Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Oct 2000

Vol. 524 No. 3

Order of Business.

The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 42, Cement (Repeal of Enactments) Bill, 1999 [Seanad] – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; No. 43, Insurance Bill, 1999 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; No. 9, Customs and Excise (Mutual Assistance) Bill, 2000 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; and No. 2, Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill, 2000 [Seanad] – Second Stage. Private Members' Business shall be No. 100, motion re the Omagh bombing, resumed, to conclude at 8.30 p.m.

There are no proposals to be put to the House.

What action, legislative or otherwise, will the Government take to ensure, in the wake of the recent court judgment, there will be adequate numbers of taxis in Dublin, particularly between now and Christmas, to allow young people get home safely after a night's entertainment?

The matter is still before the courts. As Deputy Bruton knows, the court will make its final decision next Tuesday. The 45 page decision given by the High Court last Friday will be examined. It raises fundamental legal and policy issues. The court has given two weeks for parties to consider what order should follow from its legal finding. The Government is treating it as a matter of urgency. The Attorney General has consulted with the State's legal team and their detailed advices are expected in the next few days.

We are acutely aware there are short-term and medium-term issues which must be addressed. We are determined, as the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, said many times, to address this as a matter of urgency. However, we want to ensure that whatever we do is fair to the travelling public, to those who already work in the taxi and hackney business and those who want to work in this sector, which is vital to the success of public transport policy.

Does the Taoiseach not agree that a legal judgment of this kind casts serious doubts on the Government's competence in preparing its scheme and on its legal advice in allowing such a situation to develop so close to Christmas, when people want to get home safely at night and are not interested in protracted legal arguments which should have been settled three years ago, when this issue should have been dealt with?

It could have been dealt with five years ago.

Go back to 1947 again.

If that is where the precedents come from—

The Taoiseach's direct involvement delayed it for a year.

Deputy Callely was providing the solution.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Howlin should be the last Member of this House to talk about taxi licences—

What is the Taoiseach doing about it?

—because he passed the buck as far away from himself as he possibly could. He never issued a taxi licence during his reign in Government.

(Interruptions).

Is the Taoiseach in order?

He gave 750—

The Taoiseach, without interruption.

We gave 3,100 licences last year but that ended up in the courts.

People are queuing for two hours.

The only taxi service is to Cahirciveen.

(Interruptions).

Order, please.

Sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, I was just responding to the heckling. The decisions the Government took last November—

(Interruptions).

I call Deputy Quinn.

We cannot hear on this side of the House what the Taoiseach is saying. Is there something wrong with the sound system?

On a point of order, there is a difficulty with the sound system in this Chamber because the Taoiseach, who is normally strong of voice, can no longer be heard on this side of the House. I am sure that is not due to any reticence on the Taoiseach's part.

It is not.

Therefore, is it in order for me to ask the Taoiseach to repeat his remarks? We simply cannot hear him.

We will arrange to have the sound system checked.

There is obviously a problem. I said that last Friday's High Court decision on taxis raises complex and fundamental legal and policy issues. The court has given two weeks for parties to consider what order should follow from its legal finding. They will explain their position in more detail next week. We are treating the matter as one of urgency. The Attorney General has consulted the State's legal team and their detailed advices are expected in the next few days. We are acutely aware there are short-term and medium-term issues which must be addressed.

On 30 November 1999 the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, on behalf of the Government announced a system which would have given an immediate 3,100 licences in the Dublin area. That was challenged, not by the taxi drivers but by the hackney drivers, which is what created the current difficulty. Unfortunately, it has taken from February until now to go through the courts. However, as soon as the matters are cleared up next week, the Government will move on decisions.

I call Deputy Quinn on a new matter.

Amnesty International is organising a worldwide campaign today, which is taking place in Kilmainham Gaol in this city, designed to stamp out torture. Ireland some years ago signed a UN convention entitled The Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. In view of the fact that we will soon become a full member of the Security Council and given the day that is in it, when is it intended to ratify this convention, so that we do not find ourselves in a situation on the Security Council where we are not in line with many other countries?

To the best of my knowledge, we signed it some time ago. I think I previously gave the ratification date to the House but I will have to check when that was. I stated at that stage that the work to implement it was ongoing, but I will check the date.

Having regard to our new responsibilities on the Security Council, it would be appropriate for the Taoiseach to give a pledge today – I suspect many Members of the House are members of Amnesty International and would like to be associated with this matter – that the Oireachtas will give a solemn undertaking that it will attempt to ratify this convention before the new year.

I am subject to this being checked, but I think we have signed the convention and that it is just a matter of the work being undertaken. I will check that and if there is a delay I will ask them to move ahead.

If the Taoiseach wishes, we will write the Bill for him.

Will the Taoiseach introduce courts or criminal justice legislation to allow for the appointment of more judges in view of the fact that there are 170 rape cases and 53 murder cases awaiting trial who cannot find a judge to hear them? Meanwhile judges are taken up in tribunals where Members or former Members are not assisting them in getting the work done.

The Court and Court Officers Bill is in the House this session. In the past few years there has been a substantial increase in the number of members of the Judiciary in all the courts.

The Taoiseach will probably be aware that the Committee of Public Accounts public hearings into DIRT resume on 30 November. The only major area in which there has not been a response is in the area of Dáil reform. Are we likely to have, legislatively or otherwise, a package of Dáil reform in advance of 30 June?

There are proposals on Dáil reform before Cabinet.

The Taoiseach informed the House yesterday that the unseemly row between the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance on who would regulate the financial services industry had been solved and gave a vague commitment to Deputy Rabbitte about the publication of a Bill. Last week he told me we would have the Bill this session. Will the Taoiseach explain the position? Have the heads of the Bill gone through Government, is it gone for drafting and when will it be introduced? I want no ambiguity this time.

What I said last week was that the heads of the Financial Services (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill are expected late this year and the Bill is expected next year. On the other matter, I said the Bill would be available shortly.

We cannot tolerate this. This is the same ambiguity we get from the Taoiseach.

We cannot have a discussion on it.

Will there be a Bill before Christmas to regulate the financial services industry with a single regulator? Has the row between the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance concluded? Has the joint memorandum gone to Government? The Taoiseach is dodging the issue and pretending one thing. He was asked about this particularly last week but now he has a different answer.

The matter on legislation is in order.

There are two Bills.

The Taoiseach was not asked about the first one.

I was asked and I answered. The Deputy did not ask me but somebody else did and I gave the details. The matter raised by the Deputy is all but resolved. I do not think the legislation will be published before Christmas but the memorandum should be.

The memorandum will come before Christmas.

Last week I asked the Tánaiste about the publication of the greenhouse gas abatement strategy and she told me she would get back to me but did not. Will the Taoiseach enlighten me as to when this strategy will be published? Why has the Environmental Protection Agency (Amendment) Bill been put back another year? Does this indicate that the Government places a low priority on environmental protection?

The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency Bill were approved last month and the Bill is due in the new year.

When will the greenhouse gas abatement strategy be published? I asked the Tánaiste last week and she said she would get back to me.

That question is not in order. It is a paper on strategy.

It is in order.

Deputy Gormley should resume his seat. I call Deputy Howlin. Deputy Gormley can pursue the matter in another way.

Yesterday in Luxembourg the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform held out against—

This matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

I am coming to the question on legislation.

Ask the question on legislation.

Perhaps I may get in a preamble. There is a new EU equality directive which will require legislation in this House. The views expressed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform were contradicted by the French Presidency late last night. Will the Taoiseach clarify the Government's position in relation to its stand on the directive and, second, in relation to what was agreed in Luxembourg yesterday?

Just on promised legislation, Taoiseach.

May I ask a question on legislation?

Yes, on legislation but we cannot have a discussion on it. This is the Order of Business.

Arising from the discussions that took place yesterday in the context of the EU directive, will the Taoiseach say whether the Government intends to bring before the House legislation to implement the provisions of the directive or will the directive simply be regarded as directly applicable? Will he indicate by what date this directive must be brought into force? In the context of the question raised by Deputy Howlin, will he indicate whether there will be a debate in the House next week to allow the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to explain the actions taken by him yesterday?

That is a matter for the Whips.

We want clarification because it appears the Minister's position went beyond the terms of the Employment Equality Act and the Equal Status Act. There is no other legislation on the Statute Book in relation to this matter. It appears the Minister's position is different from that adopted by this House in those Acts.

We cannot have clarification of that nature, it is a matter for a parliamentary question.

It is extremely important.

It is important but it is not appropriate to the Order of Business. Just on the legislation, Taoiseach.

Perhaps I can be helpful on the legislation. The Minister's position is exactly consistent with the two Acts passed in the House. The wording in the directive, as initially proposed by the Presidency, would have had a detrimental effect on the freedom of institutions under the direction or control of a body for religious purposes from maintaining their religious ethos because the proposed wording was narrower than the exclusion contained in the Employment Equality Act or the Equal Status Act. After the negotiations yesterday, which have gone on for some months, the French Presidency agreed to reword the draft with a view to ensuring we can maintain our existing provisions set out in the Employment Equality Act, 1998. The House will recall the provisions of that Act took approximately two years to develop and were agreed after extensive consultation with the social partners, including all the teachers' unions and the denominational and parents' interests. Failure to maintain our existing provisions would have had a particularly detrimental effect on minority churches which had lobbied strongly in the past few weeks that we would not move away from the provisions of the Employment Equality Act.

In reply to Deputy Shatter, perhaps he will put down a question to the Minister.

By way of clarification—

We cannot pursue the matter. We are on the Order of Business.

Yesterday the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform issued two separate statements. Initially he said, "support the ethos of an institution" and later he said, "not undermine". One is consistent with legislation and the other is not. Will the Taoiseach allow the matter to be clarified by statement from himself or the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? That is the least we are entitled to.

For the sake of clarity, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform did not make the first statement.

What steps does the Taoiseach intend to take to ensure when questions are raised on the Adjournment the Ministers responsible come in to reply?

That is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

In fairness to yourself and your ruling, you approve four items—

The Deputy will have to raise that matter in another way.

The Minister came in here last night and dealt with three of the matters. That is treating this House with contempt. What does the Taoiseach intend to do about it?

I wish to raise the scandal of the daily occurrence of 14 and 15 year old children coming before the courts and being released back onto the streets because there are no care places available for them.

Has the Deputy a question on legislation?

Will the Taoiseach give a commitment that Committee Stage of the Juvenile Justice Bill will be taken before the end of this month? Will he agree it is obscene to speak about cutting the top rate of tax when the State is engaging in official neglect of these damaged children?

That is not in order on the Order of Business.

The amendments were passed by Cabinet this morning. I am sure the committee meeting will be held shortly.

I call Deputy Finucane.

A Cheann Chomhairle, we have been engaged for three years on this legislation—

The matter is with the committee. The Deputy should resume her seat.

The legislation has been delayed for three years. Will the Taoiseach—

I call Deputy Finucane.

Will the Taoiseach give a commitment this morning to publish those amendments and ensure that Committee Stage is taken before the end of the month?

That is a matter for the committee. I call Deputy Finucane. Deputy Shortall must resume her seat.

Can the Taoiseach give that commitment?

I called Deputy Finucane.

On a point of order.

If this disorder continues, I will call a close to the Order of Business. A number of Deputies wish to ask questions on the Order of Business and they are being prevented from doing so by other Deputies. Time is running out, as is the Chair's patience.

On a point of order, the Order of Business, as I and the House understand it, is a period in which Deputies can ask questions in relation to legislation. The moving of amendments to a Bill which has been stalled for up to three years is of critical importance. Surely it is in order for a Deputy, having asked the first question—

The Deputy cannot challenge the rulings of the Chair.

I am not challenging the rulings of the Chair. I am raising a point of order.

The Chair is endeavouring to facilitate Deputies who wish to ask questions.

Questions and no answers.

The Deputy should resume his seat when the Chair is speaking.

I am raising a point of order.

The Chair is endeavouring to facilitate as many Deputies as possible on the Order of Business. This is not possible if a number of Deputies prolong their questions and embellish the questions with comments.

Can I resume my point of order? I will be as brief as possible. If a Minister in reply to a legitimate question on the Order of Business does not give a clear answer, what other option does the Deputy have but to ask a supplementary question as Deputy Shortall has done? The Chair needs to look at how he is interpreting Standing Orders.

It is now a matter for the justice committee.

However, this relates to many other matters. To give an inadequate reply, as the Taoiseach has done—

It was not inadequate.

—is a travesty of the Order of Business. Members are entitled to know when the amendments will be moved.

As has been pointed out, that is a matter for—

Can I make a point of order?

It is now the practice for Members to use the Order of Business to raise a question and then come back with a different question. The Order of Business is either about legislation or it is not. I am at a disadvantage. Somebody might ask a question that is in order, then asks another question and then gets back in to ask another when I cannot reply. It is then portrayed on the airwaves that I do not answer the question.

I will follow the order of the House. On this question, I was asked when the amendments to the Children Bill would be cleared and when will—

No. I asked when Committee Stage was being taken.

Hold on a moment. The Deputies are a terribly excited bunch. They should take it easy.

Not at all.

Allow the Taoiseach to reply.

The children on the streets are excited.

Deputy Shortall asked me when the Committee Stage amendments would be cleared—

No. I did not ask that.

—and when they would be taken by the committee. That is what Deputy Shortall said and the record will show that. I said that the amendments to the Children Bill had been cleared by the Government this morning and would be taken by the committee. I do not order what the committees do. We have cleared the amendments. It is disingenuous for Deputy Shortall or Deputy Quinn to claim that I did not answer the question.

On a point of order, a Cheann Chomhairle.

I call Deputy Gay Mitchell.

The Chair called me first.

How could the Chair forget the Deputy?

On a point of order.

One has to be aggressive to be called in this House.

What is the point of order?

I asked the Taoiseach to give a commitment this morning—

That is not a point of order.

It is a point of order. I am clarifying the position.

Do it briefly.

I asked the Taoiseach to give a commitment that Committee Stage of the Children Bill will be taken before the end of this month.

That is a matter for the committee.

I am clarifying what I asked. The Taoiseach has not yet answered that question.

That is a matter for the committee.

It is a matter for the Government to ordain when Committee Stage is taken.

It is a matter for the committee. The Deputy must resume her seat. I call Deputy Gay Mitchell.

The Chair called me first.

The Chair decides who to call. I call Deputy Gay Mitchell.

The Chair called me minutes ago.

I call Deputy Mitchell first.

Between that and Deputy Neville, Deputy Finucane is being outdone all the time.

The Chair will get hypertension from this.

With regard to the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the 'flu vaccine is meant to prevent old people in particular from getting the 'flu. We are now weeks into the campaign but the 'flu vaccine is not available. Will there be an opportunity to explain that to the House? Will the Taoiseach bring forward the legislation to provide that opportunity this week or next week? Old people will get the 'flu and be put in danger because the vaccine is not available. Can we have a statement on this matter?

The legislation is before the House; it has been ordered. I will ask that it is taken.

I trust the Chair will give me the opportunity of clarifying the point I am about to make. It is extremely important. The Minister for Defence and the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources have much to answer for in this matter. There was an unfortunate tragedy in which four Air Corps pilots lost their lives—

That is not related to legislation.

—in an unsafe and hostile environment. Ministers in the Departments of Defence and Marine and Natural Resources were negligent—

The Deputy is making a statement. He must ask a question.

—in initiating a 24 hour service at Waterford Airport on 1 July 1999. The safety infrastructure was not in place—

The Deputy is continuing to make a statement.

—and the Departments of Defence and the Marine and Natural Resources were negligent.

There are other ways for the Deputy to pursue that important matter.

I want the Ministers concerned to come to the House and answer questions. The report must be properly discussed.

That is not in order on the Order of Business.

I assure the Taoiseach that the Whips will discuss this matter this evening and it will be before the House next week.

The Deputy has other ways to pursue the matter.

(Dublin West): Yesterday, the Motor Insurance Justice Action Group, which represents young drivers, told a Dáil committee that only two of 17 companies—

That is not a matter for the Order of Business.

(Dublin West): Believe me, a Cheann Chomhairle, it is.

I find that hard to believe. A question on legislation.

(Dublin West): My problem in this House is that I speak too clearly, unlike the Taoiseach, so the Chair knows exactly what I am saying. By the way, if the leaders of the Opposition parties who cannot hear the Taoiseach would like somebody in the Taoiseach's chair who can be heard, I will be glad to go there.

Only two of 17 companies in the motor insurance business will cover young drivers and they charge thousands of pounds. Given the contribution of young people to the economy and the difficulties with public transport and taxis, when will legislation be introduced to compel insurance companies to treat young drivers with justice and will the State step in, if necessary, to do that?

There is an insurance Bill on the Order Paper.

One would need a flare pistol sometimes to catch the Chair's eye. Has the Government decided whether to appeal the Sinnott judgment to the Supreme Court? Is the Government taking account of the implications for education and for the thousands of children in need? Is it intended to set up a compensation tribunal to deal with the many cases that have accumulated?

The Minister for Education and Science has already made the position clear on the Sinnott case and other related cases where he has already moved. Some points of law are being considered by the Attorney General and no decision has yet been made on those.

Arising from the disastrous handling of Aer Lingus by the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke—

Mopping up after the Deputy.

—and her admission—

Anything the Minister touches stops.

A question on legislation, Deputy Stagg.

—and her admission to the House yesterday that it would not now be possible to privatise Aer Lingus, is it now the Taoiseach's intention to withdraw the Aer Lingus Bill which provides for the privatisation?

Has the Minister changed her mind again since yesterday?

Deputy O'Rourke is not yet in the Taoiseach's chair.

The Bill has been published and will be before the House next month.

Will the Ceann Comhairle's office investigate why Members' rights are being seriously undermined?

That is not a matter for the Order of Business.

Answers to questions which should be here at 4 p.m. are not being delivered to Members' pigeonholes until 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. That is utterly unacceptable. I am asking that the problem be investigated.

The matter will be looked at if the Deputy provides the details of the problem.

The House is gone into slow motion.

Top
Share