Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Apr 2008

Vol. 653 No. 2

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 16, Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008 — Committee and Remaining Stages; No. 10, motion re statement for information of voters on the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008; and No. 17, Student Support Bill 2008 — Second Stage (resumed).

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 10 shall be taken immediately upon the conclusion of No. 16, and shall be decided without debate. Private Members' business shall be No. 35, motion re e-Government services.

There is one proposal to be put to the House today. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 10, motion re Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008, agreed to?

I saw the results of a poll at the weekend in respect of the information about the Lisbon treaty. For my part, as the Tánaiste will be aware, six months ago I made the point that the Fine Gael Party would support this treaty strongly and campaign strongly on it, irrespective of any political differences we might have with the Government on economics, health, justice, crime or whatever. I have been at ten or 12 public meetings. I am concerned at the lack of information that is getting out there from Government. One is confronted with leaflets and dealing with persons stating that the Lisbon treaty will introduce euthanasia, abortion, the limiting of family sizes, tax harmonisation, an ending of neutrality, an ending of sovereignty, the introduction of a dictatorship etc. — stuff that is completely and utterly false and off the wall, and is not in any way relevant to the facts contained in the Lisbon treaty.

I would like to think that the Tánaiste, as the newly-appointed leader of his party and the person due to take up the reins of office as Taoiseach, would assume responsibility for the Government campaign here. Genuinely, there is an atrocious lack of information out there. In fact, one of the Tánaiste's party's MEPs stated that this party would peak its campaign too soon. There are just six weeks left and the level of confusion and lack of information is incredible.

I assume this motion dealing with information of voters relates to the short instruction on the polling card that voters will receive through their doors. I want to hear the Tánaiste state now that as the joint director of elections for his party he will assume real responsibility here in putting energy from Government into this campaign and that people will get digestible and understandable information. This is really important. From my perspective, irrespective of any differences we have, this party will campaign strongly and publicly, and will ask all our people to support strongly the Lisbon treaty, which is so critical for the future of the country.

I want to put an end to these theories of conspiracy that Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, the Progressive Democrats, the Greens and some Independents are all involved in some subterranean underlying conspiracy to introduce all of the matters I mentioned earlier into the country. It is ingrained in these persons who stand up at public meetings that I attend and we need a very strong response based on facts and giving people information in a way they can understand and appreciate, so that they are properly informed when they go to vote on 12 June.

For my part as leader of the Fine Gael Party, we will follow on the tradition of leaders who went before me, whether in Opposition or in Government, putting the country first in terms of its place in Europe. It is really important that the Tánaiste comes out here strongly and shows decisiveness and leadership in respect of the position he holds at the party level.

I substantially agree with what Deputy Kenny stated. Like Fine Gael, the Labour Party supports this treaty and the referendum, notwithstanding the political differences we have with Government on day-to-day matters.

The poll at the weekend accurately reflects the response we are getting. There is a combination of lack of information and misinformation which is causing a reluctance among people to support this treaty.

It is obviously a complex treaty because of the way it is written and it is difficult to explain in a couple of sentences, but we are dealing on a day-to-day basis with much misinformation and many red herrings. There are allegations that the treaty will haul us into a militarised Europe when manifestly that is not the case. There are allegations that it will result in self-amending arrangements when clearly that is not the case. There are allegations that it will result in tax harmonisation when clearly that is not the case.

One necessity at this stage is clear leadership on the part of Government on the treaty. I acknowledge the good work that the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, is doing in advocating the case for the treaty but there is a necessity for the Tánaiste to take command of this campaign as soon as possible and for there to be a greater evidence of Government energy in promoting the treaty than there has been to date.

As far as the Labour Party is concerned, we support the treaty on its merits. It is a good treaty for Europe and for the people of this country and it advances many aspects of the social and democratic Europe that the Labour Party wants to see advanced. However, we, on the Opposition side of the House, cannot win this treaty. The Government must show a greater degree of energy and leadership on the issue than has been evident to date.

The differences of opinion that the Tánaiste and I may have on this issue aside, I agree that we need all of the information available. The electorate has a right and entitlement to all the facts. We all also have a responsibility to respect the right of others to offer an alternative view and it should be conducted in a mature and respectful debate process over the six weeks remaining up to 12 June.

For my part, I participated in two such debates in different parts of the country over the past weekend and I noted a concord with members not of my own party but of parties here represented on the "Yes" side, who do not concur with the views already expressed by other Members here this afternoon. There is a wide body of people who are deeply concerned at what is involved. I agree with them and we will continue to argue that case.

I wanted to raise something more immediate than the 12 June referendum date. I have a difficulty with the Order Paper this week as there is no provision for an opportunity for the Tánaiste or the Minister for Health and Children to address the impending meltdown of the entire State supply of medicines through the medical card scheme and other State supported systems of access for many citizens.

That is not in order.

It is in order. I am requesting, with respect——

No, it is not in order. We are discussing the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008 and a motion on that Bill.

We are discussing the Order of Business. Will the Tánaiste provide an opportunity for a clear outline——

We are not discussing that. I will ask the Tánaiste to reply and the Deputy may not continue with that.

——of the Government's attempts to deal with the threatened withdrawal of pharmacists from State-sponsored schemes——

That is not in order. I call on the Tánaiste to reply to the debate on the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008, and nothing else.

I must respect the Ceann Comhairle.

The Tánaiste must also respect the importance of debate on this issue.

I respect the fact that the Ceann Comhairle runs the House.

The Tánaiste will shortly be running the country.

That will be my privilege. I will make the following comment on the issues raised by Deputies Kenny and Gilmore. It is very important to recognise that the country will make a major strategic decision on 12 June next. All parties will vigorously campaign for a "Yes" vote because we believe it is in the national interest to do so and in the interests of the citizens we serve, and for no other reason. Having been involved in campaigns in the past, unfortunately there has always been an element of the campaign which has exaggerated its case and which has not served debate well. Unfortunately, there are some who have had quite cataclysmic visions since 1972 of what our membership of the European Union might entail, all of which have proved false.

We have seen a phase of economic, social and political development which has greatly been influenced by the force for good represented by the European Economic Community, now the European Union.

All has not been shown to be false, with respect.

In the interests of a respectful debate, on any objective assessment of the balance sheet of the pros and cons of membership of the EU, the great majority of the evidence suggests that voting "Yes" and our continued membership and centrality in the EU provides the best mechanism for the advancement of this country's interests at home and abroad. Any objective assessment of the situation would confirm that. While some people have opposed this from the start — approximately 20% of the electorate in every referendum that has been held — it behoves the rest of us who are on the other side of the argument to ensure that we get the voters to come out and participate in what is an important issue for them.

I do not believe that it is in the interests of this country to send a signal to the rest of Europe that we wish to step back from a more efficient and effective European Union, an EU that brings more democracy to national parliaments than has been the case until now; an EU that provides for equality of treatment in the composition of the Commission, regardless of the size of the member state; an EU that maintains the institutional balance that has served this country well over the years. I do not believe that the whole industrial strategy that we have adopted in the past 35 years should be put at risk by a message we might send to the international investment community about our role in Europe and the platform we believe this economy represents in a Single Market with 500 million of the best paid consumers in the world available to us.

What message would we send to the international investment community, the more than 1,000 industries that have located here, many of which are at the high end of science, technology and software development and have brought modernisation to this country? What message do we send to them, their investors and their shareholders if we suggest that we are not prepared to vote "Yes" unequivocally to the EU? There are 128,000 people employed in those multinational industries and many more hundreds of thousands of people have jobs that depend on the health of those industries, while we have built up many indigenous industries over the years.

What do we say to the farming community to ensure that they keep an eye on the ball for this issue? We will be looking to a mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy between now and 2013. In what way is the voice of any agriculture Minister strengthened by a "No" vote, which would suggest that we are not prepared to go in and bat for our people?

While I accept the sincerity of other people's opinions, I believe the empirical evidence is very much in our favour. Members in this House should take courage from the fact that the people have discernment and they will respond to a clear elucidation of the issues during this referendum campaign. We have done it in the past and we can do it on this occasion. In the same way as they do for elections, people only bring their attention to the issues when the campaign has been launched and when we are actively involved in seeking to persuade them on the doorsteps, at the shopping centres and in the streets of every town and city in Ireland.

We will begin our campaign on 12 May 2008. So as not to get involved in the blame game, I would like to point out that over 50 meetings have been held by my party in every constituency in the country to mobilise our people. The logistics for our campaign are ready and we have gone to the printers. We will go out there vigorously because we believe that this is an important strategic decision for the Irish people. I am gladdened by the fact that we will be supported by other Members, whose parties will get out and make sure that their supporters are activated in that way.We look forward to a debate, but let it be a calm, correct and accurate debate.

Correct. No scaremongering.

Those who wish to get involved in the exaggerated arguments of the past will not deserve the respect of the Irish people. They will not persuade them in any case because I believe in the discernment and common sense of our people to recognise that over the past 35 years, the one thing to which we can point, apart from good policy making in the main, has been the framework that the EU has provided for us to open up not only economically and socially but psychologically and in other ways. We are now a country that is very much part of what the EU is about. It is a force for good in the world that is trying to bring a greater sense of solidarity, not just within Europe.

Where would the Europe of today be if we did not have an entity called the European Union after the implosion of communism? The progressive democratic forces of those countries most affected by the implosion could tell their people that they had something to which they could aspire, which would adhere to the rule of law, which would respect individual rights and which would ensure that people could seek progress in a pluralist democracy that had been denied to them since 1945 when the Iron Curtain came down.

The young people of this country realise that many of the problems that affect them today are transnational in nature, whether it is climate change, environmental sustainability or sustainable economic development. We can only tackle those problems working with others rather than on our own. Let us leave the isolationists to themselves over there in the far corner, outlining their visions of the future as if the Irish people will not be capable of defending themselves, working their way through the issues and progressing as we have done for the past 35 years. We have more confidence in the Irish people than that, which is the positive message we should get out. I am not interested in the exaggerated arguments of the naysayers.

Let us hope for a fair debate.

If we get our act together, I believe the people will respond.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

(Interruptions).

Is the proposal agreed? Agreed.

When can we expect to see the publication of the broadcasting Bill? What is the reason for the delay in respect of the long-stay institutions Bill? Is it constitutional or does it relate to property rights or legal complexities the Bill has run into? A very significant number of people are waiting for this Bill to be published. If the Tánaiste cannot give me the information about what the nature of the problem is, could he tell me when he expects to see the Bill here in the House because it is an important piece of legislation?

The broadcasting Bill is due this session. The other Bill regarding a fair deal is an issue that has taken longer to come to the House than we expected because of legal issues. They are not insurmountable. The Attorney General is working on this and the Minister met him again last week. I believe it will be a matter of weeks before we have it resolved. Certainly, we believe there is a way forward that meets the requirements of the situation and the Attorney General's advices.

On 3 April 2008, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government told the Irish Planning Institute that he intended to bring in new legislation to tax the windfall gains made by landowners and property developers, that he believed the Attorney General had found a way around the constitutional difficulties with such windfall taxes and that such a measure now had the backing of his Cabinet colleagues. I asked the Taoiseach about it on 8 April and he told me that those provisions would be included in the property services regulatory authority Bill which he said would be taken this session. I was slightly surprised, therefore, to see a reply the Tánaiste gave to my colleague, Deputy Róisín Shortall, last Thursday when she asked him about his plans for this piece of legislation. He said "the Deputy will be aware that the programme for Government does not include provision for the introduction of such a tax and there are no plans at this stage to introduce a tax of this type".

When he spoke to the Irish Planning Institute in Westport, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government said that there would be a windfall tax on landowners and property developers. Is this tax going ahead or not? Which Minister is right because the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has said one thing while the Tánaiste has said the direct opposite.

Tax policy is a matter for the Minister for Finance of the day and, ultimately, the Government. All I can say to the Deputy is that I am not aware that the Government has taken any decision in respect of a windfall tax on that matter.

We must deal with legislation.

It is promised legislation.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government promised it in Westport. He promised that this legislation would be introduced. The Taoiseach, to be fair to him, seemed to agree on 8 April because he said this would be in the property services regulatory authority Bill which would be brought in this session.

Perhaps we might return to it when the Tánaiste has an opportunity to reconcile what he said with what the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Taoiseach said. We might return to it some other day. It seems to be a bit odd that at least two different positions are emanating from Government about this important matter.

The issue raised on Leaders' Questions with regard to St. Columcille's Hospital in Loughlinstown has been very kindly selected by the Ceann Comhairle for the Adjournment debate. Can the Tánaiste give an assurance that the Minister for Health and Children will be here tonight to take the Adjournment debate as opposed to someone coming in here and reading out a prepared script that may be full of inaccuracies?

That is not in order.

The Tánaiste should look after it. It is a very serious issue.

It might be but it is not in order.

Could the Tánaiste contact the Minister for Health and Children afterwards to see if she would make herself available?

I am sure he has other things to do. He cannot get involved in that.

The Tánaiste said that the broadcasting Bill would be published this session. Is it intended to take it in the Seanad first?

I understand that this is the case.

Those in the Opposition were probably the only people in the country who were not invited to the launch of the OECD report yesterday.

We cannot discuss it now.

I am sure this was probably by design on the Tánaiste's part.

We cannot discuss it now.

Given that the report is very important in terms of the future of the public service, what it has to say, particularly about decentralisation, and the fact that it says that decentralisation is resulting in considerable damage to the public service, is the Tánaiste willing to provide an opportunity for a detailed debate on this report, which will be very important to the future of the country, services in the country and how we conduct the modernisation and reform of the public service?

That is not in order, as the Deputy well knows. Will there be a debate on this issue?

It is certainly very important that this House debates such an important report which follows on from many reports in the past, such as the Devlin report, the strategic management initiative and Delivering Better Government. As part of that continuum of assessment of how we can improve public services, the delivery of services and the ability to provide for training, improvement and development for people who work in the public service, it is an obvious candidate for a debate in this House in due course, subject to the agreement of the House.

The Tánaiste has answered the question.

I have a question about another piece of legislation. The Tánaiste spoke about good government over the past 11 years. The Financial Regulator does not seem to have been able to do anything to persuade the Bank of Ireland to tell the 31,000 people whose identity details were stolen——

We cannot have these little stories now. The Deputy must ask about legislation. I must move on.

The Financial Regulator seems to be racing to catch up or else kept mum while the Bank of Ireland got on with sorting out the mess.

To what legislation is Deputy Burton referring?

The Tánaiste promised a financial services regulation Bill, which would be a consolidation Bill in respect of financial services, some time ago. Is there any intention to update financial regulations to ensure that bank customers actually rank in terms of importance in respect of being told if their identity details have been stolen.

We must move on. Is legislation promised in that area?

The legislation is being prepared in the Department of Finance. It is a consolidation Bill. It will probably be ready to be brought forward at the end of this year at the earliest. It is a very large Bill. It will probably be next year when it is ready to be brought forward, to be accurate.

Consumer panels have been set up that are within the Financial Regulator's remit. A consumer code is also in existence, as are a range of consumer affairs-type mandates and arrangements for the Financial Regulator which were not there before. They are often fully utilised.

In light of suspect policy decisions being taken by Coillte, which cost Irish taxpayers in excess of €8 million in EU levies——

We cannot have any prologues.

These were grants that were due to farmers

The Deputy should confine himself to legislation.

When can we expect to see the forestry (amendment) Bill come before the House? This is an important Bill to deal with this situation.

No date has been set for that.

Has the Tánaiste any intentions to amend the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003 in response to the suggestion in the OECD report that charges for accessing information be abolished? The report said that the Government should reduce barriers to public information by making all requests under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 free.

That is not in order.

Does the Tánaiste intend to bring in any legislation under that Act to grant that request?

Is legislation promised in that area?

No legislation is promised.

An issue I have raised previously with the Tánaiste and will, no doubt, raise again is the question of the proposed legislation to give effect to certain positions of the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime. The question of organised crime has not gone away, as we all know. Will the Tánaiste and future Taoiseach take an initiative to bring together the new measures proposed under the Lisbon treaty and co-ordinate them with the list of proposed legislation on the Order Paper, with a view to bringing the matters to a satisfactory conclusion? Will he ensure the issues are dealt with together rather than in the haphazard way as they appear to be laid out?

We cannot have omnibus questions.

It is not an omnibus question.

It is a question on specific legislation.

We do not have a date for that.

Why do we not have date for it? Would it not be a good idea to have one?

We cannot go into that. I call Deputy Jan O'Sullivan.

I know how important it is to have an accurate date.

It is a good idea. I will return to this issue.

I have no doubt the Deputy will. I call Deputy Jan O'Sullivan.

I welcome that talks are taking place between the HSE and the Irish Pharmaceutical Union in advance of Thursday.

That matter is not in order.

We have been told for months that under the Competition Act they could not have such discussions.

That matter is not in order.

The Tánaiste might tell us if, in that respect, they have found a way around the Competition Act?

The Deputy knows as well as I do that there are other ways of dealing with that matter.

Will the Tánaiste tell us about the talks and whether they are successful?

He cannot do so. I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.

Many people are worried about what will happen.

I am sure they are, but the matter cannot be raised now. I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.

How quickly can I raise a matter? It is as if the Ceann Comhairle is ready to pounce on me.

I am not. If anything, I try to accommodate the Deputy in any way I can.

As I was ruled out of order earlier, will the Tánaiste indicate a willingness on his part to facilitate address of this issue on tomorrow's Order Paper?

Will the Tánaiste give us some information on it?

I refer to the issue of the pharmacists and the impending meltdown of the supply of medicines in this State.

Tomorrow's Order Paper is a matter for tomorrow.

It is scheduled for 1 May.

Tomorrow is another day.

Will the Tánaiste take this issue on board and provide for its address tomorrow?

This issue has been debated in plenary session here and on Committee Stage more than any other issue in the past three or four months. As regards the idea that there has not been an opportunity for debate, that all the views have not been expressed or that the facts have not been laid out for the umpteenth time, that has happened here. As has been said, some discussion between the Minister and the IPU took place last week. I understand the IPU is considering all of that matter. The Deputy is aware of the initiative, Mr. Dorgan is involved and let us hope common sense prevail in that respect to ensure we do not have inconveniencing of patients, which would be unnecessary in the context of what we are trying to achieve.

When will the promised legislation on the graduate driver system be brought forward? We were promised last October that it would be passed by the end of June. Will we see that legislation at some stage?

I understand that the Tánaiste and the Cabinet were considering a new tranche of PPPs for the NRA's road building programme. Has any decision has been taken on that matter and will it be announced to the House?

That is not in order.

It is. We have had a discussion on PPPs here previously and we need to have another one.

I am sure we do, but we are not going to have it now. The Tánaiste might reply on the matter of promised legislation.

I will have to come back to Deputy Broughan on the information he is seeking on legislation dealing with learner drivers.

The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, said he might do it before he left office.

I am moving on to the next business.

I think he said he would do it before the Deputy's party would come into office.

Unfortunately, the Minister for Health and Children is not present. I raise this matter on foot of further information given at this morning's health committee on the previously identified decision by the High Court on the need to introduce legislation to redress the legal lacunae that exist following the dissolution of the NRB on 12 June 2000. Given that the need to introduce such legislation has been identified and that it has been agreed to bring the matter before the committee again, will the Tánaiste and the Government at least accept to review this matter on an ongoing basis and to consider the need to introduce legislation on it?

Is legislation promised in this area?

Not to my knowledge.

I am moving to the next business.

Top
Share