The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 5, Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Private Members' business shall be No. 31, motion re rate of unemployment, which shall also take place tomorrow immediately after the Order of Business and shall be brought to a conclusion after 90 minutes.
Order of Business.
Tomorrow.
I apologise to the House.
I think the Tánaiste may be reading yesterday's Order of Business.
That is nervousness.
The Order of Business shall be No. 5, Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008 — Second Stage (resumed). Private Members' business shall be taken immediately after the Order of Business and will conclude after 90 minutes.
The Tánaiste was singing last night.
There are no proposals to be put to the House today.
Sometimes the folders get mixed up.
The legislative programme for this Dáil session published by the Chief Whip contains 17 Bills, seven of which were listed for the previous session and some others were on the list before that. Has any analysis been carried out of how these targets are to be reached? There is little point in publishing lists of Bills which do not make it through to publication, never mind as far as being debated in the House.
In respect of the figures produced yesterday and with economic indicators going in the wrong direction in many ways, will the Tánaiste consider time for a debate next week, in view of the fact that tax revenue is €600 million short and we are heading for a deficit of more than €6 billion, which will be the largest ever?
We cannot deal with that matter now, as Deputy Kenny well knows.
I am just asking for an opportunity to debate the matter next week.
The second report on the Rebecca O'Malley case, as referred to by Deputies Reilly and Gilmore, sets out very clearly that patient-centred care is not sufficiently embedded in the management process, that systems have delayed and avoided difficult decisions and priority was not given to those who needed it. This is a major indictment of the capacity of the HSE to do the business for which it has been set up. Are there any proposals from Government to deal with this situation in view of the fact that the O'Malley report follows the Fitzgerald report, both of which equally indict seriously the capacity of the HSE to do its job?
We cannot deal with that matter now.
On the same issue, a Cheann Comhairle, and it is relevant to the Order of Business.
If it is relevant to the Order of Business, but the last issue was not.
From what Deputy Kenny has raised, both in respect of the O'Malley report and the Barringtons Hospital report and the indictment of the HSE which they represent, will the Government facilitate an opportunity to have these reports debated and discussed in this House?
That is not in order.
I ask whether the Government will facilitate an opportunity to address these reports. It is a legitimate question to ask and I am appealing that we are given that opportunity. Let there be no mistake that significant concern arises out of these reports and other investigations under way, including in the north east.
Standing Orders relate to promised business.
On the question of what business can be taken and what debates can be held, that is a matter for the Whips to consider. The House had a debate on the cancer care situation some weeks ago and I contributed to that debate. The Taoiseach made the point yesterday in response to Deputy Gilmore and it is on the record that an interim policy and procedures have been adopted on the serious incident-management issue. The Taoiseach gave a full account of the reaction by the HSE and HIQA to these recommendations and the need to ensure, in so far as is possible, there is not a repeat of the incidents such as those in Portlaoise, the case of Rebecca O'Malley, Barringtons Hospital and elsewhere. Policies have been implemented by the Government. The Health Information and Quality Authority is the mechanism by which we can seek much better quality assessment and quality provision of health care services generally and cancer care in particular in regard to the issues that have been raised this morning. I refer both Deputies to what the Taoiseach said yesterday in what I thought was a full and informative reply on the present position on those matters. It is a matter for the Whips to decide if they wish to take that debate further in plenary session in this House.
On the issue raised by Deputy Kenny on Exchequer returns, it is important to point out that some of the downside risks referred to by me have perhaps started to materialise in terms of the high price of oil, the change in the sterling and dollar exchange rates and the downturn in the international economy, which will have its effect here as it will elsewhere throughout the developed world. However, we are in a good position in terms of the public finances to withstand the pressures that are undoubtedly emerging as a result of that. We have a very low GDP-debt ratio — it is only 15% net. We will ensure that we control our public expenditure and current expenditure. We will not resign on our investment plans, namely, the capital investment programme, which is important. I said in my budget speech that we needed to borrow prudently to invest ambitiously, and we are doing that. We should not change tack in that respect. Our approach should be quite the contrary. Where below potential growth is being achieved, as is happening internationally, that is the time to invest in a capital programme that will ensure we develop the productive side of the economy. The Government is playing a role in that context in that, as part of the economic cycle, it is making an enhanced contribution in terms of the public expenditure and investment programme.
Regarding legislation, nine of the 17 Bills on the spring A list of the legislative programme have been published. There are seven Bills on the new A list, the Irish Sports Council amendment Bill, the broadcasting Bill, the chemicals regulation and enforcement Bill, the ombudsman amendment Bill, the adoption Bill, the health long-term residential care services Bill, the prevention of corruption amendment Bill and the Dublin Transport Authority Bill, which was before the Cabinet only this week and is being dealt with. Therefore, there is a substantive body of legislation for this session and, hopefully, with the co-operation of everyone we can deal with it in a way that will enable Members on all sides of the House to make a contribution.
I wish to raise three matters. The first one relates to the Exchequer figures. I support Deputy Kenny's call for a debate in the House on those figures and on the changing position of the public finances. The Tánaiste's reply to Deputy Kenny underscores the need for a debate because the Labour Party would not accept that the changing economic and public finance position is entirely due to international circumstances. There is the issue of domestic decision-making and the Tánaiste's management of this area requires to be debated here. The downturn in the revenues from capital gains tax, stamp duties and so on are intimately related to what has been happening in the property market. That needs to the debated. The Ceann Comhairle is shaking his head and I understand why, but this matter needs to be debated.
The Chair is indicating to the Deputy that he has made his point and should move on to the next one.
The main point is that we understand one another.
It is always advisable to be one step ahead of the Chair. Are there any plans to introduce Supplementary Estimates arising from the changes that are occurring?
The second matter I wish to raise concerns the civil unions Bill, on which a report is being prepared by the Government. I recall that when the Labour Party's Civil Unions Bill was before the House it was promised that the heads of the Government's legislation would be published at the end of February or in March — I will not quibble about the month. Is it still intended to publish the heads of the legislation and when will we have sight of them?
The third matter I wish to raise is the electoral amendment Bill, which is listed for publication this session. This Bill will introduce the revised Dáil and European Parliament constituencies. On previous occasions when legislation of this kind was introduced to implement the report of a boundary commission, it was done on a stand-alone basis, in other words, simply in regard to the new constituencies. I note from the list that what is intended on this occasion is to implement the recommendations of the Constituency Commission, to revise the procedures for the establishment of future commissions and to deal with other electoral matters requiring to be addressed in advance of the 2009 European and local elections. I have two questions relating to that. What are these other matters that are required to be addressed before the 2009 elections? Why is the boundary commission report not being introduced on a stand-alone basis?
I will check for the Deputy the other issues referred to in the legislation. On the question of the possible examination of how electoral commissions will work in the future, comments have been made by Members on all sides of the House on the impact of the constituency revisions that have been published in the report by the commission to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which are meeting with varying degrees of enthusiasm on all sides. This indicates that because of the huge shift in population etc. there was a greater degree of change on this occasion than was the case in the past. We are simply presented with a fait accompli and practitioners of politics like ourselves do not have an input into what is happening. The independence of the commission is in no way being challenged or compromised, but there is some merit in an interim report being published which would invite comments from the House on the workability of the efficacy of some of the proposals, which could be taken into account by the commission when it finalises the report and comes forward with its final position. At present it is a fait accompli .
I spoke to Deputies on all sides of the House and they would more than quibble with some of the decisions. These are recommendations to this House. The House has the right, if it so wishes and a consensus can be gained, to change any part of those. The position since 1977 has been that we have always taken the recommendations in blanket form and we have not considered them. I am aware that since the publication of this report Deputies on all sides of House have had serious reservations about provincial and county boundaries being breached. Radical changes have been proposed vis-à-vis the previous arrangements and a great deal of dissatisfaction has been voiced throughout many parts of the country, including in County Leitrim——
Does the Tánaiste not understand the instructions?
——for which I have particular sympathy.
Will he do something about it?
It is open to this House to do what it wishes about it if we can get a consensus and perhaps a political will should be developed here to stand up for what we would regard as more common-sense solutions than those that are before us. What we usually do is delegate the responsibility elsewhere, the report comes before the House and we do not have the political courage to sort something out when we know it is not right.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Because it is so politically correct, we do not interfere but stand back. It could be open to people in this House to come up with solutions if they so wish.
Does the Tánaiste have a proposal?
I am very strongly of the view that if there is a will in this House, an all-party committee could meet to discuss whether a solution can be found. Obviously one person's solution might be another person's problem. We could arrange for a minimum 20-seat representation for the Labour Party and that should sort out the problem.
As long as it would not be the TDs from the gerrymander wing.
I have gone to my constituency's political meeting and asked the people of south Offaly for their views on this issue.
The Tánaiste knows he must take great care of his constituency.
I have gone with the Minister of State, Deputy Hoctor, who is a great friend of mine, to the vote in north Tipperary and vice versa. One sees the camáin being taken out of the boots of cars. I have given an undertaking to the people I represent. That boundary has not been breached since the foundation of the State.
The Tánaiste knows we cannot go into this now.
It is possible for us as public representatives to galvanise ourselves and create some collective political will to deal with issues we know in our hearts and souls to be anomalous. We will accept them if we have to but perhaps we should consider doing our job.
I ask the Tánaiste to respond to the other points I raised. I also offer him the counsel that whatever promises he gives in the coming weeks, it would not be advisable to promise changes in constituency boundaries to any of his colleagues.
Deputy Gilmore would be surprised how much support he would find among those seated behind him for such an approach. Perhaps I am speaking more often than he to those Members, but I know he is working on it.
I ask the Tánaiste, wherever he goes looking for support, not to look behind me.
Deputy Gilmore is held in high regard by those seated behind him.
On the civil partnership Bill, it was stated in the Dáil that the Minister would bring his proposals to the Government by the end of March. He has met that deadline. The proposed scheme draws on the options identified by the working group on domestic partnership, under the chairmanship of Ms Anne Colley, and the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in its report on the rights and duties of cohabitants. The scheme will propose a statutory civil registration scheme for same sex partners and a redress scheme to provide certain legal protections for them and other cohabitants. I understand the heads of the Bill are being drafted but I cannot give an exact date for publication.
When will we see the Bill?
What is the reason for the delay?
We will deal with the Bill this year.
Were the heads of the Bill brought to the Government?
No, they are being drafted. The Minister said in the Dáil that he would bring his proposals on how to address this issue to the Government. That was done.
On the question of the redrawing of constituencies, we all had an opportunity, which some of us exercised and others did not, to make a submission to the independent commission, which is chaired by a High Court judge. We should leave it to the commission to make the decision, whatever that decision may be. As much as we would like——
I cannot allow a discussion on this issue.
The Tánaiste has commented on this issue and I wish to respond. It is a matter that must be left out of the political domain. Let us make our submissions to the commission and let the commission decide.
We cannot have a debate on this issue.
It would be wrong for the Oireachtas to make changes to the commission's recommendations.
I wish to respond to that.
We cannot have a debate on this issue.
Deputy O'Dowd makes an important point and it is important that we are accurate about the statutory position. Submissions can be made to the commission, as the Deputy observed. The commission then brings forward its recommendations to this House and it is open to us to accept all, any or none of them.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
It is time that this sovereign Parliament took upon itself the responsibilities arising in this area. If we have a difficulty with the commission's recommendations and can devise a consensus around modifications or changes, why should we not do so on behalf of the constituents who are declaring such dissatisfaction? Perhaps the difference between me and Deputy O'Dowd is that I never joined that politically correct club.
We feel the same way about the HSE.
The historical incidence of the gerrymandering of constituencies in other jurisdictions — I do not refer to this State — has proved to be an unworthy endeavour which has caused serious problems for the democratic process. It is absolutely unacceptable that this House should begin to interfere with the determination of the independent commission.
The commission puts forward a recommendation. We can agree to change that recommendation on the basis of consensus. What is the problem with that?
Will it be changed on the basis of the Government's recommendation?
This debate could last all day. I have called Deputy Charles Flanagan.
I advise the Tánaiste to exercise great care, having regard to the seat from which he rises, in proposing the establishment of an all-party committee with an input on constituency boundaries. Any such committee would undoubtedly include a majority of Government Members. The terms of reference of any such committee must be carefully considered. This House should hesitate to go down that road.
One of the most important items of proposed legislation heralded not only by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform but also by the Taoiseach in recent times is the sale of alcohol Bill. We were assured that proposals in this regard would be published before the end of March and that the legislation would be processed and enacted by this House before the summer recess. However, the latest legislative programme distributed by the Government Chief Whip indicates that publication of the Bill has been deferred to some time late this year. What is the reason for this delay?
I understood from the Taoiseach's reply on yesterday's Order of Business that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform hopes to bring forward proposals on below-cost selling during this session. It is my understanding that the more comprehensive general sale of alcohol legislation will be taken later. The Minister is prioritising the below-cost selling aspect of the Holmes report which he received only this week, some four to six weeks after he commissioned it. Yesterday's Official Report will clarify that point.
I do not wish there to be any misunderstanding of my comments on the constituency issue. I am simply making the point that if a political consensus can be devised, it is open to this House to modify a recommendation of the independent commission if it so wishes. That is all I am saying. Sometimes when we receive reports, we convince ourselves that we have no say in the matter. Under the law, we have a say if we so wish. If we cannot find agreement, there will be no change to the independent recommendation and the precedent will proceed. Members on all sides of the House are aware of the problems and difficulties arising from this issue, including in the exalted constituency shared by Deputy Charles Flanagan and me.
I welcome the points made by the Tánaiste. If they indicate a commitment to curb the quangoism in this State, they are most welcome.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Property management companies are unregulated and uncontrolled, with young families being ripped off to the tune of some €1,200 per year for no other service than to have the grass cut in their estates. This problem is widespread in the new built-up estates in my constituency and elsewhere throughout the State. The issue was debated at length in the House before the last election and we were given clear promises that legislation would be introduced. We were told, however, that there was some complexity because three Departments would be involved and three separate Bills required.
There is no indication in the new legislative programme that anything will be done about this before next October. Before Christmas, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform promised primary legislation early this year, that is, in the last session. Has the Government any intention of tackling this issue in respect of which Members on all sides of the House agree there is a requirement for statutory regulation and control? There seems to be an incapacity to ensure the three Ministers concerned get this legislation through. Why can this not be done quickly? Everybody knows what the problem is and what the solution should be. Legislation is required to implement that solution.
I understand from yesterday's Order of Business that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform provided some information to the Taoiseach in reply to questions on this issue from Fine Gael Members. I cannot recall it accurately.
Two other Ministers will have to get involved.
Yes, but there is a specific aspect for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and he indicated, through the Taoiseach, that he is making progress on that.
What is the timescale for the legislation?
Deputy Michael D. Higgins was in government in the past. He was an eminent colleague and I remember him with great affection.
That is touching.
I overcame so much obstruction nicely.
What was it that the former Minister, Mr. Des O'Malley, said about Deputy Michael D. Higgins?
My recollection is that the Deputy was far more unhappy with the subsequent three-year arrangement. I would have thought he and I were philosophically closer than he may have been to others.
I am sure that is very interesting but we must deal with the legislation.
The property services regulatory authority Bill is being prepared by the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, for this session.
I call Deputy Howlin.
The matter I intended to raise has already been raised.
Local authorities have not been given any funding for social housing this year. Certain people are willing to sell their houses to local authorities. When will the social housing miscellaneous provisions Bill be introduced in the House to enable us to discuss such matters?
The former US Senator, George Mitchell, played a crucial role in the Northern Ireland peace process. When will the George Mitchell scholarship fund amendment Bill be introduced? It is on the C list, rather than the A or B list.
Can the Tánaiste insist that funding be made available to alleviate the problems caused by the failure to bring the "fair deal" legislation before the House? Such a Bill is needed in the short term to address the serious problems being faced by the elderly.
I understand the social housing Bill will be introduced in this session. The heads of the George Mitchell scholarship fund Bill have not yet been prepared. As it is on the C list, I would say that it will not be introduced until later this year, at the earliest. The fund is in operation at the moment anyway. The Office of the Attorney General is trying to work through some legal issues, as opposed to constitutional issues, which have to be ironed out in respect of the third Bill mentioned by the Deputy.
Can some funding be made available in the short term?
We cannot go into that. The Deputy has made his point.
Two of the three Bills I would like to raise have just been mentioned by Deputy Crawford. The Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, has previously said that the Office of the Attorney General has highlighted legal difficulties with the section of the social housing miscellaneous provisions Bill that provides for the sale of council flats to tenants, which is a provision that has been outstanding for some time. Given that the legislation is now due to be considered during this session, can I take it that the legal difficulties have been dealt with? Do I understand correctly that a tenant purchase scheme, which is currently not available to those who live in flats, will be established on foot of the legislation? When can local authorities expect to get such a mechanism up and running?
On 14 December last, it was promised that a Green Paper on local government would be published. We are still waiting for it to come before the House. Can the Tánaiste indicate when the House will receive the Green Paper?
Deputy Crawford raised an issue that pertains to the Department of Health and Children. I have been informed by officials in the southern HSE region that costs relating to subvention are completely ring-fenced so that they apply to the long-term residential care service. Many people are unable to cope with the annual increases in nursing home costs because the subvention payments are frozen. This is an issue for the Department of Health and Children rather than——
It is not in order.
It is an issue.
No way.
It is part of the legislative programme.
It may well be.
A woman who came to my advice centre last Friday night told me she has had to borrow €800 from her local credit union to cover these costs.
If every Member was to speak about what happened last Friday night, we would be here until next Friday night.
Why not? The Tánaiste wants to sit tomorrow.
The Tánaiste can only answer questions on legislation.
I understand that the social housing miscellaneous provisions Bill will be introduced in this session. The Green Paper on local government was discussed at Cabinet level this week. I do not know when it will be published, but I assume it will be as soon as the discussions which comprise the deliberative process have been finalised and the requirements of the Official Languages Act 2003 have been met.
I would like to give an example in support of Deputy Kenny's point about promised timescales for Bills not being met. In last autumn's legislative programme, it was indicated that the national monuments Bill would be published in 2008, but the latest list suggests that it will not be published until 2009. As Minister for Finance, the Tánaiste must be concerned that this delay could cost the State money. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, said the other day he anticipates that this country will be fined by the EU as a result of its failure to transpose environmental law. This legislation is one of the relevant Bills in that regard. There is just one environmental Bill on the list for this session. Surely the Government can bring forward the national monuments Bill as a matter of urgency. The Tánaiste said last month that constitutional issues had arisen in respect of the "fair deal" legislation. If additional moneys are available as a result, perhaps they can be used to address the HSE's cuts in respite care in west Dublin.
Hear, hear.
Beds have been closed there and, I presume, in other places as well.
Everywhere.
People in their 80s are being denied respite care. Their families are suffering as a result of these decisions.
The national monuments Bill will not be introduced in the House this year. Deputies will probably have to wait until next year. The problem is that many issues have to be considered by the Government when giving priority to legislation. While all these Bills have their own individual merits, priority usually has to be attached to matters of more immediate concern.
Where are the Bills?
Colleagues throughout the House have raised legislation relating to many issues, particularly health. There were two Bills from the Department of Health and Children on the A list in the last session — the "fair deal" legislation and the adoption legislation, but neither of them was published. They are on the list again this year. The Minister, Deputy Harney, no longer answers questions in this Chamber. She passes them all on to the HSE.
It is a quango.
This House does not get an opportunity to debate a wide range of health issues because the Minister does not introduce legislation and does not answer questions. I am convinced that we need to have a broad-ranging debate on health in this House. I refer to matters like patient safety, for example.
We cannot have a debate now.
My colleagues have highlighted the problems of those who cannot afford elderly care. We do not have an opportunity to debate a wide range of health issues.
We cannot have the debate now anyway.
I support earlier calls for a debate on health. Will the Minister, Deputy Harney, go to the bother of bringing the legislation before us in this term? She did not do anything about it in the last term. We need a Minister for Health and Children who is engaged with the process.
We must confine ourselves to the Order of Business.
There are three health Bills on the A list. Obviously, they are there on the basis that, in the absence of any serious legal problems, they will be published and debated in the House during this session. That is the purpose of putting them on the list.
The adoption Bill has been on the list for years.
The Tánaiste signalled his intent this morning when he indicated that the Government will not necessarily follow the reports it gets blindly. I found that interesting in the context of the Peter Cassells report on the financial considerations to be paid by Cork Airport to the Dublin Airport Authority.
The Deputy is rowing the boat out too far.
I am not.
Of course he is.
I will explain why. The Chair has given latitude to many other speakers.
Too much.
Legislation has already been passed to facilitate the separation of Dublin, Cork and Shannon airports. New legislation will be required if we are to reverse that policy. The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, has said that if Cork Airport does not accept the recommendations of the Peter Cassells report, he will consider reversing Government policy in this area. What are the Tánaiste's views on that, given that the authority is likely to reject the contents of the report?
His views are not relevant now. Is legislation promised in this area?
I understand no legislation is promised.
No legislation is promised.
I am entitled to ask questions——
You are.
——about commitments which have been made by Ministers.
No, the Deputy is entitled to ask about promised legislation and promised business. He is not allowed to ask about funding and resources etc.
Legislation will be required if the Government decides to reverse its policy on the separation of the airports.
Correct. The Deputy asked the Tánaiste if legislation is promised and he said that no legislation is promised.
Will legislation be introduced if Cork Airport——
No legislation is promised at the moment.
——does not accept the contents of the Cassells report?
I will ask the Tánaiste to reply again.
I am informed by the Minister for Transport that no legislation is promised.
It is bad news for Cork.
May I ask the Tánaiste, in the present context, if the Government intends to use one of the Bills on the legislative list to deal with the rising tide of criminality in this country? For example, in the last couple of days a 14 year old boy was found to have been wearing a bullet-proof vest. Does the Government intend to introduce legislation to combat and confront the extent of criminality now taking place?
Does the Deputy have a specific question on legislation?
There is a consensus in my constituency that nothing is being done to stop the reign of criminality.
What is the Deputy's question?
Will the Tánaiste take a particular initiative to introduce legislation that will facilitate a debate on this matter as soon as possible?
I understand this was dealt with yesterday, when the five items of legislation were asked about. They are on the list and will be dealt with as soon as they are brought forward. I do not see the purpose of raising this on a daily basis, since the answer was given yesterday. Various Deputies ask the same questions on different days and nobody seems to be reading the Official Report.
It is because the Government does not give the answers.
I have another question and it is important. This one impinges on the Ceann Comhairle's authority as Chairman of this House. Recently I have noticed creeping into replies to parliamentary questions from various Departments the phrase, "it is not usual to comment on individual cases". I tabled a question to the Minister for Health and Children because this has appeared as regards a series of services provided by her Department. It asked whether the Minister had given instructions to restrict the flow of information to individual Members of the House, and she said she had not. However, the Data Protection Commissioner issued a guidance note for data controllers on the release of personal data to public representatives, in line with which the HSE has prepared its standard operational procedure. Effectively, it is now a requirement for public representatives to get written confirmation from a constituent before he or she can make representation seeking a response.
As the Ceann Comhairle knows, this is totally in breach of the rules of the Oireachtas and the privilege enjoyed by its Members. I am asking for either a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, CPP, with the Data Protection Commissioner in attendance or the legislation to be amended, if necessary, because there are no circumstances in which an elected Member of the Oireachtas has to seek permission from anybody to raise a question about any subject that involves expenditure of any kind.
Hear, hear.
If appropriate, this matter will be placed on the agenda of the CPP.
No. 41 on the C list is the education patronage Bill, which is promised for this year. Since the Tánaiste's colleague, the Minister for Education and Science, is beside him, will he say what progress has been made in this regard and will it be produced by the end of 2008?
I understand it is the intention to so do.