It is proposed to take No. b12, motion re ministerial rota for parliamentary questions——-

——nor member of the Defence Forces can ensure that if he or she gives the Minister confidential information, he will not run around the streets of Limerick whispering it into ears of journalists for his own personal benefit.

Deputy Shatter, I have called the Tánaiste.

It is unacceptable.

Deputy Shatter, please.

It is different from the issue that this House dealt with yesterday. It is unacceptable.

The Tánaiste to proceed.

——No. 12, motion re presentation and circulation of Revised Estimates 2010; No. 12a , Finance Bill 2010 — Financial Resolutions; No. 12b, Finance Bill 2010 — allocation of time motion for select committee; No. 13, motion of re re-appointment of An Coimisneir Teanga — back from committee; No. 23 Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 [Seanad] — Second Stage (resumed); No. 5, George Mitchell Scholarship Fund (Amendment) Bill 2010 — Order for Second Stage, Second and Subsequent Stages; and No. 4, Road Traffic Bill 2009 — Second Stage (resumed).

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. b12, 12, 12a and 12b shall be decided without debate and any division demanded on No. 12 shall be taken forthwith; and in the case of No. 12a, the Financial Resolutions Nos. 1-52 shall be moved together and decided by one question which shall be put from the Chair. The proceedings of No. 13 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 25 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply. The speeches shall be confined to a Minister or Minister of State and to the main spokespersons for Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Sinn Féin, who shall be called upon in that order, who may share their time, and which shall not exceed five minutes in each case. A Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed five minutes.

The Second and Subsequent Stages of No. 5 shall be taken today and the following arrangements shall apply. The proceedings on the Second Stage shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 3 p.m. today; the opening speeches of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for Fine Gael and the Labour Party, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case. The speech of each other member called upon shall not exceed 10 minutes in each case, Members may share time and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed ten minutes.

The proceedings on the Committee and Subsequent Stages shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 3.30 p.m. today by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, with regard to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Education and Science.

Before the Ceann Comhairle puts the question on the first proposition, I raise the fact that it contains, in effect, five proposals. I know the Ceann Comhairle will apply the rule that there should be only one contribution from each party in respect of that question. The problem is that because there are five elements to the proposition, it is possible that different members of political parties or individual Members of the House may want to contribute. I do not anticipate any great controversy over the ministerial rota for parliamentary questions but Deputy Burton certainly wishes to raise some issues on the financial resolutions. There is a separate question entirely included in the first proposition, which is the taking of 52 financial resolutions together without debate.

There has been an element of drift in this regard towards a collection of proposals being lumped together to be taken without debate but this is pushing it too far. There are far too many elements in this proposal. I ask the Ceann Comhairle, as Chair, to rule as to whether it is appropriate for all five of these questions to be taken together as one proposal from the Government. Will he use his good offices with the Government to ensure we are not continuously presented with these multiple sets of proposals being put together in one proposition?

I agree with that.

I concur with Deputy Gilmore on the unacceptable structuring of the first proposition, which incorporates a reference to four specific sets of proposals and an additional structuring of the address of the financial resolutions covering 52 areas. It is beyond the compass of the House to give blanket approval to this without debate.

I ask that the Chief Whip, with the Tánaiste, will agree to break this up and allow the opportunity for financial resolutions to be placed for scrutiny and debate in the Chamber. To all intents and purposes, this is a copper-fastening of the Government intent without Opposition scrutiny. Incorporated within these financial resolutions are proposals to apply guillotines within committee. It can be seen on the Order Paper. We are being asked to approve financial resolutions and how the process will progress without going through the detail that is involved. I am not prepared to accept guillotines here and I will not approve guillotines elsewhere within the process hidden behind what is in the Order Paper. It is wrong and this is not the way business should be done in the House.

It should be borne in mind that a proposal on the Order of Business is a narrow procedural motion making arrangements for the taking of business and nothing else.

It is a proposal for not taking business.

The proposal is a motion put forward by the Government and is in accordance with precedent. The items are voted on separately when put to the House after the Order of Business.

They are not debated.

There is no debate.

We will proceed.

The point made by Deputy Gilmore was that different spokespersons may want to comment——

Exactly.

——on the various elements contained therein.

The opportunity will arise subsequent to the Order of Business.

It will not arise.

They are to be taken without debate.

I have advised the House on the taking of business.

Deputy Gilmore made a valid point of order and I support it. These matters should be put separately so that, for example, Deputies Bruton or Burton can comment on the financial elements of the blanket proposal on the Order of Business.

That is right. That is supported by precedent.

I want to comment on them.

We must bear in mind that the proposal on the Order of Business is a narrow procedural motion. The items will be dealt with separately after the Order of Business.

If the Ceann Comhairle will bear with me, I did not intend for this to become acrimonious. There are a number of propositions, and I know Deputy Burton, on behalf of the Labour Party, will be opposing specifically the proposals for the financial resolutions. There is a separate proposal dealing with the allocation of time in dealing with the Finance Bill. The budget debate was truncated because the budget was not introduced until 9 December. It is possible that Members of this House who did not get the opportunity to speak during the budget debate may want to contribute to the Finance Bill and they may wish to oppose the allocation of time motion.

The problem arises that because all these elements are being put together, only one speaker from each party will be allowed to speak on the procedural proposal. Once that is passed, nobody may address the specific issues, which are to be taken without debate. By allowing the Government to put all these proposals together, Members are in effect being prevented from speaking on these issues.

I have been here and acted as a Frontbench spokesperson on foreign affairs for a very long time and wish to be of some assistance. There is ample precedent where matters are different from each other and affect different spokespersons, they are grouped separately. This goes to the point made by the leaders of the Labour Party and Fine Gael. We have dealt with motions relevant to European matters, which required one kind of response, and the ruling from the Chair if bundling is allowed——-

The Deputy is drifting from his point of order.

——of matters which are not cognate will be to exclude Frontbench spokespersons from commenting——

It is not intended to exclude them.

——on matters for which they are responsible.

If the Deputy resumes his seat I will advise him of the position. Under Standing Order 26, the Tánaiste is entitled to group items as proposed.

Nobody is debating that.

There is no objection to that.

The Chair does not have a function in the matter.

Let us record that this matter excludes spokespersons in a totally undemocratic way. It can be added to the other undemocratic features we have experienced this week.

I call Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.

Is this a further example of Green Party Dáil reform? They are muzzled.

The Ceann Comhairle said a short time ago that spokespersons would have the opportunity to participate later.

It is stupid.

That is not the case.

We need a political confession box.

Who would have gone if George Lee made it to the front bench?

If we adopt the proposition there will be no further debate. The only issue we are allowed to address on the Order Paper is the procedural proposition.

Who would have been dropped?

The Deputies can get the issues off their chest.

It would have been Deputy Shatter. A dead man walking.

We are all smiles over here, Deputy Kelleher.

The Minister of State should be more worried about Willie O'Dea.

Once that is agreed in this House, which the Government will clearly seek to force, that will be it. There will be no further comment and the Ceann Comhairle should clarify the matter.

I must advise the Deputy on the matter.

What you said earlier is not correct.

The Government of the day makes proposals and the House disposes of them. I will proceed with the Order of Business.

On a point of order.

A point of order.

There are three proposals to be put to the House.

On a point of order.

A Cheann Comhairle——

The Ceann Comhairle is being unnecessarily being put in an invidious position by the Government. I ask him to request of the Tánaiste to arrange that these items now be taken separately and give an opportunity to spokesmen to comment on the individual elements. This is instead of you, Sir, being put in the invidious position of defending the indefensible bungling by the Government. The Tánaiste should respond and protect the Chair and the House.

We cannot change Standing Orders on the hoof, and we will not do it this morning.

On a point of order, perhaps the Tánaiste might explain to us the difference between Government bungling and Government plundering.

Yet another pathetic response. As you indicated, a Cheann Comhairle, this is a procedural matter. It may entail a potential charge to the Exchequer. This is a precedent and it will allow Members to discuss this more fully at the committee, including the setting of a timetable, so I propose the motion.

On a point of order——

We cannot have a point of order when we have disorder in the House, but I will allow you in briefly.

I think you are about to put the question, but spokespersons are entitled to comment before you do so, but they have not been given——

The opportunity will arise later, as you have been advised.

If you put the question, the matter is finished.

The individual items will be taken.

The spokespersons are entitled to comment on the proposal from the Government before the vote.

There is no provision on the Order of Business to do that.

There is.

Precedent supports it.

I oppose No. 1 on the Order of Business in respect of the financial resolutions and the Revised Estimates. The reason I do this is that on Saturday——

I am allowing you in on a point of order, not on a Second Stage contribution.

I am entitled to do this.

The Chair will decide your entitlements. Resume your seat.

I oppose——

A Cheann Comhairle, will you read the rules?

——No. 1. The day after tomorrow, €280 million of a dividend is due to the Irish taxpayers from the €7 billion invested in Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Bank.

That is not a point of order.

It is included in the Revised Estimates of Government revenues for the year. This time last year, when a €3.5 billion investment was made in Bank of Ireland by Irish taxpayers, we were told it would yield a dividend of 8%. A total of €280 million is due on Saturday from the Bank of Ireland, while €280 million is due from the AIB in May.

We are on the Order of Business.

The Estimates being put forward do not acknowledge that this dividend has now vanished. Fianna Fáil Ministers, including the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach, occupied television and radio studios and told us that the €7 billion was an investment and would yield a dividend of €560 million. The Minister for Finance has acknowledged to me that this dividend will not now be paid, and as the dividend is non-cumulative, it is lost to taxpayers.

My second point of opposition to No. 1——

You are out of order.

She is in order.

I am totally in order.

I call on Deputy Bruton now. Deputy Burton, will you resume your seat? I have allowed you make the points on the issues involved.

I want to address the issue——

Will you resume your seat? I allowed you a brief comment, and I am calling on Deputy Bruton now.

On a point of order, Deputy Burton rose to oppose No. 1 on the Order of Business. She is entitled to that and she is entitled——

There is no provision for a full scale debate on the Order of Business on this matter. I allowed her some latitude and I will extend the same latitude to Fine Gael and Sinn Féin.

I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle. Almost from the moment that she began making her contribution, you started to interrupt. She is entitled to oppose No. 1. She is entitled, on behalf of the Labour Party, to state the reasons for opposing No. 1. She had not completed making her case for opposing it. With respect, I ask you to allow her to continue to explain her second reason for opposing No. 1 on the Order of Business. She is entitled to do that. There is precedent in this House for spokespersons from parties to oppose propositions on the Order of Business. A Cheann Comhairle, I ask you to defend the rights of Deputy Burton and Members of this House by allowing her to complete her contribution.

Under Standing Order 26, if such a proposal is opposed, the Chair shall permit a brief statement——

She is being brief.

——from each party in the Opposition, and then the Taoiseach or Tánaiste shall reply. Deputy Burton, I ask you to be very brief.

I thank you for allowing me make my first point. My second point is this——

On a point or order——

This will be good.

The Opposition is making a circus of the morning's business. The reality is that Deputy Kenny and Deputy Gilmore made their points on this item. We are continuing now with a second individual and we are now having a debate. Stop the circus and put the question.

If this is a circus, the Tánaiste is the ringmaster. We will not ask who the clowns are.

A Cheann Comhairle, I should invite you for a cup of coffee and we can discuss this peacefully. As it is, I will try to make myself heard.

If you could complete your short statement, we would be delighted.

Both I and Deputy Bruton are particularly anxious to facilitate the Minister for Finance in respect of the allocation of time for the Finance Bill 2010. However, there is no need to have a time based motion on Committee Stage of the Bill. The committee is perfectly capable of doing its business and is anxious to facilitate the Minister for Finance. Putting in a time based motion is the use of a parliamentary jackboot when it is entirely unnecessary.

A Cheann Comhairle, Deputy Gilmore raised a legitimate point of order, upon which a number of Deputies commented. You never even managed to put the question as to whether Nos. b12, 12, 12a and 12b were agreed.

In advance of an agreement, Deputy Gilmore asked to comment.

Yesterday was a very bad day for politics here.

The week before was worse.

Those who smirk behind their constitutional seals and harbour a perjurer at the Cabinet table should be ashamed of themselves.

Have you a comment to make?

This was epitomised by the Minister for Education and Science, when he clapped the unfortunate Green Party Deputy on the back and said: "Well done. You made a tough decision."

Deputy Kenny, can I ask you to comment on No. 1?

I will comment on the Order of Business. I oppose the Order of Business.

On a point of order——

Roll over. Roll over.

The discourse between me and the Minister had nothing to do with yesterday's vote. Deputy Kenny is not averse to telling a few fibs himself about Sinn Féin.

I call on Deputy Kenny to speak on No. 1 on the Order of Business. Otherwise I will adjourn the House unless we can get some order.

I oppose the Order of Business and I will tell you why. Deputy Shatter raised the possibility of a section 32 motion, which you refused.

We will not revisit an issue with which we have dealt. I have written to Deputy Shatter setting out the position and the procedures he needs to pursue in the matter.

I am setting out clear reasons for opposing the Order of Business. They are important to the interests of our State and the standards that are employed by Government. Yesterday——

I will not allow the Deputy to revisit yesterday's debate.

Am I entitled to explain myself in the House of the people?

I ask the Deputy to address issues arising on the Order of Business.

I will do so. The Order of Business is before us for consideration and acceptance or rejection. I oppose it and will set out the reasons for doing so. Yesterday, in defending the behaviour of the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, the Taoiseach and Ministers repeatedly claimed——

The House disposed of a vote of confidence in the Minister yesterday.

Yes, and today we are dealing with its consequences.

This has nothing to do with the Order of Business.

The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to finish his contribution.

Will Deputy Kenny please deal with the Order of Business, as proposed for today?

The Taoiseach and Ministers repeatedly stated that when the so-called mistake of the Minister for Defence was brought to his attention he apologised to the injured party and acted in good faith.

There are other ways to deal with the issue.

This is the only opportunity I will have to do so today.

As I explained to Deputy Shatter, the matter cannot be raised under Standing Order 32 but if a substantive motion is put before the House, we will deal with it, which is more than adequate.

The Ceann Comhairle does not want to hear what I have to say. I am not speaking under Standing Order 32 but in opposition to the Order of Business. The Taoiseach, the Head of Government who lays down standards for acceptance to members of his Cabinet, stated on Tuesday that there are standards he expects a person to show when an error is made, that the person should admit to the mistake, solve the problem and deal with it to the satisfaction of the person who is aggrieved.

We are not revisiting yesterday's debate.

These are the words of the Taoiseach. I want you, a Cheann Comhairle, to understand that in the past hour——

I am not allowing Deputy Kenny to revisit yesterday's debate. He is welcome to table a substantive motion.

The Ceann Comhairle is like a spectator gone nuts at a soccer match.

I quoted the Taoiseach's words. In the past 60 minutes, the aggrieved person, speaking on national radio, stated that far from offering an immediate and fulsome apology, the offer of the Minister for Defence was unapologetic. He further suggested that the eventual apology was in effect dragged out of the Minister kicking and screaming. This revelation——

We cannot have a rehash of yesterday's debate. I will put the question on the Order of Business.

I want to ask the Tánaiste, the deputy Head of Government, a question before I tell the Ceann Comhairle whether I will go along with the Order of Business.

The Deputy does not have a choice.

I note a Member of the Green Party is leaving the Chamber.

Come back here.

He is returning to sit in the Fianna Fáil benches.

He stated on radio this morning that the Minister for Defence was ethically wrong.

I ask Deputy Kenny to resume his seat.

Deputy Mattie McGrath, the conscience of Fianna Fáil, has arrived.

Does the Tánaiste believe it is ethically wrong for a Cabinet Minister to make a sworn affidavit which is false?

I will put the question. Will Deputy Kenny resume his seat? Deputy Morgan should do likewise.

I will but I want the Tánaiste to answer my question.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 13 agreed? Agreed.

On a point of order, yesterday in this Chamber the Taoiseach stated on the record:

There was a competition. Michael O'Leary and Ryanair for whatever reason, which is their own business, did not compete for the hangar, seek ownership of the hangar or seek a lease for it last September——

Deputy, that is not a point of order.

There is a letter here from 13 August to the Tánaiste requesting the hangar and mentioning 500 jobs.

Deputy Reilly, resume your seat please.

Our Taoiseach has been called a liar on the national airwaves.

Deputy, will you resume your seat please?

Either he comes in here and explains——

Deputy, resume your seat.

On a point of order——

No, you are not speaking on a point of order. Resume your seat.

Will you not give him an opportunity to clarify the record?

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 5 agreed? Agreed.

A Cheann Comhairle, the record needs to be corrected. The Taoiseach must come in here and explain himself.

Behave yourself.

I call Deputy Enda Kenny.

Which item are we on, a Cheann Comhairle? You have not finished the Order of Business.

I called the second and I dealt with the third as well.

I have two questions for the Tánaiste. First, does she believe it was ethically correct for the Minister for Defence knowingly to submit a sworn affidavit to the High Court which he knew to be false?

We have already revisited that matter.

I have had enough of that. This is a matter of standards.

We had a debate on this matter yesterday. I advised earlier that any allegation must be by way of substantive motion.

The Tánaiste is the deputy Head of Government. I want to know whether she is of the opinion that it was ethically correct for the Minister for Defence to submit a false affidavit to the High Court for political gain.

I cannot allow that question. We spent a considerable period yesterday on this matter.

The Tánaiste wants to answer.

It is all over the public airwaves.

The Deputy will have to raise the matter by way of substantive motion. That is how it must be done when serious allegations are being made against a Member of the House.

Rubbish.

I have some years annual service in this House and have seen various shades of this issue being raised in Governments over the years. I am entitled to raise a question like this on the Order of Business. I am not making any grievous charge against anybody. I am asking the Tánaiste if she considers that it was ethically correct for the Minister for Defence to submit a sworn affidavit to the High Court which he knew to be false. This is a matter of considerable importance. Following on from Deputy Gogarty's intervention this morning that it was ethically wrong for the Minister, Deputy O'Dea, to do what he did, I refer to——

This was debated yesterday.

——the statement made by the leader of the Green Party, the Minister, Deputy Gormley, on 24 February 2007 that his party in government would introduce the "strictest ethical standards ever seen in this country".

I wish to advise the Deputy of the position in regard to this matter.

Does the Tánaiste believe that what the Minister, Deputy O'Dea, did was ethically correct?

Members voted on this matter yesterday and that vote determined the position. If the Deputy wants to pursue the matter further, he can put down a substantive motion of no confidence in the Government and have the whole matter revisited.

I concluded my contribution on that point by asking the Tánaiste a question. I hope the Ceann Comhairle will allow her to answer it. It requires a simple "Yes" or "No" answer. Does she believe it was ethically correct for the Minister for Defence to submit a sworn affidavit which he knew to be false?

I am not allowing a debate on this matter.

I do not want a debate; all the Tánaiste has to do is answer "Yes" or "No".

Second, the record of the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in securing jobs for the State is absolutely abysmal. The revelation today that she has again failed to secure 300 high-tech jobs for north Dublin and Meath is simply another demonstration of gross incompetence. She should voluntarily submit to the Taoiseach that she would like a change of Ministry in view of her incompetence in her current role.

Can the Tánaiste confirm newspaper reports today that she telephoned the chief executive officer of Aer Lingus to ask him if that company would move from hangar six at Dublin Airport in the knowledge that when Aer Lingus was privatised, this House was informed on more than one occasion that the reason the Government was holding on to 25% of the shares was for strategic reasons in terms of the development of the industry?

Does the Deputy have a question on promised business?

It is difficult to judge which is worse, when the Tánaiste intervenes or when she does not intervene. The result is the same — failure, failure, failure. Was she told to get lost when she telephoned the chief executive officer of Aer Lingus to ask whether the airline was prepared to move from hangar six so that 300 jobs could be provided there?

That is the question.

I have asked two straight questions which require only a "Yes" or "No" response.

There are question marks over what we heard yesterday in this House. Today, I am advised that the Garda has stated that it did not provide the Minister, Deputy O'Dea, with information, as he claimed——

I am not revisiting this matter at this point.

——in a statement on the floor of the House yesterday.

There are procedures and avenues to be pursued if the Deputy so wishes.

There is no avenue. How can the matter be finished if we have a situation where there is a contrary statement, a firm denial by the Garda Síochána——

Serious allegations are being made against a Member of the House. The Deputy must make them by way of substantive motion. That is the only way they will be allowed.

——that it did not advise the Minister as he claimed in regard to the vexed and false statement he made against now Councillor Maurice Quinlivan.

Does the Deputy have a query on promised legislation?

Let us make no mistake about it, the Tánaiste is a colleague and party member of the Minister for Defence, as is the Ceann Comhairle. We are now advised that the Minister allegedly instructed Fianna Fáil canvass teams to repeat his false allegation in the course of the local government election campaign last June.

I ask Deputy Ó Caoláin to resume his seat.

I have a second question arising from the second matter raised by Deputy Kenny. How will the Tánaiste stand over her statement that young people are leaving our shores not because of the disastrous employment situation and the Government's failure to sustain, let alone create, employment, but because they are going off to enjoy themselves?

Does the Deputy have a question on promised business?

Will the Tánaiste and the Government facilitate a debate on emigration in this House so that we can get some understanding of her bizarre theory on the exodus of so many young people from our shores in recent months?

Is a debate promised on this matter?

A debate took place in the House yesterday in the context of a vote of confidence in the Minister for Defence. That motion stands and there is nothing further to say on the matter.

Does the Tánaiste have confidence in the Minister?

We have full confidence in the Minister for Defence, as has been articulated on behalf of the Government by the Taoiseach. I assume the accusations made by Deputy Kenny are based on his reading of inaccurate articles in the national newspapers.

The Tánaiste has not answered my question. It requires merely a "Yes" or "No" response.

Deputy Kenny must allow the Tánaiste to respond.

In regard to employment, perhaps the Deputy does not want to hear about the jobs that were created last week. What about the jobs in Hertz, PayPal and eBay?

What about the jobs at Ryanair and SR Technics?

A huge number of jobs have been created and there is a great number of opportunities for the future.

What is the Tánaiste's predictions for the year?

The Tánaiste must be allowed to speak without interruption.

She does not have a clue.

It is not my problem if Deputies do not want to know the facts.

As I said, there has been incorrect information in the newspapers, including one article on Element Six. I will put it to the Deputies who represent that constituency that they know full well——

Is the Deputy referring to Element Six or hangar six?

I believe "Element Six" is a movie.

——of my personal involvement with the chairman of the board and the chief executive officer, my personal involvement with Shannon Development and the new initiative in the sustaining of those jobs. We now have, as a consequence of that intervention, continued manufacturing, for example, in the Shannon free zone and, also as a consequence of that intervention, those workers coming back from part-time to full-time employment.

Will the Tánaiste tell that to workers in north Dublin?

I heard what Deputy Kenny had to say about Dublin Airport, but I did not hear him talk about the needs of Aer Lingus and Aer Arann.

I did.

The Deputy did not.

These are former Aer Lingus workers.

The Tánaiste must be allowed to respond without interruption.

People must remember that a considerable amount of effort, time and resources went into putting together Dublin Aerospace——

Former SR Technics and FLS employees are out of work.

——where a number of people from SR Technics are now employed. The man who has taken over M50 Motors indicated to me that all his employees came from SR Technics. There are continued initiatives in dealing with the supports that are needed for SR Technics.

Deputy Kenny also asked about Ryanair. The Deputy is articulating and emulating the way Mr. O'Leary does his business in the way he does his business in this House.

Call his bluff if the belief is that he is bluffing.

His business is a success, in case the Tánaiste has not noticed.

I have been working with Ryanair and the IDA since 26 February last year.

Call his bluff.

We indicated to the company on 21 July that the DAA was at an advanced stage with another party about the use of hangar 6 and our suggestion was that the best way forward was for direct contact between the DAA and the company. The IDA, on my behalf, was willing to chair such a meeting. Following considerable correspondence, the company found it was not in a position to directly involve itself in those negotiations.

The Tánaiste allowed that.

It is important to reiterate on the basis that Mr. O'Leary has a fixation with access to hangar 6 that I put the idea to Aer Lingus.