Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 25 Oct 2007

Vol. 640 No. 3

Order of Business (Resumed).

There are two proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 10e and 10f without debate agreed to?

It is not agreed to. What was presented on Tuesday and again this morning represents a travesty of democracy. We are being asked this morning to approve motions on changes to the orders of reference of select committees such that "11 members", as originally intended, would become "13 members" in two instances only in order to accommodate one party political representation in this House. I have no objection to that in principle but I must insist on parity of esteem and equality of treatment of all elected voices and parties in this Chamber, including Independent Deputies. We are being asked, in relation to the appointment of members of committees, to approve lists of representatives of the various parties in this House. This process has been deeply flawed from the beginning. Responsibility for it rests in the first instance with the Government, specifically the Chief Whip and his office.

With all respect, the catalyst for the confusion and gamesmanship that has been taking place with regard to the appointment of committee members and access to committees has been the presentation of the 6:4:1 formula whereby every committee has six Government members, four Fine Gael members and one Labour Party member. This outrageous proposition totally ignored the right of smaller parties and Independents to take up their rightful places as members of committees. This is not something to smirk about — it is a very serious matter. Any examination or scrutiny of the working of democracy in this Chamber will be judged on how the smaller groupings are treated. That is a fact. It is a great disappointment to me. It only fuels the sense that the larger parties are able to carry on as they like because little attention is paid to them. I appeal to the media to examine factually what has been happening here. That the media has not informed the citizens of Ireland about what is happening in respect of this issue represents a fundamental failure on its part.

It has been proposed to appoint a few Deputies to three committees and many Deputies to two committees. One of Sinn Féin's four Deputies has not been offered membership of or access to any committee. I understand that the same thing has happened to another Deputy. I have represented my party as Sinn Féin's health spokesperson in this Chamber for many years. I indicated to the Chief Whip and the various representatives of the other main Opposition parties — Fine Gael and the Labour Party — that it is my earnest wish to serve as a member of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, but I have not been accommodated. Instead, "champions of health issues" from my constituency are being given access to the committee, to my exclusion. There are just three Opposition health spokespersons in this Chamber — Deputies James Reilly and Jan O'Sullivan and myself. It is intolerable that I am not being given an opportunity to play a full role, in tandem with the two Deputies I have mentioned, in challenging the Government on its record of failure on health.

I think the Deputy has made his point.

That is the situation in which I find myself.

You are entitled to make a brief intervention at this point.

Sinn Féin's justice spokesman, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, is in a similar position because he is not being accommodated in the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights.

Deputy Ó Caoláin is making a Second Stage speech.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh's record of work on the justice committee——

What type of justice?

——can stand up to the scrutiny of Deputy Johnny Brady or anybody else in this Chamber or elsewhere. It has been acknowledged and applauded by people representing a wide spectrum of opinion. It is time to face those facts. Sinn Féin's spokesman on agriculture and food, Deputy Ferris, who also has some other roles, has not been offered access to any committee.

Is this a Second Stage speech?

The Government is proposing to allow some Deputies to access two or more committees, while other sitting Dáil representatives who have an excellent record of attendance and involvement in the committee system are being excluded and denied access to their rightful places. It is a travesty and totally undemocratic. There is no way we will support the processing of these two motions without amendment. I have tabled an amendment this morning.

You have indeed, Deputy. That amendment can be considered at the appropriate time. This is an appropriate time for a brief intervention.

You have made your point.

You do not need to reflect. You have made your point.

With respect, a Cheann Comhairle——

It is up to the Tánaiste to reply now.

We need to accommodate access for all Members.

You have made your point.

We cannot have a side deal with one party to accommodate its needs — I do not have any issue with that deal in principle — if no accommodation is made when another set of political voices attempt to be heard.

What about the deal that was made for the Seanad election?

That simply is not acceptable. I do not believe that all Members from the coalition parties that make up the Government are in favour of the way this business is being pushed through the House. I honestly believe that certain Deputies on the Government benches do not believe this represents fair play, justice or democracy. It is none of those things. We cannot and will not support this proposal. I urge Deputies of all parties, Government and Opposition, who have any sense of fair play to take a stand and to accept they cannot railroad through these motions in their private interests, to the exclusion of democratically elected voices whose rights and mandates are the equal of every other Deputy.

You have to allow the Tánaiste to respond. You have had a good innings.

I appeal to the Tánaiste——

You cannot take up the whole day

——to indicate that a favourable accommodation will be reached now, rather than later.

Let us hear from the Tánaiste.

We need some clarity now if we are to proceed with these proposals.

We cannot have any clarity if the Tánaiste is not given a chance to reply.

I urge support for the amendment that I will propose.

My understanding is that it is a matter for the Opposition to try to accommodate Deputies from the various Opposition parties on committees.

The Tánaiste is washing his hands of this matter.

It is not simply the responsibility of the Government to decide on these matters.

The Tánaiste is passing the buck.

The co-operation of all Deputies is required. I understand that a fair bit of gamesmanship was going on until late last night on all of these matters. Deputy Ó Caoláin is aware that the Chief Whip is prepared to discuss this issue with him later this afternoon, in the interests of accommodating Deputies Ferris and Gregory in respect of membership of a committee.

Is the proposal agreed?

Question put: "That Nos. 10e and 10f be taken without debate.”

Deputies

Vótáil.

Will the Deputies claiming a division please rise?

Deputies Martin Ferris, Arthur Morgan, Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin and Aengus Ó Snodaigh rose.

As fewer than ten Members have risen I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 68 the names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.

Question declared carried.

It is a shameful reflection on this Chamber.

On No. 2, is the proposal that the Dáil on its rising today shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 31 October 2007, agreed to? Agreed.

I call Deputy Kenny on the Order of Business.

In light of the closure of two solicitors' offices which were involved in substantial property dealings in the recent past, has the Minister for Finance received a report from the Financial Regulator on this matter? Is the Minister concerned at reports that further solicitors' offices may be scrutinised by the Law Society which is a very serious matter?

Arising from the latest revelation that senior officials were made aware of the intention of Aer Lingus to decide to move slots from Shannon to Belfast, will the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach make statements to the House as to their knowledge of this decision?

Does the Government intend to introduce a working early warning system to ensure that when information such as this comes to light it is transmitted to the Ministers concerned? It seems that Ministers hear nothing and in many cases, do nothing and in almost all cases, see nothing. Will those guidelines be issued under the Public Service Management Act 1997? For the information of the Ceann Comhairle, the guidelines for Ministers on the implementation of the Public Service Management Act 1997, which were issued by the public service modernisation section of the Department of the Taoiseach in 2002, require Ministers to ensure that appropriate strategies and systems are in place. The guidelines state these strategies and systems are to account to Dáil Éireann for the administration of a Department and other functions.

Two weeks ago, on the day after Mr. Justice Carney made his remarks on victim impact statements, the Tánaiste stated on the Order of Business that the Government had no plans to change the law in respect of victim impact statements. On the same day, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform contradicted him and stated he was contemplating changing the law. Which is it? Will changes be made in respect of victim impact statements?

With all due respect, I find only one item raised is in order in accordance with Standing Orders. As I stated before, questions may be raised on promised business and this applies equally to the introduction of a Supplementary Estimate or seeking a debate. They must be promised.

Which matter does the Ceann Comhairle state is in order?

The third item.

With regard to the third matter raised by Deputy Kenny, he also raised it the morning after the lecture given by Mr. Justice Carney in Cork. I made the point that these matters are within the internal jurisdiction of the courts and as I understood it Mr. Justice Carney did not call for an amendment to the law.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform did state that.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has line responsibility for this matter and is considering the situation. He may introduce legislation. It is a matter for the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, to determine in due course and subject to Government approval any proposal he brings before it. It can then be debated in the House.

Does the Ceann Comhairle suggest the issue I raised with regard to guidelines for Ministers on the implementation of the Public Service Management Act 1997 is not in order?

What is the precedent for this?

It is not promised legislation and it must be. If a doubt exists, the Deputy can seek to establish it. It is not my function——

These guidelines were issued by the Department of the Taoiseach.

I want to be fair to Deputy Kenny. It is not promised business.

Even if it was promised the promise would be broken.

The Public Service Management Act 1997 is an Act of the House. It is legislation. My question is with regard to the implementation of this legislation.

It is in existence. It is not promised legislation. If Deputy Kenny wants to ask about a possibility of it being amended, which was promised, that is a different matter.

This is about effective implementation of legislation which the House has passed.

Arising from this, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste must be accountable to Dáil Éireann for the administration of their Departments.

Arising under this Act is the fact that Departments were informed by Aer Lingus well in advance of a decision being made by the chief executive and before the Minister for Transport was informed. The public and the House need to be told the truth of the extent of their knowledge about this. I submit this is in order.

Let us be clear that what is in order is business on the Order Paper, the taking of business which has been promised including legislation promised within or outside the Dáil, the making of secondary legislation as I stated yesterday, arrangements for sittings and when Bills or other documents on the Order Paper required in the House will be circulated. I did not frame the Standing Orders but I must implement them. Unfortunately, Deputy Kenny must raise this matter in another way and a number of ways exist in which he can. I will try to facilitate him in doing so but I cannot allow it on the Order of Business.

If Members of the Government were interested in telling the truth they would stand up and make a statement about it.

Yesterday, we received a letter from the chairman of the Mahon tribunal, informing the House it was his intention to conclude the Quarryvale module public hearings by the beginning of next year and therefore to bring proceedings of the tribunal to a conclusion and issue a report. As I understand it, the tribunal is a creature of the House. Will we have an opportunity to discuss the letter sent by the chairman of the tribunal in the House? Are any motions required to be moved in the House to agree with the contents of the letter? The tribunal was established by the House and therefore its winding up is also a matter for the House.

The Travers report was issued in March 2005 and discussed in the House shortly thereafter. The report recommended the Civil Service should be aware of, take due cognisance of and be responsive to issues of political sensitivity and ensure Ministers are fully briefed on all factors relevant to politically sensitive issues within the operational remit of Departments. The Travers report followed the claim by the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, that he had not read his brief on the nursing homes issue.

Given the Taoiseach's undertaking at the time which was given in the House that the recommendations of the Travers report would be taken on board and implemented by the Government, will the Tánaiste explain how it is we read in today's Irish Examiner that the Government Secretary was aware on 27 July of the Aer Lingus decision in respect of Shannon, that the line Department was aware of it six weeks earlier and that nobody in the Government was told about it?

I ruled on this already.

The Ceann Comhairle ruled on a different matter. I am raising the matter of a report commissioned by the Government at the time and debated in the House. As I recall, the Taoiseach gave an undertaking to the House that the recommendations of the Travers report would be implemented by Government.

After all this, the Government expects us to believe that experienced civil servants, who regardless of the Travers report are conscious of politically sensitive matters, did not tell a Government Minister about the Shannon decision. The Government Secretary and the line Department knew it.

It is a cover up.

The Government is engaged in a political conspiracy to cover up what was known about Shannon.

I ruled already on this matter. The matter of the tribunal is marginal but it is probably okay as it brings up business conveyed in a letter from the tribunal.

The benefit of the doubt.

Like the Deputy's party it is marginal.

The Ceann Comhairle should ask the video referee.

That is what I did. I will allow the Tánaiste to answer this question but I cannot allow the other because it is not in order.

I will stay in order but I reject the assertion made by the leader of the Labour Party. With regard to the matter of the tribunal, the question of winding it up is a matter for the chairman. We had motions for its establishment and for its independence in its functions. It is responsible for its own operations. I am not aware that motions are required in the Dáil to wind up the tribunal. I will seek clarification and communicate with the Deputy. I do not recall any such motions before the House in respect of other tribunals. I note what the Deputy stated on the content of the letter. I have not seen the letter but I welcome that it seems we are coming to the end of proceedings and I respect the chairman's views with regard to this.

When the tribunal wrote to the House on previous occasions on matters of significance with regard to its continuance we had discussion in the House. Usually such discussion was on foot of a motion tabled by the Minister with responsibility for the environment. My recollection is that the last time we discussed this a formula was agreed for the conclusion of the tribunal's work. As I read it, the letter from the chairman of the tribunal, while it is in line with what was previously agreed, goes further than what was previously agreed. The previous agreement of the House anticipated that the tribunal would investigate matters beyond the Quarryvale module. I submit to you, a Cheann Comhairle, and it is a matter to which we can return next week, that when the tribunal writes to the House, which established the tribunal, saying it is going to conclude its business and setting down arrangements and a timetable for the preparation of its report and submission of that report to the House, that correspondence needs to be discussed in the House. I do not disagree with the Tánaiste that we have reached the point where the House needs to consider the winding up of the Mahon tribunal but it is a matter that needs to be discussed in the House. I ask that this issue be looked at between now and next week and we can return to it next week. The correspondence from the Mahon tribunal needs to be discussed here in the House.

Deputy Gilmore will be aware that the tribunal does not need the House to outline its own deadline. The relationship between the tribunals and the Houses of the Oireachtas is largely governed by statute but certainly Deputy Gilmore can return to the matter next week.

Can the Tánaiste give us some idea as to when we can expect the long promised judicial council Bill?

I understand it will be in 2008.

When can we expect publication of the national monuments Bill to come before the House to protect our heritage infrastructure?

Again, I understand that will be next year.

I wish to raise two items. During Question Time on Tuesday, the Taoiseach said there were 120,000 people working in the Health Service Executive. On the same day I received a written reply from the Minister stating there are 130,000 people working in the Health Service Executive. When can we have a full debate on this shambles in order that we know what is happening?

I cannot allow that question as the Deputy well knows.

When will the health information Bill come before the House?

The second issue relates to the heinous brutal murder of Paul Quinn. Last night the question was asked here if other Bills would be brought before the House to allow the Garda and other forces to deal with this matter. Will the criminal justice miscellaneous provisions Bill be discussed in the House soon or is there other planned legislation to improve the ability of the Garda to deal with such an outrageous and heinous murder?

The heads of the criminal justice miscellaneous provisions Bill have been approved by the Government and the first draft is under consideration. That Bill is expected this session.

When can we expect the health information Bill?

The health information Bill will be published next year. Probably the best figures to seek are wholetime equivalents.

When will the housing miscellaneous provisions Bill come before the House? This is a Bill to enable tenants of local authority apartments to have the same rights when buying out their residences as people in conventional housing.

I understand that Bill is not listed.

I ask that the Tánaiste communicate with the Deputy.

If we get the correct name of the Bill we will communicate with the Deputy.

I think it is the social housing miscellaneous provisions Bill.

Last year there was promised legislation in the form of the postal services Bill and the Taoiseach claimed that it fell off the wagon. I do not know if anybody saw it falling off the wagon but it was necessary and promised legislation at the time.

It did not fall off the wagon on the Order of Business.

To ensure an adequate postal service all over the country, including the kingdom of Kerry, will the Tánaiste give an indication as to whether it is intended to seek out the present location of that Bill and put it back on the wagon? Meanwhile post offices are being closed all over the country surreptitiously while no direction, in terms of policy, is emanating from Government. Will it be put back on the wagon again?

On the legislation, minus the wheels.

Only only wheel on the wagon.

It is not so intended.

Is it the intended practice of the Government in this Dáil to allow a period of two weeks between publication of a Bill and commencement of Second Stage? Specifically, in regard to the student support Bill, which is on the pink list and scheduled to be published this session, will the Tánaiste indicate whether it is ready for printing and when it will be circulated?

So far as it is possible or practicable, certainly it is always best to give appropriate notice between publication and the taking of a Bill. As the Deputy will be aware sometimes there are occasions when that is not possible, due to the urgency of a Bill coming through or whatever. In regard to the student support Bill, which is a Bill to place all student support schemes on a statutory footing and to designate VECs as awarding authorities to provide for a system of appeals and penalties for fraudulent applications for grants and to repeal the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Acts 1968-92, I understand there are some outstanding issues from the amalgamation of the existing schemes and the Department is seeking to ensure a smooth transition from the existing schemes to the new arrangements. It is hoped the Bill will be published this session.

In light of an apparent difference of opinion between the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the matter of handling the crime crisis where the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform appears to adopt a wait and see approach and the Taoiseach has indicated that changes might be forthcoming to the composition of the criminal courts, is legislation envisaged to reform the criminal courts?

Where is zero tolerance now?

The Taoiseach has indicated that consideration might be given to a change in the composition of the criminal courts structure to deal with the very serious crisis in the criminal justice system that, apparently, has passed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform——

Is legislation promised in that area?

——who appears to adopt a wait and see approach.

Legislation was not promised in that area. The Taoiseach gave his reaction to——

No, but zero tolerance was promised.

I was about to reply to the Deputy.

Is legislation promised as that is what we are dealing with?

No, there was no promised legislation. My recollection is that the Taoiseach, in the House, indicated his concerns, quite rightly, in regard to some of the heinous crimes that have taken place. Obviously the question of what further legislative or other measures should be taken is a matter of continuing consideration by the Minister and the Government at all times.

In that regard I ask the Tánaiste to convey to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the very serious nature of the situation. Could, perhaps, a Cabinet sub-committee meet to ensure the Taoiseach and his Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform can deal with an apparent difference of opinion?

We cannot debate the matter now. The Deputy can table a priority question to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on that matter.

I welcome the fact the Government has set up a new committee to deal with climate change and energy security. Obviously this is of considerable importance to business and everybody in the country. We have not yet seen the terms of reference for that committee. I suggest that before those terms of reference are drafted for this committee, that discussions take place with the other parties in the House on the extent of what that committee may be able to deal with. It is a fundamentally important issue and I would like to think the terms of reference would be discussed by the parties before being adopted, in order that the committee can give of its best on what is a really important issue.

That is a matter that can be addressed in the context of Whips' meetings. When the terms of reference are prepared the Whip can undertake to discuss that matter with his colleagues.

When is it proposed to take the nursing homes support scheme Bill which is rather urgent because the current scheme expires at the end of the year?

I understand it is intended to have it taken this session.

With respect, I understand this Bill needs to pass all Stages before the end of the year.

It is to provide for a new scheme of financial support for persons requiring residential care in public and private nursing homes. It is the Minister's intention to try to have that legislation drafted as a matter of priority.

Barr
Roinn