Order of Business. Tuesday, 5 December 2000

Dáil Eireann Debate Vol. 527 No. 3 Page of 339

Minister for Education and Science (Dr. Woods):    The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 19 – motion re. Referral to Joint Committee of Draft Civil Service Code of Standards and Behaviour; No. 20 – motion re. Referral to Joint Committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of three proposals under the Fourth Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam (COM (2000) 592 final), (JUSTCIV 103) and (COM (2000) 516 final)); No. 45 – National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Bill, 2000, Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; and No. 8 – National Training Fund Bill, 2000, Order for Second Stage and Second Stage.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 11.30 p.m (2) Nos. 19 and 20 shall be decided without debate; (3) the Report and Final Stages of No. 45 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a con[470] clusion at 6.30 p.m today by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Finance; (4) the Second Stage of No. 8 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 11.30 p.m tonight; and (5) Private Members' Business, which shall be No. 109, motion re. Government Policy on Taxi Licences, shall also take place tomorrow directly after the Order of Business and shall be brought to a conclusion after 90 minutes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    There are five proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed to?

Mr. Higgins:    (Dublin West): I do not agree to the proposed late sitting. Thousands of teachers marched to the Dáil today because of the intransigence of the Government, while tens of thousands of students are without classes. The taxi service is in utter chaos because of the disastrous handling of the issue by the Government. There should be urgent debates in the Dáil today on these issues and the disastrous situation over which the Government is presiding. I welcome the late sitting but not the content of the debates.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    The question was whether the proposal for the late sitting is agreed. I take it the Deputy is opposing the proposal.

Question, “That the proposal for the late sitting be agreed to” put and declared carried.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    Is the proposal for dealing with items 19 and 20 agreed to?

Mr. J. Bruton:    I have a problem with not having a debate on item No. 19 which concerns a code of practice for civil servants. Before we lay down standards for others we should be sure we can impose adequate standards on ourselves. It is with the greatest regret that I say the position of the Minister of State, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, has caused serious problems in the promotion of food safety. I am referring to the gap between his public statements as a Minister of State and the difficulties which have apparently been encountered in a facility in which he has an interest in living up to the standards. Is the Minister for Education and Science satisfied that the position of the Minister of State does not cause difficulty for us in promoting food abroad, given that the difficulties have been advertised widely throughout Europe in a very competitive market in a manner which is damaging to the interests of Ireland as a place which sells safe food?

Mr. Howlin:    If we can pass the draft Civil Service code of standards and behaviour without debate then it is worthy for us to reflect on the legal code of standards and behaviour we have applied to ourselves under the Ethics in Public [471] Offices Act, which applies to us all. Before we deal with this issue, will the Minister for Education and Science, on behalf of the Government, deal with the validity of the scheme of licensing meat and bone meal when the person charged under an order of the Government with administering it, the Minister of State, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, had an undisclosed financial interest in it?

Mr. Sargent:    Will the Minister account for members of the Government who are not able to live up to the standards they wish others to live by, taking into account that this is not the first time a member of the Government has been found not to live up to the standards? The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform had to face similar questions in regard to a vehicle within his charge. I ask the Minister to bring this matter to a head so that there is consistency in Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    This matter should be raised in another way.

Dr. Woods:    Item No. 19 is a motion to refer the draft code of standards to the joint committee which will discuss it in detail.

Mr. Howlin:    The Minister should address the issue raised.

Mr. Farrelly:    The Minister has not answered the question asked.

Dr. Woods:    Deputy Bruton referred to item No. 19. The draft code of standards will subsequently come before the House where it can be discussed further. Deputy Howlin seems to be under the misunderstanding that it was being passed without debate.

Mr. Howlin:    That was not the question asked.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    Please allow the Minister to respond.

Mr. Rabbitte:    I can understand why the ASTI is confused.

Dr. Woods:    The Deputies referred to the Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe. If one considered the Members who are farmers and who were Ministers or Taoisigh at one time and said they had a vested interest in their farms—

Mr. Howlin:    There are 17 licences in the country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    Please, Deputy Howlin.

Dr. Woods:    —one would exclude a large proportion of the population.

[472]Mr. J. Bruton:    The Minister can be referring to only one person and that is me. That is very unfair.

Mr. Howlin:    The Minister has no idea.

Dr. Woods:    It is quite clear that the Minister of State declared his interest in the current register of Dáil Members' interests. It is openly declared and it is, therefore, ludicrous to suggest he has not made his position clear.

The application for the licence, which was mentioned, began in 1996 and was approved in principle by the previous Government. It was subsequently sent out in September 1997. The Minister of State has made it quite clear that he stayed completely separate from the application, that he did not have any direct responsibility for it and did not in any way influence it.

Up to now it has been legal to use meat and bonemeal for feeding of non-ruminants. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development took a further temporary precautionary measure yesterday. Deputy O'Keeffe's position is clear-cut.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    We are dealing with a proposal regarding Nos. 19 and 20. I am putting the question.

Mr. J. Bruton:    Does the Minister agree that in his own interest and that of the country the Minister of State is miscast in his present role and cannot do the job that needs to be done in the national interest?

Mr. Dukes:    His credibility is totally gone.

Mr. Howlin:    Either we enact laws that we apply to ourselves or we do not. Obfuscation will not hack it. Legal obligations are imposed on all of us and we make a nonsense of an ethics regime if we do not apply it to ourselves according to the letter of the law. If the Minister is satisfied that the licensing regime, which is specifically administered under—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    That does not arise on the question I am putting now. We have already discussed this matter for long enough.

Mr. Howlin:    —order of the Government, and given the political responsibility of the Minister of State, is it proper for him to have an undisclosed vested interest? I am advised as a matter of administrative law, without any ethics Act, that every decision made by him while he holds that responsibility is now subject to challenge. Can we at least have an assurance from the Minister that that matter is being investigated?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    I will hear the Minister very briefly and then I will put the question.

[473]Mr. Sargent:    The code of standards we are being asked to agree—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    I am putting the question.

Mr. Howlin:    Will the Minister respond?

Mr. Rabbitte:    A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Minister was asked questions. This is blatantly partisan and is an abuse of your position.

Mr. Howlin:    A Leas Cheann-Comhairle, you cannot bulldoze your way through this. The Minister must respond to questions validly put from this side of the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    If the Minister is allowed to respond.

Mr. Farrelly:    Questions were allowed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    I called the Minister and he was interrupted.

Mr. Sargent:    The Minister was not interrupted.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    I will not tolerate [474] interruptions. Does the Minister want to respond briefly?

Dr. Woods:    Yes, the Minister of State explained clearly the declaration of his interests and it is on the record. He has complied with the law, to answer Deputy Howlin's question. That is clear and I cannot say any more.

Mr. Howlin:    Is that the Government's position?

Mr. J. O'Keeffe:    That is a damn bad example.

Mr. Farrelly:    What about our reputation abroad?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 19 and 20 agreed?

Mr. J. Bruton:    No, can I ask—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    I am putting the question. We have debated this long enough.

Mr. J. Bruton:    Has the Minister any conception of the damage being done to Irish farming at the moment?

Question put: “That the proposals for dealing with items 19 and 20 be agreed to.”.

Tá

Question declared carried.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    Is the proposal for dealing with item No. 45 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with item No. 8 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' Business tomorrow agreed to? Agreed.

I call Deputy John Bruton but before he speaks I ask for silence in the lobby.

Mr. J. Bruton:    Does the Minister for Education and Science agree that there is escalating anxiety among parents and students over the secondary school strike? As the oral exams are to be held in February, there is a risk that if this dispute is not settled before Christmas the entire leaving certificate will be undermined next year. Is the Minister willing to accept the Fine Gael proposal, put forward by Deputy Kenny, for the establishment of a commission on teaching, similar to the Commission on Nursing which was successful in settling a dispute in that profession? The issues concerning teachers are not confined simply to pay, but also concern the operation of the profession as a whole, working conditions and other matters which would be of benefit to parents, such as greater information for parents and the upgrading of the profession. The best way to deal with these matters would be through a commission on teaching, as Deputy Kenny has proposed on behalf of Fine Gael. Has the Minister considered the proposal and is he prepared to endorse it so that we can move towards settling this potentially very damaging dispute. A whole generation of young people's careers may be blighted by this dispute.

Ms Shortall:    This is eighth day during which the country's school children have been denied their right to education. The presence of 12,000 teachers in Molesworth Street this afternoon is an indication of the anger they feel at the Government's dismissive treatment. The teachers are offering an olive branch and have held out the prospect of resolving the dispute at an early stage. They are simply looking for a forum in which issues of concern can be discussed and resolved. The Minister for Education and Science has political responsibility for resolving this matter. Is he prepared to take an initiative this week to ensure that such a forum or mechanism can be put in place at an early stage so that the issues concerned can be dealt with satisfactorily? Will he do that as a matter of urgency?

Dr. Woods:    As Deputies will know, I met yesterday with the ASTI's president, vice-president, general secretary and deputy general secretary to listen to their views. As Deputies will be aware also, discussions concerning the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness were still in progress at that stage. The ASTI strongly reiterated its view that the independent body provided for under the PPF, and presided over by a judge, is not adequate to address the issues in the current dispute or the reasons for its continuing action. Subsequent to that, the PPF was adjusted last night in the agreement between the social partners. It will now deliver a cumulative increase in take-home pay of 32.6% for teachers. In addition, the [477] agreement provides that one quarter of any increase arising from the report of the benchmarking body will be implemented with effect from 1 December 2001.

These were among the issues the ASTI raised with me in the four points it wishes to have considered. The four points on which its claim is based are payment for productivity, an adjustment to close the gap which has developed between the salaries of teachers and those of other comparable graduate grades, compensation for cost of living increases and a share in economic prosperity. It is quite clear that under the PPF, the social partners are dealing with each one of these issues. There is an independent forum to deal with those issues and in that general context I am anxious to find any solutions that can be found to the present difficulties.

The meetings we had yesterday were mainly—

Mr. Noonan:    On a point of order, I am reluctant to interrupt the Minister because what he is saying is very important. However, he gave a cumulative figure of benefits to the teaching profession of 32.6%. I understand that it is 22.6%, so will the Minister correct that because he is ten points above it?

Mr. Ring:    Like inflation.

Dr. Woods:    I know it is difficult to pick it up when it is being read out.

Mr. Belton:    He should go back to school.

Dr. Woods:    Deputy Belton suggested that I should go back to school, but I do not think I really have to because what I said is this—

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    The Minister should be brief in answering the question.

Dr. Woods:    The figure for take-home pay includes the 10% reduction in tax, giving a figure of 32.6%. The figure of 19.2%—

Mr. Rabbitte:    What 10% reduction in tax?

Mr. J. O'Keeffe:    Give us a breakdown.

Mr. Rabbitte:    Is this tomorrow's business?

Dr. Woods:    The Deputy can either read the PPF or the press statements issued with it.

Mr. Noonan:    It is a pay claim.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    Can we have order in the House, please?

Mr. Finucane:    This is the Minister's mantra.

Mr. Noonan:    He is trying to fool the people.

Dr. Woods:    No.

[478]An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    Only the leaders of parties are entitled to ask a question. Deputy Noonan has raised a point of order. The Minister is not being allowed to answer without interruption.

Mr. Noonan:    It is outrageous. The Minister is misleading the House. There are 12,000 teachers protesting outside and he is trying to mislead them into thinking that they will receive an increase of 32%. They will not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    I ask the Deputy to resume his seat and to allow the Minister to conclude his reply.

Mr. Noonan:    Will you get him to explain the position? This is outrageous. He is misleading the people protesting outside the House.

Mr. Howlin:    He is making matters worse.

Dr. Woods:    The PPF is for all the people with all the partners. It provides for direct increases in pay and reductions in tax. Reductions in tax affect take-home pay. The reductions in tax – this is not disputed by the ASTI – amount to 10%.

Mrs. Owen:    Is this the budget?

Mr. Allen:    Which 10%?

Dr. Woods:    I am talking about the figure of 10% in the PPF.

Mr. Noonan:    Is the Minister announcing the budget?

Dr. Woods:    The reduction of 10% in tax will lead to an increase in take-home pay, the money in the Deputy's pocket, my pocket and the pocket of a teacher.

Mrs. Owen:    It is not 32%.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    We cannot have a full scale debate on the issue. The Ceann Comhairle has made a ruling.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    The Chair is speaking. I ask Deputy Rabbitte and the Minister to resume their seats.

Mrs. Owen:    Is the Minister giving out pre-budget information?

Dr. Woods:    It is in the PPF.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    Only the leaders of parties are allowed to ask a short question—

Mr. Rabbitte:    I was raising a point of order—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    I told Deputy [479] Rabbitte that the Chair is speaking. If he resumes his seat, we will hear his point of order, if it is relevant. The leaders of parties are allowed to ask a brief question, but it is not to lead to debate. That was the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle when he introduced this latitude for the leaders of parties to ask a brief question on a topical issue. We will not allow it to develop into a full scale debate.

Mr. Yates:    We got a Second Stage speech.

Mr. Stagg:    A long-winded speech.

Mr. Rabbitte:    On a point of order, do I understand that the Minister for Education and Science has included tomorrow's budgetary provisions in the figure of 10%?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    That is not a point of order. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.

Dr. Woods:    I thought the Deputy had read the PPF.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe:    Breach of privilege.

Mr. J. Bruton:    Is the Minister's presentation of the teachers' pay increase as 32% in terms of—

Dr. Woods:    I did not say that. I said take-home pay—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    The Minister should allow the Deputy to make his point. The Minister will have an opportunity to make a final reply.

Dr. Woods:    It is misrepresentation.

Mr. J. Bruton:    Does the Minister agree that his tendentious presentation of the pay position of teachers is as likely to inflame the situation as to assuage their fears? Does he also agree that the proposal made by Deputy Kenny for a commission on teaching would be a valid way to resolve the dispute quickly given that it is something to which all the teaching unions could subscribe? Will the Minister respond specifically to that Fine Gael proposal, the first proposal which has the capacity to resolve this dispute which is, potentially, exceptionally damaging for young people?

Ms Shortall:    The Minister keeps repeating the PPF as a mantra in spite of the fact that the ASTI has rejected the latest proposals. Given this reality, is the Minister prepared to take political responsibility for the dispute, which is denying children the right to an education? Will he, as a matter of urgency, come up with an alternative [480] proposal with a forum in which to address the issues of concern to teachers?

Mr. Stagg:    A brief reply from the Minister.

Mr. Higgins:    (Dublin West): On a point of order, I tabled a private notice question to the Minister for Education and Science on the teachers' dispute, but it was refused. Given its importance, I also asked for an emergency debate on the issue, but that was also refused.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    That is not a point of order.

Mr. Higgins:    (Dublin West): The Minister can make detailed arguments which you will not allow me to challenge.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    That is not a point of order.

Mr. Higgins:     (Dublin West): It is not fair.

Dr. Woods:    On the question of the increase of 32% raised by Deputy Bruton—

Mr. Stagg:    Will this be a brief reply?

Dr. Woods:    —the PPF provides for a reduction in tax of 10%. This has not been disputed by any of the parties to the agreement, which provides for an increase of 19.2% in salaries, giving a total improvement in take-home pay of 29.2%. As a result of last night's development, this figure has been increased to 32.6%.

Mr. Allen:    It is a lump sum.

Dr. Woods:    That is another question.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe:    Is the increase tax free?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    We cannot have a full scale debate on the issue. I ask the Minister to be brief.

Mr. Allen:    The Minister is not comparing like with like.

Dr. Woods:    I answered the second question earlier. A solution is possible within the terms of the PPF. I hope it is achieved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    I call Deputy Kenny on another issue.

Mr. Kenny:    The Constitution and the Education Act guarantee every student the right to a proper education. Over 500,000 teaching hours have been lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    Does the Deputy have a question relevant to the Order of Business?

[481]Mr. Kenny:    This issue is more serious than protocol in the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    The issue of the dispute has been well debated. Does the Deputy have a question relevant to the Order of Business?

Mr. Kenny:    The Minister has responsibility for running the leaving certificate examination. He cannot now run it in a fair manner. How does he propose to get students back into the classroom?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    That is not relevant to the Order of Business.

Mr. Kenny:    It is.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    The matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

Mr. Kenny:    How does the Minister propose to make up the loss of 500,000 teaching hours? It is not fair for the Minister—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:    I ask the Deputy to resume his seat. I have ruled the matter out of order, it is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

We are proceeding to No. 18, Registration of Births Bill, 2000.

---

Last Updated: 11/09/2010 00:34:21

Page of 339