Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Dec 2008

Vol. 669 No. 4

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 8, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act 1996, back from committee; No. 8a, Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008 — allocation of time motion for select committee; No. 8b, Finance (No. 2) Bill 2008 — Financial Resolutions; No. 21, Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008 — Report and Final Stages (resumed); No. 22, Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2008 — Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; and No. 20, Nursing Homes Support Scheme Bill 2008 — Second Stage (resumed).

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. 8, 8a and 8b shall be decided without debate. In the case of No. 8b, Financial Resolutions Nos. 1 to 30 shall be moved together and decided by one question which will be put from the Chair. The proceedings of the resumed Report and Final Stages of No. 21 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 3.30 p.m. today by one question, which will be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs.

There are two proposals to put to the House today. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 8, 8a and 8b, without debate, agreed?

The time allocation motion has only come to my notice now. Effectively, the allocation the Tánaiste is proposing is putting in the first three hours of the debate, which is to run for perhaps 16 hours, most of the things that would be of interest to the committee to tease out. I suggest that fewer sections should be dealt with in the first three hours of debate and that time should be made available to debate sections that otherwise would be guillotined under the allocation of time motion before they are reached.

Is the general order acceptable?

In terms of the time allocation, the general order is fine but too many sections have been assigned to the first three hours where the bulk of the interest will be, so we will not get to debate many of the Government's proposals.

It was agreed at the Whips meeting last night. The Whips understood that the spokespersons and the Minister had agreed to the allocation, but I am sure the Tánaiste will agree to changes within that parameter.

I would not have any problem. I think we can deal with that.

Very good, so the general time allocation is agreed.

We can arrange the process to facilitate the Members' discussions. I will speak to the Minister about it.

Is that agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 21, Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008 — Report and Final Stages, agreed?

I am opposed to guillotining this matter. The unemployment figures published yesterday show projections for an unemployment rate of up to 12% by the end of next year and into 2010. Is there any intention to further amend this Bill, for example, to facilitate employers who take on new employees next year, so that they will not have to pay PRSI for 2009? As I have often said before, I am opposed to the principle of a guillotine.

Those matters can be discussed during the debate.

The Labour Party is also opposed to the guillotine on this Bill. As I understand it, amendment No. 11 of a total of 45 amendments has been reached on Report Stage. As there are many critical issues which affect people on social welfare, I do not believe the Bill should be guillotined.

As with the other Deputies, I strongly oppose the proposition to guillotine the final passage of this Bill. As Deputy Gilmore has indicated, only 11 of 45 amendments have been addressed at this point. Clearly, these matters are of great importance, so the opportunity should be afforded to all Members to engage properly on the amendments they have tabled. I ask the Tánaiste to extend the time so as to allow the process to conclude naturally.

I cannot agree and we will move the motion.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 21 be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 61.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Andrews, Chris.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Áine.
  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Browne, John.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conlon, Margaret.
  • Connick, Seán.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Curran, John.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Flynn, Beverley.
  • Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • 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.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Hanlon, Rory.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • O’Rourke, Mary.
  • O’Sullivan, Christy.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • White, Mary Alexandra.

Níl

  • Bannon, James.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Coonan, Noel J.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Creighton, Lucinda.
  • D’Arcy, Michael.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Enright, Olwyn.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • 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’Mahony, John.
  • O’Shea, Brian.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Perry, John.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
  • Sheehan, P. J.
  • Sherlock, Seán.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Upton, Mary.
  • Varadkar, Leo.
  • Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and Niall Blaney; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Question declared carried.

I have three questions for the Tánaiste. Yesterday morning the Minister for Finance gave a strong hint that the national pay deal may be renegotiated. The Taoiseach, in his response to questions here yesterday, said a conclusion would be arrived at in negotiation with social partnership and last night a statement was issued from the Government. The Government is all over the place on this and there is no clarity on the position. Without using jargon, will the Tánaiste say if the national pay deal is set in stone or is up for renegotiation?

The Deputy should know that is not an appropriate question for the Order of Business

The question is in respect of legislation governing these matters and is a matter that affects many people around the country. I would like to know the Government position. Is the deal up for renegotiation or not?

The Bill dealing with the withdrawal of medical cards was dealt with by Government on Tuesday and I understand it will be in the House next week. What are the projected savings of this legislation on the withdrawal of the medical card from over-70s and what is the impact of the deferral of the measure until 1 March 2009, as announced yesterday?

The Taoiseach has briefed, or is in the process of briefing, every leader in Europe on the Government intentions with regard to the Lisbon treaty. There is little point in coming to leaders of the Opposition the day before he goes off to speak to the Heads of Government about his intentions at the Council meeting. In the context of legislation, does the Government intend to bring forward legislation giving effect to the holding of a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty?

The content of legislation is not in order, but legislation on the other matters is. For clarity, what is in order is the timing and tabling of legislation, rather than the content.

The matter is of interest to the Chair.

In order to progress quickly with the legislative measures before the House today, I will give some very short answers. The national pay deal is not up for negotiation, but there is constant interaction between all members of the Government and the social partners, most particularly in the context of the current economic difficulties.

So, it is not up for negotiation.

On the second issue, the legislation will be published tomorrow and the issues raised by the Member can be raised on the legislation. In the context of the legislation being finalised in the next number of days within the House, the deferral is a prudent way to deal with and reassure the people concerned.

On the final issue, it was raised yesterday and I undertook to talk to the Taoiseach. He will provide a briefing on Wednesday to the Members opposite. At present there are no proposals for legislation arising from the Lisbon treaty.

The Tánaiste said there is no renegotiation of the national pay deal but that members of the Government are in constant contact with the social partnership. This sends out conflicting messages. I have made my view known about a pay freeze in respect of the national pay deal. Does the Government intend to pay the national pay deal or not?

In respect of the Lisbon treaty, the Tánaiste said there is no intention to introduce legislation giving effect to a second referendum. Am I to take it from that reply that the Government does not intend to hold a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty?

On the social partners and the specific issue of the national pay deal, it is not up for negotiations. However, I am delighted we are in Government because at least the social partners will be fully au fait with the fact that we respect their role.

Ask the Green Party about that.

The partners in Government are not fully au fait with their role.

Following the flippant way in which the leader of the Opposition treats the social partners, I am sure they will outline their views to him in due course. We have always been of the view that the role of social partners within our economy has been pivotal and will continue to be so. The Taoiseach has met with the congress and IBEC representatives to discuss the current economic situation. I have likewise interacted with them, as have my Ministers of State, on a constant basis.

The Tánaiste did not answer the question.

I did answer the question. The answer is "No". Perhaps the Deputy just does not understand these little words like "Yes" and "No".

(Interruptions).

Allow the Tánaiste finish.

On the second situation, there have been no final decisions made on legislation. Therefore, there are no proposals before the House regarding legislation arising from the discussions of the sub-committee. Discussions will take place on Tuesday and there will be further consultations and discussions regarding the outcome of the Lisbon treaty referendum.

The Tánaiste has said——

I am anxious to move on. This is the Deputy's third time to speak, but I am anxious to allow other Members speak.

The Tánaiste has suggested I do not understand what is going on. If she wants to impute ignorance to us, fair enough, she is following in the footsteps of her leader. Let me ask again. I know the Government is fully entitled to deal with the social partners with regard to the circumstances in which the nation finds itself. I respect the part that social partnership played in stability and economic growth over the past 20 years.

Does the Deputy have a question?

Irrespective of the discussions that are taking place between the social partners and members of the Cabinet, is the Tánaiste telling me that the Government will pay the national pay deal, as agreed? That is a straight question, requiring a "Yes" or "No" answer.

Second——

Please Deputy, this is your third long series of interventions——

No, this is a very straight question.

——and other Members have entitlements too.

It is another Question Time.

This is my final question after which I shall sit down.

Deputy Bruton ought to be asking such questions.

The Tánaiste and the Government have been speaking about elements of a solution in respect of Lisbon. Is one element of the aforementioned solution the holding of a second referendum or not?

The Tánaiste should find out the answer to that.

It is important that Members do not allow the Order of Business to become another iteration of Leaders' Questions without a decision of the House to that effect.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Let the Tánaiste answer the question.

If Members wish to have more time allocated for Leaders' Questions, the House should order it.

The Tánaiste wants to answer it.

I call the Tánaiste.

There is no legislation proposed on the national pay awards and no legislation is proposed at present to deal with the issues that have arisen from the referendum on Lisbon.

That means there will be.

That is as much as I can say because that is the present position.

The Tánaiste does not know.

I am somewhat surprised by the Tánaiste's ambiguous reply to Deputy Kenny on the issue of the national pay agreement. I understood that the Tánaiste, in her capacity as Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, was the lead Minister in respect of industrial relations and therefore her response is all the more surprising.

She has been sidelined.

It appears the Government does not know whether it is talking to the social partners at all or if it is so doing, what it is talking to them about.

The Opposition does not know either. Fine Gael is against it.

This is supposed to be Deputy Kelleher's job. Are you talking to the social partners?

Through the Chair Deputy.

(Interruptions).

This is what you are for Billy.

Deputy, through the Chair.

There should be a motion of no confidence in the Opposition.

The Minister of State is a mini-me.

I wish to raise a related matter, namely, the Tánaiste's responsibility for putting through employment law. Incidentally, this is where Deputy Kelleher comes in as well. An horrific "Prime Time Investigates" programme was broadcast this week that outlined the degree of exploitation of workers. I was particularly concerned about the stories presented about people driving trucks for long hours, without breaks and so on. For Deputy Kelleher's information, there is a pile of legislation in this regard. Although the Employment Law Compliance Bill was published nine months ago, it still has not appeared before the House. If the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment with responsibility for labour affairs has nothing better to do, he might try to secure some time from the Chief Whip and bring it before the House. The Employment Law Compliance Bill is intended to put the National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, on a statutory basis in order that it can check and inspect such trucks that are being driven around by people who are overworked and exhausted and so on.

The Tánaiste on the Employment Law Compliance Bill.

There are other similar items, namely, an employment agency regulation Bill and an industrial relations amendment Bill, neither of which have yet been published. The Tánaiste should indicate when this legislation will be brought before the House and when will it be published. If the Minister of State who has direct responsibility for these matters would like to assist the Tánaiste in her reply, I would have no objection to that either.

Another issue I wish to raise pertains to the promise by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, to place a cap or limit on expenditure in local elections. He announced this measure some time ago and I suggested to the Taoiseach that the opportunity should be taken to use the Electoral (Amendment) Bill to bring this forward. In fairness to the Taoiseach, he replied that he thought this was a good idea and indicated that the requisite amendments might be brought forward on Committee Stage of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill. However, Committee Stage has come and gone and the amendments were not made. While the Report Stage debate is due for consideration today, no Report Stage amendments have been tabled by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to introduce a cap on spending limits.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is not often seen in this House. I am beginning to wonder what he is for. He could not stop the motorway from going through Tara or the incinerator in his own constituency and apparently, he now is unable to get through Cabinet a simple measure he announced months ago to put a cap on expenditure on local elections.

The Deputy has asked about two different sets of legislation, the labour legislation and the electoral legislation.

On the issue of the Employment Law Compliance Bill, which has been published, both the Minister of State and I are in final negotiations with the social partners to bring this matter to the House next year.

That will be a walkover for the social partners.

We work in co-operation.

It is called work in progress. At least the head of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions made a very good decision by marrying a Gweedore woman.

Similarly, in respect of the employment agency regulation Bill, the Government hopes to bring the matter to finality. Extremely difficult issues pertain to bringing both these items of legislation before the House. The preferred option is that agreement on the best possible way on this legislation would be obtained before engaging in further discussions between——

In other words, this House is being made redundant.

No, before the Government brings it before the House.

At which point it cannot be changed as it has been agreed.

The Labour Party is in close contact with the social partners.

However, the views of Members on both sides of the House will be reflected in the context of bringing this legislation to finality.

When will they be sought?

As for the industrial relations (amendment) Bill, because the Government wishes to bring both the Employment Law Compliance Bill and the employment agency regulation Bill before the House at the beginning of next year, it will become available later in the year. As for the issue regarding the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government legislation, from what I can ascertain it was not possible to introduce the aforementioned amendment within the Electoral (Amendment) Bill. It is under discussion at present in the Seanad. However, I will ask the Minister to contact the Deputy directly.

While I note the Tánaiste's reply in respect of the Employment Law Compliance Bill 2008, does she not believe that, following the "Prime Time Investigates" exposure of the abuses in employment practices by a number of unscrupulous employers — God knows how many more have not been exposed — there is a real need to fast-track this legislation——

I believe this question already has been asked.

I am asking the Tánaiste to indicate whether there is the prospect, in the light of all that has been exposed this week——

Deputy, the Tánaiste already has answered that question.

——to fast-track that legislation.

As for the engagement of the social partners, if the national pay agreement is not being revisited and given what has been stated instead in subsequent commentary by the Government regarding working out a strategy——

That question also has been answered.

——for economic recovery, Members have heard repeatedly——

——that the Government has such a strategy. While I believe it has——

Is there anything the Tánaiste wishes to add?

——a strategy, it has not shared it with Members. Alternatively, is the Government trying to draft a strategy while engaging with the social partners in respect of same?

Go raibh maith agat, a Theachta. I wish to facilitate a number of Members.

Finally, I wish to raise one item of legislation.

Certainly. I am glad to hear it.

It is not related to the others, but is of interest to me and there have been a number of inquiries in the recent past regarding No. 34, the animal health and welfare Bill. When does the Tánaiste expect publication of that Bill?

First, the Employment Law Compliance Bill is to give statutory recognition to an authority which is operating at present and which has an inspectorate, known as NERA. Unfortunately, however, when it comes to the extremely serious issues that were raised about the exploitation of vulnerable workers, which is completely unacceptable, the best defence when supporting people is to have information of good quality. However, it is important to indicate that even though the legislation has not been finalised and passed by this House, NERA has been in operation for a considerable time and additional inspectors have been appointed.

As for the animal health and welfare Bill, it was out for public consultation and the line Department is bringing it to finality at present.

As the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has advised Monaghan County Council that the North-South interconnector should run overground——

I know the Deputy shortly will be in order.

Absolutely. When will the electricity (transfer of transmission assets) Bill come before this House in order that Members can discuss this issue?

Second, in light of the fact the HSE has advised personnel to move from Monaghan Hospital to Cavan, and that this will affect the aged especially——

Is it a question that is relevant?

It is extremely relevant.

Is it a question that is relevant to the Order of Business?

The issue is of course highly relevant and therefore should be raised in a proper way.

If you let me, I would have been finished by now. When will the National Council on Ageing and Older People abolition Bill be published?

What of those two pieces of legislation, Tánaiste?

It is abolition, as far as Monaghan Hospital is concerned.

Both pieces of legislation will be taken in the House next year.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I wish to raise two matters with you. One is a correspondence I received from your office deputising for the Ceann Comhairle, stating that a parliamentary question of mine was out of order. Am I to understand——

Deputy Lynch should come and discuss that directly with my office or the Ceann Comhairle's office.

On the Order of Business, where Members of this House submit questions——

There is a procedure. May I explain to Deputy Lynch——

It is to do with policy.

——the normal procedure is that the Deputy would come and talk to the Ceann Comhairle or the Leas-Cheann Comhairle about that.

But this seems to be a recurring theme. I am now to understand that a matter of policy on the provision of over capacity in waste management in this country and incinerators is not part of the job of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley.

Deputy Lynch is correct.

Deputy Lynch might allow the Chair to explain. The Chair simply follows the law as enacted by the Houses. If the Houses transfer functions from Ministers to agencies, the Chair, like everybody else, must respect the law. However, I am happy to discuss that matter with the Deputy. Has he another matter?

I will certainly take you up on that offer later today. Am I to understand, in going to that meeting, that policy on waste management is not a function of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government?

The Minister could give back his wages.

When we discuss it I will show Deputy Lynch the advice we have.

The second matter relates to another parliamentary question. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, received the White Young Green report last week. The understanding was that when he would receive that report, it would be published. Can I ask the Tánaiste will that report be brought before the House? It has been sitting on the Minister's desk for a week. His management of the issue to date leaves much to be desired.

Is there a promise to hold a debate on that issue?

It was a full week before the Minister came into the House when the story broke the last time.

Deputy Lynch has been given great latitude by the Chair——

The document is on his desk for a week and no comment was made.

——and he should appreciate that.

Is the report——

Deputy Lynch has made his point.

On the same issue——

There is no same issue now. On the first issue on parliamentary questions——

On the same issue——

On the issue of Haulbowline and the White Young Green report, there is a serious issue of national importance here, that is, that the cancer registry is showing a remarkable spike——

That might be worthy of a proper debate in that instance.

——in the Cobh-Haulbowline area. What we are anxious about is that this site needs to be contained and we need the Minister to act forthwith.

Where is the Minister?

These are important issues and they should not be simply raised in the way that they are being raised on the Order of Business. They are subjects that are worthy of proper motions and debate. Is there a promise to publish that report or to hold a debate in the House?

I am not au fait with——

Allow the Tánaiste.

——whether or not there is, or if it will be published. I will ask that the offices be in touch with the two Deputies.

There has been a noticeable increase in the number of pipe-bombs thrown into gardens and used in the pursuit of criminal activity in the past 12 months or so. There is a Bill to replace the Explosives Act 1875 proposed. It should be nearly time to introduce that Bill at this stage in view of the difficulties to which I referred.

It will be published next year and I look forward to its discussion in the House.

Next year. Would the recent spate of pipe-bomb explosions not merit a more urgent response?

It is due next year, is it?

I have two other items——

The House might pay attention to Deputy Durkan.

——referring to legislation. Apropos of the electoral (amendment) Bill to which Deputy Gilmore referred, might it be possible to further include in it a proposal——

Deputy Durkan may not ask about amendments to a Bill that has not been published.

——to destroy the electronic voting machines which are currently stored at locations throughout this country——

Has Deputy Durkan a question that is in order?

——costing the taxpayer——

——an enormous amount of money at a time when the country cannot afford it?

Deputy Durkan is a long-serving and distinguished Member of the House.

I thank you for that last bit.

He knows full well that he may not propose on the Order of Business amendments to a Bill that has not even been published.

But it could be included. Can I conclude?

Has Deputy Durkan something that might possibly be in order?

I have one other item. Given the noticeable reluctance of the Green Ministers to attend at the Order of Business——

——could I timorously suggest to them that there is legislation that would come within their remit, that is, the legislation to modernise and consolidate all mineral development legislation?

It is proposed under section B and it is called the minerals development Bill.

That will be published in the middle of next year.

Next year. Is everything next year? Could something not be produced this year, given our difficult economic situation?

The year is nearly done.

I call Deputy Creed. I must move on shortly.

The Tánaiste will be aware that the World Trade Organisation talks are to resume in Geneva at the end of next week. She will also be aware that, following the collapse of those talks in July, Teagasc has done an assessment which shows that many sectors of the Irish agricultural industry, particularly the beef sector, would be devastated.

Does Deputy Creed have a question?

Does it still remain Government policy to veto any World Trade Organisation deal that would seriously and adversely impact on the Irish agricultural sector?

That is not an appropriate question for the Order of Business. It would be a good question, either for Leaders' Questions or a parliamentary question to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Will the Tánaiste clarify that such remains Government policy? There has been much talk about that deal. It means thousands of people being forced out of business. Is that Government policy?

I call Deputy Burton.

The Tánaiste was one of the negotiators.

It is not relevant.

Please try to be in order on some matters.

Is there no veto?

Let Deputy Burton put her question.

Some months ago the Taoiseach indicated that the Tánaiste would talk to the National Consumer Agency about the issue of price reductions in respect of sterling being passed on to consumers in the Republic. We were to get a report back to the Dáil. Since then the situation has become even worse. I am sure the Tánaiste is aware that in her constituency in Donegal people are streaming across the Border to buy their Christmas shopping in Derry and other parts of the North because in the Republic, never mind the 6.5% VAT differential, we also have a continuing situation where retailers and chains are not——

A relevant question to the Order of Business.

We were promised a report on this.

They were not.

In May, the Taoiseach had a word, as the House will recall, in the ear of the Tánaiste to get on to the National Consumer Agency. We have heard nothing since.

Is there a debate or a report promised on this matter?

Irish consumers are leaving. Can we have a debate?

Is there a debate promised?

I am not aware of one. That is a matter for the Whips. There is no problem.

Second, in the budget the National Consumer Agency was apparently to merge with the Competition Authority. Could we have information on what has happened with that dalliance, marriage or get together — whatever it was supposed to be?

Is there legislation or a debate promised in that area?

Has it happened?

There is legislation promised. There will have to be legislation in order to amalgamate the NCA and the Competition Authority. There is no report promised to the House. The Forfás report on the cost of doing business, which is in draft form, will be brought to finality today. I will be discussing with the retailers the issues regarding the sterling differential and prices. I am seriously concerned about the matter, as are all Members of the House, on the basis that every euro spent in Ireland has a direct affect in supporting and sustaining employment within the retail sector in this country.

The Tánaiste does not seem to be doing much about it.

However, we also must ensure value for money for our consumers. It is on that basis that it is my expressed view and wish that we provide value for money for our consumers. There is also the sterling differential. There has been a considerable amount of work by myself, the NCA, the Competition Authority and Forfás to deal with these issues.

Is the Tánaiste committing to a debate? There is no evidence in the shops that these price reductions for sterling are being passed on.

I call Deputy Costello. Deputy Burton knows we cannot have a debate about the matter now. I will try to get in the other Deputies.

A number of bilateral agreements for intercountry adoptions are due for renewal next year but doubts have arisen regarding several of these. We have not put into law the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which we signed 15 years ago. It was promised that an adoption Bill would be brought with some haste during this session but the Bill has not yet appeared. When is the Bill likely to appear and when will it be implemented?

The Tánaiste on the adoption Bill.

The Bill has been circulated to Departments for observations. It was the intention to bring it to the House before Christmas but given the amount of legislation which we are currently considering, the view is that it will be brought forward in January.

New Garda divisional headquarters have been established in various parts of the country. My own county of Longford has been subsumed with County Roscommon into a new regional division based in Mullingar. When can we expect the publication of the Garda Síochána (amendment) Bill?

Next year.

Everything is next year.

I hope next year will come for all of us.

Four months ago, a Supplementary Estimate for €12 million was introduced to the House in order to relieve the pressure on health boards arising from nursing home subventions for the elderly. I understand that none of this money has reached the health boards and, because of the derisory sums involved, it will effectively be worth between €14 and €16 per person when it is distributed.

Has the Deputy something relevant?

Now that the Minister for Finance is sitting beside the Tánaiste, I ask him to introduce a supplementary budget in order to relieve the pressure on families.

Is a supplementary budget promised?

No Supplementary Estimate is promised. The nursing homes legislation is before the House.

I am not referring to that legislation. The €110 million set aside for the legislation has never been spent. Of this amount, €12 million was supposed to be given to health boards but the money has not come through.

I am sure the Deputy will make her point when Bill is discussed in the House.

People are being put to the pin of their collars to ensure their elderly parents, aunts and uncles are treated properly but the Government has abandoned them.

Top
Share