It is proposed to take No. 7a — motion re Ministerial Rota for Parliamentary Questions; No. 13 — Local Government Services (Corporate Bodies) (Confirmation of Orders) Bill 2008 [Seanad] — Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; and No. 14 — Defamation Bill 2006 [Seanad] — Second Stage (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 7a shall be decided without debate. Private Members’ business shall be No. 31 — motion re Irish Economy (resumed) — to conclude at 8.30 p.m. tonight, if not previously concluded.
Order of Business.
There is one proposal to be put to the House today. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 7a — motion re Ministerial Rota for Parliamentary Questions — without debate, agreed to? Agreed. I call Deputy Kenny on the Order of Business.
The Taoiseach appointed a new Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and I wish him well in his duties. His predecessor, the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, intended to bring in a short Bill dealing with the sale of liquor. We have not yet seen that Bill. Is that likely to be delayed in view of the fact that Deputy Ahern might have a different view than Deputy Lenihan about the scale and scope of the shortened version of the sale of alcohol Bill? The Taoiseach might like to comment on that.
Yesterday I raised with the Taoiseach the question of the WTO talks. As we are all aware——
Deputy Kenny, you cannot go into that again today. You know that.
Just a second, if I may, a Cheann Comhairle, I promise you I will not be long. These are separate matters entirely from the Lisbon treaty question. I ask the Taoiseach to confirm that at the conclusion of the world trade talks the Government, and particularly the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, at the General Affairs and External Relations Council, will have the right of veto if he decides to use that.
We are not at that stage. While I understand the Deputy's concerns, we are not at the stage where that issue must be addressed at all. The present position is the Commission is working to a mandate from the Council. As Deputy Kenny knows, the Commissioner must work to that mandate on the agricultural side in line with the Council mandate. That is the position. We may not have a deal at all.
I appreciate that.
What is wrong here——
The question is——
It is not in order now.
I must say this. What is wrong here——
——whether the Taoiseach will just confirm that he has the right of veto if he wants to use it.
Yes, we have.
That is all I want to know.
Unanimity is involved in all of this. This does not help those of us who want to get a referendum through, deal with the issue and have the referendum debate about what is in the treaty, not what is not in it.
Agreed.
If we want to do that, then we must stop this continuous speculation on another issue which may not come to pass. All it is doing is raising hares.
I am just asking if he will have the right of veto at the conclusion of talks.
The Commission, upon negotiation, must come back to the Council and the Council must agree. That is the position. We know what the procedures are and let us not deal with a procedural issue which is not germane to the very important national interests which are at stake in this referendum.
But it is germane to the talks.
The talks themselves have been going on for seven years.
I dealt with it in 1996.
They may go on for some time longer.
All I want is confirmation that he has the right of veto.
What is wrong here and what is confusing the public mind is the idea that because they are coterminous they are the same matter or that they are interrelated in that respect. We have challenges in the WTO talks. We have challenges in terms of CAP issues in the treaty itself. Were we to vote "No" to the treaty, as I stated yesterday, we would very much weaken our hand in respect of a range of serious issues. In terms of the single farm payment——
I know all that. All I want the Taoiseach to confirm on the floor of the House here——
He knows that, but yet there is this confusion that these are the same matter.
——is that these talks require unanimity. That is all I want to know.
It is not in order now.
Will the Taoiseach just confirm that, as President Barroso has confirmed it——
We know what the arrangements are.
——and as Chancellor Merkel has confirmed it?
We know.
This requires unanimity. Therefore, the Minister for Foreign Affairs is in a unique position.
We know what the arrangements are. I can confirm that these are the issues, but we are not at that point.
I know that.
There is no need for us to be talking in terms as if we were at that point because that is what people take out of it when one discusses it that way.
The issue is that we have a referendum to fight. We have issues in that regard where our agricultural and other interests are greatly at stake and we must concentrate on that.
I wish to raise with the Taoiseach two matters relating to legislation. The first is to clarify a matter that arose yesterday. Yesterday I asked about the promise made by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, to introduce legislation to put a spending limit on candidates contesting the next local elections and the Taoiseach in response stated the electoral amendment Bill would be published this session. Will he clarify that my understanding is correct, that the promise made by the Minister, Deputy Gormley, to put a cap on spending by candidates in local elections will be contained in that electoral amendment Bill?
I do not know. I must get confirmation for the Deputy, one way or the other.
On 1 April last the Government published a legislation programme for the summer session 2008. Arising from his appointment as Taoiseach and his appointment of a recycled Government, will there be any changes in that legislation programme and, if so, when will they be circulated?
I asked the new Chief Whip late last week to call a legislation committee meeting and to acquaint himself with the exact position and report to me. I understand that meeting will take place next week. He will speak to me as soon as that is over. As matters stand, we are proceeding along the lines Deputy Gilmore suggested.
Do I take it the Taoiseach is continuing with the existing legislation programme——
Yes.
——or will there be a new legislation programme?
Sorry, we have not changed it. I am making the point that, as the Deputy stated, now that we have a new Government in place, I have asked the new Chief Whip to acquaint himself with the issues here so that we can inform the House of the status of the existing list. Any changes to that arrangement to be made will be brought to the Deputy's attention as soon as the Chief Whip has that meeting and reports back to me and we assess our current position.
Will a new list be circulated if there are changes?
If that is the case, certainly yes.
When will the implementation of the constituency boundaries Bill be introduced? Will it be done this session, as promised by his predecessor?
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, stated outside the House that there will be a housing (miscellaneous provisions) Bill to deal with certain aspects of the present housing crisis. When will that legislation be brought forward?
I understand it is hoped that both pieces of legislation might be brought forward in this session.
Given the Taoiseach's own words that his wish is to see business done in a proper manner, yesterday I raised the matter of a by-law that the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources told the South-Western Regional Fisheries Board by e-mail he would introduce in 24 to 48 hours. My information is that he introduced that by-law last night, whereby the fishermen in Cromane had a licence and got the go-ahead from the Minister to go and to fish yesterday, and got instructions last night and this morning not to go out. Is that how the Taoiseach's wish that business be done in a proper fashion is being carried out?
The Taoiseach spoke last week about community life, rural life and the family.
That is not in order at all.
The implications of this for the community is what I want to highlight.
There are implications of what Deputy Sheahan is doing for the House because we would never get on to anything else.
If the Ceann Comhairle will bear with me, it is in order.
What the Deputy is asking is not in order now.
This by-law being brought in by this Minister is affecting lives and he is being misguided. To err on the side of caution, I will not name the man advising him but he has a conflict of interest in the matter. I wish the Taoiseach would look into this.
Hear, hear.
I wish the Taoiseach would look into this because the person has a conflict of interest. He is not long out of the High Court with a similar issue. The Taoiseach should look into this by-law because it would have a severely detrimental impact on a small community.
Is there a by-law being introduced?
I understand that a by-law was being introduced on the basis of scientific advice. While there is a licensing system, there is also power to postpone, defer or halt a particular activity based on the scientific advice available. It is not mutually exclusive to issue licences on the one hand, while being required on the other hand to issue a by-law based on scientific advice to do something that would affect the operation of licences. I will try to be briefed on the matter.
They are exclusively in one area——
We will move on.
It is 15 years since the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-country Adoption was signed. The adoption Bill is apparently scheduled for the summer session. Can the Taoiseach be specific on when that legislation will come before this House to give effect to this 15 year old convention?
It is expected for this session. The Deputy might be able to contact the Chief Whip's office after his meeting with the legislation committee next week.
I would like to raise promised legislation from the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. It is well known that this is not one of the Departments that produces much legislation, so there should not be too much delay in coming up with it. I refer specifically to the heritage fund Bill, which is designed to establish a fund to assist with heritage properties, private properties and others. One of those properties will probably be Farmleigh House. I understand the Taoiseach is waiting on a decision from the Garda Síochána on whether he should take up residence in the steward's lodge there. I would like to welcome the Taoiseach, should he choose to become a part-time resident of my constituency.
I look forward to receiving the Deputy's literature.
If he has any problems at all, such as needing access to the gate at White's Road, then he should not hesitate to contact me.
I thank Deputy Varadkar for his good wishes. It is probably the kindest thing he has said about Fianna Fáil since he started his political career.
While there may not be much legislation in individual Departments, the drafting capability is often centrally located in the Office of the Attorney General or elsewhere. The fact that there is not much legislation does not mean it would be quickly produced. The Bill to which the Deputy refers is not due this year. I will have to check it and I will ask the Chief Whip to contact the Deputy.
Like everybody else, I am sure the Taoiseach saw posters this morning of three monkeys on telegraph poles purporting to call for a "No" vote in the forthcoming referendum. Another poster calling for a "No" vote contained a reproduction of the 1916 proclamation, which is an historic document. On closer inspection, these posters do not seem to be authenticated. There are no signatures on them and there is no attributable body.
That is not in order.
It is in order.
Not at all.
It is in order in the context of the Electoral Acts and the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995. In view of the serious nature of such literature and the manner in which it is portrayed, is it intended to take any action to ensure that all political organisations must comply with the same regulations for authenticating documents?
That is not in order.
Can I raise another issue?
We will give you another go.
I was feeling lonely and you came to my rescue by writing to me several times in the last week. You gently intoned that a number of questions were disallowed.
That is not in order on the Order of Business.
Just in case the new regime across the floor expects to proceed with impunity, this is in order. These questions have been answered repeatedly over the last 12 months. I asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he had a view on the policy for a sensitive issue such as compliance with landfills, in view of his predecessor's statements on the matter. You replied in your letter that the Minister has no official responsibility to Dáil Éireann. This morning, the same Minister was on radio speaking of his concern over what was happening to landfills. Where is the Minister and why does he not answer those questions in this House?
The Minister for Transport has repeatedly refused to answer questions relating to health and safety, bus stops and safe places for people to wait and use public transport. He says he has no responsibility to the House. When people were tragically killed a few years ago, his predecessor had to come into this House and answer questions on that issue.
I have had enough of all this. If the Government wants to treat the Opposition with contempt, then so be it. There is a way to deal with it and the Government will know how to deal with it. I will deal with it repeatedly from now on, unless there is a change of heart.
The Deputy is completely out of order.
The Taoiseach yesterday announced his Ministers of State and he announced a new Minister of State with responsibility for arts. For what will this new Minister of State be responsible? As he is based in the Department of Finance, will he be responsible for the budget? Will he be in charge of dispensing lottery money? There is a great deal of interest in this.
The Deputy should put down a question on that matter.
I have a very pertinent question and I know you will be interested in the answer yourself.
It does not matter whether I am interested. It is a question of whether it is in order.
Will it be necessary to amend the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924 as a result of the changes to be made in the responsibilities accorded to the various Ministers of State?
There is no requirement to amend that Act to ensure the Ministers of State do an excellent job. Deputy Mansergh, who has an expertise in the arts, will work with the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism to make sure we can promote our cultural life, as I suggested yesterday.
Will he take over the budget?
That is not in order.
The Minister deals with budgets.
The Twenty-eight Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2007 has been referred to the children's rights committee for consideration. Is the Government still committed to a referendum on children's rights? Is the Taoiseach aware that when making his new appointments, he has removed from the committee two Government Ministers of State who were intimately involved in it, namely Deputies Conor Lenihan and Brendan Smith? Yesterday he effectively removed Deputy Peter Power from the committee, by appointing him as Minister of State.
I suggest that the Taoiseach does not regard the work of this committee as serious. Discussions and hearings that have taken place in which all three Deputies have been involved have been rendered irrelevant. New Ministers of State and a new Member will have to be appointed to the committee, even though they have played no part in this committee. To what extent does the Taoiseach regard this committee as relevant? Does he intend there to be a children's rights amendment to the Constitution? What progress does he expect the committee to make in circumstances in which three of the leading members from his party have been removed from it?
The premise of the Deputy's question is patently absurd. In the unlikely event that his own party was in government and in the event that he was preferred with appointment, he would not suggest his own Government had lost interest in the issues because he had been moved from the committee, though maybe he would. The whole purpose of setting up that committee was to see if there was a basis upon which we could proceed in an all-party manner. It has been very difficult to achieve that consensus. The Minister, Deputy Barry Andrews, has indicated his preparedness to continue to look at the issue and work with the committee. It is true that three able Deputies have been given appointments in the Government. The Deputy will be glad to know we have many Deputies of ability in this party who will take their place. Those Deputies will liaise with the former members of the committee. They will be briefed fully on the matter and are well capable of continuing with the good work of Deputy Shatter and others on the committee to see if there is a way forward.
Is the Government still committed to a children's rights amendment if this committee can reach a consensus on the appropriate new wording to be included in the Constitution?
If it is possible to achieve a consensus on this matter, that improves the prospect of us being able to proceed in that way. How we will proceed has yet to be determined because the work is ongoing.
What priority is the Government according to the necessity to bring forward legislation to regulate the conduct of management companies?
This is an issue that has been raised in the House on a number of occasions. I take the Deputy's point and I will revert to him on what progress we will make and how soon it can be made. The answer I would give is similar to answers already given but I will revert to the Deputy.
In order to be perfectly orderly, I have asked before when it is the intention of the Government to ratify the UN convention on disability. In asking that question, I must point out that in announcing Ministers of State the Taoiseach did not specify where responsibility for human rights lies. Human rights was attached to the Department of Foreign Affairs. When the Minister of State with responsibility for integration policy, Deputy Conor Lenihan, was appointed human rights was left out. Regarding the ratification of the UN convention on disability or many other conventions, the question arises as to where the legislative accountability and responsibility lies.
Human rights is not mentioned in the mandate of any of the senior Ministers, nor does it arise in the specification of any of the Ministers of State. Is it still with the Department of Foreign Affairs? Will that Department take the initiative of signature on behalf of Ireland or is responsibility lurking in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in which case I might as well give up asking about ratification of any UN conventions because it will not happen? The Taoiseach is a former Minister for Foreign Affairs and will recall the central part that the human rights emphasis had in the White Paper.
We cannot get into that now, Deputy Higgins.
Why was it not just transferred somewhere but got lost in the cracks? No Minister of State has responsibility for this area.
We cannot go into a big discussion on this issue.
Generally, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, will be an able proponent of the Government's position on human rights and international agreements.
I wish him well.
I recall the former Minister of State, Liz O'Donnell, had a specific remit in that area when I was the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The Minister of State had responsibility for overseas aid and human rights.
That is correct.
Why did the Taoiseach drop human rights?
I left it with the senior Minister. I have upgraded it.
It was taken back.
Retained is the word.
Is it not the responsibility of the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh?
He would be well capable of discharging it.
He has a big future.
He has a great past.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the fact that there are 350 people with intellectual disabilities——
We cannot discuss that.
It relates to the mental health (amendment) Bill.
The Deputy should ask about that Bill because we must move on.
With 350 people with intellectual disabilities inappropriately placed in mental institutions, I received an assurance from the Minister for Health and Children two years ago that there would be a specific drive to appropriately place these people. Will the Taoiseach take this matter on board? Under the mental health (amendment) Bill, when will this be done and what urgency is attached to it?
The mental health (amendment) Bill is not due until next year but the question of taking people with intellectual disabilities out of inappropriate placements in mental hospitals is an issue that continues. Progress has been made and it requires the capital programme for building sheltered housing and facilities.
That is not in order.
That is ongoing and is not dependent on the enactment of the legislation.
The issue of the UN convention, raised earlier, is dependent on passing the mental capacity and guardianship Bill. Will the Taoiseach expedite that legislation because we cannot ratify the convention until it is passed? When will that happen?
Will the Taoiseach bring forward proposals for Dáil reform from the Government side before the summer recess?
The mental capacity and guardianship Bill will be taken later this year. The other issue, which is ongoing, is best taken up with the Chief Whip.
This matter has come up before but needs to be asked again. Since his election to the office of the Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen has expressed an interest in streamlining Government and public sector reform. On two occasions, first by reappointing 20 Ministers of State, he indicated that his speeches are not matched by actions.
Regarding legislation before us, we have the same situation. Since I raised this matter with the Taoiseach, he has expressed interest in reducing the number of agencies. Yet, 15 items of legislation are still on the legislative programme establishing new State agencies or State boards, seven of which are due by the summer recess and eight after it. On the white list of the Government legislative programme there are five Bills that will extend the powers of State agencies. Some 15 Bills set up State agencies and five Bills extend the powers for State agencies and another allows State agencies to set up sub-agencies and companies. Is this another example of the Taoiseach being a good debater but not having substance behind it? Will the Taoiseach continue to introduce legislation to establish so many more agencies?
I do not agree with the rather simplistic premise that suggests that fewer agencies per se will deliver better Government. It must be planned and done properly. For example, the HSE is an amalgamation of 56 agencies. It still has organisational challenges and has not brought harmony in terms of the delivery of services. Major challenges remain.
The integration of the public service and implementing the reforms set out in the OECD report refer in some cases to functions that can be devolved to agencies for a more effective delivery of services. That has happened and there are good examples but there are also some poor examples.
Should the Taoiseach not withdraw these Bills until he has examined the matter fully?
I do not accept Deputy Varadkar's simplistic contention that reducing agencies per se is the solution to the problem. In social partnership we have committed to putting the citizens at the centre and reconstructing how we deliver services on the basis of the life cycle approach set out. We are committed to doing that and must get on with the task. I will set up a task force to report to me before the end of the summer to decide how to proceed with an implementation programme arising from the OECD report and to do so in the context of social partnership, in which I believe.
Regarding the number of Ministers of State, we are in government and providing these services. We have cross-cutting responsibilities that are working well. It is an innovation of the previous Administration that works well in terms of the of the Office of the Minister for Children, how we deal with elderly people and integration.
The Office of the Minister for Children is not working well.
I have 15 Ministers and 20 Ministers of State. The Opposition, which is not in Government, has 19 Front Bench spokespersons and 24 deputy spokespersons. What are they at?