Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 5 Jul 2007

Vol. 637 No. 7

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 1a, Personal Injuries Assessment Board (Amendment) Bill 2007 [Seanad] — Second and Subsequent Stages. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: (1) Second and Subsequent Stages of No. 1a shall be taken today and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the proceedings on Second Stage shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 2.30 p.m.; (ii) the proceedings on Committee and Remaining Stages shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 3.30 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment; and (2) the Dáil on its rising today shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 26 September 2007.

There are two proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 1a agreed?

I object to the application of the guillotine. As this is the last day before the summer recess, the Government is in a position to provide additional time to properly address the very important matters arising from the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (Amendment) Bill 2007. As other Deputies pointed out, legal and potential constitutional issues arise from the legislation. While the list of amendments is not large, nevertheless there is a critical need to give each Stage the full scrutiny and attention it deserves. Accordingly, I oppose the imposition of a guillotine and appeal to the Minister to extend the time available for the debate to allow it to be completed naturally, today if that is the Government's wish.

In respect of the time allocation for the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (Amendment) Bill 2007, given that this is a short Bill, the House needs more time to debate Committee Stage than to debate Second Stage. The structure of the Second Stage debate does not facilitate discussion of conflicting opinions as to the constitutionality or otherwise of the legislation. I suspect Opposition Deputies will simply repeat each other and the Minister will respond only once. I propose, therefore, that debate on Committee Stage will commence at 1 p.m. rather than 2.30 p.m. because the meat of the Bill is in Committee Stage and serious concerns arise about its constitutionality.

I have no problem accepting Deputy Quinn's proposed amendment to the Order of Business.

Is the proposal agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal that the Dáil, on its rising today, shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 agreed?

This will not be the usual rant. I propose that the Dáil sit on 11 September on the grounds that committees are not established before the House goes into recess for 12 weeks and a great deal of parliamentary work could be undertaken. I regret it has not been possible for committees of the House to perform their functions in July and the early weeks of September. I propose, therefore, that the House sit again on 11 September.

I second Deputy Kenny's proposal. I do not propose to discuss in detail the reasons sittings should resume earlier than proposed as they are obvious and best set out by Deputy Sargent in column 1208 of the Official Report of 6 July 2006. I fully support everything the Deputy said at the time.

I regret the House will rise without appointing committees. It is further evidence of the disrespect shown to the House and the rights of the Opposition. Yesterday, for example, the Taoiseach absented himself on one of the rare opportunities to be accountable in the House. The conference of trade unions lasted for four days, during which the Taoiseach would have been accommodated at any time, but he chose to attend at a time that coincided with Leaders' Questions. He would not attend to take parliamentary questions or the Order of Business but he managed to get back to pose for photographs with candidates for the Seanad. I hope when we begin business in earnest in the autumn that we will see a bit more respect for this House and the Opposition.

I wish also to support the proposition. While looking forward to the summer recess and the holiday opportunities as much as any Member of the House, there is every justification for an earlier return. We are on the last day of this sitting with no Government programme published. Despite what the Tánaiste said yesterday, the Government will hold the programme until we have all left and the earliest opportunity to address it in a real and careful way will be deferred until the end of September. The earlier return in order to examine exactly what the Government proposes to do, and not to be dependent on any one party's presentation of that, is in the interest not only of this House but of the roles and responsibilities entrusted to us.

Given the timing of the election in 1997 and 2002, it was not possible to constitute committees before the Dáil rose for the summer recess on those occasions either. I am not in a position to take amendments to the Order of Business in respect of our return.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 55.

  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Andrews, Chris.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Behan, Joe.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Áine.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Browne, John.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conlon, Margaret.
  • Connick, Seán.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Curran, John.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Flynn, Beverley.
  • Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Hoctor, Máire.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kennedy, Michael.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Brien, Darragh.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Hanlon, Rory.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • O’Rourke, Mary.
  • O’Shea, Brian.
  • O’Sullivan, Christy.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • White, Mary Alexandra.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Bannon, James.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Creighton, Lucinda.
  • D’Arcy, Michael.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Enright, Olwyn.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.
  • O’Keeffe, Jim.
  • O’Mahony, John.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Tom Kitt and John Curran; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I listened this morning to the comforting tones of the Minister for Defence. It is great to know that the Irish people are safe from terrorist attacks after his pronouncements.

On a serious note, as the Dáil will not sit again for 12 weeks and there is concern about this matter, will the Government make arrangements for the leaders of the Opposition parties to receive a briefing on aspects of terrorist threats, however high or low they might be?

In 2002, the then Attorney General, Michael McDowell, raised the issue of non-consultation with his party about certain State appointments and a structure was put in place apparently to deal with that problem. Will the Tánaiste confirm whether Mr. Joe Burke has been appointed chairman of Dublin Port and, if so, were the structures put in place in 2002 followed in this case? Was there consultation with the Progressive Democrats group and the Green Party?

As Deputy Kenny knows well, neither of those issues arises on the Order of Business.

The Ceann Comhairle was at the Cabinet table in 2002 when the matter was first raised. I am not asking him to breach Cabinet confidentiality but maybe from his legal background he contributed to that structure being put in place. Will the Tánaiste tell me whether that structure was followed in this case and was there consultation with the other members of the Government? Will he confirm that Mr. Burke is the chairman of Dublin Port?

That issue does not arise now.

It does arise.

The Tánaiste is eager to answer.

Deputy Sargent will tell us.

I wish to draw attention again to the Cabinet handbook which, as I pointed out earlier in the week, has already been breached in another respect. The handbook states:

All Government and Ministerial appointments should be published in Iris Oifigiúil as soon as can be arranged following the appointment. The Government Secretariat will arrange for publication of appointments made by the Government.

There have been several appointments since 24 June, not just the one to which Deputy Kenny referred, and they have not been published in Iris Oifigiúil. The Ceann Comhairle might demonstrate some laxity and ask the Tánaiste to confirm why — if it is true that the Taoiseach’s very best friend has been reappointed — this did not go to Cabinet. I thought all these appointments had to go to Cabinet.

I saw last night that no less a colleague than Deputy O'Rourke congratulated the Green Party because Fianna Fáil is pleased that it does not speak out any more. Could it speak out on——

He is paraphrasing me wrongly.

The Deputy is here.

Deputy O'Rourke is back.

Deputy O'Rourke will speak for Deputy Rabbitte.

That is what Senator Donie Cassidy says too.

The Dublin transport authority Bill was promised by the former Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, last November when he said it would be published before Christmas. We all thought he meant Christmas 2006 but clearly we were wrong. I ask the Tánaiste when the Bill will be published.

I expect the Dublin transport authority Bill to be brought to Government, and some decisions to be taken on it, before we return for the next session.

On the question relating to Iris Oifigiúil, does the paragraph of the Cabinet Handbook which I read out still apply? If that is the case, why are these appointments not in any edition of Iris Oifigiúil since 24 June?

That is a very interesting question but Deputy Rabbitte will have to pursue it another way as it is not in order now.

I am very reluctant to challenge that.

Experience is a wonderful thing.

It is being kicked to touch until September.

Throughout the 29th Dáil the publication of the eligibility for health and personal social services Bill was promised. The Bill is designed to clarify and update the provisions relating to eligibility for health services. Will the Bill be published before the resumption in September?

Given the Taoiseach's grossly insensitive remarks yesterday and the need to counteract the negative impression they created, will the Government place a renewed emphasis on the rights and entitlements of those who suffer from mental illness and those who are at risk of suicide? Will the Bill be brought forward so that we can address the needs and rights of those at risk and all those who use our health services?

It is expected that that Bill will be published in 2007.

In light of the serious decrease in farm incomes and the new Government's abstentionist policy in Brussels will there be an opportunity to discuss the decline in agriculture at the earliest possible date in the new Dáil?

I am afraid that does not arise now.

It will arise very shortly.

The Tánaiste might remember the phrase "Delivering Better Government"? Does it still apply and will it be incorporated into the minerals development Bill? If so, will the Bill be a combination of the wisdom of all parties in Government? Will it remain as it was or will there be changes?

We cannot discuss the content of legislation, as the Deputy is well aware——

I was only trying to encourage the Ceann Comhairle.

——even if it does involve a proposal for better Government in the minerals development Bill.

It is very important down in Kerry too.

Heads of a Bill have been approved and it is expected later in this Dáil, perhaps in the new year.

When will the Minister for Transport and the Marine take forward the proposed mandatory drug and alcohol testing at the scene of an accident? Yesterday the Minister was not aware of a promise made by a party colleague of his, namely Deputy Bertie Ahern, prior to the general election.

I am more aware of it than the Deputy.

I have a letter, which I only received last night, too late to bring up on Committee Stage of the Roads Bill 2007, in which the Taoiseach gives a commitment, three weeks before the general election, to introduce mandatory drug testing at the scene of an accident if Fianna Fáil was re-elected to power. In light of this new information, of which the Minister for Transport and the Marine, Deputy Dempsey, was not aware, when will the proposed legislation come through?

It has not been promised in the House but the Government will look at all these matters in the context of trying to ensure we do everything possible to make our roads safer and to ensure people discharge their responsibilities adequately.

Drug testing is legal in other countries. We missed the boat in that regard.

It is legal in this country also.

The letter reads:

Fianna Fáil recognises the need to introduce compulsory drink and drug testing for drivers involved in accidents causing injury. If re-elected, we will ensure these changes are implemented without delay.

The Minister was not aware of this last night.

I have a copy of the letter myself.

When will this be introduced into the Roads Bill 2007? This letter was signed by Deputy Bertie Ahern three weeks before the general election.

I am not aware that it is promised legislation.

On Tuesday the Taoiseach suggested that amendments to the Competition Authority Act 2002 would be needed in order to retain the right of workers in self-assessment to be in a trade union, to be represented and to collective bargaining for those who had negotiating licences. He gave the impression this had been solved. In view of his meeting with the social partners, is he still of that opinion or will we have amending legislation to ensure such workers will have the right to be represented and negotiated for by their trade union?

On Wednesday I raised the question of whether changed procedures were envisaged for the drafting of legislation so that, in the autumn, we would not get a virtual proposed programme of legislation but one in which Bills would be in a position to be brought before the House. I have not heard from the Office of the Taoiseach on either of these matters.

The Competition Authority is an independent body and I am not aware of any legislation promised in this area. It is true, however, that the question of preventing abuse of agency workers was raised at the meeting of the social partners. That will be dealt with under an agency Bill which will be considered in due course.

I am aware of that legislation but refer to legislation on foot of a High Court undertaking sought by the Competition Authority from SIPTU that equity members, who work for several different employers and are on self-assessment, would not be represented by their union, SIPTU. The union officer would be sent to jail if he or she represented, for example, the actors involved in making advertisements.

I prepared Private Members' legislation on this matter but that is where it lies. I understood it was raised at the meeting of the social partners and the Taoiseach said we would, if necessary, go back to it because it involved contravention of an ILO regulation and undermined the trade union representation, among other things. One would have thought the brothers and sisters at their meeting with the Taoiseach yesterday would be in a position to know whether their friend, the Taoiseach, intended to legislate on this matter or not. It is as simple as that. I have Private Members' legislation which I will be glad to reintroduce to the Dáil to seek the support of all elements of Government.

I am informed by the Minister that there are no plans to change the Competition Act 2002. Discussions took place in respect of the other issue, and are ongoing among the Minister, the Department and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

On the question of the list of legislation, obviously we hope it will be an accurate reflection of what will come on stream in our coming term. It will be promulgated when it is ready.

I see from the programme for Government that the Government is proposing the establishment of a national transmission company. It also states it is totally opposed to nuclear power. Since the Government programme was published the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has indicated he would welcome a debate on the introduction of nuclear power. Can I have clarity as to the Government's position? Is it the one set out in the programme for Government or is it the alternative one as articulated by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources?

That issue does not arise now.

It does arise. There is a long tradition whereby we have the right to raise issues relating to promises set out in the programme for Government which involve legislation, in advance of the programme for legislation, which the Government has yet to produce. These matters involve legislation and I am perfectly entitled to ask the question.

Legislation relating to the national transmission company will probably be brought forward during the course of next year. I do not accept for a moment that what the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, said on a debate on energy policy, including the options for nuclear energy, is in any way at variance with the commitments in the programme for Government. I had not finished my answer but I will stop if the Deputy wants to interrupt.

The programme for Government says the Government strongly believes that nuclear power is neither sustainable nor an answer to Ireland's energy needs. That statement was only published one month ago, but the Minister with responsibility for energy is now articulating a different view. Is this the settled position of the Government or will we have a debate?

Which? Are both right?

As I was saying before I was interrupted——

The Tánaiste articulated an entirely different view on this the other day.

The Minister made it clear that if there was a debate on nuclear energy, it would quickly become evident why he felt it should not be part of our energy portfolio. However, he was not dismissive of anybody who wished to raise the matter in a debate. He was quite prepared to debate the issues with them.

The chief executive of the IDA has raised the issue.

That is an example of openness and transparency which the Deputy's party might internalise.

Is a case of "you can say what you like, but our mind is made up"?

Legislation was promised prior to the setting up of the Assembly in the North to establish a register of persons considered unsafe to work with children. What is the status of that promise? Will it be brought forward or has it been shelved?

It is not possible to say at this stage when or if that legislation will be brought forward, in view of the fact it is a North-South issue and there is also a referendum to be held on children's rights next year.

Does the Tánaiste anticipate the need for Supplementary Estimates in the autumn? Exchequer figures show a decline in tax receipts. Capital taxes and stamp duty are about 5% below the profile set out in the budget. Has the Minister made any assessment of the impact of this on vital services such as health and education? In the run up to the election, Government spending increased and has gone ahead of profile. It seems the Minister will have to make some re-calculations by the autumn and the Opposition is entitled——

Is this on promised legislation?

I think I am allowed to raise a question on Supplementary Estimates on the Order of Business. I am not as erudite as you on the rules, but I believe I am allowed to raise this issue.

Are you asking if a Supplementary Estimate is promised?

Can I ask the Tánaiste if he proposes to bring one in?

I do not think that is in order.

Give us your guidance, Tánaiste.

I am certain it is not in order.

Exchequer returns for the first six months are quite strong and in line with expectations.

Barr
Roinn