Order of Business

Today's business shall be No. 8, Financial Resolution re Public Service Pay and Pensions Bill 2017; No. 27, Public Service Pay and Pensions Bill 2017 - Committee and Remaining Stages; No. 28, Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017 [Seanad] - Second Stage (resumed), if not previously concluded; No. 9, Financial Resolution re Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017 [Seanad]; and No. 29, Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2016 - Report Stage (resumed) and Final Stage.

Private Members' business shall be No. 160, motion re Syrian sanctions, selected by lndependents 4 Change.

Wednesday's business shall be No. 10, motion re horse and greyhound racing fund regulations, back from committee; No. 30, Social Welfare Bill 2017 - Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; No. 28, Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017 [Seanad] - Second Stage, resumed, if not previously concluded; No. 9, Financial Resolution re Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017; No. 32, Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (Hague Convention) Bill 2016 [Seanad] - Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; No. 5, Electoral (Amendment) (Dáil Constituencies) Bill 2017 - all Stages; No. 31, Technological Universities Bill 2015 - Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; and No. 29, Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2016 - Report and Final Stages, resumed, if not previously concluded. Private Members' business shall be No. 161, motion re neurological services, selected by Fianna Fáil.

Thursday's business shall be No. 11, Further Revised Estimates, back from committee; No. 12, Supplementary Estimates, back from committee; No. 12a, motion re Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO; No. 5, Electoral (Amendment) (Dáil Constituencies) Bill 2017 - all Stages, resumed, if not previously concluded; No. 29, Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2016 - Report and Final Stages, resumed, if not previously concluded; No. 1, Intoxicating Liquor (Amendment) Bill 2017 [Seanad] - Second Stage; and No. 32a, statements on climate change.

Friday’s business shall be: No. 32b, statements on Paradise Papers; No. 28, Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017 [Seanad] - Second Stage, resumed, if not previously concluded; No. 9, Financial Resolution re Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017, without debate, if not previously taken; No. 33, Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2017 - Second Stage, resumed, if not previously concluded; and No. 1, Intoxicating Liquor (Amendment) Bill 2017 [Seanad] - Second Stage, resumed, if not previously concluded.

With regard to the announcement of the proposed arrangements for this week's business, I refer to the first revised report of the Business Committee dated 5 December 2017. In relation to today’s business, it is proposed that:

(1) the Dáil shall sit later than 10 p.m. and shall adjourn on the conclusion of Private Members’ business;

(2) the Financial Resolution re Public Service Pay and Pensions Bill 2017 shall be taken without debate and any division demanded shall be taken immediately;

(3) any division demanded on the Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017 on Tuesday or Wednesday shall be taken immediately;

(4) the Financial Resolution re Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017 shall be taken on the conclusion of Second Stage of the Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017 without debate and any division demanded shall be taken immediately; and

(5) Private Members' business shall take place not later than 9 p.m. for two hours.

In relation to Wednesday’s business, it is proposed that the motion re horse and greyhound racing fund regulations, back from committee, shall conclude within 40 minutes and be confined to a single round of five minutes each for speeches by a Minister or Minister of State and the main spokespersons for parties or groups and all members may share time.

In relation to Thursday’s business, it is proposed that:

(1) the Further Revised Estimates, back from committee, shall be moved together, taken without debate and decided by one question and any division demanded shall be taken immediately;

(2) the Supplementary Estimates, back from committee, shall be moved together, taken without debate and decided by one question and any division demanded shall be taken immediately;

(3) the motion re Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO, shall be taken following the Supplementary Estimates and to conclude within two hours. Speeches shall be confined to a single round of 15 minutes each by a Minister or Minister of State and the main spokespersons for parties or groups and all members may share time;

(4) the voting block shall take place on the conclusion of the motion re Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO, and the suspension of the House under Standing Order 25(1) shall take place thereafter for 40 minutes;

(5) statements on climate change shall commence not later than 5 p.m. and no Private Members’ Bill shall be taken under Standing Order 140A, and no committee report shall be taken under Standing Order 91(2). Statements shall be confined to a single round of 15 minutes each by a Minister or Minister of State and the main spokespersons for parties or groups to conclude within two hours. All members may share time. If the statements conclude before 7 p.m., the order shall resume save that the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2016 and the Intoxicating Liquor (Amendment) Bill 2017 [Seanad] shall not be taken;

(6) Topical Issues shall be taken not later than 7 p.m. or on the conclusion of the statements on climate change, if the other Government business has concluded, whichever is the earlier, and the Dáil shall adjourn on the conclusion of Topical Issues.

It is proposed that:

(1) the Dáil shall sit on Friday at 10.30 a.m. and adjourn not later than 2.30 p.m. to take the business listed earlier and any division demanded on Friday shall be deferred until immediately after the Order of Business on Tuesday, 12 December 2017; and

(2) statements on the Paradise Papers shall be confined to a single round of 15 minutes each for statements by a Minister or a Minister of State and the main spokespersons for parties or groups, to conclude within two hours and that all Members may share time.

After all of the detail, there are just four proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with today's business agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Wednesday's business agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Thursday's business agreed to?

It is not agreed.

This is an absolutely scandalous suggestion. It was not agreed at the Business Committee that there would be a vote on joining the Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO, arrangement. This is a move to ram through a vote to move towards joining a European Union army while quadrupling military spending. It would have an effect as significant and damaging to the economy and our society as Brexit and is deeply cynical. I wonder if the quid pro quo for European Union support in the Brexit negotiations is that we sell out our military neutrality and ramp up military expenditure.

Come off it. Read the brief.

Perhaps they want our airforce.

We cannot have a detailed debate on the matter.

I have read the brief and the PESCO arrangement. It is absolutely outrageous. This was not agreed to and there has been no public consultation on it, despite it having a fundamental and damaging impact on Ireland's neutrality. It drags us into massively increased military spending.

I have always operated on the basis of co-operation at the Business Committee and the expediency of delivering the business to which this House needs to attend, but this is a departure from anything I have seen. I was the first person to raise at the Business Committee a number of weeks ago that the Dáil should be provided with adequate time to discuss this vital matter. I was assured that this would be the case. I know that in subsequent weeks Members of the House across the different political groupings have raised the issue. Last week the Tánaiste stated its scheduling was a matter for the Business Committee, but it did not discuss the issue on Thursday. Not only was it not discussed in the context of this week's business, it was also not mentioned by the Government in the context of next week's business either. This is an incredibly serious matter that potentially signs up the State to massive defence expenditure in the next few years. The proposal is that we have 15 minutes for each group shoehorned into a Thursday session on the eve of the recess. It is completely unacceptable and I object to it in the strongest possible terms.

Similar to the previous Deputies, I object in the strongest terms to the way this matter has appeared on the schedule for this week. As has been noted, there was no discussion about it in any shape or form at last week's meeting of the Business Committee. Deputy Seán Crowe and I discussed it as a Topical Issue only a few weeks ago when it was indicated that the Government might sign up to it and that it was aware of the deadlines. All of a sudden, it appeared on the schedule for discussion on Thursday. The proposal is that we have two hours in which to make a decision.

We are to be given only two hours to debate an EU proposal that would lead to a major shift in Irish foreign, defence and financial policy. It has not been discussed in committee and has been subject to no scrutiny in the newspapers or by the public generally. Two hours is way too short a timeframe to deal with the implications of such a significant move and it behoves us to ensure adequate time is allocated. Indeed the proposal should have gone beyond this House. It certainly should, at the very least, have been discussed at committee.

As I understand it, the detail of the proposal has not been circulated to any Member. All we have been told is that the EU proposals for permanent structured defence co-operation are to be discussed for two hours this Thursday. That is a disgrace given the huge commitments involved. We are talking about a requirement, very shortly after signing up to the agreement, for a threefold increase in defence spending. Given the other crises we are facing-----

The Deputy cannot go into the details of the proposal.

I am not going into the details. I am saying that we should have the same type of debate on this proposal as we would have when any significant change in our financial commitments is proposed. An additional consideration in this case is that the proposal has implications for our neutrality. In the course of the debate on the Lisbon treaty, a guarantee was given to the public that there would be debate and scrutiny in this House on any proposal to change our position on neutrality. That is not what is happening with this two-hour debate.

We asked the Government last week for a debate on the PESCO proposals. As I understand it, the Government intends to sign up to the agreement at the European Council meeting on 11 December. This issue is of huge significance to our country and, as such, we should be given more time to debate it. Perhaps the Business Committee might meet later today to discuss how that can be facilitated.

Any matter that impinges on defence is a matter of great sensitivity for the Members of this House and, more importantly, for the people of this country. We all engaged in a great deal of introspection immediately after the initial defeat of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. One of the things that became evident at that time was the need for mechanisms in this House to accommodate proper debate such that people can understand proposals in full measure. Whatever one's point of view on a particular issue, there should always be facilitation of a full debate. The idea was that we would have a robust committee system in the House whereby people would be invited in to give evidence, the proceedings would be broadcast, and this House would subsequently come to an informed decision on the matter in question.

Will the Taoiseach, who is also the Minister for Defence, accept the view expressed by so many Deputies in the House today that we should have a proper committee debate on these matters? There is no rush to sign up to the proposals this side of Christmas. I understand there is a request to do so, but we may choose to postpone our signing up until after the event. We must have a proper debate, with experts invited in and cross-examined, after which the House can come to an informed decision. It would be entirely improper to sanction these proposals on the basis of a two-hour debate in which 15 minutes is allocated to each group.

I agree with the concerns expressed by previous speakers. We are seeing an attempt to bulldoze a very significant provision through the House without adequate debate. In fact, not only do we need debate in this House, there also must be widespread public debate on the issue. To proceed as proposed would be hugely damaging to our neutrality and result in its further erosion. It would commit the country to expenditure in this area of 2% per annum, which is some €3 billion. Given the serious issues facing our health, housing and other areas of provision, we should not even be contemplating expenditure of that level on this proposal. The notification for the debate is totally inadequate. There must be full public scrutiny, in this House, in the media and among the public. The matter should be deferred at least until 31 March 2018 to allow for that debate to take place.

I add my voice to those of colleagues in objecting to the handling of this issue. The Government was aware that several groups and Members in the House had concerns about the PESCO proposals and had requested that adequate time be allowed for proper scrutiny and debate.

There was not agreement at the Business Committee to handle it in this manner. It should go back to the Business Committee to find a satisfactory outcome and not be forced on us like this.

We are quite open to a debate on this. We do not understand why if everybody in the House is of the view that there should be a debate how it has ended up being on the Order Paper as proposed by the Business Committee, I think, but I am subject to correction.

No it was not proposed.

The climate change debate is only to last for two hours, with eight people to speak for 15 minutes. Only eight people will speak which is hardly adequate for such an important issue. I know people want to wrap up early in the next two weeks, but it seems we cannot concertina everything into eight or nine days. That will be our challenge if we are to have meaningful debate. I accept this issue was always going to require debate. I do not understand how people thought it could go through without debate given the views they have traditionally on issues of this kind in the House. People need to go back to see if they can create time for a debate on this and allow the rest of the business go ahead.

There are rumours that this is threatening our neutrality. That could not be further from the truth. Sweden and Austria, which have neutrality policies similar to ours, have already signed up to PESCO.

They are trying to end their neutrality as well.

I have spoken to the Chief Whip. He will allow more time for the debate and I have no doubt that he will communicate with the other Whips to agree a timeframe on this.

What was the decision of the Business Committee?

It was a motion on PESCO. There it is.

Do away with the Business Committee.

I was in here last week taking a Topical Issue matter on this specific issue from Deputy Ó Snodaigh and Deputy Lisa Chambers and I am not sure who the other Deputy was-----

Does the Minister of State mean he is not sure who Deputy Lisa Chambers is?

I outlined to the House exactly what PESCO is about. I have no problem coming back to the Chamber to debate the matter with the rest of the House.

In the interests of debate this is an important topic to discuss and I recommend that the Business Committee reconvene and agree adequate time for a debate. I am sure that can be agreed.

Ceann Comhairle-----

Ceann Comhairle-----

Let us not have the debate all over again.

This is not the debate. This is about the Taoiseach's proposal.

I ask that it be referred to the committee.

Does the Deputy mean the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Trade and Defence? Yes. Deputy Boyd Barrett may make a brief point.

So that we are clear what is being discussed, it is not just the time allowed for a debate but the fact that the Minister of State with responsibility for Defence is proposing a vote this week. That is what we object to.

We can debate that at the Business Committee.

That is not acceptable.

I fully support what Deputy Howlin says, that this would be brought to the committee so that the Defence Forces and others could come in and explain what is happening rather than rushing it through for the December Council meeting. Would that be possible?

The Army Chief of Staff could come in.

This should be put back to give us time to consider it.

Let us debate all of those matters at the Business Committee, which is the appropriate place to do that. We will convene that-----

It is not the norm that these things would go to a specific committee. I believe there should be adequate time to debate it in the Chamber.

There needs to be a public debate.

This is massive. It is as big as Brexit.

I do not think so.

It is actually. The Taoiseach does not think so because he supports it.

It is not just a question of debating it in the Chamber or in the committee. It needs a public debate and there needs to be adequate time, several months, to do that.

I would not support it if it cost €3 billion.

It is not as big as Brexit.

We are in the run-up to Christmas and this cannot be done properly between now and Christmas. It should be deferred until the new year and given adequate time for a public debate on the issue.

The arrangements will be made at a meeting of the Business Committee this afternoon.

Given that there will be a meeting of the Business Committee and subject to its arriving at agreement, is Thursday's business acceptable? Agreed.

Is the proposal for dealing with Friday's business agreed to? Agreed.

I would like to lead the House in paying tribute to the former Chief Justice, Thomas Finlay, who died at the weekend and was buried today. Over the course of 50 years he made an extraordinary contribution to the law in Ireland in a life devoted to public service. We should also remember that Mr. Justice Finlay served in the Dáil with great distinction in the 1950s. He was an eloquent representative of the people of Dublin South-Central.

Throughout his distinguished career, he always showed great sensitivity and skill, whether chairing the tribunal which investigated the hepatitis C scandal, or delivering the landmark judgment in the X case. As Chief Justice, his guiding focus was the vindication of the rights of the citizen and he was praised, for example, for the humane way in which he approached family law cases involving children.

Like all good people, he wore his goodness lightly and he was known for his humility and kindness as well as his fierce intellect. Our sympathies are with his family and friends, including his daughter, Mrs Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan, who was appointed to the Supreme Court last month. Today we honour a servant of the State, whose greatest virtue was his absolute fairness in the administration of justice.

We will stand for a moment's silence.

Members rose.

We will move to questions on promised legislation.

I thought we would all get time to pay tribute to a former Member. That would be appropriate to do, and should be separate to the Order of Business.

I am afraid it is not scheduled.

I appreciate the Ceann Comhairle's difficulty but we got a phone call to suggest this was happening.

Ar mo shon féin agus ar son mo pháirtí, ba mhaith liom mo chomhbhrón a dhéanamh le clann Thomas Finlay. Is léir dúinn go ndearna sé an-chuid ar son an Stáit. Bhí sé dílis do mhuintir na tíre. He had a long life and achieved many great things during it. He made some fundamental judgments. One of the most significant was the Attorney General v. Hamilton in which the Supreme Court held that the confidentiality of Cabinet discussions was absolute. I know that is a principle that current members of the Cabinet hold very dear indeed. He also ruled in Attorney General v. Hamilton (No. 2) in 1993 about parliamentary privilege. It was an important ruling where the Supreme Court held that Deputies are not amenable to any legal process with regard to utterances they make in the Dáil. Some fundamental judgments were made relating to this House, the role of Cabinet and our overall Government architecture. He gave the leading judgment in the controversial X case. He worked, as the Taoiseach said, on the hepatitis C tribunal of inquiry. To sum up, he left an enduring legacy of public service and, as a Member of this House, both politically and subsequently, in developing jurisprudence, he made a remarkable contribution to Irish life and I express our sympathies to his family, particularly to the recently appointed Supreme Court judge, Mrs Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan.

Ar mo shon féin agus ar son Shinn Féin, ba mhaith liom comhbhrón a dhéanamh le clann Thomas Finlay, iarPhríomh-Bhreitheamh agus Teachta Dála, a fuair bás dé Domhnaigh. Go ndéana Dia trócaire air. Ní raibh aithne agam ar an Uasal Finlay. I did not know Mr. Justice Finlay. However, he had a long and distinguished career in public office and it is clear from the many expressions of sympathy that he was a hugely respected figure, both as a former Fine Gael Deputy, a member of the Bar, and consequently and subsequently as a Supreme Court judge and Chief Justice, and a member of the Council of State. I want to extend my sympathies and the sympathies of Sinn Féin to his family, especially his children, including Mrs Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan who was recently appointed to the Supreme Court. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam.

With the Ceann Comhairle's permission, I would like to express my sympathy to the family and friends of those involved in the horrific road traffic accident that occurred in my own constituency of Wexford, on the New Ross road, last night. I empathise with the emergency response personnel, the gardaí and the ambulance crews, and indeed local people who arrived on what was a scene of horror.

I echo the words of the Taoiseach and other leaders in extending our condolences to the family, friends and former colleagues of former Chief Justice, Thomas Finlay. His career was exemplified, as others have said, by distinguished public service. He served the people both as a representative in this Parliament and as an arbiter of justice.

As others have said, in his career he was central to some of the most far-reaching judicial decisions of our time. He delivered the leading judgment in the X case and upheld parliamentary privilege in the beef tribunal case against the former leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Dick Spring. Even in retirement, he continued to serve, including as a sole member of the hepatitis C tribunal. On behalf of the Labour Party, I send our sympathy and condolences to his extended family.

If no one else wishes to contribute, we will revert to questions on promised legislation. I call Deputy Micheál Martin.

I have raised with the Taoiseach on a number of occasions during Leaders' Questions and the Order of Business the outstanding moneys that are owed to what are termed section 39 agencies. These include hospices throughout the country and many disability organisations. There is an incontrovertible link between HSE pay scales and the pay scales of employees in those organisations. They were told, and there is a documentary trail, that they were to implement the FEMPI cuts to pay when those cuts happened. Now they are being denied the necessary funding from the Department in respect of restoration of pay as per the new public service pay agreements. This is very unfair and the State is being very cynical in its treatment of hospices and other section 39 bodies. Tomorrow we will have the health Estimates and the health service plan is due next week. The Taoiseach has indicated that he would examine the situation. Will he confirm that tomorrow's Estimates will provide for funding to cover pay restoration for these agencies' employees?

I cannot confirm at this stage whether it is covered by the Estimates but the Minister for Finance, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, and the Minister for Health, Deputy Simon Harris, are working through the issue. As is often the case, things are perhaps not as straightforward as they may appear. They discovered that some section 39 organisations reduced pay in line with the FEMPI legislation but others did not. Some were compliant with public sector pay rules but others were not. For example, they were paying some of their senior staff salaries over and above what was allowed under public sector pay rules and this has created a degree of difficulty. However, it is intended that the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Health will work through it as quickly as possible to identify those who were compliant with public sector pay rules and applied the FEMPI cuts and those who did not and to examine whether they have been given an adequate increase to cover that.

Tá ceist agam faoin UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Disability (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2016. When I raised this issue with the Taoiseach in September, he said it was the Government's intention to ratify the UN convention by the end of the year and preferably by 3 December, which was the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, but that date has passed without ratification. This morning the media reported that the Minister of State with responsibility for disability issues, Deputy Finian McGrath, who told us a year and a half ago that it would be ratified within six months, was going to Cabinet to ask for an intensification of efforts to do what was promised in September. Will the Taoiseach clarify the outcome of this morning's discussions and his current expectation on ratification?

The Deputy will be pleased to know that we are making good progress in this area. We agreed at Cabinet this morning to publish the heads of the Bill on deprivation of liberty. This was one of the next big steps to be taken to allow us to ratify the convention. Cabinet did not get all of its business done this morning so we will reconvene this afternoon. I anticipate that, as a consequence, the Minister of State, Deputy McGrath, will be able to make a positive statement with regard to our ratification of the UN Convention for Persons with Disabilities. I hope we will be able to make that statement in the next couple of days.

On the same matter, the Taoiseach will be aware that the Disability (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill passed Second Stage in February. It has been on Committee Stage for nine months. For nine months, we have been awaiting the very thing he has now announced, which is for the Minister of State to bring forward amendments that were promised. When various Members of this House raised the ratification of the convention, we were repeatedly told that, unlike other countries, we do not ratify until all the legislation is in place. The weekend press said that we will have a sort of fake ratification, that is, we would do it in advance of legislation. I, therefore, have two very simple questions for the Taoiseach. Will he confirm that the position held by successive Governments that, in order that they have a meaningful signing, we do not ratify UN conventions until all the legislation provision is in place still holds? Will the Minister of State bring to this House the amendments to deal with the legislative barrier to final ratification before Christmas? I think the Taoiseach will find a willingness across the House to sit on a Monday or whenever the Government might need to do this so that we can formally ratify the convention by the end of this year.

The matter is not yet settled but the Minister of State will be able to make a statement on the matter in the coming days.

For the umpteenth time, the Taoiseach has again today referred to his commitment to social mix in terms of housing. This has been the justification for the, in effect, privatisation plans for approximately 800 publicly owned sites. Up to 60% of those sites will be, in effect, privatised. On the Part V private development requirement to give over 10% for public housing and social mix, is the Taoiseach aware that we received a report on Dún Laoghaire where only three out of eight of the Part V proposals since the legislation was brought in are actually getting that social mix. Developers do not want social housing on-site and this is being allowed. Given its much trumpeted commitment to social mix, will the Government do anything to tighten up the legislation to ensure that private developers of private developments do not get to shove social housing off-site, which completely undermines the so-called commitment to social mix, or is social mix only to be on public sites?

I do not have any plans to change legislation in that regard but I share the Deputy's view. I dislike the practice of developers on a large scale buying out their commitment to providing social and affordable housing. I can understand why it might be done in an apartment building of five units or so but in general it is not a good practice.

It might be a €1 million apartment. It would be better to get three houses than one €1 million apartment. Would it not?

First, I offer my sympathy and condolences to the parents and brother of the late Denise Crowley who tragically lost her life in Glenflesk village last Friday evening. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Shane Ross, is progressing a road traffic Bill through the Dáil. He says it is for the safety of road users rather than making a name for himself. However, I ask him, through the Taoiseach, to ensure that the speed limit reductions which have been promised for places such as Glenflesk village and many other parts of County Kerry for the past nine years take place sooner rather than later and before more lives are lost. Local authorities state that Transport Infrastructure Ireland is responsible and should initiate the speed reduction review but Transport Infrastructure Ireland states that it is the responsibility of local authorities. Will the Taoiseach and the Minister ensure that this speed limit reduction takes place without delay in all the areas that local authority members, myself included, have been asking for it for the past nine years?

The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport is in Brussels attending an EU Council meeting but I will ensure that the message is passed on to him.

Last week the Taoiseach announced a review into the handling of critical emails which went astray in the Department of Justice and Equality and the Department's failure to comply with a disclosure order from the Charleton tribunal. The Taoiseach suggested that the review would be headed up by the Secretary General to the Government. I, as did many others, made the point that this would not be acceptable as it is important that we would have public confidence in such a review. For that reason, it would need to be an independent review carried out by an independent person and not an internal Civil Service review.

Has he had time to reflect on that point? Is he now proposing that an independent person will head up that review?

I have had time to reflect on it. I heard the arguments the Deputy made and saw the letter she sent to me. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Flanagan, and I have reflected on and discussed this and we agree that the Deputy is correct. Therefore, we are going to commission an independent senior counsel to carry out the review into why the emails were not sent to the tribunal. We expect to be able to release the name of the person who will carry out that review in the next couple days.

That concludes questions on promised legislation. I apologise to the 13 Members whose questions were not reached.