It is proposed to take No. 1, the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Bill 2005 [Seanad] — Second Stage and No. 3, the National Oil Reserves Agency Bill 2006 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. Private Members' business shall be No. 29, Greyhound Industry (Doping Regulation) Bill 2006 — Second Stage, resumed, to be taken immediately after the Order of Business and to conclude after 90 minutes.
Order of Business.
There are no proposals to put to the House.
Before I raise questions on the Order of Business, I wish to point out to the Minister representing the Government that this side of the House co-operates with the Government in bringing forward legislation in an urgent manner. However, the National Oil Reserves Agency Bill was only published on Friday, it was received by most Deputies on Tuesday and is now to be debated on Thursday. We had a convention that Deputies would be given a reasonable period to prepare responses to Bills. We should revert to the proper practices we were observing in the past. This Bill could not be construed as emergency legislation.
I wish to raise a number of questions on the Order of Business. For the past number of days Deputy Kenny has asked the number of people who are awaiting trial under sections 1 and 2 of the 1935 Act, which have been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. We have not yet heard how many such cases await trial or whether the decision jeopardises any of them. I am anxious to know whether the Minister has obtained that information for the House.
The Government deemed No. 54 on the list of proposed legislation, the register of persons who are considered unsafe to work with children Bill, a significant priority but it appears that the heads thereof have not yet been presented to it. What does significant priority mean if this is not coming to Government and if the Taoiseach cannot indicate the stage of preparation it has reached?
We do not have the legislative basis for the scheme in respect of the hepatitis C and HIV compensation tribunal (amendment) Bill, which the Tánaiste announced 16 months ago, in February 2005. It is unacceptable that people infected by the State, who have waited nine years for this legislation, received firm promises 16 months ago but have seen no solid progress.
The Government indicated that it would introduce orders, secondary legislation, to provide that doctors and other medical professionals would display prices in their surgeries. The Competition Authority is now taking action on allegations of price-fixing or lack of transparency in the medical profession. What is the position regarding the promised order that was intended to deal with this matter in advance?
The legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the child protection joint working group for the register of persons who are considered unfit to work with children arises out of the North-South Ministerial Council format. Work on this Bill has concentrated on developing procedures for vetting of convictions through the vetting unit. The development of a register gives rise to a range of legal policy and practical implementation issues. The Departments of Education and Science and Health and Children are in discussions regarding the establishment of a pre-employment consultancy service. It is not possible to say when that legislation will be brought forward but we will follow it up.
That does not sound like great urgency on the part of the Government.
It is. The Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children with responsibility for children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, is taking charge of the situation. He is the first Minister of State to introduce vetting procedures in respect of this matter.
We shall await them.
The Government approved the heads of the hepatitis C and HIV compensation tribunal (amendment) Bill, which we expect to publish in this session. I will ask the Tánaiste to contact the Deputy regarding the secondary legislation relating to charges imposed by medical professionals. I know only about the primary legislation issues.
I think the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, quashed it.
If so, I will check with him. I do not know what is the position in that regard.
The Taoiseach indicated yesterday his understanding is that approximately 20 cases were involved in the relevant section to which the Deputy referred.
Are those cases awaiting trial?
In the printout that I saw from the Official Report of yesterday's proceedings, the Taoiseach undertook to contact Deputy Kenny on the exact number. He cited the figure from memory.
I know it was from memory but it was not clear whether those people are awaiting trial or whether their trials might be jeopardised in any way by the Supreme Court decision. That is what people want to know.
There is no reason the Supreme Court decision should jeopardise proceedings for anyone awaiting trial. We know the constitutional parameters. An amending Act is now on the Statute Book and people can be arraigned again if necessary.
That Act does not have retrospective effect.
Exactly, but a person charged can be rearraigned on other charges so nothing is irreversible until the judicial process begins.
Yesterday, the Taoiseach seemed to give a completion date for the work of the all-party committee without outlining its terms of reference. Does the Minister for Finance know when we will be advised of the terms of reference for the all-party committee to inquire into certain matters with which we are all familiar? Will these focus mainly on the deficiencies of the Act passed on Friday last? Will representations be entertained from this side of the House concerning the terms of reference? Will it be a separate new committee of the House? Will any reports written by State counsel for the client, for example, on the implications and significance of the case, be made available to the committee? Will they be made available to the in-house inquiry in the Office of the Attorney General?
I have read the Official Report of yesterday's proceedings. The Taoiseach did not give a completion date for the all-party committee's deliberations. He left that open.
He said it would be autumn. That is in the Official Report.
The all-party committee will determine how long it sits. That is how it works.
Does the Minister think what the Taoiseach says does not matter?
I will answer Deputy Rabbitte because he is asking the questions. The Taoiseach indicated that the Government has some ideas on the terms of reference, which it would share with the Opposition for discussion and consideration. There is no prescriptive approach, it is a matter of working out the terms of reference. We have some views on the matter and if everyone is committed to dealing with the wider policy issues that arise it should not be impossible to arrive at terms of reference agreeable to everyone.
A senior civil servant in my Department will report on the facts of what happened in respect of this case. I was somewhat disappointed to read in the Official Report of yesterday's debate that people regard the appointment of a senior civil servant as sweeping things under the carpet. It ill behoves Members of this House to impugn the integrity of either the Civil Service or the public service.
The Minister is joking.
That is ridiculous.
The fact that a person is in the public service should not indicate that he or she is incapable of doing his or her job with integrity. As the Minister with responsibility for the public service, I wish to make that clear.
Legal submissions from the Attorney General's office or staff to the legal team would be the basis of the arguments made in open court. That is not a major issue. I do not know whether it is normal to make such papers available. It is a matter for discussion. I do not think there will be any major document shaking the foundations of the State, even if we did see the papers.
The very tetchy Minister gave several glib replies.
The Deputy posed several glib questions.
It must be too early in the morning for the Minister.
Could the Minister manage to avoid sulking for a moment?
Name-calling will get the Deputy nowhere.
Will the Minister have another go at answering the question?
I have answered it.
I said that in a case such as this, State counsel would have prepared a report for his or her client on the implications of the case as he or she saw it. I merely asked the Minister, respectfully, whether that would be made available to the all-party committee. Could the Minister attempt to answer without snarling?
I did not snarl.
One man's snarl is another man's smile.
The problem with this Deputy is that whenever he hears an answer he does not like he decides to call people names. The fact that I cannot rise with the same quick degree of indignation as the Deputy does not mean he is any more correct than I. I will leave the name-calling to the Deputy. That is his style, not mine. That is the way he behaves. I am not obliged to take it from him.
We will tell the teacher.
The question of documentation is an issue that can be considered in the terms of reference to be drafted. The Taoiseach has outlined in good faith a preparedness to work on an all-party committee basis under the terms of reference which will deal with the issues. A report is to come from a public servant. I make the point, as I am entitled as Minister with responsibility for the public service, that I find it most disappointing that senior and experienced Deputies regard the appointment of a senior civil servant as in some way impugning the integrity of the process. That is unwarranted. I believe the fullness of the report when published will confirm there is no foundation to such an assertion.
The Minister should answer the question.
Has he the authority to question the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform?
What is the answer to the question?
The answer to the question is that whether that will be available is a matter for discussion.
Between whom?
For the third time, there are draft terms of reference which will be communicated to the Opposition and if there are issues it wishes to raise it may raise them there. However, if the Opposition is trying to find another means, beyond the report of the Civil Service, to ascertain what happened in this case, there is no necessity for that because the report from the senior civil servant will confirm all of the issues about which people have questions.
Does he have the authority to question the Minister and the Attorney General?
Order please. I call Deputy Gormley.
Yesterday evening, Dr. Maurice Manning, chairman of the Human Rights Commission, called for an urgent investigation into Ireland's role in assisting the United States in extraordinary renditions at Shannon Airport. Does the Minister for Finance accept such an investigation is now necessary——
That is not a matter for the Order of Business. We had a Private Notice Question yesterday ——
With respect, a great deal of latitude was given to the previous speaker and I insist I get the same treatment. The Minister has made a statement about this issue and says we are not involved in extraordinary renditions. However, is he stating to the House that the planes mentioned in the Council of Europe report were not involved in extraordinary renditions in any shape or form? I am not asking whether there were prisoners on board but whether the Minister believes the planes were used for extraordinary renditions under any shape or form.
The question is not in order. I call Deputy Crawford.
With respect, I do not know why the previous speaker was in order and given great latitude, but I am not.
The previous Deputy was speaking about promised business. There is no promised business with regard to Deputy Gormley's question.
There has been a call for an investigation. Is the Government going to bring forward that investigation? It appears there will be no investigation or statement.
Deputy Crawford, on the Order of Business.
I wish to raise two issues. First, with regard to the difficulties between the NRA and property owners, when will the roads amendment Bill be brought to the House for discussion? Second, who is responsible for the health system or when can we have a debate in the House with regard to the ongoing situation, particularly with regard to the fact that we cannot get answers to any questions in the House and services, particularly in the north east, are being removed? Will the Minister organise and ensure a full debate on the health system and that responsibility is accepted for it? He spends €13 billion of taxpayers' money on it, but we do not have a service.
The roads amendment Bill is to amend legislation relating to roads and the National Roads Authority. The heads of the Bill are expected this year and it is hoped to publish it later in the year. With regard to the many representations the Deputy has made to the authority, I hope it recognises his position as a public representative and deals with them expeditiously.
What about the health issue?
As a result of the "Prime Time Investigates" programme on the trafficking of women for the purposes of prostitution in Ireland, has the Government any intention to introduce legislation or to sign into law the various international treaties which would protect some women and children involved in the industry?
When will the broadcasting authority Bill, which concerns the transmission of RTE to England, be introduced? Does the Minister intend the same facility to be provided to the people of Cork where it appears the intention of the authorities is to close the regional station? Has the Minister any intention of interfering or ensuring that does not happen? Where stands the policy the RTE authority is charged with having with regard to regionalisation?
There have been a number of legislative provisions in recent years dealing with the phenomenon of human trafficking. A further Bill, the criminal justice trafficking in persons and sexual offences Bill, will give effect to a number of international instruments on trafficking in persons and sexual exploitation. It is not possible at this stage to indicate when that Bill will be brought forward, but I understand the Minister intends to bring forward draft legislation this year.
With regard to the RTE authority and the policies it is pursuing, that is a matter for the authority. If the Government were to intervene, there would be howls of derision and indignation from the Opposition benches on interfering with public service broadcasting.
Against a backdrop of public hospitals such as Monaghan, Cavan and Dundalk, which have long records of excellent care for patients, being deprived of services and the recent announcement by the Health Service Executive north east area of a further contraction in services to offset a projected overspend in the current fiscal year, will the Minister for Finance, as former Minister for Health and Children, intervene with the Minister for Health and Children to ensure patient safety is not put at risk across all the different disciplines affected, including oncology, renal dialysis and a raft of others highlighted over recent days? We appeal to the Minister to use his good offices and experience in the Department to recognise the needs of the north east.
With regard to promised legislation, the health information and quality authority Bill and the eligibility for health and personal social services Bill have been raised many times. What are the prospects of this legislation being brought forward in order to accommodate the type of debate we need in the House on this deeply worrying development which compounds the hurt of so many people?
On the health Bill, the consultation process is under way and once it is finished, revised proposals will be submitted to Government. It is a process which will take longer than initially anticipated. The Bill is expected to be published later in the year.
I did not ask about the health Bill, but the health information and quality authority Bill.
That is the one I was talking about.
What about the eligibility for health and personal social services Bill?
That one is called the health Bill. The one I am talking about provides for the establishment of the health information and quality authority and the Irish social services inspectorate function on a statutory basis.
Will the Minister make any intervention with regard to the issues I raised? As he holds the finance portfolio, he is the key player.
There is record levels of money for the health services——
There is record money and ever-contracting services. Clearly there is a crisis.
——and we are pursuing successful policies.
There is a crisis.
As we enter the fifth year of the life of the Government, does it recall the document Delivering Better Government or is it still vivid in the memory of the Members opposite? I remind the Government of one of its aspirational proposals at the time, the minerals development Bill. When is the aspiration likely to become a reality?
I understand it is due in the last year of the Government's tenure, which is next year.
Yesterday was the anniversary.
Perhaps Deputy Durkan should concentrate on trying to deliver better opposition so that he might have some prospects in government.
We are delivering opposition all right. The Minister and his colleagues should start delivering better government. It is time for them to wake up and do so. I would not go too far down the road on that one if I were the Minister.
The Minister announced at the time of the budget that he was allowing the levy——
I apologise to Deputy Durkan for snarling at him.
I do not mind the Minister snarling at all.
He is warming up.
——of €100 million per annum on the banks to lapse. He also announced the establishment of a social investment fund. He announced last weekend that the banks have apparently agreed to contribute a mere €25 million to his alternative. That represents a massive saving for them. Will the new arrangement require legislation, or will it go through Pobal? What instrument has the Minister in mind for the social investment fund structure?
I will make a full announcement about the social investment facility, which has every prospect of being a successful initiative, as soon as my consultations and deliberations in that regard have concluded. The figure of €25 million was mentioned at the time of the budget.
It is small, when one considers that the Minister gave the banks the right to drop €300 million.
The matter cannot be debated now.
It is a huge gain for the banks. They were contributing €100 million per annum, but the Minister intends to ask them for contributions of just €25 million in future.
The matter cannot be debated at this stage.
It is a steal for the banks.
I call Deputy Gogarty.
Can the Minister, Deputy Cowen, comment on how he arrived at the figure of €25 million? Did he ask the banks for anything?
The matter cannot be debated at this stage.
There is no legislation.
At the rate they are making profits, it is absolute buttons for them.
The levy was for three years. That is what happened.
It was a bad deal.
I do not renege on deals — that is the difference between Deputy Burton and me.
That was a snarl.
I always like a little bit of banter.
Was that another snarl?
I have been awfully polite to the Minister.
Deputy Gogarty, without interruption.
I really do not deserve that kind of snarl.
One must admit that it is quite entertaining.
Deputy Burton is very touchy.
That is on a good day.
We are all enjoying the sunshine. We are in good humour. The Minister should try to join in.
The Deputies opposite are all very sensitive.
Some people have a funny way of showing they are enjoying the good weather.
A little less pettiness would not go astray.
The heat is obviously getting to Members. I wish to inquire about the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006, which was debated in the House last week. It is obvious that the latter will have a knock-on effect on other legislation. In that context, I refer, in particular, to that relating to education. There are some questions about section 29 of the Education Act 1998, which relates to discipline procedures, appeals and the role of parents' associations. Will the Minister indicate whether there are plans to introduce legislation in the near future to amend the 1998 Act? Does he recognise the importance of re-examining the Act?
I understand that no such legislation is promised. The points that have been raised by the Deputy are further reasons for the all-party committee to sit down to work out which wider policy issues should be addressed.
The Government said that last week.
The Minister for Education and Science said that she would examine this issue.
Copies of the Defence of Life and Property Bill 2006, No. 30 of 2006, were circulated to Deputies this morning. The Bill has been proposed in the names of the Progressive Democrats Senators. Can I ask whether it is a Government Bill? Will it be taken in Government time? Has it been endorsed by the Government?
As it is a Seanad Bill, it is a matter for the Upper House.
Yes.
Not if the Bill comes to the Dáil.
Deputy Howlin is firing blanks.
It is not a matter for this House.
It is unusual for Deputies to be given a Bill that has been produced by one party in what purports to be a coalition Government. Is it a Government Bill or is a separate party within the Government producing its own legislation as an alternative to Government policy?
Yes.
It is a Seanad Bill. It is a matter for the Seanad.
It is legislation.
That definitely happened last week in any event. They produced a separate Bill.
It is legislation that is before the Upper House.
It is not before either House. It has just been published.
It is before the Seanad.
Is it proposed to take the Bill in this House?
No.
Can I ask whether it has been considered by the Cabinet?
It is before the Seanad.
It is not before the Seanad.
It is listed on the Seanad Order Paper.
I am inquiring about the status of a Bill that has been published. Is it a Government Bill or a part-Government Bill?
It is semi-detached.
It has not been considered by the Government. It is obvious that it is an initiative by the Progressive Democrats representatives in the Seanad.
Does the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform agree with the Bill?
I welcome the initiative. It is great to see it.
They are in government with the Minister's party.
It is important that small parties keep their identities when they are in government.
It is a segment Bill.
If in doubt, leave them out.
The Minister does not need to explain.
That is in case they——
They will be sending Michael a sweet.
The Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, is watching.
That is something the Labour Party forgot when it was in government.
I think the Labour Party asserted itself well in government.
It did. The Deputy should not bring me down that road.
I think we have returned to the days of the temporary little arrangements.
Oh Danny boy.
There are another 11 months to go.
Deputy Boyle should get a sense of humour.
Perhaps the Minister is in the business of changing partners.
Now the Deputy is being very funny.
The Minister suggested earlier that Opposition Deputies who question the value of an internal review of procedures in the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions because the review will be carried out by a civil servant are somehow denigrating that process. The reason for the concern and scepticism on the part of some Members on this side of the House is partly based on recent experience. I refer, for example, to the Dalton report, which has been prepared by a senior civil servant but which cannot be brought to the floor of the House. Following its preparation, that report, in which people are named, was distributed without being discussed in the House.
It has been leaked.
It has been leaked on a large scale before the House has had an opportunity to consider its findings. How can Deputies be confident that the same thing will not happen in the case of the internal review of the workings of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Office of the Attorney General that has been promised by the Government? Can I suggest that the best way to deal with this matter would be to ask the all-party committee to deal with all the issues from day one? Its terms of reference should be open so that it can ask the necessary questions of those who need to be questioned. We need to ensure that this work is done in the shortest possible period.
I do not agree, the best way to ensure that due process is observed would be to get someone such as a senior civil servant from the Department of Finance who is au fait with systems in the public service to collate the information and to set out why the system of notification did not work in this particular case. That is the best way of proceeding.
The Government will be obliged to take responsibility.
To do it in any other way might cause people to succumb to the temptation of playing politics with the issue.
Is that what the Government wants to avoid?
The report will exonerate everybody and place responsibility on nobody.