It is not agreed. I do not intend to force a physical vote on this. I just want to highlight my grave reservations about the import and impact of this Bill, the implications of which have not been widely circulated. I have been informed by my party Whip that the Whips were informed at a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that significant limitations are to be imposed on what the Central Bank can disclose to the banking inquiry committee. I understand that up to 60% of the documentation may not be fully accessible by the banking inquiry. I stand to be corrected in that regard. It seems that the documentation will be stored in a central location. While the members of the banking inquiry committee will have access to that documentation, they will not get copies of it and it will not be available for public scrutiny. I am informed that some of this relates to EU directives. My party and I have not received any real written presentation on the degree to which the Central Bank can provide this documentation to the banking inquiry. How much documentation is there? What use can be made of that documentation? I understand it will not be made public when it goes to the banking inquiry committee. I understand that no individual or corporate can be named. It is possible that when the members of the inquiry are questioning Central Bank officials, they will not be able to ask questions about specific banks, corporates or individuals. This should have been flagged well in advance of the establishment of the banking inquiry. Were the limitations with regard to a key player and institution in the entire banking collapse understood?

The new Standing Order that will have to be introduced next week is significant because it provides that members of the banking inquiry committee may be sanctioned for "failure to comply with professional secrecy provisions in respect of confidential information provided under the Central Bank Act 1942". The proposed Standing Order states:

(1) Where confidential information has been provided pursuant to section 33AK(5) of the Central Bank Act 1942 a member shall not make an utterance during the course of proceedings which constitutes a failure to comply with the provisions of professional secrecy referred to in sections 33AK(6) and (6A) of the aforementioned Act. Where a member makes such an utterance during the course of proceedings it may prima facie be an abuse of privilege, subject to the provisions of this Standing Order.

(2) If, during the course of proceedings, it appears to the Ceann Comhairle that a member has made an utterance as described in paragraph (1), he or she shall refer the matter to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges: Provided always that the Ceann Comhairle may also at any time thereafter, on his or her own volition, refer any such matter to the Committee.

It goes on to say that a submission can be made within two weeks in these circumstances. We were given notice of this motion in tandem with the legislation, all Stages of which are to be put through today. We have got very preliminary legal advice of our own.

With the agreement of all parties.

Hardly.

It was agreed.

Would Deputy Martin be standing up now if this had the agreement of all parties?

It was agreed by all parties.

With respect, why is there such secrecy about it?

It is a cover-up.

Very few people know about this.

There is no secrecy at all.

The Government will get what it wants out of it anyway.

So much for the democratic revolution.

All the Whips agreed it.

Another cover-up.

A comprehensive presentation of the implications of any Bill like this should be made before it is put before the House. The point is that this will limit the degree to which the Central Bank can co-operate with the inquiry.

The Whips agreed it.

The Deputies are confused.

It seems that any Member of either House of the Oireachtas to whom confidential information is provided and who fails to comply with the provisions of professional secrecy in respect of that information may be subject to the sanction of the Houses of the Oireachtas in accordance with the rules set down in Standing Orders. The actual implications of this are quite serious. The members of the banking inquiry committee will have to ensure they do not breach the duty of professional secrecy that they owe arising from the receipt of confidential information from the Central Bank. It will be very difficult for the members of the inquiry committee to conduct the work of that committee in a thorough and competent way if they are precluded from referring to and questioning witnesses on documentation they have received from the Central Bank. That is the key point.

The Deputy is pre-empting the debate on the Bill.

It is about the Standing Orders.

This is a Second Stage speech.

He is entitled to raise the changes that are being made to Standing Orders.

The Whips agreed to the change to Standing Orders.

The new Standing Order has not been put before the House yet.

The Deputy's Whip agreed to this.

How dare you.

All the Whips agreed to it.

Deputy Martin, to conclude.

I appeal to the Chair to protect me from the interventions of Deputy Stagg, who is completely out of order.

I am trying to get order. I am facilitating a brief discussion on this item.

It is a serious matter. I am being brief.

The Deputy is not being brief. He is making a Second Stage speech.

He is being interrupted.

I want to get to the key point. I do not know why people are objecting and heckling.

Deputy Martin is getting to the truth and to the point.

It is a very important point from a parliamentary perspective.

Let us conclude this now.

I actually believe in Parliament and the workings of Parliament.

So do I.

That is what I am about here.

It was not part of the plan. What about the election?

I will repeat the point I was making before I was interrupted. It will be very difficult for members of the inquiry team to conduct their work in a thorough and competent way if they are precluded from referring to and questioning witnesses about documentation they have received from the Central Bank. I would appreciate it if the legal advice to the Oireachtas and to the inquiry could be made public and presented to Deputies who have to debate the Bill today. My understanding is that when the documents go before the banking inquiry, they will not be published. A substantial number of them might not be accessible at all. The subsequent questioning by the members of the banking inquiry committee that will follow the reading of those documents that are accessible will be limited in so far as it will not be possible to name or identify individuals or corporates. I should quickly add that my understanding of the matter is based on what was communicated to me by my party Whip after he was briefed verbally on it at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I would respectfully suggest it is no way to conduct a debate in the House on such an important matter. That is why I stood up to oppose this. I am speaking on the basis of the quick legal advice we have received with regard to this important issue.

I appreciate from what Deputy Martin is saying that he has only just been told about this important issue.

No, I did not say that.

I understood when I was arranging to take the Order of Business this morning that this matter had been agreed between the Whips, having been before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in the context of the relevant changes in Standing Orders that are required. I was advised that the Whips had reached agreement on that. To be clear, the purpose of this Bill is to empower the Central Bank, which is an independent entity in its roles and functions, to co-operate with the banking inquiry as fully as possible.

I know that.

As the Deputy knows, the Central Bank operates with the European Central Bank.

That is accepted.

I would like to make a point about the work of the banking inquiry so far. As the Deputy and I know from the public reports of the banking inquiry, there is very serious legal advice about how the members of that inquiry have to conduct themselves for the inquiry to proceed successfully. They are under heavy advice about how to conduct themselves. My understanding this morning was that this matter had been agreed among the Whips. It had also been before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and had been agreed there as well. I understand the Deputy has just learned about issues that have been raised very recently.

No, I did not say that at all. I did not say that I just learned about this. I want explanations.

The reason for next week's change in Standing Orders is very simple. If the Central Bank (Amendment) Bill 2014 is passed by the House, it will have to go to the President for signature.

He will get into more trouble.

The changes to the Standing Orders cannot happen until that has been done. It is for that reason and no other that the consequential changes will come before the House next week. My understanding is that this was agreed among and between the Whips.

Very reluctantly.

It was not agreed by our Whip.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 1 agreed?

It is not agreed.

Further clarification is sought.

I want a full presentation on the legal advice.