The Order of Business today shall be No. 2, Companies (Auditing and Accounting) Bill 2003 [Seanad]-Second Stage; and No. 29, Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill 2000 [Seanad] – Second Stage (resumed).
Order of Business.
As there are no proposals to be put to the House on the Order of Business, I call Deputy Richard Bruton.
A Cheann Comhairle, I wish to raise a point of order. Once again, there are no proposals and there will be no vote today. It is bad enough that the Taoiseach does not come to the Dáil on Thursdays—
(Interruptions).
That is not a point of order.
We are sick of this. Deputy Gormley is a part-time politician. He should get off his bike.
On today's Order Paper—
I will call the Deputy on the Order of Business. He was not making a point of order. I ask him to resume his seat
I would like to make a point of order, if you would listen.
I am sorry, Deputy. You may make a point of order.
Why was No. a19 on today's Order Paper not moved? It was originally—
I will take that matter when the Deputy's turn comes. I call Deputy Richard Bruton.
Does the Tánaiste propose to introduce an order in the House which will provide for the equivalent of a loss of 1,600 junior hospital doctors, effective from August next year under the working time directive? We are told this poses a huge threat to hospital services and that the Minister for Finance has indicated that no significant new money will be available next year to address any of these problems. Will the Tánaiste be bringing forward such an order? Having employed 30,000 extra people in the health service over the last five years, why has the Government not addressed any of the serious staffing issues in relation to an order about which she knew since the mid-1990s?
If Deputy McManus has a question on the Hanly report, I will hear it now.
I certainly have something to say about the report.
Just a brief comment.
I will make a succinct comment.
Does the Deputy have a question for the Tánaiste?
I have. As public sector workers have been receiving lectures from the Tánaiste and the Progressive Democrats about greater productivity, does she not accept that her words sound hollow now that she and the Taoiseach intend to close down this House for a week after only 12 sitting days since the summer break? Would it not be better for the House to sit during that week to discuss the Hanly report and the report of the National Cancer Registry and begin to deal with the backlog of 111 pieces of promised legislation, 17 of which are now printed in the form of Bills but have not been debated in the House? Does the Tánaiste not consider this to be gross inefficiency on the part of the Government? She is in no position to lecture anyone on greater productivity when she is responsible for the inefficiencies of the House regarding our work on the health service and the other areas which require legislation.
The Green Party would also welcome an opportunity to debate these important issues but the item to which I wanted to refer previously was No . a19 on today's Order Paper.
Sorry, Deputy, we are just dealing very briefly with the Hanly report and the question Deputy Richard Bruton asked.
It is on the Order of Business, surely.
I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
That is twice—
Will the Ceann Comhairle come back to me?
The Ceann Comhairle said he would allow us raise our point. This is it.
May I speak? There is a great deal of frustration on this side of the House with the way the Ceann Comhairle deals with—
I can well understand that but the parties are called on the basis of proportionality.
Absolutely.
Fine Gael has 31 Deputies and the Deputy's party has six. Therefore, he cannot expect to be called ahead of them.
In terms of proportion, we are next on the list, essentially. No . a19 on today's Order Paper, namely, the proposal that Dáil Éireann approve the terms of the Cartagena Protocol to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, was supposed to—
That does not arise from the Hanly report.
It is on the Order Paper. The question I am putting—
Issues on the Order Paper do not take precedence over other questions relating to legislation.
Given that the date pertaining to the ratification of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture was 8 October and given that the results of the UK trials on genetic engineering are to be published—
Sorry, we will hear the Deputy when his turn comes. We are dealing with the Hanly report. The Deputy should allow Deputy Ó Caoláin to contribute.
Let me conclude this point.
It does not arise from the Hanly report. We want to hear the Tánaiste's reply to the questions raised on the subject.
Will the Ceann Comhairle come back to me?
On a point of order, this is a new precedent. The start of every session has involved one representative of each party having an opportunity to make one point on the Order of Business.
No. The House is not required to approve the Order of Business. It is the Taoiseach's prerogative to announce Government business and make proposals as to the arrangements for taking it. It is only those proposals that require the approval of the House, in respect of which a member of each party is called.
Fair enough.
This morning there are no proposals to be put to the House. Therefore, we are taking the Order of Business in the ordinary way. Deputy Richard Bruton was first and Deputy McManus was second. Deputy Gormley may be next if he has something to say which is relevant to the question before the House. If not, we will move on to Deputy Ó Caoláin. I told Deputy Gormley I would return to him when his turn came. He is now wasting the time of the House. I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
I am quite prepared to give way if—
Sorry, we are not having a debate. The Chair has ruled.
If the Chair comes back to me—
How many times have I told the Deputy I will come back to him? I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Will the Tánaiste outline exactly the Government's proposals to address the Hanly report in the Dáil Chamber? Will she also confirm that Mr. Hanly will engage with each of the health spokespersons here and the relevant interested voices among the Independent Deputies in a direct exchange with the Minister before that debate? Will she advise the House accordingly?
Legislation is not required specifically in relation to the Hanly report. However, the Government's reform agenda on health does require legislation, and this legislation is being prepared. I understand it will be brought before the House early next year. I also understand the Whips agreed last night to debate the Hanly report in the week beginning 11 November. However, I note that, before even reading the report, the Deputies opposite seemed to pin their colours to the mast out on the plinth yesterday afternoon.
The Tánaiste had four months to read it.
It served her well in the past.
The Tánaiste to continue, without interruption, please.
The Tánaiste should state how much money she will provide.
I always read documents before I decided I was against them. I admire the support for the necessary radical reform of the health service. It is interesting that those who have been demanding it most are least likely to offer any support for the kinds of courageous measures necessary if we want to have a modern health service.
On biodiversity, there are two—
We are not dealing with that matter now.
It is being referred to two committees.
Deputy Gormley, on No. a19.
(Interruptions).
On a point of order, we had an opportunity for each of the party spokespersons to have a discussion on the Hanly report. I presume it now reverts to the largest party to raise an issue on the Order of Business. It is a little unsatisfactory—
The Deputy has made his point.
No, I have not. The Ceann Comhairle has ruled that he is permitting this morning a brief comment on the Hanly report, which he did not indicate—
A brief question.
Yes, but he did not indicate—
The Deputy raised a question, which was allowed. Deputy McManus had a question on the same issue, which the Chair allowed.
On a point of order, since we started business this morning the Chair has spoken for ten minutes and the House for five.
I thank the Deputy very much. If Deputies would obey Standing Orders, perhaps the Chair would not have to speak at all.
The Chair is wasting time.
Can I just make one brief point? I hope the Ceann Comhairle will call me again.
Yes.
I attempted to be in order when asking about the working time directive and the order to implement it, which will have the effect of taking 1,600 junior hospital doctors from the system from August 2004.
I call the Tánaiste on the order.
No budget has been made available by the Minister for Finance. The Tánaiste did not address the matter. It is a Bill for which she is responsible and regarding which she must report back to the European Union on the action we are taking to implement the directive. I expected that she would address it.
The Deputy has made his point.
Will the Tánaiste reply on that issue?
I call Deputy McManus.
Will the Tánaiste reply on that issue first?
We will hear Deputy McManus on the same issue.
Hold on now.
(Interruptions).
The Tánaiste to reply.
That is more like it.
Fine.
If orders or statutory instruments are required for any aspect of this, they will obviously come before the House.
I call Deputy McManus.
The Tánaiste will be implementing the order.
We cannot have a debate on it now. I suggest that the Deputy submit a question to the line Minister.
I am advised there is no legislation—
It is important to indicate that the Tánaiste is wrong when she states people have not read the Hanly report.
Does the Deputy have a question appropriate to the Order of Business?
I have. The report bears a remarkable similarity to the draft reports that have been circulating for some months. In view of the importance of the Hanly report and the changes proposed, particularly in terms of the reduction of accident and emergency services in areas across the regions—
Does the Deputy have a question? She is being repetitive.
—is the Tánaiste willing to live up to the standards she applies to others? Will she ensure the House debates this issue dur ing the time she intends to close the House? In this way we could ensure the work that needs to be done, both in terms of the Government and the Opposition—
The Deputy has asked her question. Deputy Stagg is concerned about the length of time the Order of Business takes and I share his concern.
May I make one last point?
I call the Tánaiste.
I need to make one last point. On the Tánaiste's point on the Hanly recommendations, does the Minister for Health and Children have the support of the Minister for Finance to provide funding?
That matter does not arise. The Tánaiste may respond on the question about the opportunity for a debate promised previously in the House.
I understand from the Whips that the Deputies opposite sought a debate on the smoking regulations in advance of the Hanly report debate. It has been agreed that this will take place first.
The opposite is true.
The Whip advised me that such a debate was requested last week—
The Tánaiste is responsible for reporting to the House.
I understand the Whips agreed last night that the Hanly report would be debated in the week beginning 11 November.
On a point of order, the Tánaiste may have inadvertently misled the House in the matter of statutory instruments being brought before the House. They are not brought before it. They are placed in the Oireachtas Library and there is no possibility of debating them here unless the Opposition raises them during Private Members' time.
The Deputy has made his point.
The Government does not bring them before the House.
I call Deputy Gormley on No. a19.
Given that the results of the UK trials on genetic engineering are to be published today and that they will show there is contamination of conventional and organic crops within a 16 mile radius, is it not time that we had a real debate on the issue? Is the Government in the back pocket of Monsanto in the same way that it is in the back pocket of Shell?
The protocol benefits developing countries.
Let us have a debate.
The Deputy should read the protocol.
Of what is the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government afraid?
I am certainly not afraid of the Deputy.
Perhaps he is afraid of the people of Waterford.
Allow the Tánaiste to respond without interruption, please.
I understand the matter will be discussed by the relevant committee.
Yesterday when I asked the Taoiseach when the Government proposed to abolish the Official Secrets Act, he indicated he may be in touch with me on the matter. To the best of my knowledge he has not yet contacted my office. He also stated there was no such proposal when, in fact, No. 39 on the legislative programme, a Bill in respect of which heads have been agreed and texts are being drafted, is a proposal to replace the Official Secrets Act.
It is probably an official secret.
That appears to be the case.
I will see what I can do to assist the Deputy. I understand the matter will be dealt with in the Criminal Justice (Protection of Confidential Information) Bill, which is expected late next year.
The secret is out.
In the context of the publication of the Hanly report, what will happen to the work done by Professor Brennan? Where is the raft of legislation we were promised to implement her work? I ask for a full debate, either during the proposed non-sitting week or at another time, on the financing of the health service in the context of the forthcoming budget? We have a raft of reports and organisations dealing with the health service—
The Deputy has asked a question and should allow the Tánaiste to answer it.
—but cannot have a full, comprehensive debate. Will the Tánaiste agree to a such a debate on the financing of the health service?
The timing of a debate is a matter for the Whips.
As the Deputy knows, there is a commitment to have a full debate on the reform package for the health service, the Hanly report and other matters during the week beginning 11 November. There will be no prohibitions imposed on what Deputies want to say. If the Deputy is asking if we will discuss the budget during the week in question, we will not.
I am asking if we will discuss the financing of the health service in the context of the forthcoming budget.
The matter does not arise.
One cannot talk about the health service without talking about money.
Financing will, of course, be debated. Having increased funding substantially in the course of—
The Government has made the service worse.
That is not the case.
A report on the funding of research on embryos has been placed before the House by the Committee on European Affairs. It involves the Tánaiste's Department, while the Department of Foreign Affairs was recently involved in a directive on the funding of related matters. In addition, a Commission document on the storage of embryos is before the Committee on Health and Children. These issues have constitutional, ethical and legal implications which require careful consideration. Will the Tánaiste provide an early opportunity to debate the general principles involved in these matters? When can we expect the report of the commission established by the Government to examine research on embryos and related matters?
Perhaps the Deputy will put the question to the relevant line Minister.
I understand the Committee on European Affairs, which the Deputy chairs, has asked that I attend one of its meetings to discuss this issue. I am happy to do so and my officials recently attended another meeting of the committee on certain aspects of this matter. As the Deputy knows, the moratorium on EU funding for the areas to which he refers concludes at the end of the year. As regards research issues generally, we had a good debate when the Industrial Development (Science Foundation Ireland) Bill 2002 was being taken and I am always happy to have whatever debates are necessary on these matters. The group to which the Deputy refers is, I understand, one established under the Royal Academy of Medicine to examine bioethics issues. I have not seen any report from the group.
I was referring to the Minister's group.
When I last asked about legislation to put the independent Prison Service on a statutory basis, I was informed it was not possible to indicate when the Bill would be published. Such legislation would be a cost cutting measure and would reduce traffic on roads in several areas by removing the need for meetings of the exotic prison visiting committees. Perhaps it is the existence of such rewarding prison visiting committees which is preventing the legislation from being published.
The Deputy has made his point.
We have not heard from the comrade yet.
The House will hear from Deputy Joe Higgins next week.
I am advised that work is in progress in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the Bill to which the Deputy refers and that it is not possible to indicate when it will come before the House.
Will the Tánaiste use her influence?
Yes.
Will No. 65 on the legislative programme, the local government (rates) Bill, which the Government claims to be a Bill to standardise, modernise, streamline and consolidate rating law, apply to commercial rates and household service charges? Is it intended to publish the Bill in advance of the local government elections in 2004 in order that voters will have a clear indication as to the Government's policy on and legislative provision for raising money for local government finance?
The content of legislation is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government informs me he is working on a large number of Bills and expects to submit to Government the heads of the Bill in question in the early part of next year.
It will not, therefore, come before the Houses before next year.
In April 2001 the Tánaiste indicated she intended to introduce measures to tackle restrictive practices in the legal professions which have cost the State dearly in terms of tribunals and in other areas. Progress since then could best be described as a slow bicycle race on the part of the Tánaiste. We have had Competition Authority studies about studies which have signalled the need for further studies. Does the Tánaiste still intend to tackle restrictive practices in the legal profession in the course of this Dáil and, if so, when will the relevant legislation be introduced?
I am sure the Deputy is aware that the Competition Authority is examining this matter and has not finalised its report, which will deal with engineers, architects and the dental and legal professions. If legislation is required in any of these areas to ensure we have greater competition, it will be forthcoming as quickly as possible.
It is clear the Tánaiste's approach is to deter and delay any action.
It may be for other Ministers to—
She is starting with the professions where there is no evidence of serious restrictive practices.
Allow the Tánaiste to speak without interruption.
She should read her own report.
The Deputy has made his point. We cannot have a debate on the matter during the Order of Business.
We have spent considerable time in the House discussing abuse of children in the past. If there is one lesson we need to learn, it is that we need to put structures in place to ensure it does not happen in the present. A number of Deputies recently asked when proposed legislation establishing a register of persons who are considered unsafe to work with children would be introduced. The Government's response has been that it cannot indicate when the legislation will be presented. I received a response from the Taoiseach on 27 May indicating that the relevant working group was preparing draft legislation with a view to presenting it to Government in time for the next Dáil term, which is this one.
The Deputy has made her point.
This an important issue. We need to be able to protect children.
We cannot discuss the content of the Bill.
The legislation appears to have been put on the long finger. I ask the Tánaiste to give the House a definite date for its publication.
This matter involves the North-South Ministerial Council because it will be dealt with on an all-island basis. As the council has been in abeyance for some time unfortunately—
The Tánaiste's reply is a disgrace.
The reply I received in May was to the effect that the interdepartmental group was drafting the legislation.
We cannot debate the issue. The Tánaiste has answered the question.
Surely this is not an issue which can be put on the long finger.
I suggest the Deputy raise the matter with the line Minister by way of a question.
Will the Government show some urgency in addressing this issue?
I cannot give the Deputy a date because I do not have one.
I intend to raise the matter again next week.
A consultation process as part of a review of community employment schemes has recently been referred to. Will the Tánaiste indicate what consultation is under way?
The matter does not arise on the Order of Business.
Is legislation envisaged to govern community employment?
The Deputy will have to find another way to raise the matter.
When will the safety, health and welfare at work Bill be published? The review of the community employment schemes—
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
—was due out long ago.
Does the Deputy have a question on promised legislation?
Perhaps the Tánaiste will tell Deputy Ó Caoláin and me when the Bill will be published. People in many communities are awaiting the result of the review.
The first question is in order. The Tánaiste should not answer questions that are out of order or we will be here all day.
The question is in order for the people who are awaiting the review.
We have had two nights of debate on this and other matters. The legislation will be published early next year. The heads of the Bill on health and safety at work were cleared by the Government a few months ago.
What about the review for which the Tánaiste is responsible? There is no answer to that.
The Deputy is out of order and the Tánaiste would also be out of order if she were to get into a discussion on that issue at this stage.
She was out of order in not telling the people.
Two weeks ago, the Tánaiste told the House that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is preparing a new planning and development Bill. Since then, the Taoiseach has announced the Government's intention to establish a national infrastructure board. Will the proposed board be part of the promised planning and development Bill or will there be separate legislation to establish the board?
There will be separate legislation.
In view of the census report that Knocknalower, which includes Pollathomas and Inver, is the worst unemployment blackspot in the country with 40% unemployment and that it is the most deprived area in the west, will there be legislation to provide for a special tax incentive scheme to save that area from extinction?
I see that Mr. Paddy McGrath from the town says he cannot find any workers. Perhaps the Deputy should help him find some employees.
Who is that?
A local publican, I understand. No legislation is necessary—
There is plenty of work to be done.
—and the international data in this area is in the quarterly household survey which shows that we have an unemployment rate of 4.4%.
It was all black a few years ago.
The publication yesterday of the census showed that there are 11 unemployment blackspots in Cork. Will the Tánaiste review the implementation of the cutbacks in the social employment and the job initiative schemes—
That does not arise on the Order of Business. I call Deputy Connolly.
—to ensure the population of Cork does not suffer even more?
She does not have a notion of doing it.
(Interruptions).
The Deputy's party could not even implement a minimum wage.
With regard to the Tánaiste's proposed reform of the insurance industry and the fact that fraudulent claims are increasing the cost of insurance to business and motorists, when will the perjury Bill be introduced?
The courts and civil liability Bill will be published this year, as will the personal injuries assessment board Bill.
The Taoiseach promised yesterday that it would be enacted this term.
Yes, with the help of Members.
When will the European Parliament Bill be published? Can we take it that the Government accepts the recommendations of the boundary commission?
We accept the recommendations and the Bill will be ready as quickly as possible. Obviously, it will have to be prepared quickly since the elections are next June. I note the Deputy's interest so the Bill will be fast tracked.
I note the Minister for waste production held a launch about waste yesterday. Is it the Government's intention to fast track the production of incinerators through the infrastructure Bill?
The Deputy can ask about the Bill, but not about its content.
Pedal faster, Deputy Gormley.