It is proposed to take No. 25, Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009 — Report and Final Stages (resumed); No. a1, Nursing Homes Support Scheme Bill 2008 — amendments from the Seanad; No. 26, Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008 [Seanad] — Order for Report, Report and Final Stages. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 4.45 p.m. today and business shall be interrupted on the conclusion of Question Time; the proceedings on the resumed Report and Final Stages of No. 25 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 1.30 p.m. today by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; the proceedings on No. a1 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 60 minutes and any amendments from the Seanad not disposed of shall be decided by one question which shall be put from the Chair, and which shall, in relation to amendments to the Seanad amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Health and Children; the Report and Final Stages of No. 26 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 6.30 p.m. today by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; Question Time today shall be taken on the conclusion of No. 26 for 75 minutes and in the event of a Private Notice Question being allowed, it shall be taken after 45 minutes; and the order shall not resume thereafter.
Order of Business.
There are five proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 4.45 p.m. today agreed to?
I challenge this move to adjourn. Yesterday, a vital report was produced by the IMF which requires urgent consideration by the House before it adjourns for the summer. People did not need to be told that the pain they are now enduring is entirely due to domestic policy failures on the part of this Government. The report singles out, in particular, the 2008 budget introduced by the current Taoiseach. People already knew that. What is really worrying about the IMF report is the very significant number of pitfalls it identifies in the Government's strategy relating to banking. The notion that this House would rise without having examined these in great detail is a serious affront to its role.
The IMF has reported that the deficit in the banks by 2010 will be €35 billion. That will be more than the aggregate of their capital reserves and retained earnings. The report also takes considerable issue with elements of the strategy regarding NAMA. A prominent economist has said there are those who do not know and those who do not know that they do not know. People who do not know something look for advice, but what do people who do not know that they do not know do? They push ahead and brook no opposition. They have no debate, do not evaluate the options and proceed without an opportunity for proper scrutiny.
It cannot be debated now.
The trouble is that the Government is falling into that position.
Deputy Bruton has made his point. He has been given a great deal of latitude.
It is important to realise that the IMF has indicated there are serious pitfalls with several critical elements of legislation that is due to be brought before the House in September. These relate to how the pricing will be dealt with, whether banks that are below the water line should be nationalised, whether non-development loans should be included, whether good development loans should be excluded——
The Deputy has made his point.
——and whether there should be a bank resolution scheme. There are pitfalls across the board that could pose significant risks for the taxpayer. It is our obligation to scrutinise the proposals before an interim board makes substantial commitments on behalf of the Irish people that we have not examined.
A proposal by the Minister on how items are to be dealt with is a technical proposal of very narrow scope, and the merits and demerits of the item do not arise at this stage. I will allow brief statements, not long statements.
Before we can agree any business today we must hear from the Government when the House will have an opportunity to debate the two reports that were published yesterday, by the IMF and the OECD, respectively. Both are extremely critical of the Government and are at variance with——
They are not. The Deputy should read the reports.
I cannot imagine a Minister for Finance in any other country who, having received such a damning report on the economic and financial performance of a Government of which he has been part for the past 12 years, would say he welcomed it——
They are the laughing stock of Europe.
A Deputy
Right, James.
——that it had nothing to do with him, that he really was not part of of the Government at all, that he was some kind of distant supporter of the Government.
Like Jackie Healy Rae. A distant supporter.
This report on the economy is very serious. It is quite at variance with the Government's take on the economy. Only a month ago, admittedly before the elections, the Taoiseach told a meeting in Slane in County Meath that the economy would return to rapid growth as early as 2010.
The green shoots.
Does the Government still believe the economy will return to rapid growth in 2010?
We cannot debate that now, Deputy Gilmore.
These are issues——
I will not have statements about it.
That is my point. I appreciate that I will not have the opportunity of ventilating these matters to the extent to which they should be ventilated in this session today. That is why I am looking for a debate, why I ask the Government what type of arrangements it will allow for us to debate and discuss these issues. The take adopted by the IMF and the OECD on the state of our economy is quite different from the stated take of the Government. We must assess that.
Second, their assessment of what the Government is doing in respect of the banking system is at variance with what the Government proposes to do, which is still vague. We still do not know when this legislation will be published and considered by the House. Meanwhile, events continue apace. Before we go into recess for the summer we need to have a proper and serious debate about the state of the economy based on these two reports. I will not agree anything on today's Order of Business until I receive a commitment from the Minister for Finance that the House will have such a debate.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
There should be no surprise that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Lenihan, saw no problem whatsoever with the reports because the interpretation he quite rightly might put on them is that they exonerate him in his current role as Minister and lay the blame firmly and squarely on the former Minister for Finance, the current Taoiseach. What a wonderful way to start the day, particularly when sitting in the Taoiseach's chair. He might fancy that prospect for the future.
The fact is there was collective responsibility. The current Minister for Finance cannot wash his hands of responsibility as he tried to do this morning on "Morning Ireland".
We cannot have this now.
He made a stoic effort to do so but failed because the truth is there is collegiality and collective responsibility. The IMF report is damning on the stewardship of this Government——
Deputy Ó Caoláin, you must keep to the proposal before the House as must others.
——going back to 1997 when this Government, under Fianna Fáil, came into office.
You have made your point now.
That is a fact. I join with other colleagues in requesting confirmation that we will have the opportunity to address properly the content of the IMF and OECD reports and that both will be accommodated. It should be happening today but is not on the Order Paper. What we need is confirmation that we will have a thorough opportunity in the coming week to address both reports and that this Government will step up to the mark in terms of its responsibility for the plight it has imposed on the lives of ordinary citizens up, down and across the State.
A debate on this subject is a matter for the Whips. Clearly, Members of the Opposition have to read the report before we can have a debate on it.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The IMF states that the Government's policies are the right ones.
Just like the PricewaterhouseCoopers report.
I refer Deputies to paragraph 45 of the report which states that on the two fronts that matter most, the authorities have moved in the right direction.
Did the Minister read the next paragraph?
That is like Albert Reynolds.
The two priority areas referred to——
The Deputies do not like it when it is pointed out to them. The two priority areas referred to are the banking systems and fiscal policy.
Paragraph 3 of the report——
Read paragraph 25.
He cannot.
Listen to what the Minister has to say, for goodness sake.
——states the Government has moved with resolve to counter the severe economic and fiscal shocks. The IMF supports the establishment of NAMA. In paragraph 21 it describes NAMA——
Read paragraph 25.
——as pivotal to the orderly restructuring of the financial sector and the limiting of long-term damage to the economy. According to paragraph 45, which Deputy Burton wishes me to read out——
Paragraph 25.
He cannot read paragraph 25.
——NAMA offers the prospect of extracting the stressed assets from the banks, a pre-condition for their return to healthy functionality.
The IMF also agrees that NAMA can be self-financing if it is well managed.
Has the debate started, a Cheann Comhairle?
I can assure Deputy Hayes I did not start it. Let him finish now.
The IMF supports the important steps to stabilise the financial system taken by the Government. I point out to Deputy Burton that the IMF states the Government is making the right choices in budgetary policy.
Dream on.
Paragraph 33 states that the basic approach and elements of the plan are appropriate.
Can the Minister go back to paragraph 25?
Paragraph 51 of the report states that the initial reliance on increases in income tax in the October and April budgets were appropriate. The increases are described as "a necessary process of returning tax rates to more normal levels". That is in paragraph 33 of the report.
He is born again.
What is needed now——
Hold on a second.
The Minister is reeling in the years now.
Clearly, the Deputies opposite have a lot of reading to do.
I will throw Deputies out of the House if this continues.
I have not seen anything like that since Albert Reynolds read the first few pages of the Beef Tribunal report and then stopped.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 25 agreed?
I call on Deputy Ó Caoláin on this proposal.
Did the Deputy find it under the printing press?
Never mind the printing presses now.
It is proposed to guillotine the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009 at 1.30 p.m. today. Very many important amendments remain to be addressed in respect of this legislation. We also have before us two other Bills, the proceedings on both of which it is proposed to guillotine. It is absolutely disgraceful. There is importance in the subject matter of each piece of legislation before the House, the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill, the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Bill and the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. This is a scandalous approach on the part of this Government to the conduct of business in the House. The House is literally being asked to rubber stamp whatever the Government wishes to present to this and the other Chamber. It is not the way to do business. Critical amendments which people have put a great deal of time and effort into preparing will not now be addressed.
Was the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill not addressed by Deputy Ó Snodaigh?
We oppose the imposition of the guillotine in respect of the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill.
I call on the Minister on proposal No. 2.
This Bill was considered by the Select Committee on Justice, Equality and Law Reform in considerable detail. Report Stage was conducted last night and it is a matter of some urgency that we have the necessary powers to deal with criminal activity in the State. It is proposed to conclude the debate today.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. a1 agreed to?
It is not agreed. A guillotine is being imposed on health legislation again. Yesterday, we objected to a guillotine that only allowed us one hour to discuss amendments to another health Bill. We had not even finished dealing with the first group of amendments when the time concluded. This is not an adequate amount of time to deal with a considerable number of Seanad amendments to important legislation. I can envisage considerable debate on at least one amendment. The guillotine is being used randomly on legislation. I am unsure about whether the Government has even read the Seanad's amendments. Perhaps it has, but the ten amendments are substantial and there is no way to deal with them adequately in the time allocated.
The Bill has passed through both Houses of the Oireachtas since last year and has seen extensive debate on its provisions.
We have a right to discuss it.
We are dealing with amendments agreed upon by the Seanad, which are constructive changes to the legislation suggested in both Houses. The various changes are contained in the Seanad amendments, which are before the House today. It is important that we have this nursing home support scheme in place so that the proper legislative structure exists and that the funds voted for this purpose can be applied.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
We have only just received the amendments.
Is the proposal for dealing No. 26, Order for Report, Report and Final Stages of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008, agreed to?
It is not agreed.
The House cannot support this. I understand that there are approximately 170 amendments. While the Minister may have been able to offer some justification in respect of the previous two proposals, namely, that there are issues of urgency and immediacy and that the House has had ample time to debate, the same defence cannot be offered in this case where there is a great deal of new Government and Opposition material. The House is entitled to debate the amendments properly. The imposition of a guillotine in this case is inappropriate. Indeed, it is generally inappropriate and flashing guillotines everywhere is unhelpful to Dáil business.
What we are witnessing is quite extraordinary. It is not just an end of term guillotine being applied to important Bills. This guillotine will allow one minute and 20 seconds for each amendment tabled. Our Assembly is supposed to debate and correct legislation.
That is right.
It is not for the Minister to say that something is urgent legislation and that the Government is fed up listening to the Opposition's discussion of it. Doing that in the Chamber is our job.
Hear, hear.
We are constitutionally required to do it. What the Government is doing is unconstitutional, as there is no case to be made for the guillotines. They were applied last week to issues that did not require them, which is what we told the Government, and debates collapsed because there were not sufficient speakers.
That was not the Government's fault.
For three hours last week there was no debate at all. The House closed down for the want of business.
The Opposition had nothing to say.
Next week will see seven guillotines. I have asked the media to examine the matter and to highlight the fact that the Government is bulldozing legislation through the House. It is legislating in name only——
We are being dictated to.
——because there is no debate in the House. It is a requirement of the Constitution and the Standing Orders that the House would debate, examine and, if necessary, correct legislation.
That is right.
It is not the function of the Executive to make law and tell the Dáil to rubber stamp it in a couple of minutes. The Government is allowing one minute and 20 seconds per amendment. This is simply not acceptable. The Government has been doing it and will do it again next week by ordering all Stages of a number of Bills to be taken in just a few minutes. Seven guillotines will be applied to legislation, not just debates.
Earlier this year, there was a full week in which legislation was not mentioned because the Government had no legislation ready. It was the Government's fault, not this Assembly's. It is the Executive's job to introduce legislation. We debated matters like motherhood and apple pie, more or less.
At the request of the Opposition.
It is something that the Government proposed to make itself look good. We did that week after week during the last session.
All at the request of the Opposition.
Now, seven guillotines are being applied to legislation in one week and six in the next. It is not acceptable.
The Sinn Féin Deputies also oppose the imposition of the guillotine on the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, as we did each of the previous proposals on legislation. It was only one week ago that the Dáil was unable to perform its duties properly when the Government failed to provide the necessary business to fill the day's work and the Dáil was suspended for over three hours.
None of Sinn Féin's Deputies contributed to the debate. They have no one to blame but themselves.
Here we are with important legislation to which many amendments have been tabled, yet we are not being provided with the time to participate properly. I join other voices in urging the Government to lift the guillotine and allow the process to take its natural course.
I am glad that Deputy Ó Caoláin acknowledged the importance of the legislation. It was published on 27 July 2008 and initiated and discussed extensively in Seanad Éireann. It has been before the Dáil since the new year. Its purpose is to provide for a modern framework for social housing, which is an important subject.
Some 100 new sections were stuck into it one week ago. The Minister should not pretend that the Bill has been debated for a year.
I will deal with that in a moment.
It is totally misleading.
Let the Minister finish.
The Bill deals with an important social purpose in the current economic climate.
There is a method for making law, but it is not the Executive dictating.
A large number of amendments have been tabled, but many of them are technical in character and do not——
That is for us to judge.
This is not a dictatorship.
——fundamentally change the core issues, which have been extensively discussed.
That is not for the Government to say.
It has no right.
Please, Deputies.
It is for me to suggest why the Government is being reasonable. Regarding Deputy Stagg's constitutional point, the Constitution provides that all questions in the House are determined by a majority of the Members present when voting.
Bulldozer.
That was a brilliant comment.
Tá
- 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.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- 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.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Behan, Joe.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Costello, Joe.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lee, George.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Is the proposal for dealing with Question Time today agreed? Agrred. I call Deputy Bruton on the Order of Business.
I want to raise three matters. We have all noted there are social partnership discussions about a job subsidy. Will this require legislation? If so, is it intended to introduce it before the House rises for the summer?
The Minister indicated this morning on a radio programme that the Government had approved the heads of the National Asset Management Agency legislation. Will he use the procedure available to him to present the heads of the Bill to the Oireachtas for consideration so it can have an early opportunity to have an input?
With regard to the reform of the regulatory structure of the Central Bank and Financial Regulator, the Minister indicated responsibility for consumer information would be transferred elsewhere. What will happen regarding consumer protection under the new structure and when will we see the legislation? It is feared that consumers will be squeezed as the Central Bank regains total control over regulation. The consumer protection element, which is needed, now seems to be downgraded to simply an information role.
On the jobs protection initiative, regarding which the Government is in discussion with the social partners, no legislation is required at this stage.
The position on NAMA is that work has commenced on the preparation of the legislation. I am glad the Deputy asked about the heads of the Bill. The heads are approved by the Government but not the crucial head on valuation because we are still receiving technical advice on the valuation procedures. When the heads are finalised by the Government, I will consider the Deputy's suggestion. It is my intention to publish the legislation later in July.
On the question on the regulatory structure, legislation will be required to give effect to the various proposals involved. The reason the Government took a decision at this stage was to expedite the recruitment process for a head of financial regulation. Clearly, a job description is required for this role and in this regard the Government has engaged Sir Andrew Large, a former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, to assist in the recruitment of a new independent regulator of the banking system. It was essential to have a Government decision on the legislative framework. It is not the intention to devalue the consumer function of the new Central Bank of Ireland commission. However, half the staff of the regulatory office were involved over the years on consumer work and this was a distraction from the essential banking stability and supervision work that any regulator must do.
When will we see that legislation?
It will be later in the year.
There are three matters I wish to raise. In response to my earlier question on the need for a debate in the House on the IMF and OECD reports, the Minister said he would leave it to the Whips to arrange. Can I take it from this reply that the Government is, therefore, agreeing there will be a debate on those reports in the House prior to the summer recess and that it is now left to the Whips to arrange the time therefore?
A year ago today the Government published the heads of a proposed Bill on civil partnerships. We have not seen any progress since. When will it be finalised and published?
The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, indicated publicly there will be a climate change Bill introduced by the Government prior to Christmas. However, when Deputy McManus and I asked the Taoiseach about it this week, he did not seem to know anything about it. He told us no proposal for such a Bill had been brought to the Government. Will the Government introduce a climate change Bill? If it is not in a position to do so, will it accept the Labour Party's Private Members' Bill, which is on the Order Paper, and consider it in Government time?
It is a matter for the Whips to determine whether time can be allowed for a debate on the OECD and IMF reports. It is not for me to dictate to them the position on it.
We are agreeable; it is a question of agreement on the Government's side.
I am happy to leave the matter to the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach to deal with it.
It is the Government that organises business. The Minister should stop talking nonsense.
I am not talking nonsense but explaining the position.
He is.
He is talking rubbish.
That is like the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Mary Coughlan, on the radio——
The Whips can discuss this issue. We have a very busy schedule for the rest of this session.
That is nonsense, the Government decides what happens in Government time.
If the Deputies opposite are willing to facilitate some Government business in that schedule, we will be quite happy to facilitate them with a debate on the IMF report, which I would of course welcome.
The Government will deny it.
On the question of the civil partnership Bill, the Government approved the text at its meeting this week and publication is imminent. It will take place within the next few days.
On climate change legislation, discussions are still under way with a view to bringing proposals before Government on the matter.
To clarity the first matter, the Government organises the schedule of the House and orders the business that is to be taken therein. The Whips will make arrangements on the timing of a debate but they must do so within the context of the business ordered by the Government. Will the Minister state whether the Government is ordering a debate on the IMF and OECD reports? There is no point in hiding behind the Whip.
The issue is whether such a debate is promised. Is such a debate promised?
No such debate is promised.
There can be no question of the House adjourning for the summer without a debate on the most profound issue impacting on the lives of the people. To give fair notice, we will not co-operate with business for the rest of this session unless the Government makes a commitment that the IMF and OECD commentaries will be debated in this House.
That has not been excluded. It is a matter for discussion between the Whips.
It is being evaded.
The debate has not been promised at this time and, therefore, I cannot allow this discussion within Standing Orders.
Stop the nonsense. The Minister can say "Yes" or "No".
The Minister said it is a matter for debate between the Whips, which it is. I can allow specific questions on a promise made, but when a promise is not made the debt does not remain unpaid.
On a point of order, a debate among the Whips is a vacant exercise unless the Chief Whip has the authority of the Government to allow for the debate we request.
Deputy Stagg is not that vacant.
I am sure Deputy Stagg is more than capable of making his point at the Whips' meeting. The matter can be raised again.
Deputy Stagg is a long time serving as a Whip. He has not given himself enough credit after all these years.
We have just had one of the most damning economic reports on circumstances that will do extraordinary damage to this country. Is the Minister for Finance so pusillanimous and afraid that he cannot even recommend that the House have a debate?
The situation is straightforward. The matter can be discussed between the Whips and it has not been excluded.
It is not a matter for the Whips.
The Deputy should understand I cannot proceed in this fashion. I am being very reasonable.
The Ceann Comhairle is being too reasonable.
We have had two very serious reports on the economy.
I know that.
I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, what is so funny?
People are hurting.
What is so funny?
The Deputy is the jester in this House.
The difficulty is that the Minister has promised that the Whips will discuss the matter.
This is probably the Minister's big break.
The matter has not been determined and it has not been promised and therefore it is not in order to ask about it on the Order of Business. That is the difficulty.
Can he not promise it now?
I do not want us to play word games with this.
Neither do I.
These are two very serious reports. The economy is in a serious state. A total of 400,000 people are out of work. There are huge problems about which we all know. There are two sitting weeks left for the Dáil before it rises. The Taoiseach confirmed to me yesterday that it will rise on 10 July. We must debate the two reports that have been published as part of a serious debate on the economy.
I interpreted the Minister's first reply, when he said that he would leave it to the Whips, benignly as meaning that there would be a debate and that the Whips would arrange the time for it. In his second reply he is pulling back from that and saying that it is not promised but it can be arranged if the Whips can find time and so on. I take it that he would be the Minister leading the debate on this issue. Will we have the opportunity to debate these reports in the House? It is not acceptable to the Labour Party that we will not have a serious debate and discussion on those major reports in the Dáil. That is what we are here to do.
The Deputy has made his point.
I need a commitment from the Minister for Finance.
Lest our silence be taken as assent to the Government's approach I want to make it clear that we believe that these reports are of huge importance and do need to be debated. We take a similar view to that of the Labour Party in respect of co-operation with business if we do not get the opportunity for reasonable debating time on these matters.
A debate has not been promised. The Minister for Finance has stated that the Whips will discuss it. Of course it is also open to the parties in the House——
The Minister knows that the Whips are driven by the Department.
It is open to the parties to utilise their own remedy which is to raise the matter in Private Members' time.
I have not had an opportunity to speak.
Deputy Gilmore has made Deputy Burton's point.
Paragraph 43 of the report says that the economic situation here will be an episode of the most severe economic distress since the Second World War.
All those points have been made.
The Minister did not read paragraph 43.
The Deputy can read that to him some other time.
This will be the most severe period of economic distress since the Second World War and the Minister will not have a debate on it.
I call on the Minister for Finance to bring finality to the question of a debate.
Not since Pontius Pilate have we have had a Minister who washes his hand of his own economic history and his own Government.
That was before the Second World War.
Biblical analogies can be brought up elsewhere.
Of course I would welcome a debate on the IMF and OECD reports.
Then the Minister should direct his Whip.
I would welcome a debate on these reports especially given the warm endorsement of current Government policy contained in the IMF report.
The Minister is deluding himself.
I am not in a position to allocate Government time. I have suggested that the Whips discuss this matter.
The Minister's sense of temperature is considerably impaired.
Does the Minister want a star for going on for about 20 minutes on RTE this morning? He sounded like the Tánaiste not the Minister for Finance as he rambled on.
I might have to ask Deputy Burton to leave if this keeps up.
Thankfully it was not Deputy Burton on the radio this morning.
He rambled about how he was nothing to do with the Government but merely a supporter.
Deputy Burton will have to leave if that keeps up.
Does he want a kindergarten star?
I would welcome a debate on the report which would allow for the consideration of it in a far more——
He will answer if there is a debate in respect of it.
He welcomed the report this morning and said he had nothing to do with the Government.
The Minister is welcome to the real world.
The Minister has just told us that he is not in a position to make a commitment as to whether we will have a debate. May I respectfully suggest to him that he is in a position to do that.
Absolutely.
He is the Minister leading for the Government on the Order of Business this morning.
The Minister has that authority and he should use it.
The Government orders the business of the House. That is why we have a session called the Order of Business to discuss what business the House will do.
The disorder of business.
The Whips will discuss that matter. Then the Deputy can return to it.
No. We want a commitment.
We will return to it.
We want a commitment.
I cannot force it.
If the House was going to be meeting for the next month or six weeks we could accept that but there are only two weeks left. The Government proposes to cram a lot of business into those two weeks. I want a commitment from the Minister that there will be a debate and the Government will provide time for that.
"Yes we can."
The Minister is in a position to do that because he is leading for the Government this morning and will be leading that debate.
He should just do it.
The Minister for Finance seems to think that no matter what he says, provided he says it sweetly enough everybody will accept it.
The Minister for Finance has stated that he is not in a position to promise a debate.
He is. We do not accept that.
The Minister can change his mind. He should find his courage.
Standing Order 26 unfortunately ends the matter. It is open to the Opposition parties if the Whips do not agree to the debate to raise the matter in Private Members' time. There is no difficulty with that.
I cannot put it any further.
The Minister for Finance is the acting head of Government this morning. He has parcelled up and despatched the Tánaiste somewhere and that is fine but he is the acting head of Government. He has the authority to commit to a debate, not to come in here as some disinterested bystander and say he would welcome a debate. He is the Minister for Finance and the acting head of Government but one would think he was not in Government when this disaster was caused. He was at the Cabinet table, not just a member of Government. He was the super junior Minister at the time.
I will have to adjourn the House if this keeps up. I have ruled on the matter.
The Minister is just a camp follower.
In respect of the urgency of this debate, the Central Statistics Office has just reported that in the past 12 months 160,000 jobs have been wiped out and that the economic debate on this is much more important and more urgent.
The Chair's ruling must be respected at this stage.
We have never lost so many jobs for so many people in so short a time and the idea that——
That is the end of that, Deputy Lee.
If the Minister for Finance cannot make a simple decision, can we adjourn for 20 minutes while he telephones the Taoiseach to ask whether the Taoiseach agrees to a debate?
He was able to debate it on the radio.
The Opposition is wasting time. This is a parliamentary charade. They should do a bit of work.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs should do a bit of work.
We do not often see the Minister for Foreign Affairs around here.
It cannot be put any further than that.
A Deputy
On a point of order.
There will be no more points of order now. I must proceed.
It is clear we will not be able to proceed with business. I am adjourning the House for ten minutes.
I call Deputy Michael D. Higgins on the Order of Business.
I am sure the Deputy will be happy to give way to me.
The simple solution to the difficulty we have is for the Minister for Finance to promise a debate on the IMF and OECD reports. While I would be happy to have the arrangements for such a debate agreed among the Whips, we must have a definitive answer from the Minister indicating a debate will take place and the Government will provide time for it. If we receive such a commitment, we can proceed with the rest of the business. Without such a commitment, we will have a slight problem which will probably detain us for some time.
The entire House has an interest in having business conducted in an orderly fashion and issues of national importance debated in a timely manner. The Opposition seeks no more than that. If the Government is not willing to meet us half way on this issue, it will jeopardise co-operation on pairs and the timing of business for the remainder of the session. Let us have a debate on a vital issue rather than bogging down the House in procedural wrangles which are not of any help to the House.
This an urgent matter which requires urgent address. If it is necessary for the House to sit longer hours or additional days, we should consider doing so. Given that additional and late sittings are scheduled for next week and proposed for the following week, it should be possible to commence a debate on the matter under discussion. If such a debate cannot be concluded in the next two weeks, the House should, if necessary, consider extending the session.
No approach was made to the Government requesting this debate prior to the Order of Business today.
We should not have to request a debate.
May I finish, please? A request was made in the course of the Order of Business. I am dealing with the Order of Business and am, therefore, aware that the Government has a busy timetable in the next fortnight in relation to essential legislation. For this reason, I am unwilling to give a promise for a debate, although I indicated at all stages that I would welcome a debate. One of the advantages of the disorder fomented by Labour Party Deputies was that it gave me the opportunity, on the suspension of the House by the Ceann Comhairle, of surveying Government business for the next fortnight.
Did the Minister phone a friend?
I am pleased to advise the House that time can be made available next Friday. The Whips should now discuss the matter.
The Minister has found a convenient way to run up the white flag.
Lest I appear ungracious, I thank the Minister for agreeing to a debate.
We have sweetness and light.
I hope I do not dispel them.
I do not doubt the Deputy's capacity to do so.
For some weeks, I have sought information on promised offshore licence legislation and received a helpful reply from the Office of the Taoiseach in that regard. It is urgent that the Minister with responsibility for the marine clarify the conflict which arises between those who enjoy fisheries licences and those who claim to have a licence to engage in pipe-laying. I refer here to Broadhaven Bay.
While I rarely stray from the strict matter of promised legislation, in an attempt to avoid confusion and unnecessary conflict it is important that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform clarify what will be the role of the Garda Síochána when a contradiction arises between fisheries licences and other licences. For whom will the State seek to act in such circumstances?
The Deputy must find another way to raise the matter.
Will it seek to act on one side or the other? The involvement of the Naval Service also arises in such circumstances. The matter would be made much easier for the Ceann Comhairle and me if we had a Department and Minister for the marine. At present, there is a contradiction that is capable of creating conflict before the House meets again.
The House may not discuss the matter the Deputy raises on the Order of Business.
I ask for an urgent statement clarifying the issue I raise so as to avoid conflict.
The Deputy may raise the matter by way of the Adjournment debate or by tabling a parliamentary question.
Is the Minister in a position to indicate when the Government will honour its commitments under the George Mitchell scholarship scheme? Legislation was promised as recently as last May when the Taoiseach, in an aside to some of the people present at a function welcoming the George Mitchell scholars, indicated that "Batt" would see to the matter before the end of the session. Was he referring to Batman or a Cabinet Minister? We are not shy about travelling to the United States on St. Patrick's Day with a begging bowl and outstretched hand. It is a disgrace that the relevant legislation has not been introduced. What is going on at the Department of Education and Science?
Publication of the legislation is expected this year. I understand preparatory work on the heads of the Bill is ongoing.
It is an absolute disgrace and an insult to our so-called friends in America.
Having observed the appropriate recipe for securing a Dáil debate, I hope I do not have to embark on the same route. The food and drinks industry report published earlier this week highlighted, among other issues, that 2,000 jobs have been lost in the food industry so far this year. Yesterday, the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food heard a prediction that as many as 140,000 jobs could be lost in the sector in the next two years. Allied to this, we have a crisis at the farm gate in many sectors, particularly the dairy industry. Will the Government make available time before the Dáil rises for the summer recess to hold a debate on the crisis in the agrifood industry?
I assume that is a matter for the Whips.
Yes.
If the Minister for Finance were to indicate a willingness to hold such a debate, the Whips could be——
It is also out of order for the Deputy to request a debate, as I indicated earlier. I would not have had to suspend proceedings otherwise.
I note that disorder provided the Minister with an opportunity to tweak the——
It also resulted in the suspension of the House. I am sure the Deputy would not like me to suspend proceedings again.
The Ceann Comhairle should not tempt me.
I do not propose to do so.
I raise two matters in respect of essential legislation, as the Minister for Finance describes it. On Thornton Hall, it now appears the construction of prisons proceeds by way of Government press release. I understand arrangements have been made by the Cabinet to proceed with a scaled down version of Thornton Hall.
The Deputy will have to find another way to raise the matter.
I put it to the Minister that such a move would require special legislation to be enacted in the House. The Ceann Comhairle will recall that by virtue of the fact that the Thornton Hall development obviated the planning process, it proved necessary for the House to enact specific and peculiar legislation dealing with plans for the prison. Given that the Minister has changed these plans by press release, legislation will be required and must be processed in the House. Will the Minister for Finance confirm that is the case?
Is legislation promised in this area?
No legislation is promised but should it be required, it will be introduced.
In that case, will the Minister confirm that the Thornton Hall development cannot proceed owing to the failure of the Government to promise and process legislation?
Deputy Flanagan is being pedantic.
He is also being provocative and mischievous.
On a number of occasions this morning, the Minister for Finance referred to the heavy Dáil schedule for the next two weeks and invited the Opposition to facilitate the passing of legislation. The Fine Gael Party will co-operate with the Government on passing the Defamation Bill, which is particularly relevant having regard to the events of the past 24 hours. Will the Minister for Finance have a word with his colleague seated beside him, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and explain that the only contentious issue in the Defamation Bill, the only hurdle to be surmounted, is the Minister's personal crusade to introduce a new crime of blasphemy?
We cannot discuss personal crusades, Christian crusades or other crusades.
The Minister for Finance will be aware that blasphemy was not included or referred to in the original legislation he, as then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, produced.
The House may not discuss the detail of the matter.
The inclusion of this provision is an act of folly on the part of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
There are to be no crusades.
If the Government decides not to proceed with that act of folly, we will facilitate the passage of the legislation.
The Minister should respond on the Defamation Bill. There are to be no crusades and no crusading.
Deputy Flanagan wants us to ignore the Constitution. He is in error.
There is a very disturbing tendency in this House of late wilfully to disregard the advice of Attorneys General.
We are a nation of blasphemers.
As far as this legislation is concerned, the Government would be delighted to facilitate its rapid enactment if the Opposition wishes to co-operate.
Will the Government excise the portion of that Bill which represents the personal crusade of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform?
Deputy Flanagan is play-acting and he knows it, or else his law degree does not mean much.
Yesterday at Question Time the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government announced far-reaching legislation that will require people to register with their local authority or a private operator to ensure their refuse is collected. The implication is that those who do not register may be pursued and possibly fined. The Minister also indicated that a regulator of waste management will be appointed. Will the Minister for Finance confirm this legislation is promised and indicate when it will be introduced? Or was the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government just winging it?
I will have to come back to the Deputy on this matter with the identification of a more precise legislative norm.
I expected the Minister might say that.
The Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009, which is long overdue and is currently before the Seanad, deals with the regulation of property management companies. Will it be brought before the Dáil in this session? In light of media reports that home buyers who bought into developments in Carrickmines and Santry will be refunded only 1% of their deposits following the collapse of the property development company, does the Government plan to extend the HomeBond guarantee scheme from two years to up to five years?
Deputy Reilly has a question on the same issue.
The deposits these people paid have disappeared because there is no legislation to protect them. When will the Property Services (Regulation) Bill 2009 be brought before the House? Will it provide security for deposits so that people's money is safeguarded and not taken by greedy developers?
The Deputy may ask when legislation will be taken in the House but he cannot discuss its contents.
Both of the Bills referred to by the Deputies are currently before Seanad Éireann on Committee Stage. I cannot pre-empt the deliberations of Seanad Éireann. As I understand it, the Fine Gael Whip was advised of the progress of this legislation.
When the Dáil passed the Financial Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009 earlier this week, the Minister for Finance promised to bring a scheme before the House in regard to the extension of the financial institutions guarantee scheme. I do not want to raise details of the IMF report before that debate takes place, but the report points out that the guarantee will potentially cost the taxpayer €35 billion, more than all the taxes that will be collected this year, if the Minister is lucky to get that much. I will repeat a question I put to the Minister on previous occasions. Will the scheme be brought to the House before the recess? Will it be introduced before the NAMA legislation?
In regard to the NAMA legislation, will there be a White Paper setting out the structure of what the IMF predicts will be one of the most costly guarantee schemes in the world? The IMF points to the history of Japan and its lost decade——
There should be no more references to the IMF report. A debate has been promised on that issue.
Will the Minister for Finance set out the framework for the scheme he promised in regard to extending the financial institutions guarantee scheme? In respect of the NAMA legislation, will he publish not just the heads of the Bill but a White Paper so that we can work out the Government's intentions?
Work is ongoing on the scheme which is required under the Financial Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009, which is being taken in the Seanad today. Liaison must be completed with the European authorities in Brussels before I am in a position to advise on a date on which it can be submitted to the House. It will be either later this session or early next session.
No White Paper is promised in regard to the NAMA legislation. It seems I will have to prepare a Ladybird version of the IMF report for Deputies opposite.
It is the Minister who requires a Ladybird version.
A special short version would be useful for the Government.
It seems the Minister is looking for a kindergarten star. Does he want me to go over and give him three little gold stars because he huffed and puffed his way through an RTE interview this morning?
I will have to give Deputy Burton a couple of black stars if she keeps this up.
The Minister has not read the report.
I have called Deputy Broughan.
Nobody in their right mind could say it is favourable to the Government. On the contrary, the report calls into question the Government's competence.
The Deputy can have a chat about that another time. I call Deputy Broughan.
The Minister for Finance should be wearing an L plate on his back, as Deputy Lee told us earlier in the week. We are facing totally unnecessary industrial action at Bus Éireann in the coming days.
That issue has been raised on the Adjournment and will be allowed tonight.
I asked the Ceann Comhairle whether it was possible to have a Private Notice Question whereby the Minister for Transport would come into the House and tell us——
The Deputy will have an opportunity to address this issue when it is discussed on the Adjournment.
This matter must be ventilated in the House.
It will be discussed tonight. The opportunity is being afforded to the Deputy to do so. There is no point in duplication.
Some 200 jobs were lost yesterday in Coolock and in Rathmore in Kerry. This was partly blamed on the——
The Deputy should table this matter for debate on the Adjournment.
It is a very serious matter.
I understand the seriousness of all these issues.
Some of these job losses are in the Ceann Comhairle's constituency.
This matter cannot be discussed on the Order of Business.
The Chair does not have to worry about matters in his constituency.
These losses are being blamed partly on the euro-sterling differential. There have been claims that perhaps tens of thousands of Irish jobs have been lost——
That cannot be discussed.
I want to ask the Minister fore Finance about the national recovery plan.
The Deputy must ask about legislation.
Does the Minister intend to include in that plan a provision for companies such as Cadbury Ireland which claim that the strength of the euro is a fundamental cause of our loss of competitiveness and the loss of tens and thousands of jobs?
This issue cannot be discussed on the Order of Business.
Will the Minister reflect on that?
I have called Deputy Varadkar.
It has been suggested that the programme for Government will be reviewed. It is of particular relevance to this House that such a review, if it takes place, should be addressed and debated. I am especially interested in the commitment in the programme for Government to eliminate the national debt, following on from a commitment in the Fianna Fáil election manifesto.
Does the Deputy have a question on legislation?
The national debt has doubled since the Minister for Finance came to office.
That cannot be discussed on the Order of Business.
I understand he intends to double it again. Will the Minister advise the House when the programme for Government will be reviewed——
Deputy Varadkar will have to find another way to raise that issue.
——and what specific changes are proposed?
Deputy Varadkar is being mischievous. I have called Deputy Sherlock.
My questions relate to more pedestrian matters. When will Committee Stage of the Fines Bill be taken? Why has the animal health and welfare Bill not been published? If the Minister for Finance is not in a position to give me an answer, I ask for some written direction as to when it will be published. We have been waiting for more than two years for this Bill. It is turning into a farce.
Public consultation has been ongoing on the animal health and welfare Bill, and I understand the submissions are being examined. There is no date as yet for publication. The Fines Bill is in committee and it is a matter for the committee to order its business in conjunction with the Whips.
Did the Minister for Finance say earlier that the NAMA legislation will be published before the end of July?
Yes.
Will he indicate when the House will be reconvened to take it?
Is Deputy Rabbitte planning his holidays?
I cannot indicate at this stage when the House will be recalled.
I had intended to ask about the explosives Bill, but in view of the Government's dazed condition in the wake of the publication of the IMF report, it would be unwise to do so. Instead, I will deal with equally serious matters. The Taoiseach gave an indication in the House of his intention to expedite two Bills relating to the protection of children. One of these is to provide for the collection and exchange of information in regard to the endangerment, sexual exploitation, sexual abuse or risk thereof of children. The second is to protect vulnerable persons against sexual exploitation. The latter one is No. 77 and the earlier one is No. 70. Has any progress been made on either Bill, given their urgency and the urgency the Taoiseach previously accorded to them?
Regarding the collective investment scheme legislation which is also promised, in view of recent experiences it might also be regarded as being of some urgency.
The child care Bill, as I understand, is for this session. Work is progressing on the heads of the Bill. The legislation is very complex and has potential constitutional implications. The other legislation on collective investments is expected to be published next year.
There are two child care Bills. One is No. 77 and the other is No. 70.
There is no date for the sexual offences Bill.
What do you mean there is no date?
There is no date. We only have an hour and a half left for the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill.
The Taoiseach indicated previously, in respect of both Bills, that there was an urgency and I am merely asking if that urgency has been reflected in activity in the meantime.
The Minister can only give an answer if he has one. That is all he can do. He cannot do any more.
He does not know.
He has given the Deputy the answer.
There is no urgency.
Deputy Creed mentioned the food and drinks industry report earlier. The witnesses that were present at the joint committee on agriculture yesterday all highlighted the fact that since the groceries order was abolished, practices have taken place in this country in regard to the groceries sector that are totally unacceptable. Will the Government accept that it needs to introduce fair trade legislation?
Is legislation promised in this area?
There is not.
I urge the Minister to reconsider.