It is proposed to take No. a9, Intoxicating Liquor (National Conference Centre) Bill 2010 — Financial Resolution; No. a5, Intoxicating Liquor (National Conference Centre) Bill 2010 — Order for Second Stage, Second and Remaining Stages; and No. 18, Nurses and Midwives Bill 2010 — Second Stage (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. a9 shall be decided without debate; and that the Second and Remaining Stages of a5 shall be taken today and the following arrangements shall apply: the proceedings on Second Stage shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 12.35 p.m. today, the opening speeches of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for Fine Gael and the Labour Party, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed ten minutes in each case, the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed ten minutes in each case, Members may share time, a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed five minutes, and the proceedings on Committee and Remaining Stages shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 1.05 p.m. today 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 Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
Order of Business
There are two proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. a9 agreed to?
As a general rule I dislike a situation where Bills are expected to be passed in one session. However, I have spoken to our justice spokesman, Deputy Charles Flanagan, who has spoken to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. This is a single issue Bill that includes a financial provision to permit the national conference centre to have a liquor licence. On that basis, there is no objection on this side of the House to taking all Stages of this Bill today.
Similarly, we have no difficulty with this Bill being taken today. However, it is astonishing that the Minister or some senior official forgot to make provision for a licensing arrangement for the national conference centre, which would mean it could not hold late night functions and so forth. I believe we are owed an explanation given that a vast amount of justice and finance legislation has been before the House over the past two years. The Minister was busy dealing with blasphemy and other issues, so I am amazed that nobody brought it to his attention that our shiny beautiful new conference centre did not have a licence. What way is that to run a business economy?
The Deputy is talking for the sake of talking.
You could not run a sweet shop.
I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
I suppose the Deputy had to say something.
It is astonishing.
Sinn Féin has no objection to the taking of this Bill today. Indeed, we look forward to the national conference centre proving to be the success we all wish it to be at the heart of the city.
However, before agreeing to the Order of Business, I must ask whether the Government will accommodate an opportunity for statements and a question and answer session with the Minister for Finance with regard to the European Commission decision announced yesterday on the submission of draft national budgets for scrutiny and peer review by other member states. This is a hugely important issue that could very well threaten the sovereignty of member states with regard to their fiscal policies and budgetary decisions. It is critical that the import of this announcement is given full voice and that there is an opportunity for full scrutiny in this House. I echo the concerns already expressed by Deputy Bruton and I noted his comments this morning on "Morning Ireland". Why are some people taken aback by this announcement? Many of us were forecasting that this was coming down the tracks in any event--
I do not want a full scale debate on this on the Order of Business.
——in the course of the debates on the two referendums on the Lisbon treaty. Here we are——
We are on the Order of Business.
——and now we must face up to it. It is high time that we did.
Does the Tánaiste wish to respond?
I have nothing to say.
I am asking the Tánaiste to accommodate a proper opportunity in the House to address this very serious and potentially dangerous matter for the fiscal sovereignty of this State.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. a9 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. a5 agreed to? Agreed.
I have four questions for the Tánaiste. First, can I take it that the legislation giving effect to Ireland's participation in the decision of the European Council last Friday will come before the House next week and that there will be adequate time to debate it and tease out the terms, conditions and implications in respect of repayment for this country? Second, is there confirmation of reported claims that the Government will have to put another €1 billion into Irish Nationwide Building Society? In the context of the European Commission having to give its imprimatur to this and the Anglo Irish Bank deal, can the Tánaiste confirm that more taxpayers' money might be required for Irish Nationwide Building Society and, if so, to what extent? Third, if there is confirmation of the announcement today that 2,000 extra teachers will be employed in September, will the money to pay their salaries be found by savings within the Department of Education and Skills or will it be new money from the Exchequer?
Fourth, the Committee of Public Accounts is in public session as we speak dealing with the issue of Quinn Insurance Limited as far as the Financial Regulator is concerned and the legislation covering that. While respecting the independence of the Financial Regulator, has the Government had any discussions with regard to the situation whereby insurance is being delivered under administration and moving to a situation where it will be freed from administration? Have there been discussions with the Financial Regulator about that? More importantly, is there a response from the Government in respect of the economic consequences for the Quinn Group in the Border region? Is there a plan to meet with the newly appointed UK Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Paterson, to discuss INTERREG, peace and reconciliation and Ireland funding on a range of cross-Border activities which could have a beneficial impact on the Border economy, North and South? Does the Government intend to announce a plan to deal with that, arising from the consequences of the Quinn Group collapse?
It is intended to deal with the legislation on Tuesday and Wednesday next week. It is our intention to allocate adequate time for discussion on the bilateral loans and the conditions attached. The Whips will agree the requisite timeframe to allow that discussion to take place.
With regard to Irish Nationwide Building Society, the chairman of the society indicated yesterday that the society's capital position is comfortable. He also indicated that the transfer of assets to the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, is proceeding but it was not possible at the time to forecast the discounts to be applied as this was to be done on a loan by loan basis. However, a capital need is not seen to arise at present. The society is preparing a restructuring plan for the future which will be submitted to the European Commission in June. The society will examine different options and take on board the Commission's guidance in that regard.
On the issue of teachers, an allocation was made by my predecessor in the context of last year's budget to allow for the appointment of 930 teachers and there are adequate resources within the Department's budget at present to appoint those teachers on the basis of the agreed programme for Government and on the basis the need for the demographics to be addressed. There is no need to look for additional savings in this year's budget. That money has been allocated.
On the issue of Quinn, as Deputy Kenny will be aware, Mr. Dan Flinter has been appointed to deal with the issues in a co-ordinated manner. My Department is involved with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation in looking at a number of initiatives, be they INTERREG under SEUPB or additional training opportunities that need to be advanced in consultations with the institutes of technology and other institutes, for example, the Cavan Institute and the institutes in Dublin, to deal with the issues appertaining to the staff in Blanchardstown and Navan. Work is ongoing in terms of dealing with the needs of those who, unfortunately, find themselves without employment for the next while through voluntary redundancies. It is clearly the mandate of the administrator to stabilise and secure the current jobs under the auspices and guidance of the courts. We are working towards that.
On the final issue of interaction with our new colleagues, both in London and in Northern Ireland, as is required in the normal context following a British general election, all Ministers met yesterday to put forward our plans in the context of meeting our counterparts as a matter of urgency. As Deputy Kenny will be aware, the Taoiseach has spoken to the new British Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs has spoken to the Northern Ireland Secretary. We all will be meeting and discussing issues with our counterparts in the UK. As Deputy Kenny can appreciate, we will continue to work on a North-South basis, particularly in the context of Quinn Insurance and its implications.
I thank the Tánaiste for her reply. Is 930 the figure for the number of teachers to be appointed in September, not 2,000 as reported today?
As Deputy Kenny will be aware as a former teacher, we must wait until such time as final decisions are made by those in current teaching posts——
The Department knows those figures for the past three years.
——as to whether they will retire. The analysis within the Department is that approximately 930 teachers need to be appointed.
Not 2,000.
The Government got it wrong.
Regarding the Commission document on the budget that was announced, the fact that Europe reached some kind of agreement last weekend, which, in effect, prevented speculators destroying a number of European economies through movements on the money market, is to be welcomed. However, it is important to know if the Government proposes to lay the document from the Commission before the Dáil and to provide time to discuss it. It would be unfortunate if we were to have a phoney war in this country over the position on discussions and arrangements with the European Union which are important in terms our national interest.
If the Commission is proposing, and our representatives, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, have agreed before discussing in this Dáil——
This is inappropriate on the Order of Business.
The Ceann Comhairle gave latitude to the Leader of Fine Gael.
There is a Commission proposal.
We cannot have detailed contributions on this issue. There will be other opportunities.
It is significant legislation.
I do not mind Deputy Burton making passing reference to it, but not detailed Second Stage type contributions.
Sorry, the Ceann Comhairle did not interrupt either the distinguished Deputy from Cavan-Monaghan or——
I am not interrupting Deputy Burton. I am just drawing her attention to the fact that I do not want Second Stage contributions on the Order of Business.
This matter is important to the future economic life of this country.
I fully accept that point——
No other matter is more important.
——but we will have to find a more suitable forum for detailed discussion of the issue.
A Deputy
This is the forum.
A Cheann Comhairle, sometimes your sexism gets the best of you. The Tánaiste and I are perfectly capable of putting up with it and ignoring it——
The Ceann Comhairle has been accused of a lot in his time.
——but you allowed the Deputy from Cavan-Monaghan and the Leader of Fine Gael to raise the issue and you did not interrupt or barrack them.
I allowed Deputy Burton to raise it as well. I am drawing her attention to the fact that I will not allow a detailed contribution at this point in time. There will be other opportunities, as the Tánaiste has indicated.
There will not be. I want to know if the Government will lay the document before the House for discussion and when it will provide time for the debate.
I also want to know whether the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance have made a prior agreement in Brussels, before coming to this House, to yield to proposals from the Commission about the future direction and management of Irish budgets. That is the sovereign issue in this Parliament. Does this Parliament decide our budget or is the budget agreed privately in Brussels beforehand?
It is entirely inappropriate to make these——
Sorry; it is not inappropriate.
It is entirely inappropriate and I will not allow it.
It is not inappropriate.
The Deputy will have to resume her seat if she persists with that line of argument. It is entirely inappropriate. If she has a direct question on promised legislation, I will allow it. It is completely out of order to have a detailed contribution on what is a very serious issue in a time-limited Order of Business and I will not allow it.
Why is the Ceann Comhairle afraid of the sovereign Parliament of this Chamber having a debate?
I am not afraid.
What is he afraid of? Why is he protecting Fianna Fáil?
This House is governed by Standing Orders and my obligations are to implement the Standing Orders.
Hear, hear.
If Deputy Burton and other Members wish to change them, there is a procedure for doing so.
When is the Commission document being laid before the House? When will there be a debate, as befits a sovereign parliament? The Commission is talking about very important historic changes in the budgetary process.
Deputy Burton has made the point and I will allow the Tánaiste to respond.
It is an entirely reasonable question about whether those changes and their structure will be debated in this Chamber. That is all I am asking.
Okay, fine. Will Deputy Burton now resume her seat? I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
That is all I am asking.
Fine, okay.
I have several other questions.
Will Deputy Burton resume her seat, please?
I want to ask the Ceann Comhairle's advice.
If the Ceann Comhairle can advise me again, he allowed Deputy Kenny——
I allowed Deputy Burton as well, for goodness' sake.
The chorus is exhilarating. Please keep it up. Come on, lads, come on.
Deputy Burton, will you resume your seat?
Let us hear it. There is hardly a squeak out of them.
Will the Deputy resume her seat? I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Can we have an answer from the Tánaiste? Will the Ceann Comhairle allow the muinteoir? Come on, do not go silent on me.
Deputy Burton will be at the back of the class.
Will Members refrain from engaging with the Deputy across the floor?
Somewhat on the same issue——
Minus the embellishment, please. We do not need embellishment.
No embellishments here.
In Deputy Ó Caoláin's case, impossible.
I want to ask the Tánaiste, in her Tory blue this morning——
A sexist remark.
——as she did not give me an answer in the course of my questioning the Order of Business, if the Government will accommodate an opportunity to debate properly the announcement yesterday from the European Commission on national draft budgets being submitted to Brussels for scrutiny and so-called peer-group evaluation by other member states. It is important that we recognise that this is a serious matter that can threaten the sovereignty of national budgets and, indeed, the independence of fiscal direction within this economy in taxation and other measures.
Some of us have argued for and others have given lip service to the notion of maintaining our independent taxation policy position. It is critically important——
It is too serious an issue to deal with on the Order of Business.
The Ceann Comhairle is correct.
It is going to have to be dealt with in a different court.
The very point. Well done, Ceann Comhairle.
Please resume your seat, Deputy.
You are on our side at last. I ask the Tánaiste to please answer my question.
Please resume your seat and allow the Tánaiste to reply briefly to the observations.
We should have sent the budgets of the past ten years to Brussels.
I am more than happy to answer the questions. For the benefit of the Deputy, my dress colour is petrol blue.
It is not Tory blue. For the benefit of the House——
Did the Green Party clear the dress?
There is enough VAT paid on it. Next week the House will discuss the bilateral loans to Greece. On the issue of the special purpose vehicle agreed in Brussels last weekend, further clarification on technical issues is currently being discussed with the European Commission. Arising from those clarifications, we may have to introduce legislation although we are not in a position to completely verify its necessity. If that is necessary, naturally this matter will be brought to the House.
Three issues have been raised. First, the issue of Ireland's sovereignty is not an issue in the context of what is being discussed in the European Union at this moment. That is a populist remark which is clearly inappropriate.
We are in hock.
It is inappropriate and it is not correct.
Our sovereignty is at issue.
The Tánaiste without interruption, please.
All of the 16 eurozone member states are deeply intertwined in a common currency. As has been seen in the past number of weeks——
We are deeply in debt.
——there have been a number of speculative attacks on member states within the eurozone. Therefore, a shared interest in an enhanced economic co-ordination throughout that zone is appropriate. Greater co-ordination on economic policy is also legislated for in the treaty. It is therefore, inappropriate to have anti-European sentiments at this time——
They did not think of that four years ago.
——when there is an absolute necessity for strength within the eurozone. Third, a populist view that our sovereignty is at issue is completely incorrect. We must work within the parameters as set down and agreed with the European Commission.
To describe sovereignty as populism shows scant regard——
Deputy Ó Caoláin, An Tánaiste without interruption.
It is clearly in our interest and in the interests of all members of the eurozone that this would happen. It is not exclusive to Ireland, as has been purported here——
It shows scant regard.
——but rather it is inclusive of all members of the eurozone. This is appropriate. By tradition, any serious decisions made in Europe are discussed in the House. There will be a number of opportunities to discuss these matters next week in the House.
My question to the Tánaiste was a simple one. The document from the European Commission——
We are not going to have a detailed discussion at this time. There will be another opportunity.
——is headed Reinforcing Economic Policy Co-operation. I asked the Tánaiste two simple questions. Will this document be laid before the House? Will the Government provide time to debate this document so that the House has the opportunity to discuss it? Those are the questions I asked the Tánaiste and I would like a reply.
The Tánaiste has not given us the answers that she must consider. She must answer the question as to whether the Government will accommodate an opportunity to address this matter in the coming week. Has this been agreed with the other member states? What is the level of the commitment this Government has given, behind the scenes and without openness and transparency?
We learnt of this yesterday. What is the level of the Government's extended commitment to the implementation of what is involved in all of this? The Tánaiste does not even know whether legislation will be required. Not only might legislation be required but also a new treaty.
We are not having a detailed discussion at this stage.
The Tánaiste does not know.
Adequate time will be made available.
If other issues over and above the bilateral loans to Greece need to be discussed, this can be discussed between the Whips.
We have had an offer that the Whips should discuss the matter and make the necessary arrangements.
The Tánaiste has agreed previously to have legislation in the House with regard to the bilateral loan to Greece. She also says that the further support may also be bilateral and she has to find out whether this requires legislation. However, my question was whether this document from the Commission about reinforcing budgetary co-ordination will be laid before the House and, whether the Government will provide time to have a debate in the House. That is what the Lisbon treaty, which we all worked to pass, agreed: that national parliaments would debate these issues before Prime Ministers, Tánaiste and Ministers for Finance, went off and made decisions. That is the net point. I want an answer. I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me time to say that.
We all want that answer.
The order of the House has yet to be decided for next week but the Whips will have discussions on this matter. We are proceeding with the bilateral loans legislation and will provide adequate time for that. This course is appropriate and was requested two weeks ago. If there are other issues requiring further discussion, they can be facilitated in due course. However, I am not in a position to give a definitive answer with regard to the discussions that took place last week, as to whether legislation will be required. If it is required, it will be brought to the House. The issue of co-ordination can be discussed if we can agree time.
I am not allowing any more discussion on this matter.
On a point of order, Ceann Comhairle.