The Order of Business today shall be No.21, motion re ministerial rota for parliamentary questions; No. 22, motion re referral to joint committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of a proposal under the Fourth Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam, a proposal for a Council directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection; No. 4, Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, 2001 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; and No. 49, State Authorities (Public Private Partnership Arrangements) Bill, 2001 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. 21 and 22, shall be decided without debate. Private Members' Business shall be No. 119, motion re insurance costs.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal agreed?
Is the Chair putting the questions separately?
There is one proposal to be put to the House.
I am opposed to No. 22. The Taoiseach is well aware of the controversy in the House last week as a result of Deputy Noel O'Flynn's outrageous and inflammatory remarks. A fund-raising event for Deputy O'Flynn in his constituency was subsequently honoured with the presence of the Minister for Finance. It seems the Taoiseach is being very fair in the House, but that Fianna Fáil is operating a strategy in constituencies to attempt to play both sides of the immigrant issue. The Taoiseach will recall that all party leaders signed a pledge which stated that race would not be allowed to become an election issue. I ask the Taoiseach to agree that the pledge should be signed by all candidates, including Deputies and Senators. I will withdraw my opposition to the Order of Business if the Taoiseach agrees that candidates from the main parties should guarantee not to use race as an issue in the general election. If not, there will be a vote.
I thank the Chair for allowing me to raise the Labour Party's objections to taking the proposal under the Fourth Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam in committee, particularly in view of Deputy Noel O'Flynn's racist comments in this House last Thursday. The Taoiseach indicated in reply to a question I asked him last week that he does not agree with Deputy O'Flynn's remarks, that he regrets the remarks and that he feels they should not have been made. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has indicated that he supports the Taoiseach's statements on Deputy O'Flynn's opinions as confirmed in this House on Thursday and reiterated over the weekend. It is inexplicable, therefore, that the Minister for Finance should endorse Deputy O'Flynn's political stance by attending a function in Cork, held exclusively to raise funds for Deputy O'Flynn. The actions of the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, have raised serious questions. I do not believe, therefore, that the matter should be referred to a committee. If racists in the Fianna Fáil Party wish to use the race card and feel free to do so, we should have such a debate in this House. This issue is being raised in the aftermath of the murder of a Chinese man, killed on the streets of this city for no reason other than his ethnic origin. The comments of Deputy O'Flynn and others will lead to further deaths unless affirmative and clear moral leadership is demonstrated by the Taoiseach and the President of Fianna Fáil.
The issue before the House is to refer a proposal to a committee, but it is being used as an excuse to raise another matter. On Thursday morning I made clear my feelings about Deputy O'Flynn's remarks. I have read the comments he made in the House later on Thursday and I do not believe they should be put in the same context as the earlier remarks, as he was trying to get his views across the floor. If one looks at the text of his statement, one will see that he was talking about the overall issue of crime.
Deputy O'Flynn's remarks here were equally disgraceful.
The Taoiseach should be allowed to conclude without interruption.
I do not wish to get into an argument, but I read Deputy Shatter's comments during the same debate, some of which were not very wise.
Perhaps the Taoiseach will release his correspondence with Deputy O'Flynn.
The Taoiseach, please.
We should not condone any of these things, nor should we engage in incitement to racism. I had a long discussion with Deputy O'Flynn, during which I laid down the policies of the Government, and most parties, on this issue. I have outlined the policy to the Deputy in writing, so that he can be in no doubt about it. The Minister for Finance did nothing wrong by honouring a prior engagement last night. In reply to Deputy Noonan—
Can the Taoiseach repeat that?
There is not anything wrong with a Minister attending a function to which he was committed and which was being attended by many people.
It was of no consequence.
In reply to Deputy Noonan's comments, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Tánaiste and I stated last year at the launch of an anti-racism report that race issues should be kept out of politics. Many communities face pressures in deciding how to deal with these matters and remarks made by Deputy O'Flynn and others do not represent the best way to deal with them.
The only pressure on Deputy O'Flynn is coming from Deputies Dan Wallace and Billy Kelleher.
Were they at the function?
He does not even have that pressure, which is why he should not use these things.
Why did he use them?
He does not even have that pressure.
The Taoiseach without interruption.
If Deputy Noonan wants to take up the issue of a pledge, I have no problem in doing so.
Why is Deputy O'Flynn so amused by the Taoiseach's comments?
It has already been stated by the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, and I have no difficulty with that.
Deputy O'Flynn is not here.
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.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.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe. |
Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Wright, G. V. |
|
Barnes, Monica.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis J.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael. |
Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Hayes, Brian. Healy, Seamus. |
|
Higgins, Jim.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian. |
O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan. |
We will now take leaders' questions.
The Taoiseach will recall that last week I asked him to participate in an all-party motion condemning Deputy Lawlor for his lack of co-operation with the Flood Tribunal. The Taoiseach assented and subsequently at Whips' discussions it was decided a motion requesting the Deputy's resignation would be the only adequate action on this occasion. Since then there has been a letter from Deputy Lawlor in which he objects to the taking of such a motion in his absence. He claims it would lack fairness and balance and that the Dáil would appear to be acting as judge, jury and executioner in his case. I understand there is legal advice emerging now, advising that the Dáil cannot debate such a motion in the absence of Deputy Lawlor. I ask the Taoiseach to request that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform make all the necessary arrangements to have Deputy Lawlor appear here for the debate on Thursday, to give him an opportunity to say what he wants to say on the record of the House, and return him to Mountjoy when the debate is completed. Otherwise, the intention of this House will be frustrated.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
In response to what has been said to Deputy Noonan on behalf of Fine Gael, does the Taoiseach still hold the view, one year on from 30 January 2001, that, as he said in a statement at the time, the High Court judgment amounts to a challenge and an opportunity for Deputy Lawlor to avail of its terms to put right the wrong that was done? The Taoiseach said that, as suggested by the Government's motion, the challenge to Deputy Lawlor contained in the High Court judgment concerning him was one to which he must rise and that if he did not intend to comply with the letter of the law and the spirit of the Constitution as laid down in the judgment, he would demonstrate such defiance of constitutional values as would justify the other Members of the House publicly and solemnly expressing their opinion that his role as a public representative was not tenable. One year on, and into Deputy Lawlor's third commitment to jail for contempt of the orders of the court and the tribunal, does the Taoiseach still hold these views?
The Government position on this issue is, as it has been for the past year and longer, that the Flood Tribunal was established by the unanimous will of the Members of this House and that every citizen and every Member of the Oireachtas has a legal, moral and democratic duty to co-operate with the tribunal, not to obstruct it and to comply with its lawful orders. That is the legal position and I would expect any citizen or Member who disputed the validity or legality of the tribunal to make his or her case to the tribunal and, if necessary, to the court. That is where these things have to be argued out. The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act, 1997, has been invoked by the tribunal to compel Deputy Lawlor to comply with its orders. That is the stated position of the courts. Under the legislation introduced by this Government and passed by this House, anyone can be compelled, without criminal proceedings and by a fast-track process, to obey the lawful orders of the tribunal or be committed to jail for contempt. Deputy Lawlor has not complied and is paying the price.
As I understand it, the Whips are meeting later today to agree on a motion to be taken here on Thursday morning after the Order of Business. I agree with that motion. I have no legal advice, at this stage, that we should not debate the matter. I have heard people express the view that a Member should have an entitlement to be here. I am not a legal person – there are plenty of them in the House – but I am not sure how a person who is in jail by order of the court can be here. I am not sure, either, whether it is appropriate for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to get involved. That needs to be considered very carefully.
However, as I understand the rules of the House – it has always been the advice to the House – it can pass a motion or express a view. Perhaps in these circumstances that may be more difficult, since it is a Member of the House on which we are expressing a view and that person can not exercise his rights, but I do not have, apart from having heard a number of people comment on possible difficulties, any advice to the contrary. The matter will have to be considered but the Whips are meeting in an hour to agree the motion, which will be taken here on Thursday. We can check the legality of the motion but I understand the Government Whip asked the advice of the parliamentary legal adviser and I do not think she has any difficulty with that proceeding.
Do I take it the Taoiseach is making a commitment to the House that a motion calling on Deputy Lawlor to resign from the House will be debated here on Thursday, that this will be taken in Deputy Lawlor's absence and that if there is a legal difficulty about Deputy Lawlor not being present, the Taoiseach will make arrangements to ensure his presence?
That is not what I said. I told Deputy Noonan that I understood the Whips were agreeing a motion, that whatever motion the Whips agreed on would be taken on Thursday morning and that I did not see any difficulty with our taking the motion unless there is legal advice indicating otherwise. I am not sure whether the Government of the day can assume the power to act in this way when the courts have stated that a Member of the House is to be jailed. I do not know whether we have the power to do that.
Those who killed Jerry McCabe have been let out.
My question is on a separate and totally unrelated matter but one of interest to an enormous number of people across the country. I have been in some ten constituencies since 10 January this year and on most occasions I visited schools. In every school it was brought to my attention, either by the principal or the parents association or by some of the teachers directly involved, that commitments in respect of their capital building programme have been put on hold. Their efforts and that of the people acting on their behalf to get clarity from Tullamore have come to naught. They have been told by the Department that even it does not know exactly what is happening as everything has been put on hold.
On three occasions, 4 and 12 December last and 31 January this year, my colleague Deputy Shortall, attempted to get a detailed list of the 850 schools, both primary and secondary, from the Minister for Education and Science. They are at various stages in the Department's building unit in Tullamore. She inquired as to their status and when they will be able to proceed to the next stage.
In one case there is a school that hired and financed the renting of temporary prefab accommodation to enable it to move out of the dilapidated school building in which it was located so as to enable remedial work to commence but it has not yet got the go-ahead for that project. That is just one illustration of the many cases there are. No doubt the Taoiseach is able to outline the current situation from his own experience of constituency visits.
Will the Taoiseach authorise or direct the Minister for Education and Science to publish the full list of the 850 schools, the various stages at which their applications currently rest and what the capital allocation will be this year? Can we have that now rather than in a couple of weeks before polling day on 9 May?
Will the Taoiseach explain why the schools repair and building programme is in such a shambles? Has it collapsed under the weight of political promises in the various constituencies? Is the Taoiseach aware how dire the situation has become in some counties?
Last week I visited a very well-run gaelscoil in Wicklow. It is currently housed in a former funeral home and the big double doors are still in the front of one classroom. How can the Taoiseach stand over these facilities? What is happening in the Department of Education and Science where no school seems to be making any progress in terms of its repair or building programme?
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister does not answer any questions.
Funding has been increased in the Department of Education and Science Vote in recent years by 70%. It is now €5.4 billion. On the capital programme, which is a source of questions there has been a four-fold increase. Instead of the handful of projects we had some years ago we now have construction going on in several hundreds of schools. The capital funding for this year—
(Carlow-Kilkenny): What is going on is a scandal.
Please allow the Taoiseach without interruption.
—is 350% higher than it was just four years ago. An enormous programme of school reconstruction is under way. Clearly a great number of other schools are involved in the process because they are all trying to modernise.
Please allow the Taoiseach without interruption.
—there is an opportunity to try to improve, rather than the old way when there was no point in even making an application. The Minister answers questions daily about the individual status of schools.
Deputy Burke, please. The only Deputy entitled to ask a supplementary question is Deputy Quinn. I ask all other Deputies to remain silent and give him the courtesy that was given to the leaders.
It is a pathetic reply.
It is a joke.
A sum of €335 million might be a joke. Perhaps the Opposition does not want it spent. Perhaps the money is required in order to abolish VRT, or some other daft project, but we want it spent on schools.
Will the Taoiseach ensure the Minister for Education and Science does his constitutional job and answers questions in this House.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Accurately.
Well, even at all. Accuracy would be a bonus.
Sometimes one would not know the difference.
I repeat once again the request made by Deputy Shortall on 4 and 12 December last and on 31 January this year. I remind the Taoiseach that a specific commitment was given by the relevant Minister who shares collective Cabinet responsibility with the rest of his colleagues on the Front Bench that a full list will be made available. This is not Fianna Fáil money, it is taxpayers' money that was voted in this House.
I welcome the fact that over the past five or six years there has been a wonderful increase in resources and that we have been able to allocate funding to a variety of different projects. The net question I am asking the Taoiseach now is if he will honour the pledge or direct the Minister for Education and Science to honour the pledge to simply tell us what the list is, what the state of play is in respect of some 850 schools? The parents, teachers and local communities should know the facts. Will the Taoiseach honour that commitment to give the facts in regard to the sum of money that has been allocated? Where is it to be spent, how is it to be spent and when is it to be spent?
The Minister for Education and Science today has 88 questions alone. I think he had 250 questions last week.
Please allow the Taoiseach without interruption.
He is daily answering questions and reporting on the excellent progress he is making on the schools capital programme.
It would be easier to get an answer from that funeral parlour in Bray.
Has the Taoiseach changed his priority list in regard to promised legislation to put at the top of the list the coastal zone management Bill? Given the immense flooding problems that have been hitting the country, in my constituency, in that of Deputy Gormley and in the Taoiseach's constituency, for example, can he say if this Bill will be published and enacted before the end of the Government's term of office?
Will the Department have the resources and expertise to implement its provisions as there are many other areas like Portmarnock and Portrane losing the coastline as well as experiencing flooding problems?
It is promised for some time in the course of this year. I do not have an exact date. It is to establish a new framework for the management of the coastal zone, to replace the Foreshore Acts. The Bill has been fairly extensively drafted but I am not aware of its publication date.
One of the greatest disincentives to business and enterprise today is the infrastructural difficulties in communications and modern technology. Will the Taoiseach assure the House that the long-awaited communications Bill will be introduced and enacted before the end of this session?
It will be published this session. Whether it will be passed this session is unclear, but it will be published before Easter.
Does the Government still intend to proceed with Second Stage of the disabilities Bill as scheduled for tomorrow, given that a number of disability organisations asked for the Bill to be withdrawn for proper consultation? It does not convey any rights and takes away rights already available to people with disabilities.
The Bill and the explanatory memorandum only became available in recent days in Braille and other accessible formats after consistent pressure from the Opposition. Will it be withdrawn in order to have proper consultation and an acceptable bill of rights produced?
In view of the serious concerns being expressed by many groups working with the disabled that this Bill is unconstitutional because of the provision in it relating to people not being able to go to the civil courts or their rights being curtailed there when they go, will the Taoiseach consider withdrawing it and bringing back a Bill that guarantees rights to those who are disabled and a proper needs assessment?
This Bill has been called for over a long period of time. I was asked about the Braille aspect last week and when I checked I found that that commitment was given last year. The organisations knew, therefore, it would be available in Braille and other forms. As with every Bill, there have been representations about various aspects, but there is nothing to prevent the debate on the Bill from starting and discussions can continue with the organisations concerned.
I call Deputy Gilmore.
This is not the Bill we were promised.
I have called Deputy Gilmore. I ask Deputy O'Sullivan to resume her seat and allow her colleague to speak.
I ask Deputy O'Sullivan to obey the Chair. Does she wish to resume her seat or leave the House?
I will comply under protest.
There are 400,000 people living in private rented accommodation. On a number of occasions in the last session the Taoiseach promised a Bill to provide them with some legal rights which he said would be prepared by Government before Christmas and published early in the new year. The Government has neither prepared nor published it. Is it now the case that the Bill has been abandoned by the Government and will not be published in the remaining weeks of its lifetime? Does the Taoiseach agree that the Government has in fact—
Deputy Gilmore has asked his question. He should allow the Taoiseach to reply.
In fairness to Deputy Gilmore, he has asked this question a number of times and I am glad to reply to him. The form, memorandum and heads of the Bill have been passed by the Government. Those who are knowledgeable in such matters have told me it is the most radical development to date in the State in this regard.
I call Deputy Owen.
When will the Bill be published?
I ask Deputy Gilmore to allow Deputy Owen to speak.
Will the Taoiseach arrange to amend the redress legislation whereby certain categories of young people who were abused in institutions are being denied the right to go to the tribunal—
That matter does not arise on the Order of Business.
The legislation requires amendment. There are people who were—
That matter does not arise. The Deputy will have to find another way to raise it. She can submit a parliamentary question. I call Deputy Rabbitte.
Will the Taoiseach undertake to have the legislation amended?
Will Deputy Owen, please, allow Deputy Rabbitte to speak?
May I ask the Taoiseach if the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has appointed Mr. Dermot O'Leary to the prison visiting committee of Mountjoy?
That matter does not arise on the Order of Business. I call Deputy Fitzgerald.
With regard to promised legislation for children, the Ombudsman Bill, I wish to ask the Taoiseach about an internal report into the death of Kim O'Donovan that was meant to be published—
Such a report does not arise on the Order of Business. The Taoiseach on the Ombudsman Bill.
Deputy Fitzgerald is out of order. I ask her to allow the Taoiseach to answer her question.
The Ombudsman Bill will be published in the next few days.
The current school meals system was first introduced in 1913, during the lockout in this city, to combat some of the hardship of the time. When will the Government implement the promise made last year by the Minister for Education and Science to change this 90 year old system?
It is not a legislative matter.
It does not arise.
As it is now two years, at least, since the Government decided to establish a single regulatory authority for financial services and it has now appeared again on the Government's list, is there any prospect of the Bill being taken before the dissolution?
It will be published this session. It is an enormous Bill which has taken a considerable time to prepare, but it will be published.
I understand the Taoiseach enjoys a pint in his local, some nights, on his way home from Dáil Éireann. Does he intend to introduce legislation to address anomalies in the Equal Status Act which took away the right of publicans to decide whether to serve or refuse drink? I do not mind publicans refusing undesirables who would create trouble—
The Deputy was going well up to that point. The Taoiseach on the legislation.
Is there legislation promised?
No.
There is no legislation promised. I call Deputy McManus.
Last week, on the Order of Business, the Taoiseach claimed that the twenty-fifth amendment legislation would protect medical intervention to save women's lives.
I ask Deputies to remain silent and allow Deputy McManus a hearing.
In view of the fact that, far from protecting women's lives, the legislation would actually set down restrictions whereby medical interventions could not be carried out—
That matter does not arise on the Order of Business. We cannot have a debate on it now. I call Deputy Shatter for a final question on the Order of Business.
The legislation actually defined the approved places where—
The legislation has already been debated in the House. I suggest that the Deputy submits a parliamentary question. The matter does not arise on the Order of Business.
When will the regulations be published?
Regulations cannot be made until the Bill has been enacted. It will not be enacted until after the people have voted on it.
The people will be going blindly and uninformed—
The Deputy will have to find another way of pursuing the matter.
Will the Government publish the regulations?
I call Deputy Shatter.
Will Deputy McManus, please, allow Deputy Shatter to speak?
Over four years ago the Government promised legislation to allow parents and children to trace each other in the adoption context. It also promised other legislation to reform our adoption laws, but no such legislation has been published. Is there any intention to publish it?
Is there legislation promised?
Yes. The Adoption Information (Post Adoption Contact and Associated Issues) Bill will address the question of information rights and search for reunion services for children adopted and children raised. The heads of the Bill have been approved and the Bill is being drafted.