The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. a19, Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill, 1999 – Instruction to Committee; No. 47, Equal Status Bill, 1999 – Report and Final Stages (resumed); No. 46, Planning and Development Bill, 1999 [Seanad]– Second Stage (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) the proceedings on No. a19, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion within 35 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the opening speech of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed five minutes in each case; (ii) the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed five minutes in each case; (iii) Members may share time; (iv) a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed five minutes; and (2) the Report and Final Stages of No. 47 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. tonight by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Private Members' Business shall be No. 99, motion re credit unions (resumed).
Order of Business
There are two proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. a19 agreed to?
Will the Taoiseach indicate the reason for these fairly restrictive time limits on what is an unusual procedure, the issuance of an instruction to a committee? If we establish committees and delegate responsibilities to them, it is normal that the House does not issue them with interim instructions of this nature.
Will the Taoiseach also take into account that this is the second occasion that a Bill, having passed Second Stage, is being sub stantially amended in Committee in relation to the Refugee Act, which is not a substantive part of the Bill in question?
As I understand it, rather than have to introduce a new Bill, it is proposed to make changes to the existing Bill. The instruction to the select committee is to ensure that it has power to make provisions to amend or extend the law relating to refugees and asylum seekers provided for in the original Act of 1996 and last year's Act.
Mr. Howlin: By way of clarification, this Bill is about trafficking, it is not an amending Bill of the Refugee Act. The immigration Bill, a similarly narrowly focused Bill, was used to amend the Refugee Act. Every time legislation is introduced in this area, major and impactive changes are proposed to the Refugee Act on Committee Stage of the Bill in question.
That is right.
That circumvents the right of this House to review legislation on Second Stage.
The Order of Business today was agreed between the Whips. It was agreed to have a short debate on this matter. If Members wanted a longer debate on it, I am sure they would have raised that when they discussed the time to be allocated for it.
Such instructions are provided for in Standing Orders.
It is certainly provided for and normally debate on the content of an amendment should take place in Committee, but it is the right of all other Members who are not members of this committee to have former sight of amendments to the Refugee Act. That Act is not the subject of the trafficking Bill, which is the main business of the committee in question. It is the right of every Member on Second Stage to examine legislation. On two occasions we have sought to make substantive and impactive changes to the Refugee Act, which the House has already unanimously agreed should be implemented. It will be amended substantially now without the purview of the majority of the Members of the House.
The House must decide on this proposal now.
The procedure being adopted in relation to this Bill seriously undermines the rights of Deputies and the legislative procedures of this House. Does the Taoiseach agree it is a bad precedent to create a situation where, effectively, Second Stages of proposed Bills will be removed from the floor of this House by amending another measure that is related but not directly connected to the Bill being amended? That precedent dangerously undermines parlia mentary democracy and it is not one that should be followed. The fact that this precedent is being adopted in the area of refugees and asylum seekers is yet another example of the shambles of Government policy in this area.
This procedure is strictly in accordance with Standing Orders.
(Dublin West): In view of the serious matters that have been raised, I ask the Taoiseach to ensure Committee Stage of this Bill is taken by way of a committee of the full Dáil. In that way these issues can be fully debated as they should be.
The House must make a decision on this proposal now.
We must consider the arguments here. Effectively, we will skip Second Stage of this Bill if we agree this resolution. When we skipped Second Stage of the refugee legislation in 1994, a raft of amendments had to be introduced because matters which ought to have been teased out were not. Perhaps the Taoiseach might reconsider the procedure. I am not suggesting that he is attempting to be unfair because I am aware that consultation has taken place. However, on reflection he might realise that the House requires that time be spent on this item and adopt a different procedure as a result.
I will make three points. Deputy Shatter is not correct in stating that a precedent is being created, it is provided for in Standing Orders and has been used many times. It is not a precedent to be followed, it is subsequent to many earlier precedents.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the Bill and people saw merit in amending it rather than introducing new legislation. There will be a debate of 35 minutes duration in which people can raise any relevant points. In the normal course the Bill would be sent to the committee before being returned to the Dáil for Report Stage. I have no difficulty if the Whips want to hold discussions after the House has followed the procedure set down and sent the Bill to the committee.
Is the Taoiseach not in a position to postpone this business until tomorrow? It will not be the end of the world if the Bill is not sent to the committee today.
Submissions were invited from a range of interested parties in respect of the Bill, as debated and passed on Second Stage. The parties to which I refer made their submissions without having sight of these new amendments which fundamentally alter the impact of the Bill. That undermines the work of the committee and the regime we put in place to encourage broad public input into the passage of legislation. The pro cedure set down is wrong and I ask the Taoiseach to withdraw it.
The procedure is in accordance with Standing Order 117 and is strictly in order.
I am not suggesting that what the Taoiseach is doing is procedurally improper. I accept that the Government can take this course but the question is whether it is wise to proceed in this way without taking a normal Second Stage debate. I submit that while the Government has procedure on its side it does not have wisdom.
The difficulty is that people considered the procedure and it was agreed to follow it.
It was not.
I understood that the timings, not to mention the procedure, were agreed. It is not correct to state that Deputies cannot attend committees of which they are not members; they cannot vote but they can attend and, if they so desire, discuss each section of the legislation in great detail. I am not sure what can be gained in this instance by not following the procedure set down. That is obviously the reasoning behind using the procedure. I acknowledge that I was not present at the discussions but I believe that is why the procedure was adopted.
The matter has been fully—
The Taoiseach is the Leader of the House and it is not correct that he should state that other people were responsible for taking certain actions.
That is a valid argument.
He should make a decision to postpone this business and should not always state that someone else was responsible for doing something.
If I was to ignore the Whips, who put forward this procedure—
The Taoiseach cannot afford to ignore the House because its Members were responsible for electing him to the office he holds.
I can categorically state that, as far as the Labour Party is concerned, this procedure was not agreed by its Whip. My party has grave reservations about the time allocation because making available 35 minutes for a substantial debate is inadequate. We are opposed to this business being taken today.
I am obliged to put the question. Is the proposal for dealing with No. a19 agreed?
(Mayo): On a point of order—
The Chair is on his feet and, therefore, the point of order is not in order. However, I will allow the Deputy to raise it provided it is very brief.
(Mayo): Last week Deputy Howlin and I met representatives of the Irish Refugee Council, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and the Irish Missionary Union to discuss the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill.
That is not a point of order.
(Mayo): It is a point of order.
The Deputy should resume his seat because I am obliged to put the question.
(Mayo): We held our discussions on the basis of the Bill, as published.
That is not a point of order.
(Mayo): That evening the Government published a list of amendments which substantially changed the thrust of the Bill.
These points have already been made.
(Mayo): Effectively, we have been presented with an entirely new Bill.
That point has already been made.
(Mayo): We are not prepared to accept this Bill.
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia. |
Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
|
Allen, Bernard.Barnes, Monica.Bell, Michael. |
Belton, Louis.Bradford, Paul. Broughan, Thomas. |
|
Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan. |
McGinley, Dinny.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan. |
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 47 agreed? Agreed.
On the Order of Business, will the Taoiseach join with me in calling on the IRA to reinstate its contacts with the de Chastelain Commission and to reinstate the proposal it made late last Friday which led to a positive report by the commission so that the Taoiseach can have the best prospect in his meeting with Mr. Blair today of getting the speedy re-establishment of the institutions in Northern Ireland and on a cross-Border basis?
The task the Taoiseach faces today has been undoubtedly complicated and made more difficult by the actions of the IRA and the political wing of the republican movement, Sinn Féin. We wish the Taoiseach well in his negotiations with the Prime Minister and hope that a formula can be arrived at which will enable the re-establishment of the institutions in Northern Ireland, particularly within Stormont, and the continuation of the dialogue that had commenced with the de Chastelain Commission.
I appeal to the IRA to go back to the table with General de Chastelain and resume what was a promising, if a long drawn out and painful process. While I wish the Taoiseach well in his meeting with the UK Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, I ask him not to forget the voices of people such as Monica McWilliams and David Ervine who have appealed for inclusiveness to be maintained in the face of the temptation to polarise the situation. We must keep people on board and, if necessary, go back to the drawing board again, even if that means the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. The diverse voices and the voices of reason, which are often drowned out by the sound bites, should not be forgotten in the attempt to resolve this matter.
There is a longstanding convention to allow questions on Northern Ireland from the main party leaders. I now call the Taoiseach to reply.
Last night I had an opportunity to discuss in detail the events of recent days with the SDLP, whose ongoing efforts I appreciate. Statements were made overnight about the inclusive process. Deputies John Bruton, Quinn and Sargent are correct in what they said. It would be extremely useful in trying to take matters forward if we could get back to the position we were in last Friday.
There is consensus here and among many of the parties, including the SDLP and the smaller parties in the North which have been responsible for much of the progress we have made. Instead of thinking these issues are impossible, my view is that this is a two way street. There is a consensus that we need to restore the institutions as quickly as possible. Everyone from republican and Nationalist areas is calling on us to try to achieve that. We must remember there is also consensus that decommissioning is essential and that it will contribute to a wider demilitarisation. There is consensus on the fundamental principles of democracy as set out in George Mitchell's report to which the parties signed up before they entered the multi-party talks. We cannot forget that the Mitchell review and the Mitchell principles are also part of where we are today.
Everyone understands and accepts that participation in Government can only be on the basis of a democratic mandate. Whether people like it or not, it is not compatible beyond a short transitional period to have that democratic mandate with armed backing. I could not agree to that. If the consensus is respected and acted upon, it will provide the basis for reaching agreement with the other parties and it will enable the Governments acting together to quickly put the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement back on track. However, I cannot put only one part back on track; it must be all the parts.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Taoiseach that not only is it a consensus of all parties in this House that the institutions be restored and that decommissioning of weapons starts, but that the decommissioning of weapons has been democratically mandated by the people in their vote on the Good Friday Agreement in all 32 counties of Ireland. The retention of arms is a defiance of the will of the people.
I support what the Taoiseach said. The vast majority of people on both sides of the Border voted for the Good Friday Agreement on the basis that Sinn Féin spoke for the entire republican movement. The mandate Sinn Féin received from the ballot box was on the understanding that it would, in turn, persuade the military wing of that movement to commence decommissioning in accordance with the overall terms of the Good Friday Agreement. There is a breach of faith now. We must all work together to make it clear on this democratic island that unless someone has a mandate that enables him to speak authoritatively on behalf of the people who elected him, he does not have a role to play in Irish politics.
These people have only contempt for us and for mandates.
Will the Taoiseach indicate the timeframe of the Bill to amend the operations of the Land Registry? There is a large number of delays and business cannot be transacted because the Land Registry is not functioning. This body could pay for itself, including the recruitment of additional staff which are necessary to clear the transactions, if it was allowed to recruit those staff. This delay is an unnecessary and avoidable scandal.
The heads of the Land Registry Bill, which seeks to convert the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds into a semi-State body, are in circulation for observation by the Departments. It will be later this year before it is pub lished but progress is being made on this urgent Bill.
The only action has been to double the Land Registry fees.
Today's newspapers report a decision at yesterday's Government meeting to introduce legislative changes to speed up the decision-making process in respect of major infrastructural projects, such as roads and related activities, and to establish a special division of the High Court to fast track any claims which may arise as a result of legal disputes over such projects. Will the Taoiseach indicate if those changes will take the form of amendments to the Planning and Development Bill, which is on Second Stage in the House, if there will be changes to the related Road Acts and, if so, when will we see them?
The courts aspect is still under consideration, as I stated last week during Question Time. Most of the changes will be to the Planning and Development Bill before the House. I understand there is no need to change the Road Acts.
Last year I introduced a Private Members' Bill, Safety of United Nations Personnel and Punishment of Offenders Bill, and then the Government introduced its own Bill. I understand the Minister gave an undertaking in the Seanad that he would consider placing a suitable memorial on Leinster lawn to those who have lost their lives serving abroad. Is it intended to bring forward legislation to give effect to that undertaking or will it require regulation? If the Taoiseach is not in a position to answer now, perhaps he will drop me a note to let me know the position.
A large number of my constituents who live alone are living on £73 per week. When is it intended to take Second Stage of the Social Welfare Bill so such matters can be aired in the House?
I doubt that the first matter would require legislation, only a decision by the Department. The Social Welfare Bill will commence its passage through the House next Thursday.
When will the legislation for a single financial regulator be ready? Will it come from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment or from the Department of Finance? The lack of clarity is causing serious concern.
That matter will be resolved shortly.
Is it the Government's intention to introduce legislation to place rates on bed and breakfast accommodation? If so, will the Taoi seach confirm that those rates will be in excess of £1,000 for a four bedroom bed and breakfast?
That is not in order.
It is proposed legislation being discussed at Cabinet as we speak.
The evaluation Bill is due later this year.
Is it the intention to include bed and breakfast accommodation?
That is a matter for discussion on Second Stage of the Bill
In relation to the pensions Bill, have the double standards in operation in the construction industry been drawn to the attention of the Taoiseach? Pensions are mandatory in the industry but the provision for that is not being enforced. Will the Taoiseach bring the legislation forward to resolve the exploitation in the construction industry?
The heads of the Bill are expected in the next month and the Bill will be brought before the House later this year.
Previously I raised the decision of the then Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources to refer a proposal for port infill for planning permission. It now transpires that he did not have the legal authority to do that and that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government proposes to introduce an amendment on Committee Stage of the Planning and Development Bill to accommodate this. Would it not be fairer to have a proper Second Stage debate on an issue of such significance for an amenity of the people of Dublin instead of doing this through an amendment on Committee Stage where there will not be proper scrutiny by the House?
It can be looked at, but I thought the Deputy would be pleased that the issue will be cleared up rather than left in limbo.
It is better than ignoring it but it is not satisfactory.
I would like to raise the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rent Abolition) Bill, which is in my name. This Bill is identical to the Bill introduced by the Minister, Deputy Woods, when in Opposition in March 1997. It has passed Second Stage in this House and it was agreed then that it would be referred to a committee. Will the Taoiseach accept the Bill and refer it to committee so that any necessary amendments can be made? It is his party's Bill.
The Minister, Deputy Woods, introduced this Bill and it passed Second Stage in March 1997. The then Attorney General stated that there were major practical difficulties with it. He undertook an examination of it from a constitutional point of view. That review is not complete because the Attorney General highlighted many insoluble areas. It is still being examined.
I suggest that, since the Bill has already passed Second Stage and it was agreed to refer it to a committee, the Taoiseach should now agree to refer it to a committee where the deliberations of the Attorney General and the resultant amendments could be addressed.
(Dublin West): There has been a concerted attempt by the EU to bully this State into forcing a new water tax on Irish householders. When will the water services Bill be brought forward? Will the Taoiseach give a commitment to resist this pressure and affirm that the Irish people have always paid for their water through the taxation system? Will he bear in mind that even the Tánaiste has not revisited this issue after the cold shower she received three years ago on her first visit.
The water services Bill is due next year.