Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 30 Jun 2005

Vol. 605 No. 5

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 15, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Risk Equalisation (Amendment) Scheme 2005; No. 16, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Health Insurance Act 1994 (Minimum Payment)(Amendment) Regulations 2005; No. 17, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Health Insurance Act 2001 (Open Enrolment) Regulations 2005; No. 19a, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 (Additional Institutions) Order 2005; No. 3, Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill 2004 — amendments from the Seanad; No. 4, Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Amendment) Bill 2005 — amendments from the Seanad; No. 4a, Grangegorman Development Agency Bill 2004 — amendments from the Seanad; No. 30, Health and Social Care Professionals Bill 2004 [Seanad] — Second Stage (resumed); and No. 31, Land Bill 2004 [Seanad] — Second Stage (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. and the sitting shall be suspended from 1 p.m. to 1.30 p.m.; Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 19a shall be decided without debate; the proceedings on No. 3 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 90 minutes and any amendments from the Seanad not disposed of shall be decided by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments to the Seanad amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Finance; the proceedings on No. 4 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 30 minutes and any amendments from the Seanad not disposed of shall be decided by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments to the Seanad amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Education and Science; the proceedings on No. 4a shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 90 minutes and any amendments from the Seanad not disposed of shall be decided by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments to the Seanad amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Education and Science; and the Dáil shall sit tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and shall adjourn not later than 3.30 p.m. and the business to be transacted shall be announced on the Order of Business in accordance with Standing Order 26 on that day.

Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed to?

Do I take it that the private notice question referred to earlier will be considered favourably?

I was going to propose to use the sos period to take it.

Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed to? Agreed.

Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 19a agreed?

It would be negligent of the House to pass the motions without debate given the extraordinary decision of the Minister for Health and Children not to introduce risk equalisation. Her decision is now being viewed as a capitulation to one insurer in the market. She has disregarded the advice of the Health Insurance Authority which was established by the House and is the expert body in this area. While the authority twice advised against risk equalisation, it has recommended on this occasion that it should be introduced to protect competition in the market. The Tánaiste had indicated she would proceed on that basis, but has now decided otherwise. There is no clear explanation as to why she is abandoning for the moment a safeguard to the common good and individual subscribers, many of whom are now worried about the inevitable costs which will result from her failure to make a decision.

I call for the allocation of an hour for a debate. We have spare time to permit proper debate and scrutiny of risk equalisation because the Driver Testing and Standards Authority Bill was concluded yesterday, even though time was provided for it today. The Tánaiste must take the good advice she was given by the body established by this House to consider the matter. She has not explained adequately why she has done this and she has linked the status of the VHI to the lack of decision for which she is responsible. There is no connection. It does not make sense. As the Irish Congress of Trade Unions has pointed out, the net effect of what she has done is to continue——

The Deputy has made her point. We cannot have a debate on it now. We are dealing with proposal No. 1.

——a windfall profit of €30 million to a British multinational that is subsidising its costs in Britain because of the high profits it is making here.

The Deputy has made her point.

I wish to propose an amendment to the Order of Business to ensure this matter is given public scrutiny so that people can know what is being done in their name.

The Deputy should give the words of her amendment.

I propose an amendment to the Order of Business to allow for a debate on these three motions lasting one hour.

I fully support that. I also believe we should have a debate on risk equalisation. It is a very important issue that relates to community rating in the private insurance market. Many Members would like to make known their views on this. Up to this point, most of the debate on the matter has been within the Joint Committee on Health and Children. I fully support a debate in the House on this issue.

The Green Party also seeks such a debate. This omnibus approach to dealing with motions does not acknowledge that not only do they come from different Departments and are the responsibility of different Ministers, they also do not even get the basic acknowledgement that they stand on their own merits. I ask that they would be taken separately in future.

The Deputy is wrong. Each of them will be taken separately. They will be put to the House separately.

Separately for the nod. I propose they be acknowledged as motions in their own right.

This is purely a motion that they be taken without debate.

That is what I mean — on the nod.

That is the only word for it.

I am more than happy to facilitate a debate on this matter. For the record, the Act that was brought in by Deputy Howlin when he was Minister for Health left discretion for this matter with the Minister for Health and Children. The Minister of the day used that discretion. I took the advice of the advisers that had been appointed — Mercer — one of the leading actuarial companies, not only in Ireland but in Europe in regard to this matter. I would be very happy to have a debate, perhaps immediately after the Order of Business, but if that is not convenient for the Deputies, I am prepared to facilitate a debate for one hour.

May we have an indication of how that debate will be structured and the number of speakers?

I suggest four 15 minute slots and a five minute wrap-up, if that is in order. That would amount to one hour and five minutes.

Is that agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 19a agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 3, Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill 2004 — amendments from the Seanad, agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 4, Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Amendment) Bill 2005 — amendments from the Seanad, agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 4a, Grangegorman Development Agency Bill 2004 — amendments from Seanad, agreed?

I wish to record again the objection to unnecessary guillotines. As was proven yesterday, we had a number of guillotines that were not required. It is very bad parliamentary practice to have guillotines on debates, especially when they are not needed, and yesterday proved that was the case.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 4a agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for the sitting and the business of the Dáil tomorrow agreed?

Am I to understand the Dáil will rise tomorrow and will not sit next week? Is there an Order of Business tomorrow morning?

Yes. Is the proposal for the sitting and business of the Dáil tomorrow agreed? Agreed.

I am pleased the Tánaiste has conceded to a special notice question in respect of a serious matter, as the Ceann Comhairle has confirmed, namely, the jailing of five persons for contempt of court. I hope that can be dealt with satisfactorily today to some extent.

Under the Constitution, the Government is responsible to the Dáil and one of the ways of exercising that accountability is through Leaders' Questions. Yesterday the Taoiseach, in response to questions in the House, indicated that from his perspective the National Aquatic Centre was damaged by wind alone. In respect of that Bill and in respect of his withholding critical information from the House, do I take it that the Tánaiste agrees with the Taoiseach that——

That does not arise on the Order of Business. Does the Deputy have a question on promised legislation?

——he was correct in withholding critical information from the House about an inherent design fault in that building.

There is no provision for Leaders' Questions today.

Has the Tánaiste discussed with the Taoiseach——

If the Deputy has a question appropriate to the Order of Business, we will hear it.

——a statement to the House confirming that his information to the House yesterday was wrong?

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

Is the Tánaiste prepared to discuss it with him because this is a matter of €62 million?

I ask Deputy Kenny to resume his seat.

Does the Tánaiste believe withholding critical information to the Dáil and giving false information to the House should not be acceptable in the House of Parliament?

The Deputy has made his point.

Does the Progressive Democrats Party intend to stand over this as well?

Maybe we could put the ducks that are in trouble into the aquatic centre.

They would be drowned.

They would be quite safe; there is no water there.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Rabbitte should be allowed to speak without interruption. He should say something appropriate to the Order of Business.

According to the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, everything was hunky dory.

Crisis, what crisis?

The Minister responded with a smile.

The Tánaiste undertook on 15 June to have the line Minister furnish me with the legal advice on the——

(Interruptions).

Deputy Rabbitte should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mobile advice is in operation at the moment.

I gather the information is on the way.

That was the ducks.

A Deputy

No, the Mayo five from Mountjoy.

I am waiting for the Minister to brief the Tánaiste. I know he does not read complex advice but all he has to do is transfer it to me. He does not have to read it. All he has to read is notes that say he should not forget his photo shoot at 12 noon. Reading complex briefs are not expected in that Department.

The Tánaiste is aware that there has been much goodwill towards her in her appointment as Minister for Health and Children, including from these benches. It is generally accepted that she has not had much good luck. As things get worse in the health service, before the House rises, can she offer the citizens any hope that matters will improve? In particular, what does one say in reply when one is asked what is the position of Government on the Hanly report?

Does the Deputy have a question appropriate to the Order of Business?

What is the position of Government on the Hanly report?

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

Is legislation promised?

It is a straightforward question.

It does not arise on the Order of Business.

A number of issues arose. When the Taoiseach was responding to Deputy Kenny in regard to the aquatic centre, he was quoting from a report done on behalf of CSID by Rohcon. Obviously these matters——

Rohcon did not do it.

I am reading a note as well.

This is misleading us further.

I ask Deputy Burton to allow the Tánaiste to continue. It just proves the point that we would be better if we stayed within Standing Order 26 on the Order of Business.

Kavanagh Mansfield and Partners did it. That is the name.

I am reading the same note the Taoiseach read.

In that case, her briefs are all wrong.

It advises me that Rohcon gave advice.

No wonder the centre is leaking.

In any event, advice was given to CSID, and it is from this that the Taoiseach was quoting. As the Deputy is aware, these contractual issues are now matters for the court.

That is why we could not have the tribunal——

Political accountability also.

The Government takes political responsibility for putting the 50-metre pool in place. Most Members wanted to have it in advance of the Special Olympics. The contractual arrangements are matters for others.

That was an indoor facility, however.

On Deputy Rabbitte's point, the Hanly report is essentially about creating regional autonomy and ensuring that consultants work on rosters in a team-like manner and discharge for each other. One hospital in Dublin, Blanchardstown Hospital, has already implemented the main recommendation of the report. It is Government policy to have regional self-sufficiency in so far as possible.

On whistleblowing——

So the Government is implementing the recommendations of the Hanly report in full.

We will have regional self-sufficiency so people will not have to come to the Dublin area——

That means self-sufficiency is equal to Hanly.

The Tánaiste, without interruption, please.

We will have——

What will happen to Naas Hospital?

We built Naas Hospital.

We will have the consultant manpower at regional level to provide a service.

What about the accident and emergency units?

We have no service in some specialties in many of the regions, which is not good enough.

What about the accident and emergency units?

Dump on Naas Hospital.

Sorry, Tánaiste, we cannot have a debate on this subject this morning. A short answer to the question should be given.

I am sorry. To respond to Deputy Rabbitte, when I informed the House there was legal advice, I was wrong. It was not legal advice but other advice. It was not actually the Attorney General's advice but official advice on the difficulties that would arise if the whistleblowing legislation applied to companies outside Ireland with a subsidiary in Ireland. I am told the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment intends to bring proposals to the Government on this matter in the next couple of weeks.

For the past three years, different Ministers and the Taoiseach have answered questions on the whistleblowers Bill on the basis that the law officer had advised that it was better to import it sectorally into various legislation. The Tánaiste undertook to furnish me with that advice. She now tells me there was never any such advice and that officials had advised her. This confirms my view of this Government that there are some Ministers who sign anything and accept any kind of advice.

The Deputy has made his point.

We are either told the truth in here or we are not.

The Ceann Comhairle has a very cavalier approach to the second most senior member of Government coming into the House and saying that advices that have been given——

Sorry, Deputy——

I am not talking about the Tánaiste in particular. Advices we have been given over three years on major legislation that has entered the public domain recently in terms of nursing homes, the Garda Síochána and other areas of Irish life were entirely contrary to the truth, yet the Ceann Comhairle grimaces at me and states he wants to move on.

The Chair is obliged to implement Standing Order 26.

Standing Orders.

If the Deputy wishes me to read it out, I will do so.

Will the Ceann Comhairle give some indication of the timescale involved if he agrees to a private notice question on the imprisoned Mayo men?

On promised legislation, might it be taken into account that the kind of tornado that took the roof off the aquatic centre will increase in intensity with climate change? The Building Control Bill, which refers to the building sector, which offers the greatest potential for energy efficiency, has been delayed since 2003. Unless the Tánaiste wants to lose a few more roofs, it might be a good idea to publish that legislation urgently.

The Tánaiste, on legislation.

When will it be published and will the Tánaiste use the opportunity to indicate whether the conditions for the prompt payment of those in the construction sector could also be updated and made more effective in that legislation?

The Tánaiste, on the legislation.

The prompt payment legislation is relatively new and there are no plans to update it. There are penalties in place if payments are not made in the timeframe specified in the legislation.

It is not working for the building sector.

Sorry, Deputy——

I asked when the Building Control Bill would be published. It was promised in 2003.

I understand it will be in theautumn session.

Which year?

Of this year.

On the National Aquatic Centre, I could paraphrase Rhett Butler and say, "Frankly, my dear, they don't give a damn."

We are laughing.

We are laughing at the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern.

We would not even laugh at the Minister any more. It is much too serious for that.

Deputy Kenny expects it.

The Minister is good at climbing trees.

Deputy Kenny without interruption, please.

Will the Tánaiste confirm that she has received information and findings from the Blood Transfusion Service in recent days that would warrant a public statement in the Dáil? If so, does she intend to make such a statement to the House before it rises for the summer recess?

On the National Aquatic Centre, it is important that we all know the difference between wind, hot air and tornadoes.

(Interruptions).

It is important that we know the difference between "indoor" and "open air".

There is plenty of hot air on the Government side.

I hope most members of the Government are on the roof the next time a tornado hits it.

From a weight point of view, they will not hold much down.

To be helpful regarding the last issue Deputy Kenny raised, I would like to talk to him privately thereon. I would be happy to make a public statement on the matter but a family is being spoken to today regarding the issue. I would appreciate if the Deputy understood that the sensitivities of the family must be respected before a public statement is made on the matter.

Will the Tánaiste extend the same invitation to me?

Will the Taoiseach and the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Gallagher, who responded to an Adjournment matter I raised the night before last on the National Aquatic Centre——

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

It does. Have they applied——

I call on Deputy James Breen.

——to make a statement on misleading the House over the National Aquatic Centre?

I call on Deputy James Breen.

Deputy Gallagher said the other night that the damage was——

I ask Deputy Burton to resume her seat. She is totally out of order.

——caused by wind. It was not caused by wind.

She is being disruptive in the House. I call on Deputy James Breen.

We want——

The Deputy cannot raise the matter in this fashion. I ask her to resume her seat.

——in accordance with——

I ask the Deputy to show respect for the House.

I have asked about this 20 times and they have consistently misinformed the House.

It is not appropriate on the Order of Business. The Deputy raised the matter on the Adjournment.

You are the Ceann Comhairle. It is your job to ensure that the Ministers do not tell untruths——

It is not my job. I call on Deputy James Breen.

——or mislead the House.

I ask the Deputy to resume her seat.

I asked if the Taoiseach——

I ask the Deputy to resume her seat.

——and the Minister of State made a request to make a statement to the House.

I call on Deputy James Breen.

Have they made a request to the Ceann Comhairle to make a statement to the House?

We are moving on to the next item of business. I call Deputy James Breen.

Have they made a request?

We will proceed to No. 15, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann——

The ducks are coming home to roost.

A Cheann Comhairle, now that we are about to have a long summer holiday, what advice can the Tánaiste offer the hundreds of people in the hospitals and at home suffering from the MRSA superbug? She has been blatantly arrogant in refusing the victims——

That does not arise on the Order of Business. That question has been raised before and was ruled out of order on the Order of Business.

The Ceann Comhairle should have the manners to listen to me for a minute.

I suggest the Deputy find another way to raise the matter.

Have a small bit of manners, a Cheann Comhairle, and hear me through, please.

We will proceed to No. 15, motion re proposed approval——

If, when I come back into this House in October, the Tánaiste has not agreed to meeting the victims, I will not walk out. I will have to be carried out of the House. I have suffered from the MRSA superbug. One should look at my hand. I cannot raise my arm above my head because of it. The Tánaiste ignores the victims.

We will proceed to No. 15——

How long more can she ignore it? There has been blatant arrogance on the part of the Government.

——motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the risk equalisation (amendment) scheme 2005. Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 19a are being discussed together.

Barr
Roinn