Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Jun 2001

Vol. 538 No. 1

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. a24, motion re Membership of Committees; No. 49, Standards in Public Office Bill, 2000 – Second Stage (resumed); No. 50, Children Bill, 1999 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages and No. 48, Local Government Bill, 2000 – Second Stage (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. and business shall be interrupted not later than 10 p.m., No. a24 shall be decided without debate, the Second Stage of No. 49 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after one hour and the Report and Final Stages of No. 50 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Private Members' Business shall be No. 112, motion re National Road Network (resumed) to conclude at 8.30 p.m.

There are four proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal regarding the late sitting agreed to?

The last item listed for today is the Local Government Bill, 2000. Before we can agree to extend normal time to facilitate the discussion of that Bill, will the Taoiseach outline whether we are dealing with the Bill as published, or whether the section dealing with the abolition of the dual mandate is to be removed?

Is the Deputy opposing the proposal?

It depends on the answer. It would be pointless to hold a debate if we do not know what we are debating. For reasons of clarity, the House deserves to know whether we are dealing with the Bill as published, or with a Bill which is fundamentally altered. It would make a nonsense of Second Stage if we debate a Bill which will be gutted subsequently.

The Second Stage debate will be on the Bill as published. However, it would be entirely undemocratic of me not to say that Deputy Howlin, or someone else, might make a good point and the Bill might be amended somewhere along the way.

Can I ask the Taoiseach—

The Deputy can only speak once. This is not Question Time. I must put the proposal.

May I ask a brief question?

The proposal before the House concerns the late sitting. The Deputy should know that, under Standing Orders, he can only speak once to a motion. The Deputy cannot speak twice.

May I ask a question?

I will allow a brief question.

Would the Taoiseach not agree that it would facilitate an orderly and reasonable debate if we knew whether the Government, not the Opposition, is pursuing the abolition of the dual mandate or whether it is abandoning it in the Bill? The Second Stage debate would be a nonsense unless that point is clarified.

We cannot anticipate the discussion.

This is a simple question.

I will have to put the proposal.

Question put: "That the late sitting be agreed to."

Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Fox, Mildred.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.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.

Níl

Barnes, Monica.Bell, Michael.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.

Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard. Farrelly, John.

Níl–continued

Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.

Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Perry, John.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.

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

Is the proposal for dealing with—

On a point of order, will Government Chief Whip confirm to us that the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Ó Cuív has—

That is not a point of order.

It is an interesting matter.

The Deputy should not be disorderly. It is not a point of order. The Deputy should resume his seat.

To lose one O'Keeffe is unfortunate, to lose two looks like carelessness.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. a24 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 49 agreed?

There may be a misprint of No. 49, I am not quite sure. Should it not be Low Standards in Public Office Bill, 2000? I have to ask that question because the larger parties appear to have organised to give leaders' allowance increases and I wonder if that is consistent with the aims of the Bill. I must object to it because a low standard is being established.

When we get to the Bill there will be a debate on it. Is the Deputy opposing this?

Question, "That the proposal for dealing with No. 49 be agreed to", put and declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 50 agreed? Agreed. I will now take leaders' questions.

As the Taoiseach is aware, agreement has been reached for the sale of the final portion of Eircom. This has turned out to be an absolute disaster for 450,000 small savers. After the hype, balloons, champagne and traditional music, a combination of the value of the latest offer and the residual value of the Vodafone shares mean that every Eircom shareholder has lost almost 30%. Given that the main reason for these losses was the exaggerated flotation price set by the Government against the advice of Eircom itself, particularly by its chief executive, does the Taoiseach accept there are serious lessons to be learned from this debacle? Will he give an undertaking that in any future sale of State companies the public will be given full and objective information and not conned by the slick advertising campaigns of this Government?

Has the Taoiseach analysed the consequences for other State privatisations of the enormous disappointment of so many members of the public who invested for the first time in shares? The cause was the disastrous handling of the flotation of Eircom by the Government, particularly the Minister responsible.

It is fair to say that privatisation of our State assets is a relatively new thing. We should reflect on the last number, of which there have been quite a few with different results, in any future sales. That would be a useful thing to do as we have seen some successes and we have seen some failures.

I clearly remember the strength of the market at the time of the Eircom flotation and I remember the advice given. The Department of Finance and the Government took a middle road. Some of the advice suggested a higher price which would have created even more difficulties. Some difficulties have been created for people and an analysis of the lessons learned should inform any future sale of assets so that interest is not undermined. I am sure there will be many such sales.

Does the Taoiseach agree that there was no public flotation of any other State company to date? Other privatisations were by way of trade sales. Will he inform the House if he has anything other than sympathy to offer the shareholders? There are 480,000 who have borrowed or invested pension funds and they are at a loss of over 30%. The Government grossly misled those shareholders by not informing them that the management of the company disagreed with the flotation price. Will the Taoiseach at least apologise to the small savers of Ireland?

Deputy Noonan will recall, as he was finance spokesperson at the time, the very careful warnings given about share options. It was made very clear that buying shares did not guarantee a win.

It was not.

The Deputy will remember that there was a number of months when many small shareholders sold up and were well advised to do so in many articles written by financial journalists as well as by the market. It is not for the Government or anyone else to go against the market but I hope some of what is happening will help to minimise losses. I believe it will turn things around in some cases.

They got no advice from the Government.

Ten days ago the Minister for Public Enterprise announced the trade sale of Aer Lingus and discussed this matter with the trade union representatives of those companies last week. Yesterday the Taoiseach told the House that there was no trade sale and that the Government decision to float the company stood. What is Government policy? Is the Taoiseach ad idem with his Minister for Public Enterprise? Do they have any communication about this matter and why is the Minister flogging the company around the world when he says no decision to do any such thing is extant?

Does the Taoiseach agree that the suggestion that Aer Lingus should be sold for £300 million is an insult to the national carrier and to everyone who works for Aer Lingus? Is he aware that slots at Heathrow Airport alone which are enjoyed by Aer Lingus would be worth approximately £300 million? The brand name which was so good in the past would still have value if the company were set right. Does the Taoiseach agree that in the first instance the company must be restored to good health before the Government decides either to proceed by way of trade sale or flotation?

The Government decision back in December 1999 authorised the Minister to initiate a process leading to an initial public offering of shares in Aer Lingus. Over the last few years those discussions have continued. As Deputy Howlin said, the issue with the unions was the shareholding of 9.9% of the company for Aer Lingus employees in addition to the current employee shareholding of 5%. As I said yesterday, the Minister has appraised the Aer Lingus unions of these developments in discussions last week and agreement has been reached on the resumption of discussions with the unions on increasing the current shareholding of 14.9%. The Minister's advisers and the company's advisers have been looking at alternative sale options for the airline, taking soundings with potential investors or buyers and will be reporting back to her. There are no other changes in that.

The Minister said it.

The company is not in any position other than what I am saying.

The workers in Aer Lingus will be entirely confused by that response. Is the Taoiseach now telling the House regarding the announcement made by the Minister for Public Enterprise that Aer Lingus would be sold by way of trade sale, that that option was actively being considered and that the spokesperson for the Department of Public Enterprise who on 6 June was reported as saying that that was the view of both the Minister for Public Enterprise and the Taoiseach – that all of that is factually incorrect and that there is no trade sale? Is he saying that the decision to float the company is the avenue being pursued as agreed by the Government last December? Is that what the Taoiseach and the Government are telling the workers and the House?

I am saying the same, once again, to the workers: the Government decision of 14 December 1999 authorised the Minister for Public Enterprise to initiate a process leading to an initial public offering of shares in Aer Lingus is still the Government decision. There is no change.

A U-turn.

There is no U-turn.

The trade sale is.

Nor does it mean that the IPO has been abandoned. The Government remains, as it has been since December 1999, committed to the privatisation of Aer Lingus as being the best option for the airline to go forward and it is appropriate, therefore, that all the commercial issues facing the airline and developments in aviation globally should be reviewed by the Minister, as she said, for the privatisation of the company. That is being done.

Where is the Minister?

The third point is—

On a daily quiz show.

Order, please. The Taoiseach is in possession.

The third point is that agreement has been reached on the resumption of discussions with the unions on increasing the current shareholding up to 14.9%.

A daily quiz show.

Where does this leave the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke?

That concludes Leaders' questions.

The Taoiseach has repudiated the Minister for Public Enterprise.

The Deputy is out of order and should resume his seat. There are leaders' questions and he is not a leader. He should sit down.

The Taoiseach has repudiated the Minister for Public Enterprise.

The Deputy is being grossly disorderly.

Following the great assistance we got from Europe on the Nice Treaty, I now note that the Dutch want to help us with our sensitive abortion question.

A question, please.

In relation to promised legislation or legislative matters, does the Taoiseach agree that the adequate response to this outrageous stunt is to now bring forward the instrument which provides for the creation of a properly funded agency to support women with crisis pregnancies, as recommended by the constitutional review group and advocated by Fine Gael?

A question, please.

I am asking the Taoiseach if he will now bring forward the legislative measure to set up a funded agency to support women with crisis pregnancies which the Minister for Health and Children has the power to do as an adequate response to the outrageous Dutch stunt in sending a ship into Irish waters tomorrow.

There is no legislation but the Minister is bringing forward the agency to follow on from the result of the discussions of the all-party constitutional review committee. There is no necessity for primary legislation. Regarding the other issue raised by the Deputy, the Minister for Health and Children has consulted the Attorney General on the issues which might arise in connection with the vessels visiting the country. That issue is being closely followed.

Today a report is being launched which shows that 6,000 people on this island are dying unnecessarily of disease. These are poor people whose lives could be saved if Government policy was changed. In view of the fact that on the list of legislation there is a Bill called the Diseases in Animals Bill, will the Taoiseach now publish a Bill entitled the Diseases in Humans Bill—

This is not on promised legislation.

—to tackle the gross inequality which is causing 6,000 unnecessary deaths across the country?

The Deputy should put down a parliamentary question.

People are living in poverty.

The Deputy is making a statement which is not in order.

I ask the Taoiseach to face up to his responsibility to tackle the gross inequality in our health service which is literally killing people as we speak.

Unless the Deputy raises promised legislation she is not in order and she should raise the issue by way of parliamentary question. She should resume her seat.

This morning Macra na Feirme published a policy document on car insurance which highlighted the fact that insurance has increased by £200 in the last five weeks since the introduction of the theory test. When will the Road Traffic Bill come before the House so we can debate this issue? Will the Taoiseach bring forward legislation to tackle the high cost of car insurance for young drivers?

The Bill has been published and it is awaiting Second Stage in the House. As soon as possible it will be on the floor.

After four years of this Government, two young teachers cannot now afford to buy a home of their own. Has the Government any proposals to bring to the House before the end of the session to deal with the housing crisis?

All of the legislation which is necessary is already there. That is how we are building so many houses.

That is why people cannot buy houses.

The Minister for Public Enterprise has nine separate Bills at various stages of preparation. Given that she is tied up with a radio quiz every day this week and probably next week as well, will the Taoiseach assign some of this legislation to another Minister who is available to come to the House to deal with it?

That question is not relevant.

I can mention each Bill if the Chair wants me to do so—

It is the question of timing.

I am not sure I am in order as my question is not being referred to the Taoiseach. The Bills involved are the Aviation Regulation Bill, 2000, the Bord Gáis Éireann Bill, the Containment of Nuclear Weapons Bill, 2000, the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 2001, the Gas Regulation Bill, the Ecological Survey of Ireland Bill, the Irish National Petroleum Corporation Bill and the Railway Safety Bill.

And the scatty Aer Lingus Bill, 2000.

All these Bills are pending. The Minister has been on the radio for a full week reading tabloids and answering questions from the tabloids.

A Deputy

Phone a friend.

Scatty announcements.

When can we expect these Bills in the House?

Most of the Bills the Deputy has mentioned will be before the House either shortly or over the next number of months. Deputy Stagg wants me to go through them individually but they are all before the House and the Minister will take the Bills.

During yesterday's Order of Business, I asked the Taoiseach a question on the European Convention on Human Rights Bill, 2001. The Taoiseach said that he would revert to me. Will he allow the quick passage of a short Bill to remedy the deficiencies in the Human Rights Commission Bill already enacted and defer the European convention transposition for a more comprehensive debate that all, including the chairman of the Human Rights Commission, want? Will that happen as the Minister indicated? If the entire Bill is guillotined in three hours, we will have a major row.

I have discussed this matter with the Deputy and I think he has now heard the views of Deputy Howlin which I had relayed to him already. There can be consultations during the day on the matter.

When is it intended to take Second Stage of the Residential Institutions Redress Bill, 2001? Is it intended to complete what appears to be a grossly defective piece of legislation this session?

The Bill was published this morning. It is hoped to take it in this session.

Can I clarify if the Taoiseach intends to complete Second Stage in this session.

We would like to complete it.

Barr
Roinn