Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 Jul 2008

Vol. 658 No. 1

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 11, motion re referral to select committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the terms of the International Convention against Doping; No. 12, motion re referral to select committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the terms of the agreement on social security between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Korea; No. 20, Chemicals Bill 2008 — Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; No. 1, Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2006 — Amendments from the Seanad; and No. 21, Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2008 — Second Stage (resumed) to be taken not later than 8.30 p.m. and, the order shall not resume thereafter.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight, that business shall be interrupted not later than 10 p.m. and that Nos. 11 and 12 be decided without debate. Private Members' business shall be No. 45, motion re fishing industry.

There are two proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight agreed?

No. Last Thursday afternoon, the Minister of State, Deputy Máire Hoctor, misled the House, whether deliberately or not, I do not know. However, she misled the House in response to questions regarding the Hawlbowline site in Cork harbour and the content of that site in terms of toxic and hazardous waste.

I propose an amendment to the Order of Business to provide for an extra 40 minutes after 10 p.m. to allow the Minister of State, Deputy Hoctor, to correct the record or for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to make a statement on the issue.

I support Deputy Coveney's proposal. Deputies who were in the House last Thursday afternoon will be aware five requests were made to the Ceann Comhairle for a Minister to come into the House to explain what was going on in Ringaskiddy. The quality of the response received was wanting. Questions raised by the community of the harbour area were not answered. I note the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is present in the House. It is urgent and critical that the community is assured, in terms of what is being done by Cork County Council and the Environmental Protection Agency to address what is an obvious health hazard in the Cork Harbour region, that the matter is being dealt with.

The Department's remit is to facilitate a thorough investigation of the site and to report to Government thereon to allow for a Government decision on the future use of the site. The Minister will report the outcome of this exercise to Government in the coming months.

In the meantime, a contractor engaged in interim surface clearance works disturbed a quantity of hazardous material on the east tip. In defiance of instructions from the Department the contractor persisted with unauthorised works and it ultimately became necessary to terminate his contract. The Department's instructions, which were endorsed by the Environmental Protection Agency, were designed to prevent any further piecemeal unauthorised works which could have unknown environmental consequences.

The matter is being handled by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Minister has met with people from the area and has explained to them the situation in terms of the information available. He will report on the matter to Government as soon as the report, in respect of the site which has existed for 30 years, becomes available.

Is the proposal re the late sitting agreed?

We need to have a debate on the matter in the House.

(Interruptions).

Another cover-up.

The Ceann Comhairle cannot allow a cover-up like that. The public's health is being affected.

There is no regard for the citizens of Cork.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with the late sitting be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 53.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Andrews, Chris.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Behan, Joe.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Áine.
  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Browne, John.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conlon, Margaret.
  • Connick, Seán.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Curran, John.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Flynn, Beverley.
  • Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Hoctor, Máire.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kennedy, Michael.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Mansergh, Martin.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Brien, Darragh.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Hanlon, Rory.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • O’Keeffe, Edward.
  • O’Sullivan, Christy.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • White, Mary Alexandra.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Bannon, James.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coonan, Noel J.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • D’Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Enright, Olwyn.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Morgan, Arthur.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.
  • O’Keeffe, Jim.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Perry, John.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
  • Sheehan, P. J.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Upton, Mary.
  • Varadkar, Leo.
  • Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Question declared carried.

On a point of order, it is a long-standing precedent in the House that when a Member misleads the Dáil, whether deliberately or not, he or she is given the next available opportunity to correct the record. I understand it is a judgment call for the Ceann Comhairle. I ask the Ceann Comhairle now to give the Minister of State, Deputy Hoctor, an opportunity to correct the record on what she said last Thursday.

The position is clear. If Deputy Coveney has a specific allegation to make about any Member of the House, it is open to him to put down a substantive motion and have it dealt with in that way. There are also a number of other ways in which this matter can be raised. If Deputy Coveney wishes to raise a matter, either on the Adjournment or by way of a Private Notice Question——

(Interruptions).

I have already put down a matter on the Adjournment but it was not accepted.

——in that event the matter will be considered. Personal statements are a matter for individual Members, who may contact my office.

Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 11 and 12 without debate agreed to? Agreed.

On a point of order——

Deputy Kenny on the Order of Business.

I may raise——

On a point of order——

If it is a point of order, yes. Is it a point of order?

There would appear to be an accusation that a Minister has misled the House.

I have indicated to Deputy Coveney the way in which that matter must be addressed.

This is quite a serious allegation.

That is not a point of order.

The Minister of State needs to clarify whether this was intentional or unintentional.

I have set out the procedure for the House in reply to Deputy Coveney——

What the Minister of State said last Thursday afternoon may not have been correct.

——-and I ask the Deputy to respect that. Deputy Kenny on the Order of Business.

With respect, this needs to be clarified.

Deputy Kenny on the Order of Business.

This is a serious matter and I would like to take it a little further on the Order of Business, if I may. A number of questions were asked of the Minister of State, Deputy Hoctor, last week. Deputy Lynch asked whether a notice at Haulbowline indicated that it was safe and Deputy Hoctor replied "I have just explained that there is no notice because there is no health risk". The Taoiseach has responsibility for this matter. The dumped materials at Haulbowline include mercury, lead, chromium 6, zinc and PCBs.

I cannot let Deputy Kenny go into this now.

Deputy Coveney and others requested a 40 minute extension of business tonight to allow the Minister, Deputy Gormley, the Minister of State, Deputy Hoctor, and anyone else to clear this up. I do not want to see people accused of scaremongering over something that is potentially very serious. I am sure the Government does not want people to be so worried that they will call for public inquiries and make claims relating to dumped materials.

Is Deputy Kenny asking for asking for additional time to debate this matter?

It would be in everyone's interest if the Taoiseach would respond on this Order of Business by granting extra time to allow the Minister, Deputy Gormley, the Minister of State, Deputy Hoctor, and anyone else who wishes to contribute to do so. This is a reasonable suggestion. I have another question to ask when this is dealt with.

The difficulty here arises from the fact that the questions on Thursday were addressed to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, who, I understand, was in Cork on Thursday and went fundraising in Kerry later in the day.

We do not take corporate donations.

They say they do not take corporate donations.

This is one of the most serious environmental problems to have emerged for some time and people living in the vicinity in Cork are concerned by the risks to their health. I understand an independent environmental report was prepared for Cork County Council as far back as 2005. This report was submitted to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government but seems to have been buried.

We cannot go into that now and Deputy Gilmore must confine himself to a question on whether there will be a debate.

I support the proposal that there should be additional time this evening for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to provide answers for the people of Cork. If he wishes to do this now I would be very happy.

A year ago he would have visited the area to look at the issue.

On the same issue, this afternoon the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government met representatives of the residents in Ringaskiddy.

I have not met them yet; I am meeting them later.

He did not wish to mislead the House.

Then the Taoiseach misled the House when he said the Minister had met the representatives of the residents.

In that context, is it not appropriate——

(Interruptions).

Please allow Deputy Coveney to speak without interruption.

This is potentially the most serious environmental disaster the Government has had to deal with. People are working only 200 to 300 yds from this site and must face the potential health consequences of dust blowing from it.

We cannot go into this now.

We in this House have a right to ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to correct incorrect statements made last week on his behalf by a Minister of State who was not adequately briefed. We want a 40 minute debate on this matter and that is not unreasonable.

The Ceann Comhairle presided over this debate last Thursday and many have commented on the quality of the response we received. The Minister could have addressed the issue in this House or he could have gone to Haulbowline and called on the county manager and the CEO of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to join him and see what could be done.

I take it the Deputy is raising the question of a debate.

The Minister is to meet residents this afternoon and I welcome that but he should also tell us in this House what is to happen.

The Naval Service is located near the relevant area; does the Minister for Defence have a view on this matter? This is an extremely serious issue. I live in the area and have had calls from residents who are very concerned about the high levels of chromium 6 and mercury that have been known for years but covered up. I ask the Taoiseach to publish the reports on this matter immediately so people's fears can be allayed. Will the Minister make a statement in the House this evening on the matter? This is extremely serious, why is it being covered up? Why is the Minister running and hiding?

He should make a statement. He is not being a public representative. What is he hiding? People are genuinely afraid and there is a cover-up on this matter. Cancer levels are very high in the harbour area.

(Interruptions).

I inform Deputy Stanton that I have called on Deputy Creed. When the Ceann Comhairle stands Deputy Stanton must sit.

So much for the green Minister — he has gone yellow again.

On the same issue——

The Minister should make a statement and answer questions in the House.

A Deputy is suggesting this is our fault.

He is not behaving like a Cork man. He should support the residents

The Taoiseach and Minister for Defence will be aware that PDFORRA, the representative body for members of the Naval Service working at Haulbowline, has expressed concern about the safety of its members working close to this site. This issue relates to a threat to them, local residents and marine wildlife and is of the utmost importance. The Taoiseach should avail of the opportunity to restore the relevance of this House and facilitate a debate on the matter.

Some people in this House think this is an issue that can be laughed at but it is quite serious. Three reports were carried out on this matter since 2004 and the Minister, though he inherited this problem, has access to them.

I inherited the problem from the Labour Party.

The Minister must explain that comment.

The Minister is the ultimate buffoon.

Is Deputy Lynch supporting the request for a debate on this?

Deputy Bruton sold it for £1.

The Minister for smugness says he inherited this issue from the Labour Party. I note that the people laughing are not from Cork but they are on the Government back benches and should know better. Will the Minister release the three reports that are in his possession and have been at his Department since 2004? I ask him to discuss the matter in this House with those elected to represent the people involved rather than continue with the stupid carry-on that has prevailed for the past two weeks.

The Minister is trying to deal with this situation appropriately. He is meeting residents this evening and will provide the information he has available to him. An adjournment matter on this issue has been accepted in the Seanad and he will speak on it tonight.

Deputies should not laugh at the Seanad.

Please allow the Taoiseach to finish.

A Deputy

He is some green Minister.

Can we understand one thing here?

The Minister is "Mighty Mouse" in the Seanad.

Several Deputies have asked for a debate on this issue which has been raised legitimately on the Order of Business.

There is no point in opening the gates at the weekend if we cannot get answers here today.

I have given every Member an opportunity to make points. Some of them have been repetitive. The Taoiseach is attempting to reply to all of the points raised in the context of whether the Order of Business should be amended. I ask that he be allowed to do so, with silence from Deputies.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

As I said, the Minister, Deputy Gormley, is meeting the residents this evening.

We have heard that part.

He is open to providing information and giving whatever answers he can, in response to residents' questions, based on the information available. As I said, the action taken by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, in terminating the contract of the contractor involved in unauthorised works, has been endorsed by the Environmental Protection Agency. One would hope people could take confidence from the fact that such an independent agency is in agreement with the Department's actions. The Department is preparing a report on legacy issues which have affected the site since the 1930s and hopes to be in a position to submit to the Government a comprehensive appraisal of the best way of remediating the site. That initiative has been taken by the Minister, rather than by any of his predecessors.

That is an awful thing to say about Deputy Roche.

The Minister should be given some credit for seeking to deal with the matter.

He was forced last week to do something about it.

He will address the concerns raised by the residents of the area by providing whatever information he can at this evening's meeting. The work that will enable us to consider how best to deal with the situation is proceeding.

Why is he not prepared to come in here to answer questions?

The Taoiseach knows more about——

At no stage——

From what is the Minister running away?

Let the Taoiseach finish.

Will the Taoiseach take the questions?

The Deputy does not determine the order of the House. He might like to, but he does not. At no stage has the Minister been playing down the issues involved such as the potential hazards if the site is not treated in the proper way. As Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, he is aware of his responsibilities. He will meet the residents this evening to reassure them. In the meantime, perhaps we can arrange for the Whips to see if there is time——

We can do it tonight.

Excuse me.

I ask the Deputy to let the Taoiseach finish.

The Government orders the business.

If people have genuine concerns, we will try to accommodate them.

I will not be told what way we will do it. We will do it on the basis of what is agreed when the Whips sit down and have a sensible discussion. If there is room for a one hour debate in the morning, we will have no problem dealing with the matter. We should deal with it calmly and let the Minister get on with his job as he sees fit.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

That is not what the Taoiseach said half an hour ago.

I understand Deputy Kenny wishes to raise another issue on the Order of Business.

The Broadcasting Bill 2008 which is before the Seanad is due to be presented in this House at some stage. Will we be given an opportunity to——

(Interruptions).

I ask Members leaving the Chamber to allow Deputy Kenny to proceed without interruption.

Will we have an opportunity to receive the report on cross-ownership in respect of broadcasting?

(Interruptions).

We cannot hear a thing.

They are a little enthusiastic, a Cheann Comhairle.

The Chair should ring the bell.

That should do it.

Bang the bell. The Broadcasting Bill 2008 is due to be presented in this House when the Seanad has finished dealing with it. The Tánaiste received a report yesterday from Mr. Paul Sreenan, SC, on cross-ownership of media outlets and the need for definitions, etc. Will it be possible for the report to be published and made available to Members before the Dáil considers the Broadcasting Bill?

(Interruptions).

I remind Members in the lobby that it is not gossips' corner. Deputy Kenny has to be allowed to proceed without interruption.

They are not listening.

The Taoiseach's colleague is the biggest offender.

Jackie, move on outside.

We could not get him in last week, but now we cannot get him out.

It might interest the Ceann Comhairle to know that Deputy Healy-Rae and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, are discussing the back end of the Garda station in Caherciveen.

Do not mind that. That will take care of itself.

There is a need for an extension there.

The children were much better behaved at the weekend.

I asked the Taoiseach about the report on cross-ownership of media outlets which Mr. Sreenan, SC, gave to the Tánaiste yesterday. It is relevant to the Broadcasting Bill which will be considered in this House after it has been discussed in the Seanad. Can I take it that the report will be published as soon as the Government has dealt with it? Will it be published before the Dáil considers the Broadcasting Bill?

It is unlikely that such a large report which has just arrived on the Minister's desk and will have to be considered by the Minister, her departmental officials and perhaps her legal advisers will be released in the near future. We will have to decide what the Government will do with it. It is a question of ensuring the Government is informed on these matters. That will take time. I do not think it will be sorted out within the timescale mentioned.

Is the Taoiseach saying the Broadcasting Bill will be brought before the House before it rises for the summer? If not, surely there is plenty of time to consider the report in advance of its publication and the Dáil debate on it.

I am being asked to anticipate the Tánaiste's consideration of a report that she received last night. I cannot give any undertaking that it will be published before any broadcasting Bill is considered.

The Taoiseach is arguing that it will take time. I am merely pointing out that if the Broadcasting Bill is not brought before the House next week and it looks like it will not, the Tánaiste will have until the end of the summer — the beginning of the next session — to carry out her deliberations and get the report into the public arena. It does not make any sense to withhold it.

That will be a matter for the Tánaiste.

What are the plans for the business of the Dáil next week? What legislation, if any, will be dealt with? What are the arrangements for the debate on the economy? I understand the Government intends to put a motion before the House. Which Minister will introduce that motion? Can the Taoiseach confirm that there will be such a motion?

The motion on the economy will be in the name of the Minister for Finance. The House will also consider the Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2008.

There will be ordinary business, including questions, etc.

Can we have a debate on the revelation than an archaeologist's report was changed by the National Roads Authority before the report on the N3 was submitted to the Minister for Transport? If it were the case that the archaeologist's findings were completely disrupted by NRA officials, it would be a serious matter.

There is not even a chance that the Deputy's question is remotely approaching being in order.

I am only asking for a debate.

I know, but I have to say no.

Can the Chief Whip say whether there will be a debate on the matter?

That is not a winner.

It is a serious issue.

I know it is, but the Deputy cannot get into it now.

He should take a new route.

Hundreds of disabled children in my constituency and throughout the country are being sent home from school and told not to come back in September.

I cannot go into that matter now.

The Chair may not go into it, but I intend to do so.

The Deputy can do so in a different way.

I am about to get to the question.

The Deputy can table an Adjournment debate matter if she wishes.

It is wrong that the children in question will be deprived of a service this September.

They have been told to go home and stay there. The HSE has seen fit to use the money needed for the palliative care of disabled children to prop up its own inefficiencies.

Does the Deputy have a question on relevant legislation?

I find it bizarre and indefensible that the Government has decided to target its cutbacks on dying and disabled children.

We cannot go into that matter now.

Will a Supplementary Estimate be introduced to fund these services? Will the Minister for Health and Children take action before the Dáil rises for the summer?

We cannot go into that matter now.

Will she reassure the parents of the children in question that their children will receive services in September?

There is another way of raising the matter.

It is wrong to allow these cutbacks to happen.

It is disgraceful.

It is wrong that they should be the first to be targeted.

If Deputy Mitchell attempts to raise the matter on the Adjournment, it will be looked on favourably.

We have no voice.

When will the promised animal welfare Bill be published? Can the Taoiseach assure the House that traditional country pursuits such as hunting, fishing and shooting will not be threatened by the Green Party agenda in the context of that legislation?

We cannot go into that matter.

I would like to raise a second matter. Can the Ceann Comhairle give details of the progress made with the establishment of structures of accountability? His office undertook to investigate the development of non-elected quangos such as the NRA which are not accountable to the House.

We cannot go into that matter now.

Structures should be in place to provide answers to questions such as that asked by Deputy Morgan about an NRA issue.

I call the Taoiseach on the legislation.

Has any progress been made, a Cheann Comhairle?

I cannot go into that matter now.

The animal welfare Bill is the subject of public consultation. Deputy Creed can articulate his views at that forum.

When is it expected that the Bill will be published?

We will see how long the public consultation process which is the first phase takes.

Will the Bill be published in 2008?

When is the shooting season?

I wish to raise two matters. I asked last week whether the proposed health information Bill would give the Health Information and Quality Authority the teeth to enforce standards in hospitals, especially in the context of the €500 million litigation coming down the line.

We cannot get into the contents of legislation.

Does that Taoiseach accept that if we continue to ignore the situation at Haulbowline, we will be looking at medical and legal claims worth billions of euro?

I ask the Taoiseach to confine his response to the legislation.

I would like to raise a second matter.

I hope it has to do with a second Bill.

Given that over 40% of dentists no longer participate in the general medical service scheme, when does the Government intend to introduce the dental Bill? Are there any plans to address this situation in the Bill?

The health information Bill will be introduced next year. There is no date for the dental Bill.

In view of the likely impact of the economic downturn on home owners, when will the building societies (amendment) Bill be brought before the House in order to get an opinion from Government backbenchers who might have an interest in the issue?

Later this year.

I have another question. The electricity (transfer of transmission assets) Bill has been vaguely promised, with a long list of proposed legislation. Is it intended to bring it before the House soon? There is a need to give clarity to the issues encompassed with a view to restoring confidence in the sector.

Last Thursday the Tánaiste said there was no date fixed for publication of the Bill.

There is no maybe about it. The Deputy has received a reply.

The Tánaiste spoke last Thursday. I am interested to hear what the Taoiseach has to say today. The Bill will take considerable time to complete and is very important. It refers to the separation———

I call Deputy Burton.

What is the position on the Law Reform Commission report on management companies? The report produced a prototype Bill for the organisation of owner-managed companies. The Taoiseach said on previous occasions that there was an interdepartmental high level committee of Ministers working on the issue. There are tens of thousands of young people, many facing negative equity——

We cannot go into that matter now.

——paying heavy rip-off management company charges——

The Deputy has said that before. We cannot go into the matter now.

There is also a report from the National Consumer Agency. Can the Taoiseach give the House an indication of his thinking on the matter? The Law Reform Commission has actually attached a prototype Bill for the governance of owner-managed companies. Does the Taoiseach intend to use that Bill? I have a second question if the Taoiseach would answer the first one.

The Deputy should ask both of them now because we are trying to take things in order.

I refer to the debate next week on the economy and the national development plan. I have asked about this issue on previous occasions. What information will be supplied to the Opposition? There will be a press conference tomorrow for the media but there is nothing for the Opposition. I wish to know, in particular, about elements of the national development plan such as the public private partnerships included, many of which are now in a parlous financial state.

We cannot go into that matter now.

I am sorry. For us to do our business, it is not just a matter of coming in here and second-guessing——

I cannot allow a speech on the matter now, as the Deputy understands.

We are entitled to some level of co-operation from the Minister for Finance regarding this important debate.

We will move on. The Taoiseach will speak on the legislation, the management companies Bill.

The Bill has been dealt with by the interdepartmental committee which has not yet come back with a solution to the problem, although I understand it met again recently. The Exchequer returns will be published tomorrow in keeping with normal practice. The Department of Finance team will answer whatever questions the media have for it. That will be——

I wish to know if it will answer our questions.

That is not the normal practice, as the Deputy knows.

How do we get answers to questions? The Minister very rarely comes in to the House.

We agreed some weeks ago to extend the sittings of the House to accommodate the debate. The Minister for Finance will come to the House and it will be an opportunity for everybody to discuss the situation based on the information and range of data that will be available, from the Exchequer returns, the Central Bank's quarterly bulletin and CSO reports. The Government will make its decision on the basis of those figures. We have heard enough criticism of us for not coming to the House but we will be in the Chamber next week to set out the position according to the Minister for Finance. That is what the people expect.

Will it include information on proposed public private partnerships? Will it include information from the National Treasury Management Agency and the Central Bank on the financial stability of many of those——

That is a matter for the debate. The Deputy cannot monopolise the Order of Business in this fashion. It is not fair to other Deputies.

The Minister for Social and Family Affairs was first out of the traps yesterday before the Exchequer returns have even been published to tell us what we knew, that in the current climate——

Does the Deputy have a question on legislation?

I do. The Minister said there would be no budgetary cuts in her Department. Can the Taoiseach confirm if, in addition, the programme for Government commitments made in respect of that Department will be fulfilled?

I cannot allow that question.

That is a surprise.

The Deputies know why.

When we come back in October, will there be a package of real Dáil reform available to us?

We cannot go into that matter now either. We shall move on.

It is a legitimate question.

Dáil reform is a matter for all parties in the House and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The Chief Whip, having taken up that position in recent weeks, will obviously consider what ideas are current. It is important to point out that Dáil reform must be about improving the workings of the House, not trying to find ways in which——

The Taoiseach knows it is not about that.

——the House can continue with theatrics or engage in them unnecessarily and beyond its dignity.

We published proposals. The Taoiseach should give us a suite of options.

This matters if we are interested in Dáil reform but Dáil reform is usually a code for how we can continue the tennis match that takes place here every day.

Give us a chance.

If we are interested in proper Dáil reform, let us talk about the issue and have a proper discussion. I would have no problem with that.

That is what I meant.

I know that is what the Deputy meant and that is why I answered him on the same subject.

(Interruptions).

I know the Deputy's party has proposals on reform but there must be all-party agreement.

There is enough tennis at Wimbledon.

According to what the Taoiseach said, the Estimates for 2009 will provide for several cutbacks and, presumably, some increases. He told the Opposition that he would welcome an input and constructive suggestions on how money should be spent. Will he change the Estimates procedure in order that this can happen? Otherwise what will happen is that the Government will come with its list of cutbacks on budget day——

We cannot go into that matter now.

It will all happen in one day and there will be no serious examination——

That is not part of the scrutiny process. The Deputy should table a motion on the matter.

It is a valid question.

I believe it is. It is about the way we order our business. If asking about the presentation of Estimates is not appropriate to the Order of Business, I cannot think of what might be in order. We debate them every year.

It is open to all Oireachtas committees, as the Deputy knows, to go through the Estimates in detail. We brought forward the annual statement in order that people would be able to see that we had done what we said we would do, and learn that targets were reached, or exceeded. There is a great opportunity in the committee system, based on the budgetary reforms we have already introduced, for Members who wish to do so to become involved in the discussion.

That is proper Dáil reform.

It is open to the committees to use the Estimates——

It is not. I have tried and it is not possible. If we could look at the information in the documents——

The Deputy obviously has a view on the matter and does not wish to hear mine.

Are the shirts on our backs likely to be under threat from Government cutbacks and stealth taxes? It is now more important than ever that we protect whatever little we have. When can we expect the criminal law (defence of life and property) Bill?

I do not know what that has to do with the shirt on the Deputy's back.

The Bill will go through the Houses later this year.

Top
Share