It is proposed to take No. 8, motion re membership of committees; No. 9, motion re referral to joint committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Defamation Act 2009 (Press Council) Order 2010; No. 21, statements on European Council, Brussels; and No. 22, Merchant Shipping Bill 2009 — Order for Report, Report and Final Stages. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. 8 and 9 shall be decided without debate; and the proceedings on No. 21 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 Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Sinn Féin, who shall be called upon in that order, who may share time, and who 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. 21, whichever is the later, until 2.30 p.m. Private Members' business shall be No. 72, motion re special educational needs, to be taken at 5.30 p.m. and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after three hours.
Order of Business.
There are three proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 8 and 9, without debate, agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 21 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal relating to the suspension of sitting under Standing Order 23(1) agreed? Agreed. I call Deputy Kenny on the Order of Business.
The Taoiseach got away lightly. I have two questions for him. Has the Government made any arrangement in respect of the proposed children's referendum? Is it likely to be held this year? Perhaps the Taoiseach will outline the position in that regard.
While we argue in this House in regard to the various positions we adopt in respect of policies and so on——
What was the Deputy's second question?
I am coming to it. Is the Government prepared to bring before the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service or the Dáil the options it considered in respect of the bail out of Anglo Irish Bank? Would it be appropriate that we have a mechanism for independent assessment of the propositions put forward by Government, Fine Gael and Anglo Irish Bank so that Members of this House will have at their disposal truth and fact in regard to the judgments that have been made? In the interests of what has happened and the extent of the liabilities here, it would be an exercise which deserves that kind of scrutiny.
I understand the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews, will meet senior officials after Easter to discuss what sort of recommendations can be made to Government in respect of the first matter. I do not accept the continuing argument made by the Deputy about the relative merits of his proposal because it has been proven, on a fairly consistent basis by reputable people, that his banking policy is not a credible alternative. That has been confirmed.
Yours is costing a lot of money.
No, the Fine Gael proposal was confirmed by a person who once sat in that seat as costing four times more.
That is not true.
He said it again this morning. I do not know to what the Deputy is listening.
That is the typical reaction. One lie on top of another lie.
It is the truth.
Keep telling lies.
It is a wild comment.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the arrangements for questions and answers on banking policy. The Taoiseach indicated yesterday that some agreement would be made by the Whips for questions and answers some time tomorrow. The Labour Party is anxious that it should be more of a question and answer format. I understood, from what the Taoiseach said yesterday, that what he had in mind was continuing statements with a number of questions at the end. It is important that it is a question and answer format in order that the detail of what was announced yesterday can be teased out more fully. I see the Taoiseach will respond with enthusiasm to this suggestion.
I am reciprocating the Deputy's smile.
I am glad we are smiling at each other for a change.
You are embarrassing the Tánaiste.
I refer to the promise made by the Minister for Finance to introduce legislation to root out crony capitalism in Ireland and ban cross-directorships and so on. When will that legislation be introduced?
I draw the attention of the Taoiseach to the fact that in the schedule of sittings which has been published there is provision for a week in early June when there would be no sittings. That week normally coincides with the holding of a referendum. Last year, it coincided with the holding of local and European elections. Am I to draw from the fact that it is on the calendar that it is the intention of the Taoiseach to hold the three by-elections in the first week in June?
On the same day.
Or never.
That had not crossed my mind.
The Taoiseach is not worried about it.
Really?
On the first matter, I understand the Whips will meet. One of the great things about trying to be generous with time here is that people always have further suggestions which go beyond what was originally proposed, but that is the nature of the game. The idea was that tomorrow would provide an opportunity for others to make statements in the House through the statements format, at the end of which the Minister for Finance would make himself available for some questions and answers for, I suggest, half an hour. The Whips can decide on it but it is not a question of having a series of questions and answers. Deputies want to have an opportunity to contribute to the discussion and should be allowed to have that opportunity. We can then provide for questions and answers at the end. It is a matter for the Whips to finalise, but that was what was envisaged.
On the same matter, there are a large number of unresolved issues. The Labour Party was only given short briefings an hour or two before the announcements yesterday. During the Minister's speech we were given the blue book about NAMA, but there are very many unresolved issues in it, including the valuations attached to what are described as investments and hotels which were not dealt with in the statements yesterday. People are struggling to cope with the horror of what the Government unveiled yesterday but we need answers to what is in the blue book.
Deputy, we cannot have a full scale debate on this matter at this point.
Is the Taoiseach saying that we will not be able to put some questions to the Minister for Finance or other Deputies acting on his behalf tomorrow? That is quite shocking because the taxpayer is taking on a doubling of the national debt. What the Taoiseach did yesterday could cost us 5 cent extra in income tax——
Deputy, we really cannot have this on the Order of Business. I allowed you in.
——to pay for yesterday's meal. There is more in the blue book which was not even costed.
Deputy, you are abusing the consideration which I have extended to you.
Can we have answers to some questions, please?
Deputy, could you resume your seat please?
What is a question and answer session for? Is it just for the loyal backbenchers to praise the Taoiseach?
Deputy Burton, please.
There is not much point in that.
It would not take half an hour.
It would take two and a half seconds.
There are no takers for that, from what I hear.
The agreement which has been reached with the public service unions will now go before their respective memberships. Does the Government intend to afford time in the Chamber to debate the agreement? It has no guarantees that there will be no further cuts in social welfare. It has no provision to rule out any further cuts to the public services delivered by public servants. There are a whole range of issues which Members here would like to address to the respective Ministers and the Taoiseach. Can the Taoiseach indicate to the House his intention regarding the agreement which was reached, its current status and when he expects to know with certainty its future?
The matter has been referred to the constituent unions for their consideration and they should be given the time and space to do that. Obviously, on the basis of its ratification, it will become an agreement which will be operative. It is open to the House in due course for the Whips to arrange for a debate. We need to enable the Whips to discuss it, while being mindful of the fact that this matter is now being considered by employee representatives.
I encourage Members to be in order on the Order of Business.
I know the wildlife (amendment) Bill will have been mentioned to the Taoiseach when he was working the telephones over the weekend. I note the spokesperson for the Minister, Deputy Gormley, said the Bill will make hunting deer with a pack of hounds an offence on the grounds of public safety. It might apply to the members of the Taoiseach's party in recent times regarding this issue. When is the Bill likely to be published?
I understand we are awaiting publication.
When will we have it?
Soon.
I have questions on three pieces of promised secondary legislation. The floods directive has to be transposed into Irish law and will make the Office of Public Works the competent authority for that. The Minister of State, Deputy Martin Mansergh, gave a commitment after Christmas that secondary legislation would be published and signed by the end of this month. Is it still the intention of the Government to have it signed by the end of the month? When will it be enacted? Will it give adequate powers to the Office of Public Works to deal, once and for all, with the flooding issue?
Last week, I raised with the Taoiseach plans, under the Planning and Development Act, to introduce a statutory instrument to remove the exemption from planning for head shops. The Taoiseach might have a response to that issue.
The third issue I raised last week concerns the draft statutory instrument under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Taoiseach had indicated that three months' notification had been given to the Commission. I pointed out to him that, under Commission rules, where there is an issue on the ground of public health an immediate ban can be implemented. In light of the fact that many aspects of the proposed statutory instrument——
We do not need a Second Stage contribution at this stage.
——have already been adopted by the Commission on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom, could the Taoiseach introduce an immediate statutory instrument? He was to revert to me on the issue.
The advice from the Department of Health and Children was that three months' notice had to be given. I will ask that a written note be given to the Deputy to update him on the matter. I apologise that no one has reverted to him since he last raised it. Second, in regard to the question on the head shop controversy, I understand there is written correspondence between the Minister and the Deputy arising out of an issue he raised on the Order of Business on 25 March. I cannot add to that.
I have not received it. Perhaps the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has recycled it.
It is addressed to Dáil Éireann, Dublin 2.
It has not arrived yet. I am sure it is in the system.
A dog ate it.
Will head shops be open on Good Friday?
That will be confined to Limerick.
The letter is in the system.
I will have to come back to Deputy Naughten on the floods directive issue. I met him yesterday evening and he mentioned that he would raise this matter but I have not had an opportunity to check it out. I will get back to him.
I would like to raise an issue relating to the business of the House. I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise a matter on the Adjournment last Thursday, which concerned the withdrawal of 4.5 SNAs from the special school in Celbridge, County Kildare. The format for the Adjournment debate used to be that a Minister would respond to what a Member had to say but the new format is that a Minister of State is given a sheaf of Civil Service scripts, which the Minister has not seen, to read. This relates to the business of the House and I would like the Taoiseach to examine this. For example, the Minister for Education and Science knows much more about the issue I raised than was outlined in the script read by the Minister of State, Deputy Connick.
The Deputy has made his point.
The script did not even refer to the issue I raised, which is unacceptable. In view of the difficulty in obtaining information and responses in other ways, could it be possible for the Minister or Minister of State who takes Adjournment debates to be briefed and to listen to what Deputies have to say in order that they can respond to the case being made?
The Deputy has made his point.
The Dáil reform committee has repeatedly agreed a format that would correct this. Even if we cannot agree a package on Dáil reform, the Taoiseach could introduce this change by speaking to Ministers.
On the same issue, I support my colleague.
I will not allow a debate on this.
I refer to the way we do our business, about which I agree with the previous speaker. He was kind enough to share time with me for this Adjournment debate last Thursday. There is no need for Dáil reform in regard to this issue. This is something that has crept into the system over a number of years. Every day that passes, I see further evidence of the rights and entitlements of Members being eroded in the manner in which they are treated by the Government. Members are treated with contempt and it is appalling. We cannot do the job we were elected to do because we cannot raise a question in the hope of getting a straight answer.
Standing Orders may need to be looked at.
Standing Orders do not need to be looked at.
There is a mechanism for doing that, which will facilitate the raising of contentious and current issues.
I do not want to be disorderly. This has nothing to do with Standing Orders. It has to do with the total disrespect the Government has for the House of Parliament. I ask that this be dealt with at the Whips' meeting. There is only one way to deal with this. If the Government parties do not listen, there are other ways to help and encourage them to listen. If they want to go that route, that is fine.
I call Deputy O'Sullivan.
The point I made is in order and perhaps the Taoiseach can respond in some way to it.
I acknowledge what Deputy Stagg said. I will ask the Chief Whip to ensure this matter is brought to the attention of Ministers and Ministers of State. Unfortunately, it is often not possible for the relevant Minister to attend because of prior commitments but I will ask that the content be relevant to the question. It is open at all times to Ministers to listen on Adjournment debates. There was a case when Deputy Stagg was quite persuasive and sometimes in the past one modified the script when a Deputy contributed. Perhaps with his growing years, he is becoming less persuasive or less impressive.
I thank the Taoiseach. We will be watching with interest.
I call Deputy Kathleen Lynch.
The Ceann Comhairle called me earlier.
No, he did not.
Gabh me leithscéal. I should have called Deputy O'Sullivan. I will call Deputy Lynch next.
I wish to raise two issues. The first is the promised legislation on health insurance. The risk equalisation legislation was struck down by the courts and it has been replaced by a crude levy as a temporary measure. In the context of difficulties faced by Quinn Insurance and potential difficulties for other health insurance companies, does the Government plan to fast-track the comprehensive legislation planned? There is a great deal of concern among people who have health insurance that their policies are in difficulty. What is the timeframe for the legislation? It should be speeded up because we need proper legislation to underpin the current health insurance system until universal health insurance is introduced by the next Government.
With regard to head shops, my colleague, Deputy Costello, and I published legislation on behalf of the Labour Party to make such shops subject to planning law. It is innocuous legislation, with which every Member would agree. Will the Taoiseach consider accepting the Bill and bringing it forward as Government legislation, which would mean it would be dealt with more speedily?
I would like to refer to both matters. With regard to the health insurance issue and risk equalisation, Quinn Insurance has been put into administration because of various matters relating to its reserves being used as collateral. However, the VHI still fails to meet the standard set for it at 40% of reserves and its fund is way below where it should be. The EU has complained about this and the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, warned us about this. When will it be addressed?
A Private Notice Question on this issue will be taken later.
Has the Financial Regulator a view on this?
I welcome the initiative taken by my Labour Party colleagues but I asked on a number of occasions in the House that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government issue a directive to bring head shops under planning legislation to dictate where they could open and what their opening hours should be and that the Minister for Health and Children also issue a directive to ensure all substances sold in these shops are approved by the Irish Medicines Board or the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. None of these actions have been taken. Neither of these issues requires primary legislation. A ministerial order would achieve what is needed. Legislation might be required regarding product insurance liability.
The Order of Business is not Question Time.
We need action, not rhetoric.
I will have to revert to the Deputy regarding the plans by the Minister for Health and Children on the timing of legislation promised in the insurance area.
With regard to the head shops issue, the Attorney General's advice has been sought to see if there is any way we can deal with issues other than through the three-month notification issue which we are dealing with.
I have given the Government parties the solution and they will not take action. I am asking that action be taken before more young people are harmed by taking these——
If I took every solution the Deputy offered, I would be in some trouble.
Will the Taoiseach come back to us on the other legislation?
Yes.
I call Deputy Kathleen Lynch and I apologise for the misunderstanding.
I do not blame the Ceann Comhairle because other Members are being disruptive. I attended an interesting press briefing yesterday, which turned into a mini-conference on the mental capacity Bill. There were four speakers, with one more impressive than the other. If one has Alzheimer's disease, one can sign over one's property but if one has autism, one cannot sign a contract to buy a house. This Bill is needed urgently. The legislation covering people who have the capacity to make decisions for themselves in regard to their health, the law, making a will, their property, where they want to live or who they want to live with was enacted in 1871. Surely we need the legislation urgently.
I support Deputy Lynch. This matter is extremely serious. In a case yesterday a young woman who was allegedly sexually assaulted was not allowed to give evidence in court because she has Down's syndrome and thereby was deemed not to have the intellectual capacity to give evidence in court. This is extremely serious. Our law is totally outdated at present and legislation should be brought forward as a matter of urgency.
As Members are aware, this is a priority issue. It was hoped that we would have the legislation in this session but I understand we will have it early in the next session.
Will the Taoiseach then ratify the convention on disability?
I will have to check that for the Deputy. I am not aware of the issue.
We are moving on with business.
What does next session mean? I have been hearing that for nearly two years now. Are we talking about when we come back after Easter until July? Is that when we will have the legislation?
That is my understanding.
In view of the fact that almost 20,000 people marched in Clonmel last week and that there are many more ready to march in Kilkenny, Wexford and right across the south east about hospital services, could time be put aside to debate and discuss the issues? Members on the opposite side of the House have given firm commitments that they want what is happening in the health service to stop as a matter of urgency.
That is not a relevant question.
We need to give Members a chance to express their views in this House. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether time could be set aside to discuss the chaotic situation in the health service in the south east?
The Deputy should table a matter on the Adjournment.
I agree with Deputy Hayes's call for time to be made available for statements on the reconfiguration of hospital services in the south east. With the agreement of the Whips, I urge the Chief Whip to make time available when the House resumes after the Easter break.
There are many other ways for the Deputy to raise the matter.
A Cheann Comhairle, you will be delighted to know that I am doing my best to be in order this morning. I will not ask about unpaid social welfare backlogs or appeals. I will not ask about unpaid farm grants or REPS payments as I know they are not urgent.
A question on promised legislation.
I will not ask any such questions. Something has come to my attention. I have been looking at the legislative programme in the area of justice. I cannot find the relevant piece of legislation but perhaps the Taoiseach might give some indication of whether it is intended in the course of proposed legislation to restrict the ability to travel of those who might be suspected of criminal offences or being a member of a criminal gang. It is not unknown for such people to absent themselves outside the jurisdiction in countries with which we do not have an extradition agreement. There are plenty of examples of people who could be suspected of criminal offences and might be charged with them and others who are known to be associated with organised crime in general and they seem to be able to——
We are making inquiries on the Deputy's behalf to see if there is promised legislation.
Wait a second. I will come to legislation in a moment and I will help you out. The reality is that there does not seem to be any problem for such people in getting passports.
We cannot have contributions of Second Stage length on the Order of Business.
No, there does not seem to be any problem with them getting passports. They seem to have ready access to them. One thing that could be done would be to restrict the access to travel of such people to ensure that the State's interests are protected. The extradition Bill is somewhere along the line. It might be a possibility——
All those points could be made in that debate.
No, what I am asking is whether the Taoiseach thinks that other helpful or amending legislation might be introduced to meet that requirement?
Is there promised legislation?
We are not aware of any legislation covering that area.
We are moving on.
The Minister has no proposal. Would it not be a good idea to think seriously about that lest we find ourselves embarrassed in six months or a year's time?
Deputy Durkan has made his point.
We are not aware of any problem in that area. Parliamentary questions provide an opportunity for such matters to be discussed.
I will remind the Taoiseach again as the problems arise.