Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 May 2004

Vol. 585 No. 1

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 9, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of a Council decision establishing the European refugee fund for the period 2005 to 2010 — from committee; No. 10, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Minister for Defence entering into a memorandum of understanding with Austria — from committee; No. 11, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the terms of the agreement establishing a political dialogue and co-operation agreement between the European Community and the republics of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama — from committee; No. 12, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the terms of the agreement establishing a political dialogue and co-operation agreement between the European Community and the Andean Community and its member countries — from committee; No. 12a, motion re membership of committee; No. 17, Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004 — Report and Final Stages (resumed); No. 18, Equality Bill 2004 — Second Stage (resumed); and No. 19, Health (Amendment) Bill 2004 — Second Stage (resumed).

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 12a shall be decided without debate and that the proceedings on the resumed Report and Final Stages of No. 17 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 1 p.m. today by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, with regard to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

There are two proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 12a without debate agreed to?

I raised concerns about this issue previously. Last week the House sent these motions to the committees for consideration. They are now back before the House in plenary session. I understood that the Government was to supply a brief synopsis of what happened at the committees' consideration of these issues but the Opposition does not appear to have been supplied with that briefing.

We were given a commitment that the reports from the committees would be received in advance of decisions being taken in the House. The reports simply have not arrived. I presume the Chairmen of the committees are responsible for ensuring that when the committee reports are before the House, they will be circulated to Members. It should be noted that our spokesperson, Deputy Costello, opposed No. 9. That should be recorded in some way rather than simply stating that the motion is back from the committee.

The Green Party opposes No. 9, dealing with the European refugee fund. This brings to mind not just the plight of refugees but also somebody such as Mr. Tom Sweeney, of whom the House has heard each day. It is a shame on the Government that it does not have the skills or the humanitarian heart——

That does not arise at this time.

——to deal with this matter. This man could be dead next Tuesday. It is an urgent matter.

It does not arise at this point. I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.

No. 10, the proposed memorandum of understanding with Austria, relates to the Air Corps. The Pilatus planes are Swiss. However, we have not received reports on this and we need to inform ourselves before making a decision. It would be useful to be given background information. The Government should inform the House more clearly on such matters.

The other motion refers to a political dialogue and co-operation between the European Union and various countries such as Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama. Are there any plans to investigate human rights abuses? I am thinking, in particular, about a Green Party presidential candidate, Ingrid Betancourt, who has been kidnapped by the FARC guerrillas.

That does not arise at this stage. These matters have been discussed in the committee.

They have not been discussed.

There was an opportunity for each Deputy to attend the committee and make a contribution if he or she wished.

There is not enough detail to agree these motions given the outstanding questions.

We cannot discuss each of the motions in detail at this stage.

We oppose them, particularly on the basis that Tom Sweeney lies outside this House and is effectively dying. It is unacceptable.

When it was first proposed to refer these matters to the committees, I outlined the critical reasons for addressing them in this Chamber. In the case of No. 9, which deals with the EU refugee fund, our concerns, which have already been articulated by a number of human rights bodies, are that the fund will not only be used for the reception and integration of asylum seekers but for the return of asylum seekers and refugees.

As I pointed out to Deputy Sargent, these matters were discussed at committee and there was an opportunity for Deputies to attend those meetings and contribute their views.

The critical point is that this funding should only be used in cases where people have already been accepted into the jurisdiction and where the situation has changed in their country of origin. It should not be used to finance the return of refugees and asylum seekers.

We are dealing with one proposal that the motions be taken without debate.

It is also relevant that no unequivocal assurances, were provided by the Minister in the course of the committee's deliberations and the Minister would be the first to acknowledge that. That is a major flaw. With regard to No. 10, the Minister, Deputy Michael Smith, when asked by Deputy Ó Snodaigh in the committee, was unable to give an explanation as to why the country of manufacture, Switzerland, would not allow the testing of the Pilatus PC-9M aircraft in that country. We still have not been advised why that is the case. Can the Minister for Defence establish the reason for this? It is important that we know such facts before making a decision.

With regard to Nos. 11 and 12, Articles 49 and 50 of the EU trade agreements, which we broadly support, give reason for concern, particularly as they apply to countries that have a poor human rights record such as Colombia, Guatemala and El Salvador.

We cannot go into detail on these issues. The Deputy is entitled to make a brief comment on the reason for opposing the motion.

Unfortunately, the committee did not address these matters in detail either. I have already outlined my understanding of why the committee cannot be expected to examine these salient points. There are major matters that need to be addressed and this approach does not facilitate that. I oppose the motions as presented.

On a point of order, we had established that there would be a short report from the committee, which would indicate the extent of the debate and whether it was satisfactorily——

The Deputy's party leader has already made that point.

We are making it again. We require an answer on this.

It is appropriate to put it on record with regard to the matter raised by the Deputy who has left the House that his constituency colleagues of all parties, including my party leader, have been involved in that matter and they put forward a proposal seeking to resolve it.

It is a matter for the committees to decide how and when they report to the House. They have made a brief report to the House on most of these motions.

It is up to the Government.

It is not a matter for the Government; it is a matter for the committees.

It was agreed that the Government Whip would provide a report to the House.

Allow the Tánaiste to reply without interruption.

It is not a matter for the Government. It is up to the committee to provide a report of its proceedings. We have reports from the committees and I am sure they are available——

We do not have them. Show them to us.

It is not a matter for the Government Whip to circulate the reports.

It is not. It is a matter for a committee to circulate a report of its proceedings.

The Government was supposed to circulate the reports.

The Deputy had an opportunity to speak. Deputy Kenny spoke on behalf of his party. The Tánaiste is entitled to speak

We can certainly circulate the notes we have. Almost all these matters were unanimously, agreed by the committees and Members are aware of that.

We were supposed to get reports.

I must put the question.

Question, "That the proposal for dealing with Nos. 9 to 12, inclusive, and 12a without debate be agreed”, put and declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 17, the conclusion of Report and Final Stages of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004, agreed?

On a point of order, can we have assurances from the Government that when reports come back from committees——

That is not a point of order.

We had an agreement from the Government we would get those reports but we have not got them.

We have moved on to proposal No. 2.

I would like an assurance that we will get these reports in the future.

The leader of the Deputy's party contributed on behalf of his party.

There were reports last night that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was to be in Galway to open a sewerage scheme.

As there is enough sewage here, I thought I would come back and deal with it.

The Minister should allow Deputy Kenny to continue without interruption.

You are going down the drain.

If Deputy Kenny addressed his remarks through the Chair, he might not invite interruption.

Is the Minister still spreading slurry?

The Minister should know that there are rats in sewerage systems.

I ask members of the Fine Gael Party to allow their leader to continue without interruption.

This House has conducted a complete charade in recent weeks because——

Correct, it is all on the Opposition side.

I ask the Minister to allow Deputy Kenny to continue.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government recklessly plundered the public purse to the extent of €52 million and is bulldozing through the Electoral (Amendment) Bill when he knows these machines will never be used.

Will the Deputy put money on that?

The Minister should be put out of the House.

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I ask you to remain silent or the Chair will have to take action.

A Cheann Comhairle, you should put him out, even if the Taoiseach will not put him out.

This is the Minister from Waterford who said all the technological security experts were Luddites and associated with the anti-globalisation trend and that people were looking through the wrong end of the telescope. It appears that that telescope has become a political gun pointed at the Minister.

We are discussing proposal No. 2, the conclusion of Report and Final Stages of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004.

I am opposed to this proposal. The Electoral (Amendment) Bill dealing with electronic voting has been shot down in flames by an independent commission. The Minister should have withdrawn the Bill from the Order Paper and established a proper independent electoral commission.

Does the Deputy not want the commission on electronic voting established on a statutory basis?

A Cheann Comhairle, you should put the Minister out.

The Minister can rant and rave all he likes. Yesterday we got as far as amendment No. 6 out of 88 and the Government intends guillotining this Bill today at 1 o'clock. That is not acceptable. It is disgraceful and contemptuous treatment of the House, as the Minister knows. If the Government wants full and thorough discussion, we will give it. However, the Government owes the House the opportunity to have its say on these matters. Although we will not have time to discuss the amendments on voter verification today, the Government intends ramming the Bill through by guillotine and I am opposed to this.

I welcome the Tánaiste on one of her rare visits to the House. She is very welcome back and is looking very well.

That does not arise on proposal No. 2.

I presume, arising from the Tánaiste's presence, there will be no need to put bleeps on the record of the House today. The issue, we are dealing with reminds me of musical chairs or pass the parcel. Yesterday, we had an order stating there would be a guillotine, followed by an order stating there would not be a guillotine and then, hey presto, the matter was put back on the agenda for today with a new guillotine proposed. We have a farce, with the Government and the Whip's office behaving like headless chickens not knowing where they are going or what they are doing on the issue of e-voting.

Is the Deputy talking about the Labour Party?

Sorry, Minister, I ask you to allow Deputy Stagg to continue without interruption.

I am talking about the Minister in particular, acting like a headless chicken——

The Minister should be guillotined.

——with legislation which will give inadequate terms of reference to the commission, as is evident from the report, that will allow council officials to run for public office, which is rather strange, and will allow the use of redundant voting machines that are now useless and should be scrapped.

The Deputy has made his point.

They will not be scrapped, as the Deputy knows.

The Minister is interrupting again. A Cheann Comhairle, I ask you to throw the Minister out just as you threw me out when I interrupted like that.

Recycle him.

You are too soft on him, a Cheann Comhairle.

Arising from what I have said, we are asking the Government to withdraw the Bill, to consult properly with the Opposition and other interested parties on the matter and to ensure that the terms of reference for the electoral commission allow it to take the running of elections out of the political hands of the Minister and give it to an independent body.

This is the second week in a row when a Minister knowingly absented himself. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government did so this week and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform did so last week.

That does not arise on this proposal.

It arises on this issue. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government made a farce of proceedings in this House and treated it with contempt by being absent when he had scheduled and demanded the debate. Arising from that we are asking that the guillotine be removed and a full debate be allowed on the Bill. If that does not happen, we will oppose the proposal.

The Green Party strongly opposes taking Report Stage of this Bill on the basis that it does not have any urgency. Electronic voting is off the agenda and a €52 million bill has been incurred by the taxpayer, of which the Minister still must give an account. There will be further cost in reintroducing the paper ballot, because ballot boxes were sold by Cork County Council at the grand price of €2 each.

That matter does not arise at this stage.

We oppose the taking of Report Stage and furthermore we will withdraw our amendments and will not take part in Report Stage.

Shame on the Deputy and his colleagues.

We will go outside the House to sit with Mr. Tom Sweeney so that at least he will know that there is some humanity left in this House——

The Government should do something about it.

——while others will be in here talking about a Bill that has no value and is costing the taxpayer a fortune.

After the first guillotine was lifted yesterday, I appealed to the Minister to defer further consideration of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill until all the salient points had been addressed. It is very regrettable that not only did the Minister not accept the request from many Opposition Members, he has now come back proposing to guillotine the debate once more. This is absolute insanity. There is no wit or wisdom in pressing this matter through in this way. If it is the Minister's intention to proceed with the legislation, we should have allowed, and should still allow, a full and open debate until the matter was properly concluded and all amendments addressed. I again ask that the Minister reconsider not alone the guillotine but also the taking of Report and Final Stages of the Bill. This is not the time to do this.

When will the Minister come back to the House to give us a detailed account of the full cost of e-voting machines and related matters? We need to know what are the intentions of the Minister and his colleagues regarding those machines?

He could recycle them.

That matter does not arise at this stage.

Has the Minister made any efforts to have the machines returned?

We are dealing with proposal No. 2.

What are the details of the contracts? Can the machines be returned or can any saving be made on these machines even at this late stage? We need the facts and the details.

That matter does not arise at this stage.

Surely the Minister will give a full and detailed account to this House and the public as this involves public moneys.

The guillotine should be used, not on the Bill but politically speaking, as I am opposed to capital punishment.

It is important that we establish the commission on a statutory basis as proposed in the Bill. The polling order must be made by next Thursday and this legislation has to go to the Seanad. There are important anti-personation measures in the Bill. For all those reasons and particularly to establish the commission on a statutory basis, it is not possible to allow more time.

Some Deputies raised matters regarding Mr. Sweeney. Obviously this is a very sensitive and delicate matter, in which representatives of all parties have been involved, and I hope we can be successful and get a positive outcome.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 17 agreed to?

If he had stayed with the Progressive Democrats, it would not have happened. He would have been a watchdog.

I ask the Deputy to show some respect for Parliament.

There is not much respect on the other side of the House. It is on this side that one wants respect to be shown.

When a question is being put, there should be no interruptions.

You did not say that to the Minister. You want respect to be shown on this side only.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 17 be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 43.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Brennan, Seamus.
  • Browne, John.
  • Callanan, Joe.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Carty, John.
  • Collins, Michael.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Curran, John.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Tony.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Fox, Mildred.
  • Glennon, Jim.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Hoctor, Máire.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Donnell, Liz.
  • O’Donoghue, John.
  • O’Donovan, Denis.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • O’Malley, Fiona.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Sexton, Mae.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Wilkinson, Ollie.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wright, G.V.

Níl

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Boyle, Dan.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Connolly, Paudge.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Enright, Olwyn.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Higgins, Joe.
  • Higgins, Michael.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Morgan, Arthur.
  • Murphy, Gerard.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O’Shea, Brian.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Pattison, Seamus.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Upton, Mary.
  • Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Wall.
Question declared carried.

Perhaps the Tanáiste, who has an interest in this matter, can give some account of yesterday's meeting between the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and Deputies from Mr. Sweeney's constituency. The redress board was established to address cases like this. I am sure everybody in the House would like to see a successful conclusion of this matter.

Mr. Sweeney's deep conviction is that he has been wronged. I hope the Tanáiste will show real leadership and assist the Department of Education and Science in reaching a compromise on the matter. It is a difficult and sensitive issue and Mr. Sweeney has a deep conviction that what he is doing is warranted. Nobody wants him to die. I hope this issue can be dealt with successfully.

We will deal first with this issue.

I have a separate question.

I will recall the Deputy when he have dealt with this issue. I call Deputy Burton.

I support Deputy Kenny's remarks. Members on both sides of this House are genuinely concerned about Mr. Sweeney's state of health. Much effort has been made by people behind the scenes. The Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, met yesterday with Deputies representing Mr. Sweeney's constituency. Deputy Rabbitte put forward a series of proposals which were supported by all constituency Deputies to which I understand the Minister for Education and Science gave a limited but positive response. It is our fervent hope that a way forward will be found for Mr. Sweeney and his family.

I welcome the Tanáiste's partial statement this morning and believe she realises that feelings outside the House are running very high. Mr. Sweeney is, at this stage, in a serious condition and cannot even hold down water. I hope a resolution can be reached today. What is required is a clear public statement informing the House how we are to proceed so we can communicate that to Mr. Sweeney and he can then come off hunger strike. Nobody in this House wants an individual to die in this way. It is too awful to contemplate. I hope the Tanáiste can make a clear statement on the matter.

I note the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, is writing. Perhaps he is writing something that can help to resolve this matter. I plead with the House to ensure we do something today that will ensure Mr. Sweeney comes off hunger strike. He wants to be with his grandchildren who are making their first holy communion at the weekend. We want him to be with them. Let us resolve this issue.

There can be no doubt in any of our minds that Mr. Sweeney has a deep sense of grievance and unquestionably has the commitment to see this hunger strike through to its worst consequences. That is apparent, as those who have spoken with him, as I have done on a number of occasions late at night on leaving the premises, will be aware.

I appeal to the Minister on behalf of my colleagues and Deputy Séan Crowe, who met him yesterday to take on board Members' points. This is not an across the Chamber political issue; it is one which we all share a desire to see happily resolved. Deputy Gormley made the point — as did Mr. Sweeney — that the weekend event involving his grandchildren is important to him. It is, perhaps, a Rubicon that, if not grasped and seized, may mean there may be no rescuing the situation.

The Deputy has made his point.

I appeal to the Minister to act immediately in line with the unanimous appeals made by Members in this House.

A Cheann Comhairle——

The House has heard from the leaders of each party. A number of Deputies on both sides of the House are offering.

The Ceann Comhairle has——

In accordance with precedence, I have allowed one Member of each party to speak.

The Ceann Comhairle has allowed some latitude on the matter. This issue does not come under Standing Orders. Many other Members are equally concerned about the situation.

The Deputy has made his point. I am calling the Tanáiste to reply.

We are dealing with an incredible situation involving a man whose award was cut by €50,000 because he told his story. This issue should be resolved.

There is no provision other than for one Member of each party to speak.

The Ceann Comhairle departed from Standing Orders to allow others to speak. That is against Standing Orders.

I do not think, as Deputies have acknowledged, there is any difference between us on this matter. We all wish to see this sad situation resolved quickly. Yesterday, the Minister for Education and Science met Deputies from the constituency concerned. I believe that meeting was useful and productive and agreement was reached on a possible way forward. Let us hope it works. Clearly everybody is required to play their part. Mr. Sweeney's legal advisers are active on his behalf. I hope the efforts being made, including those made by Deputies on the opposite side, can be successful in the next number of hours or days.

In respect of the scandalous neglect of the disabilities sector, will the Tánaiste give a commitment that the Disability Bill will be published before the local elections? It has been talked about in the House on many occasions. Will she confirm that it will be published before the local elections?

The Bill is almost finalised and is on the Cabinet agenda. I cannot say exactly when it will be published but the intention is that it will be published as soon as possible.

Yesterday, I asked the Minister for Defence about the health and safety at work (amendment) Bill, which has been promised for some time and was to have been published last month. It is now on the A list for publication. A Minister of State at the Tánaiste's Department had previously indicated that the corporate manslaughter proposals of the Law Reform Commission would be incorporated into this Bill but yesterday indicated that might not be the case. Now that the Tánaiste is in the House and since I have not had a communication since yesterday, although promised, will she say whether the corporate manslaughter proposals are being pursued by the Government and whether they will be part of that Bill, or will they be incorporated in separate legislation?

The Bill will go to the Cabinet in the next two to three weeks. It is almost finalised. The recommendation of the Law Reform Commission on corporate manslaughter has been embraced by my Department. The Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, is handling it. I understand he has been in discussions with the Attorney General regarding the best way of implementing legislation in this area. I am not certain whether it will be in this Bill. I will revert to the Deputy later on that matter.

I am sure the Tánaiste would like to join me in wishing her old friend, Mr. Pat Cox, well for the future and in acknowledging the tremendous contribution he has made on behalf of the country at European level. While I am dealing with former Members, I wish my comrades in the Labour Party every good wish in welcoming Mr. Conor Cruise O'Brien back to the fold. It is clear that Deputy Rabbitte's policy of recruiting new blood is paying dividends.

We are all watching this space with regard to Mr. Pat Cox.

The Tánaiste is not smiling.

I take my hat off to Deputy Seán Power for his cunning intervention. Has the Tánaiste taken note of the headline in today's edition of : Ardú Mór i bPraghas na hOla. The report is of the rise in the price of crude oil to $38 per barrel, the highest price since the beginning of the first Iraq war.

The energy Bill will be more and more critical as the regulator is blocking the wind energy sector from expanding. Will the Tánaiste say if that matter is being dealt with urgently?

I am delighted to concur with the remarks of Deputy Seán Power. Mr. Pat Cox has been an excellent President of the European Parliament. He has certainly put the Parliament on the map and I wish him well in whatever endeavours he pursues in the future.

The energy Bill will be published later this year.

The immigration and residence Bill was referred to here in the course of the week. In the Seanad last Friday, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated that the Bill would address the question of migrant workers in Ireland with the introduction of a green card system. Will the Tánaiste clarify the purpose of the Bill? From detail I have read, it appears that it will only apply to highly skilled workers and not to low paid workers, who are the people who suffer most.

That matter will be dealt with in the work permits Bill, which will go to Cabinet in the next month. We will provide for a green card arrangement for workers.

Non-skilled workers will now have to be sourced from the wider EU. We will not grant permits to non-skilled workers from outside the EU.

Will the Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Bill be taken before the forthcoming elections and will the money be used for any purpose to be advised?

The Bill will be taken during this session. The funds will certainly not be used for the election, if that is the question.

Does the Tánaiste still have full confidence in the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, in view of the serious criticisms made of him——

That matter does not arise on the Order of Business.

I have an important point to make related to Members' rights. I am asking about the Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill.

This is a matter of procedure in the House.

I have tabled several questions today regarding a report which is severely critical of the Minister of State's handling of the OPW and of procurement procedures in that office. The Minister of State jumped the gun and released the report last night.

That does not arise on the Order of Business. If the Deputy has tabled questions she can deal with this matter during Question Time.

The matter relates to procedure in the House.

I am entitled to ask you, Sir, how you protect my rights as a Member. My questions are on today's Order Paper. The Minister of State released the report last night. It is severely critical of his management of the OPW.

If the Deputy is dissatisfied I suggest she talk to her party's Whip and he might raise the matter with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

It is, it deals with questions which have been submitted by a Member.

It is not. The Chair has ruled on the matter.

May I raise a point of order? Is it in order for a Minister to gazump questions which have been submitted to him by publishing a report the night before a series of questions are taken?

The Chair has no control over that matter.

Surely it is inappropriate, especially when one reads the report.

This is the fourth time I have submitted questions to the Minister of State on this matter.

In view of the Taoiseach's announcement prior to the general election in 2002 of the Grangegorman development agency Bill, will the Tánaiste tell us if the Bill will be announced before the local elections of 2004?

That Bill will be published this session.

Material which is the subject matter of a Bill before the House — electronic voting machines — is hanging around. A Bill is promised in the near future to provide for a streamlined development consent procedure for infrastructural projects of strategic national importance. I am sure electronic voting comes within that category. The Bill is No. 64 on the list. Will the Tánaiste indicate how long we must wait before that Bill comes before the House so that the Minister can make up his mind on what to do with the obsolete machines?

Your colleague, Deputy Allen, might assist you on that matter.

I know that, Sir, but I would not want the Minister to be in a quandary.

That Bill will be published after the summer.

That was to have been a fast-track Bill, but I see it has gone to the slow lane. Having been burned with regard to the Electoral (Amendment) Bill yesterday, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government went to Wexford to address a conference of fire officers and announced the setting up of a fire safety authority. When will that Bill be published?

The Minister will bring proposals to Cabinet on that matter shortly.

In light of the Judge Curtin case, when will the judicial conduct and ethics Bill be published? I hope this will not be put on the long finger.

It is expected later this year.

Is the Tánaiste definite about that?

Top
Share