Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Apr 2011

Vol. 730 No. 1

Order of Business

It is proposed to take No. 7, statements on the European Council held in Brussels; No. 8, Road Traffic Bill 2011 [Seanad] — Committee Stage; No. 6, Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Bill 2010 [Seanad] — Second Stage (resumed); and No. 9, statements on suicide prevention (resumed).

It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: the proceedings on No. 7 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 85 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply: the statements shall be confined to the Taoiseach and the main spokespersons for Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the Technical Group who shall be called upon in that order and may share time which shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case, a Minister or Minister of State shall take questions for a period not exceeding 20 minutes, and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed five minutes; and the suspension of the sitting under Standing Order 23(1) shall take place at 1.30 p.m. or at the conclusion of No. 7, whichever is the later, until 2.30 p.m.

Private Members' business shall be No. 19, motion re education and training (resumed), to conclude at 8.30 p.m., if not previously concluded.

There are two proposals to be put to the House. Are the proposals dealing with No. 7, statements on the European Council held in Brussels, and the suspension of the sitting under Standing Order 23(1) agreed to? Agreed.

Will the Taoiseach clarify the timeline for the introduction of legislation on the promised reversal of the cut in the minimum wage?

I cannot give an exact timeline. As I said in response to an earlier question, the analysis of other wage matters being carried out independently will be available in two weeks' time. The best advice is that we can then proceed along the legislative route which should not be too difficult in respect of the minimum wage. The Minister will deal with this as a matter of priority, but he wants to deal with it as part of a package in respect of the report and the minimum wage. The Deputy should not ask me to give him a date for the presentation of the legislation.

On a point of order, I am looking for guidance.

I will give the Deputy whatever guidance I can.

There is the issue of when a Deputy can raise a point of order. Second, I asked the Taoiseach a very direct question which he did not answer. I know that is part of the gift in these sessions, but——

I cannot oblige the Taoiseach to reply to a question in a particular fashion.

On the issue of when a Deputy can raise a point of order——

What happens during Leaders' Questions is covered under Standing Order 27. It is at the discretion of the Chair that one is allowed put a question. A Deputy has two minutes to put questions to the Taoiseach who has three minutes to reply. There is one minute for supplementary questions and one minute for a reply. We are dealing with questions, not issues which arise about points of order. I cannot allow a point of order because a Deputy is not satisfied with the reply given by the Taoiseach. The position is different in an ordinary debate. Leaders' Questions is a facility provided for the leaders of groups and parties to ask questions each day.

I am trying to assist the Taoiseach because I know his mission is to keep the people informed.

I do not assist anybody here. I am independent.

I appreciate that and think the Ceann Comhairle is independent, but how does one define what is meant by "a reply"?

I do not determine the reply, the Taoiseach does.

How does the Ceann Comhairle define the meaning of a reply?

I am not here to do that. Does Deputy Adams have a question on the Order of Business?

Deputy McDonald will ask it.

Today's Order Paper has no provision for any statement on the issue of the revised memorandum of understanding. Reference has been made to the fact that we discovered through the media that there would be such a revision. Given that the initial bailout agreement was brought before this House and voted on in December, when does the Taoiseach propose to bring this matter to the floor of the House? I ask for a debate on the revised agreement and that Members are given an opportunity to vote on it. The Taoiseach and the ranks of the Government have steadfastly refused to give the Irish people their say on this matter and it is essential the Government brings the revised terms and conditions to the House, have a debate and put it to the vote.

The Deputy does not expect us to have a debate on the revised memorandum of understanding today or tomorrow, seeing as we will not sign off on it until Friday. There is a meeting of the Whips this evening and Deputy McDonald is perfectly entitled to raise the matter so that it can be discussed whenever time permits next week. We do not have a difficulty with that.

We are focused on attempting to sort out these problems. There are constraints on Ireland because of the EU-IMF deal. We cannot borrow money, the banks cannot borrow money and the Government has made serious decisions to get out of this mess. We have no difficulty in discussing the memorandum of understanding. This is a serious challenge for people and country and we must all be involved in that. The cards left to us may not be the best but we must place them in the best order for the good of the country and the good of the people.

I take it that not alone is the Taoiseach happy there will be a debate, he will support the idea that this House will have a vote on the revised deal. Last December, Deputy Kenny was enthusiastic for the original agreement to be brought before this House, scrutinised and voted on. The Government at the time resisted that and then finally acceded to it. I trust the current Taoiseach will be more willing to allow discussion and for Members of this House to have a vote on the revised terms of this deal, which will be published on Friday.

That is not a matter for the Order Of Business.

The debate can happen on Tuesday.

I hope Deputy McDonald realises that she can trust me.

This morning the insurance companies are threatening major increases on unfortunate, hard-pressed householders who are already getting hammered with EU-IMF austerity and the policies of this Government. Can the Taoiseach point to legislation where he might require them to delve into the substantial profits they made in previous years rather than hitting people who cannot afford it?

I do not think there is legislation promised in that regard. I am aware of the reports this morning of 10% increases over the past two years and the difficulties people are experiencing. There is no legislation promised.

When is it the intention to commence the provisions in the Dog Breeding Establishments Act?

On the same issue——

I must come back to Deputy Collins on that point. I cannot give an exact time for the introduction of the conditions. I will let the Deputy know as soon as possible. While I am on my feet, I congratulate Deputy Martin and all of his reduced number of Members on their appointments to important positions yesterday.

The Taoiseach was slow out of the traps this morning.

I wish them the best of luck as they get to grips with the Government forces here.

The Taoiseach is familiar with the case of the late Garda Robbie McCallion and the outcome of the case during the general election. In the eyes of many, this has diminished the protection given to gardaí on the beat. In the context of the forthcoming criminal justice Bill, I asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he has plans to strengthen the protection for serving gardaí. He said he has none. In the context of the outcome of that case, which happened during the election——

This is the Order Of Business.

This is in the context of the criminal justice Bill, to strengthen the protection for serving gardaí who are on the beat, protecting communities.

This is a serious matter. I met with the family and I am well aware of the sensitivities involved. A court case made a decision in respect of the tragic death of that young garda who was in uniform at the time. I will have the concerns of Deputy Calleary brought to the attention of the Minister for Justice and Equality, who will reply.

The Dog Breeding Establishments Act was signed by the President in July 2010. Can the Taoiseach be more clear on the timeframe for the signing of the commencement order?

That is the second query on the Dog Breeding Establishments Act this morning.

Careful, they bite.

I do not have a date for the commencement but I will revert to the Deputy as quickly as I can.

One item on the legislative programme is a Bill which is before the Dail and the Seanad. As Whip I have the opportunity that others do not have and I encourage the Taoiseach to fast-track the Construction Contracts Bill. This will ease the distress of many subcontractors around the country. In particular, it will end the sharp practice of some builders in undermining subcontractors, many of whom are in dire straits and are being put out of business.

We understand that.

In the last Dáil, there was cross-party agreement on the need for it.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh should wait for the answer.

This is being addressed by the Department of Finance. The Bill is awaiting Second Stage. It is an important Bill and I have had meetings with a number of people who are out on a limb because they have not been paid for work they carried out on projects in which they were involved. This matter has all-party support and the Chief Whip will expedite the matter.

Today's Order Paper indicates that Deputy Frances Fitzgerald will attend the House tomorrow to answer questions on a wide range of subjects that have nothing to do with her role as Minister with responsibility for children. When will the legislation be introduced to deal with this absurd situation?

It is not an absurd situation. This is a change for very good reasons. A new Department with responsibility for children and youth affairs has been created and it requires legislation because it is a constitutional Department. That legislation is being prioritised and will be brought before the House as quickly as possible. The same situation applies in the case of the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and public sector reform.

I call on Deputy William O'Dea.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me my proper title. It is very much appreciated.

I ask the Taoiseach if he will facilitate a debate on job losses, which is a serious matter. I refer to the 2,000 job losses in AIB.

It is shocking to see the Labour Party laughing at job losses.

If the Labour Party finds it amusing that 2,000 people will lose their jobs, that speaks for itself. Will the Taoiseach facilitate a debate on the 2,000 proposed job losses? Is the Taoiseach aware of the statement of the chief executive of AIB that the board of the bank will defer to the Government in respect of the terms of the redundancy on offer, as the Government is the majority shareholder? The Government is the dominant shareholder at 93%.

We will not have the debate now.

Will the Taoiseach engage with the board of the bank on this matter?

Will the Taoiseach ensure the people who will lose their jobs will at least be treated decently?

This is of very serious concern for the people involved.

It is not a laughing matter. The Taoiseach should tell the Labour Party.

These people had neither hand, act nor part in bringing about the wreckage of the economy. The Government is concerned that the people are consulted properly and treated fairly. That is the minimum required. In respect of the recapitalisation of the banks, the Government wants to see a situation where banks get back to lending for the purposes for which they should. I refer to small businesses and mortgages. We do not want a situation where there is a diversion from that. It is a balance between fair treatment, full consultation, understanding the difficulties of the people who will be the victims of these redundancies and recapitalisation of the banks, the focus of which should be on lending into the economy for growth purposes.

I call Deputy Gerry Adams.

The Taoiseach did not answer my question. I asked two questions. Will he facilitate a debate and will he engage with the bank board?

The Taoiseach answered the Deputy's question in regard to the debate.

That matter can be dealt with at the Whips' meeting. The Nyberg report on banks and banking practises will, following publication, be brought before the House. It might be more appropriate for the Deputy to raise his point during that debate.

We are talking about redundancies.

Can the revised memorandum of understanding to be published on Friday be agreed by the Government without it first coming before this House?

That is not a matter for the Order of Business.

It is an important point.

I know it is an important point but it is not a matter for the Order of Business.

Perhaps the Ceann Comhairle can provide me with some guidance in regard to the Order of Business.

Is the Deputy asking about time or a debate?

No, I am asking about the principle: can the Government agree this revised memorandum of understanding without first coming in here——

That is not a matter for the Order of Business.

——and allowing the Dáil state its view on it.

That is not a matter for the Order of Business.

Perhaps the Taoiseach will indicate when the Government intends to bring forward legislation to reform the law in regard to bankruptcy. It is stated in the programme for Government that a more flexible system would be introduced.

Allied Irish Banks announced yesterday that it is considering debt forgiveness or write-off of mortgages. The Government has also given commitments in regard to mortgage interest relief and so on. Does the Government support the debt write-off——

That is not a matter for the Order of Business.

It is relevant because——

It may be relevant but——

——legislation in respect of interest relief for certain categories of home owners has been promised. Does the Government support AIB's approach in respect of debt write-off and what proposals does it intend to bring forward and when?

I call the Taoiseach on the matter relating to legislation.

The bankruptcy legislation is not listed for this session. It is a matter that must be dealt with and work on it is proceeding. The Government is interested in options to relieve stress on mortgage holders. Such options must be treated carefully, would require authorisation and, in some case, legislation, which is an issue that could be discussed here in the House in the context of the Nyberg report on banking or as a separate issue.

Will the Taoiseach facilitate another debate on the Government's position in respect of bank recapitalisation? As I understand it, there is now a difference of opinion between the Minister for Finance and the independent banking expert in whom Fine Gael put so much weight in advance of the election——

There is no dispute here. The Deputy should ask a question.

——a person whom the people of Dublin South put their considerable weight and support behind and who is now a Member of this House.

That is not a matter for the Order of Business.

Deputy Ross is not here to defend himself.

It is an issue as to why we should have a debate on this matter.

No, no reason is necessary.

I am asking the Taoiseach if he would consider having a debate so that the concern that is emerging can be discussed.

Are we having a debate, Taoiseach?

As Deputy Rabbitte indicated, Deputy Ross is not here to defend himself.

He is an expert in everything.

There is only one expert on banking. He is a multi-expert.

The independent expert, Deputy Mathews.

Deputy Dooley should not get so upset about such matters

Deputy Mathews has his head well screwed on.

Why then is the Government running?

Is the Taoiseach saying that the Minister for Finance does not have his screwed on?

(Interruptions).

The Taoiseach needs to show confidence in his Minister for Finance. This is a serious point. The Taoiseach is suggesting that the figures of the Minister for Finance are wrong.

Deputy Mathews is well able to defend himself and the Government. There is no difference of opinion there.

I will consult with Deputy Dooley later.

I call Deputy Ferris.

Current legislation provides that self employed people who on retirement owe tax or PRSI to the Revenue Commissioners cannot be paid the old age pension. Will the Government introduce legislation to amend this provision so that people who are destitute, old age pensioners, are allowed to draw their old age pension.

Is legislation promised, Taoiseach?

I am advised by the Minister that the Commission on Social Welfare will examine such issues. This is a matter of great personal sensitivity for the people caught in this category. I am sure that if the Deputy submits a parliamentary question to the Minister for Finance or Minister of State with responsibility for social inclusion he would receive an up-to-date explanation on the matter. I advise him to do so.

I am advised that the Commission on Social Welfare is examining this area.

I call Deputy Boyd Barrett.

With respect, what are old age pensioners to do while waiting for that to happen?

The Deputy may not pursue the matter at the moment. The Deputy should table a parliamentary question on the matter.

What about people who currently cannot put food on the table because they cannot access their old age pensions?

I fully understand the Deputy's difficulty. I hope he understands mine in regard to the Order of Business.

This is causing difficulty. It is a life or death issue.

I appreciate that.

I am talking about people who cannot afford to put bread on the table.

The Deputy should resume his seat.

If the Deputy submits, for written answer, a parliamentary question outlining the details of that specific case he will receive an answer very quickly.

I call Deputy Boyd Barrett.

I would like to press the Taoiseach on the matter of a debate on the staggering announcement by AIB in regard to 2,000 job losses and the anticipated announcement regarding further job losses elsewhere in the banking system. When is it proposed to hold that debate on, as acknowledged by the Taoiseach, this serious matter?

Is a debate promised, Taoiseach?

Is it not time, given this announcement of horrendous job losses, to re-examine legislation dealing with excessive remuneration for executives——

That is not a matter for the Order of Business. A debate on the matter will be held.

——-in banks which are effectively State owned?

The Nyberg report will deal with all of the issues raised by the Deputy. He will have ample time during the debate on that report to raise all of those matters.

Will the Taoiseach indicate when the promised legislation in regard to the establishment of the strategic investment bank will be introduced?

I cannot give the Deputy a time in that regard.

I bet the Taoiseach cannot.

It is on the never never.

The strategic investment bank is part of the programme for Government, as is the NewEra development. These matters require major consideration. I cannot indicate a date for presentation of the Bill. These matters are being worked on. They have not fallen off the edge.

Can the Taoiseach indicate when it is proposed to hold the promised debate on the Irish language and the 20 year strategy?

The Deputy may be interested to learn that the matter was previously debated in the House. The Government yesterday approved the appointment of a number of Cabinet sub-committees, one of which will deal with the Irish language and the Gaeltacht and will be chaired by me. The Cabinet sub-committee will meet again tomorrow morning at 8.30 a.m. A debate on the matter will be held in the House as soon as is appropriate. Beidh mé toilteanach cloisteáil céard a bheidh le rá.

We will now take Questions to the Taoiseach.

I indicated I wished to raise a matter on the Order of Business.

My apologies, I did not see the Deputy indicate his wish to speak. Does the Deputy have a question on promised legislation?

My question relates to the holding of a debate in the House. Will the Taoiseach facilitate a debate on the post-2012 period? Much of our economic debates relate to the here and now and what is happening in terms of recapitalisation or European Council meetings. The European Commission has outlined that post-2012——

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but I must argue this point with him every day. This is the Order of Business which is about the taking of business, including legislation, promised either inside or outside the House, the making of secondary legislation, arrangements for sittings and when Bills or other documents on the Order Paper will be circulated. I do not want to have to cut the Deputy off every day in the House when he is making statements.

Perhaps the Ceann Comhairle will clarify——

Is the Deputy raising any of the matters relevant to the Order of Business? I have tried to be as flexible as possible.

Will the Ceann Comhairle clarify if we are allowed to ask during the Order of Business whether statements will be taken?

Yes, if the Deputy is asking for time. The Deputy does not have to expand on the reason statements should be allowed.

With respect, a Cheann Comhairle, every day——

It is now 11.20 a.m. I am moving on to Questions to the Taoiseach. We also have much other business to deal with.

I will try to be as concise as possible. Will the Taoiseach allow time for a debate in the House on the scenario post-2012 given the European Commission has stated this State will have exhausted all the EU-IMF money at that stage? I thank the Ceann Comhairle for not interrupting me when putting that question to the Taoiseach.

That is a possibility and the opportunity for that to be considered will be at a meeting of the Whips.

Top
Share