It is proposed to take No. 18, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the terms of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, back from committee, and No. 26a, financial motions by the Minister for Finance, 2004, motion 2 resumed. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 4.45 p.m. and business shall be interrupted not later than 7.30 p.m.; No. 18 shall be decided without debate; and the following arrangements shall apply to the resumed debate on No. 26a: the speech of the main spokespersons or a Member nominated in his or her stead for the Taoiseach, the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 40 minutes in each case; the spokesperson for the Technical Group shall be confined to a spokesperson for the Green Party, Sinn Féin and the Independents; the speech of each other Member called upon, who may share time, shall not exceed 30 minutes in each case.
Order of Business.
There are three proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 18 without debate agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 26a agreed? Agreed.
I wish to ask two questions. On 11 May this year, in response to a question from Deputy Rabbitte, the Taoiseach said in respect of the current business regarding the Good Friday Agreement, in the matter of the early release of the murderers of the late Detective Garda McCabe: "This was of the highest sensitivity, however, and we would not do anything without direct contact between the Government——
It does not arise on the Order of Business.
——the widow of Jerry McCabe and the family of Ben O'Sullivan."
It was the subject of Leaders' Questions yesterday.
Will the Taoiseach confirm whether that statement has been followed up by him? Was there direct contact between the Government, the widow of Jerry McCabe and the family of Ben O'Sullivan——
The Deputy should put down a question on the matter.
——prior to the Taoiseach's clarification yesterday?
It does not arise on the Order of Business.
On four separate occasions the Tánaiste indicated that legislation will be produced before Christmas in respect of the legal advice which the Attorney General is to provide to Government regarding the people over 70 years of age who received medical cards. There are six sitting days left in this Dáil session. On which of these days will the legislation be produced? Does the Taoiseach expect it to be passed before the Christmas recess?
I understand that the free access to general practitioner visits will be provided for individuals and families based on the income guidelines, that is, 25% over the new medical card income guidelines. Subject to clarifying legislation and administrative issues, the new doctor visit card will be introduced as soon as possible in 2005. That seems to indicate that there will be no legislation before Christmas but the matter will be dealt with in that way.
The Taoiseach misunderstands me. The Attorney General is to advise the Government on the legality or otherwise of taking charges from people over 70 years who are in long-stay nursing homes. The Tánaiste said legislation would be introduced before Christmas. I am referring to that legislation.
I will have to check it. The Deputy has raised this matter a number of times. The Attorney General gave the legal advice to the Tánaiste a week or two ago. I do not know if it requires legislation but I will check for the Deputy.
I call Deputy Rabbitte.
What about the first question?
It does not arise on the Order of Business.
It was out of order.
Is there another Ceann Comhairle over there?
He might be.
The Taoiseach ought to take the opportunity to tell the House why he handled the Jerry McCabe killers affair——
Deputy, it does not arise on the Order of Business.
——in that fashion.
It was the subject of Leaders' Questions yesterday.
Things have moved on since yesterday.
Leaders' Questions was instituted to facilitate the leaders of the parties on such matters. We cannot have a discussion on it this morning.
There is no Leaders' Questions on Thursday and it is traditional to allow the leaders of parties to ask a question of the Taoiseach.
No, Deputy, there is no such tradition.
However, there is a precedent, a Cheann Comhairle.
Leaders' Questions was put in place for that purpose.
Will the Taoiseach provide an opportunity for the House to discuss this matter? It may well be that there is a greater prize on offer. However, having regard to the commitments made by the Taoiseach and two Ministers for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on this issue and having regard to the gravity with which our citizens view the shooting of a garda——
Deputy, you have made your point.
Our citizens draw the line, Sir, at shooting a member of the Garda Síochána.
Deputy, you have made your point. Allow the Taoiseach to speak.
It is a hugely important issue and I ask the Taoiseach to tell the House why the commitments entered into with the McCabe family and the Garda Representative Association have been abrogated in this fashion. There might be a good reason which we will know about in time.
I will briefly answer both questions and I thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for the opportunity to do so. It is not a reasonable position if I cannot answer when they are raised.
If this arises, it only arises as part of a comprehensive deal. If we do not deal with those charged with manslaughter whom we believe to be involved in the killing of Jerry McCabe, regardless of what the cases are, and the shooting of Ben O'Sullivan and if it arises that there is a comprehensive deal, that issue must be dealt with. Otherwise there will be no deal. That has been made clear in the negotiations. It does not arise if we do not get a comprehensive deal.
It is on the table.
My undertaking is that if it comes to a position where we are going to get a comprehensive deal, we would talk to the GRA and the family. If it was not raised here yesterday, we would have done that anyway. However, I must answer truthfully when a question is asked in the House. It would not have been my preference to have had to answer it in the way I did yesterday but I must do that. Deputy Kenny has the right to ask the question and I must answer it.
This is a request put by one of the parties, the obvious party. It has been put in that way. If I, the Government and everybody else wants a comprehensive deal, there are many aspects of that deal that will affect many people. We must deal with two issues. One is a handful of OTRs, on-the-run people. The other is highly sensitive, it is one I would prefer not to deal with, but it exists. The only remaining prisoners in this category left on the island are those involved in the Jerry McCabe killing.
That is the context. There are other issues that might not be as important — in my view, they are not — but if we want a comprehensive deal, this is one issue we must deal with. That is the basis. If that happens, before I would sign off on the deal we would — this was always the intention — talk to the GRA and the families and explain our position. I know the difficulties and the sensitivities for the families. I would rather not have to deal with it, as Prime Minister Blair and others would have preferred not to let out all the people.
Six years ago I met representatives of more than 40 RUC widows and I remember their trauma. In many of those cases there were circumstances which they believed were unrelated to the Troubles and which were unrelated to people who had any semblance of being freedom fighters. However, that was the situation. The people who killed their husbands were allowed out. I know it is difficult because I had to sit with them for three and a half hours. I understand that Mrs. McCabe and the families will be annoyed with me. However, if I want to get a comprehensive deal, I do not have an alternative. It is only on the basis of arms being put beyond use and new instructions from the IRA that I will contemplate consulting Mrs. McCabe.
I listened carefully to the Taoiseach and I have a question on promised legislation. However, does the Taoiseach intend to apologise to the families of Jerry McCabe and Garda O'Sullivan——
Deputy, we will not have a discussion on the matter. I will call the next Deputy.
The question on promised legislation stands on its merits, a Cheann Comhairle, but as I listened to the Taoiseach I did not hear him make that point.
I will call Deputy Neville if Deputy Sargent does not have a question appropriate to the Order of Business.
I have a question on legislation and it relates to a serious matter in which the Ceann Comhairle, being a medical doctor, will be interested. The legislation is on the abuse of alcohol and binge drinking. There was nothing in the budget to address this issue. Legislation on the advertising, sponsorship and sale of alcohol products is badly needed. In light of the fact that these products are advertised in cinemas at films watched by children as young as 15 and are targeted at and sold to those who are underage, will the Taoiseach give an indication of whether the Government is going to bring forward the legislation sooner than promised? I am obliged to ask this question because there was no indication of action on this matter in the budget.
The alcohol products (control of advertising, sponsorship and marketing practices/sales promotions) Bill will be published early next year.
I wonder if time could be made available for a personal statement by Deputy Ó Snodaigh on the allegations that he took part in a horrific and barbaric act? It is time he made a statement on that issue.
The banks have refused to pay the salaries of employees of the Mid-Western Health Board this morning. Will the Taoiseach intervene to ensure the staff are paid their due remuneration?
The Deputy must find another way to raise the matter.
In view of the report that has just been published by the National Economic and Social Forum which states that the rate of imprisonment in this country is triple that which obtains in Wales and England and quadruple the rate in Scandinavia and that it now costs €1,300 per prisoner——
Does the Deputy have a question appropriate to the Order of Business?
——while the community service and provision order is only €50——
About what legislation is the Deputy inquiring?
——is there any intention to introduce legislation which would direct members of the Judiciary in respect of the alternatives to sending people to prison in the first instance?
Perhaps the Deputy could table a parliamentary question on the matter.
The legislation, as it stands, only contains reference to advancement of fines.
I wish to raise two matters. I welcome the Taoiseach who is not usually present on Thursdays.
Report Stage of the Health Bill, which is currently before the relevant committee, is due to be taken in the House on Tuesday. In my view the time is appropriate to raise with the Taoiseach the fact that, as a result of discussions between the Whips, the debate on it is due to be guillotined at 10.30 p.m. While an extension of time has been provided, I ask the Taoiseach to reconsider the imposition of a guillotine on the legislation.
That is a matter for the committee.
I do not believe that a guillotine is appropriate to the conclusion of a very important Bill. Will the Taoiseach consider the position regarding the legislation in the interim? It might be too late to put this matter to him on Tuesday morning next.
The nurses (amendment) Bill is designed to implement the recommendations in the report of the Commission on Nursing. Will the Taoiseach advise if there is a specific date for its introduction in the House? Will he also indicate if the heads of the Bill will be published?
On the first matter, the Government Whip has already provided an extension of time.
The heads of the nurses (amendment) Bill, which was previously the nurses and midwives Bill, are expected to come before Government shortly. The Bill will be introduced next year.
Will the Taoiseach lift the guillotine?
The Government Whip has already provided extended time.
On 19 October last, the Taoiseach promised some action in respect of the broadcasting authority Bill. Unfortunately, that legislation continues to languish and there appear to be no signs of progress in respect of it. When will the Bill be introduced in order that the House might debate it?
It will be introduced next year.
That is a disappointment. It is a sign of slippage.
In view of the widespread discontent that exists in respect of the future of teaching in most of the universities, what is the current position regarding the higher education authority (amendment) Bill? A debate is taking place in the newspapers which suggests that the new Minister might be put under pressure to reward an incentive system for a narrow version of third level education which places no value on university teaching or the ethos of universities. It is time the House debated the Bill in order that we might discover the Government's policy in respect of third level education.
We will have the opportunity to debate the Bill in the new year.
And the interpretation of matters relating to universities will cease in the meantime.
Irish Ferries bosses want to replace permanent employees with exploited yellow pack labour. In doing so, they will no doubt abuse the employment permits regime.
Does the Deputy have a question appropriate to the Order of Business?
Will the employment permits Bill provide against this type of abuse? Workers are on strike about this matter today.
The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to answer his question on promised legislation.
I want the Taoiseach to comment on the issue as well.
The Bill is to be published shortly.
What is the position regarding the legislation promised in the Progressive Democrats's manifesto this year in respect of a waiver on refuse charges for all low income families, regardless of whether such charges are levied by private or public concerns?
There is no legislation in this area.
It was a firm commitment, like all the other promises.