I call the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Joe McHugh, to announce the Order of Business.

Shíl mé go raibh an Teachta Richard Boyd Barrett chun an tOrd Gnó a fhógairt inniu ach, é sin ráite, tá mé sásta é a dhéanamh.

Today's business shall be No. 14, motion re Supplementary Estimates, leave to introduce; No. 15, motion re Supplementary Estimates, referral to select committee; No. 16, motion re parliamentary questions rota changes between the Department of Defence and the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, and between the Department of Finance and the Department of Justice and Equality; No. 17, motion re European Defence Agency, referral to select committee; No. 18, motion re change to Standing Order 71(5); No. 1, Legal Metrology (Measuring Instruments) Bill 2017, amendment from the Seanad; and No. 33, Finance Bill 2017 - Order for Report, Report and Final Stages. Private Members' business shall be No. 157, motion re rural crime, selected by Fianna Fáil.

Tomorrow’s business shall be No. 33, Finance Bill 2017 - Report and Final Stages (resumed, if not previously concluded); and No. 5, Public Service Pay and Pensions Bill 2017 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. Private Members' business shall be Second Stage of No. 50, Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2017, selected by Solidarity-People Before Profit.

Thursday’s business shall be No. 5, Public Service Pay and Pensions Bill 2017 - Second Stage (resumed) and No. 6, Social Welfare Bill 2017 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. Second Stage of No. 51, University College Galway (Amendment) Bill 2017, will be debated in the evening slot.

I refer to the second revised report of the Business Committee dated 21 November 2017. In relation to today’s business, it is proposed that:

(1) The Dáil shall sit later than 10 p.m. and shall adjourn on the conclusion of Private Members’ business;

(2) The motions re Supplementary Estimates, leave to introduce and referral to committee, parliamentary questions rota changes, the European Defence Agency, referral to select committee, and the change to Standing Order 71(5) shall be taken without debate and any division demanded thereon shall be taken immediately;

(3) Private Members' business shall take place not later than 9 p.m. for two hours.

In relation to tomorrow’s business, it is proposed that:

(1) The Dáil shall sit later than 10.15 p.m. and shall adjourn not later than 11 p.m. unless the Report and Final Stages of the Finance Bill 2017 are not concluded at 11 p.m. in which case the Dáil shall adjourn at 12 midnight or on the conclusion of the Finance Bill 2017, whichever is the earlier;

(2) Second Stage of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2017 shall conclude within two hours.

In relation to Thursday’s business, it is proposed:

(1) The Dáil shall sit later than 7.48 p.m. and shall adjourn on the conclusion of proceedings on Second Stage of University College Galway (Amendment) Bill 2017;

(2) Any division demanded on the conclusion of proceedings on Second Stage on the Public Service Pay and Pensions Bill 2017 and-or the Social Welfare Bill 2017 shall be taken immediately;

(3) Topical Issue matters shall be taken not later than 8.10 p.m.

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

Not agreed.

Not agreed.

I call Deputy Micheál Martin. This is to be only a brief intervention.

It will be a very brief intervention. Given the lack of transparency and the fact that we have not really got answers to questions that we asked during Leaders' Questions both last week and this week on the adversarial approach during the O'Higgins commission of investigation and when the Tánaiste and the Department of Justice and Equality became aware of it, a number of us asked that the Tánaiste would come to the House to give a comprehensive clarification to the House and take questions. Given that this has been live up to our coming in here at 2 p.m. and the Tánaiste spoke on the issue on "News At One" just before we came in, prior to agreeing the Order of Business, it is imperative that we get a commitment from Government that we would adjust the terms of reference to facilitate the Tánaiste coming to the House to make a statement and to take questions. We are not agreeing the Order of Business as a result.

On the same issue, as I pointed out in questions to the Taoiseach, this is a matter that the Government cannot sweep under the carpet or try to downplay as if it were an issue of non-significance. It is a very serious issue. It goes to the heart of the accountability of this House. It is our job to hold Ministers to account. It is also the job of the media. The Taoiseach has made himself available to the media, which I welcome, but he has to make himself available to this House. Sinn Féin will not be supporting the Order of Business in this House unless the former Minister for Justice and Equality agrees to come before it today to make a statement outlining her exact position and allow Members to question her on that position so we can have clarity regarding the burning issues that exist. I refer not only to views held by Members of this House but also to members of the public.

On this same issue, I support the call by colleagues. It would be extraordinary and undermine the public perception of democracy in this House if the Tánaiste made herself amenable to going on national programmes to be interviewed and answer questions posed by a journalist and refused to answer questions in the House. I am sure the Tánaiste will be more than willing to do so. I ask that time be made available today, by agreement.

On the same issue, as a member of the Business Committee, I noted that when I and others agreed the Order of Business last week, we were not to know the Taoiseach would be forced to admit he had misled this House or given false information to it on what the Tánaiste knew and when she knew it regarding what was, let us remember, an absolutely scurrilous campaign to try to destroy Mr. Maurice McCabe, a brave man who was trying to blow the whistle on wrongdoing in the Garda. We have not got a clear commitment on whether the Tánaiste will answer questions on these most serious matters. We have to have that commitment. We cannot proceed with the Order of Business, as it stands, unless we get a commitment that the Tánaiste will answer those most serious questions.

The Taoiseach and the Chief Whip may respond.

I will speak first and then the Chief Whip.

I dispute the allegation that I somehow misled the House. As stated at the outset, to mislead is a deliberate act. I gave the House the information I had at the time, and I have since clarified the information. Misleading the House is a deliberate attempt to misinform the House. I reject the allegation and I hope people will at least accept-----

One can mislead inadvertently.

We will deal with the four questions.

The Taoiseach told a porky by mistake.

I want to say very clearly that I have nothing at all to hide on this matter, nor does the Government have anything to hide. As I stated today and nine or ten days ago, neither the Department of Justice and Equality nor its former Minister, the Tánaiste, had any hand, act or part in this legal strategy. They did not know about it beforehand and found out only after the fact. Therefore, they had no way of influencing it. That fundamental fact needs to be recognised.

I am still not clear exactly what allegation is being made against the Tánaiste by Members of this House. If we are going to have a statement on this, followed by questions, it is important to do as I propose. I do not wish to tell the Leas-Cheann Comhairle how to do his job here - he should not take me up in that way - but I believe it is important that he, his office or somebody get some legal advice. The tribunal has been established by this House to look into these matters.

Hold on. I do not need legal advice on a simple question. Deputies are requesting that an opportunity be given to make statements. It is a matter for the House, not a matter of legal advice for me.

Hear, hear.

I might not be a lawyer but I have common sense. I have been here for 36 or 37 years and I will not be dictated to by anybody in this House, not even the Taoiseach.

I think-----

Hold on. The Taoiseach is not in the Chair. I put it to the Taoiseach that four Members of this House have posed a question. They are not agreeing to the Order of Business. It is a matter for the Taoiseach to decide whether he is agreeing to that. I will immediately put the question on the Order of Business.

May I make a remark before the Leas-Cheann Comhairle puts the question?

Yes, of course.

I am happy to be part of a Business Committee which meets to consider these matters. It is the Business Committee that decides the order of the House. That is a mechanism we have all agreed to.

I would be happy to facilitate what is being requested, if that is possible and if a meeting is convened to consider it. I am concerned that we might ignore the policy that is the Business Committee that decides what goes on the agenda. I am also aware, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that we have a very tight schedule this week between the FEMPI Bill, the Finance Bill, and trying to commence the Social Welfare Bill. We did have an agreement but I am happy if there is to be a meeting of the Business Committee on this issue.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Deputy Martin should hold on for one moment. The Business Committee does not decide the business of the House. The Business Committee makes recommendations to this House.

Recommendations on behalf of the committee to the House.

There is a big difference. It is the House that decides. I will call the Taoiseach momentarily. I ask the House to decide. It is a matter for Members. I am only the facilitator and I must ensure we stay within Standing Orders. I remind Members that it is the House that decides and the Business Committee recommends.

I respectfully suggest that the right way forward now might be for the Business Committee to meet and discuss this matter and make a recommendation to the House on what we should do next. A tribunal has been established by this House to look into these matters and to investigate them. There is precedent in this regard and I would not like us as a House to make a decision in the heat of the moment that would jeopardise or scupper the tribunal. We need to assure ourselves that we would not end up doing that.

I need to respond. First, on the idea of referring to the Business Committee, there is no commitment from the Government side that it has any inclination or wish to engage in any Dáil debate on the issue or for the Tánaiste to speak in any capacity. It is very clear from the replies that people want to invoke the tribunal to avoid any discussion in the House or any questions. I would point out that parliamentary questions have already been tabled on the matter by Deputy Alan Kelly and there have been replies, but not ones that answer the questions he asked. The Ceann Comhairle is following up on the quality of those replies. Even in the House reference has been made to an email. Reference has been made publicly by the Tánaiste on the national airwaves about the content of that email. In other words, part of the email is public knowledge at this stage, without the entirety of the email being published. That is not fair procedure or fair practice.

I stand to be corrected but I believe there have been other precedents whereby in the midst of tribunals there have been plenty of Dáil debates relating to subject matters that were covered by various tribunals. What I want from the Taoiseach is not for the issue to be referenced back to the Business Committee to be buried in red tape and all sorts of invocations as to why we cannot do it. This is the Parliament of the nation. This is the plenary session of Dáil Éireann. We can decide to have a proper debate where the Tánaiste comes in and gives what she knows, a comprehensive presentation to the House, and for her to take questions on it rather than the drip, drip revelations we are getting day by day.

Deputy Pearse Doherty can make a very short contribution.

I will be as short as Deputy Martin on this. Deputy Martin is correct in that there is no commitment from the Government in regard to holding this debate and having questions and answers and statements. Neither the Taoiseach nor the Chief Whip gave that commitment. What I am asking the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is that given the seriousness of the issue, the majority, it seems, in this House - based on the four contributions of the Members who spoke on behalf of their groups and parties - is of the view that the Order of Business should not proceed. The suggestion is that we adjourn for 30 minutes, that the Business Committee will meet and we will come back with a new Order of Business that will include statements from the former Minister for Justice and Equality and an opportunity for Members of this House to question the Minister on those statements.

Okay. That is the proposal. I call Deputy Boyd Barrett and then Deputy Howlin.

There is absolutely no point in accepting a proposal for the Business Committee to meet again unless we get a commitment from the Government here and now that at the meeting it will facilitate a debate, statements and responses from the Tánaiste on the matters surrounding this issue. As to the legal impediments, I am sure that if we agree this week - it has to be this week, ideally today or tomorrow - that such statements are made and that questions and answers will be had, I am sure it is within the ken of the Government and the Opposition to know what they can and cannot say that might infringe on the legal issues being dealt with at the tribunal.

Of course it makes sense for the Business Committee to organise the logistics of doing what the majority of the House wants, that is, a set of statements and then a series of questions. I imagine the statements will be short and that the Tánaiste will have as long as she needs to make her presentation.

We all know the demarcation lines between the work of a tribunal of inquiry that we have established and the accountability of Ministers to the House. For too long and on other occasions in the past, tribunals went on for a decade and were used as a shield from providing full truth. I call for immediate agreement to such a debate, including questions and answers. If possible, it should be done today and, if not, then no later than tomorrow. The details can be determined by the Business Committee - I do not believe we need to adjourn to do that. If there is agreement, the Business Committee can meet and we can continue our business in the Chamber without eating into the Chief Whip's timetable.

Having discussed the matter with the Tánaiste, I can say that the Tánaiste is willing to make a statement later this evening followed by questions. The detail and parameters will be worked out and agreed by the Business Committee.

Have they just discussed that now?

Is that acceptable? Subject to the Taoiseach's offer, is the proposal for dealing with Tuesday's business agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Wednesday's business agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Thursday's business agreed to? Agreed.

I have quite a list before me and I am going to read it out lest I leave someone out. We have only 13 minutes. Due to the fact that there will be statements later, I am going to cut off after 13 minutes. The names I have of those who have indicated include Deputies MacSharry, Butler, O'Brien, Durkan, Michael Healy-Rae, Scanlon, Fitzpatrick, Breathnach, Ryan, Danny Healy-Rae, Michael McGrath, Sherlock, McConalogue, McLoughlin, Harty, Ó Cuív, Munster and Heydon. First up is Deputy Micheál Martin.