Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Jun 2001

Vol. 539 No. 3

Order of Business.

The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 30, motion re protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement concerning the international registration of marks; No. 31, motion re Trade Marks (Madrid Protocol) Regulations, 2001 – draft; No.31a, Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2001 [Seanad] – Financial Resolution; No. 31b, motion re report of Committee on Procedure and Privileges concerning the proceedings of the sub-committee on the Abbeylara incident; No. 1, Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2001 [Seanad] – Second Stage (resumed); No. 2, Mental Health Bill, 1999 – amendments from the Seanad; No. 58, Standards in Public Office Bill, 2000 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 4.45 p.m. today and business shall be interrupted not later than 10 p.m., the sitting shall be suspended from 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. and from 6.30 p.m. to 7 p.m.; (2) Nos. 30, 31, 31a and 31b, shall be decided without debate; (3) the proceedings on the resumed Second Stage of No. 1, shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 1.30 p.m.; (4) the proceedings on No. 2 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 4.50 p.m. and any amendments from the Seanad not disposed of shall be decided by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments to the Seanad amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Health and Children; (5) Report and Final Stages of No. 58, shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10 p.m. by one question, which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Finance; (6) the Dáil shall sit tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and shall adjourn not later than 3 p.m., there shall be no Order of Business, that is, within the meaning of Standing Order 26(2) and (3)) and, accordingly, the following business shall be transacted in the following order: No. 58a, Dormant Accounts Bill, 2001 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; No. 58b, Agriculture Appeals Bill, 2001 [Seanad] – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; (7) Report and Final Stages of No. 58a shall be taken tomorrow and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 1 p.m. by one question, which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Finance; and (8) Report and Final Stages of No. 58b shall be taken tomorrow and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 3 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.

There are eight proposals to be put to the House. The first is in relation to the late sitting. Is the late sitting agreed to?

We have to disagree unless more time is given to the Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2001. This is draconian and undemocratic legislation, the purpose of which is to impose incineration on local communities and which we need more time to discuss.

The Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2001, is the third proposal. We are discussing the late sitting.

I am aware of that. I cannot agree to the late sitting because of the undemocratic nature of the Bill in question and the need to discuss it at greater length.

Question, "That the late sitting be agreed to," put and declared carried.

The second proposal is that No. 30, motion re protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement concerning the international registration of marks; No. 31, motion re Trade Marks (Madrid Protocol) Regulations, 2001 – draft; No. 31a, Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2001 [Seanad] – Financial Resolution; and No. 31b, motion re report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges concerning the proceedings of the sub-committee on the Abbeylara incident be dealt with without debate? Is that agreed to?

On No. 31b, a terrible precedent is being set by allowing Members of the Oireachtas to appear in court in relation to this inquiry. It should not have happened.

We cannot discuss the matter now. We are discussing whether these items should be taken without debate.

In that case, I will oppose No. 31b to make my point. It is appalling that Members of the Oireachtas should appear in court. We are blurring the lines of demarcation set out in the Constitution. I ask the Tánaiste whether an opportunity can be found when the House resumes to debate the matter. It is important that we reassert ourselves as an elected parliamentary—

The Deputy cannot comment further.

Question, "That the proposals for dealing with Nos. 30, 31, 31a and 31b without debate be agreed to”, put and declared carried.

The third proposal is that for dealing with No. 1, Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2 Bill), 2001 [Seanad] – Second Stage. Is that agreed to?

No. As Deputy Gormley has already raised this point, I speak in support of the concerns that he and the Labour Party have with regard to the way in which this measure is being pushed through the House. Fundamental democratic rights of local authorities and local communities are being stripped away by the Government. Fianna Fáil backbenchers do not know the full contents or consequences of this legislation. I know that I will hear their cries of innocence six months down the road in local authorities throughout the country. They will say, "It was not me, Lord, it was not me," because they did not see the Bill at this time. They have an obligation, as members of the majority party in government, to ensure this Bill gets the scrutiny it deserves before we embark down this road. For that reason we are opposed to taking this item. This Administration proposes to ram through, by means of a guillotine or otherwise, 23 Bills between now and the end of the session.

This proposal only relates to the Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2001. I call Deputy Jim Mitchell.

I want to strongly associate Fine Gael with the remarks made by Deputies Gormley and Quinn. The Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, which is anti-democratic in nature, will have severe consequences for the people of this country and it is symptomatic of what went wrong during the Nice treaty referendum campaign. People now believe they have no control over their affairs and the Bill is simply another step in the wrong direction.

We all witnessed the undemocratic way the Government conducted the Nice treaty referendum campaign and we are witnessing it here again as it seeks to ram through this legislation. The Government's behaviour will have far-reaching consequences and makes a mockery of parliamentary democracy. I urge the Tánaiste to reconsider the position because we need to deal with the Bill in far greater detail. The proposal put before us is not the way we should do business. If Fianna Fáil backbenchers have not yet read the Bill they should do so immediately because they will be obliged to face their constituents in the future and answer their questions. They cannot wash their hands of this matter.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 1, the conclusion of Second Stage of the Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, be agreed to."

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

Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Wright, G. V.

Níl

Barnes, Monica.Bell, Michael.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Higgins, Joe.Howlin, Brendan.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.

McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.

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

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 2, amendments from the Seanad to the Mental Health Bill, 1999, agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 58, Report and Final Stages of the Standards in Public Office Bill, 2000, agreed to?

The Standards in Public Office Bill, 2000, rings hollow for us. We object to taking it here because on issues such as the Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill or the Planning and Development Act we are or were denied access to the Committee Stage debate unless someone gives us a place which cannot be taken for granted. This is inequitable. We cannot subscribe to taking the legislation in question as there is an uneven playing pitch in public office.

Question, "That the proposal for dealing with No. 58 be agreed to", put and declared carried.

Is the proposal for the sitting and business of the Dáil tomorrow agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Report and Final Stages of the Dormant Accounts Bill agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Report and Final Stages of the Agriculture Appeals Bill tomorrow agreed to? Agreed. We now proceed to leaders' questions.

Does the Government have a coherent policy on decentralisation? Have specific decisions been taken? If so, what counties or towns will benefit? Is the Tánaiste aware of comments by the Fianna Fáil candidate in the Tipperary South by-election that the Taoiseach made commitments to him about this? Was she consulted about the matter? Can she confirm there is a commitment, and will she make a full statement on the matter?

On decentralisation, the country, the Civil Service and the delivery of public services would be better served if an objective set of criteria were drawn up ranking all interested towns and rating them on the basis of their assets in terms of communications, transportation links, available school spaces, residential facilities and the like. Economic indicators suggesting the difficulties of towns such as Tipperary and Carrick-on-Suir in contrast to other towns should also be taken into account. On that basis an objective league table of around 30 towns could be ranked in order. Then the 10,000 civil servants that the Minister for Finance has indicated will be decentralised after the next election could be allocated on a rational, fair and transparent basis unlike the summary placement of civil servants in Cahirciveen by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, simply because he is in the position to so do. Given the lack of clout of the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Davern, in Tipperary South, does the Tánaiste agree that for so long as the present patronage system of decentralisation exists within Fianna Fáil there will never be decentralisation to that constituency?

The Government is committed to decentralisation and a Cabinet sub-committee, of which I am a member, is considering the mat ter. That committee has appointed a number of public servants to look at the criteria, such as those mentioned by Deputy Quinn, and to make recommendations to the Government which it will consider shortly. We must ensure that public services are delivered in an efficient manner which is the raison d'être of the public service in the first instance. Decentralisation can generate economic activity in areas of the country that may not have done as well as others in recent times and it can also relieve pressure, particularly on the capital. Decentralisation will be carried out bearing in mind the spatial strategy undertaken by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government who is also a member of the sub-committee.

God help us then, that is the end of that.

I know the Tánaiste is not misleading the House deliberately but is she aware that the Minister for Finance told the Committee on Finance and the Public Service over a year ago that the Government's decision on decentralisation would be announced by July 2000? It is now one year later and we are still awaiting the decision. I agree with her that Dublin will benefit as much from decentralisation as other parts of the country because it is so overcrowded. It is a matter of urgency, from a Dublin point of view, to ease the pressure there as quickly as possible. Can she explain why there is such a long delay in making these decisions? Is there a battle between Members of the Government as to which town gets what? Does she not agree that these matters should be decided objectively and the Government should accept outside recommendations?

The issue will be decided objectively. The reason for the delay is there were many submissions and in fairness the Government wanted to give due consideration to all of them. The decision will be made quickly.

After four years in Government and at a time of unprecedented economic growth is the Tánaiste not ashamed to hear an eminent consultant say on our national airwaves this morning that we have the worst cancer service in Europe? It is worse than Bulgaria, Turkey, Portugal and Greece. Does she not feel a sense of shame that people in the south-east who need an oncology service must travel to Dublin or Cork and take their place on already overcrowded waiting lists for the provision of those services? Recently one person was told that she could not begin to receive treatment for a life-threatening cancer in the bowel for at least three weeks. She was sent home in the knowledge that inside her body there was a cancer eating away at her. She could not get treatment for another three weeks because of the crisis in our public service. Is the Tánaiste not ashamed to be presiding over the collapse of our cancer services after four years of unprecedented wealth? What, if anything, would she say to the people we have met in parts of Waterford and Wexford who have brought it to our attention that they cannot get the services for which they have paid?

Does the Tánaiste have confidence in the Minister for Health and Children given the array of problems in the health service that arise on a daily basis? Does she agree that it is totally unacceptable that people with serious illness have to go to court to get their rights and to get the sort of service we all took for granted five or six years ago? Does she accept that the health service, under this Government, seems to be going into reverse and despite the fact that much more money is being spent on it, the outcomes are worse and that is down to bad management and leadership by the Minister? Can she give us an assurance that no other seriously ill patient will ever again have to go to court to get the urgent treatment he or she needs?

I share the Deputies' concern in regard to the health services. I have total confidence in the Minister for Health and Children. He is a dynamic Minister coping well in difficult circumstances. As Deputy Mitchell rightly said, it is not all just a resource issue. The amount of money being spent on the health services has doubled. There are delivery issues we have to address—

The Government has had four years in which to do it. It has done nothing for those years.

Address the issues. Do something about them. The Government has loads of money.

An Tánaiste to reply without interruption.

Maybe if Deputy Stagg would listen to my response—

I am fed up listening to this.

Deputy Stagg should cease interrupting.

Can I just say to Deputy Stagg that his Government allocated £6 million—

The Tánaiste's Government has so much money it does not know what to do with it.

Order, please, Deputy Stagg. The Tánaiste without interruption, please.

I do not know why the Labour Party is so tetchy lately but—

(Interruptions.)

Order, please.

I repeat the fact that the health service spend has doubled over the past four years—

That is a falsehood, it has been reduced by 20%.

If Deputy Stagg does not cease interrupting I will have to ask him to leave the House.

In addition to that the number of cancer treatments annually has gone up from over 36,000 to over 50,000. I acknowledge that there are problems. Of course, there are and—

It is a crisis.

Nobody should have to go to court—

Do something about it. Why does the Minister not deal with it? Has he no shame at all?

Order, please.

—in order to get treatment. I understand that when the health board became aware of the difficulty at the Mater Hospital it intervened. It should not have taken court action. The health board was aware of the vacancy for an oncologist in the south-east six months ago. It is not a resource issue or a Department of Health difficulty. The health board with responsibility for the appointment of the oncologist has known for six months about the vacancy.

(Interruptions.)

I notice, and no doubt I will be accused of being tetchy again, that the Tánaiste has passed the buck in respect of the oncologist to the relevant health board. I draw her attention to another problem in the health services. I have a letter from Dr. Foley-Nolan, a consultant rheumatologist in the same area. He has informed my colleague and Deputy Leader, Deputy Howlin, that public patients seeking rheumatology care will now have to wait up to three years for their first appointment – three years in pain. If I am tetchy can the Tánaiste imagine what someone in pain 24 hour of the day for three years would be like? Is this Government the sovereign Government of this Republic or is it not? Ultimately we have a Minister for Health and Children who has collective responsibility shared by the Tánaiste. Will the Tánaiste try to persuade the Taoiseach to bring to the health services the same degree of focus and dedicated attention he has brought to the national stadium project in Abbotstown? The Government does not care. If it cared, instead of shifting the buck as Deputy Martin did so eloquently on the radio this morning, it would bring the same degree of focus and project management to the matter, and the likes of Paddy Tehan etc. would be involved, but it is not doing what it ought to.

The Deputy was the Minister for Health at one time.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Quinn did not do it while he was Minister. He had the chance then.

Will Deputy Quinn complete his question?

I remind—

Deputy Quinn did not do it when he had the chance.

Your pre-election stunt has been—

I remind the Minister for Health and Children that he dragged the nation in expectation up the mountains of Cooley and was marched down again in humiliation by the Minister for Finance. He does not care – he cares more about the sports stadium.

Your pre-election stunt has been—

Can the Tánaiste give her final reply without interruption?

It will not do the House any good for Deputy Quinn and others to play party politics with this issue.

(Interruptions.)

Order, please.

It is true. I would like to hear suggestions rather than criticisms all the time.

We published them.

I will not accept lectures from members of a former Government that treated Brigid McCole the way it did.

Has the Tánaiste no better line—

It is true. Reform—

After four years in Government—

The Tánaiste: Reform of the health services is a priority for the Government and that is why so much attention is being given to the issue.

(Dublin West): The latest victim of the snatch squads of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is a Dublin bus driver, Andrei Burlacu, who was all but snatched from his cab and bundled off to Romania via Moutjoy. How long more will the Tánaiste stand over this heartless regime. As Tánaiste of a country—

Is this question on promised legislation?

(Dublin West): Yes, a Cheann Comhairle. When will the Tánaiste prevent us from being shamed in front of the world and when will she bring a comprehensive Bill on work permits before the Dáil? I want her to avoid further embarrassments. She will remember the swaps that used to take place between the west and the east. Could she arrange a swap to send the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to Romania and bring Andrei Burlacu back here to do the good work he was doing for Dublin Bus?

That is not relevant to the Order of Business. Questions must be on promised legislation.

Deputy Joe Higgins should be made aware that the person in question was not granted asylum status. He was not fleeing persecution in Romania. The legislation to which the Deputy refers will be brought forward in the Autumn.

When will the Committee Stage of the Fisheries Amendment Bill, 2000, be taken? I was informed by the chairman of the committee and the relevant Minister that it would be this week or next week. Now I am told that it will not be taken.

Perhaps that matter could be discussed with the Whips. The Government Whip tells me it will be scheduled as soon as possible.

Mr. Ring:

Will the Tánaiste state when we will have the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill before the Dáil to give the ombudsman more powers and more staff to assist the people who cannot get replies from health boards or health services? The ombudsman is the only person who can deal with the Minister for Health and Children and the Government.

That Bill will be dealt with later this year.

Will the Tánaiste state, now that she is entering her fifth year in Government, when legislation dealing with Dublin's traffic problem will be introduced? We were promised a Dublin traffic authority and an authority to deal with competition for bus services. The most recent promise concerned a land use and transport agency. We have had so many promises, but nothing has been done. Will she state if there is a sense of urgency in this regard on the part of the Government?

Solving the traffic problems in Dublin is not a mere matter for legislation, as Deputy Richard Bruton well knows.

I thought it was one of the Government's plans.

We cannot debate the issue now.

The headings of the greater Dublin area land use and transport authority Bill are expected later this year.

I welcome the eleventh hour conversion of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform yesterday concerning the human rights legislation and his decision to separate out the legislation after many requests from this side of the House. In the last week, we have had reports of young people being held over night in Garda stations. Today, once again, there are reports of hundreds of at-risk young people throughout the country who are not receiving the social work services. Given that it is the Tánaiste's fifth year in Government, I can remind her of two promises she made.

The Deputy must ask a question.

I have a question. Given the problems hundreds of children are facing, what priority is the Tánaiste giving to the mandatory reporting of child abuse, which she promised, and to the ombudsman for children?

Regarding the ombudsman for children, the headings of the relevant Bill were approved by the Government last year. I understand the Bill will be published this session. Regarding the mandatory reporting of child abuse, a White Paper on the matter will be forwarded to the Government shortly.

What is the position on promised legislation concerning the removal of judges guilty of malpractice?

That legislation, the Courts and Court Officers Bill, was published and will be dealt with in the autumn.

There is a man in Cork who needs to acquire some manners.

Top
Share