It is proposed to take No. 12, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the report by the Minister for Defence regarding service by the Defence Forces with the United Nations in 2010, back from committee; No. 12a, motion re appointment of ordinary Members to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission; No. a2, Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2011, amendments from the Seanad; No. 2, Biological Weapons Bill 2010, amendments from the Seanad; and No. 6, Welfare of Greyhounds Bill 2011 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. 12 and 12a be decided without debate.
Order of Business
There is one proposal to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 12 and 12a agreed to?
Does the proposal concern the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2011?
It concerns the motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the report by the Minister for Defence regarding service by the Defence Forces with the United Nations in 2010 and the motion re appointment of ordinary Members to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission.
I have no problem with No. 12, which concerns the approval of the report, but I would prefer if it were dealt with in the House as a whole. It was dealt with by a committee.
With regard to No. 12a, the motion re appointment of ordinary Members to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, it is proposed to nominate four Members of the Dáil, including three Fine Gael Members and one Fianna Fáil Member. A similar motion in the Seanad, if accepted, would result in the nomination of two Fine Gael Members and one Fianna Fáil Member. The sole Labour Party Member will be the Minister’s nominee. This is totally against the spirit of the Houses of the Oireachtas and contrary to precedent based on proportional representation.
Hear, hear.
I raised this with the Whip over a month ago and put forward a proposal, which was endorsed in a report by the committee secretariat. The proposal, based on proportional representation, is that all parties be represented on the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. This would still allow a Government majority, a substantial one. The commission deals with the funding and running of this House. Every party has its own view and should have its own input into the running of the Houses and into how to save money, particularly in this era. The standards, practices and working conditions of the substantial number of staff in the Houses should also be reflected. If the voices of parties such as Sinn Féin and all the Independents, not just those in the Technical Group, are not represented on the commission, it will be difficult to ensure their points of views are represented. The positive role we can play should be borne in mind.
In the previous Dáil we were excluded and did not receive a report from the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, which meant a substantial number of Members were in the dark regarding its decisions and the subjects it discussed. We believe that in this era of openness, this should not occur in the current Dáil, especially given the increased size of my party and the increased number of Independents. The practice of proportional representation should have been reflected in the motion and we oppose it because it is not.
I wish to contribute.
Deputy Murphy, I have a difficulty in that, in accordance with Standing Orders on this issue — not this issue in particular but where there is a disagreement — only a representative of the parties in the House may speak.
To be helpful to both the Ceann Comhairle and Deputy Catherine Murphy, during my first five years as a Member I had occasion to study thoroughly the relevant chapter of Standing Orders. I noted the Ceann Comhairle is not precluded from calling other Members, although preference is given to parties. It is at the Ceann Comhairle's discretion, which he may exercise occasionally.
The practice is that one representative from each party is called. I have a difficulty, therefore.
The Ceann Comhairle can make an exception.
I can understand why Deputy Catherine Murphy wishes to contribute. If any member of a party wishes to raise an objection, he or she may do so.
I regret that because Deputy Catherine Murphy could have been allowed to contribute by the Chair.
I ask the Deputy not to question. I am not trying to preclude anybody. I am just pointing out what is the position. If Deputy Higgins wishes to make a point on behalf of the Socialist Party he may do so.
I do wish to make a point in support, which is essentially the same point made by Deputy Ó Snodaigh, that it is incredible the Government which came in promising all kinds of Dáil reform and new ways of doing business is now trying to ram through the management structures of the Houses of the Oireachtas and exclude 57% of the Opposition. It is wrong and disproportionate and it does not recognise the changed composition of the Opposition in the Dáil. I ask the Minister, Deputy Bruton, who is taking the Order of Business in place of the Taoiseach not to press this issue but to engage in further discussion.
Opposition Deputies, apart from those in Fianna Fáil, who have been in discussions on this matter with the Government Whip have made it clear it is a question of fair representation and that there is no question of finance involved. There may be an allowance for participation in this but they have no interest whatsoever in it. With regard to basic fairness, all we are asking is that this is not pressed today and the Government engages in further discussions and returns with a new proposal.
In view of controversies in recent days, the commission should be extended to include a genuine representative of the taxpayers of the country who would have, I suggest, good advice for Members of the Oireachtas considering the way in which funds have been frittered away in recent times.
I understand this matter has been discussed at length at Whips' meetings and that the proposal is in accord with the guidelines of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The proposal stands.
Question put: "That the proposals for dealing with Nos. 12 and 12a, without debate, be agreed to.”
The Dáil divided: Tá, 99; Níl, 28.
Tá
- Bannon, James.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Browne, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Butler, Ray.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Collins, Áine.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conaghan, Michael.
- Conlan, Seán.
- Connaughton, Paul J.
- Conway, Ciara.
- Coonan, Noel.
- Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Deering, Pat.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Ferris, Anne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Hannigan, Dominic.
- Harrington, Noel.
- Harris, Simon.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Humphreys, Kevin.
- Keating, Derek.
- Keaveney, Colm.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Alan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lawlor, Anthony.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lyons, John.
- McCarthy, Michael.
- McFadden, Nicky.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McLoughlin, Tony.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Mathews, Peter.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulherin, Michelle.
- Murphy, Dara.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Donovan, Patrick.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Reilly, Joe.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Phelan, Ann.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Troy, Robert.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Walsh, Brian.
- White, Alex.
Níl
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Collins, Joan.
- Colreavy, Michael.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Daly, Clare.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’.
- Fleming, Tom.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McDonald, Mary Lou.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McLellan, Sandra.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Brien, Jonathan.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ross, Shane.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Catherine Murphy.
Question declared carried.
I beg the indulgence of the Ceann Comhairle to raise a matter affecting citizens up and down the country, namely, the rapid deterioration in the service provided by the Passport Office in the past two months and the difficulties citizens are experiencing in exercising their constitutional right to travel as a result of delays in the office. I hear stories of passports which are ready for dispatch being left for days on end. Will the Minister make a statement outlining what immediate steps he will take to ensure people who need passports obtain them without delay?
Is legislation proposed in this area?
No. If, however, the matter were raised at the Whips' meeting, the Whips would try to accommodate it.
Perhaps Deputy Ó Cuív will arrange for the matter to be raised through the Whips.
In light of the Minister's comments on the "Tonight with Vincent Browne" programme last night, will he confirm that the legislation to undermine the joint labour committees will end Sunday premiums and, in his own words, significantly reduce the take home pay of new entrants in the relevant sectors? Will he indicate what legislation is promised to protect existing workers from being fired and rehired under the new, lower Sunday premium rates? Will he indicate when the relevant legislation will be published given the recent arguments he has had with the Labour Parliamentary Party? Is he in a position to state whether the legislation will reflect Burton's way or Bruton's way?
I ask the Minister to reply to the questions which are in order.
Legislation is promised in this area and will be introduced as soon as possible. Given the Dáil schedule, it is likely to be after the summer recess. Government policy is to retain the joint labour committee, JLC, system while reforming it as has been recommended. The enforcement of the JLCs, which protect vulnerable workers, will continue.
It is also important to point out many of the misunderstandings about this. In the case of proposals relating to Sunday working, for example, people are already protected and Sunday working is recognised for all workers. Any change will continue that. That is the current position.
It is important to point out that where reforms such as this have been undertaken elsewhere there has been a significant employment bonus. That happened in the UK. Existing workers are protected by their existing contracts. This legislation was flagged in the programme for Government. It is part of a suite of measures that restores the minimum wage and reforms but retains the JLC system. It is the Government's intention to achieve a balanced solution to this problem that will promote employment for many thousands of young and lower skilled people who, as the Taoiseach said yesterday, are locked out of the jobs market.
The Minister should not mislead the Dáil.
We are not having a debate on this issue now. This is the Order of Business.
There is a huge difference between the JLC protection and ordinary legislation, and the Minister knows it. It is not the same protection by any means. The idea that driving down the wages of low-paid workers——
Deputy Higgins, I told you we are not having a debate on this.
——will create thousands of jobs is cloud cuckoo land.
I am not sure if the Deputy heard me.
I wish to ask a question, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister be more precise about the timing of this legislation? He has been shouting about it from the rooftops for some time and apparently considers it very urgent. Let us have a firm timescale for it.
We learned this morning that the Irish ship MV Saoirse has been sabotaged in a Turkish port by agents acting for the Israeli Government——
The Deputy is out of order.
——thus preventing it from bringing aid to the imprisoned people of Gaza.
It is not on the Order of Business. The Deputy should resume his seat.
Will the Minister call in the Israeli ambassador and demand an explanation for this?
Will the Minister answer the question on the legislation?
There are a number of issues involved. There is a court case pending and we await its decision. There will then be a Government decision. I will proceed to prepare heads of a Bill on that basis and we will make rapid progress in introducing a Bill to the Oireachtas.
This morning the Government published the Electoral (Amendment) Bill which contains a provision that allows the total number of Members of the Dáil to be reduced to 152. That is the lower figure in the range the Bill will provide for at the next election. I took out my calculator——
Sorry, Deputy, but we cannot debate the legislation now.
Will the legislation now be withdrawn in light of the preliminary census results, which might mean that the Bill will become unconstitutional? It comes very close to the maximum ratio of people to Deputies that is provided for in the Constitution.
The Bill has been published today and will be debated next week, when such issues can be raised. The Bill provides for a range, not a specific proposal——
Which is unconstitutional.
There will be an opportunity to debate it in the House next week.
Will the Minister consider amending the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Act to respect the mandate of Members of this House who are Independents and members of smaller parties? It is a sham and a national disgrace that we are being excluded from the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission——
The Deputy is out of order.
There are four Fine Gael Members, one Labour Party Member but not one Member from Sinn Féin or the Technical Group.
Sorry, Deputy, we have dealt with that issue. There was a vote on it.
That is undemocratic.
Resume your seat, Deputy.
It is undemocratic, particularly when members of the Independent group are saying they will do it for nothing and bypass the €15,000.
Resume your seat.
Give up your €40,000 then.
You give up yours.
You give up your €2.3 million and the Labour Party can give up the €1.4 million.
Please Deputies.
You give up your €100,000.
Read the report.
Give up your leader's allowance.
Read the report.
Give up yours too.
It is €80,000.
We are happy to account for it.
Please, Deputies.
My apologies, a Cheann Comhairle.
It is not good enough. There is no point in laughing about it. The rule that Members should talk through the Chair applies to Ministers and backbenchers and Members on both sides of the House. Deputy Finian McGrath, you were totally out of order and refused to resume your seat. I will not tolerate it.
I did resume my seat.
You did not. Deputies should stick to the Order of Business. There is a Committee on Procedure and Privileges and if you wish to have Standing Orders amended, submit proposals. In the meantime, I will apply the Standing Orders as they stand at present. That applies to every Deputy on both sides of the House.
I call Deputy Boyd Barrett. He must stay within Standing Orders and the Order of Business and ask about promised legislation.
On forthcoming legislation on maritime matters, will such legislation include the most severe criminal sanctions against the Israeli state——
Deputy Boyd Barrett should resume his seat.
——or any other state that attacks Irish citizens and Irish territory on the seas——
The Deputy must resume his seat.
——endangering the lives of Irish citizens trying to bring aid to the people of Gaza?
That is the last time you will be called.
Everybody else can do it but I cannot.
I am warning Deputies again that I will ask them to leave this House if they continuously refuse to obey the Chair, which you elected. That applies to every Deputy. This is becoming a farce every morning. I call Deputy Ó Snodaigh.
I will try to stay within Standing Orders.
Please do.
I will try.
Especially given that you are a Whip.
There has been much debate about Dáil reform. A disgraceful decision was taken earlier, which gave €121,000——
You had your say on it so please proceed with your question relating to promised legislation.
A sum of €120,000 is going to Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Fianna Fáil.
That is not within the Standing Orders. Resume your seat.
It is. I have to give the context.
No, you do not give the context. You may ask a simple question about promised legislation.
It is a simple question relating to Dáil reform and whether there is promised legislation to remove the €120,000 which is granted to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to give to its Members.
That is not in order under Standing Orders. Please resume your seat.
Will there be an amendment——
There is no promised legislation in that area.
I can ask about this. A huge promise has been made by this Government relating to Dáil reform and transparency. I am asking if this is included in it. Is a change to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission——
It is not on the Order of Business. Put down a parliamentary question.
To which Minister?
Put it down for the Taoiseach, if you wish.
He will not answer it because it is not his responsibility. It is your responsibility, a Cheann Comhairle.
I call Deputy Colreavy.
Given that the preliminary census figures were published today and the electoral constituency commission Bill is due to be published, will the Government consider the creation of more six-seat constituencies——
Sorry, Deputy, you are out of order. That is not promised legislation. Resume your seat.
Are the heads of the Bill not being published next week?
Put down a parliamentary question and you will get a reply to it. This is not Question Time and there are no Leaders' Questions today. We have business to do so please let us get on with it. Resume your seat, Deputy.
Are the heads of the Bill not being published?
Resume your seat, Deputy. I call Deputy Tóibín.
The all-Ireland economy is growing and businesses on both sides of the Border are increasing their business levels. It is the opinion of a number of business people that the previous and current Governments are behind the curve with regard to infrastructure——
Will the Deputy please ask about promised legislation?
Will the industrial development (amendment) Bill provide for the amalgamation of agencies and provide the infrastructure to harness the development of all-Ireland trade?
We have no date yet on that legislation. Its content will be debated at that time.
Amendment of the existing European treaties is required to establish the European stability mechanism which is likely to be needed by Greece in September. It is complex legislation but the Taoiseach said he expects it to be published, debated and enacted within the next fortnight. Will the Minister explain how this will happen?
The Minister does not explain how it will happen. The Deputy asked when the Bill would be taken. When will it be taken?
I will get back to the Deputy with the precise date it will be taken. It is a matter of some urgency. The Government will present it at an early date.
In light of the disclosure of salary and bonus arrangements at the NTMA and the Minister, Deputy Howlin's comments last week about the element of secrecy in that area, does the Government have plans to bring forward proposals to ensure greater transparency and accountability with regard to paying bonuses at the agency?
It is not intended to deal with this matter by legislation. As the Deputy knows, the Minister for public expenditure and reform has been pressing for transparency and to reform a system the Government inherited, where bonuses paid were not related to genuine performance. There is now greater transparency. For the first time, details have been published of earnings in the NTMA and NAMA. That is a significant step forward. The Government is keen to curb bonuses and to introduce a scheme where bonuses would only be paid for genuine performance.
Is legislation promised to allow Ministers remove directors of semi-State bodies before their terms of office expire?
There is no promised legislation. Existing legislation provides for the appointment of board members.
When is it proposed to publish the planning and development (foreshores) Bill, in view of the fact that many water and sewerage schemes are held up because licences have not been granted? I am sure rural Deputies could tell the Minister of these delays, particularly in coastal communities.
The Government is conscious of that matter and has approved legislation. It will be published tomorrow and debated, I hope, next week.
I wish to raise the fiscal responsibility Bill. This week, a report indicated that the formation of a fiscal council is imminent. It was my understanding that the Bill was needed to allow that body to be formed. Can the Minister indicate when the legislation will come before the House?
It is hoped that the membership of the fiscal council can be appointed shortly on an informal basis, and that the legislation to underpin it will be published in the autumn.
I ask for your assistance, a Cheann Comhairle, with regard to Standing Orders. Last week on the Order of Business, you ruled me out of order when I raised a matter. I pointed out that legislation promised outside the House was within Standing Orders, specifically Standing Order 26(3).
To what legislation do you refer, Deputy?
I am speaking about any legislation promised outside the House. You said legislation could be raised on the Order of Business only if it had been promised within the House.
I did not.
You did.
Legislation may be promised in or outside the House. Last week, I said matters contained in the programme for Government may not be raised on the Order of Business. If legislation is required——
Surely the programme for Government is promised outside the House. Any issue in the programme for Government is promised legislation.
If something is in the programme for Government, it does not necessarily mean legislation is required. With regard to matters in the programme for Government, Deputies should submit a parliamentary question. If he or she is told legislation is required, the matter can be pursued on the Order of Business.
He has it spot on, Billy.
If a Minister says, outside the House, the Government intends to bring forward legislation——
In that case, the legislation may be raised on the Order of Business.
Thank you for that clarity, a Cheann Comhairle. There was confusion after last week, on my behalf of course.
There is still confusion.
These are extraordinary times.
I know they are.
We need quick and drastic action against cronyism and opportunism, and not against the health service. When will legislation be brought before the House to bring the salaries of top earners back to levels the country can afford?
There is not promised legislation but the Minister for public expenditure and reform has already taken steps to reduce salaries. Within the public service that has been done on a voluntary basis for all senior appointments. That is part of the Government's programme.
A Cheann Comhairle, I wish to raise two items of promised legislation and one in respect of which you might be able to offer assistance. The first is the criminal law (sexual offences) Bill. What steps have been taken to bring it before the House? Have the heads of the Bill been discussed or is it prepared and ready for publication? Second, the legal services Bill is to provide for the regulation of the legal professions and give effect to the reports of the Competition Authority and the legal costs working group. This is an issue that affects the entire economy. To what extent has the preparation of this Bill been progressed? Can the Minister give the House some indication of its progress and the date of its introduction in the House?
In the case of the first Bill, the heads have not yet come to Government. The second matter is a priority of Government and there is a commitment in the memorandum of understanding to publish that legislation at an early date. Intense work is ongoing on it. The intention is to meet that schedule.
I thank the Minister. A Cheann Comhairle, you might be able to assist in a matter that affects the way we do our business.
Deputy, I would like to assist you but other Deputies are waiting to ask questions.
Will you assist me when other Deputies have asked their questions?
If you come to my office, I will certainly assist you.
Thank you for the invitation, a Cheann Comhairle. Your predecessor gave the same invitation to me on numerous occasions. You will be glad to know I did not accept.
The issue is this, a Cheann Comhairle. Are the restrictions placed by the Data Protection Act on——
Deputy, you are out of order. Please resume your seat.
May I raise the issue?
No, Deputy. Your issue has been dealt with.
A Cheann Comhairle, I do not want to have a row with you.
Deputy, please resume your seat.
I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, but I asked you——
Resume your seat.
Please let me finish the sentence.
Resume your seat, please.
I will, but will you allow me to finish the sentence then?
Deputy, you asked two questions on legislation and they were answered. You cannot hop up again. Other Deputies are waiting.
I indicated at the outset that I would raise three questions.
No, you said two questions.
There were two on promised legislation and a third on which I said I would require your assistance, a Cheann Comhairle. I raised the same question when I was on the other side of the House.
Did the Deputy get the same answer?
We will not go there.
We are in a House of Parliament. It is becoming a circus on Thursday mornings.
This is an important issue that is fundamental to the way we do business in the House. If you let me finish, I will sit down.
The Data Protection Act is now preventing access to information to which Members of the House have an entitlement. Will we repeal, review or amend the Data Protection Act?
Is that promised legislation?
There is no promised legislation on that matter.
Deputy Durkan, I suggest you put down a parliamentary question.
We had an interesting exchange this morning on the payment of party leaders' allowances. Is there promised legislation to require Independent Members to account for their party leaders' allowances?
There is no promised legislation on that matter.
In view of the serious financial implication for various local authorities, can the Minister tell us the stage of planned legislation to reform local government and appoint, by plebiscite or referendum, directly elected mayors for certain cities?
There is work in the office of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government on this issue but it has not yet come to Government. As there are no heads of Bills, I cannot give the Deputy an accurate date.
Is legislation promised to support the commitment in the programme for Government to establish a commission on taxation and welfare to adjudicate on the issue of welfare rates? If so, how does that sit with the Taoiseach saying outside the House that there would be no increase or decrease in rates?
Is legislation promised?
There is a commission and it does not require legislation. That commission is working.
I have asked a few times about promised legislation on the strategic investment bank but I am finding it hard to get a clear answer.
Join the club.
Does the Government intend to introduce this? The main banks are unlikely to lend to business this year and the strategic investment bank has been promised. When will the legislation be introduced?
Legislation will be needed and the Minister for Finance is working on this issue. The priority was the restructuring of the existing banks and the creation of two pillar banks. There is a greatly strengthened unit within the Department of Finance which is riding shotgun on those pillar banks to see that they meet the criteria set. Work is ongoing on the strategic investment bank in the Minister's Department but I cannot at this stage give a precise date for the legislation.
When will the promised legislation on noise pollution be published? Will it cover issues such as dogs barking and noisy neighbours? Nothing is in place to address these issues, which are becoming a major problem.
Unfortunately, I cannot shed light on the content of the legislation but no date has been set for its publication.
My question relates to the sittings of the House, not promised legislation. The ministerial rota has been circulated and it is clear that the Minister for public expenditure and reform will not be accountable to Members until at least September. With regard to the sittings of the House, when is it intended that the House will rise for the summer recess? When is it intended that Deputies will be back in the Chamber doing their business following the recess?
The House will rise on 21 July and it will return on 14 September. The rota for parliamentary questions will be amended as soon as the House approves the legislation currently before it. There will be an opportunity for parliamentary questions to the Minister for public expenditure and reform.
What about oral questions?
If the rota permits. I hope so.
So do we.