It is proposed to take No. a10, Merchant Shipping Bill 2009 — motion to instruct the committee, to adjourn at 1.30 p.m. if not previously concluded; and No. 20, Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 [Seanad] — Second Stage (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the following arrangements shall apply in regard to No. a10: the speech of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Sinn Féin, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; Members may share time; and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed ten minutes.
Order of Business.
There is one proposal to put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. a10 agreed to?
It is not agreed. As we speak, a very prominent backbencher in the Fianna Fáil Party is indicating that the believes the Taoiseach should consider his position.
This is not contemplated on the Order of Business.
The Ceann Comhairle does not have to worry about minding his seat.
What about Deputy Enda Kenny? There is nothing about Enda, it is all about Brian now.
Does Deputy Bruton have a query about promised legislation?
I do. I wish to indicate a number of reasons that I am opposed to the Order of Business. First, when we find that Government backbenchers do not believe the Taoiseach capable of providing fresh leadership for the country, we have a serious and grave situation.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Second, we have just read that the Minister for Finance will announce next Tuesday a recapitalisation package for Anglo Irish Bank. It appears that not only will we be buying €35 billion of loans from the bank but we will also be asking the taxpayer to provide €9 billion for recapitalisation. Next week's business makes no provision for a debate on this huge decision which has enormous implications for the people of this country. The Minister for Finance does not have unfettered authority to make these decisions. He must show that the banks involved are of systemic importance to the country and that these decisions are well balanced and are sound and good investments for the country. We demand and are entitled to a debate on this next week.
I wish to advance a final point before we can agree this business. Last December Deputy Phil Hogan, via a Private Members' Bill, proposed that the affairs of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority be brought within the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Today we learn that not only is €140 million of State investment now at zero value but that the taxpayer may be on the hook for interest for cost overruns——
We cannot have long recitations on the Order of Business.
——and for the failure to have any financial assessment of the issue. There should be an immediate publication of this report so that we can schedule a debate. The Attorney General and those concerned have had plenty of time to consider it. We must now move to see real accountability for the appalling decisions that were made. Let us scrutinise what happened and let us assign the Comptroller and Auditor General to do a proper job to defend the taxpayer. Before we agree to the Order of Business, I want to hear a proper response on these subjects.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
What is happening here this morning is very similar to what the Government attempts to do as we come close to a recess. The first thing it does is bring forward legislation that was not adequately prepared in the first place, namely, the Merchant Shipping Bill, and instead of revising that legislation it brings in a batch of amendments that are larger than the Bill itself. The motion before us is to enable the Government to introduce Report Stage amendments that amount to more than what is in the Bill. It has done this before; it is a new approach to legislating.
There are 20 items of legislation listed for publication this session. The Government has published only one Bill since 29 January, namely, the Finance Bill 2010. The rest of them will be dealt with by this new form of legislating, which is to publish Bills during the recess and bring in amendments on Report Stage. This is not acceptable.
Next week will be our last in the House before the Easter break. There is a promised announcement on the proposed recapitalisation of Anglo Irish Bank. We are now being told that this announcement will be made sometime next week, but no provision has been made for debating it. If the Government thinks it can make this announcement some time after Leaders' Questions next Wednesday, and then not allow any opportunity to debate it in the House for three weeks, then it is very seriously mistaken. On top of all this, the report on the Dublin Docklands Development Authority apparently has been sitting on the desk of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. We have been told it has not been released because the Attorney General has been asked whether parts of it are acceptable, but it is now in the hands of a broadcaster. There is no justification for withholding that report a day longer, and I want to see it laid before the Oireachtas today. If it is in the hands of a broadcaster, it is in the public domain, so it is unacceptable for the Minister to say that he cannot publish it.
The Labour Party is opposing the proposal from the Government this morning because of what the legislation amounts to, but also because it is part of a pattern to let everything go to the last minute, close down the Dáil and then avoid debate for three or four weeks. We will come back to what Deputy McGuinness had to say at a later stage.
Is he on side?
He is on KCLR.
The proposition before us this morning is another effort to undermine the relevance of this House. That is what is involved in the formula mooted by the Government to deal with the Merchant Shipping Bill 2009. The other points raised by other speakers are all equally valid for opposing the adoption of the Order Paper this morning, because the Government is failing time and again the protect the relevance of Parliament.
The report on the Dublin Docklands Development Authority has been denied to Members of the House, yet it is now in open currency——
That is not relevant and there is no provision to debate it now.
It is just as relevant as any other speaker who referred to it this morning without being interrupted by the Chair. That is another issue that deals with relevance in this Chamber.
I just mentioned that there is no provision at this point to debate the issue.
I have already referred to the report on the docklands authority several times in this House. Members are entitled to see that report published and this House is the place to debate its contents properly. We should not be dependent on piecemeal leaking to the media by whatever hand.
If a decision is made by the Government to recapitalise the banks next week, it will facilitate time in the House, through consultation with the Whips, to allow for a debate.
Does that imply that the decision——-
Resume your seat, Deputy. The Tánaiste is in possession.
There will be no debate on this for three weeks.
If I am not allowed to answer, then I put the motion.
It is a fraud on the Irish people.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGuinness, John.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Costello, Joe.
- Creed, Michael.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
As regards the Order of Business, the Tánaiste seemed to indicate earlier that she was willing to schedule a debate for next week on the recapitalisation of the banks. Could she clarify the format of that debate? We need to have the ability to make distinctions between different banks and take a prudent decision in respect of how we approach them. Various banks are of different importance to the economy and we need to have a debate next week that faces up to those differences and draws conclusions.
The Tánaiste did not get a chance to respond earlier, but will she arrange for the report on the Dublin Docklands Development Authority to be published, as well as scheduling a debate? We have seen these issues being kicked around for a long time. They constitute immense exposure for the taxpayer and the Dáil deserves to have a debate on them in view of the fact that journalists are discussing them freely on the airwaves. It makes a nonsense of this House if the Tánaiste is not willing to provide the basis for a reasoned debate on an important issue.
Hear, hear.
I do not disagree with the Deputy at all. It is clearly the intention of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to ensure there is a debate and that the report is published.
As quickly as possible. It is in draft form at the moment.
After it has been debated by the public.
I have agreed there will be a debate next week, although it will be a matter for the Whips to decide the time allocation and format.
That is nice.
I am glad to hear there will be a debate on the banking proposal next week. Is it intended that the debate will take place early in the week? If this decision is made by the Government early in the week, a debate on Thursday in the form of statements, for example, would not be acceptable. I would like to hear the details of the Government proposal for a debate.
My second question concerns the Dublin Docklands Development Authority report. When will it be published and laid before the Houses? It has in effect been published already, given that it has been discussed in the media. It is not acceptable for this to drag on for a long period.
Deputy Shortall asked the Taoiseach yesterday where FÁS now stands following the Government's announcement of the reallocation and reconfiguration of Departments and portfolios. In his reply he stated:
Two thirds of its operations deal with placements and all of that area will be dealt with in the Department of Social Protection . . . skills policy will be dealt with in the Department of Education and Skills. The corporate accountability issues remain with the main Department [that is, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation] until such time as there is legislation that will change it.
When will legislation be introduced to change things in FÁS? Will it need to be introduced before the placements operation is transferred to the Department of Social Protection and the skills operation transferred to the Department of Education and Science? If that is not the case, how are these operations to be transferred to the Departments?
An item in today's Irish Examiner states that the Government jet was sent to London to collect a Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher——
I am sure there is some way for the Deputy to raise that matter other than on the Order of Business.
——and take him home for the vote on the Cabinet reshuffle last Tuesday. The cost was €5,900.
This has nothing to do with promised business.
I cannot see how this could be construed as Government business. It seems, if anything, to be Fianna Fáil business. If Fianna Fáil wanted to fly him home it should have paid the bill. In any event, it does not seem to be good value for money; the Government could buy an Independent for less.
We cannot have a debate on that matter.
The format and timing of the debate can be decided at the Whips' meeting.
It is important to point out that the DDDA report is in draft form and it was not the Government that made it available to the press. It is clearly the Minister's intention to have the report published as quickly as possible, although I am not yet in a position to give a specific date.
On the matter of FÁS, all the relevant Ministers met last night to discuss the implementation of the decision made by the Taoiseach. FÁS will continue to provide the programmes for which it currently has responsibility. Responsibility for FÁS as a State body and funding related to training and skills will be transferred to the Department of Education and Skills. The Department of Social Protection will receive funding for the programmes for which it has acquired responsibility, and pending the full integration of the service into the Department, it will arrange with FÁS for the supply of programmes currently delivered by that body. The changes will be finalised by a Government order in the next week or two and the appropriate funding adjustments will take place in the Estimates. In the meantime, the current reporting arrangements and responsibilities continue to apply.
Two questions arise from the Tánaiste's reply.
This is not Question Time.
We cannot have questions. We have a major problem with the Order of Business dragging on for half a day every day. We are setting a bad example. There is much business to be transacted in the House. While I endeavour to be as fair as possible to everybody in the House, we must have regard to the proper running of the place.
Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. All that is required to avoid that is that I receive straight answers to my questions the first time. Then I would not need to ask a supplementary question.
There is no right to ask it.
There are two issues arising from the Tánaiste's reply. Twice, she used the term "draft" in referring to the report on the DDDA. I understood Professor Brennan had submitted a final report. What does the Tánaiste mean by stating it is in draft form? Does it mean Professor Brennan has not completed her report and that it is to be sent back to her?
The Tánaiste also said that the transfer of functions from FÁS would be achieved by way of a Government order. When will that order be laid before the House?
The reason I referred to the DDDA report as a draft report is that it was sent to the interested parties to give them an opportunity to reply to what was written in it. It is also important to point out that Professor Brennan has implemented many of the recommendations within the report. That is the reason it is in draft form; it is normal procedure on advice.
Will it be redrafted?
On the question of FÁS, the orders will be prepared in the next week or two.
Deputy Gilmore's remark about the price of an Independent is an interesting one, given that on yesterday's evening news we saw one of the Independent Deputies say that he had secured hospital and school services in return for abstaining from the vote on the Cabinet reshuffle.
The Order of Business does not have room for such observations.
It is to do with the programme for Government.
It is a fair point.
That is agreed.
On promised business, please.
This is all relevant to the programme for Government.
The promise is already made.
I understood the arrangement with the Deputy concerned had ceased, but it seems to be similar to the Ballinasloe Fair. It is not only the first week in October; it goes on with every vote.
Does the Deputy have a query on promised legislation?
Now there is a price for abstaining. I wonder what the price was for other Independents who actually voted for the reshuffle. Perhaps we as Members of the House are entitled to receive that information.
Hear, hear.
With regard to the DDDA report, the issue of the Irish Glass Bottle site is particularly vexatious. The Irish Glass Bottle Company, by the way, was profitable——
Deputy, we cannot get into details on the Order of Business. There will be a debate on the issue next week.
——and the plant was the only glass bottle recycling facility in the State. It was lost due to the Government's inaction and failure to intervene. I ask the Tánaiste again: Will the DDDA report be laid before the Houses today? If it is already in circulation in the media, why in heaven's name can it not now be presented to the Members of the House? It defies understanding, a Cheann Comhairle.
The Deputy is anticipating the debate on the matter.
What is the reason for the refusal to share the information in this report with the Members of the House? It is absolutely unacceptable.
Deputy, the indication is that the report will be laid before the Houses. We can deal with it at that stage.
It does not require legislation. It is such a ridiculous proposition. Can we get some answer or explanation for the fact that the Government has refused to publish the report?
With regard to the proposal to introduce prescription charges for medical card patients——
Is there promised legislation?
There is promised legislation and I will finish my question.
It is this session.
Next week is the beginning of April and already pharmacies are carrying notification on the premises——
The Deputy should take the matter up with the line Minister.
For the love of God——
I advised as much yesterday.
With all respect, this is the limit.
I know it is. The Order of Business has become the limit.
There is no equity here. I have said it repeatedly. I am tired of it now.
The Deputy has had five minutes and only one question was in order.
I want to be able to ask my question as the legislation has been promised.
The Order of Business is not the appropriate time for questions.
This is about promised legislation on the imposition of prescription charges on medical card holders. I am indicating to the Tánaiste and the House that pharmacies are carrying notification that from April, these charges will apply. April fools' day is on 1 April next week and there is no indication that the legislation has been published. I hope, irrespective of what the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, has said, that this is an indication of the Government thinking about this again. There was no publication in advance of next week and there is no signal of intent to address such legislation in the coming week. Will the Tánaiste put all the unfortunate people who have this vista waiting on them out of their misery and declare that the Government will not proceed with the charge and the process of legislation in this regard has been scrapped——
The legislation is in draft form——
——as it should be?
——and will be brought as quickly as possible to the House.
What will be brought quickly to the House?
The legislation.
Is it the legislation relating to the prescription charges?
I answered the question asked by the Deputy.
So the Government is not withdrawing its intent.
The Deputy has the answer.
Shame on the Government once again in that case.
What contingency plans will be in place in the event of social welfare offices being closed this afternoon? The Tánaiste is aware there are already massive backlogs of applications in social welfare offices throughout the country. I was contacted by somebody this morning who applied for the family income supplement in December and has not even been assigned to an inspector despite the fact that we are approaching the end of March. We have seen the fiasco at the passport office and this will be replicated throughout the country in social welfare offices unless contingency arrangements are put in place.
The Tánaiste indicated the new Minister responsible for social protection would be involved in the divvying up of FÁS——
A parliamentary question might elicit some information.
——and perhaps she has been talking to him about his plans to ensure the very vulnerable people who need their payments can get them on time.
Hear, hear.
There is no promised legislation.
I call Deputy Tom Sheahan.
There is legislation promised; it is the social welfare Bill. There is not much point in having legislation if we are not able to facilitate people with payments.
As the Deputy is aware, that is not the question she asked. The heads of the Bill have been signed off by the Government.
We will not return here until next Tuesday and in the meantime there may be several days where little or no work would be done in the processing of payments, leaving thousands of people waiting longer.
Is there promised legislation?
We need an answer on this. It is promised legislation.
On the same issue——
The heads of the social welfare Bill have been signed off by the Government this week. Preparation for publication is taking place.
There are no contingency arrangements.
We cannot have questions like that on the Order of Business.
The people want answers.
I do not disagree with the Deputy but she must find an alternative way of raising the issue.
There is no alternative.
There is the Adjournment and parliamentary questions; there are so many other ways.
On the same issue——
All we need is a "Yes" or "No" answer. Are contingency arrangements in place? We could have the answer in two seconds.
The Deputy could put the matter down for the Adjournment.
I have a raft of representations made to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The Ceann Comhairle will tell me——
We cannot have Question Time on the Order of Business.
If I could be allowed——
The Deputy may make a brief contribution if it relates to promised business or legislation.
The Ceann Comhairle will tell me there are other mechanisms to raise the matter.
If I put down a parliamentary question on specific people, it will be refused.
There are other mechanisms than parliamentary questions.
If I seek it for the Adjournment, it is a matter of a lottery. There are few means or mechanisms available to me to raise the plight of hundreds of people in my constituency who literally do not have a bob to their name at the moment to be able to feed their families.
We cannot have this on the Order of Business.
This is the penury that we are putting these people through at the moment.
Where else can it be raised?
On a point of order——
This Government should take contingency measures as have been outlined by Deputy Enright——
Deputy.
——to ensure those people now below the poverty line would have their cases dealt with so they might have a few bob to survive.
The Deputy's query should be raised directly with the line Minister.
On a point of order——
The Minister responsible for social welfare will not be here until 20 April.
The Deputy has the option of the Adjournment.
What are the people to do until then?
As the Ceann Comhairle knows, this was the subject of the issue I raised and on which he refused to allow discussion earlier this morning. We have come to a serious state of affairs in the House——
This is not a point of order.
——because of the inability to discuss an issue that is very important and which affects lives in almost every household in the country.
I do not dispute the merit of the Deputy's argument.
If so why do we not——
I advise the Deputy that we must find an alternative mechanism in raising the issue.
There is none.
There are no alternatives.
This is the alternative.
It should not be contemplated on the Order of Business.
The Tánaiste should outline to the House——
The Order of Business is not Question Time.
Scores of people are being punished.
We have parliamentary questions, the Adjournment and Private Notice Questions.
There are hundreds and thousands being punished all over the country because of the failure of the Government to deliver on its promises.
The matter can be raised through such mechanisms.
This is the service it gives the people.
The Deputy should resume his seat.
Is the House still relevant?
It is very relevant.
Is it irrelevant?
There is no accountability.
It is not relevant.
I am advising the Deputy that there are alternative ways to raise these matters.
There is none.
The Order of Business is not Question Time.
I gave the Ceann Comhairle an opportunity this morning——
The Ceann Comhairle should outline the alternatives.
——to provide for a full debate and he refused.
It would have been allowed if it was in order under Standing Order 32.
This is an important issue and we have raised the matter again.
The Deputy should resume his seat.
On a point of order——
How is this not a national issue?
I have advised the Deputies that there are alternative ways of raising this matter in the House——
What are they?
There are not.
——instead of the Order of Business.
There are not.
What are those mechanisms.?
There are several ways and if the Deputies wish to consult with my office, we will offer advice.
The Ceann Comhairle should——
I have advised Deputies several times already.
A Cheann Comhairle——
On a point of order, the Ceann Comhairle may not be aware of what is going on. I have a sheaf of letters that have been returned to me from the Minister for Social Protection. These are representations I have made with private and confidential details in them.
I do not doubt that.
I have not finished my point, which is extremely serious. I have also had returned to me private and confidential letters sent to the Minister by another Minister, Deputy Micheál Martin. I do not know if Deputy John McGuinness is still on the Government side but yesterday he returned letters that I sent to the Department that he had received. These were relevant to representations I had made as a public representative to the Minister on behalf of people who have no voice.
The matter must be raised with the line Minister.
The Order of Business is not the appropriate time.
This is much more serious.
It is a serious matter.
This relates to privilege.
This is an issue of data protection as well as privilege.
With all due respect, the Ceann Comhairle and the Tánaiste must investigate the fact——
Deputy, please.
——that we are unable to do our work as public representatives.
The Deputy should put down a parliamentary question to the line Minister on the matter.
They will not answer the questions.
This involves private and confidential information that another Deputy has referred to the Minister.
We are abusing the provisions for the Order of Business this morning.
It is now being circulated like snuff at a wake.
There are many other ways of raising the matter.
The Ceann Comhairle has the responsibility to ensure Ministers are acting lawfully. In this instance——
Deputy——
——I submit to the Ceann Comhairle that there is a real danger——
——the provision for the Order of Business is very clear.
——that the Minister is acting unlawfully.
The matters that can be raised on the Order of Business relate to promised business or legislation.
Issues of data protection are at stake.
It is not Question Time.
This is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle as the same type of incident described by Deputy McManus was brought up in the House approximately a fortnight ago. A number of parliamentary questions from Deputies were grouped and we got the details of the questions, including PPS numbers of several constituents around the country. That is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle as a person's details should not go to other Deputies who have not raised specific issues. It is extremely serious.
Correspondence I have submitted to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs has been stamped as received by the Department with a date stamp. By that action, it becomes part of the file of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I have had such correspondence returned to me in its entirety. In other words, information that should have been retained by the Department on file has been returned——
Deputy——
The Ceann Comhairle should let me finish the question.
——there is an industrial relations issue over which I have no control.
That has nothing to do with it.
This is very serious.
The material has been stamped as received by the Department.
This is about accountability in Parliament.
If I am allowed to finish my point, I must say that this makes a mockery of the governance of this Government and its respective Ministers. What is happening is an absolute outrage.
If we want to make provision for debates on the Order of Business in respect of matters of this nature, we will be obliged to change Standing Orders.
No, we will not be obliged to do so. It is already——
We will be obliged to change the Government.
There is some alternative on offer.
Standing Orders do not contemplate what is happening this morning. I call Deputy Tom Sheahan.
On a point of order, the Ceann Comhairle continually gives advice to Members that there are alternative means by which they might raise matters of this nature.
There are no such alternative means, with the exception of obliging Members to enter a lottery to which, if they are lucky, they might obtain access once a month. That is the only means available. The letters we send are returned and our telephone calls are not answered. In addition, Ministers on whom there is a constitutional requirement to answer questions in and be accountable to this House are refusing to answer such questions. There are no alternative means by which matters of this nature might be addressed.
Deputy Stagg has been a Member of the House for some time and he knows that in order to accommodate matters of this nature, Standing Orders will have to be changed.
Cases of this nature have never arisen in the past.
Standing Orders will not have to be changed.
What about the people outside the House who are——
On a point of order once again, there is only one way to address this issue, namely, by suspending the Standing Orders of the House and engaging in a full-scale debate on the issue.
We are not going to——
The Ceann Comhairle should wait a second. He has not——
I suggest that the Deputy raise the matter next week. In the first instance, he should attempt to raise it on the Adjournment.
The Ceann Comhairle refused to allow me to raise this matter earlier under the relevant Standing Order and that is his prerogative. However, there are other issues which arise and which are unassociated. These relate to the total and abysmal failure to deliver services to the public. The Government is charged with the responsibility for delivering such services.
I do not have responsibility for these matters.
We have no other way of dealing with matters of this nature in the House.
I do not have a rights commissioner role in the House.
I accept that but the Ceann Comhairle does have the right to allow matters such as that which I raised earlier. If he exercised that right, a debate on the matter could be facilitated.
The matter would have been allowed if it were in order under Standing Order 32.
It is in order. The difficulty is that it is getting——
Resume your seat, Deputy. We must continue with the Order of Business.
No, Ceann Comhairle, I do not want to——
The business of the House is being delayed.
The Government is delaying the business of the country.
There is much important business to be dealt with. Please resume your seat, Deputy.
The Opposition is not receiving——
Deputy, resume your seat when the Chair is on its feet.
Is the Ceann Comhairle prepared to assist Deputies in upholding the rights of members of the public?
Will the Deputy resume his seat? If he does not do so, I will be obliged to ask him to leave the House.
Ceann Comhairle----
Will the Deputy resume his seat?
The Ceann Comhairle need not ask me to leave. I do so in protest.
That is fine.
If that is the way the Ceann Comhairle intends to conduct the business of the House, there is no point in me being present.
On a point of order——
Deputy McManus knows that I must call those who are offering in some sequence.
This is the final intervention I will make. The situation in which we find ourselves is most unusual and unprecedented. Will the Tánaiste indicate if it is the intention of the new Minister for Social Protection to continue the brutal practice of returning representations made by Deputies on behalf of constituents who are in desperate need?
The situation in respect of this matter is quite nonsensical. The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, can be approached by any Member of the House on any occasion.
That is not a solution.
I take issue with that remark.
The Tánaiste is in possession.
I will advise the Minister of the issues that have been raised in the House.
There are thousands of these cases.
A Cheann Comhairle——
It is a matter of people's rights.
The Minister for Social Protection is a wonderful man but he cannot be everywhere at once.
I call Deputy Tom Sheahan.
Will I be able to proceed without interruption?
Yes, provided the matter the Deputy wishes to raise is in order.
The purpose of the Central Bank (No. 2) Bill is to address the necessary changes and enhancements to the regulatory functions of the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland. A constituent who has €2.3 million in borrowings from a particular bank visited my office on Monday. This man's business is above board and all his loans are performing. He approached his bank for a loan of €300,000 and was offered €2.7 million if he would go into NAMA.
This matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
Without interruption, Ceann Comhairle.
The Deputy should arrange to discuss the matter with the Minister for Finance.
I am referring the Central Bank (No. 2) Bill, which is No. 57 on the list of Government legislation in respect of which heads have not yet been decided.
The difficulty is that the Deputy is not in order.
The Central Bank Bill will be taken in the summer.
In the meantime, I suggest that the Deputy——
This goes to show——
The Deputy has been given an answer to his question.
The Deputy will have to raise this matter with the Minister for Finance.
——that before NAMA comes fully into place, the entire matter should be put to bed. NAMA is going to be an boy's club. The bank to which I refer wanted to remove the man's loans, which are all performing, from its balance sheet and transfer them to NAMA. It offered him €2.7 million in that regard. That is an absolute disgrace.
This matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business. I call Deputy McHugh.
The issue I wish to raise does not come under promised legislation. In such circumstances, I request the Ceann Comhairle's indulgence.
Hundreds of people are queuing outside the passport office in Molesworth Street. The Tánaiste is only too aware that in respect of a county such as Donegal, in which we both live, when a system is in place——
This matter is so important that I allowed a private notice question on it to be taken yesterday.
That is fine but I was attending my aunt's funeral yesterday. What contingency is in place for people who need to travel abroad in the next few days? These people are terrified that there will be an industrial dispute in the passport office by Wednesday next. Are staff going to be deployed in order that applications might be processed? Will provision be made to open the passport office this weekend? Will it be open on a 24-hour basis? The backlog of 42,000 unprocessed applications must be cleared.
Hear, hear.
People from counties Kerry and Donegal and the islands off the west coast are being obliged to travel to Dublin in order to obtain their passports.
The Deputy has done well in the context of getting his point across in respect of this matter.
Deputy Bertie Ahern stood on a platform in my county in 1999 and referred to e-Government and the fact that people would not be obliged to obtain passports, either in Dublin or elsewhere.
Private notice questions relating to this matter were taken yesterday.
What is happening is an absolute disgrace. What hope can the Tánaiste offer to the people to whom I refer? What hope can she offer a woman who is due to travel to England in the next day or so to attend her son's funeral?
Deputy McHugh should resume his seat.
The Tánaiste should offer those to whom I refer some sort of hope.
This matter was discussed for almost 40 minutes yesterday.
Hundreds of people are——
In addition, some of the committees of the Houses also addressed it.
In the context of promised legislation, I wish to put a question to the Tánaiste — it was raised in the Upper House by Senator Healy Eames — regarding underfunding at Galway University Hospital in respect of cancer services and certain vital drugs. There is a €12 million shortfall in this regard. Only 30 of the 51 staff that were supposed to be appointed to this so-called centre of excellence are in place. It appears that a situation similar to that which obtained in Portlaoise is going to arise. These people were asked to do a job but we are not providing them with the necessary resources. Will provision be made in the eligibility for health and personal social services Bill to ensure that people's eligibility will be honoured in action as well as word?
There is no date for that legislation.
The Minister for Health and Children tends to wash her hands of many of the scandals that occur within the health service. I tabled three parliamentary questions on the barbaric practice of symphysiotomy and the review the Minister established in respect of it. I received a standard reply to the effect that the Minister cannot answer the questions I posed because of the current industrial action. The Minister established the review. My questions relate to the fact that a body which is directly implicated, namely, the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, has been appointed to examine this matter. I posed specific questions in respect of the protocols, the timeframe and why this body was asked to carry out the review and the Minister indicated that, due to industrial action, she cannot reply to me.
The Minister established the review and, therefore, it is entirely unacceptable that she cannot provide me with a reply. I understand that she might not be in a position to answer questions which relate to the detail of what happens within the HSE. However, she established the review to which I refer into an absolutely barbaric practice that has ruined the lives of many women.
Submit the matter for the Adjournment, Deputy.
The Minister is refusing to answer my questions. I do not know how I might otherwise deal with this matter.
Submit it for the Adjournment and it can be considered at that stage.
I tabled very specific questions which would not be answered in an Adjournment debate. If I raise the matter on the Adjournment, it will be replied to by a Minister of State reading a prepared script.
The Adjournment is the starting point.
It is not acceptable that Ministers are hiding behind industrial action in the hope that they will not be obliged to reply to questions to which they already know the answers.
The problem exists and we must deal with it as best as possible. I understand the Deputy's dilemma. However, I have given her advice with regard to how she might approach it in the short term.
The Minister for Health and Children is sheltering behind a real problem. That is not acceptable. I will be taking this matter further.
What measures will be included in the social welfare (miscellaneous provisions) Bill, which has been promised for this session? I have received correspondence from people whose mortgage interest supplement was denied after 12 months because the social welfare consolidation supplementary welfare allowances regulations of 2007 state that no supplement referred to shall be paid in respect of a period of more than 12 months. More that 6,000 people——
On the Order of Business.
I am making the point that this will snowball. Will the new Bill be expedited as soon as possible and include provision to amend the 2007 legislation which did not envisage that people would be in continuous mortgage arrears? This will snowball and get worse. People will have their homes repossessed.
The heads of the Bill were passed by the Government on Tuesday and it is our intention to have the legislation in the House this session.
The national monuments Bill was promised approximately three years ago and would have dealt with the issues that arose with regard to the development of the M3 motorway. It would protect our national monuments. It would seem to be a straightforward Bill because it amends legislation so I do not understand why it would take three years to put it together. What is the up-to-date position on the Bill?
The heads of the legislation will be available very shortly.