It is proposed to take No. 9, motion re referral to Select Committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Finance Act 2004 (Section 91) (Deferred Surrender to the Central Fund) Order 2008; No. 10, motion re referral to Select Committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the report by the Minister for Defence regarding service by the Defence Forces with the United Nations in 2006; and No. 2, Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2008 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is proposed that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, Nos. 9 and 10 should be taken without debate. Private Members' business shall be No. 28, motion re education: autism and special needs.
Order of Business.
No. 9 proposes a substantial capital carryover of €126 million. Effectively, that will only be examined briefly by the Oireachtas Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service. The provision for this carryover includes large capital sums which presumably relate to decentralisation. We have not been given the details but much of it is for buildings. Since this was announced in the budget, as the Taoiseach said last week, the financial outlook for the economy has deteriorated still further. What we need is not so much a debate about these carryovers simply being technical but an alternative consideration of how this money can be best spent.
Various sums are involved, including €12 million for FÁS for capital or buildings programmes and €36 million for the Office of Public Works. How much of this money is for decentralisation? At a time when our health service cannot cope with the demands placed upon it, would this money not be better spent in alternative ways? This debate needs to take place on the floor of this Chamber and not be packed off to the committee where it will receive scant attention and even scanter explanation.
The Tánaiste and Minister for Finance is absent again today. He comes to this House very rarely to answer questions about his brief. He should be here. A sum of €126 million might be small change to the Minister for Transport, as was the €500 million spent on PPARS but for many Deputies, €126 million for capital carryover is a significant amount of money.
The Tánaiste is attending the ECOFIN meting in Brussels today.
Departments are allowed to carry over to the following year unspent capital up to a maximum of 10% of the voted capital. Statutory provision for capital carryover by way of deferred surrender to the Exchequer was made by section 91 of the Finance Act 2004, to which this relates. The €126 million is a small proportion of the Revised Estimate Volume. Provision for capital is being carried forward from 2007 to 2008. A provision for this amount by Vote was made in the Schedule to the Appropriation Act at Christmas. The draft ministerial order for the capital takeover is fully consistent with the Appropriation Act. The finance committee will have a chance to discuss it and it will then come back to the House for approval.
Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 9 and 10 without debate, motions re referral to select committee regarding draft orders, deferred surrender to the Central Fund and service by the Defence Forces of the United Nations, agreed? Agreed.
First, will the Taoiseach indicate if the Government has made a decision yet in respect of the naming of a date for the reform treaty referendum of the European Union? The Taoiseach is aware of my views on this matter that the sooner we fix a date, the easier it will be for parties for and against to put their plans in order. Has the Cabinet decided on a date and, if so, will the Taoiseach give us that date?
Second, the Taoiseach is aware of a letter I wrote to him and which matter has been referred to by Deputy Shatter on a number of occasions, namely, the fact that there is a clear deficiency in the law in so far as sexual predators and young children is concerned. This is an enabling provision dealt with by the last committee and our preference would be that this question should be put as well to ensure that the authorisation to draft legislation could be given by the people, which legislation would be decided by the relevant Oireachtas committee and all its ramifications and eventually the House. Has the Taoiseach decided on that matter to run in conjunction with the EU referendum?
Third, the Taoiseach used his authority here on the matter of the EU water directive in respect of school charges. A committee is meeting as we speak, if it is not adjourned, dealing with the difficulty that will arise about the GMS scheme and the provision of medication and prescriptions for patients. There is a serious row in that regard and pre-emptive action has been taken by the Health Service Executive in sending out contracts without figures, which will cause mayhem within the entire spectrum. I am not sure of the outcome of the committee meeting but in the interests of finding out what should be done, the Taoiseach might instruct that no action be taken either by the HSE or the pharmacists until such time as a competent, independent authority makes recommendations as to the way this matter should be addressed in the interests of everybody. I ask him, in his capacity as Taoiseach, to ensure that happens before 1 March or there will be a great deal of angst in many sectors throughout the country.
I discussed this matter with Deputy Kenny. I will be replying to the letter he sent to me; it should be with him today. My understanding from Ministers involved on my side is that it is impossible to get substantive agreement. Deputy Shatter has been very helpful in discussions but it is their view that to put this question we would not alone have to make a decision, but we would also have to have the draft legislation. That is something they do not see us being able to agree on. If it is possible, they should resume discussions but I will answer the letter.
It was not necessary in the case of the bail amendment. We did not have to have the heads of the Bill in that case.
The view is that we cannot ask people to decide on a substantive issue like this, and there are a number of very important issues, without spelling out the comprehensive legislation. We have done that in all cases since the divorce referendum. It is a practice we followed in a number of other referendums; the Deputy pressed me to do that. We would not be listening to the NGO groups if we did not put out the substantive detail on this; it would get into a very controversial area. That is the view of the Ministers and officials who have been dealing with this issue.
We have not fixed a precise date. We are talking about the same timeframe the Deputy mentioned, namely, the end of April into mid-June. We now have the draft legislation on which we would like to consult with Deputy Kenny and Deputy Gilmore, their spokespersons or legal people as quickly as possible.
Three issues arise. The legislation will be before this House by early March, or even late February, depending on how long the consultation on that takes. We have followed exactly the same format that was used in the Single European Act, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice. We have not changed the model. It is one with which we and our legal people will be familiar. A White Paper in Irish and English from the Department of Foreign Affairs is ready. There is also the matter of the setting up of the Referendum Commission. It has indicated it would like a period of 90 days and that would normally be from the time of the publication of the Bill. If we could get that done by the end of the month, it would get the full 90 days — March, April and May. We are well advanced to move on it.
I call Deputy Gilmore.
What about the HSE and the Pharmacy (No. 2) Bill?
That is not in order, Deputy Kenny, as you well know. In deference to your position as party leader, I allowed you to ask the question but you know it is not in order to——
A Deputy
The Taoiseach's backbenchers are——
The Taoiseach might want to answer that question.
I have to move on. I call Deputy Gilmore.
I want to raise two legal actions which are pending in the High Court and in which the Dáil will have a direct interest. The first relates to the application being made to the High Court by the Smithwick tribunal, seeking the release of documents the then Minister for Justice may have used to brief Government in March 1989 regarding the murder of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan, murders which are now being investigated by Mr. Justice Smithwick under the mandate given to him by the Oireachtas. I have a number of questions in that regard.
First, will the Taoiseach indicate if the Government intends to contest the High Court application by the tribunal? Second, has the Ceann Comhairle or the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission nominated solicitors to accept service of the proceedings on behalf of Dáil Éireann as requested by Mr. Justice Smithwick in the letter sent to the Clerk of the Dáil on 6 February? Third, will the Ceann Comhairle indicate if it is intended that the Dáil or the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission will be legally represented in these High Court proceedings to ensure that the interests of the Oireachtas, as the establishing body for the tribunal, is upheld in this case?
The second issue I want to raise relates to the response the Taoiseach gave to both Deputy Kenny and I during the course of Leaders' Questions in which he stated that his legal challenge to the Mahon tribunal is based on the protection of parliamentary privilege. In that regard, does the Ceann Comhairle now intend that the Dáil or the Houses of the Oireachtas will apply to be joined in the proceedings in view of the fact, first, that the planning tribunal was established on foot of motions passed by the Dáil and Seanad and, second, the important constitutional and legal issues regarding the privilege of Members under Article 15.13 of the Constitution that are likely to be addressed in that case and in which all Members of this House have an interest?
The Deputy will be aware that the items he has raised are not in order in accordance with the Order of Business. Regarding the first matter, however, we have nominated parliamentary legal advisers to advise on the matter. Regarding the second matter, that is a matter which will have to go before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The other matter is a matter for the CPP in the first instance. I must advise Deputy Gilmore that I will communicate with him on these matters but they are not in order on the Order of Business.
I do not in any way wish to get into conflict with you, a Cheann Comhairle, or challenge your ruling on this matter but I submit I am in order. I appreciate you will communicate with me about them. I submit that these are in order because the first matter was the subject of correspondence between the Smithwick commission and the Clerk of the Dáil, which was circulated to Members last week. Clearly the Houses have an interest in that matter, which I am drawing to the attention of the Ceann Comhairle. From the Taoiseach's reply to Deputy Kenny and me today, an issue arises for the Ceann Comhairle and the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission with regard to seeking to be joined in the proceedings initiated by the Taoiseach in the High Court because he claims he is applying to the High Court, apparently not in his interest, but to defend the collective interest of parliamentary privilege.
I will communicate with the Deputy but the Deputy is aware that it is not in accordance with the orders of this House. The longstanding convention is that the Chair be given notice of matters such as this. I have answered the Deputy in so far as I can.
Section C of the Government legislative programme refers to the Electoral (Amendment) Bill to revise the Dáil and European Parliament constituencies but it is well down the list. Will the Government be bringing forward proposals in this session or the next session to give effect to the reports?
It will be in the next session.
During the last Dáil and in this Dáil, the Taoiseach was kind enough to promise legislation to deal with management companies and the regulation of property agents. Everyone felt this was a personal commitment because of the Taoiseach's knowledge of this issue in Dublin Central, where many young people are charged management fees of €1,800 to €2,500 and cannot receive proper invoices, a case of gross exploitation by some management company directors, developers and property service agents. We have all heard how little legislation is before the Dáil but nothing has been heard in this Dáil concerning a law dealing with management companies or the introduction of legislation on the regulation of property management agents. Many apartment blocks will soon be ten years old and issues such as damage to roofs and repainting exteriors arise. Most of the money collected has gone with the managing agents and there is nothing left in sinking funds to provide for essential major repairs. People in apartments may be faced with bills in excess of €10,000 for major repairs.
Is legislation promised?
Legislation is due and it is an important issue. In late 2006 and early 2007 the Law Reform Commission published a consultation paper on the multi-unit developments. It drew attention to the broad range of issues of governance and operation of the developments. It is complex because it involves more than one area. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform chairs a Cabinet committee, which includes the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; Justice, Equality and Law Reform; the company law sections of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment; and the Attorney General to deal with these cross-cutting issues. I thought it could be addressed with one Bill by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government but it involves company law, consumer protection and the development of regulatory structures. We are trying to make progress on all fronts but it could require three legislative measures from three Departments to get this correct. They are working on it, using the Law Reform Commission's document as the base to do this. We are pushing it because it should be done. I do not disagree with the argument Deputy Burton makes.
I tabled two questions to the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, sitting beside the Taoiseach, on the decline of bed and breakfast units available to tourists and the lack of the Cork-Swansea ferry for the 2008 tourism season, two issues of tremendous interest to the good people of Cork and Kerry. The Ceann Comhairle wrote to me stating he would disallow the two questions because the Minister had no official responsibility to Dáil Éireann for these matters. Is he the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism? If he is, he should have responsibility for answering these questions.
Things have slid downhill since I was a Member for 21 years to 2002. Since my return to the House I have received a number of replies from Ministers ducking and diving around their responsibilities.
Hear, hear.
At least the Minister for Health and Children accepts parliamentary questions and states that she has referred them to the chief executive officer of the HSE for direct reply to Deputies concerned. In fairness, the HSE has set up a parliamentary affairs division to answer these questions in due course.
That is not in order.
This refers to the procedure of the House.
It does not.
I would appreciate if the Taoiseach would assist me and every other Member by compiling a list of subjects that each Minister will provide answers to and a list of subjects that are now the responsibility of an agency funded by the Department in cases where Dáil questions cannot be answered.
Could I go further, Taoiseach——
No, Deputy Sheehan cannot. That is the end of it.
I suggest the Taoiseach encourages each agency to follow the lead of the HSE and set up a parliamentary affairs division to answer parliamentary questions within a reasonable time, such as ten working days.
We must call it a night. This is completely out of order.
The Ceann Comhairle should trust me and indulge me for a few minutes. It might save him from writing to Deputies every sitting day, and save him spending hundreds of minutes ruling Deputies out of order during the Ceann Comhairle's term of office. If Ministers are not able to run their Departments——
That is the end of it. I call Deputy Crawford.
On the same issue——
It is completely out of order. Deputy Sheehan carried on as an exceptional measure. We cannot proceed with that. We would be here forever and I ask the Deputy not to do it again.
Three issues are of extreme importance. The aged, the disabled and those needing health care from pharmacists are extremely worried at the despicable acts of the HSE towards the pharmacists.
Is there legislation promised?
When will the pharmacy No. 2 Bill be brought before the House? I have asked that the health long-term residential care services Bill be enacted to deal with the subvention matter.
This session.
That response is not sufficient. When will it be dealt with? People need certainty on this matter.
Has the Taoiseach decided if Cavan can come back into the Republic? We would all like to know. It was expelled last week and we want it back in.
I thought that was settled at the Polo Grounds in 1947.
I do not have a date for the pharmacy Bill. The health Bill will be dealt with in this session.
On 14 November 2007 I was appointed Chairman of the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security as a result of pressure following the failure to produce terms of reference. Since 14 November the committee has operated without a clerk, and only with the assistance of another clerk, who is covering for the failure of those who should appoint a clerk. Is the Taoiseach serious about this issue? Will he arrange for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to stop blocking the transfer of a member of staff, who is apparently on a list as a result of relocation of the Department, to the Houses of the Oireachtas? I and members of my committee will not hold meetings until we get proper staffing. We should not set up committees unless the Taoiseach is prepared to give us the back-up to do the work we are expected to do. We are endeavouring to do a job on behalf of both Houses, the Seanad and the Dáil. We are getting the co-operation of Departments in trying to do it but we cannot continue to operate without even a clerk never mind professional assistance.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
It is tenuous enough. The question refers to the committees of the House.
I will check whether it is an issue for the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission or, as Deputy Barrett indicated, the Department. If it is a departmental issue I will ask the Minister to try to clear whatever blockage is there.
I was told months ago that a member of staff from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was to come over.
I will check that.
We have been hanging on for months without a clerk. It is ridiculous.
I am not sure whether the Taoiseach is aware that in Northern Ireland there is considerable concern at the fact that next month RTE intends to close down the medium wave radio service. This seems to fly in the face of the Good Friday Agreement, that people who have been able to access RTE radio all their lives will no longer be able to do so.
Will the Taoiseach ensure that the Broadcasting Bill is brought forward? In the meantime, because this affects people in Northern Ireland and our emigrants in Britain, who in many cases will also lose a service, will he ensure that RTE does not close down this service until the Broadcasting Bill is debated and that we can ensure there is consistency? For example, the FM signal is so weak on parts of the Falls Road that people simply will not be able to get RTE radio. This is a matter for debate in this House and for the committee on the progress of the Good Friday Agreement, as well as the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.
It is a matter for the House but not on the Order of Business. The Taoiseach to reply on the Broadcasting Bill.
The Broadcasting Bill will be before the House shortly.
In the context of the promise to establish the new statutory national employment rights authority, when can we expect the Employment Law Compliance Bill?
Shortly. It will be in this session.
Definitely this session?
I, too, wish to ask the Taoiseach about the property services regulatory authority Bill. This Bill is necessary to put the national property services regulatory authority on a statutory basis. The authority was set up in 2005 and is costing thousands of euro each year to run, yet it has not been established on a statutory basis. For too long there has been no regulation of property management companies. Meanwhile, apartment owners are being fleeced with fees rising on a yearly basis. There is no accountability or value for money breakdown while people's hard-earned cash is being paid to management companies in management fees. The Taoiseach has held office for a long time and I urge him to move this legislation forward.
The Taoiseach to reply on the legislation. We will have to dispense with the prologues and the epilogues.
The Criminal Law (Defence of Life and Property) Bill will be introduced later in the year. As I indicated, it is just one of the measures to deal with this issue; it will not cover all aspects.
REPS is fundamental to the protection of our national monuments.
That is not relevant to the Order of Business.
No. 49 on the list of promised legislation is the National Monuments Bill. A total of 6,000 farmers are waiting for REPS payments. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coughlan, appears to contradict the Commission on this matter. When will the National Monuments Bill be introduced and when will the 6,000 farmers be paid?
It is listed for next year.
They will be paid next year.
Maith thú, a Cheann Comhairle. As we approach the 10th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, is there any outstanding legislation arising from the Agreement that has yet to come before the House? Is it intended to schedule a full debate in the House on implementation of the Agreement? When the Taoiseach is in full flow, will he clarify the position on the transfer of policing and justice powers from London to Belfast? An official was quoted this week as saying the Taoiseach felt the May deadline might not be reached. I would appreciate his take on the matter. I hope his position will be that the whole process should be completed by May of this year.
The Taoiseach to reply on whether there is outstanding legislation.
I do not think there is any outstanding legislation but we are trying to meet the May deadline.
Maith thú.
When does the Taoiseach expect to publish the Civil Partnership Bill as legislation in this area has been promised for at least a couple of years?
It will be later this year. I do not know the exact date. The draft heads are not yet completed. I am not sure how long that will take but work is under way and it is hoped to have the draft heads of the Bill shortly. It will probably be later in the year.
A promise was made in the programme for Government to establish an independent electoral commission. Will this happen before the local and European elections? Has work been done on it and at what stage is the process?
It will take some time to put the commission together so I cannot see it being completed before the local elections.
The Government has introduced more bureaucracy, red tape, rules and regulations in regard to——
I said no more prologues.
——animal medicines. Officials in the Department and vets find it impossible to implement them.
This is not in order. The Deputy should know that.
The issue is relevant to legislation.
The Deputy should ask that question then.
When can we expect the Animal Health Bill to come before the House to update animal disease legislation?
The Taoiseach to reply on the Animal Health Bill.
The heads of the Bill have been approved but I do not have a date for their publication.