Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Jan 2011

Vol. 726 No. 1

Order of Business

It is proposed to take No. 8, motion re ministerial rota for parliamentary questions; No. 17, Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill 2010 — Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; and No. 18, Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2009 [Seanad] — Order for Report, Report and Final Stages. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 8 shall be decided without debate and Private Members' business shall be No. 84, motion re water utilities, and shall also take place tomorrow immediately after the Order of Business and shall be brought to a conclusion after 90 minutes on that day.

There are two proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 8 without debate agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business agreed to? Agreed.

In respect of the legislative programme published by the Whip, as the Taoiseach will recall, before the Christmas break interest focused on the importance of getting through the budget, in order that a signal would go out internationally that at least the big decisions had been made and, subsequently, the social welfare Bill. Both the budget and social welfare Bill were passed and it was decided the House would return one week earlier than planned for the express purpose of dealing speedily and effectively with the finance Bill. We now learn that the Bill will not be published until next week and will not be debated until 25 January. The Government has suddenly gone all regulatory by having a two week break before Committee Stage and a further break before Report Stage. The Bill will then go before the Seanad and will not be finished until towards the end of February. The Taoiseach knows well that if the Government was serious about moving the Bill through the House in a more expeditious manner, this could be done. Before Christmas I stated that if it wanted assistance from this side of the House, the Bill could be passed before Christmas if it was in a form that would allow that to happen. My offer was, of course, rejected.

If the finance Bill moves through Second Stage quickly and a two week break is not necessary, is the Government willing to bring it forward? People have always objected when sufficient time was not provided for legislation. However, much of the content of the finance Bill has been discussed and the main provisions of the budget have been introduced. Is the Government fixed on the timescale which was laid out without consultation with the Opposition Whips?

It is normal in the case of any finance Bill for the Minister for Finance to provide an indicative timeframe within which he believes his officials and the Revenue can come forward with proposals and possible amendments and Opposition amendments can be considered, etc. Last year, the Finance Bill concluded on 6 April. The Government, consistent with doing its work properly, is expediting the process in a sensible manner that meets the requirements of the situation and allows the finance Bill to be dealt with.

The finance Bill is only one of the legislative requirements for completing the budget process. Budget-related legislation includes the public services pensions (single scheme) Bill, the betting (amendment) Bill — it is important to bring into effect changes in this area — and the social welfare (miscellaneous provisions) Bill. The Minister for Finance has to deal with all of these issues and we have given an indicative timeframe only in respect of the finance Bill.

Issues also arise on Committee Stage regarding civil partnership and tax provisions must come into place to reflect the coming into force of new arrangements on 1 April. As a matter of policy, it is important that all this is done. We are indicating in an up-front manner the requirements of the situation. Considerable work needs to be done. The NAMA (amendment) Bill also has to be introduced in the first quarter as part of the implementation of the EU-IMF programme. The Whip and Government have sought to outline and indicate what the legislative programme will look like for the purposes of dealing with the issues at hand.

The legislative programme produced by the Whip appears to be more rushed than those to which we are accustomed. We are used to having them provided in different colours of paper — blue, red and green — and with the A, B, C and D lists to which Deputy Durkan frequently refers.

I can provide the A, B and C lists if the Deputy wishes. The only problem is it keeps me here until 1 o'clock every Wednesday.

The Taoiseach is being up-front today. However, although nobody seems to want the Local Government (Mayor and Regional Authority of Dublin) Bill 2010, it is being rammed through the House for the gratification of the absent Green Party Ministers. The Climate Change Response Bill, which is now the big issue for the Green Party, was the subject of discussion at an all-party committee. What the Government is doing in this respect is attempting, through legislation, to make guidelines binding targets to which any future Government can be held to legal account. We have never measured up to any of the targets or guidelines agreed either in the Kyoto Protocol or since and here we have absent Ministers seeking to force the issue. While we agree with the Bill in principle, it is poor form to force through legislation that makes guidelines or targets legally binding on a future Government which may be held to account in a court of law.

On the same issue, the Government has published the Climate Change Response Bill which the Green Party has been promoting. Speaking on national radio today, Deputy Frank Fahey stated that he and some other backbench Deputies would not support the Bill unless there was a change——

We cannot have a debate on proposed legislation on the Order of Business.

I raise an important issue related to legislation.

While the Deputy may make a brief comment, she cannot promote debate on the matter.

The issue is related to a Bill that is included in the legislative programme for this session. Will the Government proceed with the Bill and, if so, will the Fianna Fáil Party support it?

The Bill is being introduced in the Seanad today. While I did not hear directly what Deputy Fahey said, he made the point on the basis of being able to call the election at an appropriate time. As a Government, we are setting out a substantive legislative programme for the greater part of this session. This work needs to be completed and runs in parallel with an expeditious conducting of the finance Bill.

The Government will drag this out until Easter.

As I explained, we have to do this work. The NAMA (amendment) Bill must be enacted under the IMF-EU programme by the end of the first quarter. The Oireachtas has responsibilities which it must discharge in the interests of the people. An election will be called at some point in the spring. Everyone would regard that as a responsible and sensible arrangement.

Before Christmas, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government called a press conference and told the country it was important the general election be held soon. He gave the reasons for this. He said the Green Party would remain in government to see the budget through and the general election would be called before the end of January. It is open to interpretation whether he meant that the election would take place before the end of January or the dissolution would take place before the end of January. That issue is not at stake. The intention was that the budget would be announced, the finance Bill would be published and debated in the Dáil and a general election called before the end of January. When the Government announced we were returning on 12 January, it was expected that this was in pursuit of that objective. The expectation was that we would take two to three weeks to pass the finance Bill and the general election would then be called. Since then, we have been told there are four Bills that must be dealt with in order to give effect to budgetary measures.

On top of that, the Taoiseach says we must pass the NAMA Bill because it is required by the EU-IMF agreement. As I read the agreement, one can argue that any item of legislation the Government wants to pick from the legislative programme can be justified as being necessary and required by the EU-IMF agreement.

Deputy Gilmore clearly has not read it.

We cannot have a debate on it. We can have brief comment but not a debate.

This is all about promised legislation. On top of that, we are told there are a few sweeteners to keep the Green Party firmly in the pocket of Fianna Fáil and to stop them from squeaking. The Climate Change Response Bill and the Local Government (Mayor and Regional Authority of Dublin) Bill will be taken. On top of that——

Deputy Gilmore must find another way to deal with this.

This is the way. I am entitled——

Not to this extent on the Order of Business.

This is pending legislation.

I am raising questions and making a point about the legislative programme the Government published today. In addition to the Bills I referred to, the Government has found a number of additional items of legislation about which it showed very little enthusiasm for the past three years. However, if it is going to prolong the pathetic life of this Government and allow it to continue in office for longer than the people want, it is quite happy to go along with it. According to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, we were going to have an election before the end of January. The end of January then did not mean the end of January and was adjusted to include the finance Bill so that the election might be in February or March.

Deputy Gilmore is abusing the normal arrangements on the Order of Business.

The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, was on the radio saying it will take place at the end of March and now it may be April. Then there will be Easter, after that there will be the royal wedding, the Queen's visit and any excuse to keep Fianna Fáil in office. This will not be acceptable.

It will go right up to the Galway races.

We accept that the House is back and there is an expectation to deal with the finance Bill but if the Taoiseach thinks he can include items of legislation here and there and find some justification or extenuating reason to link it to the budget and the EU-IMF deal and hold on in the hope that something will turn up, he has another thing coming. The Labour Party will not accept that.

What is the timetable? When does the Taoiseach expect the finance Bill will be enacted and when will the Dáil be dissolved so that we will have the general election the Minister told us we would have before the end of January?

That was a wonderful flight of rhetoric. To bring Deputy Gilmore back to the facts, the budget must be enacted to give legislative effect——

The finance Bill.

The budget is enacted.

And other bills related to the budget. These bills are budget-related and are part of the budget. The social welfare (miscellaneous provisions) Bill is part of the budget. Deputy Gilmore has a foolish argument——

The Taoiseach should give us a timeframe.

This is a process that will be undertaken. Those Bills will be taken when we are dealing with the finance Bill, which was completed last year on 6 April. The indicative timeframe at the moment is the end of February. Whether it is the end of February or the first week of March is a matter to be decided in terms of what work must be done. I have indicated that work must be done on civil partnerships to bring them into line with tax requirements by 1 April. As a matter of policy, that work must be done. It is being done and the finance Bill will be enacted at least one month sooner than was the case last year. Deputy Gilmore has been coming into this House for the past two years quite rightly asking about Bills. We are now in the process of finalising legislation and we should use the time available to us to do so.

The Taoiseach suddenly discovered an excuse to stay in power.

The legislation to which Deputy Gilmore referred is part of the Government programme and will be accommodated as a parliamentary priority within the framework of implementing the finance Bill, which is one of the four Bills for the implementation of the budget.

The Taoiseach has the Green Party back in his pocket.

The published, so-called legislative work programme — although I am not sure how to describe the document published by the Chief Whip — indicates a number of items of legislation in respect of which the Government partners are committed to full enactment. It only refers to a specific number of those: the finance Bill, the public service pensions Bill, the betting (amendment) Bill and the social welfare (miscellaneous provisions) Bill. Everything is predicated on how long the Dáil will proceed. If, as the opening remarks of the Taoiseach indicate, we are to arrive at the NAMA (amendment) Bill, which the Taoiseach is strongly of a mind to pass, that is not what the document states. It appears the Government partners are only agreed on a specific number. Perhaps the Taoiseach can clarify this point. Nowhere in this document does it state the publication date of the finance Bill. It is not included in the missive from Deputy Curran. Can the Taoiseach tell us when the finance Bill will be published? When will the social welfare (miscellaneous provisions) Bill be published? Last week, Deputy Sargent published a Bill to amend the Constitution——

Deputy Ó Caoláin promised earlier he would be brief today. The virtue of that is rapidly diminishing.

The Ceann Comhairle should not miss the good bits. Last week, Deputy Trevor Sargent published a Bill that seeks to address economic treason in the Constitution. We also have the criminal justice (white collar) Bill. What are this and the other Bills referred to? Is this a figleaf for the party of the long-wilted sunflower? The Green Party has bought into remaining in government with Fianna Fáil far beyond the stated intent to leave office by the end of the month. This is the trade-off.

Please Deputy. We are on the Order of Business.

Will the Taoiseach support the Bill published by Deputy Sargent last week in respect of economic treason? What is the position of the Taoiseach on this? The only business remaining for this Dáil is its dissolution by the Taoiseach and the calling of a general election.

We must implement the legislation and maintain the agreed programme. The four-year programme will now be implemented. It is all very well talking about programmes and their necessity but we must implement them. We must use the period ahead productively for the purposes of implementing necessary legislation for this country in 2011.

Why start now?

That must be done and will be done. We have set out priorities. Some Bills have yet to be published. The finance Bill will be published next week. The list is not exhaustive and gives an indication of the busy legislative session the Oireachtas will engage in over the coming period. That is the sensible way to do business.

An excuse to stay in power.

It is a question of doing the business necessary to implement the budget that the Deputy has consistently opposed.

He opposes everything.

With regard to the announcement by the Chief Whip of the focused legislative work programme for publication and enactment, what is the position of the legislation to facilitate the forthcoming constitutional amendment on children's rights? The Minister of State with responsibility for children indicated on a number of public occasions during the recess that it was his hope and that of the Government — indeed, the objective of the Government — that the referendum would take place in conjunction with the general election. The omission of the facilitating legislation from the work programme is disappointing. Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with the referendum to amend the Constitution to enshrine a greater corpus of children's rights?

The Minister of State with responsibility for children, Deputy Barry Andrews, will consult with spokespersons on the opposite side regarding a wording which has been approved by the Government for the purpose of engaging in such consultation, and convey the results to the Government. Much excellent work has been done over the last two and a half years. The proposal introduced by the Minister of State is a substantial piece of work and will be welcomed by those who see it. After consultation with the spokespersons, we will determine the approach to be taken.

Does the Government not have any timescale in this regard?

We intend to bring it to the attention of spokespersons. It was brought to the Government this week and it is now a matter for the Minister of State.

I say that because I read that the Minister of State, on behalf of the Government, was seeking consultation. As somebody who might expect to be involved in such consultation, I can say that on no occasion has any member of the Government, let alone the Minister of State with responsibility for children, been in contact with me, although he may wish to tell the national media otherwise. I have heard nothing.

As the Deputy knows, the all-party Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children did a lot of work on this, and the Minister of State responsible has introduced what I believe is a good proposal——

Almost a year ago.

——which has been approved by the Government and will now be the subject of discussion with party spokespersons. I am not saying the spokespersons were consulted during the course of the work that was done within the Government, but the Minister of State will talk to them and others about it now.

I wish to clarify a matter to do with the legislative work programme, which was raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin. It is curious that the first page of the legislative programme states: "The Government partners are committed to the full enactment of the Finance Bill and other budget related pieces of legislation including the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme) Bill, the Betting (Amendment) Bill and the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill". I presume that means that these measures are to go ahead and that there is a full commitment to them. However, it seems there is not a similar full commitment to the other Bills mentioned in the programme. Are the other Bills temporarily being proposed as items that might or might not be dealt with? I ask the Taoiseach to explain why the commitment to these Bills is less than full.

I refer the Taoiseach to No. 81 on today's Order Paper, the Twenty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2011. A reference was made to this earlier but the Taoiseach did not respond to it. This Bill, published by Deputy Sargent, is a proposed constitutional amendment on economic treason. As I understand it, it is published on behalf of the Green Party, including the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, who is not Sherlock Holmes but behaves more like Inspector Clouseau. Have the Green Party Members asked in Cabinet that time be given for this Bill, and will the Government make time available? Are the Taoiseach and his colleagues aware that the passing of the Bill would leave every current member of Cabinet, their predecessors back to 2002, and every Dáil Deputy who supported the Government's economic policy liable, if such a referendum were successful, to criminal charges of economic treason? Does the Taoiseach have a view of that? I heard the Taoiseach complaining about Deputy Gilmore's use of this term, but it seems that Deputy Sargent, a former Minister and leader of the Green Party——

We will let it rest for a moment. I am sure the Taoiseach will respond.

——is quite happy to incorporate it into legislation, and apparently he is supported by the rest of the Green Party Members. Could the Taoiseach explain what this Bill is doing on the Order Paper? Have the Green Party Members asked that priority be given to this measure? If not, could he explain to the House why it has been published?

It is not a priority in the legislative work programme.

With regard to the Bills mentioned in the work programme, the Chief Whip mentioned in the first paragraph that the Government was "setting out our legislative priorities for publication and enactment in advance of the election later in the spring". He was simply pointing out that priority is being given to the finance Bill and related legislation. The programme also lists the Bills that have commenced their passage through the House, some of them at advanced Stages, those that have already been published, and those whose publication is expected. The list is not exhaustive. The intention is clear with regard to enacting the legislation in the timeframes we have set out.

Does the Taoiseach regard it as being compatible with the Constitution to remain in office with two senior Ministers and two junior Ministers——

Deputy, this is the Order of Business. You may table a parliamentary question on the matter if you wish.

——who support the publication of legislation which could result in the prosecution of the Taoiseach and his colleagues for economic treachery?

We wish to move on.

It is an extraordinary arrangement.

The usual Shatter-esque fiction. The clever boy at the front of the class.

Has the Taoiseach asked the Green Party Members why they published this Bill?

Deputy Shatter, please. You are holding up the proceedings.

Has there been any conversation between the Taoiseach and the Green Party members about this?

The Deputy should not be kicked out on the first day, for God's sake.

I am still not clear about when the finance Bill will be completed in the House. No coherent reason has been given for the two-week gap between Committee and Report Stages. Other urgent Bills have been put through the House in 24 hours, although I am not suggesting that the finance Bill should be treated in such a fashion. We have offered the Government additional days in the Dáil in order to pass the Bill quickly but it seems, as Deputy Gilmore has said, that we will have every bit of legislation possible, including the regulation of tiddlywinks in Ballymagash, to delay the ultimate fall of the Government.

That must be one of the Deputy's Bills.

The VHI has given both the Government and the people of the country a slap in the face. Despite the introduction of a levy to support it, which raised the cost of insurance for all those insured under the age of 55, it has now promised an increase of 45% in the cost of some health insurance plans.

On promised legislation. This is the Order of Business.

I am talking about pending legislation, although "pending" is the operative word, because this legislation has been required since the inept risk equalisation legislation fell in the courts in 2008. We were promised that risk equalisation would be introduced within three years, but the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Moloney, told us on the airwaves only last week that it would be another two years. Risk equalisation is extant in other jurisdictions; we do not need to re-invent the wheel. When will the risk equalisation legislation come before the House? Does the Government have any plans to ensure people are protected from the outrageous hikes in VHI premiums?

It is because the Government has delayed the introduction of proper legislation on risk equalisation for more than two and a half years that elderly people who have paid into the VHI all their lives are now finding that their premiums have increased by up to 45%.

The Deputy has made her point. We are inquiring about the legislation.

Can the Taoiseach tell the House what progress has been made in those two and a half years in drafting proper legislation on risk equalisation? It should not take that length of time. That is the reason elderly people are now being asked to pay increased premiums.

That is not true. The so-called simple little problem raised by the Supreme Court was in fact the transfer of money, which is a big problem.

Two and a half years.

Other issues were also raised by the court, although they were not part of its judgment and no opinions were given.

It has been suggested that there is just one little problem that needed to be resolved, and which should have been resolved in the last year or two. However, to bring forward the legislative proposal would probably involve a further court challenge by competitors in the market and put us in the precisely the same position we were in already. We devised a tax-based solution in terms of the levy taxed at source, which was increased before Christmas from 50% to 65%. It increases the subsidy from young lives to older lives where the differential between the cost of plans between younger and older lives is attributed for the older person by 65% of the difference being provided for by the younger life. To do that in a way that did not attract a challenge was an important innovation.

Given the commercial freedom of the VHI, it was that organisation's decision to increase these fees. It was not a matter for the Government to deal with in that sense. The VHI had the authority to do that. The purpose is to set up help lines with the HIA to ensure that people get an opportunity and are made aware how they can transfer if they so wish. They have an entitlement to similar plans to those they already have under the VHI, which would help to reduce costs. Some 62% of all subscribers are with the VHI and 80% of those are elderly. The VHI lost €172 million last year and to avoid trading recklessly, the board has had to take its decisions.

We must ensure that the spread of risk is facilitated by reason of the fact that there is a legal entitlement for people to have the same entitlements they have under the VHI plans elsewhere if they are getting a more competitive rate. That will help initially but the introduction of risk equalisation, which requires EU approval to come in by 2013, is the way forward. Legislation will be introduced during the course of this year to try to give it some transitional effect in 2012. We have set that out as the policy objective since May last year.

The levy has failed to protect older people, which is was designed to do. The 45% increase——

The Deputy will have to find another way to pursue this matter.

When will the Government publish the Milliman report, which has been in its hands since last August? It shows that huge savings could be made in the VHI.

The Deputy should table a question for the Minister. He knows the process.

It is beyond comprehension how the VHI can be allowed to increase its fees before that report is published.

There are questions to the Minister for Health and Children tomorrow.

The last report was about putting in another mayor of Dublin.

In the interests of clarity, have the Taoiseach and his Cabinet booked their flights and hotels for the St. Patrick's Day celebrations?

That question is not contemplated by the Order of Business. I call Deputy Pat Rabbitte.

It is an interesting question, which concerns taxpayers' money.

The Deputy should table a parliamentary question on the matter.

Is it intended to enact legislation on corporate donations in the lifetime of this Government? According to a report in The Irish Times, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform is introducing legislation to ban the purchase of sex. Will that Bill be published in the lifetime of this Government?

The answer to the second question is "No".

Does that mean it did not come before the Cabinet and this is the first the Taoiseach has heard of it?

It has gone to the Attorney General for examination. As regards the Deputy's first question concerning legislation on corporate donations, that is on the list for publication and enactment.

With regard to the second question, people are interested if this is just a flurry of press statements from the Minister. Does it have any meaning?

The Dignity project, which went to Sweden, produced a report at my request. It is now with the Attorney General to examine the constitutional and legal implications of a change in the law.

That is not what The Irish Times reported. Will the Minister give me a copy of the report?

The Deputy will have to find another opportunity of pursuing this matter.

He should put down a question. It has gone to the Attorney General's office.

I was going to propose something positive at this stage in the new year — an award for creativity to the Government Chief Whip. According to the published legislative programme, there is at least one year's legislation on the basis of the Government performance over the last five years. The document encompasses at least one year's work. I wish to bring the creative part to the Ceann Comhairle's attention. One page lists legislation to be published, including the environmental protection Bill. The word "published" appears in graphic, bold print. It is a screaming headline, as is the Climate Change Response Bill. The document continues to scream about the various stages of legislation, including the greyhound Bill. It goes on and on about nine other Bills.

Like the Deputy, it goes on and on.

Will the Deputy come to the point?

The Minister has decided not to go on and on, which we are glad to note.

Brostaigh ort.

Either we are serious about this or we are not. An indication was given some time ago that there was a very short legislative programme that would be dealt with quickly in the new year, and then there would be a general election.

We have been over this territory for quite a period of time in the very recent past.

I have not been over it.

The Deputy is traversing the same ground, which is inappropriate.

I am entitled to go over it on the Order of Business.

I am more than anxious to allow the Deputy's party colleague, Deputy Andrew Doyle from the neighbouring constituency, to contribute.

I am anxious to let my party colleagues in as well. As I see it, it will be this time next year before this legislative programme is completed on the basis of our previous performance.

We will reconsider this matter tomorrow.

The other matter I wish to raise is something to which the Ceann Comhairle can attend himself. Over the Christmas period, we all had occasion to listen to commentators speaking about the performance of legislators both in this House and in the Seanad.

I am sure that will be debated at length during the upcoming campaign.

No, this is a matter for legislation.

The Deputy should not be holding up the Order of Business debate.

This is a matter that relates to performance. Without doubt, the biggest single obstacle to the performance of the Houses of the Oireachtas is the reluctance of Ministers to answer legitimate questions.

The Deputy is entering into Dáil reform territory at this point.

It is inappropriate on the Order of Business.

I have raised this many times before.

I am sure we have a sub-committee looking at this area, so the Deputy should write to the secretary of that sub-committee.

If we continue like this, we will have a good case for abolishing Parliament altogether because it is not being allowed to work.

Please, Deputy.

It is being smothered and suffocated by Government Ministers who have a deliberate agenda to ensure that it does not work.

It is 6.10 p.m. and we are still on the Order of Business.

My last point relates to your good self, a Cheann Comhairle. I thought the new year would start on a better note, but my questions have been refused in the usual format, which states that "the Minister has no responsibility to Dáil Éireann in these matters". I have received two such questions from the Ceann Comhairle's office today. I do not want to go into the details, or have coffee and a tête-à-tête with him. I do want to state, however, that the questions are relevant and the Minister is responsible for answering them in the House.

It is all part of the reform process.

It is not part of the reform process. For God's sake, I cannot understand how these questions could be answered ten years ago but not now. What is wrong? What is the Government hiding?

We do not have time to debate this on the Order of Business. There are other times when I am sure these points can be made. Please allow others to contribute, Deputy.

May I ask the Ceann Comhairle, who presides over the proceedings of this House, to relay to Government Ministers the importance of answering questions as they are raised here and which are relevant to their Departments?

As a long-time Member of the House, the Chair does not have any responsibility for the quality or otherwise of answers given by any Minister of any hue, party or Government.

In fact he does. The Ceann Comhairle, as president of this House——

If the Deputy wishes to make a proposal to empower him in that regard, that is a separate matter, but as of now he does not have the power.

The Ceann Comhairle has the same power as the Speaker of the House of Commons, who took the initiative when this system was being abused by calling on Government Ministers to answer questions directly. That is a fact.

I have advised Deputy Durkan of the position.

Given the Taoiseach's stated objective of running useful legislation in tandem with the finance Bill and related legislative provisions which must be enacted before the Government decides to dissolve the Dáil, did the Cabinet not consider dealing with the code of practice for the retail and grocery sector? It seems the consultation process that was established to agree a voluntary code has run aground. We have had eight months of consultation and facilitation by Mr. John Travers, who is highly experienced in this area, and there is no reason that legislation could not be presented. The State is funding below-cost alcohol selling by supermarkets——

Does the Deputy have a question on promised legislation?

A commitment was given that a voluntary code of practice would be introduced which would tie in with legislation. The process of devising a voluntary code has fallen asunder.

Will the Deputy put down a parliamentary question to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation?

My question is why this was not seen as a priority. The legislation could have been written and presented to the House in the same way as the Climate Change Response Bill has been rushed through.

The Deputy should submit a parliamentary question or seek to discuss the issue on the Adjournment.

Top
Share