It is proposed to take No. 21, Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 [Seanad] — Second Stage (resumed); and No. 22, Road Traffic Bill 2009 — Second Stage (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Private Members’ business shall be No. 38, Civil Liability (Good Samaritans and Volunteers) Bill 2009 — Second Stage, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 3 March 2010.
Order of Business.
There is one proposal to put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business agreed? Agreed.
Does the Government propose to allocate time for a debate on the implications of Statutory Instrument No. 7 of 2010? Deputies McManus and Coveney have an interest in this matter. The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland has submitted a claim for an increased levy and this will have a devastating effect and impact on employment in local radio stations. There is no objection to such stations paying a levy. However, there is serious controversy regarding the extent of what is proposed, namely, an increase of approximately €7.6 million this year. It would be appropriate if the implications of this statutory instrument, which has been published, were discussed on Government time. I ask the Taoiseach and the Government Chief Whip to give consideration to this matter.
Is the Taoiseach concerned about the difficulties experienced by public representatives and members of the public as a result of the go-slow involving elements within the public service? I am not raising this matter in the context of the elected representatives in this House. Rather, I am concerned with regard to people who may, for example, want to report children who may be vulnerable or at risk but who cannot do so in certain circumstances because there is no response available from the HSE. Will the Taoiseach report to the House on the arrangements he is making or on the efforts that are being made to restore the public services which people have a right to demand and which they have come to expect?
I wish to refer to an issue that has been raised by Deputy Creed on a number of occasions. Statements were taken in the House on the lost at sea scheme. However, it is necessary to send this matter back to the relevant committee for further analysis. The Ombudsman has made the point that the Government weighed her report against the rights of Deputy Fahey. Obviously, the Government came out in the Deputy's favour. Will the Taoiseach instruct the Government Chief Whip to ensure that the relevant committee engages in a further analysis of the implications of the lost at sea scheme? It would be in everyone's interests, including those of Deputy Fahey, that those involved should be given the opportunity to pose questions and provide answers before the relevant committee. I ask that the Taoiseach make arrangements in that regard.
On the first issue to which Deputy Kenny referred, there is a motion in my name on the Order Paper which relates to secondary legislation. There is time for the secondary legislation — that is, the statutory instrument — to which Deputy Kenny referred to be annulled. The reason there has been such a significant increase in the budget of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland is as a result of Government policy, which ran contrary to the proposal contained in the bord snip nua report to the effect that there should be one regulator for the broadcasting and communications industries. However, the Government and, in particular, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, insisted on establishing a new quango, namely, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. The budget for that authority has now climbed to €7.6 million. I do not know whether the Taoiseach is aware of this, although I am sure, like every other representative in the House, he has a certain dependence on local radio to transmit his views and opinions. Local radio stations throughout the country are extremely concerned and angry at the fact that an undue burden is being levied on them. This will lead to job losses in an essential part of our broadcasting sector. I am sure the Minister received the same type of submissions as I did from every part of Ireland, including the south-east, Munster, Dublin, the midlands and Connaught-Ulster.
We are into Second Stage.
A tour of Ireland.
I cannot emphasise enough the concerns out there. There is still time if the Taoiseach is willing to do what the Minister, Deputy Ryan, has run away from, which is to make a decision to annul this order and have a fresh start. As Deputy Kenny stated, nobody objects to paying a levy but it must be fair and proportionate and it must safeguard jobs.
Based on previous budgets.
Business to be ordered for the future can be arranged by the Whips. Whether this is an issue that comes up for debate is a matter for the Whips to discuss.
With regard to the industrial relations issue, I stated to the House last week that there are well-established channels of communication with representatives of the trade unions in the public service that can be used to establish whether a basis for engagement can be identified. We have always stood ready and available to engage. There is a shared view on the changes throughout the public service that would produce greater efficiency, better services for the public and more satisfactory working conditions for public servants. It is through engagement on that agenda rather than industrial action that the issues of concern to public servants can be addressed. We have asked people to reflect on the extent to which conflict will get in the way of our shared ambitions for the public service and the well-being of individual public servants. We are available in that respect to do that.
The lost at sea scheme report was available in both Houses of the Oireachtas and has been dealt with.
There were only statements and no questions and answers.
Questions were answered here. The report speaks for itself.
Wrong.
I agree with Deputy Kenny on the handling of the lost at sea scheme report and the referral of the Ombudsman's report to the Oireachtas.
We have dealt with this. We had statements on it a few days ago.
I know we had statements on it but the reason Deputy Kenny raised it and I am raising it is that statements are not adequate. The Ombudsman in the exercise of her independent function has made a recommendation in this case and the Government has rejected that recommendation. What she does in those circumstances is to refer the issue to the Oireachtas, effectively for us to adjudicate on it. The House has not adjudicated on it; a set of statements were made. We need to bring it to a conclusion. The Labour Party has no wish to politicise or make partisan this issue but we have to be mindful of two things: respect for the Office of the Ombudsman by ensuring that when we receive a request from her that it is dealt with; and——
The select committee will have the power to decide whether it wants a hearing on the report. We have committees to consider these matters.
Yes, but we must refer issues to committees and that is the issue being raised. The Government should agree that this issue be referred to the appropriate committee. Is the Ceann Comhairle proposing that?
I understand committees are empowered to consider such matters themselves.
If it is to be considered by the committee I am happy with that. If the Taoiseach confirms that, it will be the end of the matter, as far as raising it on the Order of Business is concerned, until it comes back from committee. Will the Taoiseach confirm that it will be considered by the committee?
I do not speak for any committee.
The Taoiseach speaks for the Government.
We may as well go home then.
The problem is that it will only be considered by the committee if the Government members of the committee agree to have it considered by the committee. If that is agreed we have no problem. I agree with the Ceann Comhairle that the way to deal with the matter is through the committee. If the Taoiseach confirms that it will be dealt with by the committee we are happy.
I have no intention of engaging in the confusion. The matter has been dealt with by the Oireachtas in the Dáil and the Seanad. I do not comment on what committees do. It has been dealt with in both Houses.
Does the Government have any objection to it being dealt with there?
It has been dealt with. As regards this idea——
The easy way out.
No, it has not been dealt with.
——of not introducing partisanship, that is a good one.
It has not been dealt with and the Taoiseach is making it worse now.
Making it worse, are you joking me?
There are other options for this. Deputy Gilmore can submit a motion to have the matter considered in Private Members' time.
It is not appropriate for Private Members' time. We do not want to deal with it that way. I do not want to labour the point but it should be dealt with by the committee.
The committee is empowered to consider the matter if it so wishes.
When will the Taoiseach announce the Cabinet reshuffle to the House? Will he confirm that he has plans for a very wide-ranging redrawing and reconfiguration of Departments? It would be welcome as it an area in which we need to see something happening.
There is a very difficult industrial relations situation at Green Isle Foods in Naas. Tomorrow will be the 14th day of a hunger strike by one man, a second man is on his seventh day and a third man is about to join it. I know Members of the House have been making valiant efforts to try to resolve matters. There is the option of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment having this issue looked at under section 38 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. Will the Taoiseach request the Minister to use her powers under this section to have this very difficult situation looked at before it gets much worse.
The matter is being considered on the Adjournment tonight.
I understand mediation efforts are being made and I hope they can bring a successful conclusion to it.
As I stated earlier when the Deputy asked me to comment on the position of the Minister for Defence, I cannot join in speculation. I continue to hold that position and when there is a change I will bring forward a motion to the House.
Is it possible to have the Taoiseach's microphone turned up? Seriously, I cannot hear him and I know what he has to say is of value.
She has made certain to hear every word. She asks me what the Taoiseach has said and I have to tell her.
Has a date been set for the publication of the prescription charges Bill which the Minister for Health and Children states is to address the issue of the high cost of drugs? Will the Taoiseach explain why that Bill is scheduled for the current session and will have quite a serious impact on the least well-off in our society, those dependent on medical cards for access to prescriptions and yet another very important Bill——
Promised legislation.
——which will, or at least is signalled to, address the whole area of the cost of drugs, the reference pricing for drugs Bill, is not scheduled for the current session. There is no indication I can see that this Bill will be brought forward any time soon. There is a two-track approach here: one for medical card holders and a completely different one for the pharmaceutical companies and distributors of——
We really are into Second Stage contributions.
No, this is about a comparison of the Department's approach to two signalled Bills in the Government programme: one that affects very directly ordinary medical card holders and another that is intended to save money on drugs costs and for which there is no date for publication——
The Deputy should——
——and no intention yet to even fast-track or bring forward that. Will the Taoiseach indicate the position in regard to both the prescription charges——
Is legislation promised?
——Bill and the reference pricing for drugs Bill?
Do we have promised legislation in this area?
I understand the prescription charges Bill will be dealt with this session and the other Bill will probably be dealt with later in the year.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the whereabouts of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill. We spent 18 days on Committee Stage with it. If I understand it correctly from something that was said at a recent Whips meeting, which might be inaccurate, the Minister is contemplating some 700 amendments. I do not know if that is true, but if it is the case and it is contemplated that we would have 700 amendments on Report Stage then we would be better off having an immigration (No. 2) Bill. We have already spent 18 days in committee and that is not the way to go about things. I am willing to let the Minister brief the Taoiseach rather than to ask him more questions on it but that is hardly the way to enact legislation.
As Deputy Rabbitte indicated, this is a complex area. A significant number of amendments are envisaged on Report Stage. I presume they arise from the debate on Second Stage and Committee Stage in terms of ensuring the legislation is robust enough to achieve its objectives. I understand the preparation of those amendments is close to finality. I acknowledge there may well be a significant number of amendments involved but sometimes when a valid point is raised it can have the effect of requiring ten similar repeat-type amendments to a Bill. The amendments arise from the debate on the Bill. It is good to see that the Minister intends to respond in kind to the points that were raised.
I do know what the Taoiseach means but I wonder whether he has ever been involved with a Bill that had 700 amendments on Report Stage. It is not the way to make law.
The purpose of the amendments is to improve the Bill. I cannot give any more detail to the Deputy than that. The Bill needs to be enacted. Points were raised during the debate and it is right that they have to be responded to by ensuring that the legislative framework reflects the validity of the arguments raised by both sides.
A Cheann Comhairle, you might perhaps give me some guidance on the matter I wish to raise. The Irish Thalidomide Association has been in contact with the Minister for Health and Children and, through her, referral to the State Claims Agency for three years trying to get some redress similar to what has occurred in Northern Ireland, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and in the House of Commons at Westminster.
The Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady, came to the House on Thursday last — she might not necessarily have been aware of the background to this situation — and she read into the record of the House the following: "The State Claims Agency met with representatives of the association on 25 June last year and listened carefully to its position". That is simply not true. I seek your guidance, a Cheann Comhairle, and that of the Taoiseach, in terms of offering an opportunity for the record to be set straight. That has not been the experience of the association. It has been met with marked silence from various Government agencies in total contrast to what has happened across the water and in the North.
We are talking about 32 survivors, most of whom are now in their 50s and who have long since exceeded their original expected lifespan. Can the record of this House be corrected and can we avoid further shame on this Administration and on this Republic in terms of how we deal with those 32 citizens who have been ignored by the self-same State Claims Agency? Up to 12 e-mails have been sent to the chief executive of that body since 25 June and they have not been responded to. The only contact the association has received has been since this matter went public in other administrations. We are being shamed into living up to our responsibilities. I ask the Taoiseach to take this matter in hand, as his colleague, the Minister for Health and Children is incapable of dealing with it.
Hear, hear.
I do not accept that the Minister is incapable of dealing with the matter. I will take up the matter again. I am aware of the general issue and I will find out what is the current position.
Have the heads of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill been agreed by Cabinet and when is the Bill likely to be published?
No, they have not been agreed by Government.
Does the Taoiseach have an indication of when the Bill might be published?
I could not anticipate that until the Bill has been considered by Government.
The recently enacted Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 provided for a change to the upward-only rent reviews that were in place until that time. The Taoiseach is well aware that the legislation is not retrospective on the basis of legal advice which I believe came from the Attorney General. A letter in today's The Irish Times by Professor David Gwynn Morgan, who is one of two of the foremost constitutional lawyers in the country, questions that legal advice. He says it is not unconstitutional to retrospectively address the issue of upward-only rent reviews.
The Taoiseach will be aware that the Grafton Street Tenants' Association met yesterday morning and it is pleading with the Government to address this issue. The new legislation does nothing for people who find themselves in difficulty right now. It is essential if this Government is serious about facilitating——
Deputy Creighton is heavily into a Second Stage contribution.
This is very important.
I know.
It is not a Second Stage speech because there has been no opportunity to address this issue as it was left out of the recent legislation. This is a very important issue for traders who are struggling to stay in existence and to keep people in employment. I would like to see some action from the Government on the matter.
Is there promised legislation?
The question of rents and arbitration is being examined. The Government takes its advice on all matters from the Attorney General but I will consider the correspondence.