Today is a great day for the fossil fuel industry in this country. In particular, it is a great day for Providence Resources which has just had transferred into its bank account $10 million from APEC Energy Enterprise Limited, its Chinese backer. So much for fuel security as this country is doing deals with the Chinese. We always have a problem with Putin and the Arabs but we never mention the Chinese. Now $10 million, with another $10 million to come, has gone into the bank account of Providence Resources to allow it to do research on the Barryroe prospect off the Cork coast. Today is not a good day for climate, biodiversity, the melting ice caps or, according to Nature magazine, the future of this planet. Not only do we have to leave 80% of known fossil fuels in the ground, but Nature tells us we will now have to decommission much of the existing infrastructure for the oil and gas industry to save the planet and life on it.

We have also found out that the Taoiseach's office was lobbied by the industry. It was heavily lobbied by them last year - lobbying increased seven times - and it was lobbied by the industry this year, but the Taoiseach's office kept no record of that. The lobbyists thought it was lobbying but the Taoiseach did not think that it was sufficient to be described as lobbying. I have a serious question. When did the meeting between Mr. Feargal Purcell and Mr. John Carroll of the Taoiseach's office take place and what was discussed? The timing of that meeting is important to me, the people of Ireland, and the 15,000 students to whom he has lied. I am accusing the Taoiseach of lying and will repeatedly say so because the letter-----

Deputy Smith.

I am going to prove it. I would not say so if I could not.

I am on my feet. Deputy Smith knows full well that there are enough accusations around this House. I have heard this one. I ask the Deputy to withdraw her statement that the Taoiseach lied, otherwise the House will not continue its business.

Okay, I will withdraw it and say that the Taoiseach told untruths in writing.

The Deputy must withdraw it deliberately. She has to withdraw it, otherwise we cannot continue. I will not preside over this House if accusations are made. We will deal other ones------

I wish to finish my point. Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle allow me to finish my point?

I am asking the Deputy to withdraw deliberate lies.

The Taoiseach told deliberate mistruths to the Ceann Comhairle.

Not untruths. The Deputy can say anything but not "deliberate". I ask her to please withdraw. She is holding up the House.

The Taoiseach told untruths. We are getting into semantics now. The truth is, however-----

No, has the Deputy withdrawn "deliberate"? She has withdrawn "deliberate".

-----that the Taoiseach's Department told the Ceann Comhairle that a money message was necessary for this Bill because this country would lose economic benefits. Let us look at what was reported in last weekend's newspapers. In the lifetime of the Corrib pipeline, from 1992 until it dies in 2030, the State will not receive a penny in tax or royalties. The Taoiseach spoke of the need to pay back the application fees to companies if my Bill was passed. On the same day I received the reasoned response from the Taoiseach's Department I also received a reply to a parliamentary question, which stated it is the Government's policy never to repay licence fees or applications. That is two lies at least.

Deputy Smith.

Those were two mistruths. The third was that the Government was threatened with legal action, which is why I repeat my question. It is important that the people know when that lobbying took place. Did it take place after this House, for the second time, in a democratic fashion by an overwhelming majority, acknowledged that the Bill should proceed to Third Stage? That was the second time we did so-----

Time is up.

-----but we find once again that the Bill has been blocked by the Government. When did that lobbying take place? It is a very straight question.

Before the Taoiseach comes in, I wish to make it clear that if one makes accusations about deliberate lies, withdraws that and then compounds it, it is even worse.

Hear, hear.

I will not accept that. I think I speak for the vast majority of Members that it is not acceptable terminology in the House. Some of us are here a long, long time. I take it for the record that Deputy Smith has withdrawn it.

The Taoiseach has three minutes.

I know I am perhaps not always the most civil person in this House myself but I hope we get to the point at some stage where it is possible for people to disagree with each other without accusing each other of being dishonest or lying. To answer some of the Deputy's questions-----

Or being on the altar.

What about the parish priest?

Deputies, we are dealing with this question now.

Did the Taoiseach apologise?

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, we are dealing with Deputy Bríd Smith's question.

To answer the Deputy's questions, the decision on whether a money message is required is one for the Ceann Comhairle, who can listen to the case made by the sponsor and by the Government. I respect the Ceann Comhairle's ability to listen to both sides of the argument and to make a decision.

Except the things the Taoiseach told him were not true.

Untruths.

The Ceann Comhairle has made that decision.

Untruths; not lies.

The Taoiseach, without interruption.

In relation to the financial transaction to which the Deputy referred, I am not familiar with it. The Government is not party to it. I really cannot comment on it. What the Government wants is sensible climate action that actually reduces greenhouse gas emissions and gives us cleaner air, warmer homes and creates the businesses and jobs of the future. What we do not want is climate action that is counter-productive and that makes us poorer, less secure or that costs people their jobs. The difficulty I have with the Bill proposed by the Deputy is that it does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that natural gas is a transitional fuel we will continue to need to use for the decades ahead.

All the scientists are wrong.

Therefore, it makes sense to use our own natural gas if we have it. This is why a ban on exploration is not part of the Paris Agreement and why it is not recommended by our climate action council. Perhaps there is a third way and this is something to which I am giving some thought.

With regard to the question on lobbying, it is important to put on the record of the House that lobbying is not a nefarious activity. It is part of democracy. We are all lobbied all of the time, whether it is by-----

Why did the Taoiseach not report it then?

Deputy, please.

-----trade unions, the IFA, IBEC or business organisations.

We have to report it though.

The reason we have a lobbying Act is so they are registered. I checked on this today. There is no record of the meeting because there was no meeting in the Department of the Taoiseach between the two people mentioned by the Deputy. What happened-----

So Feargal Purcell is now telling untruths.

The Taoiseach without interruption. The Deputy may have another opportunity.

What happened is that the lobbyist in question asked my adviser to meet him for coffee. He did not tell him the reason for the meeting. Over coffee he raised this issue and he declared it in the lobbying register.

One more cup of coffee before I go.

That is lobbying.

That is the answer to the Deputy's question.

I do not know what language to use but Feargal Purcell has certainly told an untruth, if that is the parliamentary language-----

He is not in the House.

-----because he stated on the lobbying register that he sought the meeting with Mr. Carroll in the Minister's office-----

We are not to name private people in here.

The Deputy cannot make allegations.

If what the Taoiseach saying is true then what Feargal Purcell says has to be wrong or, at the very least, untrue. He says he sought the meeting to provide information on energy security, the transition to renewable energy and the value to the industry in this economy in the context of the climate emergency measures Bill. That is not a cup of coffee. He registered it on the lobbying register because he saw it as lobbying. Why did the Taoiseach's office not see it as lobbying? Even if it was over a cup of coffee, tell us how long that cup of coffee took and when it took place-----

Was there is sugar in it?

-----because clearly somebody is saying something that is not correct because it is on the lobbying register as lobbying. The point about all this is there was a deliberate thwarting and blocking of the Bill to do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry. The evidence is in the $10 million in the bank this morning. There is the evidence. There is $10 million in the bank this morning and God knows when the next millions will go in. In the meantime, despite the fact the Taoiseach tried to deny it, there is no security on a planet where the temperatures will rise between 2° and 4°; no security whatsoever, despite the Taoiseach's passion and determination to state we need energy security in this country. There is no security on the planet and no security for the schoolchildren standing outside screaming at the Taoiseach to keep it in the ground. That is what people want. They want it kept in the ground.

The Taoiseach to respond.

Tonight they will be outside the Dáil protesting and on 20 September, there will be strike action against the Taoiseach's policies.

The Taoiseach to respond.

The date was 2 May 2019. I do not know how long it happened, how much the coffee cost or, quite frankly who paid for it.

Was there sugar in the coffee?

Did he get a sweetener?

However, if the Deputy wishes to read the lobbying Act, she will know it states the obligation to declare whether lobbying occurred is on the lobbyist.

That is interesting.

All of us meet people all of the time from all sorts of organisations and businesses. I bet none of us ever filled in a lobbying return-----

That date of 2 May is before the Taoiseach's party wanted the Ceann Comhairle to-----

-----because the obligation-----

That was just before the-----

Deputy Bríd Smith has had her opportunity-----

-----money message.

We are going to move on.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle-----

Deputy Smith, please-----

One always knows when somebody does not have a case. It is when there is an attempt to try to shout down people because the Deputies concerned do not want the answers to their questions. That is because they know that-----

Hear, hear.

-----what they are saying is-----

I will hear the Taoiseach's answers.

Please, Deputy Smith-----

They do not stand up-----

-----untrue.

Deputy Smith is being argumentative. I ask that the Taoiseach be heard without interruption.

The voice of big oil.

Where lobbying occurs, the obligation is always on the lobbyist-----

Come off it.

-----and not the person being lobbied to declare that. If that is not the case, then every Deputy must have a case to answer. No person in this House has ever made a lobbying declaration but I bet-----

The Ceann Comhairle received a letter from the Taoiseach's Department-----

-----that every person in this House has been lobbied at some time.

-----after 2 May after which the money message-----

Please allow the Taoiseach to speak. Deputy Smith is being totally disorderly. She knows the rules of this House.

Of course I am. I am totally angry.

The Deputy can be angry but she cannot be disorderly.

Why not? They go together.

They do not go together.

This is the business of Parliament, not a pub.