The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 1a, Redundancy Payments Bill 2003 [Seanad] – Second and Subsequent Stages; No. 2, Garda Síochána (Police Co-operation) Bill 2003 [Seanad] – Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 4.45 p.m. and business shall be interrupted not later than 7 p.m. and the following arrangements shall apply in relation to No. 1a: the proceedings on Second Stage, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion after three and a half hours; the opening speech of the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case; and the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case. Members may share time and the Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed ten minutes. The proceedings on Committee and Remaining Stages shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 3.30 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise Trade and Employment. The Dáil shall sit tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and shall adjourn not later than 4 p.m. There shall be no Order of Business and any divisions demanded shall be postponed until immediately after the Order of Business on Tuesday, 20 May 2003 and, accordingly, the business shall be transacted in the following order: No. 2, Garda Síochána (Police Co-operation) Bill 2003 [Seanad] – Second Stage (Resumed); No. 22, Criminal Justice (Temporary Release of Prisoners) Bill 2001 – Second Stage (Resumed) and No. 32, Immigration Bill 2002 [Seanad] – Second Stage (Resumed).
Order of Business.
Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No.1a agreed? Agreed. Is the pro posal for the sitting and business of the Dáil tomorrow agreed?
I understand the reason advanced for the sitting tomorrow is that the Taoiseach intends that the House will rise again in the week after the June bank holiday. I submit that it is unconsionable that the Taoiseach would again close down the House and that Friday is no alternative for the Opposition. There is no Order of Business, no Leaders' Questions, no questions to the Taoiseach and no votes or divisions permitted. There is no Adjournment allowed.
There is no Taoiseach.
There is no Taoiseach. The argument is being made retrospectively that Friday sittings make up for that. They most emphatically do not, and I ask the Minister for Defence now, well in advance of the June bank holiday, to review that commitment as it is damaging the House. It allows the kind of snide comment that can be seen in one newspaper again this morning. Notwithstanding that, the Government seems to be willing, at every opportunity, to inflict damage on the standing of the House because it does not want its Ministers to be here. I do not particularly want to oppose tomorrow's sitting.
By standing up, the Deputy is opposing it.
If it makes the Ceann Comhairle happy, I will oppose it for the reasons I have outlined.
I understand that the calendar issued last September has not changed. There are plenty of opportunities for Deputies anxious to make contributions to do so here. I reject out of hand Deputy Rabbitte's suggestion that any Ministers do not want to be in this House.
If the Members opposite wish to examine the record of this House to find out who wastes time, they will not have to look too far.
|
Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Séamus.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Cregan, John.Curran, John.Davern, Noel.Dempsey, Noel.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Finneran, Michael.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Hoctor, Máire. |
Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kelly, Peter.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Lenihan, Conor.McDowell, Michael.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donovan, Denis.Power, Peter.Power, Seán.Ryan, Eoin.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wallace, Dan.Walsh, Joe.Wilkinson, Ollie.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
|
Boyle, Dan.Broughan, Thomas P.Burton, Joan.Connaughton, Paul.Connolly, Paudge.Costello, Joe.Crawford, Seymour.Cuffe, Ciarán.Deasy, John.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J. English, Damien. |
|
Gilmore, Eamon.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Hayes, Tom.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael D.Hogan, Phil.Howlin, Brendan.Kehoe, Paul.Kenny, Enda.Lynch, Kathleen.McCormack, Pádraic.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Finian.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Morgan, Arthur.Murphy, Gerard.Naughten, Denis. |
Neville, Dan.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary. |
Yesterday my office was informed the Tánaiste would take the Order of Business this morning. I note the House is dealing with the Redundancy Payments Bill 2003 as the first issue and the Tánaiste is not present. I received a message from the Minister for Defence, Deputy Smith, last night to say he would be taking it today. This may well be related to a reply given by the Taoiseach yesterday to Deputy Rabbitte in respect of his question about the Government decision in relation to third level fees. In respect of Vote 29 on Tuesday's Order Paper, the Taoiseach said yesterday that the Government seemed to be talking about an echelon of society at a very high level, presumably of the order of an income of €150,000 or €200,000. May we have clarification from the Minister for Defence on behalf of the Government about Vote 29—
That matter can be debated when Vote 29 comes before the House.
—because this is of interest to hundreds of thousands of parents and students throughout the country?
It is not appropriate on the Order of Business.
This deals with Vote 29, Sir.
Yes.
As was pointed out thousands of students-—
The content of what might be debated cannot come before the House now.
—are affected and there is a cloud of uncertainty hanging over them. It may well be, Sir—
When is Vote 29 coming before the House?
—that because the Progressive Democrats are not present. The president of the Progressive Democrats has been offering candidates ministries around the country. It is no wonder the justice system is gone to pot.
On the same issue and in relation to legislation—
I would like to know, in respect of the reply given by the Taoiseach yesterday to Deputy Rabbitte on the issue of third level fees—
We cannot have a debate on this issue this morning and we are not having a debate on it this morning. I call Deputy O'Sullivan.
—when we will have clarification on Vote 29. The backbenches are in turmoil as well.
On the same issue and in relation to legislation—
It can be discussed when the Education Estimate comes before the House.
The Taoiseach and the Minister for Education would get 0% for clarity yesterday in terms of the confusion they spread all over the country.
That does not arise this morning.
It does arise.
I suggest the Deputy submits a question to the appropriate Minister.
I want to ask about legislation because we do not have clarity as to the cut-off point.
Are there any proposals for the Estimate for Education?
The Estimate is coming before the committee. I do not have any further information.
The Estimate is coming before the committee.
When is the—
It does not arise at this stage. I call Deputy Joe Higgins.
All over the country—
It does not arise at this stage.
On a point of order, it is wrong to talk to a Deputy when she is in order in asking a question.
The issue that was raised was the Education Estimate. The Minister responded that it would come before the House.
Did the Minister say when it would come before the committee?
It was discussed at the committee last week.
Why is it not moved before the committee?
It seems to me that it is happening more to women Deputies than to men Deputies. I ask that you give her the courtesy to finish her point.
Deputy McManus, I ask you to withdraw that remark that the Chair is not treating every Member fairly.
The Chair's rudeness is very evident.
I withdraw the remark and I will ask you to be polite to the Deputy.
Thank you very much.
I ask the Minister to deal with the matter that has been raised. Is the Cabinet going to shaft the Minister for Education and Science or will it shaft the parents of thousands of young students?
Sorry, the Deputy knows that he is totally out of order. I call Deputy Joe Higgins.
A Deputy
Where are the backbenchers now?
I wonder if the Minister has heard of a character called Horseface Toole, semi-immortalised in the song McAlpine's Fusiliers.
That is not relevant on the Order of Business.
He was a gross abuser of workers' rights on behalf of McAlpine.
Does the Deputy have a question appropriate to the Order of Business?
I wish to ask about two Bills concerned with the rights of immigrant workers in view of the further scandal of 20 South African workers, brought here by McAlpine and left to hang out to dry. Every week it is routine for immigrant workers to be exploited and abused by those bringing them into the State.
The Deputy cannot express what he may like to say on Second Stage debates of Bills to come before the House.
Will the Minister indicate when the Employment Permits Bill and the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Contracts) Bill will be introduced to the Dáil and will they stop bosses exploiting these vulnerable workers in their present grotesque manner?
The Deputy should allow the Minster to answer his question.
The second Bill to which the Deputy refers will be published this session. He will be pleased to note that the employment permits legislation was enacted a month ago.
It is not sufficient to deal with the problems that arise on a weekly basis in this area. When will the ministerial order be made to make the legislation fully operative?
I will communicate with the Deputy.
In view of the fact that traffic congestion is costing Dublin city approximately €1.3 billion per annum, will the Minster explain why, in an effort to save €156 per day, there are only four gardaí on the streets in the evenings to ensure that traffic runs smoothly? When will the greater Dublin area land use authority Bill be introduced?
The Bill to which the Deputy referred is under review and is expected to be published in 2004. With regard to his first question, that is an operational matter for the Garda Síochána.
On a point of order, the Minister for Transport has informed the House that the Dublin area land use authority Bill is not to be proceeded with. What is the position, or does the Government know?
I indicated that the legislation was under review and was likely to be introduced in 2004.
So the Minister for Transport is wrong.
Will the Minister indicate why, in an effort to save €13 in respect of each garda, 12 of the gardaí assigned to invigilate traffic at peak hour return to Dublin Castle for their tea at 5.30 p.m. and return after the snarl-up is cleared?
Does the Deputy have a question appropriate to the Order of Business?
I do. Will this be addressed in the Garda Síochána Bill? The commuters of this city are oppressed every evening—
The content of the Bill cannot be discussed. I call Deputy Sargent.
We hear from the Garda Representative Association—
The Deputy is being disorderly.
I asked about a Bill, Sir, but you have called Deputy Sargent. Are you going to listen to us on this side of the House or are you just going to protect the Government?
The Deputy will withdraw that remark about protecting the Government.
I asked you a question.
I am asking you to withdraw the remark.
I asked you a question. I asked about the Garda Síochána Bill and you have moved on to Deputy Sargent.
The Deputy will withdraw the remark about the impartiality of the Chair.
I asked you a question.
Deputy, I am asking you to first withdraw the remark and we will then proceed.
The record will show that my remark was interrogative.
Deputy Rabbitte, I ask you to withdraw the remark about the impartiality of the Chair.
Withdraw which remark?
On a point of order—
There cannot be a point of order when the Chair is on its feet.
On a point of order, you are wrong, Sir. Deputy Rabbitte did not make a remark. He asked a question.
Deputy Rabbitte accused the Chair of protecting the Government.
He did not.
I did not.
He asked a question.
He did so by implication. I ask him to withdraw the remark.
I did not accuse the Chair.
Deputy Rabbitte will you please withdraw the remark. We want order in this House. This is the second time your party has engaged in disorder.
We want some fairness from you, Sir, in this House.
Deputy Stagg, I ask you to resume your seat. Deputy Rabbitte, will you withdraw the remark about the impartiality of the Chair?
I cannot withdraw a remark I did not make.
Then the Deputy will have to leave the House.
I asked you a question, Sir. Was it the responsibility of the Minister to answer a question I raised about a Bill or was it your job to protect the Government? That was my question and it is for you to answer it.
The Deputy is out of order. He is casting a reflection on the impartiality of the Chair.
I do not cast any reflection.
You are, Deputy, and I ask you to withdraw the remark, please.
I asked a question, I did not pass a reflection on you, Sir. I cannot withdraw a remark I did not make.
The Deputy started by asking about the position of Garda traffic invigilators in Dublin. He proceeded in that vein and the Chair called another Member.
No. I asked about the Garda Síochána Bill and whether this issue would be addressed in the Bill.
The Deputy made his contribution on Garda traffic invigilators in Dublin and he then—
A Cheann Comhairle, you are excessively sensitive.
Deputy, the Chair is going to ensure that everybody in this House gets fair play—
We do not get fair play in this House.
—and that the Chair implements the Standing Orders. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the remark.
I withdraw it.
Thank you, Deputy. I call on the Minister to reply to the Deputy's question on the Garda Síochána Bill.
The heads of the Bill are expected at the end of this month.
Many people will welcome the fact that the Government has to some extent agreed to hold a debate on the world trade talks in Cancun in September. Will the debate contain the necessary questions and answers, especially in view of the seriousness of the issue and the fact that two junior Ministers have been sent to the talks to represent the interests of this country?
A question on legislation.
I have a question on legislation.
Please come to the point.
The United States is launching a trade war against Europe.
That is not in order. We must proceed to Deputy Gay Mitchell.
These matters touch on proposed legislation, such as the Bord Bia Bill.
Have you a question on legislation?
The Bord Bia Bill is the only promised legislation to address these issues, although it is hardly relevant to the broader context of the WTO. When will the Bill be introduced? I also ask that the debate on the world trade talks include a question and answer session, especially in view of the seriousness of a United States trade war against the European Union on the question of genetically modified food.
The first matter raised by the Deputy can be discussed between the Whips at the appropriate time. Work on the Bord Bia Bill has been virtually completed and the heads of the Bill will be ready this session.
Will the Minister indicate when the legislation dealing with increases in the number of office holders will be introduced or is it the case that the jobs given by the Minster for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to anybody who agrees to run for election on behalf of the Progressive Democrats will be taken from the Fianna Fáil pool? Will the Minster's job be given away or will it be the Minster of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Callely?
The Deputy's question should relate to promised legislation. I call Deputy Costello.
Instead of running the justice system, the Minster for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is offering bribes by way of ministerial office to anybody and everybody who will run for election on behalf of the Progressive Democrats. Is the Government going to increase the number of offices or is he promising the jobs of his colleagues?
If that is all the Deputy has to worry about he is all right.
I call Deputy Costello.
With regard to the large number of public order offences on the streets and arising out of a priority question I put this week to the Minster for Justice, Equality and Law Reform dealing with the disgraceful assault on two young women by unidentified gardaí on Grafton Street, the Minster said the Garda Commissioner would not be taking any disciplinary proceedings.
A question on promised legislation.
What is the position regarding what was originally the Garda inspections and complaints Bill but which has now been amended to the Garda Síochána Bill? The Minister has promised to establish an inspectorate but there is no sign of it being drafted.
I have already informed Deputy Rabbitte that the heads of the Bill will be ready at the end of this month.
What is the current status of the case being taken by this State against the British Government in respect of the Sellafield plant? The matter arises under Vote 13 of the Office of the Attorney General which made the case.
As I speak without notes, I am open to correction but, as the Deputy knows, the Government is pursuing a number of actions to deal with this particular issue.
Like the grand old Duke of York.
Pardon?
The Minister should not look at me. I did not say anything.
Is the Deputy the prince of pretence? This matter is being actively pursued in the appropriate way.
That means nothing. It is not an answer.
It is an answer. The question was not on legislation.
In light of the announcement by the Minister of State responsible for housing and urban renewal, Deputy Noel Ahern, regarding the selling off cheaply of State land to property developers, is legislation required to do this and, if so, is it being considered or drafted to facilitate such an outrageous proposition? Is it not the case that such land should be offered to local authorities to provide housing?
The Minister for Defence on the legislation; we cannot discuss the possible content of a Bill.
Will the Minister for Defence indicate if it is the intention of the Cabinet, as signalled, to hold a referendum on property rights?
No legislation is contemplated at this stage.
On the same subject, during Priority Questions yesterday, Deputy Allen and I asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government several specific questions about the affordable housing schemes. He told us the scheme had not yet been worked up or elab orated on and that the arrangements had not been addressed.
Sorry Deputy—
I am perfectly in order. This morning, I read in a newspaper that the Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Noel Ahern, said yesterday that State land would be offered to private builders at half price. That information was not provided to this House yesterday by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government.
I suggest the Deputy raise the matter with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government.
Which of the two versions is correct? If we ask questions in the House, we are entitled to receive accurate information.
The Minister for Defence on Deputy Ó Caoláin's question on State lands.
Either the Minister for the Environment and Local Government withheld information from the House yesterday, or the Minister of State, Deputy Ahern, is incorrect.
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
It does arise.
It is on legislation.
There is no legislation contemplated at this stage.
No legislation is promised.
On a point of order, an answer was sought and received to a question aired yesterday morning in the House, but a conflicting answer emerged later in the day from outside. One of the answers is incorrect. Either the House was given the wrong information or incorrect information was given outside the House. If that is allowed to continue, it means the House is being treated with contempt. We cannot tolerate that. Other whips and I have made submissions to the Government to address this issue.
The Deputy has made his point.
If this does not stop, the Opposition will have to withdraw completely from the House which should not be allowed to happen. Deputy Gilmore's question is a valid one and was raised by two Deputies here yesterday morning. It should be dealt with by the Minister now.
Will Deputy Noel Ahern clarify the matter?
The Minister of State is in the House.
The matter should be pursued by way of a motion in the House.
Not only are we to come in on a Friday, there is no point coming in on a Thursday.
The Deputy is aware of Standing Orders and there are ample opportunities for Members to raise questions in the appropriate way.
We are trying to get answers.
The Order of Business is not a free-for-all question time.
The Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Noel Ahern, is present and could answer.
Allow the Minister responsible for the Order of Business this morning to speak.
I have already indicated to the House that no legislation is promised in this area. It is a well known fact that active consideration is being given to the question of access to land to enable the development of affordable and social housing. A number of different propositions are being put forward. Surely, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Minister of State indicating the State's willingness to make land owned by it available to allow this to happen.
It should be made available to local authorities.
Local authorities do not build houses, builders do.
Local authorities—
We cannot have a debate on the matter.
On a point of order, the questions raised yesterday were properly tabled questions for priority answer. There was a series of supplementary questions which invited a response regarding land. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government did not tell this House that the Government plans to sell State land to private builders. The Minister of State responsible for housing and urban renewal said that outside the House.
That is not in order at this stage, but if the Deputy would listen to the Chair for a second—
No, we are entitled to some rights. We are entitled to receive answers to questions when those questions are put down in a proper way.
It is not in order to accuse a member of the Government of deliberately misleading the House by allegedly concealing information or otherwise.
Deputy Gilmore did not say that.
If an allegation of this nature is to be made against any Member, it should only be done by way of substantive motion. Deputy Gilmore is out of order at this stage and I call on his colleague, Deputy Costello, to speak.
I did not make that allegation. I asked if the information given in the House or the information given in newspaper reports was accurate.
The Deputy is out of order.
Deputy Gilmore asked for clarification.
Which version is correct?
To be as helpful as I can to the Deputy, there is nothing new in the proposal to dispose of State lands for housing. As Minister for Defence, I have disposed of lands to local authorities from my property portfolio for social housing purposes and Opposition Members know that. There is nothing new about what the Minister said.
What about the local authorities?
It is good news for housing development.
The Minister should tell us what the Government is considering.
There is nothing new about what was said.
The Government was flying a kite yesterday.
Some time ago, I was told by the Taoiseach in this House that the Defence Forces (hearing loss compensation) Bill was withdrawn. Why then does it appear in the most recently published Order Paper?
Here is a question to which the Minister knows the answer.
Deputy Sherlock is correct to say the Bill remains on the Order Paper. As the Deputy knows, a successful pilot scheme I helped to introduce is disposing of the outstanding claims speedily and affordably.
The same cannot be said for the pilots of the Garda helicopter.
Please allow me to speak. Should it happen that anything different occurs in terms of the pilot scheme and the remaining 2,000 claims to be disposed of, we will consider reintroducing the legislation referred to by the Deputy. It is extremely unlikely that we will, but the Bill will be borne in mind should the scheme—
Collapse.
—go off the rails in any way.
When will the urgently required science foundation Bill be brought before the House? How quickly does the Government intend to complete the business on this important legislation?
It looks like Kilkenny is winning again. The Bill will be taken this session.
I thank the Minister. Kilkenny was able to come back even when Tipperary was eight points ahead.
If Tipperary cannot win when they are eight points ahead, there is a problem.
There is some confusion about the role of the national treatment purchase fund, particularly in the negotiations it appears to be having with the Mater Hospital. The Minister for Health and Children indicated his intention to put the national treatment purchase fund on a statutory footing, but there is no indication of that in the legislative programme. Will the Minister indicate what exactly the plans are?
I will communicate with the Deputy directly, but my understanding is that there is no promised legislation in this regard. As the Deputy knows, the scheme itself is working satisfactorily and many patients are having excellent experiences through it. It is an innovative scheme which is working extremely well.
Hear, hear.
Public beds in the Mater Hospital are being closed.
I do not wish to delay the House, but if I allow the Minister's answer to pass, it would lead to an unfortunate impression. My understanding is that secondary legislation has been promised in principle and the Minister needs to be aware of that.
Secondary legislation does not have to be dealt with today. It can be deferred to another day.
Is there any Government scheme that is not behind?
I am entitled to ask a question.
The Deputy has asked her question and the Minister has answered it. There is no primary legislation.
I know that.
On the question of secondary legislation, it is not necessary for the Minister to have an answer to the Deputy today.
Why not?
It is necessary for the Minister to answer.
I asked the Minister when the secondary legislation to put the fund on a statutory footing will come before the House. When will we see it? Will it be brought to our attention?
I have already indicated that there is no primary legislation and that I would communicate with the Deputy on that matter. I do not have an exact date.
I do not know whether Roscrea is a hub, a spoke, a puncture or what in the National Spatial Plan. Nonetheless, why do we not have the promised legislation from the Minister for the Environment and Local Government on the legislative programme to give legal force to the spatial plan so we can have some confidence that this is not just another document published just to gather dust in a corner? What has happened to this promised legislation that does not appear anywhere in the programme?
I have no promised legislation in the area.
I know there is not. The question is why not?
It is not required.
The Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has promised a Garda bicycle for Blanchardstown at several public functions in recent months. Does the pro duction of Garda bicycles in Blanchardstown require secondary or primary legislation? How many bikes will we get and when might we actually see them? We have been promised them for 3 or 4 months.
Does a garda come with them?
The Deputies can cycle away on that one.
The building control Bill has been mentioned repeatedly by a number of interested agencies outside the House but for some unknown reason it has become stalled in the traffic. It is peculiar because developments are taking place with haste throughout the country, obviously to get in before the controls are instituted. These developments are taking place without any planning permission. When will the legislation impact on such activities?
The building control Bill will be published late this year.
That will be too late. By late this year, all these unauthorised developments will have taken place and nothing will have been done about them.
I suggest the Deputy submits a question to the appropriate Minister.
Does the Government have any intention of introducing parallel legislation to the public service management recruitment and appointments Bill to deal with the area of public appointments, particularly political appointments?
Does the Deputy have a question on legislation?
I am asking about parallel legislation on public appointments to State bodies and international bodies on behalf of the Government.
This session.
Given the extreme financial difficulties being experienced by people whom I classify as the new poor, when can we expect the MABS Bill, which has been circulating for some time?
The Minister is not proceeding with that Bill. A review is currently under way and it may be the autumn, but I do not have further information.
Another review.
In between promising candidates ministries, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has promised a reserve force for the Garda. The Estimate for the Garda Síochána is €963 million. Has the Cabinet discussed the heads of either primary or secondary legislation in respect of this reserve force? Has consideration been given to the numbers, role and responsibilities of the force, whether or not they will wear a different uniform and what duties will be assigned to them?
This cannot be discussed.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has promised this nation-wide and there is fear and concern on the streets.
The question of whether legislation—
Retired gardaí are anxious to know what he is talking about.
No legislation is promised. I call Deputy Michael D. Higgins.
On a point of order. Is the Minister confirming that no secondary legislation is required?
If legislation is required it will be introduced, but we do not have any further information.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has promised a reserve force—
Has he promised legislation? We are dealing with legislation on the Order of Business.
The Minister for Defence, on behalf of the Government—
There is no legislation promised. I call Deputy Michael D. Higgins.
The Minister cannot have this force without legislation.
I said that no legislation is promised.
There has to be.
How does the Government propose to deal with the promises made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform without secondary legislation?
I call Deputy Michael D. Higgins.
I am interested in the answer to Deputy Kenny's question. The proposals of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform can only be introduced with legislation.
The Minister answered that question.
No, you answered it for him, a Cheann Comhairle.
I did not answer it.
Let the Minister for Defence answer it for the record. Is there promised legislation or not? With respect, Sir, he is answering for the Government. Let him answer.
The Chair did not answer the question. The Chair asked the Minister if there was legislation.
You are interpreting for him, Sir. Let him answer himself.
The Chair can only allow questions on legislation which is promised either inside or outside the House.
For the third time – and Deputy Rabbitte heard me on each of the other occasions – there is no legislation promised this session.
In respect of the Garda Bill which is coming before the House this morning, the remuneration, overtime and facilities for gardaí who join the PSNI will require secondary legislation—
That can be discussed in the course of that Bill.
—so will the reserve force of gardaí to be appointed.
Sorry, allow Deputy Michael D. Higgins to proceed.
What kind of Government is this?
On a point of order. The point being raised by Deputy Kenny was raised by me yesterday in precisely the same vein. The Minister has made an announcement outside the House which has to culminate in legislation.
The Minister has answered this morning.
We have a list of legislative proposals and there is nothing in it. Where do we get our information from?
Please allow Deputy Michael D. Higgins to proceed.
Can we allow the Minister to respond?
The Minister has already answered the question.
No, he has not. He has bluffed—
He has given an answer to the question. I call Deputy Michael D. Higgins.
Would another Minister from another Department have done the same thing?
The Deputy has made his point. I suggest he submits a question to the Minister in order to get further information.
We now know that the announcement of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the other day was just flim-flam and kite-flying.
We are talking about legislation. I call Deputy Michael D. Higgins.
I wish to raise and important issue which was mentioned by Deputy Sargent. It is a matter of procedure on which we might be able to be of assistance to each other. The forthcoming WTO conference in Cancun will be attended by, among others, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs with responsibility for development aid and the Minister of State with responsibility for trade. My question relates simply to the ordering of business. Will the proposals of the Irish Government be simultaneously introduced in the different committees of this House, such as the foreign affairs committee, the agriculture committee and the trade committee? Will there be consultation before the proposals are introduced so that we can all have an opportunity to make our views known before the conference takes place?
The difficulty that will arise is that the Minister for Agriculture and Food will have a particular view that is not consistent with that of the Minister of State with responsibility for trade or the Minister of State with responsibility for development aid. A decision will have to be made on this fairly soon. Will the Government's position – not that of any one Department – be simultaneously put before all the relevant committees, including those dealing with foreign affairs, European affairs, agriculture and trade, so that such committees will have the opportunity of meeting the NGOs and other groups with an interest in these matters and expressing their views before the conference takes place, and if necessary composing the delegation?
There is absolutely no question that the Government benefits from an exercise of this type. I have only one proviso. As Deputy Higgins will know, there are times when it would not be appropriate to show one's full hand before one gets into tough negotiations. Within those limits, I will ask the Whips to make whatever arrangements are possible.
I want to ask the two Ministers about the coroners Bill. Can former Ministers apply for those jobs? How do they apply for them? Will they be given more powers? The coroners of this country are in crisis and they are very concerned about what is going on. With what has gone on here this morning, it appears that we need a coroner for the House.
That matter will be decided by the Members of this House when the legislation comes before the House.
Is the Chair referring to the coroner?
Yes.
Why was the Tánaiste not present on the Order of Business?
I was at a very important IDA conference in Citywest. I did not know the Order of Business would go on for so long – I have been outside for the last 20 minutes. I was afraid I might provoke the Opposition if I came in.
We thought the Tánaiste was just being shy.
Her presence is enough for us.