It is proposed to take No. a10, motion re referral to Joint Committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000 (Section 5), (Specified Period) Order 2005; and No. a6, British-Irish Agreement (Amendment) Bill 2005 — Order for Second Stage and Second and Remaining Stages. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. a10 shall be taken without debate and the following arrangements shall apply in relation to No. a6: (i) the proceedings on Second Stage shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 3 p.m. today; the opening speech of the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs 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; the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; Members may share time; and the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed five minutes; (ii) the proceedings on the Committee and Remaining Stages shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 3.30 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, with regard to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Private Members' business shall be No. 43, motion re suicide (resumed), to be taken immediately after the Order of Business and to conclude after 90 minutes.
Order of Business.
There are two proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. a10, motion re referral to joint committee, agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. a6, conclusion of Second and Subsequent Stages of the British-Irish Agreement (Amendment) Bill 2005, agreed?
Will the Minister for Finance say what the urgency is in bringing forward today the Order for Second Stage, Second Stage and Subsequent Stages of the British-Irish Agreement (Amendment) Bill 2005? What are its implications? What is this about?
It may come as a surprise to the House that since the foundation of the Irish Republic in 1919, the guillotine has been used 575 times, but that since the current combination of parties assumed office in 1997, it has been used 191 times, 33% of the total number.
A lot done, more to do.
That is not what the Deputy said on his election posters.
The Minister for Finance is asking the House to agree that the Dáil should again come to the rescue of the Government in its own incompetence. The legislation involved was rushed through under the guillotine. The British-Irish Agreement Bill 1999, a 56-section Bill, was presented on 8 March 1999. The debate on all Stages got only as far as section 13. It was section 53 which exposed the State to the vulnerability now identified. That section was never debated in this House. What is being sought today is that once again we give the nod to all Stages proceeding in order to protect the State in these circumstances.
Will the Minister for Finance say when this frailty in the legislation was first discovered? What are its implications and, as Deputy Kenny asked, why must all Stages of the Bill be rushed through in this fashion? Will the Minister give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that we are not going to be regularly placed in such a situation? As the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform knows, the issue is again about property rights. It is not dissimilar to the legislation passed before Christmas regarding the long stay charges in nursing homes which was struck down. It was essentially the same issue and the same cause. Again, legislation was railroaded through the House by the Government without permitting serious scrutiny in the Chamber.
Like other parties, the Green Party was notified about the briefing yesterday. Why was there that level of secrecy surrounding the briefing? We were trying to find out who should go to the briefing and whether I, Deputy Boyle or some other party spokesperson was responsible for the legislation. We could not find out, for example, if it related to Waterways Ireland. The level of secrecy displayed was worthy of the planning for a coup d’état but we discovered at the briefing that the legislation was to deal with a technicality as a result of some incompetence on the Government’s part which had to be rectified. However, it cannot be retrospective with regard to court cases that might arise from the legislation.
Why was the matter clouded in such secrecy? Why is the legislation required so urgently? That should be explained because it is clouded in mystery.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, has been back up the pole again in recent times. On behalf of the Sinn Féin team of candidates, I thank him for his helpful intervention.
That does not arise.
It is an appropriate day for me to share that with the Minister.
The Deputy is wasting time.
A light moment, perhaps. An explanation is required for the guillotine in this instance. We may or may not, depending on the import of what is being proposed, require the time that has been allocated but it should have been left open. The legislation could have been addressed within the suggested timeframe but it should be open to Members' participation. That is critically important. The statistics Deputy Rabbitte quoted must cause alarm bells to ring, particularly on the Government benches, about the use and abuse of the guillotine. It is inappropriate in this instance. The debate should have been left open. The issue could be dealt with in the normal course of our work.
With references to coups d’état and guillotines, there is a sense of revolution in the House this morning about a technical Bill. It has obviously exercised the minds of some Members. This is a Bill to clarify legal provisions regarding the operation of the North-South bodies, particularly Waterways Ireland in view of its extensive property portfolio. The Bill also covers other North-South bodies. With regard to the briefing for spokespersons, it is important that the Government is able to bring forward this legislation in a way that will protect the State and not leave it open to unnecessary litigation. There is nothing untoward in that. It is simply prudent and appropriate to brief Members so the legislation can be passed.
It is not the first time an issue has arisen where there is a possible lacuna in the law which needs to be filled. Presumably, we are in agreement on the North-South bodies. Members supported them when they were established. I understand there is no objection in principle on the part of Members. This issue arose in recent months.
That is not the issue, as the Minister knows.
I am simply making the point that everybody is in agreement on the North-South bodies. We are aware of how they are operating in the absence of all the institutions being up and running under the Good Friday Agreement. We hope to see them restored in the aftermath of the elections. However, we also wish to ensure the legal framework for these North-South bodies is not open to challenge.
The Bill removes any doubt that a North-South implementation body is not bound by the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents)(No. 2) Act 1978 and directly incorporates the exemption in respect of that protection for dwelling houses contained in the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 in the same terms as set out in that Act. The Bill is being introduced with a view to its passage through both Houses in one day and signature by the President later today. It is considered essential to ensure clarity and certainty in this area of law and to remove any doubt that might exist as to the protection afforded to the North-South implementation bodies with regard to landlord and tenant ground rent issues.
That is the technical issue involved. It is urgent and we need to deal with it in the way proposed. That is the reason the briefing was given to Deputy Sargent and others. These are no more or less than technical issues.
Does the Government propose to withdraw the Disability Bill on the basis of the strong statement of condemnation issued by its disability legislation consultation group? The group clearly states that from its perspective the legislation is flawed.
Does the Minister for Finance agree that workers should be entitled to the minimum wage, including those——
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
It does arise.
Not on the Order of Business.
The minimum wage took effect in the last few days. There are workers in An Siopa in the Oireachtas with a disability who are not in receipt of the minimum wage.
There are other ways to raise the matter.
Does the Minister for Finance consider that appropriate?
With regard to the Education Act and in light of the serious comments made by the IVEA today, is it proposed to amend that Act to put in place a safe legal framework for dealing with gross misbehaviour in class by a small number of unruly pupils?
With regard to the third question, there is no promised legislation on that matter. A question to the Minister would allow her to elucidate what policy intent she has in that area, given that the matter has arisen recently.
On the second question, presumably all employment is in accordance with employment law. I am not aware of the arrangements but sometimes sheltered employment or training might not be covered by that legislation. I am not sure of the position but there is obviously a training element involved, as distinct from employment, for some people in the disability sector.
The Disability Bill is part of the national disability strategy which, over time, will deliver high quality support services for people with disabilities. The Bill is also part of the multi-annual investment programme announced in the budget. This is a unique and unprecedented move to provide high priority disability services. No Government can say more than state that it will do everything it can to ensure these issues are dealt with. This legislation has been in gestation for three or four years and it is important now to enact it and get on with providing the improved services, based on existing resources of over €2.5 billion and the €900 million six year strategy announced in the budget.
We have given a commitment to review the legislation after five years. It is important now to proceed with what is proposed. The Government has listened to everybody with an interest in this issue and has sought to accommodate all the proposals made, as far as possible. We are now anxious to proceed. As I said when making my Budget Statement, the Opposition's performance in this area during its time in Government left much to be desired.
That was a long time ago.
It was not that long.
A Government appointed body is condemning the Bill.
The Minister will be aware that the INO is publishing a paper today on whistleblowing and advising of its concern that where the operation of the health care system endangers patients they ought to have legal protection if they bring that matter to light. Will the Minister indicate the Government's attitude to the Whisteblowers Protection Bill passed by the Government on Second Stage, which I introduced to the House on behalf of the Labour Party in 1999? The Government accepted it. Can he tell me how it stands and when it will be enacted?
This Private Members' Bill was published in 1999. As I understand it, the Dáil is waiting for it to go to committee. I am sure the position of the Government was set out in our spokesperson's Second Stage speech. I do not think I can add further to what she had to say.
Does the Minister have any idea what is the answer to my question?
I do. The record will show what was the Government's position in regard to this famous Bill. Deputy Rabbitte asked me what is our position. That is our position.
I do not know whether that is arrogance or ignorance. It appears to be both.
I call Deputy Sargent.
Deputy Rabbitte is good at that.
Deputy Rabbitte is familiar with both.
This is a new reign of terror.
He is a Woody Allen socialist.
Deputy Sargent should be allowed to speak without interruption.
Will the Minister for Finance agree on behalf of the Government that the ESRI report on pensions should to be debated in this House? As Minister for Finance is he mindful of the need to amend the terms of reference of the tax relief review group which deals with property so it could also deal with pensions, given that the tax relief on private pensions appears to be more than what the State pays in pensions?
The Deputy should confine himself to a question on promised legislation.
The Minister for Finance is in the best position to answer that question based on the fact that it concerns pensions.
Deputy Sargent should submit a question to the Minister in his capacity as Minister for Finance.
I seek a promised debate on the ESRI report.
Is a debate promised?
I do not believe a debate has been promised. It is a matter for the Whips if there is a wish to discuss it.
I wish to raise three items. First, does the local government rates Bill have anything to do with increased stealth taxes and when will it be introduced?
We cannot discuss the content of the Bill.
Second, a health Bill is on the agenda which appears to relate to health information and controls. When is this due to come before the House in addition to the nurses amendment Bill so we can discuss the crisis in accident and emergency services and the ongoing difficulties in the health sector?
It is not possible to indicate when the nurses amendment Bill will be introduced. The health Bill should be introduced this year.
The Minister for Finance is aware that he is being blamed for the lack of progress on capital projects in the health area. For example——
Does the Deputy have a question appropriate to the Order of Business?
I have.
Will the Deputy come to the question?
The block on BreastCheck and the expansion of Wexford Hospital are being blamed on his delaying the announcement——
I ask the Deputy to stay within Standing Orders or to resume her seat whereupon I will call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Just when we thought things could not get worse in the area of health we now find that according to the CEO of the Health Service Executive——
Does the Deputy have a question appropriate to the Order of Business?
I have.
Will the Deputy come to her question or resume her seat? I will call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
The CEO has stated publicly to a committee of this House——
The Deputy is being disorderly. I ask her to resume her seat.
I have a question for the Minister.
The Deputy should come to the question.
I have a question and I will ask it.
The Deputy cannot take up the time of the House making a Second Stage speech.
It is the Ceann Comhairle who is taking up the time of the House.
There is a shortfall of €180 million in the health Estimate——
I ask Deputy McManus to come to her question or to resume her seat.
Can I ask the Minister for Finance if he will introduce a Supplementary Estimate to allow for the fact that there is now a shortfall of €180 million which will mean cutbacks in the area of health because the HSE is short in revenue by €180 million for this year alone?
The Deputy has made her point. She should allow the Minister to answer.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle.
The only Supplementary Estimate the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children has indicated will be brought to the House is in respect of any extra expenditure that will be incurred due to long-stay charges in nursing homes which arose as a result of the Supreme Court decision. The increase in health expenditure this year was 14%.
So we are going to have cutbacks.
In a written reply to a parliamentary question I received yesterday from the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, she indicated that a draft resolution will have to come before the Houses of the Oireachtas to revoke the relevant statutory instrument regarding the High Court judgment striking down the Government's proposed inquiry into the conduct of vaccine trials on children in institutional care. Will the Minister indicate to the House when that draft resolution will be brought before this House and the Seanad?
I cannot give the Deputy that information but I will ask the Minister to correspond with him and indicate when she expects to be able to do it.
Can I ask the Minister for Finance whether he might encourage the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to put a priority rating on the various Bills he has proposed for this and subsequent sessions with a view to identifying the order in which it is proposed to deal with the Bills before or after the next general election?
I call Deputy Costello.
That is a legitimate question and I am entitled to have an answer. All of the Bills are on the published list. The Minister is not present in the House and I do not know who else to ask. I am in a quandary.
He has six dogs in the traps.
If the Deputy tables a parliamentary question I am sure he will get a full answer. As for the ability to have it done before the next general election, that would depend on the date of the next general election. It is probably a moveable feast in terms of what legislation will have been dealt with.
Not according to the Taoiseach.
All the Bills are urgent. These include the energy Bill and the postal services Bill, which has gone into oblivion. There are various other pressing issues which need to be dealt with before the next general election so the people will have an idea of what the Government intends to do.
I call Deputy Costello.
It would be important at the earliest possible date that the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, the Taoiseach or the Minister for Finance would give some indication. We are about to get the answer now.
The Deputy referred to the fact that there are three Bills from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources on the list for the start of this session, the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the Foyle and Carlingford Fisheries Bill and the Sea Fisheries Bill. I am not in a position to say when they will be brought to the House but I am sure the Minister can communicate that to Deputy Durkan.
We have heard a great deal about café-style bars from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in recent times. With the arrival of summer time, perhaps the Minister for Finance could give an indication of when we can expect the Intoxicating Liquor Codification Bill that has been promised for a long time. Will it also encompass the Alcohol Products (Control of Advertising, Sponsorship and MarketingPractices/Sales Promotions) Bill?
I understand this is in a consultation phase at present.
Constipation.
A consultation paper has been issued by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to enable people in the industry to give their views before the final drafting of the legislation. It will more than likely be next year before it is enacted.
In the context of the emergency legislation today and other legislation dealing with North-South bodies, can the Minister explain what is the delay with the register of persons who are considered unsafe to work with children Bill? The regulations that would result from the Bill are already in place in Northern Ireland.
I understand it is not possible to say at this stage. Any further inquiries would be best directed to the Minister concerned.
Can the Minister explain why the legislation exists in Northern Ireland but not here?
Deputy, we have to move on. Private Member's business is due to be taken.
A cross-governmental working group is reporting to the Minister on proposals for the reform of vetting of employees by the Garda. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has appointed an implementation group to advise on the implementation and necessity for legislation. The Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Children are in discussion regarding the establishment of pre-employment consultancy services.
Given that it is not possible at this stage to know when the gaming and lotteries Bill will be published, can the Minister give an indication when this will come before the House?
I understand it is too early to say when it will come before the House.
When does the Minister for Finance propose to introduce the Ombudsman's Bill? When will the Government take a decision as regards the future of Aer Lingus, and also in the context——
That does not arise under the Order of Business.
It is very important.
Of course it is important, but the Minister can only answer the Deputy's question that is appropriate to the Order of Business.
One gets more information from the media than one can get in this House.
I understand that the Ombudsman's Bill should be coming forward next year. The other matter has been before Government.
On promised legislation, in light of the fact that on Monday Teagasc moved cattle off a farm in Ballinamore, County Leitrim, with serious question marks over the procedures employed as to whether they meet with Department of Agriculture and Food criteria——
Has the Deputy a question appropriate to the Order of Business?
——will the Minister for Finance call in the special investigation unit of the Department of Agriculture and Food——
That does not arise under the Order of Business.
—— and when will the House see the animal health Bill, so we can debate this in detail?
It is not possible to say at this stage when the animal health Bill will be brought forward.
What about the investigation unit?
Perhaps the Deputy should table a parliamentary question to the Minister for Agriculture and Food.
The Minister is not doing very well.
Will the Minister give the House a timeframe on the foreshore Bill promised on many occasions by his colleague, the former Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern? Has the recent European Court judgment on illegal dumping any implications for the Exchequer?
The second question does not arise on the Order of Business.
The foreshore legislation is under review, I understand——
Does he know anything?
——in the context of a comprehensive new statement and strategy for the Department. That is the current position.
Does the Minister know anything about the critical infrastructure Bill?
That matter is to come before Government in due course.