Yesterday I asked the Taoiseach to publish the Goldman Sachs report on the future of Aer Lingus and I am glad the Government saw fit to publish it last night. It is evident from the report that the Government received clear warnings at the beginning of October about the loss of the management executive of Aer Lingus, and that this was a threat. The report stresses the importance of the current management team. At no point does it indicate that the management group was driven by greed or avarice. On page 5 the report states that investors will want to ensure that the senior management team is retained and motivated to perform, while on page 42 it states that retention of the management group is an important objective in the overall process. The report further states that in any situation it would be appropriate for the Department to involve management in any process.

The executive team led by Willie Walsh was sent into Aer Lingus with a very difficult brief and it played to win for Aer Lingus. The report does not state that the team was driven by greed or avarice. It was very difficult for the team to work with the company, the customers, the workers and the unions involved. There was a call for 1,300 redundancies and there were 1,600 applications. As the report pointed out, far from involving the management team, the Government has dithered over the future of Aer Lingus with the result that €200 million has been wiped off its market value, the executive team has gone and the company has been left in a state of suspended paralysis for the foreseeable future.

Will the Tánaiste accept that the Fianna Fáil wing of the Government has completely dominated this debate and has been unable to make a decision on the future of the company? Does the Tánaiste accept the warnings given clearly to the Government a few weeks ago in the Goldman Sachs report and that it is now clear that the Fianna Fáil element of the Government does not want to make a decision about Aer Lingus until after the next general election?

The socialist wing has taken over. The revolution is on.

It is clear from the report that Aer Lingus needs investment. The report urges private investment, a view I share. I do not accept that there has been a delay on the part of the Government. We received this report six weeks ago. Given the nature of the decision involved, it is natural that we should consider all the implications. The Government has indicated that it will make a decision before Christmas on an investment option for Aer Lingus. Under all the circumstances, that is satisfactory. As I said on other occasions, the turnaround in Aer Lingus has been incredible and great credit is due to all its workers who are ably led by a capable management team.

I do not accept the Tánaiste's assertion that the Government did not delay on this matter. On a radio programme last Sunday, the Tánaiste indicated that the Government reshuffle might have been the reason for the report not being examined by the Cabinet sub-committee of which she is a member. The Tánaiste also said on the radio programme that she understood that the report made a list of recommendations. When did the Tánaiste first read the report? Is the handling of this matter an indication that the Government is already tired and jaded and unable to make a decision on the future of Aer Lingus, a decision brought forward by an executive team which played to win for the company while the Government dithered to lose for the country?

Does the Tánaiste support the attack by the Taoiseach on the Aer Lingus executive team of Willie Walsh and his partners when this report points out that there was no indication of that team being driven by greed or avarice? Does the Tánaiste support that outburst by the Taoiseach?

A cheap, nasty, rotten shot.

Following the discussion at the Cabinet sub-committee on Monday, has it begun to form a view on what should be done with Aer Lingus now that the executive team has gone, the horse has bolted, €200 million has been wiped from the company's market value and it has been left in a state of suspended paralysis for the foreseeable future? What is the Tánaiste's party view within that sub-committee of what should now be done with Aer Lingus?

I do not accept that there were unnatural delays. I said that there had been a Cabinet reshuffle. Obviously the new Minister needed time to consider all the issues, and that is natural in circumstances of this kind.

My advisers and I had access to the report a couple of weeks ago, shortly after it was submitted to the Department of Transport. A consensus is emerging in the Cabinet sub-committee. That was clear to me at the meeting on Monday. The Minister for Transport will bring forward a memorandum to Government before Christmas so that the Government can make its decision. Clearly we must have a chairman and management team in place but the Government must also make its decision clear so that the uncertainty can be removed.

I admire the manner in which the company has been led by the management team and the board over the past few years. If one reflects on the debate in this House, there were many gloomy predictions on the opposite side of the House in September 2001 with regard to Aer Lingus. I am delighted to say that those prophets of doom did not see the gloom arise. They were confounded, as they will be on this occasion. Aer Lingus needs, and will get, equity so that it can expand its fleet and its services on behalf of all the people, grow employment in the airline and give us access to more new routes both for tourism and business.

The Tánaiste went on radio last Sunday and told the people that we now had the highest level of medical card cover since 1995. She knew that was untrue and was engaged in deliberate deception of the people.

The words "deliberate deception" are not acceptable in the House.

They are pretty accurate.

The entire case I wish to make is that deliberate deception is not acceptable — that is my entire point. The Tánaiste knows people are measuring it against the expectation of the Government promise that 200,000 additional medical cards would be made available. She knows, by way of answer to a parliamentary question, that 101,000 cards have been taken out of the system since the election. Some 300,000 cards are required to make up the Government's promise. What she has done is provide 10% of that, 30,000 medical cards. There is a net reduction of 70,000 medical cards on the position as at the 2002 general election before we get to the 200,000 promise at all.

The Tánaiste has provided "yellow pack" cards which are for doctor visits only. The services normally associated with a medical card are not available to people who will get the "yellow pack" card. For people in destitution and in terrible, difficult circumstances, it may be welcome but it is not a medical card and the Tánaiste is not entitled to mislead people into believing she has provided a medical card.

Will the Tánaiste set the record straight? Parents, who are fearful that they will not be able to afford to bring their child to the doctor, think that when they get medical advice from the doctor, the associated services will be available on the card. That will not happen because these are not medical cards as we know them. This is a device which the Tánaiste's spin doctors have come up with to make believe that she is meeting the commitment made by her predecessor and reiterated so many times, that is, that an additional 200,000 full, proper medical cards with an entitlement to the entire range of services will be provided to people who so badly need them, which is not what has happened.

I listened very carefully in this House over the past number of months to the pleas of Deputy Rabbitte when he questioned the Taoiseach about medical cards. I have a few quotes from Deputy Rabbitte but I will not quote them now.

The Tánaiste should do so.

Deputy Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he could not ensure that at least people could take their children to the doctor without worrying about the cost.

Deputy Twomey, on behalf of Fine Gael, came out with a policy proposal that we should consider doctor only medical cards and that under a Fine Gael-led Government, the medical card would only be extended to doctor only visits. I am not making political points about that; I am simply saying——

Allow the Tánaiste to speak without interruption.

In regard to the doctor only visit, to which I referred on Sunday, almost 1.4 million people will now be able to go to the doctor without worrying about the cost. That will be the highest number since 1995, notwithstanding the fact the average take home pay has gone up by at least €10,000 in the meantime. In a country where unemployment is down to 4.4%, 1.4 million citizens will have a medical card at least entitling them to access to the doctor. Furthermore, the initiative has been very well received.

By whom?

It has been well received by many representative bodies, except the Labour Party. It is a bit like Aer Lingus, it seems to want a Robert Mugabe-type solution where it can call the aeroplanes off the tarmac.

That is even below the Tánaiste's normal comments.

Those in the Labour Party are the only ones who want no private investment in Aer Lingus.

The medical card has been very well received.

The Tánaiste must be likening the Taoiseach to Robert Mugabe.

The Government could have chosen to go down the traditional route and have given 75,000 more medical cards. We did a combination of things which, in all the circumstances, are right. Furthermore, if anybody is in particular hardship, there is discretion to grant a medical card. Some 70,000 people have medical cards based on the fact there may be illness in the family for a particular period which prevents them from having any earnings, or earnings sufficient to their meet needs. In all the circumstances, what the Government did was right and I am surprised Deputy Rabbitte does not support it given all his calls to the Taoiseach to ensure people were not worried about going to the doctor.

Of course I have called on the Taoiseach to deal with situations where parents are afraid to bring their children to the doctor because they will not be able to afford food for the rest of the week. I do not understand the point the Tánaiste made or the point she made about how much average take home pay has increased. Does she know what the thresholds will be after her 7.5% increase from the new year? A married couple with two children on €285 per week, a married couple with four children on €360 per week and a single person on €155 per week will not qualify for a medical card.

What is the point quoting average take home pay figures and stating how much they have improved since 1997? A couple with two children in a very low income job and in receipt of more than €285 per week will not qualify for a medical card, yet the Tánaiste states that the thresholds are higher for her "yellow pack" card. I will tell her what they are. A married couple with two children on €360 per week will not qualify for GP care. Somebody earning €360 per week and who now, thanks to the Tánaiste, will be able to go to the doctor with the doctor only "yellow pack" card, will not be able to get a prescription filled and will not be entitled to any of the other services associated with a medical card. The Tánaiste knows that because she has also increased the drugs refund threshold to €85 per month. She has increased the cost of an overnight stay in hospital by €10 and increased the cost of a visit to an accident and emergency department by €10.

Whatever about her Robert Mugabe jibes, which would be more appropriate to the Taoiseach's outburst last week than to me, does the Tánaiste have any appreciation, on her income or on the incomes of the deadbeat Ministers beside her, what it is like to live on €360 per week and still only qualify for a "yellow pack" card?

If Deputy Rabbitte is quoting statistics, he will know that if the people in question pay rent or a mortgage of over €25 per week, all that is added to the income. If he is quoting figures, I would like to make sure he quotes them accurately. Some people who earn €500 or €600 per week will still get a medical card because of rent——

Who will?

Allow the Tánaiste to speak without interruption.

For people who pay rent or mortgages or have travel to work expenses, it is all added to the income level. That is why so many people have access to medical cards.

Only a portion is added.

Deputy Rabbitte was allowed to ask his question without any interruption and the Tánaiste is entitled to exactly the same courtesy. Deputy Rabbitte is entitled to hear an answer to his question. The Chair will have to take appropriate action if the interruptions continue.

All expenses over €23 per week to travel to work and all expenses over €25 per week for rent or mortgage are added to the income. Often people do not need to go further than their GP and do not need prescriptions or medication. They will also have access to blood tests. They want the reassurance of the doctor.

Has the Tánaiste visited a GP surgery in a working class area?

Yes, and I know many of them. Quite often people need reassurance and do not need a prescription.

It is preferable that people should at least have access to a doctor without worry. Deputy Rabbitte will appreciate that we cannot do everything.

The Government should do something.

All of this requires significant resources. The GMS will receive increased funding of more than €200 million, or 12% next year. That is a considerable resource. We must have priorities and make choices. Giving as many people as possible access to their GP is reasonable in all the circumstances and removes a significant worry for many parents, particularly with regard to their children.

The Government has more respect for horses than for people.

Before the Estimates were published last Thursday, I asked the Tánaiste whether the Government's policy with regard to overseas development aid was changing. There was some speculation that it might, including from the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan. The Tánaiste said the Government was still committed to its target and there was no change in this regard. I believed her and took this assertion at face value. I am sure Deputy O'Donnell also believed her.

I doubt it.

Why would the Tánaiste not be a person of her word? She will recall the commitment made on 6 September 2000 when the Taoiseach clearly stated to world leaders that:

The statistics of poverty and inequality in our world are shocking and shameful. Half the world's population is struggling on less than $2 a day and more than 1 billion on less than $1. Today, on behalf of the Government and the people of Ireland, I wish in this forum to publicly make a commitment to fully meeting the United Nations target of spending 0.7% of GNP on official development assistance.

Budget day coincides with World AIDS day. Will the Tánaiste take that opportunity to reinstate the target of 0.7% of GNP? Will she recall, in considering this issue, the words of Mr. BobGeldof when he said: "A promise made by the strong to the weak and hungry must be kept. Anything else is a sort of discreet bullying"? Is the Tánaiste happy to be called a "discreet bully" on behalf of the Government? Will she keep the promise she made that if the commitment to the world's poor were broken, as her colleague, Deputy O'Donnell, tells us it was, that she would resign from Government? I understood she was sincere when she made this commitment. What does she now propose to do? Will the 0.7% target for ODA be reinstated by budget day?

I said in this House a few weeks ago that we needed to move to a multi-annual budgetary situation for ODA in order to provide certainty. Over the next three years, we will give an additional €1.8 billion to ODA.

Some €180 million will be given.

May I be allowed to finish?

The Tánaiste should give the correct figures.

Deputy Boyle's party leader has submitted a question. Deputy Boyle should allow the answer to be given.

Our increase in ODA has been five-fold over the last decade. That is a considerable increase.

The Government broke its promises.

Our commitment is way ahead of the EU average and we are one of the highest donors in the world.

The Government made promises that were not kept.

I will not take a lecture from Deputy Rabbitte when I consider his party'spaltry record in Government.

The Tánaiste's figures are incorrect.

The Tánaiste must be allowed to continue without interruption.

The Tánaiste should be ashamed of herself.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins's party did not even meet its own target in Government.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins is not the leader of the Green Party. He should allow the Tánaiste to continue.

The Labour Party made a promise to give 0.05% per annum but gave 0.01%. Over the next three years, we will give some €1.8 billion of taxpayers' money to ODA. That is the figure.

It is €180 million. The Tánaiste is giving an incorrect figure.

Deputy Boyle should cease his interruptions.

Deputy Boyle is referring to the increase. I accept that will not reach the target of 0.7% but the Government has many competing demands in the areas of disability, health care and so on. The promise will not be broken but the timeframe will change.

It is a disgraceful situation. The Tánaiste should be ashamed of herself.

Why did the Government make a promise it did not intend to keep?

Deputy Sargent should be allowed to respond without interruption.

I will not take a lecture from Deputy Michael D. Higgins.

The Tánaiste is a disgrace.

I advise Deputy Michael D. Higgins that I have called Deputy Sargent.

Does the Tánaiste agree with Deputy O'Donnell in this matter? It is a straightforward issue. It is clear that a promise was broken. The Taoiseach made a clear commitment, there was no speaking out of both sides of the mouth. It was straight down the line that 0.7% would be given by 2007. The Taoiseach repeated this assertion again in September 2002 when he said:

Significantly increased ODA is essential to meet our goals. The decline in global ODA in the 1990s is shameful, indefensible and inconsistent with the commitments given at Rio. I reiterate Ireland's absolute commitment to achieving by 2007 the UN target of spending 0.7% of GNP on ODA.

How will the Government weasel itself out of that?

This is a promise that has been made repeatedly. Does the Tánaiste agree that it has been broken? If so, does she also agree that the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, was foolish in caving in? I share Deputy O'Donnell's view in this regard. The Tánaiste has already seen the Taoiseach break his promise. Will she now also break her promise and stay in Government after its solemn commitment on this issue has been broken? She made a commitment that she would not stay in Government if such a promise were broken.

The Government made a decision on this matter at Cabinet, as it has always done. The increases for the next three years will be the largest monetary increases we have ever given.

That is not the point.

If this were easy and did not involve priorities and choices——

The commitment has been broken.

Deputy Gormley should allow the Tánaiste to continue.

Unfortunately, there are many competing demands, particularly in the area of disability in which the Government has had to deliver significant increases in funding——

It is disgraceful.

The Government has more concern for the horseracing industry.

The Tánaiste must be allowed to continue without interruption.

I would take lectures from Deputy Michael D. Higgins if he had a better track record when his party was in power.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins had his chance.

I must ask Deputy Michael D. Higgins to remain quiet and allow the Tánaiste to continue without interruption.

The Government's commitment is to give €1.8 billion——

The Government is breaking its promises.

——by way of ODA for 2005 to 2007. I accept that figure will only constitute 0.7% if the country goes into a recession.

This is not what the Taoiseach promised.

It will not reach 0.7%.

Deputies should allow the Tánaiste to speak.

Every fair-minded person accepts the desirability of having certainty in this issue through a multi-annual approach. We now have that——

The Tánaiste should answer my question.

Deputy Sargent had his opportunity to speak.

The situation is significantly improved from its previous circumstances.

That concludes Leaders' Questions. We now move on to questions to the Taoiseach.

On a point of order, the Ceann Comhairle has just allowed a discussion on overseas development aid——

That is not a point of order. We are moving on to questions to the Taoiseach.

Will the Ceann Comhairle hear my point of order? Have I any rights in this House?

It is not a point of order.

The Ceann Comhairle did not even hear what I was going to say.

I did. The Deputy is questioning the debate which I allowed during Leaders' Questions.

I ask the Ceann Comhairle to listen to me. A priority question I submitted today with regard to overseas development aid wasdisallowed by the Ceann Comhairle's office on the grounds——

That is not a point of order.

Now we have had a discussion on the issue.

If the Deputy is dissatisfied, he is welcome to contact my office at any time.

Will the Ceann Comhairle rescind his decision?

The Deputy is welcome to contact my office at any time and we will discuss it.

I will do so. The Ceann Comhairle has been completely inconsistent in his actions.

I ask Deputy Allen to withdraw the remark that the Chair is inconsistent.

The Ceann Comhairle is totally inconsistent.

I will be happy to discuss with the Deputy the reasons his question was ruled out.

The Ceann Comhairle's office is inconsistent.

I ask the Deputy to withdraw that remark.

I cannot withdraw it in view of the evidence.

There is no inconsistency as far as the Chair is concerned.

I am allowed to table priority questions once every five weeks.

I ask Deputy Allen to withdraw his remarks or he will leave the House.

Now the issue has been discussed here.

Deputy Allen must withdraw his remarks or leave the House.

What can I do?

Does the Deputy want to leave the House?

There is a need to clarify the situation.

Can the Ceann Comhairle clarify the situation?

I will be glad to discuss the issue in my office but not now. Will the Deputy withdraw his remark?

I will do so until such time as I receive an explanation.

Will the Deputy give an unequivocal withdrawal?

I will withdraw my remark until I receive an explanation.

Deputy Allen must offer an unequivocal withdrawal.

I will withdraw it for the moment.

There must be an explanation for disallowing a debate on this matter.

The procedures and judgments here are outrageous.