It is proposed to take No. 24, Health Insurance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008 — Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; and No. 25, Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill 2006 [Seanad] — Order for Report and Report and Final 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.; that Report and Final Stages of No. 24 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 5 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 Health and Children; that Report and Final Stages of No. 25 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon 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 Justice, Equality and Law Reform; and, if a division is in progress at the time fixed for taking Private Members’ business, which shall be No. 73, motion re investigation of complaints in relation to Mr. Michael Shine (resumed), that Standing Order 117(3) shall not apply and Private Members’ business shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 90 minutes.
Order of Business.
There are four proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later that 8.30 p.m. tonight agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 24, Order for Report and Report and Final Stages of the Health Insurance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008, agreed to?
It is not agreed. We are opposed, in principle, to the imposition of guillotines on legislation. I am informed by Deputy Reilly that Ireland is in breach of EU regulations and that this legislation should not come into force until VHI meets its solvency requirements. This makes the situation worse. It is proposed to bulldoze this Bill through by 5 p.m., but that is not how we should do business on a Bill as important as this one. I object to this proposal for that reason.
This House has a set of rules for the examination and scrutiny, and acceptance or rejection, of legislation. The rules in question have stood the test of time in this House. They have given us a good body of legislation that serves the people well. These rules are being set aside on a regular basis by Government. The rules by which we operate are agreed by all sides of the House. We have the power to change them, of course, but they are being set aside regularly by the Government, which is abusing its majority in this instance.
The first item states, "It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders...". That means it is being proposed by the Executive that the rules of the House are set aside to allow it make its own rules and impose its will on this legislative assembly. The next part of the statement is to the effect that everything in the Bill, irrespective of whether it is debated, and every proposal from the Minister to amend the Bill, will be accepted by matters being brought to a conclusion through the mechanism of one question from the Chair. Again, the Government, using its majority, will force that through. That is an abuse of the majority the Government holds and it is not a democratic use of that majority. A set of rules exists that is adjusted over a long period of time so that there is fair and proper examination of legislation. This is simply setting that aside and I believe it is an insult, not just to the Opposition, but to the people who elected us.
It is one of eight items of legislation this week that will not be discussed. It simply is legislation by diktat from the Executive, which is supposed to be responsible to and subject to the will of this House. However, this is abusing the majority the Executive commands, to set aside the rules and neither I nor the Labour Party will accept that. We shall call a division on this and other matters.
It is totalitarianism.
I join other voices in opposing the proposal to apply a guillotine to the passage of the Health Insurance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill at 5 p.m. this evening. It does not take into account the importance of the legislation to be addressed. I do not propose to oppose its passage. My appeal is to the effect that we should have the opportunity to properly address its content and the amendments tabled. This is not to be accommodated in the restricted opportunity the Government is providing and, therefore, we oppose it.
This Bill has to be enacted as soon as possible for a number of reasons, the most important of which is that the stamp duty and additional age-related tax credits provided for in Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill are to apply from 1 January this year. The Attorney General's office has recommended, having regard to the risk of challenge to the provisions, that early enactment is advisable. Some of the insurers have indicated they could be pursuing all avenues open to them to prevent the measures from coming into effect.
Priority is required also in the context of moves to support inter-generational solidarity in the market and to limit perverse incentives to engage in what is known as product segmentation, which would be contrary to the common good objectives. In addition to the financial measures, the Bill contains a number of provisions that strengthen the regulatory framework, so that it supports community rating and inter-generational solidarity, with which I should have thought the majority of Deputies in the House would agree.
There has been significant ongoing political, industry and consumer demand for the early introduction of a scheme as a necessary part of the arrangements to support community rated private health insurance.
The contents of the Bill are not in question, but rather——
Let the Taoiseach finish.
Regarding the Bill, I understand——
What about the European Commission and its court case?
We are not arguing about the contents of the Bill, but about the fact that the Government is denying the House the right to debate it. That is the issue, not the contents of the Bill.
The Deputy must let the Taoiseach finish, without interruption.
If I may——
We are not supposed to discuss the contents of the Bill on the Order of Business.
I do not know whether the Taoiseach agrees, but what he is doing is useless.
I should never refer to a contribution from the Deputy as being "useless", perhaps I should say not useful.
Deputy Stagg must address his comments through the Chair, and in any event he is not in order. An Taoiseach, without interruption.
Another point as regards procedures for the enactment of the Bill is that I understand Committee Stage took an hour and we have Report Stage until 5 p.m. this evening.
There are 84 amendments on Report Stage——
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.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- 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’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.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Martin.
- 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.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- 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.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 25 agreed to?
This is the same principle. There is no reason this has to be rushed through today. I have already said we are opposed to the principle of guillotines here and I oppose the proposal for dealing with No. 25 on that basis.
I withdraw any inference I made previously that the Taoiseach was speaking nonsense. I regret that statement and withdraw it. I did not agree with him, but it was not nonsense. It is a level of mutual respect.
The argument on this is the same as the previous argument. There is no need for a guillotine on this Bill. There is no urgency on it. It could have been done months ago or can be done months in the future. There is no urgency on it and we oppose the guillotine.
As has already been stated, the guillotine is unnecessary and should not apply in this case and we oppose it.
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.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- 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’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.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Martin.
- 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.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- 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.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business agreed to? Agreed.
There is a crisis in the pre-NAMA period. There is serious concern among a range of enterprises over banks declining to give any credit or overdraft facilities because they assume that particular developers and so on will be taken over by the NAMA regime. This is a crisis in the intervening period. In the light of the Taoiseach's comments this morning, let us have a debate about the different proposals to sort out our fiscal and banking difficulties. When can we expect the NAMA legislation to be introduced? Will it happen in September? Has the Government any fixed date as to when the legislation will be prepared?
Fianna Fáil and the Green Party are to carry out a review of the programme for Government. The Minister, Deputy John Gormley, the leader of the Green Party, has said on a number of occasions that he would support holding a referendum on children's rights. Is that part of the Taoiseach's thinking given its importance?
We were given indications some time ago that we would get the heads of the NAMA legislation before the Dáil rose, including the all-important head dealing with the issue of the valuation of the impaired loans and the price the State would pay to bail out the banks and take over the impaired loans. Is it likely that the NAMA legislation will be ready before the middle of the autumn? I understand there are serious difficulties with arriving at a reasonable basis of valuation that does not imply enormous extra costs over and beyond what we have been already told about.
I call the Taoiseach on the NAMA legislation and children's rights referendum.
On the NAMA legislation, Deputies will be aware we are working to a schedule in respect of this urgent legislation, which is complex. We hope to bring it forward for publication in July. That is the target set by the Minister for Finance. If necessary we will arrange for its enactment by a recall of the Dáil in, perhaps, September. The Minister is working hard on the matter as is the Attorney General who plays a key role in drafting the legislation and ensuring the legislative model of NAMA is robust and will withstand all legal and constitutional scrutiny.
On the issue raised by Deputy Burton, we are taking advice on the matter. Also, the legislation will require EU Commission approval in terms of arrangements that will be set up in regard to valuation methods and so on. The whole purpose of this is to reduce exposure for the taxpayer than would otherwise be the case.
I call Deputy Gilmore.
On that issue, is it proposed to take all Stages of the Bill in September? What is the purpose of publishing the legislation in July if it is not going to be dealt with until September?
The purpose of publishing legislation at any time is to allow adequate time for people to assimilate, examine it and to prepare for debate of the important issues set out in the legislation.
The suggestion was made that the heads of the Bill would be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service to allow outside opinions to be obtained by the committee which would then prepare a report on the Bill prior to its being debated in the House.
That is a matter for another day. I call Deputy Gilmore.
I am only restating what was suggested to the relevant Minister.
The Taoiseach's reply to Deputies Kenny and Burton is unsatisfactory. It is now three months since the Government announced its intention to establish NAMA. We were informed through the Budget Statement at the time that legislation would be introduced as a matter of urgency. We are still no clearer in regard to when this legislation will appear. The Taoiseach's answer today is vague in terms of its stage of preparation. I am surprised to hear at this late stage, three months after the announcement of the initiative, of outstanding issues in regard to its constitutionality and EU approval. I would have expected those issues to have been clarified at this stage.
The Taoiseach has already told the House the Dáil will go into recess on 10 July 2009. When is it intended to reconvene the Dáil and will the NAMA legislation be before the House in the first week of its being reconvened?
As I said, the drafting of this legislation is proceeding as a matter of urgency and priority. It is important legislation. I was making the point that the Attorney General is ensuring that the legislation being brought forward is robust and will withstand scrutiny. That is normal criteria in respect of the preparation of any legislation and is an important consideration in this case also. As I mentioned to the House already, the Minister for Finance intends to have this legislation brought to Government, approved and published during the course of this month. That is the target he has set himself and those working on this issue and he is hopeful he can meet that target. However, he has also indicated that he is prepared, given the urgency of the legislation and the priority being afforded to it by Government as part of its effort to get credit flowing back into the real economy as quickly as possible, to bring forward this legislation by way of an early return of the Dáil. No decision in that regard will be made until such time as the legislation has been prepared and approved by Government.
Last week, I asked the Taoiseach about promised legislation from the Minister for Education and Science from whom I received a note in respect of one of the issues raised, namely, the student support Bill. Another piece of legislation has been outstanding for more than a year. There are two primary schools acting without any legal basis, both of which have just completed their first year. When will the VEC patronage legislation be drafted and moved in this House?
The heads of the Bill were cleared by Government at its meeting on 23 June. Detailed preparation on the legislation will commence later this year.
I call Deputy Reilly on the same issue.
Has provision been made in that Bill for Educate Together to become patrons of schools?
We cannot deal now with the content of legislation. The Deputy should raise that matter with the line Minister at the appropriate time.
I wish to inquire again of the Taoiseach if work has progressed on preparation of the financial services regulation Bill. Has final drafting of that legislation been completed and when is it proposed to introduce it to the House?
Another Bill on which I would like clarification is the criminal justice (cybercrime and attacks against information systems) Bill, which is listed No. 76 in section C of the legislative programme. A number of parents have in recent times expressed concern in regard to the use of the Internet by sexual predators and those intent on bullying in terms of young people and children. Does the Government intend to broaden the scope of that Bill or will it be brought before the House with a view to addressing the issues and concern of parents?
We cannot deal now with the content of legislation.
Following the Taoiseach's reply, I have one other question in regard to promised legislation.
The financial services regulation Bill is a consolidation Bill. No date has yet been fixed for its publication. The relevant Department is currently dealing with other legislative priorities, including that which we have just discussed.
On the second issue, no date has been set for publication of that legislation either.
I would like to raise another issue on which the Ceann Comhairle may be able to assist me. One of the pillars of democracy is the ability to obtain replies in the House to parliamentary questions. I am concerned about a reply I received from a Minister, whom I will not name at the moment.
Deputy Durkan cannot raise such matters on the Order of Business.
This matter relates to the Order of Business and the manner in which the House conducts its business.
It does not.
The reply states, "You will be aware that information in relation to any applicant other than to a duly authorised legal representative can only be issued by the Refugee Tribunal with the written approval of the applicant". Since when did Members elected to the House of Parliament require the approval of anybody——
The Deputy will have to find another way of raising the matter.
——to get a reply to a question.
We cannot deal with the matter now.
I accept that the Ceann Comhairle cannot deal with it but I can.
Nobody else can either.
I can. Any attempt by any Minister to go down that road——
I suggest the Deputy has the matter raised at the Committee on Procedures and Privileges. I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
I will not have to do so. I know the Ceann Comhairle will do it for me.
The Deputy could also raise the matter on the Adjournment.
Sinn Féin Members have tabled a motion today to have the writ for the Donegal South-West by-election moved. Will the Government support that motion and allow the by-election be held at the earliest opportunity so that the people of Donegal South-West can have full representation in the Dáil?
Will the Taoiseach accept that it is sensible, from a cost and convenience point of view, to have the by-election held on the same day as the Lisbon treaty referendum which he has signalled for early October? If he is open to giving due consideration to the holding of both on the same day, it will be necessary to move the writ at the conclusion of next week's business to allow that to happen. Will the Taoiseach accept the motion and thus allow the people of the Donegal South-West constituency the opportunity to pass judgment——
The Deputy has made his point.
——on his Government's stewardship and policies?
I call the Taoiseach on the writ in relation to the by-election in Donegal.
Will the Taoiseach move the writ before the summer recess?
The Deputy is being a little repetitious.
On promised legislation, yesterday the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the children's ombudsman addressed the Joint Committee on Health and Children in regard to the urgent need for Government action to protect vulnerable children. The Ombudsman for Children called for a child death review mechanism and for independent inspection of residential centres and hostels for young people and the ISPCC called for a 24 hour social work service, as recommended by the Monageer report.
The Deputy should name the legislation to which he is referring.
Will the Government bring forward the childcare collection and exchange of information Bill to allow the Dáil the opportunity to address all of these essential measures?
The Deputy has made his point. I call the Taoiseach.
On the legislative issue, it is being worked on by the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews. It is complex legislation and the office for children and youth affairs is working on it.
It is not our intention to move the writ for the by-election before the summer recess.
Will it be held in tandem with the Lisbon referendum in October?
I would not think so.
Why not?
The Deputy asked for my opinion and I gave it.
What is the Taoiseach afraid of?
Nothing, certainly not the Deputy.
Then I challenge the Taoiseach to hold both together and to face the electorate in Donegal South-West.
Deputy Ó Caoláin must resume his seat. This is very interesting and all that but we must move on.
I have nothing to fear from the Deputy since they decommissioned.
We will see then what the decision of the people will be.
I am sure the Tánaiste is buying a new pair of shoes in preparation for it.
Six months ago, there were media reports regarding an Indian woman of 70 who gave birth to her first child through IVF and there is currently a case before the Supreme Court related to the ownership of an embryo. When will we see the human tissue Bill before the House and when will we regulate IVF treatment? We are one of the few countries that has no regulation in this area.
The European Commission will publish new guidelines on rights of movement within the EU for non-EU partners of European citizens in durable relationships, creating a chasm in terms of the rights of non-EU partners of Irish citizens and of EU citizens. A change will be necessary to the European Community free movement of persons regulations. Will legislation to address that be brought before the House before the recess?
There is no date for the first Bill, discussions are ongoing at committee level — it is a difficult issue. I will revert to the Deputy on the second matter.
In light of the debate last night on Dr. Michael Shine, and the fact that the Minister for Health and Children mentioned the cost of inquiries, with even small inquiries costing a great deal, will the Taoiseach tell us when the long-promised legal costs Bill will be brought in? We were promised by the then Minister, Michael McDowell, that there would be a curtailment of legal costs some years back. In spite of that the legal structure remains, impeding justice for many people.
There is no date for that legislation at the moment.
Thanks to the Ceann Comhairle's good offices, I was chosen last night for the Adjournment debate. The answer to that debate, however, did not refer at all to the subject matter. I know the Ceann Comhairle cannot do anything about that.
We cannot discuss it now either.
The issue raised related to the changing criteria for home tuition for children with a disability.
Deputy, it is the morning after the night before and we are not going to go into it.
The Ceann Comhairle is a gentleman. When will we see the removal of the suspension of the Education for People with Special Educational Needs Act under which all of this is being done? The Minister for Education and Science can come in and pretend he has no responsibility for it.
There is no date for that.