It is proposed to take No. 3, Social Welfare Bill 2009 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 10 p.m. Private Members' business shall be No. 63, motion re social welfare Christmas bonus, which also shall take place tomorrow after the Order of Business and shall be brought to a conclusion after 90 minutes on that day.
Order of Business.
There are two proposals to be put to the House today. Is the proposal that the Dáil should sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight agreed to?
It is not agreed. As for the proposal regarding the ordering of the Social Welfare Bill, I recognise that while not provided for today, it will be guillotined in this House tomorrow. My colleagues in Sinn Féin and I absolutely oppose the Social Welfare Bill being taken in this House at all, given the context of the Bill and the content of what it hopes to achieve. It is monstrous in respect of its potential impact on the most hard-pressed families and it cannot be accepted willy-nilly in this House as a matter that all Members are quite happy to address. For our part, Sinn Féin Members are not happy to address it, as it simply is wrong. It is the wrong approach with the wrong measures and the wrong people will suffer as a consequence.
Question, "That the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight," put and declared carried.
Is the proposal dealing with Private Members' business agreed to? Agreed. Deputy Bruton, on the Order of Business.
I wish to ask two questions on the Order of Business. First, I seek clarification from the Taoiseach on the issue of the National Asset Management Agency. There have been newspaper reports that although this is a matter of priority, it is unlikely that Members will see the legislation until October. However, the Taoiseach indicated recently that an interim board would be appointed fairly quickly. Members need to know under what legal authority it will be working and what role the Dáil will play in establishing and limiting that legal authority to protect taxpayers.
The second question pertains to legislation to implement decisions that were announced in the budget relating to Members' pay and conditions. These announcements have created enormous confusion in people's minds as to what exactly the Government intends and how it expects to implement them. I ask the Taoiseach to set out for the House the exact position in respect of the legislation that will be implemented. It is not acceptable for Ministers, who earn twice the pay of most Deputies, to lecture people about what they should and should not do when the Government has the legal authority to implement the changes it states are desirable. Clarification is required in this regard and it is only fair to everyone to have certainty as to the way in which we will proceed. While the House will support reasonable measures introduced by the Government, certainty is required.
The Taoiseach, on the legislation.
Regarding the timetable for legislation, it is a priority for the Government. The purpose of the legislation is to establish and govern the operation of the NAMA. We hope to introduce it in the summer session. Preparation of the legislation for the NAMA management structures and operating procedures will be initiated immediately and will run in parallel. The Government will explore the possibility of establishing the NAMA on an interim basis to undertake the initial scoping, valuation and recruitment work required. Provision for the appointment of the chairperson and chief executive officer and the constitution of the board will be addressed in the legislation.
Regarding the other matter, we have outlined that the Government intends to suspend the payment of ministerial pensions to sitting Deputies and Senators in the next Oireachtas. Having regard to the existing legal entitlements, the Government will engage in a consultation process with a view to introducing a proportionate reduction in the rate of pension payable to former Ministers sitting in the current Oireachtas, having regard to the pressure on the public purse and the need for public representatives to set an example.
Increments are being frozen from budget day. In the next Oireachtas, the question of not going ahead with them in the future will be dealt with in legislation, with a view to ensuring that the pensionability aspect of those increments is taken into account.
I submitted a standard question to the Taoiseach for oral reply on the constitutional referenda that the Government plans to hold for the remainder of 2009. It has been answered many times in the past, on 13 occasions since 2005. On this occasion it was transferred by the Taoiseach to the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Why is the Taoiseach transferring to the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for Foreign Affairs a general question on the holding of constitutional referenda, which has previously been answered by him and his predecessors?
I refer to a statement made by the Government Chief Whip on 3 February in the House in response to a Labour Party motion that sought to move the writ for the Dublin South by-election. In response to the motion, the Government Chief Whip, Deputy Carey, stated that the Government intended to run the by-election for Dublin South on the same day as the local and European Parliament elections. Is that still the Government's intention? If it is, when will the Government introduce the motion to the House to move the writ for the Dublin South by-election?
The first matter was not a matter of political direction from me. I must check the circumstances in which it was transferred. I was not involved in the transfer to other Departments. It may have been an administrative decision. I will check the circumstances and revert to the Deputy. I have no problem answering the question in any event.
Regarding the issue brought forward by the Whip, a formal Government decision has yet to be made in that matter but the Chief Whip was putting forward the view as best he could for the information of the House.
The Chief Whip stated: "I would like to confirm that the Government intends to run the by-election for Dublin South on the same day [as the local and European elections]". There is no ambiguity about that.
Is the Taoiseach changing his mind?
The Taoiseach's reply is much more ambivalent. My question is simple. The period of time within which the writ can be moved for the holding of that by-election on 5 June is very narrow. There is a short timeframe. Will the Government proceed on that basis? Will the by-election for Dublin South be on 5 June? While answering that, the Taoiseach can tell us the Government's intention with regard to the Dublin Central by-election.
No Government decision has been made with regard to either by-election. Obviously, we will consider the matter and I am aware of the timelines involved.
Since last September or October the Minister for Education and Science has been indicating that it is his intention to bring forward proposals to re-introduce third level fees for undergraduates in our third level sector. Recently, we have been told that he is about to bring proposals to the Government. We are not sure if proposals have been brought forward or whether they will be reviewed after 5 June. Is it the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to enact the proposals that will be brought forward to reintroduce fees? When will the House see that legislation?
The Government has not yet been asked to formally consider those matters. Until such time as the Minister for Education and Science brings a proposal to Cabinet I am not in a position to anticipate a decision or its consequences.
Many temporary nurses do not know how they stand at the moment, nor do their patients. When will the nurses and midwives Bill be introduced so that we can discuss that issue?
On the day the Minister for Agriculture and Food announced he would pay the grants on a 40:40:20 basis, he announced he would ensure receipts were issued to farmers to allow them——
The Deputy must raise that elsewhere.
——to claim back VAT three months later. That has not happened in hundreds of cases. When can we have a debate on the total collapse of agriculture?
We cannot have that now.
I am asking when there can be a debate.
Farmers have been abandoned.
Unless a debate is promised, we cannot discuss it on the Order of Business as Deputy Crawford, who is very experienced, well knows.
The first matter is due early next year.
Can we have a debate on agriculture?
Will the Taoiseach tell me when he will introduce the Harbours (Amendments) Bill in the Dáil?
That is awaiting Second Stage.
I know it is. When will Second Stage be taken?
It recently finished in the Seanad. It is a matter for the Whips to discuss.
It has been finished for four weeks. When will it be taken in this House?
The Whips will meet after the Order of Business and I am sure it is a matter to which we can seek to attend to the Deputy's satisfaction.
Given the lack of priority this Government gives to the consumer and competition Bill, when can we expect the publication of this long overdue Bill?
I refer to the issue my good friend Deputy Crawford raised. There is dreadful duplication of inspections in the farming community.
The Deputy must take it up with the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
What instructions have been given from this House?
I cannot deal with that one.
I think the Ceann Comhairle can.
There is no hope.
Of course the Ceann Comhairle can. Every single farmer, the length and breadth of Ireland, has double inspections. This is a waste of public funding at a time when the Taoiseach is paying off——
When Deputy Bannon is sitting here he can allow that.
——the Ministers of State he sacked today with a contribution that is outraging people countrywide.
Hear, hear.
There is no date for the legislation.
That is a poor response.
The Bill on the NAMA does not make it to section A of the Government legislation programme. It is on the C list, although the Taoiseach indicated it had some level of priority. The C list is a bit like former Ministers of State who were let go. It tends to be slow progress to get to the C list. What are the Government's intentions? In the reports published around the world of rescues for banks by State Governments that worked, transparency and a degree of bipartisanship have been essential.
Deputy Burton is entitled to ask the question but is not entitled to make a speech on it.
The Opposition has been given no information on this. What are the intentions of the Taoiseach about the publication of this Bill? Will the Opposition be given any information other than when it will be published?
I congratulate the Taoiseach on the listing of a management of multi-unit developments Bill. The Taoiseach has had some experience of the management of multi-unit developments and the difficulties arising with management companies.
The Deputy should just deal with the legislation.
That has helped bring this Bill forward. When might we expect to see it?
Hear, hear. It is a good issue.
It is welcome because there are tens of thousands of people not as well resourced as the Taoiseach who have difficulties with their management companies——
There should be no speeches. I call the Taoiseach to reply on those pieces of legislation.
——running into tens of thousands of euro.
The management of multi-unit developments Bill is in section A so we can expect it this term. The heads of the NAMA Bill have yet to be agreed, as the announcement was only made two weeks ago. It is getting top priority in the Department of Finance and it will be produced as quickly as possible.
Is it proposed to bring forward new legislation to meet the Minister for Finance's recent remarks, where he stated that the Government intended to extend the bank guarantee scheme beyond 2010? Does that indicate the Government's intention to revisit the so-called financial services (deposit guarantee scheme) Bill?
The Deputy will need to raise his point in a different way.
Will new legislation be required to facilitate an extension beyond 2010? Is that the Government's plan?
I note from the list of promised legislation as published earlier today that the mental health (amendment) Bill has been put back again from 2009 to 2010. In its absence, will the Government provide an opportunity in the Dáil to properly address the failure to move forward with sufficient alacrity towards the implementation in full of A Vision for Change?
The Deputy should stick with legislation.
It is a critical policy document that has the support of all opinion in this House, particularly given that we were yesterday again advised that there are still 319 people with intellectual disabilities retained in psychiatric institutions across this State.
I call the Taoiseach to respond on the legislation.
This is entirely inappropriate. If the mental health Bill is not to proceed, what steps will be taken to address this scandal?
I call the Taoiseach on the legislation.
Much progress has been made on the question of inappropriate placement of intellectually disabled people in mental hospitals. I welcome and support such progress. The Minister of State, Deputy John Moloney, has shown admirable commitment and preparedness to work with the disability community in that respect and in every way he can. I commend him on the work he does and I have every confidence in his ability to continue with that work, having reappointed him to the position today.
On the question of extending the guarantee period, that is in order to ensure that we can compete for funding for five-year money as well as two-year or one-year money, given that the guarantee was due to expire on that date. It is a question of ensuring that we have available to us the prospect of getting money at a cheaper rate by having it over a longer term.
Will legislation be required to facilitate the required intent which has just been confirmed by the Taoiseach?
The Minister for Finance will bring forward whatever requirements there may be in that area.
For the past four years, the statutory requirement to hold elections for the regional fisheries boards has been postponed. This was subject to great criticism when the current Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, was in Opposition. At the very least we had a Minister of State dealing with the issue, although the legislation was expected around December 2008. I note that it has now been pushed to the end of 2009.
Will the Taoiseach explain who is now responsible as poor Deputy Seán Power has lost his place? At least he was dealing with the issue and having looked at the list, there is nobody with a dedicated role of dealing with the management of restructuring that must take place. The promise was that a new structure would be in place for inland fisheries by the summer but will the Taoiseach stand over that? This matter has been ongoing for four years.
Seán has gone fishing.
The legislation is due later this year.
Will there no longer be a Minister of State responsible for the matter? Will the Cabinet Minister be responsible for the issue?
The same Department is handling it today as was handling it yesterday.
I apologise for pursuing the matter but I want clarification. One of the provisions made as a result of this ongoing delay was that a Minister of State was given the job to deal with the regional fisheries boards, discuss the matter and come to conclusions. A former Minister of State, Deputy Seán Power, dealt with it and was doing quite a good job in my view. There is now no Minister of State with the responsibility of carrying through the task. Will a Minister of State be given this responsibility or is this being put back to the general responsibilities of the Cabinet Minister, who has much on his plate already?
Arising from the changes today, we will ensure that the process continues as planned. The Deputy should not worry about it.
The Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, could do it.
He is into it.
May we take it from the Taoiseach's response to the leader of the Labour Party earlier that he will again take responsibility for answering questions on referendums? I heard Deputy Bertie Ahern on a new radio station say that it was his biggest regret that the Constitution stopped him implementing the Kenny report.
He had more regrets than that.
He was the only socialist in the House.
I told the Deputy before that he cannot discuss radio programmes on the Order of Business.
Of all the cruel statements of political mendacity, that would take some beating given the manner in which he ducked, dodged and dived implementing the Kenny report for approximately seven years.
The Deputy will have to take it up with the Deputy in question.
May we take it that the Taoiseach will answer questions if we pursue him on this matter?
I will answer whatever questions I am obliged to under the rules of the House.
That one is not an example.
I replied to Deputy Gilmore, who asked me about a question put to me that was not——
It has always been the practice——
Pardon?
It has always been the practice that the Taoiseach took questions about referendums.
I will check the precedents and come back to it.
The Taoiseach has been here a good while.
Last year, the all-party committee on the referendum dealing with children made an interim report urgently asking for legislation to deal with the issue of soft information in order to protect children. We issued the interim report by unanimous agreement because it was such an urgent matter. I see no reference to that legislation on the published list so when will that legislation to protect children be introduced to the House?
I understand work is being done on the heads of the Bill, which deals with quite a complex issue. There is ongoing work and the Whip might be better able to provide detail.
Deputy McManus raised a very legitimate point regarding the fisheries (consolidation) Bill, for which we have been waiting four years. In acknowledging the work of the former Minister of State, Deputy Seán Power, I realise he rolled up his sleeves and took the issue by the scruff of the neck. We need a commitment that the issue will be progressed before June because if that does not happen, many people will not know where they stand.
We have a crazy position currently where the Northern Regional Fisheries Board will not consult with the Donegal Game Angling Federation.
The Deputy will have to put down an Adjournment request or parliamentary question on that.
There is a complete breakdown in communication which must be addressed. The only way this can happen is to bring the Bill through Report and Final Stages.
I will now move to the Social Welfare Bill 2009.
A Cheann Comhairle.
I apologise to Deputy Durkan.
I know I am fading but I hoped I had not faded that much. On the point raised by Deputy Burton in respect of the management of multi-unit developments, will the Taoiseach indicate whether any degree of priority will be given to bringing the relevant legislation, which has been promised for the past two years, before the House? On the basis of the position with regard to certain items of legislation on the various lists, it will take another three years before the Bill is introduced in the House. Perhaps the Taoiseach will provide a short reply to my question in this regard before I proceed to pose my second question.
Related legislation — the property services (regulatory) Bill — was also approved by the Cabinet today. The Bill to which the Deputy refers is on the A list. We engaged in a great deal of discussion earlier as to its location. Now that we have identified its position, another query has been posed as to the reason for its existence.
Will the Bill be introduced as a matter of urgency?
Now that we have the Bill, let us get on with it. People have been complaining about it not being on the list for long enough. Now that it is on the list, other complaints are being made.
There is no use publishing a list of legislation if such legislation will not be published for three or four years.
My second question relates to the area of justice. Abraham Lincoln once famously stated that one of his generals — General McClellan — had the "slows".
The Deputy should not mind Abraham Lincoln now.
Even in Kerry, people know about this matter. It can be stated, in an Irish context, that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform also has the "slows". There is a long list of legislation from his Department which has been in gestation for five years but in respect of which progress has not been made. The criminal elements in this country are rejoicing in the clear knowledge that they can——
The Deputy should not mind that matter now. He should ask a question.
——do as they please. The Ceann Comhairle is aware that the Minister is talking and throwing shapes but that he is not taking action.
This has nothing to do with the Order of Business.
On promised legislation, will the Taoiseach bring forward, as a matter of extreme urgency, a single Bill——
As stated previously, the Deputy may not ask a question of that nature. There can be no multiple choice questions.
——that will contain sufficient regulatory functions which will ensure that criminal elements, particularly those of an organised nature, are taken off our streets.
That question is not in order on the Order of Business.
It is a straight question.
The Deputy must ask a question in respect of a given item of legislation.
I am asking a question on promised legislation.
Multiple choice questions are not allowed on the Order of Business. It is as simple as that. We must move on.
With respect, the Taoiseach wants to answer my question — which relates to a serious matter that is being discussed by people throughout the country — and he should be given the opportunity to do so.
The Deputy must ask a question regarding a specific item of legislation.
I will ask about the specific items of legislation or the Taoiseach can provide the short answer. I do not mind which option is chosen.
If the Taoiseach wants to be of assistance——
He does and so do I.
——that is fine. However, the Deputy's question is not in order.
I will give the short answer.
The Taoiseach is choosing the short option.
I note Deputy Durkan's continuing interest in these matters. The criminal justice (miscellaneous provisions) Bill, which relates to firearms, was approved by the Cabinet earlier today. This legislation will prove extremely useful in the context of ensuring that firearms do not get into the wrong hands.
That is a timid approach. There is a long list of legislative measures relating to the area of justice. These measures continue to await introduction.