Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Dec 2007

Vol. 644 No. 3

Leaders’ Questions.

Deputy Enda Kenny

I return to the question I raised with the Taoiseach last week on water charges in schools. The Minister for happiness, whom I assume is joining us directly from the Oireachtas Committee on Education and Science, threw her hands up in despair when this matter was raised last week, the Minister who is going to save the world single-handedly said we should speak with the local authorities, the Minister for wastage of public money said he would not do anything until he receives a full report and the Taoiseach said the European Union was to blame.

The Taoiseach is aware this affects hundreds of thousands of parents throughout the country because they will be screwed to pay for these charges. Everybody accepts the principle of conserving water and the intention behind the EU framework directive of introducing appropriate financial incentives so people can understand that point. The programme for Government sent the clear message that schools would be given a generous allowance and that charges would apply once the allowance was used up, but that has not been done.

Five minutes ago, the Committee on Education and Science voted by a majority of one to accept a woolly motion stating that people should talk to each other and the Minister should discuss the issue, in keeping with the commitment to a joint approach between the Departments of Finance, Education and Science and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. That is not necessary because the programme for Government clearly commits to examining how local authorities might grant schools a reasonable level of usage of water and waste services without charge and states that charges would only apply where a school exceeds its allowance. That is in the programme for Government and it is what the Minister for happiness said to people around the country during the course of the election. Everybody who voted for the Government supported that principle but nothing has been done about it.

Does the Taoiseach agree that the water pricing measures and the provisions in the EU framework directive as agreed and adopted are not required to be fully implemented until the end of 2009 or the beginning of 2010? Does he agree that position is clearly outlined in the framework directive? Does he agree that Article 9, section 4, of the framework directive allows for the flexibility and discretion being sought by Fine Gael and the Labour Party? As head of Government, will he defer the implementation of these charges for two years, so that a decent subvention scheme can be put in place to provide for allowances to schools above which charges can apply and in respect of which pupils, teachers and everybody else can understand the necessity of conserving water? Otherwise, the Government will bankrupt schools in the new year.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not have to remind Deputy Kenny that the Minister for Education and Science must be referred to as such.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

I have been called worse.

Deputy Billy Timmins

The Ceann Comhairle is being very technical.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

It is a happy title.

A Deputy

The Taoiseach is no Ritchie Ruin anyway.

The Taoiseach

In reply to Deputy Kenny, the education section of the programme for Government contains a commitment under the approved funding for schools heading, which states that the Government will examine the provision of waste and water allowances to schools and that charges will become effective after those agreed allowances are exceeded. That is the commitment contained in the programme for Government.

I refer to the Deputy's question on the Government's commitment to the water framework directive. It is fully committed to the implementation of the directive on the basis discussed over many years, which I outlined to the House last Wednesday morning. This is appropriate and necessary given the importance of conserving water as a natural resource. While the debate on the water framework directive went on for many years, I agree with it and its vision for the future.

The issue of charging for water used by schools has arisen in the context of the introduction of water metering and full cost recovery based on actual usage. While installation of metering in schools is not complete, when it has been introduced the bills which have been generated will, in some cases, represent a major increase on the flat rate bills that were received previously. I refer to the examples I mentioned last week where water leaks exist. There were a huge number of them in the Gorey school and in other schools, such as the school in Foxrock, where the bills were massive. When the leaks were corrected for small amounts of money, the schools in question saved an enormous amount. While this can also reflect the overall levels of consumption, this was not the case in many of the schools that were investigated.

Deputy Emmet Stagg

Did he bring a bucket with him?

The Taoiseach

Given the need to manage the transition to an appropriate new system and to enable conservation measures to be implemented to deal with such issues, the Government is considering the implementation of a transition period. This would involve the payment by schools of flat rate charges that are appropriate to the school size, which is what happens at present. During this period, schools would monitor water usage and institute necessary repairs and conservation measures.

Deputy Bernard Allen

Is the Taoiseach telling them to get a good plumber?

The Taoiseach

The Government has also sought legal advice from the Attorney General's office on its long-term options under the framework directive——

Deputy Brian Hayes

Seven years later.

The Taoiseach

——and, in particular, its entitlement to put in place a scheme that would apply to schools on an ongoing basis thereafter.

Deputy Olivia Mitchell

Another U-turn.

Deputy Enda Kenny

The Taoiseach did not answer any of the three questions I asked. First, does he agree there is no need to implement the provisions until the end of 2009? Second, does he appreciate there is discretion and flexibility in this regard? Third, is he disposed to suspending this provision pending a resolution of the problem?

I welcome his comment that the Government is now considering introducing a flat rate payment and a transition period. Will the Taoiseach elaborate in this regard? What will be the flat rate and how will it be applied? What will it mean for a school that is in receipt of a bill for €6,000 at present? What is the flat rate and what are the criteria? Will it be based on the number of pupils or on an allocation of litres of water per pupil to be used and metered in the school?

Given that the framework directive states that the implementations must be in operation by the start of 2010, will the transition period continue until the end of 2009? When will detailed announcements on this issue be made? In the meantime, are those schools which are in receipt of bills for water or for water and sewage combined now entitled to hold on to the bills and not pay them until details regarding the flat rate payment and the transition scheme are announced by the Government? When does the Taoiseach expect to do so?

The Taoiseach

Perhaps I did not answer the questions in sequence but I thought that I had given a clear indication of the Government's intentions. The answer to Deputy Kenny's first question is "Yes". The directive requires member states to ensure no later than 2010 that water pricing policies in each member state will provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources effectively and thereby contribute to the environmental objectives of the directive. This is the commitment contained in the directive.

The Deputy's second question was whether I am in favour of flexibility and the answer is "Yes". This is the reason I have made this announcement. At present, a large number of schools are billed by local authorities and traditionally have been so billed. The reason they were unable to get a derogation in the first place was because of the existing practices that had taken place for years. Consequently, those schools that were paying a flat rate sum could not get a derogation, which is the reason they could not be excluded at the time of the negotiations on the directive.

However, there is a requirement for a transition period in order that the system can enable conservation measures to be implemented to deal with issues in which water is being wasted for one reason or another. The Government is considering the implementation of that transition period. While it can last until the end of 2009, we will see what transpires. It will involve the payment by schools of a flat rate that is appropriate to their size. While this must be worked out, clearly it will not resemble the increases that are being experienced at present from €300 to €6,000. That is not a reasonable position because it puts an enormous strain on schools.

In addition, the Government also must look at the legal issues. I have received a report from the Attorney General regarding the legal issues involved. While it is fairly clear, the Government must look at those issues. At some time during the school holiday period, the Government will issue a statement dealing with the other issues.

Deputy Enda Kenny

What about the bills in the meantime?

The Taoiseach

They should hold them.

Deputy Enda Kenny

Should they hold them and not pay anything?

The Taoiseach

No, they should just hold them until the Government issues a more detailed statement.

Deputy Brian Hayes

This is unbelievable.

Deputy Bernard Allen

That is a good climbdown.

The Taoiseach

Was that helpful?

Deputy Enda Kenny

That was very helpful.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

We are sorry to disappoint Deputy Brian Hayes.

Deputy Olivia Mitchell

Oh happy day.

An Ceann Comhairle

An ceannaire——

Deputy Mary Hanafin

The Minister for happiness is happy.

An Ceann Comhairle

Glaoim ar cheannaire an Pháirtí Lucht Oibre, an Teachta Eamon Gilmore.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

The Taoiseach is a new version of Santa Claus. He comes with good news before Christmas and then bad news after.

Deputy Brian Hayes

This is unbelievable.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Joan Burton

This constitutes quite a climbdown.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Does the Government ever consider such matters before making decisions?

Deputy Finian McGrath

Deputy Durkan will get the news on Christmas Eve.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

We got the news anyway.

Deputy Brian Hayes

That hit the back of the net.

An Ceann Comhairle

I call Deputy Gilmore.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

How will they be described in the school accounts?

I wish to raise a different issue with the Taoiseach. Last Thursday, after the Order of Business in the House, the Opposition parties were informed of the Government's intention to introduce emergency legislation in the House this week to protect the legal status of 19 agencies established under one of the Health Acts because the Attorney General had raised questions about their legality or legitimacy. There is nothing new about emergency legislation, which is a fairly common feature of the manner in which the Government goes about its business, plugging legislative loopholes here, there and everywhere.

However, a number of things are somewhat odd about this particular emergency legislation. First, we learned that the Cabinet decided on this emergency legislation on 4 December last and did not tell anyone about it for ten days. I refer in particular to the other Members who will be obliged to deal with it. Second, we learned that the Attorney General gave this advice to the Government last October. It must be some emergency that would cause the Government to sit on it for two months and then introduce emergency legislation in the last week before Christmas. Third, a number of bodies such as the Fire Services Council, Irish Water Safety and the National Safety Council have been established under identical local government legislation and no issue has been raised about their status. This emergency legislation looks doubtful, to put it mildly.

However, the Bill that was published last week contains a provision relating to the transfer of land from Beaumont Hospital and St. James's Hospital for the purposes of the co-located private hospitals. It appears that a legal obstacle has been raised regarding the right of the two hospitals, the Health Service Executive and the Government to transfer lands at the two hospitals for the proposed private clinics. It appears the legislation being introduced in the House later today is not to plug some legislative loophole but to provide a legislative basis, under the camouflage of emergency legislation, to allow the Government to hand over publicly owned hospital lands for privately run clinics at Beaumont Hospital in Deputy Finian McGrath's constituency and at St. James's Hospital. Why was nobody told about this legislation if a decision was made thereon on 4 December? Why did the Government sit on it for two months after the Attorney General gave his advice last October? If emergency legislation is required to deal with the health agencies, why is similar legislation not being introduced to deal with the agencies established under very similar local government legislation?

The Taoiseach

On the last question, the legislation referred to will be necessary and a separate Bill will have to be introduced by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Deputy Olivia Mitchell

That is not an emergency.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

That is not an emergency.

The Taoiseach

Yes, but the legislation must be prepared. It will probably have to be produced very shortly.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

What is the hurry with the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2007?

The Taoiseach

I will explain that to the Deputy if he wishes.

Deputy Finian McGrath

More money for Beaumont Hospital.

The Taoiseach

And more beds.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Finian McGrath

Watch this space.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Finian McGrath should let the Taoiseach reply.

The Taoiseach

In recent years there has been a growing preference for giving greater legal certainty to the underpinning of primary legislation. A number of powers have been exercised through secondary legislation and statutory instruments. The courts have given their judgment on the matter and the Attorney General has advised recently that the legislative basis for certain bodies created under the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act 1961 requires more secure grounding in primary legislation. We are bringing forward the required legislation for this purpose and it is necessary that we do so.

The legislation in question is the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and it will deal with the legal issues in respect of the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act 1961 and amend the Medical Practitioners Act 2007. The Health (Corporate Bodies) Act 1961 provides that the Minister for Health and Children may establish bodies to perform functions regarding the provision of a health service, including any service relating to the protection, promotion or improvement of the health or welfare of people. The bodies established under the Act provide a wide range of important health and personal social services and involve substantial public expenditure. Nineteen bodies have been set up under the Acts under successive Governments since 1961.

Following long and detailed analysis, not only in this area but also in other areas given that the courts have raised the issue in respect of other areas, the Attorney General concluded that the powers conferred on the Minister for Health and Children by section 3 of that Health (Corporate Bodies) Act are so broad that there is a serious risk, in the event of a constitutional challenge to the provisions of the Act, that it would be held invalid having regard to the provision of Article 15.2 of the Constitution. The Attorney General has recommended, as a matter of urgency, that primary legislation be enacted to confirm the orders that have been made under the Act to date since 1961. That is the purpose of the proposed legislation. It is being taken at short notice and I therefore appreciate the assistance of the House in dealing with it.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

I will assist the Taoiseach even more with it. I would be quite happy to reinforce the legal underpinning of the agencies in question quite speedily but the legislation that has been published contains an entire four pages that deal with the legal obstacle that arose regarding the transfer of the lands at Beaumont and St. James's hospitals for the purpose of establishing co-located hospitals. If the Taoiseach is prepared to remove this section from the Bill and deal with it separately at another time, we can agree to the legal underpinning without any problem.

The Taoiseach stated the Attorney General advised that the matter be dealt with as a matter of urgency. If he offered this advice last October, how come the matter only become urgent the week before Christmas? What on earth has the provision concerning St. James's and Beaumont hospitals to do with the legislation? The Bill represents a form of legislative camouflage to provide cover in the House. It is being stated there is some kind of emergency with regard to the legal underpinning of bodies in order to slip through legislation that will allow the Government hand over public hospital lands for use by private hospitals.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

When did the Government receive the original legal advice that there was a legal obstacle concerning the transfer of the lands at Beaumont and St. James's hospitals? I have been told it received it early last summer before it concluded a programme for Government with the Green Party and before Deputy Finian McGrath signed up to it. In order to save their blushes this evening over having to vote for legislation that would transfer the lands directly, the Government has devised this concoction of emergency legislation into which it has slipped a provision concerning St. James's and Beaumont hospitals. When did the Government receive the original advice that there was a legal obstacle to the co-location plans for the two hospitals? Will the Taoiseach remove the relevant section from the Bill, in which case we can save ourselves much time tonight?

The Taoiseach

What the Deputy alleges is not the case. There are 19 bodies included in the legislation. It covers establishment orders for St. James's, Beaumont, St. Luke's and Leopardstown Park hospitals, in addition to the Dublin Dental Hospital, the National Haemophilia Council and the Drug Treatment Centre Board——

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan

What about the co-located hospitals?

The Taoiseach

I will deal with co-location in a moment. These bodies are all covered by the legislation according to the judgment of the Attorney General. The Irish National Cancer Registry, the Women's Health Council, the National Council on Ageing and Older People——

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

We will agree on those.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

We will agree on those.

The Taoiseach

I appreciate that. I will deal with the one the Deputy does not want included.

Under the programme for Government, we are committed to providing an additional 1,500 public acute hospital beds. The co-location initiative aims to deliver 1,000 of these for public patients through the development of private hospitals on public sites. The intention is to transfer private property activity to those hospitals, thereby freeing up the capacity for public patients. The 500 acute hospital beds in the balance are in various stages of planning under the HSE's capital plan. The co-location initiative is the most effective and fastest way to achieve this.

Deputy Seán Barrett

Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats only got 80 seats and therefore did not get a mandate from the electorate.

The Taoiseach

It is expected that the co-located private hospitals will most likely open within three years of receiving planning permission. The board has approved the successful bidder status for Waterford, Cork, Limerick, Sligo and St. James's hospitals. The HSE and the board of St. James's Hospital are working with the preferred bidders to finalise the project arrangements for the sites.

St. James's Hospital is one of the bodies in question and there is no secret about this. It was stated clearly by the Minister for Health and Children. Legislation is needed to put all the bodies I have mentioned on a sound legal footing and it is therefore necessary.