Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 9 Dec 2003

Vol. 576 No. 5

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 12, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of a Council framework decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties – back from committee; No. 13, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of a Council framework decision on confiscation of crime related proceeds, instrumentalities and property – back from committee; and No. 4, Social Welfare Bill 2003 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. and business shall be interrupted not later than 10.30 p.m.; Nos. 12 and 13 shall be decided without debate; and Private Members' Business shall be No. 37, Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill 2003 – Second Stage, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 10 December 2003.

There are three proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 12 and 13 without debate agreed?

We all accept that bypassing any stage in the processing of legislation is a violation of the democratic process. On measures and motions such as these, which come before the Houses of the Oireachtas for scrutiny purposes, the House is being bypassed, without careful and considered perusal of what is involved in a detailed way. The Government and the Dáil have approved the establishment of the Sub-committee on European Scrutiny. I have raised repeatedly with the Taoiseach that adequate and careful scrutiny of measures that will have a significant impact on the civil and legal rights of ordinary citizens is not accommodated. We are again being asked to approve two motions that have a judicial element. Both arise from decisions taken in courts, which have been brought forward for our attention and approval.

Last week the Taoiseach urged me to ensure members of my party attend the Sub-committee on European Scrutiny. My colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, has a better attendance record at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights than some of the members of that committee. There are only five members in our party and we cannot cover all the committees operating in the House. I ask the Taoiseach not to adopt this kicking to touch or diversion.

The Deputy has made his point.

I ask him to accept that I raise this point repeatedly on these measures out of genuine concern for the rights of citizens in this State and it is our duty and responsibility, as a Parliament, to properly examine, discuss, debate and come to a decision regarding the impact and effect of such measures.

The Deputy has made his point. A brief comment is allowed under the Standing Order.

I ask the Taoiseach to re-examine the processing of issues in this House. I regret I must oppose these motions because—

I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.

We have set up the scrutiny process under which various Council framework decisions are sent to a committee of the House. That was a major legislative move forward in comparison to what we did in the past and we all agreed we should do that. The Minister goes before the committee and considerable time is spent on the preparation of the documentation by officials, which is laid before the committee. The Minister provides a narrative of what is involved, takes questions, debates the issues and the debate concludes in a similar manner to a Second Stage debate in the House. The Minister takes on boards the comments of members. The committee reports back to the House and the report is received on the Order of Business.

The alternative would be not to have the sub-committee and to bring all the motions before the House.

There must be another way—

The Deputy has made his point. He is out of order.

I do not want to get into an argument about this but I do not see another way of proceeding. If there is, perhaps the Whips can discuss it. This is a genuine way of bringing the issues forward and having debate, with Ministers and committees involved. I know it involves a great deal of time for Members of the House in attending various committee meetings, for which they do not always receive as much public credit as they should, in my view. They report back to the House.

They get little consideration from the Government.

There should be more recognition of the work of Members in the committees. I do not find the matter as amusing as some Deputies opposite seem to do. Committee meetings are an important part of the work of the House. Everything does not have to take place in the Dáil Chamber.

The Government should give greater recognition to the recommendations from committees.

They are recognised. The Deputy's statement is incorrect. The Government takes account of them.

I wish to raise a point of order.

What is the Deputy's point of order?

I will hazard an attempt at it anyhow. The Taoiseach, in his reply—

Sorry, Deputy. Only a point of order is allowed.

Perhaps that is not a point of order. Is that correct, a Cheann Comhairle?

No, Deputy, it is not a point of order.

Let me approach it another way. Perhaps I can find a textbook formula—

The Deputy is abusing the Standing Orders of the House.

The Taoiseach continually refers to "reporting back".

That is not a point of order. The Taoiseach, to continue his reply.

There is not an effective reporting system. A member of a committee, only last week, here in this Chamber—

That is not a point of order. I ask Deputy Ó Caoláin to resume his seat.

There is another answer which I could give to Deputy Ó Caoláin. Quite frankly, having looked back over the reports after the Deputy raised the matter last week – perhaps Members may not wish me to say this – there are often more people at committee meetings than is the case at Second Stage debates. The reality, irrespective of whether this pleases the House, is that there is far greater involvement and debate in committees than on various stages of Bills in the House. I would like to hear about the great system to which the Deputy referred. I do not believe it is there.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with Nos. 12 and 13 be agreed."

Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Blaney, Niall.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Seamus.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cregan, John.Cullen, Martin.Curran, John.Davern, Noel.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Fox, Mildred.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.

Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kelly, Peter.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M.J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donovan, Denis.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Malley, Fiona.O'Malley, Tim.Parlon, Tom.Power, Peter.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Wilkinson, Ollie.Wright, G.V.

Níl

Broughan, Thomas P.Burton, Joan.Connolly, Paudge.

Costello, Joe.Crowe, Seán. Ferris, Martin.

Níl–continued

Gilmore, Eamon.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael D.Howlin, Brendan.McGrath, Finian.McManus, Liz.Morgan, Arthur.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.

O'Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Quinn, Ruairi.Rabbitte, Pat.Ryan, Seán.Stagg, Emmet.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Ó Snodaigh and F. McGrath.
Question declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business agreed to? Agreed. On the Order of Business, I call on Deputy Kenny.

I understood there was to be a statement in respect of the European Arrest Warrant Bill 2003.

The Chair will be making a report to the House when we come to No. 22 on the Order of Business.

On the list of legislation published by the Government Whip on 29 September, there were 22 Bills listed for publication up to the end of this Dáil session. Will the Taoiseach inform the House as to how many of these have actually been published?

The European working time directive was transposed into law by the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. When can we expect the necessary secondary legislation and statutory instruments to give effect to that, in view of the importance attached to the Hanly report and the extension of the working time directive to junior doctors?

I do not have information on the working time directive. I will have it checked out for the Deputy.

Last week, I gave information on the legislation programme. Eight of the Bills on that list have already been published and there are eight more, of which some were cleared at Cabinet today, to be published soon. The commitment was to have them published before the next session. There are six other Bills which will be ready in January. There are three Bills published that are not on the referred list. However, the final list of published Bills will be close to that list from the Whip, without one or two Bills. They will be replaced by three other Bills not on the "A list".

The Labour Party has brought to the Chair's attention that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has come out of the House with two different versions of the European Arrest Warrant Bill 2003, which is to amend the Extradition Act 1965.

The Chair has already pointed out to Deputy Kenny that a report on the matter will be made when we come to No. 22 on the Order of Business.

I apologise. I thought the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was so anxious to put legislation through the House that he put two different versions of the same Bill through.

Like a Fianna Fáil backbencher.

It is a lovelier place to be than where the Deputy is.

There are 40 people waiting to go.

Deputy Cassidy should be careful because he might not be there for long.

A member of the Garda Síochána recently asked me about promised legislation on the laundering of red diesel and the effects on the water table of the toxic acids used. He is surprised there is not more debate on it.

To what legislation is the Deputy referring?

When will the water services Bill come before the House?

There are very few Green members of the Garda.

I do not think that "laundering" is the word to use.

The Bill will be published before Christmas.

The disturbing revelation on RTE "Prime Time" last night showed that abuse of the Internet may be driving—

What legislation is the Deputy referring to?

—perverse sexual exploitation of young children by an indeterminate number of people. It speculated that there are more people involved than we might imagine. Since the Garda would not comment on most the issues raised—

That issue has been raised by Deputy Neville and allowed on the Adjournment Debate. Has the Deputy a question on legislation for the Taoiseach?

What legislative provisions is the Government contemplating in addressing the question?

The Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 is considered to be one of the best Acts of its kind in any country.

I ask about legislation that has taken in excess of 80 years and affects a considerable number of people. Why has the ground rents abolition Bill taken so long? Given that this affects a considerable number of Government properties and buildings, is there any possibility of expediting this Bill and when can we expect it?

Nothing has changed with it. It is still grounded.

I have referred previously to the Abbotstown sports centre authority Bill. Given the recent draw for the soccer world cup qualifying matches, does the Taoiseach propose to introduce a further Bill to deal with the need for a sports stadium? Alternatively, would the Taoiseach support an amendment at the GAA congress to deal with this important issue?

All those in favour should indicate.

I ask my question in the context of the Abbotstown sports centre authority Bill. Does the Taoiseach propose to introduce a further Bill to deal with the need for a sports stadium for Ireland, which has been promised for years?

We can only deal with promised legislation.

The Deputy's leader is against it.

It was promised before the general election when Fianna Fáil scuppered Eircom Park. The Progressive Democrats scuppered Abbotstown.

Deputy Ryan is being disorderly.

The Deputy should get a motion passed at the parliamentary Labour Party.

The Minister would put a roof on Fitzgerald stadium first.

In order to meet the transport requirements of the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, can the Taoiseach indicate the status of the critical infrastructure Bill?

It has been relocated.

The critical infrastructure Bill has been circulated to Department for comments.

The Taoiseach should hurry it up, as the strains of the big country will be revving up shortly.

We have completed a brand new bypass around Kildare.

We will work hard on Monasterevin for the Deputy also.

Barr
Roinn