Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 26 Jun 2001

Vol. 539 No. 1

Order of Business.

The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 26, motion re referral to Joint Committee of Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1983 (Increase in Number of Ordinary Members of An Bord Pleanála) Order, 2001; No. 27, motion re powers of Joint Committee on Health and Children; No. 28, motion re continuance of certain sections of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998; No. 56, Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000 [Seanad] – Second Stage (resumed).

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders that (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 10 p.m. The sitting shall be suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7 p.m.; (2) Nos. 26 and 27 shall be decided without debate; (3) the proceedings on No. 28 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after one hour. The following arrangements shall apply: (1) the speech of a Minister, Minister of State and the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael and Labour parties shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; (2) the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed ten minutes; (3) Members may share time, and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply, which shall not exceed five minutes; (4), the proceedings on the resumed Second Stage of No. 56 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10 p.m.; (5) Private Members' Business shall be No. 82, European Union Bill, 2000, Second Stage, which, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 27 June 2001.

There are five proposals to be put to the House. Is the late sitting agreed?

We are being asked to provide for a late sitting. This Government proposes to introduce eight guillotines, including one on the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000, which has been around for six months. We are opposed to rushing business at the end of a session, given that much of the legislation could have been entertained and debated in time. The House should reject the Order of Business for the reasons I have outlined.

The guillotining of the Bill to which Deputy Quinn referred will prevent a large number of Deputies from having their say. I ask that the late sitting be extended, if necessary, so that Deputies can have their say and that the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000, not be guillotined.

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

Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.de Valera, Síle.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fleming, Seán.Gildea, Thomas.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.

Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Tom.McCreevy, Charlie.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Ned.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael. Wright, G. V.

Níl

Barnes, Monica.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis J.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Crawford, Seymour.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Farrelly, John.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.

Higgins, Joe.Howlin, Brendan.McDowell, Derek.McGinley, Dinny.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Neville, Dan.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.Penrose, William.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan.

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

Is the proposal that Nos. 26 and 27 be agreed to without debate agreed?

No. 26 will be further compromised by the outcome of the Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2001, which will remove powers to appeal decisions. Could we await the outcome of that legislation before referring it? Accordingly, I object to No. 26 being taken.

Question, "That the proposal for dealing with Nos. 26 and 27 be agreed to without debate", put and declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 28, motion re continuance of certain sections of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998, agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 56, conclusion of resumed Second Stage of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000, agreed?

This Bill has been published for some time. The Government, for a variety of reasons, mostly a lack of leadership, refused to bring the Bill to the House. Its passage will be guillotined without proper time for debate. The legislation affects the conduct of elections and is effectively the mechanism whereby Fianna Fáil will be able to attempt to buy the next election.

We will not have to.

That is the intent of the Bill, which has been delivered by the failed Minister for the Environment and Local Government. We are utterly opposed to it. The Government does not have the courage to even debate it openly and comprehensively here. It is being guillotined through.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 56 be agreed to."

Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.de Valera, Síle.

Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fleming, Seán.Gildea, Thomas.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Kitt, Tom.McCreevy, Charlie.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J. Tá–continued

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, Ned.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V.

Níl

Barnes, Monica.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis J.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Farrelly, John.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.

Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Howlin, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Neville, Dan.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan.

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

Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' Business agreed to? Agreed. We will now take leaders' questions. I call Deputy Jim Mitchell.

I was tempted to ask a question about the fourth birthday of the Government today, but seeing the three Ministers on the Front Bench opposite, it is more like an anniversary. They look like the three chief mourners. Is the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources proud of the Government's record over the past four years in relation to health? Is he proud of the fact that many of those who were on the waiting list when the Government came to office four years ago are still on it? Is he proud of the Government's failure in relation to housing where we have, for the first time in the history of the State, young people who cannot afford to buy their own houses? Is he proud of its total failure in relation to traffic gridlock? Is he proud of the fact that five times as many Irish children leave primary school with learning difficulties as do in the republic of Finland, which has the same sort of population and wealth as Ireland? Which of those five facts is he least proud of?

Could I ask the Minister for the Marine—

It is the Minister for Education and Science. Deputy Mitchell created a dangerous precedent.

I beg your pardon. I had not noticed the change.

There has been a sea change.

The Members opposite have all been at sea for too long.

The Government is still fishing in troubled waters.

With all due respect to his seniority, as the only survivor of the long march within Fianna Fáil, will the Minister for Education and Science explain to the House the reason the Tánaiste has decided not to come into the House and take the Order of Business, knowing that the Taoiseach would be away for the week in the United Nations? Will he not agree with me that when the Tánaiste was on this side of the House, she had no fear of combative debate? Will he explain, on the fourth anniversary of this failed Government, the reason she did not have the courage to come in and face us?

Deputy Quinn's supplementary should be related to Deputy Mitchell's.

Government failures.

That is a very unfair comment about the Tánaiste who is on official business and officially paired for that official business.

In Donegal, announcing 450 new jobs.

She is in Donegal doing a very important task.

And she had to go the week the Taoiseach is away. That is contempt for the Dáil.

The people creating this employment specifically asked her to attend this function. The Deputy will appreciate that is very important for Donegal. Donegal has not had a great share of the jobs created throughout the country and it is good to see it get that opportunity on this occasion. I am sure they will be delighted with it.

Did it have to be Wednesday?

I thank Deputy Mitchell for the card, which I understand he delivered, and the Labour Party for the cake which came earlier, although I understand it took it back.

We ate it ourselves. We did not think the Government was entitled to it.

We had no trouble blowing out the candles.

I ask the Minister to deal with the questions he was asked.

They get the credit for the cake but then take it back and eat it themselves.

Someone told us, "Let them eat cake".

I am sure the Members opposite are happy to see how durable and successful the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats coalition has been to date. They said the Government would not last six months

"Durability" is the Minister's middle name. He is certainly durable.

It is contagious.

The Minister, without interruption, to make a brief reply.

He is more durable than an Eircell battery.

If we take the achievements, it is clear that they—

Charlie, Albert, Bertie—

It is appropriate that the House should celebrate today, which is the fourth anniversary of the Government, and I hope it will be around next year to celebrate the fifth anniversary.

The House will be here all right

In relation to the achievements, they have been enormous. There have been 300,000 new jobs. The workforce is up to 1.7 million. More is spent annually on health.

There is traffic chaos.

A complete review has been initiated. Expenditure on health doubled from approximately £2.5 billion to £5 billion. This kind of development and investment was unforeseen in the past. The country has more money which has, and is, being spent on health, with regard to which the Government will go further.

We are going to a new plateau as regards investment in education.

We are going to a new planet.

The Government should come back to earth.

There has been a 70% increase in investment in education. Today I had the privilege of launching a new council for science, technology and engineering which will give a boost to new researchers. The council will provide £75 million for research projects. There has never been any such investment. When the Government took office the total figure for research was £5 million. We are now talking about £550 million for education. There is, therefore, no comparison. We will not go over this issue unduly.

We are making a lot of progress with regard to people with learning difficulties.

The Government would want to make progress in this area.

I agree, and that is known by those involved. I have a number of special projects under way and we will continue to invest in this area. This is a major issue. This is a day for celebration, but we do not look on it in that way. We are looking forward and can give the country much more in the years to come. We have reached a new phase on which we will build.

The Government is looking in every direction.

Let us test how well briefed the Minister is. After four years of this Government how many children leave primary school with learning difficulties? How long is the waiting list for orthodontic treatment in schools? Are housing lists and commuting times longer or shorter than when the Government took office? Is inflation higher or lower than when the Government took office?

Who writes this stuff?

There has been a major problem for many years—

It is called the Government.

—whereby children leave primary level with learning difficulties. This problem is, and has been, vigorously tackled in recent years and the results will become clear. Surveys carried out in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, and as recently as 1998, have shown that 10% of children leave primary school with significant difficulties. This indicates that the problems are greater than anticipated as, otherwise, teachers would have overcome them with ease. That is the reason we are investing heavily in special education, special needs and learning difficulties.

The number of houses being built increased by almost one third. Approximately 50,000 houses are being built each year.

The figure is down 70% this year.

We have the highest house building rate in Europe. The Irish rate is twice the EU average and almost six times the UK rate. There are problems regarding housing which need to be addressed and this is happening.

I call Deputy Quinn on another matter.

The Minister will have read in today's newspapers of a woman who has applied to court over a hospital's decision to defer her cancer treatment. It is appropriate that the Minister for Health and Children is sitting beside the Minister. Does he agree he has the good fortune to be a member of the first Government in the history of the State which is not constrained by resources? Having been taken to court regarding people's education rights, does he, and his colleagues, feel ashamed that a woman from Finglas who is seeking chemotherapy treatment which could possibly save her life is obliged to take the State – not just the Government – to court to try to get access to such treatment? Has there ever been such a level of incompetence combined with arrogance as is the case with the Government?

Does the Minister agree that the Department of Health and Children is the worst run Department and has the most failures of any Department? Is he aware of a child in Carrick-on-Suir who was on the waiting list for nasal treatment when the Government took office and is still on it? What is the Government doing about these awful problems in the health service?

I have stated that the Government's overall expenditure has increased from £2.5 billion to £5 billion. That is a tremendous increase in investment in this area.

It is having no effect.

There are still problems.

It is about improving services, not just spending money.

The issue regarding hospital treatment is a matter for the patient's consultant. There was a problem in recent days whereby chemotherapy treatment for a number of patients in the Mater Hospital was postponed. Needless to say, none of us wishes to see such things happen and I would be concerned by any interruption to the scheduled treatment of patients requiring chemotherapy and other cancer treatments. When the ERHA learned of the difficulties it took immediate steps to seek alternative accommodation for the patients concerned and is continuing to work closely with the hospital.

Since the commencement of the implementation of the national cancer strategy in 1997, over £60 million has been invested in developing cancer services. The Minister is committed to ensuring patients, such as those with cancer, who have special needs will be attended to and given treatment.

The situation is worse than ever.

Is the Minister not aware that, according to today's reports, this matter has been raised twice in the House, yet he is able to give that gobbledegook answer? If he is not responsible for the administration of chemotherapy, let me ask him a question concerning health services for which he is responsible. Why, in last year's budget, did the Minister for Finance promise that medical cards would be available for the elderly from 1 July? Why are no application forms for those medical cards available? The Minister cannot blame this situation on the hospitals or anyone but the Government. What has gone wrong with the Government that it is so incompetent that all it seems to be able to do is waste money to no effect? Why is a measure which was repeatedly promised and trumpeted not going to happen? Is the Government so incompetent that it cannot make something of a measure over which it has total control? This measure was promised, and repeated, in last year's budget?

The issue of cancer treatment is, in the first instance, a matter for the hospital and the ERHA. The Government's commitment has been clear and there has been a massive increase in the number of cancer treatments provided. This is one of the major priorities for the Government. Since 1997 the number of cancer treatments has increased from 30,000 to over 50,000.

This woman will die if she does not receive treatment. This issue has been raised twice in the House.

I would be deeply concerned about any such situation. The Minister is concerned about this issue. He is investing heavily in this area and will continue to do so. I do not disagree with the Deputy that cancer treatment must be a top priority and that is what the Minister is trying to ensure.

What about the medical cards?

I call Deputy Shatter.

What has the Minister to say to the over-70s who were promised a medical card?

Deputy Shatter on a question appropriate to the Order of Business.

I wish to refer to two items on the Order Paper. As regards the European Convention on Human Rights Bill, 2001, the Minister may be aware that this afternoon the Oireachtas joint committee on justice requested that the Bill not be processed further before the recess to allow it to hear oral submissions. The committee requested that the Government urgently introduce a Bill comprising section 7 of the existing Bill to allow for the establishment of the human rights commission and to broaden the number of members of the commission. Does the Government intend to take such a course of action? Is it intended to make time available for a detailed debate on the Garda Síochana Complaints Board's annual report for 1999? Will the Minister explain why, when the Government received the report in December 2000, it delayed for six months before publishing it or laying it before both Houses of the Oireachtas?

Virtually every day last week I raised a request that was considered by the Taoiseach, to separate the correction of the deficiencies in the human rights commission legislation from the legislation to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights. There is now a cross-party consensus in the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights that this should be done, and the committee heard compelling evidence about the matter today. Will the Minister reflect on this issue before the committee meets again tomorrow afternoon, so that we will not divide on a party political basis upon an issue of human rights? The Minister should ensure that careful consideration is given to this instead of a knee-jerk reaction.

There was an agreement in relation to this legislation, and as far as the Minister is concerned there are no deficiencies in it. However, he will examine the request and reflect on it.

What agreement?

It is in relation to the human rights legislation.

What agreement are we talking about?

He said there was agreement about the treatment of that legislation.

We cannot have a debate on it. Please allow the Minister to answer the question.

I am trying to get clarification.

There was agreement about the treatment of that legislation but the Minister has said—

No, Sir.

All right, there is a difference of opinion about that but the Minister has said that he will look at the request and will reflect on it.

And the second matter?

Does the Minister wish to comment on the matter raised by Deputy Shatter?

It is a matter for the Whips.

Will the Minister tell the House why the Government suppressed the report for six months?

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

It is quite outrageous. The Minister is in breach of statutory regulations.

Second Stage of the Waste Management Bill is scheduled for Thursday morning, while Committee Stage of the Electoral Bill has been ordered for the same time. All year I have been seeking a proper debate on various legislation from the Department of the Environment and Local Government. It is bad enough that the Government should seek to rush all this legislation through the House in the last couple of weeks of this session, but it utterly unacceptable that it should seek to take two Bills at a time from the same Department involving the same personnel and spokespersons. Will the Government Chief Whip either reschedule Second Stage of the Waste Management Bill, or reorder Committee Stage of the Electoral Bill so that we can deal with them one at a time?

I understand that the Waste Management Bill is being taken tomorrow.

And Thursday morning.

All day on Wednesday and part of Thursday morning.

The Minister should answer the question.

One Bill should be rescheduled or the other one should be reordered. It is not possible to deal with two Bills simultaneously in two different parts of these buildings.

One cannot be in two places at once.

I have been doing it for the past two weeks.

I will ask the Government Chief Whip to have a look at the matter.

Recently, we passed the Estimates for the Department of Health and Children but it is clear already that these Estimates are deficient. Will a Supplementary Estimate be introduced? What will the Government do about the fact that essential health facilities will not be developed in full because of cost overruns which are not accounted for in the national development plan?

Since the Minister chose not to reply to the leader of my party, Deputy Quinn, will he comment on the provision of medical cards for people aged over 70?

That does not arise with regard to a Supplementary Estimate.

There may well be implications for a Supplementary Estimate, so it would be appropriate for the Minister to reply.

If the Deputy does not resume her seat I will move on to item 26.

The Estimates will be dealt with in the normal way. In many respects, health is a demand led service and provision. It will be assessed.

So we will not have any cutbacks? Is that a guarantee?

If the Deputy examines the allocations for health year on year she will find that they are growing all the time.

I would ask the Minister not to answer questions that are not appropriate to the Order of Business or we will be here all night.

In light of the fact that the Taoiseach's wing of the Government has announced decentralisation for South Tipperary, when can the rest of the country expect to get it?

I am glad the Minister for Education and Science is here to take the question. The National Youth Council has been in correspondence with all Deputies requesting us to ensure that the Youth Work Bill will be completed before the summer recess. When will it be completed?

This is very important legislation but given the amount of work to be done before the summer recess it looks as if it will be dealt with in the autumn.

(Dublin West): By coincidence, the first item on today's Order Paper is the Waste Management Bill. A mother of three, Sandra Condon, was dragged from her home in Cork this morning and, as we speak, is incarcerated in Limerick prison.

That does not arise on the Order of Business. Does the Deputy have a question that is appropriate to the Order of Business?

(Dublin West): It is obvious that half the Dáil is on the high road to Tipperary South to serve their narrow political interests.

That does not arise on the Order of Business either, Deputy.

(Dublin West): I request some latitude to finish my question, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, because I am here to serve the national responsibilities.

It has to be done within Standing Orders, Deputy.

The Deputy is insulting his colleague from South Tipperary, who usually sits beside him.

(Dublin West): I ask the Minister to secure the immediate release of this woman. He should also table an amendment to the Waste Management Bill to end waste charges which are an unjust double tax—

That does not arise on the Order of Business. I call Deputy Rabbitte for a final question.

(Dublin West):—and to stop imprisoning good, working-class people.

Following the brutal defeat of the Tánaiste by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the immigration issue, may I ask the Minister for the Marine if legislation is still forthcoming—

It is the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy.

I beg your pardon, Sir.

We have not got used to it yet.

A Deputy

He has not made an impact yet.

Ask the ASTI about it.

He made a big impact on them. I am glad that I thought twice before saying what I was going to say. Is legislation forthcoming on the question of work permits?

Yes, but it will not be before the recess.

Top
Share