Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 Mar 2002

Vol. 550 No. 4

Order of Business.

The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 22, motion re Europe Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context; No. 23, motion re European Charter of Local Self-Government; No. 24, motion re Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; No. 25, motion re referral to joint committee of Article 1.11 to the Treaty of Amsterdam (Council Framework Decision on the strengthening of the penal framework to prevent the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence) and Fourth Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam (Council Directive defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence); No. 26, motion re referral to select committee of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on simplified extradition procedure between the member states of the European Union and Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, relating to extradition between the member states of the European Union; No. 27, motion re referral to joint committee of Council regulation extending the provisions of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71; No. 1, Public Health (Tobacco) Bill, 2001 – amendments from the Seanad; No. 61, statements on European Council, Barcelona; No. 62, Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 2002 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 11 p.m. Nos. 22 to 27, inclusive, shall be decided without debate. The amendments made by the Seanad to the Public Health (Tobacco) Bill 2001 shall be taken together and decided, without debate, by one question which will be put from the Chair. The proceedings of No. 61, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion after 70 minutes and statements shall be confined to the following Members who shall be called upon in the following sequence and the following arrangements shall apply: statements of the Taoiseach and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case and the Minister for Foreign Affairs shall be called upon to make a statement in reply, which shall not exceed ten minutes. Report and Final Stages of No. 62, Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2002, should be taken today and if the proceedings thereon are not previously concluded they will be brought to conclusion at 11 p.m. by one question which will be put from the Chair and which shall in relation to amendments include only those set down and accepted by the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs. Private Members' Business shall be No. 134, motion re Economic Policies and shall also take place tomorrow after the Order of Business. It shall be brought to a conclusion after 90 minutes.

There are six proposals to be put to the House. Is the late sitting agreed?

There are very few sitting days left and I understand the Taoiseach is not going to take the Order of Business tomorrow. This is quite extraordinary and requires a better explanation than the one given to my office. Is there something the Taoiseach wants to avoid on tomorrow's Order of Business?

Does Deputy Quinn have a question on the late sitting?

It is a separate issue.

The last session of the Forum for Europe takes place tomorrow and a Polish Minister will be in attendance, as will the EU Commissioner, Mr. David Byrne. As I have missed a number of these meetings I wish to be there tomorrow.

The Taoiseach could take the Order of Business before he attends the meeting.

We are discussing the late sitting and questions should be appropriate to that.

We have ten items to agree and I am trying to be orderly and raise some matters on the Order of Business. Last year after the defeat of the referendum on the Nice treaty on 7 June we took the first opportunity – which was 12 June – to take statements from the Government and Opposition parties as to the consequences of that outcome and how we should proceed.

I would prefer if the Deputy did not raise that on this proposal.

It is much easier to do it this way.

It does not relate to the late sitting and I would prefer that we would stay within the standing order.

I would have had the question asked and I hope, answered by now if I had a clear run at it. Does the Taoiseach intend at any stage, today or tomorrow, to indicate what is the way forward now that the people have rejected the Government's abortion referendum proposals? While the Taoiseach may ignore it at the Ard-Fheis, it is a proposal that emanated from this House and there are consequences arising from it.

The proposal which the Government spent four and a half years working on has been rejected by the people. The circumstances that led to the preparation of the Green Paper, in the first instance, was the void from the 1992 decision and we have to go back and look at that again. It will certainly not be done before the end of the Government's term in office, so it will be have to be dealt with by the next government.

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

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

Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Malley, Desmond.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V.

Níl

Allen, Bernard.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis J.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.

Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Clune, Deirdre. Connaughton, Paul.

Níl–continued

Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Hayes, Tom.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Jim.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.

McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.Penrose, William.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Sargent, Trevor.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Spring, Dick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan.

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

Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 agreed?

Does the Taoiseach intend that at some stage today or next week time will be made available to discuss the outcome of the referendum on abortion and to indicate—

We have already dealt with that question.

I did not get an answer, Sir.

We can raise it as often as we like.

The Deputy has already dealt with it. It does not arise under No. 2.

It is a reasonable question. We have a precedent from last year.

It does not arise at this stage.

It does arise. Will the Taoiseach and the Government, who argued this for so long, make time available to discuss the matter?

It does not arise. We have to have order in the House and I ask you to leave the matter until later, when it might be appropriate.

In any normal Parliament this long list of items to be taken without debate would involve all night sittings or sittings on days other than those we are sitting at the moment. In objecting to this I ask that particular note be taken of the Kyoto Protocol, No. 24, given that since this list was drawn up there has been a breakaway of an ice sheet the size of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government's constituency from Antarctica.

Ciúnas please for Deputy Sargent.

This and other issues are going to come back to haunt us. Can time be made available for that very important debate?

The Deputy can address his request for time to the Whips. Time will be tight. In fact, the issue has already been discussed by a committee.

The problem has become more serious since the last discussion.

Is the question agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with item No. 1 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with item No. 61 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with item No. 62 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' Business tomorrow agreed? Agreed. We now move to Leaders' questions.

About ten days ago the Taoiseach appointed the Attorney General to investigate how an €8 shelf company got the management contract for the aquatic centre at Abbotstown. The Taoiseach promised to report back to the House. It seems the Attorney General went to Los Angeles to celebrate St. Patrick's Day and conducted his inquiry by correspondence. At today's Cabinet meeting the ball was kicked into touch and the Taoiseach and the Cabinet looked for further time. What is going on? Why is the Taoiseach not in a position to explain to the House what happened? How did an €8 shelf company get the management contract for this project? Why is it costing so much? Why is no explanation given to the Irish people, whose money is being used to build this project? When does the Taoiseach think he might be in a position to inform the House on what is going on?

On what date was responsibility for the Sports Campus Ireland project transferred from the Taoiseach's Department to the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation and will the Taoiseach make a statement on the matter? What were the terms of reference of the inquiry undertaken by the Attorney General into the selection of a dormant shelf company to run the national aquatic centre at Abbotstown and will the Taoiseach make a statement on the matter? Has the Taoiseach yet received the results of the inquiry being undertaken by the Attorney General into the selection of a dormant shelf company to run the national aquatic centre at Abbotstown? Will he outline the main findings of the report, indicate if it is intended to lay the report before the Dáil and make a statement on the matter? Finally, what was the date in 2000 on which the Taoiseach brought the memorandum to Cabinet relating to the national aquatic centre at Abbotstown? Was he aware, when he brought the memorandum to Cabinet, that consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers had raised queries regarding the status of the company which had been awarded the contract and will he make a statement on the matter?

For the Chair's information, my questions are the questions that were ruled out of order earlier.

We asked the Attorney General last Sunday week to arrange with the Minister, Deputy McDaid, and his Department to report to the next Cabinet meeting on issues arising from the award of the contract for the aquatic and leisure centre at Abbotstown. While the Attorney General was away his officials worked on this report and, following his return, he spent all day yesterday working on it. He had been kept informed in the meantime. Today, he provided a draft report prepared by him and his officials on the legal issues surrounding the award of the contract and all the aspects therein. This report was prepared at the request of the Tánaiste, the Minister, Deputy McDaid, and myself. In a little over a week the Attorney General's office produced a substantial report.

The draft report is being considered by Ministers as quickly as possible. The Government decided that persons, in respect of whom substantial issues were raised by the Attorney General's draft report, should be given an opportunity to make their observations on the report. That will be done today. In addition, the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation will tonight meet members of the board of Campus Stadium Ireland. He will inform them that the Government has agreed in principle to the recommendations that the roles of chairman and chief executive should be separated and that a full time chief executive and finance director should be appointed. The Attorney General will finalise the report in light of the observations received from the Minister, Deputy McDaid. This, together with a further report from the Minister, will be considered by the Government at its meeting next week or earlier, if that is possible.

I understand that when the dormant shelf company was selected to be the management group for the aquatic centre the Taoiseach's Department forwarded a memorandum to Cabinet and the Cabinet agreed to the appointment of this company. Under normal circumstances, that memorandum would have gone to relevant Departments and, certainly in respect of a legal contract, it would have gone to the Office of the Attorney General. Is it not a fact that the Attorney General, whom the Taoiseach asked to inquire into this matter, had already signed off on the contract at the point when the memorandum went to Government? Is it not also a fact that no real inquiry has taken place, in the accepted sense of the word "inquiry"? No inquiry was conducted by the Attorney General. He met none of the participants and asked no question of any participant. He simply made inquiries by letter.

The Taoiseach, after giving a commitment to let the full light of day shine on this matter, is still hedging and dodging the issue. Why can he not answer the questions today? It is ten days since we last raised the matter and the Taoiseach is still seeking more time and saying things will happen tonight. He also took the unusual step, as Deputy Quinn pointed out, of transferring responsibility, which he clearly had when he brought the memorandum to Government, from his Department to the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation so he could avoid answering questions in the House. This does not sound or look good. It is about time we had an explanation.

Deputy Noonan will agree that this matter has always been dealt with efficiently. The Minister, Deputy McDaid, has constantly reported to the House, as I did when it was in my remit to do so. It is not correct to state that the contract was signed when the memorandum was brought to Government. The contract was not signed until some months ago.

It was agreed. The Attorney General agreed it.

It was heads of agreement. I think the date was 18 or 19 December 2000—

It crossed the Attorney General's desk on the way to Government.

—and it was heads of agreement at that stage. I made it absolutely clear that all papers on this issue will be gathered and presented and that a report from the Attorney General will be produced. We must follow due process. If certain things are said about individuals they must be made aware of it. That will be done speedily by the Minister today.

Who is the Taoiseach protecting?

Himself.

Both the report and the relevant papers on this issue—

Who is the Taoiseach protecting?

—will be put in the public domain. However, one cannot make assertions or comments about somebody without allowing the person to see them. The report will then be put in the public domain as quickly as possible.

We have a dormant Government, whatever about a dormant company.

Last year, 19,828 people were made redundant, the highest figure since 1993. This year, the number of people who, since the beginning of March, have lost their jobs or who have been told their jobs will be lost are as follows: 375 at IGB/Ardagh, Ringsend; 300 at Flextronics in Tullamore; 260 at Youghal Carpets; 160 at EMC in Ovens; 95 at BD Medical Systems in Drogheda; 160 at Boston Scientific, Galway; 190 at SMTC Electronics in Cork and 364 in Wexford Electronics. The Tánaiste met recently with SIPTU and with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to discuss the possibility of reforming and improving the 1967 redundancy legislation by increasing the entitlement, in terms of redundancy payments, from half a week's salary for a year served to the recommended figure of three weeks per year served and to remove the age discrimination of 41 years of age.

I raised this question previously.

I wonder that there is a surplus of €1.2 billion in the Social Insurance Fund, notwithstanding the raid for €635 million by the Minister for Finance. I would remind the House that employers and employees pay into this fund outside the normal tax revenue measures of the Exchequer. Given these figures and the fact that the trend is accelerating rather than decreasing, will the Taoiseach give an undertaking to bring in emergency legislation next week to improve the terms and conditions of the redundancy payments, on the basis of the Bill prepared by the Labour Party and submitted to the Bills Office? This could be afforded without imposing a single extra charge on the Exchequer or on the taxpayer. Will he do so, given the plight of workers whose insurance fund is being denied to them except at the measly rate of a half a week per year served?

Does the Taoiseach realise that 125 jobs a day have been lost since 1 January last? Does he realise this is due to a deteriorating competitive position in industry across a number of sectors? Has he discussed this with the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment? Does the Government in its dying days intend taking any fire brigade action to improve the competitive position, particularly across traditional industry where jobs will continue to be lost?

The facts put forward by Deputy Quinn about the job losses are correct but, as I stated on the last Order of Business, there are about 1,000 jobs a week still being created in this economy as there are almost 1,000 work permits a week being sought. The Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment is conducting a review with the social partners and has made it clear that we intend to improve the arrangements. We have done something already on the tax side in the Finance Bill, and we will address some of the issues which the social partners have raised. The Tánaiste has answered this. There is a commitment to deal with this issue. I will not introduce legislation next week.

Would the Taoiseach agree with the sentiments expressed this morning by Mr. Joe O'Flynn, the regional secretary for SIPTU, on "Morning Ireland", that many of the workers, who sadly have been notified that their jobs are now gone, having left school before the leaving certificate, have not had the opportunity of training or education to avail of the high-tech jobs which, fortunately, are still coming into this economy? Would he further agree with me that the very purpose of a social insurance fund with redundancy payments is to provide a cushion to enable workers to maintain a standard of living while they have the opportunity to look for new jobs or perhaps to seek retraining under the euphemism of life-long learning? If he agrees with that, because it is the frequently articulated policy of Ministers, why can he not agree to take a Bill which has already been drafted?

Let me give him a graphic example of a situation in which none of us would like to be. There were 364 jobs lost in Wexford. A person who worked for 16 years in that plant and who is under the age of 41 will receive the princely sum of €2,500 under existing legislation. If our Bill was accepted by the Taoiseach, we could take all Stages in a half an hour because there would be no disagreement in this House and that worker, who has paid into that fund over 16 years, could receive a sum of €15,000. Why will the Taoiseach not do that? What is stopping him? The money is there. They have paid for it. This House will give him the time to enact the legislation. I do not see the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, around. What is holding him back?

I, and the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment have already said there are sections of workers who do not get more than statutory redundancy. Deputy Quinn is well aware that the level of redundancy some workers get is far greater, but that is not the point. We are in discussions with the social partners on that. The Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has made that absolutely clear. It is an issue to be dealt with and we will deal with it, but it is not a question of ignoring the recommendations of SIPTU and the social partners who have been putting forward this case.

Let us do it now.

Yesterday a second local authority was in court defending its right not to collect refuse where charges have not been paid. Fingal County Council was in court yesterday and Cork Corporation was in court previously. I have questioned the Taoiseach on this previously and the Minister is due to examine the situation. Will we see legislation or regulations introduced to address the problem and what form of action is to be taken in this area?

Has legislation been promised?

Under the EPA Bill that matter is still under consideration because of the legal issues which arose from the case.

Arising from the result of the referendum on the abortion issue, is it intended by the Government to make time available between now and the Easter recess for statements in the House indicating the Government's position before the dissolution of this Dáil? It is appropriate, given the precedent—

I will allow that question without a statement.

There is precedent for it.

If it requires some time in the House, I do not have a difficulty with that. I can save the valuable time of the House by saying to the Deputy that we are now in a position where, having dealt with this issue since the autumn of 1997, the proposals that we framed have been rejected by the people. That brings us back to where we started on the Green Paper in the autumn of 1997, with the complex issues still in evidence. There is no possibility of us being able to deal with that issue before the summer.

The Taoiseach is promising to eliminate traffic congestion. I wonder has overwork prevented him recently from visiting The Cat and Cage, which is continually congested. On a serious note, what has happened to the Dublin Transport Authority? Here we are at five minutes to midnight.

A question, Deputy.

There is legislation promised in the programme, first by the Minister for Public Enterprise and now by the Department of the Environment and Local Government, and yet there is no park and ride, no integrated ticketing, no bus competition, no real time information. There is a shambles in Dublin traffic and the Taoiseach is telling us he will eliminate congestion.

It has gone to the dogs, not to The Cat and Cage.

On the question about the legislation.

The Heads of that Bill are being finalised and are almost ready.

In view of the refusal of the Taoiseach to answer Private Notice Questions about the up to date position on the national aquatic centre—

Do you have a question relating to the Order of Business?

Yes. Given that the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Deputy McDaid, and the Taoiseach are poles apart on this issue, I want to know what time is being made available for them to answer questions on this most important issue of public interest.

That has already been dealt with.

The Minister is splashing around in the deep end.

This is the Order of Business, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. We are ordering the business.

Yes, but it has already been dealt with by the Taoiseach under Leaders questions.

It has not been dealt with satisfactorily.

It was dealt with earlier.

He should take it up with his leader.

The Chair has no control over whether it has been dealt with satisfactorily.

On the list of legislation due to be published before the Easter recess is the Bill to amend the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act, 1997. The Bill was to enable haemophiliacs who had contracted HIV infection to get just compensation. Would the Taoiseach confirm what was indicated by the Minister for Health and Children in committee yesterday, that now this Bill will not be published during what is left of the lifetime of this Government? Will he indicate why haemophiliacs must now wait yet again for something they were promised quite some time ago?

The first part of the question is in order.

On the tribunal which was established and which was found to be deficient in terms of dealing with the international pharmaceutical companies, will the Taoiseach commit the Government to setting up a second tribunal to address an outstanding issue which is causing great grief and concern to people who have suffered tragically?

Part of the question is in order.

On the first part of the question, my latest note is that it will still be published during this session. I will check with the Minister. I am not aware that he said yesterday that it would not be.

The Taoiseach did not answer my question on the tribunal.

Was another tribunal promised?

I do not think it concerns legislation but the Minister for Health and Children has certainly dealt with the issue, both inside and outside the House. It is still his intention to deal with the issue.

Exactly 12 months ago this week, a young man was killed outside a night-club in Cork. Despite 70 witnesses, no charges have been brought against anybody.

The Deputy's question must be on legislation. I would like the Deputy to come to his question on legislation.

In the Dáil two weeks ago, I asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he would carry out an inquiry into why no charge—

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

Will he confirm that he will carry out—

Deputy Allen, that does not arise on the Order of Business. The Deputy will have to find another way to raise the matter. Deputy Jim Higgins—

I have no other way to raise it.

Mr. Higgins (Mayo): For the second year in succession the tourist industry is facing the bleakest of bleak seasons. The chief executive of Bord Fáilte said this week that the figures—

Has Deputy Jim Higgins a question on the Order of Business or else I will move on to Deputy Rabbitte?

(Mayo): I have. We have here one of the biggest revenue earners—

Deputy Jim Higgins, we are not taking a Second Stage speech. You will lose sight of your question on legislation.

(Mayo): In regard to the National Tourism Development Authority Bill, the intention of which is to develop an integrated range of supports for the industry, why has greater urgency, emphasis and interest not been given to this legislation to rescue an industry that is on the broad of its back?

On the legislation.

The heads of the National Tourism Development Authority Bill were produced a number of months ago and the detailed draft of the Bill is scheduled to be ready this summer.

We are running through all stages of two Bills tomorrow night, one concerning the tribunal of inquiry, the other the Electoral (Amendment) Bill. Does the Taoiseach not agree that the issue of workers who are losing their jobs on the minimum half-week pay per year of service is more urgent than either of these things and that we could accommodate the Bill in this respect? He will know that an Opposition Member cannot publish a Bill that is a cost on the Exchequer. The Labour Party Bill is ready to go. Can the Taoiseach not—

I did not hear him reply to Deputy Quinn on the specific point as to why he is not taking the Labour Bill.

I suggest that the Deputy reads the Official Report.

I wondered where the Taoiseach was this time yesterday – for about an hour or so the south inner city was totally gridlocked. There was absolutely no movement over a large tranche of the city. In connection with the Dublin Transport Authority Bill, does the Taoiseach regret that he did not pass it in his five years in office and that he is now leading us in his dying days—

Is the question relevant to the Order of Business?

I am asking the Taoiseach if he is aware that the city was completely gridlocked yesterday.

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

On the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, will the Taoiseach hold the general election on a Saturday? It might change his luck as well.

That does not arise. The final question, Deputy Gormley. I hope it will be relevant.

It is on promised legislation. Given that the Taoiseach tipped his forelock to President Bush last week by pledging his support for a possible war against Iraq, why has he not published to date the Criminal Justice (Suppression of Financing of Terrorism) Bill, the Criminal Justice (United Nations Conventions) Bill and the International Criminal Court Bill? Does the Taoiseach not feel slightly ashamed of the way that he has sold out Irish neutrality?

On the first part of the question.

When the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was in the chair today during Question Time, I had a long discussion on these issues with Deputy Sargent. The heads of most of these outstanding Bills have been cleared. The detailed drafting is also taking place, as I also made clear. The other issues we are required to deal with – such as the confiscation of the finances of terrorists – are being dealt with and other vehicles are being used to co-operate successfully in the war on terror. With regard to what the Deputy said I said about Iraq, if he looks at the record he will see what I said today.

Barr
Roinn