Vol. 707 No. 3
It is proposed to take No. 8, motion re ministerial rota for parliamentary questions; No. 20, Central Bank Reform Bill 2010 — Second Stage (resumed); and No. 21, Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010 [Seanad] — Second Stage (resumed).
It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 8 shall be decided without debate. Private Members' Business shall be No. 74, motion re strategic investment bank.
There is one proposal to put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 8 agreed to?
That creates a difficulty for Members who tabled related written questions for answer on the same day as oral questions. I understand that written questions will not be dealt with because of this late change. Since I have never known of a switch in this fashion, would it be possible to make some effort to reply to written questions on the same day to facilitate Members who utilise them to track the oral questions, which are more likely to be answered, particularly those selected as Priority Questions?
This matter is being looked into with a view to facilitating Deputies. Is the proposal agreed to? Agreed.
Has the Government considered the agreed wording of the all-party committee in respect of the proposal to hold a referendum on children's rights? Does the Government agree with that wording? Has it considered when it would be appropriate to hold the referendum? Will it be in October or November? Can the Taoiseach give an indication about when that decision will be made?
It is not possible to anticipate that at this stage. The Minister of State with responsibility for children is working with various Departments arising out of the report, the proposed wording that emanated from it and the good work done by all concerned. Considerable work and consideration must be given to that now to make sure issues are covered and handled properly and also dealt with by the Attorney General. The Government will have to await the outcome.
I accept that considerable work was done by the members of the committee. Has the agreed wording of the committee gone before the Government yet or is the Taoiseach waiting for work to be done on that by the Minister of State with responsibility for children? When does he expect the Government might be able to consider the date for a referendum on children's rights?
The Minister of State with responsibility for children has to do considerable work on this with other Departments in the first instance before the Government can consider it and he can come forward then.
The Central Bank and the Financial Regulator today published a consultation paper on corporate governance in which they propose a number of reforms in the ways in which companies are governed through boards of directors and chief executive officers, chairmen and so on. I recall that the Minister for Finance promised on St. Patrick's Day 2009 in an interview he gave to the Financial Times that he would introduce legislation to clean up what he called “crony capitalism” and in the course of the interview he indicated he would bring proposals to Government the following week in respect of such legislation. I have asked on a number of occasions about when we might see the legislation because, on the basis of what the Taoiseach said in the interview, it would appear that some of the areas that are the subject of the report by the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator will be covered by it.
Perhaps the Taoiseach might tell us where is the legislation. As the Government has not published it, will he agree to give Government time to take the Labour Party Bill on the Order Paper — the Corporate Governance (Codes of Practice) Bill — which we published a year ago and which covers most of the areas that were the subject of the report by the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator today? It would be a means by which we would get the important recommendations made by the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator in respect of corporate governance enacted.
The Minister for Finance has outlined on a number of occasions that a few Central Bank Bills will be brought forward this year. We are currently dealing with the first of them. The next Bill, the No. 2 Bill, relates to many of the matters being raised by the Deputy. The consultation paper drawn up by the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator will be an excellent input into that and further consultation and any comments people have will be taken into account as well. Work is ongoing on the second Bill the Minister has indicated will form part of his Central Bank reforms, the first of which we are dealing with at the moment. I have not studied the Bill to which the Deputy referred but the ongoing work in the Department of Finance will enable the Minister to come forward with a Government Bill in due course. He has indicated it will be some time during the year.
When does the Taoiseach anticipate the Central Bank (No. 2) Bill will be published?
I understand it will be in the autumn.
In light of the recent revelations that a FÁS-funded jobs centre in Limerick was advertising recruitment to the British army and given that the Defence Act 1954 makes it a criminal offence to recruit Irish citizens to a foreign army——
And an illegal army as well.
——is the Government considering strengthening the legislation in order to ensure that it is adhered to and is properly enforced? What steps will the Government now take to ensure that FÁS and any other agency will not act in contravention of the 1954 Act?
On a separate matter——
Is there promised legislation in this area?
That is what I am asking.
It would not have happened in Willie's time.
The legislation is in place but is it being enforced?
It should be.
Public money is being used.
Hear, hear.
It is a serious matter and not something to be dismissed lightly.
The Deputy should submit a parliamentary question to the Minister on the matter.
I expect the Taoiseach will answer appropriately.
I have a second matter to raise with him which is equally serious. The monuments Bill is No. 52 on the list of promised legislation. Is the Taoiseach aware that only the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, can save Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street and its streetscape and walkways from a decision of An Bord Pleanála to reject the appeal against the granting of permission to proceed with a major retail development that will irreparably damage this——
Deputy, this is the Order of Business.
Excuse me, a Cheann Comhairle, of course it is.
It is not about matters that should be raised directly with a Minister.
Of course it is. There is promised legislation, if the Ceann Comhairle would listen to the Deputy. I am speaking about the monuments Bill, No. 52. I would like to know what the Taoiseach proposes to do given the fact that Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street and its environs is a declared national monument that will be irreparably damaged by the decision to grant permission to proceed with the development as presented some time ago both to Dublin City Council and subsequently to An Bord Pleanála. It is critically important that it is not left only to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley——
The Deputy should speak on the Order of Business.
——and that the Government, the Taoiseach and the Fianna Fáil Party in Government should take a collective view and responsibility——
Deputy, please, this is a Second Stage speech that would be much more appropriate on another occasion not on the Order of Business.
——on the protection of this important national site.
Do we have promised legislation in this area?
No. There is a national monuments Bill, the heads of which were approved recently, but it requires a lot of work. It is a huge Bill and it will probably be next year before it is brought forward for enactment. I am aware of the issue that has been raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin and I will take it up with the Minister.
I was not aware of the import of the other matter raised by the Deputy but I will have it checked out.
Could the Taoiseach clarify the situation on the climate change Bill? When the Minister produced his framework document he indicated that he expected the Bill would be published by June. Environmental groups were given to understand that the heads of the Bill are coming towards completion but in the legislative programme it says that no date, nor even year, can be indicated as to its publication, which seems to be anomalous. What is the situation as regards the Bill?
There is not as yet a date for the Bill but work on it is ongoing. The Cabinet committee will deal with it in due course.
I congratulate the Fianna Fáil Party, as I understand from the media that there will be a debate this evening at its parliamentary party meeting on survivors of thalidomide. There are a number of elements to it including an apology and a full and fairly negotiated settlement but also legislation on the health needs of survivors of thalidomide. As legislation is involved I thought you, a Cheann Comhairle, might allow me to ask the Taoiseach if the Cabinet has discussed the possibility of legislation. A small number of people, 34 in all, had horrific problems imposed on them by the State many years ago through the use of the drug, thalidomide. It is a group of people who deserve a properly negotiated compensation settlement as well as to have their health needs looked after and an apology. Will the Taoiseach comment?
Is legislation promised?
I wish to contribute on the same issue. I support my colleague. Those people have suffered terrible affliction through no fault of their own. In the past their parents were faced with what may be termed a "take it or leave it" solution. I hope the Government will take the opportunity on this occasion to negotiate a settlement with the remaining survivors rather than impose a settlement, as was done in the past.
Is legislation promised?
No legislation is promised on this matter but the Government has sought to be fair and compassionate to thalidomide survivors, to assist with their current and future medical and social needs and with reference to provisions made in other countries for survivors of thalidomide. The State Claims Agency has brought forward a report on the matter at the request of the Minister. I understand she will meet the thalidomide survivor groups today.
All of us in this House have had occasion in recent times and in the past to intercede on behalf of people who cannot get access to various hospital procedures. I raised the issue of eligibility to health and various other services with the Taoiseach last week, as did a number of others. Could I ask again if perhaps——
Will the Deputy take up the matter with the Minister for Health and Children rather than on the Order of Business?
Pardon?
The Deputy could table a parliamentary question to the Minister.
There are several Bills.
I am grateful for your help, a Cheann Comhairle. I know you want to be helpful and I appreciate your help.
There are several other ways to raise the matter.
However, this is the Order of Business and I refer to promised legislation.
Okay, fine.
The legislation has been promised for a long time. We are still awaiting it. While we wait patients throughout the country are suffering severe pain as they wait for serious medical procedures. They cannot get access to hospital for those procedures. What is wrong? You, a Cheann Comhairle, should be familiar with the situation having observed all the hospital activities in your own region. The public is asking why ill people who are urgently in need of various procedures cannot get into hospital. For God's sake, will the Taoiseach bring into the House the two relevant Bills, the eligibility for health and personal social services Bill and the health information Bill so that at least we would have an opportunity to discuss the issue? Nobody in the Health Service Executive is interested. The Minister is not present and I have not had an answer, nor has anyone else.
We will find out what is the position with the legislation. Is legislation promised in this area?
I understand the health information Bill will be available later this year but there is no date for the eligibility Bill.
When?
There is no date.
I know the Taoiseach is concerned about the matter. Will he please intercede with the Minister for Health and Children with a view to attaching some importance to bringing in this legislation which I hope, ultimately, will address the underlying issues. I assume the nod from the Taoiseach means "Yes".
I have noted what the Deputy had to say.
I wish to raise two issues. First, further to the question asked by Deputy Gilmore on the impact of the carbon levy on poor and low income families——
The matter has been aired already. The Deputy's party leader raised the matter.
I am talking about promised legislation. The Taoiseach did not seem to be aware of the fact that in his Budget Statement the Minister for Finance promised that a new scheme would be introduced to off-set the cost of the carbon levy on low income families. That promise was reiterated in February by the Minister, Deputy Hanafin.
We are abusing Members' entitlements on the Order of Business.
The question is about promised legislation.
I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle——
Deputy Shortall's party leader raised this matter a short time ago.
This was promised by the Minister for Finance and the then Minister for Social and Family Affairs. The promise was reiterated last week by the current Minister who told us a working group was examining the matter. I accept that the Taoiseach was not briefed on the matter today. I ask whether he will find out so that he can provide the information for us tomorrow on the plans——
Will Deputy Shortall submit a parliamentary question on the matter if she wishes to pursue it?
——to deliver on the promise made by three Ministers on the introduction of a new scheme.
The Deputy should table a parliamentary question. The matter is not appropriate at this time.
The question relates to promised legislation.
Deputy, please.
The matter relates to promised legislation. If the Taoiseach cannot answer the question today would he at least undertake to answer it tomorrow?
My second question is about comments made by the Taoiseach last week when he was asked about the €1.49 million paid into the Bank of Ireland pension fund. On that occasion, the Taoiseach indicated that the purpose of that payment was to benefit other members of the fund.
We have got into the habit of making Second Stage speeches on the Order of Business but they are entirely inappropriate.
We now know the sole purpose of that payment was to benefit Mr. Boucher and allow him to retire at the age of 55. In view of that, does the Taoiseach now accept he grossly misled the House last week? Is he prepared to take this opportunity to correct the record of the House regarding the payment, the sole purpose of which was to benefit Mr. Boucher? Will he do so and no longer mislead the public in that regard?
I do not believe I misled the public in any way. The intention was not to mislead but to provide as much supplementary information as I possibly could. I do not accept the Deputy's contention that there was intent to mislead on my part.
Does the Taoiseach accept that nobody else stood to benefit from the payment?
The Taoiseach is in possession. I ask Deputy Shortall to resume her seat.
The point I was making was that there is a scheme in place on which all pensioners depend.
Could the Taoiseach speak a bit louder?
I stated it was important that it be pre-funded, as with all private sector pensions. The issue that arose on this matter was not as contended. The payment was being portrayed as a top-up but it was to meet the statutory requirements given that the annual report was at the end of March, and to indicate the payments that had to be made into the scheme in order to ensure the usual provisions that applied to CEOs in the Bank of Ireland would be applicable to Mr. Boucher.
They are not the usual provisions.
It was the same CEO——
This is a new contract.
The problem is that Deputy Shortall continues to interrupt when people reply. I am outlining the situation as it is and, therefore, there is no question of there being any intent to mislead. As we know, since the time in question, Mr. Boucher will not be taking up the option to retire at 55, which means the payment does not have to be made into the pension fund at this time. That is the position.
Does the Taoiseach accept the sole purpose was to benefit Mr. Boucher?
Deputy Shortall must not pursue this matter on the Order of Business in such a fashion.
Deputy Shortall likes to have a debate rather than ask a question. I have made the point that the payment was into a general scheme. Obviously, it was about making sure there was a sufficient pre-funded pension for Mr. Boucher, who is one of many beneficiaries of the scheme. That is the point I was making.
The Taoiseach completely misrepresented it.
I did not. I do not wish to be——
He tried to make out that other people would benefit from the payment.
An Taoiseach without interruption.
The other point the Deputy was making was on——
It does actually matter whether the Taoiseach tells the truth.
I ask Deputy Shortall to resume her seat. Only one Member should be on his or her feet.
It is not the first pension package on which the Taoiseach misled the House. It was exactly the same with the Rody Molloy issue.
The Deputy will have to find an alternative way of pursuing this matter. I call Deputy Ruairí Quinn.
He does deals for golden circle friends and then misleads the House on them.
In respect of the——
Can I have an answer to the first issue I raised?
Can we allow Deputy Quinn to contribute without interruption? Deputy Shortall cannot pursue this matter in such a manner on the Order of Business. I ask her to resume her seat. If she asks a question on promised legislation, she will receive an answer but not on the other matter.
I have already replied to Deputy Gilmore on the other matter. I understand there is a statement by the Minister on that matter today.
We did not hear that.
We could not hear that.
His microphone is not on.
Perhaps the Taoiseach would speak up and face us.
Sorry?
Maybe the Taoiseach would speak up and face us.
Deputy Burton, can we allow the Taoiseach to contribute without interruption, please?
The Taoiseach is whispering.
I am sorry about that.
The Taoiseach should imagine he is on the back of a truck.
Sorry?
The Taoiseach should imagine he is on the back of a truck.
In Clara.
I believe Deputy Rabbitte, who is a bit of a proletarian himself, would have no problem with that.
Absolutely no bother.
The Taoiseach should give us the answer.
I did not realise the Labour Party had such sophisticated machinery that it does not believe in trucks anymore. I suppose it has big high ladders and steps. Of course, if one cannot get a crowd, there is no point in getting a truck.
On the point raised, in answer to Deputy Gilmore, I have already set out our position. I understand a statement has been issued on the matter today by the Minister.
What did he say in the statement?
I call Deputy Ruairí Quinn.
Did he say there was legislation due? He did not know about it last week when asked about it.
Will Deputy Stagg please allow his colleague to contribute without interruption?
He had not heard about it last week. He must be doing a lot of reading, trying to catch up.
In section B of the legislation programme——
Perhaps they heard about it in Corr na Móna.
Deputy Burton is even interrupting her own party members now.
On section B of the legislation programme, No. 20 refers to the qualifications (education and training) Bill, which proposes to merge the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland, the Higher Education and Training Awards Council and the Further Education and Training Awards Council and also to provide for the dissolution of the National University of Ireland. Will the Taoiseach indicate when we are likely to see this legislation, if ever?
At the earliest, it will be late this year.
My question is on gambling legislation that might be required or on its way. Will the legislation, when it is forthcoming, be the responsibility of the current Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? If so, will it be appropriate given his vested interest in making representations on casinos? The Ceann Comhairle will be very interested in this given the connection with County Louth.
I wish the Deputy would reconsider that remark.
I did not say anything other than that the Ceann Comhairle might be interested given that he is from County Louth.
In relation to the Minister, not in relation to myself.
I made my remark considering that the Minister was making representations to ensure County Louth got the first casino, or something to that effect.
The Deputy could launder the money there pretty handily.
It is important that, if there is forthcoming legislation on gambling, we know which Minister will introduce it. Is it appropriate that the Minister who is currently carrying out a review will possibly be introducing it? Will the Taoiseach consider the ethics of a Minister lobbying in this format to the planning authorities given that he is overseeing a review of gambling legislation? He is lobbying on behalf of Fianna Fáil members for a casino to be built in County Louth.
There is no legislation before the Government at all on this matter. I do not accept the contentions or misrepresentations the Deputy is making.
I want to ask the Taoiseach about the longest-promised Bill in the programme for Government, namely, the local government (Dublin mayor and regional authority) Bill. It was to be presented to us at some time over the past two and a half years. It is listed as a Bill to be published in the summer session but it has not appeared so far. When will it be produced? I understand it represents a core principle of the Members of the Green Party, Fianna Fáil's colleagues in Government, none of whom is present. Is it that Fianna Fáil is dragging its feet on this matter or have the Greens lost their energy and all interest in progressing it?
Is there promised legislation in this area?
We were told the election for mayor would be taking place right at this time but now it seems there is no legislation to appear at all. What is happening?
There is legislation in preparation.
With all due respect, this legislation was referred to in the programme for Government in 2007.
We have had a reply to the Deputy's inquiry. I presume he heard what was said.
I presume the Bill has been in preparation since 2007 but it has not appeared. I am interested in knowing when it will appear.
All these points can be made when the legislation is circulated and being debated on Second Stage.
To say it is being prepared when it has been in preparation for two and a half years is not good enough. When is it likely to see the light of day?
We are into detail. The Deputy had a query on promised legislation and received a response. Will the Deputy park the issue for the present and revisit it at a later time?
This will be the subject of an election campaign. There are by-elections coming as well.
Deputy, please, we are abusing individual rights on the Order of Business. I call Deputy Crawford.
We need a more specific reply from the Taoiseach on this, rather than it appearing on the list every session and nothing happening
The legislation is promised.
As matters stand, the legislation is being prepared and will be published in 2010.
At a joint community policing meeting last night in Clones, grave anxiety was expressed about the availability of alcohol to young people, especially those who are under age. When will the sale of alcohol Bill be brought before the House so that we can have a proper and full discussion on that matter? It is causing grave anxiety.
There is also a companies consolidation and reform Bill on the pending legislation list. When will that be discussed because, in the light of the Quinn issue, if many of those reforms and structures could be put in place, many jobs would be saved? I am interested to hear the Taoiseach's view on what efforts are being made in that regard to save 3,000 jobs.
The companies consolidation and reform Bill is a large item of legislation. There is no date for that; it is a consolidated Bill. Regarding the sale of alcohol, I understand this area will be legislated for later this year.
The Taoiseach will know I am under fierce pressure on blasphemy. Is it the Government's intention to hold any referendums in 2010?
There have been no decisions taken in relation to that matter yet, as the Deputy will be aware. Obviously, I am aware that this will be the subject of one of those.
The question was whether it was the Government's intention to hold any referendums in 2010.
When the Government makes a decision in relation to that matter, we will be able to indicate when it will be held.
What does that mean?
It is a decision to be taken by Cabinet. We will then indicate when the referendum will be held.
So there will be a referendum this year.
If a decision is taken on the matter, it can be held this year. There is no decision on it.
Will the Taoiseach give special attention to the financial services (miscellaneous provisions) Bill, which transfers responsibility for building societies from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to the Minister for Finance? In view of the state of our building societies, I imagine this is more important legislation than the local government (Dublin mayor and regional authority) Bill, which will waste taxpayers' money. Those of us in receipt of ministerial pensions will see our money being spent——
Deputy Barrett will have to retain those remarks for a Second Stage debate.
——-on a new mayoralty instead of proper services. When does the Government intend to publish this important legislation in view of the state of our building societies? Why, in God's name, are we treating the local government (Dublin mayor and regional authority) Bill as if it were terribly urgent? It is an absolute joke that we are to spend money on another regional authority for Dublin when we have four already and four mayors while we are awaiting legislation to transfer responsibility for building societies to the Department of Finance. Where are the Government's priorities in all of this, if we are talking about saving the State money?
Have we promised legislation?
The financial services Bill, I understand, will be later this year. The draft heads are being prepared.
An tseachtain seo caite bhí mé ag lorg reachtaíochta atá in iomaíocht don ghradam reachtaíochta fadtéarmach, ‘sé sin, an Bille leasú Údarás na Gaeltachta agus ‘sé an freagra a fuair mé ach go mbeadh an tAire i dteangmháil liom. An cheist a bhí agam ná go bhfuil an reachtaíocht seo, Údarás na Gaeltachta (feidhmeanna agus cumhachtaí) ar an liosta C, ach tá sé imithe ón gcéad liosta. Ag an am céanna tá deacracht ann maidir le rud a luaigh mé. Luaigh mé an cás faoi An gCeathrú Rua agus an chead ag Údarás na Gaeltachta agus an saindune atá bainteach le cultúr agus mar sin de, ach ní raibh aon teangmháil liom ón tseachtain seo caite. An féidir liom an cheist a chur díreach ar an Taoiseach: an mbeidh reachtaíocht ann chun leasú a dhéanamh má tá sé ó taisteál ar Údarás na Gaeltachta, agus cathain a mbeidh an reachtaíocht fáilte agus seans againn í a phlé anseo?
Maidir le na liostaí atá againn mar gheall ar reachtaíochta atá le phlé againn san seisiún seo, mar is eól don Teachta muna bhfuil sí réidh nil sí ar an liosta. Beidh mé ag iarraidh ar an Aire glaoch a chur ar an Teachta mar gheall ar an reachtáiocht cruinn.
Tá mé faoi bhrú mór ag muintir An Cheathrú Rua an cheist a fhreagairt agus bheadh mé buíoch don Taoiseach.
Ta mé ag déanamh iarrachta an brú a laghdú.
I wish to ask about three items of legislation. When will the nurses and midwives Bill on section A of the first list be taken? The prescription charges Bill is the next one on the clár after that, at No. 9, yet the drugs reference pricing Bill is way back at No. 71. When I last asked the Taoiseach about this, I said one Bill, which would inflict charges on those least able to pay, including the sick, the chronically ill and those on medical cards, and which might save €20 million plus had been considered very expeditiously. However, the drugs reference pricing Bill, which would save hundreds of millions, is being put on the long finger. The Taoiseach's response was to the effect that they were both on the same finger. I hope that is not the middle finger he is giving to the public because No. 71 seems to relate to Bills in respect of which heads have yet to be approved by Government, while the other Bill is to be published during this session. Will the Taoiseach please enlighten the House on those three Bills?
I understand the nurses and midwives Bill may be taken next week, with the agreement of the Whips. The other Bill is this session.
Did the Taoiseach say "the other Bills" or "the other Bill"?
The other Bill is this session.
What about the drugs reference pricing Bill?
That will be later this year.
Therefore, they are not on the same finger.
