Since the election, the Government has announced a jobs initiative, a jobs protection budget and an action plan for jobs, all of which were meant to create approximately 100,000 jobs by 2016. However, when one considers the Government's own statistics in a no-spin zone, the number of people who are unemployed continues to rise. The quarterly national household survey released last week shows the number of Irish people in employment has fallen by approximately 38,900, which is a damning indictment of the Government's initiatives over the past 15 months. Moreover, the unemployment rate has risen from approximately 14.1% to 14.8%, employment has fallen in nine of the 14 economic sectors over the past year and in a highly worrying trend, long-term unemployment has increased by a further 25,000, from 7.8% to 8.9%. Consequently, the position continues to worsen significantly for many people.

The Taoiseach had stated he wanted his Ministers to become obsessed with jobs.

Yes. Jobs for the boys.

Clearly, they have not become obsessed with jobs because unfortunately, the initiatives are not making any impact whatsoever. I put it to the Taoiseach the initiatives the Government has taken have contributed to the worsening of the position. At its most basic, the decision to reduce the capital investment programme resulted in a net loss of 8,000 construction jobs in labour-intensive capital projects, which is something that could have been avoided. The increase in VAT only further dampened consumer demand in what already was a weak domestic economy. Moreover, some of the initiatives that led to increased redundancy costs for employers constituted a further disincentive to job creation and to employment. Above all, the failure to create any pressure on the banking sector to release funding to the SME sector, as evidenced by all reports and analysis, including that produced recently by Mr. John Trethowan in the credit review committee, gives further evidence regarding initiatives and a policy direction that have made this situation worse.

The final statistic comes from the Minister for Finance, who in April of this year revised downwards significantly his predictions from one year ago of employment until 2015. Last year, the Government predicted net job creation from 2011 to 2015 of 101,000 but this year it predicts a figure of 61,000----

A question please. Thank you.

-----which is a decline of 40,000. This appeared under the radar, buried in the Department of Finance's own statistics released this April.

Does the Taoiseach accept the Government's jobs initiatives are failing to make an impact and are not improving the position in respect of employment in Ireland?

I do not accept the Deputy's suggestions at all. Obviously the live register speaks for itself. I am extremely unhappy at the numbers of people who are unemployed and why would I not be? The entire effect of Government is to deal with the reality of the position the country faces. This is compounded, as the Deputy is aware, by the impact outside the country in respect of the growth of other European economies. As an exporting nation, it is extremely important for us to be involved in this regard. The Government produced its jobs action programme in February. Its purpose is to create 100,000 new jobs by 2016, which is the end of this period of government. It contains 270 propositions, progress on which will be published on a quarterly basis. The programme is being monitored and overseen by the Departments of the Taoiseach and Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.

Clearly, Deputy Martin is only too well aware of the difficulties faced by so many businesses, including retail and small businesses, in the context of indigenous confidence in Ireland, as well as access to finance from banks. This is the reason the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation is pursuing the partial loan credit guarantee scheme and the introduction of the micro-finance agency, proposals for which I expect to come before the Government next week with the capacity to leverage resources up to €100 million for very small operators in that line. This is the reason the Government did not increase income tax to avoid imposing additional taxes on work and employment. This is the reason the Minister of State with specific responsibility for jobs and small businesses has involved himself deeply with the small business associations and with small operators. His purpose is to bring about a realisation that help and assistance is available and that while this environment is economically difficult, there is a big movement in the labour market. This movement comes off the live register into the world of work. Unfortunately, the level on the register is too high and I regret that.

At the other end of the spectrum, the change from FÁS to SOLAS, linked to the Department of Education and Skills, will become for further education what the opportunities in the HEA's universities are for young people, be they in TUS, JobBridge or Springboard, allowing them to get back into a process where they can retrain, upskill and change direction. As Deputy Martin is well aware, when one speaks to any of the people involved in modern industry one learns that jobs and careers can change every three or four years. It is very important that the system we have is able to deal with those changes. It is true the number of unemployed is too high. It fluctuates every summer, as the Deputy knows, with those who come off the back to education allowances, and so on.

The Government's programme is a capital programme of €17 billion. We inherited an economy that was badly smashed up. There was not, and is not, the money to do all the things we would like to do, or to spend effectively on job creation. The Deputy is well aware that the Government now has to borrow €3 billion every year for Anglo Irish Bank. Think of what we could do with that money if things had been different.

That is the situation we have to deal with and we will continue to deal with it. Jobs, job priorities and the creation of jobs are central to the Government's focus.

Problem solved.

The Taoiseach is dealing with it very badly. That is the problem. It is not about job career changes and so on but about access to employment and people getting jobs, people who are well qualified but unemployed, and long-term unemployed.

This is your legacy.

The problem people have------

It is your legacy.

I am sorry-----

Everybody-----

Except yourself.

Do not join in the chorus, please.

Everybody in this House is-----

Can we have a supplementary question? There is a need for one.

-----interested in creating jobs. The problem is, people are getting fed up with official documentation, launches and so on-----

Can we have a supplementary question?

Take the launch in February, for example, when the Government claimed it would create 100,000 jobs. The Department of Finance's documentation a month and a half later claimed there would be 61,000 jobs, some 40,000 of a difference.

Deputy Martin has a newfound interest in his country.

That is why people are cynical.

Can I have a supplementary question, please?

I am asking a supplementary question on a matter raised under the Standing Order, which I am entitled to do.

Not speeches, but a supplementary question.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

You had 14 years to do something.

I am asking a question on a matter raised, namely, unemployment. I am simply putting it to the Taoiseach-----

Waffling.

Will you stay quiet?

-----that the SME sector is hurting very badly and is not getting access to credit in spite of what the Taoiseach claimed. His suggestion of a partial loan guarantee scheme is marginal and will have little or no impact in terms of employment in the SME sector, or access to credit.

Can I have the question? You are over time.

The measures the Taoiseach has taken since the budget, from the pension levy which took €500 million from pensioners-----

Which you introduced.

-----to the reduction in the capital programme, from the extra costs on business in terms of redundancy costs and so on-----

Deputy, can I have your question? You are over time and I will have to cut you off.

All of these are making the situation worse.

It is about time-----

I will not ask you again, Deputy. I will cut off your microphone if you do not ask your question.

With the greatest respect, a Cheann Comhairle, I have been interrupted non-stop since I started. I am entitled to ask a question.

You asked a question. There is a minute allowed for a supplementary question.

I am entitled to raise the matter-----

You are now on your second minute. Hurry up and ask your question.

I am entitled to ask a question.

You are not entitled to question the Chair.

I am not questioning the Chair at all.

I told you a minute is allowed for a supplementary question.

I am endeavouring to ask a question on a matter raised, which I am entitled to do under Standing Orders.

A supplementary question, not another speech. Thank you.

It is not another speech.

Will the Deputies over there stay quiet and give us a chance?

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle.

Please resume your seat.

I asked a long time ago to be facilitated by the Deputies opposite but they do not like hearing the truth. The truth is not good for the people who are unemployed.

That is a great question.

For somebody to stand up in the Chamber who abdicated his responsibilities-----

Hear, hear.

-----did not attend his meetings in Europe, failed utterly-----

How dare the Taoiseach? I have a strong record in Europe. He said something similar yesterday------

Will the Deputy resume his seat?

The Deputy is shouting people down.

I ask for that to be withdrawn, Sir.

Get Willie to hold your jacket.

Empty chairs.

Do you mind? On both sides, Deputies are not impressing anybody. I ask the Taoiseach to reply.

Deputy Martin will understand that nobody over here will be intimidated by that show of vociferous response. The Deputy is just very touchy because members of his Government failed to turn up at so many meetings in Europe when they were expected to, which speaks for itself.

That is an untruth.

Give an example.

Check the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

A Cheann Comhairle-----

I do not know what the question is.

The issue I raised was jobs, plus how the Taoiseach answers the questions he is asked in this House.

Small and medium enterprises all over the country have been crying out in anxiety and concern-----

They are still crying.

-----because they have never been able to get access to finance from banks. That is why both pillar banks committed to the Government each gave new lending of €3.5 billion this year. That is why they attend before the Economic Management Council on a regular basis. Deputy Martin is insinuating that the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation should not introduce a partial loan credit guarantee scheme even though it might affect, to their benefit, more than 1,000 small firms which are looking for money.

If the Government introduced a proper one-----

He suggests the measures being taken to introduce a micro-finance agency should not be followed through either.

It is woefully inadequate.

It is woefully inadequate and will not do the job.

He ridicules the fact that more than 11,000 jobs were created in the hospitality sector as a result of the reduction in VAT. He ridicules the suggestion that the Government should not increase income tax so that there would be no extra tax on jobs. He ridicules the suggestion that, for example, the renegotiation of the memorandum of understanding with the troika meant the Government was able to restore the minimum wage which his Government reduced for 30,000 people on low incomes.

How many jobs did you create?

He ridicules the suggestion that the Government was also able to renegotiate with the troika to take more than 300,000 people from liability for the universal social charge. These were the decisions his Government made which this one has to reverse.

I am the first to accept that when I travel around the country and meet people in every walk of life-----

I recommend Athlone.

-----their overriding ambition is to have a job and be in gainful employment. What the Government is doing, and making no apology for it, is shifting out of the rut of hopelessness we inherited to a situation where people can have, not only confidence but also see there is opportunity and that jobs can and will be created. In the course of the six weeks of the referendum campaign we pointed out, time and again-----

Did the Taoiseach point out anything to do with a debate?

They were all up Croagh Patrick.

-----the continued investment by foreign direct investors in this country in job creation, including in Limerick, where for more than 20 years Deputy O'Dea's Government refused to do anything about the Shannon Development area.

The numbers are getting worse.

There are no prospects.

At last this Government made the decision to open up a bright new future, with jobs and employment, not just in the Shannon zone but in the entire region. I do not accept, therefore, the remarks of Deputy Martin.

Thank you.

They smack of absolute hypocrisy, from a Fianna Fáil Deputy who reneged on his responsibility and let down our country.

I will not ask Deputies again. Please cool down. I call Deputy McDonald.

I am glad the boys have simmered down.

This morning we have a tale of two reports. On the one hand there is the troika's sixth review of Ireland's bailout programme, which has yet again been given to parliamentarians in the Bundestag and leaked to the media before Members of this Dáil or the public in this State have had any sight of it. On the other, there is an ESRI report which was not an ESRI report, rather a working document which has been withdrawn from the State-sponsored organisation's website. By any standards, it was a very shoddy piece of work. It was based on data from 2004 and 2005. It was not peer-reviewed internally or externally. It has been spun and used by some people to create the impression that the hundreds of thousands of people who are out of work at the moment are somehow living a gilt-edged lifestyle. I ask the Taoiseach to make clear in the Dáil that he understands that is not the case. There is no doubt that people at work are struggling to pay their bills. We know that. There is no doubt that people are struggling as a direct consequence of the policies the Government is pursuing. The Taoiseach has accused other Members of this House of abdicating their responsibilities. I want him to take responsibility for his position and for his decisions.

He never does that.

He should acknowledge to the hundreds of thousands of families across this State who are struggling to make ends meet, some of whom are in work and some of whom are on welfare, that the Government is responsible for that. Finally, I ask him to reassure us that this Government has not attempted in any cynical way to use the ESRI as part of a strategy to drive down welfare rates in the next budget.

That is outrageous.

We need that reassurance to be given to the Dáil today.

That is disgraceful.

I would like to begin by responding to the Deputy's comment about documentation being given to the Bundestag. When the Minister for Finance brought the draft report before the Government yesterday, it was made perfectly clear that he had agreed to allow the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform to access the document. That is the normal procedure.

I ask the Deputy whose mobile phone is ringing to switch it off. A notice outside the Chamber states that no phones are allowed in here.

His team must be playing at the weekend.

It is a deliberate distraction.

As Deputy McDonald is well aware, it is a requirement that copies of the reports be given to the funding countries. Arising from the previous occasion, when a European Commission document was leaked, the Government made it clear that in future, such reports would be given simultaneously to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform and that the reports would remain confidential until they had been completely signed off. I want the Deputy to understand that it is not a case of taking particular documents and giving them to particular international committees. That matter was rectified after the last leak.

I would like to respond to the comments that have been made this morning about the ESRI document. The ESRI is an independent organisation. I could not and would not stand over any contact from the Government to an independent organisation saying that particular documentation must be withdrawn or taken down. Why should I? The manner in which the Government makes decisions to create employment and opportunities for our people and follows them up is the most important element of what we have as a society. Of course I recognise that many people in this country are struggling. Of course I understand the despair that some people feel. I empathise with their frustration about the fact that the scale of their job expectations for themselves and their families is not being delivered as fast as we would like. Of course I recognise that people in negative equity and those whose sons and daughters have gone to America, Australia, Britain or elsewhere are struggling. There is no question about that. There is clear evidence to indicate that people in Greece, Cyprus and Spain are struggling similarly. People in many other countries are also worried. This Government will accept its responsibility for the decisions it makes. The Deputy can take it that the Government's priority is to deal with the central issue, which is the need for Ministers and Ministers of State in their Departments to focus continually on methods of job creation and opportunity for young and old people who want to get involved in their own areas and communities and contribute to this country. I want the Deputy to understand that clearly.

I want the Taoiseach to understand that struggling families do not want his recognition, understanding or empathy. They want the Taoiseach and his Government colleagues to take responsibility for the circumstances in which we now find ourselves. More to the point, they want to see action that yields results for them and their families. As the Taoiseach said, the ESRI is an independent organisation. It receives substantial State funding. Many people have been asking why this document was taken off the ESRI website. A more pertinent question would relate to how this report was put up there in the first place.

A question, please.

It is a shoddy and misleading piece of work. I ask the Taoiseach to make it clear to the Dáil and the people who are viewing this session that he understands well that those who are living on welfare are not doing so by choice and, more to the point, are not living the high life. That is simply not the case. A low income is a low income. People are struggling as a direct consequence of the Government's bad policy decisions.

A question, please. We are over time.

I take it from the Taoiseach's comments that he continues to have full confidence in the ESRI, its independence and its capacity to give thought-provoking and useful information to policy makers. I would raise a question mark over that. I think this document was incendiary and misleading. I also believe it will be used-----

It is not a question of what you believe.

-----and has been used by some people-----

It is a question of what you are asking.

-----to argue for further hardship and further cutbacks-----

This is a Second Stage speech.

-----aimed particularly at those on welfare.

This is a speech.

I ask the Taoiseach to assure the House-----

It is still a speech.

-----that this bad and shoddy piece of work will not be misused for the Government's own ends.

I call the Taoiseach. I do not know what the question is, but I am sure he will do his best.

I think the questions are clear, a Cheann Comhairle.

We want a definitive response.

I do not speak for the ESRI. I listened to the comments that were made this morning by the author of the report. I also listened to the comments of the director of the ESRI. I do not speak for either of them. I do not see why we cannot have an opportunity to discuss these issues through the Oireachtas committees. Unemployment and employment are the most pertinent and fundamental issues that are facing this country and its people. I do not accept the assertion, which the Deputy always blithely throws in, that all of these policies are bad. I am sure she accepts that 11,000 jobs have been created in the hospitality sector. I am sure she is pleased that PayPal will create 1,000 jobs in County Louth, which is the constituency of her party leader. In many areas, this will not be turned around in the next two years. We are dealing with reality here. The Deputy seems to be asserting that the Government should not empathise with those who are living frustrated lives and are under serious pressure because of the current economic circumstances. Does she believe we should not try to understand their needs? Does she think we should not be asking young people what they would like to do?

The Government has done a lot of that.

The Deputy has done a fair bit of it herself.

It is not getting us anywhere.

Does she want us to stop asking them what kind of upskilling or retraining courses they would like to pursue, so the Government can reflect that through the State agencies?

That is not happening.

Does she think it is all right to live in an ivory tower? Is that what she assumes? I want her to understand that the Government is engaging vigorously with people about their concerns and anxieties. We are listening and we will act, in so far as we can, in the interests of the nation and the people. Our job is to rectify the public finances and the legacy we inherited. The Government must make decisions that provide opportunities for people to work in gainful employment.

When is it going to start?

It is no joke for those who are on social protection. Deputy McDonald can cast aspersions on that in any way she wants. The important thing is that such people should be given an opportunity to have hope and confidence by means of a demonstration that good Government decisions actually lead to employment. If people are happy in themselves that they can contribute to their own family circumstances, that will be to the good and the benefit of their localities. Regardless of whether this document is complete, whether it used correct methodologies or whether it is to be reformed, my understanding is that it is a working document. I do not see why the Oireachtas committee dealing with this matter cannot talk about these issues. The important thing is to listen to those who are on social protection as they speak about their circumstances and to point out that assistance is available to get such people out of that rut. That is what this Government will focus on for the duration of its remit.

As we organise ceremonies to mark the centenary of 1916 and the ensuing War of Independence, the continuing European crisis looms as a forbidding backdrop. Our debate in this country has always been skewed by "follow the money" mantras which deflect from what could be a bigger master-plan. As in the Treaty negotiations, when Lloyd George described negotiating with de Valera as trying to pick up mercury with a fork, the federalisation of Europe debate, one of rational thought, views and opinions, is also like trying to pick up mercury.

Are we being sleepwalked into a federalised Europe? If so, what do the Irish sovereign people think of this and is it something we want? Federalism will downgrade Ireland to a province of Europe and, consequently, downgrade Leinster House to a very nice but, in effect, county council office. With economic policies being the starting block for building a federal Europe, what are we looking at and are we being played by the Pied Piper of Europe down a road where we may relinquish our sovereignty completely?

This debate is one that needs to be addressed. I would like to hear the Taoiseach's views on what many would see as failed plans to federalise Europe and how Ireland may well be set to revert to the dominion status of 1949, this time to Europe rather than to the Commonwealth.

The answer to the Deputy's question is "No". Ireland is not going to be walked into any federalisation of Europe. That was rejected by the people on more than one occasion. What is required here is to make political decisions, both within the eurozone and at a European level, to deal with the European banking crisis in the first instance and look at where the Union of 500 million people expects to be in the next ten years. It also means looking at the opportunities that exist through the Single Market, the development of the single patent digital market and for concluding trade agreements outside the European Union, which means so much potential for this country as an exporting nation. The Deputy's asks if this country going to be walked into a federalised Europe and the answer is "No".

I thank the Taoiseach for his very clear and definitive answer "No", to which I will hold him in the House. However, the constant debate in recent months has been totally about further integration and further fiscal union. Chancellor Angela Merkel says we cannot have a solution unless we first get to that full fiscal union. Will the Taoiseach tell Angela Merkel and Germany that the Irish people are not for a federal Europe and that the Irish people are not going to be walked down this road into giving up our sovereignty completely and following the lead of Germany and France, given the way they are dictating the pace of the Union for the future? Will the Taoiseach bring that message to Europe and will he tell Europe that the Irish people are not for a full federalised Europe and not for full integration, and that they will retain their sovereignty into the future?

The European leaders are very well aware of Ireland's position. Ireland has voted over the years in respect of European Union treaty after European Union treaty and the Irish people have made their decisions on that very clear, no more so than in the recent 60-40 decision in respect of the fiscal stability treaty. That is what this is about. It is about consolidating and strengthening the euro within the eurozone. I answered a question yesterday by saying we support in principle the question of a banking union, which is something that would be in every country's interest in regard to having a streamlined, efficient, working banking system across all countries in the eurozone. European leaders are well aware of the importance of sovereignty in a country like this and they are well aware of our attitude towards a federal Europe. Let me repeat it again for the Deputy. His first question was whether we are being sleepwalked into something like a total federal Europe. The answer is "No".

^ Order of Business ^

It is proposed to take No. a16, European Communities (Amendment) Bill 2012 – modification of Standing Orders in relation to motion to instruct the select committee; No. b16, European Communities (Amendment) Bill 2012 – motion to instruct the select committee; No. 16, motion re Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998; No. 17, motion re Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009; No. 2, Companies (Amendment) Bill 2012 [Seanad] - Second Stage (resumed); No. 26, Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Bill 2012 [Seanad] - Second Stage (resumed); No. 27, European Arrest Warrant (Application to Third Countries and Amendment) and Extradition (Amendment) Bill 2011 - Second Stage (resumed); and No. 28, statements on Common Fisheries Policy reform, to be taken at 6.25 p.m. today and the order shall not resume thereafter.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) No. a16 shall be decided without debate; and subject to the agreement of No. a16, the proceedings in relation to No. b16 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 20 minutes and the speech of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order and who may share their time, shall not exceed five minutes in each case; (2) the proceedings in relation to Nos. 16 and 17 shall each, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 45 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply in each case; (i) the speech of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order and who may share their time, shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; and (ii) a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed five minutes; and (3) the proceedings in relation to No. 28 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 65 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply; (i) the opening statements of a Minister or Minster of State and of the main spokespersons for Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order and who may share their time, shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; and (ii) a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed five minutes. Private Members’ business shall be No. 68, motion re independent inquiries into planning irregularities (resumed), to conclude at 9 p.m. tonight, if not previously concluded.

There are three proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. a16 and b16 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 16 and 17 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 28 agreed to? Agreed. I call Deputy Martin on the Order of Business.

Yesterday I raised in the House the issue of the necessity and the importance of having a debate in regard to the situation pertaining to Deputy Mick Wallace, and I understand Deputy Wallace himself wanted to avail of an opportunity to make a statement to the House. My understanding from the Whips' meetings was that the Government Whip indicated there were legal reasons that motions or a debate could not be proceeded with. I also understood that Standing Orders precluded any such statement by Deputy Wallace. However, it would seem to me, and I would appreciate some clarification of this, that Standing Order 57 specifically allows for a statement in regard to a matter of this kind, and also a debate.

That is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle.

I wonder why legal issues are being invoked here when Standing Order 57 seems very clear. Standing Order 57 states:

Subject always to the right of Dáil Éireann to legislate on any matter (and any guidelines which may be drawn up by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges from time to time), and unless otherwise precluded under Standing Orders, a member shall not be prevented from raising in the Dáil any matter of general public importance, even where court proceedings have been initiated: Provided that...

(4) members may only raise matters in a substantive manner (i.e. by way of Parliamentary Question, matter raised under Standing Order 21, motion, etc.) where due notice is required...

It seems to me there is no barrier to having this issue at least debated and discussed. I repeat that I consider it extraordinary that every news channel and every station outside of this House can debate the issue and facilitate discussion of it yet this House is the last place that can actually do that. Irrespective of the merits or demerits of the case and irrespective of one's views on it, it is an extraordinary state of affairs that the Parliament of the nation is not in a position to debate it.

It seems to me that the Standing Orders allow for it. I believe we should concentrate our minds in terms of facilitating the said Deputy if he wishes to make a statement - Standing Orders allow that - and then to allow a debate on it.

If the Deputy had taken the trouble to telephone me instead of raising it on the floor of the House, I would have explained exactly what I was requested to do. I have already dealt with this matter. I received a request that a personal statement be made. Under Standing Order 44, a personal statement relates to matters that were raised where clarification is needed and where no debate takes place after the statement. Therefore, the matter is not in accordance with Standing Order 44.

I did what I did in the interest of the Members of this House and in accordance with Standing Orders and I make no apologies for adhering to Standing Orders. I suggest the Deputy should get his Whip to come to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on the next occasion and suggest an amendment to Standing Orders. I would be pleased if the committee discussed it, and if the Dáil so decides, we will change the Standing Orders. There is no point in coming in here and making it look as if I am being questioned as to why I was the bad boy and did not allow a statement. Therefore, we are not having a debate. The decision was taken-----

Under Standing Order 57-----

Excuse me, the Deputy had his say. He should resume his seat and not get excited.

I must insist on my right, under Standing Order 57 to raise a point-----

Respect the Chair.

I have always respected the Chair. I just want to raise a matter under Standing Orders. The Chair has made a comment.

Would the Deputy mind resuming his seat? I have not finished. The Deputy should resume his seat.

I will persist in raising Standing Order 57. I am entitled to do that.

The Deputy is not entitled to raise it. I received a letter from the Deputy in question and I replied to the Deputy in question.

I am not talking about that at all. I am not talking about the Chair's decision on that.

The Deputy should get his Whip therefore to raise this matter at a Whips' meeting. Do not try to make politics with this please.

I am not trying to make politics. Standing Order 57 says-----

I do not care what Standing Order 57-----

The Chair should care about it and should not try to make me-----

Excuse me, the Deputy should not question the Chair.

I am not questioning the Chair. I am asserting my right to-----

I was not requested to deal with this matter under Standing Order 57.

The Chair is making the decision.

If Deputy Martin wants to come in here or pick up the telephone or raise the issue of Standing Order 57, he should do that, but he should not do it playing politics.

Hear, hear.

I beg the Ceann Comhairle's pardon. I am entitled to raise the issue of-----

The Deputy is not entitled to it. He is not entitled to deal with something he knows nothing about, because he did not see the correspondence. I call Deputy McDonald.

I am entitled-----

I have called on Deputy McDonald.

I ask the Ceann Comhairle to reflect on what he has just said. I have quoted Standing Order 57 and I am entitled to raise this.

I will not reflect on what I said. The Select Committee on Members' Interests of Dáil Éireann is meeting at noon today. I call Deputy McDonald. I will not play politics with this.

I am entitled to raise this under Standing Orders. This is not about playing politics. It is about my right as a parliamentarian to raise an issue under a Standing Order of this House-----

This is outrageous. The Deputy did not get his way out on the plinth so he is coming in here trying to question me. I call on Deputy McDonald.

-----and the Chair has no right to undermine my right to do that.

I am suspending the sitting for five minutes.

Have a proper answer the next time.

I will deal with you when I come back.

All I want to say on the subject is that I dealt with the request under Standing Order 44. If anybody wishes to ask the Government for time, that is their business. I call Deputy McDonald.

May I speak on that issue?

No, I have called Deputy McDonald.

On that-----

I have called Deputy McDonald, in case the Deputy did not hear me.

I believe I have the floor, Deputy Martin.

Yes.

As I am sure the Taoiseach is aware, at approximately this time of year, Women's Aid publishes its annual domestic violence figures. Over 13,000 people called the organisation's helpline last year. Some 2,000 of those calls disclosed emotional, physical and sexual abuse of children in their homes and this represented a 25% increase on the previous year. Some 3,000 callers said that children were witnessing at first hand the abuse and violence perpetrated against their mothers. The Government has been in office for over 15 months and, as the Taoiseach is aware, he made a commitment on entering Government to introduce reformed, consolidated domestic violence legislation. Unfortunately, that legislation has been put on the back burner because the Government has prioritised troika-related legislation. We know that domestic violence increases during times of economic recession, so the urgency of dealing with this matter by introducing legislation also increases. I am disappointed that the Government has not yet taken the kind of concrete preventative action that is necessary to protect women and their children.

Deputy, we cannot have a debate on the subject.

When does the Taoiseach propose to deliver on the programme for Government commitment? When can we expect the introduction of the reformed consolidated domestic violence legislation, and when will we get some indication that the Government will fund the services in question to an adequate level?

I thank the Deputy for her query. Given that this country is in a programme, detailed analysis of its performance is required on a regular basis. So that we can continue to receive funding, various changes must be made, some of which are very serious and many of which require legislation. That is why the House will continue to sit as late as necessary before it rises for the summer recess to deal with a raft of legislation which is required under the troika arrangements for the country to function. That does not in any way detract from the necessity of dealing with other important legislation, including the domestic violence legislation. I responded to Deputy Adams on this last week. There is a clear commitment in the programme for Government to introduce consolidated and reformed domestic violence legislation to deal with all aspects of domestic violence - the Deputy mentioned sexual, physical and emotional abuse. I cannot give a date on which it will be produced, but work is proceeding. Given the need for consultation and the sensitivity of the issue, as well as the requirement to dispose of other legislation, it has not been possible to publish a Bill before now.

In advance of those wider reforms, reforms have already been introduced to domestic violence legislation by means of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011, which, as the Deputy is aware, removed the minimum required period of cohabitation before one member of a cohabiting couple may apply for a safety order - previously, the applicant was required to have resided with the respondent for at least six of the previous 12 months - and gave equal access to the protections of the Domestic Violence Act 1996 to same and opposite-sex couples. The relevant provision previously referred only to couples living together as husband and wife. The 2011 Act also widened the scope of section 2 of the 1996 Act, which specifies who may apply for a safety order, to enable a person to obtain a safety order against a person with whom he or she has a child in common. This is the only exception to the general rule that the protections available under the Domestic Violence Act are for the benefit of persons who have lived together in the same household. The work to which I have referred is proceeding, and changes were made in the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011.

So the Taoiseach cannot give a date.

I cannot give the Deputy a date for publication.

After all that. It took ten minutes.

Within four months the Government will introduce those changes.

With the window of opportunity for the introduction of legislation between now and the summer recess narrowing, can the Taoiseach tell me whether the Bill pertaining to the creation of SOLAS, earmarked for 2012, will be published before the end of this year? It is important that we have a good education and training system in place.

I assure Deputy Bannon that the clear intention is to have the legislation introduced and passed by the end of this year.

When will the residential tenancies (amendment) Bill be published? It is important legislation.

This session.

With regard to the promised health governance Bill, is the Taoiseach aware that there are 68 people waiting for prostheses at the moment at Gurranabraher hospital in Cork, and a total of 595 people, between prostheses and orthotics-----

What legislation is the Deputy talking about?

I am talking about the health governance Bill, which is promised.

On the health governance Bill.

I ask the Ceann Comhairle to indulge me on one more matter.

The Deputy cannot make statements every morning on legislation.

I am not making a statement, a Cheann Comhairle. A child aged three and a half-----

The Deputy should request a Topical Issue debate.

A three and a half year old child who had an amputation must wait a year and a half for a prosthesis. That is not right. What can be done about it?

Are we talking about promised legislation?

For the information of Deputy Healy-Rae, the HSE governance Bill will be published this session.

The health information Bill is also promised. Has the Bill been discussed in Cabinet, and have the heads been agreed? When is it likely to come before the House for Second Stage?

The DNA Bill, which is also promised, is eagerly awaited by those involved in the pursuit of crime and those given the responsibility of impeding those who have made a life of crime. Have the heads of that Bill been discussed and agreed? When is it likely to come before the House?

I can inform Deputy Durkan that the heads of that Bill were cleared in 2009. It is expected to be published before the end of the year. The heads of the criminal justice (forensic evidence and DNA database system) Bill were cleared back in 2007, and it will also be published before the end of this year.

Is there any legislative response that we can make as a House to the situation in Syria? There is a humanitarian crisis which requires leadership not only by our country, but by the whole world.

This has erupted into a full-scale civil war and the atrocities are beyond belief. As far as the Government is concerned, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade is in touch with our European colleagues and we join with them and with other leaders of Governments around the world in condemning unreservedly the atrocities taking place in Syria. Ireland will contribute in whatever way it can.

It is the civil war in the Labour Party that the Taoiseach should be more worried about.

The issue of Syria will be discussed during the Topical Issue Debate this afternoon.

Is there any proposed legislation to reform the way in which the Department of Education and Skills presents examinations-----

Hold on.

-----in light of yesterday's leaving certificate higher level maths paper, which was branded the worst exam in the history of the State?

The Deputy should not run away with himself.

Will there be a review of this paper?

We cannot review exam papers on the Order of Business.

When is it intended to publish the Green Paper on the Defence Forces, and why is the Minister pre-empting its recommendations by announcing a reduction in the number of Army brigades from three to two? When will the House be informed of the future of the Western Brigade and the status of its headquarters in Custume Barracks in Athlone? There is great anxiety among Army personnel, their families and the business community.

Is the Deputy asking about the Green Paper?

Yes. The Minister has pre-empted the recommendations of the Green Paper. I want to know when it will come before the House.

The Green Paper on the Defence Forces will be published before the end of the year.

I acknowledge, a Cheann Comhairle, that the manner in which you dealt with my request to make a statement was correct. It was due to my lack of understanding that I did not apply in the right manner. If I apply under Standing Order 57, will I be facilitated with an opportunity to make a statement?

The only thing I can suggest to the Deputy is that, as he is no longer in the Technical Group, he make a request to the Government, which has made it clear that it will await the outcome of the discussion by the Committee on Members' Interests. I understand the Whips are discussing the possibility of having statements, but let us wait for the committee to discuss the issue. It is the Deputy's right to seek time from the Government.

Ceann Comhairle -----

I assure Deputies that I do not deprive anybody of the right to speak in this House but we have to act according to Standing Orders.

Ceann Comhairle -----

Sorry, Deputy Higgins, we are not debating this issue.

On a point of order, I am entitled to raise the matter under any Standing Order. I raised the matter under Standing Order 57. That was my point.

No, you were questioning my decision.

I was not.

He was not questioning the Ceann Comhairle's decision.

The Ceann Comhairle took it too personally.

He is taking it all wrong.

The Government has indicated that legal issues prevented the matter from being facilitated.

If the Deputy wants to ask for Government time to debate a motion, he should do so by all means.

I do not think Standing Order 57 is clear. This Parliament should decide.

We all know -----

It is crazy that the Parliament cannot decide whether it wants to arrange a debate.

Let us be clear on this.

There is a problem here.

The Standing Orders are there for everybody to read. I advised Deputy Wallace that he had the right to seek Government time but that a personal explanation under Standing Order 44 was not in order. If Deputies Martin, Joe Higgins and Wallace want to ask for Government time on the Order of Business to debate an issue, that is their right and I will facilitate them.

That is what I asked this morning.

I read in the newspaper today that I was supposed to be preventing a debate. I am not preventing a debate.

I never claimed that.