Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Jun 2004

Vol. 587 No. 3

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 10, motion re Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998; No. 15, Criminal Justice (Joint Investigation Teams) Bill 2003 [Seanad] — Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; No. 1, Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill 2004 [Seanad] — Second Stage (resumed); No. 16, Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Bill 2003 — Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; No. 17, Residential Tenancies Bill 2003 — Order for Report, Report and Final Stages.

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 p.m.; the proceedings on No. 10, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion after 70 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply: the speech of a Minister or Minister of State 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 15 minutes in each case; members may share time; a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed ten minutes. Private Member's business shall be No. 37, Motion re An Garda Síochána (resumed) to conclude at 8.30 p.m. tonight.

There are two proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed?

That is not agreed. I wish to raise an issue on the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill. There is confusion about this matter. I received a letter from the Minister——

We are discussing the late sitting. Are the arrangements for the late sitting agreed?

I am discussing the extension of time for taking the Bill. The Minister wrote to me, as an Opposition spokesperson, stating that he would take all Stages of the Bill today. However, the Order Paper indicates something different. The confusion in that regard is unwelcome. In his letter, the Minister also stated that he is looking forward to hearing our contributions in due course. The Minister was not available to hear those contributions during yesterday's debate. Will the Ceann Comhairle explain why such confusion has arisen in terms of the Minister indicating that the House will take all Stages while the Order Paper indicates something different?

The Order Paper does not have to indicate that all Stages will be taken.

Is it in order for a Minister to state in advance that all Stages will be taken?

It does not matter. Nothing matters anymore. The Government can do whatever it likes. It is sheer arrogance.

Is Deputy Gormley not satisfied with his colleague's contribution?

I am very satisfied with it. However, I am not satisfied with the response.

The Deputy should allow Deputy Eamon Ryan to conclude.

The Bill allows for the House to allocate €4 billion to a company. That is not a small matter.

The Deputy has made his point. The Taoiseach to respond on the arrangements for taking the Bill.

I wish to make a further point. Second Stage of the Bill was taken yesterday just before 7 p.m. The letter I received was, I presume, written yesterday by the Minister and indicates that all Stages will be taken today. Does the Taoiseach consider that proper process and is the Minister's letter inaccurate or incorrect?

The Government has ordered that Second Stage of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill will resume today. I assume the Minister was seeking agreement to try to conclude the deliberations on the Bill. If such agreement is not forthcoming, we will not pursue the matter.

That is not——

There was no discussion.

We cannot have a debate on the matter. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed?

There was no discussion. The Taoiseach has stated——

I am putting the question to the House. The Deputy made his contribution and the Taoiseach replied.

If I can conclude the point——

Sorry, Deputy——

I would like to hear the Deputy's point.

The Taoiseach stated that there was not agreement. My point is that there was not even any discussion.

The Deputy made his contribution and the Taoiseach has replied. In accordance with long-standing practice in the House——

On a point of order, if the Government has ordered that Second Stage of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill be resumed, surely it is not open to the Minister to decide to take all Stages.

The Taoiseach has already replied on that matter. I must put the question.

Question, "That the proposal for the late sitting be agreed to", put and declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 10, motion re Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 agreed to?

No. I strongly object to the methodology proposed to address this matter. The Government is asking the House to vote in favour of a motion to renew the suspension of ordinary rights and freedoms under emergency legislation. The time being provided, 70 minutes, for this is inadequate, particularly in light of the importance of this matter. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has failed to meet his mandatory obligations under section 18 of the legislation to provide a report to the Members of the House on the relevant sections of the Act and in respect of its performance during the past 12 months. This report was withheld until yesterday afternoon. I warrant that few Members have had the opportunity to read it. If any have been able to do so, they can only agree that it provides no evidence that the emergency provisions laid out in the 1939 to 1998 sequence of Offences against the State Acts are necessary or that ordinary law would not have proved sufficient to secure sound convictions.

We are discussing a time motion.

I strongly object to this proposition. The Government has not met the section 18 requirement. Accordingly, I propose that the debate——

We are discussing the proposal regarding the time allocated. What the Deputy might say on the motion itself is not appropriate at this stage.

The time allocated is inadequate. In addition, there has been a failure by the Minister and the Government to provide the necessary detail until the last moment. The Minister's report contains nothing that properly argues for the continuation in operation of certain provisions of these odious Acts. I, therefore record my strong opposition because the Minister has failed to present any cogent case for their continuation.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 10 be agreed to".

Will the Deputies claiming a division please rise?

Deputies Crowe, Joe Higgins, Finian McGrath, Morgan, Ó Caoláin and Ó Snodaigh rose.

As fewer than ten Members have risen I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 68 the names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.

Question declared carried.

I wish to raise two issues from the legislative programme that bear on the respect of Government for the House, as well as its legislative proposals. The first is in regard to the State airports Bill. Is it the case that the Cabinet has approved it but has withheld its publication pending the Fianna Fáil meeting? Will it be accompanied by a business plan for the airports, which will be separated by the Bill.

I read yesterday that an Oireachtas committee reported on the abuse of alcohol by young people and made recommendations to the House. The Department of Health and Children has indicated it will not act on the recommendations of the Oireachtas committee. What arrangements will the Taoiseach make to ensure the Department of Health and Children listens to the views of the Oireachtas committee before it decides on its legislative programme?

The Deputy has made his point.

Surely there is an obligation on the Department of Health and Children to listen to an Oireachtas committee that makes recommendations and not just to proceed regardless with its legislative proposals?

The State airports Bill is due this session. Regarding the other matter, I understand the report was cleared yesterday by an Oireachtas committee.

It is also on the Government's legislative programme. The indication is that the Government is proceeding with its own Bill, irrespective of the fact that an all-party Oireachtas committee has recommended a different approach.

The heads of that Bill have been approved. I am sure the views of the Oireachtas will be taken into account.

That is not clear from the press office of the Department of Health and Children.

We will hold the Taoiseach to that.

That will be a matter for the House when the legislation comes before it.

I wish to raise two matters. When will the Bill to facilitate the transfer of the Dublin Institute of Technology to Grangegorman be published? Is it the Government's intention to enact it this session?

The Taoiseach has instanced the burden of European business and the fact that the House will have risen as his reasons for not going ahead with the Cabinet reshuffle. This party is prepared to come back until the end of July to facilitate half a dozen Ministers or more who are clapped-out being put out to grass. I am sure my colleagues in the House would come back for that purpose. Deputy Conor Lenihan said on another occasion——

Put them out to graze.

——that 50% of the Cabinet should be sacked. He is 50% right.

That matter does not arise.

We will come back at any stage of the summer to facilitate that.

If Deputy Rabbitte got a 2% increase in his vote he would be unbearable.

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

The Grangegorman development Bill will be published today. On the other matter, having only gone up 1% after seven years in Opposition Fine Gael would reshuffle its people. However, because everyone in Fine Gael has a job in the party the positions cannot really be reshuffled.

The NCCP's Forum on the Workplace for the Future, which we discussed earlier, does not extend, as far as I know, to the Cabinet. However, it points out that employees around the country need legislation such as the safety, health and welfare at work Bill, given they are being asked to be even more productive, notwithstanding the enormous pressures on them at the moment such as lack of child care, commuting, etc. Does the Taoiseach intend to prioritise that legislation, given that yesterday he told us that matters coming up before the summer recess of 2004 have been put back to next term. Will this legislation come before the House before the summer?

Yes, this Bill has been cleared by Cabinet. Some matters remain to be cleared up but it will be published shortly.

In view of the fact that Fianna Fáil backbenchers are deemed to be behaving like children, would it be possible to arrange for the building of a crèche on the plinth? Perhaps the building control Bill -——

Has the Deputy a question on legislation?

Could the building control Bill be expedited? It might facilitate that particular development. When will we have that Bill?

It will be late this year.

Deputy Rabbitte referred to the Grangegorman development agency Bill. Is it intended to introduce and debate that Bill before the summer recess?

That is a matter for the Whips.

On the matter of the immigration and residency Bill, will the Taoiseach consider including with that legislation the Irish nationality and citizenship Bill which he promised yesterday would be published by the end of autumn? As the two Bills are related, will he publish both together by the end of autumn rather than allow another year's delay?

I will bring that matter to the attention of the Minister.

I am sure on this important morning the Taoiseach has had his breakfast of nutty gizzards ——

The Deputy should raise a question on legislation. Several colleagues wish to ask questions and we have a lot to cover.

Not another Bruton attempt at humour.

The great silent one has emerged from the darkness.

Allow Deputy Bruton to continue.

The Deputy need not redden when he is telling a joke. He should relax, let it out and let it flow.

I ask Deputy Cowen to allow Deputy Bruton ask a question appropriate to the Order of Business.

He should be a stand-up comedian for once in his life.

On the Deputy's side, comic acts seem to be the order of the day. There is little substance anyhow.

The Deputy should put his red nose back in his pocket.

I wish to ask about No. 60 on the Government legislative agenda where I see the Tánaiste proposes protected cells.

That is far better from the Deputy. He is far better at that.

Are those proposed for some of her colleagues she now wishes to get on with on the implementation of the Government programme?

It is a very good idea.

Deputy Bruton has done well. One cannot beat gravitas.

A little more information on that issue would be helpful.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs is into gallows humour today.

I have to go. I will see the Deputy.

The Minister should not take it like that.

It is a pity the Minister has to go but I am sure he will be back.

Unfortunately.

I ask for the guidance of the Ceann Comhairle. The health reform legislation is promised for the end of the year. The Health (Amendment) Bill has abolished health boards and there is a lacuna in terms of democratic accountability. Members of the Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children were given an undertaking by the chair of the health service executive and the Minister of State that we would be given documentation — the composite plan for the health services. The promise was made but we have still not received the documentation.

Has the Deputy a question for the Taoiseach?

My question is for the Chair to possibly refer to the Taoiseach. Can we have ——

We cannot discuss business of a committee.

I know and that is why I request the Chair's guidance. As a member of a committee, where there is no democratic accountability, will the Taoiseach give me an undertaking now that a document promised to the members of the committee will be provided by his Government? When will we get that document for which we have been waiting weeks?

That is a matter for the committee.

Will the Taoiseach state whether he will give us the document that was promised to us?

Sorry Deputy, the document is a matter for the committee.

What power have I got as a member of the committee if I am given an undertaking about the composite plan on the health service and the Government reneges on that commitment? Will the Taoiseach ensure that the plan is given to the members of the committee? Will the Ceann Comhairle, as the person in charge of this democratic institution——

The Chair is not going to be involved in anything for which it does not have responsibility. Deputies must take that into account. The Chair will not take responsibility for issues for which it is not responsible.

The Chair has a very narrow view of its responsibility.

I advise the Deputy not to go down that road.

That is very clear. I fully accept that——

And a narrow view of the rights of Members.

The Chair will discharge its responsibility.

The Chair will do what it likes as usual.

The Chair of this House will not be undermined by Deputies, by smart comments or by intimidation. Let that be clear.

I genuinely do not want to be impolite in any way and would not wish the Chair to take it that way.

The matter is not the responsibility of the Chair. It is the responsibility of the committee in the first instance. The Chair has ruled on the matter.

We are all aware that certain tensions exist now between the Government parties, particularly with regard to promised legislation. The legislation I refer to is the strategic national infrastructural Bill. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has said he is opposed to the inclusion of incineration. Is the Taoiseach also opposed——

That does not arise. We will move on to the next business.

When will the legislation be published?

It should be published later this year.

Top
Share