It is proposed to take No. 5, Registration of Lobbying Bill 2014 - Second Stage (resumed); No. 6, European Stability Mechanism (Amendment) Bill 2014 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; and No. 30, Public Health (Standardised Packaging of Tobacco) Bill 2014 [Seanad] - Second Stage (resumed). Private Members' business shall be No. 160, motion re direct provision (resumed) to conclude at 9 p.m. tonight, if not previously concluded. Tomorrow's business after Oral Questions shall be No. 6, European Stability Mechanism (Amendment) Bill 2014 - Second Stage (resumed); No. 30a, statements on the Sixth Report of the Constitutional Convention on Blasphemy; and No. 30, Public Health (Standardised Packaging of Tobacco) Bill 2014 [Seanad] - Second Stage (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the proceedings in respect of No. 30a tomorrow, shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after two hours and the following arrangements shall apply: the statement of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order and who may share their time, shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; the statement of each other Member called upon shall not exceed ten minutes in each case and such Members may share their time; and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed five minutes.
Order of Business
There is one proposal to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 30a tomorrow agreed? Agreed.
People would have been alarmed by comments made at the weekend by the chairman of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council. This is a body established to give advice to Government in respect of budgetary and fiscal policy. There is no question that the advice of the council has been studiously ignored over the past three years. This weekend, the chairman of the council, Professor John McHale said, "if I found I wasn't having an effect, I would consider my position." He went on to say that resignation is a tool we have to raise the political costs of bad policies.
I find it extraordinary to a certain extent that there has been no comment from Government about this or about the budget submission made by the council. I have read its submission and I think everybody in the House should read it. In terms of politicians wanting to do x, y and z, we may not like it but if we are to learn lessons, I respectfully suggest that the least we should do in the House is have a comprehensive debate on the position put forward by the council. The Taoiseach should initiate this. I am asking him to allow Government time to discuss the report of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council in respect of fiscal options for the forthcoming year and beyond. There is no point in having a fiscal council if its advice is consistently ignored and not just ignored but no process entered into where there is any deliberation on it and any counterpoints put with research and evidence. We can all have conflicting views on things but it is not satisfactory when the report is just published, put to one side and dismissed. There is the risk that the body perceives itself to be undermined in terms of the work it is charged to do. At a minimum, I would have thought that we would have a Dáil debate on it so I ask the Taoiseach to agree to give time for that.
The programme for Government contains a commitment to a transparent process around the budget. We know that last year, we did not get the correct or truthful figures relating to the health Estimate. It is very clear from the correspondence between the chief executive of the HSE and the former Minister for Health that on budget day, we did not get the truth relating to the health Estimate and that in essence, we got false figures dressed up around medical card probity and so on. When one reads the correspondence, one can see that the chief executive said that it was €500 million short on top of deficits it had taken on board from the previous year.
In order for political parties to put forward counter proposals to the Government's budget, we need absolute transparency in terms of the health Estimate for 2015 and we need to know the outcomes for 2014. Yesterday, the Minister for Health accepted that it was a €500 million deficit to the end of the year and that in essence, €1 billion is being sought in 2015.
In light of the programme for Government commitment to a transparent budget, would the Taoiseach be agreeable to the entire process relating to health being made transparent in advance of the budget and the expenditure figure that will be laid down by the Government on budget day? In other words, the figures that will be contained in correspondence between the HSE and the Departments of Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform will be made available to Members of the House in advance of the budget and that we know the proposition coming from the HSE, its presentation, its concerns about patient safety and so on so that we would all be in a more informed position in budget day to make an informed commentary on whether the expenditure on health is valid or not or the figures that will be provided are valid or not. It is the least the Government can do given what happened last year, the enormous stress on our public health system over the past nine months, the extraordinary difficulties in the acute and elderly systems and the fact that hundreds of people cannot access fair deal and hundreds of people are in acute wards. We need absolute transparency on that health budget and I would appreciate it if the Taoiseach could do that.
The programme for Government also states that "we will bring to an end the unacceptable executive practice where no record is kept of ministerial involvement with an issue and resulting decisions". Given the decisions made to appoint various people to the board of Irish Museum of Modern Art and other State boards, can the Taoiseach assure us that adequate records were taken of all those decisions and that he will make them available to the House or will we have to revert to freedom of information requests to the relevant Department and possibly the Department of the Taoiseach?
This question was raised by Deputy Creighton yesterday in respect of a debate in the House arising from the report of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council. There was also a request for a debate in respect of the European Commission and the IMF making their recommendations. I replied by saying that we would be very happy to facilitate a debate on this and I have asked the Whip to do that. There are many other financial houses and institutions that have made recommendations about what should be or might be in the budget.
That is not good enough. The Irish Fiscal Advisory Council is a specific statutory body. The Taoiseach should not mix it up with the European Commission or anything.
The Taoiseach has the floor.
I am looking for a specific debate on the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council.
The question I was asked yesterday before-----
Deputy Creighton was perfectly entitled to-----
Can I say something? All I am pointing out to the Deputy is that yesterday Deputy Creighton raised the question of a debate on the report of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council. In addition to that, she raised the question of a debate on the European Commission, the IMF and others. I have asked the Whip to make arrangements for a debate in respect of what Deputy Creighton asked for yesterday. Deputy Martin is asking for the same debate in respect of one issue. We set up the independent Irish Fiscal Advisory Council. It is not the Government. It has recommended a cut of €2 billion. Our deficit must be below 3% next year. The report produced by the council is a good report that sets out what it thinks should be done. At the end of the day, and as Deputy Martin well knows, the Government must make decisions about the budget based on the information and analysis and the issues it thinks should be dealt with. That is what is the Government will do. It is not a case of taking the report of the independent Irish Fiscal Advisory Council and leaving it on a shelf untouched, unread or unassessed. The Government must make decisions at the end of the day.
In respect of the Department of Health, there are some new personnel, including a new Minister. The expenditure will be somewhere over €12 billion for 2015. These questions have not yet been concluded because discussions are ongoing between the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the Minister for Health and his personnel-----
The Taoiseach said there would be a transparent process in the programme for Government.
-----from the Department of Health and the HSE. I assume that when they conclude their deliberations on the policy, ceiling and rates of expenditure, that will become public information. I hope it can be completely authenticated so that if the Deputy's party wants to submit a set of proposals for independent costing, that can apply.
In respect of ministerial decisions, they are all publicly available. Issues relating to the Deputy's party or any other party are not subject to freedom of information in the same way as public business. Ministers, I am quite sure, keep a record of decisions made, and they are available for public scrutiny.
Does the system within Fine Gael keep records?
Every Minister has to comply with their requirements under the legislation.
Tá ceist fíorthábhachtach agam maidir le Riar na hOibre an lae inniu. Baineann sé le mná atá fós i ndrochstaid sa Stát seo.
My question concerns the Government's decision to proceed with the redress scheme for the victims of symphysiotomy. When will the Government announce further details of the scheme? There has been an unnecessary and inexcusable delay when one considers that many of the victims are elderly and some are in poor health. I know from meeting them in my constituency that many are very frustrated and their families are very upset. Some victims have welcomed the redress scheme but many others are angry and unhappy. The Taoiseach may know that the ICCL has strongly backed the victims, particularly with regard to the refusal of the Government to lift the statute of limitations and allow victims, if they wish, to choose whether to go to court or take a different course of action in order to get closure. The Government has denied victims who wish to go down the legal route their day in court. We have all said this is a barbaric practice, but these women have been denied their entitlement to take the legal route if they so wish. Is é mo bharúil féin ná go bhfuil sé sin thar a bheith mícheart. Tá sé de cheart ag na mná seo a gcás a dhéanamh sna cúirteanna má tá sé sin de dhíth orthu. Will the Taoiseach's officials meet with the victims of symphysiotomy to discuss these concerns?
My second question concerns the commitment in the programme for Government to support the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrew's Agreement. The Taoiseach will know, as it was announced by the Government, that talks are due to start, which I very much welcome. I also welcome the interest shown in this by the US Administration. I was, like the Taoiseach, in the US last week and talked to many opinion makers there about the need for this to happen. Can the Taoiseach confirm that the Irish Government will raise the failure of the British Government and others to implement key aspects of the Good Friday Agreement? The Government is a co-equal guarantor to the Agreement. Issues such as Acht na Gaeilge, the lack of a bill of rights, the lack of an inquiry into the killing of Pat Finucane, the lack of a North-South consultative forum and numerous others remain. The Taoiseach will also be aware that there is an anti-Agreement axis which is trying to hollow out the provisions of the agreement and undermine the institutions. Will the Taoiseach make it clear that the planned talks must take place free from threat and without precondition, and that they should be time-bound and commence as quickly as possible? Will the Government act as defender, guarantor and champion of progress in the North and hold the British Government to account for its failure to implement key aspects of the agreement?
The Deputy has raised two important questions. He asked whether officials would meet survivors of symphysiotomy. I can confirm that the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, met the three support groups representing women who have had symphysiotomies. Patient Focus and Survivors of Symphysiotomy Limited, have welcomed the establishment of the ex gratia payment scheme. A third group, Survivors of Symphysiotomy, has advised women to reject the scheme.
The purpose of the Minister's meeting was twofold. First, he wanted to check the appropriate medical and health services were in place and that medical cards were being provided to the women. Second, while he wished to hear the views of the support groups in order to help to shape the parameters of the ex gratia scheme, he also wished to confirm to them that the scheme would be put in place as quickly as possible. He was pleased to hear that, apart from some delays in one area, services are being provided quickly. The HSE is providing prompt and appropriate services and its representative at the meetings undertook to address quickly the specific delay raised.
Many of the women are moving on in terms of age and would have to decide whether to go through adversarial, controversial, difficult and stressful court cases which could take a very long time.
That is their decision.
The Government agreed the scheme last July. The Minister responded to the concern of the group and decided that an independent assessor would administer the scheme rather than the State Claims Agency. As the Deputy knows the scheme will be simple, straightforward and non-adversarial. Awards of €50,000, €100,000 or €150,000 will be made to women who provide evidence that they had a surgical symphysiotomy. The amount of the award will depend on the assessment of the effect the symphysiotomy had on each of the women. Medical assessments will be arranged for women with no medical records. The Minister also stressed that he planned to make arrangements to respond to individual queries from women or family members so that the scheme is as user-friendly as possible. He also clarified that there is no obligation on the women involved to waive their right to go to court as a precondition of joining the scheme. The previous Minister, Deputy Reilly, had made that arrangement. Women may opt out of the scheme at any stage in the process up to the time of accepting their awards. If they accept an award they will have to sign a waiver promising to discontinue any legal proceedings against the party arising out of that.
I can assure Deputy Adams that women will have their applications dealt with speedily. This is a sensitive issue. They will receive payments within a number of months. It is a genuine effort to recognise their suffering, what they went through and the difficulties and scars they have had to bear since, and to try to assist them in dealing with a very sad, traumatic and difficult chapter in their lives. I hope that confirmation will bring some comfort to the women.
We previously discussed the other matter raised by the Deputy - namely, the Good Friday Agreement and the talks due to begin. I am happy that we have come to a position whereby the Irish and British Governments, as co-guarantors of the agreement, can involve themselves in, it is to be hoped, bringing some matters to a conclusion. The Minister, Deputy Flanagan, has been in regular contact with the Secretary of State, Ms Theresa Villiers MP. I spoke to President Clinton last week in New York about the necessity for progress, as I am sure Deputy Adams did.
We can discuss Acht na Gaeilge, the bill of rights and other matters such the murder of Pat Finucane. We need a serious analysis of the situation. I understand some remains were discovered this morning, which is welcome and will, it is to be hoped, bring consolation and closure to whatever family is involved. Murders and deaths occurred on all sides. We are moving forward with the new systems in place, such as the PSNI and the judicial system. We need to find a mechanism to deal with the sensitive issues of the past because, if they are transferred into the new system, the same problems will be recreated in a different way. We need to be a bit more imaginative and creative about where and how we want the process to go. There are thousands of people who want closure for their particular problems. People are still affected by the murder of Pat Finucane, the events at Ballymurphy and Kingsmill and whatever else. We need to determine how we can open that reservoir in a way that will bring some sense of closure to the people involved.
If one takes it and tries to transfer it into a modern system in which there are new judicial people and legal systems are being changed, it poisons the entire system again. We must reflect on where we should be and how we might get there in a different way. The Deputy knows from our history that this is going back a very long time and it is locked in there. We must explore different ways of releasing that anxiety and emotion and achieving a sense of closure.
I raise an issue reported in The Sunday Business Post last weekend that 4,000 SME customers of Danske Bank face the sale of their loans to a foreign-owned vulture fund. It is a similar issue to the one we have previously raised in relation to mortgage holders. The relevant legislation is the sale of loan books to unregulated third parties Bill. If this happens to businesses before the legislation is passed, they will be left vulnerable and exposed. If businesses have missed any payment whatsoever on loans, all they will have to rely on is their loan agreements, which are heavily stacked in favour of the lender. Viable businesses could be shut down and jobs lost. The legislation is urgent. We will happily support the passage of the Bill and the provision of time to do so. The Government has promised to fast-track it. Can the Taoiseach assure the House that the Bill will be published urgently and introduced to the House?
The Bill is being drafted at the moment. I am aware of the considerable anxiety and concern expressed by small businesses, as is the Minister for Finance. It is a major priority of the Government and I will provide the Deputy with an update as to where it is moving. It is an issue of considerable public concern.
On her recent appointment as Tánaiste, Deputy Burton said her top priority was low pay in the private sector. I notice that the legislation to establish a low pay commission is on the C list. Its publication is expected at some unspecified time next year. There is no indication of how long the commission will sit or how long its recommendations will take to implement, if indeed the Government accepts them. Does that not betray a lack of sincerity on the question of low pay? If the Tánaiste were sincere about dealing with this matter, would the Government not be getting on with it now?
The Tánaiste is sincere and very genuine about this. Deputy O'Dea is aware that recommendations were made in the past for wage and pay increases in a very unstructured way. The low pay commission will have to go through a process of consultation to set up a framework for a much more scientific and modern way to deal with this. It will not just be a figure plucked out of the air. There will be a basis and a structure to it. That it is not on the A list does not mean no work is going on. I will advise Deputy O'Dea as to the preparatory works that are under way. The A list is legislation that must be processed during this particular session. The answer to the Deputy's question is that the Tánaiste is of course sincere, but the matter requires proper preparation and extensive consultation to get right.
The Higher Education Authority Bill is promised legislation. What is the timescale for its introduction in the House and its current status? Is it cleared and ready for introduction?
Similarly, what is the current status of the Bill to provide for redress for women in certain institutions? What is its schedule in the Houses and when will it be passed?
The heads of the Higher Education Authority Bill have been drafted but it will be next year before it appears. The redress Bill is for this session.
There are three Bills emanating from the Department of Defence which appear on the B and C lists of the legislative programme - namely, Nos. 36, 66 and 67. When will the Bills be brought before the House? Will any of them address the very serious concerns expressed at the PDFORRA conference in the last 24 hours? We are now hearing reports that 20% of members of the Defence Forces are living in poverty and in receipt of family income supplement, and that five members of the Defence Forces are sleeping in their cars as a consequence of the reorganisation inflicted on the Defence Forces by the former Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter.
I welcome the fact that tomorrow we will debate the report of the Constitutional Convention on blasphemy. However, this leaves quite a number of reports outstanding. The Taoiseach has had to accept in the past that he set a number of deadlines in respect of the convention and the manner in which its reports would be dealt with. None of those deadlines has been met in so far as the Government is concerned. Can the Taoiseach assure the House that the outstanding reports will now be prioritised?
I confirm, with regard to the last question, that a memorandum will be brought to the Government by me next week to deal with the outstanding reports which have not been debated in the House. The Government agreed yesterday in respect of the proposition that there be a referendum to deal with blasphemy, but I am making it clear that while the Government accepted the principle, it is not setting a date. A number of referendums have been proposed here, and that debate can take place tomorrow or today in relation to that aspect of it. The remaining convention reports will be the subject of the memorandum next week, and I will advise the Deputy in that regard.
There are seven heads in the defence (amendment) Bill, which will not be published until 2015. The Defence (Amendment) Act 2011 was enacted in July 2011. In respect of the defence (amendment) (discipline) Bill, approval will be sought for the heads on other matters having regard to recent developments in military law. I cannot give the Deputy an indication of when that process will be concluded.
I heard the report from PDFORRA about the difficulties members are having and of a small number reportedly having to sleep in their cars. This is a matter the Minister for Defence will obviously take seriously and look into.
The Taoiseach has announced that this day next month we will have a new framework for appointments to State boards. Will this require legislation or will it be just another circular that will be issued and ignored? When will we be able to discuss this legislation? It sounds from what has been said publicly by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, as though the only change is that any person the Government wants to put on a State board will be required to send a curriculum vitae to the Commission for Public Service Appointments. That will then work its way back to the Minister who can ignore the process and appoint anyone from the list that comes back.
When the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 was going through the Oireachtas, it was well flagged - the Government was well warned - that there were major flaws in the legislation which rendered it incapable of working. Reports show that there are very few insolvency declarations taking place. The Government has a Bill on the legislative programme to correct the foreseeable failures of the Act. When will we see that legislation?
That was approved a couple of weeks ago and is awaiting publication. I will advise the Deputy of when that is going to happen.
On the other matter, a memorandum was prepared quite some time ago by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform which has now been revamped and was approved by Government yesterday. The PAS scheme on stateboards.ie is already in situ and 200 appointments were made using it. We now want all Departments to use this facility so that the public know there is one facility setting out the boards, the vacancies, the criteria and the skill sets required. In addition, the Cabinet sub-committee gave a recommendation for clearance for the public service reform propositions that the Minister, Deputy Howlin, has worked on extensively. They will be published and launched by him very shortly. There may be elements of that which require legislation. I will advise the Deputy.
The Taoiseach is well aware of the importance of home help hours and the important service carers provide to people in their own homes. The Taoiseach's Government radically cut home help hours. My question relates to the health reform Bill.
Does the Government have proposals to reinstate home help hours to ensure people can provide excellent service and care for people living in their own homes?
I answered questions on this reform Bill yesterday. Of course, we value the great work done by so many around the country as home helps. This issue is now the subject of discussions between the Minister for Health and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform which will be concluded in the coming days in time for the budget which is to be announced on 14 October.
I have only time to call one more Deputy. I will call the other Deputies who are offering tomorrow. I offer my apologies to them.
First, on the discussion on the budget we had earlier, when will we have the Book of Estimates? I was reminded during that discussion that it was a pity we did not have a fiscal council when former Deputy Charlie McCreevy was Minister for Finance. He used to tell the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and the Fianna Fáil leader what he was going to do in the budget at about 2.40 p.m. on budget day.
Second, on the issue of low pay, the Living Wage Commission has made a recommendation to the Minister in its report on a figure of approximately €11 an hour. The Tánaiste, Deputy Joan Burton, has said she is encouraging people to engage with it on a voluntary basis, but is there any way budget 2015 might incentivise employers to pay a living wage?
There was an extraordinary "Prime Time" report on a field in Dromahair located at the side of a drumlin which was to be the site of housing for senior citizens in 2009-10. It seems a stroke was pulled by some Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil interests which cost the State a lot of money.
The Deputy can raise that matter in some other way.
Is the Taoiseach aware of this and has he asked for it to be investigated? The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade was a member of the board of the company involved in the purchase of the field.
I saw an excerpt of the programme which dealt with a foundation for elderly people. I do not know the details, but it reminds me of the great expenditure on a field to build a prison some years ago.
I think €40 million was spent on it and no prison was built.
The Deputy asked me about the Low Wage Commission. This is part of the discussions the Minister for Social Protection is having with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in respect of the improvements in the live register. The figure is down to 370,000 today, which is below the European average. A reduction from 15.2% to 11.1% represents a big improvement. We want to keep going in the right direction.
The Deputy also asked me about something else.
The Book of Estimates.
I think we will probably have it towards the end of November, but I will confirm for the Deputy the expected date with the Department of Finance.