Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 30 Nov 2010

Vol. 723 No. 3

Order of Business

It is proposed to take No. 5, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of financial messaging data from the European Union to the United States for the purposes of the terrorist finance tracking programme, back from committee; and No. a15, statements on the EU-IMF programme for Ireland and the National Recovery Plan 2011-2014. 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 on the adjournment of Private Members’ business which shall be No. 81, motion re stability and the budgetary process, which shall take place at 7 p.m. tonight or on the conclusion of the Leaders’ speeches of No. a15, whichever is the later, and which shall adjourn after 90 minutes; No. 5 shall be decided without debate; and the proceedings in No. a15 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. tomorrow night and the following arrangements shall apply: the statements of the Taoiseach and of the Leaders of Fine Gael, the Labour Party, the Green Party and Sinn Féin, or a person nominated in his stead, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case, the statement of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Sinn Féin, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case, the statement of each other member called upon shall not exceed ten minutes in each case, a Minister 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.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 5 agreed to?

The first item on the Order of Business is No. 1, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and shall be interrupted on the adjournment of Private Members' business. I do not accept this Order of Business. No. a15 is statements on the EU-IMF deal. This should be a motion that should be voted on by the Dáil. Accordingly, I object to the Order of Business.

The deal was not discussed by this House nor were the people consulted about it. If we had real democracy like when we joined the European Union or changed its competencies, there would have been a referendum on this matter. The Oireachtas has not even been consulted. This measure requires a vote in this House and I propose that it should happen.

The Labour Party objects to today's arrangements. The agreement negotiated with the EU and the IMF is the product of a process the Government denied existed until the very last minute. The Taoiseach denied he was entering into these discussions or that any discussions were taking place and then announced them last Sunday week. These discussions were undertaken without any prior discussion in the Dáil as to their content or the Government's mandate and authority to conduct them. Instead, the discussions were conducted in private and the only information we have about them are the public statements made at their conclusion. The documentation, which sets out the detail of the agreements, has not yet been circulated, including the memoranda of understanding and the memorandum on economic and financial policy.

In any event, an agreement of this kind which is of such importance to the country, has implications for the country's finances and budgets for the next four years should not be finalised without being put before the Dáil for decision and a vote. There should be a motion before the House today setting out whatever approval the Government wants for it. Instead, we are again getting the same old formula of statements. If the Dáil — the Parliament of the country — is to have any real meaning, an agreement such as this should be put before it. In any event, I believe the Government is constitutionally obliged to put an agreement of this kind before the Dáil.

The five Sinn Féin Deputies do not agree to No. a15. I like the sound of that so I will say it again. The five Sinn Féin Deputies will not agree to the Order of Business.

They are getting there.

The Government is proposing to act unconstitutionally by not allowing for a proper debate or a vote to take place in this House on this agreement. Last week I challenged this not once but twice. Article 29.5.2° of the Constitution states:

The State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann.

The Government is trying to force on the people an IMF-EU deal that will put not only this generation but future generations into economic bondage. No mistake should be made about it. No international agreement could have had a greater element of public funding commitment than this one. This is a matter that should not be addressed by statements but by a full debate and vote in this House.

Deputy, please.

This is going to be a Second Stage speech.

We are being asked to nod through this agreement when this morning——

The Order of Business allows for a brief intervention, not a Second Stage contribution.

——on the national airwaves the Minister for Justice and Law Reform stated:

Clearly there were people from outside this country who were trying to bounce us, as a sovereign state, into making an application, throwing in the towel before we had even considered it as a government. There was quite incredible pressure on this country and, if you notice, they are doing the same with Portugal now.

Deputy, please.

How can this deal be accepted when, first and constitutionally, it should be properly put to the elected representatives of the people?

The Deputy will have ample opportunity to make these points later.

In Sinn Féin's view, this deal should not be debated at all. The Taoiseach published whatever information he had on this deal in the four year plan. I suggest——

Deputy, please, we are on the Order of Business.

——the Taoiseach goes to the Phoenix Park this evening to dissolve this Dáil.

We are on the Order of Business, not Second Stage.

He should allow the people the opportunity to have their say. No other action is acceptable.

The Deputy will resume his seat.

A Cheann Comhairle, you are the only one who will not have to contest your seat in the upcoming general election.

We can discuss those matters another time but not on the Order of Business.

This agreement is neither acceptable nor constitutional.

This agreement is in compliance with our Constitution. Draw-down facilities are available on an ongoing basis.

These specific facilities are being provided at rates which are far less than the normal source of that funding, which is the international money markets. From the point of view of the country's stability, it is important that we avail of these funds. To those who criticised it, I have repeatedly asked what their alternative is. The luxury of being in opposition, however, is that they do not have to have an alternative.

We have already made that suggestion long before now.

We need to move on.

Go to the country and let the people decide.

Are the arrangements for the late sitting agreed to?

They are not agreed to.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with the late sitting be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 69.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Andrews, Chris.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Behan, Joe.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Áine.
  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Browne, John.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conlon, Margaret.
  • Connick, Seán.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Curran, John.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Flynn, Beverley.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Kennedy, Michael.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • Mansergh, Martin.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Brien, Darragh.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Donoghue, John.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Hanlon, Rory.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • O’Keeffe, Edward.
  • O’Rourke, Mary.
  • O’Sullivan, Christy.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • White, Mary Alexandra.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Bannon, James.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Morgan, Arthur.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.
  • O’Keeffe, Jim.
  • O’Mahony, John.
  • O’Shea, Brian.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • O’Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Perry, John.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Sherlock, Seán.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Upton, Mary.
  • Varadkar, Leo.
  • Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies John Cregan and John Curran; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.
Question declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 5, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the agreement between the EU and the US, back from committee, without debate, agreed to?

It is not agreed. Given the level of leaks of classified and restricted documents of late from the US, in particular on wikileaks.org, and the question of data protection, which this motion must properly address, rather than pass this motion I suggest we delay its passage until the full extent of the undermining of restricted and sensitive documentation in the US has ended. In this way, European and Irish citizens in particular can know that whatever documentation and data are being processed and sent to the US fall within a proper data protection regime rather than having the possible consequence of exposure in The Guardian or wherever else the material from wikileaks.org turns up.

The scope of the application of the agreement is limited explicitly to the purpose of prevention, investigation, protection and prosecution of terrorism or terrorist financing. I cannot understand why anyone would be opposed to that.

Will Deputy Ó Snodaigh publish his data on Members of thisHouse?

Question, "That the proposal for dealing with No. 5, without debate, be agreed to," put and declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. a15, statements on the EU-IMF Programme for Ireland and the National Recovery Plan 2011-2014, agreed to?

It is not agreed for the reasons I have already stated. It is incredible that the Government persists with an alleged certainty——

Deputy, we have been over this territory during Leaders' Questions.

Am I allowed to speak at all?

A brief statement.

I am making the point, once again, that it is our belief, and it is not confined to Sinn Féin opinion, that what is proposed——

Can we have some ciúnas in the Chamber?

I hope that applies to speakers here as it applies to speakers elsewhere in the Chamber. What is involved in this IMF deal requires not only statements in this House but a proper debate and a vote. Constitutionally, the Government is obliged to refer this matter for the approval of the Dáil because public moneys are indeed involved and Article 29 of the Constitution——

Deputy, I will not allow the debate to develop.

Something that has been ordered in the House and could be contrary to the terms of the Constitution is a valid matter for a Member of this House to raise. That is what I am drawing attention to. It is my belief, as a Member of this House and a belief shared by my colleagues in Sinn Féin, that this is——

Provision has been made for statements and a question and answer session at the end.

——unconstitutional and I refer the Taoiseach to Article 29 of the Constitution and request that the matter be properly addressed in this House and that a vote be taken. The preference of Sinn Féin is that the Taoiseach does not proceed with this and that the only steps he takes are to Áras an Uachtaráin to convey his resignation and that of this Government.

The Labour Party is opposed to the proposal and I set out the reasons for this during Leaders' Questions and when I spoke on the proposal for the late sitting. I do not propose to repeat those reasons.

My response has set out that this matter is totally within the exercise of executive power and external relations pursuant to Article 29.4 of the constitution rather than Article 29.5 and Article 29.6, to which Deputy Gilmore referred earlier. Now that Deputy Ó Caoláin has come round to recognising the legitimacy of the State, I would have thought he would also recognise the legitimacy of raising finances for the State.

It is clear that if the Taoiseach is resorting to that response, he is lost.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No.a15 be agreed to.”
The Dáil divided: Tá, 76; Níl, 68.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Andrews, Chris.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Behan, Joe.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Áine.
  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Browne, John.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conlon, Margaret.
  • Connick, Seán.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Curran, John.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Flynn, Beverley.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Kennedy, Michael.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • Mansergh, Martin.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Brien, Darragh.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Donoghue, John.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Hanlon, Rory.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • O’Keeffe, Edward.
  • O’Rourke, Mary.
  • O’Sullivan, Christy.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • White, Mary Alexandra.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Bannon, James.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Morgan, Arthur.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.
  • O’Keeffe, Jim.
  • O’Mahony, John.
  • O’Shea, Brian.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • O’Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Perry, John.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Sherlock, Seán.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Upton, Mary.
  • Varadkar, Leo.
  • Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies John Cregan and John Curran; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.
Question declared carried.

In view of the comments made by the Governor of the Central Bank yesterday that he sees the wind-up or wind-down, as the case might be, of Anglo Irish Bank taking place in the very near future, does the Taoiseach consider it necessary to introduce legislation to give effect to any element of that wind-down of the bank or can this be done by financial recommendations or directions from the Department of Finance or the Central Bank withdrawing a licence?

I was concerned recently at the discussion that took place at the Committee of Public Accounts when the representatives of NAMA attended. This is now causing paralysis and complete gridlock in the property business. Is there any mechanism available to the Oireachtas or the Government in view of the way that NAMA has been set up to prize it open, as it were, to create some fluidity in the property market which is currently gridlocked and paralysed?

On the question of the bank reorganisation that is envisaged as a result of the discussions that took place, banking legislation will come to the House the week after the budget. We will need co-operation on it because it is important that it is brought forward.

On the more general question regarding the building industry and the role NAMA has played, there is a further proposal that land and property portfolios worth less than €20 million will be considered for inclusion in NAMA. That is part of the programme. We must arrange for legislation to come to the House the week after the budget on that matter. We seek the support and co-operation of everyone in the House to ensure that the legislation proceeds because it is in the interests of the country that it happens.

I note the comments made by Mr. Peter Bacon, who was the original author of the NAMA concept. He made a point about public interest directors and whether they are entitled to comment on the situation in so far as NAMA is concerned. Has the Minister for Finance asked the public interest directors for their views on Mr. Bacon's comments?

I am not aware that is the case. As I said, I am not au fait with the precise comments to which the Deputy referred, but these are matters that could be addressed to the Minister himself.

On the same matter of banking related legislation, will the Taoiseach confirm whether legislation will be required in respect of the National Pensions Reserve Fund making investments in banks like Anglo Irish Bank, the EBS and Irish Nationwide Building Society? When will the Minister for Finance introduce that legislation in the House?

Yesterday, there was mention in The Irish Times that the Minister for Finance had extended a guarantee, presumably by ministerial order, to Anglo Irish Bank in respect of securitised loan transactions which were the subject of derivatives and, possibly, credit default swaps. Will the Minister bring an order to the House in respect of this further guarantee and will he specify the amounts involved?

When is it proposed to introduce the additional legislation on the transfer of the remaining loans for property, land and so on from the covered institutions to the National Asset Management Agency? I understand that legislation will be required in terms of the NPRF. Given this agreement, when will that legislation be before the House? Will the Minister undertake to provide a special debate tomorrow on the guarantee in respect of securitised transactions and derivatives in Anglo Irish Bank or will he introduce an order in the House, which would be the requirement, regarding those transactions?

In respect of the NPRF, as the Deputy is aware, there is already legislation in place that enables the fund to be used for banking, for example, in AIB and Bank of Ireland.

The power to direct the NPRF Commission is there.

Directed investments.

There is also the question of looking at all of the legislative requirements that would arise. We would look to the co-operation of the Opposition the week after the budget to facilitate that and to accelerate the re-organisation. It is in everyone's interest now that we have available to us the funds that will be required to accelerate and deepen the reforms of the banking system, as has been suggested.

The Taoiseach has not answered the question, which was on the extension——

There is probably another way to raise this matter.

——of a specific guarantee to Anglo Irish Bank. Will there be a statement in the House as to how that came about?

We are rocking the foundation of the banking system.

More importantly, the investments in the Bank of Ireland and——

The Order of Business is not Question Time and there will be opportunities to ask these questions at a different time. Will the Deputy co-operate with the Chair?

The investments in the Bank of Ireland and AIB were indirect investments because they were quoted companies at the time. Investments in Anglo Irish Bank, EBS and INBS are not direct investments.

Statements are scheduled and the Deputy will have an opportunity to ask these questions at that point.

Has the Government received the advice of the Attorney General on this matter?

These are ideal questions for later.

Legislation might be required to direct the NPRF. I do not agree that the Minister for Finance has those powers.

Can I make a point?

We are not putting moneys from the pension fund into Anglo Irish Bank.

There is no question of NPRF money going into Anglo Irish Bank, if that is the consideration. As to the other consideration that the Deputy mentioned concerning derivatives, this issue first came up when Deputy Rabbitte spoke on radio on Sunday. It was conveyed as being a revelatory matter. In fairness, whatever point Deputy Rabbitte was seeking to make, it was cleared up by the Governor of the Central Bank yesterday in his interview. This emphasises the need for us all to try to deal with these matters in a calm, measured way. We do not want a situation in which people do not have confidence in the system we have. We are talking about strengthening the system, providing more capital to it, engaging in more re-organisation of the system and bringing forward legislation that will provide for that. Let us do that in a way that, for the benefit of everyone going forward, we will have a banking system in which our people will know their deposits are safe.

As to the question of looking to problems, we are dealing with all of the problems that have been identified as they have been identified. The Governor of the Central Bank gave some reassurance in respect of this matter yesterday. It is incumbent on us all to try to raise issues that need to be raised, but let us raise them in a calm and measured way and deal with them on a factual basis.

I have one question for the Taoiseach. It relates to the Government's intention to cut the national minimum wage by €1 per hour. As I understand it, this cannot be done by way of ministerial order in the absence of a Labour Court recommendation or a national agreement to that effect. Primary legislation will be required if the Government wants to proceed with its intention to cut the national minimum wage. Does the Government intend to introduce a Bill to cut the minimum wage? Of everything we have heard in recent times, this is the one measure with which the Government should not proceed. People on the lowest level of pay should not have it cut. The Government should abandon this idea.

We cannot debate the matter at this point.

If the cut is to be proceeded with, I understand it will require legislation. Does the Government intend to introduce such legislation and when will that be?

Legislation will be required and it will be brought forward as a post-budget matter. I understand it is agreed by everyone that there should be a review of the whole REA system as well.

That is different.

On the basis that this issue must be addressed, there is also the issue of the minimum wage. We still have a minimum wage that is one of the highest in Europe and it has been raised in excess of inflation. These are difficult points and difficult structural reforms that have to be considered and implemented in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, but we need to proceed to make sure that we provide as much flexibility in the marketplace as possible. For many people in labour-intensive sectors like hospitality and elsewhere, we need to make sure that we can provide opportunities for our own people and that they can take up some of those opportunities.

That is rubbish.

How dare Deputy Gilmore talk to the Taoiseach like that in the House.

We cannot debate this matter now.

The minimum wage applies to people who have a relatively small——

The Deputy is Mr. Unreality. We have spent two years listening to his economic unreality.

It is apropos.

May I ask about——

Please, there will be ample opportunity to expand on the points Deputy Gilmore wishes to make at a later stage, but not on the Order of Business.

The Labour Party banjaxed the——

(Interruptions).

I am asking about legislation, but the Taoiseach did not answer as to when the Government intends to introduce this legislation. Primary legislation is required. It is a mean attempt by the Government in any attempt.

I ask Deputy Gilmore to respect the judgment of the Chair.

He dodges the issues.

Legislation regarding the timely calling of by-elections has been recommended by two Oireachtas committees on the Constitution, one in 1996 and again this year. Following the by-election in Donegal South-West, has the Taoiseach given any consideration to a call from a variety of parties across this Chamber for legislation to be introduced by agreement to the effect that by-elections will be held——

Is there promised legislation in this area, Deputy?

That is what he is asking.

Has it been promised?

We will be here until next Christmas.

Does the Ceann Comhairle understand? Two Oireachtas committees have recommended that this take place. I am asking the Taoiseach whether, as a collection of political voices in the House have urged, he will sit down or designate someone to sit with the other parties to agree what is a reasonable timeframe? We waited a long time for the Donegal South-West by-election, so the Taoiseach can wait——

It is a long sentence. I know exactly what question Deputy Ó Caoláin is asking, but I did not think it would take him so long to ask it. I can answer it.

We waited a long time for Donegal South-West, so the Taoiseach can wait until after I get out two sentences. Will the Government facilitate legislation?

I feel like Bruce Grobbelaar. I will try to put the Deputy off in a minute.

I know the Taoiseach is weary, God bless him. He knows what to do when he is that weary — it is time to chuck it in. I am asking whether he will facilitate legislation now to allow for by-elections within a clearly defined period.

Will the Deputy desist for a moment, as the Taoiseach is anxious to reply to him?

Will he save the taxpayers' money that he is squandering in his Supreme Court appeal? It is time to stop it.

I have responded to this already. There is an issue on appeal to the Supreme Court and it needs to be clarified for the purpose of providing certainty regarding whatever laws are made in the future if we decide there should be a definitive timeframe within which by-elections are held. This is not the case under statutory law at the moment, but it should be decided and we need to have a Supreme Court interpretation behind the issue.

The Supreme Court has made an interpretation in relation to the judgment.

I have given my reply. The Deputy may not agree with it but that is my reply.

The Deputy is going to have to pursue the matter by way of a parliamentary question.

He knows that is not the right answer. Does he want three more by-elections or to exit in a general election?

Which does he want? He wanted a general election a few minutes ago.

We want a general election first.

He wants the three by-elections first and then a general election. The Deputy should go off to the Politburo and find out what they want. Gerry wants a general election. We are getting mixed messages here.

Please, I call the good Deputy from Dublin North, Deputy James Reilly.

I want to ask about the VHI and its recent edict to private hospitals, as reported to me, to the effect that there is now a cap on funds available and certain procedures must stop or they will not be paid for. I remind the House that the VHI's contract is with its clients. It cannot advise me as a client not to have a heart attack over Christmas, or any other ailment that might befall me or the hundreds of thousands of its members.

I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, but this is an outrageous situation. The VHI is now adopting HSE-style tactics to health and to the health issues of the country.

The Deputy will have to find another way.

If it cannot afford to pay the hospitals, it should renegotiate the fee structure. It cannot simply say there is a cap and no more procedures for hips, tonsillectomies or stents are to be done. I am referring to item No. 70, the risk equalisation transitional Bill, and asking when it will be introduced, if the Government is going to address this issue or whether the VHI is completely out of control. Will the Minister for Health and Children make a statement to the House on the matter as she is the main shareholder on behalf of the people?

There is no legislation.

He lets the country go to rack and ruin, but he should try to look after the healthy.

Last January, the Minister for Transport indicated that legislation would be introduced to oblige people to clear footpaths outside their homes and businesses in the event of the type of weather we have at the moment, snow, ice and so on. I am not sure whether I missed that legislation or if it is still pending. It seems to be needed at this point, and was promised.

There is no legislation promised, I understand.

There is none needed either. I will talk to the Deputy afterwards.

Regarding the EU directive pertaining to the deposit guarantee scheme, whereby €2.7 billion has to be put into security in the Central Bank by 2020, will the Taoiseach say whether provision has been made for this in discussions with the IMF-EU, and where this is——

Deputy, there will be ample opportunity to raise this point and to ask that question. We must finish the question and answer session. The Minister for Finance, I am sure, will be taking questions on that point.

There was no need to interrupt me. That is approximately €300 million per year, being set aside for the next ten years.

The Deputy does not listen to me. He may ask that later on at the conclusion of the Order of Business.

The Government is talking about the shrinkage of the banking system, so where is the money going to come from? That is all I want to know. Has provision been made for it?

I call Deputy Pat Rabbitte.

There is further change to the schedule of business. The Multi-Unit Development Bill was scheduled for Report and Final Stages. That is the Bill to do with management companies and it has fallen off the schedule to be replaced by the Dublin mayor Bill. There are literally tens of thousands of people waiting six or seven years and we are within an ace of completing the Bill. It looks like the house of cards could come down before the Bill and it could fall. Meanwhile, the Taoiseach gives the slot to keep the Minister, Deputy John Gormley, on board. If that is the only way the Taoiseach can keep him on board, I know what I would tell him to do with his Dublin mayor Bill.

We need to complete this legislation and I ask the Taoiseach to give a commitment to the House that we will complete it before Christmas.

It is intended——

I support what Deputy Rabbitte said.

Deputy Durkan, the Taoiseach was going to tell us what the position was. It could have anticipated your question in the matter.

I agree with what Deputy Rabbitte said.

It is not necessary.

Hold on now, a Cheann Comhairle. There is enormous concern, particularly among young home owners who have been faced with responsibility arising from development that has taken place over the last ten years and who have had huge costs foisted on them. I totally support Deputy Rabbitte's point and call on the Taoiseach to bring that legislation back before the House now.

As I said, it is intended to deal with that legislation before Christmas. We had to provide for statements here in relation to current matters. We are trying to accommodate everyone. We also have a Social Welfare Bill that has to be passed before the budget as well.

The Taoiseach is replacing it with this Dublin mayor Bill.

Deputy Rabbitte, please, allow the Taoiseach to explain the position.

It is not about replacing it, but rather of trying to get through all the business, and we will get through that as well.

We will move on to the motion re the approval of Dáil Éireann——

I want to ask about something else.

Deputy, please, you can do so tomorrow and the following day.

That is the reason the country is in the state it is in — tomorrow will do for everything. Can I respectfully ask the Taoiseach, arising from the points raised by Deputies Kenny and Gilmore earlier about banking legislation — there is promised legislation on this, about which I have asked several times before — and given the views expressed by the Governor of the Central Bank, whether any direction has been given by Government as to when the necessary legislation to consolidate the body of legislation——

I am sure the Deputy will be speaking later in the statements process, when these points can be made.

This is a separate issue that is of enormous importance, a Cheann Comhairle, because it relates to policy and whether there is any particular reason for the delay in bringing the legislation before the House.

The Deputy is not in order.

Why should the Governor of the Central Bank have to ask the European negotiators what should be done about a particular bank?

Deputy, please.

This is about promised legislation, but the Taoiseach is not answering.

I have told the Deputy about this on a number of occasions — let us be fair about this now. We have important issues to deal with, including any queries Deputies have, but I have answered this question about the Central Bank consolidation Bill for the Deputy at least three times in the last two months, and for many others as well. Is it believed in this House that this is a good way to spend our time, where Members ask consistently and regularly about the same legislation? Different Deputies come in on different days who were not here on a previous day——

I was there on the previous day and every day.

I have indicated to Deputy Durkan, and I will always be courteous to a colleague——

I have indicated to him on a number of occasions that the Central Bank consolidation Bill would be coming in next year and that there was another Bill of greater priority and importance. Consolidation Bills, by their very nature, are fine in the context of improving the legal framework over time, but that is not an issue of greatest import regarding Central Bank reform.

Anything on regulation is important.

I have made that point on a number of occasions, and I do not see the value of us continuing to inquire about this. There must be some means of being able to circulate to Members what the up-to-date position is regarding pending legislation. We spend a great deal of time on these matters, a Cheann Comhairle, and——

——not to much effect, since it is simply a matter of repeating information that I might have given 24 hours previously.

We are moving on.

Barr
Roinn