The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 46, Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill, 2000 – Second Stage (resumed) and No. 9, Criminal Justice (Illicit Traffic by Sea) Bill, 2000 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage.
Order of Business.
There are no proposals to be put to the House.
The Government has promised proposals on institutional reform, reforming the Oireachtas, tribunals and the courts. In light of yesterday's events when will the Government produce its proposals, to ensure greater compliance and more effective enforcement of compliance by Members of the Oireachtas with decisions of the Oireachtas and of the tribunals and to strengthen the powers of tribunals so that they can deal much more quickly with people who do not co-operate with them, whether they be Members of the Oireachtas or others?
Regarding proposals for both Oireachtas and institutional reform, the Govern ment had a number of discussions and the proposals are almost ready. However, with regard to the Oireachtas element of those proposals, there are also discussions between the Whips which I hope will lead to reform.
The Fine Gael Whip informs me that there have not been any discussions between the Government side and this side of the House anyway, with regard to the Government's proposals for the Oireachtas. Is the Taoiseach aware that this gap between the public statements of Ministers and the reality of their inaction is leading to cynicism on this side of the House and outside the House, with regard to the Government's seriousness in this area? Fine Gael has tabled its proposals and will bring them before the House at an early date.
If we are to achieve Dáil reform it has to be on an all-party basis. It would not work otherwise. In my experience over the past 20 years, I know that if reforms are not introduced on an all-party basis they will not be implemented.
I do not agree.
In view of the unprecedented joint statement which was published yesterday and signed by the party leaders on behalf of virtually all of the parties in this House, has the Taoiseach received any response from the former Fianna Fáil member, Deputy Liam Lawlor, to that statement?
No, but Deputy Liam Lawlor is not a Deputy of my party now.
He was elected as one.
Under the Constitution, we can make our own rules in this House. Would the Taoiseach agree that we need to change Standing Orders so that we can impose sanctions on Members who behave inappropriately in relation to tribunals?
The procedure covering that is already in Standing Orders. If the House sets up a tribunal giving it powers to take remedial action when somebody does not co-operate, as the Ceann Comhairle pointed out to the House, there are certain rules governing how the subject matter of statements on sitting tribunals established by the House under the Acts and under Standing Order 56 should be dealt with. They are set down in both Standing Orders and precedents. There were many long arguments and debates in the House on these issues and the precedents and the Standing Orders were based on these discussions. They were not lightly set up at the time and I do not see why we should try to undo them. Introducing reforms or new institutional matters, is a different matter for the future.
Would the Taoiseach take into account that those who have been most noteworthy in not co-operating with tribunals are either present or former Members of this House, the House which set those tribunals up? Surely there is a very serious contradiction and conflict at the heart of the way in which we are dealing with that.
On a separate matter, will the Taoiseach say what is the position with regard to the Government's proposals for decentralisation of Departments? This has been announced and withdrawn and there has been a process of expectation raising taking place throughout the country. Yet the Government has not delivered. What exactly is the Government's plan on this matter or does it have one?
The Deputy's party was opposed to it when it was in Government. It stopped in the mid-80s.
The Deputy's party is in Government now. They should get on with it or get out.
(Interruptions.)
I remind the House that this matter was dealt with at Question Time yesterday. The Taoiseach, for a brief comment.
On the first matter raised by Deputy Bruton, there is a precedent that unfortunately happened long before the current issue arose, that Members of the House did not co-operate with tribunals, but I will not go into history.
Both happened to be members of his own party.
In October 1947, it was the Deputy's party and several members of his party.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
Does the Taoiseach recall that was about the occupant of his office receiving a watch from somebody? Does he agree that members of his party have received a great deal more than watches from people in recent times?
For the historic record, it was about this House wanting to debate allegations made by Members of the Deputy's party, which were subsequently proved in the Locke's tribunal to be outrageous and without substance. My party set up a tribunal to deal with them, but the Deputy's party would not turn up to make the case.
(Interruptions.)
I appeal to Deputies to return to the Order of Business for 12 October 2000.
Would the Taoiseach agree that—
If we are to wander down memory lane, perhaps the Taoiseach will give us all a researcher?
Do not tempt us.
I have called Deputy Bruton.
The researcher would have to travel to Russia.
(Interruptions.)
Order please. If order is not restored we will move on to the business of the day.
Does the Taoiseach agree that we make the House look ridiculous by going back to 1947? The references I was making were to Mr. Haughey, to be precise, and Deputy Lawlor, both recent or current Members of the House who have not co-operated. It is very important that the House shows it is prepared to take steps towards enforcement in regard to its Members' compliance with the orders of tribunals, given that the tribunals are instruments of the House for finding fact and were set up by us. We must show the citizens that we are prepared to comply with the tribunals set up by us if we expect others to do so.
A final comment on the matter from the Taoiseach.
That is why I said what I did yesterday and why the House, when it set up the tribunal three years ago, gave it powers to act if somebody did not do co-operate. The point I made was that the ruling the Ceann Comhairle made some time ago during the current Dáil, was based, as the Chair said at the time, on the rulings and precedents, and my point is that those Standing Orders and precedents are there for good reason. They are based on the deliberations, experiences and facts of a long history of the House.
I call Deputy Quinn.
I asked a question which was not answered.
Deputy Quinn.
On decentralisation—
I will call an end to the Order of Business if this disorder continues.
There is no disorder.
I do not think it is helpful for any of us if the Taoiseach tries to confuse—
Will the Deputy please ask a question on the Order of Business?
In approximately six weeks from now the Labour Party's Private Members' Bill, the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Donations) Bill, will be deemed to have passed Second Stage as a result of a vote taken in the House earlier this year and I wonder what arrangements the Taoiseach has to ensure it makes effective and rapid progress to the relevant committee so the House can enact it and so we will no longer have the sad procession of politicians from the Fianna Fáil Party to the tribunals in Dublin Castle.
It is the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, the heads of which were approved during the summer.
No, it is the Labour Party Bill which, following the Taoiseach's footwork, he deemed to pass but did not pass. An unprecedented time lag was put on it whereby it was deemed to pass Second Stage, but that would not come into effect until 1 December. The Taoiseach's backbenchers may be somewhat surprised. This Bill concerns political donations and the Taoiseach has received advice that it might be unconstitutional, advice which has not yet been shared with the rest of us. I am giving the Taoiseach fair notice to make provision for it to be dealt with effectively by the relevant committee so we end the sordid scandal of tribunals in Dublin Castle.
I hope we can do that. I will mention some of the other Bills, along with those before the House, including the reform of the public offices commission. We are currently looking at the content of Bills published by Fine Gael and the Labour Party and at bringing in new legislation in that area.
Will the Taoiseach clarify the Government's legislative position on the private rented sector? During the summer a commission recommended a new regulatory board for disputes and a new legal framework for leases for both tenants and landlords. It is not on any of the lists circulated by the Government. The Minister of State welcomed the report. Is it the intention to provide legislation?
(Dublin West): I am indebted to the Minister of State with responsibility for housing and urban renewal who has written to me stating that he intends to bring proposals to Government shortly with a programme for implementation arising out of the report of the commission on the private rented sector and that there are significant legislative implications. This significantly moves forward the Government position. It is a clear promise of legislation. In view of the grotesque exploitation which continues of those living in rented homes, flats and bedsits, will the Taoiseach give the Dáil a definitive timescale for the provision of legislation for security of tenure for those now at the mercy of grabbing landlords and for rent control which is a crucial necessity?
I thank the Minister of State with responsibility for housing and urban renewal for writing to me on the same subject and indicating the information to which Deputy Higgins referred. When I asked the Tánaiste about the legislation on Tuesday she seemed to indicate that legislation would be forthcoming. It is important that the Taoiseach states categorically in the House whether the Government intends presenting legislation to regulate the private rented sector. It is required under the report of the commission on the private rented sector. The Taoiseach has been somewhat ambiguous when I asked about it on previous occasions, and this is an opportunity for him to state categorically that the Government intends to bring forward legislation.
Today the report is being discussed with the housing forum, as we promised would happen as soon as the report was published. Legislation will be required and that will be prepared. At this stage I am not sure how long that will take, but I categorically state that it will require legislation and that such legislation will be forthcoming.
When will the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill be introduced given that we need an urgent debate on the advertising campaign for the influenza vaccine and the meningitis C vaccine, which is still not available in many surgeries around the country, despite the fact the advertising campaign has been going on for months?
The Deputy is now making a statement.
I am making a statement. People cannot get the vaccine.
A statement is not in order.
Given that it is now the middle of October and people cannot get the vaccine, despite a month of advertising financed by taxpayers' money, when will the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill be introduced so this outrageous situation can be addressed?
The Bill has passed the Seanad and is due in the House this month.
Hundreds of Irish pilgrims are planning to travel to the Holy Land over the next few days and some of them have become very concerned about the situation there. Will the Taoiseach or the Minister for Foreign Affairs make a statement advising these people on the safety of travelling to the region?
Statements are not in order on the Order of Business.
That might be so, but it is very important to the people who are travelling.
It is certainly important, but it is not in order on the Order of Business.
The Government accepted on Second Stage the Labour Party's whistleblowers Bill. Since this is listed as being before a committee since June 1999 has the Government any intention to permit the progress of the Bill?
It is still listed for committee, but as Deputy Rabbitte is aware there are a number of Bills in this area. The Government is looking at how to proceed. There are different Bills – whistleblowers Bills, corruption Bills and reform Bills. In all, there are about six Bills and we are looking at the issue.
Is the Taoiseach saying he would wish the Bill to be ordered to that committee?
The House must order the Bill to the committee.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform gave a commitment to this House that he would facilitate the Bill's enactment.
It is a matter for the committee. I am talking about a separate, comprehensive piece of legislation; the committee can deal with its own business.
On promised legislation, I am sure the Taoiseach is aware of the multiplicity of financial services which are now being offered by banks, insurance companies and companies in the IFSC. In many circumstances, the consumer is at risk because there is no single regulator for the financial services industry. Why can the Taoiseach not succeed in getting the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance to agree on the policy for a single regulator? They are disagreeing on the report of a committee which was chaired by the Attorney General, Mr. McDowell. Must we wait for another Finbar Ross or Tony Taylor case before this Government takes action? The Ministers are at loggerheads for the past 18 months and the situation is an absolute scandal.
It is not in order to make a statement on the matter. The Deputy should put a question in regard to the legislation.
The Taoiseach previously informed the House that the Cabinet had instructed the relevant Ministers, namely the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance, to introduce a joint memorandum to Government. That was more than 18 months ago. Does the Government have any sense of responsibility to consumers who are dealing with the financial services industry? We see daily examples of financial institutions, from the commercial banks down, failing to comply with the law or to co-operate with the Revenue Commissioners. Who will protect the consumer and when will that happen?
There are other means through which the Deputy can raise this issue.
The heads of the Financial Services (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which will provide for miscellaneous amendments to existing Central Bank and Stock Exchange legislation will be cleared before Christmas. While there are outstanding issues in regard to regulation, the Deputy should not seek to spread the view that there is not stringent regulation in most of these areas under Central Bank and insurance legislation.
How can the heads of the Bill be cleared by Christmas when the memorandum from the two relevant Departments has not yet come before the Cabinet? The Taoiseach is suggesting there is a draft Bill but there is not. The Taoiseach is pretending; the heads of the Bill do not even exist.
There are two separate Bills.
With reference to the Taoiseach's comments about certain events of 1947, in which I have a certain personal interest, I would welcome a debate on any aspect of the matter he might wish to pursue. Let me turn the clock forward 53 years to the present day and ask the Taoiseach whether his party was officially represented yesterday at a funeral in London of a person with certain ethical standards.
That is disgraceful. The Deputy is really scraping the barrel.
A Deputy
Reggie Kray; all the Taoiseach's friends were there.
(Interruptions.)
I seek the Ceann Comhairle's indulgence to congratulate the Ministers for Defence and the Environment and Local Government on the eventual sale of Devoy Barracks, Naas, to Naas Urban District Council for housing. I am delighted they failed to sell it to speculators.
I have raised the need for legislation to cover the procedures which would apply on the impeachment of judges. The Taoiseach agreed with me that there is a need for legislation in this area. If we were to pursue impeachment procedures rather than threaten them, as happened in the cases of Mr. O'Flaherty and Mr. Kelly, the procedures to do so do not exist. Does the Taoiseach accept there is an urgent need to introduce such legislation and when could we expect to see it before the House?
I accept the Deputy's point on this issue. We have received an excellent constitutional report on this matter but we do not yet have the judicial committee's report which I am told we will receive in November.
Once again, I wish to raise the long promised Children Bill, Committee Stage of which has been awaited for the past six months. In view of the escalating levels of juvenile crime, particularly in the Dublin area, will the Taoiseach give us a commitment that Committee Stage of the Bill will be taken this month?
The 1999 Children Bill?
Yes. Committee Stage of the Bill was to be taken prior to the summer recess.
The Bill is merely an update of the 1996 Bill.
I will ask the Minister when Committee Stage will be taken.
Is the Taoiseach aware that up to 600 jobs are at stake in Monaghan Poultry Products as a result of a dispute—
The matter is not in order at this stage.
It is very much in order that these jobs would be preserved.
The Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment is taking questions later today.
Prior to the summer recess, the Government published the standards in public offices legislation. The House passed a motion referring the Bill to committees during the summer but, unfortunately, the terms of the motion precluded anything other than Second Stage speeches being made. When will Second Stage of the Bill come before the House?
The Bill, which has already been before both committees of the House in its drafting stage, will be taken in the first week of November.
The committees do very useful work.
Is the Government considering a change of legislation or regulation to enable the sale of the State oil refinery to a foreign company and will the Taoiseach provide time for a debate on the matter?
I am not aware of any legislation on this matter.
For a number of years, we have been promised the publication of the nursing Bill but it has failed to materialise. Meanwhile, hospitals, particularly in Dublin, are suffering severe cutbacks due to a lack of nurses. I raised this issue with the Tánaiste who informed me that she did not know any more than I did, which was less than reassuring. Will the Taoiseach commit himself to ensuring that the Bill is introduced as a matter of urgency in order that we do not find ourselves in the middle of 2001 with yet another broken promise in terms of the Bill's publication? I would like to get an adequate response from the Taoiseach as I received an inadequate one from the Tánaiste.
The heads of the Bill are being prepared in the Department and it will be published as early as possible next year.
In view of the growing unrest and deep frustration within the teaching profession, will the Taoiseach indicate when the Teaching Council Bill will come before the House? Arising from the announcement made by the Minister for Education and Science yesterday in regard to autistic children, is it expected that similar circumstances will be provided, under the disabilities legislation, in regard to people with other forms of disability who may feel discriminated against?
The Teaching Council Bill will come before the House next week.
That concludes the Order of Business.