Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 28 Nov 2000

Vol. 526 No. 6

Order of Business.

The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 20, motion re Leave to Introduce Supplementary Estimates [Votes 2, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 41 and 42]; No. 21, motion re Referral of Supplementary Estimates [Votes 2, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 41 and 42] to select committee; No. 42, ICC Bank Bill, 2000 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; and No. 43, Nitrigin Éireann Teoranta Bill, 2000 – Second Stage (resumed).

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 20, shall be decided without debate and, subject to the agreement of No. 20, a general debate not exceeding one hour may arise on No. 21 in respect of the Supplementary Estimates [Votes 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 only] and the following arrangements shall apply: (1) the debate in respect of Vote 25 (Environment and Local Government) shall be brought to a conclusion within 30 minutes and the debate in respect of the Education Group of Votes (Votes 26, 27, 28 and 29) shall be brought to a conclusion within a further 30 minutes; (2) in the case of each such debate, the speech of a Minister and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party and of each other Member called upon shall not exceed five minutes in each case; and (3) Members may share time. Any divisions demanded on Nos. 20 and 21 shall be taken forthwith. Private Members' Business shall be No. 103 – motion re BSE.

There is one proposal to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Supplementary Estimates agreed to?

Before agreeing to any time limit on the debate on the Vote for the Department of the Environment and Local Government, which concerns the Minister of State with responsibility for taxis, will the Taoiseach clarify the position of the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Dea, who has publicly undermined his ministerial colleague in regard to the issuing of orders for the de-monopolisation of the taxi industry? Is the Taoiseach supporting the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, in the stance he has taken? Is the Government acknowledging action must be taken to issue these new licences quickly?

This does not arise in relation to the question before the House.

I do not think we can consider the environment Estimates without knowing whether the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government has the support of the Government for the stance he has taken in regard to taxis. The Government was forced to take action on taxis by the courts – it was the courts that governed this issue. However, now that the Government is acting in accordance with the courts, we see members of the Government not being corrected or reprimanded by the Taoiseach as they undermine their colleagues.

What is the position of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, in this matter? Is his conduct acceptable to the Taoiseach? Has the Taoiseach spoken to him about it? Are other Ministers of State equally free to undermine the position of the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy, in this matter?

It is a free for all.

The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, has been having discussions since 3.30 p.m. to deal with this issue, in which he is putting forward the agreed position of the entire Government, Ministers of State and the respective parties. I hope those discussions are meaningful and will make some progress. It is the Government's wish to make progress in this area. However, we have made our decision on the matter and we are not moving away from that. I hope some of the issues concerning hardship and other matters put forward by the representatives can be listened to in those meetings. However, there is no change in the position I put forward here a week ago.

Did the Taoiseach tell Deputy O'Dea that?

Is the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea—

We are not having a debate.

—still at liberty to subvert the—

The question before the House is whether the business is agreed.

Does the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, have the Taoiseach's approval?

Is the Deputy agreeing to the business before the House?

I will agree to it if I can get a satisfactory answer.

The question is whether the business is agreed to.

(Interruptions.)

We are not discussing the content of the environment Estimate.

I want to know the Government's position on the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea.

I am putting the question to the House.

(Interruptions).

I will hear Deputy Quinn on the question before the House.

What is being said to RTE?

Allow Deputy Quinn to speak.

An issue that concerns everybody in this House and the present and future Administrations is the clarity and loyalty Front Bench Members are expected to get from colleagues and backbenchers. The Taoiseach should clearly indicate his views on the statements made by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, and whether they have his support.

What did the Taoiseach say to the Minister of State?

There can be only one Government view on this issue.

There are two.

Will the Deputy listen? He would greatly help himself and others if he did. There is only one position that any member of the Government can support and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, supports it.

He does not. That is a joke. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, opposes the Government.

Is the proposal for dealing with the Supplementary Estimates agreed to?

I am putting the question.

On a point of order—

On a point of order, the interview given by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, on local radio in Limerick this morning contradicts what the Taoiseach has said.

That is not a point of order.

Question put: "That No. 20 be taken without debate."

Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Foley, Denis.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.

Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.

Níl

Belton, Louis J.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gregory, Tony.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.

Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Olivia.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Sargent, Trevor.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Stagg.
Question declared carried.

In light of the fact there are disputes in progress concerning teachers, signalmen, rail gate minders, pilots, planning staff and a number of child care staff in residential homes and a number of other claims coming through the industrial relations machinery which could result in disputes, will the Taoiseach outline to the House the arrangements being made through the conciliation mechanisms of the PPF and in the preparation of the budget to ensure that a pay offer is made to all under the PPF to take account of the fact that inflation is currently running at twice the rate upon which the PPF was originally negotiated?

Am I in order in asking for time to debate the crisis in industrial relations generally? Will the Government consider providing the House with an opportunity for the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, who has responsibility for the machinery of industrial relations, to address some of the concerns expressed by the chief executive of the Labour Relations Commission yesterday who talked about the fact there are more than 350 disputes on his desk, that he expected to have 20 or 30 more yesterday morning and that he had recently lost three of his top staff? There is now a crisis in the machinery for which the Government is responsible in terms of dealing with these disputes and it should issue a comprehensive statement on what it proposes to do to deal with this crisis which appears to be completely out of hand.

There are a number of cases before the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission at present. It is not unusual for these bodies to deal, in one form or another, with several hundred cases but the pressure on them in the past two to three months is greater than has been the case for some time.

With regard to the point raised by Deputy Bruton, talks between the social partners, namely, the ICTU and IBEC, on the inflation rate package are ongoing. They are trying to discover if they can reach agreement on what is to be done, particularly given that inflation is now higher than it was when they signed on for the PPF.

A Deputy

It has doubled.

Both parties are endeavouring to find a way to reach agreement. Obviously, this matter does not merely involve a resolution of public service matters. Agreement must also be reached in respect of the private sector. I hope those discussions will conclude soon but I accept that they are not likely to conclude in the next few days. With regard to arranging a debate, that is a matter for the Whips.

Is the Government willing, in principle at least, to make special financial provision in the budget in respect of any cost which might be incurred in 2001 to meet the terms of any agreement which might be reached in terms of re-negotiating elements of the PPF to take account of inflation?

I must pursue one of the questions I posed earlier. There is an urgent need for the Tánaiste to come before the House to indicate if she will be able to fast-track the filling of the personnel vacancies to which I already referred. She is the person responsible for the maintenance of the State's industrial relations machinery. In addition, she should state whether extra staff resources will be allocated in order that the existing machinery can be utilised to full effect to deal with a matter which is now more problematical than it has been for many years.

With regard to Deputy Bruton's question, until the discussions are completed I do not know whether it is possible to reach agreement on this issue. I do not want to pre-empt matters by referring to the allocation of resources, etc. However, I again emphasise that this matter is relevant to both the public and private sectors. Any agreement will have to be agreed by both sectors. If an agreement is reached, the Government will then be obliged to deal with the matter. However, no such agreement has yet been reached and the negotiations are ongoing.

In relation to Deputy Quinn's question, the resources are in place but the bodies in question have lost some members of staff. Perhaps the Deputy should table parliamentary questions to the Tánaiste to ask how she intends to fill those posts.

Will she come before the House to answer them?

Will the Taoiseach clarify whether the forthcoming Valuation Bill will deal with past evaders such as himself? Will he explain why he has not paid rates for the past 12 years on St. Luke's—

Deputy Yates should confine his questions to promised legislation.

—when other Members of the House with constituency offices have been obliged to do so? Will he indicate whether the legislation will deal with the matter to which I refer?

The first part of the Deputy's question is in order.

The Valuation Bill has been published and I am not an evader.

Does the Taoiseach enjoy a special exemption?

Last week Judge Windle described Irish peacekeeping efforts in the Lebanon as a farce. His remarks were both offensive and insulting to members of the Defence Forces and those who have sacrificed their lives in the Lebanon. This House should call on the judge to withdraw his remarks.

This is not the appropriate place to raise the matter.

In respect of the promised legislation on the single financial regulator, there was a constructive and useful discussion of the issues today at the hearings of the Sub-Committee on Certain Revenue Matters. Having regard to the uncertainty that hangs over the financial services area, has the time come for the Taoiseach to intervene with the Torville and Dean of this Government in order to bring the legislation before the House?

I have been involved with trying to bring about a resolution to that matter and I am endeavouring to do so as quickly as possible.

Is it intended to amend the Equal Status Act to close off the loophole that allowed the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy, to issue licences without the condition that taxis must be accessible to the disabled, in breach of section 17 of that Act?

That does not arise on the Order of Business. Is there any proposal to introduce new legislation?

There is an equal status Bill forthcoming.

To the best of my knowledge there is a provision which will soon become European law, which deals with that matter. I do not know if it is covered in the legislation but the provision to which I refer was introduced by the then Minister, Deputy Michael Smith.

With regard to the Immigration Act, does the Government intend to issue new guidelines to immigration officers regarding the handling of non-nationals arriving at our ports of entry in order that all citizens of any country who arrive here with valid documentation—

This matter has been raised on the Adjournment by the Deputy and we do not want to anticipate that debate.

I will not be able to ask on the Adjournment about promised legislation or the intention behind such legislation. The Immigration Act was introduced to amend the Aliens Act, 1935, and regulations brought forward under it were validated by that legislation. Are there specific regulations dealing with instructions to immigration officers? If not, will new regulations be introduced?

Is there promised legislation?

The immigration and residents Bill is forthcoming but I do not believe this relates to the matter to which the Deputy referred. I understand the immigration officials dealt with the case in question under the relevant statutory provisions. The Deputy inquired whether the guidelines under which they operate should be somewhat different and he should pursue that issue.

As already stated, that matter will be the subject of an Adjournment debate this evening.

(Mayo): On 4 September last, the Minister for Public Enterprise published the proposed framework for the reform of public transport which included the restructuring of CIE, the division of Bus Éireann into two companies – Bus Átha Cliath and another company – the division of Iarnród Éireann into two separate companies and the introduction of public private partnerships. Is the legislation dealing with this matter imminent or will it be introduced in the foreseeable future?

The Minister for Public Enterprise is working on a number Bills, all of which are due to be introduced next year.

They will be introduced by the next Government.

Deputy Yates will be in charge at that stage.

(Dublin West): Focus Ireland, a voluntary organisation that works with the homeless, indicated at the weekend that there are now 45,000 family units – probably 100,000 people – on local authority housing lists. The appalling suffering, over-crowding and stress—

Does the Deputy have a question appropriate to the Order of Business? There are a number of Deputies offering and I want to try to facilitate them.

(Dublin West): What urgent action is being taken by the Government to deal with this crisis? Private landlords are thriving in current circumstances.

Does the Deputy have a question specific to the Order of Business?

(Dublin West): What is the progress of the legislation promised by the Taoiseach to control the exploitation of tenants in private rented accommodation and when will it come before the Dáil?

Is the Taoiseach concerned about the thousands of children who are dependent on bed and breakfast establishments in the Dublin area and throughout the country?

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

What action does he intend to take—

The Deputy's question is not relevant to the Order of Business.

The legislation is being drafted. However, it also must be acknowledged that almost £450 million extra has been provided in the Estimates for the local authority housing programme, an increase of 44% over last year's provision.

To what extent, if any, can Members' right of access to the House be protected, given that at 3.40 p.m. today I and other Members tried to gain access to the House but were prevented because the street in front of the main gate was blocked?

Law and order has broken down.

I have referred the matter and I will bring it up with the Ceann Comhairle.

In the event of a vote, it could have serious consequences if the Members were prevented from entering the House.

I will speak to the Ceann Comhairle about the matter and we will have a report for you in the morning on the Order of Business.

On long promised legislation, when will legislation be introduced on mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect? In view of the damning report by the social services inspectorate on the Tallaght residential centre for children in trouble, including a child as a resident-—

Deputy Neville, we cannot have a Second Stage speech on the question.

Is the Tallaght centre to be closed?

On promised legislation.

The Children Bill is before committee at present. The only other legislation is the children's ombudsman legislation which is being prepared.

It has nothing to do with the Children Bill.

That has nothing to do with child sexual abuse.

Will the Taoiseach make some time available tomorrow to enable the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, to make a statement on his meeting with the representatives of taxi drivers today and to take some—

On the Order of Business, Deputy Gilmore.

We will have a great Order of Business tomorrow. I am asking for the Minister to make a statement and for questions to be put to him.

(Interruptions.)

If such questions were allowed every Deputy could ask a similar question on an issue they would like to see debated in the House. There are procedures here, Deputy Gilmore.

The Aviation Bill is currently before the House. What stance should we take on the demand of the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Cuív, that the operation at Baldonnel should be transferred to Connemara?

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

Does this represent the position of the Government and who is in charge of the Government? Are the Ministers of State, Deputy Ó Cuív and Deputy O'Dea in charge of Government policy?

A Deputy

—in charge of Government spin.

This is not appropriate on the Order of Business.

In a recent speech the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy, stated that he would bring forward measures to outlaw stage payments and gazumping. Can the Taoiseach tell the House when these measures may be brought forward?

Is such legislation promised?

Yes, Ceann Comhairle, it will be next year.

(Interruptions.)

Please allow Deputy Broughan to put his question.

Does the Taoiseach find it ironic that the short and distinguished political career of his brother, Alderman Maurice Ahern as Lord Mayor of Dublin appears to be coming to a very premature end along with the rest of the city council in view of the fact that 14 years ago—

That is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

On legislation, the Taoiseach abolished the then funding mechanism of Dublin Corporation. In the 14 years in this House, he has not come forward with any other similar funding mechanism. Is he prepared to introduce legislation giving financial autonomy to local authorities like Dublin City Council?

Is such legislation promised?

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Finucane without interruption, please.

As morale is already low in the Air Corps, will the Taoiseach comment on the statement by the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Cuív, that the military aerodrome should be moved from Baldonnel to Galway?

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

Is that the policy?

(Interruptions.)

Every couple of hours in this State, citizens are subjected to vicious gun attacks. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform seems totally removed from the situation.

A question on the Order of Business.

What legislation is promised to deal with this matter?

Is legislation promised?

In the criminal justice area, there are a few more Bills due but to deal with the matter Deputy Flanagan raised, there is more than ample legislation. These problems are being dealt with and that is why crime figures are down by about a quarter.

D526–D15

I bring to the attention of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle – and perhaps we will take some action about it – that some Deputies had difficulty getting into this House for the vote some minutes ago because of the blockades outside.

The matter has already been raised and I have undertaken to report to the Ceann Comhairle and we will have a report on it tomorrow morning on the Order of Business.

Thank you. On the Courts and Court Officers Bill, last week the Taoiseach told us the Attorney General, Mr. McDowell, was ecstatic in his job. Could the Taoiseach tell the House whether he now has taken upon himself to amend the law without amendments to legislation? Recently the law relating to the courts and court officers allowed for people to serve until the age of 70 but the Attorney General seems to be taking a hand in changing that law by refusing permission for people to serve until they are 70. Is there a proposal to amend the legislation with regard to the ages to which court officers can serve?

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

The Courts and Court Officers Bill is due this session.

Barr
Roinn