I propose an amendment to the Order of Business, that the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport come to the House. I will give the wording in a moment or two, but it refers to media reports, last night and this morning, on the head of the Labour Relations Commission. I express the admiration the group on this side of the House has for his work in designing the Haddington Road agreement, his contribution to labour affairs during the years and his work on the Croke Park agreement. That said, media reports in the past 24 hours are extremely concerning for all citizens and certainly the group on this side of the House.

It has been alleged in a publication today that the head of the Labour Relations Commission ideally captures the phrase "do as I say but not as I do". It seems that when the Government, rightly, introduced in October 2012 the ban on double jobbing and double payments for civil servants who served on boards, the head of the Labour Relations Commission, in his capacity as chairman of the Irish Sports Council, directly lobbied the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport for an exemption. He asked to be permitted, on top of his salary of €168,000, to keep the additional €9,000 for his chairmanship of the Irish Sports Council. It also seems that the Minister, with the Government, agreed that this could be done and that the leading labour relations guru in the country, the champion of workers' rights and deal maker in all things difficult between the Government and unions, wanted to make an exception and secure an additional €9,000 for himself. At this juncture I will quote the letter. It reads: "The fee involved is quite small, being the lowest category of board fees." He also said "The chairmanship involves a considerable out of hours commitment both at evenings and weekends." The Government agreed to make an exception for this man, a man paid only shillings less than the Taoiseach of the day. Is this the only exception to the rule? Why was an exception made for somebody earning €168,000 of taxpayers' money? Why was he given an additional €9,000 when the Government, rightly, decided in October 2012 that no double jobbing was to take place?

On 13 July 2013 the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, on behalf of the Labour Party, spoke about the success of the ban on double jobbing. It seems that there is one rule for one person and another for everybody else. That means that the higher up the chain one is all sorts of side deal can be done. Why was an exception made for Mr. Mulvey? Was it because of his support for the Government's desire to have only one House and to abolish this one?

I wonder whether it concerns the report we received yesterday or the other day.

Senator Marc MacSharry to continue, without interruption, please.

Was the exception made because of Mr. Mulvey's support for the abolition of this House? It was a most unusual stance to adopt for a public official who earned a salary of €168,000 and a further €9,000, sanctioned by the Government, and was against the rules that applied to everyone else. Was he rewarded for his loyalty to the party? Was he rewarded for his loyalty to Government policy? Was he rewarded for taking a stance? I can recall him arguing and making valid points on "Prime Time" about the big salaries earned by Members of the Seanad and the expenses that they claimed. It is only one third of his salary of €168,000 that he managed to have topped up by an additional €9,000 from the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport.

My amendment to the Order of Business is in the public interest. I want the Minister to make himself available to come to the House today to explain to the people why the rules were twisted to give a man earning €168,000 a year of taxpayer's money another €9,000 in petty cash. It is a piece of twine for working outside normal hours in the evening and at weekends.