It is proposed to take No. 23, the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2004 — Order for Committee and Committee Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. and that business shall be interrupted not later than 10.30 p.m. Committee Stage of No. 23 shall be taken today and the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Private Members' Business shall be No. 46, motion re road safety (resumed), to conclude at 8.35 p.m.
Order of Business.
There are two questions to put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 23 agreed?
I do not agree with that and would like to propose an amendment in the name of Deputy O'Keeffe to delete "10.30 p.m. today" and substitute "3.30 p.m. tomorrow and, in conjunction with the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, shall take evidence from key experts and personnel from the legal, medical and human rights areas to provide their expert insights into the implications of the proposed constitutional amendment". Against the background of the necessity of full and thorough discussion about these sensitive matters, Deputy O'Keeffe wrote to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights to call a special meeting for this purpose. While the Chairman was not averse to calling a meeting, he felt that there was not enough time to do so. This amendment would allow for that to happen and enable the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights to meet to discuss some of the relevant matters in the context of the options being put forward by Deputy O'Keeffe and others in respect of this amendment.
My colleague, Deputy Costello, made a similar request to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, Deputy Ardagh, highlighting the need for expert evidence on this important and sensitive issue from the masters of the three maternity hospitals, the SDLP, the Human Rights Commission and others who have expertise to offer. I understand that Deputy Ardagh felt unable to accede to that because of the manner in which the Bill is being rushed through the House by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who, when on this side of the House, was a trenchant advocate of the rights of Parliament vis-à-vis those of the Executive. He would want such issues considered in the manner in which the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, chaired last time by Deputy Brian Lenihan, advised.
I support the amendment from Deputy Kenny and ask the Taoiseach to give an undertaking that he will ask Deputy Ardagh about the matter. One of the most negative aspects of the reforms that we agreed in terms of committees is that — this is no reflection on my friend, Deputy Ardagh — all the chairmanships are given out as chocolate sweets to Deputies disappointed not to have achieved the same elevation as people such as the Ministers of State, Deputies Fahey and Roche. They chair all the committees. Given that he is a member of the Taoiseach's party, I ask him to request Deputy Ardagh to facilitate the kind of hearings that Deputies O'Keeffe and Costello and others desire so that we can take expert evidence in a calmer environment on this issue and establish to the people's satisfaction where they stand before they have to vote on the amendment on the proposal for a referendum.
The Green Party, An Comhaontas Glas, has made a similar request for this matter to be referred to the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. Regarding what we have just been discussing, it is important that the two matters are tied together. We are talking about the credibility of the Good Friday Agreement, the all-party agreement which applies to many groups that have felt excluded from the consultation, such as it was, which preceded this referendum decision. With the Human Rights Commission meeting Northern Ireland counterparts today, there is no doubt that there will be a need to hear expert opinion on this matter so that we do not rush into it, and the same goes for the figures coming from the hospitals. People born in the United States and London telephone me——
The Deputy should be brief in his comments.
They are being asked where they were born.
There will be an opportunity to debate the issue.
This contribution is shorter than some heard by the Ceann Comhairle already. I am being brief. It is important to point out——
This must be relevant.
This is absolutely relevant. The figures given by the hospitals are being challenged by those who have been in them and are asked where they were born rather than of which country they are citizens. It gives the false impression that they are coming from America or England when they have lived here most of their lives. It is important that we hear the details and ensure that we do not hold a referendum based on false information.
Sinn Féin cannot agree to this proposal on the Order of Business. Yesterday the Human Rights Commission, which was established under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, issued a very measured and considered legal critique of the Government's citizenship referendum proposal. Regrettably, before the ink was even dry on that opinion, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, in what can only be described as a very summary and arrogantly dismissive way, absolutely rejected all its concerns. This is a very serious matter.
We cannot agree to taking the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2004 in the way it is now presented. It is irresponsible in the extreme and that has been demonstrated and repeated by people who have a variety of views and opinions. Our view is — and we are not running contrary to the proposition, if that is what is to be put as regards the justice committee — that the matter should be referred to the Joint Committee on the Constitution. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, told the House last week that this issue had been addressed by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution in the 1990s and that we did not need another exercise to offer us the same opinion. Yet, Deputy O'Donovan, the chairman of the Joint Committee on the Constitution indicated subsequently that he would like the committee to have addressed Articles 1 to 9, as it had planned to do. However, this could not now be done within the timeframe offered vis-à-vis a referendum planned for 11 June.
All of this is clearly a shambles, with all respect. It requires the Minister being big enough, both politically and as a person, to stand back and concede that there is genuine concern on this issue. With respect, the Human Rights Commission is a body that should be listened to and given due respect and regard. I believe that is now timely and the Government will earn more respect if it now decides not to proceed and to allow the full consultative debate that is necessary——
The Deputy has made his point.
——in order to evaluate what is necessary to address the abuses the Minister has highlighted, if that is what a careful analysis of them will prove them to be. Certainly, we do not need an amendment to our Constitution.
I will make just two points. On the notice discussed by the Whips last week, it was the original intention of the Government to debate this on Committee Stage last night and today. That may not be precisely what Members are talking about as regards bringing in outside groups. However, it was pointed out to us, correctly, by one of the Opposition Whips, that the debate should be on the floor of the House rather than in committee; and so we are having the debate on the floor of the House.
The Bill is on Committee Stage.
Yes.
The Taoiseach, without interruption.
I accept that it is not the same as bringing in outside groups. Second, as I said already, this is a clear issue. People can see whether they support this issue. That is their democratic right. Based on previous experience on referendums, when the Green Paper process is gone through there is massive consultation, with thousands of people putting their views——
It is like the price of building land.
——even if it is over 90% of the views. I did this previously on the abortion referendum——
The Taoiseach knocked seven years out of the price of building land.
——and still when it came to the House it made no difference. It involves the concept of going through a long process of consultation and Members coming back into the House and not accepting the outcome. Despite the fact that more than 90% of people shared one view there was no consensus in the House.
Democracy is messy, is it not?
This issue is far more straightforward. We have set it out clearly. I look forward to the debate today.
The amendment, as proposed by Deputy Kenny is in order, so the question will be put.
Question put: "That the words and figure proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 52.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Brennan, Seamus.
- Browne, John.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carty, John.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Curran, John.
- 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.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGuinness, John.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Donnell, Liz.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Ned.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- Parlon, Tom.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Boyle, Dan.
- Breen, James.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, John.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Costello, Joe.
- Cowley, Jerry.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Deasy, John.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gormley, John.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Murphy, Gerard.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Question put: "That No. 23 be taken today."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 50.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Brennan, Seamus.
- Browne, John.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carty, John.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Curran, John.
- 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.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGuinness, John.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Donnell, Liz.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Ned.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- Parlon, Tom.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Boyle, Dan.
- Breen, James.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, John.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Costello, Joe.
- Cowley, Jerry.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Deasy, John.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Murphy, Gerard.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Over the past 40 years or so, serious punishment has been inflicted on tax-compliant citizens in this jurisdiction as a result of the extent of tax evasion as established by report after report.
Does Deputy Rabbitte have a question appropriate to the Order of Business?
I do. It is my understanding that it has been established that a Member of the House has been facilitating tax evasion. The Member is a member of the Taoiseach's party. What action does he propose to take now that the matter has been disposed of?
I am sorry Deputy, that does not arise on the Order of Business.
It is a matter of fundamental public interest that this House——
There are other ways for the matter to be raised in the House. I call Deputy Sargent.
——shows that it is concerned about issues like this. The matter has finally been disposed of.
I would prefer the Deputy to raise the matter in another way.
I am raising it in the most moderate way possible. I ask the Taoiseach what action he proposes to take.
It is not appropriate to the Order of Business. We cannot have one rule for Deputy Rabbitte and another for other Members of the House. I call Deputy Sargent.
Is it proposed to bring the defamation Bill before the House in the near future? In advance of that, will the Taoiseach deal with the disciplinary matter that is calling out to be dealt with on his benches?
We cannot discuss the contents of the defamation Bill.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is working on proposals which he will bring before Government in the autumn. It is unlikely we will see the Bill until next year.
Will the Taoiseach not respond to a matter that diminishes the House?
I have called Deputy Sargent. I would prefer if Deputy Rabbitte would stay within Standing Orders.
I am endeavouring to do so.
No, you are not. The Chair has ruled on the matter. I call Deputy Sargent.
This is an issue that diminishes the entire House. What is the Taoiseach's response to this matter?
I am sorry, Deputy Rabbitte, the Chair will facilitate the Deputy in raising the matter in another way. I call Deputy Sargent.
Will the Taoiseach make time available to discuss the matter in the House in accordance with Standing Orders and your interpretation?
It is a matter that requires discussion. I have not yet seen the judgment.
I have no idea what the Taoiseach said. I asked if he intends to make time available to discuss this issue in the House.
No, I do not intend to do that today.
There hangs a tale.
While the Ceann Comhairle may have ruled, it is important that the Supreme Court ruling is not ignored.
I am sorry, Deputy, the Chair is ignoring nothing. The Chair is obliged to implement Standing Orders and if Deputies have a difficulty with Standing Orders, they know how to change them. There are ways in which issues that are not appropriate to the Order of Business can be raised in this House.
I want to remain in order and ask about promised legislation.
I am sorry Deputy, if Deputies want to abuse the Order of Business, we will move on to the next business which is the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill.
I do not want to abuse anything.
If the Deputy has a question appropriate to the Order of Business, I will hear it.
I do.
The Deputy should come to it.
We have a number of examples of situations which, unfortunately for the Taoiseach, pertain to the Fianna Fáil Party, requiring——
I am sorry, Deputy, we are moving on to the next business.
My question relates to the Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill. Civil servants have to work with Fianna Fáil, a party which has within its numbers somebody who has been found not to be in favour of tax compliance——
Deputy Sargent should allow the Taoiseach to answer the question on the legislation. The Deputy should resume his seat.
We have to deal with that matter. We also have to deal with a number of matters relating to Fianna Fáil, such as those in regard to the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey and the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey.
Before the Taoiseach replies, it is once again appropriate that we put on the record of the House Standing Order 26: "business on the Order Paper; about the taking of business which has been promised, including legislation promised either within or outside the Dáil; about the making of secondary legislation; about arrangements for sittings; and as to when Bills or other documents on the Order Paper needed in the House will be circulated: Provided that, the Taoiseach may defer replying to a question relating to the making of secondary legislation to another day." If Members of the House are not happy with the Standing Order, they may change it and the Chair will be only too delighted to implement the new Standing Order.
That will happen this session.
In the Government's legislative programme published last January it was indicated that the following Bills would be published in 2004, the adoption Bill, the Irish Medicines Board Bill, the medical practitioners Bill, the nurses and midwives Bill, the pharmacy Bill and the VHI Bill. Yet in the most recently published programme for this session, we find that either they will be published in 2005 or it is not possible to indicate when they will be published. These are all important Bills.
The Deputy has made his point. He should allow the Taoiseach to answer his question.
Can the Taoiseach explain why that raft of promised legislation is now in such a questionable state?
The Adoptive Leave Bill was published on 22 April and it is ordered for Second Stage to be taken in the Seanad.
I asked about the adoption Bill. I did not refer to the Bill to which the Taoiseach responded.
The adoption Bill will be ready for next year. Feedback from the consultation process, which is being examined by the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, is being considered as some of the draft heads of the Bill had been prepared, but the final draft will depend on the outcome of that consultation.
What about the Irish Medicines Board Bill?
It will be ready in 2005. The other Bill the Deputy asked about was the pharmacy Bill.
I also asked about the medical practitioners Bill and nurses and midwives Bill.
Work is under way on the drafting of the heads of the pharmacy Bill and it is expected it will be ready during 2004. I do not have a date for when the nurses and midwives Bill will be ready. The purpose of that Bill is to implement the recommendations of the Commission on Nursing.
All these Bills were promised——
The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to answer his question.
The medical practitioners Bill——
I am trying to be helpful to the Taoiseach.
The Deputy is not being helpful. The Chair is ruling the Deputy out of order. He continually interrupts the Minister or member of Government who is answering.
For the information of the Deputy most of the work being done now on legislation in the Department of Health and Children is on the Health (Amendment) Bill 2004. It is on that Bill the work is being concentrated. The relevant people are putting all their efforts into providing a legislative basis for the implementation of the health reform programme.
(Interruptions).
That is the major Bill on which they are working.
This is a serious matter.
On promised legislation, in light of the fact that the RPA is currently investigating itself regarding the derailment of a Luas tram earlier this month, when will Report Stage of the Railway Safety Bill be taken?
The Railway Safety Bill is listed for Report Stage.
Yes, for the past 12 months, but when will Report Stage of that Bill be taken?
I am sure the Minister will be glad to get on with it.
He has not been so far.
In regard to the programme published yesterday, can we take it the coastal zone management Bill has finally been abandoned? The Taoiseach announced perhaps 20 times in recent years that it would be coming and that it was listed on various programmes. What is the plan for that Bill?
Does the Taoiseach consider we might have an opportunity to debate the residential densities guidelines?
That matter does not arise on the Order of Business.
I ask the Taoiseach to put it on the Order of Business given the clear indication of corruption in areas of planning. Perhaps we should review this area given the mega profits that are being made by certain developers.
In terms of a debate, I am sure the matter can be discussed. With regard to the coastal zone management Bill, it is being incorporated into the marine services Bill, which will provide for comprehensive new legislative proposals for the seafood sector and the marine coastal zone.
I am moving on to the Twenty-seventh Amendment——
A Ceann Comhairle——
A Ceann Comhairle——
I am not taking any more questions because it is now 12.35 p.m.
On a point of order——
I will hear a point of order.
I indicated at the same time as Deputy Ó Caoláin that I wished to speak and the Ceann Comhairle nodded to both of us but he skipped over me.
I did not. Dealing with such matters is entirely at the discretion of the Chair.
If the Chair's head does not swivel far enough to see me, we should introduce some type of mechanism which would enable me to signal to the Chair my intention to speak.
Unfortunately this Chair seems to allow the Order of Business to go on much longer than his predecessor.
I have two questions on relevant legislation.
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat. Deputy Rabbitte was on his feet.
We will have to bring in some type of light system that will light up in front the Ceann Comhairle to signal that Members wish to speak.
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat for a moment.
I am sorry, but I raised a point of order and the Chair indicated that I could make it.
The point the Deputy raised was not a point of order. The Deputy must resume his seat as I have called Deputy Rabbitte. If the Deputy resumes his seat, I will call him. I call Deputy Rabbitte.
Can I take it from earlier exchanges that the Taoiseach has nothing to say about the facilitation of tax evasion——
The Deputy is totally out of order.
——by one of his own members?
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat. I call Deputy Ó Snodaigh.
Is the Taoiseach silent on the facilitation of tax evasion by one of his own members?
The Deputy is out of order. The Chair has already quoted Standing Order 26 to him and he knows he is out of order. I call Deputy Ó Snodaigh.
I wish to ask about two Bills. Why is there an additional delay on the introduction of the Údarás na Gaeltachta (Amendment) Bill when it needs to be dealt with quickly?
We are dealing with referendum legislation today and it was promised that a Bill would be published, but one of the most recent referendum Bills dealt with was the ICC Bill. Why has it taken so long to deal with it and is there any relationship between the ICC Bill and the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities (Amendment) Bill?
It is expected that the heads of the Údarás na Gaeltachta (Amendment) Bill will be ready in mid-2004. I respectfully suggest if time was more efficiently used in this House we would deal with far more legislation. If Members co-operated with the Chair we would deal with far more legislation.
I thought the Taoiseach said in reply to one of my questions that the Department of Health and Children could not cope.
We lose hours every day with Members interrupting and being out of order. If Members did not do that, we would be able to clear legislation.