The Order of Business is No. 1, motion re Companies Act 2014 (Section 1313) Regulations 2015, back from committee, to be taken without debate at the conclusion of the Order of Business; No. 2, Statute Law Revision Bill 2015 - Second Stage, to be taken at 12.45 p.m. and adjourned not later than 3 p.m., with the contributions of group spokespersons not to exceed eight minutes and those of all other Senators not to exceed five minutes; No. 3, Children (Amendment) Bill 2015 - Committee Stage, to be taken at 3 p.m. and adjourned not later than 5 p.m., if not previously concluded; and No. 3a, statements on Aer Lingus share disposal, to be taken at 5 p.m., with the contributions of all Senators not to exceed five minutes and the Minister to be called on to reply to the debate not later than 6.25 p.m.
Order of Business
I circulated two motions earlier this morning. The first was to the effect that Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to reject the offer from IAG to purchase the 25.1% stake in Aer Lingus, thereby protecting Ireland's strategic interests into the future. The second motion was that Seanad Éireann recommends that should the Government proceed with the sale of the 25.1% stake in Aer Lingus, the moneys received should be used to reduce the savage cuts imposed on Aer Lingus pension scheme members. Both of those motions were submitted this morning.
They are not on the Order Paper.
They were submitted this morning. They are not on the Order Paper because, in fairness, while it is not the fault of the Leader, the manner in which the debate on Aer Lingus has taken place in the Lower House has been nothing but farcical in terms of timing and when the debate will finish. We thought the Minister might come to the House yesterday evening but he did not. He could not. That is fair enough as he was in the Dáil. He is back in the House today at 5 p.m., 18 minutes after the Dáil will vote on the sale of Aer Lingus, to take statements on it. What is the point? The reason I tabled the motions this morning was that, in effect, at least the Seanad would have a voice in this and it would be able to give its opinion on the matter.
I ask the Cathaoirleach to strongly reconsider motion No. 1, which I tabled on my behalf and that of my colleagues in Fianna Fáil. I look for support from everyone else for the motion to be taken today, before the Minister, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, comes to the House.
A number of issues have arisen. I listened to Deputy Michael McNamara outline in the other House why he would not support the sale. I also note with interest that SIPTU will not support the sale. I am astonished that neither the Taoiseach nor the Minister for Transport, according to the Taoiseach, has had sight of the Nyras report, which highlights the potential for massive job losses within Aer Lingus. The Taoiseach said yesterday that he had not seen any of the documentation, yet the Cabinet made a decision on it. I discussed this with Senator Bacik yesterday.
There was a very good reason for selling 74.9% of the airline, namely, to invest money in it, new aircraft and making the airline viable. Under EU state aid rules, direct Government investment in the airline was not allowed. The reason 25.1% was kept was to ensure that the State kept a strategic interest in the airline and its direction, and to make sure that the sphere of influence for the airline stayed in Ireland.
A false process has been going on for two years or more, since the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, brought in the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2013. That was the start of it, because it gave the Minister the power to remove people unilaterally from their pension schemes and reduce pension scheme benefits unilaterally without the permission of members. That was to make sure that Aer Lingus and the IASS knew they could build up the deficit. They doubled the deficit within two years because the Government had laid out the roadmap for the changes it intended to make.
The Government then brought in savage cuts in the State Airports Act, for which Fine Gael and the Labour Party voted, and took 60% of pension benefits from long-service members and six weeks' pay from retired people who had given their whole lives to the airline. The Government did that. Lo and behold, two weeks after that, an offer came in from IAG to buy the Government stake. I do not think it is a coincidence; it was all choreographed and had been coming down the track. I said that to the Tánaiste over two years ago and she denied it at the time. The Labour Party denied it at the time and it lied at the time. That is a fact, because this was all choreographed.
The reality is that the 5,000 workers in the airport and the 3,500 working in Aer Lingus are concerned about their jobs because the Government has not exercised proper due diligence on this offer and considered the Nyras report which highlights job cuts of 20% in ground handling, 40% in catering, 15% in maintenance and 25% in heavy maintenance, as well as cabin crew and pilots.
The Senator is way over time.
The problem is that all of this will not be discussed in the Seanad until the Government sheep in the other House march behind their Ministers and vote for what they said only two months ago they would not do. At the Labour Party conference, it was said if Aer Lingus was sold, the money would be used to defray the cuts to IASS members. That will not be done. The money will be put into a connectivity fund. Why is that needed if there is no threat to connectivity between Ireland, Britain and the rest of the world? It is absolute nonsense.
The Senator is way over time.
If I cannot get these two motions on the Order Paper, I will propose an amendment to the Order of Business to the effect that Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to reject the offer from IAG to purchase a 25.1% stake in Aer Lingus, thereby protecting Ireland's strategic interests into the future. I want that issue discussed before the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport comes before the House at 5 p.m., 18 minutes after the Labour Party and Fine Gael sell off the strategic interest of the State in Aer Lingus and give another slap in the face to the 15,000 members of the IASS who-----
Is the Senator requesting me to allow the motion-----
If the Cathaoirleach does not put the motion on the Order Paper today-----
I have given very careful consideration to the motion, which I did not get until 10.30 a.m.
I understand that.
There are timeframes regarding motions and I have made my ruling. I have not agreed to the motion going ahead. The Senator is now proposing an amendment-----
I respect the ruling, as I always do. It is unfortunate and I am very disappointed in it. I am, therefore, proposing an amendment to the Order of Business to the effect that, directly after the Order of Business, not at 5 p.m., a debate take place in the Seanad for one or two hours - I will leave that open to my colleagues - in which we can address issues and the Seanad can have a voice in rejecting the below-cost offer which, if accepted by the Government, will do extreme damage to Aer Lingus and the State and copperfasten the savage cuts the Government has introduced affecting the 15,000 members of the IASS.
I want to be clear. I am proposing an amendment to the Order of Business to the effect that the debate should happen straight after the Order of Business. We can discuss the two motions I tabled, which the Government, unfortunately, has not accepted. One deals with rejecting the sale and the other with what should happen if the Government proceeds with it, namely, that the proceeds be used to defray the cuts in the pension scheme.
The Senator is looking for a debate.
I am. It is extremely disappointing that the Seanad, because of the way business has been scheduled this week, will have no voice whatsoever in the sale of the stake of the Government and taxpayers in Aer Lingus. That is the reality of how the business has been scheduled.
We have no say in the sale.
Our voice will not even be heard. The problem is that the Seanad has-----
There are two issues. The Senator has already sent motions to me.
I have and you are not accepting them.
I am not prepared to accept them.
Which is a shame.
There will be statements later on this issue.
Yes, after the vote is taken in the Dáil.
What exactly is the Senator proposing?
That the statements are to take place after the vote happens in the Dáil makes them irrelevant because the decision will have been made. That is pathetic and it is the fault of the Government, not the Cathaoirleach, for listing the business that way.
Is the Senator's amendment to the Order of Business to bring forward the statements-----
It is to bring forward the statements in order that they will be taken directly after the Order of Business.
It is that No. 3a be taken before No. 1. Can I help the Senator?
The Leader can, but it would have been helpful if we had scheduled-----
We will be rejecting it, but I can help the Senator.
I thank the Leader. In fairness, people need to know where different groups stand on this issue.
The Senator is way over time.
My amendment is that No. 3a be taken after the Order of the Business. It is a grave disappointment to us that the Seanad will still not have a voice because the motions have been ruled out.
The Senator can make those points during the debate.
We should be voting on the motions.
It is very difficult to sit and listen to Senator Darragh O'Brien's brazen hypocrisy on the issue of Aer Lingus. As I said, his party, when in government, presided over the effective privatisation of Aer Lingus by selling off 74.9% of its share. It is brazen hypocrisy, and nothing less than that. Furthermore, the Senator has now spoken for nearly 20 minutes on the subject of Aer Lingus. I do not know why he is looking for-----
He has not spoken for 20 minutes. I have timed him.
It is now 11.50 a.m.
I can tell the Senator the business of the House did not start until 11.38 a.m.
He still spoke for a lot longer than the time allowed. Given that the Leader has scheduled a debate on Aer Lingus today, as requested by many of us, and that the Minister will be on his feet in the Dáil for most of the day, I do not see how we can have the debate any earlier. I ask the Senator to read the letter sent by the CEO of Aer Lingus, Mr. Stephen Kavanagh, to the Minister of State, Deputy Gerald Nash, and Labour Party colleagues, providing reassurance on the register-----
He is benefiting from the sale.
I did not interrupt the Senator.
Senator Ivana Bacik to continue, without interruption.
He provided helpful reassurance on the issue of registered employment agreements, compulsory redundancies and outsourcing, three of the key issues which most concern many of us in the proposed sale.
I welcome the announcement by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government today of a €91 million investment in housing. Senator Hayden will also welcome the announcement, as she has spoken eloquently on the issue on numerous occasions in this House. The fund is hugely welcome. It will make social housing available in greater quantities, which will improve housing for people with disabilities. The investment includes funds for retrofitting homes to improve energy efficiency. It will also ensure that more than 1,000 vacant social housing units will be refurbished for people who are on the social housing waiting list, at a cost of €20 million. Vacant units are known as voids, and this is one of the issues that many of us have raised here repeatedly. I ask the Leader to arrange a debate in early course on the issue of investment in housing. In the meantime, I welcome this important announcement.
Finally, I ask the Leader for a debate on prison and penal reform in light of the 11 reports by the prison visiting committees which were published yesterday by the Minister for Justice and Equality. Some of the reports were positive, certainly with regard to the refurbishment and greatly improved conditions at Mountjoy Prison. The reports also clearly identified many key challenges that remain, including the imprisonment of young people and the issue of drugs within prisons. I ask the Leader for a debate on prison reform, in light of those reports, before the end of the summer.
I second the amendment proposed by Senator Darragh O'Brien.
I would like to ask for a debate on ethics in sport in view of the situation regarding Sepp Blatter. The whole international sports world is a byword for corruption. The International Olympic Committee is a mess. FIFA is a complete and absolute disgrace, with hundreds of millions of dollars washing around being used as bribes. Now Mr. Putin has come out and made the matter an international political thing. If anything would make me look further for the resignation of Sepp Blatter, it would be the support of Mr. Putin.
Mr. Blatter is the chief executive of FIFA, so he should know what goes on. There was the extraordinary situation in which a football match was awarded to Qatar but was scheduled to take place in the middle of the summer, which was absolute, utter and outrageous madness. The chief executive is responsible when there is systematic corruption, just as is the case in politics. If there is political corruption then a Minister is expected to resign. The corruption may be deemed somebody's fault down the line but the Minister resigns, and it should be the same for Sepp Blatter. The chief executive is either a nincompoop or a crook. If he did not know what was going on then he is a nincompoop and if he did then he is a crook.
The Senator has used very unparliamentary language.
It is not a bit. I defy the Cathaoirleach to find the word "nincompoop" in the list of regulated words.
That is not the word I was talking about, as the Senator well knows.
In terms of the word "crook", Mr. Blatter is a crook. It is as simple as that.
I wish to make a suggestion to the red-top newspapers or whatever they are called. I mean the tabloid newspapers, which I despise, but they are quite funny with their headlines. I suggest the headline "Splatter Blatter".
The Senator has missed his vocation.
I wish to raise the issue of home care providers, which was featured on the front page of the Irish Examiner this morning. The fact is someone can serve five years in Mountjoy jail and still set up a company to provide home care the day after release. There is no regulation governing the matter. I published a Private Members' Bill on the matter over four months ago. Resistance to a debate on the matter came from the Department of Health and not from the Minister. The issue is now out in the public domain. It is scheduled to be a major issue for discussion at a conference taking place in Dublin today. Therefore, I ask that time be allocated for a debate on my Private Members' Bill in this House. The Bill, which is important, seeks to put in place proper regulation to cover people who provide home care. A huge number of people require a professional standard of home care and, therefore, a proper legislative structure should be put in place. The draft Bill has been published and is in this House. I ask that the matter be put on the agenda for a debate at the earliest possible date.
I have already given the Cathaoirleach notice of my intention, in accordance with Standing Orders, to seek an adjournment of the House in order to discuss the specific and urgent matter of Aer Lingus. I wish to make an appeal to the Leader. What vision do we have for the Seanad if we are only discussing Aer Lingus after the horse has bolted in the Dáil? What is the Seanad for? Is it merely a debating Chamber? Do we merely rubber-stamp things? Is this a House of Parliament? If this was a serious House of Parliament then a debate on Aer Lingus would have been scheduled to take place before the Dáil vote so that all voices could be heard before the Dáil made its decision. I acknowledge that it is a decision for the Dáil. The idea that we can discuss Aer Lingus afterwards is plainly ludicrous. We do not need the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to be present. It would be useful to have him attend, but we do not need to have him here, particularly if he is busy in the Dáil. We are here to make our voices known and to put them on the record of the Seanad. Perhaps our views can be taken into account by our colleagues in the Dáil. Among our number is Senator Barrett, who I presume is attending the banking inquiry at the moment. He is the foremost transport economist in the country. The idea that the opportunity to hear his views and vision must be postponed until after the Dáil vote is plainly ludicrous. The Seanad is for voices such as his. Senator Barrett was one of the people, in the 1980s, who helped to ensure that the Dublin to London airline market was opened up to competition, a move that has resulted in huge benefits for the country. I would like to hear his voice, if he is not attending the banking inquiry, before the Dáil votes on this matter at 4.42 p.m. I understand that is the time the vote is scheduled to take place. We will make a holy show of Parliament if we allow the debate to happen after the Dáil votes. One is left wondering whether the people should have abolished the Seanad when Fine Gael asked them to. The Leader is running the place into the ground if he allows this to happen, and we will have become completely irrelevant. I appeal to the Leader to have the debate before the Dáil votes so that all voices can be heard.
I wish to briefly mention another matter. I tabled a Commencement matter the other day when the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Ann Phelan, was in attendance. She gave me certain information, which I forwarded to local media and residents in a particular area, using her exact words. Deputy Helen McEntee then stepped in to say that the Minister of State was wrong and merely gave her own opinion. Can we rely on what Ministers or Ministers of State tell us in this Chamber? Do Fine Gael backbenchers know more than Ministers or Ministers of State? If a Minister of State comes in here and does not state the facts of a situation in response to a very specific question, then she should not be a Minister of State and should resign. We need procedures in place to deal with this matter. It is a matter for the Cathaoirleach as well.
No. I have no control over any response that a Minister gives in the House.
The Seanad should have control where a Government backbencher contradicts a Minister. Somebody is right and somebody is wrong.
Both of them are Members of the other House.
We need to know who is right.
Both of them are Members of the other House. I have no control over what they say.
The Cathaoirleach has no control over them? Are we meant to get the proper answers to Commencement matters? I do not want to hear a row between a backbencher and a Minister of State. I want to know what the exact position is. It seems absolutely ludicrous that a backbencher would know more than a Minister of State. What is the position? What is the story? What can we rely on in terms of what we are told in this House?
I wish to raise an issue with regard to the terms and conditions of the new beef genomics scheme created by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The issue is unique in nature because a huge majority of farmers in County Galway do not wish to participate in it. Under the scheme farmers will be given money, but they do not want it because they fear the terms and conditions of the scheme. I cannot blame them for having such fears. Recently I attended a meeting of the IFA and its members held in Tuam, County Galway, where as many as 700 farmers were present. On foot of the meeting I reviewed the terms and conditions of the scheme, and now I have serious reservations about parts of the scheme.
The Department needs to go back to the drawing board when it comes to the six-year rule. The clause needs to be eliminated, because I firmly believe that every year should stand on its own merit. If somebody is disqualified from participating in the scheme, then it is patently unfair and inequitable that every payment ever made under the scheme can be clawed back, irrespective of a lack of proof of previous breaches. The clause is wrong and flies in the face of natural and constitutional justice. I have written to the Minister about the matter. Clawbacks of this nature are more punitive, rather than less. It is important that the Minister understand that clawbacks would be unenforceable in a court of law if, on balance, they are deemed to be penalty clauses.
Does the Senator seek a debate? This may be more suitable for a Commencement matter.
I raised the matter because the scheme will close quite soon and, therefore, it is important to extend the deadline. It is also important that the Minister come in here to discuss the matter. We have a situation in which farmers will be penalised in the short term but the State will be penalised in the long term if farmers pursue a legal action through the courts. I want a debate arranged to discuss the scheme with the Minister at the earliest possible opportunity.
I was planning to congratulate the Leader on arranging the debate on Aer Lingus because it was not planned yesterday but we were told one was scheduled late last evening. However, having listened to Senators Darragh O'Brien and Thomas Byrne today, it does not make sense to have a debate at 5 p.m. after the Dáil has made its decision, nor does it make sense because, as Senator Thomas Byrne said, Senator Sean D. Barrett will not be in the House before the decision is made. We are very fortunate Senator Sean D. Barrett, the foremost transport economist in the country, is a Member of the House, but he is tied up at the banking inquiry today. I urge the Leader to find time to accept Senator Darragh O’Brien’s amendment. We should have that debate immediately after the Order of Business, which will give us time to do all the other jobs we have to do.
The news today that Ireland has slipped back to sixteenth place in the competition league is bad. The Taoiseach wants Ireland to be the best small country in the world in which to do business and yet we have slipped to sixteenth place in the world. If we are to achieve what we must achieve, we can do that but with a Government policy, commitment and dedication to removing the barriers to competitiveness so that we can become more competitive in the future.
I support Senator Higgins’ call for a debate with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine on the beef genomics scheme. The one bit of good news is that he has announced an extension of the deadline for applications, giving farmers an additional week to apply. Approximately 15,000 applications have been received to date. I hope that number will increase significantly in the coming week. There are a few issues of concern to the farmers and it is important to have a meeting with the Minister to tease some of those out so that the level of applications will increase significantly.
I very much welcome that €91 million is being made available for social housing initiatives, as announced today. Of this €5 million will be spent in County Galway, €689,000 will be spent on bringing 42 units back into use. In total over 1,000 units will be refurbished nationwide. In Galway city and county €2.7 million will be allocated for investment in housing adaptation grants for older people with disabilities, which is very welcome. In addition, €1.2 million will be spent on retrofitting social housing in Galway to make it more energy efficient. I hope this is a significant start in making much more social housing available so that the long waiting lists in our county can be reduced significantly over the next couple of years.
Ba mhaith liom aontú leis na cainteoirí ar an dtaobh seo den Teach atá tar éis a gcuid imní maidir leis an díolachán atá ar bun de Aer Lingus a lua chomh maith.
What is happening around the Aer Lingus debacle is really disgraceful, rushing through such an important and strategic decision without the full information being given to these Houses, without proper debate and without allowing the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Communications to go through it in great detail. It reminds me of previous debacles such as Irish Water and the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, IBRC, when the Government said “Don’t worry lads, this will be all right, just take our word for it”. We can see what happened as a result. I support the call for the amendment to the Order of Business. The fact that workers’ rights are being left as the final thing to be tied up or discussed in such situations is indicative of the way this Government approaches workers’ rights. There are other situations, such as the Dunnes Stores scenario and the zero hour contracts, which are ongoing.
This type of attitude is filtering into local communities. I am aware of a nursing home in Tuam in County Galway that refuses to recognise the rights of workers there to union recognition. The workers in that nursing home work very hard and have been looking for that right through the State’s mechanisms but the employers are turning it down point blank. It is about time the Labour Party stood up, said enough is enough and that it will not stand for this trampling on workers’ rights any more. The problems around the pensions in Aer Lingus show that Fine Gael has made the Labour Party capitulate on these issues. This is Labour Party’s chance to stand up and be counted and try to salvage something from a Government which has a pitiful record on workers’ rights.
I agree with the statements of Senators on the other side of the fence that it is a futile exercise to have a debate on Aer Lingus this afternoon after the decision has been made. It should happen sooner, if at all possible. I encourage the Leader to fit in an hour and cancel what is already on the programme to discuss it. Whether we can make a difference is another matter.
From 1 July new household food waste regulations will come into existence. These require that food waste be segregated from other waste and no longer placed in the black bin. Once segregated, food waste must either be subjected to a home composting process, which would save householders' money, or brought to an authorised treatment facility run by county councils. It is a significant change and I am calling for a debate on this. Many landfill sites throughout the country have, thankfully, been closed down. Where landfill sites still exist less is being deposited in them. I am concerned about what will happen to sites that have been closed for years. Are there proposals to use some of them for "gasification", a word used here yesterday by my colleague from Limerick? An urgent debate is required as soon as possible to alleviate people’s fears because this is a big change for householders and businesses.
I refer to the lack of progress on the charities regulator with the Minister for Justice and Equality. Jim Cusack, a journalist at the Irish Examiner, wrote recently about a children’s charity because four of the seven directors have resigned, citing irregular governance and expenses. A raft of questions need to be answered. The charities regulator has not commented on the case, and that is as it should be as an investigation is ongoing. We had much debate on this issue and celebrated 18 months ago the fact that the Charities Regulatory Authority was put in place but it is in a no-win situation, with high expectations from us and the public as a champion of transparency and integrity. The Minister for Justice and Equality is not putting the necessary funding or manpower into this. On 17 April, she provided charities with another year to register. Now, a very prominent children’s charity seems to be in trouble and four very prominent people have resigned from it. I need the Minister to interject, give us her thoughts and give the regulator some teeth in order that we can all have faith. The Government gives between €4.5 billion and €5 billion to the charity sector. We need it regulated.
This office seems to have been put away and put on the long finger. It is not good enough.
I support the request by Fianna Fáil to change the Order of Business today. It is outrageous that we are going to have a debate after the deal is done.
Hear, hear.
It is also outrageous that we do not hear from the only independent voice that I have heard, Senator Sean D. Barrett. I will not take any advice from those who are about to feather their own nest inside on the board of Aer Lingus, getting a huge payout once this deal is done, and other people who have conflicts of interest. I know the Leader is a decent man and I ask him to change the Order of Business.
I wish to raise today Article 44.2.2° of the Constitution, which guarantees that the State will not endow any specific religion. It has come as something of a shock to me to find out that, quite to the contrary, the State is endowing a religion through the chaplaincies that are appointed in institutes of technology all over this country. There are a number of serious issues involved. Salaries of €30,000 to €50,000 a year are being paid to chaplains but there is no selection process or application process and there are no criteria under which these chaplains are appointed, yet Trinity College Dublin pays its chaplains out of its own coffers. There is something seriously wrong in a country that, on the one hand, says it will not endow a religion and, on the other, appoints a specific set of religious preachers to third level education institutes, when the people who attend those institutes are all adults capable of making up their own minds as to what religion they want to follow. I ask the Leader to organise a debate which would include the issue of chaplaincy in schools and hospitals throughout the country and who pays for them.
I strongly support what my colleagues have said in regard to the Aer Lingus debacle. Without going into the specifics, this House is being disrespected today by the Government in not allowing for a debate prior to a decision being taken in the other House. We are dealing with a matter which is being driven by vested interests at the expense of the public interest. We are not being given the opportunity here, as public representatives, to debate an issue of national significance and importance ahead of a decision being taken. I know it may not be at the discretion of the Leader and he may be forced into a situation by the Government. However, I would ask him to stand strong and represent the Seanad, not accept the push which is coming from the Government on this issue and to have a debate in the House before a decision is made in the other House.
I agree with other Senators that we should have a debate in regard to agriculture, particularly the beef genomics scheme, the closing date for which is today. It is not workable at all. We need a debate on that issue and on the other environmental schemes from Pillar 2 of the Common Agricultural Policy. These schemes are not working. Money is coming from Europe but farmers are unable to draw it down and unable to apply, given the complexities of the schemes. It needs a deeper debate than is possible in a Commencement debate because there are issues that need to be teased out with the Minister in the House. I ask that this be organised in the next few weeks.
I call on the Leader to have the Minister for Finance come before the House for a debate on the most recent European Commission recommendations and opinion on the national reform programme in Ireland. There are some damning statistics, information and opinion in the report, which outlines that while there is some level of economic improvement in the country, there are other issues like private and public debt which are not being addressed by public policy interventions. The report outlines the crisis in the health sector and also looks at the banks' self-reliant techniques in order to deal with people who find themselves in debt which they are unable to pay. I ask that the Minister for Finance come to the House for a debate on the report. In all of its public policy interventions, the Government is failing to deal with the outlook being expressed not only by the European Commission, but also by the IMF and others.
To follow on from what my two Fianna Fáil colleagues have said about Aer Lingus, a debate today is essential. As other colleagues have said, Senator Sean D. Barrett will be busy at the banking inquiry this afternoon and will not be here. In fairness, the Senator is one of the few independent voices on this issue. He is a man who makes quite a lot of sense and is someone who should be listened to.
We are told this is a great deal by those members of the Dublin Airport Authority and the people in paid Government positions in Shannon and Cork. I do not take great heed of what they say. This is a further demonstration of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport's lack of commitment to the regions, in particular the mid-west. Limerick yesterday launched its campaign for the 2020 capital of culture, one I hope the Government will put its weight behind. However, by 2020 there may not be connectivity to bring people to the area. The Leader knows the road from Waterford to Limerick is diabolical, the road from the Cork to Limerick is a disgrace and the road from Limerick to Killarney and other areas is terrible. This move could be a serious blow to Shannon's connectivity in the mid-west.
It is not good enough. Even if this deal, unfortunately, seems to be a fait accompli, and perhaps there is not a whole pile that can be done about it, I believe that debate should take place earlier rather than later. I hung around yesterday because I thought the debate was going to take place at 9 p.m. last night but it did not happen, and I had thought it might have happened a couple of days ago but it did not. It has now been pushed aside again. I would like the Leader to accede to the amendment to the Order of Business and support calls for that debate to take place today.
I have listened to the views of Members on the debate about Aer Lingus. It was not possible to have it last night because the debate in the other House lasted until 10 p.m. The Minister will be in the other House until 5 p.m. today debating the issue. As far as I know, he does not yet have powers of bilocation; therefore, there is no prospect of having him here. However, having listened to what Members had to say, I am prepared to amend the Order of Business to have the debate immediately but without a Minister present.
Can we have any Minister?
How can I manufacture one out of a hat?
There are enough of them.
I will sit here and report back to the Minister. Senators are proposing an amendment to the Order of Business that we speak about the issue, but I cannot supply a Minister at the drop of a hat.
Then let us have that debate.
I will report on what is said to the Minister. Senators cannot have it every way, as they want to do with Aer Lingus. I am prepared to amend the Order of Business as follows: that, after the Order of Business, we have a debate about Aer Lingus up to 2 p.m., with all spokespersons being allocated five minutes. No. 2, Statute Law Revision Bill 2015 - Second Stage, will be taken at 2 p.m. and adjourned not later than 3 p.m., with the contributions of group spokespersons not to exceed eight minutes and those of all other Senators not to exceed five minutes. We will delete No. 3a on the Supplementary Order Paper. The change is in response to the request from Members to try to go some way to accede to their requests.
As I said, as the Minister does not yet have powers of bilocation, he cannot be here, but I will relay what is said in the House to him. He was anxious to come into the Chamber but could not do so before 5 p.m.
On a point of order, what the Leader has said is reasonable. I suggest that if Senator Sean D. Barrett is able to get away from the committee and does wish to speak, Members give way to him. He will only have a short time in which-----
We cannot order the business of the House based on whether a Member will be here. That was one of the reasons I put the item down to be taken at 5 p.m. We could have heard from Senator Sean D. Barrett at that stage, because he probably will be finished at the committee by then. However, he will not be able to contribute to the debate now.
He will have a lunch break.
These matters have to be organised properly. One cannot organise business at the drop of a hat. That is what I propose to do to facilitate the House and I am amending the Order of Business accordingly.
Is it just group spokespersons who will have five minutes in which to contribute?
All Senators who contribute to the debate will have five minutes.
Is the debate to continue up to 2 p.m. or 2.30 p.m?
It will continue up to 2 p.m. and we will then continue with the other business outlined.
Senator Ivana Bacik and others referred to the €91 million investment in housing announced today by the Minister for the Environment, Community Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, which is certainly to be welcomed. A further debate on housing is overdue and I will try to arrange it.
Senator Ivana Bacik also called for a debate on recently published reports on prison and penal reform. I will ask the Minister for Justice and Equality to attend the House to debate them.
Senator David Norris raised the question of ethics in sport. The Minister of State with responsibility for sport has been in the House on several occasions recently. There are certainly concerns about FIFA, football's governing body. I note the Senator’s points about the chief executive officer of that body and suggestions of corruption and so forth. That is a matter for FIFA to deal with. I do not think anything we say in this House will make any difference, but we can certainly consider and have a debate on the question of ethics in sport.
Senator Colm Burke called for proper regulations for home care providers. As he rightly pointed out, he has a Bill dealing with the issue on the Order Paper. We will certainly consider debating it on the next occasion Fine Gael raises an issue during Private Members’ business.
Senators Lorraine Higgins and Brian Ó Domhnaill called for an extension of and a debate on the beef genomics scheme with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I am sure the Minister would be quite willing to come to the House to deal with the matter.
Senator Feargal Quinn pointed to how Ireland had dropped several places to 16th in the world competitiveness standings. We had an excellent debate last night about the Springboard scheme. The issue of competitiveness is important in the development of the economy. I note the Senator's points in that regard. The Government is mindful of the issue also.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh referred to workers’ rights, an issue on which the Government has been strong. I was very disappointed by the number of contributors to the debate yesterday on the National Minimum Wage (Low Pay Commission) Bill 2015. Many Members have called for a debate on this issue in the past few weeks and months. However, when the legislation was before the House yesterday, a paltry number of Members spoke.
Senator Terry Brennan raised the question of food waste segregation. The House will deal with an environmental planning Bill later in the session and I am quite sure a number of speakers will want to come in on it. The Senator can raise the question again at that stage.
Senator Mary Ann O’Brien referred to the charities regulator. I assure her the regulator has teeth and powers which can be used. Owing to requests from quite a number of charities, the Minister has granted them an extension of time to register with the regulator. Where irregularities have occurred, the regulator can investigate them. I was not aware of the specific case raised by the Senator She can bring it to the attention of the Minister who I am sure will ask the regulator to act on it.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell raised the issue of payments to chaplains in third level institutions and institutes of technology. Chaplains play an important role in these educational facilities. The Senator said Trinity College Dublin paid its own chaplains. By whom are the others paid?
They are paid from the public purse.
I note the point made by the Senator which I will raise with the Minister for Education and Skills. Is the Senator suggesting college chaplains should not be paid from the public purse? They can be of either religion in institutes of technology and other third level institutions.
I am suggesting that, like all other public jobs, they be advertised in accordance with the usual criteria and that there be interview panels.
I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister for Education and Skills and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.
Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill referred to a European Commission report on national reforms. It will be debated with other finance issues.
Senator James Heffernan also raised the issue of Aer Lingus, which I addressed earlier.
Senator Darragh O’Brien has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business: “That No. 3a on the Supplementary Order Paper be taken before No.1.” Is the amendment being pressed?
No, I am withdrawing it. I thank the Leader for going some of the way towards accommodating it. It is disappointing that we will not have a Minister present. I am not expecting the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, to attend, but the Government has a truckload of other Ministers and Ministers of State, all of whom should have an interest in what happens with Aer Lingus.
The Senator will have to do with me.
I am happy with the Leader.
Is the Senator withdrawing the amendment?
I am. I thank the Leader for varying today’s business. We will see how things go.
The Leader has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business concerning new arrangements for the taking of No. 3a: “That statements on the sale of Aer Lingus be taken at the conclusion of the Order of Business and conclude at 2 p.m., with the contributions of Senators not to exceed five minutes and no Minister being required to attend.” Is the amendment agreed to? Agreed. That means No. 2 will be taken at 2 p.m.