Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 1 Mar 2001

Vol. 531 No. 5

Order of Business.

I understand that the Whips have reached agreement and the Chief Whip will shortly have the technical wording for the new proposal.

The Order of Business for today shall be as follows: No. 22a, Finance Bill, 2001 – allocation of time motion for select committee; No. 22b, Finance Bill, 2001, Financial Resolutions (Nos. 1-54); and No. 50, Trustee Savings Banks (Amendment) Bill, 2000 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages, to conclude within 30 minutes. The debate on the foot and mouth disease scare will commence at 12.30 p.m. and continue after Question Time. It will be an open-ended debate and the possibility of a sitting tomorrow has been agreed. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development will answer questions for one hour on the conclusion of the debate.

Are the proposals for dealing with items 22a and 22b agreed?

In view of the circumstances, I will not do as I intended and call a vote on this matter.

Are the proposals agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with item 50 agreed? Agreed. Given that the House made an order yesterday in relation to Private Members' business, we have to get agreement not to proceed with Private Members' business today.

I presume the proposal is that we will defer it until next week.

All we need do at this stage is order it for next week.

We are not abandoning the motion. Is it the intention that we will take it during Government time next week?

It is Private Members' time.

Not in this context.

No, Sir, we will take it during Government time next week.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

On a point of clarification, we are all trying to be helpful and the Labour Party likewise will be helpful. I understand that the balance of the Fine Gael Private Members' time will be relocated in Government time some time next week and that the normal provisions for Private Members' time, which will be our time, will prevail.

I would have preferred if we were proceeding with the foot and mouth issue by way of a motion as it would allow us to table an amendment. We are particularly unhappy about the manner in which the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and the Minister of State at that Department have managed the affair to date. A procedure by way of motion would allow us to push our discontent to a vote but in the interests of harmony and acknowledging that the Government—

The Taoiseach and the Deputy should be working together.

It is not in the national interest for an Opposition to sweep the inadequacies of the Government under the carpet when foot and mouth disease is threatening. I am not pressing for a motion today but we will return to this matter. With that qualification I accept what the Government Chief Whip has proposed.

As it stands the Chief Whip will come back to the House before 12.30 p.m. with a further order in relation to the way the matter is to be dealt with.

In support of what Deputy Noonan has said, I suggest on behalf of the Labour Party that when the Whips meet again – and I appreciate they are organising this as we go along – perhaps a motion should be entertained. I ask the Tánaiste to consider that the Government Whip would be empowered to discuss such a motion.

The matter will be discussed between the Whips and the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach will return before 12.30 p.m.

Common sense should prevail.

A Deputy

It is the Government's lack of common sense that is the problem.

I think we should now move on.

I wish to make a formal request. This is perhaps the greatest national crisis this country has faced in living memory. The Taoiseach should be in this House to address it. I am serious about this.

(Interruptions.)

When Deputy Roche is in Opposition in the Seanad he will regret the way this matter is being dealt with today.

That is outrageous.

May I seek clarification—

That is absolutely outrageous.

Please, can we hear Deputy Sargent?

I look forward to the opportunity of putting the points in a more structured format than the barracking that tends to go on. Will those who tabled a motion under Standing Order 31 be taken first so that the debate will not expire before those Members have contributed?

As it stands only one motion can be taken under Standing Orders.

May I ask for your consideration of that?

It is not a matter for the Chair. If a different formation is to be worked out, that is a matter for the Whips. A proposal is to be brought into the House before 12.30 p.m.

The Minister for the Environment and Local Government maintains that the Opposition is supporting the Government but he is not correct.

We intend to conduct this debate to ensure that the maximum number of Deputies who wish to contribute may contribute-—

Exactly.

—whatever their party background. There will be no curtailing of the debate. I know from my colleagues in the Fine Gael Party that this debate will not end this afternoon. A number of Members have a strong interest in contributing for national and constituency reasons. In that context the debate will continue into tomorrow. I hope the Taoiseach will be here tomorrow. I appreciate the commitment he made to the Welsh Assembly. There are people in Wales who have campaigned for a long time for their own assembly and I know they are honoured that our Taoiseach is addressing them today. I am aware he has curtailed his timetable there and I do not want to interfere with what he is doing in fulfilling his commitments today but I expect him to be here tomorrow.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

This debate will continue tomorrow at the end of which there will be an hour of questions.

I will now take Leaders' questions.

On the same topic, I ask the Tánaiste, in her capacity as Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, to state the possible effects on employment in the wider food industry where I understand in excess of 100,000 people are employed, if an outbreak occurs here which leads to the cancellation of movement of farm animals and the cancellation of food exports. Wearing her hat as Minister in charge of the consumer interests, if all movement of animals is cancelled what provisions are being made in the interests of the consumer to ensure an adequate supply of meat is available for purchase in the coming weeks? I put it to her there is widespread public concern that the regulations and the announcements being made by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and his Minister of State are not being implemented in practice.

May I specifically state that a farm in the exclusion zone south of the Border has not yet been visited by officials of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development or any veterinary personnel to explain the obligations of the restriction to that particular farmer? I put it to the Tánaiste that the major radio programmes this morning have been inundated with 'phone calls from persons who have stated they have come through the ports and Dublin Airport where there is no visible evidence of any restriction and many of them are travelling to farms in rural Ireland. When we take into account that there is now a possible outbreak in Armagh and that there are 299 Border crossings, only 29 of which are manned by the Garda, Army or Department personnel, this would suggest that instead of having a ring of steel on the Border we have a sieve or a strainer which has no possibility of inhibiting the spread of the disease.

In view of the large gap between what the House has been assured is happening and the practice on the ground, will the Tánaiste indicate whether the Government will rethink its response and convene a Cabinet task force comprised of the Ministers directly responsible in addition to the officials to address this crisis?

I appreciate what has been said by the Opposition. The country faces an external threat and it behoves us all to act in a spirit of co-operation rather than confrontation. The Taoiseach has curtailed his visit to Wales. Last night he met with the British Prime Minister and one of the issues discussed was our common interest in foot and mouth disease. A committee is in place. This morning the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and I met with the chief veterinary officer and others. That committee met at 8 a.m. The Minister and I have been assured that all Border crossings are sealed and are patrolled—

That is not what we have been told.

I have been told they are. This is what I was told before I came to the Order of Business. There are 450 gardaí involved, 200 Army personnel and an extra 13 patrols have been placed overnight in the new exclusion zone. That order was signed by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development last night so that it would not have been possible, since 10 p.m. yesterday, to visit every farm in the area. What is important is that there is no movement of animals in the entire area. In relation to the employment aspects, if there is an outbreak of foot and mouth disease here it will have a catastrophic effect on employment and the economy generally. Given that this is a £9 million industry it will have serious implications for the entire economy and not only those who work in this industry. I have had a number of discussions with officials and agencies of my Department in relation to certain matters. The approach to be adopted will be the precautionary approach. We have not made any arrangements for meat to be supplied in the event of foot and mouth disease being detected here. That is a useful suggestion which I will certainly consider.

It was confirmed this morning that the test results of the animals in Wexford proved negative.

Deputy Noonan, a brief supplementary.

Why is the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, rather than the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development or the Taoiseach being given the apparent lead role in this issue? Is someone being set up as a scapegoat in the event of things going wrong in future?

All the State agencies have been mobilised in a huge national effort in relation to this matter and we are taking a precautionary and preventative approach. It was only yesterday that the symptoms occurred in Northern Ireland. It is fair to say that since last week the Government has acted with commendable speed. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development is taking a lead.

The Tánaiste is joking.

That is not the view of fair and objective observers in this matter.

(Interruptions.)

It is the view of people who see no sign of mobilisation.

Order, please. Deputy Dukes should not intervene in a Leaders' question.

The Taoiseach has attended meetings with the relevant officials and those charged with responsibility in this area. It is important to allow those with responsibility in this area to get on with the job. The Taoiseach attended a meeting yesterday. He will be back this afternoon and I have no doubt he will be fully involved in this matter. He has been involved since the beginning of this scare a number of days ago.

May I ask the Tánaiste—

A Leaders' question from the Leader of the Labour Party. Deputy Crawford is not a leader, therefore, he must sit down.

(Interruptions.)

Order, please. Deputy Quinn, a Leaders' question.

On foot of what the Tánaiste said to Deputy Noonan and having regard to the scale of the potential economic catastrophe which could confront this country, is she satisfied that what she is being told by well-meaning officials is accurate in that they are part of a chain of infor mation which is being contradicted on the airwaves by numerous telephone calls? We are not inventing this. The Tánaiste's officials are also listening to this information. We want to help the Government on this issue but it must provide leadership. Does the Tánaiste realise that the level of information coming from the Department and Government agencies is woefully behind that provided by their British counterparts. I heard on the "Pat Kenny Show" this morning that the website put up by the UK Agriculture Minister, Nick Brown, on how to respond to this crisis is infinitely more substantial in relation to detail. Given that we have a modern communications system in this country, will the Tánaiste ensure, in addition to the mobilisation of State agencies, many of which are under her direct control, that everyone plays their part? However, in order to do so, they must be aware of what part to play and how to play it, and that is a communications exercise. While the Tánaiste may be assured by what she is being told, the reality on the ground is quite different. We must match reality with fact, therefore, we need the communications system to be under the control of the Tánaiste and the Government.

A supplementary to that question from Deputy Noonan, please.

In the context of the Tánaiste being satisfied with the general position outlined by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, is she aware of the particular incidents which are a matter of public broadcast and public concern? Has she a system in place either in her office or in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to match the complaints which are emerging against the general principle that has been enunciated to establish the veracity of both sides on this issue? There is widespread public concern that what is being said is not being done.

In response to Deputy Quinn who quoted what is happening in the UK, the UK Parliament decided it should not even have a debate on the matter, that it should let the Minister manage the problem. It is fair to say that what is in place in this country is much more vigorous. We have also had more time to prepare for the crisis.

That is self-delusion.

Deputy Dukes should not interrupt questions.

I am certain that everything that can be done is being done. There are a number of helplines and those who require it can obtain information and assistance. Obviously, every complaint is and will continue to be investigated.

That is not true because people in the Department do not know what the disease is.

I believe it is true.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Dukes is not entitled to interrupt and the Tánaiste should not attempt to answer him. Deputy Quinn, a brief supplementary.

Will the Tánaiste accept that in responding to this crisis, the responsibility does not fall exclusively on the shoulders of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development or, indeed, the Minister of State? The Ministers for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Public Enterprise, Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Defence have a role to play, together with any other Department which has the resources or ability to ensure movement of people, which could add to the contagion, is reduced if not stopped. This should not be exclusively the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, although he is clearly in the front line. That is why the Labour Party is calling for a Government-led task force of Cabinet Ministers to ensure maximum inter-departmental co-operation between the various Departments. The Tánaiste knows that this will not be the case if officials are merely talking to other officials. The authority of Cabinet Ministers is required from a Cabinet sub-committee.

Yes, all these people have a role to play, including the Opposition. Every citizen in the country has an important role to play in this regard. The Ministers referred to by the Deputy are on the task force. An emergency meeting was held on Tuesday evening when the entire Government discussed the issue. The Taoiseach and I will attend the meetings tomorrow morning. The Taoiseach chaired the meeting yesterday morning. The chief veterinary officer has given assurances and we should be prepared to accept what he has said on this matter.

I will now take other questions on the Order of Business. I call Deputy Shatter.

I am concerned about the well-being of the Minister for Health and Children. On promised legislation, the Minister on Ash Wednesday seemed to have a groundhog day because he made the same announcement on promised legislation as he made one year earlier on Ash Wednesday, except he seems to have got it wrong.

The Deputy should ask a question.

Will the Tánaiste indicate when the so-called new tobacco Act which the Minister has announced in two successive years for Ash Wednesday will be published and brought before the House?

Deputy McManus on the same question.

I also wish to raise this issue because it is not just promised legislation, it is probably the most promised legislation on the list. The Minister has made this statement on a number of occasions and the indications that he is already watering down the legislation, even before it has been published, are very disturbing. Will the Tánaiste give a commitment that the legislation to deal with cigarette smoking will be published quickly and not watered down in the face of commercial interests?

While the first question is in order, the content of the second question does not arise.

The heads of the Bill were cleared by the Cabinet on Tuesday and published by the Minister for Health and Children yesterday. It is good that the heads of the Bill were published because we can engage in consultation in this area. This is priority legislation for the Minister for Health and Children and the Government.

(Interruptions.)

I wish to clarify the issue. The Minister promised this legislation one year ago and he promised it again yesterday. Is it the case that no final decision has been made on the legislation and that consultations are being held about legislation recommended in a report I wrote for the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children which was published a year and a half ago and endorsed by every member of Fianna Fáil?

(Interruptions.)

I call Deputy McManus on the same promised legislation.

The Tánaiste must agree it is not acceptable that legislation has been published, yet the spokespersons on health have not received a copy of the legislation.

It is not published according to the Minister.

Legislation has been promised, it is in danger of being diluted and now two members of the Cabinet, who are supposed to have approved it, have made conflicting statements. What kind of message does that send to the powerful commercial interests who are trying to get our children addicted?

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

The Wildlife (Amendment) Bill, 2000, which had been under consideration by the House for a considerable time, has passed all Stages but has not yet been signed into law. Had it been it would prevent hedge cutting from today, 1 March. As it is, hedge cutting can continue until 15 April and the associated threat of the spread of foot and mouth disease continues. Will the Government act in an emergency manner to ensure the legislation will be signed into law so that the disease may be hindered from spreading? That is in everybody's interest.

In response to Deputy Shatter and Deputy McManus, the heads of the Bill published by the Minister yesterday will form the basis of the legislation being drafted.

There is already a Bill covering these issues.

The heads of the Bill have been published.

On a point of order, the proposals announced for inclusion in the Bill that has not been prepared are contained in the Private Members' Bill I published on behalf of the Fine Gael Party.

That is not a point of order.

There is already a Private Members' Bill covering all of these issues. Why does the Government not use that?

That is not true.

Will the Government allow this Bill to be considered by the Select Committee on Health and Children?

It is a separate Bill.

The Minister should publish his Bill.

The Private Members' Bill does not propose to ban advertising or sponsorship.

I call the Tánaiste on Deputy Sargent's question.

Could we have clarity on what was published on Ash Wednesday? Was it the full text, the heads of the Bill or another press release and photo opportunity? I do not want the Tánaiste to be misled by her coalition colleague.

I thank Deputy Quinn for his assistance. The heads of the Bill were not published. I must apologise for that. I understand the Minister for Health and Children will circulate them.

Next Ash Wednesday.

He published his proposals. The legislation Deputy Sargent referred to was enacted in December. The regulations must now be made.

I take it when the Minister for Health and Children's thoughts are enshrined in legislation they will be known as Michael's ashes rather than Angela's ashes.

He would be better distributing pancakes on Shrove Tuesday rather than press releases on Ash Wednesday.

Yesterday the Taoiseach indicated that increases in motor taxation would be implemented by way of financial resolution. Does this mean that the motor tax Bill is no longer needed? If it is needed, when will it be published?

While increases in motor taxation will be implemented by way of financial resolution, legislation is necessary and it will be published this session.

While I appreciate the need to debate the emergency in the country, what alternative arrangements will be made to debate No. 52? I raised with the Tánaiste last week and the Taoiseach this week the proposed arrangements for the debate on human rights. The original proposals for statements on Iraq allocated ten minutes per spokesperson. That is totally unsatisfactory. The proposal to schedule the debate on human rights for next Thursday afternoon is equally unacceptable. After examining previous proposed work schedules it is clear that foreign affairs and human rights have been dumped into the second half of Thursday afternoon, which is unacceptable. As soon as the Minister for Foreign Affairs returns there should be a comprehensive debate on Iraq and it and the issue of human rights, on the Order Paper since 1997, should be properly accommodated for appropriate debate by the House.

It is important to debate this matter. Perhaps debates of this kind are held on Thursday because they are non-contentious. Perhaps the Whips will discuss when the debate will take place and the time allocated to the spokespersons.

There is increased media speculation that the Government is about to purchase a jet for £30 million. The Taoiseach is concerned about flying.

A relevant question on the Order of Business.

I am coming to the point.

You would want to make your point now.

I understand the Taoiseach was profoundly affected by the tragic deaths of the four Air Corps pilots on 1 July 1999. Will the Tánaiste indicate if it is a higher priority for the Government to have a 24-hour search and rescue service operating off the County Waterford coastline than the purchase of a new jet?

That is not appropriate on the Order of Business. The Deputy could submit a parliamentary question.

The Treaty of Nice was signed in France on 26 February and the text is now available. The Government has given signals but no clear commitment that a referendum will be held. Will the Tánaiste indicate if a formal decision has been made? When will the legislation necessary to provide for the referendum be published and when will the referendum be held? When will the Government publish a definitive statement on the treaty to allow for the debate that must be conducted within the framework of the law, bearing in mind that the maximum participation by all citizens is required and necessary?

With regard to the questions raised by Deputy Finucane, providing resources for search and rescue is a priority and the matter is about to go to tender shortly. In response to Deputy Quinn, the Government has decided to hold a referendum on the Treaty of Nice. The date of the referendum will depend on when the legislation is passed by the Oireachtas. The intention is to publish it before the recess.

In view of the emergency regarding foot and mouth disease, does the Government intend to ask the House to make an order declaring a national emergency to ensure the Garda have available to them all the additional powers they will require?

A question on promised legislation.

This is a serious issue.

The matter can be addressed later in the day. It is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

It is a matter for the Government to consider. Will an order be brought before the House?

Given that only 200 Army personnel are in use on the Border, is a change in the legislation required to allow the Army to be fully utilised in this major emergency? I understand 11,000 Army personnel are available.

The Deputy should not proceed with a statement.

I do not believe legislation is necessary to make the Army available. The advice of the Garda Commissioner has been taken on this matter and as many Army personnel as necessary will be made available. The emergency has not arisen yet, but were it to arise I am sure the Government will take the action suggested by Deputy Shatter. These are the kinds of things that must be kept under constant review.

Will the Tánaiste clarify the current position regarding the electoral Bill? Last night in a radio interview with Rodney Rice the Minister for the Environment and Local Government seemed to indicate that in certain circumstances he would withdraw section 49 of that Bill, which is the section increasing spending limits?

We cannot discuss the sections.

I am not asking about sections but about the present position in regard to the Bill. Does the Government intend to withdraw section 49 of that Bill? Will the Tánaiste ask the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to come into the House to clarify the position?

The Government has not made a decision to that effect. Second Stage of that Bill was passed in the Seanad this week. It is currently before the Seanad and will be in this House reasonably soon when all the matters can be discussed.

(Interruptions.)

We cannot continue a discussion. I call Deputy McDowell.

Will the Tánaiste arrange for the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to clarify in the House the statements he made in the course of a radio interview last night?

The Bill is before the Seanad.

Yesterday, the Government made an announcement reversing its earlier decision in relation to the timing of the Budget Statement with obvious implications for legislation which follows from it. Will the Tánaiste tell us whether this is as a result of an administrative cock-up or is it a cynical effort—

That is not a relevant question.

It relates to the timing of the budget—

Yes, but it is not relevant to the Order of Business.

—and has implications for social welfare beneficiaries and taxpayers who are being cynically manipulated by this Government for its own electoral advantage.

That is not relevant to the Order of Business.

May I formally move the First Stage of the Twenty-First Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001, to allow the Bill to be published? I hope the Tánaiste will agree to it.

The Bill is not being opposed.

Top
Share