Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Oct 2002

Vol. 555 No. 3

Order of Business.

The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 17a, motion re establishment of committees of the 29th Dáil; No. 1, Statute Law (Restatement) Bill, 2000 [Seanad]– Second Stage; No. 28 – Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Bill, 2002 – Second Stage, resumed; and No. 29 – Sea Pollution (Hazardous and Noxious Substances) (Civil Liability and Compensation) Bill, 2000 – Second Stage.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: (1) No. 17a shall be decided without debate; and (2) Question Time tomorrow shall be taken from 3.30 p.m. until 4.45 p.m. and in the event of a Private Notice Question being allowed, it shall be taken at 4.15 p.m.; and the order shall not resume thereafter. Private Members' Business shall be No. 38 – motion re insurance costs, resumed, to conclude at 8.30 p.m. tonight.

There are two proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 17a agreed?

No. The Green Party would like to see the committees established but it is with great regret that we cannot take this until our motion, No. 51 on the Order Paper, is debated. It is a pro-enlargement motion. We want to send out the clearest signal to the applicant states that this House is pro-enlargement.

The Deputy should vote "Yes" and stop play-acting.

The Deputy should be honest and vote "Yes".

We should be allowed to take the motion here.

Is Deputy Gormley opposing the motion? I will put the question.

Question, "That the proposal for dealing with No. 17a be agreed to”, put and declared carried.

That is a "Yes". Deputy Gormley did not even have the courage to call a vote.

Is the proposal on the taking of Question Time tomorrow agreed? Agreed. We now move on to leaders questions. I call Deputy Kenny.

(Interruptions.)

Members should allow Deputy Kenny to speak without interruption.

Is it not a matter of gross incompetence that arising from the publication yesterday of the list of sporting events to be covered free to air, a list which should have been published three years ago, avid soccer fans will not be able to watch the match between Ireland and Switzerland this evening? Given that the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has said that he is absolutely confident that when legal proceedings take place here, the Government's decision to publish will be vindicated and that the contracts already entered into between the FAI and Sky can be revoked, can something not be done today to restore goodwill with the FAI, to implement the Minister's assertion that the Government is right in what it is doing and to work to allow this match to be covered free to air this evening? Does the Taoi seach agree that, had the list been published three years ago when it should have been, these matters would not have been entered into in the first place.

Will the Taoiseach apologise to the army of Irish soccer fans, who have loyally supported the game and their teams, for the fact that they will not be able to see the match tonight? Does the Taoiseach agree that this is because of the Government's delay and incompetence in sorting out this row as to television rights and the access of ordinary people to their games? What assurances will the Taoiseach give the Dáil that Mr. Murdoch's agenda for the super-profit of his companies does not prevent Irish people from being able to enjoy their favourite sports?

On a point of order, is it in accordance with Standing Orders for two Members to withdraw obviously from the House – I refer to Deputies Gormley and Ó Caoláin – and to pretend that they are not here?

It is qualified majority voting.

There are precedents where if the leader and deputy leader of a group are absent, somebody is designated in their place.

I hesitate to intervene in the leadership contest in my party but I would like to correct my friend. It should be qualified minority voting. Will the Taoiseach give an assurance to the House that, notwithstanding the unqualified support the Murdoch press gave to the Fianna Fáil Party in the duplicitous general election of May last, there will be no question of the Irish taxpayers having to pay compensation for the breaking of a contract by legal means? This is what the Government, in effect, intends doing if and when Sky and the FAI go to court. If the courts find in their favour, the Irish taxpayer will have to pay for the incompetence of Fianna Fáil in breaking this contract by this Government decision.

Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the decision made on behalf of the Government yesterday by the Minister for Communication, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is legally sound and safe in respect of any such legal challenge? Will the Taoiseach give an undertaking that no additional funds will be given to the FAI as a result of this constitutional decision?

The 1999 Act sets out the particular procedure that had to be followed. The sporting bodies vehemently opposed that Act because the Act stated that it was not a question, at least with some of the major sporting bodies at that time, that they wished to go elsewhere. The sporting bodies did not want their hands tied in negotiations with RTE and that was their objec tion. Those discussions went on for two years. The matter was brought to a head when the FAI made a deal with Sky, meaning that it was not a question of a battle between RTE and the sporting bodies. The Government decided in the summer to designate certain events.

I can inform Deputy Kenny that the Minister will shortly introduce two amendments to the Broadcasting (Major Events Television Coverage) Act, which gives Governments the power to implement the EU television without frontiers directive. The first amendment will provide for an arbitration mechanism to determine fair market value for television rights to sporting events, where negotiations between a broadcaster and the organisers of a designated event have broken down. The Minister will designate the events, of course. This first amendment has been proposed on foot of the concern of sports organisations regarding negotiations with television companies. The second amendment will give qualifying broadcasters, RTE or TV3, the right to secure the broadcast rights for a designated event directly from the event's organisers in circumstances where exclusive rights to the event had already been sold to a non-qualifying broadcaster at the time of the original designation. It is understood that an exclusive contract is in place with a non-qualifying broadcaster in the case of Ireland's home qualifying games for the 2004 European Championships and the 2006 World Cup.

In response to Deputy Quinn, I wish to clarify that the second amendment will remove any lingering uncertainty about the Government's legal right to retrospectively list events. I can also inform the Deputy that the Government cannot compensate any sporting organisation, such as the Football Association of Ireland, for loss of revenue. The Government has been advised that it has the right, under EU law, to designate—

Can the Government break a contract?

The Government does not believe that it is breaking a contract. A contract has been put together—

If the court finds against the Government—

I would prefer if the Taoiseach did not answer questions asked by way of interruption.

I apologise, a Cheann Comhairle.

I am helping the Taoiseach.

The Government believes that its legal advice on this matter is sound. It is regrettable that the Irish association football public cannot see tonight's match against Switzerland live on terrestrial television. Our next home match is not until June 2003 and it is hoped that the matter will be resolved by then.

This has turned into an unseemly mess. It should be borne in mind that Sky does not employ anybody in Ireland, it makes no programmes here and it does not pay VAT here. This problem could have been prevented three years ago.

Exactly.

If the then Minister, Deputy de Valera, had consulted the sporting bodies following the passing of the Broadcasting (Major Events Television Coverage) Bill, 1999, and if she had received the necessary information to publish the list at that time, the contract between the FAI and Sky would not have been drawn up, as Deputy Quinn has pointed out. According to this morning's newspapers, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is absolutely confident that the Government will win its case if this matter goes to the courts. Is he not prepared, therefore, to do something about this problem today, in the interests of hundreds of thousands of football supporters, particularly young people, who wish to watch the match this evening?

It is not possible to do anything about the matter today. I wish to restate the point, with which I am sure Deputy Kenny is familiar, that all the sporting bodies, including the FAI, the IRFU and the GAA, opposed this measure when it was proposed. It would not be true to suggest that they all wanted to sell their rights abroad, as the GAA indicated at its congress that it had no interest in such contracts, but the sporting bodies are concerned that they may be hindered by regulations when they negotiate with the television authorities. It may be popular to suggest that the sporting organisations do not have a point when they make such an argument, but I believe they have. It is a fact that the power of such organisations to argue their case when selling the rights to their games will be damaged by the new legislation. We have seen how successfully the remit of certain sports has been extended in negotiations. It is easy to complain about tonight, but the FAI has successfully made a deal. The power of organisations like the GAA to use the example of the FAI to strengthen their case has, in effect, been removed. Such difficulties will have to be addressed at a future date.

That is clear.

I call Deputy Joe Higgins to ask a leader's question on a topical issue.

What is the Government's message to the 620 Irish Fertiliser Industries workers who face the bleak prospect of unemployment as a result of the proposed closure of plants in Cork, Arklow and Belfast? Does the Taoiseach know that Nitrigin Éireann Teoranta, the parent company of IFI, paid an incredible £188 million to banks in interest on a debt of £164 million, between 1987 and 1999? Does the Taoiseach agree, given that he was Minister for Finance during some of that time, that the figures I have outlined represent a scandalous outrage and merit investigation? Does he agree that if funds had been invested in the diversification of products, including natural fertilisers and compost alternatives, rather than allowing IFI and NET to be soaked by the bank, 620 workers would not be facing the appalling prospect of the dole, some of them for the rest of their lives? Why has the Government betrayed the IFI workers in this way? Is the hostility of the Progressive Democrats, and now Fianna Fáil, to State industry so great that the Government is prepared to allow 620 workers to lose their jobs in this fashion?

When I was in Cork last night, at a meeting about the Nice treaty referendum, I sensed an air of gloom. Can the Taoiseach explain what happened to the workers' agreement to take a painful reduction in salary, which followed a meeting with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment some weeks ago? It appears that the company's plants will close, or else the company will have to endure a severe form of liquidation. If the decision announced yesterday is carried through to finality, can the Taoiseach indicate what form of protection or security will be put in place?

I would like to ask the Taoiseach what action he took over the past five years in relation to the troubled conditions in which NET and IFI found themselves. Is he aware of the all-Ireland dimension to this problem, given that the third plant affected by the decision to liquidate is located in east Belfast, the heart of working class loyalism? During the past four or five years, has the Taoiseach discussed the company with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, whose palpable hatred for State enterprise has obstructed sensible decision-making in relation to the strategic survival of a troubled industry?

I was responsible for this area for two years and I recognise that IFI is part of a complex and difficult international industry. I understand that there is an over-supply of fertiliser products and that capital investment is sometimes far in excess of returns. The problems caused by the closure of the plants will spread far beyond Arklow and south Wicklow, which will be devastated by the closure. People other than the 620 workers will be affected as a supply chain depends on NET-IFI. The freight section of CIE, for which the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, is responsible depends on regular custom from IFI.

Let us be clear that the decision to liquidate IFI was made by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, through her proxies on the 51% of the board owned by the State. Her decision sends a clear signal to workers in east Belfast, south Wicklow and Cork, as well as others who depend on this major industry. What has she been doing for the past five years? Why has she allowed the company to fold in such a manner? Can the Taoiseach tell the House about the discussions he had in recent years with the Tánaiste about this strategic industry, which happens to be one of the backbones of Irish agriculture?

The most important point is that we should record our extreme disappointment, despite the efforts of everybody involved, not only for the past five years, but also for a long time before that. It was not possible to find a solution to the financial difficulties at IFI and the board has decided to cease trading. That is devastating news for the workforce, their families and the local communities involved. Our hearts go out to them in the first instance, whatever about the commercial and other realities of the issue.

The Tánaiste, as she said last night, will take whatever steps are necessary and do everything possible to assist the workers to secure alternative employment as quickly as possible, as has been successfully done in many areas of the country in recent years.

Where is the Tánaiste?

The company operates, as Deputy Quinn acknowledged, in a volatile market which has experienced considerable difficulties in recent years as a result of low prices caused by overcapacity and high costs. Those problems were compounded by a reduction in usage by 10% and the costs of converting natural gas to ammonia and related difficulties.

In the past year alone we have had endless discussions at Cabinet regarding this issue. IFI has recorded a loss of more than €30 million with further losses projected. A few years ago a sum of between £187 million and £190 million was transferred from IFI's balance sheet to the national debt to try to ease pressures on the company. I am subject to correction on the exact figure.

That was the old NET debt. It was not an IFI debt.

The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to reply without interruption.

There was an effort to clear IFI's balance sheet. It was debt the company had on its balance sheet which was creating difficulties.

It was pre-IFI debt.

It had to be paid.

Regrettably, the trade unions were informed at a meeting on 12 September that if the company could produce a viability plan, the shareholders were prepared to consider it. Unfortunately, despite efforts made by the company to take costs amounting to €30 million out of the business, it could not produce a viability plan.

The company asked shareholders to underwrite a short-term survival plan and still projected a loss for the coming year. The survival plan was vulnerable to shocks and even relatively modest setbacks would have again left the company in an impossible position. This was acknowledged by the board and everybody else. The two shareholders could simply not provide support in such circumstances. The shareholders have been supportive to the company over the past two years. They have provided £34 million in addition to the sum transferred to the national debt through the National Treasury Management Agency.

Deputies Quinn and Kenny have acknowledged the long-term problems of the company. I am aware, having read many memoranda on this issue over many years, that it was always hoped circumstances would be turned around. However, when one looks back over the decades, the State has invested more than €750 million in the company and, unfortunately for the staff, it was not possible to achieve anything. I acknowledge the workers did their best. They were prepared to participate in the survival plan by taking wage cuts. They and their families have done all they can. Now it is up to us to reciprocate that help by assisting them in every way we can.

Does the Taoiseach agree his words of consolation to the workers are cold comfort to them as they face an uncertain future, especially given that these difficulties were allowed to accumulate due to the lack of commitment by the Government to part-owned State industries and a total failure to intervene with the necessary investment?

Hear, hear.

Since the Taoiseach replied to everybody's questions except mine, I will put my question again. Does he think it is a scandal that £188 million was paid in interest to the banks over a 12 year period on borrowings of £164 million by NET when it should have been used for reinvestment and diversification in IFI?

I have no difficulty agreeing with the Deputy that it is a tragedy for the workers, but, unfortunately, it did not prove possible to produce a viability plan and in the face of continued mounting losses there was no alternative in the view of the board. Attention must now be turned to co-operation with the liquidator and doing all we can to secure employment for the workforce.

The Taoiseach did not reply to my question about interest charged by the banks. That is terrible.

A Cheann Comhairle, you wrote to me previously about raising a matter during leaders' questions, which appeared to relate to my constituency, when I referred to the Irish Glass Bottle Company workers. However, as I indicated to your staff, I raised the issue on behalf of all workers who face redundancy and the inadequate levels of compensation for redundant workers under the legislation in place. With your permission, Sir, I would like to raise the matter again, not on behalf of the Irish Glass Bottle Company workers who still await a proper settlement or the workers at Peerless Rugs who still occupy their factory in Kildare, but to check out the sincerity factor of the Taoiseach's crocodile tears in respect of the NET-IFI workers.

In the manifest and symbolic absence of the Tánaiste who has consistently refused to reform the legislation on redundancy payments, will the Taoiseach do something real instead of manifesting artificial sympathy for the IFI workers? Will he give a commitment that the Government, notwithstanding the lapdogs in the Progressive Democrats, will amend the redundancy legislation to effect a change for which John McDonnell called at SIPTU's conference in Killarney last week whereby the current conditions will be changed in order that workers who pay into the PRSI fund will receive three weeks pay for every year worked in compensation, irrespective of age, and that it will kick in following one year's employment? The reality is one year's employment is not demanding because most people work for companies which go bust for much longer.

Will the Taoiseach do something real instead of shedding crocodile tears? Will he give a commitment on this issue, something which he has refused to do in the past? If not, will he admit the reason for this is his hapless Minister for Finance wants to raid the social insurance fund again this year to the same tune that it was raided last year, approximately €635 million, and that the reason for this is the same as that given last year when we repeatedly raised the issue on the Order of Business and tried to introduce a Bill, that he wants to raid workers' and employers' moneys to balance the Exchequer's books?

Will the Taoiseach do something tangible for the workers in IFI who face redundancy by awarding them decent payments and make retrospective payments to the workers at Peerless Rugs and Irish Glass? Will he admit the reason he is not prepared to give a commitment on redundancy payments is that once again he wants to give Houdini McCreevy the room to raid the social insurance fund in order that he can pretend, like many other bankrupt accountants, to balance the books?

When referring to a Minister in the House, it is appropriate to refer to them as Minister, not by name.

I am sorry, the Minister, Mr. Houdini McCreevy.

At least the Minister is not running away, unlike the Deputy.

Does the Taoiseach agree half a week's wages in compensation for those aged under 41 years and one week's pay in respect of each year's service for those aged over 41 years is inadequate for the years of service provided diligently by workers for the cause of their employers? Are there moves within Government to reform this to make it realistic given the pressures on people?

Does the Taoiseach agree that the closure of the Irish Glass Bottle plant is another example of the absolute failure of the Government to think imaginatively with regard to State investment in industry, particularly when it was possible for the former Minister for the Environment and Local Government to bring together the workers at IGB, Rehab Industries and the local authorities to create a plan for the saving of the glass bottle plant as a major part of the waste management strategy for a major glass recycling project? Does the Taoiseach agree that it is incredible that employers and companies with multinational parent companies and affiliates, which are massively profitable, give the poor mouth to the workers whom they have soaked for profits and then cast aside when they forced them out of their jobs? I join the calls that the Taoiseach should intervene immediately to guarantee a massively increased level of redundancy payments to all workers who are being thrown out of their jobs by employers closing firms.

In reply to Deputies Quinn, Kenny and Higgins, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment gave a firm commitment in the course of the last Government that she would look at a recommendation of the review of the statutory redundancy scheme and that it would be examined with a view to its implementation. She has now completed the review, having taken a particular interest in this for some time. It is unfair to say she is heartless about this when she has been driving the matter. The report is now complete and covers many areas. It is before Government this week. There are many areas in which progress has been made and others in which there are still difficulties.

The social partners have made it clear already that this is a priority area for them in the talks on a new agreement. We are committed to improving the scheme, which is dated and deficient. The social insurance fund will be the source of some of the resources. It is still in a healthy enough state to make some changes. We have endeavoured as best we can, through the implementation group of the PPF, to drive all sides in Irish Glass Bottle Company Limited to make progress and come up with a satisfactory resolution for every one. We have worked all summer to improve the situation of the individuals involved.

Is that a yes or a no?

Good. Can I interpret the yes for those who are not as familiar with Taoiseach-speak as he is himself? Is he saying the report, which is ready to be published, will recommend an increase to three weeks' payment? He will not let us know about the report because we are merely publicly elected representatives, minor mortals who could not possibly be told about it in the House. Will he offer this as a negotiating ploy in the forthcoming talks which John McDonnell has said will be the shortest talks in living memory if something is not done about redundancy payments? This is a clever ploy by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats in so far as they participate in these talks to achieve a sequential agreement to social partnership. If I am correct in my assumptions, will the Taoiseach give a commitment to the elected representatives of the State that it will be a three weeks payment, that it will contain a provision disbarring any discrimination on age grounds, that workers will qualify for it after one year and that it would be retrospective for the last two years because of the disastrous management of the economy by this failed Government?

If the Order of Business was a vehicle for outlining forthcoming amendments to legislation, that would be an issue to address.

We are talking about a report.

The Deputy is now upset that the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has acted and has the report ready. He would be twice as upset if I stood up and read out a list of conditions. He would be back on his feet saying it was outrageous to do so without consulting the social partners.

We have been asking for this report for three years.

The Tánaiste has been true to her word, there has been a total examination of the statutory redundancy scheme.

Why is it a secret?

It is not a secret, it has been discussed with the social partners. It will now form the basis of further discussions within the talks and we will then come to a conclusive agreement for which legislation will be put in place.

Will it be retrospective?

Will it apply to Deputy Mary Wallace?

Will the Government consider making time available to debate the closure of IFI?

That matter has already been discussed during leaders' questions. Does the Deputy have a question on legislation?

Is it not possible to ask on the Order of Business what the agenda for the week will be?

If that was allowed, everyone could ask questions on any issue they liked. Questions must relate to upcoming legislation or the order for the day.

Will parallel legislation to the Defamation Bill be published to address the circumstances whereby the Taoiseach can refer to Members of the House outside the House as liars but we cannot refer to him in the House in the same terms?

The Defamation Bill is due in the middle of next year.

There is still some confusion over disability legislation, as Deputy Kenny mentioned last week, to the extent that the National Parents and Siblings Alliance, one of the lobbying organisations, has started a postcard campaign. Will the Government enact disability rights legislation in this term? It has indicated it will not publish legislation until the end of this year. Will it bring forward that legislation because there was an expectation that it would be enacted? With the current budget position, there is a fear that the social and health needs of those with disabilities will be disregarded.

There will be two Bills, an education Bill this year and a disability Bill next year.

Are the Taoiseach and Minister for Agriculture and Food embarrassed by the fact that farmers have to picket the meat factories to get a reasonable price for their beef cattle?

Does the Deputy have a question on legislation?

I have a very important question. When will the Minister for Agriculture and Food open the Egyptian market?

That is not appropriate. I suggest the Deputy submits a parliamentary question.

At a time when local authorities throughout Dublin and the rest of Leinster are going ahead with incredible further rezoning to allow the sprawl outwards from Dublin, and at a time when public transport plans for the city are in utter confusion, can the Taoiseach explain the reason his proposals for the Greater Dublin Transport and Planning Authority, which were at the very tail-end of his programme for legislation, have not been published? The consultation paper was released in March 2001. This is urgent legislation. Why has the Taoiseach not honoured his legislative programme?

This legislation will make provision for the land used in transport planning in the greater Dublin area and the establishment of a greater Dublin area land use body. The heads of the Bill are being drafted and the legislation will be published in 2003.

There will be nothing left to rezone. Everything could be resolved by then.

Under the 1999 Broadcasting Act, the Government will be required to bring a motion before the House to approve the flawed list of designated events published yesterday by the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, which allows rugby internationals to be sold off to pay television. When will that motion be brought before the House?

The Minister is ready with the two amendments I outlined earlier. Hopefully, they will be brought to the House before Christmas.

This is October and a match being played today is not being broadcast. This is more delay and another match is lost to the public broadcaster. It has been three years.

The Deputy has asked a question appropriate to the Order of Business and he is now out of order.

It is a fair supplementary.

With regard to the heightened concern among parents about the level of assaults involving juvenile offenders, when will the Government lay before the House the full implementation of the juvenile justice provisions of the juvenile justice Act? Many of the provisions that involve parents in juvenile justice issues are not active and many of the worthwhile proposals embodied in the legislation cannot be used. Will the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform give a commitment to implement those elements?

The legislation is passed and most of the regulations came in on 1 May. I am not sure when the remainder will be implemented.

In view of the important recommendations in the report of the Commission on the Private Rented Residential Sector, will the Government prioritise the bringing forward of the housing (private rented sector) Bill which has been long promised and is vital to tenants?

The heads of the Bill have been approved by the Government and the drafting of the legislation is very advanced.

With regard to legislation to which the Taoiseach and Deputy Gilmore have already referred, is it the Government's intention to safeguard home rugby internationals in the Six Nations Championship from pay-to-view television?

The content of the legislation does not arise.

It arises for sports fans.

I agree, but the Deputy will have to find a way other than the Order of Business to raise the matter. He could submit a question on the matter.

He is in the scrum.

It is because it did not arise for soccer fans that we are in the current mess.

The matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business. I call the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Hayes, but if he does not wish to give way we will move on to the next business.

Several times during the last session the Taoiseach promised this House that he would provide it with the list of schools to be built or refurbished. The Minister for Education and Science is sitting beside him which means he will have no difficulty in answering my question.

That is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

The Taoiseach is anxious to answer to give clarification.

The Taoiseach is not permitted to be out of order.

The Deputy should try the website.

During the last Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey brought in the Planning and Development Act in which there was a section dealing with strategic planning guidelines. In a judicial review against Meath County Council, the judge making the decision stated that those guidelines were fundamentally flawed. Does the Taoiseach propose to bring forward an amendment to that Act? I submitted a question to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government who seems to think that the guidelines are fine. The Minister for Education and Science will be very interested in that since he brought them in.

I do not know if there will be legislation, but it has to be examined.

There are second thoughts.

The Taoiseach is probably aware of the latest rumour regarding community employment schemes which is that the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, is going to slash the number of jobs to below 15,000 with the net result that community bodies everywhere will be bereft. The malign Progressive Democrats influence on the Government continues and our community sector is being ripped apart. Does the Taoiseach intend to put social economy programmes on a statutory basis?

There is no such legislation promised.

Are we lapdogs or malign?

A Deputy

Lapdogs.

Top
Share