Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Jun 2001

Vol. 539 No. 2

Order of Business.

The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 29, Revised Estimates for Public Services, 2001 – Votes 1 to 43; No. 55b, motion re referral to joint committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of a proposal under the Fourth Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam – proposal for a Council regulation establishing a general framework for Community activities to facilitate the implementation of a European judicial area in civil matters; No. 57, Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2000 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; and No. 1, Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2001 [Seanad] – Second Stage.

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., and the sitting shall be suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7 p.m.; (2) No. 29, Votes 1 to 43, shall be moved together and decided without debate by one question which shall be put from the Chair and any division demanded thereon shall be taken forthwith; (3) No. 55b, shall be decided without debate; and (4) 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 12 noon 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 Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Private Members' Business shall be No. 82, European Union Bill, 2001 – Second Stage (resumed), to conclude at 8.30 p.m.

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

No. On Private Members' Business last night, the Government indicated that it was accepting the principle of the Labour Party's Bill in relation to the scrutiny of European legislation. There is a proposal before the House today which has already been ordered in anticipation of referral to a committee of secondary legislation from the Government – this appeared at late notice and the House will not have an opportunity to scrutinise it – to be disposed of in its entirety later today. This flies against the spirit of the contribution of the Minister for Foreign Affairs last night and indicates that the Government has learned nothing from the outcome of the referendum on the Nice Treaty. There are other reasons the Order of Business should be opposed, but for that reason alone the Labour Party opposes the late sitting.

It appears that the proposal for the late sitting will not prove adequate because the Green Party is not in a position to state whether it will have time to substantially outline its views on the Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill before the conclusion of business. We would like to be given time to do so and are asking that the sitting hours be extended even further. We are, therefore, objecting to the early conclusion of business at 10 p.m.

We will also be opposing the late sitting on the basis that there will be no opportunity to debate the Revised Estimates which have been returned from committee and to which the Tánaiste referred. I refer specifically to the Revised Estimate on Health. There is a woman in the Mater Hospital who requires cancer treatment—

We cannot deal with particular cases. The proposal relates to the late sitting.

If we had an opportunity to debate the Revised Estimates, we would know whether the courts or the Minister for Health and Children are running the country. Why is the lady to whom I refer being made to go to court in order to obtain cancer treatment?

The Deputy has made his point.

We will oppose the late sitting until the Minister provides an explanation.

The health service is a shambles.

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

Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.

Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael. Tá–continued

Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fleming, Seán.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.Lawlor, Liam.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.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, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.

Níl

Barnes, Monica.Bell, Michael.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard.Farrelly, John.Fitzgerald, Frances.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.

Higgins, Jim.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.McDowell, Derek.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Sullivan, Jan.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.

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

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 29, Revised Estimates for Public Services, agreed to?

I want to raise the question of the Health Estimate which should be debated in the House. The situation is that an oncologist at Waterford Regional Hospital—

We cannot discuss that issue now.

—has been moved and there is no oncologist in the whole of the south east.

We will discuss the arrangements for the Estimates.

Patients are being bussed out.

It is not in order to discuss issues on this question.

I would like the Tánaiste to provide an opportunity to discuss—

The Deputy is not in order.

—the Revised Health Estimate on the floor of the House because these are the developments which have taken place since it was discussed in committee.

Question, "That the proposal for dealing with No. 29 be agreed to", put and declared carried.

The next proposal is that No. 55b, motion re referral to joint committee of a proposal under the Fourth Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam, be dealt with without debate. Is that agreed to?

There are a number of issues relating to the use of the guillotine and other matters proposed to be guillotined between now and the end of this week and later next week in the final session. The proposal that we start Second Stage of the Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill—

We are coming to it.

I am aware of that but we do not have to vote on it. Fianna Fáil backbenchers are once again having the wool pulled over their eyes by the Minister for failure, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government.

It is about the deferral of the—

We are looking at a fundamental tearing up of democratic scrutiny of our planning legislation and the authority of local government—

This proposal has nothing to do with planning.

—which is being guillotined through.

The proposal before the House is the proposal to refer a proposal to the joint committee.

We are opposed to the chipping away of democracy as intended with this Bill and the taking of this item without debate.

The proposal before the House has nothing to do with what the Deputy has mentioned.

I appreciate that the Chair has to provide for the precision of individual votes but because we are being guillotined with a glee that would do credit to Madame Defarge it is impossible for us to accept what is coming from the Government.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 55b without debate be agreed to.”

Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fleming, Seán.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.Lawlor, Liam.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.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, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.

Níl

Barnes, Monica.Bell, Michael.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.

Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Burke, Liam. Burke, Ulick.

Níl–continued

Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard.Farrelly, John.Fitzgerald, Frances.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.McDowell, Derek.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.

Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Sullivan, Jan.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.

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

The final proposal is that dealing with No. 57, the Report and Final Stages of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2000. Is that proposal agreed to?

I understand that the Bill has to be dealt with by 12 o'clock under the Order of Business. It is a particularly important Bill and 26 amendments have been tabled. It is a disgrace that the Government is trying to push it through the House without adequate time to deal with it on Report Stage.

There are 45 minutes remaining before 12 o'clock.

We have heard a substantial amount about the European democratic deficit, but a real democratic deficit is developing in this House caused by a Government which undermines the functions of the House.

The Deputy is making a speech.

Bills are being guillotined and not enough time is allowed to adequately deal with measures. I oppose the Order of Business as three hours are needed to take Report Stage of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2000.

Deputy Shatter said there will be 45 minutes to deal with the Bill, but that is not the case. If we go on to Leaders' questions and if other matters are raised on the Order of Business we will need until 12 o'clock to conclude.

That is because of the stupid votes we have had.

The Government is anxious that we have no votes in this House.

There are votes every morning.

Perhaps we will be sent home and we will communicate by e-mail. The reality is that there will be virtually no time to deal with the Report Stage amendments to the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2000, a Bill heralded by the Taoiseach as part of the great package announced over the past three years to combat the offences highlighted by tribunals. I ask the Government to think again, as there will be little time to deal with Report and Final Stages, which will be a disgrace.

The suggestion that this proposal is the final one is untrue, as we have yet to deal with No. 1.

There is no such proposal.

There is no proposal in relation to No. 1, the Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2001.

The Bill will be taken tomorrow, when it will be guillotined.

Deputy Gormley's suggestion that there is no proposal in relation to waste management is the truest comment he has ever made.

On a point of order, the Tánaiste—

Deputy Howlin wants to reply.

This is ridiculous.

Question, "That the proposal for dealing with No. 57, Report and Final Stages of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2000, be agreed", put and declared carried.

We will now take leaders' questions. I call Deputy Noonan.

The British Independent Insurance Group is going into liquidation, causing a loss of jobs in Dublin. It means that certain companies cannot be insured for the second half of the year. More importantly, companies that were insured, particularly for employer's liability insurance, have no protection for claims against them pending in the courts. A number of significant Irish companies in the construction industry may go down if a large award is made against them. What does the Minister, Deputy Harney, who is responsible for the insurance industry intend to do about this problem? Can she give a commitment to the House that companies in Ireland will not be disadvantaged to a greater extent than those in the United Kingdom, where the Policyholders Protection Board is underpinning the risk? I am sure the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has been briefed by her office. One big successful claim in the High Court will be a serious issue for huge construction companies and for the country.

I am surprised that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which is responsible for the insurance industry, has not already announced how it proposes to address the market failure. The Department should ensure that companies that have taken out insurance to cover potential liability can be covered to avoid the meltdown that would affect many Irish companies if they were sued without proper cover. Is the Tánaiste capable of moving with the same speed as one of her predecessors, the late Frank Cluskey when the PMPA collapsed? That is what is needed if the Government is to provide certainty in the marketplace for the business sector.

I am familiar with the consequences of the closure of Independent Insurance, which, as Deputy Noonan said, is a UK company. Under EU directives any insurance company licensed or authorised in one member state can practise throughout the Union and, therefore, the Irish regulatory authorities have no supervisory role in regard to this insurance company. As Deputy Noonan also said, the United Kingdom has consumer protection policies. My Department has been in touch with the UK authorities and the European Commission because it is not acceptable that any country can exclude the consumers of another from policy protection.

With regard to the issue generally, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Treacy, has met representatives of the insurance industry who have agreed to provide cover for companies which now find themselves without insurance. I urge companies to take that offer on board. However, taxpayers cannot bail out companies which go to the wall. Nobody would find that acceptable.

There is a surplus of £18 million in the insurance fund established to rescue the PMPA. My Department is examining the legalities of what might happen to that money.

Divide it out.

Cover cannot be provided for everybody but there will be hardship cases involving individuals who may have suffered personal injuries and who will not be able to get any compensation. Everybody wants a sympathetic solution, within reason, to that issue. Deputy Treacy will meet the insurance industry representatives again tomorrow to discuss the issues that have arisen. However, I am aware of the consequences of the collapse. Within the European Union a company is licensed to practise anywhere once it is authorised by one member state. However, some member states do not supervise such insurance companies and, therefore, there must be European-wide protection to address such a situation for consumers.

That is a very weak reply on a serious issue. The Tánaiste does not seem to be on top of this. She made three points. The first is that she believes the UK Policyholders Protection Board should be compelled by the European Union to protect consumers in Ireland. That is a ridiculous position. If the UK Government has a board in place to protect consumers, surely it is the responsibility of the Irish Government to have a board in place to protect Irish consumers.

The Tánaiste addressed two of the issues but not the principal issue, which is that there are companies which were insured by Independent Insurance which are no longer insured and claims are pending against them. These claims could be settled for significant amounts and the Irish companies have no protection because they have no insurance. While steps are being taken to get Irish companies to take out the insurance of the companies involved at extravagant premia, they will not cover outstanding claims. The issue of outstanding claims could be devastating.

Will the Tánaiste confirm that the company constructing Luas is one of the companies involved and that an outstanding claim against it could stop Luas in its tracks, if that is not a mixed metaphor for something we have been awaiting for the past four years?

Surely the Deputy does not suggest that every time a company goes to the wall the taxpayer should foot the bill and bail out such companies.

It is a regulated industry.

We are paying an extra 2% on our premia.

There are companies which do not have insurance. Are we suggesting that they should also be protected? Under a 1992 EU directive a Government cannot discriminate in favour of its own citizens and against citizens of another member state. My Department is exploring, in conjunction with the Attorney General's office, the UK authorities and the European Commission, the implications of the closure of Independent Insurance.

Does the Attorney General believe in European co-operation on this issue? Does he have a meek and personal view?

I call Deputy Quinn on Leaders' questions. Deputy Shatter is not in order.

Earlier this month during Leaders' questions on the Order of Business, I raised with the Taoiseach the possibility of the State making Clancy Barracks available to Dublin Corporation at a price to address the backlog of 7,100 families on the corporation's housing list. This was not accepted by the Government, which insisted, following the demands of the Minister for Finance, on the Department of Defence realising the value of a number of properties, including Clancy Barracks, to fund its own re-equipment programme.

The sale of the barracks by public tender was deemed not to be a success in that the reserve price of approximately £20 million was not met by the market, although Dublin Corporation made a substantial offer for the property. Given that there are 7,100 families on the list and this 13.7 acre site could, subject to the preservation order on some of the buildings on it, provide accommodation for 300 families, will the Tánaiste and the Ministers for Finance and Defence examine how this housing need, which will never be met by the market forces so much beloved by the Tánaiste, could be in some way addressed? Dublin Corporation this year, through buy backs and new additions in an area where it can virtually acquire no land to build new housing, will provide approximately 800 new dwellings. If this property was given to the corporation at a price – I am not looking for it be given for free although that would be welcome – its housing supply for local authority and social and affordable housing could possibly be increased by 50%. We are seeking mixed housing, not a single local authority ghetto, which it would become otherwise. It is in the hands of the Government. The market has not met the reserve price set for the site by the Department of Finance and the Government could do something about it.

Is Deputy Harney embarrassed that as she enters her fifth year as Tánaiste all those young couples who could have afforded houses in the past can no longer do so and that there are 8,500 on Dublin Corporation's housing list? Is she also embarrassed that, while there is an amount of State land in Dublin owned by Departments and semi-State organisations, when any of it is disposed of, it is offered to other Departments but never to Dublin Corporation for housing purposes? Is it not time a register of all State property in Dublin, which is no longer needed, was put together and first offers given to Dublin Corporation to make a serious attempt to resolve the housing crisis and house young people in the city?

After four years in government I am proud that we have created 333,000 new jobs, almost ended long-term unemployment—

That script is old news.

The Government is responsible for the longest housing list ever.

I have no script. Listen to the facts.

The Minister for Education and Science read that script yesterday.

Order, please.

I am very proud of the dramatic increases in old age pension and child benefit and much more.

That is terrific.

Answer the question.

What about public services?

Order, please. The Tánaiste should not respond to interruptions.

The Government is obviously preparing for a general election in September.

Deputy Howlin said we would not last six months, yet we are getting ready for our fifth budget.

In response to the issue raised by Deputy Quinn, I understand discussions between the Department of Defence and Dublin Corporation are ongoing. It would be desirable if the land could be made available to the corporation.

What about the Office of Public Works and CIE? The Minister for Defence said there were no firm discussions at a meeting to discuss his Department's Estimates ten days ago.

I ask the Tánaiste to respond to the questions raised by Deputies Quinn and Noonan. Other questions should be ignored.

I will pursue Deputy Quinn's suggestion with the Minister for Defence but I understand discussions are ongoing between Dublin Corporation and the Department of Defence. It would be desirable if available lands in Dublin city could be made available for much needed housing. The Government has committed unprecedented resources to the social housing programme.

It has not. Resources for the programme are down 70% on last year.

As Deputy Mitchell will be aware, our record on house building—

The Tánaiste should ignore interruptions.

Could the Tánaiste perhaps rescue some of her power that was so manifestly trampled on by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in respect of her impudence in reversing Government policy on the issue of asylum seekers? The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform prevailed in that respect. I ask the Tánaiste, as the acting head of Government as long as the Taoiseach is out of the country, to ask the Ministers for Finance, Defence and Environment and Local Government, about the ceiling put on how much Dublin Corporation can bid for the property which has prevented it bidding up to the reserve demanded by the Department of Finance and set by its advisers. This is ridiculous bureaucratic incompetence, particularly when there is not any resource constraint of any significance on this Government.

It is a notional transfer from one Department to another.

There is a precedent for this in the Minister for Finance's constituency. He is happy for Kildare County Council to acquire the property because it is in his own backyard and it would result in housing for some of his potential constituents. However, he takes a hard line in relation to Dublin. For a figure of approximately £5 million, £6 million or £7 million, which is a transfer from one Department to another, Dublin Corporation could proceed without delay with an integrated housing development combining social and affordable housing, along with local authority housing, to the best possible standards.

The Deputy should ask a brief supplementary.

If the Tánaiste has any power left – she has lost on one issue – she might possibly restore some of her battered reputation by delivering housing to people in Dublin while she is still Tánaiste.

I do not know what I have done on the Deputy recently but he seems to be angry at the thought that I am here as Tánaiste. He is over anxious to try to get into this position.

We were talking about democracy and deficits earlier. The Deputy will have to wait.

He wants to rotate the office of the Tánaiste.

The Tánaiste, without interruption.

The Deputy is surprisingly angry. I know he is anxious to get into this position. He should not talk about impudent Deputies because it is not appropriate language.

As regards the Deputy's suggestion, I am certain the relevant Ministers are pursuing that issue provided there is reasonable value given for the land.

We now come to questions on the Order of Business. I call Deputy McGinley.

In view of the repeated assaults on Russborough House where priceless items of our national heritage are held, what steps does the Government propose to take to protect these on a permanent basis?

That is not promised legislation. The Deputy might raise that matter elsewhere.

There is promised legislation.

The Deputy should ask a question on promised legislation.

The promised legislation is the Arts Bill. What is the up-to-date position on the Arts Bill? When can we expect it to come before the House?

I remind the Deputy it is illegal to steal paintings under existing legislation.

The Tánaiste should tell that to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

What will the Government do about it?

The Arts Bill will be published later this year.

As regards the processing of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law, I understood from the Order of Business yesterday that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was to consider splitting up the Bill. It is now patently impossible, on foot of the number of requests, to hear evidence before this Bill is taken. We need time to consider the learned evidence taken yesterday at the all-party committee. We also need to deal with the deficiencies in the Human Rights Commission Bill, which is a section of the amalgamated Bill. Will the Tánaiste agree to my suggestion of several weeks ago to separate the two issues and to enact section 7 of the Bill which rectifies the deficiencies in the Human Rights Commission Bill, which will immediately take it from its shadow role to a formal role and allow it to operate in accordance with the commitment in the Good Friday Agreement? Will she agree to give us a reasonable period to hear the submissions from the Forum for People with Disabilities, the NUJ and the other groups that are lining up to give evidence on the transposition of the European Convention?

We now know there are at least ten different groups that wish to come before the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and make submissions on the Bill to which Deputy Howlin referred. The chairman of the Commission on Human Rights has urged that we deal with this Bill carefully and that specific amendments be made to it. In the context of the all-party view at the committee yesterday, will the Government bring before the House next week a brief Bill comprising section 7 of the Human Rights Commission Bill to allow for the formal establishment of the Human Rights Commission in law and the broadening of its membership and allow it to start fulfilling its statutory functions? Will the Government agree to postpone Committee, Report and Final Stages of this Bill until the early autumn to facilitate the committee to hold the proper hearings which must now take place on the provisions of this Bill, to afford the Minister reasonable time to consider amendments he may wish to bring forward and to afford the same time to the Opposition?

I am sure the Tánaiste would appreciate the seriousness of the position if the president or chairman of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission made a submission to a parliamentary committee expressing serious reservations about a Bill before the Assembly in Northern Ireland. We would take a poor view if the reservations expressed were entirely ignored by members of the Assembly. We should be cautious in ignoring the views expressed by Mr. Justice Donal Barrington, the president of our Commission on Human Rights, at the committee yesterday. This House needs more time to consider the final format and substance of this Bill. In the meantime, we should establish our commission by a brief Bill on which the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party will co-operate in putting through the House next week.

The Deputy has made his point.

It would be important to take on board – I am sure the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will do so – what the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission and the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission say about these matters. I understand the committee is meeting at 2.45 p.m. today. The Minister is giving consideration to what has been suggested. The matter will be discussed at the committee meeting.

The National Parents and Siblings Alliance did last night what the Government has failed to do for four years, despite a promise, when it published a disabilities Bill. The Government has abandoned people with disabilities because it keeps pushing out this proposal. It now proposes to introduce such a Bill at the end of this year. Now that it has legislation which is well drafted, will the Government consider the human rights of people with disabilities and publish a disabilities Bill earlier than was promised so we can finally fulfil promises made to people with disabilities?

As Deputy O'Sullivan said, last night the National Parents and Siblings Alliance published a Bill at a meeting attended by hundreds of parents which will give disabled people rights.

The Deputy should ask a question.

They are disappointed at the Government's delay in publishing a Bill. They are also distressed by the number of court cases they must take to validate their rights. What will the Government do about disability? When will a Bill be published that will underpin human rights? This is also linked to the previous discussion on the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

We cannot have statements. The Deputy can only ask questions on the Order of Business.

Is the Tánaiste aware the Government is taking such a minimalist approach to the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights which has direct relevance —

I will ask the Tánaiste to deal with the question on promised legislation. We cannot have statements on the Order of Business. A Bill must be finished by 12 noon.

You have given a lot of leeway to other people.

I have given the Deputy ample opportunity.

One of the groups wants to make a presentation on the convention.

The point now being made by the Deputy is not in order. I call the Tánaiste.

I understand the heads of that Bill will be before the Government during July and the Bill will be published in the autumn.

Mr. Coveney

Will the Tánaiste ensure that the Youth Work Bill, which was promised before the summer, will proceed through the House before the recess? The Minister for Education and Science said yesterday it was being postponed until the autumn. As there is general consensus on this Bill, it could be allowed to go through its remaining Stages quickly and I ask the Tánaiste to try to facilitate that because a number of groups are anxiously awaiting this legislation.

I understand from the Minister for Education and Science that that Bill is before the select committee this afternoon.

Mr. Coveney

It has been withdrawn from the committee by the Government.

The Minister does not know.

The tide went out, Minister.

Mr. Coveney

It was to come before the committee this afternoon but that is no longer the case.

Does the Tánaiste want to phone a friend?

I will try to clarify the matter.

Who will the Tánaiste phone?

A Deputy

Willie O'Dea.

He is lost somewhere in Europe.

(Mayo): The gas in the Corrib gas field is scheduled to come ashore in 2003. Apart from individual Government Deputies promising spurs to every town and village in Connacht-Ulster, there is no coherent Government plan to deal with this find. There are three items of legislation and none of them has been brought forward. For example, the Bord Gáis Éireann Bill to restructure Bord Gáis Éireann has not been brought forward.

The Deputy should ask questions rather than make statements.

(Mayo): Yes. There is the gas regulation Bill to restructure the entire gas industry and, lastly, the gas interim regulation Bill. Is the Tánaiste aware that the industry, particularly the exploration companies, is extremely worried that nothing is happening in terms of providing a legislative base to deal with this resource? When will we see the three Bills?

The gas interim regulation Bill was approved by the Government some weeks ago, so I am sure it will be published shortly. The heads of the Bord Gáis Éireann Bill are expected shortly and it will be published early next year.

(Mayo): That is no good.

The heads of the third Bill to which the Deputy referred are not expected until next year.

(Mayo): That is progress.

They are all great gas on that side of the House.

In her capacity as Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, what is the Tánaiste doing to move forward the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Bill, 2000? This matter has been raised on a number of occasions by myself and Deputy Rabbitte. A large number of people are affected, including a number of part-time teachers who are now on holidays and who are not getting the benefits to which they are entitled. What is the Minister doing to move that Bill forward?

On the same subject, is the Tánaiste aware that steps have now been taken by ICTU to place charges with the relevant authorities in Europe because of the Government's failure to meet the deadlines to which previous Governments and indeed—

The Deputy must ask a question on legislation.

It relates to legislation, Sir. If the court in Luxembourg responds to the failure of the Government to implement the directives, will that be cited as another bit of bureaucratic interference?

That is not relevant at this stage.

The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, who is handling that Bill, is discussing the amendments to the Bill with the Attorney General's office.

The man who voted against his own Bill.

I am sure other Members of the House share my concern about the ease with which the blurring of the division between the Oireachtas and the courts has been set to one side by Members of this House being required to attend the courts.

The Deputy must ask a question on legislation.

In relation to the Courts and Court Officers Bill, and the conflict of interest contained in that Bill for the Attorney General—

We cannot discuss what is contained in the Bill.

—can I ask the Tánaiste, so that Members like myself can raise these serious concerns, if she will bring forward that Bill before the summer recess because I have called for a debate on it for some time?

I am sure the Whips can discuss that matter this evening but I am not aware that there are any conflicts of interest for the Attorney General in that legislation which was pioneered by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

I will make the Tánaiste aware during the debate.

Is the Tánaiste aware of the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the future of community employment schemes—

What the Tánaiste is aware of is a matter for a Parliamentary Question.

—and the concern for supervisors working on these schemes, particularly in relation to schools and secretarial and caretaking positions?

Has the Deputy a question on promised legislation?

Yes. What is the progress of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Bill, 2000? Perhaps the Tánaiste would comment on the CE schemes because there is total confusion about their future.

It would not be in order for the Tánaiste to comment on the Bill.

I do not believe there is, but the Minister for Education and Science and I will make a statement on community employment, in so far as it affects schools, later this week. That Bill was published late last year.

Top
Share