It is proposed to take No. a5, Appropriation Bill 2009 — Order for Second Stage, Second and Remaining Stages; No. 5 — Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009 — Second and Remaining Stages (resumed); and No. 6 — Forestry (Amendment) Bill 2009 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted on the conclusion of Question Time, which shall be taken for 75 minutes at 9.15 p.m. and in the event of a private notice question being allowed, it shall be taken after 45 minutes; and the order shall not resume thereafter; No. a5 shall be taken today and the Second and Remaining Stages shall be decided without debate by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in respect of amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Finance; the following arrangements shall apply in respect of No. 5: the proceedings on the resumed Second Stage shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 1 p.m. today; the proceedings on the Committee and Remaining Stages shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. today by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in respect of amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Finance; Private Members’ business, which shall be No. 96, motion re social welfare cuts (resumed), shall be taken at 7 p.m. or on the conclusion of No. 5, whichever is the later; and shall be brought to a conclusion after 90 minutes.
Order of Business.
There are four proposals to be put to the House today. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. agreed to?
It is not agreed.
No, it is not agreed. As I indicated previously, the Labour Party will not agree to the manner in which the Government is ordering business because of the undemocratic manner in which it railroaded through the House last week the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Bill, which will cut blind pensions, as well as the allowances to carers, widows and people with disabilities, and this week intends to railroad through the legislation which is to cut the pay of the lowest paid people in the country. Apart from the unfairness of the Government's actions, it also is highly unwise from a legislative point of view. Yesterday, when I asked the Taoiseach about the people to whom the pay cut would apply, it was perfectly clear that he did not know what I was talking about. Moreover, at the weekend, depending on which Minister was asked, it was not known whether it would apply to the semi-State sector. One Minister had one answer while another Minister had a different answer.
Yesterday, it was evident that the Taoiseach had not even read the Bill, when the consequences of the manner in which public service was defined were pointed out to him. I note the Government has circulated an amendment in this regard since I raised the issue yesterday. While this amendment will in turn give rise to anomalies, Members can deal with that in the course of the debate on the Bill.
When I asked the Taoiseach yesterday about the public servants to whom this would apply, he did not know the answer and certainly gave the impression that it would apply, as the Bill had stated, to people who work in the voluntary sector. Overnight, the Government has circulated an amendment which would remove that provision. Does this mean the Government changed its mind overnight as to whom the legislation was to apply or that it simply got the legislation wrong during its drafting? If it got that part of the legislation wrong during its drafting, what other parts of the legislation have been got wrong? If the Government intends to guillotine the Bill through the Dáil, to what anomalies and problems will this legislation give rise in its implementation? On its implementation, I wish to ask one question. Today is 16 December and the proposed pay cuts are due to take effect on 1 January. Even were the Bill to be passed and enacted this week, would the pay systems to implement this change have operated by 1 January or will people be obliged to work overtime over Christmas to put it in place?
I strongly object to the ordering of business today, which ultimately is a sham because the Government will state it is providing additional time to address the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill, which provides for the cuts to public service workers' pay. It will do nothing of the kind. The imposition of guillotines in the House for each of the Stages is having such an effect that it mirrors what happened last week in respect of the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Bill. Great numbers of Deputies on all sides will not have an opportunity to participate. The Bills that are being introduced are extremely important, as the consequences of the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Bill and the Bill pertaining to the cuts in public service pay will be absolutely devastating for entire families. The Government is driving people into poverty and despair by its current policy pursuits and this is an absolute disgrace. The entire institution of the Houses of the Oireachtas is being denied the opportunity to properly challenge or to put forward their case once again, however late in the day. If there is a chance of the Government listening, Members still have a duty and responsibility to provide focused opposition but they are being denied the oxygen of this opportunity to properly debate what is involved by such curtailment motions in respect of time.
The Government's unwillingness to ensure the wealthy in Irish society shoulder a greater burden——
I remind Deputy Ó Caoláin that this question pertains to the late sitting.
——of the responsibility to help to bring us out of these financial difficulties is creating a serious situation for the poorest people. It amounts to a crucifixion of the poorest in Irish society today and is an absolute disgrace. Sinn Féin absolutely and wholly opposes both the ordering and passage of this disgraceful legislation.
I will not make a speech about this matter. Fine Gael has been consistent in objecting to the guillotining of Bills going through the House. I had hoped the Government would relent in respect of No. 96. It still could secure much goodwill by choosing a different option in respect of Private Members' time. However, I agree with Deputies Gilmore and Ó Caoláin in respect of guillotining No. a5 and I object to it.
Obviously, in respect of the matters raised, it is necessary to proceed with this Bill today in order that it be enacted in the Dáil. It is part of the €4 billion in savings that must be provided for in the budget. It gives effect to them and must be implemented to have a full-year effect. The simplest way in the legislation to define a person for the purposes of this is to have a rule of thumb whereby if one is affected by the pension levy reductions in the rates of pay would also apply. It is to link——
That is a U-turn.
——employment to the current or potential access to a public service pension scheme. There could also be issues in terms of pay for people who are not technically State employees but who are working for organisations funded by the State or granted State aid, as a result of the amount of money we are able to provide for such organisations. It is an internal matter for the employers of the people concerned.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGuinness, John.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Behan, Joe.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Costello, Joe.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, George.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- O’Sullivan, Maureen.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P.J..
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Varadkar, Leo.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. a5 without debate agreed to?
It is not agreed. No. a5 is the Appropriation Bill, covering all the Estimates of the various Departments and is significant financial legislation. The Government wants the House to pass the Bill without debate. This was the Bill on which the House used to have what was called the adjournment debate before Christmas.
Long ago.
It lasted two or three days and Members of the House had the opportunity to raise issues on any Estimate or any area of public expenditure. Over the years this has been narrowed down, first to half a day, then a couple of hours and now the Government wants to put the Appropriation Bill, covering the entire finances of the State, through without debate. In normal circumstances that would not be acceptable, but in the financial circumstances we face and the consequences it has for people and for services it is doubly unacceptable. The Labour Party does not agree to taking the Bill without debate.
I have made this point before. When I first came to the House as a young Deputy many years ago, Major Vivion de Valera used to object to this every year. He used to ask how the Government of the day could put through all the Estimates with a rubber stamp. The Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, will remember that from the records.
That is going back a long time.
Do not say too much now.
While he was not a regular contributor——
A Deputy
They are not team working at all.
Allow the Deputy to speak without interruption.
——he was consistent in his objection to putting through the Appropriation Bill in this fashion every year. It is wrong and there should be a discussion about it. The fallout of many of the cuts in the budget in terms of these Estimates will be very sore for many people. It is wrong to do it this way and I object to it.
On behalf of the Sinn Féin Deputies, I also object to the ordering of this legislation to be taken without debate. In the context of all we have had to face last week and this week in this House, one would need to think very carefully about a Bill entitled "Appropriation". That is exactly what the Government is doing from the poorest and least well off in our society today. This proposition like all the rest on the Order Paper should be vehemently opposed by all Members of the Opposition in this House.
This is normally the last legislation considered by the Dáil before the end of year recess. Its purpose is to ensure that all Supplementary Estimates are included. The final Supplementary Estimates were approved by the Dáil on Tuesday, 8 December. In the past the Appropriation Bill has been taken without debate in the Dáil and it will be debated in the Seanad on Thursday, 17 December.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGuinness, John.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Behan, Joe.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Costello, Joe.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, George.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- O’Sullivan, Maureen.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 5, Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009, agreed to?
I object to this——
I object to the way in which it is proposed to deal with No. 5. We have consistently objected to the guillotining of all Bills through the House, but especially this one. Deputy Bruton has mentioned on numerous occasions that this Bill has a direct impact on all those in receipt of public pay, but particularly the 55,000 people with an income of less than €30,000. I ask the Taoiseach to consider again the possibility of having such people excluded on the basis of what Fine Gael has put forward. When the Minister for Finance was asked about this — I understand he is indisposed today and I hope he makes a speedy and full recovery — he said it would be very difficult in respect of the lower paid segment of the public service. However, that does not mean it is impossible; it is not impossible. From that point of view, this Bill should be discussed in a more thorough and complete fashion. I object to its guillotining under this proposal.
In view of the unfortunate absence of the Minister, we will be unable to discuss with him his U-turn whereby he is now proposing to exclude people such as home helps from the Bill. I am grateful for that small concession to the Labour Party. He said that the Central Bank was to be included in the remit of the Bill, but we have no amendment to that effect. In addition, there is no clarification of the situation with regard to the proposed reductions for Ministers and Ministers of State. Is it a reduction of their ministerial or their Deputies' salaries, or a combination of both? Does the Deputy rate apply to their Deputies' salaries and the other rate to their ministerial salaries?
We are anticipating the debate on the Bill.
The Deputy is giving us a budget speech.
I am sorry; I am an accountant, and the different methods of calculation give two different answers.
There is no clarity. Two lawyers, in the persons of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance, drafted this, but they have made a dog's dinner of it.
These are questions the Deputy can ask when the debate is in progress.
We have a senior counsel who has not read his own Bill, and he is not even here.
We are going off on a tangent.
He is out sick for the day. We are objecting to the imposition of the guillotine because the Ministers themselves do not understand their own Bill. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance——
I ask the Deputy to resume her seat.
——have clearly not read their own Bill.
All these points can be raised during the debate on the Bill.
Civil servants earning €30,000 a year are taking a cut of 5%, yet we do not know how the reduction will apply to Ministers and Ministers of State. We are entitled to clarification.
Please, Deputy. They can be raised during the debate.
Concessions will not make this Bill any more palatable to the hundreds of thousands of public service workers throughout the State, many of whom protested outside the gates of this House last night in greater numbers than admitted by the media. The important thing is that the message was delivered loud and clear. This section of the Irish workforce, including——
It is not intended to have a Second Stage contribution on the Order of Business. Absolutely not.
——our co-workers in this institution, the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Bill before us, which the Government is proposing to guillotine today, is proposing to dig deeper into the pockets of those it already robbed earlier this year, who cannot afford to take this further hit. Shame on the Government.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGuinness, John.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M.J..
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Behan, Joe.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Costello, Joe.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, George.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- O’Sullivan, Maureen.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business agreed to?
I should like to believe the Government would relent in respect of this Private Members' business and not divide the House as regards carers, the disabled and the blind.
That is last week's business.
We have pointed out a number of ways in which the Government could reverse these cuts on the most vulnerable and there is still time not to divide the House before Christmas on this sector of our people. I do not object to the taking of it, but I should much prefer if the Government would change tack in this regard, make a different choice and not impose these cuts on the most vulnerable in our society.
I join with Deputy Kenny in that appeal because this is of enormous importance to those concerned. The focus of the Private Members' business is deserving of the support of all Members of the House. Surely in the last days before the Christmas recess some heart can come into the Government backbenches——
Deputy Ó Caoláin need not worry about hearts on this side of the House. He should look to his own.
——and we can find sufficient time, even at this late stage to arrest the terrible vista being committed by this Administration on these unfortunate people.
Question, "That the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business be agreed to," put and declared carried.
I have two questions for the Taoiseach. Can he confirm the date on which the House is due to return? Yesterday he said it would be earlier than in the previous 15 years. We are trying to calculate what that is, exactly.
The standard arrangement is for it to be announced tomorrow.
Is it on 18 January or 19 January? I should just like confirmation.
In respect of a matter I raised in the House on two previous occasions, the committee of the regions is an important entity and a decision has to be made by Government. I have raised this twice before and spoken directly to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley. Obviously, we need to move on with this. Arising from the local elections result in June, the committee should reflect increased representation from my party. This is a matter of considerable importance and I should like if the Taoiseach could come back to me today, if possible, in this regard.
The Minister is not here.
I know he is not, but it is a matter on which the Government has to make a decision, I believe. I spoke to the Minister about it last week and he said he would come back to me but he has not replied as yet. Perhaps the Taoiseach might mention it to him because if account is to be taken of the decision by the people, then obviously representation from my party should increase substantially from what it is now.
On promised legislation and the Government's intentions on the new term after the Christmas, can the Taoiseach indicate to the House when he intends to move the writ for the Donegal South-West by-election? It cannot have escaped his notice, as it has not that of the wider populace, that a vacancy in the Seanad could be filled almost instantly. It is ridiculous that a Seanad vacancy can be filled almost instantly, yet look at the contrast — the public do not have the right to exercise a mandate in Seanad elections.
With regard to the Donegal South-West by-election, some six months have passed since the European elections in June. A vacancy exists in that constituency, so I want to know when the Taoiseach intends to move the writ. Will he move it this week or does he intend to do so tomorrow? Or will he commit now that on the resumption of the House after the Christmas recess, he will move the writ in the first sitting week in January? In that case, the people of Donegal South-West can exercise their democratic choice and pass judgment on the measures that the Taoiseach and his Government have visited on them.
I call Deputy Eamon Gilmore.
Is the Taoiseach not answering questions on the Order of Business this morning?
Only if they concern legislation and urgent business, but they do not concern legislation.
Do we get any replies from the Taoiseach?
That is a valid question on the moving of a writ for a by-election in a constituency where a seat is currently vacant.
Deputy Gilmore is on his feet.
It is somewhat unusual that the Taoiseach should take all the Order of Business questions together. While I appreciate that the Order of Business is running a bit longer than normal this morning, I hope this does not create a precedent.
I wish to support Deputy Kenny's point on the EU Committee of the Regions. Based on the results of the local elections, the Labour Party, like Fine Gael, would be entitled to additional representation on that committee. I want an assurance from the Taoiseach that my party — and I am sure that Fine Gael is in the same situation — will be consulted about the appointment to the EU Committee of the Regions. I hope we will not see a skewed appointment announced during the recess.
Does the Taoiseach intend to attend the House tomorrow to tell us the date on which the Dáil will be back in January or will he have somebody else do so on his behalf?
I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the consequences of yesterday's Supreme Court decision, its implications and the court's criticism that legislation has not been brought forward to deal with assisted reproduction and related matters. I saw a statement from the Minister for Health and Children that she intends to bring proposed legislation to the Government. There is nothing on the legislative list, however, concerning such legislation. Nor did I see anything about it in the programme for Government. When will that legislation be brought forward? Will it be based on the report of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction, which was published almost five years ago?
It is a matter for the Government to appoint to the committee of the regions. In the first instance, it is a matter for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to bring proposals to Government, and that has yet to be done. With regard to the writ for a by-election, the Government has not made any decision on its timing.
As I said yesterday, we will have to examine the impact of yesterday's Supreme Court decision. The Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction brought forward about 40 recommendations. This legal case will now have to be factored in to whatever work is ongoing in the Department of Health and Children. This is such a complex ethical issue, I would ask that the widest possible consensus be obtained in the House and the relevant committees in order to make progress on it.
A number of Deputies are offering on the Order of Business, but because of the serious overrun I will be obliged to call the Minister of State at 12.45 p.m. to reply to the Second Stage debate of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill, so there are clear time constraints. I have a list of those Members who have indicated to the Chair that they wish to raise certain issues, so I will call their names on the Order of Business tomorrow morning.