Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 31 Jan 2017

Vol. 936 No. 3

Order of Business

Today's Government business shall be No. 13, motion re eighth report of the Committee of Selection, without debate; No. 14, motion re referral to joint committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004, laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking, as regards the definition of drug, without debate; and No. 4, Disability (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2016 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. Private Members' business shall be No. 89, motion re Bus Éireann, by Fianna Fáil.

Wednesday's Government business shall be No. 22, statements on the establishment of a commission of investigation into NAMA; No. 23, Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2015 - Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; No. 1, Minerals Development Bill 2015 - Second Stage; and No. 4, Disability (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2016 - Second Stage resumed. Private Members' business shall be No. 90, motion re roads funding, by the Rural Independent Group.

Thursday's Government business shall be No. 23, Criminal Law (Sexual Offences Bill) 2015 - Report Stage (resumed) and Final Stage; No. 1, Minerals Development Bill 2015 - Second Stage; and No. 4, Disability (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2016 - Second Stage resumed. No. 15, report on Garda oversight and accountability by the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality, will be debated in the evening slot.

I refer Members to the first revised report of the Business Committee dated 26 January 2017. With regard to today's business, it is proposed that Nos. 13 and 14 shall be taken without debate. It is proposed the Dáil shall sit at 10 a.m. tomorrow to take No. 22, which shall be brought to a conclusion after 120 minutes. The speech of the Minister or Minister of State and the main spokespersons for parties or groups, or a Member nominated in their stead, shall be not more than 15 minutes each and all Members may share time. If the statements conclude before 12 noon the House will be suspended until that time.

There are two proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Tuesday's business agreed to?

It is not agreed. I am fully aware the Business Committee met last week and agreed the business for today and this week, but over the weekend since the meeting a matter of extreme urgency has intervened and I ask the Government and the House to consider the need for us to change this week's order to discuss it. Obviously I am speaking about President Donald Trump's travel ban, which I and many of us believe is absolutely abhorrent. It has very serious implications for millions of people trying to enter the United States and we have the very serious implications of the possibility of a Bill which rides roughshod over human rights, possibly Irish law and certainly international law-----

We cannot have the debate now. The Deputy has raised the point.

-----at our own airports. What is happening at our airports is important. We do not even have clarity on this issue. I appeal to the Government and the House to have a debate on the implications of the travel ban for the world and specifically for this country this week as a matter of absolute urgency.

The ordering of business is now a matter for the House itself, rather than in former Dáileanna where it was a matter for the Government.

I submitted a private notice question to the Ceann Comhairle on a matter of very serious importance, namely, the executive order signed by President Trump and its implications for this country. It is important that we deal with this issue today and that we have clarity on a range of issues which I set out in the private notice question. I am very supportive of the retention of pre-clearance facilities in this country, which were hard fought for. We must have assurances that international law is complied with and it would be good for us to hear a clear statement to that effect from the Taoiseach. I ask the House to set aside two hours to debate these issues today and maybe 30 minutes at the end for a question and answer session with the Taoiseach or a designated Minister so that our attitude to this critical issue is very clear and clarity can be given to the impact on our country.

I add my voice to the calls for a debate on the ban introduced by executive order of the US Government. I was taken by what the Taoiseach said to the effect that we could look for a common agreed motion across the House, expressing our concern about the nature of that order. If there are ways in which the entire House could come together and agree such a motion it would give a very strong message. We should arrange the business to allow for that. If there is a motion, can we vote on it on Thursday, or will it be put back until the following Thursday? What will the arrangements be for agreeing such a motion?

The Business Committee should reconvene to look at these sessions.

I endorse the points Deputy Ryan made and we would be very supportive of approaching it in that way.

I wish to make an observation. We have had no contact with any of the other parties which have just spoken about any move-----

An e-mail was sent to the Business Committee.

Deputy Boyd Barrett thinks he runs the show in the Business Committee.

I am not on the Business Committee.

In a former time, when I sought to change a ruling of the Business Committee I was rounded on by the people who have just stood up and spoken. They rounded on me in very bad terms, at the Business Committee and subsequently.

Does Deputy Martin not want a debate on the situation in the US?

I have just debated the executive order with the Taoiseach and I have no objection to anything but I do not like shallow grandstanding. I put to the Taoiseach the idea of a cross-party motion and I have no difficulty working with other parties to achieve a cross-party motion. I have no difficulty in having a debate on this issue. I am just observing that some Members object strenuously when people try to vary decisions of the Business Committee until it suits their own political agenda and then they think they can play fast and loose with it.

This is a unique set of circumstances.

This is the Dáil. An event of immense importance has happened over the course of the weekend. Millions of people are being denied access to America by a racist Muslim ban and it has happened to at least one person on Irish soil so we have to have a debate. A motion is all very well but we have no interest in signing up to an all-party motion which will say a cúpla focail of criticisms about Trump but suggest the Government does absolutely nothing about it. We suggest a joint motion by all the forces who have said the Taoiseach should not go to the White House on St. Patrick's Day as a clear statement of protest. That is the message this Dáil should send and we should have an opportunity to put that motion at the debate.

I propose that the Business Committee reconvene. The Business Committee works hard every week to decide the order for the week and it was read out by Deputy Róisín Shortall today. If it is going to be changed every week, or every so often, it will undermine it. I propose it be asked to look at it again.

For what it is worth, I thought we had established a precedent after the last time this happened. That was that when something momentous happened over the weekend, as it did this weekend, we would give notice to the Business Committee, we would decide whether or not we would meet, and we would then make our decisions on whether to change the Order of Business at that stage, rather than doing this time-wasting, drama-seeking business that we do every week. Can I suggest that we meet? If we could pass a unanimous motion in this House it would send a clear message to the people outside, as opposed to being divisive just for the sake of it.

On a point of order-----

I am sorry but the Deputy cannot raise a point of order on this matter. The Taoiseach wants to make a comment.

That is fine but I still want to make a point of order.

All right, I will come back to the Deputy.

Private notice questions are a matter for your adjudication, a Cheann Comhairle.

It may well be that, as regards what Deputy Martin raised, if we could have statements on an agreed motion it might be in everybody's interest. The House of Commons had a unanimous decision last night in respect of this matter.

As regards the point raised by Deputy Paul Murphy, for the clarification of the House, on Saturday morning I understand that a foreign national was refused US pre-clearance at Dublin Airport and was returned to the Irish immigration authorities. I can inform the House that the person in question is lawfully resident and working here in Ireland and therefore was able to leave Dublin Airport as he was entitled to remain here.

He was not able to go to America.

Some 1.18 million people used the pre-clearance facility in Dublin last year, while 204,000 people used it at Shannon Airport.

We need to hear these things and that is why we should have a debate in order to have full clarity.

On a point of order, on reflection perhaps the Chief Whip would withdraw what she said. This is not an issue where we are time-wasting by standing up. I submitted a private notice question and thought that was the way it was going to be dealt with. I have just been notified by text that it has been disallowed. I want to use the procedures of this House to advance something that I regard as important. I do not regard the Chief Whip's comments as being right and proper.

On a point of order-----

No, wait. The Deputy has been in already.

It is a point of order. On our behalf, Deputy Barry circulated an e-mail this morning to all members of the Business Committee requesting this debate, so that communication to the Business Committee has already occurred. It was suggested that we had not done that courtesy, but we did it this morning.

Can I suggest that we convene a meeting of the Business Committee at 4.15 p.m. when this matter can be considered? Is that agreed? Agreed.

We did not have that response over the civilians in Aleppo. There are double standards going on here. Thousands of innocent children were murdered by Russian forces and President Assad's, but we do not get the same response from over there at all.

I am sorry. There are two proposals to put to the House. I have put the proposal in regard to Tuesday's business. Is Tuesday's business agreed to? Agreed.

Subject to proper procedures.

Yes. Second, is the proposal for dealing with Wednesday's business agreed to? Agreed. Thank you all very much.

I now call Deputy Micheál Martin on promised legislation.

The programme for Government commits to ending the casualisation of the workforce. I have raised with the Taoiseach the need for greater protection for employees on insecure and low-hour contracts. Many people on zero-hour contracts go from week to week not knowing what they are going to earn or when they are required to work. They are waiting at home for a phone call and have insecure employment conditions. Such workers are predominantly women and are treated very unfairly. Employer flexibility is important, but in some instances the degree to which workers' rights are undermined and violated is unacceptable. It is a key commitment in the confidence and supply agreement, and it is in the programme for Government as well. I would appreciate it if the Taoiseach could give me an update on when the Government intends to legislate for it.

I will have to come back to Deputy Martin on that. I know it is part of the confidence and supply arrangement and it is in the programme for Government. I will ask the Minister, Deputy Mitchell O'Connor, to give the Deputy an update forthwith.

Under the section dealing with the North, the programme for Government commits the Government to "maintaining the needs of the victims and their survivors at the core of our approach". Could the Taoiseach explain how this squares with the decision of the Government to force the family of Séamus Ludlow, who was murdered in 1976 in north Louth, to go to the High Court today? In 2006, the final report of the Oireachtas joint committee on justice concluded that commissions of investigation were needed.

Despite this clear statement of support, successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael-led Governments have refused to do this. As a consequence of the State's actions, the Ludlow family, who have been seeking the truth for 40 years, today find themselves in the High Court. Will the Taoiseach instruct his legal representatives in the court to stop opposing the creation of commissions of investigation as recommended? Will he support the family in their efforts to establish the circumstances of Seamus Ludlow's death and the role of British state agencies in it and establish the commissions of investigation recommended by the justice committee?

It is not appropriate to the Order of Business or promised legislation. It is more appropriate to something like a Topical Issue. I do not know if the Taoiseach wants to comment. I do not even know if it would be appropriate in the circumstances to comment.

The matter is before the courts as I understand it. I will say that in general there is a whole range of legacy issues that need to be dealt with arising from the Good Friday Agreement. I regret that it was not possible to have that agreement reached under Stormont House and Fresh Start.

It was agreed.

I raised legacy issues yesterday evening with the British Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, in particular the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in respect of which there have been three all-party Oireachtas motions over the last number of years. I pointed out the urgency of moving on with a number of these.

Since last year, I have been calling for the immediate publication of the expert reports in the "Grace" foster care scandal. It is time the public knew exactly who was responsible for the horrific litany of abuse against "Grace" and more than 40 other children and young people and how this came about. We have been told the HSE refused to publish these reports on the advice of local gardaí in Waterford that it might jeopardise potential inquiries. Following a letter from Deputy John Deasy to the Garda Commissioner, the way was finally cleared two weeks ago for the publication of these reports, with the Commissioner seeing no issue with that. These young people were failed by the State. As such, will the Taoiseach give the Dáil a clear timeline for the publication of these reports? This is an issue that has been highlighted by many journalists, in particular in the Irish Examiner. Will the Taoiseach provide all parties with draft terms of reference for an inquiry and provide an indication of when that inquiry might begin its work?

I refer to the latest position on the publication of the Devine and Resilience Ireland reports which relate to the case of "Grace" who resided in a former foster home in the south east which is the subject of abuse allegations. This has run now for some time. The Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, has consistently stated that the HSE-commissioned reports by Conal Devine and Resilience Ireland into certain matters should be published as soon as possible. The Minister of State conveyed this view to the HSE on 1 November 2016 and asked it to re-examine the issues around the publication of the two reports and to give serious consideration to doing that. This followed the report by Conor Dignam SC which recommended further engagement between the HSE and An Garda Síochána. Following a meeting between senior HSE officials and gardaí, the HSE has confirmed that it intends to publish redacted versions of both reports before the end of February 2017.

Arrangements will be put in place to ensure that the contents of the reports are conveyed in a meaningful way to service users with varying degrees of disability. A communications plan is also being developed, given the potential impact of the reports on service users, their families and the employees of relevant agencies and dedicated teams will be put in place to provide all necessary assistance and support to those impacted. The HSE expects to have the two reports published by the end of February.

Despite my very considerable disappointment that the Government failed to support Deputy Broughan's motion last week on the need for an immediate commission of investigation on the Stardust tragedy, the Government motion passed and that committed to certain things. These include the appointment of an independent judicial figure and following that, the possibility of a commission of investigation. Last night, I had a very upset Antoinette Keegan representing the Stardust families on the phone to me feeling that since the passing of that motion, the Government has pulled the wool over her eyes. She is very concerned that what she thought she understood from the Government on its plan to deal with this matter is quite different to what is now occurring.

I want to ask the Taoiseach the precise steps that will be taken in terms of following up on the Stardust motion. I ask that the Minister, as a matter of urgency before those steps are taken, agrees to meet Antoinette Keegan and the Stardust committee to ensure, as the motion promises, that the families are on board with what is being done.

The person Deputy Boyd Barrett mentioned need not worry. The motion was accepted and approved by the Dáil and will be honoured in full. The Minister of State, Deputy McGrath, spoke to me about this matter today. The element of the motion that requires the Government to meet the individuals on the Stardust committee will be honoured.

Very shortly. The examination of the new information and evidence that has come to hand will be done in a proper and fitting fashion. If that warrants a commission of investigation, then that is what will happen. The Deputy can inform the person who has contacted him on a number of occasions that is so. The Government will not renege on the motion that was accepted by the Dáil last week.

A commitment was given in the programme for Government to support agriculture and the farming community. It is totally unacceptable that thousands of farmers are waiting for GLAS and other payments. They have been told that the delays are due to computer glitches, but that does not wash with me or anybody else. The situation is totally unfair and the morals are very wrong. If they owed money-----

That is not on promised legislation.

It is, of course. A commitment was given in the programme for Government to support agriculture. These delays are stifling agriculture. The Minister, Deputy Coveney, was in the Department for five years.

Put down a parliamentary question.

I have done. Farmers are protesting today. There is no modicum of fairness in the fact that farmers will not get the money they have invested, spent and borrowed in order to develop their industry in line with the commitment in the programme for Government. They have been given every excuse for delays, the latest of which is IT problems. If they are late with returns to the tax office or in arrears they would be charged huge penalties, as would everybody else.

The point is made.

It is totally unfair and this has to be sorted out.

Last year, 2016, was the first full year of payments under the GLAS scheme. At the end of December 2016, there were 37,500 active participants in the GLAS scheme, of which 27,400 received 85% of their 2016 payment. As Deputy McGrath is aware, payments can only issue when all of the required validation checks have been successfully passed.

Further payments of €4.2 million have been issued to just under 1,200 participants in the past few days. Approximately 8,900 cases remain outstanding and, starting immediately, further payments will be made on a weekly basis as cases are cleared.

There are just over six minutes remaining and 14 Deputies offering.

The programme for Government makes a commitment to setting up a new specialist court for people in mortgage distress. Obviously, setting up such a court requires significant new primary legislation. When can we expect to see the heads of Bills to establish such a court?

All I can confirm is that work is well under way in the Department on this issue. I will advise the Deputy as to the state of play in so far as when the heads of Bills come to Government and are likely to be published.

There is a commitment in the programme for Government to review legislation relating to elder abuse, specifically from a psychological and financial point of view. Has this review commenced and when can we expect to see a report on it?

I will have to advise Deputy Butler of the position. I am not aware of the extent of the work that is taking place.

There is a commitment in the programme for Government to deal with the shortage of new homes by incentivising and supporting increased delivery of private sector construction and the action plan for housing has very considerable targets in this regard. However, there is a question mark over the accuracy of the housing completions statistics that have been used to measure progress. Obviously, work is ongoing on the building control Bill. Given the fact that some experts have said there could be an overestimation of 50% by the Government, will it include in the legislation a statutory register for housing completions so that we can accurately assess the level of completions on an annual basis?

I will ask the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government to answer the question.

As I stated last week, we should be in a position to bring the heads of the building control Bill to Cabinet before the end of February and we will then have an opportunity to debate the detail of the Bill. It is important that we have consistent and accurate figures on completions so that we can meet the targets we have set out.

On 12 June 2015, Clerys closed its doors and many people lost their jobs in what was a tactical insolvency. Since then the Cahill-Duffy report made a number of recommendations. When will we see a Bill that deals with tactical insolvencies so that we do not have a repeat of what happened to the Clerys workers?

I do not have an up-to-date report on that particular question, but I will come back to the Deputy on it.

There are various health service commitments in the programme for Government, in particular, commitments relating to early intervention and paediatric care. Figures recently released to me show that there are more than 260 children in County Mayo waiting for a first occupational therapy assessment and more than 420 children currently waiting for an appointment. What will the Taoiseach do to immediately address the shortages in staff and resources for occupational therapy services in County Mayo? I imagine that those shortages are being experienced in every county.

I am not aware of the detail of the figures referred to by Deputy Lisa Chambers. It is clear that improvements have been made but a number of children have not yet been assessed. I will advise the Deputy on the current situation and how it might improve.

I wish to raise the issue of promised legislation to deal with insurance companies that are ripping off the people at this point in time. I have been contacted by a number of constituents. One lady who has a ten year old car had it tested under the NCT procedure. She was told by the insurance company that she would have to take it to the main dealer to get it certified as being roadworthy. Another constituent who had a ten-years no claims bonus had, unfortunately, to go to England to work. He had continuous insurance in England. He is back now and, thankfully, has a job, but is being told that his no claims bonus is null and void despite the fact that he has had continuous insurance for the past 13 years. This is what is going on in the real world.

The Minister of State, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, is dealing with the report on this matter next Thursday.

Will there be a debate in the House?

There will be a debate in the House on it next Thursday.

The opening line under the energy policy section of the programme for Government states, "It is clear that there is a need for much better engagement with citizens and communities about the energy policy decisions that affect them". Last Thursday at the EirGrid annual conference held in Dublin Castle, the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Kyne, when speaking about the decision by An Bord Pleanála in Christmas week to grant permission for 400 overhead pylons through counties Meath, Cavan and Monaghan, told EirGrid that the authorities in both jurisdictions "are clear in [their] support for this vital element of electricity grid infrastructure". There is no support for EirGrid's proposal through the impacted counties and the elected members, from councillors to Deputies, have registered their opposition. Has the line about listening that is contained in the programme for Government any meaning or is the Government, as the Minister of State put it, clear in its support for EirGrid's 400 overground pylons?

Certainly not. The Government always listens.

Pardon, Taoiseach.

Certainly not. The Government always listens and listens carefully.

I asked if the Government was clear in its support. Is the Government clear in its support for the overhead pylons?

We have an all-island energy agreement in this area. There is a need for development of the proposal from the Northern end as well. There is an independent process that is to be gone through.

We cannot hear the Taoiseach.

We cannot hear him.

The Deputies could not hear that answer, Taoiseach, never mind anyone else. It is indicative of the people not being listened to.

It is a serious matter.

I call Deputy Louise O'Reilly.

The programme for Government, underpinned by a Sinn Féin motion which received cross-party support, commits the Government to the granting of an automatic medical card for children in receipt of domiciliary care allowance. The Taoiseach has told me repeatedly that it is on its way. Yet, this morning representatives from Our Children's Health were on the streets outside the Department of the Taoiseach once again protesting for something which the Taoiseach stated they would have shortly. I have a simple view of the matter. Sinn Féin included this as a commitment in our alternative budget and it was costed by the Department of Finance at €17 million, but €10 million was allowed for it in the Government's budget. The Taoiseach has never had any intention of implementing it. He is delaying because the money has not been put aside. It is cruel. These people cannot wait any longer.

The measure is a part of the programme for Government and I am glad the Deputy is supporting it.

I would be glad if the Taoiseach supported it.

I understand the protestors fully recognise the progress that has been made. This is a serious business, much too serious for people to be claiming credit.

When will it commence?

There are 10,000 children involved.

Some of them are listening to this discussion. It is cruel.

Very substantial progress has been made on the measure, which will be introduced by the Minister for Health as soon as he can do so. It is not as simple as the Deputy proclaims but 10,000 children will benefit.

The parents of these children will stay on the streets protesting. The Taoiseach should be ashamed.

That completes questions on promised legislation. My apologies to the six Deputies who were listed but were not called because we ran out of time. For the information of anyone who may be interested, we call Deputies in the order in which they indicate.

On a point of order, I am not being biased in saying that none of the Fine Gael Deputies who indicated had an opportunity to speak.

That is not my fault.

I suggest that the six backbench Deputies who waited for an hour to speak today should be given an opportunity to speak on the Order of Business tomorrow. Week after week, the Ceann Comhairle informs the House that Deputies who did not have an opportunity to speak will be given an opportunity to speak the following day. This is my fourth day on the trot trying to speak on a specific topic and I indicated early. The same mouthpieces keep wasting the time of the House. All I am asking is for fair play in the Chamber. I have spent one hour for four days on the trot trying to raise an issue. I am not blaming the Ceann Comhairle but seeking a fair system. I am sure most of the six Deputies who were not called to speak today are from Fine Gael. Is there any chance we will get fair play?

That is what Deputy Fitzpatrick gets for joining Fine Gael.

To answer the Deputy's question, three of the Members who did not speak are from the Fine Gael Party. If they had indicated earlier, they would have been able to speak. The Deputy was the last Member to indicate.

The Ceann Comhairle was looking in the other direction.

I scan the Chamber constantly each day and the Deputy was the last to indicate.

To conclude my point-----

No, I am not having a debate on the issue.

Last Thursday, a Fianna Fáil Deputy who walked into the Chamber after I indicated was allowed to speak before me.

Please resume your seat, Deputy.

I want fair play for my constituents in Louth. I am fed up with this. It has happened four times on the trot. What do I have to do?

Please resume your seat, Deputy.

I will resume my seat, but I am looking for fair play.

Excuse me, if Deputies want to come into the Chamber late or indicate late, I cannot do anything about it. Some Deputies are so enthusiastic that before Questions on Promised Legislation starts, they send notes to me in the Chair asking to be included. I do not have any control over that. I will deal with people as they present themselves and if that procedure is not to Deputy Fitzpatrick's liking, I suggest he asks his representative at the Business Committee, which will meet at 4.15 p.m. to discuss the aforementioned issues, to suggest a more effective way of dealing with business.

Resume your seat, Deputy Fitzpatrick.

A Cheann Comhairle, I just wanted to thank you.

Barr
Roinn