The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 12, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of a proposal that section 17A of the Diseases of Animals Act 1966 shall continue in force for the period ending on 8 March 2004, back from committee; No. 16, motion re Broadcasting (Major Events Television Coverage) Act 1999 (Designation of Major Events) Order 2003; No. 2, Digital Hub Development Agency Bill 2002 [Seanad] – Second Stage; No. 1, Immigration Bill 2002 [Seanad] – Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. 12 and 16 shall be decided without debate.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 12 and 16 agreed to?
There will shortly be a crisis in the agricultural sector in relation to the rendering of meat and bonemeal. I suggest that we have a debate on No. 12 because under EU regulations the Government is entitled to continue subsidies for rendering until the end of the year. I ask the Tánaiste for a debate on how we can avoid the crisis that will erupt in the next few weeks.
There is no provision for debate on No. 16. This is a consequence of the previous Government's failure, for three years, to list the events that should be broadcast free-to-air. It is appropriate that the House should have the opportunity to discuss the rationale behind which events are included or not and the consequences of the inordinate delay and neglect under the stewardship of the previous Government. Will the Tánaiste provide a minimum amount of time to hear whether the Minister is locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, or whether we have salvaged something from this debacle?
The Green Party supports the calls for debates on the two motions already referred to. The Government cannot be allowed to adopt an unchanged approach in relation to the disposal of animal products, which seems to be one of burning the problem away, without hearing from the House.
The broadcast designation of major sports events has already exhibited considerable public debate, therefore there is an onus on the House to debate the matter and we support this call.
Both motions require the careful scrutiny of Members of the House. The proposal to extend the period up to 8 March 2004 in relation to the disposal of diseased animal carcasses is unacceptable and it is imperative that we address the matter.
The idea that this House is merely a rubber stamp for a proposal or a set of recommendations in the context of the television broadcasting of major events is equally unacceptable.
The proposal relating to the Disease of Animals Act 1966 was fully debated on Committee Stage and agreed unanimously. It is an extension of the provisions introduced to deal with the foot and mouth crisis. It does not apply to the situation regarding renderers referred to by Deputy Kenny.
It is reasonable to have a debate in the House on the Broadcasting (Major Events Television Coverage) Act, but the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is not here at the moment. However, if the Whips agree to a time later this morning or this afternoon, we could have that debate.
By a decision of this House, the Fine Gael party has been rendered Whip-less. Rather than calling for a division on No. 12, the Tánaiste might indicate if the Government intends to do something about the impending crisis in relation to the rendering of meat and bonemeal, in order to set at ease the minds of those to whom this is causing serious concern, not least, the farmers of Ireland.
This is not a legislative matter. It would be more appropriately dealt with by a parliamentary question, but it is a matter for the industry.
By the time the parliamentary question is answered, it will be too late.
The Tánaiste will not answer the parliamentary question.
There will be options later in the day to deal with these issues during Question Time by the Minister for Agriculture and Food.
It has been agreed that the Whips will discuss the matter of a debate in the House on No. 16. Is the proposal to take No. 12 without debate agreed to?
Question put and declared carried.
For the past two days, this House quite rightly gave the Taoiseach permission to be absent from the House on account of the important business being conducted in respect of Northern Ireland. Yesterday, I asked if the Tánaiste would clarify whether the Taoiseach might come to the House yesterday or today to give Members a briefing on what has happened as the talks have broken down and because of the importance of this matter to all parties. However, this did not happen. Yesterday, the Taoiseach met with Fianna Fáil councillors from Drogheda to discuss broadband—
Sorry, Deputy—
The Ceann Comhairle should listen and allow the Deputy finish.
This morning, the Taoiseach telephoned the "Marian Finucane" radio programme to congratulate Seán Óg Ó Ceallacháin, which is fine, but he should come to the House today to brief Members. I now find that the Taoiseach is due to be in Tipperary at 1.45 p.m. to present sports scholarship certificates at the Canon Hayes Recreation Centre.
The matter does not arise on the Order of Business.
It does. The Taoiseach is in Tipperary handing out certificates instead of being in this House.
(Interruptions).
It makes a mockery of Dáil Éireann that Deputies are representing the people here while the Taoiseach is presenting certificates in Tipperary.
The Deputy will have to find another way of raising the matter.
The Minister for Defence is at this event too and I hope the entourage pulls up at Littleton school when they are passing by, even though they are travelling at high speed with the consent of the Garda Commissioner. This is disgraceful treatment of Members.
Deputy Kenny is out of order. He should be showing good example to his back-benchers. I call Deputy Rabbitte.
If the Taoiseach can remember every detail of Seán Óg Ó Ceallacháin's first broadcast in 1938, at which, of course, he was personally present, one would think he would find time to address the House.
It is a bit before the Deputy's time.
I have the press release from 6 February announcing the Finance Bill. It is headlined "Closing Tax Loopholes". Yesterday, a new loophole was opened which, the Minister for Finance agreed, derived from a meeting in his Department with one of his constituents. However, the Tánaiste sought to give the impression that it had derived from a matter of general policy. I invite the Tánaiste to put the record straight and give an undertaking to the House that the practice, whereby amendments of wide import are being entered at the last minute on Report Stage, will not continue. This practice, which is an abuse of the legislative process, has grown up over the years because of the arrogance and remoteness of the Government. For example, the Immigration Bill—
I would prefer the Deputy to be brief. The Finance Bill was dealt with yesterday and the Deputy has made his point.
It was guillotined.
The Immigration Bill 2002, on which my colleague Deputy Costello wishes to raise a point, has been passed through the Seanad, but the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has since gone back to Cabinet and will now table a raft of amendments to a Bill that has already been debated and passed by the Upper House. This demonstrates a fundamental disrespect for the parliamentary process. Will the Tánaiste restore some respect to this House through the manner in which legislation is enacted?
If there is a need to improve or amend legislation, it is better to do so while the Bill is passing through the Oireachtas, rather than waiting a number of years before amending legislation can be introduced. In the case the Deputy mentions, the matter will have to go back to the Seanad, which is not unusual in the case of major legislation.
There were provisions in the existing Finance Acts to encourage private sector investment in the provision of hospital infrastructure. That was amended to include day cases too. If the policy is right, which I believe it is, it is not wrong to amend it.
It was amended to include a particular case.
It has wider applications. It is not for one person and the Deputy knows that.
It represents €10 million for one person.
Will the Tánaiste agree not to resubmit the Freedom of Information Act for Second Stage debate until the House has seen the publication of the Government's criminal justice (protection of confidential information) Bill, meant to replace the Official Secrets Act, so the House can understand where the Government stands in relation to transparency and secrecy?
The Freedom of Information Bill is before the Seanad.
The Ceann Comhairle suggested that Deputy Rabbitte find another way of asking why the Taoiseach is not here to give due account of the negotiations at Hillsborough. However, when I employed another way of raising this matter yesterday, by attempting to table a motion under Standing Order 31, the Ceann Comhairle ruled it out of order as being inappropriate. The matter is of major importance to every Member. As a representative of Sinn Féin, it is scandalous that the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs are not coming before the House to give a substantive report on the negotiations that have taken place at Hillsborough. It is the right of each Member to have a full and incisive account.
It is only right.
I would imagine Deputy Ó Caoláin is as well briefed on these matters as one can be. Opposition leaders will be briefed on the talks later this morning. While it is not always desirable to have an open parliamentary debate at a sensitive point in negotiations, the Whips can discuss the matter.
The Tánaiste will be aware that many small family-run businesses in south Wicklow are on the verge of collapse due to outstanding debts owed to them by IFI, a company in which the State held a majority shareholding. When will the Companies (Audit and Accountancy Amendment) Bill come before the House? The Tánaiste might use this opportunity to tell me what the State proposes to do to compensate these people.
While the Bill has already been published, it is not relevant to the matter raised.
What about the small businesses in south Wicklow? Are they to be let go to the wall because of the actions of a company in which the State was the majority shareholder?
I suggest the Deputy submits a question on that matter.
Several million euro are owed to small family-run companies in south Wicklow. The way they have been treated is a disgrace.
The Deputy's question to the Tánaiste has already been dealt with.
It is a matter for the liquidator.
The Government has thrown these businesses to the wolves. The problem should have been dealt with before May 2002.
The Deputy is out of order.
The Government has only four weeks to abolish the €20 planning fee before the European Commission takes Ireland to the European Court. When will legislation abolishing this fee be introduced?
No legislation has been promised. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government is considering the matter and he will communicate with the Deputy.
Will the Government allow the country to be taken to the European Court?
I doubt it.
In light of the closure of the mortuary in Monaghan General Hospital and the trauma that is causing, when will the Coroner's Amendment Bill be brought before the House? As regards the partnership deal and the promise of €300 million made by the Minister for Agriculture and Food, will the Tánaiste ask the Minister to give some help towards the rendering situation to avoid chaos in the area?
On the same issue, it has been reported today—
I am not permitting the Deputy to speak on the same issue; he has already made a contribution. If there is time I will come back to him.
—that the €300 million is not available. Can we have clarification on this? Is the €300 million available or not?
The Deputy has already had his opportunity to contribute and he will be allowed, if time permits, to contribute again.
It is expected that the Coroner's Amendment Bill will be published in 2003.
Deputy Rabbitte has already raised the Immigration Bill and the Tánaiste's response was unsatisfactory. The Bill has just completed its passage in the Seanad and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has sought Cabinet approval for substantive amendments to the Bill. We are due to discuss the Bill on Second Stage without having the opportunity of seeing those substantive changes. This is virtually unprecedented. Will the Tánaiste ensure that any proposed amendments emanating from Cabinet will be circulated to Members prior to the Second Stage discussion? Otherwise, this legislation should be withdrawn as this is a slipshod way of doing business.
I will ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to communicate in advance of the debate with Opposition spokespersons regarding proposed amendments.
It is due to be discussed today.
Most people recognise that it will not be reached today. I will have the Minister communicate with the Deputy and other spokespersons.
I refer to a matter I raised on the Adjournment last Thursday to which the Government so miserably failed to respond. To give some context—
The Deputy does not have to give the context. If he raised the matter last Thursday it is on the record of the House and I am sure everybody has read it.
It relates to the Criminal Justice (Garda Powers) Bill. The recruitment of 2,000 additional gardaí will not happen in the foreseeable future, overtime has been stopped in many stations—
The Deputy does not need to elaborate on this.
Is the rumour true that the publication of the Criminal Justice (Garda Powers) Bill is to be postponed indefinitely because there are not enough gardaí on the streets to enable them to effectively use any new powers?
I do not think questions should be asked on the Order of Business about rumours. The Bill will be published later this year.
When will we debate the partnership deal? Everyone except the Houses of the Oireachtas is considering this deal. It appears the Government has negotiated a deal that embraces issues such as the reform of public services, yet the Oireachtas, which has responsibility for the delivery of services, has no say on the nature of the deal. When is it intended to have a debate on the issue? The agreement has profound financial implications for the State as well as for services for ordinary people.
The Deputy will be aware that it is currently a proposed draft deal. However, it is a good idea to have a debate in the House and perhaps the Whips can discuss this at their next meeting.
Today marks the first anniversary of the defeat of the Government referendum on abortion when the people, in their wisdom, rejected the Government's approach. Clearly, the requirement to introduce legislation is even more pressing now. Throughout the debate on this issue the Government indicated there was a need for legislation and proposed to insert it into the Constitution. They clearly indicated that legislation is needed to protect women, the unborn and medical practice. When will this legislation be brought before the House?
There is no legislation promised in this area.
Legislation has been repeatedly promised by the Government.
The Deputy should not be disingenuous.
The House may have been misled inadvertently, but the Government repeatedly promised legislation.
Much needed maternity antenatal services are being provided in a holiday camp in the North-Eastern Health Board area. In order to give effect to the recent report of the working group on the review and improvement of maternity services, when will the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Bill be introduced?
It will be introduced this session.
A driving test had to be abandoned this week due to traffic congestion while another was refused because the "L" plate was not big enough. Drivers on second provisional licences cannot get a third provisional licence because they cannot get a date for a driving test. When will the Driving Test Agency Bill be introduced? Driving tests in this country are becoming a sham. When will new redundancy legislation be brought before the House?
The Driving Test Agency Bill will be introduced later this year. The heads of the Bill on changes in the statutory redundancy regime were approved by the Cabinet about two weeks ago. The Bill is being drafted as a matter of priority.
I was in Bolton Street yesterday where I saw prominent posters from the Progressive Democrats opposing the reintroduction of third level tuition fees. I offer the Tánaiste my full support. Will she speak at the meeting?
Has the Deputy a question that is appropriate to the Order of Business?
It is hugely appropriate. We cannot keep this Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform off a ladder, a Cheann Comhairle. He goes out at night putting up posters.
Traffic congestion is exacerbated by unauthorised roadworks. The Government has promised legislation to deal with this, the control of roadworks Bill, and it is due to be published next year. That is dependent on a review being carried out on the adequacy of existing controls. Has that review commenced or what stage has it reached?
I do not know. I will have to check it for the Deputy. The Bill will be published next year. My note does not refer to a review.
On Tuesday the Minister for Defence indicated that the Government would be anxious to facilitate a full and adequate debate next week on the situation in Iraq. Can the Tánaiste indicate when that debate will take place? In the event of an escalation in military activity or if a war is taking place, it would be singularly inappropriate for the House not to sit next Thursday. What time has been indicated for the debate? This is relevant because the vote in the Security Council, should there be a second one, could take place as early as Monday or Tuesday and if there are further illegal actions, they could take place early in the week. When may we anticipate the debate? Can the Tánaiste assure us that it will be a full and adequate debate with a question and answer session?
It might interfere with Cheltenham.
There will be a debate. It will depend on circumstances in the United Nations and whether it is Monday or Tuesday. It could be later in the week. The Government is flexible as to when the debate will take place but we have given an assurance that there will be a debate.
In view of the finding in the inspector's report on the incinerator outside Drogheda that it is in serious conflict with the Meath county development plan and the north-east regional waste management plan, when can the House expect a debate on the secondary legislation promised under the large combustion plant regulations, which deal with the emission of certain pollutants into the atmosphere from large industrial plants?
That is a matter for the Whips.