It is proposed to take No. a15, motion re referral of the general scheme of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Bill 2012 to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the sub-Committee on Privileges; No.19, Credit Union Bill 2012 - Second Stage (resumed); and No. 5, Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2012 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 9 p.m. and adjourn not later than 10 p.m.; that No. a15 shall be decided without debate; and that the resumed Second Stage debate on No. 19 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 1.30 p.m. Topical Issues shall be taken at 3.45 p.m. and followed by oral questions which shall be brought to a conclusion after 75 minutes. Private Members’ business shall be No. 73, motion re education funding (resumed), to conclude at 9 p.m., if not previously concluded.

There are four proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 9 p.m. agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. a15 agreed to?

Not agreed.

I am sorry, but I am in an unfortunate position. As the Deputy is not representing a party, in accordance with Standing Orders, I am prevented from allowing her to speak. It is only leaders of parties who can raise such issues.

Can the Ceann Comhairle not use his discretion?

I am not agreeing to this proposal because the general scheme will be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It is legislation-----

The Deputy will appreciate that she is now out of order.

The Committee on Procedure and Privileges meets in private session. It is inappropriate for legislation to be referred to a committee which meets in private session.

Will the Deputy, please, resume her seat?

The proposal lacks the transparency required.

I ask for the Deputy's microphone to be switched off.

The proposal lacks the required transparency.

I ask the Deputy to resume her seat.

I am objecting to the proposal on the grounds of transparency and openness.

Will the Deputy, please, resume her seat? She knows the rules as well as I do.

The rules are a joke.

Well then, have them changed. I have to apply them.

The Ceann Comhairle will not engage with us on that issue.

It is up to the Members of the House to change the rules. It is not up to me.

We cannot play hurling if there is no ball on the pitch.

The Committee on Procedure and Privileges does not meet in public.

Is Deputy Gerry Adams objecting?

I have no issue with the point in question, but, in deference to Teachta Catherine Murphy, her point has to be ventilated.

If the Deputy is not disagreeing with this proposal, then-----

As a party leader-----

I am sorry, Deputy, but this is not the place-----

Gabh mo leithscéal, a Cheann Comhairle.

Please, Deputy, do not put me in an awkward and embarrassing position. The Deputy knows the rules. I am not trying to prevent anybody from speaking. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat, please.

I have the right to object, as a party leader.

The Deputy is entitled to speak if he is objecting to the proposal.

I am objecting to it. I am making the point that I am objecting-----

To the proposal.

I am objecting on behalf of Teachta Catherine Murphy and the point she made that this process should not be conducted in private session.

Does the Deputy not have his own view on the matter?

The Technical Group is in disarray.

The heads of the Bill were approved by the Government on 31 October. In line with a commitment already given to provide for more effective scrutiny of legislation by the Oireachtas, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has referred the heads of the Bill to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform which will conduct pre-legislative scrutiny. The process will involve a full, open and transparent examination of the heads of the Bill. The Government, separately, will refer the heads of the Bill to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in each House to allow them to examine the elements of the Bill within their remit. The general scheme of the Bill has already been referred to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform for a full, open and transparent examination in public session.

Can the Committee on Procedure and Privileges not meet in public session when it is examining the heads of a Bill?

I am informed that this is purely a technical issue. There is nothing to stop other committees from discussing the heads of the Bill openly and in public. There is nothing to stop any committee of the House from discussing the issue.

I ask for silence for the Order of Business, please. I give Members notice that every minute is taken away from the time available for the Order of Business. We now have only ten minutes left because of the vote and the longer the delay, the worse it gets.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 19 agreed to?

It is not agreed.

It is not agreed.

I call Deputy Adams.

The credit union movement is one of the great national social movements on the island and many people and families depend on it. The Government is introducing banking regulations which are not appropriate to deal with a voluntary organisation such as the credit union movement and under which many smaller credit unions will not be able to function. Therefore, every Teachta Dála must have the opportunity to speak on this issue, if he or so wishes. The use of the guillotine will not allow them to do this.

The Irish League of Credit Unions which represents 3 million members asked specifically in its submission on this legislation that there be no attempt to foreclose debate on the Credit Union Bill in the House. It has expressed extreme concern about the potential damage that may be done to the fundamental, voluntary and democratic ethos of credit unions. It is also deeply concerned that the imposition of legislation dealing with banks that wrecked the economy will have a detrimental effect on credit unions which bear no responsibility for the current economic crisis. Is it the case that the guillotine is being imposed in order to suit the timetable being demanded by the troika? If that is the case, it is unacceptable. I ask the Taoiseach to lift the guillotine and allow for a full debate on this important legislation which will affects millions of citizens.

The content of the Bill is the subject matter of the debate. As a member of a credit union since my earliest years, I am very conscious of the different tradition that has evolved over time in the credit union movement. That said, it is important we strike a balance between protecting the members of credit unions and having proper prudential provisions and preserving the ethos of the credit union movement. In that context, will the Taoiseach confirm there will be ample time provided and additional time, if necessary, for the debate on Second Stage in order that the views of Members can be fully articulated? There should be no great difficulty in agreeing to this, as I suspect there are no unnecessary demands in terms of time made by external bodies.

I do not want to cause a row. At the Whips' meeting last week all of the Opposition Whips requested that the Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill dealing with the issue of risk equalisation be debated all day in the House today and tomorrow. However, because of the level of interest in the Credit Union Bill, it was decided to include the Bill in the agenda for today. Members may sit an hour longer tonight if they want to, or perhaps they might prefer to have a discussion with the Whips after the Order of Business. The Credit Union Bill must pass through by Christmas. There is a lot of backed-up material that has to pass through the House. The Bills must also pass through the Seanad. I do not wish to guillotine the debate, as Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett consistently suggests.

That is what has been proposed on the Order of Business.

The Deputy's group was anxious that the Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill be taken all day today and tomorrow.

We objected to the use of the guillotine.

The Deputies object to everything. That is the nature of what happens here. I am not objecting to extra time being given to debate the Bill, if the time can be found. I suggest to Deputies Micheál Martin and Gerry Adams that the Whips discuss the matter with the Government Whip to try to find an extra hour today or see if it would be possible to fit it in at some other time. I am not opposed to this happening.

Does that mean the guillotine will be lifted?

Is the motion that the debate, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 1.30 p.m. being pursued?

Subject to agreement between the Whips in accordance with the spirit of what the Taoiseach said.

I am sorry, but I have a motion before the House that I must deal with. Has it been withdrawn? Yes, it has. Is the proposal for dealing with oral questions today agreed to? Agreed.