Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Apr 2004

Vol. 583 No. 4

Order of Business.

The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 8a, motion re ministerial rota for parliamentary questions; No. 15, An Bord Bia (Amendment) Bill 2003 [Seanad] — Order for Report, Report and Final Stages, to adjourn at 1.30 p.m. if not previously concluded; No. 14, Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004 — Second Stage (resumed).

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 10.30 p.m.; No. 8a shall be decided without debate; the Dáil shall adjourn not later than 1 p.m. tomorrow and oral and written questions shall not be taken-——

What about tomorrow's Order of Business?

——matters shall not be raised under Standing Order 31 and matters on the Adjournment shall not be raised under Standing Order 21; and Private Members' Business shall be No. 35, motion re paramilitary activities (resumed), to conclude at 8.30 p.m.

On a point of order, a most unusual proposal is before us. Tomorrow has been abolished, for some reason. There will be no Order of Business tomorrow.

I will hear the Deputy when we come to proposal No. 3.

Will there be no Order of Business tomorrow?

I will hear the Deputy when we come to proposal No. 3. The first proposal is the proposal for the late sitting. Is that agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 8a without debate agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for the adjournment of business of the Dáil tomorrow agreed?

Why are we now sanitising the business of Thursday and why does it not indicate the date when the Dáil will resume? The Minister will say he will take this tomorrow. Since when is Thursday now regarded as a day when there are no Parliamentary Questions and no Adjournment debates or anything like that? The Government's point is to conceal from the Dáil that it is coming back early to take a referendum that is being rushed through and on which every effort has been made to conceal information from the House. This must be a record.

From the PDs.

It is the first time I have ever seen a Minister take the Order of Business with the Chief Whip minding him.

And no one else.

Not a single Deputy from the Government side comes into the House any more. It is a signal of the contempt in which the Government holds the Dáil, that this is the way business is done. The Taoiseach is excused because he has to go to the tribunal and if he has to go to the tribunal, he has to go to the tribunal.

He has an alibi.

Look at the Government benches. Is this the way to treat the House? It really is disgraceful the way the Government treats Parliament and the Opposition.

Things are getting worse with regard to this matter. My party strongly protests. It is completely unacceptable to sneak in Thursday's business on Wednesday and it is unprecedented. I ask for clarification about whether the House is sitting in the week of Tuesday, 20 April. It seems it will be a bogus week from the point of view of parliamentary accountability. I note in an advertisement that on Tuesday 20 April at 2 p.m. the Taoiseach will open chamber of commerce offices in Swords. The prospect of having Taoiseach's Questions on Tuesday afternoon therefore seems to have evaporated.

We know the Taoiseach's priorities.

Will there be any clarification given to the House today or will the announcement be made in the media regarding the business of the House on Thursday or in the following weeks to come? This information should properly be divulged in the House.

The schedule of the House for this week states that there is an Order of Business on Thursday morning. Since we are ordering the business for tomorrow now——

The House is not doing so.

——what will the Order of Business consist of tomorrow? Why could the House not decide tomorrow's Order of Business tomorrow? Why must it be done today?

I join in the objections to the third proposal in today's Order of Business which relates to tomorrow's work. Unless the Minister can correct the House, it is unprecedented that such a list of normal matters to be addressed are excluded from tomorrow's schedule. Standing Orders 31 and 21 are being debarred from tomorrow's schedule of business.

Just a half an hour ago, I was advised that the much-vaunted consultation by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will be offered to the House at 3.30 p.m. this afternoon. What consultation is that when it concerns a Bill on citizenship on which the Cabinet has already made its decision, the drafting is already complete and when the publication of the legislation is expected tomorrow? That consultation follows after the horse has clearly bolted on this issue and the Government is out and already running. The Opposition parties have no sight of the Bill, no opportunity for prior engagement on the Bill. It is patently clear that our repeated objections to the Government's conduct on this disgraceful legislation, and the manner in which it is being rushed through, are being ignored. This is unprecedented conduct on the part of the Government. I am deeply offended, as are other elected Members and the wider public, particularly those who are concerned about the matters that this Bill would address. I express my strong objections.

There will be an Order of Business tomorrow.

I thank the Minister. We are grateful.

Allow the Minister without interruption.

That is not a concession. That is the position, notwithstanding what has been ordered here. What is being done is to facilitate the House because in the normal way——

It is facilitating the Government.

Deputies will be submitting questions in the normal manner and doing a number of things-——

Why was it not put to the Whips' meeting?

Allow the Minister.

The Government wishes to facilitate the House. I ask the Deputy to keep his cool for a moment.

What about the Whips' meeting?

Deputy Stagg, Deputy Rabbitte has already spoken on behalf of your party. We will hear the Minister.

The Deputy should just keep his cool. Tomorrow is Holy Thursday and the House will adjourn at 1 p.m. It should be quite acceptable to the House that it is told the day before. It is facilitating the House and the Members.

It is facilitating the Government. The Opposition cannot raise issues on the floor of the House.

I reject the contention that matters are being rushed through the House. There are plenty of opportunities on Second and Committee Stages to go into any detail required by Deputies about these Bills.

(Interruptions).

Allow the Minister without interruption, please.

Why are written questions being abolished tomorrow?

Deputy Stagg, Deputy Rabbitte has already spoken on behalf of your party.

(Interruptions).

Deputies may put down written questions if they wish. I am trying to facilitate the House by giving it an indication of tomorrow's business.

When will the House come back?

(Interruptions).
Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with Thursday's adjournment be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 54.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Browne, John.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Curran, John.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Tony.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Fox, Mildred.
  • Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
  • Glennon, Jim.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Hoctor, Máire.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Donoghue, John.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • O’Malley, Tim.
  • Parlon, Tom.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Sexton, Mae.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Wilkinson, Ollie.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wright, G. V.

Níl

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Boyle, Dan.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Connolly, Paudge.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Cowley, Jerry.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Enright, Olwyn.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Higgins, Joe.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • McCormack, Padraic.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McHugh, Paddy.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Morgan, Arthur.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.
  • O’Keeffe, Jim.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Pattison, Seamus.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Perry, John.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Upton, Mary.
  • Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Stagg.
Question declared carried.

This morning the Tánaiste expressed her outrage when I suggested she misled the House. When she answered questions on 5 February on electronic voting, she claimed, in a reference to legislation, that it took place before the relevant court case. I would like to remind the Tánaiste that she answered her question on 5 February 2004, yet the Supreme Court case in question took place on 27 January 2004. This demonstrates that the Government is not credible and has no integrity. I invite the Tánaiste to return today and correct the record of the House.

Has the Minister, Deputy Michael Smith, who is taking the Order of Business today, read the sixth report of the all-party committee on the Constitution? It was chaired by the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and it made two fundamental recommendations on changing the Constitution. Can the Minister explain why this legislation on citizenship is being published and rushed through when the sixth all-party committee report is very clear on the method and the process involved in changing the Constitution? Can he explain how he gave support at the Cabinet table for this to be rushed through?

This legislation, as Members of the House are aware, will be published tomorrow. There is no question of rushing the legislation and that has been made absolutely clear. We are over two months away from 11 June. Is Deputy Kenny suggesting to me that all the illustrious Members in this House are incapable of digesting an issue the facts of which are well known before now?

We cannot have a debate on this issue now.

If the Opposition is not able to vote confidence in itself, then the Government is well able to do so.

(Interruptions).

That is rubbish.

The Government has no policy on immigration——

That does not arise at this stage as the issue has already been discussed on Leaders' Questions and there will be an opportunity when the Bill comes before the House.

The Taoiseach stood here on 17 February and never mentioned the referendum.

(Interruptions).

Allow Deputy Rabbitte to speak. I ask Deputy Kenny to resume his seat.

I take it that the information which we extracted reluctantly from the Taoiseach on the text of the amendment and the accompanying legislation, will be published tomorrow, on the eve of a holiday weekend as the House rises. In respect of the commitment given by the Taoiseach that he would engage in consultation with the party leaders, does the Minister, Deputy Smith, know when this consultation will take place? Does he know if the Bill has been signed off? If it is ready for publication, how does he propose to involve us in consultation? Does he mean that we will be summoned to be told what is in it and how it will proceed? The Minister, Deputy Smith, should not insult our intelligence by claiming that this Bill is being handled in accordance with due process as laid down by the all-party committee. We need time to deal with this sensitive issue and if there ought to be a referendum then let there be a referendum. It is reprehensible that this is being run in the atmosphere of local and European elections.

Deputy Smith is the Minister for kite flying.

In the length of time we have been discussing this, complicated treaties have been completed all over the world. However, in this country we feel we are unable to do this. The Bill will be published tomorrow morning and some preliminary discussions are taking place about a consultative process which will begin this afternoon. Whether it is the Easter recess or the summer recess, my work continues most days. I am sure the work of the Opposition continues as well.

(Interruptions).

Allow Deputy Sargent to speak without interruptions.

I wonder if Deputy Smith could deliver an Easter pastoral?

God help us if this is similar to the Nice treaty, which was signed in the middle of the night. Does the Minister, Deputy Smith, know whether the referendum on citizenship will be the subject of the debate on the week beginning 20 April? That will not be illustrious but illusory, given that there will be no Order of Business, no accountability from the Government and we will be talking to ourselves again. Is that the situation we are facing and is that the level of seriousness with which the Government treats the matter? We have a picture of the Taoiseach opening an office on Tuesday when he is supposed to be answering Taoiseach's questions.

This is not the first time that Deputies in this House have chosen to take both sides of the same coin. There will be two days to discuss in full the matters that the Deputy has raised. The Deputy will have the fullest possible opportunity to deal exclusively with that issue. The argument until now has been that we do not have time. The Opposition will have two full days for it.

The Government never even bothered to take the recommendations from Deputy Brian Lenihan into account.

It has come to light that the business expansion scheme and the seed capital tax relief scheme are now under investigation by the European Commission. Will the Government enact amending legislation to deal with this potential loss of investment and employment? Given that there has been a massive increase in profits by insurance companies, will the Government publish a transparency Bill to force those insurance companies to justify the increase in the premia and the higher costs for business and consumers?

There is no legislation promised in that area.

Will the Government, therefore, do nothing?

The Labour Party Private Members' Bill, defeated in the House on 8 October 2003 and which sought to control the price of building land, was not accepted by the Government because the matter was under consideration by the all-party committee. Since the committee is now recommending precisely the measures contained in the Labour Party Bill, is the Government now accepting this Bill?

The Residential Tenancies Bill 2003 completed Committee Stage in mid-February and has not been scheduled for report. When will Report Stage of that Bill be taken? Since that Bill has not been enacted and tenants have no means of contesting rent increases, will the Government suspend regulations which disallow rent allowances to tenants where rents have been increased?

The Water Services Bill 2003 was published before Christmas, under which group water schemes will be privatised and water charges will be reintroduced. Will that Bill be taken in the House before the local elections? When will the national infrastructure Bill, the purported contents of which were published recently in some newspapers, be published?

On the first question, the recommendations of the all-party committee report will be considered by Government, which will return to the Dáil with whatever proposals are necessary.

We do not have a precise date for the introduction of the Residential Tenancies Bill, but the intention is to introduce it as soon as possible. I am not able to answer the Deputy's question on regulations off the reel and he would need to table parliamentary questions on them. The Water Services Bill 2003 is on Committee Stage in the Seanad. I did not hear the Deputy's fifth question.

It was on the national infrastructure Bill.

It will be published this year.

I wish to raise a point of order lest a new precedent be set by the Minister. He said he would not answer questions on secondary legislation or regulations but he is obliged to do so under Standing Orders.

Under Standing Orders he is obliged to do so on the Order of Business.

If Deputy Stagg were listening to my answer——

I was listening to the Minister.

I said I was not able to answer off-hand.

As Deputy Stagg is aware, under Standing Order 26 the Minister is entitled to report on another day on secondary legislation.

That is not what he said. That is why I corrected him.

He has clarified it now.

On the referendum on citizenship Bill, as I presume it will be called, will the Minister advise whether two days will be allocated to deal with it, as he has indicated? Does this mean a guillotine will apply to the various Stages of that legislation? Alternatively, will it be an open debate, to continue in the following week? It is very important that Members know——

The Deputy has made his point on the legislation.

——that the Bill will not be forced through. However, it is clear that only two days are being allocated. Clearly, there is intent——

Allow the Minister to reply to the question.

I ask the Minister to qualify it and indicate the days on which we will address this legislation.

Following Deputy Ó Caoláin's question, on what day is it proposed to sit again after the recess? Is it the intention to have no Order of Business, no Leaders' Questions and no Taoiseach's questions that week?

That does not arise on today's Order of Business.

It is about arrangements——

If the Minister wants to respond——

Is it the intention to have a guillotine on Second Stage of the Bill?

Allow the Minister to reply.

It is not intended to have a guillotine. We will not guess at this stage.

Of course there will be a guillotine.

Sixteen hours are being allocated to debate these issues in the House.

There will be no Order of Business.

The total——

I call Deputy Crawford.

(Interruptions).

Of course there will be a guillotine.

On Wednesday, 21 April and Thursday, 22 April-——

There will be a guillotine.

——16 hours will be allocated to debate this matter.

Is it not the case that there will be guillotines?

Allow Deputy Crawford to contribute, without interruption.

That will only happen if——

If we are not good and if we do not do what the Minister wants.

Deputy Crawford.

That answers the question.

In light of the fact that a man with a Dublin address has been sentenced for a year for the abuse of children in England — he was previously convicted and sentenced in Northern Ireland — will the Government use the opportunity afforded to it under its Presidency of the EU to bring about a European register of paedophiles? This type of thing could be happening in this country.

On promised legislation.

It is extremely serious.

No legislation is promised. I call Deputy Sherlock.

There should be some response from Government.

Yes. The Deputy should submit a question to the appropriate Minister

It is totally inept. It should have some responsibility.

It is not appropriate to the Order of Business. I call Deputy Sherlock.

We have a register of persons who are considered unsafe to work with children. I do not know if this meets the Deputy's criteria. It is not possible to indicate at this stage when the legislation will be introduced.

Does that cover Northern Ireland as well as the Republic?

Will an tAire——

The Minister has the report. Why not?

Allow Deputy Sherlock to contribute without interruption.

As it is seven years since the previous Government promised legislation on the abolition of ground rents, has the Government abdicated it responsibility in this regard? Is it the intention to introduce the legislation?

On promised legislation.

I have one further question. Is it the intention to introduce an enforcement of fines Bill to end imprisonment for inability to pay fines?

It is not possible to indicate at this stage when that Bill will be available.

The recommendation of Deputy O'Donovan——

Sorry, Deputy, I call Deputy Eamon Ryan.

The Minister did not answer my second question on the enforcement of fines Bill.

Regrettably, this legislation is in the same category. It is not possible to say when it will be ready.

The Minister for Transport made a commitment while taking the latter Stages of the Aer Lingus Bill to have a debate in the House prior to the sale of Aer Lingus. Will this commitment be honoured given that that sale now seems imminent and especially because a number of backbenchers on the Government side——

I suggest that the Deputy submit a question to the Minister. Is a debate promised?

No debate is promised. I call Deputy Allen.

Excuse me, a debate was promised. When will such a debate take place?

That does not arise on the Order of Business unless a debate has been promised.

It was promised by the Minister.

The Interpretation Bill 2000, which was due to replace the Interpretation Act 1937, was published on 22 August 2000. It was passed in the Dáil on 1 July 2003 but it has not gone to the Seanad. What has happened to it?

When can we expect a regulation or a motion authorising the spending of money by the commission on electronic voting? The spending of money by that commission——

The Deputy has asked his question.

I have waited a long time to be called and I want to put my question.

The Deputy has put his question.

I am talking about the misuse of taxpayers' money by the commission.

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

It does.

It was not authorised by the House. The use of the contingency fund is not a regular use because it can only be used when the Dáil is sitting or for new services.

The Deputy is out of order. That does not arise. The Deputy will have to find another way of raising the issue.

The Department of Finance refers to new services of a non-controversial nature.

On a point of order——

One has to agree that the commission on electronic voting has restricted terms of reference.

On a point of order——

The use of funds by that commission without authorisation by the House is irregular.

I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.

I want answers to these questions.

On a point of order, the point just raised by Deputy Allen is correct. It now appears——

It is out of order on the Order of Business and the Deputy knows it.

It is not out of order, it directly relates to the business of the House today.

The Deputy must adhere to the rulings of the Chair.

Will the Ceann Comhairle bear with me for a moment?

I will not because it is not a point of order.

We have a right to speak freely.

I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.

We used to have the right to free speech in this House.

It appears the Bill now before the House is before it inappropriately because the funding used to facilitate its passage is inappropriately used.

The Deputy has made his point.

It specifically states that the contingency fund——

We must move on.

The Chair is not giving the Opposition a chance.

The Deputy knows the Standing Orders. The Chair is obliged to implement them and they are the rules laid down by the House.

Will we get an answer to the question?

I call the Minister.

Why was the contingency fund used in an inappropriate manner?

That does not arise.

It does because it specifically——

It does not arise on the Order of Business. I ask the Deputy to submit a question.

The Ceann Comhairle is making a farce of the House.

The Interpretation Bill is before the Seanad.

Allow the Minister to reply.

On the questions raised by both Deputies, there has been no period in the history of this House when the scrutiny of public expenditure was carried out in such an exacting way. The Deputy can be quite certain that any expenditure will be well——

In accordance with a request of Kofi Annan, Secretary General——

On a point of order——

The Deputy should resume his seat. I will take the point of order later.

On a point of order——

The Deputy should resume his seat. When the Chair is on its feet, he should resume his seat.

The Chair was not on its feet.

I will take the Deputy's point of order, but I ask him to resume his seat.

The Chair was not on its feet.

Top
Share