The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 19, motion re Agreement on Scientific and Technological Co-operation between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of Ireland (returned from committee); No. 43, Finance Bill, 2001 – Report Stage (resumed) and Final Stage; No. 44, Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill, 2000 [Seanad] – Report Stage (resumed) and Final Stage; No. 45, Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill, 1999 [Seanad] – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. and business shall be interrupted not later than 10.00 p.m.; (2) No. 19 shall be decided without debate; and (3) the proceedings on the resumed Report and Final Stage of No. 43, shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 p.m. by one Question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Finance. Private Members' business shall be No. 108 – motion re ASTI dispute (resumed) to conclude at 8.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
There are three proposals to be put to the House. First, is the proposal for the late sitting agreed to?
The Government is continuing to frustrate the operation of this House. A Bill that passed Second Stage last December was referred to a committee. The chairperson of that committee, which is meeting today at 2 p.m., received a diktat from the Minister for the Environment and Local Government ordering him not to proceed with the Committee Stage of the Bill, for which he has no responsibility, until such time as a Bill, one of many delayed measures which this Minister has promised, finds its way to Committee Stage. Will the Taoiseach remove the diktat the Minister for the Environment and Local Government has imposed on the Labour Party's Bill to ban corporate donations, to enable an all-party committee, in full frontal review of the force of State, to discuss the matters which have been the subject of correspondence and debate in many papers over many months, so that we can resolve this issue? This matter could proceed in an orderly way today if the Fianna Fáil diktat on the Committee Stage of a Bill which passed Second Stage is removed. Will the Taoiseach give an indication in this matter?
The Chair again wishes to point out that the Minister has no veto over the committee.
That is not the case.
The Minister does not have a veto.
He has exercised a veto.
It is up to the committee to make its own decisions.
The chairperson of the committee has informed the members that he cannot proceed because he received a letter from the Minister ordering him not to proceed.
The fact of the matter is that the Minister has no veto. I call Deputy Noonan.
I support the position being taken by the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Quinn. We had great hopes when committees were introduced in this House that they would be an independent forum for Deputies where the three line whip would not apply to the same degree as it does in the case of the Dáil Chamber. A Bill, which has gone through Second Stage and is not replicated by any proposal being brought forward by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, is now being frustrated in a committee. The committees were not intended to work in this fashion. I know what the Ceann Comhairle said is correct, as it always is. Technically the Minister has no right to prevent a committee from discussing anything it wishes but, in practice, the chairman involved, Deputy Healy-Rae, is taking the Minister's letter as diktat. It is intended as a diktat. The business of a committee is being frustrated by a Minister of this Government, therefore, we will not agree the Order of Business.
Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed to?
Will the Taoiseach—
I call the Taoiseach.
I will certainly give an indication. It has been the practice since I have been in this House, and long before, that if a Government Bill was proceeding on an issue that is what proceeded. In this case the Electoral Bill is in the Seanad and that Bill is proceeding. In the normal course the Bill would not proceed, but it is a matter for the committee. That is the normal practice. It has always happened.
Is the proposal for the late sitting 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.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.Davern, Noel.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy. |
Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
|
Allen, Bernard.Belton, Louis J.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic. |
McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGrath, Paul.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack. |
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 19 agreed?
I know the Taoiseach is a very busy person but he is not as well informed as he indicated on the matter about which he spoke before the vote. He stated that the Government Electoral Bill, 2000, contained similar proposals to the Labour Party's corporate donations Bill. It contains no such proposals. There are promised amendments. Indeed, so ill-informed is this Government that the Tánaiste yesterday stated she welcomed the Bill because she favours more modest amounts. She stated she had no wish to pin her colours to a particular amount and that the amounts of expenditure should be reasonably modest and that, in relation to electoral spending, the increases proposed by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government are the levels introduced by the Deputy's party in Government. What the Tánaiste does not realise is that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, wants to increase them by 50%.
In light of the manifest confusion in Government ranks displayed here this morning, will the Taoiseach ask the chairperson of the Select Committee on the Environment and Local Government to disregard the veto from his Cabinet colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, and allow Committee Stage of a Bill passed without division in this House to commence? Members of the Taoiseach's party are against corporate donations. Let us have an open democratic debate on this issue. Let it proceed and see where it goes. Why have this stifling of democratic debate because of a Bill published by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government which has no reference to corporate donations whatsoever?
Preconditions.
The Taoiseach is dictating that there be no debate. The Taoiseach has a Bill which has no reference to corporate donations. At 2 p.m. this afternoon, this committee, in public and in front of the media, could proceed to—
The Deputy got his chance.
—debate this issue.
All Deputy Quinn is interested in are political footballs.
There is an emerging consensus in this House among all parties that corporate donations are bad for politics and should be banned and that quite low limits should be introduced for any personal donations. Will the Taoiseach give a commitment to proceed on that basis, allow the Labour Party Bill to be the vehicle for the debate and let us arrive at a con sensus to which the mood of the House is moving anyway to ban corporate donations, to limit personal donations and have declarations of everything except pretty nugatory amounts?
It has already been indicated by me, the Tánaiste and other members of the Government that issues around electoral funding would be included in the Electoral Bill which is before the Seanad. They will be. It has been the practice of the House for as long as I can recall that a Government Bill should proceed in this manner. I agree with Deputy Noonan, as I did here two or three weeks ago, that there are issues around donations that must be and will be resolved. The Deputy is correct that the way to do so is on an all-party basis. I am glad that he has come around. I do not say that it was his view because he was not in the position, but that was the view I had agreed with Deputy Bruton last April. I take the opportunity again to call on Deputy Quinn to lift the veto in order that we can deal with the issue on an all-party basis.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 19 agreed to?
On a point of order—
The Chair is on his feet. There can be no point of order.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 43 agreed to?
I rose on a point of order to indicate that the Taoiseach had ascribed views to me which were not mine. What I have in mind is that we would decide to ban corporate donations and limit personal donations to small amounts and that there would be full disclosure of everything except the pound notes, fivers and tenners one might receive at a church gate. However, everything else over and above small amounts would be declared.
That has already been decided.
Rather than insisting that Members attend a committee to bury the issue for months, why not use the Labour Party Bill as the vehicle on Committee Stage? I will mandate the Fine Gael members of the committee to proceed in a particular way. Let a Committee Stage debate proceed to arrive at an all-party view on the matter. The Taoiseach should accept that it is the best way to proceed.
The Taoiseach correctly cited a particular precedent, that a Government Bill will take precedence over a Private Members' Bill on a topic of a similar nature, but there is another expedient precedent, that the Government of the day with a large legislative programme recognises that an Opposition Bill has merit in principle and can be amended on Committee Stage. That would provide a legislative vehicle ahead of the Government's timetable and should be adopted. When in government, we adopted such measures from the Taoiseach's party.
That Government did not introduce a Bill.
We did, but nobody agreed to it.
The Tánaiste does not even understand.
The 15 failures of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government should not obscure the issue. The net point is that if the Taoiseach removes his diktat and veto—
Deputy Quinn has the only veto.
—a committee of the House can sit down, as Deputy Noonan said, to discuss the merits of the proposals on Committee Stage in public, not in a private deal.
Of what is the Government afraid?
It will be dealt with in the Seanad.
That Bill deals with the Government's proposal for a £20,000 limit.
I will send the Deputy a copy of my Seanad speech.
Let us hear Deputy Quinn.
Who is running the Government? Is it the Minister for the Environment and Local Government or the Taoiseach?
I ask Deputy Quinn to conclude his remarks.
This country wants politicians to act together to clear up the mess of funding and donations.
On an all-party basis.
We have an opportunity with a vehicle currently in the station, but blocked by the diktat of the failed Minister for the Environment and Local Government.
The Bill is before the Seanad.
The Minister's Bill does not contain anything relating to corporate donations.
The Deputy should read my speech in the Seanad and the amendment that has been tabled.
Where is the amendment?
I will send it to the Deputy.
I ask the Taoiseach to remove the veto from the Minister for the Environment and Local Government on the chairperson of the committee, Deputy Healy-Rae, to allow Committee Stage to proceed in public—
The Bill is before the Seanad
—without delay as has happened previously and allow us to make progress in the remaining 12 weeks before the summer recess in order that politics is cleaned up before the next general election.
The Government Bill will be through before the summer recess.
It will not.
I totally agree with Deputy Quinn's latter comment. The matter should and will be cleared up before the summer recess. If the Opposition wants to have a role in that regard, I refer again to the all-party proposals last April. If not, the Government will bring forward its own proposals.
Legislation needs to be introduced.
The Government would prefer to deal with these issues. In response to Deputy Noonan, the more I think about and look at the issue of corporate donations versus personal donations and people taking them out of one till and placing them in another, it is a lot of nonsense.
I will now take leaders' questions.
The Minister for Education and Science came into the House last night and made a very provocative speech. He certainly did not do anything to help a resolution of the difficult dispute. On the day when the school children of Ireland are at the gates of Leinster House seeking a solution and the Government has based its approach on the Labour Court findings, I draw the Taoiseach's attention to one of the final paragraphs of the Labour Court judgment. It states:
Finally, the Court in considering this case has been conscious of the emotions aroused by the effects of this dispute on a wide range of people and the national consequences of failure to resolve the dispute. The dispute has the potential to divide the community, the teaching profession and do irreparable damage to students taking State examinations this year. The effects on the educational process will last for many years and have enormous impact on the 350,000 in our schools.
The Labour Court is stating in the final section of its judgment that the dispute must be resolved.
The Government accepted the judgment; the ASTI did not.
The Labour Court is speaking to both sides in that paragraph. There is a responsibility on the Government to commence a process in order that a settlement can be arrived at along the lines of the Labour Court judgment, but with modifications. The children who are facing their examinations are not marching on the ASTI headquarters or the Department of Education of Science, but on Dáil Éireann because they are saying to us, as elected representatives, that they want a solution and they are demanding that the Government commences a process to resolve the dispute.
That is not true.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The Taoiseach should not make cannon fodder out of the children of Ireland.
The Deputy should declare his interest.
The Taoiseach knows it is time to act.
We have used all the available machinery.
The Taoiseach is aware of the feeling on the ground this morning. The Government has been acting as a hard nosed employer. It is about time that it acted as a national Government. The Government has wider responsibilities than those of an employer. It has a responsibility in the national interest to resolve the dispute and it must take the necessary initiatives. I am aware that the Government is on the end of a greasy pole and in a difficult position. We appreciate its difficulty, but a process must be recommenced to solve the problem. It can be solved with modifications to the Labour Court recommendations which were a good attempt to solve the problem.
Does the Taoiseach accept, following the flight to Malaysia of his Minister for Education and Science, that the country has lost all confidence in the Minister's ability and that of his Department to resolve the dispute, which must and will be resolved, on their own? What action will the Taoiseach take to help to bring about a resolution of the dispute?
I replied to these matters yesterday.
They are still there.
All Members sympathise with the dilemma of pupils and their parents because they are suffering most in this dispute. That is the reason the Government met as soon as the Labour Court issued its findings. The Government would not have met last week in the normal course of events but did so to discuss this issue and to accept the measure. Within two days the Government accepted it. The Labour Court findings came out on Friday night and first thing Tuesday morning the Government accepted the Labour Court award and conditions in full.
It was not an award. It was a recommendation.
It was an award as I understand it. It was a recommendation stating there was a sustainable case if the process was followed—
That is not an award.
—and a sustainable case would lead to the teachers' unions reaching a satisfactory outcome.
Those recommendations also included a teachers' forum to address the issues that have changed teaching since 1964 such as the management and supervision of schools as well as structures and lay involvement, all of which have changed fundamentally in the last 37 years. The Labour Court recommended that a non-paid forum should look at these matters to introduce fundamental change in these areas. The Government also accepted this.
I understand Deputy Noonan having to raise these issues. He might say the Labour Court told us the Government should accept this, and that as Mr. Pomphrett, the facilitator, requested, this should be put to the membership of the ASTI. Unfortunately the ASTI did not consider that.
(Dublin West): That is a red herring. The Taoiseach knows very well—
The Deputy is a bit of a red herring himself.
Order, please. Deputy Higgins is out of order.
As I said yesterday, the industrial relations machinery of the State is something everyone in the House would adhere to, whether that is the conciliation and arbitration scheme, which has already been rejected by the ASTI or, without going through all the intermediate steps that have also been rejected, the Labour Court recommendation. At no time since last Friday week has anyone from the ASTI asked for clarification on any aspect of that on the airwaves, in the print media or in a direct approach to a member of the Government. If the ASTI wants to adhere to the industrial relations machinery of the State I and my excellent Minister for Education and Science are ready and willing to assist it, as Deputy Quinn has asked.
I am particularly concerned about what is happening to 120,000 students this morning. They feel they have been let down, principally by the Government, and their representatives will be at the gates of Leinster House. It is not good for civil society when the children of a country are demonstrating outside the gates of the national Parliament. That is very bad.
The Labour Court has come a very long way. It has recommended on the five stop days; it has recommended a forum on education on the wider issues; and it has maintained that the teachers have a sustainable case for a significant pay increase. However, the Taoiseach and the Minister know that because the teachers walked out of PPF on the benchmarking issue they have not been given the opportunity to put the recommendation to their members. The Taoiseach should say this morning that he is in favour of further clarification of the judgment by the Labour Court and that he would be involved in bilateral talks to position it. The sides are not that far apart but because of the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, with the Minister for Education and Science digging a bigger hole for everybody last night, the Taoiseach should make some approach of a bilateral nature. He should recommence the process whereby the Labour Court, as it has done in the past, can clarify some of its recommendations, particularly in relation to the exercise of benchmarking. There is a solution there because otherwise the Taoiseach is saying come hell or high water he will score a victory over the ASTI and run examinations of doubtful outcome when it comes to corrections. He has very little time left and it is a heavy responsibility for a Government to confine its activities to that of a hard-nosed employer without looking at its wider responsibilities to parents, students, teachers and the wider community.
With the greatest respect to Deputy Noonan, that is not how it is. The Labour Court recommendation was issued last Friday week and it was for the ASTI to ask for clarification. My understanding is that in rapid time they were out on the airwaves rejecting it. I will not say how rapid it was although I know, as I do not want to inflame the situation.
Let us look at these important issues. I do not like to see young people having to protest about anything other than something of entertainment value to them.
U2.
This is a serious matter that deeply affects students. They are under pressure and have examinations in a matter of weeks. Many of them have done their mock examinations and have studied hard through transition year and fifth year and are now in their last months in school. They have worked out what they want from the CAO. They know the points needed and that there is pressure on them. Everyone in a responsible position, the Government, the parties in this House which know the industrial machinery of the State and the ASTI, whose standing committee meets tomorrow, knows this.
The ASTI has been afforded every opportunity to process its 30% claim in an orderly manner and in accordance with the best industrial relations practice. That has been followed for a long period. Last spring I set out the Government's position. The Minister had done so many times but I did so then because I saw what was happening. The ASTI, a respected group in society, was setting out to try to get almost exactly the amount the social partners were trying to get in PPF but it wanted that in addition. The ASTI did not say it did not want the money when we paid the PPF; it did not ever say it did not want to get into that process but was glad to take the money. One must therefore come to the conclusion that it wanted the 30% on top of the 29%. The ASTI rejected the conciliation council and I accept that that is not unusual. It objected to the arbitration council, which is unusual. The arbitrator told the Government that it should pay PPF anyway and the Government did so forthwith. The Minister recommended we should do so. A facilitator was appointed and the Labour Relations Commission was available. Mr. Pomphrett, one of the most senior industrial relations officers in the State, heard the case. There were difficulties with the days chosen and those were corrected; right, wrong or indifferent, that was done.
Then we moved on to the Labour Court decision. Mr. Pomphrett said both sides should go to the Labour Court and both sides accepted that so off we went. There were hearings under Mr. Flood and the court made its decision, recommending that the ASTI had a sustainable case, that a teaching forum should be set up to address issues arising since 1964 and that the issue of a down payment, the core of the ASTI case, should be taken against PPF because the Government had already paid it. I interpret that as meaning the Government should continue to pay the remaining part of PPF.
All those issues have been dealt with. I do not like the idea of trying to press someone into the ground. Nobody in this House is more aware of the history of industrial relations and Mr. Murphy and 1912. I understand all those issues.
(Dublin West): It was 1913.
All I am trying to do is to get the ASTI to follow the same system and process as all the other trade unions. This morning I heard a spokesperson for ASTI state on the radio – I have no wish to say anything to inflame matters – that ASTI voted last November. It might have voted on benchmarking last November but, unfortunately, we did not conclude the arrangements on benchmarking until late on the night of 4 December. Whatever ASTI voted on, it was not what we concluded on the night of 4 December.
There are ways, if people seek or want them. If there are issues about benchmarking which need to be clarified, as Deputy Noonan mentioned, or about anything else in the Labour Court award or if there is anything else under the industrial relations mechanism to try to resolve this and to avoid the difficulties, this Government is ready to deal with them. However, it takes two and it is time the ASTI played its part.
I wish to raise the issue of the future of the education system. The Taoiseach and other Members will agree that just over six years ago, when there was a different Government in office, concerns about the future of the medical profession, particularly the nursing profession, were communicated to both the Government and the Opposition. Certain predictions were made about the changes that would occur, especially with regard to the number of people coming into the nursing profession and the availability of well motivated and qualified people in Ireland. I confess I did not listen to those voices at the time as well as I might have, and the problems the Minister for Health and Children now has are, in part, related to that.
The issue of education and the status of the profession of teaching, its role in society and its contribution to the Celtic tiger, as much as the concerns of the young students who will hopefully do examinations this year, is much bigger than simply saving the social partnership agreement or just considering the issue within the narrow confines of an industrial relations dispute. I agree with much of what the Taoiseach said today. He went further than his comments yesterday, while the Secretary General of the ASTI opened the possibility of clarification, elaboration and exploration against the background of a rapidly deteriorating timeframe within which decisive action can be taken.
In light of what has been said – I support Deputy Noonan's analysis – and bearing in mind the substantial content of the Labour Court recommendation, will the Taoiseach consider taking the initiative by inviting representatives of the ASTI to Government Buildings to explore the possibilities contained in the Labour Court recommendation? The Taoiseach has taken such action in the past, in the context of Northern Ireland and in the context of many other disputes. We must seek a way together of finding a solution to this problem.
A solution can and will be found but the Taoiseach has the opportunity to take the initiative. I implore him, on behalf of the parents, pupils and the teaching profession, to take an initiative, without undermining the role of the Minister for Education and Science, to elaborate on and consolidate the explanations he has given to the House. Let the teachers' representatives and others hear directly from the Taoiseach about the prospects he sees and about the room for manoeuvre and let us, together, make some progress on this.
Many Members have direct experience of industrial relations from both sides of the table, as it were, but the Taoiseach, as a former Minister for Labour, has significant experience in that area. He is well aware that the Labour Court will not intervene to clarify unless it gets an assurance in advance that the clarification it brings forward will be acceptable to both parties or at least acceptable to the degree that the union involved will put the issue to its members. Everybody who has been involved in industrial relations is aware of that fact and the Taoiseach knows it better than anybody.
Will the Taoiseach take a step to recommence the process so that an element of consensus can be put to the Labour Court in seeking clarification? That will get everybody out of the current Mexican stand-off. I urge the Taoiseach to do this today in the interests of the students outside the gates, the 120,000 students throughout the country, the stressed out parents, the teachers and the future of education. We are at one of those epiphanies in society where the decision taken in the next week or two will be crucial to the future of this country, because education is crucial to its future. I urge the Taoiseach to act and not let himself get dug into a position from which he cannot move.
Deputy Quinn will be aware that the Teaching Council Bill is on Report Stage in the House. That Bill addresses many of the important issues he refers to, such as enhancing the profession and moving it to new heights. It is an excellent Bill and is considered so by the House. That Bill will be passed and will address those issues for the future.
The teaching forum issues are also important in the teaching profession. The Minister, Deputy Woods, has been dealing with this dispute for almost 13 months and there are other issues relating to part-time teachers, why there are so many, why rosters are the way they are and so forth. The religious in many cases do not have the numbers for or have moved on from many aspects of second level education and that has changed the position and the clarity of responsibility with regard to supervision and many other areas. There are many other fundamental issues to be addressed. These are non-pay issues but they are important to the profession. The Minister, Deputy Woods, said many times in the past year that the teaching forum would be an excellent exercise. That was not picked up until the Labour Court did so and recommended it. The Government has accepted that recommendation.
It is pointless for me to say the same thing again because I have already answered Deputy Quinn's request. I know where I can and cannot be helpful and if I can be helpful in this matter, I will be.
I assure Deputy Noonan that nobody is getting dug in. It is only ten days since the Labour Court finished a long and arduous examination of the case. That followed many other avenues. What the conciliation system did was rejected, as was arbitration. The facilitator did not get anywhere and what the Labour Relations Commission might have done did not get anywhere. It was moved into the Labour Court and that court did its best in the circumstances.
Many Members have dealt with trade union officials, good, bad and indifferent, over the years. In a difficult situation it would have been normal practice to give a Labour Court decision more than a brief scan in an important case. One would seek clarification. I recall days when people sought clarification of things where nobody could work out what the clarification could be about. It was normal enough practice in industrial relations. That is not the case this time. This time there was no vote, no clarification, no nothing – just no.
I am a little annoyed about the last point I wish to make but I will try not to be. A former president of ASTI and a respected member of the profession, who will be respected as far as I am concerned too, said this morning that ASTI is not interested in benchmarking or in the PPF. I cannot negotiate on those terms and I will not. If people wish to move to a position where all other sectors of the industrial relations world in this country are prepared to be, I will try to help. However, if somebody says it is all about 30%, breaking the PPF and making a nonsense of benchmarking, they are barking up the wrong tree and I will not, cannot and have no intention of negotiating with them. They had better make up their minds.
I heard the same comments this morning. The Government has a responsibility to reinforce the teaching profession and our education system. That is what is at stake here. I can understand why the Government is so committed to maintaining PPF and my party supports the PPF, but ways round the present impasse can be found. A mechanism should be found whereby all members of the ASTI will have a voice in deciding the way forward as distinct from the comments of some high profile individuals.
The Taoiseach could clarify the benchmarking process, as from 4 December and as set out in his own union's magazine by the general secretary of the PSEU, Mr. Dan Murphy, for those ASTI members not fully aware of what it now is. There are gaps in information and perception, and anger, hurt and confusion have got in the way of clarity and an understanding of the present position. Only one person in this House has the power to break through the fog of obfuscation, mysticism and mystery which has begun to surround this dispute against the background of the rapidly approaching deadline of the examinations. That person is the Taoiseach. The Opposition has made constructive comments designed to find a solution for this democracy to give faith to the next generation of citizens possibly facing the biggest professional hurdle of their educational careers. On behalf of the students outside the gates of this House, will the Taoiseach take the initiative to call the parties together and elaborate what he knows to be fact but what protagonists in the dispute do not yet see as facts?
I accept the spirit in which Deputy Quinn has intervened. I intend to be helpful in whatever way I can.
We must proceed with the Order of Business.
On proposed legislation, time is running out for special needs children sitting their junior and leaving certificate examinations. Would the Taoiseach consider fast-tracking the disabilities Bill through the Dáil so that we can protect in law the rights of these young people?
The Bill is moving ahead and is expected mid-2001 and will be enacted this year.
That is too late. Time is running out.
Today is UN International Day Against Racism. Motion No. 66 on the Order Paper was adjourned almost two years ago and there is an amendment in my name seeking the appointment of a Minister to co-ordinate immigrant affairs. Given that today is International Day Against Racism and that two Chinese were murdered last week, a Latvian died in circumstances not yet clarified, an Asian woman was murdered last year and an African girl was—
Will the Deputy confine himself to the Order of Business?
I implore the Taoiseach to please find time to take this amendment. We need a Minister to co-ordinate immigrant affairs not just in terms of visas but in terms of housing, social welfare, health and education. I have raised this issue over a long period and given today's date I implore the Taoiseach to take this issue today, conclude the debate and put the Fine Gael amendment.
To mark this day will the Taoiseach give a definitive time frame for the introduction into this House of the immigration Bill in order to put a sane, humane and rational system of immigration strategy into place on a legislative basis.
In reply to Deputy Mitchell there is a Cabinet Committee co-ordinating those matters. It is a matter for the Whip when we deal with the amendments. The immigration legislation is expected later this year. It is an urgent Bill and I hope it will be passed this year.
In view of what we now know about the State's appeals in the Synnot case, will the Minister for Education and Science take the opportunity today to make a statement to the House in relation to the statement of 7 March which—
That is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
Will the Taoiseach—
It is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
On the same matter it is a long standing precedent in this House that where the House has been misled either deliberately or otherwise the Member has an opportunity to rectify it by way of personal statement. The Minister for Education and Science on both 7 and 8 March stated—
We cannot deal with that matter now on the Order of Business. The Deputy must be orderly. He should have a question on the Order of Business. The Deputy cannot proceed. He must stick to the Standing Orders.
Procedure and precedent suggest that where, either deliberately or otherwise, the House has been misled and I do not want to impugn the Minister by saying he deliberately misled the House but—
The Deputy is making an allegation—
It is an opportunity for the Minister to correct the record—
The Deputy should resume his seat. If the Deputy has an allegation to make he should do it by substantive motion. That is the way to do it. If there is an allegation to be made about misleading the House it can be done, but not on the Order of Business. I will close the Order of Business if it is not allowed to proceed.
Thank you.
I would like the direction of the Ceann Comhairle on how Members may raise this issue.
If there is an allegation of misleading the House it should be done by substantive motion. The House must proceed with the Order of Business.
Allow the Minister to correct the record.
The Taoiseach is offering.
To be helpful on the Order of Business, I will answer. I answered this question yesterday on the Order of Business but the Minister also gave a detailed reply in a written question yesterday. I refer Deputies to that detailed reply.
Is the Taoiseach concerned about information in The Irish Times today in relation to vulnerable children taken into care by the health board being looked after by private security firms? In view of that information and also information that emerged about a Limerick crèche and its standards of care, what action is the Government taking to prioritise children's rights in the creation of the post of an ombudsman for children and putting the national inspectorate of child care on a statutory basis? Surely these two instances indicate that it is time to put this legislation into place.
The Deputy cannot make a statement. Just ask the question.
On the children legislation, the heads of the Bill were approved by the Government last April and the legislation should be ready in the next few months.
The Minister for the Environment and Local Government seems to be very anxious to introduce his own legislation on various matters. When will the long promised Bill to provide legal rights for tenants in the private rented accommodation sector be published?
Legislation on that matter is being prepared by the Minister and Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government.
The Minister is too busy in the Seanad trying to buy elections.
When will the Bill be published?
Late this year or early next year.
Tenants will have to wait.
Mr. Coveney
Is it a Government priority to act to try to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries on our roads?
Does the question relate to promised legislation?
Mr. Coveney
Yes. What is causing the continuing delay with the road traffic Bill? When can we expect the Bill to be published and must people continue to die on our roads at a rate of more than one a day due to Government inaction?
The legislation was cleared by the Government yesterday and will be published in the near future.
(Dublin West): Lest there be any doubt that second level students have a clear democratic right to demonstrate peacefully outside Leinster House or anywhere else—
That is not relevant to the Order of Business.
(Dublin West): The students' clearly show where they lay responsibility for the examination crisis. The Taoiseach should—
The Deputy should ask a question proper to the Order of Business.
Deputy Higgins should read the placards.
Is the Government aware of the serious threat posed to the economy by the increasing number of cases of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom?
The Deputy could raise that matter in another way; it is not proper to the Order of Business unless it relates to promised legislation.
Is legislation or regulations required to prevent people organising major national events?
This is not a matter for legislation. An expert group of eminent people is devoting a great deal of time to the matter in the national interest. The group commenced its work at the beginning of last week and issued its first report on Friday. It is making decisions on what restrictions should apply. With the Ceann Comhairle's permission, I urge people to adhere strictly to the group's advice, particularly in regard to disinfectant mats and other matters. Deputy Crawford's point is a valid one; it is vital that people adhere to the measures which have been intro duced to prevent this disease. Unfortunately, the number of cases in the United Kingdom is now in excess of 400. The disease has spread all over the United Kingdom and we must continue to be very vigilant. There must be no relaxation of the restrictions which have been put in place, other than those permitted by the expert group.
Does the Government have any plans to introduce legislation to deal with meat processing plants in the light of recent events and the findings of a former tribunal?
The Deputy should pursue that matter by way of a parliamentary question.
I asked a "yes" or "no" question.
It is not appropriate to ask about intentions to produce legislation; such legislation is not promised. That concludes the Order of Business.