It is proposed to take No. 2, Appropriation Bill 2007 — Order for Second Stage, Second and Subsequent Stages; and No. 3 — Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2007 — Order for Second Stage, Second and Subsequent Stages. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. and Business shall be interrupted not later than 10.30 p.m; (2) No. 2 shall be decided without debate, and the Second and Subsequent Stages shall be decided 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 Tánaiste and Minister for Finance; (3) the Second and Subsequent Stages of No. 3 shall be taken today and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the proceedings on the Second Stage shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 9 p.m. tonight; (ii) the proceedings on the Committee and Remaining Stages shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. tonight 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 Health and Children; (4) Private Members' business which shall be No. 16 — Competition (Amendment) Bill 2007 — Second Stage, and the proceedings thereon shall also take place tomorrow on the conclusion of the Statements on the European Council, Brussels, and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 90 minutes on that day; and (5) Parliamentary Questions next for answer by the Taoiseach on EU matters shall be taken on the same day as the Statements on the EU Council meeting in Brussels, scheduled to be taken on Wednesday, 19 December 2007, and shall be moved to be taken first as ordinary oral questions to the Taoiseach on that day.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 2 without debate agreed?
When was the Appropriation Bill 2007 circulated?
Nobody knows.
Nobody's at home.
I understand it was this morning.
Yesterday.
There has been another breakdown in communications, because it has not been received by anybody on this side of the House. Whether he was in Opposition or in Government, many years ago a tall man known as Deputy Major de Valera used to say to the Ceann Comhairle that we were passing millions of pounds without any discussion. There was a tradition that the Appropriations Bill 2007 would always be discussed at the end of session, but it does not seem to be the case any more. Is there a reason for this? It was a kind of end of term motion of confidence in the Government that dealt with its wasted expenditure. Is there a reason we do not have a discussion anymore on appropriation Bills, in view of the fact that €50 billion is being passed on the nod?
We are dealing with taxpayers' money here. It is wrong in principle that the Appropriation Bill 2007 should be passed without debate. However, dealing with it in circumstances where it has only just been published, if it all, is extraordinary.
It is years since an appropriation Bill was discussed at any length in this House, but it is discussed in the Seanad, which is meeting on Thursday to debate the Bill. That has been the practice for the last 20 years. We have a committee system that looks at it. As Deputy Kenny remembers, we used to discuss the budget for weeks on end, but that was when it was bad news. Now the Opposition only want to discuss it for a day. Things move on.
That is because the Taoiseach would not allow time for it to be discussed.
There was not much good news to discuss.
Is the proposal to deal with No. 2 without debate agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal to deal with No. 3, Second and Subsequent Stages of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2007 agreed?
No. Like Deputy Gilmore, I object to the way this is being done. The Minister for Health and Children was informed on 26 October that this matter needed to be dealt with. She chose not to inform any Member of the Opposition or the spokespersons on health about this matter. Waiting deliberately until the second last day of this session to bring in a Bill that deals with fundamental issues is not the way to do business. This Bill allows the Minister transfer extra powers to the HSE. It lessens her accountability to the House. It deals specifically with the issue of co-location and mentions places for that purpose.
I have no problem if the Government brings forward a version of a Bill that deals with the legal status of the 19 bodies mentioned in the legislation. Going back 41 years under the new Minister's regime, if a Minister did not know, then he or she was not responsible. That seems to be a new version of accountability from the Government. If the Government brings forward a Bill dealing with the legal status of the 19 bodies, then we can deal with that quickly and efficiently. However, this Bill goes way beyond that. It allows for less accountability from the Minister and more authority to the HSE which has proven to be unaccountable. It deals with 11 amendments to the Medical Practitioners Bill 2007, which was rushed through this House earlier this year and is an example of poor legislation. If it transpires that this Bill is again proven to be faulty, then everyone in the Government is responsible for deliberately having waited on an inadequate Bill and for choosing not to bring it in until the day before the House rises for the Christmas recess.
In Britain, Minister Kelly had to go before the House of Commons immediately and answer questions on the discovery that 3 million names and addresses were lost on CDs by some operator in the US. That is very different to waiting since 26 October, coming before the House a day before it rises and expecting a Bill to be passed at all Stages. I object to this, unless the Taoiseach tells us that the Government will bring forward a Bill tonight or tomorrow that deals with the legal status of the 19 bodies. Otherwise, I object to the transfer of greater powers to the HSE and less accountability from the Minister.
This Bill is being introduced in the form of emergency legislation to provide political cover for its real intent, which is to legislate for the transfer of public hospital lands for the construction of co-located hospitals. If it was a genuine emergency, the Government would have acted on it a while ago, since it received advice from the Attorney General on the issue back in October. There is no issue about legally underpinning the various health agencies. That can be agreed without any great difficulty. The issue is the provision that deals with the transfer of lands for co-located hospitals. There is fundamental political disagreement on that matter in this House and in the country. A majority of Members were elected last May on the basis of opposition to co-located hospital plans. The Government found a legal obstacle and, in order to provide political cover for Members who have turned turk on the position taken at the general election, it is being introduced as emergency legislation. That provision requires substantial debate and is not something that should be rushed through in the last week before Christmas.
It is proposed to deal with this by a guillotined motion. The Government, led by the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, is particularly fond of the guillotine. The search engine used in this House shows that these motions, of the form that proceedings on Committee and Remaining Stages will be brought to a conclusion at a particular time and by one question, have been used on 691 occasions in the history of Dáil Éireann since January 1919. Some 307 of the 691 have been used since 26 June 1997 when Deputy Bertie Ahern took over in government as Taoiseach. In other words, nearly half of the guillotine motions in the history of the State have been used by the Government over which he presides.
Shame.
It is the new parliamentary tactic that when a matter is politically tricky, it is introduced as close as possible to Christmas and rushed through by a guillotine motion in the hope that people will forget about it. The Labour Party will not agree to this and opposes the proposal on the Order of Business.
I object to the methodology for address of this legislation, the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2007. As with Deputy Gilmore, I indicate to the Taoiseach that if the sections dealing with co-location at Beaumont Hospital and St. James's Hospital were removed, Sinn Féin would have no difficulty in dealing with the rest of the legislation in terms of confirming the legitimacy of the named bodies.
The whole thrust of this section requires some truthful answers on the floor of this House. These questions must include who raised the question of the need for this legislative measure on the co-location proposals for Beaumont Hospital and St. James's Hospital in the first place? Who presented the legal advice? It was not the Attorney General. I challenge the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, to state that it was the Attorney General. He was only the conduit of advices that were secured outside the ambit of the Attorney General. Where did the issue arise? Was it in the course of the tendering process for the co-location hospital sites? Was it raised by the legal advisers of one of the interested parties to the co-location proposal, this lucrative business opportunity for those who see health care provision as a means of creating profit? These are the questions that must be answered.
There is a notion that this is the Attorney General's advice but the reality is that it was indicated in the briefing to the various representatives here last Friday that the information would be sought. A letter from the Attorney General's office was circulated subsequently, advising that the information on the genesis of the matter being addressed within the provisions of this Bill was not for public consumption and would not be released because it was privileged.
Speech.
This House wants and deserves honest answers on co-location proposals and the content of this legislation that seeks to facilitate the advancement of the co-location proposals for Beaumont Hospital and St. James's Hospital. Those are the question that must be answered before we proceed. I am sure the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, will back me up in support of the search for the truth behind this matter. Without this information and an indication of the Government's willingness to withdraw this section of the legislation, we will have no option but to oppose it at every opportunity.
It is clear the Opposition spokespersons have no difficultly with the main purpose of this Bill, which outlines the roles and functions of the 19 bodies involved. It is imperative to remove any doubt about their vires and, accordingly, the Bill must be enacted. There is no requirement for debate on those issues. We are talking about the provisions relating to the Medical Practitioners Act 2007, which include some technical amendments, about which there is no difficulty. The only difficulty that people want to speak about is co-location. The debate continues until 10.30 p.m. so it seems there is plenty of time to consider co-location since there is nothing else involved.
That is very simplistic and smart.
The Government must put beyond doubt any legal capacity and that includes the Beaumont Hospital and St. James's Hospital co-location agreements. That is the only issue and there is a long night to talk about one issue out of a total of 25.
The Taoiseach could start by answering the question.
Deputy Ó Caoláin will not have to speak tonight because he has already made his Second Stage speech.
I provided information, the Taoiseach provided nothing.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Behan, Joe.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bannon, James.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Costello, Joe.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Neville, Dan.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with parliamentary questions agreed? Agreed.
Michael Hughes, a perfectly innocent young man from Banagher, lost his life in a horrific attack in Dublin. This is an appalling tragedy and, in their grief, his parents stated that they would pray for the perpetrator of the crime. Last year, we were told €25 million extra was being allocated for the provision of mental health services and for provisions within the Mental Health Act.
The mental health amendment Bill is on the Order Paper at No. 49 and is not due for publication until 2008. Will the Taoiseach confirm that, given these horrific consequences, the €25 million allocated last year is still in situ for spending on the provision of mental health services and has not been hived off or siphoned off to other areas? Will the Taoiseach confirm when he expects the mental health amendment Bill to be published?
The Taoiseach, on the legislation.
It is due in 2008.
This morning, the European Court of Justice gave its decision on the Laval case involving Swedish trade unions and Latvian companies which carried out certain public works in Sweden. Many of the issues involved in the case are similar to the issues that arose during the Irish Ferries matter here a couple of years ago. The import of the judgment as I understand it is that the court found that while Swedish trade unions were entitled to enforce legally binding pay and conditions of employment, they were not entitled to seek to enforce conditions of employment in excess of those which were legally binding.
The implications of this for Ireland would be such that trade unions in similar circumstances might be entitled to enforce the minimum wage or registered agreements but nothing in excess of this. Given the significance of this judgment for our voluntary system of industrial relations — I appreciate the judgment was only given this morning — has the Taoiseach given preliminary consideration to the judgment and will we have an opportunity to discuss the judgment in the House at an early date in the new year?
I do not think this is a legislative provision.
The judgment must be examined and we will then consider whether we can discuss it.