It is proposed to take No. 14, motion re referral to joint committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of a Council decision on the organisation of the joint flights for removals of third country nationals illegally present in the territory of two or more member states and a Council Directive on assistance in cases of transit through the territory of one or more member states in the context of removal orders by member states against third country nationals; No. 15, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 (Prescribed Bodies) Regulations 2003 (back from committee); No. 16, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the terms of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (back from committee); No. 22, statements on the Hanly report; and No. 23, Aer Lingus Bill 2003 – Second Stage (Resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. 14, 15 and 16 shall be decided without debate; the proceedings on No. 22 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. and the statements of the Minister for Health and Children and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; the statement of each other Member called upon shall not exceed ten minutes in each case and Members may share time; the Minister for Health and Children shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed five minutes. Private Members' business shall be No. 35, Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution (No. 2) Bill 2003 – Second Stage, the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, to be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 12 November 2003.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 14 to 16, inclusive, without debate agreed?
The letter from the private secretary to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform requests Dáil time to consider No. 14, the motion of referral to a joint commit tee. I do not object to it being referred to a joint committee but there should be a much broader discussion in the Dáil of these matters.
I understand that the Minister is working within a timeframe but I object to No. 15. I have objected on each previous occasion to the way the Government has bulldozed through changes to and charges in the Freedom of Information Act and I do not accept it should be passed without debate. The Freedom of Information Act has been strangled by Government changes and regulations to the detriment of the public interest and of every citizen who is entitled to see the Government standing over its decisions on the day it makes them. I have no problem with No. 16.
There is a need to debate No. 14 in the Dáil because the issue raised goes far beyond that of time. The proposals in No. 14 are an exercise under the Fourth Protocol to the Amsterdam treaty. There are two proposals, one on Ireland and the other in response to an initiative taken by the Italian Government at Council. It represents a complete reversal of the initial position taken by Ireland. Justification of the Government's reversal of that position warrants debate in this House.
I take the point made by Deputy Kenny. Under the terms of the Amsterdam treaty and its Fourth Protocol, matters would have to be responded to within three months, hence the suggestion of a timeframe. That is unconvincing because it is open to Ireland, under the treaty, to adopt it later. Even so, there are serious matters raised by the response under Article 4.1 that involve the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It has been agreed by Council and is now coming to the Dáil only for it to nod it through to the committee, for a quick nod from it, without discussing either of the components – a change in position of the Government under Article 3 and a fundamentally disputatious proposal from the Italian Government on Article 4.1. The idea that it should be rattled through in this manner is completely unacceptable. The obligations that arise in international law and our compliance are so serious that it is outrageous that both the Government and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would seek to deal with such a serious matter in this way. This is why I oppose this proposal for the Order of Business. I agree entirely with what the leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Kenny, said on No. 15. This combination of Nos. 14 to 16, inclusive, as a single item for decision on the Order of Business is clearly unsatisfactory.
On a point of order, recently the House was informed that reports of committees would be laid before the House. There is a report for No. 16 on the Order Paper, but none for No. 15. I ask the Ceann Comhairle to refer that item back to the committee until it has a report.
The Chair does not have authority under Standing Orders to refer it back to committee. It is a matter for the House. I call Deputy Sargent.
If it is a matter for the House, what can we do about the matter? Can the Ceann Comhairle guide us on it?
We will be voting on it shortly.
That is a comfort.
We do not necessarily want to vote against it because there is no report.
It is absurd.
We would prefer to have a report on the matter and then accept it. A message should be sent to the chairpersons of the committees that we will not accept motions unless we have reports.
The Ceann Comhairle has highlighted the absurdity of this matter when he says we will vote on it. We ask what are we voting on. This is blind parliamentary work. I ask the Ceann Comhairle to take note of this. This lumping together of matters makes it more absurd in that No. 14 on the Order Paper will go to a committee and Nos. 15 and 16 are back from committee. They are all diverse issues, are equally important and need to be dealt with in their own right.
The gravity of No. 14 has been outlined. As it is involves an initiative from the Italian Government, it raises questions when one considers that Government's legacy under Mr. Berlusconi, with immigrants left adrift off the Italian coast. Are we to pay for the deportation of people in those circumstances? What if those third country nationals are parents of Irish-born citizens? These are matters that need to be debated in the House. We represent all the people in the Twenty-six Counties and we should be able to discuss this matter in Parliament. I ask the Ceann Comhairle to take note of the seriousness of the issue that has been raised.
No. 15 concerns the Freedom of Information Act 1997 (Prescribed Bodies) Regulations 2003, which states that the term "prescribed bodies" does not include the Garda Síochána. This is one of many matters regarding the Act that must be debated in the House, rather than just nodding it through after referral to committee. As of yesterday, the "blacks" of the debate in committee on the terms of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture were not available. It is difficult for the House to be fully informed on matters that we are asked to vote on. We are taking our work seriously and the Ceann Comhairle will understand why we are opposing this and insisting that information is before us to allow us to make an informed decision.
We are asked once again to rubber-stamp two further repressive, anti-immigration measures that have been foisted on us by the EU. By their passage, they will further heighten the walls of fortress Europe. That will be the end result of what is proposed. The Government wants these two proposals dealt with in committee to avoid the necessary scrutiny and attention to what the measures entail, but there is no need for that.
These measures were introduced in September and laid before the House in early October. There has been plenty of time over recent weeks to afford adequate debate on them, but it was not accommodated. We now have a proposal to send this item back so the Government can meet the set opt-in deadline. We do not have to do that, as the Taoiseach well knows, unless he has proposals to modify or amend the proposals in this case, and there has been no indication of that. The reality is that we can opt in at any time in the future with the Schengen Agreement states that are behind the measure. There is no sound basis for this measure going to committee without proper scrutiny and debate in the Chamber. Accordingly, I oppose the proposition.
There are two parts to No. 14. Deputy Michael D. Higgins has said that these should be scrutinised and I have no difficulty with that. However, these specialist issues should be dealt with in committee which any Member can attend. The first of these issues concerns the proposal that will oblige participant States, including Norway and Iceland, to advise each other whenever joint flights for the removal of illegally resident third country nationals are being organised, indicating the number of seats available on board the plane and inviting participation. Organisers of a joint flight will appoint a leader for the operation, identify a suitable carrier, arrange a contract with the carrier and ensure that the appointed carrier obtains a flight plan, with necessary flyover and landing authorisations. It merely means that if there is a flight organised, countries co-operate with each other. They are also made aware of the return flight. We are talking about dealing with illegal people who have gone through due process and have been ordered to return home.
The second part of that proposal requests Dáil time to approve motions on the exercise by the State of an option under the fourth Protocol Directive of the Treaty of Amsterdam in respect of an initiative by the Italian Government with a view to adopting a Council Directive on assistance in cases of transit through the territory of one or more member states in the context of removal orders. It is a connected item. The proposal will oblige participating EU states, as well as Norway and Iceland, to provide each other with a range of assistance measures in cases of transit for the purposes of expelling by land, including sea crossings between two points within the same country, illegally resident third country nationals who are the subject of expulsion orders to member states. The measures will include meeting expellees and their escorts on arrival at cross-border points and providing them with outward assistance to ensure that the transit operation is completed successfully. It also includes provisions for the use of legitimate force to prevent or overcome resistance to expulsion and transit and to provide accommodation, sustenance, emergency and medical care in transit. The sovereignty of member states, particularly with regard to the use of direct force against aliens resisting removal, will remain unaffected. These are the two proposals that will go to committee for discussion.
The original position was that the Government was not participating in the proposed scheme. However, there was a change in that position and the House should be told how this came about.
The proposals will be discussed at the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights after the Order of Business and Members are welcome to express their views there.
No. 15 concerns proposals to extend the Freedom of Information Act 1997 to the Civil Service performance verification group, the justice and equality verification group, the education verification group, the health and service performance verification group and the performance verification group for the local government sector. It is a useful proposal.
I agree with Deputy Stagg's point on reports from committees. However, the difficulty with this report from the Committee on Finance and the Public Service arose because the meeting took place on 30 October, just as a new reporting procedure was put in place. I accept the Deputy's point that there should be reports, but the difficulty arose with this one.
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam. |
Blaney, Niall.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Seamus.Browne, John. Callanan, Joe. |
|
Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cregan, John.Cullen, Martin.Curran, John.Dempsey, Noel.Dempsey, Tony.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Finneran, Michael.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Gallagher, Pat The Cope.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kelly, Peter.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Kitt, Tom. |
Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McDowell, Michael.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M. J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donovan, Denis.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Malley, Fiona.O'Malley, Tim.Parlon, Tom.Power, Peter.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Wilkinson, Ollie.Woods, Michael. |
|
Boyle, Dan.Breen, James.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Burton, Joan.Connaughton, Paul.Connolly, Paudge.Costello, Joe.Coveney, Simon.Cowley, Jerry.Crawford, Seymour.Crowe, Seán.Cuffe, Ciarán.Deasy, John.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J.English, Damien.Enright, Olwyn.Ferris, Martin.Gilmore, Eamon.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Harkin, Marian.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael D.Hogan, Phil.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.Lynch, Kathleen.McCormack, Pádraic. |
McGrath, Finian.McHugh, Paddy.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Morgan, Arthur.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Murphy, Gerard.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Twomey, Liam.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack. |
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 22 agreed to?
This is not agreed. All Deputies in the House, irrespective of whether they have a party or not, have been contacted by concerned people arising not only from the Hanly report, but from the Prospectus and Brennan reports. This is insufficient time for Members to discuss their concerns and fears about the Hanly report, when one considers that 1,000 people turned up in Ennis and 20,000 are expected to march there over the closure of their hospital, and that in Nenagh last night over 1,000 people turned up, including the Minister of Defence, who rejected the Hanly report out of hand. Others around the country are equally concerned. The elected representatives in this House should not be treated this way. They should have the opportunity to have their say and point out the fears and concerns of their constituents, as expressed to them, over the health service and the implications of the Hanly report – where we are and where the aspirations in the report point to. I am objecting to the proposal on that basis. There should be no guillotine on this report.
I agree with Deputy Kenny. The proposal is entirely inadequate as scheduled. It is essential that the Minister of Defence be given an opportunity to address it in the House. We need to know the scale of the opposition he expressed in Nenagh. I do not know how many other Ministers are supporting him or whether it will end up like the ban on smoking, a shambles. My sympathy lies with Deputy Noctor—
Deputy Hoctor.
Deputy Hoctor. I apologise to the Deputy. The problem is the Minister does not seem to recall the Deputy either, which is unfair to her and shameful. Five minutes are provided at the end of this debate for the Minister to reply. There is no facility for questions. This report was concealed for months and now we are supposed to run it through in a couple of hours. This is entirely inadequate and I agree with Deputy Kenny. We are opposing the proposal.
The point is well made and I reiterate that the time is not adequate for dealing with the Hanly report. It is a matter that applies to every single individual in this country. If it does not apply now, it could in the future. It is going to affect every town and village, given that it will apply to hospitals, which were the subject of promises by this Government before the last election. The Hanly report, it seems, is a complete whitewash to obliterate these promises from the memories of people. The Government needs to be told that the public's memory is well attuned to it breaking promises and it will not be whitewashed by the Hanly report. I would ask the Government to allow extra time and the Ceann Comhairle to support that. It would be appreciated so that we may get to grips with what the report is really about. It appears to be about whitewashing the Government's policy, to obliterate promises made before the last election and to start afresh. The Government is not going to get away with that.
Apart from the inadequate time to address what is involved in the Hanly report, there is the much bigger issue of the fact that there is no motion. There will be no vote and no conclusions drawn from the exercise in this Chamber. Recognising that any diminution of services at any hospital site diminishes everyone, whether in our backyard or any part of the country, the reality is that what Hanly proposes to do is lift the template or the blueprint of what happened to Monaghan General Hospital and to apply it to other hospitals throughout this State. That is objectionable and I would never wish to see the pain and anguish which continue daily in my community and constituency, visited on others. That is the reality of what Hanly spells out. We should have been afforded the opportunity, not only to have more time for statements, but to register our opposition to what the report represents and what it threatens – not promises – to visit on communities throughout the length and breadth of this State.
On a point of order—
Only one representative of each of the parties is entitled to speak.
Five minutes among ten Deputies is not acceptable.
Has Deputy Connolly a point of order?
We have 13 Independent Deputies and we are allocated a mere five minutes for one of the most important reports on health.
That is not a point of order.
I disagree.
I am trying to help the Deputies, if they would listen. Deputy Kenny, supported by Deputy Rabbitte and others, asked about this issue. There are many in the Fianna Fáil Party and among the Progressive Democrats who would like to give their views as well. If the House is willing to do that, I hope we will hear the substantive alternative from Deputy Ó Caoláin as well. I await that with bated breath.
Deputy Ó Caoláin is the problem in Monaghan.
What I propose is—
Will the Taoiseach allow a vote?
The Deputy wanted me to publish the report. I did so and now he wants a debate. When there is a debate, he wants a vote. We will have the debate first.
I will be asking Deputy Ó Caoláin to leave the House if he does not behave.
The Deputy created most of the problems in Monaghan.
I propose we adjourn the debate at 7 p.m. That would mean the Minister would not reply today. The Whips can decide about allocating further time.
Is that agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' Business tomorrow agreed? Agreed.
Smoking regulations were discussed in the House on 6 November but we had scarcely returned to our offices when we heard that the regulations had been withdrawn. Can the next regulations be brought before the Dáil for discussion and scrutiny before they are signed and sent to Brussels? If anything is to be retrieved from this debacle, accuracy rather than speed is of the essence. I have just heard that those regulations will go to Brussels in the morning. Have they been signed? Please let us get it right this time and give time to the Dáil to discuss the matter.
No debate is promised.
A Cheann Comhairle, this is Dáil business. These regulations have to come back. It is a reasonable question. Will they come back to the Dáil?
Will the Taoiseach answer?
It is secondary legislation.
It is secondary legislation.
On the same issue, a Cheann Comhairle—
The Taoiseach should be allowed to respond. It is a matter of public interest.
The Taoiseach can only be asked about promised debate. It is a matter for the Whips to decide to do something.
I hear that the regulations have been signed and are to go to Brussels in the morning.
On the same issue, a pall of smoke now surrounds these regulations.
Does the Deputy have a question on the issue?
I have, on secondary legislation. Will the Taoiseach please inform us of precisely what amendments are to be made to the Minister for Health and Children's regulations? Will he also please inform us of the status of the separate regulations under health and safety legislation that are presumably agreed and will go to the European Union? Have the contradictions between the two been resolved?
That does not arise at this stage, Deputy.
Of course it does. We are being kept in the dark.
Let us hear from the Taoiseach.
This is the national Parliament. It is secondary legislation.
I suggest that the Deputy submit a question to the Minister for Health and Children on the issue.
This is secondary legislation. How many times—
Deputy Olivia Mitchell asked a fair question. With the Ceann Comhairle's permission, I will read a short note, which I think will be of help. This is secondary legislation. The smoking ban is contained in statutory instrument 481 of 2003, which was notified to the European Commission on 24 April 2003. There was no objection to this smoking ban by the Commission or any member state. Accordingly, on 16 October 2003, the Minister for Health and Children signed an order which provided that the ban would commence with effect from 26 January 2004. The legal basis for the ban on smoking, having passed through the required European process, is now rock solid. It is the law and will be effective as and from its commencement date.
Subsequently, it was decided that there should be exemptions to the ban in addition to domestic dwellings. These exemptions were required to be notified to the European Commission. The specific exemptions are as follows: prisons, outdoor places, psychiatric hospitals, hospices, nursing homes, sleeping accommodation in hotels, guesthouses, bed and breakfast accommodation and accommodation provided for educational or charitable purposes, and the Central Mental Hospital.
Some exemptions have been notified, according to European law, to the European Commission. The first notification was on 3 November 2003 and related to prisons and outdoor places. The second notification will be made tomorrow, which is in line with what Deputy Olivia Mitchell stated last week. Under European law there is a three month period in which other member states can raise objections to the exemptions. In this regard it is of significance that no objections were made to the ban as previously notified. Because of the hiatus between the commencement date chosen by the Minister for Health and Children, 26 January 2004, and the expiry of the three month minimum period for all the exemptions, an adjustment is required to the date of commencement of the ban. A new date will be chosen by the Minister for Health and Children with effect to the expiry of the period stipulated by European law. In these circumstances, the ban together with the exemption is expected to be in operation by end February 2004.
It is important to emphasise that the ban and exemptions are made under the tobacco code of legislation, which is separate and distinct from the health and safety Act. They are two separate codes. Legal advice has been received from the Office of the Attorney General that the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989 may not encompass the banning of environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace. To remove this legal uncertainty it has been decided that primary legislation is required. In this regard, I point out that a review of the health and safety Act 1989 is at an advanced stage – I mentioned that a number of times in regard to promised legislation. The heads of the Bill have been issued, therefore amendments to the legislation are already envisaged. The proposed Bill will provide a vehicle for such amendments as are necessary to remove any legal uncertainties. The initiative under the health and safety Act will not affect the implementation of the smoking ban.
I thank the Taoiseach for that response. I seek clarification of the health and safety legislation. Does this mean that the smoking ban will only apply in the hospitality industry and not in other workplaces, pending a change in the legislation? Is this unaffected by the changes outlined.
Is the Taoiseach saying that the draft health and safety regulations will not be proceeded with and that we are now talking about primary legislation? Are shelters for homeless people not exempt?
There is an absence of clarity and the Taoiseach's remarks leave more questions than they provide answers. We need clarity on this issue and what I am asking—
That is not factual.
Other Deputies have reflected, and I repeat the point, that the Taoiseach must come clean and be crystal clear in his intent vis-à-vis these regulations. We need to know exactly how they will apply and the definition in regard to dwellings? What is the position for those in psychiatric institutions, nursing homes and the various other situations in which people find themselves through no fault of their own, those who are using the hospitality sector for hotel bedroom accommodation? All these points need to be specifically spelt out so that people know exactly what they will face.
The Green Party strongly supports the smoking ban, but we want a proper set of definitive regulations that will not be subject to sniping and loopholes. In that regard whether an An Óige hostel with communal sleeping arrangements is to be covered is still an open question. Will the Government consider a more rounded consultation process in a committee of the House to make sure that all these areas are teased out and that legal opinion is sought in advance so that it cannot be unravelled. According to current reports, there will be serious attempts to unravel it and we must ensure that does not happen.
Homeless shelters and An Óige hostels are covered.
They are covered.
The Taoiseach did not say that.
I referred to sleeping accommodation and hostels.
I took it to mean—
Would the Deputy not normally say that covers sheltered hostels?
What about circulating the amendments?
Deputy McManus, allow the Taoiseach to continue. The Deputy was allowed make her points without interruption. The Taoiseach should be afforded the same courtesy.
I suggest the amendments should be circulated.
We will do that tomorrow.
The Deputy should resume her seat. The Taoiseach is entitled to the same courtesy as you received.
I clearly stated that sheltered accommodation and hostels are included. Anyone who knows anything about hostels would know that that includes sheltered hostels. Guesthouses, bed and breakfast accommodation and accommodation provided for educational or charitable purposes and An Óige are covered. I also said that the Central Mental Hospital—
Accommodation provided for educational purposes. Is that a school?
Student accommodation.
Student accommodation.
Is there an age limit on that student accommodation?
Sorry, allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption, please.
What about St. Jarlath's boarding school?
Education is eternal.
The regulations will be published tomorrow.
One has to be consistent.
I cannot remember what Deputy Mitchell asked.
Will we have an opportunity to discuss the regulations in the Dáil before they are signed and sent to Europe?
Yes, because what happens, as I understand it, is that the three month period will begin tomorrow. The Minister will circulate the regulations which will be sent to Brussels first, but they will not be signed until they come back. That is the procedure.
Can we find some way of circulating the amendments?
We will not have a debate on the matter.
This is secondary legislation. Are the regulations gone?
The Chair has been generous with time on this issue and it cannot be abused.
I am entitled to a reply.
There will be an opportunity to discuss the regulations in the House when they come back. I call Deputy Stanton.
Are Deputy Fahey's regulations gone?
The health and safety issues will be dealt with in primary legislation.
Does that mean the draft regulations are now gone?
Yes. It is far safer to deal with the issue in primary legislation.
Why did the Taoiseach not think of that a long time ago? He was warned often enough.
We were not.
Will the Taoiseach tell the House whether we will see ministerial regulations or orders in respect of the proposed closure of prisons? What will they cover?
Is legislation promised?
What is the name of the Bill, a Cheann Comhairle?
The closure of prisons which Deputy O'Donoghue has trumpeted for years Bill.
Is secondary legislation required in respect of the proposed closure of prisons?
No legislation is promised.
The time available to the consultants advising the Government on the complex issues involved in the break-up of Aer Rianta is eight months. In that context and in light of the views which were expressed strongly by the Minister for Finance on the proposal, what is the precise timetable for the publication of the legislation on the State airports? What is the realistic timescale?
The heads of the Bill have been approved and the legislation is listed for late 2003.
Is that a realistic timetable? The Taoiseach should ask the Minister for Finance.
Apparently, yes.
Will it be published this year?
Does the Minister for Finance agree?
Last week, the Taoiseach stated the personal injuries assessment board Bill would be published this week. When will the Bill promised for this week come before the House and when will Second Stage be accommodated in this Chamber?
When will the civil liability and courts Bill be published? The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has said she is willing to be benchmarked in regard to our first matter.
Deputy Howlin, on the same issue.
Can we have the response of the Taoiseach?
Questions should be appropriate to the Order of Business.
I have asked appropriate questions.
I call Deputy Howlin to speak on the same issue.
I was informed that the personal injuries assessment board Bill would be published today. I have been told repeatedly by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment that it is intended to establish the board on a statutory basis.
The Deputy has asked his question. He should allow the Taoiseach to reply.
Will the Ceann Comhairle allow me to finish my sentence?
We cannot stay on the Order of Business until 7 p.m.
I will just finish the sentence. If it is still the intention – as the House has been told on several occasions by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment – that the board will be placed on a statutory footing by 1 January, we will have to enact the legislation in this session. However, the Bill has not yet come before the House.
The Bill will be published within days. I am not sure what date, but the legislation has been cleared by Cabinet. It is hoped to progress it quickly and as a priority. It will commence in the Seanad.
It is going to the Seanad.
It will commence in the Seanad immediately.
Is 1 January still the envisaged starting date?
That is the intention. It will be tight to achieve that considering only five to six weeks are left. I am sure it is intended to be as near as possible to the date.
That does not give the Oireachtas much time to scrutinise.
If we did not waste so much time on the Order of Business we might get on to some legislation.
We would be happy to sit for extra hours.
For an hour and a half.
It would be better if people asked questions appropriate to the Order of Business. We cannot have a debate on the matter.
The second Bill is also a priority. As I have already stated, it will come before the House during the Christmas to Easter session.
I call Deputy Crawford to ask something appropriate to the Order of Business.
My questions are certainly appropriate. In light of the fact that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has a major problem with the numbers in prison and the cost of keeping them there, when will the enforcement of fines Bill come before the House? When will the judicial conduct and ethics Bill come before the House? In light of the changing structures being imposed on Loughan House and other institutions, when will the prisons Bill come before the House to permit Members to discuss it properly?
It should be called "the closure of prisons Bill".
The judicial conduct and ethics Bill is due in 2004. Work on the enforcement of fines Bill is at a preliminary stage of examination and I do not have a date in respect of the legislation. We do not have a date for the prison services Bill either.
While we have been sitting here on our comfortable seats, a group of mostly senior men from my constituency and that of the Taoiseach have been protesting outside the gates of Oxigen Limited. They are picketing this waste management company because they are not permitted to have professional or trade union representation.
Does the Deputy have a question appropriate to the Order of Business?
Is this a situation the Taoiseach regrets? Is it a state of affairs about which he can do something?
What is the current status of the Curragh of Kildare Bill? Will the scope of the Bill be extended to include Punchestown?
The content of a Bill cannot be discussed.
When will the Bill be available?
It will be available in 2004.
Given the raft of legislation proposed and discussed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, his proposal to close a number of prisons and the number of criminals abroad at present, how does he propose to accommodate the prisoners who result from the enforcement of legislation he intends to enact? Is it intended to turn the country into an open prison?
No legislation is promised on that.
There is a pile of it which will result in more prisoners. Where will the Minister put them?
I suggest Deputy Durkan submits a question directly to the Minister. I call on Deputy Cowley.
Despite the Government policy of balanced regional development, development in the regions has been unbalanced. Does the Taoiseach think it will ever become balanced? Will he consider the introduction of legislation to ensure that we have some development in the west to bring us on a par with the rest of the country?
Is legislation promised?
No.
In light of the fact that the road safety strategy lapsed at the end of last year while the new one will not be put in place until some time next year, will the Taoiseach state when the road traffic (amendment) Bill will come before the House and can it be expedited?
The heads of the Bill are expected early in the new year and legislation will be drafted then.
When are we likely to see the long awaited disabilities Bill? It was promised that it would arrive once we began to deal with the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill.
Large numbers of people are working on this across Departments. They are working weekends to finalise the Bill which will be enormous. We will have it as soon as possible. The people involved are working flat out. I do not want to give a definite date, but they are trying their best to publish the Bill as soon as possible.