It is proposed to take No. 17, Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Bill 2005 [Seanad] — Second Stage, resumed; Private Members’ business shall be No. 52, motion re report by Professor O’Neill on matters relating to the Leas Cross nursing home and nursing homes inspections, resumed, to be taken immediately after the Order of Business and to conclude after 90 minutes.
Order of Business.
There are no proposals to be put to the House today on the Order of Business.
First, I welcome the new Tánaiste on his first day in this position as deputy leader of the Government and wish him well.
Deputy O'Donnell is not present to support him.
It is appropriate that the first Bill he has announced to the House is that of mutual assistance in the area of criminal justice.
What about the Labour Party?
While I hope this does not happen to the Tánaiste, Deputy McDowell, I understand the shortest serving Tánaiste in the House was the present Taoiseach, who only served 27 days in office before the then Government collapsed.
He might make it.
As a man who believes that inequality is good for society, was the Tánaiste ever paid for any function he attended as a Minister or as Attorney General? Does he know of any Minister who received payment?
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
I will state why it does. This morning, the deputy leader of the Progressive Democrats went on national radio and stated that this House is the forum in which questions should be asked and answered.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
There should be a debate.
Sorry, Deputy Kenny——
Hold on now——
I would like the Deputy to hear the Chair first and I will then hear him. As the Deputy is well aware, there are Standing Orders. The Order of Business is very specific. However, there are many ways in which Deputies can raise any issue they wish in this House.
On RTE television on the "Six-One" news, or on "Morning Ireland".
There are many ways, including Private Members' business and by way of substantive motions.
The Ceann Comhairle is right.
(Interruptions).
Fortunately, for the House and for the Chair we cannot use Standing Orders to raise any issue we wish.
There are many ways to do so and this is one of them. It may well be that on an occasion we might try to raise this issue here but the Tánaiste might not be in attendance. I asked him did he ever receive a payment for a function he attended at which he spoke as a Minister or does he know of any Minister who received such payment?
The statement he issued yesterday, in his capacity as Tánaiste, leaves the scales of justice unevenly balanced. He seems to have a difficulty in determining whether the Taoiseach was right or wrong in accepting €50,000 and a further €12,000 for a speaking engagement in Manchester.
There is no provision now for Leaders' Questions. I will hear a brief comment from the Leaders of the four parties and a response from the Tánaiste.
The PDs voted down the opportunity to ask questions in the House yesterday. In respect of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, the Tánaiste proposes to bring in amendments to that Act which, in the first place, will ensure that Ministers in Government are not entitled to receive €100,000 interest free loans which apparently are not currently in breach of the Act. Does he intend to introduce an amendment to that Act which will allow him, as the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to determine whether some Ministers in receipt of gifts, interest free loans or money are either ethically correct or unethically wrong? That is what he has done. His determination of the Taoiseach's action as being an honest error of judgment is simply incredible in his capacity as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Tánaiste and deputy leader of the Government. Is it the Tánaiste's intention to maintain his view that inequality is good for society and that inequality in the interpretation of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 and of the Cabinet regulations that applied before that, applied to some Ministers whom he determined were right in some cases and wrong in others?
I call Deputy Rabbitte on the same issue.
I will take my turn if that is acceptable to the Ceann Comhairle.
Yes, Deputy, but we are not coming back to this matter. The Chair has stated that it will hear the leaders of the four parties. It is out of order under Standing Orders but the Chair will allow a brief——-
What Standing Order is that?
Everyone in the country is talking about this matter.
I ask Deputies to behave themselves and have respect for the Chair when I am speaking. I point out to Deputy Rabbitte that I will hear from the leaders of the four parties and then a reply from the Tánaiste, if he wishes to reply, and then we will move on to other business. We are not having a debate on the issue, therefore it is not my intention to call the Tánaiste and then call each leader in turn to raise the same issue.
Why not?
Because the Chair will not drive a coach and four through Standing Orders.
What is the Standing Order for this ruling?
The Chair has already been liberal in allowing a comment in respect of which there is a number of precedents, but there is no precedent for having a wholesale debate on a Thursday morning.
I am not accustomed to the Ceann Comhairle berating me into speaking, but in the circumstances and now that the Chair has called me I will try to think of something to say. I certainly do not know under what Standing Order the Chair has made this decision.
I take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to the Tánaiste on his appointment and to wish him well. Any morning one wakes up to hear that a hit man has been executed, a house sprayed with bullets, a garda wounded and €10 million of drugs landed at a private airport, it is clear that the Tánaiste needs all the assistance we can offer him on this side of House.
Will the Tánaiste spell out what he meant on radio when he said that Dáil Éireann would have an opportunity to discuss the controversy that has grown up around the Taoiseach's acceptance of a large sum of money for private use? This morning his deputy leader, Deputy O'Donnell, said she looked forward to the matter being ventilated adequately in the House. Will the Tánaiste indicate what provision he intends to make to allow the House to have the question and answer session that Deputy O'Donnell offered on radio this morning? We did not have such a session yesterday and it is important that we dispose of it.
Is there any particular reason the Tánaiste did not refer to the Manchester money in his statement? Will he cause any action to be taken to establish whether the Revenue Commissioners gave clearance to the payments involved? Are we now in a situation where the Tánaiste's party is giving only qualified support to the Government? Am I correct in interpreting his statement as meaning that the payments in question were manifestly a gift and not repayable loans? Are we in a position where this morning Deputy O'Donnell seemed to be qualifying even the qualified support for Government? Will the Tánaiste ensure that this House will have an opportunity to probe these issues satisfactorily so that Dáil Éireann can discharge its responsibility to hold the Government accountable?
I take this opportunity to congratulate my constituency colleague on his elevation to the position of PD leader and Tánaiste, but I must leave that aside for the moment. Does the Tánaiste accept that it was fundamentally wrong for the Minister for Finance at the time, Deputy Bertie Ahern, to accept payments for a speaking engagement in Manchester? Does he agree that this was in breach of an ethical code? Has he had serious discussions with the Taoiseach on this matter? Has he discussed the Manchester payment with the Taoiseach? Does he recall when he was out of politics, saying that the party that stands for anything stands for nothing? Is it now the case that his party stands for very little except its own self-advancement?
A Cheann Comhairle——
There is no provision for speakers now except leaders of parties and we cannot create a new precedent. I have gone far enough this morning. I will hear the Tánaiste.
No, that is not the case.
Deputy there is no provision for Independents to speak on this matter.
On a point of order, neither is there provision for leaders of parties to speak now.
The Chair ruled on this matter this morning that, in accordance with precedent, I would hear from the leaders of the parties.
The leaders who speak here on Leaders' Questions are entitled to speak now.
I will not hear from Deputy Joe Higgins now.
Deputy Joe Higgins speaks on behalf of the Independent Deputies and he is entitled to speak here this morning.
Deputy Joe Higgins is entitled to speak on this matter.
He is not. The Chair has ruled on the matter. I will hear the Tánaiste.
I will be brief. What I wish to say only involves two sentences.
No, I will not hear from the Deputy. If I hear from him, I would feel obliged to hear from everyone along the back bench.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat. I made it clear that I would hear from the leaders of recognised parties.
On a point of order, yesterday Deputy Joe Higgins was mandated by the Independents to speak on their behalf, and I request he be allowed to do so now.
There is no provision to hear from speakers outside the leaders of recognised parties.
Neither is there a provision to hear from the other speakers who spoke.
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I will not hear from the Deputy.
If I had been allowed speak, I would be finished by now.
The Deputy might well be, but I will still not hear from him. I will not create a new precedent this morning.
(Interruptions).
I ask Deputy Higgins to resume his seat.
That is an attack on democracy.
I ask Deputy Higgins to resume his seat. If he does not wish to, he knows what to do. If he wishes to leave the House he can do so on his own volition. If not, the Chair will facilitate him.
We represent more people than the Progressive Democrats.
That is not how the business of this House is done, Deputy. I ask Deputy Higgins to resume his seat.
May I make a point of order? This morning the Ceann Comhairle, at his discretion, waived Standing Orders, which I agreed with.
In accordance with precedent.
I agreed with his decision to do so to allow Members of the Opposition to ask searching questions of the Tánaiste. All the Ceann Comhairle needs to do is show a little flexibility to ensure the voices of the Independent Deputies and me, a Deputy of the Socialist Party, are heard.
It is not possible. It would open up a whole debate for the House. In accordance with precedent I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
Democracy — the Ceann Comhairle spoke about it in Monaghan.
I only wanted to ask the Tánaiste if he now officially endorses cronyism and patronage in Irish politics. Is that the effect of the statement he made?
I ask Deputy Higgins to resume his seat. If he does not wish to I ask him to leave the House.
That is extremely unreasonable.
That is outrageous.
It is undemocratic.
If Deputies are not happy with Standing Orders they know what to do.
All Members should be treated equally.
We have a bigger political mandate than the Tánaiste.
I am suggesting the Chair should review its position of allowing flexibility this morning. Perhaps we should stick rigidly to Standing Orders, and if that is what the House wants the Chair will do so.
The Chair applies discretion in favour of party leaders.
Allow the Tánaiste to speak.
Stand by the Republic now.
I thank Opposition Members for their kind words of congratulation on my appointment as Tánaiste. I hope I will not disappoint them in the discharge of this office.
A Deputy
He has already.
If I cannot speak he will receive no kind words from me.
Deputy Kenny asked two specific questions. They were brief questions to each of which the answer is "No".
Deputy Rabbitte asked about the support of the Progressive Democrats for the Government. That is not in question.
No matter what.
The Progressive Democrats Members were elected with a mandate to govern and we intend to discharge that mandate——
No matter what.
——so the people get the kind of Government they need and deserve. In answer to whether there were proposals to amend the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, there are no such proposals.
On a point of order, surely the leaders of the Opposition parties deserve proper answers to questions they have put, rather than the smug, self-serving answers we have heard.
Sorry, Deputy, that is not a point of order.
We were lectured on the importance of the Houses of the Oireachtas being the place where accountability should occur. The Tánaiste then comes to the House and fails to answer any of the questions that were put to him. The Progressive Democrats has abandoned all semblance of responsibility.
On a point of order, the Ceann Comhairle heard me ask two specific questions on the Manchester payments. The Tánaiste has not answered those.
That is not a point of order.
It is a point of order. The Tánaiste should answer those questions.
Answer the questions.
Sorry, Deputy Gormley, that is not a point of order.
I ask the Tánaiste to answer those questions.
The Deputy knows the rules as well as the Chair.
He will not answer them because they are embarrassing for him.
What is he in the House for?
He is in the House to answer questions. What about the Manchester payments?
I ask Deputy Gormley to resume his seat.
What arrangements does the Tánaiste proposes to permit the House to discuss the issues about which we have all been talking outside the House? He did not answer any questions, including Deputy Gormley's. What arrangements does he offer the House to debate these issues?
On Tuesday next, Dáil Éireann resumes. The first item is oral questions to the Taoiseach.
We are in the House to ask the Tánaiste questions.
Calm down, Deputy. The first item is oral questions to the Taoiseach. Every Member, including all Members opposite, have a right to tender to the Taoiseach questions on these issues.
They have not. They will be ruled out of order. It is not a possibility.
I ask Deputy Stagg to afford courtesy to the Tánaiste when he is answering.
The Taoiseach will answer any questions that pertain to himself or his public functions in this House.
The questions will not be allowed.
This House, as always, will get full accountability.
It will not.
The Deputy does not want an answer now.
I wish to ask a question.
I answered Deputy Kenny's two questions directly.
I will not allow a point of order until the Tánaiste has finished.
It is more a point of information for the Tánaiste.
There is no such thing as a point of information.
Allow me to provide some information to the Deputy first.
The Taoiseach's questions are predetermined. They are taken in groups of 32. The Taoiseach will refuse to answer a question on any issues raised today.
Later on Tuesday the Standing Orders of this House provide for the leaders opposite to question the Taoiseach at length on these precise issues.
This is wonderful. It is condescending.
Pathetic.
In addition, Standing Orders allow each Member to put down detailed questions in writing to the Taoiseach, requiring written responses.
We will write him a letter then.
He was not elected for that.
The Standing Orders of this House also provide for Members to devote two days next week to debate the issues.
Answer the questions.
I asked what arrangements have been made for a debate. I cannot believe this is the same Deputy McDowell who came into the House on the Opposition side and called for accountability and standards for many years.
Deputy Durkan has raised a point of order. Deputy Rabbitte owes the courtesy to a colleague in the House of allowing him to speak when he is called.
I will seek clarification. Is it not true that the Tánaiste is standing in for the Taoiseach this morning on the Order of Business? As such he is obliged to reply in the way the Taoiseach and his predecessor did.
That is not a point of order.
The Tánaiste is condescending and sanctimonious.
I ask Deputy Durkan to afford the courtesy to Deputy Rabbitte of being heard.
The Tánaiste is having a bad day.
He should get used to it.
He deserves nothing better.
It is almost beyond belief that we are forced to listen to a patronising explanation of the normal business of the House, telling us what time questions are taken, how to table them etc. It is contemptuous of this House.
The Deputy has made his point.
I will ask the Tánaiste again, because he is taking the Order of Business.
We will not have a debate, Deputy.
We want to know when there will be an adequate ventilation in this House of the issues that are in the public domain.
Hear, hear.
The Tánaiste is in charge. He said his party would be radical or redundant. It is manifestly redundant now.
That is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
The Ceann Comhairle may as well tell me that I may discuss the issues under No. 26, the Regulation of Charities Bill. Is that what he is going to tell me?
That is promised legislation. If a debate is promised——
A debate was promised on radio this morning by the deputy leader of the Progressive Democrats but the leader of the party comes into the House and denies it.
We seek a debate, which is why I asked the man sitting at the head of the Cabinet row what arrangements there are for one.
Of what is the Tánaiste afraid?
We may as well deal with it. If we do not, there will be no ploughing championship today. Let us hear the answers. What are the answers?
That is the prerogative of Members, if that is what they think of this House.
This morning we have had the silence of the lamb.
That is not a point of order. The Deputy should resume his seat.
I will make my point of order. We come here to get answers to questions. I put two specific questions to the Tánaiste this morning.
That is not a point of order.
It is a point of order. What is the function of this House? We are here to hold this Government to account.
I suggest the Deputy read Standing Orders and study them to find out the function of this House.
Why will the Tánaiste not answer the question?
The issues the Deputy has raised can be raised in many ways in this House.
I have raised them this morning.
They are not appropriate. We have moved on from that.
The Tánaiste will not answer the questions on the Manchester payment because it is embarrassing. He knows only too well that the Taoiseach was in breach of ethical guidelines.
There is a serious onus on the Ceann Comhairle to respond to what the Tánaiste said. The Ceann Comhairle heard him say that next Tuesday at Taoiseach's Questions any Member could put down questions on the Manchester payments and that the Taoiseach would answer them. The Ceann Comhairle must tell us now whether he will allow such questions and if we will have that opportunity next Tuesday.
In normal circumstances such questions would be allowed on the Order Paper. The day on which they are asked is not a matter for the Chair.
Will the Ceann Comhairle let me finish my point of order? The deadline for Taoiseach's Questions next Tuesday has passed. The Ceann Comhairle must tell us if he will be as flexible as he was this morning in allowing those questions to stand and to be taken next Tuesday. That is the minimum that is asked.
That is not a point of order.
The Tánaiste could tell us the details of the Manchester payment this morning and save us all this travail over four or five days.
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
If the Manchester payment issue must be dragged out over the next four days——
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat. He has had much leeway and I ask him not to push the——
The Ceann Comhairle has not answered my question.
The answer is no. The Chair will give no assurance as to what questions will be answered next Tuesday. It is decided in accordance with the rules of this House. Questions that go on the Order Paper for next Tuesday will be answered when their turn comes.
(Interruptions).
Will the Ceann Comhairle ask the Tánaiste to withdraw his statement, which is incorrect?
The Ceann Comhairle's answer to Deputy Joe Higgins's question puts the matter in context. On national radio this morning a spokesperson for the Government, the deputy leader of the junior partner in Government, gave us to understand that there were significant unanswered questions and that the survival of the Government was conditional on satisfactory answers being provided in this House.
That does not arise.
That was the commitment given. It is reasonable for the Opposition Parties to ask of the Tánaiste in measured terms, what arrangements are being put in place to fulfil that commitment.
Hear, hear.
It is clear from the Ceann Comhairle's answers that there are no positions available to answer that.
That is a fact.
I would not like the Deputy to involve the Chair in this. The Chair was asked a question about ordinary questions——
(Interruptions).
Deputy Howlin, the Chair is speaking. I would ask you to show courtesy to the Chair.
It is not normal for the Chair to interrupt people.
When the Deputy makes a false allegation the Chair does not interrupt but intervenes. The Chair stated to Deputy Joe Higgins——
Either the Ceann Comhairle or the Tánaiste is incorrect. The deadline has passed and the Ceann Comhairle has said he will not extend it.
If Deputy Howlin continues to interrupt the Chair he will be asked to leave the House.
The Ceann Comhairle should throw us all out.
The Ceann Comhairle should throw us all out.
Will the Ceann Comhairle invite the Tánaiste to alter his position? What he told us was wrong.
Deputy Burton, will you resume your seat? The Chair will be left with no choice but to ask you to leave.
The Ceann Comhairle should throw us all out.
The Deputy must allow the Chair to speak. The Chair will hear him. To be clear on the question raised by Deputy Joe Higgins — Deputy Joe Higgins asked about ordinary questions that go to the Taoiseach if the Chair could guarantee that they will be answered next Tuesday. The Chair cannot give any such guarantee because they will be answered in accordance with Standing Orders. It is not within my prerogative to say when they might arise.
(Interruptions).
I call Deputy Gilmore. Will Deputies show respect to colleagues in the House?
Will the Ceann Comhairle show respect to Deputies?
I ask Deputy Gormley to withdraw that remark, which reflects on the Chair.
I withdraw it.
As I understand the Constitution, the Government is accountable to this House, the Parliament of the people. An issue of very serious accountability has arisen in relation to the Taoiseach. The House requires answers to some questions. The leader of my party has asked the Tánaiste, who is taking the Order of Business, what are the arrangements for the discharge of that. In response he said we could put down questions for next Tuesday, although the deadline has passed. Based on precedent, if we put down a question to the Taoiseach about something he did as Minister for Finance, the question will be transferred to the current Minister for Finance while the Taoiseach takes cover. We have to establish from the Tánaiste what arrangements are to be made for the accountability of the head of the Government to this House for the matters we wish to raise with him. We want to do that in an orderly way, making the job of the Ceann Comhairle and this House easier. I again ask the Tánaiste to tell this House what arrangements are to be put in place and in what period of time. I do not want smart responses that we can put down questions to the Taoiseach or raise them during Leaders' Questions. I want to know what time will be provided for the House to ask these questions and to make the Taoiseach accountable. It is a straightforward matter and I want a straight answer from the Tánaiste.
Since a debate has not been promised by a Member of the Government it does not arise on the Order of Business. For the information of Deputy Gilmore it is possible to raise these matters in several ways in the House, by substantive motion, on Private Members' time and on Leaders' Questions. These means are open to Members of this House to raise any issue.
The Tánaiste promised a debate.
No debate is promised. It is not a matter for the Order of Business.
The Tánaiste promised it on the radio. It is on the public record.
A Deputy
It will not go away.
(Interruptions).
Was a debate promised?
That is not the question.
No debate was promised. Deputy Gilmore, I would ask you to resume your seat.
Is the Tánaiste sorry he took the job? It is more difficult than he thought. He is making a mess of it on the first day.
On a point of order, the question was not whether a debate was promised. There is long-standing precedent that on important political issues the Opposition can request from Government——
That does not arise on the Order of Business. The Deputy will have to find another way to raise it.
This is a way. The Order of Business is our opportunity to ask the Government to provide time to debate important issues.
As Deputy Stagg pointed out to me in the House one day, unless a promise has been made, it is a matter for the Whips.
It is on the record as being promised.
I appreciate that the Members opposite wanted to have questions answered and have some structured debate on this matter. I suggest that the normal course in this House is for the Whips to meet.
We met last night and requested this.
Deputy Stagg should calm down. It is for the Whips to meet——
We met last night and we were brushed aside.
——and agree what method of accountability is best in these circumstances. I suggest that the Whips convene a meeting and discuss this issue.
We requested that last night.
We did that.
Today the only business here is the Order of Business and the business that is ordered. I am not in a position, and do not intend to have a wider debate on these issues today.
Perhaps Deputy O'Donnell made an honest error of judgment when she said that the House is the place to be accountable for these matters. I accept what the Tánaiste has said, that the Whips can meet about this. In his capacity as acting Head of Government today can the Tánaiste give his imprimatur to the effect that, when the Whips meet, a proposal from the Fine Gael and Labour Whips will result in Government time being made available next week for a statement by the Taoiseach, to be followed by questions and answers from all Members of the House, about the fact that a serving Minister for Finance received €12,000 for a speaking engagement? I need the Tánaiste's imprimatur that when the Whips meet a proposal to have Government time next Tuesday will be approved. Can the Tánaiste give that assurance now?
This is the Tánaiste, Deputy McDowell's big chance.
I can give the assurance that if a concrete worked-out proposal is put to us the Government will consider it.
We have just made that proposal.
We will consider that issue and respond promptly.
The Tánaiste is only an office boy.
The deputy leader of the Progressive Democrats said on radio this morning that questions needed to be answered in the Dáil on this issue and she was right.
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
On this morning's Order of Business my colleague, Deputy Gormley asked two questions which only one person can answer, whether the Tánaiste believes that the Manchester payments——
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
He also asked whether he has discussed the issue with the Taoiseach.
That does not arise on the Order of Business. I call Deputy Kehoe who has been waiting a long time.
How does Deputy Gormley possibly get an answer to those questions if the Tánaiste refuses to answer them?
The Deputy should resume his seat.
This is a suppressed debate.
On a point of order——
That is not a point of order.
It is. How do we get an answer to those questions?
The Deputy has been in the House long enough to know.
Will the Ceann Comhairle please advise us how we can get an answer?
How do we get an answer to those questions when the Tánaiste refuses to answer them?
At the Whips' meeting last night we asked that the Opposition be allowed some time next week and that the Taoiseach be allowed to make a statement, but that request was refused. Will the Government Whip meet the Whips directly after the Order of Business, come up with a proposal and respond within at least an hour?
That is a matter for the Whips.
In the context of yesterday's discussions and lengthy Leaders' Questions I refused the request for a special statement. In the light of this morning's debate and the Tánaiste's commitment, I agree to meet the Whips and in the spirit of co-operation agree procedures for next week. I give that commitment now and think we should meet as soon as possible, in the next hour or so.
When will the Government consider the questions?
We have traditionally tried by consensus to agree the Order of Business, as the Deputy knows well.
What assurance will the Government Whip give us?
We cannot have a debate on this.
I thank the Government Whip for his intervention and accept his word that provision will be made in the schedule next week for an adequate statement and question and answer session on this issue. It is a time-honoured precedent in the House that the Government proposes through the Government Whip the order of the business for the House. The Tánaiste could have done that in the past half hour. I am glad to accept the word of the Chief Whip that without any doubt or equivocation there will be provision for a question and answer session. I welcome that arrangement.
I accept that. To be absolutely clear, when the meeting takes place with the Chief Whip after the Order of Business, will the Chief Whip confirm when the Government will consider the request from the Opposition Whips, or will he make that decision himself? Can we take it now, before we leave the House, that we will have the time and questions and answers or does the Tánaiste's comment that the Government will consider that refer to next Tuesday's Cabinet meeting?
The Government has Government time and it must decide how to allocate that time. I stand for full accountability as does every Member on these benches.
We are not getting it this morning.
Every Member of this House is entitled to accountability. Nobody is entitled to hide behind the procedures of this House to avoid accountability. The procedures exist for a purpose and there are many methods of achieving accountability. Yesterday I sat here in silence, as I was obliged to do, and watched people squander their time and make a mess of the accountability mechanism.
The Tánaiste is lecturing us in his typical fashion.
It was a pleasure to be in the Tánaiste's company.
There are plenty of methods for securing accountability under the rules of the House. Neither the Government nor any of its Members is reluctant to be accountable.
Will the Tánaiste be available next week to advise us?
No. 52, Private Members' business, motion re report by Professor O'Neill into matters relating to the Leas Cross nursing home; and nursing homes inspections, resumed. I call the next business.
On a point of order——
On a point of order——
The Tánaiste is running away.
I have called the next item of business. Deputy Kenny got a good run this morning.
I just want to know when the Government will consider the request from the Whips.
That is a matter for the Whips. No. 52, Private Members' business.
On a point of order——
Deputy O'Keeffe, I am moving on to the next business, motion re report by Professor O'Neill into matters relating to the Leas Cross nursing home, and nursing homes inspections, resumed. Is there any Government speaker?
I want to raise a point of order.
I call Deputy Cregan. We cannot go on all day on the Order of Business.
Do we have a Minister or is this a coup d’état?
Is the Ceann Comhairle refusing to allow me raise a point of order?
I will allow the Deputy raise a genuine point of order but I have listened to people raising points of order this morning and I think only two were in order.
The point of order I want to raise is as follows. The Tánaiste has said that he believes in full accountability. He talked about the procedures——
That is not a point of order.
The Ceann Comhairle does not know what the Deputy was going to say.
I am making my point of order.
We will hear the point of order.
There is a process by which full accountability can be established here. The Tánaiste has said that he believes in full accountability but he is constricted by the procedures of this House. There is a process whereby he can have full accountability and state his position on the Manchester payment. He can do so because the Members on this side will agree to suspend Standing Orders or otherwise to enable him to state his position.
I understand that the Whips are meeting on the issue this morning. I ask the Deputy to allow the business of the House to proceed.
Will the Ceann Comhairle allow me to complete my point?
The Deputy has made his point.
We are prepared to suspend standing orders, or otherwise, to enable him to state his position.
The Deputy should have a private chat with his Whip, who is going to a meeting now.
Can I complete this point?
All of these points can be made.
I am talking about enabling——
It is not appropriate at this time.
A Cheann Comhairle, will you allow me finish the point I am making?
Sorry, Deputy.
I believe we can arrange our proceedings to allow the Tánaiste to state his position——
Deputy, you are being disruptive.
——on the Manchester payments if he is willing to do so.
I ask you to allow Deputy Cregan to continue with the business.
A Cheann Comhairle, will you not allow me to——
Deputy, that is not a point of order.
I beg to differ.
It is a valid point.
Deputy O'Keeffe knows it is not a point of order.
It is a point of order.
He is trying to debate the issue now.
I suggest that we can establish a procedure under Standing Orders——
If the Deputy continues, the Chair will be faced with two options.
The Tánaiste is gone.
I will have to ask him to leave or I will have to suspend the sitting. If Members want to disrupt the business of the House——
I have been here a long time——
——the Chair must take appropriate action.
——and I have never been disruptive.
We have spent almost an hour on the Order of Business. I call Deputy Cregan to resume Private Members' time.
I am making a reasonable point, a Cheann Comhairle.
You have made your point. The Whips can consider your point at their meeting.
It has nothing to do with the meeting of the Whips. It has something to do with whether the Tánaiste is genuinely prepared to be accountable to this House.
You have made your point, Deputy.
I am talking about the Tánaiste.
I ask the Deputy to show a little bit of order in the House and to respect it.
He is hiding behind Standing Orders because he is not willing to be accountable.
I call Deputy John Cregan.
He is not willing to explain his position in respect of the Manchester payments because he is ashamed to do so.
The Tánaiste scurried out the door.
He ran off the pitch.
He ran out the door.
That is what the Tánaiste did.
He ran out the door in a hurry.