It is proposed to take No. 2, Charities Bill 2007 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; and No. 3, Fines Bill 2007 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. Private Members' business shall be No. 18, motion re fire services (resumed), to conclude at 8.30 p.m. if not previously concluded.
Order of Business.
There are no proposals to be put to the House.
In respect of the legislation that will be necessary for the referendum on the EU reform treaty, has the Taoiseach had discussions with the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, in regard to the Government's decision to opt in or out of certain provisions? I made my view known on this yesterday.
When is the forthcoming constituency commission report expected to be published? Information on the proposed electoral amendment Bill, which is No. 40 on the legislative programme, makes reference to changed procedures for the formation of future commissions. What will this involve? Will the Bill deal with the discrepancies now evident in respect of local authority areas, particularly town council areas, throughout the State? Is it envisaged that this will be brought forward from some time in 2008 to an earlier date?
The constitutional referendum Bill will be brought forward some time next year provided that matters are finalised at the December European Council meeting.
I understand the European constituency review report will be published next month. I am not sure how far work has progressed on the Dáil electoral review. The report is due on the electoral amendment Bill on 25 October and the legislation is listed for next year.
When I asked the Taoiseach yesterday about the legislation he plans to have enacted in this session, one of the Bills he mentioned was the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005, which is the Bill that enables and empowers the Government to close down tribunals. I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, will recall that when this Bill was initially published, the Green Party expressed strong opposition to it. I assume substantial amendments will be presented by the Government to the Bill to reflect the concerns expressed at the time by the Green Party. When is it proposed to publish those amendments and have them circulated to the House?
I understand the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is consulting with various interested parties on this matter and hopes to introduce amendments during this session. The Bill is ordered for Second Stage.
Ireland has one of the worst records in Europe for reducing road deaths. While Luxembourg and France have achieved reduction rates of 46% and 40%, respectively, since 2001, the corresponding figure for Ireland is 10%. When will the promised national road safety strategy be published and debated in the Dáil?
Given that the leaders of other EU member state Governments seem to take a personal responsibility on issues of road safety, will the Taoiseach adopt a similar stance?
What has become of the Rosslare Harbour Bill, which was on the clár for several years before disappearing? Will legislation be introduced to give effect to the Government decision on Bremore Port?
The national road safety strategy is being reviewed by the Government and will be taken shortly. The harbours Bill will implement certain aspects of the port policy statement of January 2005. The heads of the Bill are not yet ready but it is listed for next year.
Will the Taoiseach give us a firm date for the publication of the nurses and midwives Bill? Will he advise if the heads of the Bill have come before Cabinet and, in line with his commitment last week, will he undertake to have the heads of the Bill published for all Members once they have been agreed by Cabinet?
The draft general scheme of the nurses and midwives Bill is at an advanced stage. I will raise the issue of the heads with the Minister and the legislation should be in the House in the next session.
Will the Taoiseach arrange for a briefing for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the Brazilian beef issue by the three Fianna Fáil MEPs in Europe in the belated hope——
Hear, hear.
The Deputy should ask his own MEPs. He would get the same answer I got.
——the Minister might come on-side with the matter? She should support Irish beef producers.
That is not relevant.
They got the same answer as the rest of us.
Is it still the Government's intention to establish a register of persons considered unsafe to work with children, as was promised in the last Dáil? If that is so, under what legislation will it be done?
It is. These issues will be dealt with under the proposals for the upcoming referendum on children's rights. It will give effect to the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Child Protection.
I presume the Taoiseach will go to Brussels on Thursday and Friday of next week for the summit of Heads of State and that he will sign the new draft proposals of the EU reform treaty while there. We are the only country that will hold a referendum on the issue. There are some controversial matters, not least the charter of fundamental rights and the proposal to opt out with regard to cross-border co-operation on crime. Will the Taoiseach provide for a debate in this House prior to attending the summit?
Hear, hear.
I do not believe there is a provision to make time. The committee responsible for European affairs has not yet been set up.
That is another reason to have a debate in the House.
The Taoiseach should ask the Whips to do something about that.
We are trying to deal with it. Perhaps we will have a meeting on the issue before the December Council meeting.
With regard to the opt-out proposal, I saw some references this morning that are not correct. The current position is that justice and home affairs issues are dealt with through unanimity. We are moving to a position of qualified majority voting, QMV. Most issues will create no difficulty for us and we will have a part in those discussions. Certain aspects are fundamental to our legal system, with some issues requiring the right to protect our national interest.
Areas such as police co-operation and many other areas are not affected by this. We do not intend to opt out on police co-operation and we will draft a declaration which will be part of the agreement, stating our position very clearly. There is a misunderstanding of the British position, but I am not here to speak about that. Our position will be set out in a clear declaration and there will be only limited areas on QMV. It is not a broad position.
Could we use the emergency brake for those?
I negotiated the emergency brake and I know precisely what it does and does not do. The emergency brake would not cover those issues.
We would be using it with every issue.
Every second issue would require the use of the emergency brake and that was not its intention. On qualified majority voting, with the British having put forward their position — which the Deputy knows is different from that in 2004 — we have to protect our position. In a limited number of areas where QMV would operate and which would be against the Irish interest, we would have to opt out. In the vast majority of cases I do not see any requirement to opt out.
Will the Taoiseach give an example of such a scenario?
Will the Taoiseach arrange for a briefing for the relevant Opposition spokespersons on that topic?
I will.
Apart from the issues of QMV, the advantage of having a Dáil debate would be to address further fundamental issues of accountability. For example, the House would benefit from knowing the role of the Dáil and Seanad in light of the treaty in terms of accountability and the deficit which exists, for example, on common foreign and security policy.
The Taoiseach referenced the European affairs committee. In the previous Dáil, the chair of the European affairs committee was in a different position from the chair of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs with regard to the sharing of information. I also suggest there is a continuing debate in the European Parliament on accountability.
There is also the matter of international foreign policy where the European Union adopts a common position. There are no mechanisms of initiation, scrutiny or reporting back in that regard. The advantage of a debate is to at least be able to hear such proposals as might emerge in the context of the new treaty. It is deeply damaging to the European debate and the preparations for it. There is what is referred to as a "double deficit" in the current foreign security policy, which is a treble deficit if we consider the failure of our committee structure here to be able to adequately access decisions which are, after all, being taken.
The Taoiseach is not misleading the House when he is speaking about governments. The decisions have been taken by the executive in an intergovernmental context without adequate accountability back to participating parliaments.
Does the Taoiseach not agree that this is a classical democratic deficit in the way European matters are dealt with in that he will proceed to final discussions on this and essentially sign us up to opting out in the justice and security areas without a detailed debate in this House or a statement from the Government setting out clearly the reason for the approach being taken? Does he also agree that in the interest of future debate on this treaty, there should be substantial transparency with regard to why this State enters into arrangements subject to a referendum taking place?
Does he agree the absence of such debate means that not only is there a democratic deficit in that no Member will in advance of the next summit contribute to the discussion, but the public will not be informed on the basis upon which the Government is approaching what is a very important issue?
The Taoiseach should consider that this matter should be urgently debated in this House, if not tomorrow then next week. He should also acknowledge the huge importance of this country co-operating with all other European Union states in the fight against the drug barons operating across the length and breadth of the EU, who are using this State as an entry point for importing drugs into the rest of Europe.
The reason this side of the House is so anxious to have statements or a debate on this issue is that there is much confusion about the fundamental difference between the constitutional treaty we were happy to sign up to and supported, and the reform treaty now being proposed. This particularly relates to requiring Ireland to be able to opt out.
There is also a contradiction in the Taoiseach's statement today as he indicated he does not wish to use the emergency brake procedure, which he created in many ways, on a daily basis. At the same time he has stated that circumstances will be rare in which we may wish to opt out. There is confusion and a great deal of concern.
There is much concern in Brussels, where our MEPs work on a weekly basis, about the approach Ireland is taking here as it is a departure from the approach adopted in the past, which has been pro-European Union.
I have been in touch with people involved in this in other countries and there is a total understanding of the Irish position so it is not correct that there is great concern.
There is not total understanding.
Nobody in this country understands it.
The Deputy, having asked a question, does not listen to the answer. That is a bad habit. The difference is that the British changed their position from the 2004 position. Decisions made in the Justice and Home Affairs Council were for many years based on unanimity. Differences exist not only in our common law systems but also in the way we look at legal positions and how such positions are adopted. With the British opting out, we were obliged to accept that we might find ourselves in an extremely weak position in particular areas where QMV would operate. It should not affect many areas but we must recognise that legal issues might arise that could be particularly unique or that could represent a serious change for our system.
Reference was made to 25 out of the 27 member states. The position in this regard is that 25 of the 27 member states have different legal systems.
All we are doing is that in certain areas where the Council would otherwise arrive at a decision on the basis of unanimity, we will opt out under QMV. There are not many areas where that——
Will the Taoiseach provide an example in that regard?
The suggestion regarding the European prosecutor is totally at variance with our legal system. That is one example but there are others. As Deputy Jim O'Keeffe is well aware, that would affect our common travel position. As already stated, however, not many areas will be affected. We must have that protection in place because otherwise the country would be placed at a disadvantage in a serious way regarding the limited cases to which I refer. There is total understanding in that regard. If the position were otherwise, people would be far more puzzled.
We have decided to stand firmly with others countries in respect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I will arrange a briefing for any relevant Opposition spokespersons. We gave careful consideration to this matter and spoke to many legal people in respect of it, including the Attorney General and a great range of——
Were they the same people to whom the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, spoke in connection with this matter?
The Government has a clear view on this issue. We are of the opinion that the best course of action is to make a declaration. We will prepare the latter in the coming days and I will outline its contents next week when our deliberations on this matter are complete.
I do not think the Taoiseach answered my question. I was merely seeking a debate on the matter and not just a briefing of the spokespersons or an outlining of the contents of the declaration. There is no Joint Committee on European Affairs in place and, as such, Oireachtas scrutiny is absent. The Executive is to travel to Brussels at the end of next week where it will either sign up or not sign up to the new reform treaty. We are not sure of what will be the exact details and we will not have an opportunity to debate the declaration that will be drafted for the Taoiseach in the coming days. Why not engage in a full debate on the issue in the House next week? Ireland is the only country that will be holding a referendum on the new European reform treaty and it would be foolish for the Government to sign up to it without first hearing the views of Members.
I agree with the previous speaker. Will the Taoiseach not acknowledge that it is completely unsatisfactory that a private briefing, away from the public gaze, will be provided by a civil servant to a few select Members? Does he agree that in any democratic society with a parliamentary system such as that which obtains here, it is only appropriate that matters of this nature be dealt with and debated openly in Parliament? Does he further agree that adopting such a process would make an important contribution in the context of the future public debate that will take place on asking the people to approve the treaty by way of referendum? Is he of the view that it is damaging to deal with matters of this significance behind closed doors?
I must look to the Leader of the Opposition in this regard. I replied to a question from a member of his party. If Deputy Kenny makes a request to me, I will consider it.
The Taoiseach can take it that I will make a request for a formal debate, which could probably be held on Tuesday next. There seems to be a particular attitude or perception emanating from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The former Minister, Mr. McDowell, had a particular view of the common law versus the civil law and for that reason he was stringently opposed to opting in and wanted to opt out. This perception appears again to be emanating from the Department, whereas the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, is clearly of the opinion, shared by the Department of Foreign Affairs, that Ireland should opt in.
As the Taoiseach is aware, the emergency brake, which operates in a small number of cases, must be referred to the Council, where consensus is required. We will seek a formal debate, in respect of which the Whips may agree the details. I take it the Government will not sign off completely on anything until Members on all sides have had the opportunity to express their opinions and views on what is an important issue for the people.
As stated at the outset, the Government made a decision to prepare a declaration and it will do so. That declaration is consistent with our position throughout but it takes account of the changed circumstances, particularly in the context of what the UK Government decided at the June European Council meeting. There is no divergence of opinion among the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Foreign Affairs, the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, or anyone else. We engaged in a comprehensive examination of what is the right thing to do regarding the reform treaty in order to ensure we will not find ourselves in a position where, in the limited circumstances where it arises, decisions that would not be in the interests of this country or its legal system would be made on the basis of unanimity. We are also of the view that, on foot of the decision made by Britain, there should be an alternative available. That is the only change.
We decided not to follow what others are doing in respect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the context of opting out. We are remaining completely in as regards the charter.
This matter has been considered at great length by many people. A debate on it will be required at the forthcoming Council and I have no difficulty with this because I want the support of the House on it as we move towards a referendum.
Last week and again this week——
Can we take it that——
Deputy Durkan is in possession.
Can we take it that a formal debate on the previous matter under discussion will be held next week?
A request for such a debate is to be formally made.
Last week and again this week I received a courteous note from the Ceann Comhairle's office to the effect that a certain matter I had attempted to raise on the Adjournment regarding the development of housing sites at Leixlip, County Kildare, is not the responsibility of the relevant Minister. I have discovered, however, that a request for specific funding for the project in question is on the Minister's desk awaiting a decision. The Ceann Comhairle will not be surprised if I impose upon his courtesy tomorrow and seek to raise the matter again.
The second issue to which I wish to refer relates to the designated land (housing development) Bill. I seem to have obtained the notion from some quarter that this legislation might be published before Christmas. It is promised for 2008. Will the Taoiseach provide some indication as to its progress and whether its publication date has been brought forward?
The heads have been approved and the Bill is due early next year.
Is it the Government's intention to reinstate the ground rents Bill?
The Government will have to resuscitate it.
In the wake of the storm.
It is still not on the list.
When will it be on the list?
On Thursday last I tried to establish which Minister is responsible for legislation relating to the sea fisheries sector and received an ambiguous reply from the Tánaiste. Last week a ministerial order regarding safety on fishing boats was issued by the Minister for Transport and the Marine. On the section of the Order Paper relating to upcoming legislation, the only Bill relating to fisheries is listed in connection with the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. We have a Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is taking control of coastal management. There is a great amount of confusion within the fishing industry as regards which Department has responsibility for the sea fisheries sector.
The answer I got last week from the Tánaiste was that it is the responsibility of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, which would seem to be the case if one also looks at its website. However, could we receive some clarity on this point so that, for a start, the Opposition spokespersons know for which areas they have responsibility but, more important, we know which Ministers are responsible for upcoming legislation?
There are different aspects to this brief. In response to Deputy Coveney's question, the Minister responsible for sea fisheries is the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, there are other aspects which are dealt with by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, while the issue of safety is dealt with by the Department of Transport and the Marine.
Deputy Eamon Ryan.
This directly contradicts the answer we received last week, which was that the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources was responsible. That would be borne out by the evidence on the list for upcoming legislation where there is only one piece of sea fisheries legislation, which comes under the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. It would be helpful if we could receive some clarity in writing on it.