It is now obvious we are watching the disintegration of the Government. In recent months, two senior Ministers, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen and the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, openly revolted on the smoking ban regulations. During the Laffoy debacle, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, directly contradicted the Taoiseach on the Government's handling of the core deal. Two weeks ago, the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, breached Cabinet collective responsibility on three separate occasions and, yesterday evening, 40 backbenchers, led by a Minister of State, openly revolted against the Government's proposals in the Estimates. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Taoiseach is leading a rabble. It is no wonder the Tanáiste wants to jump ship before things get much worse.

Last night, we heard two versions – the Taoiseach's comments at the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party meeting and the views expressed by the Tánaiste – of how Ireland came to support a decision, at European Union level, to provide €1.1 billion of public funds for research on embryonic stem cells. Is the Taoiseach prepared to tell the House the truth about this matter? Was the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Treacy, acting on behalf of the Government when, as Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, he supported this research programme 18 months ago? Did the Taoiseach and the Tanáiste have personal knowledge of the programme before the Minister of State pledged support for it?

The Taoiseach bypassed the primacy of this House on this controversial and complex matter. Why did he not consider it necessary to have it debated in the House, given that yesterday, the Cabinet expressed regret at the widespread confusion that exists on the issue?

I am not sure what Deputy Kenny is asking.

The Taoiseach does not want to answer anyway.

The Taoiseach, without interruption, please.

The Deputy, in the time available to him, referred, among other things, to the smoking ban, community employment schemes, the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party and the human genome programme.

If the Taoiseach does not know what question was asked, he cannot answer.

That is because the Taoiseach is all over the place.

Please allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption. Deputy Allen is not the leader of his party.

A Cheann Chomhairle, I understand that Standing Orders permit Deputy Kenny to ask only one question.

Yes.

I will deal with the last question he raised.

In that case, if the Taoiseach wants to be smart—

Deputy Kenny, allow the Taoiseach to continue. The Deputy will have an opportunity to put a supplementary question later.

I asked three questions of the Taoiseach.

The Deputy is only entitled to raise one topic.

I will deal with the final topic the Deputy raised.

Perhaps the Taoiseach might address the truth. I asked if the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, knew he was acting on Ireland's behalf when he made the decision to which I referred?

I will reply to that question. Deputy Kenny made reference to four issues, which he is not allowed to do under Standing Orders.

I am asking questions on one issue.

Please allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

There are many issues with which we need to deal.

The European Sixth Framework Directive was put and agreed by the European Commission in December 2001 and again in summer 2002. It was, at that stage, a matter of agreeing the €16 billion fund for research in various areas, including funding of €1.1 billion on human genome research, the issue under discussion today at European Council level. The Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, acted with the total knowledge and support of the Government and various Departments, including my Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, at which he was at that time a Minister of State. The matter was fully dealt with.

The issue under discussion in Europe today – we should not lose sight of this – is not about funding that has already been agreed, but about whether proper guidelines, safeguards and procedures will be put in place to deal with this matter when the moratorium ends. That is the decision before the European Commission today.

Deputy Kenny asked about the current position. There was no disagreement on the matter. At that stage, only Italy expressed a reservation while all other countries, including Ireland, agreed to the programme. The issue is concerned with research that will take place outside Ireland and we had no reason whatsoever to oppose the programme at that stage.

The Taoiseach does not seem to have heard my question. Did the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, act on behalf of the Government?

Yes.

Did the Taoiseach and the Tanáiste have personal knowledge—

Yes.

Why, then, did the Taoiseach bypass the primacy of the Dáil on this complex matter?

It was not a matter for the Dáil.

It was.

Please allow Deputy Kenny to ask a question.

The Taoiseach is interrupting.

The Cabinet said yesterday that it regretted the widespread confusion caused. The Taoiseach has bypassed the primacy of this House. Let me finish with this question to the Taoiseach. The Tánaiste travels to Brussels today to speak and vote for Ireland. Will she reflect before that vote on the unanimous conclusion of the all-party Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business that Ireland should not support the spending of public funds on embryonic research? Does the Fianna Fáil Party support the spending of public funds on embryonic stem cell research? That has nothing to do with Italy or the genome project. It has to do with internal politics and the spending of public money from taxpayers, to be ratified by the Taoiseach's Government without bringing it to the floor of this House.

I have already answered two of Deputy Kenny's questions. The third was on the framework programme. The Common Position on the sixth framework programme, which is known as FP6, was agreed at the Research Council in December 2001. It was formally adopted by the Employment and Social Policy Council on 26 June 2002, and the following co-decision procedure, which is Article 166(1), was agreed with the European Parliament. That was done with the knowledge of the various Departments. The funding programme was broad. Rather than a specific programme about stem cell research, it was about human genomics, and that was the programme put before the Council. It was not in the normal course of events. It was not about funding or research in this country, and the framework programme would not normally be put before this House. That answers the Deputy's question.

So he did not know what he was voting for.

The details of the programme were not known at that time. It was a broad programme on human genomics. It was €1.1 billion of €16 billion for that general programme. The Minister's decision today will be consistent with her decision throughout, namely, that this country does not believe that research should start. The issue today is not about whether resources will be spent, since that decision has already been made.

No member of the Fianna Fáil Party supported it.

Today's decision is as follows. When the money was passed, as I have just outlined, Ireland, Germany, Italy, Austria, Portugal and Luxembourg stated that the research should not start and that there should be a moratorium until proper European Commission guidelines, safeguards and procedures had been drawn up. The European Commission asked for 18 months, a period which will soon expire. The decision today is whether the research can go ahead without those guidelines. Our position is that research should not go ahead in this country. We also believe that it should not go ahead anywhere until those guidelines and procedures are in place. That is the issue.

I call Deputy Rabbitte.

It mattered at the meeting last night.

I am sorry. Deputy Seán Ryan should allow his leader to submit his question.

What happened at the meeting?

Deputy Seán Ryan is not the leader of the Labour Party.

If this matter is a settled position decided on by the Fianna Fáil Minister of State, Noel Treacy, with the Taoiseach's knowledge, why is a senior backbencher attacking the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, this morning, on the basis that she is doing a solo run and that the position is false and mischievous? Why, if one of their own made this decision, would Fianna Fáil backbenchers be doing that? Why are they working themselves up into such a lather about stem cell research when the most needy children in society are deprived of crèche facilities because of the child care cuts? At a time when the Society of St. Vincent de Paul says that 70,000 children are living in deprivation and 300,000 in relative poverty, what exactly is going on in Fianna Fáil?

They revolt on stem cell research after the decision has been made. On the Hanly report, they revolt after the document has been approved by the Cabinet. On the smoking ban, they revolt on behalf of publicans after the Minister for Health and Children has committed himself. On the community employment scheme, 40 of them sign a motion only after they can be sure that it has been safely decided in the Book of Estimates and voted through the House the previous week. Perhaps the Taoiseach will tell us what exactly is going on. Is this a revolt against his leadership? Is Deputy Batt O'Keeffe a stalking horse? Are the meetings in Cork about that? If not, why should the Taoiseach be accused by Deputy Batt O'Keeffe of misrepresenting the position of the Minister, Deputy Harney, at a Fianna Fáil meeting? Why should the Taoiseach decide to misrepresent the Minister's position? God knows that she has been loyal enough to him.

The Deputy's two minutes are concluded.

What question should I answer?

Perhaps he should answer that of Deputy Andrews. He says that he is a dissident Fianna Fáil Deputy because he is supporting Government policy.

In the absence of a question, all that I can say to Deputy Rabbitte is that the only way that I could assure him about the excellent meetings that we have in Fianna Fáil – since I never hear about his party's meetings – is if he did what he has done so many times before in his life and came and joined us.

Given the imminent likelihood of a vacancy, I might well consider it.

I might even support him.

Is this the appropriate manner for the Taoiseach to regard the dissent that is now evident regarding every decision that the Government has tried to announce and implement? They have all gone wrong, starting with the penalty points back in 1998. Emergency legislation is now having to be put through to correct that. There is the smoking ban, the Hanly report, the community employment schemes, stem cell research – you name it. Then the Taoiseach goes to the parliamentary party and, on the word of a senior backbencher, misrepresents the position of the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney. When it came to tax evasion on the backbenches, Deputy Harney explained it away on the basis that it had not taken place in Government. When it came to Punchestown, she explained it away on the basis that—

The Deputy's minute is concluded.

There are lessons to be learnt. She has done the same to defend the Government in this position. The pit bull terrier of the PD watchdog has become a sleepy collie on the porch that can no longer distinguish between the milkman and a burglar. That is the loyalty—

The Deputy's time is up.

—that the Taoiseach is now demonstrating to the Minister when it was not her decision in the first place.

The Fianna Fáil Party, unlike Deputy Rabbitte's party, discusses every issue, and last night—

After the decision has been made.

Allow the Taoiseach without interruption, please.

Deputy Rabbitte did not ask me a question, but I have a minute to reply. The Fianna Fáil Party and the Progressive Democrats have brought in far-sighted proposals, and I notice that those across the water are now also considering our smoking ban legislation. I wish them well in that. The Hanly report is part of our overall reform, along with the Prospectus and Brennan reports, to try to give better medical treatment to people in this country. In our social welfare Estimate, we have moved to €10.6 billion this year. Regarding the vote today, the Government and the parliamentary parties totally support the Minister's view, which is to try to ensure that guidelines and proper procedures are put in place and that no research can happen in Europe without them. On all the other issues, both parties in this Government have proper debate and analysis. It is a pity that Deputy Rabbitte's parliamentary party could not have the open and excellent debate that we have in Fianna Fáil.

There is unity there.

Before I call Deputy Joe Higgins, I repeat for the benefit of Members of the House that the Standing Order allows for a brief question on a matter of topical public importance.

There are 140,000 construction workers in the State, only 40,000 of whom are calculated to have the benefit of pension schemes. Building workers' unions have in recent days highlighted outrageous behaviour by a wide range of construction companies who have failed to put their workers on pension schemes. Incredibly, there is even comprehensive evidence of the most cynical fraud, whereby companies, some of them large and prestigious, deduct pension money from their workers' wages without putting them on the scheme. In other words, millionaire construction bosses are stealing from the hard-earned money of their employees. This has the most serious economic consequences for workers when they get sick or, in the case of premature death, for their families, apart from the emotional trauma.

Of the 30 construction workers who died tragically since January 2002, only eight were covered by pensions schemes. After six and a half years of this Government, why is such calculated abuse by a powerful industry allowed? Is it not appropriate that some of the lather which Government backbenchers have been working themselves up to in recent days about embryonic cells should be transferred into getting the Government to look after real, living, working, suffering and exploited human beings? The existing legislation is unworkable for the most part, cumbersome and open to huge delays. Will the Government introduce legislation to protect construction workers in this situation?

The legislation which governs this matter is the Pensions (Amendment) Act 2002 and the Pensions Board is the regulator of the issues the Deputy raised. In regard to the case of the IFI, the case has gone to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Generally, the Government's proposals for the past number of years have been to try to improve the scope and range of occupational pension schemes. We have done this in many ways, through procedures which have worked quite well. If there are abuses, the Pensions Board, as regulator, if it is not already involved in the cases to which the Deputy refers, would be glad to hear about them.

Over the years, some sectors of the construction industry have seen a lack of employers putting workers on pensions schemes, particularly occupational ones. Nonetheless, the Government has endeavoured to insist that they do so. The figure is something like 76%. Admittedly, there is still a large percentage of people not covered by pension schemes. In the various Acts, including the Pensions (Amendment) Act 2002 and other Finance Bill regulations in past years, we have endeavoured to make it easier and more attractive for people to have their own pension schemes.

I am not sure if the Deputy is referring to self-employed categories or those who are working directly for employers. Perhaps he will clarify that. In the self-employed sector there are attractive schemes and many sub-contractors are availing of them. If the Deputy is referring to people directly employed by contractors, the Pensions Board, as regulator, would be interested in what he said if it is not already dealing with the matter.

There is no question of "if"– there are abuses. Tens of thousands of workers are being denied their pension rights by powerful construction bosses as is demonstrable through facts and figures. It is not good enough to state that the Government is endeavouring to do this and that. The Government can have decent taxpayers in Mountjoy Prison within days of a peaceful protest against the bin tax.

That was for contempt of court. The Government did not do that. The courts did.

Allow Deputy Joe Higgins without interruption.

We know all about the unfortunate inability of Fianna Fáil Ministers, junior Ministers and backbenchers to close the stable door while the horse is inside. Instead they are haplessly trying to round them up as they gallop over the horizon. Perhaps the Minister could listen for a change. This is an instance in which the Government could do something.

Sorry, Deputy, you may raise one topical issue. You cannot move on to others.

The Government backbenchers were distracting me.

The Deputy should not allow himself to be distracted.

It is the Front Bench.

Amending legislation is required to protect workers' rights because the current structures are ineffective. We must force these often unscrupulous bosses to fulfil their responsibilities towards these workers and respect their rights. Perhaps the bosses could be sent to Mountjoy Prison if they do not, instead of decent taxpayers.

I am still not clear whether the Deputy is referring to individuals who are sub-contractors or people who are working directly for contractors.

I am referring to people who are working directly for companies.

In that case, the Pensions (Amendment) Act 2002 provides stringent regulations and penalties. For example, the DPP has taken action in the IFI case and is processing that action.

I did not bump into any employers in Mountjoy Prison when I was inside.

Allow the Taoiseach, please.

There are tough laws in this regard, which are being tested by the DPP. It is not correct to state that there is no legislation in this regard. If the Deputy is stating, as he has now clarified, that the Construction Industry Federation is in breach of that Act, the Pensions Board, as regulator, has total power to deal with these matters and implement the penalties, right up to action being taken by the DPP. That is contained in existing legislation, therefore there is no requirement for additional legislation.