Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 24 Feb 2009

Vol. 676 No. 1

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 8, motion re referral to select committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the terms of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and Turkmenistan; No. 9, motion re referral to joint committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of a proposal that section 17A of the Diseases of Animals Act 1966 shall continue in force for the period ending on 8 March 2010; No. 23, Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill 2009 — Second Stage (resumed); and No. 10, Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill 2009 — Financial Resolution.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted on the conclusion of No. 10; Nos. 8, 9 and 10 shall be decided without debate, and in the case of No. 10, it shall be moved on the conclusion of Second Stage of No. 23; and the proceedings on the resumed Second Stage of No. 23 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. tonight. Private Members' business shall be No. 6, motion re banking system.

There are three proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. agreed to?

No. Irrespective of what the Government is trying to agree, the proposal is simply unacceptable to Sinn Féin Deputies not only regarding its focus on financial emergency measures in the so-called public interest Bill, but in respect of all of what the Government is presenting today. Today's Order of Business neither reflects the important matters which should be addressed nor provides, as the next proposition will demonstrate, sufficient time or opportunities for all Members to participate.

Question, "That the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m.", put and declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 8, 9 and 10 without debate agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 23 agreed to?

The Labour Party does not agree to the guillotining of Second Stage of this Bill at 10.30 p.m. This legislation, which is now called the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill 2009, introduces the so-called levy. The proposal will permit a maximum of two speaking places for Labour Party Members, most of whom would like to contribute to the debate on Second Stage. That will not be possible under the proposed arrangements.

This weekend, 120,000 people took to the streets of Dublin in support of the proposals made by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. It is fair to say the protest was prompted by the measures provided for in this Bill. The matter is of considerable public interest, but the House will not do it justice by guillotining debate at 10.30 tonight. The Labour Party is opposed to that guillotine.

I also disagree with the proposition that the Bill be guillotined at 10.30 p.m. I strongly oppose the Bill in its entirety and believe the curtailment of the opportunity for elected Members to properly participate is absolutely irresponsible. This debate should not be guillotined and a full opportunity should be afforded to Members.

In the context of all that is happening today and in the lead-up to today's events outside this House, an opportunity should be provided by the Government to raise questions on recent developments. Members have questions to ask regarding Anglo Irish Bank, which is now in State ownership, but there is no provision for such questions on the Order Paper. Serious questions arise, some of which I touched on during Leaders' Questions, in regard to the role of former directors of Anglo Irish Bank continuing to serve on State bodies. Issues also arise regarding the ongoing Garda search of the business premises of Anglo Irish Bank.

We cannot go into that now.

The question arises of whether these searches will be extended to other business interests or, indeed, private property in the ownership of those under investigation. These are critical matters because we have seen historically situations which were poorly handled and those who were culpable——

Only a brief intervention is allowed now.

——in regard to matters of major public importance were allowed to get off scot-free. That is not tolerable and it needs to be addressed today.

There is a clear need to improve the position of the public finances as a matter of urgency. The proposed pension related levy is necessary to help restore balance. It is the first of a series of measures that will have to be taken in our effort to ensure our economic survival and ability to compete. There is no doubt that it represents an imposition but the public service pay and pensions bill comprises more than one third of all public expenditure. There is simply no alternative to making savings in this area and we believe the fairest way to do so is the arrangement whereby those who earn most pay most.

The big problem we face is increased joblessness. People are losing their jobs in this recession, which is exacerbated by other problems such as difficult trading conditions in the UK. Many workers are losing their jobs altogether and some of them have private pension provisions which are being considerably reduced as a result of the pensions crisis. This is one aspect, although it is not the only response of the Government. The scale and magnitude of the problem is far greater than even this imposition could seek to address. I ask that the urgency of the situation be recognised by everyone so that we can send the right signal to international markets about our determination to put the public finances in order. This is the first, necessary, step in that regard.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 23 be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 69.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • 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.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Connick, Seán.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Curran, John.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Flynn, Beverley.
  • Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Hoctor, Máire.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kennedy, Michael.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McDaid, James.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Mansergh, Martin.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • O’Brien, Darragh.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Hanlon, Rory.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • O’Keeffe, Edward.
  • O’Rourke, Mary.
  • O’Sullivan, Christy.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • White, Mary Alexandra.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Behan, Joe.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Coonan, Noel J.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • D’Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Enright, Olwyn.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Morgan, Arthur.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.
  • O’Keeffe, Jim.
  • O’Mahony, John.
  • 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.
  • Varadkar, Leo.
  • Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Question declared carried.

What legal steps has the Taoiseach taken to ensure the public becomes aware of the names of the ten people who received loans from Anglo Irish Bank? Section 33 of the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland Act 2003 allows for the disclosures of dealings between regulatory bodies——

The difficulty is that this is not Leaders' Questions.

I appreciate that.

They are over for today and will be on again in the morning.

I am giving details of the legislation and I will conclude shortly. The legislation refers to the necessity of protecting consumers of financial services. As I pointed out previously, while the names are now incidental to the central problem——

We cannot go into that now.

The fact is that confidentiality does not override the public good. In respect of section 33 of the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland Act 2003——

The Deputy is out of order. That is not promised legislation, it is legislation that is already in place.

Does the Taoiseach agree this section could be used in the public interest for that purpose?

I rule that out of order. Leaders' Questions are over for today.

Is the Ceann Comhairle ruling that out of order?

I have no choice.

On what grounds is it ruled out of order?

On the basis that it is not in order.

Of course it is in order.

I am asking the Taoiseach about a matter of legislation.

The Deputy may ask about legislation if he wishes, but he may not ask questions more appropriate to Leaders' Questions.

I refer to section 33 of the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland Act 2003. Does the Taoiseach intend to invoke section 33 of that in the public interest and the public good?

The difficulty with the Order of Business is that it relates to promised legislation not legislation already enacted. That is the problem. If the Taoiseach wishes to assist that is fine, but I cannot allow it.

What about secondary legislation?

That is a shame.

I can only do my job in accordance with Standing Orders. I call Deputy Gilmore.

Two weeks ago the House approved a proposal from the Government to recapitalise Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Bank. The legislation to give effect to the means for the recapitalisation is the national pensions reserve fund (amendment) Bill. Will the Taoiseach indicate when the Bill will be presented to the House?

I understand that could be taken next week.

When will it be published?

Later this week.

When will the promised social welfare legislation dealing with lone parent and other low income families be published? The Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, has seen a 30% increase in the number of clients presenting. It has sought an alternative to the legal process for dispute resolution relating to bills and so forth. Will the Taoiseach indicate when this will be provided for in legislation?

We cannot go into the content of it now.

No. 16 on the Order Paper is a motion re report of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny on the provision of food information to consumers. Will we have an opportunity to discuss that in the House and to discuss the abuse of the white meat labelling laws in the country?

We cannot discuss it now.

The second matter is a matter for the Whips. In respect of the first piece of legislation to which the Deputy referred, I do not believe it is possible to indicate a date at this point.

Will it be this year or next year?

I cannot indicate a date.

We are now likely to face an unprecedented crisis, given all the crises that have already occurred within the health services, with a signal shortfall of some €1 billion in the 2009 provision for the HSE.

We cannot go into that now.

Will the Government accommodate scrutiny within the Chamber of any revised budget or service plan revision for the delivery of health services?

That is not in order.

It is because we are the body that vote for the funding for the health budget every year.

I have decided it is not in order. That is why I am here. I rule it out of order.

There is now a critical shortfall——

It is ruled out of order.

Will the Government allow for proper scrutiny——

Deputy McManus is next.

Will the Government allow for the proper scrutiny of any amended service plan or budget reduction?

I cannot discuss that now.

With respect, this is valid.

No, it is not in order.

One of our primary responsibilities as elected representatives is——

Deputy McManus is next.

——to provide for the essential services for the people.

The Deputy should raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Health matters must be the first priority.

We must have a debate on the health services and the effects of the shortfall.

That is a matter for the Whips. I ask Deputy Ó Caoláin to resume his seat or I will have to ask him to leave the House. That is the end of the matter.

We must have a debate.

That is the end of the matter. I call Deputy McManus.

It is worth noting that at long last the Minister has announced a new RTE authority to fill a vacuum that has lasted for several months. This is an unusual request but it relates to legislation and we live in extraordinary times. Is it possible that the Broadcasting Bill could be reviewed before its completion because it sets out to establish a new quango with all the attendant apparatus and costs?

We cannot consider that now. We may only ask when legislation is due.

Will the Taoiseach consider the alternative, which is to have one regulator, including ComReg——

We cannot discuss the content of it now. The Deputy can raise the matter during the discussion on the legislation.

——and the broadcasting regulator?

Will the Taoiseach indicate when the Broadcasting Bill is due?

This would enable us to be cost effective and to deal with the changes in technologies which we face.

We cannot deal with that now.

An bord snip nua is examining ways to reduce the costs of government.

The Deputy is simply going into full flow now and it is not on.

Will the Taoiseach reconsider the whole issue of the Broadcasting Bill in light of the circumstances in which we now find ourselves?

I call the Taoiseach to reply on the Broadcasting Bill.

I understand that matter is on Report Stage, an advanced Stage of enactment in the House. If there are amendments which the Deputy wishes to put down and if she wishes to pursue a point, I am sure that opportunity can be afforded on that occasion.

On a point of order, the Ceann Comhairle regularly states he is bound by the rules as laid down by the Members.

That is correct.

The Ceann Comhairle is also bound by precedent and previous decisions made by the Chair and his predecessors. There is a great deal of precedent for allowing a Member to request a debate on a particularly pressing issue. The only time the Ceann Comhairle seems to allow it is if the leaders of the main parties raise a matter. In defence of Deputy Ó Caoláin and my colleague, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, there are precedents. The Ceann Comhairle is fully empowered to allow the requests, or at least for the Taoiseach to indicate that he will allow a debate on it.

I am not going to enter into an argument with the Deputy. As a Whip, he knows as well as anyone that the answer to the question is that it is a matter for the Whips.

There is a precedent.

I realise the Government is preoccupied with other pressing issues but will the Taoiseach indicate the progress relating to the introduction of management companies legislation, which has been discussed previously? The need for such legislation grows on a daily basis. When does the Government propose to introduce the Bill that will vindicate the Government's better regulation agenda? It might be appropriate to focus on that now. Surely in view of recent experiences that must be a priority. It is No. 60 on the Government legislative programme.

Shootings continue, as the Ceann Comhairle knows.

They continue daily even in sensitive places.

The Deputy need not mind about that. He must ask about legislation.

In order to make some attempt to combat the ongoing spate of violent crime——

No preliminaries are necessary.

No preliminaries.

The Ceann Comhairle is showing zero tolerance.

The time is long past for that. The extradition Bill might make some dent in the mobility of criminals and the criminal element. When, if ever, will it be brought into the House?

The third Bill is due later this year. The Bill to deal with the better regulation agenda is also perhaps due later this year although the party opposite has criticised us for too much regulation not too little.

That sounds like Seán FitzPatrick.

That is not the experience of the party over there.

The Fine Gael view has been that regulation has been far too heavy.

The Government is happy to regulate the small people but it will not go after big ones.

Allow the Taoiseach to reply without interruption.

Deputy Varadkar's spokesperson has spoken.

The Government will regulate a newsagent but not a bank——

On the legislation.

Some people have a facility to upset everyone in the House equally no matter what side of the House they are on, which is a very good characteristic.

That is all about perception.

I hope more of the Opposition Deputies develop it, by the way.

Will the Taoiseach say when it is intended to introduce that legislation?

In respect of the first Bill it is due in the next session.

When will he ever introduce it? Never. Never. Does he have to wait until the present ruckus dies down?

When the Taoiseach was Minister for Health and Children he took a particular interest in the area of disability. I see the Minister of State with special responsibility for disability issues is here. In light of the removal of children from primary school because they do not have special needs assistance, when will the Government lift the suspension of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act?

I will have to come back to the Deputy to answer that question.

The real issue is to make sure that we maintain the benefits up to the years we are talking about at the moment before extending it.

We cannot look forward to movement on the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act with any degree of alacrity because special needs assistants have been removed from the system.

When will legislation be brought forward to amend the Competition Act as it relates to equity in the Irish Pharmaceutical Union and others, as previously mentioned in the House? Will it be done?

I think the Deputy is referring to the Irish Medical Organisation, IMO.

The IMO might be involved as might the Irish Dental Association.

The commitment was in respect of the IMO issue.

The commitment was in respect of this House.

Section 4 of the Competition Act. That was the labour Bill.

We were prepared to look into that matter in good faith to see if there was a way around that but it was not extended to others.

Does that mean there is no legislation promised?

No, there is not.

The statement at the time would indicate to the Deputy what the commitment was.

Not for the first time Deputy McManus's comments are music to my ears. The Employment Law Compliance Bill is on Second Stage and the Taoiseach is aware that the Committee of Public Accounts recently published a report on the board of FÁS recommending that it be slimmed down and the automatic right of employees' and employers' representatives to representation at board level be removed. Following the scandal in FÁS and the high quality of the committee's all-party report, would the Taoiseach agree to reconsider that Bill and remove from it the provision to establish a NERA board identical in size and composition to the board of FÁS?

That Bill is on Second Stage. A matter of prolonged discussions within social partnership was the need to ensure that we have a proportionate and practical response in these areas. One cannot attribute the failures in FÁS, brought forward primarily by Dáil scrutiny, to the fact that there were employee representatives on the board. That is not the reason for the problem.

To what does the Taoiseach attribute it?

I certainly do not attribute it to that. That is a poor reflection on the many employee representatives who conscientiously worked hard on that board. As a former Minister with responsibility for labour affairs I know that, and that reflects badly, if unintentionally, on people who are trying to ensure that FÁS policies have regard to that perspective.

Many apartment owners may have difficulty paying their management fees and the managing agents will probably sue them for the fees and there will be court cases. If the National Property Services Regulatory Authority was given legal powers under the property services (regulatory) Bill, it could mediate on this issue. The office is open and the staff are paid, and so on. When is it proposed to introduce that Bill?

I understand that it is expected in this session which will give the Deputy an opportunity to state her views.

To complete my response to Deputy Varadkar's question, the composition of the board is a matter of deciding on the best and most efficient way of doing board business. One should not attribute any recent systems failures to the personnel outlined in his question. That is an unfair representation.

Barr
Roinn