It is proposed to take No. b12, motion re ministerial rota for parliamentary questions——-
Order of Business.
——nor member of the Defence Forces can ensure that if he or she gives the Minister confidential information, he will not run around the streets of Limerick whispering it into ears of journalists for his own personal benefit.
Deputy Shatter, I have called the Tánaiste.
It is unacceptable.
Deputy Shatter, please.
It is different from the issue that this House dealt with yesterday. It is unacceptable.
The Tánaiste to proceed.
——No. 12, motion re presentation and circulation of Revised Estimates 2010; No. 12a , Finance Bill 2010 — Financial Resolutions; No. 12b, Finance Bill 2010 — allocation of time motion for select committee; No. 13, motion of re re-appointment of An Coimisneir Teanga — back from committee; No. 23 Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 [Seanad] — Second Stage (resumed); No. 5, George Mitchell Scholarship Fund (Amendment) Bill 2010 — Order for Second Stage, Second and Subsequent Stages; and No. 4, Road Traffic Bill 2009 — Second Stage (resumed).
It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. b12, 12, 12a and 12b shall be decided without debate and any division demanded on No. 12 shall be taken forthwith; and in the case of No. 12a, the Financial Resolutions Nos. 1-52 shall be moved together and decided by one question which shall be put from the Chair. The proceedings of No. 13 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 25 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply. The speeches shall be confined to a Minister or Minister of State and to the main spokespersons for Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Sinn Féin, who shall be called upon in that order, who may share their time, and which shall not exceed five minutes in each case. A Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed five minutes.
The Second and Subsequent Stages of No. 5 shall be taken today and the following arrangements shall apply. The proceedings on the Second Stage shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 3 p.m. today; the opening speeches of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for Fine Gael and the Labour Party, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case. The speech of each other member called upon shall not exceed 10 minutes in each case, Members may share time and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed ten minutes.
The proceedings on the Committee and Subsequent Stages shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 3.30 p.m. today by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, with regard to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Education and Science.
Before the Ceann Comhairle puts the question on the first proposition, I raise the fact that it contains, in effect, five proposals. I know the Ceann Comhairle will apply the rule that there should be only one contribution from each party in respect of that question. The problem is that because there are five elements to the proposition, it is possible that different members of political parties or individual Members of the House may want to contribute. I do not anticipate any great controversy over the ministerial rota for parliamentary questions but Deputy Burton certainly wishes to raise some issues on the financial resolutions. There is a separate question entirely included in the first proposition, which is the taking of 52 financial resolutions together without debate.
There has been an element of drift in this regard towards a collection of proposals being lumped together to be taken without debate but this is pushing it too far. There are far too many elements in this proposal. I ask the Ceann Comhairle, as Chair, to rule as to whether it is appropriate for all five of these questions to be taken together as one proposal from the Government. Will he use his good offices with the Government to ensure we are not continuously presented with these multiple sets of proposals being put together in one proposition?
I agree with that.
I concur with Deputy Gilmore on the unacceptable structuring of the first proposition, which incorporates a reference to four specific sets of proposals and an additional structuring of the address of the financial resolutions covering 52 areas. It is beyond the compass of the House to give blanket approval to this without debate.
I ask that the Chief Whip, with the Tánaiste, will agree to break this up and allow the opportunity for financial resolutions to be placed for scrutiny and debate in the Chamber. To all intents and purposes, this is a copper-fastening of the Government intent without Opposition scrutiny. Incorporated within these financial resolutions are proposals to apply guillotines within committee. It can be seen on the Order Paper. We are being asked to approve financial resolutions and how the process will progress without going through the detail that is involved. I am not prepared to accept guillotines here and I will not approve guillotines elsewhere within the process hidden behind what is in the Order Paper. It is wrong and this is not the way business should be done in the House.
It should be borne in mind that a proposal on the Order of Business is a narrow procedural motion making arrangements for the taking of business and nothing else.
It is a proposal for not taking business.
The proposal is a motion put forward by the Government and is in accordance with precedent. The items are voted on separately when put to the House after the Order of Business.
They are not debated.
There is no debate.
We will proceed.
The point made by Deputy Gilmore was that different spokespersons may want to comment——
Exactly.
——on the various elements contained therein.
The opportunity will arise subsequent to the Order of Business.
It will not arise.
They are to be taken without debate.
I have advised the House on the taking of business.
Deputy Gilmore made a valid point of order and I support it. These matters should be put separately so that, for example, Deputies Bruton or Burton can comment on the financial elements of the blanket proposal on the Order of Business.
That is right. That is supported by precedent.
I want to comment on them.
We must bear in mind that the proposal on the Order of Business is a narrow procedural motion. The items will be dealt with separately after the Order of Business.
If the Ceann Comhairle will bear with me, I did not intend for this to become acrimonious. There are a number of propositions, and I know Deputy Burton, on behalf of the Labour Party, will be opposing specifically the proposals for the financial resolutions. There is a separate proposal dealing with the allocation of time in dealing with the Finance Bill. The budget debate was truncated because the budget was not introduced until 9 December. It is possible that Members of this House who did not get the opportunity to speak during the budget debate may want to contribute to the Finance Bill and they may wish to oppose the allocation of time motion.
The problem arises that because all these elements are being put together, only one speaker from each party will be allowed to speak on the procedural proposal. Once that is passed, nobody may address the specific issues, which are to be taken without debate. By allowing the Government to put all these proposals together, Members are in effect being prevented from speaking on these issues.
I have been here and acted as a Frontbench spokesperson on foreign affairs for a very long time and wish to be of some assistance. There is ample precedent where matters are different from each other and affect different spokespersons, they are grouped separately. This goes to the point made by the leaders of the Labour Party and Fine Gael. We have dealt with motions relevant to European matters, which required one kind of response, and the ruling from the Chair if bundling is allowed——-
The Deputy is drifting from his point of order.
——of matters which are not cognate will be to exclude Frontbench spokespersons from commenting——
It is not intended to exclude them.
——on matters for which they are responsible.
If the Deputy resumes his seat I will advise him of the position. Under Standing Order 26, the Tánaiste is entitled to group items as proposed.
Nobody is debating that.
There is no objection to that.
The Chair does not have a function in the matter.
Let us record that this matter excludes spokespersons in a totally undemocratic way. It can be added to the other undemocratic features we have experienced this week.
I call Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.
Is this a further example of Green Party Dáil reform? They are muzzled.
The Ceann Comhairle said a short time ago that spokespersons would have the opportunity to participate later.
It is stupid.
That is not the case.
We need a political confession box.
Who would have gone if George Lee made it to the front bench?
If we adopt the proposition there will be no further debate. The only issue we are allowed to address on the Order Paper is the procedural proposition.
Who would have been dropped?
The Deputies can get the issues off their chest.
It would have been Deputy Shatter. A dead man walking.
We are all smiles over here, Deputy Kelleher.
The Minister of State should be more worried about Willie O'Dea.
Once that is agreed in this House, which the Government will clearly seek to force, that will be it. There will be no further comment and the Ceann Comhairle should clarify the matter.
I must advise the Deputy on the matter.
What you said earlier is not correct.
The Government of the day makes proposals and the House disposes of them. I will proceed with the Order of Business.
On a point of order.
A point of order.
There are three proposals to be put to the House.
On a point of order.
A Cheann Comhairle——
The Ceann Comhairle is being unnecessarily being put in an invidious position by the Government. I ask him to request of the Tánaiste to arrange that these items now be taken separately and give an opportunity to spokesmen to comment on the individual elements. This is instead of you, Sir, being put in the invidious position of defending the indefensible bungling by the Government. The Tánaiste should respond and protect the Chair and the House.
We cannot change Standing Orders on the hoof, and we will not do it this morning.
On a point of order, perhaps the Tánaiste might explain to us the difference between Government bungling and Government plundering.
Yet another pathetic response. As you indicated, a Cheann Comhairle, this is a procedural matter. It may entail a potential charge to the Exchequer. This is a precedent and it will allow Members to discuss this more fully at the committee, including the setting of a timetable, so I propose the motion.
On a point of order——
We cannot have a point of order when we have disorder in the House, but I will allow you in briefly.
I think you are about to put the question, but spokespersons are entitled to comment before you do so, but they have not been given——
The opportunity will arise later, as you have been advised.
If you put the question, the matter is finished.
The individual items will be taken.
The spokespersons are entitled to comment on the proposal from the Government before the vote.
There is no provision on the Order of Business to do that.
There is.
Precedent supports it.
I oppose No. 1 on the Order of Business in respect of the financial resolutions and the Revised Estimates. The reason I do this is that on Saturday——
I am allowing you in on a point of order, not on a Second Stage contribution.
I am entitled to do this.
The Chair will decide your entitlements. Resume your seat.
I oppose——
A Cheann Comhairle, will you read the rules?
——No. 1. The day after tomorrow, €280 million of a dividend is due to the Irish taxpayers from the €7 billion invested in Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Bank.
That is not a point of order.
It is included in the Revised Estimates of Government revenues for the year. This time last year, when a €3.5 billion investment was made in Bank of Ireland by Irish taxpayers, we were told it would yield a dividend of 8%. A total of €280 million is due on Saturday from the Bank of Ireland, while €280 million is due from the AIB in May.
We are on the Order of Business.
The Estimates being put forward do not acknowledge that this dividend has now vanished. Fianna Fáil Ministers, including the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach, occupied television and radio studios and told us that the €7 billion was an investment and would yield a dividend of €560 million. The Minister for Finance has acknowledged to me that this dividend will not now be paid, and as the dividend is non-cumulative, it is lost to taxpayers.
My second point of opposition to No. 1——
You are out of order.
She is in order.
I am totally in order.
I call on Deputy Bruton now. Deputy Burton, will you resume your seat? I have allowed you make the points on the issues involved.
I want to address the issue——
Will you resume your seat? I allowed you a brief comment, and I am calling on Deputy Bruton now.
On a point of order, Deputy Burton rose to oppose No. 1 on the Order of Business. She is entitled to that and she is entitled——
There is no provision for a full scale debate on the Order of Business on this matter. I allowed her some latitude and I will extend the same latitude to Fine Gael and Sinn Féin.
I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle. Almost from the moment that she began making her contribution, you started to interrupt. She is entitled to oppose No. 1. She is entitled, on behalf of the Labour Party, to state the reasons for opposing No. 1. She had not completed making her case for opposing it. With respect, I ask you to allow her to continue to explain her second reason for opposing No. 1 on the Order of Business. She is entitled to do that. There is precedent in this House for spokespersons from parties to oppose propositions on the Order of Business. A Cheann Comhairle, I ask you to defend the rights of Deputy Burton and Members of this House by allowing her to complete her contribution.
Under Standing Order 26, if such a proposal is opposed, the Chair shall permit a brief statement——
She is being brief.
——from each party in the Opposition, and then the Taoiseach or Tánaiste shall reply. Deputy Burton, I ask you to be very brief.
I thank you for allowing me make my first point. My second point is this——
On a point or order——
(Interruptions).
This will be good.
The Opposition is making a circus of the morning's business. The reality is that Deputy Kenny and Deputy Gilmore made their points on this item. We are continuing now with a second individual and we are now having a debate. Stop the circus and put the question.
(Interruptions).
If this is a circus, the Tánaiste is the ringmaster. We will not ask who the clowns are.
A Cheann Comhairle, I should invite you for a cup of coffee and we can discuss this peacefully. As it is, I will try to make myself heard.
If you could complete your short statement, we would be delighted.
Both I and Deputy Bruton are particularly anxious to facilitate the Minister for Finance in respect of the allocation of time for the Finance Bill 2010. However, there is no need to have a time based motion on Committee Stage of the Bill. The committee is perfectly capable of doing its business and is anxious to facilitate the Minister for Finance. Putting in a time based motion is the use of a parliamentary jackboot when it is entirely unnecessary.
A Cheann Comhairle, Deputy Gilmore raised a legitimate point of order, upon which a number of Deputies commented. You never even managed to put the question as to whether Nos. b12, 12, 12a and 12b were agreed.
In advance of an agreement, Deputy Gilmore asked to comment.
Yesterday was a very bad day for politics here.
The week before was worse.
(Interruptions).
Those who smirk behind their constitutional seals and harbour a perjurer at the Cabinet table should be ashamed of themselves.
Have you a comment to make?
This was epitomised by the Minister for Education and Science, when he clapped the unfortunate Green Party Deputy on the back and said: "Well done. You made a tough decision."
Deputy Kenny, can I ask you to comment on No. 1?
I will comment on the Order of Business. I oppose the Order of Business.
(Interruptions).
On a point of order——
Roll over. Roll over.
The discourse between me and the Minister had nothing to do with yesterday's vote. Deputy Kenny is not averse to telling a few fibs himself about Sinn Féin.
I call on Deputy Kenny to speak on No. 1 on the Order of Business. Otherwise I will adjourn the House unless we can get some order.
I oppose the Order of Business and I will tell you why. Deputy Shatter raised the possibility of a section 32 motion, which you refused.
We will not revisit an issue with which we have dealt. I have written to Deputy Shatter setting out the position and the procedures he needs to pursue in the matter.
I am setting out clear reasons for opposing the Order of Business. They are important to the interests of our State and the standards that are employed by Government. Yesterday——
I will not allow the Deputy to revisit yesterday's debate.
Am I entitled to explain myself in the House of the people?
I ask the Deputy to address issues arising on the Order of Business.
I will do so. The Order of Business is before us for consideration and acceptance or rejection. I oppose it and will set out the reasons for doing so. Yesterday, in defending the behaviour of the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, the Taoiseach and Ministers repeatedly claimed——
The House disposed of a vote of confidence in the Minister yesterday.
Yes, and today we are dealing with its consequences.
This has nothing to do with the Order of Business.
The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to finish his contribution.
Will Deputy Kenny please deal with the Order of Business, as proposed for today?
The Taoiseach and Ministers repeatedly stated that when the so-called mistake of the Minister for Defence was brought to his attention he apologised to the injured party and acted in good faith.
There are other ways to deal with the issue.
This is the only opportunity I will have to do so today.
As I explained to Deputy Shatter, the matter cannot be raised under Standing Order 32 but if a substantive motion is put before the House, we will deal with it, which is more than adequate.
The Ceann Comhairle does not want to hear what I have to say. I am not speaking under Standing Order 32 but in opposition to the Order of Business. The Taoiseach, the Head of Government who lays down standards for acceptance to members of his Cabinet, stated on Tuesday that there are standards he expects a person to show when an error is made, that the person should admit to the mistake, solve the problem and deal with it to the satisfaction of the person who is aggrieved.
We are not revisiting yesterday's debate.
These are the words of the Taoiseach. I want you, a Cheann Comhairle, to understand that in the past hour——
I am not allowing Deputy Kenny to revisit yesterday's debate. He is welcome to table a substantive motion.
The Ceann Comhairle is like a spectator gone nuts at a soccer match.
(Interruptions).
I quoted the Taoiseach's words. In the past 60 minutes, the aggrieved person, speaking on national radio, stated that far from offering an immediate and fulsome apology, the offer of the Minister for Defence was unapologetic. He further suggested that the eventual apology was in effect dragged out of the Minister kicking and screaming. This revelation——
We cannot have a rehash of yesterday's debate. I will put the question on the Order of Business.
I want to ask the Tánaiste, the deputy Head of Government, a question before I tell the Ceann Comhairle whether I will go along with the Order of Business.
The Deputy does not have a choice.
I note a Member of the Green Party is leaving the Chamber.
(Interruptions).
Deputies
Come back here.
A Deputy
He is returning to sit in the Fianna Fáil benches.
He stated on radio this morning that the Minister for Defence was ethically wrong.
I ask Deputy Kenny to resume his seat.
Deputy Mattie McGrath, the conscience of Fianna Fáil, has arrived.
Does the Tánaiste believe it is ethically wrong for a Cabinet Minister to make a sworn affidavit which is false?
I will put the question. Will Deputy Kenny resume his seat? Deputy Morgan should do likewise.
I will but I want the Tánaiste to answer my question.
(Interruptions).
Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No.b12, No. 12, No. 12a and No. 12b, without debate, be agreed to.”
The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 65.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- 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.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- 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.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McManus, Liz.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’ Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 13 agreed? Agreed.
On a point of order, yesterday in this Chamber the Taoiseach stated on the record:
There was a competition. Michael O'Leary and Ryanair for whatever reason, which is their own business, did not compete for the hangar, seek ownership of the hangar or seek a lease for it last September——
Deputy, that is not a point of order.
There is a letter here from 13 August to the Tánaiste requesting the hangar and mentioning 500 jobs.
Deputy Reilly, resume your seat please.
Our Taoiseach has been called a liar on the national airwaves.
Deputy, will you resume your seat please?
Either he comes in here and explains——
Deputy, resume your seat.
On a point of order——
No, you are not speaking on a point of order. Resume your seat.
Will you not give him an opportunity to clarify the record?
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 5 agreed? Agreed.
A Cheann Comhairle, the record needs to be corrected. The Taoiseach must come in here and explain himself.
A Deputy
Behave yourself.
I call Deputy Enda Kenny.
Which item are we on, a Cheann Comhairle? You have not finished the Order of Business.
I called the second and I dealt with the third as well.
I have two questions for the Tánaiste. First, does she believe it was ethically correct for the Minister for Defence knowingly to submit a sworn affidavit to the High Court which he knew to be false?
We have already revisited that matter.
I have had enough of that. This is a matter of standards.
We had a debate on this matter yesterday. I advised earlier that any allegation must be by way of substantive motion.
The Tánaiste is the deputy Head of Government. I want to know whether she is of the opinion that it was ethically correct for the Minister for Defence to submit a false affidavit to the High Court for political gain.
I cannot allow that question. We spent a considerable period yesterday on this matter.
The Tánaiste wants to answer.
It is all over the public airwaves.
The Deputy will have to raise the matter by way of substantive motion. That is how it must be done when serious allegations are being made against a Member of the House.
Rubbish.
I have some years annual service in this House and have seen various shades of this issue being raised in Governments over the years. I am entitled to raise a question like this on the Order of Business. I am not making any grievous charge against anybody. I am asking the Tánaiste if she considers that it was ethically correct for the Minister for Defence to submit a sworn affidavit to the High Court which he knew to be false. This is a matter of considerable importance. Following on from Deputy Gogarty's intervention this morning that it was ethically wrong for the Minister, Deputy O'Dea, to do what he did, I refer to——
This was debated yesterday.
——the statement made by the leader of the Green Party, the Minister, Deputy Gormley, on 24 February 2007 that his party in government would introduce the "strictest ethical standards ever seen in this country".
I wish to advise the Deputy of the position in regard to this matter.
Does the Tánaiste believe that what the Minister, Deputy O'Dea, did was ethically correct?
Members voted on this matter yesterday and that vote determined the position. If the Deputy wants to pursue the matter further, he can put down a substantive motion of no confidence in the Government and have the whole matter revisited.
I concluded my contribution on that point by asking the Tánaiste a question. I hope the Ceann Comhairle will allow her to answer it. It requires a simple "Yes" or "No" answer. Does she believe it was ethically correct for the Minister for Defence to submit a sworn affidavit which he knew to be false?
I am not allowing a debate on this matter.
I do not want a debate; all the Tánaiste has to do is answer "Yes" or "No".
Second, the record of the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in securing jobs for the State is absolutely abysmal. The revelation today that she has again failed to secure 300 high-tech jobs for north Dublin and Meath is simply another demonstration of gross incompetence. She should voluntarily submit to the Taoiseach that she would like a change of Ministry in view of her incompetence in her current role.
Can the Tánaiste confirm newspaper reports today that she telephoned the chief executive officer of Aer Lingus to ask him if that company would move from hangar six at Dublin Airport in the knowledge that when Aer Lingus was privatised, this House was informed on more than one occasion that the reason the Government was holding on to 25% of the shares was for strategic reasons in terms of the development of the industry?
Does the Deputy have a question on promised business?
It is difficult to judge which is worse, when the Tánaiste intervenes or when she does not intervene. The result is the same — failure, failure, failure. Was she told to get lost when she telephoned the chief executive officer of Aer Lingus to ask whether the airline was prepared to move from hangar six so that 300 jobs could be provided there?
That is the question.
I have asked two straight questions which require only a "Yes" or "No" response.
There are question marks over what we heard yesterday in this House. Today, I am advised that the Garda has stated that it did not provide the Minister, Deputy O'Dea, with information, as he claimed——
I am not revisiting this matter at this point.
——in a statement on the floor of the House yesterday.
There are procedures and avenues to be pursued if the Deputy so wishes.
There is no avenue. How can the matter be finished if we have a situation where there is a contrary statement, a firm denial by the Garda Síochána——
Serious allegations are being made against a Member of the House. The Deputy must make them by way of substantive motion. That is the only way they will be allowed.
——that it did not advise the Minister as he claimed in regard to the vexed and false statement he made against now Councillor Maurice Quinlivan.
Does the Deputy have a query on promised legislation?
Let us make no mistake about it, the Tánaiste is a colleague and party member of the Minister for Defence, as is the Ceann Comhairle. We are now advised that the Minister allegedly instructed Fianna Fáil canvass teams to repeat his false allegation in the course of the local government election campaign last June.
I ask Deputy Ó Caoláin to resume his seat.
I have a second question arising from the second matter raised by Deputy Kenny. How will the Tánaiste stand over her statement that young people are leaving our shores not because of the disastrous employment situation and the Government's failure to sustain, let alone create, employment, but because they are going off to enjoy themselves?
Does the Deputy have a question on promised business?
Will the Tánaiste and the Government facilitate a debate on emigration in this House so that we can get some understanding of her bizarre theory on the exodus of so many young people from our shores in recent months?
Is a debate promised on this matter?
A debate took place in the House yesterday in the context of a vote of confidence in the Minister for Defence. That motion stands and there is nothing further to say on the matter.
Does the Tánaiste have confidence in the Minister?
We have full confidence in the Minister for Defence, as has been articulated on behalf of the Government by the Taoiseach. I assume the accusations made by Deputy Kenny are based on his reading of inaccurate articles in the national newspapers.
The Tánaiste has not answered my question. It requires merely a "Yes" or "No" response.
Deputy Kenny must allow the Tánaiste to respond.
In regard to employment, perhaps the Deputy does not want to hear about the jobs that were created last week. What about the jobs in Hertz, PayPal and eBay?
What about the jobs at Ryanair and SR Technics?
A huge number of jobs have been created and there is a great number of opportunities for the future.
What is the Tánaiste's predictions for the year?
The Tánaiste must be allowed to speak without interruption.
She does not have a clue.
It is not my problem if Deputies do not want to know the facts.
As I said, there has been incorrect information in the newspapers, including one article on Element Six. I will put it to the Deputies who represent that constituency that they know full well——
Is the Deputy referring to Element Six or hangar six?
I believe "Element Six" is a movie.
——of my personal involvement with the chairman of the board and the chief executive officer, my personal involvement with Shannon Development and the new initiative in the sustaining of those jobs. We now have, as a consequence of that intervention, continued manufacturing, for example, in the Shannon free zone and, also as a consequence of that intervention, those workers coming back from part-time to full-time employment.
Will the Tánaiste tell that to workers in north Dublin?
I heard what Deputy Kenny had to say about Dublin Airport, but I did not hear him talk about the needs of Aer Lingus and Aer Arann.
I did.
The Deputy did not.
These are former Aer Lingus workers.
The Tánaiste must be allowed to respond without interruption.
People must remember that a considerable amount of effort, time and resources went into putting together Dublin Aerospace——
Former SR Technics and FLS employees are out of work.
——where a number of people from SR Technics are now employed. The man who has taken over M50 Motors indicated to me that all his employees came from SR Technics. There are continued initiatives in dealing with the supports that are needed for SR Technics.
Deputy Kenny also asked about Ryanair. The Deputy is articulating and emulating the way Mr. O'Leary does his business in the way he does his business in this House.
Call his bluff if the belief is that he is bluffing.
His business is a success, in case the Tánaiste has not noticed.
I have been working with Ryanair and the IDA since 26 February last year.
Call his bluff.
We indicated to the company on 21 July that the DAA was at an advanced stage with another party about the use of hangar 6 and our suggestion was that the best way forward was for direct contact between the DAA and the company. The IDA, on my behalf, was willing to chair such a meeting. Following considerable correspondence, the company found it was not in a position to directly involve itself in those negotiations.
The Tánaiste allowed that.
It is important to reiterate on the basis that Mr. O'Leary has a fixation with access to hangar 6 that I put the idea to Aer Lingus.
He has a fixation with the media.
When?
I did that on the basis that people like Deputy Kenny would accuse me of inaction if I did not. On the basis of my conversation, and work with my colleague, the Minister for Transport, I assure people in north Dublin that I did ask. It was indicated to me that to sustain Aer Lingus and deal with the challenging issues in aviation it faces at present, and so it can consolidate its position, that hangar 6 was hugely important.
Is that why it is empty?
What about the famous competition we are always hearing about?
On that basis I was in a position to indicate to Mr. O'Leary in my meeting that there was not just a legal impediment in the matter but that it was imperative to the sustainability of Aer Lingus that it continue to have hangar 6. On that basis, I provided further opportunities for Ryanair in the configuration of existing hangars and offered two sites that are available in Dublin Airport.
Shannon Development also put forward a proposal that is available to Ryanair in that an entire new hangar at Shannon Airport will be provided for the specific requirements of Ryanair.
Half of Europe has put forward a proposal. The Tánaiste just does not get it.
We are being fair, reasonable,——
Ineffective.
And harbouring a perjurer.
——and doing all we can but it is difficult to get across the situation that Aer Lingus has a lease for 20 years and that hangar 6 is imperative to the sustainability of the company.
Will it be empty next year and the year after? Aer Lingus sold its planes.
Deputy Kenny would be the first, as would his Deputies in north Dublin, if we did not allow the continuation of a viable Aer Lingus, a viable Ryanair and a viable Aer Arann in this country.
The DAA can move Aer Lingus to another hangar.
Ryanair can move to a different hangar.
Ryanair can only be moved by the DAA but O'Leary cannot move the DAA.
They are all going through difficult times in aviation at present and we are still open, as I indicated to Mr. O'Leary at the meeting, to working through a number of alternative proposals and in which we are more than supportive of him if he wishes to have those 300 jobs that he wants.
Doing everything except what will bring the jobs. I say well done to the Tánaiste, fair play to her.
I am sure when Deputy Reilly was a little boy, the one thing his mother told him was——
Never to lie under oath.
——that I want does not get.
The fact is I want 300 jobs for north Dublin, as do the redundant workers in SR Technics but Michael O'Leary will get not "I get".
So does this Government but we cannot do it on the basis of what cannot be delivered but we do have alternatives and I, the Minister for Transport and the representatives of State agencies are more than willing to support Ryanair and its requisite needs.
She also told me not tell lies about fictitious competition.
Is the Tánaiste going to arrange for a debate on emigration? It is very important that this issue be addressed but the Government has constantly put it on the long finger and ignored it. Many young people are leaving our shores at this time.
Can the exiles come back?
I do not wish to be disruptive to proceedings but I want to bring the Tánaiste back to the first question I asked. I understand the Garda has clarified that it did not provide confidential information to the Minister for Defence about the allegation he made that a citizen was running a brothel in Limerick.
We cannot revisit this, we dealt with it yesterday. If the Deputy wants to revisit there is a procedure whereby he can do that.
The Ceann Comhairle has interrupted continuously on a matter of State importance.
An important principle is at stake. It could be a Minister today and a backbencher tomorrow.
I do not have the opportunity to address the Tánaiste every day. The gardaí have stated that they did not supply the information to the Minister for Defence that he claims was supplied to him.
Does the Deputy have a question on promised legislation?
It is critical that Ministers in particular should be above and beyond the spreading of malicious rumours about any citizen.
We dealt with this yesterday.
I would like to know from the Tánaiste, and I am sure she wants to set the highest standards in Government, if she believes it was ethically correct for the Minister for Defence to submit a false affidavit to the High Court for political gain. Will she give a "Yes" or "No" answer?
The House voted on this yesterday.
The House determined a vote of confidence by numbers. The Ceann Comhairle is defending the Tánaiste.
I am not defending anyone, I am defending the rights of all Members of the House.
Then she is well able to answer. The Ceann Comhairle is defending the Tánaiste in particular.
If we get to a situation where serious allegations can be made against any Member of the House, standards in the House will drop. We will have a serious problem.
Standards in the House will drop? Standards in the country have dropped.
They might have but it is important that we maintain decent standards in the Chamber.
Standards in the country have dropped because the Government harbours a perjurer at the Cabinet table. I want to offer the Tánaiste the opportunity to answer my question, "Yes" or "No".
We dealt with this matter yesterday, we had a vote on it. The Members divided and decided that we move on. If the Deputy wants to revisit the issue there is a process for doing that.
The Ceann Comhairle is protecting the Tánaiste. I am revisiting the issue on my feet, it is a straight "Yes" or "No" answer.
There is a process to go through to do that.
Does the Tánaiste believe it is ethically correct for the Minister for Defence to do what he did?
I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw his charge that the Minister for Defence committed perjury.
That is what he did.
I have no intention of withdrawing the remark.
The Government thinks it is all right to make serious allegations about people outside the House.
This matter was dealt with, an explanation was given to the House through a personal statement and a substantive motion where the Deputy had an opportunity to say what he wanted and the matter has been dealt with by the House, the Members of this House and by this Government.
I ask Deputy Kenny to co-operate with the Chair and he is refusing to do so.
Was it ethically correct?
I will suspend the House if Deputy Kenny does not co-operate, and that means sitting down.
The Tánaiste is speechless for once.
On a point of order, it is a long-standing tradition of this House that where a Member deliberately or inadvertently misleads the House, an opportunity is given the next day or at the next available opportunity for that Member to correct the record.
That is not a point of order.
In light of what Deputy Kenny and Deputy Ó Caoláin have told the House, whereby members of the Garda Síochána have confirmed that the information was not given to the Minister,——
I have advised the House many times this morning that where serious allegations are made against a Member, there is a process to go through to deal with them. I will implement that if the proposal is put forward.
——I am asking the Ceann Comhairle to advise me if time will be made available today for the Minister to come to the House again to clarify a statement of yesterday where he suggested the information was given to him by a member of the Garda Síochána.
I am advising the Deputy how to handle these matters. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat. I told the Deputy earlier how to proceed.
With respect, that was a separate matter.
It is not a separate matter, we are talking about serious allegations being made against a Member of the House. There is a process to go through and I will insist on that being done. We cannot proceed on this basis. We are lowering the standards in the Chamber, what is happening is disgraceful.
Standing Orders have a precedent whereby a previous occupant of the Chair——
If the Deputy does not resume his seat, I will suspend the House.
I am asking the Ceann Comhairle to permit the Minister to come before the House to correct the record.
I am suspending the House.
The Minister deliberately misled the House.
For how long will the House be suspended?
For five years.
A Deputy
For the remainder of the day.
It will be suspended for ten minutes.
Sitting suspended at 11.40 a.m. and resumed at 11.58 p.m.
We will endeavour to move on with the business of the day.
I think the Tánaiste inadvertently referred to element 6 when she meant hangar 6 in a response to——
No. Element 6 is in Shannon.
Yes. I was going to remind the Tánaiste that it was one of the places where she lost jobs in the course of the past year. They were also lost in Waterford and Limerick. I want to ask the Tánaiste directly whether she will now lose the 300 potential jobs for Dublin Airport. At this stage we have heard so much about hangar this and hangar that but what people want to know, particularly those hoping to get this employment, is whether these jobs will be provided.
Ask Michael O'Leary that.
Deputy Coghlan is the Tánaiste and she is Minister with line responsibility for job creation, although there is not much evidence of it. The potential for these jobs has been in existence for the best part of a year. Will they be provided?
With regard to the motion of confidence in the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, tabled yesterday by the Taoiseach and passed by the House, on the Order of Business yesterday I raised with the Taoiseach his plans for that motion.
When he informed Deputies that he was minded to bring the motion before the House yesterday, I asked him whether it was a Government motion and I understood from his reply that it was. We have been told since then by a number of representatives of the Green Party that they were somewhat bounced into the motion yesterday. When the Taoiseach informed the House on yesterday's Order of Business that a motion of confidence in the Minister, Deputy O'Dea, would be moved, had the Government made a decision to move such a motion? Was the motion that the Taoiseach moved yesterday a Government motion and can the Tánaiste inform the House when the Government made the decision to move it? If it was a Government motion, how has it transpired that Deputy Gogarty indicated this morning that individual Members of the Green Party were unhappy with it?
We had this debate yesterday.
No, we did not.
We really did.
He is speaking about this morning.
This is a different point.
It is a procedural issue.
It will not go away.
It is about procedure.
There is no legislation promised.
We wish to proceed with the Order of Business.
I note the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, is advising the Ceann Comhairle.
And the Tánaiste.
Deputy Kehoe does it often enough.
I am trying to clarify the status of the motion passed in the House yesterday in light of Deputy Gogarty's comments on radio this morning and the departure by the chairman of the Green Party from the position taken by his party on the motion. I am trying to establish whether the motion was moved by the Taoiseach in his capacity as leader of the Fianna Fáil Party or on behalf of the Government and, if so, when the Government decision was taken to move it.
I wish to raise two other matters but I will await the Tánaiste's reply to the matters already raised.
I cannot add much more to what I have already said to Deputy Kenny on the issue of Ryanair. With regard to the motion, this matter was discussed and brought forward on the Order of Business and, as in the normal course of affairs when the Opposition proposes a motion of no confidence, the Government puts forward a motion of confidence. To facilitate the House, the Taoiseach indicated in his response to Deputy Gilmore that the motion would be facilitated yesterday. That decision was intended to facilitate Members and it was made on either the Order of Business or Leaders' Questions.
I ask Deputy Gilmore to speak about promised business.
That was not the question.
It was not a Government decision, therefore.
It was a Government motion.
I do not accept the response and I think this is part of our problem. The Tánaiste seems to think she has said all that has to be said about the jobs at the airport. I am afraid she has not.
Deputy Gilmore——
Sorry, a Ceann Comhairle, my question to the Tánaiste is whether those jobs will be provided. All we have heard over the past several days were the details of the Tánaiste's exchanges with Mr. O'Leary and Ryanair. Whether Ryanair provides the jobs is a question——
Deputy Gilmore, the difficulty we have with the Order of Business——
The Tánaiste——
Sorry Deputy, allow me one moment. The difficulty we have with the Order of Business is that we cannot allow it to be turned into Question Time.
At 90 minutes, it has been a long Question Time.
That is essentially what is happening. We have provision on the three sitting days of the week for Question Time
If she answered the questions.
Alternative avenues are available for pursuing these matters but the Order of Business is not intended to be used for that purpose.
Nor should Cabinet meetings.
If the Ceann Comhairle went to Dublin Airport, Swords or north Dublin and told one of those 300 people or anyone else who is looking for jobs that the Order of Business cannot be used for this purpose, I know where they would tell him to go. I am asking the Tánaiste——
Deputy Gilmore——
People are looking for jobs, a Cheann Comhairle.
I do not make——
They are out of work since losing their employment at the beginning of last year.
Deputy——
Instead of acting as a mouthpiece for Michael O'Leary, the Deputy should go and do something about it.
The Tánaiste has direct responsibility.
If you are so friendly with him, get him to do something.
Deputy Dempsey, please.
We did not see much of Deputy Dempsey.
A mouthpiece for Ryanair.
He is the Minister for Transport.
Deputy Gilmore, please.
Mouthpiece.
We did not see much of him in terms of doing something to protect those jobs.
Deputy Gilmore, the Chair is on his feet.
If those jobs are not to be provided——
He is a mouthpiece for Ryanair.
Deputy Noel Dempsey, please. I do not make Standing Orders; I merely implement them.
Sometimes.
The clear provision in Standing Orders is that we cannot allow Question Time on the Order of Business.
When it suits.
Other avenues are available for submitting questions, such as the Adjournment debate.
The Tánaiste, in reply to my question, stated that she had said all that was going to be said on this. I am challenging that on the basis that if these jobs are not to be provided one way, they should be provided a different way. It is her job as Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to ensure the people who have the skills needed to maintain aircraft are given the opportunity of putting their expertise to productive employment.
Is the Deputy saying that hangar six should be taken from Aer Lingus?
My second question on this——
I ask for clarity on that.
He wants to take it from Aer Lingus for his Deputies from north Dublin.
He is asking you to find a solution.
He is a long way from Dun Laoghaire.
Deputy Kelleher, please.
It is time the Deputy stopped speaking about hangars and began to hang his head in shame for the fact that he had this for a year.
He is trying to have it both ways.
Deputy Gilmore——
You have had this for a year and those people are out of work.
Deputy Gilmore——
You have blown it.
I ask Deputy Gilmore for his co-operation on the Order of Business.
Sit back down on that fence.
Those jobs have been allowed to fall by the wayside.
I ask for the Deputy's co-operation. Please engage the Chair rather than Members.
I remind the Ceann Comhairle that I am the Member he called. I am in possession.
I am not doubting that.
The Ceann Comhairle told him he was out of order.
The Members doing the interrupting are over there.
They are on your side.
The important thing is——
I am the Member who is in possession.
It is important that the Deputy who is in possession should be in order.
The Members who are interrupting are on that side of the House.
The Ministers are at fault.
May I move on to the question of yesterday's motion?
Ask questions.
Is legislation promised?
We went over this ground yesterday.
Deputy Dempsey seems to be the mouthpiece for everyone.
I would hesitate to argue against the mouthpiece over there.
I devoted my efforts to saving the jobs. If the Minister employed himself in the same manner we might not have had these problems.
Ceann Comhairle, I sat here——
Deputy Gilmore, we debated that matter for 90 minutes yesterday and the House divided and decided at the end of the day.
The House is misled again.
There is no necessity to revisit the matter at this stage.
I sat through the Order of Business waiting to be called. I did not interrupt. I did not barrack or shout at anybody. I was in possession when the Ceann Comhairle adjourned the House. I am attempting to ask a couple of questions on behalf of the people of this country who send us here. Since I stood up, I have been interrupted by Members from the Government side, including Ministers. I am asking the Ceann Comhairle to protect me in this.
God help us.
Every effort is being made to do that.
The Deputy is out of order.
He is at it again. Is he the Ceann Comhairle?
He was told he was out of order.
The Ministers are out of order.
Can we conclude?
He was allowed to speak but he is out of order.
Deputy Dempsey, please.
Am I to be permitted to——
Deputy Gilmore, I wish to proceed with the Order of Business. We have much business to do and we are being delayed.
Has the Ceann Comhairle nothing to say to the Ministers?
I just want to make my contribution and I do not want to engage in argy bargy.
He is at it again.
I am being continuously interrupted. I raised a question on yesterday's Order of Business about the status of the motion which the Ceann Comhairle permitted and to which the Taoiseach replied. My understanding, which I think the Tánaiste has confirmed in her reply, was that it was intended as a Government motion. The question I asked was when the Government made the decision to bring the motion. The Tánaiste, in her reply——
The Deputy will have to find another means of pursuing this.
The Tánaiste has indicated that, somehow, the Taoiseach made the decision while he was on his feet for the Order of Business. Is that the case or was a decision taken by the Government? Members of one of the Government parties have been saying they were bounced into the motion. Was it a Government motion?
Did the Taoiseach decide to introduce that motion while he was on his feet yesterday or did the Government make a formal decision to introduce the motion? The question is in order.
Very briefly, Tánaiste.
It was a Government motion. It was moved by the Taoiseach on behalf of the Government——
Yes, we know that, but when did the Government make the decision?
When was it written?
——and it was supported by all members of the Government parties.
When did the Government make the decision?
The Ceann Comhairle provided a considerable amount of time through a special notice question, which was perhaps one of the longest special notice questions ever in this House, approximately an hour and a half. The Taoiseach and I have given a considerable amount of information to Members of the House. I have briefed many Members of the constituencies, including one of Deputy Gilmore's own party members. I am pleased to hear that if they cannot be provided in one way then they should be provided in another way.
That is right.
That is exactly what I am doing.
Hear, hear.
It is a matter for the party concerned now as to whether the other ways in which this matter can be dealt with will be dealt with.
However, it is the Tánaiste's responsibility.
We will move on. A number of Members are offering. As we have lost a lot of time on the Order of Business I ask Members to bear with me and I will come back to them on Tuesday. I have a list of those wishing to speak. We have a number of serious items to deal with.
A Cheann Comhairle——
A Cheann Comhairle, I have to ask a question. I am seeking your advice.
Yes.
It is not a question of giving advice as Members on the other side of the House do, I am seeking your advice. The Taoiseach of our country, our leader abroad, the head of our nation, has been called a liar on the airwaves——
Are we talking about——
He must come in. I believe he has misled the House.
Deputy Reilly should resume his seat.
I am asking you, a Cheann Comhairle——
Deputy Reilly should resume his seat.
I do not wish to engage in shouting. I am asking you a question.
Let us get away from the filibustering.
Why will you not allow the Taoiseach the opportunity to clarify the record?
We are disrupting the proper running of the House with this procedure.
The record needs to be clarified and corrected. I am asking you to advise me as to when the Taoiseach will clarify matters. Perhaps the Tánaiste would advise me.
I am advising the Deputy. If he is making a serious allegation against another Member of the House he will have to do so by way of substantive motion.
I am not——
The Deputy should resume his seat.
An allegation has been made on the airwaves by a senior international businessman that the Taoiseach told lies.
But Deputy Reilly is making the allegation in the House. He has the remedy.
We need to have the record clarified.
The Deputy should resume his seat.
I am asking you how to do that. Will the Taoiseach come to the House to clarify the record?
The Deputy can table a substantive motion.
On a point of order. Your suggestion, a Cheann Comhairle that Deputies who have waited patiently to ask about proposed legislation forego that opportunity today——
Today, yes, but all being well we will facilitate them immediately on Tuesday.
No, we have patiently awaited the opportunity to find out whether legislation is coming forward so that we can plan for it. We should be given the opportunity.
Let us have it now.
A range of Deputies wish to speak and they should be allowed.
Let us have it.
He does not have a question.
A Cheann Comhairle, if you give me a lift to Dundalk this evening in that car I could help you to sort out these matters very quickly.
I am sure you could.
But would he come back?
I have two questions on legislation. The first refers to the qualification, education and training Bill. Will the Tánaiste underwrite the funding necessary for approximately 100 former SR Technics workers to get positions? The DIT informed those people in an e-mail last night that, unfortunately, the proposed accelerated programme on engineering systems maintenance is not going ahead as planned. It is not going ahead for those people because the funding is not in place. The European globalisation fund has not yet been approved.
No legislation is promised.
Will the Tánaiste underwrite the funding of those positions now——
Is legislation promised in this area?
——so that those workers can implement a central plank of Government policy which we are always told about in this House, namely, upskilling and training? Will the Tánaiste give an undertaking that she will underwrite that course forthwith because the DIT simply cannot?
We will find out if legislation is promised.
No.
No legislation is promised.
The legislation is promised but we cannot wait for the Ministers to filibuster on this. Will the Tánaiste underwrite those courses? Is she going to answer that question?
Deputy Morgan can raise the matter on the Adjournment.
I do not wish to test your skills, a Cheann Comhairle, which I know are excellent, but I call on the Tánaiste to answer this important question. Approximately 100 ex-SR Technics workers are depending on that support. Their social welfare is about to run out and they will not qualify for that course.
If the Deputy raises the matter on the Adjournment he will get a considered answer.
Will the Tánaiste give an answer?
I call Deputy Gilmore.
Let the record show that the Tánaiste is ignoring that question. She regularly cites it as a central plank of Government policy——
The Deputy should raise the matter on the Adjournment.
——but she is choosing to completely ignore it. It is a disgrace.
I thank you for calling me a Cheann Comhairle. I had indicated to you that there were two other matters I wished to raise with the Tánaiste, both of which relate to promised legislation.
Good.
The first is the promised legislation to have a directly elected mayor of Dublin. I have been asking for some time about when the Bill will be published.
Is Joe interested?
I understand the Government has now approved the heads of that Bill. I did ask previously if the Government would circulate the heads of the Bill. I ask the Tánaiste again if that will be done. At the request of my parliamentary party I wrote to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government three weeks ago today requesting a meeting with him to discuss his plans for the legislation. I have not yet had a substantive reply to that request. I repeat my request to the Tánaiste that the heads of the Bill, which I understand have now been approved by the Government, should be circulated to the Opposition parties so that we can at least get some idea of what the Government's plans are for this office for which it intends to hold an election this year.
The second piece of legislation I wish to ask the Tánaiste about is the promised consumer and competition Bill. I am sure she will be aware of the reports we have seen this week that Tesco and other large supermarkets are seeking to extract the advance of large sums of money. In the case of Tesco I understand the amount it is seeking is up to €500,000 from suppliers of Irish products just to put their products on the shelves of the supermarkets. My colleague, Alan Kelly, MEP, has already brought this to the attention of the relevant EU Commissioner and to the Competition Authority. As the Tánaiste has direct responsibility for consumer matters, will she outline what she intends to do to deal with this "Godfather" type of activity that the large supermarket chains are now engaged in?
We do not need the detail.
This type of activity is going on at a time when jobs are being lost and farm incomes are under pressure. The supermarkets want €500,000 upfront from Irish suppliers. It is a form of extortion that should be dealt with very forcefully by the Tánaiste. I would like to hear what she is doing about it and when the long-promised Bill on consumer protection will be brought forward.
I will speak to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to facilitate the Deputy. As he correctly said, the heads of the Bill were passed by the Government on 9 February with publication intended in April. We will ensure the Minister facilitates a meeting with the Deputy.
The consumer and competition Bill will come to the House later in the year. In the interim I am proceeding with a code of practice on a non-statutory basis, which will then be included——
The Tánaiste is wasting her time.
——in the legislation. Following on from the consultation that took place with a considerable number of people, work is ongoing and I am proceeding with a code of practice as a matter of urgency.
The previous Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, promised action in terms of putting in place an external examiner for symphysiotomies. No matter how many times the Minister, Deputy Harney, was asked about the matter she has not given an answer.
Symphysiotomy was a barbaric practice, especially near the Tánaiste's constituency, even though it was carried out all over the country.
The Deputy should table a parliamentary question.
It was promised that an external auditor would be put in place.
Or she could raise the matter on the Adjournment.
It affects your constituency, a Cheann Comhairle.
It was promised that an external auditor would be put in place in order to see why this procedure was carried out.
Is legislation promised in this area?
It is amazing that such a procedure was accepted medical practice until 1983. The practice in obstetrics is to use caesarean section now. The Deputy is correct that the former Minister, Deputy Martin, indicated someone should be appointed. The person was not accepted by the group but the Minister for Health and Children has been working on the matter and she may find another way to resolve the matter.
During private notice questions last Tuesday, I asked the Tánaiste if she would raise the issue of the axing of 18 routes from Shannon Airport by Ryanair. What reply did she receive during her tête-à-tête with Mr. O’Leary?
Earlier she said Shannon Development had made an offer of a hangar to Ryanair in regard to its proposal to create 300 jobs. When was the offer made? Was a meeting sought with Ryanair in this regard?
No legislation is promised on that. I raised Shannon Airport with Mr. O'Leary and Shannon Development has put together a proposal which will be forwarded to him for consideration.
When was the offer made?
I raised this also during private notice questions on Tuesday. I welcome the intervention by Shannon Development.
Let us not revisit it now. The Deputy had his moment.
It is incumbent on the Government to support Shannon Development and to put good terms and conditions in place to attract Ryanair to Shannon Airport. I welcome the Tánaiste's work on this and I encourage her to go further on it. The economic integrity of the mid-west is in question if Ryanair withdraws 18 routes. Did she raise that with Michael O'Leary on Tuesday? What reply did she get?
The Deputy should table a parliamentary question or an Adjournment debate.
I raised this on the Adjournment last night and I got no reply. The Minister did not come in.
A proposal has been put together by Dr. Vincent Cunnane and his team in Shannon Development and that has been forwarded to Ryanair for consideration.
Currently, people can be employed through agencies for 22 months. Multinationals employ people for 22 months before letting them go. They are not entitled to statutory redundancy——
The Deputy should table a parliamentary question or request an Adjournment debate on the matter.
The legislation to which I refer concerns the temporary agency workers directive. When will be that be transposed into law to prevent multinationals abusing our workers?
Legislation is promised. It is an EU directive, which was agreed last year by a Minister of State in my Department, Deputy Kelleher, on my behalf. Work is ongoing on the legislation but it will be next year before it is available.
In December 2008, a €500 million State-backed venture capital fund was announced. I have written to the Tánaiste on several occasions about this matter. She indicated discussions are ongoing between her Department and agencies such as the IDA, the Department of the Taoiseach and so on. St. Patrick's Day is approaching and I understood that Ministers going abroad at that time expected to be in a position to make a positive announcement about the fund. I do not know whether the Tánaiste is staying in Ireland or travelling abroad. What is happening? It is 15 months since this was announced to great fanfare and I have pursued this with the Tánaiste. Nothing has happened. Many people with PhDs have returned to Ireland to participate in various science and innovation programmes in institutes of technology and universities. Companies are also interested and I have been contacted by a number of them about the fund. Has any progress been made? A sum of €500 million in venture capital in the context of the carnage of job losses, particularly when one considers the SRT workers who are highly qualified, would be welcome news and good promotion for the country during the St. Patrick's Day tours of the world Ministers will undertake. When will the Tánaiste come into the House about this?
This is totally out of order because no legislation is promised to set up a venture capital fund. This arose from the smart economy document. We are working with a number of interests and State agencies but, in the interim, Enterprise Ireland and a number of institutions have set up a number of funds, which are working well and will continue to do so. There has been no final decision on the venture capital fund referred to by the Deputy but work is ongoing.
I thank the Tánaiste for her reply.
We are into Question Time mode yet again.
I represent a constituency which is home to many high-tech industries. People are desperate to keep PhD researchers in Ireland.
We are not talking about promised legislation.
The Government has set aside €500 million.
All these points have been well made.
It is 15 months since the Tánaiste made this announcement at a major press conference in Dublin Castle. It is in the programme for Government and, therefore, it is appropriate and in order to ask about it on the Order of Business.
The Deputy should table a parliamentary question or a matter for an Adjournment debate.
I have tabled parliamentary questions about this. On what date will this be finalised? I was told various Ministers are expecting to travel around the world announcing this fund——
The Deputy is holding up proceedings. We have dealt with it adequately.
It is good news but the Tánaiste could tell the House about it. Will it be announced before St. Patrick's Day?
Given the debate yesterday and today about perjury and misleading the Dáil, an important Bill is included in the legislative programme which I am sure the Minister for "I can't remember what I said" O'Dea would like us to discuss urgently, that is, the ethics in public office Bill. When will it be discussed in the House?
It is awaiting Second Stage. It has not been decided when it will be taken.
The Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008 has been enacted. When will the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government make the ministerial order to permit the sale of apartments by local authorities throughout the country?
I assume the Deputy is referring to the introduction of the purchase scheme for apartments. The relevant Minister behind me says it will be fairly soon.
I refer to two Bills. I have asked about the first many times but sufficient urgency is not being attached to the issue by the Government. Is it intended to introduce legislation to provide for the establishment of a national vetting bureau for the collection and exchange of information relating to the endangerment and sexual exploitation or sexual abuse of children? Many Opposition Members, including me, have asked about this several times. Since it is deemed by most commentators to be a serious issue, which needs urgent attention, will the Tánaiste have the relevant Department exercised with a view to bringing that into the House with some urgency?
It is a priority. The heads of the Bill are being worked on and it is being dealt with as expeditiously as possible. It is complex but it is a priority.
The second Bill to which I refer concerns a housing issue, about which every Member will be aware. It comes under a variety of legislative headings. There is a backlog in applications for the disabled person's grant where people who have special needs——
Is legislation promised?
I will come to that. People with special needs and elderly people for health reasons need to adapt their dwellings. Hundreds of such applicants await approval from local authorities. The scheme has been suspended on several occasions. Will the Tánaiste cause to be introduced legislation under either the environment or equality headings that will ensure local authorities can proceed with all the applications on hand?
As usual today, there is no legislation promised. There was a review by the local authorities. The Minister expects to have a decision within the next two to three weeks.
It has been established that fake Irish passports were used by people who may have been involved in the assassination of a member of Hamas. Will the Tánaiste arrange for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to make a statement on this serious development in the House next Tuesday? The Government does not seem to take the matter seriously.
The Deputy might be able to raise it in some other way.
I raised it at a committee meeting.
Will Deputy Timmins try to raise it on the Adjournment?
The information that is available may not be put on the record.
The Deputy could ask a parliamentary question.
It is important that the Minister should come in here on Tuesday to outline exactly the current situation.
Hear, hear. We all agree with that.
The assertion that nothing is being done is not in accordance with the facts. Deputies will appreciate that sensitivities are associated with this matter. The Minister might not be in a position to make a public pronouncement on it. He has articulated what is in hand, as the House is aware. If Deputy Timmins wants to talk to the Minister privately, I am sure he will provide a further update on how matters are progressing.
It is not satisfactory that an explanation should be provided privately.
No legislation is promised.
It is important that this House is informed on the situation.
Any request for a debate is a matter for the Whips.