I have a very specific and technical parliamentary request to make of the Leader. I seek clarification in the aftermath of the vote yesterday that resulted in the insertion of a fairly harmless amendment in the Health (General Practitioner Service) Bill.

It is nevertheless an amendment which many of us see as critical in enshrining the principle of whistleblower protection.

Let us be honest. If we examine the history of the country over the past three decades, would anybody want to oppose whistleblower protection? Does anybody want to refuse an amendment or amend legislation which includes whistleblower protection? If we had more whistleblower protection, the child abuse scandals would not have occurred and if we had more whistleblower protection in the Department of Finance, we would not have had the economic meltdown which occurred.

We cannot re-open a debate from yesterday. We dealt with that business yesterday.

I am making a point. There was substantial misinformation last night arising from a practical and technical aspect of parliamentary procedure. The suggestion was made in multiple news organs last night that our successful insertion of a socially constructive amendment to this Bill would result in a delay in the implementation of free GP care by six months. I have looked into this and there is exactly no parliamentary basis for believing that any part of this Bill would be delayed one second longer than it would have if that or any other amendment had not been inserted. I appeal to the Leader's professionalism, his parliamentary experience and expertise in this House and his sense of fair play. I ask him to make a statement on the record today that there is no reason the specific inclusion of an amendment in a Bill could delay it by six months. We can then put the issue to bed.

I am very troubled by one aspect of the Garth Brooks fiasco. As a country we have a history of flouting all kinds of planning regulations and although there is an absolute need to examine the processes whereby this kind of approval occurs, it appears that as things stand, the correct legal decision was made. It would be great if an appropriate compromise could be reached but for anybody to try to overrule the legal position, when the predetermined number of approved concerts was known to everybody before tickets were sold, would be wrong. The Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, our own country boy, when he gets behind closed doors and realises there is a need for him to "walk the line", might realise it would be crazy for him to intervene on this. Sometimes he says it best when he says nothing at all.