It is proposed to take No. 10, motion re referral to select committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Double Taxation Relief Orders 2008, Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Republic of Macedonia and Exchange of Information relating to tax matters, Isle of Man; and No. 3, Electoral Amendment Bill 2008 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 10 shall be decided without debate, Private Members' Business shall be No. 43, motion regarding the Irish economy, which shall take place tomorrow after the Order of Business and which shall be brought to a conclusion after 90 minutes.
Order of Business.
There are two proposals before the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 10 agreed?
It is not agreed. The Ceann Comhairle's decision not to adjourn the House under Standing Order 32 to discuss the financial crisis affecting many of our people is a strange one. I am constrained by the rules of the House in this regard.
In not agreeing to the proposal regarding No. 10, I am putting forward the view that as this is the first Dáil sitting day following the summer recess and given circumstances have changed utterly in this country in the past three months, the Government should have provided for a full scale debate in this regard during the next two days in order to inform Members on all sides of what is happening around the country in respect of the proposed 3% cutbacks prior to the budget. The Taoiseach and quite a number of Ministers have been publicly seeking a bipartisan approach from this party in areas such as health. Here is an opportunity for the Government to state that this is an important matter, that it will not shy away from it, and that it will be debated in the House in the interest of the people. This is what people are talking about, because it affects every one of them in their daily lives. Jobs are being lost or transferred to other countries. The cost of living is increasing. There is no protection for jobs and no training for the 50,000 workers in the construction industry who will be out of work by the end of the year. There has been no initiative from the Government to deal with this. The public finances have deteriorated so that we will have gone from a budgetary surplus to a deficit of €5 billion by the end of the year. It is probably the worst financial crisis that has developed in this country over such a short time. Yet the Government wants to talk about boundary extensions and changes to constituencies, although there is no election coming up that I know of.
One never knows. It is getting shaky.
Perhaps one never knows.
We know it is coming.
The Government may decide to move the writ for the by-election for the late lamented Séamus Brennan.
I suggest to the Taoiseach that we get down to reality. This is not posturing. There is a serious issue facing every single citizen of this country. The Taoiseach is the Leader of the Government. He should be willing to instruct the Whip to change the Order of Business to allow a two-day debate on the economy. We will facilitate the Government where we feel it is appropriate. The Government is seeking a bipartisan approach. Here is its opportunity. I call on the Taoiseach to suspend the business of the House and forget the Second Stage of the Electoral Amendment Bill for today and tomorrow. Let us have a discussion about the economy. Let us hear Deputies from all sides——
Deputies
Hear, hear.
——paint pictures of the stories that are streaming into their offices and clinics on a daily basis, all because the Government has failed to show any kind of competency in saving public money and implementing initiatives that would protect our economy for the future. The Government is not responsible for Lehman Brothers or Merrill Lynch, but it is responsible for wasting hundreds of millions of euro over the last number of years. It continues to preside over this but its members do not want to speak about it in the House. My suggestion to the Taoiseach is that he back up his own words and accept a bipartisan approach. Let us have a debate over the next two days on the economic problems facing the country. We will be happy to return to normal pairing arrangements if that applies.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
It is the Government's responsibility to propose the legislative programme for the House. In my time here I have never seen such a pathetic legislative programme as we have for this week's business. What we have before us for these two days shows us that this Government is now so long in office that it has lost touch with reality and with the people that sent us here. The Cabinet is suffering from a bad dose of burn-out. The Taoiseach cannot be seriously suggesting that we come in here and talk about Dáil constituency boundaries——
After 12 weeks.
——which might have to be changed anyway based on the next census, at a time when the people of the country have many other concerns. The head of the HSE told us yesterday there might be further cases of cancer misdiagnosis. People are losing their jobs. There are people whose homes and businesses were flooded during the month of August in bizarre weather. There is no end to the things the House could and should be debating.
If it is the Government's view that the House should talk about legislation, where is the nursing homes legislation? There are families out there who are driven demented by the fact that they cannot get subventions and they do not know how they will pay the nursing home bills, yet no nursing home legislation is ordered. People living in apartments are waiting for legislation, promised by the Taoiseach some time ago, to regulate the management companies that govern them. The Civil Partnership Bill was promised but has not appeared. There is the employment regulation legislation that we have asked for so many times. More than a year after the formation of the Government, it is surely not too soon to expect legislation on carbon emissions to be brought before the House for debate. There is no end of legislative initiatives that the House could be debating. The programme for this week is the product of a Government that is burnt out and that has become lazy and incompetent. It has nothing to offer the House and nothing to offer the people of this country.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The Sinn Féin Deputies cannot accept the Order of Business as presented. As a schedule it represents a total lack of realism on the part of the Government. It is not a case of returning here for business as usual, in the way things finished up in the earlier period of the year, at which time the Government was clearly bankrupt in terms of legislative proposals. Yet here we are starting off again. What is the Government offering Members to address on the first day of the second year of the 30th Dáil? It is an absolute disgrace.
It is not business as usual. There is nothing usual about the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The country has been plunged into a sharp economic decline. Tens of thousands of people are being placed on the dole queue. Health cuts are continuing to hurt right across the board, despite all the assurances given by the Minister for Health and Children and Professor Drumm of the HSE. On the ground, these cuts are biting and they are hurting gravely. We need an opportunity to articulate these problems and to bring them to Government notice in this Chamber. That opportunity must be presented by Government.
We must make no mistake about the programme for Government. It was put together by a Taoiseach who is no longer Taoiseach and a party that has almost hung up its cap and coat. There is no programme for Government. What the Government has cobbled together, presumably over the period since last we sat in this Chamber, is a programme for cuts. Its members must come clean before this Chamber. They must outline the reality that they know from within their Departments and their proposals to address the realities facing our citizenry today. As Opposition voices, we need the opportunity to hear clearly the Government's intentions, to analyse them, give our views, offer what further guidance and opinion we can to try to improve on the Government's proposals and to point out where they are clearly going to fail. That is our role and responsibility, yet the Government is asking us to proceed on matters such as electoral boundaries. For God's sake, that is not what the people out there want us to address today. They want us to address the matters that are most affecting their daily lives, that is, the current recession — we should call it what it is and not be afraid to use the R-word — the further contraction of job opportunities in the State, the ongoing cuts that are hurting people in the health services and the failure of Government to provide for the needs of our children through the education system. These are the issues we should address. It is an absolute disgrace that this is the best the Government can present, through the office of the Chief Whip, as a proposal for the work of this House today and tomorrow. It is absolutely not good enough.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
We will be having a debate, at the prerogative of the Opposition, on the economy. We will have questions to the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and this legislative proposal will be brought forward for Second Stage today and tomorrow. With regard to the charge that the Government is not prepared to do anything about the economy, we have brought the date of the budget forward to 14 October, which means that in three weeks' time we can have a full, balanced and comprehensive debate which will go on for some time thereafter.
It will be guillotined.
The important job of Government is to focus on the need to address this issue now and in the next couple of weeks.
Let us have the debate now — today and tomorrow.
The Opposition will put it to the test when it comes forward.
Let us address it in this House.
I must put the question.
On a point of order——
The question is that the proposal for dealing with No. 10, motion re referral to select committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Double Taxation Relief — my apologies, that is the wrong question.
On a point of order——
Deputy Shatter is on the wrong track. Nobody can make a contribution other than one spokesperson from each party.
Very well.
I will put the question again.
Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 10 be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 78; Níl, 68.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- 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.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- McDaid, James.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moloney, John.
- Mulcahy, 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’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Breen, Pat.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and John Curran; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business agreed?
I made my protest and the Taoiseach has declined to have a debate on the economy. In the case of No. 2, Private Members' business, I propose that it be extended by a further three hours to allow for a proper debate on the economy.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I support that proposal. As I said earlier, there is something unreal about the fact that the Dáil will spend two days debating constituency boundaries, changes to which may never be made, in circumstances where the public is discussing the state of the economy, the health service and the day to day problems being experienced. If this House is to have any relevance, we need to discuss issues that are relevant to people's lives and to what is happening in the real world. If the Government is not in a position to bring forward legislative proposals that have meaning outside the walls of this building, it should make Government time available to the Opposition so that we can discuss the issues that affect the people.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I wish to speak not only in relation to not providing legislation but not providing the opportunity to properly discuss the real issues that are important to people today. That is a major failure on the part of Government this morning. Clearly if Government is not prepared to do that, then the Opposition must. I fully support Deputy Kenny's proposal and I appeal to the Taoiseach that whatever his initial reaction to the proposition, he should give it serious consideration because Deputies in this House, of all opinion, have the right to articulate the difficulties they know first hand are affecting their constituents across the length and breadth of this State today and these need to be aired on the floor of this Chamber.
The difficulty, of course, is that the Standing Order provides that Private Members' business shall be three hours overall. That is a Standing Order of the House and it cannot be amended across the floor of the House in a manner such as this. In those circumstances, I am not in a position to allow——
Suspend it by agreement.
On a point of order, the importance of Private Members' business, with the agreement of both sides of the House——
I am sorry Deputy Kehoe, I am calling the Taoiseach because only one speaker from each party is allowed to speak on matters such as this, and it is not a point of order.
It is a point of order
It is not a point of order.
If the Government agrees, we can extend the time for Private Members' business, even though it is not provided for in Standing Orders. This is a very important motion and, given that a two-day debate has been disallowed, there is an opportunity to extend Private Members' business to allow for this very important debate.
That is not a point of order.
As I said, I am ready to engage with the Opposition in regard to its Private Members' motion. Given that it has tabled the motion — we have tabled a counter motion, as has the Labour Party — we would like to debate it within the time allocated. Obviously, the Government is getting on with the business of preparing for the budget and Ministers are involved in bilateral meetings this week also.
Were it not for the Opposition there would be no debate on the economy. It is bizarre.
Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 78; Níl, 68.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- 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.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- McDaid, James.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moloney, John.
- Mulcahy, 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’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Breen, Pat.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and John Curran; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Question declared carried.
When can we expect to see the legislation dealing with repayments to persons in long-stay institutions?
That was the subject of intensive work between the Attorney General's office and the Department of Health and Children over the summer period. It is not yet finalised but is almost so and it is intended to bring it to the Houses during this session.
We must have silence during the Order of Business when Members are on their feet.
Arising from the Taoiseach's reply, can I take it that whether the nature of the problem was constitutional or otherwise, it has now been sorted out by the Attorney General? Can I assume also that there will be no further delay in having the details of this Bill put together so that it can be published, brought into the House and debated? Will the Taoiseach put a timescale on the matter? Can we have the Bill in three or four weeks?
We had this question before. Progress was made over the course of the summer regarding issues that in certain respects were delaying the drafting of the Bill. It is being finalised at present and is expected to come before the House during this session. That is my information.
I suppose it will be after the budget.
I wish to raise two matters. First, I understand there will be some changes in employment legislation arising from the conclusion of an agreement between the Government and the social partners. Which pieces of legislation in the Government programme will incorporate the changes in employment legislation agreed with the social partners? Will separate legislation be introduced?
Second, I noted reports during the summer that the Combat Poverty Agency is to be withdrawn back to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Is it intended to introduce legislation to amend the Combat Poverty Agency Bill of 1986 in order to allow this to happen?
There will be separate legislation for some of the new aspects that were agreed in partnership. With regard to the Combat Poverty agency issue, obviously there are no plans to do anything at the moment. The matter is under review.
I know that the Comptroller and Auditor General holds office independently of Government. In the past two months the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, and the Tánaiste, Deputy Coughlan, have called on the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out investigations into universities and into FÁS.
Does the Taoiseach propose to bring forward a motion asking this House to direct the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out these investigations or were these statements to serve merely as crutches because the Ministers did not act within their own Departments on these issues? The Taoiseach could introduce a motion to this end if the Government is serious about the matter.
I understand that such a motion is not necessary. The Comptroller and Auditor General has the relevant constitutional responsibility and discharges it very well. Indeed his reports are often referred to and lauded in this House in terms of the issues they raise and the forensic examination they undertake in various aspects of public expenditure. The use of the existing mechanisms one expects to find in the Comptroller and Auditor General's office for such a purpose should instil public confidence. I do not see why one should question that vehicle.
I believe that the only legal way is to involve the Dáil——
Deputy Allen has made his point.
Further to the Taoiseach's comments regarding the Combat Poverty Agency and the fact that there are now no proposals to amend the Combat Poverty Agency Act, will he take this opportunity to assure the House that he will maintain the independence of that agency? It is obviously critically important to the work it does.
We cannot go into the details of any legislation.
I see under the Order of Business that the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is to come before the House. In section 36 of the Bill the incremental tenant purchase scheme is mentioned. In particular, it is stated that residents of flats and apartments will be prohibited from availing of this scheme. Does this mean also that the long-standing issue of the sale of council flats under the tenant purchase scheme legislative framework is not going to happen? This issue has been before the House and the Minister in whose brief it lies has indicated that the Bill would resolve this matter. However, having read the Bill this morning, it appears this issue will not be dealt with. Can the Taoiseach say whether this option has been ruled out entirely? People outside this House have been waiting for this Bill and felt it would resolve the issue but it now appears that this will not happen.
I understand that the issue is still under consideration and whether an amendment may be required on Committee Stage to see whether it can be encompassed.
So it is not in the Bill.
It is not included in the Bill at present.
This is a new Bill and the Taoiseach is already talking about amendments. How ridiculous can one get?
This has been going on for five years.
I want to ask the Taoiseach about the Property Services Regulatory Bill. It is listed to be published before the beginning of the next session, which could be up to February 2009. Is there a timescale for this Bill? As of next month the Government will have spent €600,000 on keeping open the offices of the National Property Services Regulatory Authority but the authority has no legal powers. It is doing its best but it cannot do the job it was created to do in terms of, for example, dealing with the problems of young apartment owners who are being sued for exorbitant management fees for poor services.
The publication of that Bill is subject to the resolution of certain legal issues that arose during the completion of the drafting process. Every effort is being made to have it published as soon as possible.
We have heard that answer for the past four years.
Just over three weeks ago a cohort of junior infants started school in north County Dublin. The patron of the school has no legal entitlement to act in that capacity, thus unnecessarily exposing the parents, teachers and children to risk. On the Order Paper there is a requirement, under the Department of Education and Science, to bring forward the education (patronage) Bill. I read with some concern that publication of that Bill is expected in 2009. It is a one line amendment Bill. I can give the Taoiseach a copy of one this afternoon, if he so wishes and is so bereft of legislation. It is extraordinary that the Bill is expected in 2009 when it was understood for over a year that the north Dublin County Council VEC would be the patron for the school. Can we bring forward this legislation?
The latest information I have is that the heads of the Bill are expected later this year. I will raise with the Minister for Education and Science the matter of whether this issue is as simple as the Deputy indicated.
I am disappointed that we could not discuss the tax affairs of the Isle of Man and the island of Ireland on the floor of the House. I think the Taoiseach's party would have much to tell us about our tax affairs with the Isle of Man.
We must discuss matters relevant to the Order of Business.
The additional revenue could be very welcome.
Absolutely. A lot of money could be raised if we discussed affairs in the Isle of Man and how they could affect our tax revenues.
The Government has indicated that it will not publish a pre-budget outlook or Estimates regarding what it proposes on services. Everything is to announced on budget day. This goes back to the stroke pulled by the former Minister for Finance, Mr. Charlie McCreevy, regarding decentralisation, which was announced on the floor of the House. Last year, the Taoiseach said that the development of pre-budget——
This is not in order. There is another way to raise this matter.
I am referring to the budget.
The Order of Business is not about the budget.
Last year, the Government committed to the development and publication of a pre-budget outlook. We have now been told that the Government is to abandon this to do what Charlie McCreevy did with decentralisation — announce it all in the House.
I cannot allow this to be raised on the Order of Business, unless the Taoiseach has something to say about publishing a pre-budget outlook.
The Taoiseach announced the publication of a pre-budget outlook as a great improvement in transparency in public services. Can he tell us what he proposes to do?
The Deputy is not in order. I call Deputy Jan O'Sullivan.
My question is perfectly legitimate as the Opposition will have no information in this House on what the Government proposes in the budget.
If the Taoiseach wishes to be helpful on this matter that is fine, but he need not because this is not in order.
The pre-budget outlook——
Deputy Burton, please. I do not want to have to ask you to leave the House.
——is part of the promised framework of the budget.
The Taoiseach wants to be helpful.
If the Taoiseach wishes to be helpful on the pre-budget outlook that is a matter for him——
I was going to respond.
——but it is out of order.
The fact that we are bringing forward the budget by six or seven weeks this year means arrangements must be adapted to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. We need to bring forward the budget quickly and provide clarity and certainty regarding the direction of the economy, in light of the situation in which we find ourselves. For this reason, pre-eminence must be given to holding the budget on 14 October. The question of the end of third quarter returns and so on will be provided in due course. It is important to point out that this process allows us to bring forward the budget on 14 October. This is the overriding requirement, quite apart from arrangements that may have prevailed in the past and would have applied to a December budget.
I call Deputy O'Sullivan, who hopefully will get us back on track.
My party leader said the Cabinet appears to be burnt out, but if that is the case then the Minister for Health and Children seems to have given herself her redundancy papers. She is washing her hands of what is happening in the realm of health.
The Deputy knows this is out of order.
I am raising this in the context of promised legislation. We were told that three pieces of legislation would be published last term and the same three pieces of legislation are in the list for this term. None of them has been dealt with. The Minister introduced no legislation last term, despite three being on the priority list. One, the nursing homes support scheme Bill, has already been raised, while the adoption Bill and the child care Bill are the others. When will these pieces of legislation be introduced?
On the nursing home support scheme Bill, families are being crucified with regard to the means test for subvention and the family home. These people can no longer afford to pay for their relatives and we need a date for this legislation. In the meantime the HSE must be ordered to relax the methods that are being used at the moment in terms of assessing families for subvention.
On the same issue, the Taoiseach's response has not clarified whether the legal issues have been resolved regarding the nursing homes support scheme Bill. I know people who have lodged appeals that have not been dealt with and the refund issue has not been addressed.
Hear, hear.
It seems that KPMG has finished its work. A person who came to me during the week was offered €20,000 but his mother paid out €120,000.
Is this legislation going to come through? We were accused of doublespeak by various Ministers but I will define doublespeak. Doublespeak is being told last Christmas that we would have this Bill by January, being told in January that we would have it before Easter and being told before Easter that we would have it during the summer. We have been told again that we may have it. Can we have a straight answer? Will this Bill come before this Chamber before Christmas? Have the legal issues been resolved?
Regarding the health information Bill, will the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, be given teeth to censure hospitals that do not meet standards?
On the adoption Bill, families and children across the country have difficulties because of the Government's failure to reform our adoption legislation. Prior to the summer recess, on the Taoiseach's final day in this House, a promise was made by him, along with the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children with responsibility for children, that the adoption Bill would be published during the summer. This Bill has been promised for approximately nine and a half years, which I think is a national record. I have lost count of the number of legislative programmes on which we have seen it. Can the Taoiseach tell us whether it will be published this week or next week? What happened to the promise that guaranteed its publication during the summer recess period?
On health issues and the failure to bring forward health legislation——
Stick to the legislation and do not go into the issues.
I wish to speak on health legislation and if I am out of order in terms of grouping, I will take the Ceann Comhairle's guidance.
Regarding the raft of health legislation that has not been brought forward and in the context of the fact that it is estimated some 5,000 people die prematurely in Ireland each year as a result of social deprivation, including health inequality, how is it that a Bill that was on the last legislative programme for publication this year, which first appeared on the Government's legislative programme in January 2006 for publication that year, has now been deferred once again? I speak of the eligibility for health and personal social services Bill. This is crucial legislation that, once again, now appears next to the message "not possible to indicate". That was not the case last January and it has not been the position since January 2006. I have gone back through each of the legislative programmes since it first appeared on the Government's proposals.
We cannot go any further. The Deputy has made his point.
Why is it that at a time of ever-growing concern in our society in respect of citizens' eligibility for health and personal social services——
The Taoiseach, on the legislation.
——the Government is unable to bring forward that legislation——
I said previously that we cannot have a debate on legislation. The Taoiseach, on the legislation.
——at least in this current year?
The Taoiseach, on the legislation.
On the legislation, as for the adoption Bill, a significant policy issue was raised during the summer months that was brought to a conclusion last week and technical amendments to the Bill are ongoing. One hopes this Bill will be published this term.
I made the point that the nursing homes support scheme Bill is nearly finalised. It is intended to be brought before the Houses in the current Dáil session. As for the child care Bill, during the summer recess work continued on drafting of the Bill to resolve points arising from significant legal and technical issues that had emerged during the drafting and accompanying consultation processes. Further consultation took place to assist that process and, in addition, legal advice on specific complex issues were formulated, sought and obtained. As a result, several significant sets of instructions were sent to the Attorney General's office and new draft versions of the Bill were produced, resolving many of those issues. It is expected that having resolved some of those issues, the Government will be able to proceed with publication in the next term.
I asked about the eligibility for health and personal social services Bill.
I call Deputy Olivia Mitchell.
Members have been getting the same answers on legislation for months.
To answer Deputy Ó Caoláin, it is not possible to give a date for that Bill because as I stated, other priorities in health legislation are being spoken about, namely, the adoption Bill, the nursing homes support scheme Bill and the child care Bill, which are substantive Bills.
Is the Taoiseach now telling the House it is not a priority?
I call Deputy Olivia Mitchell.
I am saying these take priority——
They take priority over one's eligibility to have health.
——in view of their readiness to come before the House for consideration.
With respect, that does not stand up.
The Taoiseach has answered the question. I call Deputy Olivia Mitchell.
During the summer, the State took over the assets of certain public sector pensions and consequently also took over the liabilities. While this was carried out as an emergency measure through ministerial order, at the time a Government spokesperson stated it would have to be confirmed by the Dáil. Will such confirmation come by way of legislation? Will there be an opportunity to debate it in the House, given there is a great lack of clarity regarding the extent of the liabilities that have been taken on on behalf of the taxpayer?
I must check that with the Minister concerned.
I thank the Taoiseach.
That is secondary legislation.
I draw the Taoiseach's attention to section B of the legislative programme, the Bills in respect of which heads have been agreed and texts are being drafted. Very similar Bills were published at the beginning of the life of the present Dáil and the current rate of progress has been painfully slow to date. Incidentally, I note the inclusion of the Curragh of Kildare Bill, which I believe first appeared on the Order Paper when I was first elected to the House. However, the major problem pertains to section C, which consists of 50 Bills in respect of which heads have yet to be approved by the Government. Many of the Bills are important and at the present rate of progress will not have passed through the House by the end of the life of the present Dáil. I ask the Taoiseach whether it is intended to draw up a priority list whereby such urgent legislation can be speeded up and brought through the House at an early stage?
The entire purpose of the A, B and C lists was to give an indication to Members, as they requested, as to what priorities were likely to come before the House in the immediate term and so forth. If the purpose of producing the C list is to ask the reason the Bills are not on the A or B list, and the House goes through this seriatim every week, what is the purpose of producing the C list, if the Opposition or individual Members thereof suggest they should be on the B or A list? This goes on in every term.
The whole idea of bringing forward these lists in the present form is to indicate from the outset, in fairness to Opposition spokespersons and everyone else who wishes to contribute to the House, what Bills are likely to be brought forward and what ones are not. Questions about policy issues should be tabled before the relevant Ministers during Question Time. However, if the House is to have Orders of Business in which Members spend at least an hour talking about Bills, which the C list already indicates clearly will not be taken this term, and if Members wish to have a debate on the reason they are not being taken in this term and if that is the best use of Members' time, I will stay here for that.
I call Deputy Ó Snodaigh.
I have one related point.
The Taoiseach has answered the Deputy.
To where has the pharmacy No. 2 Bill gone since the last session? What happened to it?
The Taoiseach, on the pharmacy No. 2 Bill.
The purpose of the pharmacy No. 2 Bill was twofold, first to follow on from the Pharmacy Act 2007 and deal with other changes in the regulatory framework for pharmacy and pharmacy services not addressed in that Act and, second, to deal with any remaining recommendations of the pharmacy review group, including matters relating to a new pharmacy contract. Work was progressing on commencing the Pharmacy Act 2007. However, due to the complex nature of the modernisation of the regulatory framework for the sector, including the putting in place of procedures and rules in areas not previously regulated, such as the registration of pharmacy businesses and a fitness to practice regime, the Act is not expected to be fully commenced until some time in 2009.
Until the Act is fully commenced and its provisions are operational, it will not be possible to prepare proposals for any new pharmacy Bill. In addition, work on the remaining issues in the pharmacy review group's recommendations for the Bill is dependent on progress and developments in the area of pharmacy services and contractual matters. While the Department and the HSE have been engaging with the pharmacy sector on these issues, they are not sufficiently advanced at this time to permit the preparation of proposals that might be included in any new pharmacy Bill. With these considerations in mind, it is considered that the pharmacy No. 2 Bill cannot be progressed for the foreseeable future.
That is my point.
I refer to a Bill that appears to have disappeared from sight. Given the current climate of trying to save money, effect cost savings and so on, it is interesting that it is gone because its intention was to end imprisonment, where practicable, for inability to pay fines. I refer to the enforcement of fines Bill, which has disappeared, despite having been promised.
The Taoiseach, on the enforcement of fines Bill.
Work on that Bill is at a preliminary stage of examination. Consultations are ongoing with the Department's financial management unit, courts policy and the Courts Service. Until that is completed, we cannot deal with it.
I wish to raise an issue that is connected to that raised by Deputy Ciarán Lynch, at which time I tried to get in but could not. I refer to the tenant purchase scheme for council flats. Specifically, a policy document was published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in February 2007 and it certainly was expounded by the Taoiseach's party in advance of the general election that provision would be made in legislation during this Dáil term for council flat owners to purchase their flats from local authorities. However, the legislation published during the summer makes no reference to this. Is Government policy still as was set out in February 2007? Does the Government intend to implement some scheme in the future and, if so, how does it propose to so do? Will it be by ministerial order or through further legislation? Why can it not be included in the Bill that is to be brought before the House? That appears to be bizarre.
I wish to make a relevant point. In the late 1980s such a scheme was successfully implemented by Cork City Council. It was discontinued in the early 1990s, in 1992, I believe——
We cannot go into that now.
——on the basis that legislation would be introduced.
The Taoiseach, on the legislation.
Sixteen years later, we are still waiting for it. This is particularly disconcerting for those who are trying to get on the property ladder and to better their circumstances in life——
We cannot go into that now. Is legislation promised?
The Government is providing them with virtually no hope.
Is legislation promised in that area?
As I stated in an earlier reply, consideration can be and is being given to that issue in the context of a possible amendment on Committee Stage.
I refer to No. 16 on the legislative programme, the property services regulatory Bill. While this matter has been raised earlier, will the Taoiseach confirm this legislation definitely will be dealt with during this session? It certainly has gone on for long enough. Many apartment owners are being fleeced. They already face negative equity on their properties, which were massively overpriced.
We cannot go into that now. On the legislation——
Will this legislation and the report of the auctioneering review group include the regulation——
On the legislation——
——of property management companies or will it only deal with the regulation of auctioneers?
We cannot deal with the content, but is legislation promised?
On the same point——
On the same legislation.
Perhaps it is. Maybe the Ceann Comhairle can clarify that for me. On that legislation, which the legislative programme indicates is to give effect to the recommendations of the auctioneering review group, my understanding is the property services regulation Bill would really only deal with management agents and auctioneers.
We cannot deal with the content of the legislation.
I am asking if it is intended that it will be the Bill to properly govern the management of residential management companies, which has been promised for a long time.
We cannot go into the content of the legislation. It would be impossible.
It is promised in the programme for Government. Is that the Bill intended for that purpose or does a different Bill exist? May I understand from what has been published today that we will not, in this session, see published legislation that will govern the regulation and management of residential management companies?
I ask the Taoiseach to deal with the legislation only and not the content. We cannot go into that.
On the multi-unit developments, an interdepartmental and inter-ministerial group has been working on this. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is in discussion with the Law Society with regard to some aspects and contractual issues in preparation for proposed provisions for that aspect of the problem. That meeting is imminent, which I know having spoken to the Minister about it.
What we are trying to do is prepare provisions from various Departments affected by this issue. The Attorney General will then make a decision as to whether we will have an omnibus Bill which would take all those provisions together or if they will be part of enactments of statutes from within Departments which are already on the way or being prepared. The idea is to find the quickest and surest way of doing that, whether by omnibus Bill or to proceed in other various ways.
Legislation is required to empower the Circuit Court to resolve disputes arising with regard to the operation and control of multi-unit developments, including existing developments. There is the property services regulation Bill, which will be published during the autumn to establish that regulatory authority. It will, among other things, regulate property managing agents and set standards for the provision of property management services.
Legislation is also required to specify the obligations of developers to protect the interests of purchasers of units in multi-unit developments and ensure compliance with such obligations. There is also the making of a ministerial order to extend compulsory registration of title to multi-unit developments and the question of legislation to amend the planning and development Acts to require planning authorities to "adhere to" or "substantially comply with" relevant ministerial guidelines, rather than simply having regard to them, for example guidelines concerning the size and quality of design of new multi-unit developments.
There are also statutory requirements to ensure that where property, including units in multi-unit developments, are being sold from plans, scalable drawings and measurements must be given, and the development of appropriate standard covenants for inclusion in the title deeds and conveyances of units in multi-unit developments. I presume that will be one of the issues to be addressed in the meeting to be held between the relevant Minister and the Law Society.
It is a question of pulling all those together. Various Departments are involved, including those dealing with the environment, planning and development, as well as justice and other issues. If the quickest way to do this is to pull this together into an omnibus Bill, it is the way we will proceed.
Will that omnibus Bill be published in this session?
That is the question.
We will work through the processes I have outlined and have the Attorney General certify and validate what is being proposed as being legally sound. We will make a decision at that stage as to the best way to proceed. That is the up to date position.
I will introduce the dreaded "L" word and add to the woes of the Government by mentioning the Lisbon treaty. In three weeks the Taoiseach will attend a plenary session and make a presentation on the way forward to heads of state in Brussels. What steps are being taken at present or what proposals are in train?
It is impossible to have a debate on it now, as the Deputy knows well.
I am not looking for a debate. I would like those in the Chamber to be informed of what the Government is proposing in terms of any legislation, the formation of any committees or any practical or pragmatic proposals to deal with the matter.
Is legislation promised in this area?
The Deputy will be aware we have been in discussion with parties of the Opposition about the matter. I understand it is intended to bring forward a motion tomorrow for the establishment of a committee as discussed.
Some three weeks ago statistics relating to suicide indicated a 12% increase over last year. There is much concern regarding the underreporting of suicide and that some coroners will not bring in a verdict of suicide. The Coroners Bill is before the Seanad but is it planned to have it enacted before Christmas?
We will await its progress in the Seanad in the first instance.