Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 26 Jun 2008

Vol. 657 No. 5

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. a11, motion re membership of committees; No. b11, motion re referral to joint committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Planning and Development Regulations (Amendment) 2008; No. 11, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Employment Equality Act 1998 (section 12) (Church of Ireland College of Education) Order 2008; No. 12, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Risk Equalisation (Amendment) Scheme 2008; No. 13, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Planning and Development Regulations 2008; and No. 4, Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2008 — Second Stage (resumed).

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order, that Nos. a11, b11 and 11 to 13, inclusive, shall be decided without debate.

There is one proposal to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. a11, b11 and 11 to 13, inclusive, without debate agreed to?

Before this House agrees to co-operate with any motion being taken without debate, we need some clarity on important issues that have arisen and have been raised here day after day on the Order of Business. What is happening regarding the €110 million assigned for the support of elderly people in nursing homes and the €50 million assigned for the support of people with a disability? Last night, we heard the Taoiseach say he was aiming to protect the most vulnerable in our community, yet despite Deputies on all sides asking what is happening regarding patients in nursing homes who are facing chronic bills and whose families are stretched beyond the limit in trying to cope, there has been a deafening silence from the Government.

Equally, there are serious concerns in regard to disability services, with one of the main service providers announcing last week that it must close its doors to young people born with Down's syndrome and other disabilities and that it will be unable to offer their parents any service forthwith. Some €50 million was committed to the development of day care centres, respite centres and residential care centres — which, in many cases, are offering care to people whose principal carers have died — but we are now told that the Health Service Executive has issued an instruction to these agencies that they cannot accept any more clients, not even an emergency client, without the written sanction of the national director of care. We voted through this money for the purpose of assisting the most vulnerable in the community and we are entitled to know what is happening to it. Is it being raided to finance other activities for which it was not assigned? Will it be assigned for the purpose we intended and which the Taoiseach seems to support, namely, helping vulnerable people?

This is the second time in less than a fortnight that a planning regulation which proposes substantive change in legislation has been put before us with no opportunity for Second Stage debate. It is little wonder that people think the Dáil is out of touch when we have the Government putting forward proposals on important principles and expecting them to go through without debate. The Government cannot expect the co-operation of the House if, day after day, Deputies are obliged to ask what is happening in regard to clear commitments on the allocation of moneys and where decisions that ought to have been implemented are not happening.

I have questions on two matters on today's Order of Business. The first, No. 13, is a proposal by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to provide exemptions from planning regulations for significant extensions to schools and in the case of, for example, wind turbines of 8 m in width and 20 m in height. These are not small turbines in people's back gardens but large turbines of some 60 ft. in height. The proposals also encompass combined heat and power systems, 300 sq. m in size and 8 m in height, and with flues of 20 m in height. Under this proposal, therefore, biomass, heat recovery or composting developments of some 1,000 sq. m, which is the size of a small housing estate, will be entirely exempt from planning regulations

This proposal has serious implications for local residents. Wind energy and biomass developments half of the size or even the same size as an adjacent housing estate will be totally exempt from the planning process and there will be no requirement to provide an environmental impact statement. This is not the way to provide transparency in planning matters, which I understood was a hallmark of the Green Party. We are opposed to this provision.

The second item I wish to raise is No. b11, a proposal by the Minister, Deputy Gormley, for a referral to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government of further exemptions from planning regulations. The Labour Party spokesman on the environment, Deputy Ciarán Lynch, has spent the past several days trying to find out what is encompassed in these additional exemptions, but nobody can tell him. We will not accept this proposal.

Will the Tánaiste ask the Minister to come to the House for a debate on provisions that will affect the residents of every housing estate in the State? Anybody could wake up in the morning to discover a biomass development the same size as their housing estate right alongside it. These developments will be governed by the same planning regulations as pertain to kitchen extensions, conservatories or porches. We all welcome the exemptions that exist in those cases but we do not welcome this proposal. Nor will the constituents of Members on the Government benches when they find such developments taking place beside their own housing estates.

I wish to highlight another aspect of the Tánaiste's proposition this morning. Three of the matters to be decided upon without debate are back from committee. These are No. 11, motion re section 12 of the Employment Equality Act 1998; No. 12, motion re the Risk Equalisation (Amendment) Scheme 2008; and No. 13, motion re the Planning and Development Regulations 2008, as referred to by Deputy Burton.

The critical point is that a request is being put to us to endorse these proposals without debate and with only the simple notation "back from committee". There is no briefing note or even a short memo to tell us how these matters were addressed in committee. While committee meetings are open to all members, it is not physically possible to attend them all. I am sure this is a difficulty not confined to parties of small numbers such as Sinn Féin. Few Members will have any idea of the detail of how these matters were addressed in committee, whether they were discussed or merely noted on the nod. We do not know whether opposition was expressed to the proposals and whether divisions were called. This is bad practice.

Matters coming back from committee and before the House for approval without debate should include an appended notation from the relevant secretariat indicating exactly what happened at committee. It is too late for this raft of proposals but I hope the Tánaiste, Chief Whip and others will accept the common sense of my suggestion and that it is in all our interests to do our business properly. I strongly urge that the practice I have proposed becomes the norm into the future.

I will respond first to the points made about today's Order of Business. I was of the opinion that the party leaders at least would be familiar with or have been given a background note on these proposals. I am asked the same question every Thursday on these types of motions. I propose that in future, in respect of all motions coming back from committee, a short briefing be made available to all the Whips and to those who wish to be familiarised with the proposals. Such an approach would provide clarity.

That would be helpful.

Committee meetings sometimes finish late but we will ask that each clerk make a note available to all the relevant parties. That will address the issue.

Deputy Burton asked specifically about the motion being referred to committee, No. b11. This refers to the fact that there is duplication of consent procedures. Where, for example, permissions are given under ecological perspectives, comprehensive assessments have been made and it has been concluded that there is a duplication issue. This will be discussed in committee and, if needs be, following on from committee——

With respect, and the Tánaiste is being very helpful——

Under Standing Orders, there can be no further intervention on this issue.

Will the Tánaiste outline the technical issues involved?

I am not familiar with them.

Deputy Burton may not intervene again.

I wish to be helpful. I will ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government or somebody in his Department to brief the Deputy on this prior to the committee meeting, which I assume will be next week. If Members are not satisfied with the outcome of the discussions in committee, this can be brought to the Whips' attention and we can deal with it in the full forum of this Chamber.

Deputy Bruton raised a matter which is not necessarily relevant to the Order of Business, but I will address it so that we can progress the business of the House. The issue of nursing homes subvention funding has been raised on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, the fair deal legislation has been subject to unavoidable and unforeseen delays. We expect the legislation in July. That being said, an allocation has been made available through the fair deal. The Minister for Health and Children has carefully considered the question of allowing some of the funding allocated for the fair deal to be used for nursing homes subvention. Officials from her Department are in discussions with the Minister for Finance and we would hope to have a decision fairly quickly. We are addressing the issues of concern that we all have in regard to the fair deal.

What about disability?

Can I ask again——

It would be appropriate that if needs be the Minister for Health and Children can give the Deputy a note on that issue when the matter has been finalised in discussions.

I raised it on the Adjournment and I got no response.

We cannot have a discussion on that matter now.

The Tánaiste did not address item No. 13.

Is the proposal agreed to?

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with Nos.a11, b11, 11, 12 and 13 be agreed to.”
The Dáil divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 42.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Andrews, Chris.
  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Behan, Joe.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Browne, John.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conlon, Margaret.
  • Connick, Seán.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Curran, John.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Flynn, Beverley.
  • Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Hoctor, Máire.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kennedy, Michael.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • Mansergh, Martin.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Brien, Darragh.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Keeffe, Edward.
  • O’Rourke, Mary.
  • O’Sullivan, Christy.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • White, Mary Alexandra.

Níl

  • Bannon, James.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Creighton, Lucinda.
  • D’Arcy, Michael.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • English, Damien.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Mahony, John.
  • O’Shea, Brian.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Sherlock, Seán.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Upton, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg
Question declared carried.

I wish to raise two issues on the Order of Business. Yesterday we saw figures that show once again that the Government's commitment to end hospital waiting lists in two years, by 2004, has not been delivered.

We cannot go into that now.

I wish to inquire of the Tánaiste about the Minister for Health and Children's indication that there may be legislation in the offing on the issue. We have had no progress on the matter and we have not seen the Minister for months, and now we are told that hospitals are to blame. What is the nature of the legislation and will we see it before this session is over?

What is the second issue?

The second issue relates to the Tánaiste's own brief. I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle but it is quite difficult to be heard.

It is. We cannot have talking in the lobbies during the Order of Business.

Especially when you are trying to say I am out of order.

I tell everybody else but they do not listen. They do not have to go home but they cannot stay here.

I am sure the Tánaiste will have read the wholesale price index this week that shows our exporters have taken a 23% hit in the prices they are getting for their exports.

That is not in order either.

Wait for it, a Cheann Comhairle.

We also know that is not happening in shops where people are being ripped off. Shoppers here are paying 30% more than shoppers in the North. What are the Tánaiste's plans for a national competitiveness action plan, as has been requested by the National Competitiveness Council?

Deputy Bruton knows action plans are not in order now.

Can I ask further what is the status of particular legislation envisaged under that plan? For example, what is the status of the Bill to introduce competition in public transport? The Dublin Transport Authority Bill is before the House but we have no public transport regulation to free up——

On the legislation, Tánaiste.

Can I ask also what is the status of the Electricity (Transfer of Transmission Assets) Bill that is on the Dáil Order Paper? Are we now seeing a U-turn by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources on the separation of transmission within the electricity system, which again is legislation designed to improve the competitiveness of structures for people competing abroad? Is there an action plan to fast-track those legislative elements that would help to make up a competitiveness action plan? What is the Tánaiste's strategy to fast-track them?

The Tánaiste to reply on the three legislative proposals.

I am not aware of proposed legislation on the health issue. I think the Deputy is referring to the announcements on the National Treatment Purchase Fund and the fact that a number of hospitals are not participating in it, which is disappointing.

I do not propose to introduce any new legislation on competitiveness re prices, as it is not a competitiveness issue. Nothing has occurred that has been anti-competitive, however, there are grave concerns about the non-transfer of the benefits from sterling to euro.

The Tánaiste should stick to the legislation.

I am working tirelessly to pursue those issues on behalf of the consumer.

On the Electricity (Transfer of Transmission Assets) Bill.

As of yet, we are not in a position to say on what date the Electricity (Transfer of Transmission Assets) Bill will be before the House.

What about the Bill to introduce competition in public transport?

The Bill will come to the House later this year.

It is all mañana. Competitiveness is a challenge we need to address now, not some time in the far distant future.

Nirvana or mañana.

I call Deputy Burton.

I wish to ask the Tánaiste about reports in the Irish Examiner on the serious situation regarding toxic refuse at Haulbowline.

That is not relevant at all now.

Just bear with me, a Cheann Comhairle. Chromium 6, the most dangerous of compounds, has been found to be present and is in dust at the site.

To what legislation does the Deputy refer?

Why were the contractors on the site seemingly ordered to stop? Will the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government make a statement to the House?

I have to insist that the Deputy raises the matter in another way.

I understand the Minister is in Cork today. Will he come back and make a statement to the House?

There are several ways of raising the matter.

I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle. We want to know if people in Cork and Cobh are safe and if Naval Service personnel are safe.

I have to enforce the Standing Orders.

It is carcinogenic.

Chromium 6 is the second most toxic, carcinogenic, cancerous substance in the world.

The Deputy will need to raise the matter in another way and on another day.

It is on the front page of one of our newspapers. If the Dáil is to have any relevance, it needs to discuss what the Government is doing to protect our people and preserve our safety.

The Deputy can table a parliamentary question or seek to have it discussed on the Adjournment. However, she cannot raise it on the Order of Business. I am moving on unless the Deputy has something else to raise.

Will the Government arrange a debate on the matter and will the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government come into the House?

The Deputy is completely out of order.

The Minister is looking after Green Party business when he should be looking after the health of the people in Cobh.

I must ask the Deputy to resume her seat.

Will the Government make provision for a debate on this matter?

When the Chair is standing, the Member must resume her seat. She is completely out of order and I cannot allow it.

I am not out of order regarding the health of the people in Cork and toxic dumping.

I must make the call as to whether she is out of order.

I am asking for a debate.

She is out of order and I am afraid I may need to ask her to leave.

I am asking that the Minister come to the House for a debate.

The Deputy may ask about a debate if one is promised. Is a debate promised on this issue?

I call Deputy Hogan.

I have a second issue.

Is it on legislation?

Regarding the report——

I am required to enforce Standing Orders. I have no choice.

Do not be in such bad humour, a Cheann Comhairle.

I am not in bad humour at all.

I am being really nice to you.

I came in in great form.

Good. Some people looking in might believe we did not get on at all. In fact, we do.

They have heard our secrets.

A Deputy

You are out of order, a Cheann Comhairle.

For the second year in a row, the report of the Standards in Public Office Commission regarding the disclosure of donations to political parties has made clear recommendations. We do not know what contributions political parties are receiving.

What is the legislation?

We do not know the spend before election.

The Deputy can table a parliamentary question to the line Minister.

The members of the Government, including the Green Party members, have made statements that there would be legislation——

I would suggest tabling a parliamentary question to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

——to bring more ethical transparency and standards to this area.

Is legislation promised in this area?

Arising from the decision of the people to reject the Lisbon treaty, will 12 or 13 seats be contested in the 2009 European Parliament elections? Will those elections be contested under the Lisbon rules or the Nice rules?

There is another way of raising that matter, as the Deputy knows well.

The legislation for Dáil and European electoral boundaries was just passed by the Oireachtas.

Yes, but it is not promised.

A new situation now arises.

We are ex post facto now. We cannot do that.

Will the Tánaiste indicate whether we will use the Lisbon rules or the Nice rules for the European Parliament elections? Many people would have an interest in that matter.

We cannot go into that.

New legislation is required.

Regardless of whether it is promised, new legislation is required.

Is legislation promised in this area?

Not that I am aware of.

On several occasions I have tried to raise the issue of the Planning and Development Act. I believe section 47 is both illegal and unconstitutional.

The Deputy will need to raise that matter in another way.

I have tried many times.

The Deputy can try to have the matter discussed on the Adjournment or he could table a parliamentary question.

Section 47 whereby local authority members——

I am trying to be helpful, but the Deputy is out of order.

——are giving section 47 forms to applicants and requesting them to sign them on the basis that if they do not apply for planning permission for the rest of their lives, the planning permission will be granted.

We seem to have gone completely beyond the bounds of Standing Orders this morning.

It is both illegal and unconstitutional. Where else can I raise the matter?

The Deputy can table a parliamentary question. He could table it for discussion on the Adjournment. There are several ways to do it.

I have done so and it has not been accepted.

The Deputy should do it again.

I want to ask the Tánaiste if she has responsibility for a particular matter. This issue has been discussed on TV3 and on RTE and I want to know if we can have a debate in the Dáil on multiples like Tesco, Dunnes Stores and others robbing the people.

Deputy Ring, please.

It used to be rip-off Ireland. It is now rip off the Irish by these multinationals.

Is a debate promised on this matter?

Can we have a debate in the House on the matter?

A debate is not promised.

It is important to have a debate.

No debate is promised.

The people are being ripped off and robbed by these multinationals.

I call Deputy Broughan.

I want to know whether we will have a debate. It is being discussed on RTE and TV3. We want to discuss it in the House so that we can represent the people.

We can have a discussion if it is raised here in a different way.

I took questions in the House last week and the Deputy was not here.

I understand the Minister for Transport is meeting his Northern Ireland and UK counterparts to discuss the issue of penalty point harmonisation. Will that entail legislation or can it be done by regulation? On this day two weeks, when the plenary session will come to an end, is it intended that the Minister for Finance will make a financial statement or will he just reply to the debate?

Is legislation promised on penalty points?

I cannot say for definite on penalty points. I will ask the Minister's office to contact the Deputy. Based on discussions I have heard, it would be some time before we would come to that. There will be a full debate on the economy on the Adjournment of the House and all the issues that have been mentioned today can be encompassed in that debate.

There is agreement on both sides of the House to have a debate on the Morris tribunal reports. We discussed it briefly at the Whips' meeting last night. On 28 May, Deputy Gilmore raised the matter and the Tánaiste indicated the last two reports were expected in mid-June. Can she confirm if they have been received? If so, when will they be published? I understand they are required to be published within 14 days. If they are available, rather than letting the matter go stale, it would be desirable that they be discussed here immediately after their publication.

I have been advised by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that the two reports have not been obtained yet. As soon as they are, the Deputy will be informed. We gave an undertaking that all the reports would be discussed here.

Can the Tánaiste assure the House that no legislation is being prepared to allow US authorities to search civilian aeroplanes at Shannon Airport and that the only appropriate and accountable organisations to search civilian or military aircraft in Shannon are the Garda and the Irish Customs Service, particularly in light of previous extraordinary renditions through Shannon?

Is legislation promised in that area?

There is no legislation promised that I am aware of.

Why is all the legislation that is outstanding still outstanding as we come to the conclusion of a virtually legislation-free year? Will the Ministers be collecting their benchmarking bonus for so little activity in this term?

We cannot start talking about bonuses now.

The problem is that yesterday, for example, it took two hours to complete the Order of Business and questions to the Taoiseach.

That is because the Government will not co-operate.

Even the Opposition was giving out.

We are losing out on valuable time for the Deputy's contributions.

Is there any progress on the nurses and midwives Bill? Have the heads been agreed?

It will be next year.

Notwithstanding the Tánaiste's reluctance in the past to commit to using the veto on the WTO talks — unfortunately the Taoiseach has indicated that is the Government position——

The Deputy will need to raise the matter in another way. We cannot discuss the WTO now.

——and in light of the momentum building for a ministerial meeting in Geneva in mid-July, does it remain the Government's position following the rejection of the Lisbon treaty——

We cannot discuss that.

——that the veto will be used——

The Deputy will need to raise the matter in another way.

——to scupper a deal that is not in the national interest?

That is not in order.

I appreciate the Tánaiste has not been wholehearted in her commitment to use the veto. Is the Government's position unchanged after the result of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty?

That is completely out order. We could not go on with that kind of stuff.

The use of the veto was contingent on a "Yes" vote.

The Tánaiste will know of proposals to build large-scale wind-energy farms offshore in a number of locations. In order to facilitate that work, I believe there is a requirement to update the Foreshore Acts, which is promised by Government. When will that be done and which Department will take responsibility?

There is a promise for Foreshore Act reform. There has not been a date as yet. As the Deputy will know, a transfer of functions is taking place with some going to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which will be specific to those issues to which the Deputy referred.

I got the same answer a month ago. Do we still not know which Department is taking responsibility?

It is still with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Is it to be transferred to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government?

Part of it will. The foreshore issues relating to wind energy and those ancillaries will move to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Piers and harbours will remain with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Can the Tánaiste give an assurance that the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will come before the House before the recess? Has a date been put on the calendar for it to come before the House?

Yes, it is intended to have it published before the House rises.

Barr
Roinn