It is proposed to take No. a7, motion re referral of Value-Added Tax Consolidation Bill 2010 to the Standing Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills; No. b7, motion re referral to joint committee of macroeconomic policy lessons as set out in the report by Klaus Regling and Max Watson entitled A Preliminary Report on The Sources of Ireland’s Banking Crisis; No. 16, statements on European Council, Brussels; and No. 3, Local Government (Mayor and Regional Authority of Dublin) Bill 2010 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. a7 and b7 shall be decided without debate; the proceedings on No. 16 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 85 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply: the statements shall be confined to the Taoiseach 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 15 minutes in each case, a Minister or Minister of State shall take questions for a period not exceeding 20 minutes and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed five minutes; and the suspension of sitting under Standing Order 23(1) shall take place at 1.30 p.m. or on the conclusion of No. 16, whichever is the later, until 2.30 p.m. Private Members’ business shall be No. 74, motion re resourcing of Garda Síochána and Director of Corporate Enforcement (resumed), to conclude at 8.30 p.m. tonight, if not previously concluded.

There are three proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. a7 and b7, motions re referral to standing joint committee of the Value-Added Tax Consolidation Bill 2010 and referral to joint committee of macroeconomic policy lessons as set out in the report by Klaus Regling and Max Watson entitled A Preliminary Report on The Sources of Ireland’s Banking Crisis without debate agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 16, statements on European Council, Brussels, agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal relating to the suspension of sitting under Standing Order 23(1) agreed to? Agreed. I call Deputy Enda Kenny on the Order of Business.

I understand the High Court made its decision this morning in the case taken by the Sinn Féin Party on the delay in holding the Donegal South-West by-election. The President of the High Court has described some of the arguments put up by the State as hyperbole and has stated clearly that the ruling on the issue did not offend the separation of powers.

May I ask the Taoiseach what is the response of the Government to this inordinate delay? The High Court is very clear in its judgment. Arising from the comment of the President of the High Court that if the Government does not rectify the position consideration will be given to issuing an instruction that this happen, I am sure the Taoiseach does not want to put the taxpayer to further expense in bringing this matter to the Supreme Court. The case has been moved here on a number of occasions by different parties in the House, both in respect of Donegal South-West, Waterford and Dublin South. In view of the fact that the Dáil majority is now less than the number of seats vacant and that the High Court has made a ruling in this case which is very clear, what is the Government's response to that? Is it the Taoiseach's intention now to follow on the High Court ruling by issuing a writ for the moving of the Donegal South-West by-election?

The Taoiseach should tell us whether the Government intends to appeal this decision. It would be extraordinary if the Government were to commit public moneys to appeal a decision, the consequence of which would benefit only the two Government parties. I put it to him also that this is a situation where the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will have a central role. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has direct line responsibility for electoral matters. We need to hear his response to this decision of the High Court. What recommendations will he give to the Government in response to this judgment? It now falls to the Minister to bring whatever proposal——

We are into serious detail on the matter. On the Order of Business, Deputy.

It is very serious.

The Minister has walked out.

He abandoned the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach told us yesterday, and keeps telling us, that he derives his mandate and authority from having a majority in this House. As Deputy Kenny has pointed out, the majority he now enjoys in this House is less than the number of vacant seats. The High Court has now decided that there is an unreasonable delay in the holding of the Donegal South-West by-election, and it is fair to say that this would apply to the other by-elections as well. A decision must now be made by the Government. The writ has been moved in the House a number of times and the Government has voted it down. It has strung this out for as long as possible. Its latest position is that it will leave it until sometime next spring. However, we now have a ruling from the High Court, and the Government must make a decision. Will it go ahead with this by-election, or will the line Minister, Deputy Gormley, bring a recommendation to the Government that the judgment be appealed? This lands directly on the Minister's plate. It is a decision for him to make. What will he do? He is the man responsible for electoral matters and the running of electoral affairs in this country, and it is his call.

Hear, hear.

The judgment has just been made in this case. To have a detailed discussion on it at this point——

It is a by-election campaign we need.

Deputy Ferris, on the same issue.

The same issue.

Are we going to have the by-election or not? It is as simple as that.

There is only one big issue, but the Government keeps running away.

It is a legal matter.

Or else have a general election, which is the right thing to do.

Deputy Ferris without interruption.

We are the Parliament.

A Cheann Comhairle, has the issue not been decided by the court?

Why do people think this is a talking shop? For goodness' sake.

Deputy Burton, will you resume your seat, please?

It has been decided by the court.

Deputy Burton, will you resume your seat, please?

We are in order in mentioning the issue.

I have called Deputy Ferris. One speaker at a time, please.

The issue has been decided. It is not being discussed. It has been decided.

I am sure the Taoiseach is aware that the Government has been found guilty in the High Court this morning of depriving the people of Donegal South-West of their constitutional rights. I wonder whether he and his Government will congratulate Senator Pearse Doherty on defending the democratic right of the people of Donegal and of the Irish people.

Sinn Féin supporting the Constitution, for a change.

This morning, the Sinn Féin Deputies tabled a motion that the writ be moved. Will the Taoiseach move that writ——

They might take the next step and recognise the State.

——and give the people their democratic right to have their voices heard by electing people in Donegal South-West and the other areas in which by-elections are to be held?

Deputy Roche is a bit à la carte himself when it comes to constitutionality.

At this point, it is not intended to allow a full-scale debate about the matter.

Ah, go on.

I never had any doubts.

This judgment was handed down after we had started proceedings here. We will have to consider the judgment and its implications——

There is little to consider.

——so any further comment prior to its consideration is premature. We argued in court that Article 16.7 of the Constitution imposed no time limit for the holding of by-elections but left the matter to the Oireachtas, and that the Oireachtas had not imposed any time limit in the legislation, but the court took the view that there should be implied in the legislation a requirement that by-elections be held within a reasonable time. We will now consider the judgment and the Government will decide what to do.

For how long?

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is not here.

What about the Parliament?

I will not have a detailed discussion here. The Taoiseach says it is premature to comment on this, but the Dáil has already decided, by the vote of a Government majority, that this was not premature. The Taoiseach and the Government Whip have said it was their intention to move the writ for the Donegal South-West by-election in the spring. The High Court has said this morning that this delay is unreasonable. The High Court of the land has made its judgment and stated that in doing so it does not offend the separation of powers. It is clear that the implications of the High Court decision——

Deputy Kenny, I have indicated that we are not going to have a full-scale debate.

It is very serious.

I do not mind brief remarks, but we cannot have a full-scale exchange across the floor.

We should. It is a serious constitutional issue.

It is not premature. The result of the decision is clear to everybody. The question is whether the Government will sit over there and attempt to stay in power when the High Court of the land says it is unreasonable to have a delay of this length in giving the people of this constituency their opportunity to cast a verdict on the Government through a by-election. Nothing could be clearer than what is stated in the judgment. It is incorrect of the Taoiseach to say it is premature to make a statement about it.

The Deputy does not have to misquote me. What I said was——

He said it was premature.

The judgment was handed down since the start of this morning's proceedings.

I have it here.

The Government will consider the judgment and its implications and take whatever decisions arise from that.

So will the Taoiseach change his tune?

If the Deputy does not mind my having the opportunity to read and consider the judgment, I think it is only fair.

One would imagine the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government would be here.

It should not need a judgment of the High Court.

The Government has considered it already. It said the writ would be moved in the spring.

We cannot have a full-scale debate on the matter at this point. There are other ways of raising this, although not at this time.

The question that is being asked of the Taoiseach is not a complicated legal one.

Not at all.

He is not required to do a microscopic reading of the judgment and give us a learned opinion. What is being asked of the Taoiseach is a political question. The High Court has found there is an unreasonable delay in holding the by-election. The Taoiseach says it is a matter for the Dáil. An all-party committee of the Dáil decided some time ago that by-elections should be held within six months. The only reason these by-elections have not been held is that the present Government is using a flaky majority based on a reduced number of Members to stop the holding of the by-elections so it can stay in office. This is a political question.

Deputy Gilmore, I am not allowing a full-scale debate on the matter on the Order of Business.

Now that the High Court has declared its——

I am not allowing it. There are other times for such a debate, but not on the Order of Business.

The issue is simple. The High Court has found that the delay is unreasonable. People are waiting for these by-elections. The Government has a call to make, and the Taoiseach, without hiding behind the necessity of considering the judgment and so on, should be capable of giving a political response to that.

Deputy Varadkar, very briefly.

On the same issue——

Very briefly.

I will be brief.

We are not going to have a debate on it now.

No, but——

There is no provision to have it on the Order of Business.

The Ceann Comhairle might give me 30 seconds.

The Taoiseach can run but he cannot hide.

There is a line for that.

He does not have a majority in the House any more.

That is very original and very useful. Where did the Deputy hear that?

He is deliberately clinging to power in contravention of the Constitution and of the judgment made by the High Court today. I ask both the Ceann Comhairle and the Taoiseach whether they will allow time for this important matter to be debated, if not today then tomorrow. I ask the Ceann Comhairle to take a position on this also. He is the speaker of the House.

I am taking a position that we are not going to have a debate on it on the Order of Business.

With the greatest respect, a Cheann Comhairle——

If the Deputy wishes to have a debate at another time, that may be possible, but not on the Order of Business.

No debate.

It is a constitutional point.

You are the speaker of this House.

Yes.

You have a duty to defend the House and to defend democracy. This House is four Members short as a result of the Government's refusal to hold these by-elections. I ask that you take your role as speaker in the spirit in which it is intended and defend the House, rather than the Government. I ask you to speak to the Taoiseach and tell him——

It is not a question of defending the Government. It is a question of implementing the Standing Orders of the House.

——on behalf of this institution that there should be by-elections.

Never mind the Standing Orders.

Deputy Ferris.

A Cheann Comhairle——

Very briefly.

I will be brief.

I am not allowing the debate to develop.

What is your view, a Cheann Comhairle?

It is encouraging to see the Opposition coming in behind the Sinn Féin Party and Senator Pearse Doherty, who took this to the High Court. This was a simple case with a simple judgment, and what we want is a simple response. Will the Taoiseach come back to the House today to move the writ?

Deputy——

I am asking the Taoiseach to move the writ.

The Deputy will have to consult with his party Whip.

It is a question of legislation. I ask the Taoiseach to come back to the House today to move the writ so we can move forward.

Is the Taoiseach minded to restrict his response to Donegal South-West, or will he give a response in respect of all four vacancies?

Briefly, Deputy Gilmore.

The Taoiseach has said that the issue of the holding of the by-elections is a matter for the Dáil.

The Taoiseach has declined to say whether the Government intends to appeal the decision. If this is a matter for the Dáil — I believe it is — then the Dáil should decide. I give the Taoiseach notice now that on our Private Members' time next week, the Labour Party will introduce a motion to direct the Government not to appeal this decision, but to accept the decision of the High Court and hold the four outstanding by-elections.

May I finally say——

On a point of order——

Sorry, Deputy, I am on my feet.

Deputy Kehoe has a point of order.

Go ahead. It should be a good one.

Deputy Varadkar asked for time to be set aside later today or tomorrow.

That is not a point of order.

May I speak?

Deputy——

Can we hear from the Government Whip?

The Deputy knows we have a whip system in the House whereby Whips consult on a regular basis about these matters.

I am asking the Government Whip to meet after the Order of Business to see if we can set aside time today or tomorrow to debate the issue. Deputy Varadkar has made the proposal and I am looking for a reply. It is either "Yes" or "No".

It is not a point of order.

I ask Deputy Kehoe to resume his seat now. I call the Taoiseach briefly.

I am looking for direction from you, a Cheann Comhairle. Perhaps you could direct the Government Whip to give a reply to me.

I am not empowered to direct anybody to do something.

You are the Chairman of the Dáil, a Cheann Comhairle.

May I just reply quickly and then we can move on?

On a point of order, for the information of the House, Sinn Féin has tabled a motion to move the writ for the by-election tomorrow morning if that helps the Taoiseach's considerations.

I call the Taoiseach briefly and we are finishing the debate now.

This judgment has arisen since proceedings began here this morning. We will consider the judgment and its implications. I have given no indication to the Deputy as to what our intentions might be until we have had a chance to review it.

We move on. I call Deputy Durkan.

In the context of the current economic turbulence, is it intended to introduce the amendment to the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, having particular regard to the agreements entered into between the British and German Governments in respect of secret bank accounts in Switzerland?

Is that an inquiry about legislation?

Yes. I quoted the legislation. It is No. 58 on the list.

Deputy Durkan is being very helpful.

That will be next year.

Will they be secret until then?

The Taoiseach is very optimistic.

For some years I have been trying to get confirmation from the Minister for Justice and Law Reform as to the total number of criminal gangs in the country and how he will introduce required legislation to target them specifically.

I suggest the Deputy should direct a parliamentary question to the Minister for Justice and Law Reform.

I did that.

Several criminal justice Bills have been put through the House.

I did that, but I just wanted to tell you, a Cheann Comhairle, how serious the problem is.

Is the Deputy's inquiry about promised legislation?

The reporting of criminal gangs Bill.

Just a moment, a Ceann Comhairle. I do not want to be interrupting you.

Is the Deputy's inquiry about promised legislation?

It is, but you will not let me finish. I do not want to be interrupting you and I know you do not want to be interrupting me either. The Minister claims he does not know the number of criminal gangs operating in the country at present, which is a serious problem.

I am sure a parliamentary question should be able to elicit that information if it is available.

The answer is "No". Even as late as yesterday the answer was again "No". One of the Minister's predecessors said the activity of criminal gangs was the sting of a dying wasp; that wasp continues to sting. Is the bail amendment legislation, promised for many years, likely to emerge from its period of incubation in an effort finally to confront the criminal gangs active in this country as never before known?

There is no date for that Bill at the moment.

I hope the Taoiseach is not serious about that. There surely should be a date for it.

We cannot pursue a debate on what is effectively promised legislation for some stage in the future

I am not debating at all. I am asking the Taoiseach a question on promised legislation. He said there was no date but it is time he had one.

A date for the election.

I ask about climate change law. I am concerned that the Green Party Members seem to be some kind of endangered species; they do not seem to come here anymore.

They have evaporated.

When the Green Party decided to enter Government its stated purpose and priority was to tackle the defining issue of our time, which was climate change. The Cabinet sub-committee on climate change has not met this year.

We cannot have a debate on it on the Order of Business.

It is important and relates to legislation.

I do not mind an inquiry about promised legislation, but not a debate.

Early in October Senator Boyle told the Seanad that he expected such a Bill to be published in two weeks. The legislative programme gives no indication of a date for the publication of the Government Bill. It would appear that this legislation is lost in some interdepartmental quagmire and something needs to be done.

Could I be helpful to the Deputy?

Could I ask the Taoiseach——

I will make inquiries on her behalf.

No, this is the Taoiseach's question although I appreciate your assistance on this, a Cheann Comhairle. Legislation has been published on an all-party basis by the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. There is a lacuna from the Government side in that no legislation has materialised despite many questions asked and concerns expressed on all sides.

The Deputy knows the provision on the Order of Business; we cannot have a debate on these matters.

When will the Government Bill be published? If the Taoiseach cannot give a specific date, will he accept the all-party climate change Bill that has been published so that we can all get on with the business to which we must pay attention?

Work on the Bill is proceeding as a priority and it will be published as soon as possible.

Why has the climate change Bill been put on the long finger yet again when farmers, motorists, home-owners and others are being penalised in order to meet our CO2 emission targets? Surely the Taoiseach would consider this important legislation and perhaps he could give us some indication as to when the climate change Bill will be brought in from the cold and addressed in the House.

The Taoiseach must have heard of the climate change Bill.

I mentioned that just a moment ago.

The Green Party Members mentioned it also.

Yesterday we received a copy of the report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the Ombudsman's special report on the lost at sea scheme. The report was not adopted by all members of the committee and is a minority report. I am asking for time to be set aside to discuss this important issue which has serious implications for the relationship between the Office of the Ombudsman and the Government.

Deputy——

This is a fundamental report and it is only the second time on which such a report has been presented by the Ombudsman. The findings of the Ombudsman were not agreed; it is a minority report from the committee. I am asking that the Whips set aside time for it.

I understand the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be taking questions in the House in the coming days.

Tomorrow.

Have questions on the matter been tabled?

This report was only received yesterday.

It should be debated.

It should be debated. I will quote one sentence from the committee's report: "the Committee is of the view that the process for consideration of such reports should be clearly set out and has agreed to recommend to the Committees on Procedure and Privileges of both Houses that Standing Orders should be amended".

Will the Deputy consider a Private Members' motion?