Vol. 701 No. 1
It is proposed to take No. 27, Arbitration Bill 2008 — Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; No. 28, Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009[Seanad] — Second Stage (resumed); and No. 4, Employment Agency Regulation Bill 2009 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage.
Private Members' business shall be No. 82, motion re gangland crime (resumed), to conclude at 8.30 p.m. if not previously concluded.
There are no proposals to be put to the House. I call Deputy Enda Kenny.
Does the Taoiseach share the view of the ESRI in its judgment that there is no underlying rationale for the policy of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on waste? A spokesman for the Minister was derogatory of the findings of the State body, the ESRI, and made the comment that it erred in fact. This is an important matter and the Taoiseach should make his views clear on it.
I am concerned by an emerging trend, where companies are proceeding to the commercial High Court looking for examinerships. The Government appointed public interest watchdogs to the boards of the banks. As the Taoiseach is aware, if an examinership is granted creditors may get five cents in the euro. This is a gamble with jobs. The problem with the trend is that small companies are being brought before the commercial High Court but trailing elements of much larger companies are coming in behind them. In many cases receiverships are being appointed to what are solvent entities, within those companies, that could trade their way out of difficulty in time. This appears to be an exercise to get examinerships appointed where jobs will be lost, creditors will not be paid and where holding companies will benefit. I do not know if the Taoiseach is aware of this or has a view on it. From an examination of a list of companies with liabilities well over €200 million, some entities can trade out of this, but if the whole lot goes into examinership, jobs could be lost. It is the right of a petitioner to take a case before the commercial High Court——
Deputy Kenny——
I am raising this in the context of NAMA legislation. Public interest watchdogs have been appointed to the boards of banks. I raise this matter as a point of concern. The Taoiseach's people can examine this.
I heard the taxi drivers in Dublin complaining about the new 30 km/h speed limit in Dublin city. Are State cars subject to the speed limit?
Does the Government move as fast?
Regarding the question on the ESRI report, the first part of the report constitutes a response to the environmental report on the strategic environmentalist process in respect of the proposed section 60 policy direction on the incineration cap and ancillary matters. The second part constitutes a response to the international review of waste management policy undertaken by Eunomia consortium. The SEA is part of a consultative process with inputs from various stakeholders and people with a view on these matters. They have an input on debates on waste and represent different and often partisan point of view that may be contradictory. The Minister and the Government will give consideration to them and must ultimately determine public policy having regard to overarching national and EU objectives and considerations. This is a consultative process where the Minister must consider these issues and inputs before a final decision is taken.
I am not aware of the situation to which Deputy Kenny refers in the commercial court. I will have it checked.
Regarding the third question, Garda cars have the usual requirements under the road traffic Acts.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach about two matters. First, I thank the Taoiseach for writing to me arising from a question I asked him on 20 January 2010, regarding the application of the pay cuts. The Ceann Comhairle will recall I asked the Taoiseach about a circular which was issued by the HSE to the various agencies under its remit and in which the HSE was effectively directing the various agencies to cut the pay of the staff of those agencies. The Taoiseach has replied saying that the circular was issued incorrectly and I accept this. However, he goes on to make it clear that although the circular was issued incorrectly, in effect, the HSE expects these agencies to cut the pay. This is what the reply translates as, even though it is expressed in roundabout language in which he states that providers take appropriate measures to ensure they continue to provide the same level of service in 2010 as previously, notwithstanding the reductions in their funding and that it is the responsibility of each individual employer to decide exactly what mix of actions should be taken, to inform its employees and trade unions as necessary and to manage the human resources and industrial relations implications of its decisions.
All this comes down to, as I understand it, is that while there is no circular, the staff pay of the various agencies will still need to be cut. Is this the Government policy because my point at the time was that the cut in pay in the public sector was now being used by Government to drive down pay in the voluntary sector?
A question on promised legislation.
It is a promise of a different kind for the unfortunate staff of all these agencies; it is a promise from the Government that their pay will be cut. I want the Taoiseach to admit this is what it amounts to.
On my second question, yesterday, I asked the Taoiseach and he finally admitted that the number of senior public servants who were being treated more favourably than every other public servant with regard to pay cuts, was closer to 600 than it was to 160. I also asked the Taoiseach about the cost of that decision. He said he would get back to me. I ask him if he has that information today.
No, I do not have that information as yet. I am seeking it for the Deputy but I did not have an opportunity yesterday from the time I was in the House and attending parliamentary party and other meetings. I am having the matter investigated and I will obtain the information for the Deputy as speedily as possible. From memory the numbers are in the order of 655.
It keeps going up.
It is going up every day.
I am getting the exact figures for the Deputy.
Does the Taoiseach get a bonus for writing that letter?
No. What is involved is that the allocations are being given to the funded bodies and it is a matter for the funded bodies to decide how they will maintain a service with the reduced allocations they are receiving because of the economic and financial realities we have to contend with, no matter what Government is in power. In each case they must decide how best they will deploy those resources. If it involves taking actions that require a change to existing arrangements, then they should, as has been said here, consult with and inform their employees or trade unions as necessary and, as managers of those institutions, manage those implications.
I appreciate the Taoiseach was busy with the parliamentary party meeting yesterday——
We are on the Order of Business now, Deputy.
I am puzzled about this issue of the costs——
It is €21.5 million.
When I asked this question before, the Taoiseach told the House that the Minister for Finance had drawn his attention to this. I cannot understand why the Taoiseach would not have asked the Minister for Finance what this decision was going to cost. Second, it would appear now from his answer that none of the reluctant seconders to the motion asked about the cost of it at yesterday's parliamentary party meeting.
I understand the figure is less than €5 million but I will obtain that information for the Deputy. It is a total spend of——
That would replace all the special needs classes——
——€20 billion.
I refer to the fact there is no inspection of services for people with intellectual disability and that a HSE report is expected to reveal that some 4,200 people with intellectual disability are currently housed within long-outdated, inappropriate conditions——
Are we talking about promised business?
Yes, it is leading exactly to that. There are still some 300 people with intellectual disability inappropriately placed in psychiatric facilities across this State. What action is the Taoiseach considering against all of these very serious matters? Will he expedite the taking of the licensing of health facilities Bill, which is promised to address the issue of a mandatory system of licensing for all public and private health facilities? Against the information that I have again reflected here this morning and shared with the House, will the Taoiseach take the necessary steps to intervene with the Department of Health and Children, to address this outrageous neglect and expedite the legislation I have called for?
I have every confidence in the commitment and competence of my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy John Moloney, who has responsibility in this area. He has displayed a very clear commitment and has engaged very intensively with all stakeholders in the area of mental health. I support him and have been supporting him in every way I can to deal with the question of the historical problem of inappropriate placement. A number of initiatives have taken place which have resulted in modern facilities being provided to assist those who have been inappropriately placed historically and this should continue. The Minister of State has obtained the agreement of the Minister for Finance and the Government in the Estimates rounds for a capital programme that will enable this to happen, by way of the selling-off of existing assets in the health service area. He is very committed in this area and I have every confidence in him to deal with these matters.
When will the Taoiseach being forward the licensing of health facilities Bill?
Regarding that matter, the Minister of State has indicated that the HSE and HIQA have agreed that progressive non-statutory implementation of the HIQA standards will now commence and will become the benchmark against which the HSE assess both its own directly operated facilities and other facilities funded by the HSE. Challenges exist to moving immediately to full statutory implementation of these standards, including the availability of resources and including regulation and inspection. We will continue to work progressively to bring these standards into play on a non-statutory basis.
Yesterday, the Minister for Finance issued a press release indicating that he intended to delegate functions to the NTMA which have a very intimate bearing on banking policy for the State. The NTMA is not subject to freedom of information requests and it does not have the same Dáil scrutiny so taxpayers do not have the opportunity to oversee its activities. These included the conduct of discussions with the banks on their capital needs, on the restructuring of the banking sector and on the guarantee. These are at the core of central policy issues as to how we are going to deal with the banks who have brought this country to its knees.
I am very concerned about this proposed delegation of functions. I can see that the NTMA can offer a role but delegating the responsibility to it is something that is a bridge too far. I ask the Taoiseach if this delegation of functions will be brought before the House so it can be properly debated before we sign off on these powers and see them disappear into an area where, at best, we will see only darkly what is happening?
On the same issue, we were given a very innocuous one-page press release last night from the Department of Finance and the Minister on this subject. I do not know but it seems to me as though the ducks are being put in a row to provide for the full or almost full nationalisation of the banks by this structure. It is being done with almost no discussion provided for in this House. Everybody in the House knows that not only have we the debts of the banks in terms of toxic loans but we have four or five other sorts of areas where the banks are taking heavy losses. If fact, it would seem that the holes in the banks' balance sheets are so large — when mortgage debt, credit card debt, car finance debt and the rising failures of ordinary companies in what people often describe as the real economy and not in the construction and finance area — are included.
We are being told in this notice that responsibility for this——
The Deputy is turning the Order of Business into Question Time.
——is being passed to the National Treasury Management Agency. According to the press release, a "draft delegation order is currently being discussed with the Attorney General's office". Under law — as the Taoiseach well knows, because it was his predecessor, Charlie McCreevy, who set it up — the NTMA is at quite a distance from this House and is largely exempt from freedom of information provisions. It does not respond directly to the House, meeting only occasionally with the Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public Service. Effectively, the Minister for Finance is delegating——
We are drifting away from the original issue.
This is one of the most important financial decisions that will come before the House this year. The Minister for Finance is delegating substantial responsibility for banking to the NTMA. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether the Government will provide for a full debate in the House on the implications of this statement, or are we now sidestepping the Department of Finance and the Minister for Finance and handing the key responsibility——
This is not Question Time. The Deputy's queries are more appropriate for the Minister for Finance.
This country would not be bankrupt and ruined if a debate had taken place in this House on how these guys were handling our banks.
I am not arguing about the merits of points being made. The Deputy must respect that this is the Order of Business.
With due respect to the Chair's great office, I am perfectly in order.
Deputy Burton is entirely in order.
Several Members are waiting to contribute and I have allowed the Deputy great latitude.
I am told there is a daft delegation order with the Attorney General. I am asking the Taoiseach — who holds that office for the time being — whether this issue, which is central to all our economic futures, is coming, as it should, before the House for a full debate. There are businesses, families and individuals ruined and unemployed because of the Taoiseach's actions as leader of Fianna Fáil.
There is no need for the Deputy to embellish the point.
Now the Department of Finance, which the Taoiseach ran in his previous Ministry, is to delegate the functions of looking after the banking system to the NTMA, which is not responsible to this House. I am in order in asking the Taoiseach to be accountable for this.
A draft delegation order is being prepared. Questions are to the Minister for Finance this afternoon which will allow Members to ask detailed questions on this issue. We are designating the NTMA to deal with the banks in regard to areas which are currently a matter for either the Central Bank, the regulator, the Department of Finance or the NTMA. Our objective is to have the story told in one place and to ensure that there is proper liaison with the banks in respect of these matters. There will be a continuing role for the Central Bank and the Minister for Finance which will be in no way different in terms of their responsibilities, and the Government will continue to make decisions in this area. We are talking about an operational matter that will enable one institution to deal with the banks in respect of many of these matters which can then be referred back to the Minister and the Government in due course.
There is no accountability to the House.
Is the order coming before the House?
That is the question I asked.
Deputies must respect the Order of Business.
I asked the Taoiseach whether the order is coming before the House.
It is relevant to the Order of Business to ask whether this order will be presented to the House for debate. The Taoiseach should either respond now or provide Deputies with a response so that we can continue to discuss this issue tomorrow.
The Taoiseach is the Head of Government. In answering questions later today, the Minister is only the Minister for Finance. Will the Taoiseach, as leader of the Government, say whether this order will come before the House for debate?
If it is a requirement for it to do so, that will happen. The Minister for Finance will provide the details this afternoon.
In regard to the health information Bill, when will the Minister for Health and Children publish the non-statutory report into the death of Mr. Peter McKenna in Leas Cross nursing home, which was received by the Department last October but remains unpublished. The lessons we must learn from the Leas Cross case——
Does the Deputy's question relate to legislation?
Yes, it relates to the health information Bill. When will this report be laid before the House so that its lessons can be taken on board? This is particularly important in view of another report referred to in The Irish Times today indicating unacceptably low standards at the TLC nursing home in Maynooth whose chief executive officer is a highly placed officer in a medical organisation. It is unacceptable in this day and age that nursing homes continue to be run in this manner. When will that report be published?
Second, in regard to the local government services Bill, the Taoiseach referred earlier to the large amounts of money being invested in roads. Is it not the case that since December 2008, the Government spent almost €500 million less on national, regional and local roads than previously? The message the proud Minister for Transport is putting out is an absolute con given that more than €1 billion is needed to put our roads into proper repair.
I do not know where the Deputy got that figure. It is a gross exaggeration.
It is not. It adds up, €325 million plus €169 million, which are the figures provided by the consultant, Mr. Power.
It is a gross exaggeration.
The report of the inspection of the private TLC care centre in Maynooth was published by the Health Information and Quality Authority and identifies a litany of problems with the facility. HIQA carried out a follow-up inspection in the last week of January which showed an improvement in the level of care provided and identified some issues which are being addressed on an ongoing basis. The report is being compiled and will be published when completed. TLC Maynooth is being re-registered by HIQA and that process includes a full inspection of the centre. The Deputy should put down a question to the Minister for Health and Children regarding the report to which he referred.
We expect the health information Bill to be published in the course of this year.
Will the report I referred to be published shortly? It has been with the Department of Health and Children since October. I have spoken to the Minister for Health and Children twice but nothing has happened.
I have no information on that report. The Deputy will have to put down a question to the Minister.
I have spoken to her twice and nothing has happened.
In regard to the Bill to which the Deputy referred, for which I am responsible to the House, it will be published during the course of the year. I am not here to answer specific questions on health.
The Deputy must table a question to the appropriate Minister.
This is not a matter solely for the Department of Health and Children. It is a public health issue. The self-serving response in the case of the institution in question, with serious staff deficits and a serious lack of care in a nursing home run by a medical doctor——
The Deputy must pursue this matter with the line Minister.
——who occupies one of the highest offices in this land, is entirely unacceptable.
That is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
On the same matter——
Is the Deputy's question relevant to the Order of Business?
Yes. We currently have a situation, as reported in The Irish Times yesterday, where there is no inspection regime for facilities caring for children and adults with disabilities. Under the health information Bill, will the Taoiseach afford us the opportunity to put that in place before the end of the year in order to show that we look after the truly vulnerable?
Second, I note the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in the House. The board of Teagasc is meeting today.
Does the Deputy have a question on promised legislation?
Yes, it relates to the forestry Bill. Teagasc's proposal to close down Kinsealy will have damaging consequences for horticulture in the State. That is a national issue.
There is no legislation promised on that matter.
There is scope under the forestry Bill.
The Deputy should put down a parliamentary question.
Third, has the Government any plans to introduce legislation to control the blight of head shops whose numbers are growing throughout the State?
That is not relevant to the Order of Business.
It is a very serious matter. Will legislation be introduced in this regard?
The Deputy is turning the Order of Business into Question Time. If I allow that, we will be on the Order of Business all day.
I hate to correct the Ceann Comhairle but he is wrong. I am asking a legitimate question. Is there planned legislation in regard to the control of head shops?
It is not appropriate to ask questions like that on the Order of Business.
It is a legitimate question. Is legislation being put in place to protect children from the harm being done by these outlets?
When this issue was raised yesterday by Deputy Naughten, I indicated that the Department of Health and Children is preparing regulations to introduce controls relating to a range of substances on sale in head shops. These regulations are similar to those recently introduced in the United Kingdom, although I understand the latter have run into some legal trouble.
Would the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food like to tell us whether he has instructed the board of Teagasc in any way in regard to the closure of Kinsealy?
That is an operational matter for Teagasc and the latter has nothing to do with forestry.
Kinsealy is under the control of Teagasc.
I thought Deputy Reilly's party was anxious to get rid of quangos.
In view of the obvious and clear evidence to the effect that a considerable amount of reckless lending took place throughout the banking——
Are we on Question Time or on promised business?
We are on promised legislation. If the Ceann Comhairle lets me finish, my question will emerge.
We were working with him, a Cheann Comhairle.
In view of the obvious, clear and emerging evidence to the effect——
It is too late.
——that a considerable amount of irresponsible lending took place in the banking system, can I ask——
Is the Deputy asking about promised business in this area? Would it be more appropriate for the Deputy to ask the Minister for Finance about the matter during this afternoon's Question Time?
With all due respect, a Cheann Comhairle, I am entitled to ask a question on promised legislation, but you keep interrupting.
He is a big boy.
I am trying to keep some order on the Order of Business.
You are interfering with the right of a Member of the House to ask about promised legislation. Can I attempt to ask my question again, this time without interruption?
The Deputy can ask a brief question that is appropriate to the Order of Business.
In view of the clear evidence that irresponsible lending has taken place in this country's banking system over the past five or seven years, is it intended to approve the heads of the Bills that will deal with that issue? I refer to the Central Bank (consolidation) Bill, publication of which is expected; the Central Bank (No. 2) Bill, publication of which is expected; the financial services (miscellaneous provisions) Bill, publication of which is expected; and the financial services (regulation) Bill, publication of which is expected although it is not possible to indicate at this stage when that will happen. Has the Government done anything to approve the heads of those crucial Bills, having regard to the important issues with which they will deal?
A two-Bill approach is being proposed to make legislative progress in this area during 2010. The first Bill will be relatively short and will concentrate on the reform of the regulatory structures in the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland. The second Bill will facilitate the other legislative changes that are needed to reform and enhance the functions and powers of the restructured banks. Some important regulatory-enhancing elements may be included in the first Bill, as long as they do not lead to a delay in completing that legislation. The Minister for Finance will shortly seek Government approval for the heads of the first Bill and for his officials to proceed with drafting. It is intended to have that Bill enacted by Easter, or shortly thereafter. It is hoped to have the second Bill enacted in the current year and, if possible, to consolidate all the Central Bank legislation into a single statute in 2010. Work on this project will proceed, as far as possible, simultaneously with work on the other two Bills.
I thank the Taoiseach.
Can I ask the Taoiseach about promised legislation? For more than three years, Deputies on these benches have been hammering away at the need for legislation governing the operation of management companies. We cannot get answers to our questions about when the legislation will come into the House. What do I need to do to get that information? Do I have to contact Deputy Mattie McGrath to find out when the Bill will be introduced in the House? The Taoiseach has previously told the House that the Bill got lost in the Seanad and is being considered, etc. When will the Bill come into the House? Developers are going bust and management companies are disappearing at a time when people are suffering from flooding. Nobody can find anyone on the telephone who is responsible.
This Bill is in the Seanad.
All right. I will not——
I thought they had no business to do, even though they are sitting on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
The Minister has withdrawn this Bill from the Seanad, in effect, even though it was agreed by the Government on Second Stage.
Why do we not get rid of them?
When a group of builders approached the Minister to say the legislation did not suit them, he withdrew it from the Seanad, in effect.
I did not.
In such circumstances, is there any way for us to raise the matter in this House? It is not really before the Seanad at all at this stage.
The Seanad is a separate House.
It is not good enough.
It is not in the Seanad.
They are sitting up there having statements three days a week. Why are they not passing legislation?
Is there any means by which we can legitimately raise the matter?
I call the Taoiseach.
No, I am asking you this question, a Cheann Comhairle. It is a question of the manner in which we can highlight the ordering of the business of the House.
The Government should get Senator Donie Cassidy to sit on Fridays, or perhaps get rid of the other House altogether.
Is there any method we can use to legitimately raise the long delay in this regard? It took the Government eight years to put a Bill together. It was agreed after long consultation with all bodies. It went to the Seanad and was passed on Second Stage, but it is now stuck because the Minister has withdrawn it, in effect.
The option of a Private Members' Bill might just provide a solution to the Deputy's query.
It would not be worth the paper it would be written on.
We introduced such a Bill, but it was voted down.
The people cannot wait for action to be taken in respect of this urgent issue, which I raised yesterday. The Bill has been abandoned.
Deputy Durkan should consider tabling a Private Members' Bill.
What are you talking about? It is the Government's job to legislate. The Government introduced this Bill, before withdrawing it again.
The Bill has got lost.
No motion has been tabled to withdraw the Bill. It has not been withdrawn. A great deal of work has been done. The stakeholders are being consulted on an ongoing basis.
Who are the stakeholders?
Let me just tell you that.
They are the developers.
Was that not done before the Bill was published?
The Government has had eight years to bring a Bill to the House.
Deputy Stagg would want to read his post.
There are stakeholders in every town.
It is a new name for developers.
The stakeholders include the apartment owners' network, the Law Society and others.
They are the landlords.
The apartment owners' network——
They are the builders, in effect, on the ground.
Deputy Stagg is right.
In fairness, "stakeholders" is a nice new name for developers. That is a good one.
They drove a stake into the heart of the Irish economy.
The Government has had eight years in which to put the Bill together.
Deputies, we are moving on.
The builders came back and said the Bill did not suit them.
A Cheann Comhairle, I apologise for the interruptions. Can we hear from the Taoiseach about the current status of the Bill?
The Deputy can blame the people behind him.
The Bill is in the Seanad.
The Bill is in the Seanad.
That is the position as it now stands.
The Bill has not been in the Seanad for a year and a half.
If I may——
That is not correct.
It should have been passed by now.
The builders blocked it.
Deputy Rabbitte's memory is letting him down again.
The Taoiseach, without interruption.
The Ceann Comhairle is getting agitated.
The Minister wrote to the Whips on 2 February.
Was that last year?
Have we another problem? It was this year.
Yesterday.
Yes.
That was a great deduction by Deputy Burton, given that today is 3 February.
What did he say when he wrote to the Whips yesterday?
I got no letter.
A Cheann Comhairle——
We have to move on.
Hold on.
This matter can be raised in many other ways.
Where is the letter?
I am not going to stand up here ten times and be interrupted ten times. What is the point? Do the Deputies think I am an eejit?
Where is the letter?
Perhaps Deputy Stagg will restrain himself. The Taoiseach is about to answer.
I call Deputy Terence Flanagan. I apologise for not seeing him earlier.
What did yesterday's letter say? Is the Government bringing the Bill into the House?
If I am allowed to say what I want to say without being interrupted, I will say it. If there are any more interruptions, we will forget about it. The Deputies can find out from the Minister what is in the letter, because there is no point in me talking about it.
Do not be like that.
What is the point?
The Taoiseach should not be petulant. It does not suit him.
The Deputies opposite might not have anything else to do for the rest of the day, but I have a few things to do.
Could we stop the interruptions, please?
Deputy Stagg does that deliberately to rile the Taoiseach.
He does not.
Ignore him.
Is the Deputy suggesting that he deliberately fails to read his post?
He is a terrible man.
His daughter in Clonygowan is a lovely person.
The Taoiseach needs to remember what happened with Deputy Gogarty — we do not want that to happen again.
The Deputy is the deputy leader of her party for the time being — that is all I will say.
Touché.
The Minister wrote to the Whips on 2 February last to explain the various issues that are being considered, including the scope of the Bill, the voting rights and the annual service charges. He gave the Whips that information because this issue has been arising regularly. He assured everyone that work on the development of the necessary amendments is proceeding with the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. We are anxious to bring this matter to finality as quickly as we can. There are complex issues involved. If it were a simple and easy matter, it would have been done by now. I acknowledge and accept that this matter has been ongoing for some time. We are trying to resolve the issues in a sensible way that will work for everybody and get the job done. The Minister wrote to the Whips yesterday to update them on the points I have made. The Whips have the detail of the letter.
Was the letter sent to the Dáil Whips or the Seanad Whips?
It was sent to the Dáil Whips, including Deputy Stagg, as they have been raising the matter regularly.
I thank the Taoiseach for that information. I understand he is meeting representatives of the Irish House Builders Association on the matter in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform today. Will a similar meeting be organised with representatives of tenants and owner occupiers who are in trouble?
Deputy, this is the Order of Business.
It is a reasonable question.
I call Deputy Terence Flanagan.
Does the Government have any plans to help the 6,500 householders who have mortgage arrears of more than a year?
The Deputy will have to submit a parliamentary question
They are facing the real threat of repossession of the family home as the moratorium comes to an end.
The Deputy can raise it on the Adjournment.
Has the Government put a plan in place to help these people?
It is a simple question.
The Green Party has announced that it is looking into the matter and intends to appoint a task force. Can we get a solution?
When I dealt with this matter yesterday, I made the point that the mortgage interest subsidy initiative is helping 14,000 families at the moment.
The initiative will not help the 6,500 families that have mortgage arrears.
I heard the Taoiseach's earlier response to Deputies Gilmore and Kenny regarding the horrendous unemployment figures. Is it intended that the Tánaiste should meet the chief executive of Kraft Foods, Irene Rosenfeld, regarding the current threat to almost 1,200 jobs?
Is this promised business?
Allow me to finish the question as the Taoiseach is listening. I refer to the threats to almost 1,200 jobs in Coolock and north Kerry.
The Deputy should consider other ways to raise this matter such as the Adjournment or a parliamentary question, rather than on the Order of Business. There are so many other ways. We are turning meetings with business interests——
The Taoiseach is aware that the Tánaiste has a track record of meeting companies after the jobs have been lost.
We are moving on. I call Deputy Stagg.
Perhaps this time she might do her job and meet them proactively or whatever must be done. I note that Lord Mandelson has met Ms Rosenfeld.
I call Deputy Stagg.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle but I already have dealt with the matter.
The Deputy must have read the letter.
On promised legislation, I wish to ask the Taoiseach a question regarding the road traffic Bill. Last weekend's newspaper reports included a story about a particular individual who has 400 convictions for burglary in the North of Ireland and who has set up a private car park management company down here. He has been highly controversial.
Deputy Lee——
This matter pertains to the road traffic Bill.
Hear, hear.
This individual's dealings with people have been highly controversial and the controversies that have been raised have been all over the national airwaves. This highlights the need for regulation of the area of private car park operations and clamping. In the United Kingdom, during last November's——
Is there promised business in this area Deputy?
——Queen's speech, it was announced that regulation would be introduced in respect of clamping operations there.
It would be more appropriate to raise this matter at Question Time to the appropriate line Minister.
In Scotland, it has been outlawed as extortion. Does the Taoiseach not agree that, as the road traffic Bill is on the legislative list, perhaps it is time to include therein some movement towards the regulation of private clamping operations? At present, such operators are charging 50% more to release the clamp than is the case on Merrion Square or St. Stephen's Green.
Is there promised business in this area?
They are highly aggressive in the manner in which they are dealing with it and the public in Ireland needs as much protection as in Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Is it not time to regulate for this matter and does this not constitute an opportunity to do it?
Hear, hear.
I understand the road traffic Bill awaits its Second Stage debate, which will give the Deputy and others an opportunity to raise such points with the Minister to ascertain whether this proposal could be accommodated.
It sounds like a highly desirable investment in this environment.
I refer to No. 67 on the list, namely, the mental health (amendment) Bill, the stated objective of which is to provide a number of amendments to the Mental Health Act 2001. Can the Taoiseach confirm whether this Bill intends to take on board the recommendations of Amnesty International? They include updating the Act in line with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to spread the responsibility to other Departments, other than the Department of Health and Children. Will the new legislation include the delivery of proper community-based services?
Deputy, we are into the detail of legislation. While the broader question——
In fairness, I do not make too many speeches in the House——
I know.
——and No. 67 is vague in respect of what it promises.
I am being tolerant with the Deputy.
This is the Cinderella area of health——
Yes, we know Deputy.
——and figures for the first quarter of 2009 show a 43% increase in suicides. This is the first time in years that an increase in suicides has been recorded.
The Deputy will be able to articulate these points when the legislation is introduced.
My question is whether the recommendations of Amnesty International will be incorporated into this Bill.
As the heads of that Bill are being prepared at present, there is scope.
Perhaps the Taoiseach will help it along in respect of what it should contain.
Certainly, and were the Deputy to write to the Minister directly, I am sure he would receive a direct response.
I wish to raise two issues with the Taoiseach. First, this morning he rejected accusations of complacency within the Government.
Deputy, does this pertain to promised business?
I refer to two parliamentary questions I had tabled and which were due for reply yesterday, namely, Nos. 470 and 526. Although they were only one-line questions, the response I received was: "In the time available it is not possible to provide the information requested." The Taoiseach should provide the reason for this. Is the Minister on a go-slow, is the Government on a go-slow or is it simply the public servants? Why were these questions not answered? They were simple one-line questions.
Deputy Healy Rae will get them.
Second, I refer to the issue of the regulation of debt management. The Taoiseach should inform the House which proposed finance-related Bill on the legislative list will deal with regulation of debt management. Will No. 57, No. 59 or No. 60 do so?
The Deputy should submit a parliamentary question to the Minister.
This pertains to promised legislation.
The Deputy is looking for specific information.
But I have asked questions and the Ministers have not had time to answer them.
This pertains to specific legislation.
This is promised legislation regarding the regulation of debt management. As this matter does not appear to be catered for in Nos. 57, 59 or 60, the Taoiseach should identify under which Bill the issue of debt management and the regulation thereof will be dealt with and when.
The Deputy seeks specific information that is more appropriate to the line Minister.
The Taoiseach is the man who knows and who has all the answers.
I call Deputy Deenihan.
Ask a decent one, Jimmy.
When I ask questions of Ministers, they do not have time to reply. What am I going to do?
The Government has been on a go-slow for two years.
The response referred to the time available. The Government is running out of time.
It must be the 30 km/h speed limit.
The Deputy is on a diet and is going through hell at present.
Deputy Mattie McGrath will have to be called on.
Deputy Deenihan, without interruption please.
Deputy Mattie McGrath has made so many false starts that were he a horse, he would have to be put down.
A Cheann Comhairle——
He said he was very disappointed and deflated.
Can we have some respect for the person in possession please?
Following the resignation of the chairman and chief executive of the Red Cross, as well as concerns being raised about various aspects of the operation of that organisation in Ireland, will the Minister——
Is there promised legislation or business?
Yes, that is what I am coming to. Will the Taoiseach give a commitment that, as promised by the Minister for Defence during a recent Question Time, legislation will be introduced regarding the governance and operation of the Red Cross in Ireland? Is legislation pending or is it being considered by the Government at present?
I am informed there is no legislation pending. If the Deputy has been speaking directly to the Minister for Defence on such matters, I am sure he is in a position to outline what is his position.
Have proposals come before the Government to establish a boundary commission for Limerick city?
Willie wants to spread his wings.
Members have been promised one. Even the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, agrees with the proposal.
Willie wants to spread his wings as he has run out of houses.
He signed a letter to that effect, as did all five Deputies for Limerick East. Consequently, the Taoiseach may be assured the Government will get full support in this regard.
What about prospective Deputies?
Deputy O'Sullivan should consider submitting a parliamentary question on the matter. A parliamentary question——
As I understand it, this is in legislation.
——certainly should provide the answer.
The Taoiseach would love to answer me.
The agreement of all five Deputies on a matter from Limerick East is a unique event that should be commemorated.
I seek the protection of the Chair as I did not hear the Taoiseach's reply to that question.
It is unique in Limerick politics for all five Deputies to agree on one thing.
It is.
It must be a good thing.
What I want is for the Taoiseach to agree to it.
Has there been agreement from would-be Deputies?
Could we have some order in the House?
No, all five sitting Deputies have signed it.
They are keeping it among themselves.
I ask the Taoiseach for his views in respect of the forthcoming finance Bill. It has been reported that the Minister for Finance appears to be getting ready for another attack upon rural Ireland through the removal of the tax exemptions for a site to be transferred from a parent to child in the finance Bill. The word has gone out from the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners.
Deputy, when Members get around to discussing the Bill, there will be an ideal opportunity to articulate these points.
I refer to the finance Bill and I am asking the Taoiseach's opinion prior to that debate. When it is done it is a fait accompli ——
We are into detail which is not appropriate for the Order of Business.
——and everyone will march up through the middle of the Chamber to pass the finance Bill.
It is not appropriate for the Order of Business.
The Taoiseach is from a rural constituency and I seek his view as to whether it is correct and appropriate to remove the tax relief in respect of the transfer of a site from a parent to a child.
I asked the Deputy to leave this matter until the finance Bill is published.
The Government intends to tax it.
I cannot comment on rumours. However, the Deputy will see on publication of the Bill that rural Ireland has been well protected.
