The Order of Business shall be as follows: No. 23a, motion re membership of committees; No. 7, Horse and Greyhound Racing Bill, 2001 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; and No. 6, Adventure Activities Standards Authority Bill, 2000 – Second Stage (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 23a, shall be decided without debate; the Second Stage of No. 7 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 2 p.m. today; and questions shall be taken today from 3.30 p.m. until 4.45 p.m. and in the event of a Private Notice Question being allowed, it shall be taken at 4.15 p.m., and the order shall not resume thereafter.
Order of Business.
There are three proposals to be put to the House. The first one is the proposal for dealing with No. 23a, which is a motion regarding the membership of committees. Is that agreed?
Before agreeing to this, may I ask the Taoiseach is he aware that the order which is required to be laid before this House to extend the regulations under the Decommissioning Act—
Is the Deputy opposing this motion?
No.
The Deputy cannot speak unless he is opposing the motion.
I do not wish to oppose the motion.
The Deputy has no right under Standing Orders to speak unless he is opposing the motion.
It is in relation to the Order of Business.
We are on a motion. We are not on the Order of Business.
He is seeking clarification.
This is a motion regarding committee membership.
I am speaking, Sir, to seek clarification. The decommission regulations—
It is not in order.
—expire on Tuesday.
The Deputy should wait until we come to the Order of Business proper. It is not in order at this stage. On the motion, I call Deputy Noonan.
A Cheann Comhairle, you have left me in a quandary now with the ruling you have given Deputy Quinn because I might be opposing this depending on the answer the Taoiseach gives me to a question.
It is only if the Deputy is clearly opposing the motion that there is an entitlement to speak.
We do not know unless we get clarification.
What I am asking about – I think you will appreciate it, a Cheann Comhairle – is that today is the anniversary of the worse atrocity ever committed on this island, the Dublin-Monaghan bombings and, on account of the death of the late Mr. Justice Hamilton, there has been some delay in the commitments the Taoiseach gave about referring this to the committee of the House.
This is a matter to establish on the Order of Business proper. It is totally out of order at this stage to do so. The Deputy is out of order.
I want to establish if the Taoiseach is making arrangements to ensure that the commitments given that this would be referred to a committee of the House are still in place before—
The question should wait until we come to the proper time on the Order of Business to do so. It is not in order at this stage.
No, but if I got an unsatisfactory answer, I would oppose the Order of Business.
It is out of order.
I think it is reasonable to ask the Taoiseach what is his position before I decide whether I will vote against it. Surely that is a reasonable approach.
The Deputy can wait until the Order of Business to do that but at this stage the only question before the House is on the membership of a committee and it has nothing to do with what the Deputy is raising at this time.
With respect, a Cheann Comhairle, you are misunderstanding me. One of the groups of people in this country which is most concerned about events in the past is the relatives of those who were murdered in Dublin and Monaghan in that bombing campaign. They are very concerned that sufficient progress is not being made. On the anniversary I would make this an issue on which to oppose the Order of Business but I believe the Taoiseach—
Yes, but there is Leaders' Questions and the Order of Business proper in which to do so.
—can satisfy my concerns.
The Deputy has two opportunities to raise this matter and now, on a question on the membership of a committee, he is not in order.
But we always had a situation in the House, which you yourself have operated, a Cheann Comhairle, where questions like this on matters of concern throughout the House and in all parties are allowed at your discretion.
Yes, it will be allowed. I am saying that if the Deputy wishes to raise it under Leaders' Questions or on the Order of Business proper, he may do so and I am pointing that out to the Deputy.
But then I cannot vote on it.
That will take place in a few minutes if the Deputy will allow—
A short answer from the Taoiseach will satisfy me and he is indicating he wants to answer.
It is still not in order.
Use your discretion. It is a very important issue.
The motion before the House is about the membership of a committee. It has nothing to do with the issues being raised and I would appeal, particularly to the Leaders of parties, to abide by Standing Orders.
With due respect, Sir, I only interpret the rules and procedures, but there are three motions before this House and to enable this House—
There is one motion at the moment.
And there will be two more. To enable this House to agree to the Order of Business, before we give our assent – we cannot revoke our assent after they have been agreed – we wanted to clarify a number of points. We have used that device quite regularly, with your agreement. Precedent is well established. We could have the matter dealt with by now.
The Deputy should clearly indicate that he opposes the proposal.
I want to bring to the Taoiseach's attention the very important fact that the decommissioning regulation expires next Tuesday. Has this Government given up or is it just through incompetence that it has not been laid before the House?
These are questions that can be legitimately asked, but at this point, it is not in order to raise them.
It is the only way we can wake them up.
They can be raised. There is a facility which the House gave to the Leaders to raise matters.
I oppose the Order of Business, but I believe the Taoiseach's reply may put me in a position where I can agree the Order of Business. I simply want a reply.
I do not wish to breach your ruling, a Cheann Comhairle.
The Deputy is opposing this proposal?
On the basis of this motion re membership of committees, Mr. Justice Barron has continued his work. He has been engaged in discussions with the Northern Ireland Office, the RUC and the British Government, to obtain additional documents. That work is ongoing. He has extended the scope of his work by continuing the excellent work of the late Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton. It will take him some time. There has not been any delay in the work, rather he has extended the scope of the work. The intention is that when that work is finished, his report will be sent to the committee.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 23a agreed? Agreed.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 7 Second Stage of the Horse and Greyhound Racing Bill, 2001 agreed? Agreed.
Is the proposal in relation to the taking of Question Time today agreed?
May I clarify a point, Sir, before we agree to that alteration in the Order of Business. Will the Taoiseach confirm that the Government has failed to place an order before this House to renew the regulations relating to the Decommissioning Act, which expire next Tuesday?
That question is not in order at this stage.
Have you given up on decommissioning?
I appeal to the Leaders of the parties to abide by Standing Orders.
I cannot raise the issue.
The Deputy certainly cannot raise it now at this stage, when we are on the question of the placing of Question Time today. Is the proposal in relation to the taking of Question Time today agreed? Agreed. I will take Leaders' Questions.
Yesterday at a conference of IMPACT, the Tánaiste expressed concern about the future of the PPF and seemed to cast doubt on its future. I am not surprised at that because wage inflation is running at four times the EU average, and inflation in the cost of food has gone up by 7.7%, which is the highest in 17 years. This is putting huge pressure on the trade union movement to look for wage increases beyond the terms of the PPF. Why does the Taoiseach think the measures taken in the budget to control inflation are not working? Does he agree with the Tánaiste that the PPF is now at risk and what steps does he intend to take to ensure that everything committed in the PPF will be delivered?
I will allow a supplementary question from Deputy Quinn.
Further to what Deputy Noonan has said, does the Taoiseach share the view expressed by the general secretary of IMPACT, the largest public service union? He said that while social partnership has played a very positive role in the past, the premise on which social partnership was originally based was the reduction in tax to bring about moderate increases in wages and salaries in order to restore competitiveness and increase employment. That premise has come to its natural end and a new kind of structure is required which would result in the improvement of public services, and that should be the basis for the next round of agreements within the framework of the social partnership. I know the view of the Tánaiste is quite different in that she wants to effectively abolish tax, and therefore, public services along with it. Does the Taoiseach have a differing view to that of the Progressive Democrats?
I wish to complete the answer to the question I was asked earlier about the decommissioning regulations. They have been extended and signed up to next February. They can be laid before the House if this is necessary.
I understand they must be signed by next Tuesday.
They have been signed. In reply to the Leader's Question from Deputy Noonan, the Tánaiste did not attend the IMPACT conference yesterday. Therefore, whatever he is quoting could not be correct. She could not have said anything if she was not there.
The Government's policies on the pay increases and tax under the PPF, are enormous increases, and that is acknowledged by the social partners. The changes of 4 December 2000 have proved effective. Inflation is still higher than the Government would wish. We will continue to do our utmost to enforce the measures. The latest price increases in the food and drink area have put upward pressure on inflation. The increase in meat prices is connected to the foot and mouth disease crisis and this House has debated the drinks sector on many occasions.
The Government has been dealing with regulatory authorities in relation to competition. There is a preliminary report on the off-licence trade. We are looking at other reports. We are anxious to make progress on the issue of competition. We must try to control inflation in other areas because it is higher than it was at the last budget. I reiterate that the increases in the PPF are substantial when tax and pay are taken together. They are far in excess of our commitments and we will continue to honour the aspects of PPF.
In reply to Deputy Quinn, each programme beginning with the first programme 14 years ago, has gone through an evolution. Each programme from Programme for National Recovery, PCW, PPF, Partnership 2000, have all been evolving. There are always new issues to be considered, based on the circumstances of the economy at any given time. The big issue during the 1980s in the Programme for National Recovery programme and the PCW, was the fact that we had a debt GDP ratio of 117%. We were paying enormous amounts of debt interest. We do not have that problem now. We now have one of the lowest debts in the European Community at an interest of only 33% and going to 25% in the next few years.
Employment was the issue in the Partnership 2000 discussions, with an unemployment rate of 17%, and now we are at 3.5% while long-term unemployment is at 1%.
We have to deal with different difficulties now, infrastructural issues. This programme is dealing with many of those issues. Substantive parts of this programme are dealing with health issues. The Government had a discussion on the bed-capacity review earlier this week and this derives directly from PPF. The housing forum derives directly from the PPF. The Government will continue to deal with these and other issues. I have no doubt that when a new programme is negotiated we will again look at its evolution.
Deputy Noonan may ask a supplementary question.
Is the Taoiseach aware that according to the Revenue Commissioners, 52% of taxpayers have gross incomes of less than £15,000 per year. That is more than half the work force. An 8% increase in the cost of food is devastating for those people. These are the very people who have gained very little out of the manner in which the Minister for Finance has managed tax cuts. Low income and middle income people got very little. People want a new social contract, a new deal between the citizens and the State, which will guarantee them access to good health services, equal opportunity in education, an assurance of care in their old age, a Government which addresses the housing crisis and contributes somewhat to the quality of life by easing the traffic chaos in cities like Dublin.
I can only briefly repeat a few of the points made here by the Minister for Finance during the past two nights on Private Members' Business. This Government's policy has been to take the low paid in society out of the tax net altogether,—
It has not done so.
—to introduce a minimum wage and to work towards taking everybody on the minimum wage out of the tax net. There have been enormous increases in child benefit this year. There will be increases in the next two years, as happened in the past few years. Most people in these difficulties are now working. If we can succeed in taking the low paid out of the tax net, not to mention that 78% of those who pay tax are already on the standard rate, these are the kinds of improvements that are helping those on low pay. That is not taking from the fact that there is still a difficulty with inflation on which the Government is working.
I shall take a Leader's question from Deputy Quinn.
The Taoiseach will be aware there are 7,500 people on Dublin Corporation's housing list. He has two brothers who are members of that local authority and he was previously Lord Mayor. The State is proposing to sell by public tender on 14 June, 13.6 acres of land adjacent to a railway line at Islandbridge. I asked yesterday, Sir, if the State would address the problem of housing and make this land available to Dublin Corporation. I did not say "Give it to Dublin Corporation, make it available". The Minister for Defence in his wisdom volunteered the following, that it had been offered to Dublin Corporation. I made inquiries as to what an offer from the Department of Defence actually means. I was informed that it was offered at £45 million. It then came down to around £30 million. The Taoiseach and certain people in his Department will be aware that the largest single site to come on sale in the Dublin area, adjacent to the Tara Towers Hotel – the Sisters of Charity lands of approximately 14.5 acres, virgin land without any encumbrances, fully serviced, with no preservations buildings on it – was sold for £37 million. Property analysts with whom I spoke this morning say the property is worth of the order of £20 million and that 350 units of accommodation could be provided and along the lines of that suggested by the former Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Howlin, that could be an integrated social mix of local authority and affordable housing.
In the light of that factual information and refuting the misleading comments which the Minister for Defence put on the record yesterday, I formally ask the Government, on behalf of every member of Dublin Corporation who is a Member of the Oireachtas, which is awash with money to enter into an arrangement now to enable Dublin Corporation to have this land so that some dent can be made on the housing list of 7,500 people, some of whom will never be able to afford a house and will not be housed by Dublin Corporation at least for the next ten years. Between now and 14 June will it knock some sense into the two Departments to make this a place where families who cannot afford to buy houses can get houses from Dublin Corporation?
I put it to the Taoiseach who is going into his fifth year in office that he is losing touch with the concerns of ordinary people. If he had any appreciation of the housing crisis not only in Dublin but all around the country he would be acting or causing his Minister for the Environment and Local Government to act. The Taoiseach may be aware that two nights ago an event in Limerick where local authority tenants were handed out keys for 25 houses was recorded as a major national news story on the Six One News on television. When the handing out of 25 keys to local authority tenants is a major event I put it to the Taoiseach that he is totally out of touch and should sack his Minister for the Environment and Local Government.
Have they all gone mad?
I gave the facts yesterday but the House did not want to hear what is happening in local authority housing and the numbers of houses.
Will the Taoiseach answer the question he was asked?
Deputy Noonan asked that question. It is Leaders' question time.
Did he say anything about the gap between the waiting list and the—
This is Leaders' question time. The Taoiseach without interruption.
(Interruptions.)
Do not mention ESAT.
It is extremely unfair when it comes to Leaders' questions and I try to reply that it turns in several leaders questions on either side. It is totally unreasonable.
The Taoiseach should look behind and beside him.
Order, please.
Perhaps I can make two brief points and try to answer Deputy Quinn's question. I have to repeat that record levels of new housing output have been achieved. There has been a trebling of resources in the area of housing. This year there are about 7,000 local authority houses. As the members Dublin Corporation will be aware some of these houses in the Dublin area cost in excess of £150,000. The qual ity and standard of the housing is newsworthy, though I do not decide what is newsworthy.
On the issue of Clancy Barracks which Deputy Quinn raised yesterday, in July 1998 when the Minister for Defence made it clear he was selling the barracks, the Department also made it known to the county councils and corporation. From a long way back there were discussions between the corporation and the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Generally the Department of the Environment and Local Government liaise with the Department of Defence and local authorities on land disposals to ensure that the relevant local authority is aware of the sale and examines the land for suitability for housing developments. It does that as a matter of form. The Deputy mentioned yesterday that Naas UDC acquired Army lands and barracks for housing development. There is also an integrated area plan for Murphy Barracks in Ballincollig in Cork. Whatever happens ultimately at Clancy Barracks, the required 20% social and affordable housing under Part 5 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act will take effect.
I have a long list of all the facts and I was briefed on this matter last evening. There was a valuation, but that was not the issue, on 24 March. The Valuation Office valued the property in the region of £40 million but it never got into the discussion between the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the Department of Defence on the money issue because last summer the Department of the Environment and Local Government indicated that the corporation's view was that the acquisition of the barracks for redevelopment by the corporation to provide social housing did not offer an attractive proposition and that the public interest would be best served from a housing and planning point of view by the Department offering the property for sale in the open market because of the limited capacity to provide low rise housing. It went on for a long time before that. As I understand it the corporation probably formed its view. Since the Deputy mentioned my brother, the Lord Mayor, I spoke to him about this issue last night. He said that, perhaps Dublin Corporation was anxious to acquire the property for a mixture of social and affordable housing but it indicated that the barracks contained a number of listed buildings which would pose for Dublin Corporation enormous architectural problems in matching up the old with the new. That was the issue.
(Interruptions.)
It never came down to the question of the money. Equally, can I say – and it is important for the corporation and I have spoken to the Ministers about this – where there are suitable sites of enormous value the Department of the Environment and Local Government is prepared to pay enormous values to get sites in the greater Dublin area which is what it is doing. It is prepared to do that and hopefully will continue to do that.
(Dublin West): They brought in legislation to stop speculation.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. There is a contradiction in the Valuation Office putting a value of £40 million on a site that is, according to the Taoiseach's information, so constricted by planning restrictions that it is not possible to get a satisfactory architectural solution to it. Beggars Bush Barracks, which was a listed building, was successfully converted by Dublin Corporation and, as Deputy Eoin Ryan can attest, is now providing very satisfactory accommodation for senior citizens. It is not necessary to use market mechanisms of valuation because this all arises from an imposition by the Department of Finance on the Department of Defence that it has to maximise the value of its assets in order to re-fund and re-equip the Army. The Department of Finance got a windfall profit this year—
The Deputy does not have to make a speech. The only facility under Standing Orders is to ask a supplementary question.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the Department of Finance got a windfall profit this year of approximately £225 million from the sale of ICC on top of the end of year proceeds? As a former Lord Mayor, can he not agree that the real problem for Dublin Corporation is that they cannot acquire land? Of the 600 houses they will build this year, 300 will be purchased from other builders. Any one of the Fíanna Fáil councillors will tell him that the corporation cannot acquire land quickly and efficiently. There are 7,500 people on the waiting list. I call on the Taoiseach to stop this madness between the two Departments, remove this property from public sale and enter into negotiations. Having spoken to officials today, I can confirm that Dublin Corporation will take this property. No elected member of Dublin Corporation was informed of the facts that were put on the record by the Taoiseach today.
I agree with the first point that the Deputy made. The corporation is having difficulty obtaining sites, even where it is prepared to pay high prices. In order to build social housing we should pay those prices if necessary. The Department of the Environment and Local Government is liaising not only with the Department of Defence but also with other Departments and local authorities on land disposal. I support that.
On his second point, it was not a money issue. I have discussed this with the Minister and I have looked at the entire brief on it.
They changed their attitude on it.
They looked at what they could do in relation to local authorities and affordable housing against what a private developer could get. I have great admiration for the officials. There was never a money issue other than the valuation.
That is not my information.
On 1 November 1999, the corporation indicated that it was anxious to acquire the property for a mixture of affordable social houses. It indicated that the barracks contained a number of listed buildings which would pose architectural problems in matching up the old and new, and a report was forwarded to it by the valuation department. On 7 July the Department of the Environment and Local Government indicated the corporation view that the acquisition of barracks for redevelopment by them to provide social housing did not offer an attractive proposition and the public interest would be best served—
At £45 million.
At a meeting on 9 April, involving the Department of Defence, the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the corporation it was indicated that the site offered more potential for a private development with a mix of housing on the site rather than a purchase for social housing.
They are exploiting the homeless.
It is scandalous.
We are building 7,000 local authority houses this year. In areas where the State has property, we are prepared to deal with the local authority to try to provide those houses.
They should just do that then.
That concludes leaders' questions.
Given that the Government's decentralisation programme has collapsed, when will we see the Civil Service Regulation Bill? Given that the INPC oil refinery is about to be sold, will there be legislation to appoint an oil regulator? Is legislation required to set up an ESOP for the employees?
The last two questions are more appropriate to parliamentary questions.
In so far as there is legislation on the last one, I addressed this last week. That legislation is due in the autumn. The heads of the Civil Service Regulation Bill are expected later this year but the legislation will not be here until next year.
I note that the Environmental Protection Agency (Amendment) Bill, the purpose of which is to update legislation on licensing by the Environmental Protection Agency, is not expected until late 2001. In view of public health concerns regarding the proliferation of telecommunications masts and antennae, will the Taoiseach ensure that this legislation will be expedited? There are both health and planning issues involved. It is not good enough to delay it until the end of the year. Within my constituency, there are problems in this regard in Mountrath and Birr and there are other problems throughout the country.
The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency (Amendment) Bill, the purpose of which is to update legislation on licensing by the Environmental Protection Agency were approved last year and it is in the order for drafting. It is listed for late this year. Given that the heads were approved some time ago, I will see if it can be speeded up.
Earlier I tried to raise a matter relating to the renewal of a regulation, but it was ruled out of order. I understood the Taoiseach to say, although the official record might not have shown it, the necessary regulation under the Decommissioning Act, 1997, to extend from 2000 to 2001 and from 2001 onwards had been signed. Our understanding, under section 3 (7) of the legislation, is that the order in question has to be laid before this House. It does not have to be debated but it is an annulling resolution. From our records over recent days, we cannot find such an order in the green Order of Business. Can the Taoiseach confirm when it was laid before the House because the expiry date is next Tuesday?
The order was signed in the last few days by the Minister so it probably has not been laid before the House. I assume it does need to be laid before the House and if this is the case, that will happen in the next few days. It is extended until February because that was the date the British authorities indicated earlier and we moved to the same date.
It is not supposed to be tabled next Tuesday. Whatever about the level of administrative competence in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, under the law, it would lapse unless it is formally laid before this House by next Tuesday. Signing the order is irrelevant.
Signing is not irrelevant because we cannot lay it before the House until it has been signed. The Minister has signed it. In the normal course of events, his Department will lay it before the House, but I will check this for the Deputy.
(Interruptions.)
On the Government's indicative legislative programme there are two housing Bills – the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the Housing (Private Sector) Bill. Nothing displays the lethargy and inertia of the Department of the Environment and Local Government in respect of housing more than the way these two Bills are being progressed. Can the Taoiseach do any better than indicating that the first one is expected late in 2001 and the second one is not expected until late in 2002?
Legislation is not necessary to build houses, thank God. The heads of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill were approved on 25 April and the Bill is being drafted. As I said yesterday, the heads of the Housing (Private Rented Sector) Bill are expected later this year.
Yesterday Irish haemophiliacs were refused a judicial review by the courts on the issue of the withholding of essential information by the IBTS. The Lindsay tribunal was established by the House. I ask the Taoiseach to use his extensive influence to—
The Deputy can pursue that matter in another way.
—convince the IBTS to waive privilege and release—
It is not in order on the Order of Business.
It is a desperate situation which demands desperate measures.
It is not in order on the Order of Business.
I ask the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Health and Children to call on the IBTS to release the information.
The question is not in order at this stage.
Mr. Coveney
Last week the Taoiseach launched the long awaited national drugs strategy review which outlines the drugs strategy which the Government will hopefully implement between now and 2008. Very ambitious targets were set down of a 50% increase in drugs seizures before 2008. Does the Taoiseach plan to introduce legislation to increase the powers of the Garda and customs in the context of the Criminal Justice (Garda Powers) Bill?
The Deputy should table a parliamentary question unless there is promised legislation.
Mr. Coveney
There is promised legislation.
The heads of the Criminal Justice (Garda Powers) Bill, which will amend criminal law and procedures in light of the recommendations of the expert group on criminal law, have been approved and the Bill will be introduced later this year.
The Taoiseach said legislation is not necessary to build houses. Last year his Government built fewer local authority houses—
The Deputy is making a statement.
No, I am asking a question.
Making statements is not in order.
Last year the Government built fewer local authority houses than at any time in the past eight years.
The Deputy should ask his question.
To build houses one needs land, so will the Taoiseach instruct his Minister for Defence to make the sites referred to by Deputy Quinn available to Dublin Corporation so it can build houses?
That is not a question on promised legislation.
It has been available for the past two years. The corporation was asleep.
The Minister for Defence is wounded again.
Yesterday in the House on the debate on the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, the boy leader in waiting, the Minister for Health and Children, in attempting to defend—
Has this to do with promised legislation?
—his sidelining by the man leader in waiting gave information to the House which I now know not to be accurate.
The Deputy cannot raise the matter at this stage.
Under the prompt payments legislation will the Taoiseach investigate—
That is not an appropriate question on the Order of Business.
This refers to the prompt payments legislation which the Department of Health and Children—
It is just the timing of legislation. I call Deputy Allen.
—is breaching, whereby doctors who have carried out immunisations are owed—
I have called Deputy Allen.
—£10,000 under an immunisation programme brought in by—
If Deputy Allen does not ask a question I will move on. Deputy Owen is out of order – I have ruled that her question is out of order.
Yesterday the Minister told us everything was working—
The Deputy is out of order and should resume her seat.
The Minister gave wrong information in the House.
The Deputy is out of order and can pursue the matter in other ways. It is not in order—
Ceann Comhairle, you have allowed people to raise information which is inaccurate—
This is not in order on the Order of Business and the Deputy should resume her seat.
The Minister for Health and Children told us the immunisation—
The Deputy should abide by Standing Orders. The Chair is on its feet. The Deputy is out of order.
Six months have elapsed and the doctors are owed £10,000 by the Department of Health and Children.
Will the Deputy resume her seat? She is out of order and can explore other ways of raising the matter. I call Deputy Allen.
We need the protection of the Chair.
The Deputy should respect the Chair.
I will respect the Chair, but I want an answer to the question.
I have called Deputy Allen.
Some weeks ago the Taoiseach promised in the House that no further contracts would be entered into in relation to the national stadium. Despite that promise contractors are invited to—
Contracts are not in order. The Deputy can pursue that by way of a parliamentary question.
—apply to the Government—
Has it to do with promised legislation?
It is in relation to promised legislation. Will the Taoiseach fast track the promised legislation in relation to the Campus Ireland project as it has overrun despite—
The Deputy does not have to elaborate on the matter.
It is being drafted.
It has been left to Amnesty International to run a public awareness campaign to deal with anti-racism—
A disgrace.
A disgrace and an insult to the Irish people.
In view of this and the strong need to defend human rights in the country, what priority is the Government giving to establishing the human rights commission? When will it be on a proper footing? It has been much delayed. Will this legislation be prioritised so the commission can be properly established as we are obligated to do under North-South and international agreements?
Hopefully the legislation will be passed in this session with the co-operation of everybody. It is already recognised as a far seeing legislative measure by both the UN and others working in the area of human rights.
Will time be made available to discuss the county housing strategies given that Dublin Corporation passed its strategy the other night? I again ask the Taoiseach to examine the issue of Clancy Barracks, given that we have only three major sites—
The Deputy can pursue the matter in other ways. Such a question is not in order on the Order of Business.
—within the city boundaries. The Taoiseach can see that members of the council were clearly misled.
The Deputy is not in order. I call Deputy Joe Higgins.
(Dublin West): The outrageous jailing of anti-bin tax campaigners in Cork highlights the double standards and inadequacies of the waste management system. In view of the distinction between how ordinary householders protesting against a wrong tax are treated as opposed to millionaire tax evaders, when will the Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill be brought before the Dáil? Will the Taoiseach instruct his Minister for the Environment and Local Government to drop this unacceptable bin tax?
The waste management Bill will be before the House this session.
(Dublin West): Will he condemn the jailing of ordinary PAYE taxpayers?
Does the Taoiseach share my astonishment that the Referendum Commission in its first publication on the three referendums—
Sharing astonishment is not in order on the Order of Business.
I am sure the Taoiseach would like to know about this. The commission has managed to produce a booklet with information on the Treaty of Nice without once mentioning enlargement of the EU.
Perhaps the Deputy can pursue that matter in another way as it is not in order on the Order of Business.
Will the Taoiseach take this matter up in order to avoid potential embarrassment for the Tánaiste?
The Treaty of Nice is about enlargement.
Tell the commission that.
Mr. Hayes
Regarding competence in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Taoiseach is aware that under a new EU regulation by 24 October we are supposed to transpose an EU directive on data protection into Irish law which will give citizens a right to see files pertaining to them in public and private institutions. We have yet to see—
The Deputy should ask a question – he appears to be giving information rather than seeking information.
Mr. Hayes
This legislation is yet to be published. Will it be brought before the House before the summer recess given that it should be trans posed by 24 October? The Minister has had three years to introduce legislation.
It is priority legislation and is due this session.