It is proposed to take No. 10, motion re Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998; No. 4, Financial Services (Deposit Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009 — Committee and Remaining Stages; and No. 24, Broadcasting Bill 2008[Seanad] — Report Stage (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 10 p.m.; (2) the proceedings on No. 10 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 45 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply — the speeches shall be confined to a Minister or Minister of State and to the main spokespersons for Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Sinn Féin, who shall be called upon in that order and who may share their time, and which shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed five minutes; (3) the proceedings on the Committee and Remaining Stages of No. 4 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 p.m. tonight by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Finance; and (4) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for taking Private Members’ business, which shall be No. 73, motion re unemployment levels (resumed), Standing Order 117(3) shall not apply and Private Members’ business shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 90 minutes.
Order of Business.
There are four proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 10, motion re Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998, agreed to?
It is not agreed. We have again been presented with a motion proposing the renewal of the Offences against the State Act. It is proposed to provide 45 minutes to address this draconian legislation. As we have said time after time in this House, now that many years have passed since the negotiation of the Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement, we believe it is inappropriate to retain this legislation on the Statute Book of this State. Regardless of the merits of any other legislation on the Statute Book that is aimed at addressing any matters of this nature that may present themselves, it is clear that the Offences against the State Act is wholly and absolutely inappropriate. We have opposed it from the very beginning. I have opposed it in this Chamber since I was elected to this House in 1997. If we are to properly address this offensive legislation, it is inadequate to offer 45 minutes for a debate on this motion. I ask the Government to rethink its position on this proposition and to come to the conclusion that it is high time for it to decide to remove this legislation from the Statute Book forthwith. It should not be proposed to renew the legislation in the manner outlined in the motion before the House. I oppose the proposition and will oppose the motion, if it is taken in the manner proposed on the Order of Business.
I do not agree with what Deputy Ó Caoláin has said. It is important for the operation of this legislation to continue. Many people with subversive intent and serious criminal intent are seeking to undermine not only the security of the State, but also the integrity of our judicial institutions and those who serve in those institutions, including witnesses and jury members. They will not be tolerated in this democracy.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 4 agreed to?
This seems to be the guillotine season. Five guillotines have been applied to debates on legislation this week and most of them were unnecessary. The Taoiseach more or less acknowledged that in respect of the application of one yesterday, but guilloting the debate on this Bill is clearly unnecessary. There are only two amendments proposed to the Bill and plenty of time is available to debate them. One is in the name of the Minister and the other is in the name of the Labour Party's spokesperson, Deputy Burton.
There is no need for the debate on this Bill to be guillotined. I ask that the guillotine would be used only where it is necessary and where there is some urgency and requirement for legislation to be passed in a short space of time. Otherwise, we will get into the habit of simply rubber-stamping legislation that has not even been read in the House. I ask that this not be done. We can fairly well guarantee that this Bill will be passed today, given that only two amendments are proposed to it. Irrespective of how long Members wish to discuss them, the rules of the House will allow them only a certain length of time to do so. The Bill will be passed within the time allowed or, as I believe, well before that time. Therefore, there is no need to guillotine the debate on it.
To add to what Deputy Stagg said, a recent guillotine proposed to the debate on legislation that we opposed on the Order of Business proved unnecessary, as the record will show the debate on that legislation concluded well before the time proposed in the Order of Business for the application of a guillotine. What is proposed regarding this legislation is another such example. It is foolhardy that guillotining the debate on legislation would become almost the norm. That should not be the case. The time allocated for legislation to be debated should accommodate the natural debate on it and allowing Members the opportunity to participate in it. In the case of this legislation, as in other instances, it will be shown that the time allocated is often adequate to deal with it.
The order of the House states that if the proceedings are not previously concluded they will be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 p.m. If they are previously concluded, the guillotine will not come into operation. The reason we have to insert this provision is because of the weight of business the Whip has to deal with in the remaining time available to us while at the same time, as is this case, being able to give what would be regarded as a reasonably adequate time for the consideration of these proceedings.
Is this proposal agreed?
Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business agreed to? Agreed.
I have two questions for the Taoiseach. First, has the Government formed a view as to when it intends to hold the referendum on the Lisbon treaty?
Second, is it intended to bring forward legislation to deal with greenhouse gas commitments in domestic law requiring a 3% annual reduction in emissions? This proposal is coming from the absent Green Party Ministers who seem to be putting pressure on the Government that this be done.
I am here.
Is it intended to bring forward legislation to give effect to that proposal, which will have serious consequences for some? If the Green Party is claiming victory over its senior partners on a range of other matters, it also seems to be doing so in this respect.
The Taoiseach to reply on proposed legislation on the referendum Bill.
On the question of legislation arising out of, hopefully, what will be a successful outcome this week, we can only do that upon return from the Council meeting. The Government, at its next meeting, will examine what arrangements should be made in the event of a successful outcome.
I ask the Taoiseach for clarity regarding the legislation to establish the National Asset Management Agency. It was first announced on 7 April, the day of the announcement of the supplementary budget. We were told on that occasion that the legislation would be produced as a matter of urgency. Now it appears it is not clear as to whether it will be produced before the House rises for the summer recess, whether it will be introduced after the summer recess or whether the Dáil will be recalled to deal with it. Could the Taoiseach clear up the position regarding the legislation on NAMA? When exactly will it appear? When will it be dealt with in the House? Will it be dealt with before the summer recess? Will the House be recalled at some stage to deal with it or will it be dealt with after the summer recess?
The Minister for Finance has indicated that it has priority in the Department. It is an arduous and complex piece of legislation. It is being proceeded with as quickly as possible. The question of the legislation being published before the recess begins is a target set by the Minister but if not, he has said he may be prepared to come back to deal with it in September. It will be closer to the end of the recess before we will be able to make a definite statement on that matter.
This is arguably one of the most important pieces of legislation the House will deal with for some time. I appreciate there are complexities in the drafting of it, but it is now two months since it was announced. We do not know yet whether it will be produced before, during or after the summer recess. We are still unclear as to when it will be produced and when the House will deal with. At this stage there should be some clarify as to when it will be dealt with. If the legislation is produced before the summer recess, is it intended the House will continue sitting until the legislation is dealt with? If it is not produced before the summer recess, is it intended that the House will be recalled to deal with it when it is ready? I am trying to establish what is the Government's intention in regard to dealing with it.
I believe it is more likely that it will be taken on the basis of a recall of the Parliament.
The Minister for Health and Children indicated that she will introduce legislation to ban female genital mutilation. Has any such proposal come before the Cabinet?
I have no information on that, I will have to come back to the Deputy on it.
The Minister for Education and Science has said on a number of occasions that in respect of the reintroduction of fees at third level it was his intention to bring forward a memorandum to Government outlining the options that he would recommend. Has such a memorandum been brought to Cabinet?
Questions on memorandums being brought to Cabinet are not in order on the Order of Business.
If it were, it would be a matter of waiting for the deliberative process to be completed before it would be brought to Government.
As the Labour Party Leader has said, many families are trying to figure out whether they will be able to afford to send their children to third level——
We cannot go into that now, as the Deputy well knows.
When will a decision of any kind on this matter be made by the Government?
Is legislation promised in this area, Taoiseach?
Many decisions have been made in the Department of Education and Science under the present incumbent, many of which, although necessary, have not received much support from the other side of the House. In this respect, the Minister will bring the matter to the Government, it will consider the matter when it arises and deal with it accordingly. When a decision is taken it will be announced. That is the way governments work.
Waiting for Batt will be like waiting for Godot.
I wish to raise three issues. Given that alcohol can be bought anywhere today by young people, when will the sale of alcohol Bill be brought before the House? On the matter of the difficulties facing those engaged in agriculture and to allow us to the opportunity to discuss them, when will the Animal Health and Welfare Bill be brought before the House?
Given that patients on arriving at the gates of hospitals are being brought to other hospitals and patients who are in what are known as centres of excellence in Our of Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda cannot be looked after, when will the eligibility for health and personal social services Bill be brought before the House? An invalid man was given his breakfast last Saturday morning but it was hours before he could eat it because he could not reach it and there was nobody to help him. He was in a semi-private ward paid for by the VHI.
The Deputy must confine himself to the legislation.
As I said last week, there is no date as to when the eligibility for health and personal social services Bill will be ready. The legislation on the sale of alcohol will not be ready until the second half of the year.
What about the animal health and welfare Bill?
The Taoiseach to reply in respect of the animal health and welfare Bill.
On that same outstanding legislation——
It is not possible to indicate.
Not possible to indicate?
I was talking to Deputy Crawford.
I know that, but it is on the same legislation that I wish to seek clarification.
The animal health and welfare Bill?
As we speak there are 20 patients in Loughlinstown hospital in south County Dublin on trolleys and chairs——
I do not think that comes under the animal health and welfare Bill.
——while St. Brigid's ward in that hospital, which contains 22 beds, remains closed as a result of cutbacks.
The Deputy will have to ask a question on legislation.
In that context, I want to ask——
Please do.
Will the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health and Children end the charade of the year-on-year promises——
We cannot discuss that.
——about the eligibility for health and personal social services Bill?
The Deputy cannot ignore the Chair in this fashion. It is not possible.
The answer "It is not possible" has been given for years.
I told the Deputy we cannot have critiques of the answers. I can only deal with the questions, and the Taoiseach must give the answers.
That is lucky.
I do not believe the answers we are getting in any way reflect the real intent of the Government.
The Deputy can expand on the answers later on.
The Government does not want the legislation to be introduced because it would compel it to do what it is currently refusing to do, which is to give us the health service we deserve.
The Taoiseach on the legislation.
Work is being done on the Bill, but it is not possible to indicate when it will be completed.
My question is about the child care (collection and exchange of information) Bill. In light of the fact that a laptop went missing in County Roscommon yesterday——
We cannot go into that now. The Deputy has another way of raising the issue.
——which appears to have contained confidential information with regard to protection of children, can the Taoiseach at least ensure the HSE clarifies the data that is on the laptop? The matter is causing major concern and consternation locally and there is much speculation regarding it.
Ireland was criticised in the US State Department Trafficking in Persons report, which was published yesterday. In light of this and of the fact that the State has lost 23 children from HSE accommodation since 1 January 2009, I ask the Taoiseach when Ireland will ratify the 2000 UN trafficking in persons protocol.
I do not have a date for that. The Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act has only been in force for the last 12 months and investigations into suspected trafficking are inevitably complex. Since the introduction of the Act the Garda has launched around 80 investigations of trafficking. Work is being undertaken on an operational basis under existing legislation, so it cannot be said there is nothing happening in the area.
Can the Taoiseach come back with the information about the protocol?
On the other matter, I will have to check with the office of the Minister of State with responsibility for children.
I am sure the Taoiseach has answered this question in the course of ordinary questions, but some of our colleagues have been in committees and so on. When will the negotiations begin on the review of the programme for Government and when is it intended that they will finish?
I do not think that is in order.
Deputies
Of course it is.
We are entitled to ask.
We are entitled to ask a question about the programme for Government.
It is difficult for us to ask questions here on legislation if we do not know which programme for Government we are following. The negotiations might already be ongoing for all I know.
The Deputy is being mischievous.
Never.
We cannot discuss this now.
During the course of the summer.
My question concerns the legislation on the National Assets Management Agency, which is in preparation. The legislation and the idea of NAMA came from the report of an economic consultant, Peter Bacon, on dealing with the banking crisis. As the Taoiseach is aware, it is probably the biggest potential liability for taxpayers that we have ever taken on. Thus, we must proceed with a great deal of caution. People need to be fully informed of the issues regarding NAMA and its alternatives so they can understand and contribute to the legislation. So far we have had the publication of a small summary — around 11 pages — of the report, explaining the NAMA approach. Can the Government publish the full Bacon report on the banks, out of which came the proposal for NAMA, so that Members of the House can fully understand the issues rather than relying on the short summary that has been issued? This would be helpful for everybody in advance of the legislation.
As this was the Deputy's first intervention on the Order of Business I hesitated to interrupt, but we can only deal with promised business of the House at this time.
The Bill on NAMA is on the list.
We cannot enter into other debate.
Is the legislation on NAMA no longer promised?
I will ask the Taoiseach. I am sure he will try to be of assistance.
There is much commercially sensitive information attached to the report.
What about a redacted report?
The Government has experts that will black it out. There is no problem doing that.
One would understand why it would not be publicly available. The policy behind the introduction of NAMA is established not only here but also abroad. The legislation will afford an opportunity for everyone to give their views on it. In the meantime, the Deputy can put questions directly to the Minister for Finance during parliamentary questions and other procedures in the House which would allow him to articulate aspects of the report while leaving it short of full publication.
I have regularly raised the issue of management companies for the last five years. There is legislation in this regard in the Upper House at the moment, but it does not deal at all with the reason I have been raising this repeatedly. I seek a mechanism to abolish management companies where they should not exist and to prevent their formation where they should not be formed; namely, in standard housing estates, where they are currently being used as financial providers for the developers who set them up. There are instances in which families in housing estates are paying €1,500 a year and receiving no service except that the grass is cut.
Last week the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, asked the Taoiseach whether it was intended to bring in further legislation to deal with this problem and the Taoiseach responded that he was not certain but he would obtain the information for the Deputy. Has there been any development in that regard? Further legislation is required because the current legislation would need to be amended significantly to deal with the problems we have.
The Bill is before the Seanad, not the Dáil, at the moment. Is further legislation promised?
The Bill is before the Seanad. The Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill, which was published on 3 June, might facilitate further debate on the matter in the House.
The Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill went through Committee Stage last week. When will Report and Final Stages be taken? Significant amendments to the legislation were made by the Minister on Committee Stage, particularly with regard to the sale of local authority flats. Given the significance of these substantial changes, can a further explanatory memorandum be provided to Members of the House to update them on the Bill?
That is not strictly in order. I ask the Taoiseach about the remaining Stages of the Bill.
It is hoped to bring the Bill before the House before the summer recess. If the Deputy contacts the Minister's office with queries about changes that were adopted on Committee Stage in preparation for Report Stage I am sure he will be facilitated.
The Government established a committee around five months ago which was to bring proposals before the House to amend Standing Orders to reform Dáil procedures. Will we see these proposals before the summer recess, and will we have time to discuss and decide on them before the House rises for the summer?
I understand the Whip intends to bring some proposals to the House before the end of the recess.
Before the recess.
Before the end of the recess.
I ask the Taoiseach about the negotiations with Vietnam on inter-country adoption.
The Deputy may ask about legislation or secondary legislation but she cannot ask about negotiations.
It is an international agreement.
It is an international agreement that the Minister allowed to slip through his fingers, much to the dismay of hundreds of families in
That cannot be discussed on the Order of Business.
The Taoiseach should intervene to address this situation.
Does the Deputy have a question on secondary legislation?
I wish to raise another issue. In September, classes for children with special educational needs will be abolished in schools throughout the State.
The Deputy knows that cannot be discussed on the Order of Business.
My question relates to legislation.
It is unfair to other Deputies if I allow Deputy Lynch to raise issues that are not appropriate to the Order of Business. I cannot have a situation where I am seen to allow Deputy Lynch to raise issues which other Deputies are not permitted to raise.
The cutbacks in provision for special educational needs will affect vulnerable children throughout the country.
Detailed matters must be raised with the appropriate Minister in the appropriate way. This matter cannot be dealt with now.
My question relates to legislation.
What is the legislation to which the Deputy refers?
The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 was suspended after the last budget. This is the first time in my recollection that legislation has been suspended.
I ask the Deputy to be fair.
When will this suspension be lifted and when will the limited rights for pupils with special needs be restored?
Is there legislation promised in this area, Taoiseach?
I do not accept the contention that the Minister of State with responsibility for children let anything slip through his fingers. There are issues which——
I can name four crucial issues.
These issues did not slip through his fingers. He is in the process of dealing with another Government to ensure the arrangements to which we all subscribe work effectively, ethically and on an above board basis. That is something which is as important to the parents who are expectant and hopeful that these matters can be resolved quickly as it is to the Irish and Vietnamese people. We must ensure the arrangements we enter into uphold and respect ethical issues and the rights of parents and everybody involved. These are matters of huge import about which there can be no ambiguity. It is important that they are resolved to everybody's satisfaction, including the sovereign Government of Vietnam and this Government. We must not end up in a situation which none of us wants to see.
That is the context in which these discussions are taking place. We are anxious to obtain finality to the discussions as soon as is possible and feasible——
Can the Taoiseach offer any timeframe?
——while being respectful of the need to ensure any concerns that have been raised are dealt with adequately and in a way in which everyone in this House expects them to be dealt with. While we understand the frustration of people in this situation generally, quite apart from the specific issues that have arisen in regard to the international agreement with Vietnam, this matter must be handled with care, deliberation and with all due speed as is appropriate. That is the situation.
What about the suspension of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004?
There are no proposals to proceed with that aspect of the Act.
I am not sure whether the Taoiseach has indicated to the House the date upon which he expects the Dáil to rise for the summer recess. Included in the list of legislation is an important Bill in the context of the current banking crisis and the damage to our reputation internationally. I refer to the criminal justice (money laundering) Bill, which will enshrine in law the third EU directive on money laundering, which has been promised for some time. I am not sure whether the timeframe will allow us to proceed with that between now and the summer, but perhaps it could be done by way of all-party agreement. It is important that it be done.
A recent decision in the United Kingdom has implications for our preparation of the secondary legislation in respect of this matter. It is at an advanced stage but I understand it is unlikely to be taken before we rise for the summer.
I have three questions. First, when does the Government propose to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? Second, when is the foreshore (amendment) Bill likely to be brought before the House? Third, that legislation relates to our discussion of the Harbours (Amendment) Bill 2008, in the course of which the Minister for Transport announced his intention to transfer functions and powers in regard to property previously held by the Minister to An Bord Pleanála. He indicated that this change would require legislation in regard to planning. When may we expect the amending planning legislation that was promised on Second Stage of the Harbours (Amendment) Bill 2008? Will it be brought forward at the same time as the foreshore (amendment) Bill, which I understand is a matter for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
The foreshore (amendment) Bill is due later this year. It is on the list, as the Deputy said. I do not know when the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities will be ratified. I will check that for the Deputy, but a parliamentary question to the relevant Minister would provide him with the exact situation. I will have to check the third issue the Deputy raised. The planning and development (amendment) Bill, which has been published, will address some of these issues, although I am not sure whether it will specifically address the point raised by the Deputy regarding ports policy. I will check that and get back to the Deputy.
I am grateful to the Taoiseach for his reply. This is a matter of some urgency even during the summer, as several property transactions are likely to take place in anticipation of legislation which does not exist.