Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Apr 2013

Vol. 799 No. 2

Order of Business

It is proposed to take No. a12, motion re presentation and circulation of Revised Estimates 2013; No. 24, National Lottery Bill 2012 - Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; No. 1, Industrial Development (Science Foundation Ireland) (Amendment) Bill 2012 [Seanad] - Second Stage (resumed); and No. 25, Credit Reporting Bill 2012 - Second Stage (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. a12 shall be decided without debate and any division demanded thereon shall be taken forthwith.

There is one proposal to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. a12 agreed to?

It is not agreed. First, this is an extraordinary proposition that only arrived late yesterday evening, without any discussion with the Whips and without agreement. We received a briefing note about this last evening. It states that the 2013 Revised Estimates for the public service contain a fuller, more detailed breakdown of spending by each Department and Vote than the spending totals announced in the Estimates for 2013 published in the expenditure report on 5 December 2012. The note goes on to say that the Revised Estimates largely follow the budget day allocations, which were quite regressive, with the pay deal recommendations by the Labour Relations Commission having been programmed into departmental Estimates. The note continues that they also allow for a number of technical adjustments and so forth.

What we are being asked to do this morning, despite the Taoiseach admitting just a few minutes ago that he planned to reflect and do no more than that, is to approve these Estimates and send them to the committee without anybody having an idea of how the savings will be realised.

No, the Deputy is wrong. Read the note.

In addition-----

The Deputy is wrong.

Will the Minister of State stop interrupting?

The Taoiseach will reply.

If the Minister of State had bothered to talk to people about it in advance, we might be in a far better position this morning. However, he rams everything through and talks to nobody. There has not been a Whips meeting since before Easter and there was no discussion with the Whips. The last paragraph of the note states: "As discussed last week, we are seeking the agreement of the Whips to place the above motion." No such agreement was sought.

That is wrong.

No such agreement was sought by anybody.

Deputy, you are entitled to make a short contribution.

Given the gravity of the situation, I have been quite brief already.

This is only about the taking of a motion. We are not dealing with the issue.

We are being asked to vote. The note states there is to be no debate or discussion. Given what has happened in recent days, at the very least we should have a debate on this motion and on the Revised Estimates for the public service. A full discussion in the House in plenary session is called for and warranted.

This matter should be given time for discussion and reflection, not least due to the turn of events and the decision by public sector workers to vote against Croke Park II. This is simply another sleight of hand on the part of the Taoiseach to slide something through on the nod, which appears to be the Taoiseach's and the Government's form.

Yesterday, the Taoiseach received a stinging rebuke from the trade unionists of this country to his pay proposals. Lo and behold, today the Taoiseach seeks to ram through the Dáil what appears to be a pre-emptive strike to cast in stone, before any negotiations or reflections, his agenda for imposing pay cuts on public sector workers. Any Revised Estimates that have a bearing on the discussions that may take place regarding public sector pay should be fully debated and scrutinised in this House. This appears to be a sleight of hand and pre-emptive strike to get us to rubber stamp something that should be fully debated and, most importantly, negotiated with the public sector workers of this country. I absolutely oppose the attempt to push this through.

The Deputy should calm down. It is incorrect to say that the Dáil is being asked to give approval to the Revised Estimates. What is being sought is approval to send the Revised Estimates to the relevant committees-----

With Croke Park II in them.

-----for full discussion and to be returned to the House by the end of June, when there will be a plenary discussion on them. This has always been the practice with Revised Estimates. The reason for the short notice is that the Cabinet only approved them yesterday. The Whips were informed at 5 p.m. yesterday.

They were not informed.

The last paragraph the Deputy referred to was a discussion between the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform-----

There was an e-mail at 5.23 p.m. There was no discussion.

The Deputy asks everybody else to be quiet, but he continues to interrupt.

I am just seeking straightforward answers. The Taoiseach should have some respect for the House.

I will now put the question.

On a point of order, that is not what is happening here. We are being asked to refer to committees Revised Estimates that include Croke Park II, which has been rejected and is acknowledged by the Taoiseach to have been rejected.

This is a technical motion.

How can a parliament deal with Estimates that clearly are not accurate or honest due to what has happened? The Taoiseach could deal little more straightly with the Opposition. The Chief Whip did not contact the Whips and there was no discussion.

There was an e-mail.

Sending an e-mail at 5.30 p.m. yesterday is not a discussion. It is reflective of the dismissive manner in which the Government treats this House.

I am putting the question.

It is absolutely disgraceful. It is the same with many other institutions of the State as well, as we have witnessed in recent times.

I thank the Deputy.

The Government does not care about any democracy in the House.

Will the Deputy please resume his seat?

Given the opportunity, the Government will ram and railroad through what it likes, as it has been doing over the past 12 months. Treat the Parliament with some respect, for God's sake.

Utter rubbish. That is a disgraceful remark.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. a12 be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 88; Níl, 38.

  • Bannon, James.
  • Barry, Tom.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Collins, Áine.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Ferris, Anne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lyons, John.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • McEntee, Helen.
  • McFadden, Nicky.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • McNamara, Michael.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Nash, Gerald.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Nolan, Derek.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • O'Donnell, Kieran.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Mahony, John.
  • O'Reilly, Joe.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Perry, John.
  • Phelan, Ann.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Sherlock, Sean.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • White, Alex.

Níl

  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Flanagan, Luke 'Ming'.
  • Fleming, Sean.
  • Fleming, Tom.
  • Halligan, John.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Higgins, Joe.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McDonald, Mary Lou.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Tóibín, Peadar.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Michael Moynihan and Sandra McLellan.
Question declared carried.

The Revised Estimates sent to the committees include provision for €300 million in savings envisaged under the Labour Relations Commission or Croke Park II agreement. Three specific items of legislation have been promised in the House by the Minister for Public Expenditure and the Taoiseach. Reference was made to the Payment of Wages Act, the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act, which was mentioned in respect of the savings that must be made, and legislation on pensions. Will the Government proceed with this legislation? Where stands the commitment to introduce it?

The legislation to which Deputy Martin refers and on which the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, commented, was three Bills that would have been brought forward if the agreement had been accepted by the trade unions. That is no longer the case following the decision made by the trade unions. As I stated during Leaders' Questions, the Government must now consider the outcome of the ballot and what decisions it must make to achieve the €300 million of additional savings this year.

The legislation is off the agenda for the time being.

It would have been brought forward if the agreement had been accepted. The Government must now consider the options.

That is significant.

To clarify, is it correct that the legislation will not be forthcoming, as had been indicated? Legislation has not been drafted.

The three items of legislation on which the Minister and I commented would have been brought forward if the deal had been accepted. The deal was rejected by the unions and we are in a new position. The Government will have to consider what it must do to achieve the savings set out in the fiscal programme.

In that case, I assume there will not be legislation.

When does the Taoiseach expect Mr. Justice Quirke to report back on the Magdalen redress scheme? Will he provide a date? Will he also clarify the reason that, notwithstanding certain indications he gave at the time, Summerhill in Wexford continues to be excluded from the terms of reference of the redress scheme? The Taoiseach indicated several times that the Government was reflecting on the issue of the Bethany Home. Will he outline what course of action he proposes to take on this issue and whether the Government has considered including the Bethany Home in the scheme? What course of action is envisaged in respect of the survivors concerned, for whom it is acknowledged across the benches of the Chamber that recognition and redress is needed?

I do not have the details of the progress made to date by Mr. Justice Quirke. From the direction given by the Government arising from the McAleese report on the Magdalen laundries, Mr. Justice Quirke is due to report back in a short period. However, I cannot provide the details now.

Summerhill was discussed at Cabinet level and is being considered to see whether it meets the conditions for inclusion in the scheme. The Bethany Home is in a different situation and the matter is being followed up by the Minister for Justice and Equality.

On promised legislation, when can we expect publication of the assisted decision-making (capacity) Bill, which is No. 17 on the A list?

The Bill is well advanced and will be published in this session.

When can we expect publication of the county enterprise boards (dissolution) Bill?

The Taoiseach will be aware of the widely held view that it is about time the Government bit the bullet on the issue of media monopolies. When exactly will the consumer and competition Bill make its long-awaited appearance?

Both of those Bills are due this session.

When does the Taoiseach expect the criminal records information system Bill, which is to provide for the exchange of criminal records information with other EU member states and other designated states, to be published?

That legislation will be forthcoming later this year. The heads of this complex Bill were cleared late last year.

I understand that yesterday the Cabinet was to discuss the establishment of a €6 billion strategic investment fund, a matter in respect of which legislation will be required in the context of the NewERA project and the use of moneys from the National Pensions Reserve Fund. When will the relevant legislation be brought forward? Was any decision on this matter made yesterday?

The heads of the relevant Bill were approved by the Cabinet yesterday. The legislation will be drafted as a matter of urgency but I cannot provide an exact date for its publication.

Does the Government have any proposals to amend the Finance Bill to remove the draconian tax that has been imposed in respect of solid fuels? In a couple of weeks, the price of a bag of coal is due to increase by €3.

To what legislation is the Deputy referring?

That has already been enacted. Is the Deputy referring to next year's finance Bill?

Are there any proposals to change the position in this regard? The tax to which I refer is going to hurt vulnerable and elderly people.

Perhaps the Deputy might table a parliamentary question on the matter. We are dealing here with the Order of Business.

Perhaps the Ceann Comhairle might allow a Topical Issue debate on it.

We will consider it but we cannot make any promises.

The Taoiseach should provide an answer to my question now. This is not a laughing matter.

We are short of time. There are only two minutes remaining on the Order of Business and a further four or five Deputies are offering.

That was a 45 and the Deputy hit it straight over the bar.

It has been indicated that the microchipping of dogs will be introduced. When will the relevant legislation be forthcoming?

I have not heard that dog bark yet. I will ensure Deputy Griffin obtains an update on the matter from the relevant Minister.

When is the legislation relating to whistleblowers expected?

This session.

I welcome the inclusion of the pyrite levy Bill on the list of Government legislation. Is it intended to bring that legislation before the House as a matter of urgency in light of the widespread anxiety in respect of this matter? I have raised the mater of the Central Bank (consolidation) Bill on numerous occasions. When is it proposed to introduce that legislation?

As indicated yesterday, the second legislative item to which the Deputy refers will not be forthcoming until the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Bill 2011 is dealt with by the Houses. The legislation relating to pyrite was a priority of the late Minister of State, Mr. Shane McEntee. The heads of the Bill have not yet been presented to Government. However, we will proceed with the legislation as quickly as possible.

The consumer and competition Bill was included on the A list for the previous session but it was not introduced. Will it be published during the current session or will it be similar to two thirds of all legislation included on the A list in that it will not be taken until the next session?

All I can say is that it will be this session.

That is definite.

It is absolutely the case.

Absolutely.

That commitment is now on the record of the Dáil.

It is on the record of the Dáil and it was made in front of Deputy Ó Cuív. It will be this session.

Absolutely and no doubts.

We are on a roll here because previous speakers all received positive replies. I am concerned with regard to the negative impact the local government Bill is going to have on local development companies. Deputy O'Dea inquired about county enterprise boards. I am of the view that it is very retrograde step to take these out of communities and force them into local authorities. What is the position with regard to the Bill?

It will be introduced this session. The Deputy will have the opportunity to debate all the relevant issues.

It will be an awfully long session altogether.

It will be a very busy session.

Is there any update on Mr. Justice Finnegan's report regarding Priory Hall? The Taoiseach provided a brief reply to Deputy Michael McGrath's question on the national investment plan. When will details of the plan be forthcoming? Will it include a public housing programme and support for the voluntary housing sector? To date during the Government's term of office, the public housing sector has effectively collapsed.

The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government wrote to Deputy Broughan on 29 March and set out the-----

The Minister never provides answers.

According to the Taoiseach, those opposite are all united.

-----current position in this regard. The Minister indicated that his Department has contributed in excess of €500,000 towards the costs that were necessarily incurred by Dublin City Council, that he is supportive of the Priory Hall residents and the Department is supporting the efforts of the council. He also indicated that the council is continuing to work actively towards achieving the resolution of the long-running saga at Priory Hall. I will revert to the Deputy with further details.

When is it expected to publish the legislation relating to betting on greyhound and horse racing? Will the relevant Bill make provision in respect of online casinos or will separate legislation be required? This is a major issue, particularly in light of the amount being gambled online.

We do not have a date for the introduction of the relevant legislation but it is not intended that it will include provision for online casinos.

Will there be any legislation forthcoming in the aftermath of last night's telephone call from the troika to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin?

(Interruptions).

We must move on.

Top
Share