Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 Apr 2007

Vol. 636 No. 2

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 18, motion re Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998; No. 1, Medical Practitioners Bill 2007, amendments from the Seanad; and No. 23, Water Services Bill 2003 [Seanad] — Order for Report, Report and Final Stages.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 11 p.m. and the suspension of sitting pursuant to Standing Order 23(1) shall take place at 1.30 p.m, or at the conclusion of No. 18, whichever is the later, until 2.30 p.m.; (2) the proceedings on No. 18 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 70 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the speeches shall be confined to a Minister or Minister of State and to the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order and who may share their time, and which shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; and (ii) a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed ten minutes; (3) the proceedings on No. 1 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 p.m. today 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 Health and Children; and (4) Report and Final Stages of No. 23 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 11 p.m. tonight by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in regard to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Private Members' business, the Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2007 — Second Stage (resumed), shall conclude at 8.30 p.m. tonight, if not previously concluded.

There are four proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 18, motion re Offences against the State Act, agreed?

It is not agreed. Last evening, the Criminal Justice Bill went through its final passage with whole sections of it not addressed. The Offences against the State Act is an important issue which comes up annually. We all know that it was signalled clearly in the Good Friday Agreement, and during its subsequent endorsement, that all oppressive legislation affecting North and South of this island would be revisited. I have no issue that the legislation will be discussed but it is imperative we allow for adequate debate.

Inadequate time is being provided and it is particularly apt given that the situation has changed markedly regarding these offensive Acts. The time allotted is grossly insufficient to address all matters concerned. Will the Taoiseach expand the time for the motion? I appeal to Members to have the courage to remove these offensive Acts from the Statute Book——

There will be an opportunity to speak on that matter.

——when the opportunity is afforded to us today.

I introduced the Act in 1998 in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing. The House met in special session to pass that legislation. The International Monitoring Commission report, published in the past several hours, shows there are at least three militant, illegal, and dissident republican paramilitary groups operating in the State. That is why it is necessary to extend this legislation. I would also like to come to the day when we would not require it. However, it is clear from today's IMC report that it is required.

Question, "That the proposal for dealing with No. 18, motion re Offences against the State Act, be agreed to", put and declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 1, Medical Practitioners Bill 2007, amendments from the Seanad, agreed to?

It is not agreed. One of the primary purposes of this democratic Assembly is to hold the Executive to account. Since Christmas every debate on legislation that has come before the House has been cut off by the Government using its majority in the House. This is treating this Legislature with contempt and it is unacceptable. This further guillotining of legislation is not acceptable to the Labour Party.

Again, I must oppose the imposition of a guillotine. I agree with the arguments presented by Deputy Stagg. It is unacceptable that this practice of guillotining continues. It always applies to the run-up to a recess or the dissolution of the Dáil. It is time to have a proper debate on the measures contained in this important Bill. It should be left open to the House to fully debate it.

Question, "That the proposal for dealing with No. 1, Medical Practitioners Bill, amendments from the Seanad, be agreed to", put and declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 23, Water Services Bill 2003, Report and Final Stages, agreed to?

No. This important legislation deals with the modernisation of water services, a matter not unconnected with the problems people in Galway are experiencing. It took the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government almost two years to prepare the legislation. It was published in 2003 but he took until the beginning of 2005 to get it through Second Stage. He then sat on it for 18 months before bringing it to the select committee, which completed its work on it on 22 November 2006. The Minister has sat on it for the past five months before ordering Report Stage. He expects us to deal with it in five hours, late at night and on one of the last Dáil sitting days. It is not acceptable to the House or as a means of dealing with important legislation.

It is a disgrace.

It adds insult to injury to the people of Galway and the problems they are suffering.

I concur with Deputy Gilmore. This legislation should have been dealt with years ago, saving a large amount of grief, money, sickness and problems that will impact on life, health and business. The legislation needs the time to be dealt with in detail. Unless we get this Bill right, what is happening in Galway will happen elsewhere. The population pressure on the east coast makes the matter more serious. The number of group water schemes failing standards and public water schemes that are not even inspected highlights that unless resources are put in with this legislation we are wasting our time. Will the Government specify whether the resources will be allocated to give this Bill effect?

Deputy, we cannot move on to debating the Bill itself. This is a procedural——

We do not want to be wasting time.

That is exactly what we are doing now. This is a procedural matter.

I want the Government's assurance that the resources will be given for the Bill's provisions to be put into effect.

I object vehemently to the debate on this Bill being curtailed. I cannot imagine that in five hours we will deal with the tremendous problems that have arisen in Galway and other parts of the country. This is an important issue for people's health, particularly for children and the elderly. Many Members on all sides of the House will want to be involved in this debate. We cannot do it justice in five hours.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 23 be agreed."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 46.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Callanan, Joe.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Carty, John.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Curran, John.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Dempsey, Tony.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hoctor, Máire.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Donnell, Liz.
  • O’Donoghue, John.
  • O’Donovan, Denis.
  • O’Keeffe, Ned.
  • O’Malley, Fiona.
  • Parlon, Tom.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Wilkinson, Ollie.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Boyle, Dan.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connolly, Paudge.
  • Cowley, Jerry.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Deasy, John.
  • English, Damien.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Higgins, Joe.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McHugh, Paddy.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Morgan, Arthur.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.
  • O’Keeffe, Jim.
  • O’Shea, Brian.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Pattison, Seamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Kehoe and Stagg.
Question declared carried.

I am quite sure everybody shares the hope that the talks currently underway in respect of the industrial dispute between the nursing unions and the Government will be successful. Is the Taoiseach aware of a threat to these talks because of action being taken by the management of St. Vincent's Hospital threatening to injunct nurses?

This does not arise on the Order of Business.

This is an important matter.

If the Deputy wishes to raise it on the Adjournment of the House, the Chair will facilitate him.

No, as I will be elsewhere.

It is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

Does the Taoiseach share my view that management of the HSE should do nothing to——

Sorry, Deputy, I am not allowing the question. I call Deputy Rabbitte.

——disrupt these talks which are currently adjourned until 2 p.m.?

On a second matter, as the Criminal Justice Bill has been passed by the House and sent to the Seanad, will the Taoiseach or perhaps the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, make a statement as to what immediate steps the Government will take to deal with the situation and circumstances in the North Wall area of Dublin, an area well known to the Taoiseach and where it is not safe to walk the streets and where grenades are being used by gangland criminals?

The Deputy has an opportunity in Leaders' Questions to raise these matters. I call Deputy Rabbitte and if he does not wish to speak I will move on to the next business.

I also am anxious to move on. Yesterday the Taoiseach confirmed to me in the House that it is not the intention of the Government to bring forth any legislation in this session dealing with the regulation of stamp duty.

Is legislation promised?

Is it the Taoiseach's intention to comment on his intentions to change the stamp duty regulations after this session is over?

This does not arise on the Order of Business.

Is the Taoiseach committed to changing the stamp duty regulations after this session?

Ask the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen.

Is the Taoiseach finished?

That is all in the Deputy's mind.

Sorry, Deputy, we are moving on to the next business.

Last week I raised the question of the Minister for Health and Children failing to lay in the Oireachtas Library the direction under the Health Act regarding her hospital building programme but which then appeared on yesterday's Order Paper. This morning there are no fewer than 280 statutory documents on the Order Paper, some of them going back to 1940. Will the Taoiseach give some indication of what is happening? One would not get 280 such instruments following the summer recess. Where did these come from and what is happening? Were they overlooked and not laid before the House at the time?

By the end of every October schools must furnish the figures for classroom sizes to the Department of Education and Science. I have tabled a series of parliamentary questions including some as recently as before the Easter recess. According to the Minister for Education and Science, "the details of the current year are currently being compiled by my Department and the information requested is not readily available". Is the Taoiseach seriously telling the people that——

I suggest the Deputy raises the matter in another way. If the Deputy wishes to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House, the Chair will facilitate him as it does not arise on the Order of Business.

——in the month of April, nobody knows how many children are in the various classrooms of this country?

The Taoiseach to reply on the first question.

This is typical of the Minister for Education and Science; she has consistently refused——

I ask the Deputy to allow the Taoiseach to answer the question.

——to give answers when the information is of course in her possession.

I put down a question to her asking her about the former Minister, Deputy Woods——

If the Deputy will not allow the Taoiseach to answer his question, we will move on to the next business.

——who went around the country pledging new schools like giving out Smarties. She said she did not have the information.

The Chair wishes to point out to the Deputy that the staff of this House will be here until 11 p.m. tonight. The House is due to discuss legislation which will go into the sos and it is unfair to the staff to take up the whole time between 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. by debating an issue.

It is great to see they have a champion.

The statutory instruments by regulation must be laid before the House. I do not know the reason for the lengthy period of time.

We will move on to the next business.

This is discrimination against smaller parties.

I suggest the Deputy reads Standing Order 26. It is entirely at the discretion——

I am sick of reading Standing Order 26.

When the Order of Business was being discussed this morning the Deputy should have said he did not want a sos to be taken.

What have we done to deserve this discrimination?

There is no discrimination against the Deputy. What has happened is that we lost 20 minutes this morning with Leaders' Questions.

We cannot be blamed for that.

I can blame the leaders of which the Deputy is one.

(Interruptions).

I wish to raise a point of order.

Is it not the case that the Standing Orders of the House provide for Deputies to ask questions on the Order of Business?

Strange to say, this is not the case. The Standing Orders provide that it is entirely at the discretion of the Chair.

Barr
Roinn