It is proposed to take No. 12, statements on the proposed amendment to section 40 of the Copyright and Related Acts 2000 and No. 13, Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011 - Second Stage (resumed). It is proposed that notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders the proceedings of No. 12 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 50 minutes, opening statements shall be made by a Minister or Minister of State followed by the main spokespersons for Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the Technical Group, who shall be called on in that order and who may share their time, not exceeding five minutes in each case; a Minister or Minister of State shall take questions for a period not exceeding 20 minutes; and the Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed ten minutes. Private Members' business shall be No.39, motion re small primary schools.
Order of Business
There is one proposal to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 12 agreed to?
It is not agreed. I will explain the reason. The Taoiseach is well aware of the importance of global Internet companies to our economy and the vital importance of making clear to the world that Ireland, as a country, is committed to innovation and creativity in this sector.
We need a deeper and fundamental reflection on this question. The Minister of State, Deputy Seán Sherlock, is handling the issue of on-line copyright, although perhaps not perfectly at this stage. So far the handling of it is giving rise, correctly or otherwise, to a damaging perception of how this country views Internet freedom. I accept and acknowledge this is an evolving situation and there are very strong views on all sides of the debate.
Would the Taoiseach consider postponing implementation of the statutory instrument and allow more time for discussion, or for a mechanism within the House to have a more detailed and fundamental reflection on how we deal with this fundamental issue in the modern era? It requires further deliberation by all in the House.
Is Deputy Stanley speaking on behalf of Sinn Féin?
That is on a separate issue.
On this issue I call Deputy Boyd Barrett.
I concur with Deputy Martin. This is an issue on which there are very strong views. I believe there is to be a substantial demonstration next weekend on this issue.
Did the Deputy organise that?
It was not organised by me but by the people.
There was a time, Deputy Byrne. There was a time.
The Deputy, without interruption.
I am doing the Taoiseach a favour. This could become a very big issue if it is not handled sensitively, or if it is seen in any way that we are dragooning something through which people believe interferes with the freedom of the Internet.
Of course there are issues that concern musicians and artists and we must deal with those. However, there is big concern about this measure and I do not believe it should be rammed through. I apologise to the Taoiseach for again making reference to Germany but I was shocked to hear there is a new political party in that country, running at 10% in the polls, called the Piracy Party which relates to this precise issue.
Bluebeard.
There are a number of Deputies in Sweden too-----
It is a serious issue and we should allow for proper debate-----
We have our own pirates.
If we are to pass new laws on this-----
We certainly have. There are a few Labour Party pirates.
-----they should not be put through as a statutory instrument.
It is important.
This is being handled in a serious manner by the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock. Last week I stated to the House that in the EMI and Others v. UPC High Court judgment of 11 October 2010, Mr. Justice Charleton pointed out he was restrained by the wording of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 and thus could not grant an injunction to prevent infringement of copyright against an information service provider, or ISP, in the circumstances of what are called transient communications. In so doing, he stated Ireland had not fully transposed the relevant EU directives.
Legal proceedings against the State have been issued by the plaintiffs in the UPC case. Damages arising from a successful challenge here could be quite substantial.
On 22 December 2011, the European Commission also requested information on Ireland's compliance with the copyright directive. The Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, is handling this in a serious manner. The audits carried out already indicate this matter needs to be attended to and that is what the Minister of State is doing.
If extra time is-----
There is no requirement from Europe to implement this.
-----required for a discussion on the proposed amendment, the Chief Whip will be able to facilitate that. It is a matter of serious import and the Minister of State is handling it in such a fashion.
I thank the Taoiseach for his response.
It is not required by Europe.
We are not having a debate on it now.
Will the Taoiseach consider setting up a specialist sub-committee of the House to consider this issue in greater depth? I believe that is required.
This is a technical issue before the House. It is statements and has nothing to do with statutory instruments.
When is that protest going to be held?
On Saturday.
There could be many people on it.
The Deputies better wrap up well then.
Is Deputy Kelleher going to come all the way back from Cork on Saturday for it?
The Taoiseach has offered that he will agree to further time being allowed for the debate. Is it time Members are seeking or-----
It is time but-----
No, we are not having a debate on it now. Is it extra time the Deputies are seeking?
I do not want to put this to a vote but I want a more fundamental reflection on the issue.
What does that mean? Does the Deputy want more time for the statements?
A Cheann Comhairle, very briefly-----
It means more time for debate. I also believe the Parliament must set up a specialist committee on this matter.
That can come up during the course of the statements.
I am looking for a commitment from the Taoiseach on this significant issue.
I do not want to be setting up specialist committees for every matter. If Deputy Martin wants a more fundamental reflection, it can be done through discussion in the House. The Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, is amenable to having a full and thorough analysis of this matter which can be done in the House. Extra time will be made available if required.
This must be before the statutory instrument is introduced.
Hold on, Deputy Boyd Barrett. I do not know whether the Deputy is aware of the arrangements for the statements. Five minutes are available for each spokesperson and 20 minutes for questions and answers. Within this, the Deputy can ask all the questions he wishes. If the Deputy wants more time, the Taoiseach has offered it.
We certainly need more time. However, it is also important the statutory instrument is not implemented before-----
Deputy Boyd Barrett can make that point during the statements.
Are we getting more time?
That can be decided among Members during the course of the debate.
I will make an extra half an hour available.
There will be an extra half hour. The Whips can meet to make the necessary arrangements.
Will the Taoiseach give a timeline on the preparation of the fiscal responsibility Bill, as part of the intergovernmental agreement and treaty agreed at last evening's EU summit? Will he consider the establishment of a sub-committee of the European affairs committee to facilitate broader discussion in the House and to tease out the treaty's implications for future budgets and job creation? Will this sub-committee also consider in depth the impact assessments the Government must have undertaken and prepared in advance of the negotiations leading to the treaty? Before Christmas, I asked the Taoiseach to establish such a committee, as had been done for the Lisbon treaty and which was effective in bringing Members into the discussion. Will he consider the same for the treaty agreed last night?
I would like to hear the reflections of the committee on European affairs first. If it were to consider such a move were appropriate, I would certainly give it consideration. The committee is a full Oireachtas committee of the House. It should have hearings on the intergovernmental agreement and the treaty to tease out the issues. This treaty is not as expansive as the Lisbon treaty which covered a large spectrum of issues and circumstances.
Deputy Hannigan and his European affairs committee should arrange, first, for official briefings on the treaty and then take it from there.
When will the Government bring forward legislation to establish the new water utility, Irish Water, and to introduce water metering and charges? Up to €500 million will be spent on rolling out water meters which would be better spent fixing the leaks in the system.
I do not have an actual timeline for this legislation. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government is pursuing the establishment of Irish Water as part of his responsibilities in the programme for Government. I cannot give an accurate date on when it will be published but it is a priority matter receiving the Minister's considerable attention. I will request he send the Deputy a more up-to-date timescale for what he envisages for the legislation.
Regarding the proposed noise nuisance Bill, the Taoiseach will be aware across Ireland many thousands of families, night after night, live in dreadful conditions because of anti-social behaviour, most of it noise-related. As a matter of urgency, can this Bill be brought before the House earlier?
Is the Taoiseach confident the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, the main legislation for dealing with anti-social behaviour, is sufficient for dealing with this problem?
That is a separate issue.
Many families affected do not believe it is sufficient. Will the Taoiseach consider strengthening the public order Act to include greater sanctions against those involved in anti-social behaviour?
The second part can be dealt with by a parliamentary question.
When it arises, noise-related anti-social behaviour can be very provocative and upsetting for those affected. The Minister for Justice and Equality is keeping the public order Act under review. No date has been fixed for the publication of the noise Bill. From personal experience and having dealt with many constituents who suffered this problem, I am aware of how difficult this can be but also how many cases can be resolved.
The programme for Government promised legislation to ensure transparency and accountability from the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA. Every day, issues arise around this. The Taoiseach himself raised the possibility of developers or those connected to them gaining access to property.
Where are we going here?
Legislation was promised in this regard through a freedom of information amendment Bill. Have the heads of the Bill been drawn up and when is the Bill expected before the House, as there are serious issues around NAMA?
The legislation in question will be published later this year. The Minister for Finance is taking an interest in how NAMA is proceeding. It has moved somewhat from its original difficulties. There is a perception that the matter needs to be looked at again, however.
The Minister for Finance got expert opinion on NAMA's structure and how it might be facilitated to bring about faster involvement and greater return for the taxpayer eventually. He will reflect on the advice he was given and bring to Cabinet the changes he wishes to bring about either through legislation or some other form. This an issue of considerable interest both to the citizens and to the extent of the properties in NAMA's portfolio, some of which are abroad.
The Government's commitment to the austerity treaty will cost the State materially and it would be reckless of the State to sign up to a treaty without working out in advance how much it is going to cost to bring the deficit to less than 0.5% -----
Promised legislation, please.
----- and the GDP ratio to less than 60%. What legislation does the Government propose to bring before the House to further the proposals and will its acceptance of the austerity treaty affect the timetable for the fiscal responsibility Bill, which is in the Government legislation programme?
When is the fiscal responsibility Bill due?
The Minister for Finance is preparing the fiscal responsibility Bill. As the Deputy is aware, this was a commitment given by the Government prior to the intergovernmental treaty agreed yesterday in Brussels in respect of legislating for a debt brake.
I should point out to him, as I did to other Members of his party, that the country is in a programme and no decision taken yesterday will interfere with that programme. We hope to be able to emerge from the programme by the end of 2013 and fly on our own rather than requiring to have recourse to further funding. If further funding is required, a country emerging from a programme that is meeting its commitments will continue to receive funding. Far from signing up to an austerity programme for the future, this is a political agreement whereby 25 of the 27 countries have signed up for fiscal responsibility, budgetary discipline, getting the public finances in order and focusing on growth and jobs as a central agenda for growing the economies of Europe and achieving the full potential of the Single Market. The British Government, for its own reasons as explained by its Prime Minister prior to Christmas, did not wish to participate in this intergovernmental agreement and the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic indicated last night that he does not wish to sign for complex constitutional reasons. That leaves 25 of the 27 member states focused on sorting out the economic affairs of Europe and having the potential to grow our economies.
Irish campaigners for immigration reform in the US hope to see progress on visa legislation which, if passed, will allow up to 10,000 Irish nationals annually to work in that country for up to two years. What legislation, if any, is proposed by the Government and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to assist in this work?
Deputy Healy Rae will be aware of the difficulties that have arisen between the US Senate and Congress on this matter. Senator Schumer made a proposal to legislate on a facility for Irish emigrants to the US and discussions are ongoing between political representatives. It is my intention to hold discussions with the Irish movement for immigration reform when I have an opportunity to travel to New York next week.
I again ask the Taoiseach when he will allocate Government time to debate an issue of serious importance, that is, the misinformation given to the House by the Minister for Education and Skills regarding the Water Services (Amendment) Bill 2011 on 12 January 2012.
We already dealt with this.
It has not been dealt with, unfortunately.
The Government refused Government time and I suggested -----
The Taoiseach may have changed his mind. He told me informally last week that he would look at the issue.
We cannot be requesting people to change. Another avenue is open to the Deputy during Private Members' time.
I can keep raising it here. It is in order.
If the Taoiseach wishes to offer time -----
I am advised -----
I suggest to Deputy Ó Cuív that he raise the matter in his own time if he wishes to do so.
The correction of misinformation given to the House was always taken in Government time when we were in government.
There was a lot of misinformation.
The issue of misinformation given to the House should be taken in Government time and the Minister should come in and make a personal statement.
You should have been at it everyday.
I ask about the progress made to date on the national vetting bureau Bill. This important legislation has been promised for a considerable period.
I understand the Bill will be available this session.
Is the Government still committed, as under the programme for Government, to legislate to strengthen the rights of workers to engage in collective bargaining and, in that context, when will the amendment to the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001 be brought before the House?
I cannot answer the Deputy's specific question but I will have the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation respond with an up-to-date report on the matter.
I ask if legislation is promised to deal with the banks in their repossessions of homes, equipment and machinery. This matter will have to be taken under control because it is causing upheaval and upset.
Is legislation promised?
The heads of the personal insolvency Bill, which is one of the most complex pieces of legislation to have come before the House in many years, were published last week. Proper consultation is needed on the matter, which is also related to the Keane report on mortgages and distressed households. This is a complex and serious matter and the personal insolvency Bill is part of a structure so that people's homes will not be repossessed. The intention is not to repossess homes but clearly the banks also have a responsibility. They will attend the economic management council in the coming period to discuss their lending structures and AIB and Bank of Ireland will explain to the Government how they intend to comply with their commitment to lending €3.5 billion in new credit in 2012. The Government is interested in seeing that happen so that access to credit is made available for business and jobs.
I ask the Taoiseach to update the House on the promised legislation to protect whistleblowers. I understand this legislation was planned for the end of the year but recent reports suggest that it could be introduced much sooner. It is important legislation for those, such as Louise Bayliss, who find themselves in vulnerable positions.
I expect it can be dealt with in this session. I cannot provide a specific date but it is a matter that requires considerable focus in a number of areas. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and other Ministers are actively involved in the matter and I hope it can be dealt with fairly soon.