It is proposed to take No. 15, Financial Motions by the Minister for Finance [2008] (motion 15, resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that parliamentary questions next for answer by the Taoiseach on EU matters shall be taken on the same day as the statements on EU Council meeting, Brussels, scheduled to be taken on Wednesday, 29 October 2008, and shall be moved to be taken first as ordinary oral questions to the Taoiseach on that day. The Dáil on its rising today shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 29 October 2008.
Order of Business.
There are two proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with parliamentary questions next for answer by the Taoiseach on EU matters agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal that the Dáil on its rising today shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 29 October agreed to?
It is not agreed. Proposal No. 2 proposes the Dáil shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday next, 29 October. We have a bank holiday on Monday, but that is fine because we would not expect to sit on Monday anyway. However, I see no justification for us not sitting on Tuesday. Whatever about not sitting on Tuesday, there is even less justification for not sitting until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday.
I am aware it has been the tradition and practice down the years that when we have a bank holiday, the House does not sit the day after, but these are not normal times. Financial markets are still in a state of flux and people are still very concerned about what is happening with the economy. We had 15,000 pensioners outside the House yesterday who remain unhappy, as do the thousands of others who were not there, with the position regarding the medical card. We also had 15,000 students outside who are unhappy about the Government planning to reintroduce tuition fees.
In my reading of the schedule for next week's truncated business in the House, I see no provision made for the continuation of the debate on the budget. When one takes out the statements on the European summit that are proposed for Wednesday and the arrangements for Private Members' Business, there are only two hours for other business planned for next week. This is in exceptional times. Many issues arise from the budget and only five of the Labour Party Members have had the opportunity to speak so far. There are 20 Members of the Labour Party in the House, all of whom would like to speak on the budget and raise issues such as cuts in disability payments and in education. I heard Deputy Gogarty's letter to the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, yesterday, in which he tells us that class sizes are the biggest issue. We will debate that next week.
A brief statement is all that is allowed. I must move on to Deputy Bruton. The Deputy has made his point.
I am reminded of something Patrick Pearse once said and would like to draw this to the attention of the Government:
Beware,
Beware of the thing that is coming, beware of the risen people, Who shall take what ye would not give.
The Labour Party opposes the proposal that the House should not meet until 2.30 p.m. next Wednesday. That is a daft proposal in these times and circumstances. I ask the Government to have the House back here at 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, the normal meeting time.
We had a timely reminder yesterday that power in the State derives from the people and we must respect their views. As Deputy Gilmore said, people expect that we would not take an extra day's holiday next week at a time of such convulsion within——
The Opposition agreed to it.
(Interruptions).
Allow Deputy Bruton to finish.
There is an expectation that the Dáil would sit next week to deal with many issues that have been thrown up not only by the budget. They are not only the issues in the public domain. A significant legislative programme derives from the budget, including legislation to rationalise many agencies. The House will want to participate in that legislation.
We will be here at 9.30 a.m. on Tuesday.
Excellent. I agree with the Deputy's proposal.
Does Deputy Kennedy speak for the Government?
Surely Deputy Reilly will be able to get back from his holidays.
Allow Deputy Bruton to finish and then we can move on.
We are in serious times and people expect a standard of attention to the business of the country that shows the elected representatives of this House are knuckling down to issues of real concern to the public and are not missing when that business is to be done.
The people have spoken. They have got their voice back.
I hope they will smile at Deputy Kennedy in Swords now.
The Government Deputies will need some Hallowe'en masks in their constituencies.
They will be Freddie Krueger masks.
I understand the thinking behind allowing an extra day in our constituencies on the day following a public holiday. We have limited opportunity to address issues within the constituency and on a public holiday local authorities and public sector employees are not at work. However, Deputy Gilmore has put a compelling case, which is the critical point we must take on board. I wish to explain it is not Deputies taking an extra day, which is an unfair representation. Deputies of all parties work exceptionally hard and have responsibilities in their constituencies. We should not be afraid to make that point.
(Interruptions).
I have no idea who on the Government side is badgering away. If he has nothing else to say he has very little to contribute. I am trying to reflect on a factual situation. I again make the point that Deputy Gilmore's remarks make a compelling case. In the circumstances he has rightly highlighted we should at the very least schedule our sitting for next week at the normal commencement time for a Wednesday morning. That is the very least that should be expected of us. My party and I personally would have no objection if we were to set aside the normal practice for a day following a public holiday and to schedule business for Tuesday.
The Government should show a bit of example.
The matter has been agreed by the Whips.
The Whips were informed.
We are proposing the motion——
It was not agreed. We were informed.
Did they demur?
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 59.
Tá
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Breen, Pat.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Question declared carried.
How does the Government intend to give legislative effect to two commitments it made yesterday? The first is to index the income limits for medical cards, which was not the practice in recent years, but I understand that is now Government policy. The second is to provide that no more than 5% of those aged over 70 will lose their medical cards. What legislative vehicle will be used for this? Will it be provided for in the Social Welfare Bill?
I refer to competition and consumer legislation. The Government did not increase tax credits for next year, a levy will be imposed on the low paid and it has piled on many charges on the lower paid. At the same time, there is strong evidence of rip offs in consumer markets. We have been told to expect the merger of the Competition Authority with the National Consumer Agency. Against a background, for example, where the price of diesel pre-tax has increased by 18% in Ireland with no corresponding increase in Europe over the same six-month period, when will the legislation be introduced to give effect to a stronger consumer-competition agency in order that we can have confidence these rip offs will be tackled by Government? Another rip off mooted in today's newspapers is an increase in the cost of motor insurance.
On the medical cards, to give effect to Government policy it will be necessary to provide in legislation for both the repeal of section 1 of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2001 and the withdrawal of eligibility from those currently in possession of medical cards under the Act whose income is above the threshold announced by the Government on Tuesday. This issue was raised by our colleagues in the Labour Party on the basis of the Interpretation Act, but that does not arise.
There has been an announcement to the effect that, in respect of those over 70 years of age, the thresholds will be annually reviewed to take cost of living increases into account during the Government's lifetime. A legislative measure is unnecessary.
On the Competition Authority——
Is the Tánaiste saying that a legislative measure is unnecessary? This matter is mainly provided for by legislation.
Not on specific cost of living increases. One cannot legislate for those, but they can be facilitated.
How can people trust the Government, which has not indexed thresholds in recent years?
Deputy Bruton has asked a question and the Tánaiste must be allowed to answer.
Many taxes, such as capital taxes, are indexed in line with those increases.
We will repeal one item of legislation and introduce another.
A double whammy for old age pensioners.
The Government has given an undertaking to review the thresholds annually to take cost of living increases into account during the Government's lifetime. This is the Government's comment on the matter.
No one believes the Government's undertakings. Who would?
Deputy Shatter would not believe anything.
As I indicated, we will amalgamate the Competition Authority and the National Consumer Agency, NCA. Legislation covers the work of both. As the Deputy knows, I have requested that the NCA carry out work regarding the prices of diesel and petrol, an issue that has not only been expressed in the House, but by many consumers.
The situation has worsened since the Government's announcement.
The work is ongoing and I hope to make further announcements in the near future. I am conducting work on the Competition Authority and its legislation in the context of overall competition legislation.
Not very effectively.
I must make a determination as to how the issue will be addressed in the amalgamation of the Competition Authority and the NCA. I also gave an undertaking to change the legislation, given the Government's decision on medical cards. I am addressing the issue and I hope to have a firm decision on the required legislative proposals shortly.
I would like more clarification on the legislative arrangements to withdraw medical cards from pensioners. The Tánaiste stated that two legislative measures will be required. The first will be a measure to repeal section 1 of the 2001 Act and the second will be required to withdraw the medical cards. Will these measures be made by way of separate legislation or does it remain the intention to include them in the social welfare Bill?
If the Government is introducing legislative measures to withdraw the medical cards from pensioners, why will it not legislatively underpin the commitment it supposedly gave yesterday to the effect that means test limits will be index linked? What of the arrangements for the social welfare Bill? From previous statements, I understood that the measures withdrawing the medical cards would be included in that Bill. Subsequently, we were told of some type of odd arrangement whereby the social welfare Bill would be introduced by two Ministers, one part by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and the other part by the Minister for Health and Children. Will the issue be explained?
That is not what was stated.
I wish to raise a matter with the Tánaiste that was also raised with her by my colleague, Deputy Burton, yesterday. I was surprised that the Tánaiste did not reply to the simple question. Deputy Burton asked whether the Christmas social welfare bonus would be paid this year.
And when.
When the Tánaiste replies to me, perhaps she will clarify the issue.
I did not find it surprising because the question was not in order.
It is difficult to surprise the Ceann Comhairle.
To provide absolute clarity, I will read our position into the record again so that Deputies can get the blacks for next week. To give effect to Government policy, it will be necessary to provide in legislation for both the repeal of section 1 of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2001 and the withdrawal of eligibility from those currently in possession of medical cards under the Act whose income is above the threshold announced by the Government on Tuesday.
What will be the name of the Bill?
Let the Tánaiste finish.
When I stood in the Chamber yesterday, I was adamant when I stated that it is currently the intention——
The Tánaiste was adamant on the budget as well.
——to facilitate the legislation as quickly as possible. To do so, the legislation to be put before the House at the beginning of November will be the social welfare Bill. As everyone knows, two Ministers cannot introduce one Bill. One Minister will take Second Stage——
On that side, one Minister cannot even introduce legislation.
——and, when the debate turns to the issues appertaining to different Ministers, the Minister for Health and Children has indicated that she would be prepared——
The other Minister, Deputy Hanafin, will not agree to do it.
——to introduce and address the specific health aspects.
Most unusual.
(Interruptions).
So that everyone is clear, the——
Especially the Government.
Let the Tánaiste finish.
——thresholds announced in respect of the medical card for those over 70 years of age will be reviewed annually to take cost of living increases into account over the Government's lifetime. This is Government policy.
The Government should include it in the Bill.
People will have plenty of time to discuss these issues in the context of the forthcoming legislation.
We will.
There is no legislation proposed on the final matter.
To follow on from that——
We cannot follow on all morning.
It is important. Some 15,000 people marched to Leinster House yesterday.
Deputy Gilmore should ask his question.
It is a question on the Order of Business. I am not trying to argue with anyone. It is now clear that the Bill to withdraw medical cards from pensioners will be introduced in the name of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. This is my understanding.
After two days, we have got it through to the Deputy.
In ordering the business of the House, we must consider how this two-step system will work in practice on Committee Stage.
Will Deputy Gilmore start organising the Order of Business? That is the Whips' job.
On Committee Stage, one section may overlap with another and there can be all kinds of amendment that——
I am sure that Deputy Stagg will do a good job. I have every confidence in him.
He will, but it is an unusual arrangement.
Allow Deputy Stagg to handle it.
We will explain it slowly at the time.
The Tánaiste stated that the means test limits will be reviewed, but this is not indexation. Reviewing them annually in the light of——
We must move on.
It is not indexation. If someone voted in the Chamber last night in the belief that indexation had been guaranteed, he or she has been sadly misled.
The Deputy is getting into semantics.
The Deputy must find another way to raise the matter because it is not in order. We must move on.
May I ask about the Christmas bonuses?
The Deputy knows that he cannot.
Will the Government pay pensioners and others the Christmas bonus?
We must move on. Deputy Charles Flanagan is next. We cannot discuss the Christmas bonus now.
If they were paid as the Tánaiste stated they would be——
Deputy Charles Flanagan is next.
It is pleasing to note that all of the light bulbs appear to be functioning properly because I would not dare ask the Tánaiste how many Ministers it might take to change one.
A high wire act.
The Deputy should ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, because he would want to install an energy saving bulb.
He might have a bicycle for that. I seek the Ceann Comhairle's guidance on an issue that arose during yesterday's debate on the Morris tribunal.
No, I will not return to previous debates.
It is an important issue of order. A plant appeared in the Chamber in the form of a Fianna Fáil backbencher with a prepared and supplied script.
I will not allow the Deputy to go into that.
The Ceann Comhairle is a former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform——
We must proceed with the Order of Business. I have called Deputy Burton.
It is a serious matter.
The fingerprints of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform were all over that script.
Never mind the fingerprints, Deputy Flanagan.
The Ceann Comhairle is a former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. As the guardian of Deputies' rights, I ask him to investigate——
I cannot be Inspector Clouseau in this House.
——whether officials from the Department prepared the script. It is a very serious matter.
I will have to ask Deputy Flanagan to leave if he does not allow Deputy Burton to speak.
It would be unprecedented for officials in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to be preparing scripts for Fianna Fáil backbenchers.
I have called Deputy Burton.
I am asking the Ceann Comhairle, as Chairman of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to protect the interest of Deputies.
I am not rehashing yesterday's business. I do not want to have to ask Deputy Flanagan to leave, but he is completely out of order. I ask him to resume his seat.
A vicious personal attack was made by a Deputy at the behest of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
Deputies on that side of the House are good at vicious attacks.
I repeat my question of yesterday to the Tánaiste. When will the Christmas bonus be paid to pensioners? It is not guaranteed in legislation. Will provision be made in the Social Welfare Bill for the payment of the bonus?
The Deputy asked that question yesterday. I have to move on with the business of the House.
Second, when will the Finance Bill be published? It is a complex item of legislation. As a result of the budget being brought forward, we will have little time to study it. As usual, it will probably contain nuggets for Fianna Fáil's friends in the development community.
That is not in order. The Tánaiste should respond to the question on the legislation.
The Finance Bill will be published on 20 November.
I have a third question. What is the situation in regard to the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, and the provision for corporate social responsibility in the banking scheme? People are losing their jobs and have nowhere to go for advice on their mortgages.
That is not in order. If everybody did the same as Deputy Burton, the Order of Business would last until tomorrow night. I have called Deputy Higgins.
The Tánaiste spoke to the bankers yesterday morning but she had nothing to say to people in danger of losing their homes. The Irish Banking Federation was made responsible for the scheme. People have nowhere to go for advice and assistance.
I will have to ask Deputy Burton to leave the Chamber if she does not give way to Deputy Higgins.
Will the Minister for Finance brief the finance spokespersons on the situation in regard to MABS?
The Deputy will have to find another way of raising that issue. I have called Deputy Higgins.
On a point of order, the Deputy asked at least one legitimate question about the Finance Bill.
The relevant question was answered, as the Deputy well knows.
The Ceann Comhairle will have to be careful that Deputy Stagg does not take his job.
When will the designated land (housing development) Bill be taken? This is the so-called "use it or lose it" legislation to deal with land banks that have been lying idle.
On two occasions, I introduced legislation amending section 4 of the Competition Act. In both instances, the legislation was voted down by the Government on the basis that the review of competition legislation was not complete. The Tánaiste has announced her intention to amend the Competition Act. Will she publish a timetable for the legislative programme that flows from the agreement with the social partners, which includes collective bargaining rights and reform of section 4 of the Competition Act? If she wishes, for example, to take unto herself and the Government the right to negotiate in good faith, she could have accepted either of the two Labour Party Bills. She is now suggesting she will be able to take this power, but she has not indicated how she will do so. Will there be a comprehensive reform of the Competition Act which addresses section 4? If the Tánaiste does not provide clarity on this, she is simply saying she will have a sideways negotiation with the Irish Medical Organisation, IMO, without being able to deal with the comprehensive issue, namely, that the Competition Act struck down collective rights agreed in trade union legislation.
The Deputy is referring to two types of legislation. In regard to the agreement with the social partners, we very much welcome the decision by SIPTU and the affirmation by the EU regarding temporary agency workers. At this moment in time, we are in discussions with the social partners on a timeframe for the implementation of some of that legislation. However, I am not in a position to provide a date as to when that legislation will be brought forward. Once the discussions have been completed, we will bring forward the legislation as quickly as possible.
The Competition Act is a different issue. A review of that legislation is under way. The Competition Authority and the National Consumer Agency are to be amalgamated.
That is a different issue.
It is all the same issue. I do not intend to waste people's time by introducing three or four items of legislation when the best approach may be to introduce a single Bill. I am very cognisant of the existence of EU competition law and of the fact that my decisions must be made in that context, with advice from the Attorney General. Arising from the discussions with the IMO, I gave a political undertaking to amend the Competition Act. I stand over that commitment. We are dealing with a complex item of legislation. At the moment, I am trying to determine whether it would be best to incorporate the issues arising from the IMO decision in the existing legislation or to introduce additional legislation. My preferred option is to have one piece of legislation which would facilitate the review, the new instruments I wish to introduce and the amalgamation of the two authorities. I will speak to the Deputy privately once I have made that determination.
I look forward to that. However, the Tánaiste is saying she will take it upon herself to negotiate with the IMO without dealing with the collective bargaining issue which is at the heart of section 4 of the Act.
I am not.
The Deputy cannot discuss the content of the legislation. Otherwise, we would have a Second Stage speech from everybody.
It is an important issue.
I accept that.
The Tánaiste refuses to accept trade union rights.
That is not true.
The content of legislation cannot be discussed on the Order of Business. That is for another day.
In the context of the economic climate we are now experiencing and for the purposes of clarifying and simplifying the 13 complex items of company law legislation and the various statutory instruments and case law emanating thereunder, will the Tánaiste indicate the level of progress and the expected date of publication of the company law consolidation and reform Bill?
It will be published next year.
I keep hearing the words "at this moment in time" in the Tánaiste's responses. It is disconcerting given that in the last week, we have had many different moments in time. What she is signalling for the future has no certainty.
The Tánaiste stated in the Dáil yesterday that the legality of any legislation, changes to it and requirements within this House are done with the best legal advice from the Attorney General. In regard to the proposed repeal of section 1 of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2001 and the other facilitating legislation she has indicated this morning, what does her statement of yesterday mean? Has the Government yet received advice from the Attorney General? Did the Government seek his advice on the legislative measures necessary to give effect to——
That is out of order. Does the Deputy have a question on legislation?
This is about legislation. Did the Government seek advice from the Attorney General in advance of the budget measures announced?
That is not in order.
The Deputy's question is not about legislation.
I am not asking the Minister for Transport; I am asking the Tánaiste.
The Deputy is out of order.
I saw the Minister for Transport trying to direct the Ceann Comhairle earlier to cut off Deputy Higgins. Perhaps Deputy Dempsey would sit quietly for a moment; it would do him the world of good.
Deputy Ó Caoláin must put his question about the legislation and direct his questions through the Chair.
Deputy Ó Caoláin is out of order.
Perhaps the Chair would ask Deputy Dempsey to be quiet. With respect, I have the floor.
Yes, Deputy Ó Caoláin has the floor provided he is going to ask a question that is in order.
I am asking the Tánaiste, if the Chair will give me the opportunity, for clarity in regard to whether she sought advice from the Attorney General in advance of the introduction of the measures in regard to medical cards for people aged 70 years.
Deputy Ó Caoláin is again out of order.
Deputy Dempsey, I will decide who is in order.
Hear, hear.
In regard to thresholds, will the Tánaiste clarify that the introduction of index linking in regard to thresholds will apply not only in respect of people aged over 70 years but to the qualification thresholds for all in regard to medical cards, although we have yet to see evidence this will happen at all?
I have given the Deputy a lot of latitude. The Deputy is not in order. I call Deputy Crawford.
My final question is——
No question the Deputy has asked so far has been in order.
I have a further question and I expect the same respect as any other party or Deputy in this House.
The Deputy is being afforded the same respect. In fact, I have given him a great deal of latitude.
The Tánaiste cited on Tuesday in response to questions I put to her in regard to the Competition Act and the amendments as referred to here again this morning, the specific situation applying to the Irish Medical Organisation, IMO. I would like clarification that the intended amendments to the Competition Act will also facilitate the necessary engagement with the Irish Dental Association——
Hear, hear.
The Deputy cannot deal now with the content of legislation.
——with the Irish Pharmaceutical Union and with all others who have been excluded from their rights to representation——
Perhaps the Tánaiste will state the position in regard to this legislation. We must move on.
——by the hosting agent, the HSE, over this long period.
Please, Deputy Ó Caoláin. When is the legislation promised?
No date has yet been agreed.
I told the Ceann Comhairle that Deputy Ó Caoláin was out of order.
I call Deputy Crawford.
I am entitled to a response from the Tánaiste to the questions I have validly raised.
The Deputy is not entitled to an answer.
I answered two questions.
The Deputy is not entitled to a response in regard to matters that are not in order. The Tánaiste has responded to the Deputy's questions relating to legislation.
There are matters in order which I expect the Tánaiste to address.
I call Deputy Crawford.
With respect, a Cheann Comhairle, I cannot accept this.
I have to ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
I know the Ceann Comhairle would like to silence me completely but I am asking for the same courtesy as any other Deputy.
I have to ask the Deputy to resume his seat and to allow Deputy Crawford in.
With respect, a Cheann Comhairle, Deputy Crawford and I are not in conflict.
Deputy Ó Caoláin has been given a great deal of latitude. He cannot remain standing while the Chair is on his feet, a long-standing precedent of this House.
The Ceann Comhairle is supposed to be the protector of every Deputy.
Is the Deputy going to obey the Chair?
Deputy Ó Caoláin is out of order.
Of course, I will accept that.
I ask that the Deputy resume his seat.
The Ceann Comhairle would like to ask me to leave the House.
That is not what I wish to do.
It is what he wishes to do.
No, it is not.
The Ceann Comhairle wishes I was not here at all——
That is not true either.
——and Deputy Ferris and, perhaps, Deputy Ferris in particular.
No, I find it very interesting——
Will the Chair instruct the Tánaiste to answer the valid questions I have asked?
I will have to ask Deputy Ó Caoláin to leave the House if this continues.
Is this section 31 again?
I am going to have to ask the Deputy to leave the House if this continues.
Is it not enough that that is practised up there?
I call Deputy Crawford.
Will the Chair ask the Tánaiste to respond to the valid questions I asked?
I have answered them.
The Deputy did not ask any questions.
I call Deputy Crawford. The Tánaiste has answered the questions.
Under whose direction is the Ceann Comhairle acting now?
Deputy Ó Caoláin must withdraw that remark.
Deputy Dempsey has been endeavouring to give direction to the Ceann Comhairle.
I am asking the Deputy to withdraw that.
Withdraw what exactly?
I ask the Deputy to withdraw the remark, "whose direction are you operating under now?" because he knows I have been perfectly fair to him in every way possible.
How could that be fair, a Cheann Comhairle?
Is the Deputy going to withdraw the remark?
Withdraw what?
I ask the Deputy to withdraw the statement that I am operating under the direction of another.
I do not know.
Will the Deputy withdraw it?
I will not put the Ceann Comhairle in the position that he believes he has been wronged. I will not do that.
Will the Deputy withdraw the remark?
I am asking the Ceann Comhairle, as the protector of Members of the House to instruct the Tánaiste to respond to me.
I will deal with that matter. Will the Deputy withdraw the remark?
There are no aspersions attached to the Ceann Comhairle.
Thank you. I call Deputy Crawford.
I wish to raise three issues. During the past two days I and other Members of this House attended meetings of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body to discuss progress in Northern Ireland. George Mitchell played an enormous part in that.
I must be consistent. Deputy Crawford must ask about legislation.
When will the George Mitchell Scholarship Fund Bill be brought before this House?
Clearly, provision was not made in the budget in respect of costs for a full year service of the nursing home support Bill.
Deputy Crawford must ask about legislation.
When will that Bill be dealt with in this House?
I call the Tánaiste to respond in regard to the two pieces of legislation mentioned.
The third issue I want to raise is extremely important as far as we are concerned.
It is almost 11.30 a.m.
What is the position in regard to the eligibility for health and personal service Bill? People in the Cavan-Monaghan constituency do not appear to meet any eligibility criteria in terms of our health service.
A Deputy
Hear, hear.
The legislation in regard to the George Mitchell scholarship will be introduced next year. It is hoped to introduce the fair deal legislation fairly quickly. No date has been set in respect of the final piece of legislation.
I want to raise two matters in connection with legislation.
Well done.
It is apparently a tradition for who ever happens to be the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government to every six months announce the Government is about to publish the DNA database Bill and to issue a press release which is then welcomed by the media and receives great coverage. Very often, it generates a repetitive editorial. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, did so in the past few days.
Will the Tánaiste indicate when that Bill will come before this House? Also, will she acknowledge this is an urgent necessity particularly in the area of sex crimes? The Garda Síochána are fighting criminals and conducting investigations with their hands tied behind their backs because we have no DNA database in respect of, for example, released sex offenders within the community.
Deputy Shatter cannot make a speech on the issue at this time.
This is a particularly serious issue.
I am aware of that. The Deputy should put his question in regard to the next piece of legislation.
The Garda are encountering problems in investigating events. Does the Government intend to introduce legislation to limit the number of prosecutions taken annually by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the interests of saving money and of ensuring the criminal fraternity are not put under undue pressure during the recession?
Is legislation promised in this area?
It is proposed to introduce the DNA database Bill this session. There is no other legislation promised.
I call Deputy Rabbitte.
On promised legislation in respect of the removal of the automatic entitlement to medical cards for those aged over 70 years, will the Tánaiste confirm if it is the case, as I was informed yesterday by doctors, that there exists in the contract signed by former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Micheál Martin, with the doctors a term that the entitlement may not be removed——
We had this argument earlier on.
——without the explicit agreement of the IMO? Does such a term exist in the contract and will the Tánaiste leave a copy of it in the Library for us to examine?
Deputy Rabbitte knows he must confine his questions to promised legislation. That matter is not in order.
The matter relates to promised legislation.
No, it relates to the content of the legislation. I call Deputy Reilly.
Can the Tánaiste say if that is not true?
No, she cannot. The Deputy is not in order.
I am not going to say anything.
Deputy Rabbitte must find another way of raising the matter. I call Deputy Reilly and ask that he stay in order.
So, it is true that the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Micheál Martin, signed a contract that states doctors must agree to the removal of the entitlement before the Government can change it? That is unbelievable.
There are several other ways of raising the matter.
I will come back to the matter.
Deputy Rabbitte can ring the Minister if he wishes.
I seek clarification from the Tánaiste in respect of two pieces of legislation. A simple "Yes" or "No" answer to the question will do because as we know certain people believe they have letters of undertaking which are in the back of their cars on the way to Tipperary North.
The Deputy should move on and ask about promised legislation.
Will the Tánaiste do the House the courtesy of confirming today that the income thresholds under the medical card scheme which the Government wishes to change and remove from the elderly will be index linked and will not be reduced? A simple "Yes" or "No" will do.
That matter has been dealt with. Deputy Reilly must put a question in regard to legislation.
My second question relates to the fair deal legislation. What does the Tánaiste mean by "fairly soon?" We were told before Christmas 2007 the legislation would be introduced "fairly soon".
The Tánaiste on the fair deal legislation.
The fair deal legislation has been published. It is the Minister's intention to introduce it to the House as quickly as possible. The Whips will decide the matter. I can do no more than this.
The people are getting a raw deal.
I call Deputy Durkan. There are open to Deputy Reilly other ways of raising the matter.
The people want to know what is happening and the Tánaiste is refusing to answer.
I am not. I have already answered that question twice.
Notwithstanding the fact the Green Party is probably at this moment locked in mortal combat with its collective conscience might it be a good time for the Tánaiste to inform the House——
No preambles, please. It is almost 11.30 a.m.
This is interesting, a Cheann Comhairle. I am sure the Ceann Comhairle will agree with what I have to say.
One of the Green Ministers is responsible for he provisional transfer of ownership of electricity transmission assets from the ESB to EirGrid. Perhaps the Tánaiste will inform the House of what is to be done in this regard and whether the draft heads of the Bill have been agreed and drafted.
Next year.
A Deputy
When next year?
That is an amorphous answer.
We now know where we stand.
The Tánaiste has no more information or nothing more positive to say in this regard.
No.
This is crazy.
That is progress.
I have another question in regard to other promised legislation.
I call Deputy Stanton.
On promised legislation——
Deputy Durkan, it is 11.30 a.m.
The criminal procedure (amendment) Bill has been around for some time and may give the Minister an opportunity to retract some of his weasel words from yesterday.
It will be dealt with next year. I am just facilitating the Deputy.
We will have to wait until then for the weasel words to be retracted. Is that right?
Based on a promise — or threat — in the budget to eliminate the Combat Poverty Agency, when will the Combat Poverty Agency Act 1986 be repealed?
Is legislation promised in the area?
I am not aware of such legislation. I am not sure about it but I will come back to the Deputy.
Medical card patients went through much trauma in the past year wondering if they would be able to get their medication because the HSE indicated it could not negotiate with the Irish Pharmaceutical Union because of the Competition Act.
The Deputy must ask about legislation.
I seek clarity on the issue raised by my colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, as to what exactly the Tánaiste will do with the Competition Act. Will it allow public representative groups like the IPU, the IMO and actors' Equity——
We cannot discuss the content of legislation.
Will it allow those groups to negotiate?
We cannot deal with the content of the legislation.
The pharmacy issue is by no means solved.
We cannot have Second Stage speeches on the Order of Business. I have said that several times.
The Tánaiste has not been clear on what she is doing with this legislation.
She has.
I want to know if it is to be wider than just facilitating negotiations with the IMO.
I will move on.
We are entitled to answers to questions about legislation.
Not on the content of legislation.
We are entitled to clarity——
I call Deputy Flanagan. We cannot have Second Stage speeches.
——on what the Tánaiste will do on the legislation.
I told Deputy Michael D. Higgins that and I must be consistent. I call Deputy Terence Flanagan. I apologise, I mean to call Deputy Joe McHugh.
The Deputy looks a bit like Deputy Flanagan all right.
Perhaps I will speak on behalf of Deputy Flanagan. My first question is very simple and could be directed at the Ceann Comhairle. When will we get a new model of debate on the Order of Business as the current one is an archaic and primitive way of getting discourse and answers to questions?
Hear, hear.
I agree.
It is a matter for the Whips.
Hear, hear.
Some €14,000 has been taken from the pockets of children or young teenagers with disabilities aged between 16 and 18 years of age.
That is not in order at all.
Deputy McHugh will look after that.
Under No. 54, eligibility for health and personal social services Bill——
There is no date.
There were 29 recommendations——
Hear, hear.
We cannot go into the legislation.
The Minister, Deputy Hanafin, put in one.
We have no date.
There is no date.
With one recommendation, it is like selling a car with just a steering wheel.
The Deputy is out of order and will have to find another way of raising that.
It is a cynical move by the Minister, Deputy Hanafin.
There is no answer.
The Tánaiste said earlier that the Finance Bill would be published on 20 November.
She did.
We were told at the Whips' meeting it would be 30 November but maybe that is when it is scheduled for the House.
Yes.
That would leave a very short time to deal with the complexities of the Finance Bill in the House itself, on Committee Stage etc. It would only allow a short time coming up to the holidays. Perhaps the Tánaiste might clarify that.
The post-budget legislation that is now required and effectively promised arising from the budget contains at least 17 separate legislative measures as far as we can identify. It would seem absolutely impossible to avoid creating a legislative porridge and total mess where nobody could find anything in legislation unless there is separate legislation on each item. The schedule we got — usually a fair work of fiction anyway — can now be totally discarded because of the necessity for the Government to implement these 17 pieces of legislation.
Has the Government given any thought to giving us a new schedule arising from the need for 17 pieces of legislation, a record, to be introduced in the short term to implement the budget.
The Finance Bill will be published on 20 November and we hope to take it in the House on 30 November. I have the utmost respect for the competence of the Opposition spokespersons, who will be more than capable of addressing these issues very quickly. It is only Second Stage we are dealing with.
I am good but I am not a superwoman.
It would be no problem to the Deputy. On the other issues, if we ever get out of here there will be a meeting of the legislative committee. I know it is at 5 p.m. but we will aim for that.
It is at 12 p.m.
We will try to get out in time and determine a schedule. I heard much criticism that we did not have any legislation but we will now have plenty to do.
I am not debating that.
The Tánaiste should not be shy.