It is proposed to take No. 5, Financial Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009, Order for Second Stage and Second and Remaining Stages; and No. a 10, Financial Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009 — Financial Resolution, which is on the Supplementary Order Paper. It is proposed, notwithstanding Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. and business shall be interrupted not later than 10 p.m.; and No. a 10 shall be moved immediately on the conclusion of Second Stage of No. 5 and shall be decided without debate. The following arrangements shall apply on No. 5. — the proceedings on Second Stage shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed five minutes; the proceedings on the Committee and Remaining Stages shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10 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. In the event a division is in progress at the time fixed for taking Private Members’ business, which shall be No. 75 — motion re children’s hospital funding, Standing Order 117(3) shall not apply and Private Members’ business shall be adjourned after 90 minutes tonight. Parliamentary questions next for answer by the Taoiseach on EU matters shall be taken on the same day as the statements on the EU Council meeting in Brussels, scheduled to be taken on Wednesday, 24 June 2009, and shall be moved to be taken first as ordinary oral questions to the Taoiseach on that day.
Order of Business.
There are five proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. a 10 agreed?
The Taoiseach and the Government propose to have a guillotine on this debate and there will be an hour and a half for Committee Stage with 19 amendments having been tabled. This is not trivial legislation; it currently involves a guarantee of €400 billion worth of assets being covered by the State. Few of the amendments will be reached or debated. Contrary to what the Taoiseach stated a moment ago, there has not been any review — or if there has it has not been made available to Members of the House who will be asked to vote on it. There has not been any report on the existing scheme. We have not been offered any guarantee, such as the Taoiseach outlined, that this would be confined to issues of the sort to which the Taoiseach referred. There is no sunset clause on these provisions.
We need to take ourselves seriously as a House. The Taoiseach will come here next week and bleat across the House that every time he comes up with something he is opposed, yet this serious legislation which he has brought to the House will almost inevitably be opposed tonight because most of the amendments seeking the protections that the House wants to debate and have included, if possible, will not have been reached. The Taoiseach must be reasonable with the House. We are attempting to deal with huge changes occurring in our community and are trying to debate them in a reasonable fashion. To be honest, I do not think the Government is interested in this debate. It has an aggrieved sense of self-righteousness. It pushes ahead with everything and dismisses this Chamber as a place to debate these important issues. I am getting fed up with it.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I object to the way this Bill is being taken. The leader of the Labour Party has set out our concerns about the section of the Bill dealing with NAMA and the guarantee. In effect, it enables the establishment of NAMA and loans to be transferred at what will probably be very cheap prices. However, other parts of the Bill seriously deserve detailed scrutiny. Only in the past hour and a half I received from the Department of Finance — finally, after many requests — the schedule of the pension funds of the public bodies that will be transferred to and taken over by the State under this legislation. We will take over assets of €1.75 billion in those pensions funds but the liabilities, of which I have now been given a list, for the end of December 2008 run to more than €3 billion.
Based on a quick reading in the time I have had to glance at it, in the case of FÁS the State will take over assets of €328 million and liabilities of €683 million; in the case of Trinity College Dublin — assets of €245 million and liabilities of €554 million; and in the case of the National University of Ireland- assets of €6 million and liabilities of €13 million. In what Parliament in the world would one find, along with very important banking matters, the taking over of assets of €1.75 billion to give the national balance sheet a bit of a boost under technical EU and ECB rules and, at the same time, the taking over of unexamined pension liabilities of more than €3 billion where some of the pensions funds have a deficit of more than 50%? Everybody knows pensions funds have fallen in the crash.
I am also told in the note that the IPA and the ESRI pension funds will be added on Committee Stage.
The Deputy cannot go into detail on the legislation; she has made her point.
The final section of the Bill has another very important provision to provide very important powers to the regulator on putting a life insurance company into administration. I asked the Department of Finance to explain what this provision is about. Is it about a particular life insurance company——
The Deputy has made her point.
——or a company in this country working in life insurance?
The Deputy must raise it later on.
This is more use of the back door by a Government that is afraid to come in and face the people. Not only do we have one guillotine today, we have six this week. All I can say is that in terms of a functioning democracy if the Taoiseach wants to restore our credibility in the international financial markets this is not the way to do it. Members of the Opposition are not even given a proper briefing until an hour and a half prior to the Bill coming to the Chamber.
Last Thursday, when the Taoiseach was not here, we had a proposition to apply a guillotine to the Broadcasting Bill and the Companies (Amendment) Bill. Representatives of the three Opposition parties appealed to the Tánaiste and the Chief Whip not to apply a guillotine because we did not have confidence that the Government had accurately measured the time required. Nevertheless, despite the Tánaiste chiding Opposition voices and the Government proceeding absolutely intent on its own purpose irrespective of what other opinion might be offered, the business of the House collapsed for more than three hours. How can we have confidence in a Government that cannot even measure the length of time required to address the passage of legislation let alone to govern?
An Opposition that cannot fill the time it seeks.
It cannot even govern the proposition——
We will deal with this proposition here and now.
——of ordering business on any given day. Yet here we are again with guillotine after guillotine. We are being asked to rubber-stamp the serious measures contained in the Financial Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The Government got it wrong last Thursday about the Broadcasting Bill and the Companies (Amendment) Bill and it has it wrong again today about the Financial Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and we will not support the guillotine and this approach to very important matters.
I do not want to get into an argument or a match about it. Last Thursday we provided for too much time because the Broadcasting Bill finished an hour before——
We said there was no need for a guillotine.
It was explained repeatedly.
The Government insisted on including a guillotine at time when it was unnecessary and we lost three and a half hours debating time.
The point is that the debate on the Bill ended an hour early. A guillotine becomes operable only if it is required. We had it on the Order Paper that if we reached a certain time, it would come to an end.
It is only supposed to be for an emergency. That is the norm.
It did not come to that and, therefore, the guillotine did not become operative. In any event, that is not the issue under discussion.
Deputy Burton raised the question of the amendment of the Insurance (No. 2) Act 1983 and the Insurance Act 1989. This is being done to address a regulatory gap generally and it is not designed for any specific——
To appoint an administrator to a life insurance business.
For the purpose of being helpful, I was explaining what it was. It is not being introduced for the reason given by the Deputy, which confirms a conspiracy theory she professes on all occasions. It relates to a regulatory gap in the Insurance Acts. Currently, the Financial Regulator can present a petition to the High Court for the administration of a non-life insurance undertaking and the appointment of an administrator, but there is no similar provision for life and reinsurance companies. This legislation will address that deficiency.
Why the rush?
Let the Taoiseach finish.
On the basis that we refer to the need to improve our regulatory provisions, this amendment will do so, and it is not being introduced for any other reason.
With regard to the other matters, it is necessary to proceed with this Bill. I take the point that there is much legislation to be gone through between now and the end of the term. Perhaps it would not be acceptable but if it would help in an effort to show good faith, the debate could be extended from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. but I cannot go beyond that.
It needs another day.
On a point of order, is it not the case that action under the Bill the Taoiseach proposes to rush through tonight cannot be taken without the introduction of a scheme, which must be approved by the Oireachtas, and, therefore, there is absolutely no rush with this legislation because a scheme would have to follow it? The Government cannot act over the summer months without the scheme——
That is not a point of order.
It is.
As I stated in response to Deputy Gilmore earlier, we are providing for a means by which we can extend the State guarantee beyond 2010. The background to this is the ability to provide such a guarantee in respect of five-year securities that will become available on the money markets but which are not available to us at the moment.
A statutory instrument to facilitate eligible debt securities will have to be drafted and it will be presented to the Oireachtas shortly for approval under section 6(5) of the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008. The Bill before the House must be enacted before the statutory instrument, subject to the prior approval of the Oireachtas, can be made. That is what we are doing. For us to get to the point for consideration to which the Deputy referred where the statutory instrument will have to be approved by the Oireachtas, we must amend this provision legislatively.
That is procedural rubbish.
No, it is not. These are the facts. Statutorily, we cannot provide a debt guarantee beyond September 2010. Issuing five-year money with a State guarantee to our banking system beyond 2010 will not be possible unless the legislation is amended.
Do it the right way and give the legislation a little time.
The reason we are amending the legislation is that we have been more prudent by issuing a state debt guarantee for only two years compared to others who issued such guarantees for far longer.
The Government knew this in April.
That is how bank guarantee schemes developed in other countries following the precedent we set, which was only for two years but with which the Deputy disagrees in principle in any event.
We were right.
That is the Deputy's position, but the fact is it provided us with financial stability at that time.
The Government has done nothing but pour money into the banks since.
The facts will prove that in due course.
It did not work.
How much has it cost us so far? How many billion euro? It did not work.
It worked. Had we followed the Deputy's proposed line of action, we would not have a banking system and, therefore, we would not be having this discussion.
That is nonsense.
That is the answer to Deputy Bruton's point of order.
The Government cannot have the statutory instrument without a positive resolution of the House.
That relates to the statutory instrument. We also have to amend this provision.
The Government could do the two together.
We are taking the opportunity of this miscellaneous provisions Bill to do that now. The further debate the Deputy wishes to have regarding the detail of the statutory instrument can be had because, as he said, prior approval of the Oireachtas is required for that to become operative.
We are advised by the Bills Office that a financial resolution must be moved on conclusion of Second Stage of this Bill to allow for discussion on amendments that may incur a cost to the public. Those are the arrangements we have. If it would be helpful in an act of good faith to the House, given the level of work to be done by the House and the importance parties are ascribing to this measure, we can undertake to extend the debate until 11 p.m. If not, we can leave it as it is.
Tá
- 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.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Behan, Joe.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, George.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- 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.
- O’Sullivan, Maureen.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- 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.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 5, Order for Second Stage and Second and Remaining Stages of the Financial Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009 agreed to?
I want to make a proposal to the Taoiseach on this item. He proposes to guillotine Second Stage of the Bill at 7 p.m. and Committee and Remaining Stages at 10 p.m. I know the Taoiseach has offered to extend the sitting until 11 p.m and he will guillotine it at that time instead. That, unfortunately, does not meet the requirements. This Bill, for the reasons we stated before and which Deputy Burton has outlined, has a range of issue that require attention.
There is also the critical issue of the proposal to give the Minister for Finance the power to extend the life of the bank guarantee scheme. I suggest to the Taoiseach that we agree to take Second State of the Bill today, take Committee Stage after statements on the European Council tomorrow and take Report Stage on Thursday. That way we would have the opportunity to properly examine the Bill.
I heard what the Taoiseach had to say about access to money and so on. The timeframe to which I referred would allow for proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill and would not compromise the need to deal with the Bill reasonably quickly. It would be done this week. I am sure there can be co-operation in the House on the taking of the Bill and this would be a reasonable way to deal with it. Otherwise, the Labour Party will have to oppose the proposal before us, that is, to guillotine Second Stage at 7 p.m. and Committee and Remaining Stages at 10 p.m.
I have to advise Deputy Gilmore that the ordering of business is the prerogative of the Taoiseach and Government. Deputy Gilmore, under Standing Orders, is not entitled to introduce a new matter now. It is up to the Taoiseach to reply to Deputy Gilmore.
Surely a Deputy is entitled to amend the time allocated, which is what is proposed.
Yes, but Deputy Gilmore is seeking to bring in a new matter for Wednesday and Thursday, which would not be in order.
It is a time motion.
That is not what Deputy Gilmore stated.
I am guided by the Whip in these matters and I have to be fair to him. He has outlined detailed business for the House during the course of this week, and from now until the recess the schedule is chock-a-block in terms of the business that has to conducted. I am not in a position to improve the offer I have made, unfortunately.
Tá
- 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.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Behan, Joe.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coonan, Noel J..
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, George.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- 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.
- O’Sullivan, Maureen.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- 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.
Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with parliamentary questions next for answer by the Taoiseach on EU matters agreed to?
I do not want to object to this, but it is a matter relevant to European affairs and I will ask a question on it on the Order of Business. I want to ask the Taoiseach if the Cabinet agreed today to nominate a date for the referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
I object to this proposal because it cuts across the suggestion I made to the Taoiseach in respect of dealing with the Financial Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which provides for the extension of the bank guarantee scheme. The explanation the Taoiseach has given us as to why the Government wants to have this Bill dealt with in one sitting today does not stand up. The idea, for example, that it has to be dealt with this evening because the statutory instruments legislation must be dealt with before the statutory instruments are ready does not stand up when it can be dealt with at a more reasonable pace tomorrow and Thursday. The final argument that he put, namely, that somehow he was going to inconvenience the Chief Whip if he agreed to our request and that his hands were tied, is farcical.
We are in a situation where the Government is deciding, as it often does at the end of a parliamentary session, to use its parliamentary majority to force certain measures through the House in a short period of time. There are two reasons this is not appropriate on this occasion.
It is called democracy.
I am coming to that, Deputy. First, the measure that is proposed to be dealt with here is no ordinary measure. It is to extend a guarantee that the taxpayer is providing for approximately €440 billion beyond the original date. Second — here is the democracy point — the Government now enjoys an approval rating of all of 10%. Whatever authority——
This is nonsense.
Should we tear up the Constitution?
Whatever authority the Government may have had in the past to ram through legislation and to use the guillotine, it certainly does not have the moral and political authority to do it in those circumstances.
Deputy Gilmore——
Whatever this hurry is about, it is not about parliamentary procedure and it is not about the Taoiseach being kind to the Chief Whip.
A Deputy
What is your answer to that, Deputy Kelleher?
The Deputy should read the Constitution.
You are making a lot of noise considering you are on just 10%.
This proposal has to do with dealing with parliamentary questions next for answer by the Taoiseach on EU matters. If the Taoiseach wishes to reply, I will give him that prerogative.
To answer Deputy Kenny on the question of the legislation being taken, I have indicated that early October is the date. We should bring the Bill to the House to enact the legislation and, at that stage, we can state clearly what is the date and the reasons relating to how referenda operate.
It is related to NAMA. That legislation will be at the same time.
In regard to Deputy Gilmore's point, the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan——
Can I clarify that the Cabinet did not actually decide on a date today? Is that correct?
There can only be one intervention. The Taoiseach, without interruption.
I have explained that we will first bring forward the legislation to the House. In regard to the second matter raised by Deputy Gilmore, the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, will outline the case for the legislation to the House in accurate terms which are not in line with the contention made by the Deputy.
I call Deputy Kenny on the Order of Business.
First, arising from the Taoiseach's comment, when does he expect the House will be presented with the Bill to deal with the referendum on the Lisbon treaty? Will it be next week or the week after? Is there a conclusion on this and when can we expect the Bill to come to the House?
Second, has the Taoiseach any further detail on whether the Dáil will be recalled in September to deal specifically with the NAMA legislation? That seemed to be the indication last week.
Third, on 20 March last, the then Minister of State with responsibility for fisheries, Deputy Seán Power, made an announcement to the effect that the Government had decided to restructure the inland fisheries sector, which I support. He also said at the time of that announcement that the Government had made a decision to prioritise the legislation dealing with the amalgamation of the various elements of that sector. What is the situation with regard to the production of that legislation which the then Minister of State said would be given priority by the Government?
Regarding the legislation, I understand the heads were approved in March and the detailed legislation should be later this year. On the other question, I expect we would take that Bill in the House the week after next.
When I raised earlier the matter of the Financial Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the Taoiseach in reply told me the Bill must be enacted tonight in order for the relevant statutory instruments to be made. Will the statutory instruments arising from this Bill be laid before the House tomorrow?
I understand this Bill goes to the Seanad tomorrow. The statutory instruments which were envisaged by Deputy Bruton will be presented to the House in due course and will have to be approved by the House.
We have just had a number of exchanges about the great rush to take all Stages of this Bill today. The Taoiseach's explanation for this is that it is to facilitate the presenting of the statutory instruments. When will the statutory instruments be laid before the House?
As soon as possible.
But——
Sorry, Deputy, if I may——
The Taoiseach said he wanted the legislation passed by 10 p.m. today and now he——
I have explained on a number of occasions the position with miscellaneous provisions Bills and I have explained the meaning of the particular section to which Deputy Gilmore refers. I have explained why the Bill must be enacted, namely, it must be enacted before a statutory instrument under section 6(5) of the other Act, to which I referred in a previous intervention and which will set out the issues in detail, can be brought to the House for approval. This section by way of introduction enables the statutory instrument to be brought to the House in a way that is statutorily compliant.
My question——
The Standing Orders are very clear in regard to this matter. The Taoiseach is entitled under Standing Orders to defer answering any question in regard to the making of secondary legislation to another day.
I asked when the secondary legislation will be laid before the House.
The Taoiseach made a fair answer.
No, he told us——
They are the rules. I can only implement the rules.
I know the Ceann Comhairle must observe the rules and I will try to help him with that. However, the Taoiseach has during the course of our exchanges kept telling us that the reason the legislation must be passed by 10 p.m. today is to facilitate the bringing before the House of the statutory instruments. When will the statutory instruments be brought forward? Clearly, this is a matter of considerable urgency. I would have thought that if the legislation has to be passed tonight, we would see the statutory instruments tomorrow. All I asked for in my proposals earlier——
Which were voted down.
——was that we would take the week to deal with the Bill, with Committee Stage tomorrow and Report Stage on Thursday. Clearly, there is such an urgency in getting these statutory instruments before us that even that reasonable proposal was not acceptable. When will we see the statutory instruments? Terms such as "as soon as possible" and "in due course" or any of that old waffle is not the answer I am looking for.
That does not accord with the Standing Order.
In respect of arrangements such as this which provide a state aid, state aid rules must be adhered to by the EU, with which discussions must also take place, and the statutory instrument that is brought to the House will be in compliance with all of those issues——
So what is the hurry this evening?
It is because we need to get on with it. We need to make sure that we have a statutory basis.
This has been around since 7 April. What has the Taoiseach been up to?
We have a fundamental difference of opinion here. It is the Deputy's belief that we do not need State guarantees for anything and that we should never have had them. That is the Deputy's position and he claimed he was right in that position.
That is not it.
It is the Government's position that what it did in September was correct and that it was prudent in issuing them for a two year period.
That is why the Taoiseach is changing it now.
It did not work either.
It is also the belief of the Minister for Finance that the situation now, in line with developments in the EU states subsequent to the initiative taken by the Government, for which the Deputy gives it no credit, requires change. In due course it will require a statutory instrument that gets approval in the House and which is approved by the EU under state aid rules in the same way as we enacted legislation in the House on 29 September and subsequently got state aid approval.
When?
It is the very same procedure. If the Deputy wants simple A, B and C answers to what are complex issues he cannot get them but he is being advised of very clear procedures outlined by the Minister, Deputy Lenihan, at the time of the supplementary budget. Consistent with that and with which he is proceeding this evening, a statutory instrument requiring the approval of the Oireachtas in compliance with EU state aid rules will be required. It is something that will require further consultation with the Commission in due course as with previous schemes which met with its approval.
I call Deputy McManus. I have set out the ruling and I must adhere to it.
It is not. I will not detain the Ceann Comhairle.
The Deputy must adhere to the rules the same as I or anybody else.
I do not want to get into an argument.
This was announced on 7 April. It is now 23 June and we are told it has to be done immediately to facilitate the introduction of statutory instruments. I asked the Taoiseach what was not a complicated question but simply when the statutory instruments will appear and he cannot tell me. This is not about the position the Labour Party took in September. We know that and I am quite happy to defend that anywhere. This is about whether the Taoiseach and the Government knows what it is doing in this whole area and if it is up to doing it.
We know exactly what we are doing.
The Government is now introducing a legislative measure announced in April.
I call Deputy McManus. Deputy Gilmore is engaging in repetition which I cannot allow.
The Deputy should get a little responsibility.
The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. It is pure incompetence.
One year ago while introducing the Broadcasting Bill the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources made a commitment that there would be provisions to deal with premium rate phone and text services.
We cannot deal with that now.
These are the subject of many scams and thousands of complaints have been made on behalf of customers who have been scammed. A commitment was made by this Government and I am entitled to ask about legislation.
The Deputy will have to take up the matter with the line Minister.
It relates to legislation.
I realise it does, but the content of the legislation is a problem and we cannot discuss it.
The Broadcasting Bill was to have introduced these provisions and that did not take place. It has now been passed into law.
I cannot discuss that now.
I am asking the Taoiseach about the legislation which will now deal with this issue and which we welcome. We do not oppose the Bill, we simply wish to see it published. However, we also wish to ensure there is provision in the Bill for refunds to be made to customers.
The Deputy will have to raise the matter when the times comes.
The Taoiseach can provide such an assurance and allay many fears related to the legislation.
He cannot do so because it is a matter for the line Minister. We have been clear enough about the matter and the Deputy cannot bring this any further.
I am sorry but I can do so.
The Deputy is dealing with the content of the legislation which is out of order.
The Ceann Comhairle should have listened to what I said.
I listened very carefully and the Deputy is talking about the content of the legislation.
I asked specifically about legislation.
I know exactly about what the Deputy asked and I listened carefully.
About what did I ask?
The Deputy talked about the content of the legislation as opposed to the coming into being of the legislation.
No, that is not it. I will give the Ceann Comhairle another chance.
The Deputy wanted an assurance that the Taoiseach would introduce an amendment in respect to the issues raised. I have it fully off and it is out of order.
I asked about legislation.
The Deputy should ask about different legislation.
Will I tell the Ceann Comhairle what it is?
Do, please; that would be wonderful.
I will do so. I was asking about the communications regulation (amendment) Bill.
Now the hare is up the field.
We are both happy now.
To continue the metaphor, on the red collar. We expect it to be produced during this session.
There is a scandalous situation applying to child protection and family support services within the State, as revealed in an article in The Irish Examiner last week, in which internal HSE documents were published citing a litany of inadequate supports, including a situation in which children could have been at risk. The issue of children at risk is one of the most serious and one with which we should be concerned today. I refer not only to the historic situation but the current situation. Will the Government bring forward the Child Care Bill and progress the content of the Bill and the serious deficiencies in the current arrangements?
On a second matter, we have now signalled significant cuts in respect of Bus Éireann and Bus Átha Cliath fleet and staff numbers with some 320 redundancies in the coming weeks——
Is this about legislation? I must move on.
Will the Government recognise the importance of addressing this matter on the floor of the Dáil before the summer recess?
We cannot deal with that because it is a matter for the Whips.
Will the Government introduce the public transport regulation Bill to facilitate the address of the serious steps now being taken?
The public transport regulation Bill will not be taken until later this year as it will not be ready until then. The first Bill is expected shortly.
I refer to three items of legislation. First, the student support Bill which passed on Second Stage this month last year. The reason for the delay in its re-introduction to the House is, we are told by the Minister for Education and Science, that there are certain amendments he wishes to be made. Have these amendments been passed by the Cabinet? I refer to third level fees which are on the boil, but we have yet to be told whether a memorandum has been brought to Government. Two primary schools in north Dublin, completing their first year at the end of this month, have no legal basis on which to function because the legislation to provide for the VECs to become a patron at primary school level has not been introduced.
Approval was given to the drafting legislation in respect to the third matter. There is no decision on the question of the second matter. On the first issue, I am not aware of whether the amendments have come before the Cabinet. I do not believe they have but I will check.
On the public airwaves this morning the Tánaiste responded to the crisis in the food and drink industry and job losses in the sector by indicating her Department was planning an initiative to curb the power of the multiples, which are giving a bad deal to both the private producer and to consumers. Will this involve a legislative initiative or a voluntary code?
Is legislation promised in this area?
No legislation is promised yet in that area.
Nothing is to be done?
That is not the case.
Are a further 2,000 jobs to be lost in the sector?
The Deputy can ask a parliamentary question on the matter.
I refer to No. 83 in the Order Paper which calls for the restoration of a practice which allowed Members to ask a supplementary question on the Adjournment. This would make the process more realistic. Will the Government allow time to allow this to be debated? The matter would take approximately five minutes to pass.
I suspect that is a matter for the Whips.
It is a matter for the Whips but I encourage Deputy Stanton's position to be supported.
It is on the Order Paper today. Is this not a point for the Taoiseach to decide?
If it were left up to me alone there would be no problem.
Will the Taoiseach ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to take over the handling of the inter-country adoption agreement between Vietnam and Ireland before the summer is out? I realise I am being bold and that I am trying the patience of the Ceann Comhairle but the Ceann Comhairle is aware as well as I am that hundreds of people——
The problem is if I allow Deputy Lynch to make a point on this matter everyone else must be allowed the same opportunity.
We need the clout of the Minister for Foreign Affairs because the Minister responsible does not appear to be doing anything about the matter.
We cannot deal with that now.
I simply seek an answer to where it is or whether there is any possibility of it being concluded.
A request has been made to the Vietnamese Government to enter into an interim international adoption agreement and we are awaiting a reply. That request is now a matter for the Vietnamese Government and as such it would be improper for the Irish Government to seek to influence or to interfere with that decision-making process. However, the Minister of State with responsibility for children and youth affairs and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are working through diplomatic channels to progress the matter and to bring greater clarity to the situation.
The Government is most aware of the concern and anxiety which this process is causing to prospective adoptive parents but it is firmly committed to ensuring that arrangements between Ireland and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam protect the best interests of children, their families and prospective adoptive parents.
I wish to raise two issues. The Master of the High Court has talked of an avalanche of new cases of home repossessions happening in October. He has said that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should be considering changing the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to prevent those cases going through an expensive High Court procedure which, as we have already seen, is being abused. Is it the Government's intention to make this change before the summer recess?
On foot of raising a hare, the issue of the statutory instruments is not a trivial one. I am sure the Taoiseach has had the experience of his daughter asking to go to a concert and asking for a loan of his credit card. Technically one can deny the bills when they come back a month later. However, the difficulty is that we will be presented with a scheme which will be a fait accompli because commitments will have been made in the intervening period. This is why the foreclosure of this debate is a mistake.
I have dealt with this matter on a number of occasions this evening. It is not a mistake to ensure we have a statutory basis to take up debt securities over a period which puts us in line with our competitors. There is nothing wrong with that.
It is not a mistake.
This is what we are considering tonight in respect of that part of the legislation. In respect of subsequent statutory instruments that require EU state-aid rules approval from the Commission and must be brought before the House, there will of course be an opportunity to discuss that detail in that context at that time. The problem at present is that we need to give a proper statutory basis in primary legislation to enable this to happen and that is all that is happening this evening.
It would never be a view of mine that Deputy Bruton would run unsighted — to use coursing parlance — but a short slip in this case would be more appropriate.
Is there any proposal to deal with the issue of the High Court jurisdiction?
The Deputy has brought to my attention that some statements have been made but I am sure the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, will consider what appropriate action he can take in this matter.