a large chunk of our working lives working hard to improve the situation for workers. I genuinely wish I could support the Government's auto-enrolment proposals. Although I am someone who fundamentally believes in decent pensions, I think this is a missed opportunity. One reason is the way the Minister has constructed it while another relates to the current situation. I am sure it is not lost on the Minister that we recently had Private Members' debates on energy costs and child poverty, and on child homelessness. One in five children in this country is growing up in poverty. When housing costs are taken into account, one third of households cannot afford to pay their electricity bills.”
“It is not hard to see the solutions. The solutions are very simple but the Government needs to start by recognising the facts and acknowledging the failure of policy. The number of children in consistent poverty is at 8.5% but this is doubled when we take into account the cost of housing. If he can, I urge the Minister to imagine for a moment just how expensive it is to be poor. To live in emergency accommodation is to be reliant on fast food and takeaways, which are more expensive. When people are poor, the Government forces them into a situation whereby they have to pay for the most expensive option. People who are on the ESB meters are the same; they pay the most expensive rates. There are children in this State, in a time of plenty, who are going to bed hungry.”
“He told us that tackling child poverty and homelessness was not merely a matter of policy but a national imperative rooted in our values as a society. The absolute neck of him to say this. It is everybody else's fault and everybody else's problem except the Government's. We see it every single day of the week. It is heartbreaking to see parents who cannot afford to manage with their kids. It is heartbreaking when they tell us that, after they have paid the rent, for food, the exorbitant crèche fees and the fees for devices in schools because the free book scheme does not take account of them, and in many instances having been to the Society of St Vincent de Paul or the community welfare officer, they have nothing left. They are left to face their kids and tell them they have nothing left. Treats are gone. They are a thing of the past.”
“I thank the Deputies for tabling the motion because we cannot speak enough about child poverty. We on the Opposition benches have put forward plenty of solutions. We have flagged to the Government time and again issues as they arise. They arise in our advice clinics and in our offices and we make sure we bring the message directly to the Government. In his opening remarks, the Minister for Social Protection told us the motion did not reflect the complex and multifaceted nature of child poverty and it did not reflect the significant progress made by the Government. I suppose he might forgive us for not rambling in here to give the Government a massive pat on the back, given what we see every day of the week.”
“They see and know that the Government can help. They see, as do I, older people who are affected. I am thinking in particular of a man who, when it is cold, sits in the library in Balbriggan. I see him in the window and it breaks my heart. I know from talking to him that he is mortified at the indignity of not being able to heat his own home. To be indifferent to that and to turn its face against that man in the library trying to stay warm is a fairly damning indictment of this Government. I will tell him the next time I see him that the Minister is going to write a letter to the energy companies. I am sure he will be very heartened.”
“A total of 300,000 households are in arrears with their electricity bills while 175,000 are in arrears with their gas bills. Believe me, they have been to the community welfare officer and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul but still they are facing into a very cold winter and they are already in arrears. They have built up those arrears when the sun was shining. They are facing into winter in arrears. I see it every day in north County Dublin in my office in Balbriggan and in my clinics. People cannot understand why, on the one hand, the Government is telling them they have never had it so good - we heard that this afternoon - and, in the same breath, it is telling them that it will not help them to stay warm this winter. People are not stupid. They know they are paying what are among the highest energy prices in Europe.”
“I start by thanking my colleague an Teachta Pa Daly for this motion and for all of his work on this issue. That we continue to put forward constructive solutions to the crisis caused by this Government is a great credit to my colleagues. As the dark evenings draw in and it starts to get colder, it is important that we turn our attention to the reality of what is happening in homes across the State. For this Government, the cost-of-living crisis is only something it trots out and acknowledges in the run-up to an election. With no election on the horizon, we see fuel taxes going up, college fees going up and energy prices increasing. In the run-up to the election, energy credits were very important. Today, the election is behind us but the cost-of-living crisis is not, yet the Government tells us there will be no cost-of-living package.”
“They should not be forgotten by this Government. The Minister of State should give them a seat on the bus - he knows that - but they are left. Up until the last minute, the Government leaves parents waiting to find out how they will get their kids to school. Not everybody has a flexible job or an understanding boss but every parent wants to get his or her child to school safely. Parents simply want the Government to work with them to achieve that.”
“Despite this, the Minister and Minister of State somehow managed to ramble into the Chamber and act surprised that the kids who needed a seat on the school bus last year also needed a seat on the school bus this year or, God forbid, there were more kids, different kids or kids living somewhere else who needed seats. The Minister of State has a very well-staffed Department. People travel for plenty of reasons. Sometimes, they travel because they do not live near the school, and that is fair enough. They travel because they want to access education as Gaeilge or because they want to access non-denominational education or specific religious education. Kids with special needs are being specifically failed repeatedly. It is not appropriate for kids to have to take taxis. That should be a last resort. They should get a seat on the bus.”
“It is a pity the Minister could not stay for the debate. However, I have her script in front of me. It says "check against delivery". That is very good advice because the Government is generally very big on sound bites and woefully inadequate when it comes to actual delivery. In her script, the Minister tells us that solutions are being found every single day. Does this not tell us that every single day, issues are arising? The Government had years to plan for this. It has census data and data from the schools. The Minister has a massive Department and people who I am sure are working incredibly hard yet it seems that the Government still finds itself presiding over a shambles every year, with kids unable to get to school and parents getting in trouble at work for being late.”
“Every person I spoke to in that dentist's waiting room was someone in pain and on a low income who was getting into short-term debt they could not simply for the privilege of not having a toothache. The figures speak for themselves.”
“The impact of the Government's failure to provide even basic checkups is felt by kids right through into secondary school and into adulthood. Added to the pressure to go to the private sector and to get a loan, what do people do if they are in bits with their teeth, in pain all night and cannot access the public system? God knows, people cannot get anywhere near it. They cannot wait a year and a half with a toothache. Dentists now have in their waiting rooms - and I saw this last week - signs saying buy now, pay later. There was a brochure with a lovely big picture featuring a lovely woman with a big smile on her face, as if buying now and paying later would give you the toothy smile of your dreams.”
“There are 7,000 kids who have been waiting for dental treatment for more than a year. It is a damning figure and one the Government should be rightly ashamed of. I am sure the Minister of State is ashamed of it. She might not put it on the record, but I am sure she looks at those figures and feels some shame. Despite the veneer of a public system, the vast majority of dental care is carried out in the private sector. We have heard from people who have been forced to go to the private sector and forced to take out loans just for something very basic in a civilised country. We should not really have to come in here to beg the Minister of State for dental services for kids, but this is the situation the Government has brought us to and the reason we are here this morning. I thank the Deputies who brought forward this motion.”
“It is shocking that almost 30 years later, precious little seems to have changed. I ask the Minister to withdraw her amendment, work with the Opposition and deliver the care these women need and deserve.”
“I was lucky because I got an answer to what was wrong with me, or I thought I had, why I was always in so much pain every month, and why my husband had to lift me up off the floor when I was crippled with it. I went to a doctor for assistance and I was gaslit. It is a bit like the Minister's amendment. I was gaslit. I was told: Would you have another baby? Would you chance another baby? That might help. Do you know what? Would you give the Mirena coil a go? Sure that might do something for you. Is it uncomfortable? No, it was bloody agony and I will never, ever forget the way the doctor made me feel. I shared that experience because it is a collective one. The Minister knows her amendment is wrong and that it is shameful, sickening and insulting. She knows that because it is what these women are telling her.”
“I welcome all the endo-warriors who are with us, and their families. I commend them on their fight and on standing up. I also offer my sympathies to them because I know many of them came here tonight in pain. The Minister knows she should withdraw the amendment but just in case she is under any illusions, I spoke to these women and these are the words they use to describe her amendment. They call it "sickening", "inaccurate" and "insulting". The Minister can press on with an amendment that is "sickening", "inaccurate" and "insulting" if she will but she should know that if she does so, she does it to the women in the Gallery. I was diagnosed with endometriosis when I was 24 years of age.”
“We cannot fully heal until we name the ways in which this systemic abuse and the systemic secrecy shaped us and shaped how we live and who we are today. The impact of this abuse was felt not just by the child at that time but it lives with them forever and influences their family and their whole lives. The Minister referred to institutional sexual abuse but the truth is that the trauma is here today. It is not historical necessarily. It lives with people right up to today. Deputy Kenny spoke about power and the Minister spoke about shame. It is really important that the shame switches sides and that the shame is on the abuser and on those who covered up, no matter what their role was. However, it also has to be about power and returning power to those survivors, giving them back the power that was so cruelly taken from them.”
“It seems very unfair that this very real physical abuse that was visited on her would not be part of this. Like others, I have spoken to survivors of mental, physical and sexual abuse in schools. The evil bastards who perpetrated these vicious crimes acted with impunity. They absolutely did and they had cover for their actions. They often had help from the health board and An Garda Síochána, making sure their secrets were kept hidden and their victims discredited or ignored. It is hard to see how this damage will be undone but I welcome this important step. It is important the Minister gets this right. It cannot be a gesture. It has to be about justice, recognition and collective truth-telling.”
“I welcome members of the Ryan family to the Gallery this afternoon. We remember their brother Mark and commend all of those survivors, some of whom have had the courage and internal strength to be able to come forward. For the others who we know are watching this at home and who may never have said it out loud, we commend them nonetheless for surviving what they have been through. I welcome this announcement. I am genuinely confused about the exclusion of physical abuse. As has been requested, the Minister may be able to provide us with an explanation. I am reminded of a very close family member of mine who is now deceased. She had her head battered off the blackboard in school repeatedly. She had a massive scar down her face. She wore a fringe all her life to disguise it.”
“It would be worthwhile to have that engagement and tease this issue out, but that would require the Government facilitating the passage of this legislation to the next Stage. I hope the Government will reconsider the decision and allow this Bill to progress so we can have those important discussions.”
“These are people who are immersed in the issue of Dublin Airport and noise regulation. They have extensive knowledge. They are well placed to inform the Minister. I am sure they will be only too delighted to be part of the extensive communications and engagements that are going on. Even at this stage, will the Minister of State reconsider the decision to oppose this legislation and to facilitate its passage to the next Stage? We would then have a chance to robustly scrutinise it. We may not agree in Sinn Féin with every single word in the legislation, but we certainly can agree and agree with Fingal County Council, which said it at the time, that it is not best agent to carry out this regulation. There are "better bodies", which is the expression that was used in the communication to the Minister.”
“Let us remember that these are the people who will be impacted by the regulation, whether it is light touch or otherwise. It is the people living around the airport who are going to be impacted by that and therefore is welcome that there will be extensive engagements. The Minister of State can bring my message back to his colleague the Minister for Transport that he will not find my constituents wanting when it comes to putting forward proposals, attending meetings, exchanging information or giving presentations to him because, as the Minister of State said, "extensive engagements" are what he is all about. That is to be welcomed. My constituents and Deputies Graves, Smith and O'Rourke's constituents will be more than equal to the task of providing the Minister with every single tiny little piece of information that he could require.”
“We recognise the importance of the airport, but we also recognise the importance of the people who live in the environs of the airport. It is no less than they are entitled to and deserve that they would have a noise regulator that they can have faith in. In the Minister of State's contribution, he mentioned that the Minister for Transport is having "extensive engagements". That is brilliant. It is unfortunate that my constituents have not been made aware of it, but now he has alerted us to the fact there are extensive engagements happening, I am sure that they will make sure they make contact the Minister so that they might be part of those extensive engagements because if the Minister is having extensive engagements, then he absolutely has to be talking to the people who are living in the environs.”
“That is the director of planning and services at Fingal County Council at the time saying it was not sufficiently equipped and capability of doing the job, yet it was absolutely railroaded through here. There was an utter farce on the night of the vote. I listened to one Fianna Fáil Deputy, who is now the Minister for Transport, come in and speak against the motion. He banged the table. He was giving out. He was so angry and upset. When it came to the vote, for whatever reason the button was not pushed. The rest of his party voted to ensure the Bill went through even though the Opposition put forward constructive, well thought-out amendments that would have ensured that the airport live up to what it say it wants to be. It says it wants to be good neighbours. That is what my constituents want. They want the airport to be good neighbours.”
“She said: "[We have] an extensive remit in both shaping and determining the strategic direction of Dublin Airport through its land-use, planning and associated functions." She said the council was also responsible for determining applications for planning purposes. She stated: "In light of the existing complex and varied role that Fingal County Council plays as outlined above, it is considered that the council may not be best placed to act as the competent authority." She said the council does not have requisite competencies available in areas of aviation, operations, noise and economic feasibility assessments. She went on to suggest that other bodies would be better for the job.”
“My colleagues and I put forward amendments that would have ensured the Commission for Aviation Regulation would be the noise regulator. While we may not agree with every single word in the legislation we are discussing, we agree wholeheartedly that it was not the right decision to make Fingal County Council the noise regulator. The council's staff are not the best people; they are not best placed to regulate. In fact, they said that themselves at the time. During the debate, correspondence emerged that had been sent to the Minister in which the director of planning at Fingal County Council said there was communication from the Minister's Department in November after the decision to appoint the council as the authority.”
“The facility does not exist for the pre-legislative scrutiny to be done. There are plenty of Bills that will find themselves here on a Thursday evening that are worthy of merit, of which this is one, for which pre-legislative scrutiny has not been conducted but which would benefit from a Committee Stage debate and the chance to have a proper discussion. It is regrettable the Government is dismissing it in that way. I acknowledge the role of Dublin Airport not just as a major employer in my constituency, but also as a driver for economic activity and development for north County Dublin, and indeed, all along the east coast and beyond. I am possibly the only representative from the area in the Chamber this evening who was there when we first debated the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019.”
“I thank the Deputy for bringing this legislation forward. I am disappointed the Government is opposing it because there is significant merit in facilitating the passage of this legislation to the next Stage so we can have that discussion. The Minister of State cited the fact there has been done no pre-legislative scrutiny done on this legislation. Can he point me to any legislation picked out in lottery that we discuss here virtually every Thursday afternoon that has been through pre-legislative scrutiny? Is it effectively a waste of everybody's time to put legislation into the lottery if Ministers are simply going to ramble in and say there cannot be any discussion on it because it has not been through pre-legislative scrutiny? That is not how the lottery system works.”