Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 May 2018

Vol. 968 No. 3

Order of Business

Today’s business shall be No. 7, motion re special meeting of joint committees to discuss issues experienced by people with disabilities accessing labour activation measures, without debate; No. 8, motion re twentieth report of the eighth committee of selection, without debate; and No. a25, statements and questions on CervicalCheck screening programme, to conclude within three hours and ten minutes. Private Members’ business shall be Second Stage of No. 46, Sex Offenders (Amendment) Bill 2018, selected by Independents 4 Change.

Wednesday’s business shall be No. 25, Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Bill 2017 - Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; No. 26, Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2017 - Report Stage (resumed) and Final Stage; No. 4, Markets in Financial Instruments Bill 2018 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; and No. 9, motion re Joint Committee on Children and Youth Affairs report on the provision of foster care services in Ireland. Private Members' business shall be Second Stage of No. 47, Mental Health Parity Bill 2017 selected by Fianna Fáil.

Thursday’s business shall be No. 4, Markets in Financial Instruments Bill 2018 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; and No. 9, motion re Joint Committee on Children and Youth Affairs report on the provision of foster care services in Ireland. Second Stage of No. 48, Famine Memorial Day Bill 2016, shall be debated in the evening slot on Thursday.

I will read the announcement of proposed arrangements for this week’s business. I refer to the first revised report of the Business Committee dated 1 May 2018.

In relation to today's business, it is proposed that:

(1) the Dáil shall sit later than 10 p.m. and shall adjourn on the conclusion of Private Members' business;

(2) the motion re special meeting of joint committees to discuss issues experienced by people with disabilities accessing labour activation measures and the motion re the Twentieth Report of the Committee of Selection shall be taken without debate and any division demanded shall be taken immediately;

(3) on the statements and questions on the CervicalCheck screening programme, the statements shall be confined to a single round by a Minister or Minister of State and the main spokespersons for parties and groups, or a Member nominated in their stead, and shall not exceed ten minutes each. Following the opening statements, there shall be questions and answers for 15 minutes for each Opposition party or group, comprising three rounds of 2.5 minutes for questions and 2.5 minutes for answers, respectively, with a five-minute response from a Minister or Minister of State, and all Members may share time; and

(4) proceedings on Second Stage of the Sex Offenders (Amendment) Bill 2018 shall commence on the conclusion of statements and questions on CervicalCheck screening programme and shall conclude within two hours.

In relation to Wednesday's business, it is proposed that:

(1) proceedings on Second Stage of the Mental Health Parity Bill 2017 shall conclude within two hours; and

(2) on the motion re the Joint Committee on Children and Youth Affairs report on the provision of foster care services in Ireland, speeches of the committee Chairman, a Minister or Minister of State and the main spokespersons and members of the joint committee, or a Member nominated in their stead, shall not exceed ten minutes each, with five minutes for all other Members and a five-minute response from a Minister or Minister of State, and all Members may share time.

There are two proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Tuesday's business agreed to?

I welcome the debate on the CervicalCheck screening programme but I feel the time is too limited, particularly for backbenchers. As this is the most important issue this Dáil may ever have to deal with, every Member who wishes should be able to speak on it, I respectfully propose to the Business Committee that we extend it tonight as a matter of urgency and sit till midnight if we have to.

The Deputy has made his point.

I take what the Deputy says and it is important that everybody has an opportunity to air his or her view. The most important element however is that we hear from the Minister today. The rapporteur said the Minister would have ten minutes but I do not see how it could be possible for the Minister to answer all the questions in ten minutes.

It is open ended.

I would like as much time as is required to be provided to the Minister. How long approximately does the Minister intend to speak for?

It is open ended.

He should set out as much detail as possible for the House so that any follow-up questions can be based on factual information being given to the House.

Are there any other opinions?

How long does the Minister intend to speak?

The Minister is to take an hour and three quarters for questions and answers.

Yes but I understand that his opening statement is only ten minutes. He could not possibly set out all the facts in ten minutes.

If the House is willing to give me longer-----

I would suggest 20 minutes.

I would appreciate that.

If we give the Minister 20 minutes there is a proposal that we extend the debate. It is to go from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the moment.

It is important that we get on to questioning. Perhaps we could schedule business again for everybody else rather than sit till midnight tonight.

I do not have a problem with that I just want-----

If there are several Deputies who want to contribute and it is reasonable-----

What is the proposal?

The proposal as set out is that with 20 minutes for the Minister, ten minutes for the groups and 15 minutes per group for questions, the debate would take place tonight and that we might set aside time, on the proposal from others, to be able to contribute to this discussion tomorrow.

We have got Deputy O'Dowd's proposal.

My proposal is that the debate continue tonight and we finish it tonight.

That will cut into the yapping tonight.

In fairness to the Chief Whip, and I appreciate the seriousness of the situation, we all agreed this in the Business Committee by telephone. In fairness to the staff and secretariat, all the Whips agreed to what I read out yesterday evening and this morning.

Nobody consulted the unfortunate backbenchers.

I am not saying that at all. I am talking about the ten minutes.

While it might be welcome that the Minister is to be given more time, what we are seeking is information, not lists, explanations and definitions.

Ten minutes might be sufficient if he sticks exactly to the topic. If the intention is to provide a lot of context, that will not be very helpful.

The context would be exceptionally helpful.

On the final comment made by Deputy Mattie McGrath, my response to the telephone call about today's business was that the Labour Party view was that ten minutes would be insufficient for the Minister and that he should be allowed one hour to respond if he so wished, to which the response was that the Minister thought ten minutes would be enough.

That was the outcome of an incorporeal meeting.

There are two proposals before the House, the first of which is that the Minister have longer than ten minutes, while the second is that the debate be extended beyond 9.15 p.m., on which there is no agreement as yet.

I would like to propose a compromise. Would 15 minutes be sufficient for the Minister's address?

As a former Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin is aware of how speeches can be padded.

The Minister will have a script.

The Minister should have 15 minutes for his address. Questions and answers are vital. That is what the people want. A further 20 minutes could be provided for backbenchers.

Is it agreed that the Minister will have 15 minutes?

There is no agreement as yet on the time allowed for questions and answers. Deputy Fergus O'Dowd has proposed that the Dáil sit later.

I am happy to support the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition, but anybody who wants to speak should be able to do so.

Following the question and answer session.

Yes. I want my position to be on the record of the House.

I suggest a half an hour. We can reconsider the matter tomorrow. In fairness, almost 3.5 hours is being provided. We need to be reasonable.

Is the proposal agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Thursday's business agreed to? Agreed.

In a major announcement in November 2015 in response to a range of issues about patient safety the Taoiseach said the Health Information and Patient Safety Bill 2015 would make mandatory the reporting of events which had resulted in death or serious harm. At the time the heads of the Bill had been published but in May 2018 the Bill remains in Schedule B. It has been around for a long time. In 2015 it was specifically stated mandatory reporting of events which had resulted in deaths or serious harm would be introduced. A year later this was changed at the request of the Chief Medical Officer. This happened around the time of the Portlaoise scandal. Will the Taoiseach explain why it is taking so long for the legislation to be enacted? He will be aware of the scandal in Portlaoise which, as I understand it, provoked the major announcement of this legislation and a suite of other measures, but there is no sign of it being placed in the Statute Books any time soon. Will the Taoiseach explain the reason for the delay? It is does not speak well of the legislative process or this House that a Bill of this import takes so long to enact.

It is still intended to do it. There are two reasons for the delay. First, the legislation, as I announced it in 2015, was to be the Health Information and Patient Safety Bill. To fast-track the mandatory open disclosure of serious reportable events, the Bill is to be split. The patient safety aspect is to be withdrawn in order that the Bill can be fast-tracked. The Minister will bring forth a memo in that regard in the next week or two. Second, as I announced at the time, it was part of a programme of reform in the civil legal system and of patient safety law. It is important to acknowledge what has been done. It is not the case that nothing was done in the two-year period.

Nothing was done on the Bill.

What was done, for example, was providing for voluntary open disclosure via the Civil Liability Act, as passed last year, and periodic payment. To move away from a system of awards of €15 million and €20 million, we now have periodic payment orders which allow payments to be made over a period of time and which can be reviewed as a patient's case changes.

That legislation was passed also. We also passed the Legal Services Regulation Act, which brings in pre-action protocols. The point of pre-action protocols is to speed up cases and make sure people do not get stuck in the courts for years. We also enacted the Mediation Act because we would prefer if matters such as this could be dealt with by mediation rather than going to trial at all. This is all part of a programme of reforms that have been waiting for a long time to get done. Many of these were done in the past two years and this is the next one.

The Civil Liability (Amendment) Bill has not been mentioned.

It has been enacted.

On the same issue, I want to be sure I understand what the Taoiseach is saying. In 2015 the Government pulled the plug on mandatory open disclosure as a statutory duty of candour. The Taoiseach was on the record that he thought it was a good idea, but on the basis of information or advice, he backed away from it. That was a mistake but that is what he did. The Taoiseach now tells us that the health information and patient safety Bill, which is on the B list, is being fast-tracked. Is there not a contradiction inherent in this? It sounds to me that the Taoiseach was not keen on this proposition and he is now moving under pressure. I welcome the fact he is moving on the matter but I would like the Taoiseach to tell the House, not in some vague way, exactly when we will see this legislation. Do not pretend this was something on the to-do list when clearly the Taoiseach had wrongly backed away from it. That was a mistake. Now, because of this appalling turn of events, it is back on the Government's agenda. This is the correct thing to do. There should not have been a delay but we are where we are.

Perhaps the Taoiseach will explain how something that is being fast-tracked could be on a B list. This does not make any sense to me. Is the Taoiseach moving it on to an A list or is there some kind of supercharged approach to this now? It needs to happen quickly. It is part of the public confidence thing the Taoiseach is keen on.

I had hoped I had explained. I obviously did not but I will try again to explain the situation as I did earlier. A decision was taken in 2015 as part of a package of patient safety measures I announced, many of which have now happened. I have listed some of the measures that happened over the past two years. A lot has been done. At the time it was my intention to do mandatory open disclosure at the same time as voluntary open disclosure. Having taken advice from the Chief Medical Officer and from my officials, who had consulted with stakeholders, a decision was taken to do voluntary open disclosure first and mandatory open disclosure for serious reportable incidents at a later date. That is in the programme for Government. We put this into the programme for Government and it has been in the programme for two years. As I mentioned earlier, the Joint Committee on Health examined this matter only in the last year. It listened to all the stakeholders and considered the matter. This all-party Joint Committee on Health also recommended that we should do voluntary open disclosure first and then mandatory open disclosure for serious reportable events at a later date. This is what we are doing.

With reference to-----

There are no supplementary questions, unfortunately.

The account the Taoiseach has given does not actually tally with accounts and the turn of events as reflected at the time. I hope the record of the Dáil is correct.

I wish the Taoiseach a happy May Day. On International Workers' Day, I want to raise the issue of the promise in the programme for Government to tackle the gender pay gap. As we once again sadly debate Ireland's failure on women's health, will the Taoiseach advise the House on when the Government plans to progress its own legislation or accept and amend the Labour Party's Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (Gender Pay Gap Information) Bill 2017, which is in the Seanad? That Bill has passed Committee Stage in Seanad Éireann and is ready to move on to Report Stage. It could readily be enacted. There is no reason the Government cannot introduce its own amendments if it wants to improve the Bill. It really is time that we tackled the issue of the gap in pay between men and women. This would be a good day to signal the Government's intent in that regard.

I acknowledge the contribution of the Labour Party, especially Senator Bacik, on this issue. There is a working group taking forward a Labour Party Bill with a number of Government amendments.

I expect progress on that over the next weeks. I acknowledge the contribution of the Labour Party, which is very valued, but it is important that we get this matter right. I hope to report progress over the next couple of months.

Last year, when it emerged that the new national maternity hospital would be under the ownership of the Religious Sisters of Charity, there was outrage. The guidelines of this organisation state that the morning-after pill, IVF, vasectomy, sterilisation of women and abortion should be forbidden in their hospitals. There were demonstrations. Dr. Peter Boylan resigned from the board and more than 100,000 signed a petition to demand that the hospital be under exclusive public ownership. Following those protests, the Religious Sisters of Charity said they would not be involved in the ownership of the hospital. An article in The Sunday Times by Justine McCarthy, however, says that the National Maternity Hospital will be obliged to uphold the "values and vision" of the founder of the Religious Sisters of Charity, which is against the wishes of all of those who protested, who I think represent a majority of society. Will the Taoiseach or the Minister, who is not here, clarify whether that is the case? Do they agree that the church and religious orders should play no role in the operation of public hospitals? Do they agree that it points to the need for a separation of church and State?

There is no legislation promised.

Today is 1 May, International Workers' Day. I presume the Taoiseach is wearing his red socks in recognition of it. Workers today are still struggling to get decent pay and conditions. A recent report by Think-tank for Action on Social Change, TASC, shows increasing growth in precarious employment. Precarious employment does not just condemn workers to low pay, which now affects one in four workers according to the criteria of the OECD. Precarious work also affects access to health services, housing and other services. When will the Government's Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, even though the union Mandate says it contains shortcomings, be presented to the Dáil?

The date for Committee Stage of this Bill is 17 May, but I will confirm it for the Deputy afterwards.

Is é an lá inniu an chéad lá Bealtaine. Will the Taoiseach join with me in highlighting and supporting 1 May as World Asthma Day? The Asthma Society of Ireland informed me that there are 15,377 asthmatics in Tipperary alone who are living with the condition and that one in five children in Tipperary has asthma. Will the Taoiseach encourage - he is very good at this no matter what colour socks he wears or what he tweets on his social media accounts - all parents and indeed anyone who may suspect that they have the condition to take immediate steps to obtain potentially life-saving information from organisations such as the Asthma Society of Ireland, the HSE, or anyone else?

Is there a question on legislation?

I am asking if there is promised legislation for the health and welfare of our community.

There is no legislation promised but I am happy to be associated with the Deputy's remarks.

The number of cases being taken against the State increased from 6,000 in 2011 to 8,600 in 2016, which are the latest figures we have, and the compensation paid out increased by 20% in the last year for which we have figures. Almost 90%, the vast majority, of the State claims and compensation are in this area of health and childcare, through Tusla and the HSE. Does the Government have any plans to move to a legislative process which would have a no-fault medical liability system similar to what there is in New Zealand, Sweden and other countries so that we would not have to pay the legal costs and our patients would not have to go through the gruelling legal system which they are put through to prove cases of malpractice? Does the Government have any intention to move towards that system of covering for cases of malpractice rather than the gruelling and expensive legal system we use?

There are no plans in that regard.

Would the Minister think about it?

Pages 50 and 51 of the programme for Government state that: "We will establish a working group to identify the potential for local post offices to act as 'hubs' to facilitate other services such as health and transport, and a one-stop-shop for all Government services." Even community banking and handling car tax were proposed as major steps to save our post offices. More than two years later, in excess of 390 rural post offices throughout the country received letters from An Post, telling them that a drop in their income will be going ahead due to the sorting of mail and other things being taken from them. They were then offered a package to get out. One of these, among others, in west Cork, was the post office in Ballydehob, which, I may add, is one of the busiest post offices in west Cork due to the hard-working Bridie, the postmistress.

Promised legislation.

Yes, indeed. I called to Bridie yesterday evening. The passion she showed in wanting to keep her door open to the community is astounding to say the least. Over recent days, I have heard crocodile tears coming from Government Deputies going to these postmasters and postmistresses when these same Deputies have failed to implement the programme for Government. Will the Taoiseach stand idly by and watch these post offices close? Will he give a date for when the post offices will become a one-stop shop for Government services as promised in the programme for Government?

On the programme for Government commitment, I am not sure if the Minister has announced this yet but that pilot has started or is about to start, using ten post offices around the country to provide enhanced services. With regard to the offer to the postmasters, that is a voluntary retirement scheme, allowing them to retire if they so wish. It is intended that where somebody retires as postmaster, that contract will be offered to others in the area if there is demand.

The Taoiseach is aware that people came from all over the country today to protest and raise the issue of Lyme disease. I raise this under the commitment in the programme for Government with regard to the health of the people of our nation. The Taoiseach is aware that people suffering from Lyme disease have been let down by successive Governments. I am asking for the HSE to give proper recognition to these people. They are suffering. Young people's lives are being torn apart because of Lyme disease. The Taoiseach knows, as a doctor, the symptoms, pain and suffering that it is causing. I ask him, please, to take on board their concerns. They are outside the gates of this building. They deserve to be treated with respect. There are parents and young people. I ask the Taoiseach and Government to take on board their concerns, please, and stand up for them.

Are there any commitments?

There is no specific commitment in that regard. Chronic Lyme disease is a controversial diagnosis but I will ask the Minister for Health to provide a more detailed reply to the Deputy.

On the commitment to health spending in the programme for Government, particularly section 4, there have been reports in recent days of the Taoiseach asking his Ministers to compile lists of what Fianna Fáil Members on these benches are seeking to deliver for people every week. I ask the Taoiseach where, in the long list of things he and his party promised to the people in 2011 to get themselves into power, is the new regional hospital for Navan. That was not just promised by three Ministers but they signed a pledge and said they would have it open and operational by 2016-----

That is not true.

Deputy Doherty did that.

Will the Taoiseach tell me, in his list of expenditure plans, where that hospital is, and if it still exists on any of the fact-check lists he is compiling? The cattle grazing on the fields it was supposed to be on might like to know if they need to move to a new pasture.

That is not really on the Order of Business. Is there a comment?

I am glad the Deputy has confirmed what Fianna Fáil Deputies do every week.

Go back to this House in 2011. That smile will speak volumes to the people of Meath, with the Minister beside the Taoiseach. Their smiles and smirks will speak volumes to the people of Meath-----

I call Deputy John Brady.

-----that they delivered none of what they said they would.

I will not sit here and state a lie. There was no pledge made.

Does the Minister want me to bring the newspaper back in to show her the front of the Meath Chronicle with her picture?

Deputy Cassells, please. Questions have to be on the Order of Business.

The Deputy should withdraw his comment. There was no signed pledge.

I will bring it to her.

The Minister's promise was pathetic.

The Deputy and Minister can do this out in Meath but not in the Chamber of the Dáil.

In January, the collapse of Carillion exposed the Government's use of public private partnerships. That was in January. We are now in May, five months later. There is still real uncertainty for the five schools, one third level education facility and the users of those facilities as to what the future holds for them. The Minister said that there would be no delays in delivering these schools. One in my constituency, Coláiste Ráithín, is complete and ready for occupation. The only thing holding it back is red tape. We were told that we had to go through a new tendering process. We were supposed to have a decision on that on the 28th of last month. New contractors were due to be appointed.

We have got the question on Carillion.

New contractors were due to be appointed.

In the meantime, schools have been told to-----

I ask Deputy Brady to conclude. Other Members wish to contribute.

-----put contingency plans in place for September. What is the current status of the tendering process? Will schools have full access to their new buildings in time for September? When will contractors be on the ground to complete these schools and to stop the lock-out of these premises?

I assure Deputy Brady that the schools are being kept very closely abreast of what is happening in this regard.

No, they are not.

The Minister without interruption.

The position is that Carillion, one of the partners in this public private partnership, PPP, project has gone into liquidation.

We do not need a history lesson.

I ask Deputy Brady not to interrupt. Other Members wish to ask questions.

We need answers.

If Deputy Brady wants answers, he should not keep interrupting me while I am trying to provide them.

The Minister without interruption.

The Dutch Infrastructure Fund, DIF, which is now the sole responsible agent, has an obligation to complete these schools.

That is irrelevant.

It will not be paid a penny by the State until it completes those schools and hands them over. However, the decisions on approving a tender to complete the work on the schools is a matter for the DIF rather than the Department or the State. However, the Department and the National Development Finance Agency, NDFA, is keeping in very close contact with the DIF in order to ensure this is done as quickly as possible. However, the responsibility lies-----

Deputy Bruton is the Minister for Education and Skills.

------with the contracting party.

That is a ludicrous attitude.

The same answer has been given for the past six months.

Deputy Howlin knows that is the procedure.

Six months. It is a disgrace.

I ask the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Murphy, for a timeframe in regard to the vitally important commercial rates Bill. I am sure the Minister does not have the information on the heads of the Bill and what it contains but the current legislation is out of date. Many businesses are very concerned with the current position and I ask the Minister to provide an update on the Bill.

I thank the Deputy, who is correct to raise the issue of the Bill, which is very important for local authorities and ratepayers across the country. I raised it this morning with the Attorney General and made clear its priority for the Government. We hope to have heads of the Bill by the end of May and to get it into the House as quickly as possible.

I ask the Taoiseach for an update on the commitment made by Fine Gael during the most recent general election that if it was re-elected, it would abolish the universal social charge, USC, at a cost of €4 billion. Having been elected on that promise and now that the Government is two years into its mandate, I ask the Taoiseach where that commitment stands, considering that it will cost €4 billion and was the key central plank of the Fine Gael election campaign.

A double audit is going on.

I am happy to report to Deputy McConalogue that USC has been reduced in the past two budgets and good progress is being made in that regard. Prior to that, in coalition with the Labour Party, Fine Gael took hundreds of thousands of people out of the USC net. We are making good progress in relieving people of the tax that Fianna Fáil imposed upon them during the crisis. As I indicated approximately a year ago when I was afforded the privilege of being made Taoiseach, it is our intention to merge the USC with PRSI and build up the Social Insurance Fund which we will need in the future, given the growing demands on social insurance and-----

Good luck with that.

That has no bearing on the election promises made by Fine Gael.

Page 125 of the programme for Government contains a commitment that the Government would, as a matter of urgency, update wind farm planning guidelines within three to six months to offer a better balance, etc. That commitment was made over two years ago but we still have not seen the guidelines. The previous Government also promised guidelines in this area. Four Ministers later, we still have not received them. We must have good planning and get communities on board. The problem is that wind farms are springing up apace in the meantime. The most recent one to be granted planning permission comprises 12 giant turbines in Walsh Island on the far side of Portarlington, County Offaly. The turbines are probably well in excess of 500 m in height and within 700 m of homes. The Government has proposed draft guidelines but we have not yet seen proper guidelines to regulate these wind farms. It is an urgent issue which every recent Government has danced around. It is time for that dancing to stop. Communities in Laois and Offaly need protection.

The guidelines are currently being updated and will soon be available to Deputy Stanley. I will ask the Minister of State, Deputy English, to furnish him with the latest information in writing.

Huge turbines are currently being built.

In the section of the programme for Government dealing with health it is clearly stated that, as the finances of the country improve, a greater percentage of money will be spent by the Department of Health. Juvenile arthritis is a serious problem in this country, as the Taoiseach is aware. Up to 1,500 young people suffer from it. The World Health Organization recommends six rheumatologists for a population the size of Ireland's. We only have two. It has also stated that the waiting period should be no more than six weeks. In Ireland, it is three years. Although there is no specific commitment to junior arthritis in the programme for Government, I ask the Taoiseach to give a commitment to deal with that issue as the financial aspect of the health budget improves, as hoped, because it causes much distress and harm to young persons.

There is no specific commitment on that matter in the programme for Government but Deputy Eugene Murphy is correct that we have far too few consultant rheumatologists, of whom there are only two in the entire country, for a country of our size and young population. The HSE is working on a proposal to increase the number of consultant rheumatologist posts and for that to be backed up by clinical nurse specialists and others. That will be considered for the service plan 2019.

Top
Share