Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 29 Sep 2005

Vol. 606 No. 2

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 14a, motion re referral to joint committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2007-13 the specific programme “Civil Justice” as part of the general programme “Fundamental Rights and Justice”; No. 15, motion re membership of committee; and No. 6, Diplomatic Relations and Immunities (Amendment) Bill 2005 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. 14a and 15 shall be decided without debate. Private Members’ business shall be No. 46, motion re proposed new prison site at Thornton Hall, County Dublin, to be taken immediately after the Order of Business and to conclude after 90 minutes.

There is one proposal to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 14a and 15, motion of referral to joint committee re civil justice programme and motion re membership of committee agreed?

It is not agreed. Sinn Féin is opposed to No. 14a being taken without debate, and being referred to committee without debate. We are in the first week of a new term and this is one of a series of motions relating to justice and home affairs that have been referred to committee without debate throughout all of the preceding terms.

I understand the import of these issues is not properly realised by many people and it is important that we have a full debate on all matters that refer to civil justice issues. They are part of a wider programme of fundamental rights and justice. The objective is to create a European area of justice in civil and commercial matters. All of this is occurring in the absence of harmonisation of fundamental rights. We believe it is essential to have a full participatory debate with all of the information on the floor of the House, not only on this matter but on all related issues because they affect every citizen.

Question, "That the proposal for dealing with Nos. 14a and 15, motion of referral to joint committee re civil justice programme and motion re membership of committee be agreed,” put and declared carried.

I wish to raise two health issues with the Tánaiste. Deputy Kenny yesterday referred to the apparent lengthy delay we now face to introduce legislation to regulate standards in private nursing homes. We had an extraordinary series of revelations with regard to nursing homes——

The Deputy should confine his questions to legislation.

I wish to make the point that this House will become irrelevant if it works itself up into a steam on the need to address an issue such as this, gets promises from the Taoiseach and Tánaiste, as I have documented here, that there would be legislation on this at the end of summer and debate on it now, and then finds it is not on any list.

The Deputy should ask questions on legislation.

There is an issue here. The Tánaiste and Taoiseach made solemn promises to the House. Not only did they promise it would be done, but that it would be done in the autumn and we would get to grips with what everyone recognised as a scandal. We need an explanation for the delay.

My other question is what legislation will we see on the future development of hospitals. The taxpayer has been asked to treble health spending on the promise that waiting lists and chaos in accident and emergency departments would end. Now the proposal appears——

The Deputy should ask questions on promised legislation only.

Yes, the promised legislation——

What legislation?

The Minister's idea is that tax relief for private hospitals will be the basis for expansion in the health sector. We understand 16 such hospitals are waiting, the average contribution from the taxpayer——

It does not arise.

It does. The Minister for Finance promised this issue would be reviewed under tax——

I do not wish to take up the time of the House reading Standing Order 26 but if it is necessary the Chair will do so to facilitate the Deputy. The Deputy is entitled to ask questions on promised legislation.

It is promised legislation.

The Deputy is not entitled to debate what might be in the legislation. The Deputy has asked a question and it falls on the Tánaiste to answer it.

May I finish asking the question?

No, Deputy. You cannot debate what might be in the legislation. We would be here all day.

I am trying to put the question. Taxpayers will have to fund 40% of the cost of these new private hospitals——

That does not arise on the Order of Business. The Chair has ruled on the matter.

——and the Dáil must have an opportunity to scrutinise those decisions. They cannot be simply announced outside the House when we have not had an opportunity to scrutinise them.

We cannot believe any announcements.

A strong focus of Government actions this autumn, both in terms of the Estimates and the budget, will be on care of the elderly issues. The legislation is not on the A list because the Bill has not yet been cleared by the Government.

Another broken promise.

To answer Deputy Bruton's question, considerable work is being done in the Department of Health and Children on this matter. We have an inspectorate but it does not have statutory backing and the idea is to put that on a statutory footing.

On the second matter, that does not require legislation. The idea is to create up to 1,000 additional public beds——

They closed 60 beds in Galway.

——by taking private beds out of the public hospital system.

Will the legislation be brought forward this autumn?

We do not need legislation on that. The Deputy will see a good deal of legislation brought forward this autumn on nursing home related issues.

Will it be later this year?

I cannot answer that question until it is cleared by the Government.

Will we have it this autumn?

There will be a lot of legislation on this general area this autumn, yes.

The answer is "no".

We had the extraordinary spectacle last night of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform ranting and railing against RTE and making unveiled threats——

That is not extraordinary at all.

——and allegations against reporters and producers in RTE. Will the Tánaiste indicate if it is the Minister's intention to make a complaint to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission?

That does not arise on the Order of Business. The Deputy can submit a question on the matter. There will be an opportunity for the Deputy to speak on the matter very shortly.

The purpose of this was to deflect from the way the Minister spent €30 million on a farm worth €6 million.

Deputy, it does not arise on the Order of Business. As I pointed out to Deputy Bruton, I do not want to take up the time of the House reading Standing Order 26 to Deputies who know it off by heart. I ask the Deputy to stay within the Standing Order.

I will stay within it. We already had the spectacle of the Progressive Democrats representative on the RTE Authority making complaints about the Eddie Hobbs programme.

That does not arise, Deputy. I call Deputy Sargent.

Does the Tánaiste believe, like Fianna Fáil, that RTE is an arm of Government?

Deputy Rabbitte, I ask you to resume your seat and please show respect for the House.

A Cheann Comhairle, would you send the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to buy a bottle of wine in the local wine shop in Ranelagh? He paid €30 million for a farm worth €6 million——

Deputy, I ask you to respect the House and your colleagues in this House, and obey the Standing Order.

——and what we get is a series of threats against RTE.

I call Deputy Sargent.

Does the Tánaiste stand over the unveiled threats——

The Chair has ruled on the matter, Deputy Rabbitte, and I ask you to resume your seat.

——against RTE for highlighting a legitimate issue of public interest?

Deputy Rabbitte, I ask you to resume your seat. I call Deputy Sargent.

I will deal with that matter after the Order of Business. With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I wish to thank Members and staff in the House for their expressions of sympathy on the very sudden death of the General Secretary of the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, Dermot Hamilton. I am sure the House will join me in offering condolences to his wife, Patricia, and his teenage daughter, Kelly. Members of the House will understand that the loss of a general secretary to any political party is traumatic but to lose a general secretary in his 40s due to a sudden heart attack on his way into work is very difficult to come to terms with on a personal as well as a political level. I thank the Members of the House once again. I would like to remember Dermot Hamilton and the pressures that are on all of us involved in political life. Our thoughts are with his family at this time.

I want to raise a matter on promised legislation which the Tánaiste may know more about than most given that the area in question is close to her own base. I realise the Abbotstown Sports Campus Development Authority Bill is on the pink list but this is the fifth time it has been promised for this session. Is there any credibility in having it on the pink list given that it is the fifth time to be in that position? Is there any light at the end of that particular tunnel?

On my own behalf and on behalf of the Government, I express my sympathy to the Green Party on the sudden death of its General Secretary, Dermot Hamilton, and to his wife and daughter. I did not know Mr. Hamilton personally but his premature and untimely death is a huge loss to his family and to the Green Party, whose members have all our sympathy in that regard.

The intention is to bring forward the legislation the Deputy referred to this session.

A Cheann Comhairle, I am pleased that you have given me the opportunity to sympathise on behalf of the Fine Gael Party with the Green Party's severe loss and what must be a tragedy for Mr. Hamilton's family. To lose someone at any stage in their life is always a tragedy but to lose someone so young is very difficult to take and our sympathies are with the Green Party and with the family.

I join with colleagues in the House in communicating, as I have done privately, the condolences of the Labour Party and myself to the Green Party and to the family of Dermot Hamilton on his premature and untimely death.

I call Deputy Hogan on the Order of Business.

Will the Tánaiste indicate when we will see the National Consumer Agency Bill?

The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment mentioned that legislation in the House yesterday. I understand it is to be brought forward next year.

I call Deputy Liz O'Donnell.

Do you want to repeat that, a Cheann Comhairle?

My apologies, Deputy McManus.

Do not apologise, a Cheann Comhairle. I am delighted to be mistaken for somebody so much younger than myself.

Does the Tánaiste believe it is acceptable to tell us that a good deal of legislation on the elderly will be brought forward when the programme of legislation before us does not indicate that will be the case?

It is totally misleading.

It is misleading. We have a programme of legislation which refers to one Bill relating to the elderly. It concerns nursing home subventions, which is welcome, but that is all we have. Yesterday, I raised the very important issue of the repayments to elderly people who were robbed of money by the State over a lengthy period and who are getting older by the day. The Taoiseach was characteristically vague yesterday as to what would happen to that legislation. It is the Tánaiste's responsibility. Do we have a guarantee from her, notwithstanding that it is absent from the section on legislation, that this legislation will come before the House this term to ensure people can get their money back to which they are entitled?

I said earlier that there would be a huge focus from the Government's perspective on care of the elderly issues, many of which do not require legislation. On the specifics about the repayments, the legislation will be published next year. It is major legislation.

It states 2005 in this programme.

Allow the Tánaiste to answer the question.

I ask the Deputy to be patient and listen.

We were told yesterday it would be 2005. The Tánaiste is now telling us it will be 2006. Do we tear up this programme?

Deputy McManus, I ask you to allow the Tánaiste to reply.

The list issued yesterday states the legislation is due in 2005.

Deputy McManus, the Chair has ruled on the matter. The Tánaiste was called to answer a question. The Chair insists that the Tánaiste is allowed answer the question.

The Tánaiste is now saying it will be 2006. Will it be 2007 tomorrow? Is that what we will hear tomorrow?

No, Deputy. We are correcting something that was illegal for 29 years. A total of 15,000 cases have been assessed already. It is not the case that no work has been done but as I told the House and the Deputy previously, we have gone to tender to get a company with experience in mass claims to assist in the design of the scheme. That process is almost concluded but because of public procurement and timing issues, it was not possible to conclude it earlier. That company is very much involved in assisting us with a view to ensuring the legislation is appropriate for what we are trying to do.

Keep the poor people away from the money.

We are not wasting time in assessing the cases; it is happening as we speak.

The charge is not that the Tánaiste is wasting time but that she is misleading the House.

Deputy McManus should resume her seat. Deputy John Perry is being called.

It is mammoth legislation and I do not believe it will go through the House this year but it will be published this year.

If money was owed to the State there would be interest and penalties charged and this is the same issue. Concerning current charges what is the position of current patients?

We cannot have a debate this morning. If the Deputy wants me to read out Standing Order 26 I will do so. The Deputy knows the ways in which he can raise the matter, including submitting a question to the Minister or raising the matter on the Adjournment.

This is outrageous. There are people waiting for refunds. The Tánaiste promised the refunds would be made. It is now one year later.

Deputy Perry is being disorderly.

When will the Government bring forward legislation to permit Irish military personnel to train abroad, as referred to by the Minister for Defence during the summer? The sad passing of Mr. Hamilton reminds me that there is a report on sudden cardiac arrest commissioned by the Minister for Health and Children. When will this be published?

I will communicate with the Deputy concerning the second matter. With regard to the first matter there is no specific legislation promised.

Are there any proposals for this area?

As the subject of care of the elderly is being debated, a development I welcome, and given the severe cutbacks in the home help service, directly and adversely affecting the elderly, and given that disabled persons grants have been effectively abolished, will the new package announced in The Irish Times require legislation or is it more pre-election bluster?

I do not believe it will. Concerning home help services, the figure increased from £13 million in 1997 to €120 million this year.

The Tánaiste is misleading the House.

I am not misleading the House. The figure is €120 million this year.

That is a lie.

The Deputy should withdraw the word lie.

I withdraw the word lie but the Tánaiste is misleading the House deliberately. The home help services are cut back severely.

The Deputy should withdraw misleading the House deliberately.

Withdrawn.

I join with other speakers in extending sympathy to our colleagues in the Green Party and to the family of the late Dermot Hamilton on his untimely death.

I refer to two matters that the Taoiseach was unable to answer yesterday. Will the Tánaiste clarify if legislation is necessary regarding a redress board for those women mutilated in the obstetric and gynaecology unit at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda? If legislation is necessary will the Tánaiste indicate how quickly it will be introduced given the urgency in that case?

Concerning GP-only medical cards, will the Tánaiste indicate if it will be necessary to introduce legislation to facilitate——

The Deputy can only ask questions on promised legislation. If Deputies were to ask about what legislation they might like to see we would be here all day.

It might make the House relevant.

I am asking if legislation will be necessary to introduce the GP only medical cards. Some 200,000 people have been promised these and repeated timeframes have passed.

Concerning the second point the answer is no. Regarding the first matter I am awaiting the report of Judge Harding-Clarke, which we will have soon. When that report is available a decision will be taken on how to proceed.

I refer to important legislation about which the Ceann Comhairle will be anxious to know. This concerns implementing the commitment of the programme for Government to consolidate the Minerals Development Act and to update legislation in line with reform proposals of delivering better Government. We are all anxiously awaiting the deliverance of better government. When is that Bill likely to surface? It is pertinent at this time and covers a wide area, including delivering better government.

As the Deputy can read from his notes, the Mineral Development Bill will be brought forward next year.

The Government will definitely be overworked next year.

There are 14 Bills for this year and the remainder for next year.

Why was no explanatory memorandum given with a Bill listed for consideration today, namely the Diplomatic Relations Immunities (Amendment) Bill? This legislation has been held up for 15 years. It is a response to a Supreme Court decision some 20 years ago. It took 15 years to draft this short Bill yet there is no explanatory memorandum to explain the context of the Vienna Convention, immunity and specifically the Supreme Court decision. It seems a sloppy presentation given the time available.

I accept it is usual not to have an explanatory memorandum but there are times we do not have explanatory memoranda with legislation. I am sure the Deputy is more than familiar with the legislation and I do not know why the Department chose not to provide an explanatory memorandum in this case.

I was aiming for a higher standard.

The concerns of the Deputy will be communicated.

All sides of the House wish to see the provision of strategic national projects speeded up. When this Dáil began its first autumn session three years ago a strategic national infrastructure Bill was promised within six months. Three years later we have not seen that Bill and we are promised it will be delivered in early 2006. How can we have confidence in this Government if a Bill to speed up the provision of infrastructure is still promised three years later?

It will be brought forward in the form of a planning Bill next year.

The Tánaiste has said that six times.

The question I intended asking concerned the national consumer strategy agency Bill but Deputy Hogan has already raised this. This agency was the main plank of the Government response to the rip-off Ireland analysis. Can the Tánaiste put pressure on her colleague to bring this in before the end of the year, as promised, so the agency can be put on a statutory basis?

If an agency could do all that Deputy Howlin expects——

I was quoting the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin.

Competition policy and other matters to be dealt with this autumn will have a major impact. The establishment of the agency on a statutory basis will take until next year.

Next year again.

Concerning the long-promised charities Bill the Government suggests it cannot indicate when it will be published. Does this mean the Government has abandoned this most important legislation?

No it does not. For many years Governments have been promising legislation in this area. We will have legislation in this area as soon as possible.

Did the Tánaiste mislead the House in reply to Deputy Rabbitte? He asked if the Hanly report would be implemented and she said it would. The Taoiseach came to Clare and said the Hanly report would not be implemented by this Government. Did the Tánaiste mislead the House in her reply to Deputy Rabbitte? This also refers to a parliamentary reply to me when she said the Hanly report would be implemented and the Taoiseach said it would not be.

I suggest the Deputy submit a further question to the Minister for Health and Children. It is not appropriate on the Order of Business as we cannot have an omnibus question time on the Order of Business.

Can a Minister mislead the House and not answer? Did the Tánaiste mislead the House?

The Deputy has made his point and the Chair has suggested a means of pursuing this.

He is entitled to an answer.

The Tánaiste is the Minister for Health and Children. What is the answer to the question?

It does not arise on the Order of Business.

It arises for the people of Ennis. A Cheann Chomhairle, you would not permit us to raise anything in the House if you had your way.

It does not arise on the Order of Business. The Chair has ruled on the matter.

The Taoiseach is saying one thing and the Tánaiste is saying another.

We must move on to the next business if the Deputy wants to disrupt the business of the House.

On the case of Dean Lyons, the innocent man who confessed to a murder he could not have committed when in Garda custody, was charged, had the charges withdrawn with someone else subsequently confessing to the same murder, will the Tánaiste say if there is any truth in the story in today's edition of The Irish Times that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is proposing to set up an inquiry under the commission of inquiry legislation of 2004 but he cannot get the money from the Minister for Finance?

It is not a question of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister for Finance being in any disagreement in regard to this matter. However, if a commission is to be established, resources must be made available so it can succeed. That process of discussion between the Ministers is under way.

Arising from the Tánaiste's reply to Deputy Cuffe about the infrastructure Bill, I understand the national development plan is currently being reviewed. Which will come first, the review of the national development plan or the publication of the crucial infrastructure Bill?

I am not in a position to say. I do not know.

The Deputy is the Tánaiste.

Yes, but I am not the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I do not know when the Minister will bring the Bill before us for approval.

In light of the recent legal experience with which the Government had to contend, is it intended to put the process of public private partnerships on a statutory basis to avoid the kind of mistakes that are made in other areas?

I am not aware of proposals for legislation in that area.

In light of what my colleague, Deputy Costello, raised about the Dean Lyons case, can I ask the Tánaiste if the Minister will set up an inquiry under the same legislation in respect of the Rossiter case in Clonmel?

The Minister has already made an announcement in that regard.

He made an entirely inadequate announcement.

The Deputy may not be happy with the inquiry he is putting in place.

It is important to remind the House that he made the same mistake on the Dean Lyons case until he had to backtrack on it. He will also have to backtrack on the Rossiter case.

It does not arise on the Order of Business.

Why has the alcohol products Bill been scrapped? If the voluntary code about which the Taoiseach spoke yesterday does not work, and I suspect it will not work, will it be re-introduced? As I said yesterday, it is the biggest problem we face in terms of a drugs problem.

The reason it is not proceeding is because voluntary codes have been agreed.

If the voluntary codes do not work——

That is a different matter. We will examine the possibility of legislation.

That is disgraceful. The Minister has sold out to the alcohol industry in this case. It is disgraceful for the Minister for Health and Children to operate in that way.

What is the status of the ombudsman (amendment) Bill, which was first promised on the legislative programme of October 2002 to be introduced in 2003? In the recent programme, it is supposed to be published by late 2006. Is it the Government's intention to introduce this Bill? Perhaps it is just to fill up the space on the legislative programme each time it is published.

The intention is late next year.

I would like to clarify the position in regard to the 2 million home help hours that have gone missing and about which the Minister has had difficulty giving me an answer in the past ten weeks. These regulations cover the Health Bill 2004. The Taoiseach said yesterday that these regulations will be introduced this year but I believe he was referring to different legislation. The regulations covering the parliamentary unit were supposed to come under the Health Bill 2004. It might give us some hope of getting answers to the simple questions asked. The Tánaiste said she would give me the figures in July.

They are imminent.

It is an improvement on next year.

I hope I will get a straight answer to this question. The Tánaiste said private beds will be taken out of public hospitals. Does that mean legislation will be introduced to give the consultants a different contract in private hospitals and will these hospitals be built on public ground?

Legislation is not required for the replacement of 1,000 private beds in public hospitals by separate facilities on-site.

Has the Tánaiste got legal advice on the matter?

Yes. The Deputy is correct that there must be a new consultant contract, one which is appropriate to the needs of 2005 and beyond.

I am sure they will agree, given that the Minister has given them half the hospitals for nothing.

The Deputy's opposition to this issue is extraordinary because at the moment private patients have access to public beds. I want to change this but the Deputy's party is opposed to it.

We are opposed to a two-tier system.

Barr
Roinn