Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 May 2010

Vol. 708 No. 1

Order of Business

It is proposed to take No. 9, motion re implementation of new powers of national parliaments under the Lisbon treaty; No. 10, motion re by-election for Donegal South-West; No. 21, Central Bank Reform Bill 2010 — Second Stage (resumed); and No. 3, Nurses and Midwives Bill 2010 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 9 shall be decided without debate; and in the event of the motion re by-election for Donegal South-West being moved, the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 20 minutes today, with the speeches confined to the main spokespersons for Sinn Féin, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and to a Minister or Minister of State, who shall be called upon in that order, who may share their time and which shall not exceed five minutes in each case. Private Members' business shall be No. 76, motion re ministerial pensions, and shall also take place tomorrow immediately after the Order of Business, to be brought to a conclusion after 90 minutes on that day.

There are three proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 9, motion re implementation of new powers of national parliaments under the Lisbon treaty, without debate, agreed to?

No, it is not agreed and I want to explain why. There should be a discussion about this matter. The Fine Gael Party produced a series of recommendations about how we should deal with Europe on the committee, which was chaired by Senator Paschal Donohoe last year before the Lisbon referendum. The chairman of the Committee on European Affairs, Deputy Bernard Durkan, has made a number of suggestions about how we should deal with European issues here, as has the chairman of the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny, Deputy John Perry. There is an avalanche of matters coming down the track from Europe. There needs to be a discussion on how we will deal with those kind of issues from a European viewpoint here in our own Parliament.

In addition, we need to discuss the consequences of the very serious economic situation in Greece. The Taoiseach has been briefed by the Minister for Finance in respect of the decision within the eurozone to bail out the German and French banks exposed to Greece at this time. That is a momentous decision for the Government to have to make. It is the first time in many years there has been a transfer of wealth or finance to this extent to another country. It is fundamental to maintain the euro and the strength of the EU. There will be a meeting in Brussels on Friday and there is ample time to have a discussion about the Grecian issue either today or tomorrow. If the Taoiseach confirms that we can have a debate or statements about this matter I will withdraw my objection.

On the same issue, I understand the particular motion that is before the House deals with the arrangements for the way in which national parliaments, and the Dáil in particular, will deal with European matters under the Lisbon treaty. I agree with Deputy Kenny that, as a parliament, we have now been give a greater role in European matters and in the way the Government represents the country on such matters at the European Council. The big issue that requires to be addressed in the House is that of the euro and the assistance that has now been agreed among European states for Greece.

On behalf of the Labour Party, Deputy Burton has been seeking full information on these issues, as well as seeking a debate on them here. We are told that legislation will have to be introduced to allow Ireland to make its contribution to the bilateral loans which are being provided. We need to hear at what stage of preparation that legislation is and when it is likely to be brought before the House. Many people have been surprised at the size of the contribution which is required. We understand the principle that is involved, which is the need for assistance. However, given the fact that increased powers and responsibility are available to the Dáil concerning the Government's handling of European matters, the Taoiseach and Minister for Finance should come before the Dáil to give us information on the issues that have been discussed with the European partners concerning Greece. We need to know when this legislation will be presented to us.

I support the proposal that the implementation of the powers regarding the outworking of the Lisbon treaty should be given full address in this Chamber and that the motion should not be taken without debate. I also reflect on another matter at this point. Pending the response the Taoiseach will give, I shall reserve accepting the Order Paper because a very serious matter has been unfolding over recent days following a decision of the Minister for Health and Children and the HSE. Almost all dental treatment under the medical card scheme has been withdrawn.

We are really getting away from the subject matter.

In the preparation of the schedule for business tomorrow, will the Taoiseach request the Minister to come before the House and address the very serious matter contained in the circular issued to all dentists by the HSE, which states that only emergencies will now be dealt with? I have no doubt that I am not unique among Deputies in having constituents contact my office, reflecting on their experience, including in the case of one woman a very serious matter——

It is inappropriate at this time.

——of five dentists refusing to treat her particular dental needs as a medical cardholder. It is not on.

There are other times when the Deputy can raise these matters, but not now or in this fashion.

These things are happening all the time without any address or scrutiny in this House. Will the Taoiseach invite or instruct the Minister for Health and Children——

——to come before the House to address this matter that is having serious consequences for medical cardholders and the most marginalised and dependent in our society?

The Deputy will need to raise it at a different time.

It will be recalled that the Dáil passed a resolution on 10 December 2009 agreeing interim arrangements for the implementation of the relevant Lisbon treaty provisions. The motion before us seeks an extension of the deadline to report back to both Houses on the review from 10 June to the summer recess and also seeks to have the interim arrangements in place beyond the summer recess in 2010.

The other matter that has been raised is a matter that has to be subject to parliamentary approval and a Bill will be brought to the House. The general scheme will be considered by the Government next week and will be brought to the House where there will be a full debate on the matter. As people will know, following a request from Greek authorities, euro area finance ministers have unanimously agreed to activate stability support to Greece via bilateral loans, centrally pooled by the European Commission. Finance Ministers in the euro area have concurred with the European Commission and the ECB that market access for Greece is not sufficient and that providing a loan is warranted to safeguard financial stability.

As with some other countries, Ireland requires parliamentary approval before this member state can release our share of funds. Therefore our participation will require domestic legislation. It is under preparation and will be brought before the House as soon as possible. The general scheme should be considered by the Government next week. The Heads of State and Government will meet on Friday to conclude the process and I will convey our agreement to participate, subject to parliamentary approval and the enactment of our legislation. This agreement is first and foremost designed to safeguard financial stability in the euro area, something which is essential for Europe, euro area member states and Ireland. The financial support package for Greece is being drawn up and the process will be concluded on Friday.

Regarding the Minister for Health and Children and the matter I raised——

The Deputy can raise that matter at another time.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 9 be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 78; Níl, 75.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Andrews, Chris.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Áine.
  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Browne, John.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conlon, Margaret.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Curran, John.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • 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.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kennedy, Michael.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Mansergh, Martin.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Brien, Darragh.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Donoghue, John.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Hanlon, Rory.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • O’Keeffe, Edward.
  • O’Rourke, Mary.
  • O’Sullivan, Christy.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • White, Mary Alexandra.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Bannon, James.
  • Behan, Joe.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Coonan, Noel J.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • 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.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Morgan, Arthur.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.
  • O’Keeffe, Jim.
  • O’Mahony, John.
  • O’Shea, Brian.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • O’Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Perry, John.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • 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.
  • Varadkar, Leo.
  • Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies John Curran and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Question declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 10, motion re by-election for Donegal South-West, agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business tomorrow agreed to? Agreed.

The Taoiseach said legislation would come before the House in regard to Ireland's decision to participate in the European bailout of Greece. When does he expect that legislation to be introduced in the Dáil? Can he give a guarantee we will get back the contribution we will make to Greece, namely, €1.3 billion? Will such a guarantee be contained in the legislation? Has the Taoiseach, as head of Government, received any guarantee we will be repaid?

I ask for ciúnas, please.

A fundamental facility for those elected to this House is the receipt of answers to parliamentary questions. These answers are not being made available at present because of an industrial dispute. However, I understand that in some, if not all, cases, Ministers are able to get information supplied to them in the course of their duty. Is the situation to be one whereby all parliamentary questions are to be regarded as requests from Ministers to their line staff in Departments?

As chairman of the Dáil, the Ceann Comhairle should strive to bring about a situation where Deputies can get answers to parliamentary questions. On many occasions in the past we were told this is the most fundamental, democratic weapon available to an elected representative in the Dáil. That facility is not being made available now and valuable parliamentary political information is being denied Deputies on all sides of the House, although, in evidence given last week, it appears that some Deputies are more equal than others.

Has there been any consultation on this, to the effect that, at very least, information genuinely and validly sought by Deputies will be made available to them, or must all parliamentary questions be translated into requests from each Minister to his or her Department that the information sought be supplied? This is a problem. I am aware of the difficulties trades unions are having in respect of the Croke Park agreement but this is a cause of some angst among Deputies on all sides of the House.

Regarding the first matter raised by the Deputy I remind him that we all must be careful about the terminology we use in this regard. These are bilateral loans and will be repaid as the economic position in Greece improves. Obviously, strong conditionality attaches to these loans, with a quarterly monitoring and evaluation to take place and a review at the end of the year. I ask that we be responsible in respect of the terminology we use.

The conditionality attaching to the bilateral loans can be discussed and debated when the Bill comes to the House in the normal way. The general scheme of the Bill should be before Cabinet next week and we can take the Bill as soon as it is approved by the Cabinet. It is important that we use the correct terminology and do not give an impression that money is being handed over, willy nilly. The conditionality here is strong. This is a financial support package. Greece does not have access to markets at present but is making a very significant adjustment, cutting €30 billion, or 13% of GDP, over the period to 2014. It is important, in the interests of financial stability in the euro area, and in the national interest regarding our economy and its effective recovery, that we be very specific and accurate in terms of how we portray this.

I call Deputy Kenny, briefly. We must move on.

If we were to have a debate and statements in the House we could have all that information from the Minister for Finance, Deputy Lenihan, who has briefed the Cabinet. However, nobody else in the House knows the conditions and terms that apply to these bilateral loans. It is in everybody's interest that we have a full and thorough discussion about this. It is important for the European project as it goes forward.

I ask again about the other matter, namely, responses to parliamentary questions by elected Deputies.

The intention will always be that information should be available to every Deputy, regardless of what side of the House he or she sits on. That is what we would like to see and there has been no instruction to the contrary from Government that the situation should be any other way. If industrial relations issues arise that is unfortunate but this is not at our instigation, or of our making. We wish to convey to everybody that we would like to see the level of information being sought in the normal way by Deputies being made available, no matter what industrial relations issues arise.

I hear what the Taoiseach says but Members from his party are being given answers to questions. Other Members of the House, elected in the same way as all of us are, must resort to freedom of information requests because they do not get information from certain Departments due to the industrial dispute.

In the interests of having everybody in the House treated equally in terms of the information they receive, will the position be that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, the Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey or the Minister for Finance, Deputy Lenihan, will treat parliamentary questions as requests from Ministers to their Departments? Such requests are being answered in full and Ministers are being given full briefings regarding information they need. They were elected in the same way as every other Deputy. It is not good enough that certain Deputies of the Taoiseach's party get answers to parliamentary questions and other Deputies do not.

We must move on from this issue.

If there are specific issues people want to raise, that is fine and they can be brought to my attention. Government simply seeks to function. If specific information is required or is being sought by Deputies it should be provided to them in the normal way.

As Members of Parliament we are entitled to receive information.

If there is a specific issue the Deputy wishes to bring to my attention, I shall look into it.

There is an issue of national interest in respect of the arrangements being made to provide assistance for Greece and its membership of the euro. It would assist greatly if we could have the issue discussed in the House. The Taoiseach has been a little vague as to when the legislation will be before the House. He said it would be considered by Government but it would be useful to know when it is to be introduced in the House. Given that Government has yet to agree the legislation it would be helpful also if there were an opportunity for the House to be given a report by the Minister for Finance, with an opportunity for spokespersons to respond to it.

Ireland is not Greece. Invidious comparisons are being made at present, some domestically, some internationally, which are not helpful to the country's overall interest. In addressing those issues and maintaining a position which puts the national interest and the overall interest of the country's finances at its heart it would be helpful if the issue were discussed in the House. I ask the Taoiseach whether some arrangements might be made for that and if he can be more specific as to when the legislation will come before the House.

Ministers have responsibility to answer parliamentary questions.

We do not ask the questions of civil servants. We have tolerated a situation where, because of the industrial action, replies have not been forthcoming. The fact that civil servants are taking industrial action does not absolve Ministers of their responsibility to the House. To be fair, there has been a mixed experience regarding the replies Members are getting in response to parliamentary questions. That aspect must be revisited.

One parliamentary question I recently tabled to the Taoiseach related to meetings he had with groups of survivors of abuse in various institutions and discussions he had with the religious orders concerned. I want to ask the Taoiseach about the meetings he had with both interests in that regard.

Does this concern promised legislation?

Unfortunately, the Taoiseach transferred the question to the Minister for Education and Skills so will the Taoiseach reconsider that transfer?

He could answer the question.

I ask him to agree to answer the question in the House. It relates to meetings he led with those groups and I would like the opportunity for him to address the House on it so we can question him.

This is the issue I raised last week. It is the meeting of 15 April, if I recall it correctly. Deputy Gilmore may not recall that I raised this last week and the Taoiseach provided the information to another Deputy in this House while transferring my question to the Minister for Education and Skills. He provided the information regarding that meeting in a parliamentary reply the same day to a Deputy from his own party on the backbenches. I referred the matter to the Committee on Procedures and Privileges because it is absolutely unacceptable.

This is a serious matter relating to the provision of replies. That instance shows a two-tier attitude of the Department of the Taoiseach in responding to Deputies' parliamentary questions. Deputies Kenny and Gilmore referred to the wider issue in that we are not getting responses in the main to parliamentary questions tabled to a raft of different Departments. Those of us who are spokespersons for health are well used to our parliamentary questions being kicked to touch for anything up to four months by the Minister for Health and Children but now a much graver position applies across a range of Departments.

It is a serious matter. The responsibility in the first instance lies with respective Ministers, to whom the questions are put. They have a responsibility to provide the answers and my experience is that the answers can be provided to some Deputies while being refused to others. Deputy Gilmore has already indicated that he had exactly the same experience, which is totally unacceptable. I urge that the matter be addressed with the required urgency.

As I have the opportunity on the Order of Business, I wanted to raise two matters relating to promised legislation. This is also against the backdrop of my earlier request on the ordering of business as to whether the Minister for Health and Children would be called to give account of the reasons for a decision — and what steps will be taken to reverse this — to have the HSE advise all dental practices that they will no longer be in a position to provide dental treatment——

The Deputy will have to pursue that in a different way.

——to medical card holders except in so-called emergency——

There is no other way.

Is it linked to legislation, or is the Deputy inquiring about specific legislation?

The Ceann Comhairle should make no mistake that it relates to specific legislation. The decision stands except with regard to so-called emergency cases. There is no explanation of an emergency case. I have seen instances concerning this issue over a number of days.

The Deputy could take this up with the line Minister.

Will the Taoiseach call in the Minister? She absents herself ad nauseam from accountability in this Chamber.

There are other ways of pursuing this.

Will the Taoiseach bring forward two Bills——

There is far too much elaboration on these points.

If the Ceann Comhairle allows me finish, the Taoiseach should bring forward the legislation to allow us the opportunity to address these serious matters. The legislation is the health and social care professionals (amendment) Bill and the licensing of health facilities Bill. Will the Taoiseach give a response on the promised date of publication and indicate whether he will intervene to have the matters I have highlighted here addressed so we can be afforded an opportunity to question the Minister for Health and Children in this Chamber? The issues are very important and the medical card scheme has almost been flittered away by this further measure.

This is not a Second Stage speech.

Whatever stage it takes, I will keep highlighting the issue.

Is there promised legislation?

The first Bill sought by the Deputy will be next year. There is no date for the second Bill mentioned. The Deputy can put questions to the Minister for Health and Children at any time on these matters regarding legislation.

She does not answer them.

On the issue raised by Deputies Gilmore and Ó Caoláin, it is not at my instigation that a different reply goes to different Deputies.

How did it happen?

I do not know how it happened. I have to check that out but the question may have gone to two different people who replied in different ways. I do not know. I do not dictate the answers or tell people how to conduct their affairs in the office. I have never done so.

The replies go out in the Taoiseach's name.

I will have to check that out. I do not know what it is about.

On the other matter raised by Deputy Gilmore, the process will be finalised next Friday with the heads of state and government. There will be formal adoption of the proposal agreed by the Eurogroup ministers earlier this week. It is subject to parliamentary approval. There will be a debate. We hope to have the Bill before Government next week and will probably bring it to the House the following week, if that can be agreed. We will deal with it in the normal way with a full debate.

People will know from statements issued by the finance ministers and previous statements on 11 April by the heads of state and government as to the nature of this support. It is upon request of the Greek Government and it is important to emphasise that these are bilateral loans to be managed by the Commission pulling the issue together using the European Central Bank as the paying agent. A strong conditionality attaches.

This constitutes an international agreement and one of our parliamentary procedures is to append the international agreement to the Schedule of any Bill brought forward. That is currently being finalised by the Commission officials based on the discussions which have taken place between the ECB, the Commission, the IMF and the Greek Government. We must await that as part of our legislative preparation for consideration in the House. It is a technical issue but it must be taken into account. That is the full information I can give to the House at this point.

Approximately two months ago I put down a question to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, regarding the national property services regulatory authority. It has been up and running for two years now and employs a number of staff.

Does this relate to promised legislation?

Yes, and if the Ceann Comhairle gives me a moment I will make it abundantly clear. The national property services regulatory authority has offices with eight members of staff and costs €600,000 per year to run. The bill has arrived at €1.2 million.

The Deputy should just tell us about the legislation.

The question I put to the Minister in February received a reply indicating clearly that the legislation enabling this authority to do its job properly has to be completed in the Houses. The agency costs the Exchequer money and the offices are staffed, with people sitting behind desks, but the Bill to enable the agency to do its job properly has yet to be enacted.

We will make inquiries as to when the legislation will come before us.

As I understand it, the Bill has yet to reach Committee Stage in the Seanad. When will the Bill finish all Stages so that the agency can do its job in an appropriate fashion?

We depend on the Seanad to do its work on the Bill.

It is on Report Stage in the Seanad and as soon as it has been completed in that House, it can be considered for discussion in the House.

Does the Taoiseach have any influence on that House?

Not as much as the Deputy, who is a former Member.

I am glad the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills is in the Chamber. She has now, no doubt, been briefed by her officials on the onerous legislative programme at the Department of Education and Skills. It is similar to that in the justice Department. Is she in a position to tell the House when we will see the legislation to put on a statutory basis the patronage of community primary schools by the VECs? When will we see the legislation to bring together the Higher Education and Training Awards Council, HETAC, and the Further Education and Training Awards Council, FETAC? When will we see legislation to provide for the abolition of the National University of Ireland?

The Tánaiste is working on both of the first pieces of legislation that were mentioned. The NUI will probably be later this year, but the other ones are being worked on at the moment.

That does not say when. When will we see it?

Fairly soon.

As soon as possible thereafter.

Will it be at the normal Department of Education and Skills speed?

We could have a long summer.

Great. The Tánaiste should be careful what she asks for.

Is it the Government's intention to hold a referendum in this calendar year?

As I said to the Deputy last week in relation to this matter, there is a proposal from the joint committee in relation to the children's referendum. That is being considered by the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews. It has not yet been considered by Government because he is currently liaising with various Departments and the Attorney General's office. As soon as it comes to Government, we can deal with it then, but obviously I do not want to pre-empt that discussion.

Could I ask the Taoiseach——

Is the Deputy's question on promised legislation?

Is the Ceann Comhairle speaking to me?

Robert De Niro.

I had scarcely opened my mouth. I did not get time to finish my sentence.

A Deputy

Are you talking to me?

Deputies have a propensity for drifting from the subject.

That is very unfair to Deputy Costello.

The thing about Deputy Costello is that he does not drift.

We had a session for Acting Chairmen today, Ceann Comhairle, so we know our p's and q's.

Considering that there were a number of former coal miners from Ballingarry, Castlecomer and Arigna outside the Dáil today to get the Government to establish in legislation a redress scheme to which they could apply in respect of the damage done to their health by coal dust, are there any plans to establish such a scheme or introduce such legislation?

I am not aware of any legislation promised in that area.

I believed the Government promised to help them before the last election.

Apropos the issue of parliamentary questions, which has been referred to by party leaders and others in the House, and as a Member of some considerable service in the House, the Ceann Comhairle knows there is a diminishing number of Ministers who go to great trouble to answer questions accurately. This is to be acknowledged. However, a growing number of Ministers treat the House with absolute contempt and give as little information as possible on every subject.

On the Order of Business, please.

I would like to finish. This is about the way in which we do our business in the House or, rather, the way we do not do our business, as the case may be.

I know, but it is inappropriate. There are other ways of raising this matter.

There is no other way for a Member of Parliament to get an answer to a parliamentary question unless he or she goes outside the remit of the House and applies under the Freedom of Information Act or by some other means. This is not democracy and we have put up with it for long enough. The Government views this as fun, something for its entertainment.

Please, Deputy.

I will ask about the legislation in two seconds.

That is what we want to get to.

If Ministers refuse to answer questions and enter the House to be held accountable for the moneys expended by their Departments, something should be done about it. The only person who can do anything is the Taoiseach. The Opposition has one or two methods to assist and they will come to pass if something is not done as a matter of urgency. I am not issuing a threat, but the Ceann Comhairle or any long-standing member of the Opposition knows as well as I do that this situation has gone on for long enough and will be tolerated no longer. If the Government wants to try it out, let us try it and see what happens some morning.

The other issue is the national vetting bureau Bill, which is urgently needed and much promised. The Taoiseach has updated the House a number of times. Is it likely to appear in the House soon? The Taoiseach has a quizzical look on his face.

Was that everything?

Does the Taoiseach want me to answer the questions or will he do it?

No, I will answer all the questions. I just did not know whether there was anything else.

I would like that last question answered first.

He is making it easy for the Taoiseach.

The heads of the Bill are being prepared in relation to the Bill that Deputy Durkan mentioned. I hear what the Deputy has to say about the other matter. I will check into it.

I thank the Taoiseach.

Does Deputy Durkan have further inquiries?

One of many. I have raised it previously and it is close to the Taoiseach's heart, namely, the legal costs——

They are all close at this stage.

And getting closer. What is the position on the legal costs Bill?

One of my favourite ones.

I can see that, as James Bond said once upon a time. Given the extent to which legal costs are likely to impact on the economy in the not-too-distant future, will the Taoiseach indicate to the House whether it is intended to introduce the Bill into the House with some degree of urgency or, at least, a little more urgency than has been displayed heretofore?

I understand that will be next year at the earliest. All I can say to the Deputy is that the whole idea of bringing forward a listing process at the beginning of every session is to give an indication of what is likely to appear during the course of this session. People will know from replies to parliamentary questions or, indeed, repeated statements by myself that confirm what has been said in recent times regarding where legislation is in these matters. It is important to point out that, of course these are matters that can be raised on the Order of Business, but the legislative programme is outlined on the listing and that is usually the best gauge of what timing is involved.

Some of it has been on the list for five, six or seven years.

Once again, I want to ask about the health information Bill. Will the Taoiseach make some effort to bring this issue forward so as that we can at least get some truthful information about the situation in the health structure?

In light of a report in the weekend's newspapers to the effect that grant aid was provided for a structure in south County Tipperary that was never built, when will the dormant accounts (amendment) Bill be introduced in the House so that we can discuss how such issues can arise? It is a serious situation to which I take exception. Some 5,500 jobs are at stake in our country and there seems to be no way to put a structure in place, but this grant——

Is legislation promised?

The dormant accounts Bill.

I understand both those pieces of legislation are later this year.

When the Government took the medical cards from the over 70s, it was done by way of legislation, but the public dental service has been dismantled by diktat as far as I can see, a circular from the HSE. Is this not in breach of people's rights under the Health Act 1970? The eligibility for health and personal social services Bill is on the list. Had what has occurred been done under that legislation, there might have been a justification and we might have had an opportunity to debate it.

The Deputy knows the content of legislation is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

Dental services are being sent back to the Dark Ages by circular.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan is looking for detailed information.

I am looking for information on whether the Cabinet discussed whether legislation was necessary. Could the Taoiseach answer this question?

There is no date for the eligibility legislation. None is promised in the other area.

Is it legal to do what the Government has done to the dental service?

Top
Share