Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 May 2014

Vol. 840 No. 2

Order of Business

It is proposed to take No. 10a, motion re leave to introduce Supplementary Estimate - Vote 2, and subject to the agreement of No. 10a it is proposed to take Supplementary Estimate - Vote 2; and No. 22, Children First Bill 2014 - Second Stage (resumed).

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 10a shall be taken without debate and any division demanded thereon shall be taken forthwith, and, subject to the agreement of No. 10a, the following arrangements shall apply in relation to the Supplementary Estimate: the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 20 minutes, the speech of the Taoiseach and of the main spokespersons for Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed five minutes in each case, and any division demanded thereon shall be taken forthwith; Private Members’ business shall be No. 146, motion re water charges (resumed), to conclude at 9 p.m. tonight, if not previously concluded. Tomorrow's business, after oral questions, shall be No. 23, Central Bank Bill 2014 - Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; and No. 22, Children First Bill 2014 - Second Stage (resumed).

There is one proposal to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 10a, motion re leave to introduce Supplementary Estimate - Vote 2, agreed to? Agreed.

Again, I say it was wrong of the Taoiseach not to consult with the leaders of the Opposition in regard to what he has just announced to the House in the context of the Guerin investigation. It would have been useful if the Taoiseach had shared some of the main headlines and content of that report because we had no indication the report had reached his desk or that it would have such dramatic repercussions and implications. It now seems the report will not be published until Friday-----

Friday morning.

-----and the Taoiseach has indicated that a commission of investigation will be established following the recommendations of the report. Does the Taoiseach then intend to have a full debate on the report in the House next week? He indicated that time would be made available for a comprehensive debate on it. Will the Taoiseach confirm whether that is the order in which the Government intends to deal with this? Will he indicate why he did not consult with leaders of the Opposition, given the gravity of what has unfolded and given the fact that prior to this there was a degree of engagement between us on the issues - albeit in a bona fide way - in the context of the establishment of the Guerin commission? These questions concern the timeframe. I appreciate that the Taoiseach may say there are legal reasons he cannot deal with the Guerin report today and therefore we cannot debate it today. I presume that is why he suggested there are items for redaction and so on. Is that the position?

Yes. As I said, the report came to me, as Taoiseach, yesterday evening and I considered it. I said previously when we raised this matter that when the report arrived it would be received and announced to the House and not held. I am quite sure that, as usually happens, when people find that a report has been presented to a Minister, to the Government, or, as in this case, to the Taoiseach, there will always be questions about why it is not being published or dealt with.

I want to put an end to that. The report has to be redacted in part because of the personnel who are named and the surrounding issues which were pointed out by the senior counsel. That work is ongoing today and tomorrow and, as I said, the report will be published on Friday morning.

The Government will look at the setting out of terms of reference for the commission of investigation, as recommended by Mr. Guerin, to see how they should be structured, what it is the commission of investigation should look at and whether it should include GSOC and the analysis that took place by the different authorities - the Department of Justice and Equality, the Garda Síochána and so on. The terms of reference will obviously have to be debated here. The report is 300 pages long and needs to be considered carefully. It may not be appropriate, given its scale, for it to be debated next week, but that is a matter for agreement between the Whips. When Members read it, they will see for themselves the scale of what is involved. As I said, I would have been happy to have the report published immediately on receipt, but there is a clear recommendation that it be redacted for very particular reasons which I am sure Deputy Micheál Martin understands. That work is ongoing and the report will be published on Friday morning.

I agree that the Taoiseach has been remiss in that he majored on a new way of doing business and so on. I have just read the Minister's resignation letter. The Taoiseach should have consulted or, at least, informed the Opposition of these matters. The Minister, in his letter, says he has not read the full report and has reservations and concerns about it, in particular its conclusions. He says he is anxious to avoid any controversy that might arise for the Government or difficulties which may be created for Fine Gael or the Labour Party in the lead-in to the European and local government elections. This echoes to some degree what I said a moment or two ago, but we will put it to one side. Does the Taoiseach have concerns about the report? He made a point when he was speaking earlier of saying several times that the Minister had not been interviewed by Mr. Guerin. The Taoiseach has read the report; none of us has. Does he accept the report or does he, too, have reservations and concerns? Does he have concerns, as the Minister does, about its conclusions? Why did he not tell us that the Minister had resigned in order to avoid any controversy that might arise for the Government or difficulties this issue might create for Fine Gael or the Labour Party? Why did he not circulate the letter of resignation to Members?

We are not debating the letter. This is the Order of Business.

Excuse me, a Cheann Comhairle, let me make my point.

Excuse me, Deputy. I am in the Chair and telling the Deputy that this is the Order of Business. I have given him leeway for the past two or three minutes, but I now remind him that this is the Order of Business. We have already had Leaders' Questions.

On the Order of Business, I am asking the Taoiseach why he did not distribute the Minister's letter of resignation to the Dáil and why he did not tell us one of the reasons given for that resignation? The Minister said he wanted to avoid any controversy that might arise for the Government and create difficulties for Fine Gael or the Labour Party in the lead-in to the European and local government elections.

There is a particular reason for this and it is constitutional. It is the House that appoints Ministers and the House which should hear of resignations. I am sure that if I went over to the Deputy out the back and said Minister X or Y was resigning, he would be away to tweet and put claims on it.

The Taoiseach could have circulated the letter.

The reason is constitutional - it is this House that appoints and confirms Ministers. It is this House and its Members that should hear about ministerial resignations. I am actually intrigued by the Deputy's comments. This is a case in which I, representing the Government, come in and inform the House, as is my responsibility, of a ministerial resignation and the Deputy is giving out about it and saying he should have been told in advance.

There is no constitutional barrier to the letter being circulated to Members.

We are not having a debate. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.

There is no constitutional barrier to it.

What is the status of promised legislation on the sale of loan books to unregulated third parties? Some 13,000 mortgages that were originally with the Irish Nationwide Building Society have been transferred to IBRC and subsequently passed over to KPMG. Now they are in the hands of two vulture funds, Oaktree and Lone Star. Has the Government received a commitment from these two companies that they will abide by the consumer mortgage protection code? Will the provisions of the Bill to which I referred be retroactive and thereby protect those mortgage holders who have already had their loans sold to third parties? When will the Bill be brought before the House?

Consultations on the heads of the Bill are ongoing between the Central Bank and the Department of Justice and Equality. The Bill is due for publication next year.

On the matter of the resignation of the Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, many of us on the Government bankbenches are more interested in issues and policies than personalities, unlike those who wish to confine the matter to personalities.

Earlier this week the Cabinet agreed a mechanism for charging for water in the fairest way possible. Fundamentally, however, the decision to charge for it was taken because it had been included in the memorandum agreed by the last Government with the troika. That memorandum also included reform of the legal profession. I am seeking an assurance that reforms which affect all sectors of society will be carried through by the Government, not just reforms that affect the poor. Will the Taoiseach give a commitment that reform of the legal sector will be carried through? When will the Legal Services Regulation Bill proceed to Report and Final Stages?

The Deputy can take my confirmation on the issue of legal reform. The Bill is awaiting Report Stage and will be followed through.

The Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill 2012 was initiated in the Seanad and has taken a long time to go through the Houses. When will Report Stage be taken? There has been more than adequate time to bring it to a conclusion.

Numerous amendments to the Bill are being drafted and I cannot give the Deputy a date for when they will be concluded. That work is proceeding on account of the issues raised by various Deputies.

Will the amendments be ready before the summer recess?

I hope so. I will give the Deputy an update on where we are at.

The Taoiseach has announced that there will be a debate next week on the Guerin report. Will this be a debate on a report the recommendations and conclusions of which are fully supported by the Government?

I have said the conclusions of the report will be implemented by the Government. The central conclusion is that a comprehensive commission of investigation be established. That recommendation will be followed through, as I have committed to. We have to reflect on the scale and structure of the terms of reference for the commission. We will have two debates, one on the terms of reference and one on the report.

Have the heads of the Bill to allow for retention of the records of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, the Residential Institutions Redress Board and the Residential Institutions Review Committee been approved by the Cabinet and when is the Bill likely to be brought before the House?

The heads have not been approved. The legislation is being prepared, but I cannot give a date for its publication.

All Members have been supportive and admiring of the work of the Magdalen commission and the report it issued. One of the commission's proposals is that the restorative justice Bill be brought before the House. What is the position with regard to that Bill and in respect of the implementation of the report of the Magdalen commission?

I have just received a text from the Whip's office. Matters on the Order of Business are often referred to the Whips for decision. The agenda for today originally included a debate on a motion to establish the banking inquiry but I am informed that this has been cancelled. The matter to which I refer is extremely important and it was scheduled to be dealt with as part of today's business. Why was it pulled at this late stage?

I can answer the Deputy's second question. Under Standing Order 30, four days' notice is required in respect of such a motion. Such notice was not given and I made that clear. I also made it clear that if there was agreement among all the parties in the House to the effect that it be taken tomorrow, then I would have no difficulty in that regard.

The Ceann Comhairle laid down the law in respect of that matter. The restorative justice Bill is due to be taken this session.

On a point of clarification, the Ceann Comhairle indicated that the motion would be taken tomorrow if there was agreement in the House. Is it necessary for such agreement to be reached now?

No. I will leave that matter to the Whips. That is why we have them.

The former Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, was extremely supportive of the Employment Equality (Amendment) (No.2) Bill 2013, which was introduced in the Seanad last year. When will the Bill, the purpose of which is to ensure that State employees of religious-run institutions will have the same rights as all other employees, be introduced in this House?

The Deputy is referring to a Private Members' Bill that was introduced in the Seanad. I am not sure where it is on the conveyor belt at present.

When will the gambling control Bill, the purpose of which is to update and consolidate the law on betting and gambling, be introduced? Many families have been destroyed as a result of gambling and I am seeking clarity in respect of when the legislation will be forthcoming.

It is due early next year.

In light of the fact that there was a reduction in the number of passengers passing through Cork Airport in the first quarter of this year, will the State airports (Shannon group) Bill contain specific reference to Cork or will the latter be the subject of specific legislation?

The Bill in question is awaiting Second Stage in the Seanad. I do not have the details but obviously people will reflect on what they believe it should contain before and during Second Stage.

Will the Taoiseach make time available next week - or certainly before 23 May - for a debate in order that we might clarify the Government's position in respect of water charges? I analysed the figures the Government released yesterday and discovered that the claim to the effect that the additional allowance of 38,000 litres per year in respect of each child under 18 years of age will mean that the latter will receive free water is absolutely false.

We cannot have a debate on that issue.

That figure falls way below the normal amount of water used by those between 15 and 17 years of age.

I can only deal with the Deputy's request for a debate.

The Taoiseach's proposal is therefore based on a complete falsehood.

Will the Deputy please resume his seat?

Families and others must be made aware of that fact. When will clarification on this matter be forthcoming in order that we might tell people the truth about this issue?

The Deputy has requested a debate and I am going to find out for him if and when one will be held. Is it intended to hold such a debate?

No such debate is promised. However, the matter will obviously feature in some of the debates that will take place in the coming weeks.

Perhaps the Deputy might raise the matter in the form of a Topical Issue and I will consider whether we might discuss it.

I will be obliged to do so, because it is not possible-----

And I will certainly consider it.

We cannot allow to stand a figure in respect of so-called free water for those under 18 which is utterly false. Families throughout the country have been given false information.

This is the Order of Business and we cannot debate the issue of water charges now. I must move on to the next item.

Top
Share