Standing Order 107I was removed from today’s schedule and, according to a late note to our office, it is proposed to bring it in tomorrow. The Standing Order is consequent on the passing of the Central Bank (Amendment) Bill 2014, which was passed last week and which states:

Any member of either House of the Oireachtas to whom confidential information is provided under subsection (5) and who fails to comply with the provisions of professional secrecy referred to in subsection (6) in respect of that information may be subject to the sanction of the House of which the person is a Member in accordance with rules and Standing Orders made by that House.

The Standing Order was circulated two weeks ago and is severe. I have had some preliminary legal advice that it looks very restrictive on the members of the committee in terms of the sanctions they may incur if they are judged to have breached the Act in terms of receiving confidential information from the Central Bank and breaching their duty of professional secrecy. Given that the inquiry is meant to open up everything in the Central Bank documentation on corporations and individuals, it seems an extraordinary restriction. Would the Taoiseach defer bringing the Standing Order before us so there can be discussions between the Members and the parties on the impact of the Standing Order we are being asked to approve? Perhaps some protection is needed for the Members of the House in terms of how this will work in practice in the committee.

The programme for Government contains a very clear commitment in terms of legislation that the fair deal system of financing nursing home care will be reviewed with a view to developing a secure and equitable system of financing community and long-term care which supports older people to stay in their own homes. In January 2014, 512 people had been waiting for four weeks for funding under the fair deal scheme. In October 2014, nine months later, 2,114 people had been awaiting funding for 15 weeks. Both the numbers and the waiting time quadrupled in 2014. Is it any wonder we have a crisis in accident and emergency departments with delayed discharge when the Government has deliberately cut funding to the scheme? Deputy Billy Kelleher tabled a very good parliamentary question and got the monthly figures. Where is the commitment to the legislation and when can we expect the reform of the fair deal scheme so elderly people will not be waiting 15 weeks, which could potentially amount to €15,000 of expenditure for families? Given that I have been asking the question for quite some time, I really want an answer as to when we will have the legislation and the fair deal review the Government promised in its programme for Government.

The data sharing and governance Bill is very important. Deputy Shatter was in the unique position of getting access to the terms of reference of a commission of investigation a full month before any Member of the House. It was lodged quietly on 19 December in the hope that everybody was heading off for Christmas. The whole story is intriguing. In future, I ask that when commissions of investigation are established there be a prior consultation mechanism between the Government and Opposition Members, particularly the spokespersons with responsibility for the particular areas being inquired into. The data sharing and governance Bill may be the mechanism to facilitate sharing such basic information with other Members of the House. When does the Taoiseach expect it to be published?

The data sharing and governance Bill is listed for this year and I have already answered a question by Deputy Adams on the consistency of the Government in having made a decision to send the terms of reference of a commission of investigation to a Deputy who was in litigation, for his information and not for any comment. The purpose of this was to leave nobody in doubt but that the Government intended to proceed, as it always said it would, to have the commission of investigation with the terms of reference as set out by Mr. Sean Guerin. I will have to come back to the Deputy on the fair deal. The Standing Order was removed from the schedule because the President has not yet signed the Central Bank (Amendment) Bill 2014. The President must sign the Bill before the Standing Order is moved.

I am asking the Taoiseach not to move it.

Blame Michael D. Higgins.

The Bill provides a gateway through which the Central Bank may provide confidential information to the Joint Committee of Inquiry into the Banking Crisis. There are professional secrecy obligations in EU and national law regarding such confidential documents. The draft Standing Order, which has been agreed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, creates a process for dealing with breaches of those professional secrecy obligations by Members and provides for penalties where Members do not comply with the requirements of the law. The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Harris, took the Bill through and it was agreed by the Fianna Fáil Whip.

He was told it was a fait accompli.

The banking inquiry sought new Standing Orders alongside the Bill. Standing Orders do not come from the Government. The Joint Committee of Inquiry into the Banking Crisis has sought the legislation on the confidential matter with which it is to deal. We cannot move the Standing Order until the Bill has been signed.

If a Member mentioned, for example, Anglo Irish Bank as being in Central Bank documentation, could it be in breach of the privacy legislation? We need far more transparency about what is allowable and what is not because the public has not got a clue about it. The Act and the Standing Order could constitute a very restrictive mechanism on members of the inquiry, about which the Government knew well before the establishment of the inquiry. It points to the inadequacy of the model the Government has chosen.

There are obligations regarding secrecy in EU and national law. This was a specific request by the Joint Committee of Inquiry into the Banking Crisis.

The Standing Order motion was not moved today because the Bill has not been signed by the President.

One cannot mention a bank in the banking inquiry.

It will be penalised if it mentions a bank.

It is farcical to have a banking inquiry where people cannot name a bank. The name of the inquiry should be changed.

It should be deleted.