Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Apr 2007

Vol. 636 No. 3

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 18a, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Risk Equalisation (Amendment) Scheme 2007; No. 18b, Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2006 [Seanad] — motion to instruct the committee; No. 24, Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2006 [Seanad] — Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; No. 25, Protection of Employment (Exceptional Collective Redundancies and Related Matters) Bill 2007 [Seanad] — Committee and Remaining Stages; No. 18c, motion re establishment of commission of investigation into matters relating to and surrounding the death of Mr. Gary Douch; and No. 18d, motion re establishment of commission of investigation into the management, operation and supervision of Leas Cross nursing home.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders that (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 4.45 p.m. today and business shall be interrupted at the conclusion of Oral Questions to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment; (2) the proceedings on No. 18a shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 25 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the speeches shall be confined to a Minister or Minister of State and to the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order, who may share their time and which shall not exceed five minutes in each case; and (ii) a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed five minutes; (3) the proceedings on No. 18b shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 65 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the speeches shall be confined to a Minister or Minister of State and to the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order, who may share their time and which shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; and (ii) a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed five minutes; (4) the Report and Final Stages of No. 24 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 2.30 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Health and Children; (5) Committee and Remaining Stages of No. 25 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 4 p.m. today by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment; (6) the proceedings on No. 18c shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 65 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the speeches shall be confined to a Minister or Minister of State and to the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order, who may share their time and which shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; and (ii) a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed five minutes; (7) the proceedings on No. 18d shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 25 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the speeches shall be confined to a Minister or Minister of State and to the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order, who may share their time and which shall not exceed five minutes in each case; and (ii) a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed five minutes; and (8) Question Time today shall be taken at the conclusion of No. 18d for 75 minutes and in the event of a Private Notice Question being allowed, it shall be taken after 45 minutes and the order shall not resume thereafter.

There are eight proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 18a, motion re Risk Equalisation (Amendment) Scheme 2007, agreed?

No. The framework for health insurance established by the Government has been unravelling in recent months. That unravelling has been punctuated by legislation introduced on an emergency basis and passed without proper debate. Today, another item of legislation is being introduced at the 11th hour and only 25 minutes have been allocated for the debate on it. The legislation to which I refer is clearly the start of a process of dramatic change in the health insurance environment. That process could lead to significant increases in premiums and also to the end of the unified charge for people, regardless of age. The provision of a mere 25 minutes — with spokespersons being given only five minutes to make their views known on a matter of enormous significance to the way the health insurance system will work in the long term — is inadequate. We do not support the proposal.

This proposal is completely unacceptable to the Labour Party. It shows that the Government is possessed of such overweening arrogance that it believes it can introduce changes of such significance without being accountable to anyone. We are being asked to make five-minute contributions on issues relating to health insurance.

The legislation is being steamrolled through the House. The changes proposed by the Government will increase the costs for subscribers, particularly those who are members of the VHI. It is important to note that the steamroller is being driven by the Progressive Democrats. The latter party is determining health policy. It is all about profit now and is no longer about patient care. Proposals relating to private hospitals have been rammed through and changes relating to health insurance, which will ensure that people will, unnecessarily, be obliged to pay more, will also be rammed through. The change proposed by the Government undermines the case it won so handsomely in the courts in respect of risk equalisation. It will put at risk the position of the Government in respect of the appeal to the Supreme Court.

This Administration has lost all sense of being accountable to the people. It is important that a challenge should be offered in respect of these issues, which are being ideologically driven by the Progressive Democrats wing of the Government. We are concerned about the future of the VHI, about plans for privatisation and about the impact of the proposed changes on people who take out insurance with the company. If anything, we have been presented with the strongest argument yet that there should be a fundamental review of health insurance in order that a universal system might be introduced.

We are challenging——

The Deputy is aware that only a brief comment is allowed.

I am making a brief comment. I have a great deal more to say and I will not be able to say it during a five-minute contribution on the legislation.

The Deputy will not be saying a great deal more now because the Chair is soon going to rule that she must resume her seat.

I am about to conclude.

A brief comment is all that is allowed at this stage.

I promise the Ceann Comhairle that I am finishing my brief comment.

The Deputy will have an opportunity to comment on the matter later.

I am about to conclude. To say that five minutes per spokesperson is adequate to allow us to deal with this issue is an absolute and utter disgrace.

This measure again highlights the fact that the Dáil is being changed from an accountable Parliament into a tokenistic talk shop. We cannot be expected to deal with legislation and changes of this nature in such an offhand way and at the 11th hour of a Dáil term.

The measure is also a further indication of how the Government is facilitating the eclipse of health by health care. It has nothing to do with the health of the nation and is designed to make health into a commodity. The Government is losing the plot. We must learn why people are not healthy and we will not do so if this commodification of health and profiteering in respect of people's illnesses continues.

The passage of the proposed motion will have far-reaching implications for health funding in the State and for the many people who contribute to personal health insurance, be it through the VHI or any of its competitors. This amounts to a complete farce and represents an insult to the Dáil and to the people who elected us. The provision of 25 minutes to address a matter of such import is completely inadequate. I hope the Minister for Finance will heed the voices of Opposition Members and recognise that there must be an extension of the debate, particularly in light of what is being proposed.

I fail to understand how the fault in this regard can lie solely with the Progressive Democrats, particularly when the Government, of which Fianna Fáil is also a part, has put forward this proposition. I do not understand the Labour Party's exoneration of Fianna Fáil from responsibility in respect of what is being proposed.

I must now put the question.

Ceann Comhairle——

Provision is only made for contributions from party spokespersons at this stage.

——this is the payback——

I must put the question.

——for Quinn Direct bailing out the Government in respect of the BUPA mess earlier this year. What is happening is outrageous.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 18a be agreed to.”
The Dáil divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 36.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Callanan, Joe.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Carty, John.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Curran, John.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Tony.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Donnell, Liz.
  • O’Donoghue, John.
  • O’Donovan, Denis.
  • O’Keeffe, Ned.
  • O’Malley, Fiona.
  • O’Malley, Tim.
  • Parlon, Tom.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connolly, Paudge.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Harkin, Marian.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Higgins, Joe.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McHugh, Paddy.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Morgan, Arthur.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Pattison, Seamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Twomey, Liam.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Neville and Costello.
Question declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 18b, motion to instruct the committee re the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2006, agreed?

It is not agreed. The Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2006 has already passed through the Seanad and has gone through Second and Committee Stages, yet the Minister has brought forward very substantive amendments which in our view fundamentally alter the nature and purpose of the Bill. These amendments do not relate to the very specific and narrow original purpose of the Bill, which was to address the issue of foster care.

We are discussing a very simple procedural motion, No. 18b.

I am well aware of what we are discussing.

It is a motion to instruct the committee.

Make no mistake about it——

I ask the Deputy to listen to the Chair when the Chair is speaking. It is a motion to instruct the committee on the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2006. We are not discussing the taking of Report Stage, amendments or anything else. It is purely a procedural motion about allowing 65 minutes for the debate.

That is a bit disingenuous, with all respect. The reality is what this motion is preparing for with regard to Report and Final Stages, which are coming immediately afterwards. This motion is integral to what is intended and the introduction of the amendments I have already spoken of shows that the whole nature of this Bill has changed. This is a facilitation of that process and it is completely wrong.

The debate is being confined to a 65 minute opportunity, which is absolutely unacceptable given the reality that the Bill has fundamentally changed in its purpose and intent. I cannot accept the provision of time on the basis of what is before us.

Question, "That the proposal for dealing with No. 18b, motion to instruct the committee re the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2006, be agreed to”, put and declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 24, Report and Final Stages of the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2006, agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 25, Committee and Remaining Stages of the Protection of Employment (Exceptional Collective Redundancies and Related Matters) Bill 2007, agreed? Agreed.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 18c, motion re investigation into the matters arising from the death of Mr. Gary Douch, agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 18d, motion re establishment of a commission of investigation into the management, operation and supervision of Leas Cross nursing Home, agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for Question Time agreed? Agreed.

When will we see in the Dáil the promised ethics Bill sponsored by the Department of Finance? We were promised the Bill at least five or six months ago and when the Tánaiste was questioned about it, we were told to relax and that it would definitely be passed before the end of the Dáil session. I would like an undertaking from the Minister for Finance that this legislation will be taken in this Dáil session and it will not be relegated to yet another broken promise.

The Order for Second Stage is in the Seanad and was due to be taken this week. Owing to the untimely death of Senator Kate Walsh, it was decided by the Seanad to take it next week.

The question relates to whether it will be taken in this House.

That cannot be decided until it has concluded in the Seanad.

May we have an undertaking that it will be taken?

It is not an appropriate question for the Order of Business.

I wish to raise an issue we had before on the Order of Business. In January 2006, I raised the matter of two treaties that had not been placed before the Dáil relating to agreements with the United States. On foot of that, the Department of Foreign Affairs began in March 2006 a trawl of all agreements not placed before the Houses.

The Order Paper from yesterday contained almost 280 different agreements, falling into three clear categories, and this issue affects the Order of Business. Some are simply administrative, some are possibly administrative and some involve charges. Therefore, under Article 29.5 of the Constitution, these require approval of the Dáil. For example, there are several relating to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and some relate to European treaties. Where they involve a charge, it is clear that under Article 29.5 they must not only be laid before the Houses but need the approval of the Houses.

I have two questions. Will we have an explanation of which of the matters laid in yesterday's Order Paper are clearly administrative, those for which Dáil approval by way of being laid before the Houses is being sought and those for which approval will be sought before the dissolution of this Dáil? What is the legal status of any of these in the event of the Dáil being dissolved? On a superficial reading, it would seem there would be a clear breach of Article 29.5 of the Constitution.

The Deputy's last question might be more appropriate for the line Minister.

Which of these will be made legally proper before the dissolution of the Dáil and what is their status in the event of time not being made available?

The intention is that they will all be properly laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in whatever way is required because of constitutional provisions, etc. The specific query raised by the Deputy can be clarified through the line Minister, who will contact him directly.

On those agreements which involve a charge, the approval of the Houses is necessary. Will such approval be forthcoming for those in that category? If it is not forthcoming, what will be their status?

Is legislation promised?

It has nothing to do with legislation.

For example, we have made appointments to bodies that flow——

I ask the Deputy to allow the Minister to speak.

The case under such circumstances is clear. I am not sure if any of them require approval of the House, although this contention is being made by the Deputy. If approval is required by the House it will be given in due course, although its timing will be a matter for the House to decide.

This has been a long-standing issue as many of these international agreements and instruments required updating. This has been done and we are in the process of bringing them into our domestic legislation. We have brought whatever administrative decisions are required to the Order Paper and I congratulate all of those who worked on these issues on bringing them to this stage. Those instruments not requiring the approval of the House are properly put to the House.

The Deputy is making a contention but I am unsure of the validity of his point. If there is any substance to the point the Deputy is making, the approval of the House will be required before some of these international agreements are properly enacted in legislation. I do not know whether the Deputy's point is correct, but he is certainly raising an issue. That many of these matters were mentioned on the Order Paper yesterday is an indication of the work that has been done to date.

I would like to ask the Minister for Finance, who has worked in the Departments of Health and Children and Foreign Affairs, about the register of persons who are considered unsafe to work with children. The House has not since 2004 been given any indication of when the legislation providing for that register will be considered. It has gone completely. It is hoped that the institutions in the North will start to work after 8 May. We were told that the promised legislation I have mentioned was contingent on developments in the North.

That question was answered when it was raised by the Deputy's colleague during the week.

It is inexplicable and unforgivable that the legislation is not being introduced as a matter of urgency. The demonstrations outside this House during the statutory rape crisis should have reminded the Government that this matter cannot be dismissed.

The Deputy is taking up the time of the House.

I would like to know why the legislation is gone.

The matter has already been debated this week.

It is proposed to establish a register of persons who are considered unsafe to work with children to give effect to the recommendations of the joint working group on child protection.

The legislation has gone off the list.

I understand that issues relating to the legislation, which arises from the work of the North-South Ministerial Council, will be dealt with under the proposals for the upcoming children's referendum.

Can I ask the Minister whether the Roads Bill 2007, which provides for residents-only parking while major events are taking place, will be passed before the Dáil is dissolved? The legislation is needed, in the dying days of the Dáil, because many large-scale major events are to be held in our national stadium, Croke Park, over the summer.

I understand that the Bill is included on next week's schedule.

Given that thousands of people throughout the country are waiting to buy their homes from local authorities, when will the social housing (miscellaneous provisions) Bill be published? Will it be introduced before the Dáil is dissolved?

The Bill is due to be brought to the House during the course of this year. It is a matter for the Whips to decide whether it will be introduced in this Dáil.

How much of this Dáil is left?

It was indicated last autumn that the adoption (Hague Convention, adoption authority) Bill would be published during the spring session. I am not sure whether the spring session has concluded or is still ongoing. The current programme of promised legislation states that the Bill will be published in 2007. The publication of this important Bill, which relates to a matter that needs to be addressed by these Houses, has again been delayed. Can the Minister indicate with certainty that the Bill will be addressed in 2007? When does the Minster expect that to happen?

It is due to be published during the course of this year. It will probably be enacted under the next Fianna Fáil-led Administration.

Does the Minister think so?

The Bill is a long way away so.

Given that energy issues are quite topical at present, and in view of the likely activity over the next few weeks, can the Minister indicate whether the minerals development Bill is likely to be discussed in the House as a matter of urgency before the general election? Perhaps the Minister will consult his colleague, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, who is present in the House and should have the information I am looking for.

I find it interesting to note what is exercising the minds of Deputies this morning. It is expected that the minerals development Bill will be enacted during the course of the coming year. Perhaps Deputy Durkan will have an opportunity to contribute at that time.

I hope we all do.

I would like to ask about secondary legislation. The Minister is aware that section 100 of the Finance Act 2007 includes a specific provision that allows a charge to be imposed on stamp duty in certain circumstances involving licensing agreements. The Minister promised during the debate on that legislation that he would close a specific loophole. A commencement order is necessary if he is to do that. As other Deputies have said, we are in the twilight days of this Dáil. Where is the commencement order? The Minister promised to close this notorious loophole, which can be availed of by developers and rich people who wish to avoid stamp duty. The loophole does not benefit young couples who are buying houses. It seems that the provision that was promised and included in the Finance Act has been set aside, presumably to facilitate Fianna Fáil's developer friends once again. When will the commencement order that, under section 100 of the Finance Act 2007, is needed to close this loophole be introduced?

As the Deputy said, I included in the Finance Act 2007 a proposal to deal with the issue in question. I said that I would enact certain provisions subject to the provision of a commencement order. I intend to consult the industry on how best that can be achieved in the months ahead.

So it is gone.

Is there any chance that the electricity (transfer of transmission assets) Bill will be published before the general election? Has the Department considered the implications, if any, of that legislation for the Exchequer? Has the Minister been asked to approve the allocations of moneys to fund the establishment of a commission of investigation into the Stardust tragedy?

The Deputy's first question is in order.

I understand that the electricity legislation mentioned by the Deputy has to be enacted by the end of 2008. While we are proceeding with the preparations in that regard, we are not in a position to indicate precisely when it will be introduced. We understand that the incoming Government will have to adhere to the 2008 deadline.

Top
Share