It is proposed to take No. 1, Aviation (Preclearance) Bill 2009 [Seanad] — Second and Subsequent Stages. 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 10.30 p.m.; the following arrangements shall apply in relation to No. 1 — the proceedings on Second Stage shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 9.30 p.m. tonight and the proceedings on the Committee and Remaining Stages shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. tonight 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 Transport; and Private Members’ business shall be No. 73, motion re investigation of complaints in relation to Mr. Michael Shine.
Order of Business.
There are two proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 1, Second and Remaining Stages of the Aviation (Preclearance) Bill 2009, agreed to?
As many Fine Gael Party Deputies wish to speak on this important issue, I do not agree with the proposal to guillotine the debate at 9.30 p.m.
This is the first of eight guillotines the Government intends to use on business this week, which is not the way to conduct business or have legislation passed. Over the years, we have had many examples of Bills that were rushed in the final couple of weeks of the parliamentary session ending up being bad legislation. Time and again, problems have arisen in the courts as a result of unforeseen difficulties in such legislation, with the inevitable consequence that the Government, at a later stage, has been forced to produce amending legislation to correct the mistakes that have been made. This objection is altogether separate from the discourtesy the Government is showing the House in this matter.
While I am glad the Government has responded to the request made by Opposition parties last Thursday for a debate on the IMF and OECD reports on the state of the economy, the Government has shown a degree of cynicism in deciding to schedule the debate from 3.30 p.m. until 9 p.m. on Friday. While the Labour Party is pleased to participate in the debate and proposes to make a full contribution to it, the Government has shown parliamentary cynicism in choosing a time of the week when the House tends not to receive the public media attention it receives at earlier or more central parts of the week's business.
Not to repeat what has been said, the Aviation (Preclearance) Bill requires proper discussion and debate in the House. The imposition of a guillotine will not accommodate full participation. I join with other voices in appealing to the Taoiseach and Chief Whip to change the Order Paper for today's business to allow this legislation to take its natural course with the involvement of Deputies at all Stages.
As I stated, the Aviation (Preclearance) Bill is important legislation for the country and, specifically, the Shannon region in terms of the improved facilities it will provide. The legislation needs to be enacted as quickly as possible. It has been sought on the floor of the House by Deputies from all sides for some considerable time. I understand from the latest list of amendments that five amendments will be taken on Report Stage. We are providing sufficient time for the Bill, particularly for Second Stage to which Deputies from all sides would like to contribute.
The Bill confirms the positive contribution made by the excellent initiative undertaken by the Minister for Transport and successfully piloted by him to the point where we will have a unique facility in transatlantic travel available to us at Shannon and, in due course, in Dublin. It is very important legislation which we need to enact quickly to send a strong and positive signal to the mid-west, which awaits the facility with great aplomb.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- 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.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, George.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- O’Sullivan, Maureen.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
I ask the Taoiseach whether the Government has taken a firmer view on when the second referendum on Lisbon will be held. When we say early October, are we talking about the 2nd, 3rd, 9th or 10th?
Second, I see that some reports are beginning to be leaked from An Bord Snip Nua. I understand the Government will receive this report formally on Thursday or Friday. Is it intended that Opposition parties will be given a copy of Colm McCarthy's report in its entirety so they can consider it? It is obviously an important piece of work with implications for many sectors of Irish life and society. Once the Government has received it and it has been given to the Minister for Finance, will Opposition parties be presented with a copy?
Third, this evening's joint Private Members business motion seeks an inquiry into the activities of Mr. Michael Shine, who was struck off the medical register by the Medical Council's fitness to practice committee. I note the Government amendment deals with a number of issues the Government has considered. Central to that is the meeting the Minister for Health and Children had last week with members of Dignity4Patients, some of whom were affected by Mr. Michael Shine. Arising from that amendment, somebody will clearly have to inquire into what happened here. It would save a lot of time and debate if the Government would say that in respect of the Fine Gael-Labour motion, it will have a commission of inquiry with particular references and a limited timescale. It would save the House and the Minister a lot of time.
The motion and the amendment can be discussed tonight.
It would give the Minister for Health and Children the opportunity to say something also. Somebody has to find this out anyway. While measures are in place to prevent it happening again, it happened in this case and these patients were abused. Some nine or ten reasons are given in the Fine Gael-Labour motion as to why that happened, but somebody needs to find out.
Deputy Kenny will have to discuss that tonight.
May I have a response from the Taoiseach as to whether the Government will concede to having a commission of inquiry? Let us get on with the business that needs to be dealt with.
I support Deputy Kenny's pursuit of the issues raised in the joint Fine Gael-Labour motion. This matter will have to be inquired into. It would be better if the Government agreed to the proposal we have made, which is modest and should not divide the House. I ask the Taoiseach to reconsider the Government's position, which would appear to be to amend the proposal before the House.
I do not want to pre-empt that debate.
I wish to raise two of the matters referred to by Deputy Kenny. As regards the facilitating legislation for a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty, I noted the remarks of our EU Commissioner at the weekend when he clearly indicated that the reason it was not put in the first instance to member states, other than Ireland, was that it would have been overwhelmingly rejected by the electorates of the other member states.
The Deputy should not worry about that. We cannot go into that.
That was the former Minister for Finance's opinion. Given that we all want to see the Irish people deliver yet another clear and unequivocal "No" to the Lisbon treaty and that they are supported by so many EU citizens——
The Deputy cannot use the Order of Business to discuss a referendum.
——as confirmed by Mr. McCreevy, will the Taoiseach advise the House when he proposes to bring forward the legislation? Will he give us the date and the factual position?
The second matter concerns an bord snip nua, by any other name. When will the House have an opportunity to be informed of the recommendations in the Expenditure Review Committee's report? Will we have an opportunity to explore, debate and go through the detail of this report fully before the summer recess? Will the Taoiseach at least confirm that the report will be circulated to all parties, so that we will have an opportunity to debate it properly on the floor of the House?
I call the Taoiseach on the laying of the report before the House and the referendum Bill.
Thanks for the interpretation.
I am a great believer in synopsis.
I am a great exponent of it.
I am always guided by the Chair. As regards the referendum Bill, The Minister for Foreign Affairs has already spoken to colleagues and spokespersons in the House, indicating that it will be published this week. The Government intends to take it next week. Enacting the legislation will provide us with the opportunity to proceed to the next step of announcing the date. As I have said, it is envisaged it will be in early October.
The special group established last December to review the scope for reducing or discontinuing expenditure programmes in Departments, and to make recommendations for reducing public service numbers to ensure a return to sustainable public finances, was due to report at the end of June. Hopefully it will meet that target within the next few days. It is finalising its arrangements and at that stage the report will be presented to the Minister for Finance who in due course will present it to the Government. The Government will make decisions as to what it wishes to do. It is obviously part of the Estimates and budgetary process.
There will be a lot of leaking before that happens.
The Deputy will appreciate that the Government has a job to do in this respect. I do not anticipate any Government discussion as to how we wish to proceed regarding its recommendations before the report is presented. The group's function is to make recommendations, as has been agreed, and it is a matter for the Government to decide whether to accept recommendations. In the first instance, the report will be brought to the Minister for Finance and then to the Government. We will then decide how to proceed.
As regards the Private Members' motion before the House, I do not want to anticipate that debate. The Government has tabled an amendment to the motion and the debate will ensue in Private Member's time. We should see what emerges from that debate, rather than seeking to pre-empt it before it starts.
Deputy Gilmore has another matter.
I have two matters concerning reports, the first of which is the report of what is called an bord snip nua. When will that report be received by the Government and when will it be published? Will the House have an opportunity to consider it before we break for the summer?
I have asked before about the report of the Dublin archdiocese commission of investigation into clerical sex abuse. When is it likely to be received by the Government and published? There is an article by Patsy McGarry in The Irish Times today, which states the Government expects to receive that report in the week beginning 12 July, which of course will be after the House has gone into recess. The newspaper article that, having received the report, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will refer it to the Attorney General because of impending prosecutions, apparently. Is that report in The Irish Times accurate?
I cannot verify its accuracy one way or the other. My understanding, however, is that it is not likely to be in July; it could well be delayed somewhat. We do not have any control over that. We will of course deal with it as soon as it becomes available to the Government, but there are matters concerning the finalisation of the report to which I am not privy. As soon as the Government receives it, we will give it whatever attention is required. I cannot confirm that timescale is still operative.
As I said in my reply to Deputy Kenny, it is expect the report of the special group will be with the Minister by next week. It was due by the end of June, but I understand it is being finalised and that we will have it next week. I do not anticipate it will be debated in the House before the break.
Is it to be published?
This time last year we passed the Intoxicating Liquor Bill. One of its provisions relates to the banning of below-cost selling of alcohol, which is widely advertised in the media. In order for the ban to be introduced, we needed to get approval from the European Commission. That was sought by the Government and I understand it has been obtained. When will the secondary legislation be brought forward in order that these sections can be enacted and we can ban the sale of below-cost alcohol?
The sale of alcohol Bill will be published later this year. I will have to get back to the Deputy on the secondary legislation.
I am not talking about the sale of alcohol Bill, but the legislation that was enacted last year that requires secondary legislation.
I will have to revert to the Deputy on that.
The Adoption Bill 2009 has gone through the Seanad, but looking at the timetable for this week and next week, it is unlikely that we will deal with it in this House before the summer. Has the Taoiseach heard anything from the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews? I believe he is in Vietnam at the moment. Does the Taoiseach expect that there will be a bilateral arrangement in place between Ireland and Vietnam in order to fill the vacuum in advance of the enactment of the Adoption Bill?
The Minister of State has undertaken a visit to Vietnam to discuss this matter with ministry officials over there, as well as with the relevant Minster. There was nothing prearranged about this visit and it is as a result of his intention to do everything that he can to expedite this matter. Meeting these officials face to face is an indication of the sincerity of his intentions. However, there are no guarantees of an outcome because we are dealing with a sovereign government and we are doing our best to find a mutually suitable arrangement.
So there is nothing at this stage to report.
The Taoiseach has indicated to the House the Government's intention to introduce legislation to bring about a reversion to traditional banking and lending policies. Is it intended to utilise one of the proposed Bills before the House already under section A, B or C, or is it intended to bring in separate legislation? When does he think that such legislation will be introduced, if it is found to be necessary?
I understand that legislation on the improvement of the supervisory and regulatory arrangements of financial institutions will be taken in the autumn.
Earlier today we voted on eight guillotined motions that were placed on the Order Paper by the Government. Can I add two more? The Government published the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009 this afternoon and it contains very far reaching proposals. Given the fact that the Dáil is due to rise next week, there is no way that the House will have had an opportunity to scrutinise this Bill in a proper manner. I also read in the newspapers that the Government is about to publish the enforcement of court orders (amendment) Bill 2009 tomorrow, which it wants to "push through" the House by next week.
This is no way to deal with legislation and Parliament is being treated in a contemptuous fashion by the Government. We have eight motions dealing with guillotines, I have referred to two more and I am sure there will be other examples between now and the close of business. The courts occasionally refer to the intention of the Dáil when matters are being deliberated in the High Court or the Supreme Court. How can the courts look to the intention of the Dáil if we have not had an opportunity to address the matter in any meaningful way whatsoever?
It is intended that Second Stage of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009 will be taken on Friday, with remaining Stages to be taken next week. I understand the enforcement of court orders (amendment) Bill 2009 will be with the Seanad on Friday and will revert to this House next week.
It has not been published yet.
Where has all this legislation been for the past few months?
I can only convey to the Deputy the information that has been provided to me on these issues.
If I did not ask about it, we would never know.
The Order of Business allows people to ask about the progress of legislation. I understand the Whips have been informed of the intention of our own Whip to order the business this week and possibly next week as well. The Whip only deals with other Whips and does not deal with everybody else, so that is a matter for internal communication.
In view of the fact that we are in the worst crisis ever regarding the availability of hospital beds——
I cannot go into hospital beds now.
——and at least a quarter of beds are not available at the moment, and certainly not in the Mater Hospital and Saint James's Hospital——
I cannot discuss that on the Order of Business.
Accident and emergency departments simply cannot cope. People who are going for emergency operations are caught——
I cannot deal with that now.
There is a frustration expressed by consultants——-
If every Member was allowed that facility, this is all we would do.
They cannot operate because there is no——
It is not possible to deal with that now. I call Deputy Kathleen Lynch.
I have a question.
Is it a question on legislation?
No, I am asking whether we should be sacking the Minister for Health and Children or the HSE management. This is an intolerable situation.
We cannot deal with that.
Can we have a debate on this issue?
Unless a debate is promised, questions cannot be asked about it.
There are no step down facilities and no community facilities.
Deputy Costello, you cannot use up the Order of Business in this fashion. It is not on. I call Deputy Lynch.
These are the real issues.
I call Deputy Lynch. You must stay in order.
I would like the Taoiseach to tell us when we are likely to have some kind——-
I call Deputy Lynch. You must find another way to raise this issue, and there are several ways of doing so.
There is no way of getting an answer to this. I have been raising it——
There are several ways of raising it. I call Deputy Lynch. I do not want to ask Deputy Costello to leave, but I will do so if this keeps going.
People simply cannot have their——
You must resume your seat. You are out of order and you will have to raise that another way. I call Deputy Lynch.
Last week——
When the Chair is on its feet, you must resume your seat. I must ask you now to leave the House. I call Deputy Lynch.
I wish to ask about a Bill dealing with the legal capacity of people with an intellectual disability, namely, the Mental Capacity Bill 2008. Where exactly is this Bill? The last time I asked about it, I hoped the Title would be changed to the legal capacity Bill, as that would make much more sense. It is not just about evidence at trial, but about the ability to make a will and the ability to make decisions in respect of health treatment, something that Deputy Costello bravely tried to raise. Will we see this Bill before the session concludes?
We will not have that legislation before this session concludes. It is hoped to have it before the end of the year.
What is the position on the report of the Commission on Taxation? Will the Government publish it before the end of this session? Will the working papers be made available? It is very difficult to have a discussion about the report unless we have full access to both the report and the working papers. The same applies to the McCarthy report of an bord snip nua. Does the Government intend to publish in full both of these important economic documents and their working papers?
I have already stated to the House that the purpose of the special group appointed last December to review the scope for reducing or eliminating spending programmes and to look at the recommendations for reducing public service numbers was to help us to return to a sustainable public finance position. That must be considered by the Government in the first instance. I cannot anticipate what decisions will be made on the report. It was sought for this time of the year, so that it could provide for a timely input into the Estimates and budgetary process. That begins from this time of the year, so the report's recommendations will be considered and decisions will be made by the Government. It is far too early to make any suggestions——
I asked if the Government was going to publish it. Will the Taoiseach make a commitment to publish it?
I have just explained to the Deputy that I cannot give any commitment about publishing a report until it is received and considered by the Government. When the Government receives the report, it will decide in what way it will deal with it. It was commissioned to assist in ensuring that the Government, facing into a very difficult situation, gets a full and comprehensive review of all spending programmes and can consider all the options which may be available to it. I point out, of course, that none of them is easy and all involve considerable consideration by the Government. However, we will take those decisions in due course and in a timely and appropriate fashion. This is an input into that.
The media is being briefed.
In regard to the question on the Commission on Taxation, that report is due in the autumn. It is a timely report and one which will be given consideration by Government as well——
The Taoiseach should let us know what newspaper to get and we will read it.
——and published in that instance because it is an important policy-related area——
I call Deputy Damien English.
The report on public service numbers is an issue for Government to consider in the first instance.
I raise an issue which will affect many retailers as of tomorrow when provisions under the Public Health (Tobacco) Acts 2002 to 2004 will come into force. Last March the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, gave the impression, if not a commitment, to many retailers that she would change the legislation. Many retailers preparing for the coming into force of the changed legislation tomorrow learned today that she has not made those changes.
I have a press release giving a commitment that these changes would be made before tomorrow.
What legislation was promised?
I refer to the Public Health (Tobacco) Acts 2002 to 2004. This is promised because it is on the Department of Health and Children website.
Will the Deputy name the legislation?
I will name it. It is legislation to amend the Public Health (Tobacco) Acts 2002 to 2004. Provisions in that legislation are due to come into force tomorrow. Minor changes were to be introduced which would make it easier for retailers and businesses, which are already under pressure, to implement these provisions. It was basically common sense. They were given a commitment. The Chief Whip's office probably knows about this. A commitment was given in March of this year to change the legislation. It is very incompetent and I am very disappointed such a simple matter could not be handled correctly.
I call Deputy Emmet Stage on the same issue.
I will revert back to the Deputy. I do not know.
I have been contacted by the Irish Cancer Society which is concerned that cigarette smoking be limited and discouraged. I understand the heads of a Bill were due before Cabinet this week to reduce the fine imposed on shopkeepers for displaying tobacco goods. Is that true? If it is, will the Bill be introduced before the end of this session? I understand the proposal is to reduce the fines to a derisory level making them ineffective.
Is there a difference between serious smoking and un-serious smoking?
All smoking seriously damages one's health. No brands are exempt.
Will the Bill be introduced before the end of the session?
I will revert back to both Deputies.
I confirm we fully support the Bill with these new common sense measures in it. It is what we are seeking, not a reduction in fines in case there is any complication.
I refer to the company law (consolidation and reform) Bill. Yesterday in the United States, a major fraudster, Bernie Madoff, was jailed for 150 years for a $65 billion fraud. I am struck by the fact that, in terms of Irish company law, it takes so long to bring anybody to justice. Bernie Madoff was in handcuffs and in jail within two months of the discovery of this fraud. An action relating to National Irish Bank is going through our courts at the moment, ten years after the event.
The Deputy should ask a question which is in order.
We all know that many people involved in corporate law are waiting to see what happens in the financial services area because of so much money being lost there.
Does the Deputy have a specific question?
It is stated that the purpose of the company law (consolidation and reform) Bill is to clarify, simplify and modernise Irish company law. In regard to that legislation, is it likely that there will be any attempt to speed up the process in which the law will be applied so that we do not have to wait ten years for people to be brought to justice for the kinds of fraud which have taken place?
The legislation cannot be discussed now. Perhaps the Taoiseach wants to contribute.
In regard to the consolidation of company law generally, that exercise will happen next year. Other legislation has been passed recently in regard to company law. While certain agencies are independently provided with the statutory powers to investigate these matters which are currently ongoing, there is also the question of the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of criminal offences. That is a competence which is exclusive to the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of criminal charges. That is the law and constitutional position in this country.