It is proposed to take No. 12, Chemicals (Amendment) Bill 2010 — Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; No. 1, Property Services (Regulation) Bill 2009 [Seanad] — Second Stage (Resumed); and No. 13, Education (Amendment) Bill 2010 — Second Stage (Resumed). Private Members’ business shall be No. 73, motion re reform of structures of Government (Resumed), to conclude at 8.30 p.m. tonight, if not previously concluded.
Order of Business
There are no proposals to be put to the House today.
I am sure some are glad about that.
I ask the Taoiseach about two Bills. The water services Bill, which is to remove the prohibition on charging for domestic water, is due to be published in 2011. Can the Taoiseach indicate when it is likely to be published? Will it be early 2011 or what is the story?
The second is the national vetting bureau Bill. It appears as if there is a substantial backlog in the vetting of persons to work with children and particular categories. The Taoiseach will be aware of this. He might be able to indicate what sort of priority is being given to producing this Bill.
The vetting Bill is being worked on as a matter of priority. I understand the other Bill mentioned by Deputy Kenny, the water services Bill, should be published next year.
I raise two matters. First, the Government is considering a new wording for the proposed referendum on children's rights but there was also a report from the Oireachtas committee chaired by Deputy O'Rourke approximately two years ago which recommended that legislation should be brought forward separate to the referendum as a matter of urgency. When will that legislation appear or has it lost priority in the Government's legislative timetable?
Second, a number of Deputies have at various times raised issues here about the difficulty that now arises because many of the questions which are tabled to the Minister for Health and Children are referred to the Health Service Executive.
Hear, hear.
It is a matter Deputy Durkan, in particular, has been raising as have some of my party colleagues. There is an article in one of the newspapers today stating that although the HSE had committed to giving replies to those queries within 15 days, less than half of the queries are now answered within that period of time.
An example of this was supplied to me by Deputy Quinn. It was a parliamentary question that he tabled here in February 2010. He got a reply on 9 February 2010 stating that as this was a service——
There is a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges this evening and that is the appropriate place to address it.
Is this on the agenda?
Deputy Gilmore's party Whip is a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and I am sure he is well able to raise the matter at that forum.
Can I have the Ceann Comhairle's assurance that this matter will be dealt with?
Let me finish the point. I am sure there are other examples like this. Deputy Quinn tabled the question, which was replied to on 9 February last, stating it is a matter for the HSE but he only got a letter, dated 18 March, on 31 August. There are other examples of this.
It is the HSE.
Around the houses.
There is clearly a significant problem of accountability. I am glad to hear from the Ceann Comhairle that he himself will deal with it at the Committee of Procedure and Privileges. I will ask him again about it next week.
We will move on to Deputy Ó Caoláin.
I asked questions.
Go mo leithsceál, on the legislation.
I indicated.
I thank the Taoiseach. He defends my rights.
I never let Deputy Gilmore down. I will have to make further inquiries about the first matter.
I would say he would like to be the last to let me down all right.
Gently. On the legislation that Deputy Gilmore referred to recommended in the report, I must check on the status of that work and come back to him this afternoon. I do not have details before me on the matter he raised regarding a legislative proposal from Deputy O'Rourke's committee.
The matter of making replies more speedily available is one which has been raised by the Whip with the HSE. The agency has to revert to him and I have asked him to follow it up again quickly.
With regard to promised legislation by Independent Deputy Lowry, who supports the Government, enabling legislation will be produced shortly to facilitate the proposed casino development in County Tipperary. Can the Taoiseach advise if——
Sorry, what was that?
Deputy Lowry indicated that there would shortly be enabling legislation to facilitate proceeding with the proposed casino in County Tipperary.
Is this promised legislation?
It is promised legislation.
We will endeavour to establish that.
Surely it is from the same configuration of the current Government. Deputy Lowry is an integral part of this Government arrangement, as we have had confirmed earlier here in Question Time, and this is enabling legislation to allow for the casino proposal to proceed in County Tipperary. Can the Taoiseach indicate if enabling legislation is being prepared and when does he expect it to be published?
A report on this policy area generally has been prepared by the Department of Justice and Law Reform and forwarded to the Minister. There has been no discussion at Cabinet on it as yet because it is being considered by the Minister. The review of the legislation conducted is not in respect of any specific project. It is about updating legislation which is 50 years old as to whether it meets the current requirements in this area of law generally. Any proposal that would come from the Minister would be in the context of that policy review.
Would the Taoiseach agree that it need not be——
We cannot have a detailed debate, just a brief inquiry about promised legislation. We must park the issue then.
——specific or particular to any given proposal to fill the description of enabling legislation? If that is its purpose and intent, and if that is a by-product of its enactment,——
We cannot have a detailed discussion about the legislation until it comes to the House.
——will the Taoiseach confirm that this is what is in the offing in line with what Deputy Lowry indicated in public statements?
This issue is the subject matter of a report being considered by the Minister. If he is so minded, the Minister will have to draw up any proposals on it. In all of these matters, should a policy issue arise it will have to be dealt with transparently. It is not specific to any projects past, present or future, it is about a policy area that is under review on its own merits based on the present legislation. As the Deputy knows, private clubs are in place and we must ensure that the law deals with all of these issues. The question of further policy changes should be considered in the context of improved tourism and improved infrastructure. It will all have to be dealt with in a transparent manner and that will be the Minister's intention. There is no issue that is specific to any project, it is about the area generally.
When will the legislation be published?
In the first instance the Minister will consider the report and when he decides what he wishes to do it will be brought to Government. Then we will be in a position to know whether any legislation is involved. Let us take it step by step.
I doubt the casino will be before the election at this rate.
Cynicism will not get us out of trouble.
A couple of loads of sand.
Prior to asking the Taoiseach on the specific legislation, I wish to ask him whether he is aware that until June this year hydrocortisone, which is a substance vital in treating so many life-threatening conditions, was available in this country at 96 cent for 30 tablets.
The Deputy is promoting debate.
I am not promoting debate, I am informing the House before I ask a question.
Very brief comments.
I was interrupted when I stood up, the Ceann Comhairle allowed me to go ahead and then interrupted me after ten seconds. We will stay with this for as long as it takes——
I will allow the Deputy——
——and I will get the message out.
Deputy Reilly is a shrinking violet and needs to be treated gently.
The Deputy must tell us about what legislation he is inquiring.
I want this to be clear. After June, a monopoly was handed to an importer and the cost of the tablets has increased to €22. This is a 2,200% increase.
The Deputy is promoting debate which is completely out of order on the Order of Business.
I want to know why the Government has not introduced the reference pricing for drugs Bill which would prevent this type of carry on. Why is the Government allowing this situation?
The Deputy should get to the point and ask the question.
This amounts to a plunder of patients' pockets by a company that has sought to increase the price of the drug, which has been available for 40 years or more, by 2,200%.
The Deputy is promoting discussion.
Where is the Competition Authority when it is wanted?
The heads of the Bill are in preparation.
When is it intended to introduce legislation to provide for Ireland's membership of the IMF's new arrangements to borrow, known as NAB — I am sure the Ceann Comhairle will agree it is appropriately named in the present circumstances — and to make available Ireland's share to NAB by inserting a new chapter in the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 to enable requests for recovery of taxes not received from a treaty partner to be acted on where provisions are included in our double taxation treaties? I have raised this issue previously. It is an appropriate and urgently required legislative measure in the present circumstances. Perhaps the Taoiseach might be able to update the House as to the progress taking place on its preparation.
The Deputy is referring to the international agreements Bill which is due next year. The Minister for Finance will take questions this afternoon on more specific matters.
The national vetting bureau Bill has been deemed to be appropriate and urgently required legislation. It has been promised in the House for a long time and its publication is expected in 2011. This is hardly an indication of any great deal of urgency. Is it intended to bring it forward, perhaps before the end of the present session?
As I already stated, it is hoped the heads of the Bill will be available by the end of the year.
An issue that has huge significance for this State is a Bill that has been promised for a long time, approximately five years, to provide for the regulation and assessment of legal costs.
As I stated on this matter last week, it will be next year.
If that could be introduced——
The Deputy may leave it for the moment.
That is the problem. Unfortunately, it has been left too many moments and it goes on and on. In view of the high expenditure accruing from the various tribunals——
The Deputy is promoting debate and debate cannot be allowed on the Order of Business.
——may I ask again that perhaps the Taoiseach might keep this in mind with a view to bringing it to the House.
I will.
I thank the Taoiseach.
I wish to ask about two separate issues, both regarding imminent legislation. The first is the postal services Bill which has to be enacted prior to 1 January 2011. From my estimation, there will be approximately only two weeks in the session when this legislation can be debated. Will the Taoiseach ensure the legislation is published immediately so we can at least have consultation on it in advance? Will he guarantee that the legislation will not be guillotined in the House?
The second legislative measure relates to ratification by the Government of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. To ratify this, we must pass the mental capacity Bill. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether it is the Government's intention to publish this legislation prior to the end of this year and the commencement of the next session? Will he return to the House to clarify that once this legislation is enacted it will then be possible to ratify the UN convention without further impediment?
The legislation, which is the mental capacity Bill, is the responsibility of the Department of Justice and Law Reform. The detailed provisions of the Bill are at an advanced stage of drafting and it is expected that it will be published in the current Dáil session. Similarly, I understand the postal services Bill is at an advanced stage of preparation.
I accept that it is at an advanced stage. However, it must be enacted by 1 January 2011 and I am seeking clarification on when it will be published.
As soon as it comes to Government and is approved.
Once the finance issues are in motion in the House there will be only approximately two weeks during which this issue can be debated on the floor of the House. The legislation could be expedited and at least published so we can get consultation and discussion on the Bill before it is introduced to the House so that it will not be guillotined.
I know what the Deputy has to say and I will ask to see whether it is possible. We will publish it as soon as it comes and is approved by Government.
Will the Taoiseach come back with regard to ratification of the convention?
I will ask the Whips.
With regard to Dáil reform and the legislation required for it, the Government has tabled an amendment to the Private Members' motion before the House this week which states it has put forward proposals for Dáil reform. It forgot to state the Taoiseach had vetoed the proposals which the Government put forward. On foot of this, perhaps there has been a change of mind at Government level on Dáil reform. Has the Taoiseach lifted the veto on the implementation of meetings about Dáil reform? Will a meeting of the Sub-Committee on Dáil Reform take place in the near future? It is under the chairmanship of the Chief Whip and Minister of State, Deputy John Curran.
These matters have been dealt with by the Minister of State, Deputy Curran. Questions have been tabled to him on it.
This matter will be dealt with later today during Question Time. Dáil reform issues are down for answer later.
Under the Public Service Management Act 1997, every new Minister who takes up office is obliged to have a strategic plan for his or her Department within six months. That deadline has passed and none of the Departments to my knowledge, and certainly not the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation which I shadow, has produced such a strategy statement. These are the bedrock on which we judge the performance of Ministers and their Departments. Why has the Taoiseach decided not to require these to be published, as is required by law?
Surely at this time of great crisis we need to see a clear strategy emerging from these new Ministers as to the direction they are trying to take.
It might be better if the Deputy raised this matter at Question Time.
This is the Taoiseach's business——
Strategies are being pursued. I will inquire as to whether one is published but strategies are being intensively pursued by the Ministers concerned——
I beg the Ceann Comhairle's tolerance, I have been informed——
With regard to his Department, the Minister has been very active in a range of areas, including exports and job promotion which he has been quite successful in seeking to achieve as well as the change strategy.
I beg the Ceann Comhairle's indulgence in this matter.
I would prefer if the Deputy would consider a parliamentary question to the line Minister concerned.
This is not a matter for a parliamentary question; this relates to the obligation of Ministers to set out for the Oireachtas the strategies they are pursuing. Ministers are obliged under the 1997 Act to do so within six months. I am informed that the Department of the Taoiseach has vetoed the publication of those strategies.
The Deputy should pursue this matter through another avenue.
Why would I veto that?
That is what they are saying.
Who is saying that?
The Departments and the Taoiseach can guess which Department is involved. It is indicating that the Taoiseach has decided these strategy statements will not be published and that we will not have access. I ask the Taoiseach to clarify the position in writing to me.
Yes, I will clarify the issue.
I thank the Taoiseach.
With the Taoiseach and this Government very much in the departure lounge from which there is no return, I ask the Taoiseach if he will bring forward the noise nuisance Bill before the budget or before the end of this year. A serious problem exists with alarm bells and barking dogs causing great public nuisance and the local authorities are unable to deal with this issue because legislation is not in place.
Given the rather pejorative term used by Deputy Bannon in his introductory remarks, I am well minded to withdraw the noise nuisance Bill because Deputy Bannon's contribution to the House is probably as much as any statute could take.
It put the Taoiseach in his box some time ago.
Concussion and even conclusions.
The Taoiseach should be fair to Deputy Bannon.
If he is fair to me, I will be fair to him. If he is unfair to me, I will give him a rattle. That is the way it works.
The Taoiseach of this country is a disgrace to Europe.
Could we reduce the noise levels in the House, Deputy Bannon, please?
I want no abuse of Deputy Bannon.
I call Deputy Costello.
Yesterday Deputy Gilmore raised the issue of the Irish Human Rights Commission report on the Magdalene homes. The Taoiseach indicated he was referring the matter to the Attorney General for his opinion. Will the Taoiseach also refer the matter of the equivalent Protestant homes? The Magdalene homes were for mothers and children——
The Deputy will have to pursue this matter by way of a parliamentary question.
This matter is very relevant——
This matter was discussed on the Adjournment of the House last night.
——as it is being referred to the Attorney General. The equivalent of the Catholic Magdalene homes was the Protestant Bethany home. The same lack of supervision by the State also applied in Protestant homes. I ask the Taoiseach to also refer the matter of the Protestant homes to the Attorney General so that this vexed question can be dealt with once and for all.
I suggest a parliamentary question on the matter.
The Ceann Comhairle was good enough to allow this issue to be raised last night on the Adjournment of the House.
I am not planning a re-run of the matter now.
We would really appreciate it. Last night's reply, which was read by the Minister of State, Deputy Martin Mansergh on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, was embarrassing. It caused great concern——
We cannot revisit last night's Adjournment matter.
——among the survivors of these institutions. I appeal to the Taoiseach to deal with this matter. I know if he reads the facts of this case he will take a different view.
The Deputy will have to find another way to pursue the matter.
It is important that we should all be fair to one another in this House. I am aware that Deputies on all sides of the House have taken up this matter. A report arrived to the Department of Justice and Law Reform the night before last. The Government issued a statement yesterday on the report when it was brought to our attention. It is being referred for consideration. We had no prior involvement such as communication with the Departments concerned regarding the assessment report which was done by the Irish Human Rights Commission. The Government, therefore, must be given an opportunity to consider these matters. On the same day, Deputies tabled an Adjournment matter — which is their entitlement — which allows Deputies to continue to articulate their support for whatever case is being made and they then expect the Government to be in a position to give a considered reply, having only received the report. It is not fair to then say the Government's response caused concern. The Government has indicated by way of a press statement — which could not be added to by that evening — its position on this matter. We are having the matter considered by the relevant Departments and the Attorney General so that we can consider the issue. To do anything else would not be responsible.
My question is complementary.
We have to consider the matter. To be fair to it, the Irish Human Rights Commission took some months to draw up the report and yet Government is accused of providing an unsatisfactory reply within 24 hours of receiving the report, not having had the opportunity——
This is not the first time the Taoiseach has heard about it.
——to even consider it. The report was brought forward so we have to consider the report and its implications and issues.
That is a nice patronising reply.
It is not patronising; I am far from being patronising.
Please, Deputy Burton.
This issue concerns elderly women. It is a pity it is not about bankers.
The Deputy and I could have a joust about it——
The Taoiseach has known about this for two years.
Deputy Burton was a member of a Government which dealt with the Bridget McCole case, so no one is in a position to lecture. Advices have to be considered. This is what the Opposition did when in Government and it is what we also do. The Deputy may criticise but she should not accuse me of any less concern about issues than she has herself. I have a responsibility as leader of the Government to have the matter properly assessed and considered and this is happening. Denoting disappointment beyond that within 12 hours of a statement from Government to that effect would not be a fair assessment of its position. We have to assess the position now.
We are not revisiting the matter. Deputy Costello had a good innings. He has heard the matter is being considered.
The Taoiseach did not answer my question. I asked that at the same time as the report on the Catholic homes is being decided on——--
We are on the Order of Business and we cannot allow a debate like this on the Order of Business.
There are numerous reports on Protestant homes with the Department of Education and Skills. We need a decision on both because these people are very elderly and very few of them are left.
The Deputy has made the point very well.
If we do one now——
It concerns a small group of very elderly people.
The Deputy will have to find another way to raise this matter.
The assessment report will be considered and the implications of its application.
Can it be done for all mother and child homes?
I ask Deputy Costello to please allow——
I ask Deputy Costello to please resume his seat.
We cannot mutually respect one another if we are not allowed to assess the report. We will then see what is the situation. The Deputy cannot stand up in the House and without notice say the Government is now committed to a wider application of the report. We must first deal with the situation in front of us. The Irish Human Rights Commission took some months to deal with it. A particular group with a view brought this to the commission's attention. The commission did not decide to do a report itself under the human rights Acts.
It did. The Taoiseach is factually incorrect.
Please, Deputy Costello, I am not allowing a debate on this matter now.
It is not factually incorrect. I am on my feet now. Deputy Costello was on his feet and I listened to him.
If Deputy Costello wishes a debate to pursue the matter he will have to find another way.
I responded a second time to the Deputy. He still insists on standing up. If we are not going to respect each other, why should I respond? An assessment report was done as a result of representations made by a group to the Irish Human Rights Commission. That assessment report has just been received. Deputy Costello now asks about other issues which are outside the ambit of the assessment report, even though the Irish Human Rights Commission had an opportunity to examine this for three months——
The principle is the same.
I have not interrupted the Deputy. We will consider the report and the Attorney General will consider its implications for all Departments but this has to be based on the facts as established and the contents of the report. If the Deputy wants to talk about other issues he will have to raise them with the relevant Ministers by way of parliamentary question on notice, so he can have a considered reply and ask supplementary questions on the basis of further information being available.
I have done it until I am blue in the face.
I cannot help the Deputy any further in regard to the matter at this point without further notice.
In the context of the Appropriation Bill and the reduction in the Estimates, a situation is arising at present in that the agencies which are connected to the Departments have undertaken no micro-analysis in regard to cost reductions.
The Deputy is getting into detail. The Order of Business provides for questions. The Deputy cannot speak about the Bill at this point. He can ask the question about promised legislation.
I am asking the question.
The Deputy is holding a debate on it before he asks the question.
I am asking the question, if the Ceann Comhairle will allow me. It seems to be the case that the Departments, Ministers and Secretaries General are not undertaking any analysis in regard to the longer-term effects of the reductions taking place at present. At the Committee of Public Accounts, I put this to one of the Secretaries General and to the Department of Finance——
The Deputy will have to find another way to pursue this matter.
I will be finished shortly, if the Ceann Comhairle will allow me. In regard to the reductions that are taking place, there has been no analysis of the future damage that could be done through these cuts. Academics have been employed by the IMF, the World Bank and the rating agencies——
We are on the Order of Business. The Deputy is out of order. He should submit a parliamentary question on the matter. It seems an obvious way to go.
——in this regard but there has been no micro-analysis by the Departments which are conducting the cuts. I ask the Taoiseach for his views as to why the Department——
I ask the Deputy for his co-operation and respect for the call of the Chair.
——is not conducting an analysis to ensure the damage done is not long-term and irreversible.
I call Deputy Rabbitte.
Can I have a response?
The Deputy can submit a parliamentary question on the matter to the line Minister.
What about the Appropriation Bill and the reduction in the Estimates? It is promised legislation and I would like to have the Taoiseach's view on the position.
The Appropriation Bill will be after the budget.
That is no answer.
The question is not in order.
The Taoiseach told me some ten days ago that he would write to me in regard to when the Government intended to appoint the oversight committee of NAMA. Has he had a chance to consider the matter?
Given we are debating legislation we know we will never see under this Government, it is like the last days of the Roman Empire around here at present. Would it not be better for the Taoiseach to get into his car, go to the Áras and dissolve the Dáil, and let us return some certainty and confidence to the governance of this country?
I have made inquiries in regard to the oversight committee and I am awaiting a reply. I will ask that this would be expedited.
In regard to the question of providing certainty for the country, the Government is determined to bring forward a four-year plan and a budget that will be important for this country. If the Deputy believes, in the context of the scale of the challenges that face us at present, that a further election based on the divergence of policy that is emerging on the other side of the House would give us an outcome that would provide certainty, he is a better man than me.
I do so think. The Taoiseach is doing awful damage to the morale of the people——
I am not.
——by hanging on to no manifest useful purpose.
The Order of Business is concluded.
Those who are dropping the morale of the people are those who exaggerate the weaknesses in our economy and make no effort whatever to favour the national interest.
It is not possible to exaggerate the hole the Taoiseach has dug us into. One could not exaggerate it.
Excuse me, Deputy Rabbitte. We are moving on.
I hope the Taoiseach is not planning to hang on for another four years.