The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 7, ICC Bank Bill, 2000 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; No. 8, National Stud (Amendment) Bill, 2000 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; No. 48, Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2000 – Second Stage (resumed); and No. 49, Statements on the Clinical Vaccine Trials Report to be taken not later than immediately following the announcement of matters on the Adjournment under Standing Order 21 and the order shall not resume thereafter. It is proposed notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders that the following arrangements shall apply in relation to No. 49: (i) the statements of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party, shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; (ii) the statement of each other Member called upon shall not exceed five minutes; and (iii) Members may share time.
Order of Business.
There is one proposal to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 49 agreed?
I express our anger, as Deputy Bruton did earlier this week, at the way in which the Minister for Health and Children is dealing with this issue. While this issue will be supposedly debated for approximately one hour this afternoon, the only Members who have been given the report are the Minister, the Government and the Opposition spokespersons. Approximately 30 minutes of that debate will consist of contributions by Members who have not had sight of the report and will first hear what is in it when the Minister speaks on it. The Taoiseach must give a commitment to this House that this report will be passed to the Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children, given there are questions to be answered by the Department of Health and Children. That will not be done if the report is sent to the Laffoy Commission, where it might have to wait its turn to be examined, which could be many months if not years. I want a commitment from the Taoiseach that the report will be in Members' pigeon holes this morning to enable those participating in the debate to have some time to read it. I want a commitment that this report will be passed to the Oireacthas committee, irrespective of what the Minister wants to do, vis-a-vis the Laffoy commission. The report must be passed to the Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children. We will not agree to this debate this afternoon unless we get a commitment on that.
On the same issue, will the Taoiseach make this report available to each Member of the House. There has been extensive media coverage of this report, yet some Members have not seen it. That is grossly unfair and inadequate. The Labour Party wishes to support the referral of this report to the Laffoy Commission. We stated that publicly. I want a guarantee from the Taoiseach this can be done. Can he guarantee it will not require a change in legislation in the terms of reference of the Laffoy commission to ensure there is no undue delay in dealing with it and that in terms of the process of that commission it can be done in parallel with investigations rather than be backloaded to the end of them?
Some Members of the House have been naive and are being sucked in. My concern about this report is that the Department of Health and Children was complicit in some of the implications, having regard to the tests that were carried out in the first place.
That is untrue.
There is at least a strong suspicious that is the case.
Are we going to have the debate now or later?
Before the House is a question on the proposal for dealing with No. 49, not on what is in the report.
That is the point I am coming to. For that reason the Department of Health and Children have questions to answer and the approximate place for it to answer them is not at the Laffoy commission but at an Oireachtas committee. There are strong implications that Department has questions to answer. I will tease this out further in the debate on this matter.
I wish to make another point that has not been mentioned.
The Deputy must be brief.
I heard one of the people affected by what is in this report being interviewed this morning. Those people have not seen this report. It is uncaring of the Government to allow a report to be introduced here for a very limited debate. It would be helpful if the Taoiseach would even agree to the debate not finishing today to allow those of us who have not seen the report and may have comments to make on it, which we cannot do sight unseen, to do so. I do not know what is going on in the Department of Health and Children or what the Minister is playing at. Why is there such a frantic hurry, with this report to be rushed in here for one hour and then rushed off to the Laffoy commission? Is there something we do not know or understand about what is going on in this report that the Minister for Health and Children wants it off his desk so quickly? If there was an explanation for this perhaps we would not have to argue about the way it is being handled.
We cannot have a prolonged discussion on this.
The Taoiseach would not accept this if he were in Opposition.
As I said twice during the week, the Minister will reply this afternoon to many of the questions raised. Regarding the reason for the report not being circulated, apart from yesterday I was asked by Deputies Bruton and Quinn to give copies of the report to spokespersons and that was done.
The Taoiseach was asked to give copies to everyone.
The reason that it is not being given to all Members is that the Minister and Government were advised that legally the only way the report could be circulated to everyone, including the people concerned, would be if it were dealt with in the House and if the debate triggered the circulation of the report. That is the reason for the short debate. There is no other reason. That is the advice.
It is bad advice.
Deputy Quinn will know—
It is bad advice.
The Taoiseach is in possession.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 49 agreed?
No.
|
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).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Cowen, Brian. |
Cullen, Martin.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan. Tá–continued |
Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Donnell, Liz. |
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.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Wright, G. V. |
|
Allen, Bernard.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis J.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Fitzgerald, Frances.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael. |
Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Spring, Dick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan. |
I have no wish to reopen the discussion on this matter but, in view of the fact that the Government won the vote, would it be possible to grant a degree of latitude in terms of the time allowed for the contributions of spokespersons? Ten minutes is a limited period in which to make a contribution and perhaps the Chair could allow spokespersons to overrun their time by a few minutes. Few Members will be able to participate in the debate because they have not seen the report.
The proposal passed by the House states that the contributions of spokespersons shall not exceed ten minutes in each case and that other Members shall have five minutes each in which to make their contributions.
Perhaps the Government Whip might reconsider the position. Our spokesperson, the only member of Fine Gael who has the report, indicated that ten minutes is very limited.
The Minister for Health and Children has no difficulty if there is just one speaker from the party opposite who needs to go over the time allocated.
I was continually interrupted during the earlier part of the Order of Business and I wish now to answer Deputy McManus's question regarding two issues. The Deputy first inquired whether terms of reference would be needed to send the report to the Laffoy commission. The answer to her question is no. The Deputy proceeded to ask if the report could be taken early and I understand that there is no difficulty in doing so, if necessary.
On a point of order, I seek your advice on this matter. It is unprecedented, in the 20 years that I have been a Member, that a report which Members have not seen has been ordered for debate. It is an extraordinarily dangerous precedent. I ask you to consider, in the context of the Standing Orders of this House, making a statement on the issue this week on where the rights of Members stand. In a broader context, in no circumstances should Parliament in any parliamentary democracy be required to debate a report of a nature as serious as this which has not been distributed to Members. The advices of the Attorney General, if they are such, are wrong. The Taoiseach should make them known to the House.
The matter raised by the Deputy is not one for the Chair.
I support Deputy Shatter. It cannot be acceptable that some Members have access to information and others do not. If it is available to some, it has to be available to all at the time it is being distributed. I urge that, even at this stage, it be made available to everybody. In relation to the future, I will protest very strongly if there is any repeat of these arrangements in terms of the availability of information in order that this House can do its work with due regard to the information that we must have if we are to be able to speak with any kind of authority.
The matter raised by the Deputy is not one for the Chair. The Chair has no function in the distribution of Government reports.
This is the Franz Kafka theory of parliamentary democracy.
The ultimate rubber stamp.
It is very clear from the way in which the report is being fed—
We voted on this issue.
—that the Department of Health and Children has something to hide. There is something fundamentally—
The Deputy is discussing the report. We cannot have a discussion on it.
I seek an undertaking from the Taoiseach.
If the Deputy has a brief question, I will decide if it is in order.
I am very concerned at the way in which the report has been leaked.
That is a statement, not a question.
In view of the concerns expressed in the House, will the Taoiseach ensure the report is not sent to the Laffoy commission until the House votes on the matter next week? I understand the Minister will put a motion before the House next Tuesday. The report should not be sent to the Laffoy commission until the House has had an opportunity to consider and vote on the matter next Tuesday.
Will the Taoiseach inform the House whether the report was released or leaked to the media? It is important that we know.
Leaked.
By whom?
I understand the report was leaked to the media, but not by the Minister.
The Minister had it last March. He was the only one who had it.
The Minister for Health and Children—
I call Deputy Quinn on a new subject. If we do not move on, I will call an end to the Order of Business.
One cannot help, but make a comment and observation on this matter. You, Sir, as the—
On a new subject.
On the general subject of the protection of Members' interests, although I am aware that it is not in order to raise it any further, the matter raised does warrant examination. I ask you to consider raising it. While you may not have responsibility for Government reports, you have a unique responsibility to protect the integrity of Members' interests.
The Chair knows its responsibilities.
Thank you. I wish to raise a separate matter. I would prefer to put the question to the Tánaiste, but, once again, she has run away from the House having come in to vote. She is not present for the Order of Business.
That is a cheap shot.
It is not.
She is seldom here.
When she spoke to the nation via Marian Finucane she confessed that vested interests have prevented the Government from resolving the taxi issue.
The Deputy should address the Chair and put his question on the Order of Business.
What vested interests have prevented the Government from resolving the farce about the provision of taxis in this city and throughout the country? Is there something the Taoiseach knows that he is not telling us?
Ask the members of Dublin Corporation.
Which vested interests?
There is a motion on the Order Paper dealing with the matter.
Will the Taoiseach reply?
I would if I was in order.
I support the concept that the Ceann Comhairle should provide protection for Members. Perhaps in the quietness of your office, to which you often invite us, you will consider the right of Members to receive reports before they are debated in the House. On a separate issue, before we return next Tuesday it is likely that our secondary schools will have closed. What action will be taken by the Government over the weekend to ensure the threatened strike by teachers does not go ahead and to appeal to teachers to consider the damage that will be caused to pupils? What will the Minister for Education and Science do over the weekend to enter into dialogue with teachers to ensure the strike does not go ahead? Other action is threatened in the following two weeks.
To which legislation does that relate?
As this will happen before we return next Tuesday, you should allow the question.
It is not strictly in order, but does the Taoiseach wish to comment?
Briefly—
Is this in order?
It is not strictly in order.
We have selective commentary.
I am sure the Taoiseach will also answer Deputy Quinn's question.
We are on the Order of Business.
The Taoiseach was almost standing up.
The Taoiseach was willing to answer. He should give some comfort to teachers, parents and pupils.
A Deputy:
A cheap shot against the Chair.
There is something very serious happening in the housing market. Will the Taoiseach introduce legislation to remove the 9% stamp duty on second homes? It is destroying the building industry in rural Ireland—
Has legislation been promised?
It is a fair question on legislation.
Has legislation been promised?
No.
Therefore, it is not in order. The matter of housing was raised at Question Time yesterday.
Prices are falling.
A Finance Bill is promised.
On the Finance Bill.
Yes. On the forthcoming Finance Bill, has it been brought to the attention of the Taoiseach that the building trade in rural Ireland is being devastated—
Questions on the content of the Bill are not in order.
—that rents are going through the roof, that there will be redundancies and that there is no reduction in the price of houses?
What?
A complete failure.
(Dublin West): It is reported that a billionaire will shortly be in a dogfight and grubby scramble with a multimillionaire to get their hands on the telephone system.
That question would not appear to be in order.
(Dublin West): With regard to the communications regulation Bill, the purpose of which is to provide for an extension of certain powers of the Director of Telecommunications Regulation—
What the Bill provides for is not a matter for the Order of Business.
(Dublin West): It will update the regulatory framework in the light of the forthcoming liberalisation of the telecommunications sector.
The Deputy is being disorderly.
Legislation has been promised.
The Deputy should ask a specific question.
(Dublin West): There will be a fight between the fat cats to get their hands on the telephone system. In view of this, when will the communications regulation Bill be brought before the Dáil? It is urgent that it be published much earlier than mid-2001 as mentioned in the Order Paper.
The heads of the Bill are expected this month. The Bill will be introduced next session.
Legislation was promised by the Government some time ago to establish a tribunal to compensate victims of institutional child abuse. Where stands this legislation? Does the Taoiseach appreciate the urgency attached to it? In light of the fact that it will provide for the payment of compensation for those who were in industrial schools—
What the legislation provides for is not a matter for the Order of Business.
Legislation has been promised.
A number of former industrial school inmates have died in recent times. If the legislation is delayed any longer, it will be of no benefit to those who suffered this institutional abuse. When will we see the legislation? Does the Taoiseach accept that it is urgent that it be brought before the House as quickly as possible?
The Bill providing for the establishment of a commission to inquire into child abuse was enacted on 26 April. I am not sure whether the Deputy is referring to a particular Bill.
The Minister for Education and Science promised the required legislation would be given top priority.
That is being prepared.
When will we see it? Does the Taoiseach appreciate that a number of the possible beneficiaries of this legislation have died and others are in their seventies? If there is further delay in the production of this legislation, it will not benefit the people concerned. Will the Taoiseach give the House a commitment that this legislation will be given the utmost priority and will he tell us when we will see the legislation?
The legislation will be published as soon as possible. Its purpose is to ensure that people who are discriminated against will receive their entitlements.
On the same issue—
We cannot debate this issue.
—is the Taoiseach aware the work of the Laffoy commission has been delayed—
The Deputy is totally out order.
He always is.
The Taoiseach apologised a year and a half ago but has still failed to introduce legislation on this matter.
The Deputy is out of order and should resume his seat. I am calling Deputy Gilmore.
I have asked the Taoiseach on previous occasions to make available the heads of the electoral Bill which has shot to number one in the order of priority of the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Yesterday, in reply to a question tabled by a member of the Labour Party, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government indicated that one of the Bill's provisions will be the introduction—
We cannot discuss the provisions of a Bill.
—of electronic voting in a number of constituencies at the next general election. The Opposition is entitled to know what the Government's intentions are with regard to changes in the way in which general elections are conducted.
Hear, hear.
I am again asking the Taoiseach to make available the heads of the proposed electoral Bill.
The Electoral (Amendment) Bill for which there are 70 heads will result in various amendments being made to electoral law. The Bill will be published during this session. Should Deputy Gilmore require a briefing on the likely content of the Bill, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government will be happy to provide it.
Vote early and often. Will we be able to vote twice under the new system?
The Bill's contents should be made generally available as they concern the rewriting of the rules for the next general election.
We cannot discuss the matter.
If it is left to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, we will see a press release being issued. He is the Minister for Statements.
On the commission which has been established to investigate institutional abuse, what action will be taken to investigate—
That is not in order on the Order of Business.
The Ceann Comhairle did not even let me finish my question.
I know from what the Deputy has already said that the question is not in order.
What action will be taken to deal with the current institutional abuse of children in care as documented in the report "Left Out on Their Own"? Will the Minister for Health and Children introduce further legislation or regulations under the Child Care Act, 1991, to deal with this issue?
The Minister for Health and Children is not taking the Order of Business. The Deputy should table a parliamentary question on the matter.
The Government does not care.
Given the trauma, distress and hardship suffered by many people as a result of the recent flooding, when can we expect to see the building control Bill being introduced in order that we could avoid future tribunals being held to inquire into why buildings were permitted to be built on flood plains and to ensure that energy conservation measures which are currently being disregarded are enforced? Will this matter be given any urgency in view of the problems which are resulting from bad building?
The Bill, the heads of which are currently being prepared, is due for publication before summer of next year. Discussions are ongoing with the Forum for the Construction Industry and the Royal Institute of Architects.
Is it necessary to introduce legislation to ensure that medical card holders will receive urgent treatment in St. Luke's Hospital? Is it fair that a person should have to wait seven weeks for urgent treatment and be sent back home on five occasions without having received treatment? Can the Taoiseach justify this?
There is no promised legislation in this area.
Nor is there any action.
On yesterday's Order of Business, questions were raised about the report of the task force on the operation of the Department of Education and Science. That report is very damning of Government policy. The Taoiseach took the opportunity to outline the Government's response to the report. The report, like the clinical—
The Deputy cannot continue with a statement. It is not acceptable to have preambles to questions on the Order of Business. If the Deputy has a question, she should put it to the Taoiseach.
Like the report on clinical trials, this report has been leaked to the media but has not been made available to Members of the House.
The Deputy is continuing with a statement.
Will the Taoiseach give the House an undertaking that the report will be made available to Members today in order that we can debate the matter properly?
The matter should be taken up with the Minister for Education and Science.