Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 4 May 2006

Vol. 618 No. 5

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 11a, motion on referral to joint committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 (Prescribed Bodies) Regulations 2006; No. 11b, motion on arrangements to facilitate Europe Day; No. 17, National Sports Campus Development Authority Bill 2006 — Second Stage, resumed; and No. 18, Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2006 — Second Stage, resumed.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders or the Order of the Dáil of 3 May 2006 that Nos. 11a and 11b shall be taken before Private Members’ business and shall be decided without debate. Private Members’ business shall be No. 48, motion on oil and gas sources of energy in Ireland, resumed, to be taken immediately after the Order of Business and to conclude after 90 minutes.

There is one proposal to put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 11a and 11b without debate agreed?

In respect of No. 11a, I welcome the addition of another 137 bodies to the remit of the Freedom of Information Act. What date will this become applicable? Is it the Government’s intention to restore the Act to its original form? Its operation is very restrictive because of changes brought about by the Government. Will an extra person be appointed to the county enterprise boards to be in charge of freedom of information requests? Will that work be done by individuals already employed on the boards? The boards are very much strapped for cash.

In matters not pertaining to security, does the Government intend to have the Garda Síochána come under the remit of the Act?

Does the Tánaiste accept that it is the depth of the Freedom of Information Act that the House needs to debate rather than referring it to committee? The committee already has had considerable discussions with the Information Commissioner who has expressed her concerns about the operation of the Act. The Council of Europe has indicated fees for freedom of information requests are undemocratic. On those grounds, could the Government provide time for discussion of this wider issue on the floor of the House instead of constantly referring motions of this type to committee?

While welcoming the proposition to ensure there was a further list of bodies brought forward — the Garda Síochána has been mentioned but neither do the vocational education committees come under the remit of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 — can the Tánaiste indicate when it is intended to progress the inclusion of the VECs and a number of other bodies highlighted at the Committee on Finance and the Public Service in recent months?

They come into effect when the Minister signs the regulations subsequent to the approval of the Oireachtas. I will clarify that if it is not correct. The general rule is that an officer in the agency or Department is appointed by the Secretary General or CEO as the freedom of information officer. I do not know if additional resources are required for every entity but it is the responsibility of the management in these organisations to appoint an officer who will be responsible for freedom of information matters.

The Government has not extended freedom of information to the Garda Síochána and I do not know if there are plans to do so. It is difficult to separate security issues from operational issues in the Garda Síochána but the matter will be discussed in due course.

Is the proposal for taking No. 11a without debate agreed?

I asked questions to which the Tánaiste has not responded on the concerns of the Information Commissioner and the opinion of the Council of Europe that fees charged under the freedom of information regime are undemocratic.

This does not arise. This a procedural question about taking the issue without debate.

Why does the Tánaiste only answer the Fine Gael and Labour Party representatives? Does she not recognise any other parties?

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 11a agreed? Agreed.

It is a gross discourtesy on the part of the Tánaiste.

Deputy O'Dowd contacted the freedom of information officer in the Department of Health and Children this morning. He is working on legislation at present and is unable to deal with any queries under the Freedom of Information Act. Perhaps the Tánaiste could look at that.

According to Judge Harding Clark, events in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital could be replicated in other hospitals if the circle is not closed.

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

It does.

Successive Chairs have ruled on the Order of Business — Standing Order 26.

This House discussed the report into Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital some time ago. It dealt with serious charges.

Yes, but we cannot discuss it on the Order of Business. I ask the Deputy to move on to something appropriate to the Order of Business.

Judge Harding Clark, who wrote the report, said the Health Service Executive is not doing its job.

The Deputy must find another way to raise this.

What is happening following the discussion of that report in this House?

There are many ways in which the Deputy can raise this issue, including a question to the Tánaiste.

The Tánaiste will go to America shortly.

She is afraid of the INO.

Judge Harding Clark said — I am sure the Ceann Comhairle, given his profession, will understand this — that what happened in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital could be replicated in many other hospitals if the circle is not closed. I would like the Tánaiste to respond.

I ask the Deputy to be orderly. The Tánaiste would be out of order, the same as the Deputy, if she started a debate here. As the Chair and my predecessors have often pointed out, if Members want to change the manner in which the Order of Business proceeds, bring in a new Standing Order and the Chair will be delighted to implement it. The Deputy knows he is out of order.

Under Standing Order 26, the Government consented to discuss this report in the House. The author of that report queries the actions being taken by the Health Service Executive and I want the Tánaiste to respond to this serious matter.

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

If something like this happens again, it will be raised here irrespective of Standing Orders.

The Deputy should use procedures in the House to raise this in the proper manner. He knows those procedures.

I do not want to be disorderly or abuse the regulations but we discussed this in the House and I would like the Tánaiste to respond to the judge's remarks.

We discussed it in an orderly way and there are many ways in which the Deputy can raise it and the Chair will be delighted to facilitate him.

The Chair is being unduly restrictive.

It is almost six years since the shooting of John Carty at Abbeylara. I have raised the Barr report hearings, which finished in 2004, on several occasions in this House, and I have been told, as per the latest replies from the Taoiseach, that the report would be published in March. Can the Tánaiste say why that report has not been published and if there is a difficulty with it?

I refer her to the questions I have asked about the whereabouts of the Dalton report which was commissioned on Bord na gCon, events there and an expensive press conference at Shelbourne Park?

Would it not be a more productive use of the Tánaiste's time to spend an hour and a half at the INO conference——

That does not arise on the Order of Business. The Deputy should allow the Tánaiste to answer his questions. Strictly speaking they are not in order, but the Chair will allow her to answer the questions on the two reports.

The flexibility of the Chair never ceases to amaze me.

Allow the Tánaiste to answer the question.

Rather than spending time with the Fianna Fáil backbenchers, does the Tánaiste not think she would be better spending some time with the nurses at their annual conference?

The Fianna Fáil backbenchers need nursing.

She can hear the complaints from the backbenchers about the health services at any time.

I ask Deputy Rabbitte to allow the Tánaiste to answer the questions on the reports.

I do not know when the Barr report will go to Government but we are expecting it and the Dalton report will come before Government soon. The intention is to publish both reports and to act on their findings.

What about the conference? The Tánaiste will not get the full facts from the Fianna Fáil backbenchers.

On the conference, I was looking forward last year to debating with the Labour Party spokeswoman——

A point of order by Deputy Paul Keogh.

——at the SIPTU conference but she was not there. People cannot go to every conference.

I do not know what the Tánaiste is talking about but she should withdraw that remark.

I am talking about the Cork conference where I expected a debate with Deputy McManus.

I was at the Cork conference.

The Deputy was not there when I was there debating at it.

The Tánaiste should answer Deputy Rabbitte's questions on——

I have never, ever refused an invitation to debate anything with the Tánaiste.

I have been to seven nurses' conferences this year.

My problem is that I cannot get a debate on health. The Tánaiste keeps running away.

Deputy Kehoe has been called on a point of order. Being a Whip, I expect he is well aware of what the point of order is.

Deputy Kenny asked a question this morning and the Chair did not allow it to go forward. Is the Ceann Comhairle being selective in the questions he is allowing to go through to the Tánaiste this morning?

Yes, I am being very selective. I am abiding strictly by Standing Order 26.

It is a sad day in this House when the leader of the main Opposition party is unable to ask the Tánaiste a question.

That is not a point of order and the Deputy is the Whip and, therefore, in a better position than most to change the Standing Order. If he wants omnibus question time instead of Standing Order 26, he should introduce a new Standing Order.

The Ceann Comhairle knows we cannot do that, the Government controls Standing Orders.

It is more than sad, it is shocking to hear Judge Harding Clark's remarks and I would like to ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if she will take action by way of legislation.

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

The legislation to which I refer is——

Before the Deputy comes to the legislation, the Chair would like to make a point. The Tánaiste happens to be Minister for Health and Children and is here this morning but she is here on behalf of the head of Government. She is not here as Minister for Health and Children and it is not Question Time for the Minister for Health and Children. If the Deputy has a question on legislation I will hear it but this is not omnibus question time.

She cannot make bits of herself.

Does the Deputy have a question on legislation?

I have. Will the Tánaiste give some response because public confidence is very low when it comes to the Health Service Executive following the remarks of Judge Harding Clark?

I call Deputy Durkan.

On promised legislation——

I will call the Deputy again.

I do not need to waste your time. The nurses and midwives——

I ask the Deputy to resume his seat and I will call him again on legislation.

The nurses and midwives Bill was what I had begun to——

I will call the Deputy again. I have called Deputy Durkan.

The Chair interrupted me when I was asking the question.

The Chair never interrupts, the Chair intervenes when a Deputy is out of order. I call Deputy Durkan.

I asked about promised legislation which was perfectly in order.

I will call the Deputy again. I ask him to resume his seat.

The nurses and midwives Bill——

I will call the Deputy again on promised legislation.

The time of the House is precious enough without me having to come in to make another——

Sorry, Deputy, I have called Deputy Durkan. I am not going to listen to argument. If you want to argue you will have to do it elsewhere.

It is a straightforward question on promised legislation.

I will call the Deputy and I will hear it but Deputy Durkan has been called.

The Chair has heard it and he is not allowing a reply.

I call Deputy Durkan first and then we will come to the Deputy.

Since the single electricity market Bill is scheduled for towards the end of this session, will the Tánaiste say if it is intended to clarify the Government's future intentions for the ESB? It appears that some muffled sounds are emerging from the Progressive Democrats, in particular, in regard to the possible selling off of the ESB.

Is legislation promised?

It would be important to have that information before discussing the single electricity market Bill.

In regard to the broadcasting authority Bill, which has been around for some time, can we have some clarification before the general election as opposed to after it? That information would be beneficial to all parties participating.

It has become common practice — this is not a personal criticism of the Tánaiste — to answer parliamentary questions by way of referral to the Health Service Executive.

Sorry, Deputy, that does not arise on the Order of Business.

This is fundamental to parliamentary democracy.

It is also fundamental to parliamentary procedure and democracy that Standing Orders are obeyed in this House.

They are not being obeyed.

They are laid down by Members. If Members do not like them, they can change them.

May I finish?

If it is on promised legislation.

May I finish what I was about to say? It has never been known in the history of this Parliament that parliamentary questions——

Sorry, the Deputy will have to raise that matter in another way.

——are referred to some outside body and that we never get a reply on the record on the House.

Sorry, Deputy——

Therefore, the Tánaiste has a particular responsibility and she should honour her responsibilities.

The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources will publish an energy policy in the summer of this year. Also a broadcasting authority Bill and an energy Bill will be published towards the end of the year.

Is the Government going to sell the ESB?

The Minister will make his policy known on that matter during the summer.

Three weeks ago, when the Tánaiste answered questions on the Order of Business, was the deadline for the report on the new children's hospital. On that occasion she indicated legislation would probably be needed. What is the reason for the delay in publishing the report and when is the legislation likely to appear?

Is legislation promised?

Is there a new agenda?

The reason the report was delayed was that an offer had been made by people to build a hospital and they had to be met and the matter considered. Also the group was anxious to speak with the maternity hospital because of the issue in regard to neonatal babies and the proximity of a children's hospital to maternity facilities. The report is due by the end of the month. If a State hospital is being established, legislation will be needed. I envisage we will have legislation but I do not know when it will be published.

As this is Alzheimer's tea day will the Tánaiste join me in paying tribute to those who provide 24-hour care for people with that condition in the home, those who are providing that care and support in nursing homes and other facilities? In that regard it has long been recognised that a proper system of registration and inspection for services for older people is long overdue. Can the Tánaiste tell us when the health Bill, establishing the Health Information and Quality Authority and the Irish social services inspectorate, will come before the House? May I add one last point? I note from the legislative programme in relation to the Tánaiste's Department that the register of persons who are considered unsafe to work with children has been transferred to the Department of Health and Children. Can the Tánaiste confirm that she will respond to parliamentary questions on this subject from Deputies rather than——

That matter does not arise on this question.

——unlike, in the past, where she passed them out to a variety of Ministers and Departments?

I call the Tánaiste to respond on the legislation.

There is one item of legislation, the health Bill, which will provide for the social services inspectorate. The heads of that Bill have been published for consultation purposes. We will have that Bill later this year. Responsibility for those matters has been transferred to the Department of Health and Children and the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, will deal with them.

In light of the fact that Commissioner Peter Mandelson has made an enhanced offer on farm trade which will affect this country and given that there appears to be no rebuff from the Minister for Agriculture and Food, when can we have a debate on the issue in the House?

Debates, unless they are promised in the House, are a matter for the Whips.

There is no promised legislation on either agriculture or employment. May I have some idea as to when the Pat Joe Walsh report and his removal from Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital——

That does not arise on the Order of Business. I call Deputy Broughan.

The report was promised in the House.

I suggest the Deputy table a question on that matter.

The promise was that we would have it in eight weeks. I think the Tánaiste would like to answer.

I am sure the Tánaiste might answer but the Chair must implement the Standing Order.

What about the Minister for Agriculture and Food? Was a debate promised?

That is a matter for the Whips unless a debate is promised. Is a debate promised?

It is matter for the Whips.

There is no interest in the affairs of agriculture.

Before the Tánaiste assumed responsibility for the Department of Health and Children she was responsible in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment for the safe pass legislation and for safety on building sites legislation. We read in today's newspapers that a safe pass is available for €50 in Dublin and a cartel appears to be operating in the system.

Has the Deputy a question on legislation?

This Minister was responsible for legislation establishing the safe pass system for safety on construction and building sites. There were 23 deaths in the industry last year.

What legislation is promised, Deputy?

The employment agency Bill.

Is that promised legislation?

Will the Tánaiste ask her colleague the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, to investigate the operation of safe pass, which she established so badly?

That matter does not arise.

The Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children deliberately closed down any accountability in regard to written questions about the health service. That has created major problems.

Has the Deputy a question on legislation?

I have. I have questions on two pieces of legislation——

Will the Deputy come to the legislation without a preamble?

——and I would like the opportunity to ask them. We have a real problem now. We cannot get answers to fundamental questions we are raising.

Sorry, Deputy, what legislation are we talking about?

I ask the Tánaiste to undo the damage she has done by fast-tracking the establishment of HIQA on a statutory basis, which is part of the health Bill, for which she has said we have to wait until the end of the year. Somebody has to ensure accountability and HIQA is the body to do it——

Has the Deputy got a second question? We cannot debate the legislation now.

——because the Minister is doing the opposite to ensure transparency. My second question relates to a decision made at Cabinet level in regard to pharmacy and one of the pharmacy Bills.

The Deputy raised a question on the Bill yesterday and it was answered.

I did not get the answer. May I ask the Tánaiste, since she will have the answer, if there will still be two Bills? Will the heads of the Bill be published or will there be some limited consultation where certain people will be bought in and the parliamentarians who represent the people will be excluded from the process?

Allow the Tánaiste to answer the question.

In respect of the latter question, the Deputy was in attendance yesterday at a conference where I said the heads of the Bill were being published and will be available to everybody and not just to a small group. The first Bill deals mainly with fitness to practise issues and strengthens the role of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland and provides for a majority of lay participation in accordance with all the regulatory bodies being reformed in the health area. The second Bill, which will come later, will deal with more technical issues. The Health Information and Quality Authority has been established and is recruiting a chief executive officer. I am not certain, therefore, of the purpose of the question on the legislation. The heads of the Bill have been published for consultation.

As the Tánaiste knows well, it has not been established on a statutory basis. Why is she not upfront about these matters.

It has been established by statutory instrument. It is recruiting a CEO and has staff, but will not have its powers until we pass the legislation.

We cannot have a debate on the matter.

I asked about the nurses and midwives Bill in the hope that the Tánaiste would take the opportunity to give some idea as to what she would have said to the Irish Nurses Organisation if she attended ——

That matter was dealt with yesterday when raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin.

The Tánaiste may need to make a statement. Will the legislation be brought forward any sooner?

The Medical Council legislation will have a significant bearing on some of the issues in the Lourdes report. The heads of that Bill will be published before the summer and we will have the final Bill in the autumn. The heads of the nurses and midwives Bill will be introduced later this year with the full Bill following early next year.

The schedule states the employment agency Bill is expected in 2007. Is there any chance that can be brought forward?

I do not know whether it can be brought forward, but it is planned for next year.

The Committee on Procedure and Privileges referred the issue of answering of questions in the Dáil by Ministers to the Dáil reform committee. The response from the Government Whip, who is chairman of that committee, was that he was not sure anything would be done by his senior colleagues with regard to getting Dáil replies. Has the Government any intention of dealing with the issue of the primacy of Parliament over quangos that have been set up, and of the power of Parliament being transferred to the——

This is not the way to raise this matter. Is legislation promised?

I am asking about legislation. Is there any possibility the Government will stop transferring power from this Parliament to quangos that have no notion of answering our questions?

Is legislation promised?

No legislation has been promised. I suggest the Deputy should find another way of raising the matter.

There is a promise from the Government on this matter. It promised it would examine the issue. Legislation would be required on the matter. The Tánaiste established the quangos under legislation, therefore legislation is required. When can we expect to see that legislation?

I do not know what legislation the Deputy is talking about.

The Government, therefore, has no notion of doing anything about the issue.

I ask the Ceann Comhairle's guidance on a matter in the same vein. Does the Chair think it is good for democracy that a Dáil question tabled on 25 April concerning a seriously ill patient was only answered yesterday?

That matter does not arise on the Order of Business.

Would the Ceann Comhairle regard it as good parliamentary practice that the question was only answered yesterday?

It is a disgrace. Questions should be answered within five days.

The issue has been raised and debated at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. We cannot have a discussion on the matter here as it does not arise on the Order of Business. I am delighted to hear the Deputy speak about proper parliamentary procedure which begins here with people obeying Standing Orders.

Where does the Chair fit into this? Has he anything to do with it? It seems it is a Government decision not to answer a Dáil question. It is contempt.

The matter does not arise on the Order of Business.

I wish to raise three matters of legislation, all of which are in order. First, when will the building societies (amendment) Bill come before the Dáil? Second, why is there such slow progress being made on legislation on an ombudsman for the legal profession? Third, what proposals has the Government to bring forward legislation to deal with when banks and other financial institutions losing people's deeds? We are not all so lucky as to have the Taoiseach go to Amsterdam and fight to get such matters sorted for us. Is there legislation promised by the Dáil to help other——

There is nothing he can do——

That talking is the man who is in the air more times than Aer Lingus. Is there any legislation promised that will ensure people get their deeds? The Government, the Taoiseach in particular, is fond of banks, but there are people whose deeds have been lost by them. Does the Government intend bringing in legislation to deal with that problem?

The building societies amendment Bill was cleared by Government recently and will be published this session. Legislation on an ombudsman for legal services will issue later this year, but there is no planned legislation on the last matter.

Given the recent publication of the Forfás report which showed how exposed we are owing to our oil and fossil fuel dependency and given a request was made at the Whips' meeting last week——

Has the Deputy a question on legislation?

——for a debate on the issue, does the Government have plans to allow for a debate on the Forfás report on energy policy?

Is a debate promised?

When can we expect that debate?

I will have to discuss that and come back to the Deputy on it.

Barr
Roinn