I call Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh to announce the Order of Business for the week and to make the proposals regarding the arrangements for the taking of that business.

Today's business shall be No. 9, motion re Committee on the Future of Healthcare, without debate; No. 14, Courts Bill 2016 - Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; and No. 15, Road Traffic Bill 2016 [Seanad] - Order for Report, Report and Final Stages. Private Members’ business shall be No. 81, motion re flooding introduced by Fianna Fáil.

Wednesday’s Government business shall be No. 10, motion re Horse and Greyhound Racing Fund Regulations 2016, back from committee; No. 16, Statute Law Revision Bill 2016 [Seanad] - Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; No. 17, pre-European Council statements; No. 4, Appropriation Bill 2016 - All Stages, to conclude within 1 hour 40 minutes; No. 14, Courts Bill 2016 - Report and Final Stages, resumed if not previously concluded; No. 15, Road Traffic Bill 2016 [Seanad] - Report and Final Stages, resumed if not previously concluded; and No. 18, Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2016 - Second Stage, resumed. Private Members’ business shall be No. 28, Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill 2016, introduced by the Labour Party.

Thursday’s Government business shall be No. 15, Road Traffic Bill 2016 [Seanad] - Report and Final Stages, resumed, if not previously concluded; No. 18a, Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Bill 2016 [Seanad] - Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; No. 10a, motion re presentation and circulation of 2017 Revised Estimates, without debate; No. 10b, motion re changes to Standing Orders, without debate; and No. 30, Health (Pricing and Supply of Medical Goods) (Amendment) Bill 2016 - Second Stage will be debated in the evening slot.

Friday's business shall be No. 19, statements on symphysiotomy, to conclude at 12 noon if not previously concluded; No. 18a, Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Bill 2016 [Seanad] - Report and Final Stages resumed; and No. 18, Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2016 - Second Stage, resumed.

I refer Members to the report of the Business Committee dated 8 December 2016. In relation to today's business, there are two proposals. It is proposed that:

(1) The motion re Committee on the Future of Healthcare shall be taken without debate; and

(2) In the event that a division is under way at 8 p.m., Private Members’ business shall commence immediately on the conclusion of the division and proceedings on the motion shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, after a period of two hours. The Dáil shall adjourn immediately on the conclusion of Private Members’ business.

In relation to tomorrow's business, there are seven proposals. It is proposed that:

(1) The Dáil shall sit at 11.00 a.m.;

(2) With regard to the motion re the Horse and Greyhound Racing Fund statutory instrument, the speeches of a Minister or Minister or State and the main spokespersons for parties or groups, or a Member nominated in their stead, shall be five minutes each, to conclude within 40 minutes, and all Members may share time;

(3) In the event that a division is under way at 12 noon, Leaders' Questions shall commence immediately on the conclusion of the division;

(4) Pre-European Council statements shall commence immediately after Taoiseach's Questions - and be followed by questions to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs - and shall be brought to a conclusion after 85 minutes. The speeches of a Minister or Minister or State and the main spokespersons for parties or groups, or a Member nominated in their stead, shall be ten minutes each, with a five-minute response from a Minister or Minister of State, and all Members may share time;

(5) The suspension of sitting under Standing Order 25 shall take place after Topical Issues for 30 minutes;

(6) The proceedings on Second Stage of the Appropriation Bill 2016 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 85 minutes. The speeches of a Minister or Minister or State and the main spokespersons for parties or groups, or a Member nominated in their stead, shall be ten minutes each, with a five-minute response from a Minister or Minister of State, and all Members may share time. Proceedings on Committee and Remaining Stages shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 15 minutes by one question, which shall, in regard to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform; and

(7) Private Members' business shall take place on the conclusion of the sos and the proceedings on the Second Stage of the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill 2016 shall be brought to a conclusion after two hours.

In relation to Thursday's business, there are four proposals. It is proposed that:

(1) The Dáil shall sit at 10 a.m. and in the event that a division is under way at 12 noon, Leaders' Questions shall commence immediately on the conclusion of the division;

(2) The motions re the presentation and circulation of Revised Estimates and changes to Standing Orders shall be taken without debate;

(3) Question Time shall commence not later than 3.50 p.m. or, in the event that a division is under way, at 3.50 p.m., questions to the Minister for Justice and Equality shall commence immediately on the conclusion of the division; and

(4) The Dáil shall sit later than 7.48 p.m. and shall adjourn on the conclusion of proceedings on the Health (Pricing and Supply of Medical Goods) (Amendment) Bill 2016.

With regard to Friday's business, there are three proposals. It is proposed that:

(1) The Dáil shall sit on Friday at 10 a.m. The business to be transacted shall be statements on symphysiotomy; the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Bill 2016, Report and Final Stages, resumed; and the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2016, Second Stage, resumed. The Dáil shall adjourn not later than 4 p.m.;

(2) On the opening round of the statements on symphysiotomy, the speeches of a Minister or Minister or State and the main spokespersons for parties or groups, or a Member nominated in their stead, shall be ten minutes each, with a second round of ten minutes in total for Members of the Government, Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin, to be divided proportionally on a 40-40-20 basis, respectively. There shall be five minutes for all other Members on the subsequent rounds, with a five-minute response from the Minister or Minister of State, and all Members may share time. The statements shall conclude after two hours; and

(3) The Dáil on its rising shall adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 17 January 2017.

There are four proposals to put to the House today. Is the proposal for dealing with Tuesday's business agreed to? Agreed.

Is the proposal for dealing with Wednesday's business, as outlined by Deputy Ó Snodaigh, agreed to?

May I just ask about the business for the week?

Yes.

We have had the announcement of the rent policy discussed by the Cabinet today. I am sure the Government Deputies present would not disagree that there needs to be a full debate on these measures in the Chamber.

It is not clear to me whether it is proposed to make some extra room for a debate on these proposals or the Government intends to tack the proposals on to another Bill, for example, the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Bill 2016 [Seanad]. Can it be clarified? There are clearly important questions that need to be debated and teased out here. Will this apply retrospectively for those who have had rent increases in the past two months? Will there be a sunset clause to prevent increases in the immediate future?

We cannot go into the detail of the Bill.

What is the proposal?

We will try to ascertain that but we cannot go into the detail of the Bill. Can the Government Whip tell us what is proposed and how it will be dealt with?

The Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Bill 2016 [Seanad] is in Committee all day today, coming to this House on Thursday for approximately six hours debate on Report Stage, and Report and Final Stages for four hours on Friday. I assume, as agreed at the Business Committee, that there will be ample time to discuss today's very exciting announcements.

Sorry, I did not hear the Minister of State. Are there amendments from today's announcement and will they be amendments to the planning Bill? Is that what the Minister of State is telling us?

On Report Stage, yes.

When will we see them?

We have to see them before-----

Today, I suppose.

-----Thursday.

That is not good enough.

It is not the worst time. In fairness, it is the first time that this has happened.

We cannot deal with an important issue like that.

We could not even work out the maths earlier.

Anyway, let us go back. Is the proposal for dealing with Wednesday's business agreed to?

Agreed.

Agreed. Is proposal No. 3 for dealing with Thursday's business agreed to? Agreed.

Just-----

Is the proposal-----

I want to speak on Thursday's business.

We have agreed it.

No, Sir. I said, "No."

Deputy Howlin said, "No." Sorry, go ahead.

Deputy Howlin did not say, "No."

I know we are in a rush but we are not in that much.

You did not say, "No."

The bottom line is we need to know. Maybe Deputy Micheál Martin has sight of the proposals. I do not know.

Deputy Michael McGrath has had the sight of nothing and we signed up to nothing.

Okay, that is fine.

That is misleading.

If the Deputies are going to have a conversation-----

It is not.

-----have it outside. Can we just deal with the business before us?

I recall Deputy Howlin remonstrated with me about the failure of the Business Committee's decisions.

Please, Deputy Martin.

I am simply seeking clarity. I do not know how well briefed Deputy Micheál Martin is but I have not been briefed at all in relation to an announcement made publicly at 1.15 p.m., when Leaders' Questions were at 2 o'clock, on what we regard as one of the most fundamental issues facing us, which is housing, in particular, the rental sector. We are now told it will be dealt with by way of amendment to a Bill that has already passed Second Stage, we have not seen the amendments and we do not understand the substance. That is just not acceptable. Before we agree to Thursday's business which includes voting on a housing Bill in the name of the Labour Party, can we have some explanation of what exactly is proposed in relation to the Government's strategy to deal with rents?

The committee is under way this evening for a considerable period.

Sorry, I cannot-----

The Members cannot hear the Taoiseach.

The Committee Stage is under way this evening. There are 140 amendments down to that, as I understand it. Obviously, any other amendments will be tabled on Report Stage and the Members will see those as quickly as possible, where that is necessary.

The complexities of what was put on offer today-----

It is important-----

-----will mean a bigger Bill presented by way of amendment than the current Bill before the House and we have not sight of it.

The Minister has had extensive engagement with all the parties about this strategy.

Not true.

We indicated on many occasions that it would be coming in towards the end of the year and, obviously, needs the support of Members of the House in order to be legislated. It is important that it move through.

Is the proposal for dealing with Thursday's business agreed to? Agreed.

Finally, is the proposal for dealing with the Friday sitting and business to be taken then agreed to? Agreed.

A Cheann Comhairle, it seems to be extraordinarily chilly in the Chamber. I hold the view maybe it was to prevent Members from coming in in their T-shirts or something like that. I can assure you it is having the desired impact. It is becoming a hardship post in the week leading into Christmas.

I do not really think that is the Government's failure.

It is not.

We might be expecting snow.

Maybe the Ceann Comhairle does not want the temperatures to rise too much either. I can appreciate that.

There is a commitment in the programme for Government about reform of the system of appointment to State boards and to place it on a statutory basis. Unfortunately, there are no commitments on how to deal with Ministers who refuse to make appointments to State boards, even when the potential appointees have gone through the new system of appointments that was introduced by the previous Government in 2014.

Indeed, in the past couple of weeks there have been advertisements on television urging people to make applications through the Commission for Public Service Appointments and stating that the commission wants people's talents and ability. I understand that approximately 4,200 applications have gone through the Public Appointments Service. It is a centralised applications system through which applicants are short-listed. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, apparently has great difficulty following through with this system. The programme for Government contains a commitment to strengthen the system by putting it on a statutory footing by the end of 2016. What progress has been made on that commitment, given this is the last week of the session? Will that legislation be published?

No, obviously it will not be enacted before the end of the year. However, all applicants for positions on State boards now apply to the Public Appointments Service, PAS. That service, independently of the Department or Minister, examines the applications or expressions of interest for any positions that are open. The PAS determines the criteria, eligibility and appropriateness of persons to be considered for appointment. The service then sends a list of eligible and competent individuals to the Minister involved and the Minister is entitled to nominate from that list of eligible persons. In any event, Ministers do not know who applies for any of these positions. In respect of more serious positions under NewERA, the criteria, conditions of employment and specific requirements are set out in terms of the particular speciality a person might have and would bring to a State board.

The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform is reviewing the issue Deputy Micheál Martin has raised. However, it is open to a Minister who has received a list of competent persons, for example, ten or 12 from whom three were to be appointed, to set up an internal interview board in the Department to decide whom to nominate from that list of eligible people.

Does the Minister, Deputy Ross, have a veto?

Yes.

He does.

The Constitutional Convention recommended that the right to vote in presidential elections should be extended to citizens of the North and to members of the diaspora, the people who were forced out of this country by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments.

Get over last week, Gerry.

This morning, councillors from four of the largest councils in the North, that is, councillors from Mid Ulster District Council, Derry City and Strabane District Council, Newry, Mourne and Down District Council and Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, all of which support this position, took part in a protest outside the Dáil at the Government's deliberate long-fingering of this issue. Last Thursday, An tUachtarán held a ceremony for the Presidential Distinguished Service Award for the Irish Abroad. I was delighted to attend, especially for Drogheda man Brendan Fay, who has worked tirelessly for equality, and for others who have done our nation proud through their service.

Michael D. reminded us that the journeys of the Irish emigrants are testimony to the creativity and resilience of all who have left our shores over previous centuries. He told us that the emigrants live fulfilling lives in their respective countries, but remain true to, and proud of, their Irish heritage. However, they cannot vote in this country, unlike the case with citizens of other states. A few weeks ago Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael voted against a Sinn Féin proposal in the Seanad to allow such voting. The Minister of State said that an options paper is being prepared. When will this options paper be published and will the Government allocate time for it to be debated in the Dáil? Why has the Taoiseach changed his position on this issue? He told me previously that citizens of the diaspora and the North would be given voting rights.

I saw Deputy Adams in Áras an Uachtaráin and he is quite familiar with Uachtarán na hÉireann. I am not sure that it is appropriate for the Deputy to refer to him just by his first name in the Dáil. I believe the Uachtarán would like to be referred to with his official title, which is Uachtarán na hÉireann, and not as the Deputy referred to him.

This matter was the subject of discussion at the Cabinet sub-committee a few days ago. We have a Minister of State with responsibility for the diaspora, the second person to hold that position, and obviously we have a great deal of interest in this issue.

In reality, it boils down to the question of citizenship and how we deal with the definition of that in the context of the law that already exists and how that should be determined for those who would vote. Clearly, on that basis, the citizens of Northern Ireland would be eligible to vote in a presidential election. This matter is being worked on and I will return to it in mid-January for an update on a number of questions that I have raised about this.

Over the past ten days we have all been shocked by the actions of a substantially profitable company proposing to eviscerate the pension rights of those working for that company. I understand the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, has indicated he is considering an intervention in this matter. The Labour Party has drafted a Bill that would amend the Pensions Act 1990 and is consulting the trade union movement on that legislation. That Bill would impose a liability on any solvent employer that winds up a defined pension scheme to carry a liability for those pensions. There has been much comment about this and Fianna Fáil is also in the process of drafting legislation on this matter. Will the Taoiseach indicate if legislation will be prepared as a matter of urgency to deal with this basically sharp practice?

This is obviously of great concern to those who are involved. The position, however, is that if we were to attempt to introduce legislation, it would not be retrospective. A number of matters are being discussed by the Minister for Social Protection with the Pensions Authority. The position is that he has consulted his officials, the Pensions Authority and the Attorney General on the matter but legislation is not contemplated as of now.

It would include others though.

I note the comment from the chairman of the company involved yesterday to the effect that it was not contemplated that any dividend would be paid out. Obviously, this was a matter of some speculation.

As the Taoiseach is well aware, there is an understaffing of front-line nurses across all our hospitals and the current staff are under severe pressure. University Hospital Kerry in Tralee, Cork University Hospital and Killarney district hospital are all understaffed and that position is replicated throughout the country. The HSE has spent €250,000 advertising to attract nurses back home from abroad. A total of 88 returned home but more than half of those have emigrated again. What will the Taoiseach and the Government do to attract nurses to return home to provide a full complement of staff in all our hospitals? Does the Taoiseach know how much of a problem this is, the difficulties it is causing and the pressure the current staff are under? I ask him to act to attract nurses back into the workforce as they are urgently needed.

This is a matter the Minister keeps under review. It is obviously a personal choice at the end of the day as to whether nurses wish to work in the Irish system, to work abroad or to return home from abroad. All those who have graduated are now being offered permanent contracts. A number of nurses have returned home. This is a very competitive area, particularly in countries where no tax is payable by those who work there, and many choose to go abroad for a number of years to gain experience and so on. I would make the point that the Public Service Pay Commission makes reference to sectoral pay in its remit and that is a matter that will be considered by it when it reflects on this particular area.

Page 79 of the programme for Government reads, "we must ensure that every young person leaving school can move seamlessly to a job, training or education, no-one [should have to] graduate onto welfare". Yesterday, I received a letter from a concerned parent in south Leitrim whose child attends school there and whose educational psychologist has recommended that the child should do a leaving certificate applied course. The parent on going to the school the child attends and has attended for the past number of years was told that the school does not provide this course. The parent contacted another post-primary school, a big school I might add, 14 miles away only to be told the same thing.

I have checked the records from last year, when there were 48 courses in Sligo, 79 in Galway, 73 in Mayo and 136 in Donegal but none in Leitrim. As a former educationalist, the Taoiseach should appreciate that this is wrong and needs to be addressed immediately.

It is certainly an issue of considerable personal concern. I do not understand why there is not a post-leaving certificate course in operation in Leitrim. The education and training board, ETB, would have reflected on the provision of courses. I will have the Minister for Education and Skills-----

I am referring to leaving certificate applied courses.

In Sligo?

In Leitrim.

Yet the person in question lives in Leitrim.

He lives in Leitrim.

Is there no leaving certificate applied course at all in Leitrim?

There was none last year.

It is a matter for the ETB. We need to find out the reason for this. The student should be as entitled as anybody else to have access to a course one can qualify through, particularly when it is recommended by his psychologist.

The mortgage special courts Bill was supposed to go to pre-legislative scrutiny last month. Will the Taoiseach inform the House when the Minister for Finance will publish a 59-page detailed report he received from the Central Bank six weeks ago into the options that vulture funds and banks have for restructuring mortgages before they move to repossess? He has had that report for six weeks and it is important, given that the Bill is supposed to be going to pre-legislative scrutiny. It is also important in light of yesterday's announcement from the Central Bank that 1,210 letters were issued by banks seeking repossessions of family homes in the three months up to October. Will the Taoiseach inform the House that the Minister will no longer sit on that document and will publish it without delay?

I cannot give a date for publication but I will consult with the Minister this afternoon and advise the Deputy then.

We have all heard the horror stories of the predatory practices of the car-clamping companies on unsuspecting motorists and commuters who return to their cars to find clamps attached. Four years ago, the Automobile Association made a presentation to the Oireachtas transport committee on a litany of abuses occurring in this regard. Two years ago, the Vehicle Clamping Act 2015 was enacted by this House. A week ago, however, when I asked why the practices prohibited under the clamping Act were still continuing, with charges far in excess of those allowed, I was informed that the legislation had not been commenced because the National Transport Authority, NTA, does not have the resources required to do so. If we are going to pass legislation in this House, we need to commence, implement and enforce it. The law of the land, as set out in the Vehicle Clamping Act, is not being followed or in operation. Will the Taoiseach take this matter on board and address it immediately?

I will. The law of the land should be observed. I will advise the Deputy.

Then it should be commenced.

The programme for Government contains a firm commitment to make significant funding available to equip our Army and, specifically, to provide it with new armoured personnel carriers. In this respect, will the Taoiseach ensure there is an active engagement by the Department of Defence with Irish industry and, at the very least, it sees its capabilities in fulfilling this role at the commencement of the new year? One of the world's leading companies in designing and developing armoured vehicles, Timoney Technology, is based at the IDA Ireland Technology & Business Park in Navan. Two Ministers, Deputies Coveney and Bruton, have visited the company's plant in the past. This company has supplied the Australian, Singaporean, Polish and Turkish armies, as well as the US Marine Corps. Despite the efforts of Enterprise Ireland, at the behest of the Ministers, there has been no active engagement whatsoever with the industry in Ireland, however. When it commences in the new year, there should be a fair and open process and everyone should get a fair crack of the whip, given the world-class leading company we have.

I assure the Deputy that, in so far as the Department of Defence is concerned, this is an issue that is monitored constantly in the context of having proper equipment for our Defence Forces, which carry out such important work on behalf of the State at home and abroad. We discussed the question of resources for the Department of Defence and it was agreed with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. As these issues arise, they will be examined carefully. Hopefully, our Defence Forces personnel will never be sent out with inadequate or inferior equipment.

What about an open process?

The company mentioned by the Deputy is very reputable. I accept that.

In response to questions from my party leader, Deputy Micheál Martin, as well as from Deputy Howlin today, about the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Varadkar, seeking advice from the Attorney General as to the protection of the benefits of members of pension schemes and, specifically, defined benefit pension schemes, last week the Taoiseach responded in a rather sheepish way and said the Minister was simply seeking advice.

I remind the Taoiseach that the Minister, Deputy Leo Varadkar, the Minister sitting beside him, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, and the former Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, actually brought about this very issue. They brought it about through the destruction of the IAS pension scheme in which 15,000 members were removed from the pension scheme unilaterally. It was aided and abetted by the previous Government's-----

Does the Deputy have a question?

-----Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2014 and section 33 of the State Airports (Shannon Group) Act 2014. We warned at the time that this would set a roadmap for other employers of profitable firms to wind down their pension schemes and reduce pension scheme benefits. What is the Attorney General's advice? Does the Taoiseach intend to bring forward specific pension legislation to provide the protection that he and his Ministers removed from pension scheme members during the lifetime of the last Dáil and Seanad? The last Government has done more to undermine pension provision in this country by that and by the private pension levy that took €2.6 billion out of people's savings and provisions for their retirement.

The Minister for Social Protection met with the chairperson of the Pensions Authority. He has asked the authority to report back to him with an assessment of the current overall position on defined benefits schemes.

Why not amend the Pensions Act 1990?

He sought advice from the Attorney General on the way he might be able to look at the question of the public element of this issue. Legislation in this area cannot be made retrospective. The Minister has asked the chairperson of the Pensions Authority to report back to him. I mentioned before that there have been some calls for the funding standard that applies here to be suspended. That defines the basis upon which liabilities of defined benefits schemes have to be calculated. It provides a benchmark against which the strength of a scheme can be tested and when a scheme fails-----

It was allowed to fail.

-----the funding standard, it means that unless some action is taken, the scheme will not be able to pay all the benefits that are promised to the shareholders in the first place.

Employers are ensuring that these schemes fail. They have a roadmap to do it.

Any reduction in the funding standard would not improve the scheme's ability to pay the benefits as they fall due. The Minister will get the report from the chairman of the Pensions Authority in due course.

The Government should amend the Pensions Act 1990 to provide the protections that are required.