Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Jun 2001

Vol. 538 No. 4

Order of Business.

The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 27, motion re referral to joint committee of approval of instruments drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union; No. 9, Dormant Accounts Bill, 2001 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; No 56, Horse and Greyhound Racing Bill, 2001 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; No. 57, Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta Bill, 2000 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; and No. 10, Irish National Petroleum Corporation Limited Bill, 2001 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight, business shall be interrupted not later than 10 p.m. and the sitting shall be suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7 p.m.; (2) No. 27 shall be decided without debate; (3) Second Stage of No. 9 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 1.30 p.m.; (4) Report and Final Stages of No. 56 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 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 Agriculture, Food and Rural Development; (5) Report and Final Stages of No. 57 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 6 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 Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment; and (6) the following arrangements shall apply in relation to No. 10: (i) Second Stage shall be taken today and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 8 p.m. tomorrow; (ii) Committee Stage shall be taken tomorrow and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion within one hour; (iii) Report and Final Stages shall be taken tomorrow and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10 p.m.; and the proceedings thereon shall be brought to a conclusion by one question in each case 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 Public Enterprise.

There are six proposals to be put to the House. The first one is the proposal on the late sitting. Is that agreed to?

Last year the Government produced a report on the position of people in private rented tenancies. There are 150,000 such tenancies—

This proposal is about the late sitting.

I know. The Government has failed to move to deal with this matter, it has failed to bring in legislation to deal with such exploitation, and we are opposed to the Order of Business on those grounds.

The late sitting represents an extension of time which one would imagine would be occupied with matters of the greatest importance. Not taking from any of the matters ordered, is the Government reflecting on the points that have been made here time and again on the need for a fuller questions and answer style debate on the outcome of the Gothenburg summit? It has not been thought about in government and I would like it to be reflected on. If extra time is to be given to matters, time should be given to debate that matter.

This proposal is about the late sitting. Is the proposal on the late sitting agreed?

Question put: "That the late sitting be agreed to."

Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.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.Kitt, Michael P.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Reynolds, Albert.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Mary.

Níl

Allen, Bernard.Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Burke, Liam.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Cosgrave, Michael.Crawford, Seymour.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Enright, Thomas.Finucane, Michael.Gilmore, Éamon.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.

McDowell, Derek.McGinley, Dinny.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.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Bradford and Stagg.
Question declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing No. 27 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 9 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 56 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 57 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 10 agreed to? Agreed.

The Tánaiste will be aware that today is World Refugee Day and of the joint calls from IBEC, the Irish Refugee Council and other organisations that refugees and asylum seekers be allowed to work after six months if their applications have not been processed. Would she accept that such a move would help to alleviate the labour shortages in the economy and reduce tensions, suspicions and hostility towards those now on welfare through no fault of their own? Will she mark World Refugee Day by agreeing to change the law on this matter in order that refugees and asylum seekers can have their dignity restored and make a contribution to the economy?

I support the call made by Deputy Noonan and the Irish Refugee Council, which today issued a press release to mark World Refugee Day which talks about the right to work and dignity. Can the Tánaiste explain the reason her Department is trying to attract people from other countries to Ireland when there are people here already, many of whom have skills which could be utilised if they were given the right to work? Where stands the Progressive Democrats Party in this coalition Government in relation to the description by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, that the asylum policy of the Government, and its administration of it, is a shambles and in chaos? Will the Tánaiste endorse the call by the Minister of State that asylum seekers who have been here for six months and whose applications have not been dealt with and completed be given the right to work?

It is fair to say there are different views in all parties in the House in relation to this issue.

There are not. The Tánaiste should speak for her own party.

I am speaking for the Government.

Order, please. The Deputy cannot intervene again.

There were asylum seekers in the country before 1997 and they were not entitled to work. I am aware the previous Government had discussions and that it did not reach agreement on the matter. I am not trying to be partisan.

There are only two parties in government, and Independent Fianna Fáil Deputies.

The Tánaiste to continue without interruption.

The Tánaiste has been in government for five years.

Tune into The History Channel.

I am interested in accuracy. The Government made a decision in July 1999 which allowed asylum seekers in Ireland at that time for one year the right to work. There were 2,500 asylum seekers, for many of whom FÁS put training programmes in place. Now, 81% of them are working with a further 10% or 11% involved in ongoing training or education. It is important that asylum applications be processed within six months and where that is not done I favour their right to work. However, that would have to be a Government decision and since there are differences within the Government I do not envisage this happening, short of a new mandate. After all, there are four Deputies in my party and I do not have a majority in the Government—

Jackie Healy-Rae.

As Deputy Quinn will appreciate—

The two Ministers sitting beside the Tánaiste could make a decision.

No interruptions, please.

A political decision was made two years ago which granted 2,500 asylum seekers the right to work. Everybody knows my views in relation to the right to work. Last week we received 1,300 applications for work permits. There are many jobs available in the economy—

It is an outrage.

There are many jobs available in the economy, but until the Government revisits the issue, which I do not envisage will happen in the short term, the position agreed in July 1999 stands.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is blushing.

Is the Tánaiste aware of the views expressed by the head of one of the Taoiseach's favourite projects, MediaLab Europe, who described the Government's immigration policy as unfriendly and agonising? He went on to say that unless the immigration policy is changed, for which I understand the Tánaiste has primary responsibility, it would cut Ireland's growth at the knees. Is the Tánaiste going to change the manner in which work permits are granted or the manner in which immigrants come to the country in terms of being allowed to work?

I do not have primary responsibility for immigration policy – that rests with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

The Tánaiste has primary responsibility for workforce policy.

A review of immigration policy is under way to which I will be making an input. I understand the public has until the end of July to make submissions. We are granting an unprecedented number of work permits and have a new working visa. Two years ago we were granting about 6,000 work permits per year. The figure for this year already is 15,000. As I said, last week we received 1,300 applications for work permits, with an average of 1,000 per week, in addition to the working visa under which there are about 3,000 working in the country. In comparison with many other European countries, we have a very progressive and liberal approach to both the working visa regime and work permits.

The Government, at the request of the Justice for the Forgotten group and Members of the House, appointed the late Liam Hamilton to inquire into the Monaghan and Dublin bombings. Following his death, Justice Barron was appointed to undertake that inquiry and has proceeded in that regard. A request was made to the British authorities for co-operation from the British Government in relation to documentation they may have in their files. On 31 May the Justice for the Forgotten group raised with Justice Barron the progress he had made and when he would be able to file his report. He indicated at the time that the British authorities had not complied with requests to provide information, notwithstanding the fact that the Irish Government has sent documentation – perhaps the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will confirm this – to the Saville Inquiry in relation to the shootings in Derry. Is the Tánaiste aware of this particular problem and whether the Government has raised with the British Government its failure to co-operate with this preliminary inquiry? This is a preliminary inquiry as on the basis of the report a determination will be made whether to hold a full inquiry. What action will the Tánaiste take in the light of the refusal of the British authorities to effectively co-operate?

Has the information given by Mr. Justice Barron to the group of relatives been discussed in Cabinet? Is the Government taking any steps to make a formal request through diplomatic channels to the British Government to provide the documentation which has been requested?

I am not aware of what both Deputy Quinn and Deputy Noonan have asked about. I apologise for that but I am certainly not aware that Mr. Justice Barron had made that information available to the Justice for the Forgotten group. I will pursue the matter with both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Justice Barron's committee does not report to the Government. I am not aware of any report from Mr. Justice Barron which has been given to any member of the Government but in view of what Deputies Quinn and Noonan raised here, I will pursue the matter and the Taoiseach may report to the Deputy in the morning or I may get an opportunity later in the day to do that.

I presume the Tánaiste was originally consulted by the Taoiseach when both the late Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton and his successor, Mr. Justice Barron, were appointed. Mr. Justice Barron would report directly to the Department of the Taoiseach. Had she not abolished the office of the Tánaiste, she might have been kept in the loop but since she clearly has not been kept in the loop, she does not know anything about it.

In January 2000 the British Government was requested to provide this information and has failed to do so. Mr. Justice Barron cannot conclude his report without that co-operation. I take it, now that she has got herself back into the loop as Tánaiste and has informed herself through the courtesy of this House, that she will raise this matter in the appropriate way with the Taoiseach and with the British authorities. Will she agree it is unacceptable that while the Irish Government is co-operating with the Saville inquiry in Northern Ireland providing security documentation and files, the British authorities are not prepared to do likewise?

It would be unacceptable if a friendly neighbouring jurisdiction were not to co-operate in matters of this kind. It is very important, not just for the Justice for the Forgotten group and the families of those who lost their lives in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings but for the country that we bring this inquiry to a successful conclusion. These people had sought an inquiry of this kind for many years.

In answer to Deputy Quinn, I was consulted, as was the Government about the appointment of the late Mr. Justice Hamilton and the subsequent appointment of his replacement, Mr. Justice Barron. Neither I nor the Government has sought on an ongoing basis to inquire into how that inquiry is going. We hope it can be concluded as quickly as possible. If there are difficulties they will be raised politically as they should be, and I will ensure that that happens.

That concludes the Leaders' Questions. We now come to other relevant questions on the Order of Business.

(Mayo): On promised legislation, the future of the many sub-post offices throughout the country has been thrown into doubt this morning by virtue of the fact that the interdepartmental group on the future of sub-post offices reported that the Department of Public Enterprise now agrees with the Department of Finance that there can be no further State subsidy for sub-post offices. Is this the Government view? What is the current position regarding the Postal (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which is currently on the list of promised legislation?

I understand the Bill to which the Deputy refers was published in May last.

(Mayo): Will it go ahead?

I believe so, yes.

(Mayo): What is the Government policy on the sub-post offices?

The Deputy must wait until another day to hear the answer to that question on Government policy.

We have been waiting a long time for it.

Has the Protection of Employees (Part-time Workers) Bill, 2000, come under the influence of some Eurosceptic influences in the Government? Will the Tánaiste ensure that it comes to Committee this term?

It is awaiting Committee Stage.

I know well it is awaiting Committee Stage. That is my point. I have been asking this question, a Cheann Comhairle, for about six months.

The Chief Whip is like a ventriloquist.

I do not know of any Eurosceptics in the Government.

(Interruptions.)

The Attorney General.

We must introduce her to them.

Is this not an example of being closer to Boston than Berlin?

I am flattered Deputy Quinn keeps quoting that speech but I had better send him a copy of it in order that he could at least read it and quote it accurately.

This is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

Did the Tánaiste hear what Deputy O'Kennedy had to say about it yesterday?

Did the Tánaiste take note of what he said? He told me—

The Tánaiste is answering the question on promised legislation.

I do not believe in the zombie school. I like people who have their own views and express them. It is good for our democracy.

In answer to Deputy Rabbitte, I understand from the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, that he is awaiting a time from the committee, of which Deputy Rabbitte is a member, to take Committee Stage of the Bill.

There are 183,000 part-time workers out there. This part-time workers directive was supposed to be dealt with by last June.

We cannot debate the issue now.

The time expired last January and having raised it at the committee, this is the first I have heard of the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, looking for a time slot. If the Minister of State wants a time slot to enact this legislation, he will be given one. There is no sign of him coming before the committee.

Deputy Callely is its Chairman.

He has come in here on the Tánaiste's behalf a few times untroubled by a great knowledge of the Bills.

When will the Residential Institutions Bill come before the House? Will it be taken before the summer recess? Is the Tánaiste aware of the concern that children who are put into foster care will not be covered by this compensation legislation?

The content of the Bill is not a matter for the Order of Business.

The Bill is No. 2 on the list of promised legislation.

When will the promised legislation be taken?

It is intended that the Bill will be dealt with before the summer recess.

On promised legislation from the Tánaiste's Department, the Work Permits Bill, in my constituency the chief executive of MediaLab Europe has described the agonising process of getting his work permit this year. He said that this would cut Ireland's growth rate at the knees.

What he said is not a matter for the Order of Business. Does the Deputy have a question?

It is hearsay.

He is quoted in the newspaper.

When will this legislation be published? Will it address the concerns of the chief executive of MediaLab Europe?

The question is really a matter for Leaders' Questions.

I am asking it because the question I asked was not answer. This has to do with my constituency. He said the growth rate would be cut at the knees.

The Deputy should confine himself to the question on promised legislation.

Can we have an opportunity to discuss the Work Permits Bill in the near future in order that I may raise this matter?

The purpose of the work permits legislation is to put what is an administrative procedure on a statutory basis but it certainly will not change the policy on granting work permits, where there is a liberal approach. Less than 1% of work permits are now being refused. In many quarters I am the subject of criticism because we grant too many and some people believe far too many workers are being brought in here.

Who believes that?

Quite a few people—

Is it the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform?

—and some of them are associated with Deputy Quinn's party, believe it or not.

Will the Tánaiste confine herself to answering questions on legislation?

On a point of order, who in my party believes that there are too many?

That is not a point of order.

I said they were associated with his party.

To whom is the Tánaiste referring? She should name them and not make a snide innuendo.

There are members of trades unions who believe far too many workers are being brought in.

Will she name them?

This is out of order.

That is outrageous.

Would the Tánaiste confine herself to answer the question on when the legislation will be dealt with?

This is chaos. They cannot exercise the same authority as Deputy Healy-Rae.

The ICTU supports it.

The Tánaiste without interruption—

This is the MIT and the Government. This is what the chief executive said.

—on the promised legislation.

In answer to Deputies Mitchell and Quinn, 15,000 work permits have been granted already this year, plus 3,000 working visas. That is 18,000.

We are discussing something which we should not discuss. I would ask the Tánaiste to confine her comments to when the Bill will be taken.

There are 50,000 foreign workers legally working in this country.

This man is chief executive of a body set up by the Government and MIT in my constituency.

I call Deputy O'Sullivan to ask to next question on the Order of Business.

While I accept that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is responsible for asylum policy, the Tánaiste is responsible for employment. There are many people in this country who are willing to work.

Please, Deputy.

I am asking about the Work Permits Bill. Considering that the text of the Bill is being drafted at present, will the Tánaiste get some information on the people who are here seeking asylum who have specific skills which are needed in this country—

That is not a relevant question on the Order of Business.

—in order that they can be included in the Work Permits Bill? These people are in the country and willing to work and the Tánaiste is sending people out all over the world looking for workers.

That is not a relevant question on the Order of Business.

It is very relevant to people who want to work who are being maintained by the State on £15 a week.

The Minister should do a stock take.

It is not relevant on the Order of Business. I call Deputy Stanton.

The Tánaiste is responsible for employment.

The Deputy should raise the matter in another way but not here.

What happened to the legislation promised to regulate advertising by airlines in order to ensure that the consumer gets a fair deal? It was flagged last year by the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt. Which Minister will attack Europe today?

The Deputy's second question is out of order. The Tánaiste should reply to the question on promised legislation.

I am not aware of promised legislation regarding—

(Interruptions.)

I did not promise legislation in this area.

Given that the Minister for Public Enterprise has finished the week-long chat show quiz in which she was involved—

How did she do?

Very badly. Given that she has finished that show and is now involved full-time in the Molly Malone act hawking Aer Lingus around the world—

That is not relevant on the Order of Business.

On promised legislation, is there any possibility of the Minister for Public Enterprise dealing with the explosive issue of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty Bill?

The Minister will probably pass it on to Senator Cassidy.

I understand legislation in that regard is to be published in the middle of next year, just before the general election.

I thought it would be timely.

Top
Share