It is proposed to take No. a5 — Motion re membership of committees; No. b5 motion re proposal that Dáil Éireann notes the report of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service entitled Report on Macroeconomic Policy and Effective Fiscal and Economic Governance; No. 14 — Local Government (Mayor and Regional Authority of Dublin) Bill 2010 — Second Stage (resumed) to adjourn at 1 p.m. today, if not previously concluded; No. 5 — motion re proposal that Dáil Éireann notes the fifth report of the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security entitled Second Report on Climate Change Law; and No. 13 — Education (Amendment) Bill 2010 — Second Stage (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. a5 and b5 shall be decided without debate; and that the proceedings in relation to No. 5 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 3.30 p.m. today and the following arrangements shall apply: the speeches of the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security or a person nominated in his stead and of the main spokespersons for the Government, Fine Gael and Sinn Féin, 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 ten minutes in each case and Members may share time.

We oppose the Order of Business. I am very sorry.

I want to advise the House that two proposals are to be put to the House today. Is the proposal for dealing with No. a5 — motion re membership of committees; No. b5 Motion re proposal that Dáil Éireann notes the report of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service entitled Report on Macroeconomic Policy and Effective Fiscal and Economic Governance, without debate, agreed?

No. Can I explain why, which is normal practice? No. b5 concerns the Report on Macroeconomic Policy and Effective Fiscal and Economic Governance, which is a key part of what Deputy Bruton has been talking about for several years and is part of our document Reinventing Government, the thesis and essence of which we support. Part of the document relates to transparency and accountability in government. Today we have seen more of the same of what the Government demonstrated for many years, that is, a lack of transparency and accountability, an unwillingness to discuss and debate an issue which caused the demise of an important industry in this country and affects the livelihoods of many farmers and workers.

There are 450,000 people out of work, people are facing economic uncertainty and are threatened with many other kites being flown by the Government on the budget, an area into which I will not stray. As the Tánaiste would not agree to a meeting between the Whips to set aside time for a debate of such importance, we oppose the Order of Business.

Hear, hear.

The Labour Party opposes the Order of Business because of the failure of the Tánaiste and Government to address the closure of the Mallow sugar factory. Yesterday the report from the Court of Auditors was published which states this was one of Europe's most efficient producers and closed down its large, modern and potentially efficient sugar factory. In plain English, this factory did not have to close. A profitable factory and industry was closed with the loss of 300 jobs and the knock-on consequences for local businesses in Mallow and north Cork and farmers which were supplying it across a large area of Munster and Leinster.

We have attempted to have this matter addressed properly in a number of ways. There is no point in having an Adjournment debate where a Minister of State will come in and read a script. Private notice questions will be answered by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Smith, who he was not the relevant Minister at the time. The Tánaiste was the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when this happened, and attended the Council of Ministers and has responsibility for this decision. We need to have accountability in this House for how she carried out her role at the time and why a factory was closed with the subsequent consequences.

There was a perfectly profitable industry which was scuttled with the loss of jobs, business and the farmers who supplied it. The Tánaiste spoke as if the discussion earlier had not taken place and bizarrely read out the Order of Business as if this was not an issue. It is an issue and it will have to be addressed.

I suggest, as I did earlier, that we amend the Order of Business. I oppose the proposal in order that No. 14 is adjourned at noon and that another section be inserted, No. 15, which would be statements on the Greencore factory in Mallow and that the Ceann Comhairle allows the proper procedure of statements of 15 minutes each and a question and answer session at the end of the debate. That would facilitate the House in debating this urgent matter. This is the correct place to argue this because it is an amendment to the Order of Business which the Ceann Comhairle has put to the House. I ask that it be adjourned——

There is no explanation; that is why they will not bring it to the House.

I know that but I asked for an adjournment in order that the Whips could deal with the matter. My proposal is in order.

We need to move on.

I ask that the Ceann Comhairle put the amendment I proposed to the Order of Business. It is in order and I would like the Ceann Comhairle to allow us to have a vote on it.

We need to make a decision——

Is the Ceann Comhairle ignoring a proposal for an amendment?

Yes.

There is absolutely no point in Whips being in the House if we cannot make suggestions to change the Order of Business.

The amendment is out of order.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh, resume your seat.

The Ceann Comhairle is ignoring my request to adjourn the House——

The amendment is out of order. Will Deputy Ó Snodaigh resume his seat, please?

That is not out of order. That was an amendment.

I have called the Tánaiste. Resume your seat, Deputy Ó Snodaigh.

There is no point in the Whips meeting on a weekly basis and reaching this position unless the Ceann Comhairle is willing to accommodate that. It is pointless.

Resume your seat.

This dictatorship of the Ceann Comhairle in shouting over me while I am talking does not wash with me either.

Will Deputy Ó Snodaigh resume his seat?

I can shout louder than the Ceann Comhairle if he wishes. Deal with the amendment properly, in a proper structure.

I have allowed Deputy Ó Snodaigh considerable latitude this morning. I ask him to resume his seat, I have called the Tánaiste.

Suspend the House and let the Whips meet and do this.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh should resume his seat. All right, we would be asking him to leave the House.

First, as all Members know full well, it is not my job or that of the Government to adjudicate on Standing Orders or on the independent decision-making of the Ceann Comhairle's office.

What about closing the beet factories?

Second,——

It is the Whips' job.

Sorry, I am entitled to say what I must say. Second, the logic——

Not if she is incorrect.

She did not say it when she should have said it.

Allow the Tánaiste without interruption, please.

The logic of Deputy Gilmore's argument is that if issues arise now in the context of health when Deputy Howlin was Minister or in finance when Deputy Quinn was there,——

We usually win our arguments. We would not be in the mess we are in now.

It is 15 years ago. A long time ago.

——or Deputy Noonan, then they would be accountable,——

That was when we had a surplus.

——but the position is that the matter is one for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

It is a ridiculous argument.

Is the Tánaiste saying she does not stand over her decision?

However, as somebody who is——

On a point of order——

Deputy Sherlock, resume your seat. The Tánaiste is in possession.

——the most familiar with this issue——

On a point of order——

Tánaiste, there is a point of order.

One cannot have a point of order.

I am on my feet, a Cheann Comhairle.

Deputy Sherlock has called a point of order.

With all due respect to the Tánaiste, I am up on a point of order, which is that we are asking for an account to be given of the night of 20 February 2006——

If Deputy Sherlock would listen to the answer, it is quite clear from what is being said.

That is not a point of order. Resume your seat.

——and the people in north Cork and the former workers are entitled to that.

As the person who is most familiar with this issue and the person who gave a considerable amount of time to it, I will give it in the context of what has happened. First, the Court of Auditors has reflected on the Commission's, not the Irish Government's, decision. Second, this was part——

Sorry, a Cheann Comhairle——

Could we hear the Tánaiste without interruption, please?

——I am entitled as a Member of this House to be heard.

Let there be a proper debate.

Is it right of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to shout a Minister down when she is in possession? I am very surprised at him.

If they are to have a debate, have it now.

Minister of State, Deputy Roche, please.

Not a one-sided debate.

Deputies, could we hear the Tánaiste without interruption, please? We cannot proceed if Members are not going to be allowed to speak.

Suspend the House.

I call the Tánaiste.

The Tánaiste is now misleading the House.

I am not.

The Tánaiste is misleading the House.

Deputy Durkan, resume your seat.

Deputy Durkan should withdraw that.

The Tánaiste is misleading the House.

If Deputy Durkan does not resume his seat, I will ask him to leave. Resume your seat, please.

The Tánaiste is in possession.

All right, can I make this point?

No. Deputy Durkan, just resume your seat. Resume your seat.

I want to make a point, I want to make a point of order.

As I stated earlier, this is a criticism of the European Commission.

No, it is of the Tánaiste.

Sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, we deal with the facts of the matter or what people think are the facts of the matter.

The Tánaiste agreed to it.

In 2006, there was a restructuring of the sugar regime arising from the WTO negotiations with which all Members are familiar.

Correct.

We know that.

Second, as then Minister for Agriculture and Food, I opposed the Commission's proposals, as the Members will be aware——

The Tánaiste did not do it behind closed doors.

She stated there was no beet in Donegal.

Correct.

——and led the group of 14 in its opposition to that reform.

Hear, hear.

I led that opposition with a number of other colleagues in the European Union.

That is——

But the Tánaiste give not give the Commissioner the——

On a point of order——

Deputy Reilly, please resume your seat.

Deputy Burton knows nothing about it and, therefore, is not entitled to criticise me.

Deputy Sherlock resume your seat.

A Cheann Comhairle——

Deputy Reilly resume your seat or I will suspend the House.

Close down the House.

——I am entitled to articulate the position.

The Ceann Comhairle should close down the House.

We have complete disorder. Resume your seat Deputy. The Tánaiste is in possession.

Resume your seat, please. The Tánaiste is in possession.

The Ceann Comhairle has often accused us in this House of entering into debate on the Order of Business. Is that not precisely what the Tánaiste is doing?

One should not be interrupted a response.

Why not have a proper debate?

The Tánaiste is in possession.

We want to know what way the Tánaiste voted on 20 February 2006. That is what we are entitled to.

If the Deputies would sit down, I would tell them.

Deputy Sherlock will be leaving the House.

If Deputy Sherlock sat down and listened, he might hear.

On a point of order——

Deputy Stagg, could we hear the Tánaiste and we will take the point of order then.

I am entitled——

No, the Tánaiste is not.

——to deal with political accusations across the House.

No, she is not. She is entering into the debate now.

Is Deputy Stanton bringing out the jackboot now? Are we not entitled to answer?

On a point of order——

Deputy Stagg, the Tánaiste is on her feet.

No, she is not. We are either having the debate or not.

Let us have the answer.

Let us have a proper debate, for one hour.

I am suspending the House for ten minutes. House suspended.

I was seeking to make a point of order when the Ceann Comhairle adjourned.

The Tánaiste was in possession and I will call on Deputy Stagg when she has finished.

On a point of order——

It is important that I make my point of order before the Tánaiste continues. If the Ceann Comhairle does not interrupt me I will be very brief. Earlier, the Ceann Comhairle prevented, perhaps rightly, other Members from making statements on the substantive issue which we are discussing. However, he is allowing the Tánaiste make a long statement defending her position.

Be fair.

That is not in order.

The Deputy can take it that the Chair is conscious——

What is good for one should be good for the other.

——of these matters.

I was trying to articulate the position with regard to the issues raised by Members of the House. As I indicated, this is a criticism of the Commission. It was in the context of the WTO. We led the group of 14 at that time——

You fought a bad fight.

——in opposition.

You were a weak Minister. That is what happened. That is the problem.

Deputy Tom Hayes, the Tánaiste without interruption.

You should apologise to the people of Ireland.

The Tánaiste without interruption. We cannot proceed on this basis.

I am only telling the truth.

When it became clear at that time at political level that support was not going to be——

On a point of order, the Ceann Comhairle prevented other Members but you are allowing the Tánaiste to make a statement.

I am as entitled as anybody——

You should apologise.

When Deputy Stagg sat down I advised him I was conscious of the point he made. The Tánaiste without interruption.

Sauce for the goose and the gander.

Yes.

The situation is that——

If we had statements we could do all of this.

——I have been asked in my capacity as a former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to give my views to the House.

In a structured debate.

With questions included.

I can agree to a debate with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

No.

On a point of order——

When will that happen?

That proposal is not satisfactory.

Correct.

The Tánaiste has given a part——

On a point of order——

Ministers are making points of order now.

The Tánaiste has put the order of business and the Ceann Comhairle has put the question to the House.

Yes, I am conscious of that. We are allowing——

According to the Standing Orders, one Member——

That is instructing the Chair.

This is a point of order.

Yes, we know it is.

That is dictating to the Chair.

According to the custom and practice and the Standing Orders——

We are definitely into the last days of the Roman Empire if Deputy Dempsey is——

——one Member of the Opposition has an opportunity to speak to that. The Tánaiste has an opportunity to respond——

Yes, we know, Minister.

Is that a point of order?

That is not a point of order.

——and then the question has to be put.

It is my intention——

Deputy Dempsey is trying to run the Chair, the Opposition and the Government.

Is the Ceann Comhairle giving an instruction?

The Tánaiste has had an opportunity to speak——

No, that was in reply.

——and it is my intention to afford a brief opportunity to Deputy Gilmore and to Deputy Reilly if he so wishes.

Deputy Dempsey is dictating to the House.

Not for the first time, the Minister for Transport is wrong——

I am not wrong.

You are never wrong.

——because the Tánaiste is in effect amending the order she put before the House earlier as she now proposes that there will be a debate.

She is not.

She is proposing a debate.

What is the proposal from the Tánaiste?

Deputy Gilmore without interruption.

She is proposing that there should be a debate, which would be led and responded to by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food——

She is making an offer.

Do not be shouting people down.

——and I am now responding on behalf of the Labour Party to that proposal.

It is an offer.

Deputy Roche, please.

My response to it is that it is not satisfactory because the issue at stake here is the Tánaiste's handling of this matter when she was Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I will give one example from the statement she made. She says that the Court of Auditors laid the blame at the feet of the European Commission. The Court of Auditors blamed the European Commission for working off old figures and that it did not take into account Greencore's consolidation as a result of the closing of the Carlow plant.

We are getting into a detailed debate on this matter at this point.

There is only one side of the debate to be heard.

Who was responsible for the Commission working off old figures? Who was responsible for it having the old figures and who was responsible for it not knowing what consolidation took place between Carlow and Mallow? Was it the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the time, whose job it was to tell the Commission?

I will not allow this incident to develop into a full-scale debate on the matter.

The Ceann Comhairle made the point that each Member on the Opposition benches is allowed respond to what the Tánaiste said.

Briefly.

On the same point, the blame cannot be laid at the Commission if the Commission was working off information that was inadequate, out of date and inaccurate. If we are going to have a discussion we need to have the person responsible. The Government at the time held a golden share in Greencore——

It was a special share, not a golden share.

It is the same deal. We need an explanation as to how the Government was overseeing the information being supplied by Greencore and what efforts it made to ensure that the information was correct.

All these questions can be asked later.

To whom?

Will the Tánaiste be there to answer them? On a point of order, the Tánaiste has been kind enough to tell the House we will have a debate. Will she say when that debate will be held, its duration and who will represent the Government?

I put the Order of Business to the House. In the ruckus that was happening earlier in the House I indicated that I was prepared——

Who caused the ruckus?

I was prepared to give my views on this issue, even though I am not the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

The Tánaiste was the Minister at that time.

The Members opposite did not have the manners to afford me that opportunity. I said that on this basis I was prepared to amend the Order of Business, in consultation with the Whips, to provide for a debate today in which the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be present.

Will the Tánaiste be present?

On a point of order, what is the timeframe for the debate and will there be a question and answer session?

Surely the Whips can decide this matter.

I propose a debate for one and a half hours and a question and answer session for half an hour.

Does the Tánaiste propose to amend the Order of Business?

It is a matter for the Whips. I have offered to afford the opportunity for a debate today and I am prepared to amend the Order of Business to facilitate this.

I suggest the suspension of the House for five minutes.

The Tánaiste's proposal is not acceptable to the Labour Party because that proposal involves a debate which will not have the Tánaiste responding to the questions that need to be addressed.

I am not the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

She was the Minister at the time.

The Tánaiste has to be responsible for something.

We have spent virtually an hour on this matter and we have to make decisions about the Order of Business for the day.

I will explain why this is important. The Carlow factory closed down and the operations were consolidated——

It was nothing to do with restructuring at all.

That is not what the report says.

The Government should store e-voting machines in it.

——in Mallow. The Commission did not know what had happened. We are told by the Court of Auditors that the Commission did not know what happened and it did not have the up to date figures and that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the time was the Minister responsible for making sure the Commission had the figures.

I propose to put the question to the House and the Whips can meet afterwards to refine the arrangement.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 5, motion re the proposal that Dáil Éireann notes the fifth report of the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security entitled Second Report on Climate Change Law, agreed? Agreed.