It is proposed to take No. a9, motion re ministerial rota for parliamentary questions; No. 9, motion re payment to the social insurance fund under section 9(9)(a) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005; No. 22, Merchant Shipping Bill 2009 — Report Stage (resumed); No. 22a, statements on development in child welfare and protection services. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. a9 and 9 shall be decided without debate, and any division demanded on No. 9 shall be taken forthwith, that the proceedings in relation to No. 22a shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 3.30 p.m. today and the following arrangements shall apply; the statements of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Sinn Féin, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; the statements of each other Member called upon shall not exceed ten minutes in each case and Members may share time; and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed ten minutes. The Dáil, on its rising today, shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 May 2010.
Order of Business.
There are three proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. a9 and 9, agreed to?
No. 9 is a payment to the social insurance fund under section 9(9)(a) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. This matter was agreed at committee. The note from the Government Whip states that this is for a sum not exceeding €1.551 billion, to come from the Social and Family Affairs Vote to the social insurance fund, for people who are paying into contributory pensions, unemployment benefit and so on. The provision was made in the 2010 Estimates for the payment of an Exchequer subvention. Was the figure of €1.551 billion calculated as the amount by the Government when it presented the budget? In other words, was it understood that in the Social and Family Affairs Vote a subvention would have to be made to the social insurance fund to meet payments for contributory pensions and so forth? Was the figure calculated higher or lower than €1.551 billion? The fact that this payment must be made from the Social and Family Affairs Vote is testament to the scale and magnanimity of the Government’s incompetence in getting the country back to work.
The Labour Party cannot agree to this proposal on the Order of Business this morning because the Government has broken its promise to 300,000 low-income families whose costs for home heating oil will be increased on Saturday with the introduction of the new carbon levy. When the levy is imposed, it will increase the price of heating oil by 9% which comes on top of an increase already this year of 37%.
When the Government cut the pay and social welfare payments of low-income families, it justified it on the grounds that prices were coming down. This is a case, however, where the Government itself is increasing prices. When it announced this during the budget, the Government promised a special allowance to offset the increase for low-income families dependent on home heating oil before the carbon levy would be introduced. That promise was made by the Minister for Finance and repeated by the then Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Mary Hanafin, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and the Tánaiste. This promise has now been broken.
I know the Marie Antoinettes in the Green Party may say of low-income families, "Let them heat by alternative energy measures".
They can hug trees to keep warm.
They can put on woolly jumpers.
They can go for a walk in the park.
We are drifting somewhat from the Order of Business.
Many families will be severely impacted by this levy's introduction. A promise was made to them but it has been broken. The carbon levy will be introduced on Saturday but there is no sign of the special allowance. Yesterday, the Taoiseach said they can wait until October for it which is unacceptable. Accordingly, the Labour Party is not prepared to agree to the Order of Business.
It is only in the past ten years that the social insurance fund has been in surplus.
It is not in surplus now.
It has all been spent.
That is not true.
Where did it all go?
The Tánaiste without interruption.
The €1.55 billion from the Social and Family Affairs Vote was provided for in this year's Estimate. It is a technical matter that must go before the House.
Is it just a technical matter?
The note on it states provision was made for the payment of an Exchequer subvention. Was the subvention calculated by the Government higher or lower than €1.5 billion?
It is exactly the same as what was contained in the Social and Family Affairs Vote.
On the issue of home heating oil increases, as the Taoiseach said, the relevant Ministers are working towards a new scheme which will be available at the time heating supplements were heretofore made available.
That is not what the Tánaiste promised. She is breaking her promise.
The allowance was promised for 1 May.
These will be available in the usual season for such allowances. As the Minister for Social and Family Affairs reiterated, access to the exceptional needs measures are still available.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 22a agreed to? Agreed.
Is the proposal that the Dáil on its rising today shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 May 2010, agreed to?
It is not agreed to. We should be here next Tuesday. Matters are in a serious state but this House has refused to change its way in how it accepts responsibility, accountability and transparency in the interests of the people. There is no reason, except for a long outlived tradition, that the House should not be sitting again on Tuesday to debate urgent and important business.
We are now hearing reports from the European Commission regarding the Government's attitude towards Anglo Irish Bank. There are serious matters to be considered concerning the international markets and Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. It is important these issues are debated. I see no reason the House cannot come back next Tuesday to debate this important business in the people's interests. I object to this proposal to come back on Wednesday.
There is no justification for the House adjourning until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday. The public holiday is on Monday. This House should be sitting as normal on Tuesday. I understand the 2.30 p.m. arrangement on Wednesday is to facilitate the commemorative event at Arbour Hill earlier in the day which is an added reason that we should be sitting on Tuesday. There is no shortage of business to be dealt with next week.
On the matter I raised earlier, the Tánaiste is wrong. She herself made a promise that the special allowance would be brought in before the carbon levy was introduced. This is an issue the Labour Party would like to return to on Tuesday if the House were sitting.
Other matters which could be addressed on Tuesday include the plight of the 800 workers in Quinn Insurance, the implications of what is happening in Greece for the euro and our economy and the messages from Brussels on the Government's plans for Anglo Irish Bank. This is apart from the long list of legislation the Government has promised but not delivered.
There is no justification whatever for adjourning the House until Wednesday. This is happening because the Government is taking every opportunity and excuse to be out of the House so it will not be answerable to the Dáil and Members of the Opposition. It is running away from the problems of the country and being accountable to the House for them.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Ducking and diving from it all.
The Government should just have an election.
The Sinn Féin Deputies support the proposition that the Dáil returns on Tuesday as normal to engage in its business. It is important given all the serious matters that have presented and are in the offing, in particular, this morning's announcement of the threatened loss of a significant number of jobs in Quinn Insurance.
It is incredible that the House would vote itself a day in lieu of a bank holiday Monday. It is as if we only worked for three days and we should get a day off because Monday is a closed day. We work every day of the week and with Monday as the bank holiday we should be back as normal on Tuesday as there are serious matters that need to be addressed. It is imperative the Dáil should start on Tuesday as normal.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Behan, Joe.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Carey, Joe.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Neville, Dan.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- O’Sullivan, Maureen.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
I call Deputy Kenny on the Order of Business.
Perhaps the Tánaiste will explain to the House the current Government position in regard to Anglo Irish Bank. The Tánaiste will recall that in January 2008 Fine Gael indicated clearly its view that Anglo Irish Bank should be wound down in an orderly fashion. This has been since then completely resisted by Government as a matter of policy. Fine Gael, which has been the only party to call for a wind-up of that bank, has since January 2008 made clear its position in this regard.
The Minister for Finance, Deputy Lenihan, when addressing the House on 30 March 2010 in regard to banking stated in respect of Anglo Irish Bank that winding up that bank is not and was never a viable option. He went on to point out that an immediate fire sale would cost upwards of €30 billion and that in addition the State would have to fork out a further €70 billion. The Minister further stated that he could not, as Minister for Finance, countenance such a course of action and that winding up the bank is not and was never a viable option. In response yesterday on Question Time to a question from Deputy Bruton the Minister clearly indicated he is now considering a wind-up of Anglo Irish Bank and a break up of that bank into a good and bad bank.
I apologise but I must interrupt the Deputy. We have a problem in terms of the Order of Business being used as Question Time.
This is a matter that affects every person who must now pay for the carry on inside Anglo Irish Bank and for the manner in which the Government has transferred Mr. FitzPatrick's loans on to the backs of the taxpayer.
The matter can be pursued through other channels.
In addition to informing the House of what is now the Government's attitude to Anglo Irish Bank, perhaps the Tánaiste will confirm if the Government has had any soundings from the European Commission on this matter. I understand that Commissioner Almunia has a view, not yet expressed publicly, about the Government putting further money into Anglo Irish Bank. Has the Government received any soundings or advice from the Commission in this regard? What is the Government's position on Anglo Irish Bank in view of the changed position of the Minister for Finance who yesterday indicated that he is now coming round to the view put forward by the Fine Gael Party in January 2008 that this bank should be wound down in an orderly way, that the deposits should be protected and that the bank should be broken up into a good and bad bank?
Before I call on the Tánaiste to reply I must point out to the House that the matters being raised are serious and it is not appropriate for Members to try to deal with them on the Order of Business. I ask the Tánaiste to be brief in her reply. These matters are serious and there are other ways of raising them in the House——
Where?
Next Tuesday, when the Dáil is not sitting.
——including at Question Time or on the Adjournment debate.
I agree.
To expect what are important answers to a serious question to be given on the Order of Business is problematic.
I agree. We have a daft situation whereby every day Members are being asked to split hairs in terms of whether they can raise an issue of public importance.
What goes on in this House in regard to the Order of Business is daft.
I can relate this issue to the legislation which this House debated and which was guillotined and forced through by Government who would not listen to any voice other than its own. It is entirely appropriate that the Ceann Comhairle show flexibility——
I have always been flexible.
——in respect of a matter which is of serious importance.
I do not disagree with the Deputy's assertion on that matter.
I would like to hear the Government's response on this matter.
Other business is not appropriate. I will allow a brief response from the Tánaiste.
The Ceann Comhairle and I know that when he says to Deputies that they should find another way of raising a particular issue he is merely fobbing them off.
This is supposed to be——
We are anxious to provide the forum——
——the forum of the people where Members can raise issues relevant to them. This is a matter of considerable economic catastrophe for thousands of people.
If the Deputy is suggesting we need to reform the Order of Business, I will listen to him.
I am waiting to hear the Tánaiste's full and comprehensive response.
The Government's policy has not changed. I will reiterate the Government's policy.
What about what the Minister said yesterday?
Perhaps Members will wait to hear what I have to say. The cost of an immediate liquidation is prohibitive and that option was not taken up. Members will be aware that a plan is being developed by Anglo Irish Bank. That plan was sent to the European Commission, the views of which are being taken on board and which I will not reiterate here because I do not base any of what I say on whispers or innuendo. This is a matter in process. The bank is developing a plan and it will have various options. It will be subject to analysis by the Minister for Finance. It will come before Government at that stage. To reiterate once again, the most important thing from the Government's perspective is that any plans for the future of the bank must be in the best interests of the taxpayer.
I must respond to that.
We cannot pursue this now. A brief observation only.
Did I or did I not hear the Minister for Finance say he would consider the question of an orderly wind-down of Anglo Irish Bank? The Tánaiste, speaking on behalf of the Government this morning, stated there is no change in the Government's position in so far as Anglo Irish Bank is concerned. This position was outlined repeatedly by Ministers, including the Minister for Finance on 30 March when he stated: "I cannot, as Minister for Finance, countenance such a course of action. Winding up the bank is not and was never a viable option." Did I or did I not hear him say yesterday that "I am now prepared to consider the question of an orderly wind-up of this bank"?
The Deputy must put that to the line Minister.
This story will gather legs again. As the Minister for Finance has always indicated during parliamentary questions, he will always take on board suggestions from people on the Opposition benches on any issues and he has done so vociferously in all the debates.
Nonsense. He says it but he never does it.
Is there a change in policy or not?
The Minister indicated at that time that he does not have a closed mind on the issue. He is open to suggestions on how the best outcome will be achieved.
Yes, he does.
It will be on the basis of the best outcome for the taxpayer.
I am sorry——
Deputy Kenny, please. We cannot pursue this matter in this manner on the Order of Business.
That is the situation.
We must find another way.
Unfortunately for the Opposition, it must await the plan and the deliberations of the Government before this matter is brought to finality by the European Commission.
This is a very serious matter and we must find another way to deal with it.
These were the words of the Minister for Finance.
It would be more appropriate if we had the Minister for Finance here. He is the relevant line Minister.
He stated that "I cannot, as Minister for Finance, countenance such a course of action". If there is no change in policy, why would the Minister for Finance say what he said yesterday?
I call on Deputy Kenny to co-operate with the Chair on this matter.
This was the view put forward by the Fine Gael Party in January 2009.
The Tánaiste is ducking and diving.
I am not ducking and diving.
There is an issue that arises for the Order of Business. When will the House be informed by the Government as to current Government policy in respect of Anglo Irish Bank? It is clear the Government's position in respect of the bank is a moving feast. It started out with the blanket guarantee and it then moved on to nationalisation. We were told at the time there would not be any cost to the taxpayer.
Deputy Gilmore, please. We have heard the exchange between myself and Deputy Kenny. We have a problem with this matter at this time on the Order of Business. It is a serious issue but the parties should find an alternative time to deal with it over a prolonged period.
When? On Saturday or Sunday?
We asked to discuss it next Tuesday.
With the greatest of respect, the problem the Ceann Comhairle has with this being raised on the Order of Business pales into insignificance compared to the problem the taxpayers of the country have in paying for this cesspit of a bank. We need to know where exactly the Government is on this issue now. The bank was guaranteed and then it was nationalised. The Government has been back to the House on several occasions looking for money and more money. Thousands of millions of euro was sought time after time to pour into the bank. As Deputy Kenny stated the last time the Government came back looking for the House to approve money for this, we were told there was no question of winding down this bank. Yesterday, the Minister for Finance signalled that is now under consideration. We hear there are considerations in the Commission in Brussels in respect of what the Government is doing.
I was not here at Question Time yesterday but I am sure supplementary questions were asked on this matter at that point.
The Tánaiste has now acknowledged that this is a changing situation again, that the Government will be reconsidering the issue and that it will come back to the House again. My question is perfectly in order, which the Ceann Comhairle will acknowledge. When will the Minister for Finance come back to the House and inform us of the position?
I understand it is the Minister for Finance's intention today to announce proposals for a national recovery bond, something the Labour Party has argued in favour of for some time. I am very glad this is taking place. The only thing about which I remind the Government is that we are now two years into the recession. Albeit late, I welcome the fact that a national recovery bond is to be announced. However, when he announces it today at whatever press event is organised, will the Minister for Finance take questions? Will he inform the public at that stage about his plans for Anglo Irish Bank? Will he come into the House and make a statement on the current Government position on Anglo Irish Bank? It would at least be useful to know what is this week's position. We will wait for next week to hear next week's Government position.
What is the Labour Party's position on the Croke Park deal? Is the Labour Party split?
A very brief reply from the Tánaiste. I do not wish to allow an expansive debate on this matter at this point.
The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, should stop politicising it.
That is exactly what Deputy Gilmore is doing.
Minister Dempsey, please.
Deputy Gilmore is trying to make a political football out of everything.
The Minister will sink it.
I call on the Minister and the Deputy to refrain from engaging across the floor.
He should have a little courage and stop the soundbites.
Minister Dempsey, please. Deputy Durkan, please.
Every Thursday is the same.
The situation is——
The Minister should be put on a Dublin bus or something to get rid of him.
Can we have the Tánaiste without interruption, please?
The Fianna Fáil pit bull is loose.
I wish to reiterate the facts. The situation is that Government policy has not changed. The situation is that the Government would have been prohibited at the time from winding up the bank. The situation and the facts are that a revised plan is being prepared by the new management in the bank. It is being drafted at present and it will be analysed by the Minister and his advisers. The matter will go to Government and will then go to the European Commission at which stage the European Commission will make a decision. The timeframe for the plan to be with the Commission is the end of May.
It is the Government's bank.
I do not have an exact date as to when the plan will be completed and brought before the Government but it will await that decision in due course. I will not add to any innuendo, assimilations, soundings, soundbites or anything else.
The Minister for Finance was not making innuendo. He was stating a fact.
These are the facts of the situation.
I call Deputy Bernard Durkan.
I refer to none of the above.
Come on, Deputy Durkan, please.
We might get a question.
I am delighted the Minister for Transport is so anxious to answer questions in the House this morning. It is not his usual post.
I have a big file with the answers here.
He has them all lined up. That will be very useful for next week. I refer to the legal costs Bill. I have asked the Tánaiste previously about it in the House. There is much concern among the community in general about legal costs. Is there any indication from Government as to whether it intends to bring it into the House as a matter of urgency or maybe next year or maybe never? I have two more questions.
Next year.
I call Deputy Tom Sheahan.
There has been painful progress of the Multi-Units Developments Bill which my colleague has also repeatedly raised in the House. My colleagues on all sides of the House have raised this matter.
I advise the Deputy that Bill is in the Seanad. We have raised this a number of times.
No, I am not asking about the Seanad.
I advised that it is in the Seanad.
One never refers to the Seanad in this House, as the Ceann Comhairle is aware. That is the practice.
It is important we are aware of what is taking place elsewhere.
This is in order and the Ceann Comhairle knows it as well as I do. Will the Tánaiste indicate when that Bill might appear in this House? Many people are concerned about it and wonder about the answer to the question. Will the Tánaiste give some indication? She is getting advice.
The Deputy should note that is a matter for the other House.
No, it is not a matter for the other House. It is a matter for this House.
The Upper House must process it and, obviously, it cannot come back until that House has completed its work.
It is promised in this House and it had been amended before it came here.
We are anxious to get it moved along. The committee amendments have been brought to the Upper House. Hopefully, we will be able to deal with it as quickly as possible when it has been completed in the Seanad.
I call Deputy Tom Sheahan.
Will the Tánaiste indicate if it is possible to find out when we might expect to find it in this House? It might not come before the House before the summer.
Deputy, please.
This is a serious matter.
This House cannot interfere with the deliberations in the Seanad.
If this Bill does not come before the House before the summer recess, then a serious problem exists.
That is unrealistic.
Will it come before the House before the summer recess?
Is that information available?
Someone should know.
The Seanad is part of the Oireachtas. The legislation is before the Senators.
I am sorry. The Ceann Comhairle's interpretation is wrong.
This House is not going to get into the business of arm-twisting the Seanad.
I will ask my question on promised legislation again. It is hard enough to get answers to legitimate questions.
Without looking for answers to illegitimate questions.
Can I ask the question again? Can the Tánaiste, the Ceann Comhairle or somebody else tell me when the Bill will appear in this House? Will it be here before the summer recess? It is an important question.
It has to be passed by the Seanad before it comes back here.
It is not the Ceann Comhairle's job to answer that question.
It is not my job either.
The reality is that I have obligations to the House.
I want the Tánaiste to answer it.
I do not order the business of the Seanad.
The Tánaiste should ask the Minister for Transport when the Bill will be introduced.
It is a matter for the Seanad to complete its consideration of the Bill.
It is the Government's business.
I am sure it is doing its utmost in that regard. When the Bill has been passed by the Seanad, we will work with the Whips to try to facilitate it as quickly as possible here.
The question again is——
Deputy Durkan, please.
I am sorry. Will that Bill appear in the House before the summer recess?
I have shown the Deputy much tolerance.
This is the kind of nonsense for which the parties opposite wanted to come back on Tuesday. It is a waste of time.
Does Deputy Durkan have a question on legislation?
The Ceann Comhairle's job is not to suppress me.
I am not suppressing the Deputy. I am trying to accommodate him.
His job is to allow Members of the House to ask questions which are in order on the Order of Business. This question is in order.
Yes, but I have to ensure questions are in order.
The Deputy has already received an answer.
I am asking about a Bill that has been promised for five or six years. It has been on the Order Paper for that time.
The Deputy has been advised that the Bill is in the Seanad.
I take it that it will not be in the House before the summer recess.
That is not what the Deputy was told.
When it completes its journey through the Seanad, it will come back to this House.
The answer to the question is that it is not coming before the House.
The Deputy is making up his own answers.
On a point of order, that is not the answer the Deputy was given.
We know.
It does not matter.
Is the Government Chief Whip now saying that the Bill is coming before the House?
Does the Deputy have a query on legislation?
I have a query but nobody will answer it.
The Deputy should write to the Clerk of the Seanad.
The Tánaiste has answered the question.
The Minister who does not answer questions wants me to write to the Clerk of the Seanad.
One will not get an answer if one asks the Minister a question.
How are you, Michael?
We will see the Minister on Thursday.
Does the Deputy have another query on legislation?
The Ceann Comhairle knows that my rights and privileges are being abused.
The Deputy is holding up——
My right to ask a question is being suppressed in this House.
It is not being suppressed.
The Tánaiste has refused to answer questions.
I have given an answer.
I ask Deputy Durkan to co-operate with the Chair and with the House.
I am co-operating with the Chair.
He wants to go home to start his weekend early.
If Deputy Durkan has another question on legislation, let us have it.
The question on the Order of Business, on promised legislation, is whether the Bill will appear before the end of this session. Will it appear before the summer recess?
I do not know the answer to that question.
That is good enough.
I do not order the business in the Seanad.
We know now that it will not.
That is typical of the Deputy.
The last question——
I give up.
——is on the national vetting Bill, which is urgently——
I will not answer any more of the Deputy's questions if he is going to make assumptions.
On the national vetting Bill, ar aghaidh leat.
Is the Tánaiste serious about that?
Can the Tánaiste tell the House whether the national vetting Bill is promised?
She is joining the work to rule.
The national vetting legislation is being worked on as a priority.
Did the Tánaiste say that she will not answer any more questions?
I said there is not much point in answering the Deputy's questions when he assumes what the answers will be.
The Tánaiste can choose to answer a question or to refuse to do so. If she does not know the answer to a question, she can say so.
Deputy Durkan is being disruptive.
No, a Cheann Comhairle.
I ask him to resume his seat.
I am asserting my rights as an elected Member of this House.
The Deputy is abusing his rights.
They should be protected by the Chair.
I will protect them as long as the Deputy is in order.
In April of last year, the Minister for Finance gave a commitment that, as a matter of urgency, he would find a comprehensive solution for credit union members whose financial circumstances have required them to seek to refinance their loans. We have been told that a strategic review of credit unions has been commissioned, to take place over the next 18 months, and that appropriate legislative reform will follow on from the results of that review. I urge the Tánaiste to ask the Minister for Finance not to proceed with section 35 of the Central Bank Reform Bill 2010 until this review has been carried out. I do not see any point in——
Is this leading to a question on promised legislation?
——pushing through changes in the Central Bank Reform Bill 2010 at a time when a strategic review of the credit unions is taking place. These measures should be sidelined, rather than being introduced as part of the Central Bank Reform Bill 2010.
Can the Tánaiste tell the House whether primary or secondary legislation is promised in this area?
Could they be set aside until the 18-month review of the credit union structure has been completed?
I will have to revert to the Deputy.
My question is within the bounds of legislation. Is it proposed to introduce amending legislation to deal with the situation in Grangegorman? The Minister has said that ideas and proposals will be considered by the Cabinet soon. We have not seen any progress since we passed the Grangegorman legislation a number of years ago. Is it proposed to introduce amending legislation if the sale of the other institutes of technology does not go ahead? In such an eventuality, the Government will not have the money to proceed with the Grangegorman plan, as set out in the Grangegorman Development Agency Act 2005.
I have been asked by those involved to visit the area and I intend to do so. I will bring a comprehensive response on this matter to the Cabinet fairly quickly.
I would like to ask about an issue I raised last Tuesday, in advance of that evening's meeting of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party. Has it been decided to introduce legislation in relation to the victims of thalidomide, to issue them an apology and to negotiate an agreed settlement with them? I understand that this matter was debated on Tuesday evening by the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party. On a second matter, according to the media the Minister for Health and Children will announce later today that approximately €200 million is to be taken out of the health budget. She has not come before this Parliament in that regard. No such measure was provided for in the Estimates we discussed earlier this year, which were referred back from the committee.
A parliamentary question to the Minister for Health and Children would elicit the information being sought by the Deputy.
It is a question of the health of the nation.
I do not disagree with the Deputy's sentiment.
The moratorium on recruitment is already putting huge gaps in people's right to health care, as set out in legislation.
I ask the Deputy to raise the matter by means of parliamentary question.
The withdrawal of funding I have mentioned is to be done unilaterally by the Minister, without any kind of discussion in this Chamber, on behalf of the people of Ireland.
I know. The Deputy should submit a parliamentary question.
We have been told in no uncertain terms that the health services cannot take the cut that is apparently to be announced today, by which time the House will be about to go into recess until next Wednesday afternoon.
We will make inquiries about the legislation on thalidomide.
Is the Government going to make any comment at all on the erosion of the health services that is apparently to be announced today?
The Deputy needs to submit a parliamentary question.
The Minister, Deputy Harney, never comes in here to tell us what she is doing. She did not even come in last night to respond to a cross-party motion on the victims of Michael Neary.
The line Minister will be present for Question Time in due course.
On the same matter, representatives of the Irish Thalidomide Association have met members of Fianna Fáil. I understood that the matter was to be discussed at a meeting of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party, but we have not heard any news on any decisions that were taken or any improvements that are to be made.
Is the Deputy inquiring about possible legislation?
I raised Deputy O'Sullivan's second matter — the impact of the breakdown in the talks — two days ago. Where will the €200 million cutbacks be made? What will be the implications of those cutbacks for patients?
The Deputy knows the routine in respect of these matters.
I would like to raise three other matters. I can do so now while I am on my feet, or I will sit down and raise them later. The first issue is the proposed public health (alcohol) Bill.
I will call the Deputy later on the other issues.
That is fine. We are entitled to know where these cuts will be made and how they will affect the citizens of this country.
We want to know what path is being taken. We are here to get answers.
I am delighted that members of the Opposition are so interested in the deliberations of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party. Unfortunately, one needs to be a member of that party before one can hear what is discussed at it.
If one is a citizen, one suffers the consequences of those discussions.
One can read about it in the newspaper the next day.
If the Deputies want to join Fianna Fáil, as honorary secretary I will certainly consider their applications.
I would not say the Tánaiste is too busy in that department.
I am afraid we are. I remind the Deputy that Fianna Fáil is the largest party.
It is dwindling rapidly.
Lemmings.
The HSE represents nobody.
On the issue that has been raised, all I can say is I will get further clarity on whether legislation is necessary to establish the fund. While I do not think it will be necessary, I will revert back to the Deputies when that is clarified. A decision has been made on the provision of new support measures and special care packages, the designation of a senior manager and the payment of a once-off ex gratia payment. I will have to get clarity on whether legislation is needed to establish the fund. I doubt that we do, but I will revert back to the Deputies.
What about an apology?
On 29 March last, the clients and staff of the Ballyfermot and Inchicore home help service received a letter informing them that due to cuts in funding imposed by the HSE, the service was forced to implement drastic cuts in the home help service.
Deputy——
I have no other way of getting information on this matter.
It is sounding very much out of order, even on a Thursday morning.
Maybe the Ceann Comhairle can tell me how I can get information on it.
I suggest that the Deputy should table a parliamentary question.
I have tried.
If she does, she will be told it cannot be answered because of the dispute.
There is no point in getting that answer.
She could try to raise it on the Adjournment.
I sought an Adjournment which was refused.
The Deputy will need some luck to get that answered.
I sought an Adjournment; it was refused. I sent two e-mails to the HSE and got no reply. I submitted a question to the Minister and her reply stated, "If these matters remain of continuing concern to you, however, I would invite you to raise them with me again in due course". Meanwhile, the staff and clients of the Ballyfermot Inchicore home help service do not know what is happening.
It is a serious issue for the people involved.
Perhaps the Ceann Comhairle can tell me how I can get that information.
What would the Ceann Comhairle do?
The Adjournment.
I was refused the opportunity to raise it on the Adjournment.
The Deputy could write directly to the Minister.
It is a waste of time.
I have done that. I am out of ideas.
I have listed three options for you.
They are all a waste of time.
I have tried them all.
For a Deputy who is always in order in the House——
Thank you.
——you are bordering on disorder at this point.
I want to know how I can get this information.
On the Adjournment, Deputy.
I have been already refused an Adjourment debate. Can the Ceann Comhairle assure me I will get a debate on it?
The Deputy can resubmit the request and we will consider it in the normal way.
Tell her you will grant it.
That is not much help.
We will remember your sentiments at this point.
Meanwhile, the clients and staff of the home help service are waiting to see what will happen to them. They cannot get the information and they need to know what is happening.
On a point of order, the Minister for Health and Children seems to be the only Minister who is sending us those replies——
——which state that if a Deputy is concerned about a matter he or she should submit another question because the Minister cannot answer it. Can the Ceann Comhairle explain why other Ministers are able to answer our queries?
The Chair does not have responsibility for replies. I have no control or influence over these matters.
Do you not have a responsibility to ensure that Ministers are consistent in replying?
The Deputy can raise the matter directly with the Minister. I am sure she would be amenable to discussing the matter with her. I call on Deputy Costello.
The brother of Elvis.
We will shortly have statements on developments in child welfare and protection services. One of the findings of the Murphy report, which was produced by the Murphy commission, was that the legislation on HSE protection for children was seriously defective and inadequate, and that there was a need for urgent legislation to be put in place. Where is that legislation? The report has been with the Government for 12 months at this stage. Is there any sign of that legislation?
Considering that almost three years ago the European Union produced a standard hotline for children who were missing, which was available in all member states——
Is this leading to an inquiry about promised legislation?
This is relevant. Eleven countries in the European Union——
The preamble is unnecessary.
——have established it. Given that there is so much trafficking of children in this country and that so many children go missing, when will we establish that hotline and pass the necessary legislative mechanism?
Is legislation promised in this area?
I am not aware of legislation on that, but I will revert to the Deputy.
What about the legislation which was sought by the Murphy report? We will discuss the issue shortly. The Murphy report contends the HSE is seriously defective in terms of legislative provisions to deal with the protection and welfare of children and that urgent legislation is required. That was published 12 months ago.
As the Deputy knows, the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children indicated that, arising from the Murphy report, a number of initiatives were being taken by him. Those have been articulated by the Minister of State——
Articulated.
——and a number of actions have been taken, in particular in the context of new resources being made available for social work. On the specific legislation, I will have to revert to the Deputy. It is not listed.
As there are serious social and health problems associated with the proliferation of head shops in this State, what is the position with regard to promised legislation? We hear from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform outside the House, from the Minister for Health and Children, from the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Pat Carey and the Government Whip, Deputy John Curran, all of whom have indicated that they will tackle this problem, but none of whom has commenced any form of initiative. In terms of discussing promised legislation, what is the exact policy of the Government on head shops? Who is the lead Minister? What is the precise legislative framework, as promised by the Government on numerous occasions? It appears that one hand does not know what the other is doing.
Is there promised legislation in this area?
No, there is no promised legislation. Regulations have been drawn up——
There is no promised legislation.
——by the Minister for Health and Children, which have been forwarded to the European Commission. An interdepartmental group, headed by the Ministers, has been working on a number of initiatives to deal with these issues and to determine what actions need to be taken in the Department of Health and Children, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. All of that is being done under the auspices, and with the support, of the Attorney General. We have drawn up the regulations, they have gone to the European Commission and there are a number of other initiatives being taken, in a multifaceted way, to deal with this issue.
There is no promised legislation?
There are regulations.
Did I hear the Tánaiste say there was no promised legislation?
There are regulations.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has promised legislation.
It is covered under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said he would introduce legislation. The Minister for Health is bringing in regulations.
There will be powers for the Garda.
Meanwhile, nothing is happening.
A number of actions have been taken by the Garda on this issue.
It cannot break the law.
It is a very serious social problem.
It is and no one disagrees with that.
The Garda is hamstrung by the law. The law and the regulations need to change.
The Deputy can elaborate on the subject, but cannot do so on the Order of Business.
I have raised this issue three or four times.
I accept that fully.
I have suggested what the Minister for Health and Children can do. She can issue a regulation——
I was in the Chair when the Deputy raised the issue.
——-an instruction or a ministerial directive insisting that all——
The subject is serious but we will have to find an alternative time.
——products sold in these shops are passed by the Medicines Board or the Food Safety Authority.
Deputy, resume your seat.
If that were done——
Deputy, resume your seat.
——they would have to submit every product to be sold to a local authority and it would stop this trade that is damaging our children's health.
Deputy Reilly, please.
The Government will not do it. It is deferring to the European Union to wait three months to get a nod. Britain did not do that. It went in early.
It does not have a leg to stand on.
Yes, it did not wait three months. It sought it retrospectively.
Deputy, desist from engaging across the floor.
They do not have a leg to stand on.
Deputy Reilly, please.
Is the Tánaiste aware of the recommendation from the HSE to amalgamate two call centres following a review of the out-of-hours GP service? If she is aware of it, what is the Government's plan? Does it intend to close the centre in Galway or Letterkenny? That is the choice on the Tánaiste's desk. Does she intend to follow through on that recommendation? It is important that we know of the plans for it.
Is there promised legislation?
The Health Information Bill will be dealt with next year.
I was going to raise this issue under the Health Information Bill but after listening to some comments this morning and given the lack of information which we were getting from parliamentary questions——
There are other ways, Deputy.
——-the new Whip, Deputy Curran, should perhaps rename it the lack of information Bill because trying to get information from the HSE at the moment is a scandal. Stalinist Russia would not have a look-in.
I will be in order this morning.
In good order.
In good order. The Tánaiste has a very important function in Bunbeg on Saturday night. She might be making an announcement on the forthcoming Údarás na Gaeltachta elections. Fianna Fáil used to love elections but it no longer likes them. It does not like general elections, by-elections or Údarás elections. When will the Údarás na Gaeltachta Bill come before the House? The elections are due this year and we have to start planning for them. If they will not take place, a regulation will have to come before the House. The Tánaiste might have a cake in Bunbeg on Saturday night for my colleague, Deputy McGinley, whose birthday it is this week. I would like the Tánaiste to have a little cake for him.
Is there promised legislation?
I am seriously worried that the Deputy knows all about my social life. If things were right I might jump out of the cake. I do not recall that I am in Dunbeg on Saturday night. There is promised legislation on Údarás na Gaeltachta. A review is taking place as part of the plan for fiche bliain don ghaeilge and I understand the Minister will bring proposals to the House quite soon because the Údarás na Gaeltachta elections are an issue.
Is the Ceann Comhairle forgetting I had a number of questions on legislation and he said he would come back to me?
The Deputy has been on his feet many times this morning. Has he a question on legislation?
I wish to inquire about three Bills. The Ceann Comhairle has alluded to another Deputy being in order, even though it was the first time she came near to being in disorder. Does that not ring an alarm bell for him about the frustration Members feel about the lack of information coming back from the HSE? We cannot get answers out of the Minister for Health and Children or her Department.
I refer to No. 69, the public health (alcohol labelling provisions). When will it come before the House? Will the Minister take the opportunity to ensure there is clear labelling of the calorie content of alcohol? That is currently not the case but it should be. We are experiencing an obesity epidemic and this legislation will help to inform people that there is more to the damage that alcohol can do because calorie content is also an issue.
When will No. 65, the human tissue Bill, come before the House? Will the Minister take the opportunity in this legislation to set up a transplant organisation? A national transplant office is needed. We have an appalling record in lung and heart transplants, particularly for cystic fibrosis sufferers. The transplant programme in the Mater Hospital is not delivering for our people and we need to know why. One of the reasons is there is not a proper co-ordinated service.
I also want to inquire about the public health (sunbeds) Bill. This simple legislation would ban the use of sunbeds by those under the age of 18. Their use causes skin cancer. Children under 18 need to be protected from that.
On the alcohol Bill, public consultation has been completed and submissions are being considered. Heads of the Bill and proposals will be circulated afterwards. There is no date for the human tissue Bill but heads have been circulated for consideration within Departments. They will then go to the Government. Consultation has been completed on the sunbeds Bill. I mentioned to the Minister that the issue has been raised in the House and I asked her to try to expedite it.