Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005

Vol. 611 No. 1

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 10, motion re leave to introduce Supplementary Estimates [Votes 6, 13, 20, 26, 27, 30 and 35]; No. 11, motion re referral of Supplementary Estimates [Votes 6, 13, 20, 26, 27, 30 and 35] to select committee; No. 12, motion re supplementary statement of expenditure for Houses of the Oireachtas; No. 13, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann for a Council framework decision on the European evidence warrant for obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters — back from committee; No. 14, motion re membership of committee; No. 26, Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Bill 2004 [Seanad]; and No. 27, Employees (Provision of Information and Consultation) Bill 2005 [Seanad].

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 10 and, subject to the agreement of No. 10, No. 11 — referral to select committee — and Nos. 12, 13 and 14 shall be decided without debate and any divisions demanded on Nos. 10 and 11 shall be taken forthwith; in the event of the motion to adjourn the Dáil pursuant to Standing Order 31 to discuss the Irish Ferries issue being proceeded with, Dáil Éireann shall appoint 5.30 p.m. as the time at which the said motion shall be moved, and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the speeches shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 60 minutes, and subject to (ii), the speeches shall be confined to the main spokesperson for the Fine Gael Party, a Minister or Minister of State, and to the main spokespersons for the Labour Party and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order, and which shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; (ii) members may share time; and (iii) immediately following the speeches, a Minister or Minister of State shall take questions for a period of 30 minutes, whereupon the motion "that the Dáil do now adjourn" shall be considered to have lapsed and the order of the day shall resume thereafter; and Private Members' business shall be No. 40, Climate Change Targets Bill 2005 — Second Stage, and the proceedings on Second Stage thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 30 November 2005.

There are three proposals to be put to the House. The proposal for dealing with items 10 to 14, motions re Supplementary Estimates, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann for a Council framework decision on the European evidence warrant, and motion re membership of committee, is that they be taken without debate. Is that agreed?

It is not agreed. On the proposed approval by the Dáil of a Council framework decision on the European evidence warrant, as I have objected in the past to all such measures arising out of The Hague programme, we object not only to the motion but also to the fact that we are being asked again to take this without debate. That is absolutely unacceptable. This measure has been discussed twice in the past two months in committee yet, despite the fact that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has acknowledged that a number of issues of substance are still ongoing and under continual consideration, on both occasions the committee voted through both measures arising from the European arrest warrant issue.

The Hague programme is being introduced in what I would describe as an anti-democratic and authoritarian fashion. Unless we get the opportunity to discuss it properly here in its real context, measure after measure will go through the House in this way without debate. Issues of concern not just to me and the Sinn Féin Party but to many people, which should be of concern to everyone, are not being addressed substantively. We need to take on board what the Minister has said in this regard, that points have been shown to be, and are, in need of review. We are asking that this matter be addressed here. I oppose the proposal to, once again, proceed without debate on this measure.

Question, "That the proposal for dealing with items 10 to 14 be agreed to", put and declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with the arrangements for taking Standing Order 31 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business agreed? Agreed.

The last time a Standing Order 31 item was allowed was in 2001 and it related to the subject of foot and mouth disease. Is it because of the motion on climate change that you allowed this today, a Cheann Comhairle?

Before the Deputy continues, it might be an appropriate time for the Chair to comment. I presume the Deputy was referring to the motion of no confidence that was mooted in the House last week.

I never mentioned a motion of no confidence.

That was a compliment.

This has been mentioned and I think I should comment on it now, if the Deputy would like to resume his seat.

He is rattled.

The motion of no confidence was mentioned before and this calls for some comment on my part, lest in not doing so the position of the Chair, which includes both the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, is misconstrued. A motion of no confidence, while perhaps a significant step in its own right, is a substantive motion and procedurally is the correct way to proceed. On being elected to the Chair both the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and I made a declaration that we would execute our respective offices in an impartial and fair manner. I am entirely satisfied that I have presided over proceedings in accordance with the rules of Standing Orders laid down by the Members of this House and the precedents established by my illustrious predecessors since the foundation of the State.

I am now extending an invitation to any leader of any party who may have difficulty with my rulings to come to my office and I will be glad to clarify issues of concern.

I presume there is no right of reply.

That was the reply.

There were occasions in the past during the Ceann Comhairle's tenure of ministerial office when his illustrious predecessors in the Chair drifted away, shall we say, during the course of the debate. A careful perusal of the 46 years experience of the last Ceann Comhairle shows that he took a more pragmatic approach to issues that affected Deputies.

Does the Deputy have a question on the Order of Business?

Perhaps because he comes from a little county with a more northerly climate, he reacts more swiftly to events in the House.

Climate change.

I think we could settle this without any great difficulties.

If the Deputy has a question on the Order of Business we will hear it, but if not I will call Deputy Rabbitte.

I have three questions. First, will the Minister for Finance indicate what progress has been made in the case of the decent woman who has been outside the gates of Leinster House for a number of weeks in regard to the redress institutions? She has a very strong case to make.

Second, in May of this year and repeatedly since, I asked the Taoiseach about the implementation of the Children Act 2001. Sections 96, 111, 112, 155 to 132, inclusive, and 137 to 139, inclusive, deal with parental supervision, community sanctions, mentor-family support, day centre orders and so on. It is a complex Bill and I know that the Minister of State is dealing with it, but perhaps the Minister for Finance can bring us up to date on that matter. The Taoiseach wrote to me about it in May and referred to it on a number of occasions since then. If the Minister does not have the details today perhaps he will send them on to me before the House rises for the Christmas recess.

Third, in respect of health matters, the pharmacy No. 1 Bill and the pharmacy No. 2 Bill are listed for 2006. Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England have chief pharmacists operating at the highest level, advising the Government and regional executives — they are proactive in advising the Government on pharmacy policy — but we do not have such a system and the post of chief pharmacist has not been filled.

I call the Minister on forthcoming legislation.

Will the Minister indicate what is happening with regard to those two Bills?

I am sure that issue can be resolved when the Bills are brought before the House, or beforehand, by referring the question to the Tánaiste concerning the current status of that post.

I will have to revert to the Deputy concerning the specific issue of the Children Act as the details are not available to me at the moment.

As regards the person to whom the Deputy referred in his first question, unfortunately the State did not have a role in monitoring that institution and therefore it could not be included in the redress institutions. The Minister for Education and Science spoke directly to the lady on that basis.

She shook hands with her when she was shopping.

I do not know if a date has been set to turn on the lights on the Christmas tree, but I promise to see you, a Cheann Comhairle, under the lights on the front lawn and maybe we can share an appropriate seasonal drink.

Is Deputy Rabbitte buying?

Does the Deputy have a question on the Order of Business?

May I ask the Minister for Finance, as the acting head of Government——

No, I am not.

——whether, after his announcement this morning of the €8,000 disregard for child minders in the budget next week, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is still in the Cabinet, or whether steps are being taken——

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

I have seen Ministers resign for far less than leaking a budget secret.

The Deputy is out of order. I ask him to put a question which is appropriate to the Order of Business.

Does the Unfair Dismissals Act apply to the Minister, Deputy McDowell?

Probably.

May I try that one? Deputy Cowen is the Minister for Finance, but the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, decided this morning to announce the budget as it relates to his Department. Is there a precedent for that? What is the Minister's response to it?

We are on the Order of Business, we are not dealing with questions to the Minister for Finance. The Deputy is well aware of Standing Orders.

I am asking him as the acting head of Government.

He is not the acting head.

Does the Deputy have a question?

The Deputy should not worry about titles.

I have a certain sympathy with the Minister for Finance concerning the Progressive Democrats. If in doubt, leave them out is also my approach.

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

I am trying to ask the Minister for Finance whether in this particular respect he agrees with them.

The Deputy is limiting his options.

As usual, the Deputy is a decade behind the curve. On the matter raised, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform simply outlined a number of options that are in the public domain and are under consideration by the Government. He did not indicate any specific decision that would be taken as none will be finalised until I rise from my seat on 7 December.

The Minister for Finance should not let him get away with it.

The Minister should not drop the matter because his colleague mentioned it. We proposed and agree with it.

The Minister should haul him in.

I know the Government is not used to the scenario of Ministers resigning but the chairman of the National Safety Council, Mr. Eddie Shaw, resigned. Regarding promised legislation to deal with road safety, the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, said publicly in newspapers he would introduce legislation to establish the road safety authority by the end of 2005. Can the Minister for Finance indicate whether this can be taken as legislation in its own right or is it part of legislation we have notice of, such as the roads miscellaneous provisions Bill, which is due by 2006? It was promised for 2004 and 2005. Given the gravity of the development of Mr. Shaw's resignation, will the Minister indicate whether the Government will bring forward this legislation or will a debate on road safety be allowed in the meantime? It is predicted that 380 people will die on our roads this year with thousands more traumatised and bereaved.

We cannot discuss what might happen.

We should discuss it.

We cannot discuss it until it appears on the Order of Business.

Will the Government allow a debate on the matter and promise this legislation, which the Minister for Transport has promised outside the House?

I ask the Deputy to resume his seat and allow the Minister to answer his question.

The roads miscellaneous provisions Bill will not address road safety matters as such but will amend legislation relating to roads, the National Roads Authority and traffic. The heads of the Bill are expected in early 2006.

What about the Minister for Transport's promise to have legislation by the end of the year to establish a road safety authority? Is he to be believed?

I ask the Deputy to allow Deputy Naughten to speak.

No legislation is on the list.

The Minister for Transport is flying another kite.

He is not flying kites. The Driver Testing and Standards Authority Bill 2004 will lead to a specific fully resourced body for driver safety and testing. We have established a traffic corps and provided investment in new and improved roads.

It is not the same.

It is a different Bill.

We introduced penalty points on four offences and are the first ever Government to have a dedicated road safety strategy.

That was withdrawn.

There are obviously issues around random breath testing, which is being pursued and dealt with by the Departments of Transport and Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

We will ask the Minister for State at the Department of Transport, Deputy Callely. The Minister was telling lies.

The Deputy should withdraw his statement that the Minister was lying.

The Deputy did not say the Minister lied in the House. He said the Minister lied outside the House.

He was telling fibs outside the House.

The Deputy should withdraw his comment or leave the House.

The Minister was not lying. He did not tell the truth.

Does he know the difference?

Regarding secondary legislation and the animal medicines regulations, which the Minister for Agriculture and Food signed on Monday, 21 November 2005, they have not been laid before the House or put into the Oireachtas Library as of yet. The Minister for Finance may need to get back to me if he does not have the answer with him.

I will reply to the Deputy and ensure that whatever must be complied with is complied with.

I will even get the Deputy a photocopy.

I join with Deputy Kenny in his appeal to the Minister for Finance and the Government to take on board the case of Ms Marie Therese O'Loughlin who is outside the gates of Leinster House.

This does not arise on the Order of Business.

It may not but I am nevertheless joining in the appeal. I do not doubt that the Government will hear this appeal repeatedly. Has the Government agreed the heads of the National Development Finance Agency Bill, which is promised?

The heads of the Bill have not been agreed. We have arranged for the National Development Finance Agency to take on the extra responsibility of PPPs on a non-statutory basis until such time as statutory provisions are brought on stream. It does not hinder the NDFA in pursuing the policy initiative as announced by the Government.

The sale of alcohol Bill is expected to be published in mid-2006. Would it be possible to bring this forward to early 2006?

I am informed it is due in the middle of next year. It is a matter for discussion between the Whips as to whether it will be ready before then and if it could be taken sooner than anticipated.

Does the Government have plans to review Irish energy prices in light of the fact that Irish industry is charged the highest prices for energy in all of Europe?

This is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

It is as the energy miscellaneous provisions Bill will cover this area. I am giving the Minister and the Government an opportunity to elucidate further.

I understand the Bill will be published in this session and the Deputy will have a full opportunity to discuss the matter.

I know but time is running out.

Barr
Roinn