It is proposed to take No. 12, motion re proposed authorisation by Dáil Éireann for the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to instruct legal representatives; No. 13, motion re Joint Committee of Inquiry into the Banking Crisis; No. 14, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of Ireland’s accession to the memorandum of understanding concerning the principles for the establishment and operation of a battle group (back from committee); No. 6, Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Dissolution) Bill 2015 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. 12 and 13 shall be decided without debate; and that the proceedings relating to No. 14 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 20 minutes, and the following arrangements shall apply: 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, shall not exceed five minutes in each case. Private Members’ business shall be No. 208, motion re corporation tax.

Tomorrow’s business after Oral Questions shall be No. 40, Marriage Bill 2015 - Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; No. 6, Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Dissolution) Bill 2015 - Second Stage (resumed); No. 15, National Cultural Institutions (National Concert Hall) Bill 2015 - motion to instruct committee; and No. 41, National Cultural Institutions (National Concert Hall) Bill 2015 - Order for Report, Report and Final Stages. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the proceedings in regard to No. 15 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after one hour, and the following arrangements shall apply: 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, shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; and such Members may share their time.

There are three proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 12 and 13 without debate - motion re proposed authorisation for the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to instruct legal representatives, and motion re the Joint Committee of Inquiry into the Banking Crisis - agreed to?

It is not agreed. Does the proposed authorisation by Dáil Éireann for the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to instruct legal representatives relate to the legal action being taken by Mr. Denis O'Brien against the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission?

Yes.

This is a fundamental issue, given that the House and its Members are being challenged with respect to their work, along with the concept of the House being in charge of itself under the Constitution and the separation of powers. The issue is very serious and merits debate and contributions from Members of the House.

I say that sincerely. In my lifetime I have not come across such a substantive attempt to change the order. When I say "change the order", I mean in terms of the pre-eminence of Parliament in the conduct of its own affairs. This is fundamental to our Constitution, to freedom of speech and to independent thought in our society, and I have serious concerns about what is transpiring. It seems that at the very least we should facilitate a debate in the House to allow Members to make a contribution to it. The Taoiseach might also clarify why he is not holding a debate on No. 13, regarding the banking inquiry.

In respect of No. 13, it is just that the Chairman and the committee have requested extra time in which to deal with the report, until 28 January. They requested extra time to draft it.

The reason I am asking for a debate on that is that there is a lot of talk. The Taoiseach yesterday refused to confirm whether there will be a general election. I do not see what the issue is. If he wants to name a date, he should do so.

Hold on a second now.

That is very pertinent to the banking inquiry because if we grant this request, clearly the banking inquiry would fall if the Government were to call an election in November, so the members of the banking-----

Deputy Martin has made his point.

It is an important point. We were told-----

I let the Deputy in and now he has come in a second time, without-----

I know, but I did not realise we are being asked to vote on No. 13 without debate.

Yes, that is right.

Given all the speculation and commentary, and the refusal of the Taoiseach to rule out a November election, why would we extend the remit of the banking inquiry unless we are certain the Dáil will be here in January?

I thank the Deputy. He has made his point.

The Taoiseach needs to clarify to the House that we will be here.

We will be here until April next year.

The position is that if the Dáil collapses or fails and there is a general election, that inquiry collapses. It cannot be restarted or reinitiated under a new Dáil. There has been a lot of discussion and commentary about the banking inquiry, as well as a lot of investment and expenditure on it and hype raised about it. It may not be achieving what certain people wanted it to achieve from day one, but the bottom line is that it is reasonable to ask for a debate on that so that we can get clarity as to whether the banking inquiry will fulfil its remit-----

The Deputy has made his point.

-----and the Dáil will be in place so that it does not collapse by virtue of an early general election.

That is not the debate Deputy Martin is looking for at all.

Sorry?

The Chairman has made a request on behalf of the committee for further time to draft the report in respect of the statements made before the banking inquiry committee. That is a straightforward request.

The Taoiseach is asking us to-----

Debating that request is irrelevant because the Chairman has asked for time and I am prepared to give him time.

Can we debate it?

The House can agree on that. In respect of No. 12-----

It is not irrelevant if there is an election.

Just one second. These are technical motions-----

It is not technical.

The House-----

It is technical-----

It is not.

-----in so far as the question I have to put to the House-----

It will be seen to have been a waste.

No, no.

I am entitled to oppose the debate.

Deputy Martin can vote against it, by all means.

Deputy Martin wants to have a debate on something else entirely.

No, we should-----

The Taoiseach should proceed.

The House is not going to collapse. Deputy Martin need not worry.

What does that mean?

The House is not going to collapse.

Name the date.

We are here until April. Deputy Martin should get it into his head.

The situation with regard to No. 12 has now been dealt with by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, CPP, for a number of months. This is legally very complex and very sensitive and the CPP agreed unanimously, including the members from Deputy Martin's own party, that this is the course of action that should be taken and advises strongly that we give authorisation in respect of the request from CPP to the Dáil to do this.

I have no difficulty with the request, other than that we should have a debate on it. We are a Parliament.

It has been debated at length by the CPP.

It has not been debated in this House at all.

I am putting the question.

A senior, very significant business figure has challenged this House and we are not allowed discuss it.

Is the proposal for dealing with items Nos. 12 and 13, motion re: proposed authorisation for the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission-----

Deputy Martin should talk to his members of the CPP.

His own members.

Has Deputy Martin spoken to his own members of the CPP?

It is appalling.

-----to instruct legal representatives-----

It is very wrong.

-----and motion re: Joint Committee of Inquiry into the Banking Crisis, both without debate, agreed?

It is not wrong. Deputy Martin's party agreed to it.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 14, motion re Ireland's accession to the memorandum of understanding concerning the principles for the establishment and operation of a battle group, agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 15, National Cultural Institutions (National Concert Hall) Bill 2015 – motion to instruct committee, tomorrow agreed to? Agreed.