Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 Mar 2007

Vol. 634 No. 6

Order of Business (Resumed).

There are five proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. a12a and a12b without debate agreed to?

In principle, I believe the planning scheme for the Poolbeg Peninsula ought to be scrutinised and approved. However, I fear that what Members received last week is inadequate. While I have discussed this matter with Mr. Maloney of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and have received certain assurances, I do not see them here. The Tánaiste will appreciate there is a serious problem in respect of the Poolbeg Peninsula.

This is only a procedural motion.

I want a proper debate in the House on this issue. As for the Poolbeg Peninsula, a smell emanates from the sewage treatment plant, the Government incinerator is to go there and there is no public transport. While I have received assurances that there will be a Luas in Sandymount and Ringsend to facilitate such development, this is the kind of issue that must be debated in detail and it should come again before the House.

I agree with Deputy Gormley in this regard. While I have no objection in principle to the proposition to refer the matter for further scrutiny, there is a requirement on the Tánaiste to give a bounden guarantee that this matter will be properly addressed in the House. Members need to know where exactly stand the Tánaiste and his colleagues in respect of the proposed developments on the Poolbeg Peninsula. It is an extremely important issue that is not simply of local concern. Wider concerns are involved and Members would like the opportunity to participate properly in this regard. The Tánaiste has an opportunity to give a guarantee to Members that this will indeed be the case.

Apparently, this is a matter of local concern and therefore should not necessarily be debated in the House at this point. However, Dublin Bay is the most populated bay on this island and it is proposed to site an incinerator in the middle of the area to which this motion refers. I suggest Members be mindful of that. In referring the matter to the joint committee as undoubtedly will happen, there should be provision and recognition that if the committee so recommends, this matter should come back before the House for a full and comprehensive debate. This would take place after those Deputies and others who may be more knowledgeable about the site have had a chance to explore in detail the concerns that have been expressed by many people.

I fully share in what Deputies Gormley and Quinn have said, namely, that this matter is of considerable importance and interest, not simply to Members from the constituency. As Dublin Bay is a significant national asset——

Hear, hear. Especially in Dublin North-Central.

——it must be dealt with on a national basis as well. This is why the New Heart for Dublin project has my support and that of a number of other Members.

As for this matter, I agree with Deputy Quinn that having a debate now on this subject with everyone's participation would be to put the cart before the horse. It should go to the joint committee at which an intensive discussion can be held. Were a matter to arise from the committee's discussions that should come back before the House, this can be done.

As for the proposal by Dublin City Council to have an incinerator at Poolbeg, I wish to make the point that this——

The Government supports the arrangement.

——is not——

Yes, it is Government policy.

It is Government policy.

Allow the Tánaiste to continue please.

On a point of order——

I allowed the Deputy to have his say. It is funny that they are trying to talk me down.

On a point of order, the Tánaiste stated that this is a proposal of Dublin City Council. It is not. It is a proposal of the Dublin city manager.

Yes, sorry——

Does the Tánaiste take my point?

Yes, I take the point.

The Dublin city manager works to the Government.

No, he does not.

It is Government policy.

Deputy Gormley——

It is interesting that I am not allowed to speak although I allowed everyone else to so do.

The Tánaiste should not wriggle out of this.

The point I wished to make is that this matter will come before An Bord Pleanála in the near future. I believe all the Deputies concerned will be present to make the point that the area is the wrong place in which to build any such incinerator.

Wriggle, wriggle.

I agree with Deputy Quinn that this matter should be referred to the committee. If the committee believes it should come back to this House or if material arising from the committee's deliberations requires the attention of the House, this can be discussed among the Whips.

Is that agreed?

Question, "That the proposal for dealing with Nos.a12a and a12b be agreed to.”, put and declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 18, Committee Stage of the Criminal Justice Bill 2007 agreed to?

The Tánaiste was an eminent legal counsel before his election to the House and may be obliged to return to that profession shortly. Two minutes ago, he stated in respect of the Poolbeg proposal that the matter requires intensive discussion and should go to the committee. The Criminal Justice Bill 2007 contains 51 sections and two Schedules and 156 amendments have been tabled. Four hours have been allocated to it, which comes to less than two minutes per amendment. The Hogan group report was commissioned by the Tánaiste last November and produced an interim report in January on the right to silence. However, the Hogan report itself was not published until after the publication of the Criminal Justice Bill.

Over the years, the Tánaiste has rightly made a virtue of stating that legislation should be drafted and debated properly in the interest of producing good law. This is not the way to do business and it smacks of the height of arrogance to expect that a Bill of this magnitude and import should pass through the House within four hours, without intensive discussion, as he pointed out in respect of the other matter. This is not the way to do business and I object to the process that has been adopted by the Government in ramming this through on the basis of a pending general election.

I have to hand a letter from José Manuel Barroso, who, as the Tánaiste is aware, is President of the European Commission. I wrote to President Barroso some time ago on the issue regarding the voluntary health insurance company, VHI, and in his letter of response——

Deputy, I do not think this matter arises. We are discussing the Criminal Justice Bill.

No, I have discussed that and I want to ask the Tánaiste a question on legislation.

We are not on the Order of Business.

Yes, I can ask him a question on this matter.

We are discussing a procedural motion. The House will hear the Deputy on this matter later.

That is fine.

I agree entirely with Deputy Kenny's reasonable comments. There are 156 amendments to this Bill and even allowing for almost five hours of discussion, that comes to approximately 40 amendments per hour. One would scarcely read the amendments in that time. While I am aware the Tánaiste has little regard for the House, I had thought he might have regard for the views publicly expressed by his colleagues at the Bar or those of the Law Society of Ireland.

Moreover, it is unreasonable to ask Members who will be present in the Chamber from 10.30 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. without any break to focus on such a task, which experts have stated warrants serious scrutiny. The Tánaiste is aware that the Labour Party has given support in principle for what he is attempting to do in this instance and I do not know why he wishes to deal with it in this manner. Although the Human Rights Commission, which is a statutory body, has been unable to report on it due to lack of time, the Tánaiste is ploughing ahead regardless. This is not the way to make law, especially having regard to some of the delicate issues concerning the liberty of the citizen and other matters that are at issue in this regard. I ask the Tánaiste to rethink the reason the guillotine must come down today. It is unlikely that some of the more important matters will be reached at all.

In addition, a break of half an hour should be provided for during the course of the day.

This is not the first time we have been asked to contemplate rushed legislation. However, it stands out given the large amount of comment and objections raised by people who because of their qualifications ought to be heeded. Apparently, the Tánaiste thinks he knows better than all of them.

Barristers, the Human Rights Commission, the ICCL and a range of groups specialising in this which spend a lot more time on it than any of us advise against this Bill and the way it is pushed without receiving sufficient scrutiny. Why are other parties, not only the Tánaiste, happy to see it get the nod?

Hear, hear.

Why are we here in the first place if we do not take our job seriously and be responsible about legislation being passed, particularly when it has such serious implications?

Unfortunately, not for the first time, the Tánaiste will table 40 amendments on Committee Stage and more on Report Stage. How can we scrutinise the full gambit of amendments required? Even at this stage, will the Tánaiste think twice about the merits of what he is doing? As we know from the past, rushed legislation is bound to come back and haunt us in a way the Tánaiste cannot foresee. It will cost us all in terms of its effect, the bad name which politics, and the Tánaiste's own name if he values it, will receive. The law itself will be demeaned by this type of process. I ask the Tánaiste to reconsider and ask all parties to bear in mind this is rushed legislation and it is not wise to proceed with it at present.

The Tánaiste will have heard, as we all did, the appeals this morning from his co-professionals, representatives of those practising barristers who indicated very clearly that the Tánaiste is on a dangerous course. It is important to remind ourselves that protections of innocent citizens are at stake and it is not only about addressing those who are law breakers. We are dealing with major changes that can have a dramatic effect on a situation in which any citizen could find himself or herself erroneously.

There is a huge responsibility for every possible care to be employed in the evaluation of the measures being presented and that is not happening. People of the Tánaiste's profession clearly indicated yesterday and again this morning that this is extremely dangerous, that what is at stake is of such fundamental importance within the law codes that it requires the greatest care and scrutiny.

The response from the Tánaiste's office when he was not available this morning was that there have been three weeks of debates. Bits of three days over three weeks were allocated to the address of the Criminal Justice Bill, not three weeks of debate in the House. It was erroneous and a total misrepresentation of the situation that was reported from the Tánaiste's office on "Morning Ireland" this morning.

The Tánaiste has a responsibility to withdraw the proposition to apply the guillotine and not only should it be left open-ended but the Tánaiste should withdraw the proposal to proceed to Committee Stage at this point. There is much need for more and greater evaluation. We concluded Second Stage only yesterday and we will see the bang of the gavel once again today with the passage of this at 3.30 p.m. When will this stop? Will the Tánaiste heed the appeals not only of representatives in this House but of those from within the bar profession who represent the minds of legal practitioners who say that this is wrong? It is time to stop it.

The situation with regard to this Bill is that last December I indicated publicly that I would bring forward a package in response to the very urgent circumstances that then existed and at the request of many people in Irish society that something should be done about gangland crime, and I did so.

The Tánaiste had five years to do so.

The Tánaiste had all of last year.

In February I published the scheme of a Bill. I brought before this House a Bill that has the support in principle of the great majority of people and it was debated on Second Stage. I am grateful to the Labour Party and Fine Gael for their support for the principle of the legislation. I accept the Green Party and Sinn Féin object to the principle of this.

We object to the way the Tánaiste legislates.

Allow the Tánaiste to continue without interruption.

Deputy Cuffe, on Second Stage, was opposed to the principle of the measures in the Bill.

As are several groups outside this House.

The Green Party and Sinn Féin are in that small minority position. The great majority of people in the House support the principle of the Bill. Regarding the comments made recently, I am not trying to push this through before Easter.

The Tánaiste is doing so.

No I am not, this will go through this House during the period before Easter. It will then go to Seanad Éireann where it will also be discussed extensively.

Give us the time here.

I will bring this Bill back from Seanad Éireann to this House with any amendments made to it.

We can do nothing here.

I am acting reasonably.

It is not reasonable.

The Tánaiste will not be the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform then.

If I were to go down the road of simply pushing this off to a committee I would be telling the Irish people——

It is the normal way to legislate.

There is no point in shouting.

Allow the Tánaiste to continue without interruption

Deputy Howlin is not the leader of his party yet. If this were to go to a committee now, everybody knows the result would be that what was agreed last December, that an urgent need existed for legislation in this area, would remain unaddressed.

Deputy Ó Caoláin spoke about the protection of the innocent. This is precisely what I am about. I do not want to stand at the foot of the beds of more people who were shot down in gangland events.

Ten years of failure.

I do not want to have to do that. I am concerned about protecting the rights of the innocent. People speak about the legislative package put before the House as if it attacks the right to silence. It is not about removing the right to silence. The law proposed here has been on the statute book of our neighbouring jurisdiction for 12 years and nobody stated that the right to silence was torn up. There is a great deal of misinformation.

Will the Tánaiste give us time here?

This House will consider this Bill on Committee Stage today and Report Stage next week. I will bring the proposals to Seanad Éireann and engage in debate with its Members. If further amendments are made, I will bring them back to this House in April or May and the House will have a long time to consider all the implications.

What date in May?

I always listen to reasonable proposals for amendments and am positive towards them, and I will be in this debate. Yesterday, in a letter, a small minority of barristers made a good point on the repeat offences provision and I will take it on board and amend the legislation to reflect that.

We would like the chance to make good points too.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 18 be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 55.

  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Brennan, Seamus.
  • Callanan, Joe.
  • Carty, John.
  • Collins, Michael.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Curran, John.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Tony.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Fox, Mildred.
  • Glennon, Jim.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Hoctor, Máire.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Donnell, Liz.
  • O’Donoghue, John.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Keeffe, Ned.
  • O’Malley, Fiona.
  • O’Malley, Tim.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Sexton, Mae.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Wilkinson, Ollie.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wright, G. V.

Níl

  • Boyle, Dan.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connolly, Paudge.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Cowley, Jerry.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Enright, Olwyn.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Higgins, Joe.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McHugh, Paddy.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Murphy, Gerard.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O’Keeffe, Jim.
  • O’Shea, Brian.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Pattison, Seamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • Upton, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Neville and Stagg.
Question declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 1, Protection of Employment (Exceptional Collective Redundancies and Related Matters) Bill 2007, agreed?

Question, "That the proposal for dealing with No. 1 be agreed to," put and declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with the arrangements re Question Time agreed? Agreed.

Before the vote, I raised with the Tánaiste the question of possible legislation on voluntary health insurance. I wrote to the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, who responded by letter recently. He stated:

Having examined the situation, on 25 January, the Commission launched a formal infringement procedure against Ireland for possible breach of Community Law, in particular of the Third Non-Life Directive (infringement procedure 2006/5023). The objective of this procedure is to obtain a change of the present rules in Ireland so as to ensure a level playing field and to restore fair competition in the Irish health insurance market.

Does the Government propose to introduce legislation arising from the comments of the Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, Commissioner McCreevy, and the implications of the Commission President's reply?

It is intended to publish legislation on the voluntary health insurance market this session. As the Deputy is aware, the Minister for Health and Children is due to receive in the next few days the report of the Barrington group, which has been examining this issue. The opinions of the Commissioner and the President of the Commission will be taken into account by the Government in the context of the legislation.

What is the Government's reaction to the difficulties arising from Galway's public water supply?

The matter does not arise on the Order of Business. It was debated on the Adjournment last night after being raised by Deputies McCormack, Michael D. Higgins and others.

Surely it is not acceptable that our citizens are being poisoned by the public water supply.

I suggest the Deputy raise the issue in the appropriate way. The Chair will facilitate him, but I ask him to return to the Order of Business. Members have complained about time not being available to debate the next issue. We cannot take up the Order of Business with an omnibus question time.

I will raise it another way. Will the Tánaiste undertake that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government take questions in the House on the public water supply in Galway?

As I understand it, the matter was debated in the House last night. The Minister is available to deal with parliamentary questions. It is open to Members opposite to raise the issue in the time available to them. This is a matter for the local authority and, as I understand the points made by my colleague, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, resources have been made available to the local authority for a considerable period.

They need to be spent.

The authority must address the issue.

Two people in County Westmeath died from a similar water supply infection.

We cannot have a debate on the matter. The Deputy and I, as Chair, cannot drive roughshod through a decision made in the House five minutes ago.

People are being infected by the public water supply in County Galway.

The Chair will facilitate the Deputy if he wishes to raise the issue, which has been debated in the House. I call Deputy Sargent.

We cannot have a situation in which the Government——

We cannot have a situation in this House where the Deputy attends day after day and makes his own rules.

——washes its hands of the issue and says it is a matter for the local authority.

The Deputy knows it is a matter for the local authority.

Another Pontius Pilate act.

While I respect the Ceann Comhairle's decision on Standing Order 31, it might be appropriate to revisit the situation.

It is unnecessary to say that.

It was on Standing Order 31. The Ceann Comhairle has not given me a chance to mention the promised legislation I want to deal with.

The Deputy was here during the debate on dealing with the Criminal Justice Bill.

Bills have been published, but it is doubtful that they will be passed. Has the Government considered the Bills it needs to have passed or will they all be allowed to drop? There are 12 Bills in question, namely, the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2006, the Criminal Justice Bill, the Control of Exports Bill 2007, the Credit Union Savings Protection Bill 2007, the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Bill 2005, the Defamation Bill 2006, the Fines Bill 2007, the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill 2006, the Money Advice and Budgeting Service Bill 2002, the Nuclear Test Ban Bill 2006, the Registration of Wills Bill 2005 and the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005. I expect some of the Bills will be passed, but which will be priorities for the Government?

We want as much of our legislative programme passed with the co-operation of the House. If the parties opposite are willing to facilitate the passage of Government legislation promptly, we will get as much as possible done before the Dáil is dissolved.

Without debate.

Rubber-stamped.

Not all of the Bills, however.

If we submit Private Notice Questions on this urgent matter, can we rely on the Ceann Comhairle to facilitate them?

The Chair will not make a decision this morning. I must take account of the fact that the issue was debated last night, but I will try to facilitate the Deputy.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. An Adjournment debate is not an exchange of views.

We are not having a discussion on the floor. If the Deputy does not want to give way to his colleague, Deputy O'Sullivan, we will move on to the Criminal Justice Bill.

I will give way, but I hope the Ceann Comhairle will be able to facilitate the issue.

The Minister for Education and Science stated that she intends to implement the student support Bill to transfer the administration of student grants to vocational education committees by the next academic year commencing in September. However, the Bill has not been published. What is the delay in the Bill? On a related matter, the Taoiseach has indicated he wants to hold the general election on a Thursday, which would not facilitate students.

Sorry, Deputy, that does not arise on the Order of Business.

It is of great concern to students that they will not be able to vote.

I ask the Deputy to take account of the views of the House in regard to the next item.

It is a question of democracy.

Students get holidays in June.

It seems that Thursday is a bad day to do anything. The education Bill mentioned by Deputy O'Sullivan has been approved by the Government and will be published in the very near future.

I would like to ask, against the backdrop of evasion and mutter here all week, and in light of the clarity of the Minister for Health and Children's reply to a parliamentary question I asked yesterday about the tenders for private for-profit hospital co-locations on public hospital sites——

Does the Deputy have a question that is appropriate to the Order of Business?

My question is absolutely appropriate. The Chair should have some patience with me.

I call Deputy Durkan.

The Minister for Health and Children stated in response to the question I asked yesterday that the tenders will issue in the next few days.

Sorry, Deputy, you were very vociferous about getting on to the next business.

Will the Tánaiste facilitate an opportunity for Oireachtas scrutiny——

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

——of such contracts that will arise from the issuing of those tenders for sale——

I call Deputy Durkan.

——that will tie the hands of the future Government and the State?

I ask Deputy Ó Caoláin to give way to Deputy Durkan, who has been called.

I have a second question.

Sorry, Deputy.

That is an absolutely valid question.

I will call the Deputy again for his second question. I have called Deputy Durkan.

That is a valid question.

Yes, and I will call Deputy Ó Caoláin again later.

Can I have an answer then?

I have called Deputy Durkan.

Can I have an answer to my valid question?

I ask the Deputy to obey the Chair.

Why do you not have——

I will call you again to hear your valid question. I have called Deputy Durkan.

Do you want to hear it twice?

When the Chair calls a Member, he or she is entitled to be heard.

You want to hear it twice. Maybe there should be a little equity in the treatment of Members.

I have called Deputy Durkan.

Your tolerance in relation to other parties is particularly stark this morning, as it usually is.

Sorry, Deputy——

Do not worry, because we will not.

In view of the ongoing surreptitious closure of post offices throughout the country——

Does the Deputy have a question on legislation?

——will the Tánaiste indicate whether it is intended to reintroduce to the House the postal services miscellaneous provisions Bill? The Taoiseach allegedly said that the Bill fell off the wagon.

That question on legislation has been answered already.

Does it affect your constituency?

This is the hardy perennial.

It is a weekly one.

As Deputy Durkan knows, it has not been promised. It has been withdrawn, therefore, it does not arise at this point.

Before the last general election, certain things were promised and then withdrawn.

I would like to draw to the attention of the House that the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, said to me that a legal issue in respect of the student support Bill has to be resolved before the legislation can be published.

I would like to ask a question on secondary legislation. I am sure the Tánaiste is aware that bills have been issued to the parents of mentally handicapped children and young adults who are staying in sheltered housing, requiring them to pay all their weekly income except for €35. That is being done under the nursing home charges legislation. Has the statutory instrument enabling this to take place been laid before the House? What is the position with it? I understand that a statutory instrument would have been required, but I cannot find it.

The Deputy can inquire from the relevant Minister. I am not in a position to answer that question.

The Minister is required to answer.

I do not know the answer.

The Tánaiste is required to acknowledge the question and find the answer to it.

My question is valid.

I know it is a valid question, but I do not know the answer to it.

In such circumstances, the Tánaiste is required to find the information and get it for me.

The Tánaiste should be courteous about it.

He should have some manners.

Under Standing Orders, a reply on secondary legislation can be deferred to another date. The Tánaiste does not have to give an answer now.

I have no problem with that.

Will the designation of new ports of entry be included in the proposed aviation regulation Bill? When is that Bill likely to be produced? Are they linked?

The legislation will be introduced later this year. I do not think the designation of new ports of entry requires legislation. That is a matter for ministerial decision.

I would like to make a procedural point before the end of the Order of Business. It relates to the vote we have just had on the arrangements for Committee Stage of the Criminal Justice Bill 2007. I looked for the consolidated list of amendments last night. The Bills Office was under enormous pressure to produce the list. The amendments were available in electronic form only.

I will take a few more Members before——

This is an important point.

I would prefer to take the point when we get to the Bill.

This point does not relate to the Bill itself. It is a question of how we will deal with the Bill.

I would prefer it if the Deputy would allow the other two Members who have indicated to speak.

I would prefer it if the Chair allowed me to make my case.

I will get back to the Deputy then as we will be moving straight to the Bill.

Most of us who are dealing with the Bill have been in our offices since early morning to cross-reference the legislation with the green list of amendments, which we received this morning. It is now proposed to consider the Bill until 3.30 p.m. without giving those who are dealing with it an opportunity to leave the Chamber. That is not reasonable. I ask the Chair, who has health and safety responsibilities, to ensure that provision is made for Members to take a 30-minute break, during which we can take advice on issues and have a cup of tea. Some of us have been here since early morning to prepare for the debate because it was not possible to prepare for it further in advance. We did not get the consolidated list of amendments until this morning.

The Deputy has made his point.

Are we expected to stay in the Chamber without a break until 3.30 p.m.? It is not a reasonable way of dealing with legislation.

We have said that we want to deal with this matter until 3.30 p.m. If somebody wants to take a ten-minute break for rest or recreation at some stage during the debate, I am prepared to facilitate that. It is not unusual to have three or four hours of debate on a Bill.

It is not just a question of the three or four hours of debate. We have been in the Chamber since 10.30 a.m. and some of us have been in our offices since 8.30 a.m.

If the Whips agree——

I will withdraw any——

——to a sos, there is no reason it cannot take place.

That is fine, as long as we add on the time that is lost during the sos at the end of the debate.

Is that agreed?

I suggest that we take a break for half an hour and just push things back by half an hour at the end.

The order has been made.

The order has been fixed. We voted on it.

We can change the order.

This point should have been made earlier.

We can take 15 minutes if Deputies wish.

Forget it.

We can do that if the Whips agree to it.

I do not agree.

It is not agreed. There is no agreement on it. We cannot have a debate on the matter because the House has already made a decision on it.

The Chair has some responsibilities here too. You have a responsibility to have good order——

Yes, Deputy, I have a responsibility to ensure——

——and to have some regard for Members and the staff of the House.

Sorry, Deputy, the Chair is speaking. I have an obligation to ensure that decisions which are made by this House, particularly——

Are reasonable.

——decisions which are made in a vote, are implemented.

The Chair needs to ensure that the pressure put on staff is reasonable. That is your responsibility, Sir.

On a point of information, the decision to provide two hours for the debate on the Protection of Employment (Exceptional Collective Redundancies and Related Matters) Bill 2007, which is due to be taken at 3.30 p.m, after the Criminal Justice Bill 2007, is generous. As the Fine Gael spokesman on enterprise, I would be prepared to delay the starting time of the debate on the Protection of Employment (Exceptional Collective Redundancies and Related Matters) Bill 2007 from 3.30 p.m. to 4 p.m., to facilitate the spending of the necessary additional time on the Criminal Justice Bill 2007.

If such a change can be agreed, I will be happy to facilitate it in any way possible.

We will reach agreement on that.

If the Whips reach agreement on such a proposal, a new order will have to be made.

That is all right.

The Chair would suggest that it is not in the interests of good order in the House to vote on a proposal and then to change that proposal again within half an hour of voting on it.

We do not have to be——

I would like to ask about the Water Services Bill 2003, which was debated on Second Stage in this House shortly after it was published. Two years passed before the Government initiated the Committee Stage debate on the Bill, which has not yet been enacted. When is it envisaged that the Bill will be enacted? Does the Tánaiste agree that the delay in introducing the water treatment facility in Galway is directly linked to the delay in the enactment of this legislation, which would have allowed that facility to be pursued as a public private partnership?

The Deputy's second question does not arise at this stage.

I do not agree with the second proposition anyway. The matter is listed for Report Stage debate in this House. I do not believe that the failure to enact the Bill has held anything up.

It has taken four years to take the Bill through the Houses.

The Taoiseach undertook on Tuesday to contact the relevant Minister and inform me when Report Stage of the Water Services Bill 2003 will be taken, but I have received no communication from him.

The pace at which the legislation is being brought through the Oireachtas has nothing to do with the situation in Galway.

If the Government intends to develop the Galway facility as a private scheme, and legislation is required for that, then it has everything to do with it.

Is the proposed immigration, protection and residence Bill forthcoming? When will it be introduced in the House?

It is due to be introduced in this session. I hope to bring it before my Cabinet colleagues at the next opportunity.

I call Deputy Ó Caoláin to ask a question that is appropriate to the Order of Business.

Will Oireachtas scrutiny be provided for in the proposal that was confirmed in the reply I received to the parliamentary question I asked the Minister for Health and Children yesterday?

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

I have a second question.

I call Deputy Cowley.

As I understand it, Oireachtas scrutiny is an appropriate matter to be raised on the Order of Business

The Deputy will have to resume his seat.

That is the same question the Deputy asked earlier.

If the Deputy has a question that is appropriate to the Order of Business, the Chair will hear it. Otherwise he should resume his seat.

Was there not a question mark at the end of my earlier remarks? I was certain there was a question mark. Is secondary legislation required? Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to respond on this hugely important issue.

Is legislation required, given that there was a commitment to establish the redress board in the Neary case before St. Patrick's Day?

Has legislation been promised?

That is now more than a fortnight past and the redress board has not been established.

I tabled a number of questions in respect of the Interception of Postal Packages and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act and the Criminal Justice Act but received no clear answers. Has any Member of either House had telephone communications intercepted under this legislation in the past five years?

That matter does not arise on the Order of Business.

The Minister should tell us the facts. What tapping is he doing apart from dancing?

The Garda Síochána has better things to do.

There are bigger fish to fry than Deputy Cowley.

Top
Share