Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 24 Jun 2009

Vol. 685 No. 4

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. b10, motion re Ministerial Rota for Parliamentary Questions; No. 23, Statements on European Council, Brussels; No. 10, Revised Estimates for Public Services 2009 [Votes 1 to 41] (back from committee); No. 24, Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009 — Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; and No. 25, Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009 — Order for Report and Report and Final Stages.

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 not later than 10 p.m. No. b10 shall be decided without debate. The proceedings on No. 23 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 85 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply: the statements shall be confined to the Taoiseach and to the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and Sinn Féin, who shall be called upon in that order, who may share their time, and which shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; a Minister or Minister of State shall take questions for a period not exceeding 20 minutes; and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed five minutes. The suspension of sitting under Standing Order 23(1) shall take place at 1.30 p.m., or on the conclusion of No. 23, whichever is the later, until 2.30 p.m. The proceedings on No. 10 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 45 minutes and shall be moved together and decided by one question which shall be put from the Chair and any division demanded thereon shall be taken forthwith and the following arrangements shall apply: the speeches shall be confined to a Minister or Minister of State and to the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and Sinn Féin, who shall be called upon in that order, 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. The proceedings on the Report and Final Stages of No. 24 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 6 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in respect of amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Health and Children. In the event a division is in progress at the time fixed for taking Private Members' business, which shall be No. 75 — motion re Childrens Hospital Funding (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.

Seven proposals have been put to the House. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. b10 without debate, motion re Ministerial Rota for Parliamentary Questions agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 23, Statements on European Council, Brussels agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal regarding the suspension of the Dáil under Standing Order 23(1) agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 10, Revised Estimates for Public Services 2009 agreed to?

I do not agree. We are putting through approximately €45 billion in 45 minutes. This represents €1 billion per minute and ten minutes speaking time for each party. I realise this was discussed or referred to in committee. In his response to the matter of Crumlin hospital this morning, the Taoiseach made the valid point, which I accept, that we should discuss matters of efficiency and so on here. The Estimate for the Department of Health and Children is €11.632 billion. The Taoiseach made a comment about increased service in Galway in the cancer area, which I accept. In some cases there, patients are being driven from the front door of the hospital to the back door by taxi for additional treatment.

Let us consider the Estimate of €10.917 billion allocated to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The best answer to matters of social welfare is to create employment. Last night the Taoiseach held discussions on social partnership dealing with subsidies for employers, which does not go far enough in the context of the €11 billion stimulus that the Fine Gael Party proposed for job protection and creation. We should discuss these matters.

I refer to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for which there is a €1.599 billion Estimate to deal with expenses, salaries of the office of the Minister but also costs associated with the Irish Land Commission, which was abolished many years ago. I am unsure of the role of the remnants of the organisation now. The allocation for the Garda Síochána includes a €1.48 billion payment for certain witnesses expenses and payment of grants-in-aid. We should discuss these matters in the House and I do not believe it is appropriate to allow 45 minutes for a discussion when almost €45 billion, or €1 billion per minute, is being put through, which is phenomenal. For this reason I object to the allocation of time. It is not sufficient and in the interests of that to which the Taoiseach referred, there are opportunities for the House to suggest areas in which money could be saved and to point out where efficiencies could take place.

The purpose of the committee system is to enable a detailed examination of all these issues away from the plenary proceedings of the House, during which legislation and other issues are dealt with and major debates take place. The use of the committee system has enabled all of these votes to be scrutinised. Parties can hold a view on procedures and processes and revert to plenary session to confirm the adoption of estimates and to provide for general points to be made. The detail, remit and efficacy of the spend on all Estimates has been examined thoroughly on an all-party basis. Rigorous questioning of Ministers has taken place. I recognise people hold views on how to reform systems and so on but to suggest we only allocated 45 minutes to such a level of expenditure is not an accurate reflection of the work that has been done at committee.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 10 be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 64.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Andrews, Chris.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Browne, John.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conlon, Margaret.
  • Connick, Seán.
  • 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.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kennedy, Michael.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Mansergh, Martin.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Brien, Darragh.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Hanlon, Rory.
  • 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

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Bannon, James.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Behan, Joe.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • 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, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lee, George.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • 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.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Perry, John.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • 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.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 24, Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009: Order for Report, Report and Final Stages agreed to?

It is not agreed to. This Bill will be introduced late in the afternoon and is to be guillotined at 6 p.m. Apart from objecting to the guillotine, a totally new section has been introduced into the Bill which amends the Mental Health Act 2001. This new section has nothing to do with the rest of the Bill. It deals with the removal of persons to authorised centres and with authorising people other than staff of a centre to remove persons.

Human rights issues may attach to this measure. The date of these amendments is yesterday and we are expected to deal with them in a guillotined fashion. We may not even reach this section, the content of which is totally different from the rest of the Bill. We object to the guillotine.

I call Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.

Forgive me, a Cheann Comhairle. I was dealing with an application for membership.

(Interruptions).

The Taoiseach will be glad to hear we rejected it.

Deputy Ó Caoláin does not realise how devastating that is.

The Taoiseach will not get the application either.

We also object to the proposition that a guillotine apply to the passage of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009. As has been already indicated by Deputy O'Sullivan, the legislation contains a new element which warrants independent address. The idea of a guillotine applying to this legislation is unacceptable, as is the series of guillotines which have been applied to legislation as a matter of course in recent weeks. We ask the Taoiseach to lift the guillotine to allow the House to debate properly all of the content of the Bill now presenting.

I also support the objection. It is unacceptable that extra legislation is slipped in at this stage. This Bill relates to people's personal freedom and to how they are transported from one place to another. I fully support the Labour Party move.

(Interruptions).

Does Deputy Reilly know to what he is objecting?

A recent judgment in the High Court presents difficulties in relation to the operation of an assisted admissions service for seriously ill psychiatric patients and a legislative solution is required to ensure the continued operation of that service. For that reason, an urgent amendment must be brought forward in the context of this Bill.

All the more reason to debate the measure.

It is proposed to amend sections 13 and 27 of the Mental Health Act 2001 to provide that a clinical director can arrange for a person to be removed or returned to an approved centre by members of staff of the approved centre or by authorised persons. The amendment will provide that the registered proprietor may enter into a contract for the purpose of arranging externally assisted admissions. Persons who are employed by the external agency will be then authorised in writing by the clinical director to provide assisted admissions to his or her approved centre.

This issue arose as a result of judicial review proceedings as to what constitutes "staff of the approved centre". The issue needs to be resolved.

Why did the Taoiseach not provide a briefing on the matter?

Of a total of 2,004 involuntary admissions in 2008, some 604 were assisted. This is an important matter which needs to be put on a proper statutory footing.

Surely this is all the more reason not to have a guillotine. We need to debate this issue.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 24 be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 66.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Andrews, Chris.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Browne, John.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conlon, Margaret.
  • Connick, Seán.
  • 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.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kennedy, Michael.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Mansergh, Martin.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • 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.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • White, Mary Alexandra.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Bannon, James.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Behan, Joe.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • 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, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lee, George.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • 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.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Perry, John.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • 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.

Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business agreed to? Agreed.

Is the Taoiseach aware of the difficulty that will arise, due to a lacuna in legislation, when the Government establishes the National Asset Management Agency, whereby the agency will have serious difficulty acquiring assets in cases where the developers who have taken out loans have involved one or more persons in the ownership and title of some of the assets concerned? Does the Taoiseach intend to deal with that by way of legislation?

I am not sure if the Taoiseach has had time to turn his thoughts to other electoral contests but has he given consideration to the possibility of holding the Donegal South-West by-election on the referendum date in October? I see the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, does not want that.

The Minister would not wish the issue to be confused.

The Deputy should give himself a break. He is having a serious rush of adrenalin. He should calm down.

I take it that it has been ruled out. The vote will be on the Lisbon treaty alone. Fair enough, I accept that.

The legislation on the National Asset Management Agency will be brought forward. Obviously, all these issues will be dealt with in the legislation.

Can the Taoiseach confirm the date on which the Dáil will rise for the summer recess? Will he outline what legislation the Government intends to put through the House between now and the recess? Alternatively, will he enable the Government Chief Whip to inform the party Whips at the meeting this evening what legislative measures the Government intends to have dealt with before the summer recess?

The Chief Whip will be happy to assist his colleagues in ordering the House's business for the remaining two weeks. It is expected that the Dáil will rise on 10 July.

Last Thursday on the Order of Business I raised the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008 and the time that would be allocated to it in the House this week. At that stage the draft schedule for this week's business was in place and the Bill was due to be debated this evening and tomorrow. However, the final schedule allocates four hours for debate before the guillotine comes down. There are 149 proposed amendments to the Bill to be discussed over four hours. By my reckoning, that means one amendment to be read, debated and voted on in one minute and 20 seconds. I have heard of "speed dating" but not of "speed debating", which will happen in this House tomorrow afternoon according to this schedule.

The Deputy has heard about it now.

It cannot be debated now.

This Bill has being doing the rounds of the Houses for more than a year. Significant provisions have been inserted into it in the last week or two, so four hours for debate is not sufficient given the intent of the Bill and the direction it will give to the housing sector in future years.

Does the Government intend to bring legislation forward to deal with the protection of deposits paid by home buyers? This relates to a story in The Irish Times this morning which reports that Laragan Development Ltd. has gone broke and left 100 depositors high and dry. Anglo Irish Bank is one of the stakeholders in this development for €3.5 million, so the State, as the new owner of Anglo Irish Bank, also has a stakeholding.

I know about the story but we cannot deal with it now. I call the Taoiseach on the housing Bill.

There is a major difficulty here, a Cheann Comhairle. If people who intend to purchase a house do not believe their deposit is protected, why would they opt to buy a house after this?

The Deputy can discuss that somewhere else. I call the Taoiseach on the housing Bill.

The housing Bill is being taken before the Dáil rises and these matters can be dealt with. There is a contraction in the amount of time available to debate these issues but it is necessary that the Bill be enacted.

Apropos the issue my colleague, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, raised earlier regarding security in a military installation, what is the position with the explosives Bill? Would it not be appropriate to introduce it and air the issue in the House? It is a matter that resonates with many people, particularly the criminal fraternity.

On a different matter, is it intended to deal with the legislation to ensure good governance of property management companies and to provide for the resolution of disputes arising in this area before the end of this session?

It will be concluded before the end.

I call on Deputy McManus.

I refer to the estate management legislation.

The Multi-Unit Development Bill.

It is currently before the Seanad.

My question was whether it would be concluded in this House.

It is in the hands of the House.

It will be in the House in due course.

The legislation is before the Seanad and will not come back to this House before the break.

It will not come back.

I thank the Taoiseach for answering my question. It required an extraction to get an answer but we got it eventually.

We live in a world where the issue of energy security is becoming more critical. I do not know whether the Taoiseach is aware that the European Commission has found Ireland is not compliant with the directive relating to energy security. We are compliant in the sense that we allow for 90 days of oil stocks but because we are facilitating the stocks we use as collateral we are in contravention of the EU directive. If we do not do something about this we will end up in the courts.

What is your question, Deputy McManus?

My question concerns the legislation to amend the National Oil Reserves Agency Act although I do not believe it provides for this issue. When will this Bill be introduced in the House? Will the Taoiseach ensure that we make Ireland compliant with the EU directive?

On the legislation, Taoiseach.

The National Oil Reserves Agency (Amendment) Bill is due later this year. If issues arise in addition to what was originally contemplated I shall communicate with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, to ensure they can be provided for, or whether it is the policy of the Government to so provide at this time. I shall check with him.

As I understood the Taoiseach this morning when he replied to the leader of the Fine Gael Party, he suggested we should have a debate on health funding. Will he make time for such a debate, particularly in the context of Crumlin hospital——

That is a matter for the Whips. We cannot go into that now.

——where such a crude measure as a 3% cut has been applied?

That is for Private Members' business.

The hospital has taken on new work such as sickle cell disease and there is no provision for funding for that. Can we have a debate on this matter?

I presume it is a matter for the Whips, Taoiseach.

I made the general point that if we are to have a debate on these issues we should at least have some consistency of approach. We all recognise that budgets are finite and we need to find more efficiencies. Despite the reduction in budget of 3% this year over last year, activity levels and service plan levels are higher this year. This indicates that——

That is because they provided the efficiencies.

——with co-operation between everybody involved, the clinical leadership that can be provided, and the new reforms regarding how a clinical director will pull together all the activities in the hospital, these practices can be improved. The HSE has sought to discover which scoliosis procedures can be completed between now and the end of the year. It is better for the House to address the wider policy issue, namely, to ensure that paediatrics are brought together, in this city and on a national basis, and that we get the best output for the very considerable resources we are providing. The sum this year is over €250 million.

The wider policy issue is how funding is allocated.

We cannot have a discussion on that now, as Deputy O'Sullivan knows well.

Le tamall fada anois, bhí reachtaíocht ar chlár oibre an Rialtais faoi chúrsaí a bhaineann le hÚdarás na Gaeltachta — Bille Údarás na Gaeltachta. — ach níl sé ann anois. Nach bhfuil sé in am é a thógáil ar ais ar an liosta gearr-thréimhseach ionnas go mbeidh seans ag Údarás na Gaeltachta cabhair a thabhairt do Foinse toisc go bhfuil an nuachtán ar tí dúnadh?

Second, I understand that after completion of the substantial Broadcasting Act, the Minister has power to make directions in respect of protection of diversity. Given the collapse of the right of Irish people to enjoy sport, and the near-monopoly conditions emerging in sporting rights and their allocation, what is the status of those ministerial orders which the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is entitled to make in order to protect diversity and the right of free-to-air broadcasting?

My first question dealt with the disappearance of the Údarás na Gaeltachta Act. It was there for years as a kind of ghost. Nobody knew why it was there. It was an up-the-airy-mountain kind of legislation. Foinse is now on the point of closing. Now is the time, if the Údarás were interested in extending its remit into publication, to ensure at least a newspaper in the Irish language.

My other question is much more serious. I was in a minority in this House in holding the view there was a danger, when Mr. Murdoch said he would use sporting rights as the battering ram to achieve monopoly in broadcasting. I was assured there was no danger. I understand there is a capacity in the Act which has just been passed for the Minister to act to protect the right of the Irish people to have a certain amount of free-to-air access to sporting events, in order to prevent monopoly. I understand that is also in compliance with European thinking. Do we just sit back and let the monopoly roll over us? Is that the broadcasting policy?

The questions concern Bille Údarás na Gaeltachta and directives pursuant to the Broadcasting Act, Taoiseach.

Níl aon dáta agam don Bhille a bhaineann le hÚdarás na Gaeltachta. Tá pointe an Teachta tábhachtach — cónas a bheimid in ann foilseachán Gaeilge a choimeád do phobal na Gaeilge agus do phobal na Gaeltachta? Ba mhaith liom go mbeimid in ann an fhadhb sin a réiteach. Ní bheidh sin furasta ach beidh mé féin ag fíosrú, le fáil amach cad é is féidir linn a dhéanamh chun cabhair a thabhairt.

Regarding the Broadcasting Act, I am not aware of the specifics the Deputy raised. He had a ministerial responsibility in this area in the past. I recall when Deputy Dermot Ahern was the relevant Minister that an effort was made at the time to retain the right to broadcast events of national importance.

That is right — the sporting rights.

I shall ask for an update from the present incumbent concerning the position and whether anything can be done.

I thank the Taoiseach.

Given the increasing number of cases of cruelty to animals, particularly in non-farm incidents, when can we expect the publication of the Bill on animal health and welfare? It is not acceptable that this much needed legislation should be delayed unduly.

No date has been arranged.

In view of the increasing number of traffic accidents recently, when will the road traffic Bill be introduced in the House?

It is over a year since a preferred tenderer was identified for the roll-out of speed safety cameras. The Government is still considering that tender. Will the Taoiseach give any indication today——

He cannot do that now. That is for the line Minister——

——when the preferred tenderer will be directed to go ahead with this project?

——or as a matter for the Adjournment.

As the Government dithers people are being killed on the roads because of the absence of road safety cameras.

We cannot deal with that now. That concerns the road safety Bill.

The Road Traffic Bill will be taken during the next session. I am aware that the other issue mentioned by the Deputy is being discussed at ministerial level at present to see how it can be advanced.

In the wake of the publication of the Ryan report, the Taoiseach and a number of his colleagues met with the religious congregations. A date was set for 24 June — today — for the religious congregations to return to the Taoiseach——

I cannot deal with that now, Deputy Hayes.

As today is the deadline for the congregations to report to Government, how does the Taoiseach propose to inform the House regarding the outcome of those discussions, in the context——

I cannot deal with that now.

I shall conclude on this point. It is a serious issue and there was unanimity on both sides. This is not a contentious matter. How will the House hear of the latest propositions from the congregations in respect of a future settlement in the context of potential future legislation?

Strictly speaking, that is not in order. I cannot deal with it now.

The Ceann Comhairle could do so.

I cannot anticipate the outcome of a meeting yet to be held. As the Deputy knows, the Minister of State with responsibility for children and youth affairs, Deputy Andrews, has been given the task, on behalf of the Government, of coming forward with the response of Government to the detailed recommendations in the Ryan report. The separate issue regarding the moral obligation on congregations to come forward further to meet the responsibilities is an ongoing matter, one that I have outlined by way of statement. A clear, unanimous motion of the House informs that debate. While today may not be a deadline, I expect progress to be made on the issue.

Am I right in saying that today——

This is not in order.

——was the date set for which the congregations must revert to the Government——

I cannot go into that now.

——regarding a potential further settlement that they would make?

My statement of the first meeting accurately reflects the situation, which was that they would come back to me to see what progress is being made so that the Government could make an assessment in due course as soon as possible. Based on the full information being provided to us, we can make an assessment as to where we will go from here with regard to it. The overall objective has been clear, transparent and unanimous in the House.

Will the House have a chance to debate it?

In due course, but there are a lot of legislative issues to be dealt with between now and the recess. This is a matter that can be attended to and returned to anytime, subject to the agreement of the Whips.

Will the Taoiseach confirm that we will have what was normal custom, namely, the Adjournment debate at the end of the session? Will he confirm that the final day will be given over to such a debate, as was always normal practice? One would have the opportunity to review the performance of the Government over a 12-month period and give the Government an opportunity to respond to the various points made during the course of the debate.

Is an Adjournment debate promised?

As the Deputy will recall, we just had a motion of confidence a couple of weeks ago in relation to this matter.

No, that is a different issue.

I am aware that it is a different issue.

It is a terminal debate.

It is not normal, as was the case during Deputy Barrett's time as Whip, that Adjournment debates are given.

The provision was there for donkeys' years——

It was indeed, but not in recent times.

——until people like the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs scrapped it. It should never have been scrapped.

The debate was meant to be terminal.

It was there for donkey's years.

It is a matter of opinion.

It would be an opportunity for the Taoiseach to stand up and give an account of himself for the preceding 12 months.

No, we cannot have a debate on this now.

Sorry, Deputy. I am aware of his views on the matter. I had a confidence debate on this matter, which was decided on by the House only two weeks ago.

I am not talking about confidence.

It is substantively on the same issue.

It is indeed.

Deputy Broughan now. Members can have a discussion on this matter afterwards.

Is the Taoiseach saying that we will not have an Adjournment debate?

We will have more substance this time.

We will not have an Adjournment debate.

Having listened to the Taoiseach's recent answer on health matters, I must ask about what planet he is living on. Last week, one of my constituents——

The planet on which the Taoiseach is living is not in order. We cannot go into that.

We all seem to be living on "Planet Biffo" now.

Ask questions that are in order.

Come on. Hold it up. Is Strumpet Street back?

We were on "Planet Bertie", but we seem to have been transferred.

This is not on at all.

That will get Deputy Broughan a line.

One of my constituents——

The Deputy must ask a question that is in order.

——was waiting three hours for an ambulance last Tuesday because the accident and emergency units at the Mater and Beaumont hospitals almost collapsed.

That was not the question that I wanted to ask.

Deputy Broughan must ask a question that is in order, please.

I wish to ask a question raised by the leader of Fine Gael on the national recovery plan. Will we have an opportunity to debate it? By the way, the amount of money involved seems to be derived from——

That is a matter for the Whips.

I am asking the Leader of the House whether we will have an opportunity to debate the matter. Some 800 SR Technics workers are still awaiting——

We cannot go into that matter now.

——a Government initiative to return them to work.

Is the question of a debate not a matter for the Whips?

May I raise a point of order? Is it in order to ask a question referring to an item on the Order Paper at this time?

No. 83 on the Order Paper asks for a change in Standing Orders to allow people to ask supplementary questions on Adjournment debates. Such questions were allowed previously, but that is no longer the case. Will the Government give time to allow the motion to be debated? Making this small procedural change would only take five minutes. Failing that, the Government has been promising changes to Standing Orders to reform the workings of the Dáil for some time. Will we see such proposals before the end of the session?

It will be before the next session, certainly. In relation to the first point, these are matters for the Whips to decide whether they can be taken.

My question was on whether the Government will use its time. It was a "Yes" or "No" question.

No. It is a Fine Gael motion.

I want to ask the Taoiseach about two Bills. At the time of the last budget, it was announced that the National Consumer Agency, NCA, and the Competition Authority were to merge in a marriage of quangos. Last weekend, the Minister for Finance indicated that the consumer side of the regulator's office, the one investigating matters such as bank overcharging and that is regarded as being one of the regulator's better sides, if there are any, will be included in the NCA. This seems strange. The Taoiseach had some pithy comments about the performance of the NCA.

The Deputy should just ask about the legislation so that we can move on.

Now it is to take over the functions of a regulator that everyone——

What is the Deputy asking about exactly? We must move on.

Are the media reports true? When is the NAMA legislation likely to be before the House and will the heads of the Bill or the Bill itself be published before the recess on 10 July or during the summer?

In relation to the NAMA legislation, the Minister has said on a number of occasions that he is seeking to bring it forward as quickly as possible. It is likely to be debated in the House in the next session. It may occur that we would have it before the next session by having an early return of the House.

Will it be holiday reading? We could take it home.

For some, I am sure. Others will be sunning themselves somewhere and leaving it to others to do the work.

Seaside reading.

People like me do a lot of reading by the beach. The Taoiseach probably does, too.

He was kidding.

I was not including Deputy Burton.

He could read it in the caravan.

He could stay behind and bring NAMA with him.

Her assiduousness is legendary. I would not be including her. I would be looking at Deputy Broughan in that respect.

That is terrible.

The Taoiseach's favourite——

I do not know on what planet he is taking holidays, but we hope he is going somewhere.

He might be advertising Fáilte Ireland.

I meant that in the nicest possible way, Deputy Broughan.

In relation to the earlier question on improving the regulatory and supervisory arrangements, ensuring that consumer issues that are presently dealt with by the Financial Regulator are dealt with will, of course, be outlined by the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, when he brings the legislation to the House.

Similar to Deputy Burton, I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the consumer and competition Bill. Approximately ten years ago, it was discovered that the National Irish Bank was stealing money from customers' accounts on a wholesale basis. The theft was identified in internal audit reports and was the subject of a journalistic investigation in which my colleague, Charlie Bird, and I were involved. In the course of the investigation, it became clear that there were major holes in respect of financial and consumer regulation in the banking sector. Where a bank was stealing money in that way, protecting people proved difficult.

The protection of consumers was one of the core reasons for the establishment of the consumer element of the new regulator. Until that point, all that obtained in terms of financial regulation was prudential regulation. In a sense, the Central Bank saw it as its job to ensure that, in prudential regulation, banks were profitable so that the system——

That is for other legislation. Preambles cannot be too long. In fact, they are completely forbidden.

My question is on the consumer and competition Bill, which will amalgamate the consumer agency and the Competition Authority, and the financial services regulation Bill, which will modernise financial services legislation in accordance with the new situation. To what extent or how can consumers be protected by the legislation from banks that want to steal money in the fashion outlined?

I cannot go into that now.

He is out of order.

The contents of legislation may not be discussed now. This is the problem.

Will the modernisation of the financial services regulation Bill include any measures——

The contents of the legislation cannot be discussed now. All that can be asked is when will the legislation be introduced.

Will it include measures to ensure that it will not take ten years to pursue the people involved as it does now?

The content of the legislation cannot be pursued now.

As I said, the consumer and competition Bill is later this year. Discussion can take place on Second Stage, including I am sure a contribution from the Deputy, as to the adequacy of the new arrangements and how it has been able to protect consumer interests. The Financial Regulator had a remit and built up a reasonably good reputation in that area in terms of consumer protection.

And now the Government is abolishing it.

The question arising is about financial regulation, the role of the Central Bank and the establishment of the new central banking commission. A serious change must take place. There is no question but lessons must be learnt. The Financial Services Ombudsman has also been an effective advocate for consumer rights in this area. He has had sufficient statutory powers not only to make a recommendation but to obtain settlements in favour of those who were wrongly treated by financial institutions. He has been successful in that effort.

Does the Taoiseach plan to introduce any legislation to deal with the conflict of interest that arises in connection with the solicitors' firm, Arthur Cox, which advises the Department of the Taoiseach, and a number of Ministers?

I am afraid the Deputy has gone beyond all boundaries there.

We heard in recent days that it will advise NAMA, in addition to a variety of developers who are involved in that circle.

No legislation is promised in that area. The Deputy will have to table a question to find out about the matter.

If it was in any other jurisdiction it would be illegal and people would be put in prison for it.

The Deputy will have to table a question.

Is there a proposal to deal with the matter?

Barr
Roinn