Joe Higgins
Ceist:5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus last met. [15223/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraTuesday, 31 May 2005
Ceisteanna (5, 6, 7, 8)
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus last met and when the next meeting is due. [16046/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:7 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus last met and the number and dates of meetings it has held in 2005. [16178/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Enda Kenny
Ceist:8 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee dealing with the future of Aer Lingus last met. [16995/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (90 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, together.
The Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus last met on 9 December 2004 and there are no arrangements for it to meet again.
The Government has announced a decision to put our national airline into the hands of speculators. I find this decision incredible. Can the Taoiseach explain why the Cabinet sub-committee on the national airline has not met since December 2004? Can he tell me where the privatisation of Aer Lingus was discussed?
It is not possible to have a debate on a matter covered by Cabinet confidentiality.
Is it then possible to ask about the methods used by the Cabinet to arrive at decisions?
It is not possible to do so arising from these questions. Deputy Higgins's question is purely statistical and poses a problem for the Chair, as it does for the Deputy. It would be better if these questions were submitted to the line Minister who would be in a position to deal with policy issues. This is a purely statistical question and it does not allow latitude to the Chair or the Deputy.
I know the Chair is interpreting the rules but I must state that Taoiseach's Question Time is becoming increasingly meaningless.
The Deputy can ask the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus last met.
That is the only question that will be allowed.
The other questions are appropriate to a line Minister. We cannot have an omnibus Taoiseach's Question Time.
Aer Lingus is very important.
There is an urgent need to review the rules governing Taoiseach's Question Time.
It poses a problem for the Chair as well as the Deputy.
The same few narrow questions are revamped here every three months. The terms of reference of the questions and supplementaries we can ask are extremely narrow. It is becoming repetitious.
When the House wishes to change the system, the Chair will be glad to implement it.
We should change the system because I will stop attending Taoiseach's Question Time if it is reduced to an irrelevancy. Maybe the Taoiseach would not mind that.
Could the Chair tell me how Deputy Higgins's question is statistical?
It seeks to find out the dates of meetings.
No, it does not.
If Deputy Rabbitte reads the question, he will see that this is true.
The question asks when the Cabinet sub-committee last met.
That is a statistical question.
This has nothing to do with matters like export figures or the CSO. Whatever it is, it is not a statistical question.
It is looking for one specific answer, which is the date on which the Cabinet sub-committee met.
One could say that about any question, that it is looking for one specific answer.
No, that is not true.
It is a stratagem used by Deputy Higgins to ask a question on the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus and it most emphatically is not a statistical question.
As the Chair pointed out, it poses a problem for the Chair as well as the Deputy.
It may well pose a problem for the Chair.
In my view, questions where policy is discussed, if it is the Department of the Taoiseach——
I am merely rising on the narrow point that whatever it is, it is not a statistical question.
I take it that the question is not statistical but it demands one answer which is just the date of the meetings.
On a point of order, while the Chair is interpreting the rules and I respect his ruling, can he tell me why a question similar to the other questions I posed was ruled out of order because it apparently contained the phrase "and if the Taoiseach will make a statement on the matter"? The Taoiseach made a very curt statement on the matter and I cannot understand why my question was ruled out of order as it was as narrowly focused as the other questions, except that it contained the phrase I have just quoted. Surely, the Chair's ruling that the question was out of order overstepped the mark and the question should have been allowed.
Normally, I would not discuss matters of this nature on the floor of the House. I would instead deal with it in the office. However, I studied Deputy Sargent's question yesterday and it asked for a report of the meeting of the sub-committee, rather than just asking the Taoiseach to make a statement on the matter. These questions refer specifically to the date of the sub-committee meeting. Deputy Sargent's question asked for a report on what was discussed at the meeting; that could not be allowed.
I would have been happy to delete those words.
That was the question the Deputy submitted.
I wish to finish my question. Does the Taoiseach accept that we find it incredible that a meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus has not taken place since December 2004, given that such an enormous decision to privatise a national airline has been taken? Will the Taoiseach scotch the rumour that a grubby deal was brokered between himself and the Irish Congress of Trades Unions that secured ICTU's toleration of the privatisation of Aer Lingus in return for the public ownership of the new terminal at Dublin Airport?
That question does not arise. The Taoiseach on the first question on the Cabinet sub-committee.
Regarding the first question, all the matters after that were dealt with by the full Cabinet. The Minister for Transport made it clear to the House last week that he and the Minister for Finance will move quickly to appoint advisers and deal with the issues. This was dealt with at the Cabinet. There is no need for the sub-committee. It had a job to do and it dealt with it. The matter has moved on and the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Finance are dealing with it.
Was this deal a rumour?
I call Deputy Rabbitte.
The Taoiseach's silence betokens what?
Safe play.
I am sure I will have the Chair's support in asking a statistical question. When was it decided to sell a majority stake in Aer Lingus?
That does not arise under these questions, Deputy. You should submit a separate question.
I asked for a date, a Cheann Comhairle. You said a date is a statistical matter.
The Deputy should not misconstrue what the Chair stated.
The Taoiseach has told us that the Cabinet sub-committee last met on 19 December. I am asking if the decision was taken by then or if it was taken subsequently. When was the decision taken?
It was made by the Cabinet as part of the overall decision of two weeks ago.
In arriving at that conclusion on that date and in respect of that decision, is it a trade sale or an initial public offering?
It does not arise under this question.
The Taoiseach wants to answer.
It happened on that date, a Cheann Comhairle.
We cannot discuss what might have happened on the date. The questions only ask about the dates, unfortunately.
The Chair is a great man for quoting precedent. Has he considered his time as a humble Deputy questioning Ministers and how he got away with it?
The same way as you occasionally get away with it.
The Chair knows as well as I do that the Taoiseach wishes to answer this question. The Chair is being over-restrictive in confining questions to his version of statistics.
The Chair must be consistent and must take account of the rules of the House and of precedent.
Yes, and as Deputy Higgins and Deputy Rabbitte——
As I said to Deputy Joe Higgins, this type of question does not suit the Chair either. Every time there is a question of this nature, Deputies wish to discuss policy. Such questions should be submitted to the line Minister.
I am sure when the Chair discusses the statistics of a Cavan v. Tyrone match, he talks more about the events surrounding those statistics than about the statistics themselves.
It does not arise under these questions.
Arising from the statistic the Taoiseach has given us, is this an initial public offering or a trade sale?
The Taoiseach is ready to answer. Go ahead, Taoiseach, be brave.
I will respond briefly. The Minister for Finance has moved to appoint advisers to advise on the size, type and timing of the sale. The decision on the process will be based on the advice that is given. Other than our statement that we will hold 25%, how we proceed will be based on the outside advisers' recommendation. The timing for proceeding will be decided in conjunction with the board.
Now, a Cheann Comhairle, was there a problem with that?
Given that the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus has not met during 2005 and that the Cabinet made the decision on Aer Lingus and Dublin Airport a fortnight ago, what function does the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus perform? What relevance does it have? Does the Taoiseach envisage it having a role in the future? Will it have a function in implementing the Cabinet decision to sell the State's majority shareholding in Aer Lingus? Will its deliberations be brought before the Cabinet and, whatever decision is arrived at and by whatever vehicle, will they be brought before the House before being processed? Did the plan for Aer Lingus and Dublin Airport emanate from the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus? Did the sub-committee have any deliberations on this matter, either at its December 2004 meeting or at earlier meetings? Is it the case, as the Taoiseach's response suggests, that it has no relevance to the issue and its central raison d’être?
The Deputy must understand that a Cabinet committee is sometimes established to deal with a particular aspect of a decision. In this case, it dealt with a Goldman Sachs' report and related issues. As soon as that issue was dealt with, the committee ended. The Cabinet dealt with everything else. When the report comes back from the Departments of Finance and Transport, it will be dealt with at Cabinet.
So it is finished. It is over.
The work of the Cabinet sub-committee took three or four weeks. The sub-committee is not in existence, and will not be unless we need to revive it for some other purpose. The full Cabinet is dealing with all of the issues.
What of the position in regard to the State's majority shareholding? Is that such a recent——
The full Cabinet will make the decision.
I am very interested in the Taoiseach's reply. As 9 December 2004 is given as the date of the final meeting, I wonder whether any business was conducted at the meeting other than a Christmas drink. Was it envisaged that the sub-committee would need to meet again in any form? Was it envisaged that it would address the question of why the Government seems ideologically opposed to investing in Aer Lingus, although it is investing in so many other airlines through the national pensions reserve fund?
Is there a need to revisit this issue? The Taoiseach should indicate that the sub-committee should meet again, perhaps in conjunction with the National Pensions Reserve Fund, to ascertain where money is being invested on behalf of the taxpayer in airlines other than Aer Lingus, including Ryanair, and why Aer Lingus seems to be regarded as not worthy of investment but of being sold off to whatever sharks will try to make money out of it. The sub-committee needs to meet again as its work is far from finished, and it has left a very unfortunate legacy.
There are no arrangements for it to meet again and all issues related to this matter are now being dealt with by the full Cabinet.
On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, are you telling the House that when the Taoiseach tells us that this decision was taken in Cabinet — the Government acting qua government — we may not ask the Head of Government about the decision in question?
The Deputy is well aware of what one is allowed to ask. This was a statistical question. It asked for the date of a meeting and that is all it asked. The Chair cannot allow questions that are not on the Order Paper.
Since questions began to be asked in the House, one is permitted to put so much into a question and it is no more than a peg to set out why one is seeking to extract information from Government. With respect, it has never been judged in the restrictive fashion in which you are judging this question. To describe a question about Aer Lingus——
I cannot accept that. If Deputies do not like the Standing Orders for questions as they are, I suggest they change them. I will be glad to implement them.
With respect, sir, it is your interpretation of the Standing Orders——
No, Deputy, it is not my interpretation-——
To say that a question on a Cabinet sub-committee is a statistical question is wrong.
The question is quite specific. If we were to do what the Deputy wishes, the Taoiseach would answer for every line Minister at Taoiseach's Question Time. A Deputy could put down a question on anything discussed at a Cabinet sub-committee and have a full debate on it for three-quarters of an hour. That has never been the position in this House. I act in accordance with the actions of my predecessors. All questions are scrutinised coming in to the office.
On a point of order, that is not necessarily true. I and others have recent experience of line Ministers refusing to answer a question and it being disallowed and referred to the Department of the Taoiseach. We have also had recent experience of tabling a question to a line Minister who refused to answer the question on the basis of not being responsible to the House and having the Minister to whom it was referred return it unanswered on the basis that it was not his or her responsibility to answer. There are issues which must be dealt with.
The matter has nothing to do with the office of the Ceann Comhairle.
I accept that. However, the Ceann Comhairle should examine the matter carefully because questions arise. Today's Order Paper contains questions which have been referred to the Department of the Taoiseach.
The matter is discussed at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The Chair has no control over the matter.
He just dozes off occasionally.
The last four questions tabled by Deputy Rabbitte referred to the Cabinet sub-committee. Confidentiality is a constitutional requirement in respect of Cabinet sub-committees which further limits the House in how it deals with such questions.
That is a restrictive regime.
There is no restriction on asking about Cabinet decisions, although there may be constitutional considerations in terms of discussions that took place in reaching the decision.
There is a further restriction on the nature of replies to the type of questions to which the Deputy refers.