D&aacute;il Eireann

Mr. Stagg: It will be winter before we will be back.

An Ceann Comhairle: If not, the Chair will deal with it. It cannot be allowed to continue. The Taoiseach without interruption.

The Taoiseach: I agree with Deputy Kenny and congratulate the Minister for Finance on an outstanding result in the six month figures. By any standard, these are good figures. They consistently follow what this Government has been doing in soundly managing the economy through excellent fiscal policies. Yesterday’s figures show that an Exchequer surplus of €880 million was recorded in the second quarter of 2006. That compares to an Exchequer deficit of €594 million for the second quarter of last year. The budget deficit is at a far lower rate than we expected.

Due to the success of the economy, the great inward investment and the strength across the pharmaceutical, ICT and construction industries, tax yield is about €1 billion ahead of target. Tax receipts to the end of June are approximately 5.3% above the profile. I doubt that Deputy Kenny was questioning the figures or those who prepared them but obviously it is hard for people to compare the strength of the economy when it is growing at a rate so many percentage points higher than anywhere else in the European Union and in the world economy. People in the United States, Japan, Australia, Canada and the rest of Europe can see that we are outperforming them. The three tax heads, income tax, VAT and excise, are almost exactly on target and corporation tax and capital taxes are well ahead of tar[663]get. Overall, it looks as if taxes for the year will come in €1.75 billion ahead of target.

Overall net voted spending to the end of June has increased by 9%, it is behind the target set for this stage. Deputy Kenny is talking about next year but this year we are spending less than our forecasts and prudently keeping with the targets.

Mr. McCormack: It is being saved for next year.

The Taoiseach: That is against a debt to GDP ratio of under 20%, the second lowest in Europe and one of the lowest in the OECD countries. If that is netted against the €16 billion we have saved in the National Pensions Reserve Fund, which the Deputy supports, we have one of the lowest ratios of all.

If taxes come in as we think likely and expenditure comes in on target and there are no surprises, we will end 2006 €1.75 billion better off than expected because of the management of the economy. Instead of the expected borrowing of €3 billion, we will only need to borrow €1 billion. In six months the Minister for Finance and those working with him have improved our situation by 65%. That is good and let us hope we can continue to do that in the remainder of the year.

Mr. Kenny: I asked if we can assume there will be no attempt to have a big budget bribe later in the year. Everyone recognises the strength of the economy.

Mr. Cowen: Except the Opposition.

Mr. Kenny: Everyone recognises the strength of the consumer boom and the construction industry. It is not, however, the amount of money that is taken in that is the priority, it is how it is spent and the value for money in services.

The Taoiseach and the Government, in spite of the strong economy which every one supports and which the alternative Government, when it assumes office next year, will expand and develop, have presided over chaos in accident and emergency units, with 20,000 people on waiting lists and MRSA rampant in hospitals. Crime rates are rising and detection rates falling, with 29 murders this year alone and violent gun crime out of control on the streets. There is no effective road safety strategy and prices are rising faster than the rest of Europe. The economy is hugely dependent on personal debt in consumer spending and the construction sector. Agricultural and marine incomes have been wiped out. Class sizes are growing. There are 100,000 pupils in classes of more than 30 and completely inadequate educational facilities for thousands of others.

That is what this Government has delivered with the taxes it has collected in the last nine years. While no one doubts the strength of the economy or will do anything to harm it, the [664]Government’s inability to accept responsibility for any action has resulted in an inferior level of service for the people who, when they pay for a service, expect one of the highest quality. Look at the transport delays and difficulties for commuters every day on the roads. Those are all down to bad, weak Government and an inability to accept responsibility for anything.

The Taoiseach: There is a strong economy because this Government has worked with the people to make it so. There are 600,000 more people working.

Mr. Gogarty: They have to work to pay their huge mortgages.

The Taoiseach: The population has increased by 14% so 2 million people are on the road every day and that creates difficulties. We prefer that there are more people on the roads. We export €150 billion of goods that cannot get from Ireland to other countries without transport.

Dr. Cowley: They cannot get into Dublin from the west.

The Taoiseach: We have built up huge industries across a range of areas and have high growth.

I am glad to see Deputy Kenny acknowledging the strength of the economy. Most of his party opposes our policies and votes against them and our budget strategy but we are building record numbers of homes and spending enormous amounts on transport. The Luas project, which the Opposition tried to laugh off, is now in profit, carrying more than 22 million passengers per year, the rail programme is moving on, our new strategy for science and technology has been announced and more resources are being invested in health, education and welfare to help the less well-off in society. We are building hospitals throughout the country, hundreds of additional first and second level schools and funding programmes through Science Foundation Ireland. That is where the money is going.

If I were in opposition I would be upset about that too.

Deputies: It will not be long.

The Taoiseach: We will continue doing that. It is uncomfortable for the Opposition to have to look at a country doing so well and know that it played no part in that for 25 years. The danger for the country is that perhaps it would play a part in it because we want to stay where we are and keep on going strong.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: That is all this Government wants — to stay in power.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Rabbitte.

[665]Mr. J. Breen: The backbenchers are unhappy. They look very unhappy because their time is up.

An Ceann Comhairle: I have called Deputy Rabbitte and I ask Deputy James Breen to afford him the courtesy of being heard.

Mr. J. Breen: I apologise; I got carried away.

Mr. Rabbitte: The Taoiseach has just told the House how much better off the public finances are than had been anticipated. I want to tell the House about a man from Ballybunion called Tony O’Gorman who drove to my clinic on 7 April to tell me about his wife, who had been diagnosed as a multiple sclerosis sufferer and who has been awaiting the implantation of a Baclofen pump for two years because she is in permanent pain. She has been on morphine for nine months. My office and I have done everything we can. We have been in touch with the Minister, the hospital, the consultant, the Minister’s office and the Health Service Executive but nothing has happened.

I will outline the situation to the House in Mr. O’Gorman’s own words in a letter he wrote to me on 24 May:

As you previously know, Breda is disimproving by the day and at this stage, even to put her into bed or take her out, she is in cruel agony and ends up in tears morning and night. She has the district nurse and an assistant to take her up in the morning and to do normal procedures like washing her and dressing her pressure sores, which are not improving, only getting worse — it is very near to the bone — in time. As the infection in the sore is not decreasing it could very easily turn to gangrene which could be the cause of Breda losing a leg if action is not taken in time.

Every morning she is removed from the bed to the wheelchair and has to be moved from chair to chair several times a day in order to get relief from the pain and the spasms. This is an awful discomfort to her on a daily basis. She remains in this state every day and is unable to go anywhere as the pain would be too much.

As you previously know, she is taking 30 tablets a day and is so confused from these tablets that she is sleeping nearly 24 hours now. When she wakes it takes her a while to register where she is, forgetting a lot of every day things. She also has a pump on her which dispenses a drug called midazolam. This drip is injected into her 24 hours a day. This is to relieve spasm but she is only too prone to the tablets now and to the drip that it has occurred that they have no effect on her anymore. My daughter, who also cares for her, puts her to bed at night and found Breda to be stiffening in her upper body. That is due to the lack of physiotherapy. The procedure of physio cannot be started until she has the pump implanted, and her arms have weakened in the last few months also. We have tried [666]everything at this stage and in our opinion we have nothing to lose if this goes public.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy’s time has concluded.

Mr. Rabbitte: He goes on to ask me to raise the matter in the Dáil. That was on 24 May. I did not do so because I felt that private discussions with the hospital, the consultant and the Minister might be more successful. This is the last Leaders’ Questions before the summer recess. If we have as much money as the Taoiseach says, why can this woman not get some relief from constant pain and have that appointment made at Cork University Hospital?

Mr. McCormack: The Government has cut back on home help and everything else.

The Taoiseach: I appreciate Deputy Rabbitte raising this matter. If he had spoken to me about it beforehand I could have checked it and tried to find out some details. I do not want to add to the discomfort of the O’Gorman family but if I can add my weight to try to do something for them I will do so. I have no knowledge of the case whatsoever. I do not know what has happened or what the pump is.

Mr. McCormack: That is what the Taoiseach is presiding over.

The Taoiseach: I do not know what the medical condition is but I will be glad to examine the individual case.

Mr. Rabbitte: I appreciate that the Taoiseach does not have any detail on the case and cannot be expected to comment on it. However, all the details that came to my clinic from Kerry on 7 April were sent to the Tánaiste, the hospital and all the other authorities. They know the detail inside out. On a number of occasions, Mr.
O’Gorman offered to pay for the particular pump referred to. For some reason that is beyond me, however, the procedure has not been carried out. Everything they have tried has failed. When we raise the issue of the health services in a general way people have grown accustomed to it, but behind every ventilation of grievances about
the health services a family is affected. The O’Gormans are one such family.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy’s time has concluded.

Mr. Rabbitte: Nobody in a civilised society should be expected to live in the circumstances in which Mrs. O’Gorman is condemned to live. Any civilised society would seek to alleviate her pain and suffering. It is a terrible commentary that, in the midst of all the wealth the Taoiseach detailed [667]to Deputy Kenny, we cannot seem to deal with cases like this.

The Taoiseach: All I can do is check into the individual case and try to be helpful to the people involved. On the general point concerning staff, 130,000 people work in our health service every day. They deal with approximately 1 million people per year. One of the nice things about being Taoiseach is the letters I receive from families all over the country acknowledging and praising everything from coronary and cancer operations to complicated gynaecological procedures, as well as heart and lung transplants. These procedures are carried out by health service staff every day, using the vast resources we are able to give them from taxpayers and the economy generally in order to improve matters.

I will not attempt to understand the background to the pump the Deputy mentioned. I do not know why it could not be provided, nor what the clinical assessment was. Neither do I know why it had not happened after the Tánaiste’s office was informed on 24 May. Like all these matters, when one checks them there is some reason behind it. Deputy Rabbitte has given an undertaking to examine the matter on behalf of a decent family. Mr. O’Gorman is obviously concerned about his wife, Breda. The Deputy has raised the issue here and I will show due respect to that family by checking on the matter. I will let Deputy Rabbitte know what I can find out.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Every winter we read headlines about the number of people spending many hours, or even days, on trolleys in the accident and emergency departments of our public hospitals. There is a myth that this is only a winter problem. Is the Taoiseach aware that the figures released yesterday by the Irish Nurses’ Organisation show that some 202 people were on trolleys in A&E departments on the previous night throughout the State’s hospital network? All of those 202 people were someone’s child, brother or sister, parent or grandparent. The agony for all is obvious.

On 5 July 2005, this day 12 months ago, there were 232 people on trolleys according to the figures then applying. That is an improvement of 30 places but it is hardly something to trumpet given the fanfare that accompanied the announcement of the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children’s ten-point plan to ensure an end to the accident and emergency crisis. What will the situation be like when it really becomes a crisis time of the year? If over 200 people are on trolleys today, what will it be like in November? Are we going to see record numbers of 500 plus on trolleys? What is the Taoiseach doing to address the problem now, rather than waiting until it becomes absolute bedlam?

The new treatment room that was established in Monaghan General Hospital remains closed [668]and unresourced. Given the figures the Taoiseach mentioned earlier concerning a significantly greater tax take, why are we still waiting for the Department of Health and Children to resource this essential facility? That hospital has faced much turmoil and trauma in recent years.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy’s time has concluded.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Where stands Fianna Fáil’s promise, in its manifesto prior to the 2002 general election, to end the two-tier system within our acute hospital services? What about the commitment in the programme for Government to improve A&E services by significantly reducing waiting times and having senior doctors available at all times, including all appropriate consultants? I ask the Taoiseach to consider a final point. Is he aware, as I am, that we have a serious shortfall concerning the number——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy’s time has concluded.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: ——of consultant radiologists within our hospital system? People are being unnecessarily detained overnight in hospital because there are insufficient consultant radiologists to read the scans in order to inform the clinicians of how best either to continue the management of patients or to decide on their discharge. Clearly, this places a huge cost on the families concerned——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy’s time has concluded.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: ——on the health system and — I will finish on this point — on the statistics concerning the bed crisis. Does the Taoiseach not agree that, unquestionably, we need the additional 3,000 beds promised? In addition, however, there must be a holistic approach to the crisis identifying the areas that have to be addressed. People should not be unnecessarily detained because clinicians have not received the report of scans.

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to give way to the Taoiseach.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I ask the Taoiseach to advise us what steps he is taking to address this real crisis.

11 o’clock

The Taoiseach: Deputy Ó Caoláin will be aware that the largest share of expenditure of additional revenues this year was given to health — over €1 billion into health resources and €500 million into the capital programme for health. That has been the case every year, with expenditure on health increasing from approximately €3 billion to €12 billion. Therefore, the resources are being [669]provided. Most of that expenditure is reflected in staff, with approximately 35,000 more people, mainly medical and nursing staff, working to deal with these issues.

Most of the Deputy’s questions were about accident and emergency units. He is right that this is the time of year to work on plans for the autumn. That is precisely what Ministers have been doing. Those of us who are on the Cabinet committee on health have regular meetings with the Department of Health and Children officials and the HSE with a view to improving the areas that need to be improved, dealing with problems where they exist and building on the successes. The key objectives are to try to tackle the problems in accident and emergency units in those hospitals where there are problems — I stress that is in a limited number, about 14 out of almost 60 hospitals — deal with the numbers of patients in accident and emergency units awaiting admission to an acute bed, the time those patients have to wait and the turnaround time for those patients who are treated without being admitted. They are the key objectives.

The number awaiting admission in June was 109, a reduction of 39% in the average numbers nationally between June 2005 and June 2006. I am not sure from where the Deputy got his figure. There was a 49% decrease in the average numbers waiting in the east and a 24% decrease in the average numbers waiting outside the east. The reduction can be attributed to a number of factors, particularly the impact of the private nursing home initiative for delayed discharges and increased management focus on accident and emergency units of hospitals. In recent months the seasonal factor has had an impact on the figures.

The Deputy asked about our plans. We will continue with the ten point plan and the short-term objectives that no patients will have to wait longer than 24 hours to be admitted to an acute bed. There will always be people on trolleys. Obviously when people come to accident and emergency departments they will be on a trolley. The elimination of trolleys in accident and emergency units is not the issue but rather that patients do not spend an excessive period there. No accident and emergency department is to have more than ten patients awaiting admission. The privacy and dignity of patients awaiting admission is to be preserved. The long-term objective is to ensure no patient will wait longer than six hours to be admitted after a clinical decision to admit has been made.

During June, 14 of the 18 targeted hospitals achieved their targets. The exceptions were Beaumont, Tallaght, Cork University Hospital and Drogheda hospitals. During the past two weeks eight of the 18 hospitals had patients waiting longer than 24 hours for admission. All this is being monitored closely.

The Deputy asked if I would say what is happening. The development-expansion of the minor [670]injuries units, chest pain clinics and respiratory clinics is moving well with provision for these units in Connolly Hospital in Blanchardstown, Cork University Hospital, St. Vincent’s Hospital and St. James’s Hospital. Outside Dublin we have provided for the expansion of minor injuries units in St. John’s Hospital Limerick and Waterford Regional Hospital. These units are fully operational. In regard to the second MRI at Beaumont, the interim arrangements with a provider are in place. The second MRI is due to be commissioned later this year.

Dr. Cowley: What about——

The Taoiseach: Provision for acute medical units for non-surgical patients is being made as well as the transfer of 100 high dependency beds, 38 of which have been dealt with. All of these initiatives are being monitored carefully. We are providing admissions units and other facilities to alleviate pressure in accident and emergency departments in Cavan, Wexford, the Mercy Hospital in Cork and Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda. In Tallaght Hospital an admissions unit is being provided close to the accident and emergency department which is expected to be operational in September for 40 patients. St. James’s Hospital has another low dependency unit as has Naas General Hospital. All these reforms are taking place, resources are being provided and construction work is under way during the summer.

The Deputy referred to the service provided by pathologists and radiologists. He has a point. As part of the social partnership talks I particularly asked the staff associations, both professional and non-professional, to work with the negotiators in the Department of Health and Children. The old concept that a hospital can work for seven hours a day while many of its main units have machinery and equipment that costs a huge amount is a system from the past. The Deputy is correct in saying that is part of the problem. It does not work if people finish at 4 p.m., 5 p.m. or 5.30 p.m. We have asked the unions to engage with us during the summer in real negotiations with a view to extending the hours. We know this will cost money.

In the private hospitals the units start at 6.30 a.m. and work until 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. Last night a friend of mind had a procedure at 8.30 p.m. This happens all the time. This will have to be done in the public hospitals also and we will have to pay our staff accordingly and, perhaps, buy out old agreements. One cannot run a hospital around the clock when some of the main units only work six or seven hours per day and where equipment costs the taxpayer millions of euro. We want to engage with the staff.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Taoiseach’s time has concluded.

[671]The Taoiseach: Sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, it is important. We want to engage with the staff and come to agreements where the length of the working day or the shift system will work so we can read the pathology lists and other lists and deal with these issues. However, we need the co-operation of the staff and staff associations to do that. I made a particular point of this in the negotiations. Also we want to make progress with the doctors and the common contract. I understand the consultants are anxious to help us improve the health service. Hopefully, during the summer they will make the necessary moves to help us. We cannot do it without them. They can, of course, take a belligerent view and not help us but that would not help the patient. We are also making progress with general practitioners. I hope we can continue with these reforms but we cannot do it on our own; we need the staff associations to work with us.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: On that point where stands the renegotiation of the consultants’ contract? Is the Taoiseach pursuing that with the necessary vigour to ensure consultants are appointed who will work solely within the public system? I welcome the fact the Taoiseach’s friend has obviously had access to a procedure and I wish the person well. The 202 people on trolleys also have families. They are waiting within our public health system and it is their need and interest I wish to see addressed here. The Taoiseach can trundle out his responses on the amount of money thrown into the system but where is it being directed to when there is a new treatment room at Monaghan General Hospital that is unresourced for months, not open and not serving the community? That is unacceptable when we have a dearth of consultant radiologists to read scans while people are being left for days waiting and worrying about results, apart from the fact that but for the delay they may have been able to be discharged, saving them an expensive overnight stay in our hospital system and the system itself which must subsidise that presence.

Nothing in what the Taoiseach has said tells me that, given the past nine years of the horrendous state of our health service, over which he has presided, he has any answers to address the problems at the core of the health crisis. He has less than nine months to address the problem and convince the people and no amount of Houdini like tactics will fool them or cod them when it comes to the general election. People have memories. No matter what the Taoiseach does in the intervening period, unless he demonstrates he is serious about addressing this crisis in the interests of all our citizens, he will deservedly pay a very dear price.

The Taoiseach: I could go through all the procedures in every hospital under the capital programme. The Health Service Executive is putting €500 million this year alone into the hospitals. [672]That is a huge amount of money. The biggest problem is making sure they will all spend it.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Will they be staffed?

An Ceann Comhairle: Please, Deputy Ó Caoláin——

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Bricks and mortar.

The Taoiseach: We are staffing them.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: No. They are not being staffed.

The Taoiseach: The Deputy wants to ask questions. When I am replying he wants to ask more. Will he please listen?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Will the Taoiseach answer the question?

The Taoiseach: I will answer the question. Every single hospital is receiving assistance. There is not a crisis throughout the health service.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: We are delighted to hear that view expressed.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy had his opportunity to speak.

The Taoiseach: We have a difficulty in A&E units in some hospitals. However, daily throughout the country successful operations and procedures are carried out and people get medical and surgical treatment to help them back to full health. The picture the Deputy is trying to paint of 1 million people failing to get excellent care is wrong. It is sad that he paints that picture. At this very hour, people are being treated in hospitals throughout the country.

The Deputy should take into account that hospitals such as in Kilkenny and Waterford, which have fewer staff than the hospitals referred to by him, carry out the services more efficiently.

Mr. McCormack: Blame the staff.

The Taoiseach: Deputy Ó Caoláin is right about reform. I praise the excellent staff who carry out their duties, but some hospitals with more staff than those hospitals have problems. That is the reason reform is essential. We need reform such as a change in the length of the working day. The Deputy pointed out that sometimes people who come into hospital on a Monday do not get treatment until a Wednesday because the staff in the unit finish work at 4.30 p.m. This would not happen in any other area. How would industry work efficiently if people operating expensive equipment finished at 4.30 p.m.?

[673]Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Doctors cannot operate in a hospital if operating theatres are closed.

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask Deputy Ó Caoláin to allow the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach: The Deputy should listen to the point he made. His point was that people are in beds too long because facilities are not available. My response is that the reason for that is that the work practice for years has been that the services close at 4 p.m. or 4.30 p.m. The Government has been trying to change this so the units can remain open till 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. We will pay the staff and work with them to come to an agreement so patients do not have to remain in beds.

We have advanced the situation over nine years and whereas we had very few day cases, we now have hundreds of thousands of day cases and these people do not have the trauma of staying in hospital overnight. We brought in more consultants and hundreds of doctors to do this, but essential reforms are still needed.

The Deputy asked about the common contract for consultants. This issue is moving at a snail’s pace, not because of the actions of the Department of Health and Children, the Government or the HSE, but because the consultants have a very good position. We want them to move through meaningful negotiation and do not want to take money from them. We know they are well paid, good and experienced people and do not want to take money from them. We only want to bring in necessary reforms to make the system work better. That is all we want to do. We want to engage with them. The Deputy asked me about the letter they sent back saying they would not engage with us. We just want to deal with them, as we would with any association or trade union so we can make progress with the patients the Deputy and others are concerned about.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: The Government has had nine years to do that.

The Taoiseach: We have made huge progress in that period. I will not remind Deputy Jim O’Keeffe about what happened with some of the contracts during the years some of his colleagues were involved.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: The Government has had nine years to bring about reform and has had tucks of money to do it.

The Taoiseach: We are engaged in the process and will continue our engagement. We have brought our health service to a stage where it is well resourced. We have a doctor and staff ratio higher than in most countries.

Mr. Sherlock: The Taoiseach should come to Mallow some time.

[674]The Taoiseach: We are spending resources. We want to make the necessary reforms and will work with the HSE to do that. Deputy Ó Caoláin knows that in the hospital he mentioned it is in this area that some of the difficulties have arisen, and we are engaged in trying to solve them.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The only thing sadder than the Taoiseach is the reality of the hospital we must support and sustain.

1. Mr. Costello asked the Taoiseach the commemorations planned to mark the 90th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme; when these commemorations will take place; the persons who have been invited to attend; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23792/06]

The Taoiseach: This year is the 90th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme, the attack having been launched on 1 July 1916. The Government held an official commemoration at the war memorial in Islandbridge last Saturday, 1 July. A special commemorative stamp has also been issued to mark the occasion.

Following appropriate Army ceremonial at Islandbridge, involving prayers and readings, the President laid a wreath at the cenotaph. Ambassadors from those countries which participated in the battle, namely the UK, France, Germany, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, India and Australia also laid wreaths as did Mr. Nigel Hamilton, head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Royal British Legion. After the ceremony, a Government reception was held in the Royal Hospital Kilmainham. Invitations to attend issued to political representatives North and South and to representatives of a broad selection of community interests. Members of the public also attended.

The commemoration of the Battle of the Somme is part of an overall programme that reflects the shared history and shared experience of the people of this island from all traditions in 1916.

Following consultations with the Royal British Legion, invitations were also extended to a number of military history societies and organisations established to honour the memory of those who served in disbanded Irish regiments such as the Dublin Fusiliers, the Prince of Wales Leinster Regiment and the Combined Irish Regiments Association. In addition, representatives of veterans’ organisations such as the Naval Association, the Irish United Nations Veterans’ Association and the American Legion were also invited.

Mr. Rabbitte: The Taoiseach always complains that we do not give due credit to the Government [675]for the good things it does. I pay tribute to it on this appropriate commemoration, which while overdue was a splendid success and greatly appreciated throughout the island. The Government did a good job.

Mr. Sargent: I too thank the Government for its input on this important commemoration. However, will the Government remind the British Prince of Wales, Prince Charles, about the Irish involvement in the First World War? Comments have been made that he mentioned a long list of countries, but somehow forgot to mention that Ireland played any part. Many families, mine included, which suffered significantly at the time and members of which fought in a British uniform, were hurt by the omission. Will the Taoiseach respond to that hurt?

The Taoiseach: I do not want to make too much of the omission. I know the royal family is aware of the Irish involvement. Prince Philip was here some time ago and he is very aware of the regiments involved and their flags. We will make the point. In fairness to the families, the nice thing about the day is that it is special for them. We have arranged a number of events for the families over the years. A few years ago we had a big reception in Dublin Castle in honour of the Dublin Fusiliers and this meant a lot to the families. We will point out the oversight and hopefully it will be reflected in some future contribution.

Mr. Timmins: I join Deputy Rabbitte in complimenting the Government on the commemoration last Saturday. I have driven by the war memorial in Islandbridge many times, but never realised there was such a beauty spot in that area. We sell ourselves short in that regard. Will the Taoiseach consider getting the OPW, the Department of Defence, or whoever is responsible for such areas, involved in informing the public about such areas and that they are worth visiting?

When reading for our discussion of the Defence (Amendment) Bill and about not being able to participate in the UN force in Macedonia, I discovered there is a Celtic cross in Macedonia commemorating 300 Irish members of the 10th Division who were killed in the First World War. Would the Taoiseach consider commissioning an audit of memorials to Irish personnel killed abroad so we can have a checklist to inform people?

I and Deputy McManus are on the 1916 commemoration committee and we attended a meeting prior to the Battle of the Somme commemoration. Our committee is tasked with drawing up advance plans for how the centenary of 1916 and of the Battle of the Somme might be commemorated. Will the Taoiseach consider sending us some correspondence, through the official from his Department involved, outlining the way for[676]ward or explaining what is required as the committee is somewhat ad hoc currently?

The Taoiseach: I wish to acknowledge the work of the committee. It is ad hoc at present because we must consider how it should go forward. I do not wish to simply force a way forward because we need to discuss the best way to work this out. There is time available before the planning for the centenary so we do not need to make decisions over night. However, we should try to work out the best way forward and decide which projects to develop. A period of ten years may seem like a long time but it can pass quickly so we need to put plans in place. The Minister for Defence, Deputy O’Dea, will be involved.

The National Day of Commemoration will be next week, following which my staff will review all the events to consider the best way forward. I will raise with the Minister, Deputy O’Dea, and with the Defence Forces the issue of the memorials in various parts of the world. Irish people have been involved in a number of areas. There are dozens of memorials in Argentina to Admiral Browne and Irish people were also involved in Spain. The Irish contribution has been immense. In particular I note the Irish contribution to many naval forces. It is a case of combining all the commemorations.

The military museum has collected information on military flags used by the Irish. It was hoped to return some of the flags of the Irish regiments based in England to the National Museum in Collins Barracks which would be a fitting place for them. However, their release will involve diplomatic efforts but the Government will continue to try to achieve that. It would be a gesture by the British if they did this. The flags are sacredly held on to at very high levels. It would mean a lot to the families here if they were released.

The Deputy referred to the National War Memorial Gardens in Kilmainham. Some Deputies will recall how overgrown the site was a decade ago. I did not start the campaign to have it cleaned up and I will not take the credit for it, but there was a campaign a decade ago. The Office of Public Works, Dublin City Council and others have done a fine job. People can now be proud of the gardens, the cenotaph and the cross. It is a facility which the OPW will have highlighted as a place to visit as it is in the heart of the city near a large centre of population. I agree with the Deputy that many people may not be aware it exists.

2. Mr. Timmins asked the Taoiseach when the last meeting of the high level group monitoring the threat of terrorism took place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23769/06]

The Taoiseach: Having regard to the security nature of the work of the national security com[677]mittee, it would not be appropriate to disclose information about the dates of individual meetings or its proceedings. I can confirm that the committee met within the past month.

The committee is chaired by the Secretary General to the Government and comprises representatives at the highest level of the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Defence, Foreign Affairs, the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces. It ensures the Government and I are advised of high level security issues and the responses to them, but not operational security issues.

The committee meets as required and will continue to do so. In addition to their meetings, the members liaise on an ongoing basis to monitor developments which might have national security implications, in particular in the international arena.

Mr. Timmins: With reference to an issue I have raised before, several bodies are involved in planning for national emergencies, such as this high level task force and the group chaired by the Minister, Deputy O’Dea. Will the Taoiseach agree we would be better served to have just one co-ordinating body? It seems there are too many people responsible and it is difficult to see the crossover between them. An international body has recommended the setting up of a single group underpinned by legislation.

My second question refers to the hoax bomb scare at Dublin Airport yesterday. Had this committee any role to play in dealing with this incident? Has the Taoiseach received a report on the incident? Were proper procedures followed? Is the Government satisfied the procedures in place are adequate to deal with such a situation?

The Taoiseach: In answer to the Deputy’s first question, this issue was examined. The Deputy is correct that following the events of 11 September 2001, the office of emergency planning was set up to co-ordinate the work of the various emergency services in preparing contingency plans. The task force on emergency planning, chaired by the Minister for Defence, meets frequently to assist in that role. It was suggested there be one unit but the Minister for Defence, through the office of emergency planning and the task force on emergency planning oversee the general area of emergency planning in order to promote the best possible use of State resources and to ensure compatibility between the different emergency planning requirements. The possibility of amalgamating responsibility for managing emergencies in a single agency was raised in the report of the Emergency Planning Society. As I stated previously, substantial costs would be associated with its suggested approach. Its responses to different types of emergency require different skills, experience and resources. It has been pointed out that dealing with a maritime oil pollution incident is different from reacting to a foot and mouth [678]threat. For this reason, primary responsibility remains with the agency with the relevant expertise and knowledge.

The office of emergency planning has been established on an administrative basis. It is appropriate from time to time to consider whether the work of the office needs to be supported by a statutory framework relating to emergency planning. The Government will consider any detailed proposals which the Minister in the light of experience may wish to bring in this regard. A consolidation of services would cause a large duplication of services into a single unit and the expertise might not be used that much. During the foot and mouth crisis, we were able to call on expertise from the veterinary college and the Department of Agriculture and Food and personnel from the marine institute can be called upon in the event of a marine issue. It would be a costly exercise to bring everyone into one unit and it is considered unnecessary.

The other issue raised by the Deputy is not related to the work of this committee. The airport police and the Garda Síochána co-ordinated yesterday’s response to the incident in Dublin Airport. The Garda sought the assistance of the explosive ordnance disposal unit which arrived on site yesterday afternoon. The Dublin Airport Authority contingency plans for evacuation worked smoothly. It was necessary to evacuate the airport because the individual not alone threatened to throw a bomb but he also stated he had placed another bomb. The disruptive procedure was therefore necessary for the protection of the staff and the travelling public. The Garda Síochána and the explosives ordnance disposal unit were on hand quickly to assist.

Mr. Sargent: I refer to a statement by the head of anti-terrorist operations in Scotland Yard, Mr. Peter Clarke. He stated he is very concerned in the approach to the anniversary of the London bombings of 7 July last year. Has there been any contact with Scotland Yard by the Garda Síochána or the high level group on the possibility of any heightened threat to this country?

Has the high level group been asked to consider the visit of HMS Ocean, the very large British warship involved in the invasion of Iraq? Was the high level group involved in the decision to create an air exclusion zone around that ship?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is moving outside the scope of the question.

Mr. Sargent: The work of the high level group monitoring the threat of terrorism is fundamental to my question.

An Ceann Comhairle: The question only relates to its last meeting and not to any details of what the group might or might not have discussed.

[679]Mr. Sargent: To make the question any use at all, I ask——

An Ceann Comhairle: That is the problem with these types of questions, which ask for the date on which there was a meeting.

Mr. Sargent: There is hardly any point in coming in here if that is the only reason to ask a question.

An Ceann Comhairle: The substance of this question cannot be widened beyond what is asked.

Mr. Sargent: I will leave it at that. I know this ship was brought in to promote beer, but with regard to the cost to the Irish taxpayer of preventing terrorism——

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to allow the Taoiseach to answer.

Mr. Sargent: Does the Taoiseach have anything to say on the role of the high level group with regard to anti-terrorist operations when it is presented with such an obvious provocation or draw to terrorists?

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to give way to the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach: When any of these ships come in, the Garda and the Defence Forces are consulted and they express their concerns. As far as the high level group is concerned, a number of Deputies here — including Deputies Kenny and Rabbitte — know that it is better if we do not get into the issues in security briefings. There are always highly sensitive issues, and there is ongoing work and co-operation. It is happening every day across a range of areas.

Anything I might say would be unhelpful to the operations, although I am briefed on them from time to time. It is not that often, but it happens when there is a requirement. Senior people are involved in these issues, which take in security, intelligence and co-operation. There is a level of co-operation across frontiers, including Scotland Yard, Europol and Eurojust. There is co-operation with the United States on issues such as narcotics and arms.

It is an everyday issue, and Deputies can take it as such. There would be nothing helpful in me discussing these issues, other than to tell Deputies how the process works.

Mr. Sargent: The Taoiseach’s statement today was not very helpful either.

Mr. Kenny: Have we ever had any simulated exercises in dealing with an emergency? These issues can be tested in theory but processes will only be put in practice if, unfortunately, an inci[680]dent occurs. The best way to deal with this is to have a trial exercise.

When was the national emergency plan for nuclear accidents, NEPNA, last updated? A previous Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, sent around iodine tablets, which are now long out of date. Is there a proposal for a substitute?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has gone well outside the scope of the question.

Mr. O’Dowd: We will read the Fianna Fáil manifesto.

Mr. Kenny: The issue arises in the event of an emergency following a possible terrorist attack on Sellafield.

An Ceann Comhairle: I appreciate that but I have ruled on this for Deputy Sargent.

Mr. Kenny: That was the reason the tablets were circulated in the first place.

The Taoiseach: Stocks are available to the best of my knowledge. The national emergency plan for nuclear accidents is evolving, and it is also on an international level.

The Deputy’s first question was on simulated emergency exercises. There has been a number of these. I know that some at sea have been done this summer, and a very big one has been carried out in Dublin Airport. That was a simulation of a major crash, and all services were used. It took several hours in late spring. The exercises continue so that we can consider response times and difficulties that might arise.

There are approximately three exercises a year. Huge effort is put into them. There is now a dedicated staff working to determine responses and consider what happens with services in action. They report on what occurs and relevant organisations are engaged with on any difficulties which arise. A core group works on this service the whole time.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Has the high level group addressed the issue of the use of Shannon Airport by US forces? Has it addressed the Council of Europe report on this Government’s complicity in facilitating so-called extraordinary rendition of prisoners?

The Taoiseach: The group does not deal with such matters. Line Ministers deal with that. Our policy is that we are totally opposed to rendition of prisoners.

3. Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with an Iraqi parliamentary delegation during its recent visit here. [24577/06]

4. Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet the President of the European Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25547/06]

5. Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the foreign visits he intends undertaking during the remainder of 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25550/06]

The Taoiseach: I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, together.

On 21 June I met a delegation of senior political representatives from the main political groupings in Iraq. The delegation was visiting Ireland, both North and South, to discuss and learn from the Irish peace process. On behalf of the Prime Minister of Iraq, Mr. Nuri al-Maliki, the delegation conveyed good wishes to Ireland and the Irish people.

I reassured the delegation of the continued support of Ireland and the EU to help the new national unity government in Iraq to achieve unity, peace and prosperity for the people of Iraq. In the course of our discussions, I raised the matter of the murder of Margaret Hassan and I asked for assistance in this issue.

I will attend the ASEM VI summit in Helsinki on 11 September. I will also travel to Berlin on 9 October for a meeting with Chancellor Merkel. On 20 October, I will travel to Finland for an informal meeting of heads of state or Government. I will also meet the President of the European Commission and the college of commissioners on 8 November in Brussels. I will attend the European Council on 14 and 15 December.

Mr. Rabbitte: When the Taoiseach met the Iraqi delegation, did he inform the members of which side he was on with regard to the Iraqi war? It seems to vary depending on to whom the Taoiseach is speaking. Did the Taoiseach raise the disturbing accounts of abuse of human rights? There are reported accounts of massacre of civilians. Has the Taoiseach made any complaint in this regard to the US authorities?

Does the Taoiseach accept now, three years on, that the invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster for a majority of the people? The violence is worsening every day, and horror follows horror on a daily basis. The work of the suicide bombers is threatening to create a sectarian conflict in the country. At least with the benefit of hindsight, does the Taoiseach acknowledge that the invasion has been disastrous?

The Taoiseach: Deputy Rabbitte knows the Irish position in the two years that led up to the war, when we were on the UN Security Council. Our diplomats, and the Ministers of the time, did everything they could to avoid a war in the first place. That was the Irish position. We did some very good work on the Security Council, and our respected ambassador, Mr. Richard Ryan, [682]chaired committees on the Security Council and put in an extraordinary effort to avoid the conflict, particularly without an explicit UN resolution.

When we were not on the Security Council, we did not have the same say on the issue. History will record that the work of Ambassador Ryan in particular was very helpful. It was helpful because he had good relationships and he was a senior diplomat. He tried hard to pull the Security Council together. That was not going to work later on anyway, as the American and British Governments had decided what to do.

My meeting with the representatives of these groups was not long, but I was struck by their determination to try to make a very difficult situation work and make the democratic process work. They pointed out that, unfortunately, their history has for hundreds of years, with various invasions and conflicts, always been horrendously violent. It is a sad predicament. All we can do is hope that with the current efforts of the United Nations, and Iraq’s own administration, some sense of reasoning can be brought to the matter.

It is a very difficult position. The picture painted by the Deputy is the reality today, including suicide bombers trying to find locations where they can kill the maximum number of people. They attack places of worship, and how they can top that I do not know. The international community, especially those members who were so anxious to participate in the first place, should not abandon them now. There are many UN resolutions. The international community must try to assist them, not just abandon them in the short term because that is one of their biggest concerns as they move forward.

While my meeting with them was brief, I specifically mentioned some of the atrocities, the fact that the world looks at all these matters and that they cannot very well speak about some of the issues that happened and not follow issues in the future. I specifically raised that in the context of the Margaret Hassan case where we have been active on behalf of the family, both living in Kenmare in Ireland, in the UK and elsewhere, to achieve progress on this. The leader of the delegation gave an undertaking that they would try to help in this case. The assistance we seek in this case on behalf of her family is to find her remains. To try to do that at least for the Hassan family would do much to show people their humane concern.

Mr. Kenny: Arising from Deputy Rabbitte’s correct comment about the horrific incidents occurring in Iraq, did the Taoiseach raise with the delegation the issue, raised in this House on a number of occasions, of the apparently scandalous fraud that has gone on in the spending of the money —€23 billion — for the reconstruction of Iraq? I understand that 363 tonnes of $100 bills were shipped to Iraq and that there was a case being made for a UN investigation into the [683]serious allegations of fraud in the way that money was being spent and misused. Obviously, the visiting delegation would know only too well the difficulties being experienced by ordinary people in Iraq because no facilities have been provided with the result that terrorism and that kind of activity has cut loose. Did the Taoiseach raise that with the delegation?

Obviously, Mr. Balkenende’s Government’s time is at an end and a general election has been called in Holland. Is it the Taoiseach’s view that of the small number of remaining countries where a referendum is required in respect of the European Constitution, nothing will happen until after the French general election and after the general election in Holland, a country where there were two difficulties in the context of its referendum result which were more local than European? Britain obviously has a problem with holding a referendum on this given the run in to its general election. The Taoiseach confirmed in the House that there probably will not be a referendum in this country until after the next general election.

An Ceann Comhairle: We have moved well outside the questions before us.

Mr. Kenny: It is a European matter on Questions Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive.

An Ceann Comhairle: No. There is one question which asks when the Taoiseach expects to meet the President of the European Commission, but it does not say anything about the matter raised.

Mr. Kenny: The heading is European questions.

An Ceann Comhairle: It broadens it.

Mr. Kenny: This is the last day of Taoiseach’s questions for this session.

An Ceann Comhairle: We will never move through questions if Deputy Kenny takes that broad approach. On account of it being the last day of Taoiseach’s questions,——

Mr. Kenny: The Ceann Comhairle will not have this again until next October. Will he show some leniency from his exalted position in that Chair? What is wrong with him?

An Ceann Comhairle: ——I am showing Deputy Kenny leniency on all his questions.

Mr. Kenny: The Taoiseach knows the answers to these questions anyway and he is only too willing to give that valuable information to the nation.

Mr. T. O’Malley: A real Mayo man.

[684]The Taoiseach: On the first issue about the UN involvement, all these matters must be watched carefully. I know, from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, that there has been regular discussions at the foreign affairs meetings about much of the activities and the UN involvement in them.

On the European Constitution, I had the opportunity of speaking to the Finnish Prime Minister who took over the European Presidency the other day. Having analysed their own positions, more countries are firming up their support for the European Constitution and it is in a stronger position than it was a year ago. Chancellor Angela Merkel and others are probably part of that reason. Finland will ratify, which will bring it to 16 countries. Another one will probably do so. Others are committed to do it as well. The British position was always that they would do it if everybody else did and that they would put the effort into it.

What will happen now is that people will wait. The Dutch situation could improve the position of the European Constitution. Regardless of whether it will, that is the generally held view. How the French deal with it will probably be the crucial factor. Will they try to seek to amend it, which a year on people realise will be much more difficult than some thought? Recently I noted that some are changing their positions, even from what they stated six months ago. They realise that cherry picking will not work. We will just have to wait for what happens next summer regarding the French position.

It will come back to the ratification of the European Constitution in some slightly amended format. There is no support, as Deputy Kenny will know from his own group, for opening up a convention. If the Dutch or the French need an annexe, change, clarification or schedule, that can happen. There is nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Gormley: A declaration.

The Taoiseach: Yes.

Mr. Gormley: Like Ireland got.

The Taoiseach: Yes. That is allowed within the procedures. People do not want to unravel all the good work that Deputy Gormley did on the convention, which I acknowledged, and to go back down that road again. I think it will come around.

Mr. Sargent: Following the passing earlier this morning of the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2006, has the Taoiseach any plans to discuss with his EU counterparts Ireland joining the battle groups?

Following his visit to Finland, the Taoiseach acknowledged that the present draft of the European Constitution will not be adopted but he stated that there would probably be some alteration of some sort. Has he given any thought to [685]that and what exactly he meant by some alteration of some sort?

Will the Taoiseach redraft or raise the present status of the Seville declaration given that it clearly stated that Irish troops would not be participating in overseas operations except where there was authorisation of the UN and there is now a long litany of language as to how Irish troops might participate overseas? Will the Taoiseach be revisiting and defining the Seville declaration so that it has some meaning?

The Taoiseach: I do not want to go into the Defence (Amendment) Bill other than to state — I discussed this with my Finnish colleague — there is a significant movement from all of these countries, the former neutral countries, to involve themselves in the battle group on humanitarian issues and not to encounter the difficulties we had previously in Bosnia Herzegovina and other countries. We will be able to play our part in that and it is good that we do so.

The Seville declaration is clear and that would form the basis of the European Constitution in whatever form. That will remain in it. It does not require definition. It is clear. I stated in this House at that time what it meant.

I cannot be specific about what amendments the Dutch or the French might examine. There is a live debate in both countries about the kinds of things that perhaps they would look to include in the debate. They must come to the conclusion of that. I am almost certain that will not happen until after the Dutch general election in the autumn and after the French presidential election next year.

Mr. Gormley: On a point of order, did the Taoiseach state “the former neutral countries”? He stated that, did he not? He stated “the former neutral countries”.

The Taoiseach: I said the countries——

Mr. Gormley: He stated “former neutral”, did he not?

The Taoiseach: I am not sure if I did or not.

Mr. Gormley: He did.

The Taoiseach: What if I did? They have changed their position, as Deputy Gormley will know. There is a live debate in Sweden and Finland about joining NATO. They are changing their position fundamentally.

Mr. Gormley: So are we.

The Taoiseach: We are not. We will find ourselves in a very different position from that group. The reality is they have moved their position whereas we have not.

Mr. Sargent: Yes, we have.

[686]Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: During his meeting with the Iraqi parliamentary delegation, did the Taoiseach seek an account of the level of civilian casualties since the commencement of the war in Iraq? Is he aware the number is estimated at 43,000? Does he have information to shed light on the factual position? In light of his special facilitation of the ongoing war in Iraq, does the Taoiseach think it is incumbent on him to establish the true reality of civilian deaths and injuries?

The Taoiseach: I did not discuss those issues with the parliamentary delegation.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Will the Taoiseach seek the information?

Mr. Timmins: How many Irish nationals live in Iraq? Has the State official lines of contact with them?

The Taoiseach: Our embassy has a small number. I recall seeing them at the time of the two kidnappings with the Bigley and Hassan families. There are Irish nationals in Iraq and contact is maintained. Those who are there sought to stay. The number is small but contact is maintained.

An Ceann Comhairle: Before coming to the Order of Business I propose to deal with a number of notices under Standing Order 31.

Mr. McHugh: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to raise a matter of national importance, namely, the need for the development of a comprehensive policy for the care of the elderly; specifically to ensure that the policy being pursued by the HSE is in conformity with Government policy; the need for the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children to communicate immediately with the HSE to reverse the decision of the HSE western region to cap the monthly allocation towards the purchase of incontinent wear; the need to ensure older persons who reside in nursing homes are constitutionally accorded the same rights as people in the community; and to ensure all services available to medical card holders living in the community must continue to be available to those requiring long-term residential care.

Mr. Gogarty: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to raise a matter of national importance, namely, the findings of the Dalton report, the issues raised as a result of this report; the wider implications for the greyhound racing industry; the wider issues regarding Government investment in sports whereby, incredibly, 37% of all sports funding goes to the horse and greyhound racing industries; and the need for the Government and, particularly, the [687]Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism to make a full statement in the House in advance of the recess.

Ms C. Murphy: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to raise a matter of national importance, namely, the increased waiting lists for services to children with autism spectrum disorder; the increasing number seeking speech and language and occupational therapy services in the eastern region who are forced to go on waiting lists rather than receive services; this together with the deficiency of school places with home tuition being accepted as a stop gap measure by parents; and the failure to provide adequately for predictable needs and fund services which has resulted in a situation where all of the children of the State are not cherished equally.

Dr. Cowley: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to raise a matter of national importance, namely, the reason a quarry at Breaffy, Castlebar, County Mayo, continues to operate illegally and is left in a very dangerous condition with sheer drops of 100 ft into a hole in the ground extending over several acres, which is located in close proximity to a packed national school of 300 pupils with no proper barrier to prevent a fatal accident. The quarry is extending relentlessly closer to the adjoining lands and school, which will within another six months be within 60 metres of the school and which will be the scene of a fatal accident if nothing is done soon.

Mr. Ring: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to raise a matter of national importance, namely, the need for the Government to investigate why it is taking the Department of Social and Family Affairs so long to process pension claims resulting in applicants facing a delay of up to 15 weeks, despite the applications being submitted three months in advance of pension age; to investigate why 6,000 respite grant applicants are waiting for decisions on their claims; and the Government’s proposals to deal with this issue.

Mr. Sargent: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to raise a matter of national importance, namely, to examine the reasons the Government refused the Standards in Public Office Commission powers to investigate allegations of corruption or wrongdoing and the need to combat the ingrained cultural acceptance of corruption in Ireland, according to Transparency International.

Mr. Gormley: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to raise a matter of national importance, namely, the ongoing crisis in Gaza and the need for Israel and the European [688]Union to seek a solution to the crisis to ensure the living conditions of ordinary people can be improved by repairing damaged infrastructure and the need to condemn further attacks by Israel on power plants and the facilities vital for life.

An Ceann Comhairle: Having considered the matters raised they are not in order under Standing Order 31.

The Taoiseach: It is proposed to take No. a12, motion re Report of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Bombing of Kay’s Tavern, Dundalk; No. 20, Road Traffic Bill 2006 [Seanad] — Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; No. 21, Statements on national wage agreement, to be taken following the announcement of matters on the adjournment under Standing Order 21 and the order shall resume thereafter; No. 3, Building Societies (Amendment) Bill 2006 — Order for Second Stage, Second and Remaining Stages; No. 1a, Criminal Justice Bill 2004 — amendments from the Seanad; and No. 2, National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002 — amendments from the Seanad.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. and business shall be interrupted not later than midnight; (2) No. a12 shall be decided without debate; (3) the Report and Final Stages of No. 20 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in regard to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Transport; (4) the proceedings on No. 21 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 4.45 p.m. and the statements shall be confined to the Taoiseach and the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order and who may share time, which shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; (5) the Second and Remaining Stages of No. 3 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 11 p.m. and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the proceedings on Second Stage shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 85 minutes; the speeches shall be confined to a Minister or Minister of State and to the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order and who may share their time, which shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case; and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply, which shall not exceed five minutes; (ii) the proceedings on the Committee and Remaining Stages shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion [689]at 11 p.m. by one question, which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in regard to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; (6) the proceedings on No. 1a shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 30 minutes, and any amendments from the Seanad not disposed of shall be decided by one question, which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in regard to amendments to the Seanad amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; and (7) the proceedings on No. 2 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at midnight, and any amendments from the Seanad not disposed of shall be decided by one question, which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in regard to amendments to the Seanad amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Taoiseach.

Private Members’ business shall be No. 56, motion re Government Record resumed, to conclude at 8.30 p.m.

An Ceann Comhairle: There are seven proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. a12 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 20 agreed?

Mr. Kenny: My objection has nothing to do with the Bill itself, but the arrangement to take all Stages together.

Mr. Rabbitte: I have a similar view. This Bill is extremely important and with 64 amendments [690]tabled there is no way a fraction of them will be touched on. Once again, there is no necessity for us to be railroaded into this position. A few additional days could have provided for the proper scrutiny of legislation such as this.

Mr. Sargent: The Road Traffic Bill is a life and death issue. It does not do justice to the legislation to truncate it in this fashion. It needs additional time. We oppose taking it in this way.

12 o’clock

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I join with other voices in the Chamber in making the case for lifting the guillotine on the Road Traffic Bill. The case is well made regarding the number of amendments tabled and the fact that clearly by 7 p.m. we will not have addressed the greater number of them. Therefore, scrutiny of the legislation will be imperfect. It is not appropriate that this is rushed through on the eve of the summer recess. Further time should be allowed. It is of great importance.

Question put: “That the proposal for dealing with No. 20 be agreed to.”

The Dáil divided by electronic means.

Mr. Kehoe: As a teller, under Standing Order 69 I propose that the vote be taken by other than electronic means.

An Ceann Comhairle: As Deputy Kehoe is a Whip, under Standing Order 69 he is entitled to call a vote through the lobby.

Question again put: “That the proposal for dealing with No. 20 be agreed to.”

[689]The Dáil divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 62.

Tá
Ahern, Bertie.	Ahern, Michael.
Andrews, Barry.	Ardagh, Seán.
Brady, Johnny.	Brady, Martin.
Brennan, Seamus.	Browne, John.
Callanan, Joe.	Callely, Ivor.
Carey, Pat.	Carty, John.
Collins, Michael.	Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
Coughlan, Mary.	Cregan, John.
Cullen, Martin.	Curran, John.
Davern, Noel.	de Valera, Síle.
Dempsey, Noel.	Dempsey, Tony.
Dennehy, John.	Devins, Jimmy.
Ellis, John.	Fahey, Frank.
Finneran, Michael.	Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
Fleming, Seán.	Fox, Mildred.
Gallagher, Pat The Cope.	Glennon, Jim.
Grealish, Noel.	Hanafin, Mary.
Harney, Mary.	Haughey, Seán.
Healy, Seamus.	Hoctor, Máire.
Jacob, Joe.	Keaveney, Cecilia.
Kelly, Peter.	Killeen, Tony.
Kirk, Seamus.	Kitt, Tom.
Lenihan, Brian.	Lenihan, Conor.
McEllistrim, Thomas.	McGuinness, John.
Moloney, John.	Moynihan, Donal.
Moynihan, Michael.	Mulcahy, Michael.
Nolan, M. J.	Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
O’Connor, Charlie.	O’Dea, Willie.
[691]O’Donnell, Liz.	O’Donoghue, John.
O’Donovan, Denis.	O’Flynn, Noel.
O’Keeffe, Batt.	O’Keeffe, Ned.
O’Malley, Fiona.	O’Malley, Tim.
Parlon, Tom.	Power, Peter.
Power, Seán.	Sexton, Mae.
Smith, Brendan.	Smith, Michael.
Treacy, Noel.	Wallace, Mary.
Walsh, Joe.	Woods, Michael.
Wright, G. V.

[691]Níl
Breen, James.	Breen, Pat.
Broughan, Thomas P.	Bruton, Richard.
Burton, Joan.	Connaughton, Paul.
Connolly, Paudge.	Costello, Joe.
Cowley, Jerry.	Crawford, Seymour.
Crowe, Seán.	Cuffe, Ciarán.
Deasy, John.	Deenihan, Jimmy.
Durkan, Bernard J.	English, Damien.
Enright, Olwyn.	Ferris, Martin.
Gilmore, Eamon.	Gogarty, Paul.
Gormley, John.	Gregory, Tony.
Hayes, Tom.	Healy, Seamus.
Higgins, Michael D.	Hogan, Phil.
Howlin, Brendan.	Kehoe, Paul.
Kenny, Enda.	Lynch, Kathleen.
McCormack, Pádraic.	McEntee, Shane.
McGrath, Finian.	McGrath, Paul.
McHugh, Paddy.	McManus, Liz.
Mitchell, Olivia.	Murphy, Catherine.
Murphy, Gerard.	Naughten, Denis.
Neville, Dan.	Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
O’Dowd, Fergus.	O’Keeffe, Jim.
O’Shea, Brian.	O’Sullivan, Jan.
Pattison, Seamus.	Penrose, Willie.
Perry, John.	Quinn, Ruairí.
Rabbitte, Pat.	Ring, Michael.
Ryan, Seán.	Sargent, Trevor.
Sherlock, Joe.	Shortall, Róisín.
Stagg, Emmet.	Stanton, David.
Timmins, Billy.	Twomey, Liam.
Upton, Mary.	Wall, Jack.

[691]Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelleher and Kitt; Níl, Deputies Kehoe and Stagg.

[691]Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle: Before continuing with the Order of Business, I would like to welcome Lord Glentoran from Northern Ireland. I offer a céad míle fáilte. He is very welcome and I hope he has a very enjoyable visit.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal for dealing with No. 21, the conclusion of statements on the national wage agreement agreed?

Mr. Sargent: Are the statements intended to be part of a commitment in the agreement to engage with the political process? A line in the agreement states that the parties involved will meet with the political process. Does this refer to the parties in opposition as well as those in government? Are these statements an enactment of that proposal or is there another dimension to it and [692]do these statements stand alone, nothing more and nothing less?

The Taoiseach: The fact that we will be making statements on it will mean we will be engaging with that. However, as I outlined here recently, the Seanad will debate more of the interim reports of the social partnership process, and committees of the House already do so. I hope that it is all part of that. People want to make brief statements on it before the end of the session. We already had a debate on it in the Seanad.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 3, conclusion of Second and Subsequent Stages of the Building Societies (Amendment) Bill 2006, agreed?

Mr. Kenny: It is not agreed. This is not the way to do business. We have awaited this Bill for a long time and, on the second last day of the Dáil [693]session, I object to all Stages being taken in this way. The Government Whip is aware of our difficulty in doing business in this way. It has nothing to do with the Bill. This is not the way to order business.

Mr. Gilmore: The Government has been preparing this Bill for approximately three years. I have a copy of the Dáil schedule for the spring session 2004, which promised publication of the Bill by Easter 2004. The Bill was not published until three weeks ago and the Government now proposes to allow approximately two hours to put it through all Stages in the House late tonight. It is complex legislation that provides for two separate sets of rules for two different building societies and requires considerably more scrutiny by the House than two hours would allow this evening. If it is put through in two hours this evening, it could come back to haunt the promoters.

Mr. Sargent: This Bill is rushed to the point of being reckless. Given the subject matter and the small number of individuals who will be affected directly by the legislation, I do not understand why it must take precedence over other urgent legislation and why it must be rushed before the recess. I have not been given reasons for doing so that stand up. I therefore object to it being rushed tonight.

[694]Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Sinn Féin cannot agree to the proposal to guillotine all Stages of the Building Societies (Amendment) Bill 2006. This Bill will provide for the demutualisation of a number of building societies, including the Irish Nationwide Building Society. We are very cognisant of the concerns of many people who have had experience of the regime operated by the management of that building society throughout the years. We need proper Committee and Report Stages to address all the import of this legislation, which cannot be accommodated in the time afforded this evening. Accordingly, I record our opposition and request that it be removed from the guillotine process today.

Question put: “That the proposal for dealing with No. 3 be agreed.”

The Dáil divided by electronic means.

Mr. Stagg: Given that we are witnessing the making of law by the Executive rather than by Parliament and to keep Deputy Davern out of harm’s way, as a teller, under Standing Order 69 I propose that the vote be taken by other than electronic means.

An Ceann Comhairle: As Deputy Stagg is a Whip, under Standing Order 69 he is entitled to call a vote through the lobby.

Question again put: “That the proposal for dealing with No. 3 be agreed.”

[693]The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 58.

Tá
Ahern, Bertie.	Ahern, Noel.
Andrews, Barry.	Ardagh, Seán.
Brady, Johnny.	Brady, Martin.
Brennan, Seamus.	Browne, John.
Callanan, Joe.	Carey, Pat.
Carty, John.	Collins, Michael.
Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.	Coughlan, Mary.
Cregan, John.	Cullen, Martin.
Curran, John.	Davern, Noel.
de Valera, Síle.	Dempsey, Noel.
Dempsey, Tony.	Dennehy, John.
Devins, Jimmy.	Ellis, John.
Fahey, Frank.	Finneran, Michael.
Fitzpatrick, Dermot.	Fleming, Seán.
Fox, Mildred.	Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
Glennon, Jim.	Grealish, Noel.
Hanafin, Mary.	Harney, Mary.
Haughey, Seán.	Healy-Rae, Jackie.
Hoctor, Máire.	Jacob, Joe.
Keaveney, Cecilia.	Kelly, Peter.
Killeen, Tony.	Kirk, Seamus.
Kitt, Tom.	Lenihan, Brian.
Lenihan, Conor.	McDowell, Michael.
McGuinness, John.	Moloney, John.
Moynihan, Donal.	Moynihan, Michael.
Mulcahy, Michael.	Nolan, M. J.
Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.	O’Connor, Charlie.
O’Dea, Willie.	O’Donnell, Liz.
O’Donoghue, John.	O’Donovan, Denis.
O’Keeffe, Batt.	O’Keeffe, Ned.
O’Malley, Fiona.	O’Malley, Tim.
Parlon, Tom.	Power, Peter.
Power, Seán.	Roche, Dick.
[695]Sexton, Mae.	Smith, Brendan.
Smith, Michael.	Treacy, Noel.
Wallace, Mary.	Walsh, Joe.
Woods, Michael.	Wright, G. V.

[695]Níl
Breen, James.	Breen, Pat.
Broughan, Thomas P.	Bruton, Richard.
Burton, Joan.	Connaughton, Paul.
Connolly, Paudge.	Costello, Joe.
Cowley, Jerry.	Crawford, Seymour.
Crowe, Seán.	Cuffe, Ciarán.
Deasy, John.	Deenihan, Jimmy.
Durkan, Bernard J.	English, Damien.
Enright, Olwyn.	Ferris, Martin.
Gilmore, Eamon.	Gogarty, Paul.
Gormley, John.	Gregory, Tony.
Hayes, Tom.	Healy, Seamus.
Higgins, Michael D.	Hogan, Phil.
Howlin, Brendan.	Kehoe, Paul.
Kenny, Enda.	Lynch, Kathleen.
McCormack, Pádraic.	McGrath, Finian.
McGrath, Paul.	McHugh, Paddy.
McManus, Liz.	Mitchell, Olivia.
Naughten, Denis.	Neville, Dan.
Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.	O’Dowd, Fergus.
O’Keeffe, Jim.	O’Shea, Brian.
O’Sullivan, Jan.	Pattison, Seamus.
Penrose, Willie.	Perry, John.
Quinn, Ruairí.	Rabbitte, Pat.
Ring, Michael.	Ryan, Seán.
Sargent, Trevor.	Sherlock, Joe.
Shortall, Róisín.	Stagg, Emmet.
Stanton, David.	Timmins, Billy.
Upton, Mary.	Wall, Jack.

[695]Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Kehoe and Stagg.

[695]Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal for dealing with No. 1a, the Criminal Justice Bill 2004 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 2, the conclusion of the National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002 agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Kenny: I understand that the written judgment on the Mr. A case from the Supreme Court will be published on Monday. The Sullivan report, the internal inquiry into the breakdown in communications between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General, is imminent. Both will appear after the Dáil is in summer recess. Some Deputies in the Opposition want the committee being set up, which has been agreed in principle, to have an opportunity to discuss the Sullivan report to learn from it. I have no intention of turning it into a Star Chamber where one can call the Attorney General or the DPP. Is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform willing to concede that? Arising from a serious constitutional crisis, it is important that we find out, based on the Sullivan report, what happened and what went wrong. Would the Taoiseach like the select committee to discuss that report? Will [696]we be asking the Government Chief Whip to schedule a debate in the House in the autumn? I would prefer if the matter could be dealt with by the select committee.

Will the medical practitioners Bill be published in late 2006? Is the education Ireland Bill dealing with teaching English to students as a foreign language, due for publication in late 2006?

The Taoiseach: The medical practitioners Bill is due later this year and the education Ireland Bill is due early next year.

I have not kept abreast of committee discussions but have endeavoured to ensure the Sullivan report will be published tonight or tomorrow. I have no difficulty with people raising this issue. I do not think there is anything in the report that will have a bearing on matters, other than that I hope some lessons will be learned from it.

Mr. Kenny: I am pleased to hear the Taoiseach state that.

An Ceann Comhairle: We cannot have a debate on it now.

Mr. Durkan: We are not having a debate on it.

[697]An Ceann Comhairle: The Chair has been generous and a number of Deputies are offering.

Mr. Kenny: I hope the committee will be able to deal with the report.

Mr. Stagg: On a point of order, the Ceann Comhairle has indicated he will not allow Members other than party leaders raise——

An Ceann Comhairle: I did not indicate any such thing.

Mr. Durkan: I am delighted to hear that.

Mr. Stagg: I am glad to hear that.

An Ceann Comhairle: At 1 p.m. the Chair intends to move on to the next business.

Mr. Stagg: For the past few days, on the Order of Business, the Ceann Comhairle has done this and denied Deputies——

An Ceann Comhairle: If Deputy Stagg reads Standing Order 26——

Mr. Stagg: I will not be shouted down on this point.

An Ceann Comhairle: ——it is entirely at the discretion of the Chair. Not one of my predecessors allowed so many people to raise issues on the Order of Business.

Mr. Stagg: On the second last day of the session, this is the only opportunity Members other than the Front Bench have of raising matters in the House.

Cecilia Keaveney: The Opposition has wasted time with votes.

An Ceann Comhairle: Members have continuously——

Mr. Stagg: Is the Ceann Comhairle objecting to votes in the House? Is the Ceann Comhairle stating that we will be punished for voting?

An Ceann Comhairle: No, Deputy, I did not say I would punish you.

Mr. Stagg: That is what you are doing. If we have divisions in the House, ordinary Members will be punished by denial of the right to raise issues on the Order of Business that are in order.

An Ceann Comhairle: That is not what I am saying.

Mr. Stagg: When my turn comes, I wish to raise a matter concerning legislation but you indicated you will not allow it. Many other Members have indicated they would like to do likewise.

[698]An Ceann Comhairle: I will if Deputy Stagg’s turn comes before 1 p.m. Please allow Deputy Rabbitte to speak.

Mr. Stagg: I want an indication that the Ceann Comhairle will allow us to raise matters.

An Ceann Comhairle: I suggest Deputy Stagg read Standing Orders. If he is not satisfied with Standing Orders he can try to change them.

Mr. Stagg: I am quite happy with Standing Orders and with the precedent in the House that Members——

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Rabbitte.

Mr. Stagg: ——are entitled to ask about promised legislation on the Order of Business.

An Ceann Comhairle: The precedent of the House is that the Chair calls two or three Members. That has happened for the past 50 years.

Mr. Stagg: You are denying us that right because we called a vote. That is the reason.

An Ceann Comhairle: It is not because you called a vote.

Mr. Stagg: What is the reason?

Cecilia Keaveney: They are wasting time.

An Ceann Comhairle: The reason is that I must take account of the length of time we are in the House, even if there had not been a vote this morning.

Mr. Stagg: We can sit next week. There is no shortage of time.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Rabbitte has been called. The House has just voted to move on to its business because Members wanted more time to discuss amendments. The Deputy cannot have it both ways. I call Deputy Rabbitte.

Mr. Rabbitte: My colleague, Deputy Howlin, advised me yesterday that he had been informally told that the O’Sullivan report was completed. The Taoiseach has confirmed that and that he has read it. Given that the issue convulsed the country, most people will find it difficult to understand how we can shut down the Dáil without an opportunity to discuss it. Will the Taoiseach confirm that he will make the report available to the spokespersons on justice so they will have an opportunity to reflect on it before the Order of Business tomorrow?

Does the Government intend to take action to deal with the fact that 12,000 senior citizens, recently retired, have been advised that they will [699]have to wait three months before they get their pension entitlements?

An Ceann Comhairle: That does not arise on the Order of Business. It is a matter for a line Minister.

Mr. Quinn: Three and a half months.

Mr. McCormack: Four months.

Mr. Rabbitte: How are these people, some of whom will be in serious distress, supposed to live in the interim?

An Ceann Comhairle: That is a matter for the line Minister.

Mr. Rabbitte: It is a matter for the Government.

An Ceann Comhairle: It is a matter for the line Minister. The Taoiseach, on the first question.

The Taoiseach: On the first question, as I said yesterday, I am endeavouring to get the report out as quickly as possible.

Ms McManus: What does that mean?

The Taoiseach: I answered that yesterday.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Extracts of the Carey report were leaked to the national media last week. What is the Government’s position with regard to that report into the tragic death of Pat Joe Walsh at Monaghan General Hospital?

The Taoiseach: That report has not been published because of legal issues.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: When will it happen?

The Taoiseach: I do not know.

Mr. McCormack: When will legislation be introduced to remove the bar on pharmacists who got their qualifications in other EU countries practising in Ireland? I refer to the pharmacy Bill. The current situation has led to restrictions and some pharmacists cannot practise in Ireland as a result.

The Taoiseach: It will be later this year.

Mr. Sherlock: When is the legislation to give corporate status to the Voluntary Health Insurance board likely to be published?

The Taoiseach: That is listed for late 2006. The heads of the Bill have been approved.

Mr. Sargent: Will the Taoiseach consider, on tomorrow’s Order of Business, allowing the Dáil to sit a further week so the Sullivan report and [700]other important matters can be dealt with? Yesterday I asked the Taoiseach what would be the title of the legislation to implement the recommendations of the Kenny report. Does he have a name for the Bill? Will it be called the price of land suitable for building Bill or the control of speculators Bill?

The Taoiseach: I do not have the name of the Bill but it will try to implement the recommendations of the all-party committee report.

Ms Enright: Is the Taoiseach aware of an anomaly caused by a ban on the employment of staff nurses in some HSE areas and a resulting reduction in agency nurses of 25%?

An Ceann Comhairle: That does not arise on the Order of Business.

Ms Enright: This relates to promised legislation, the nurses and midwives Bill, and it is causing particular difficulty in Portlaoise and Tullamore hospitals.

The Taoiseach: That legislation is due in 2007.

Ms Shortall: With regard to the Aer Lingus Act, the Taoiseach has said on a number of occasions that part of the proceeds from the sale of Aer Lingus will be used to make up the shortfall in the staff pension fund. It now transpires, following publication of the general principles yesterday——

An Ceann Comhairle: Has the Deputy a question on legislation?

Ms Shortall: ——that the Government has no intention of doing that and that it will leave the pensioners high and dry.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Broughan.

Ms Shortall: Does the Taoiseach wish to avail of this opportunity to correct the record of the House?

An Ceann Comhairle: That does not arise on the Order of Business.

Ms Shortall: He made that statement on a number of occasions.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Broughan.

Ms Shortall: A Cheann Comhairle, we were assured by the Taoiseach that the pensioners in Aer Lingus would be looked after. It now transpires that this will not happen.

An Ceann Comhairle: It does not arise on the Order of Business.

Ms Shortall: The Government is going to take the money and run.

[701]An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should submit a question to the line Minister.

Ms Shortall: It is a matter for the record of the House. The Taoiseach said that a number of times and I am asking if he wishes to correct the record.

An Ceann Comhairle: It will be debated in the House tomorrow when there will be a motion before the House.

Ms Shortall: It is a matter of the Taoiseach misleading the House.

The Taoiseach: Deputy Shortall is correct that I said the pensions issue is part of the principles of the Bill and the Minister will outline that tomorrow. Pensions will be part of it.

Ms Shortall: The Taoiseach said the proceeds would be used to make up the shortfall in the pension fund.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Broughan.

Ms Shortall: The Taoiseach has given that assurance——

An Ceann Comhairle: We cannot have a debate on it now.

Ms Shortall: ——and he is now reneging on it.

The Taoiseach: I am not.

Ms Shortall: The Taoiseach has misled the House on that, as well as the pensioners and the staff.

Mr. N. Dempsey: Deputy Shortall is attempting to mislead the House.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Broughan. Deputy Shortall should resume her seat.

Ms Shortall: Did the Taoiseach do that deliberately? He has made false statements——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy must withdraw that remark.

Ms Shortall: The Taoiseach has misled the House.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy must withdraw the remark unequivocally.

Ms Shortall: I will withdraw it if the Taoiseach corrects the record.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy must withdraw the remark unequivocally or leave the House.

Ms Shortall: I withdraw it, but——

[702]An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Broughan.

Ms Shortall: ——it is true.

Mr. Broughan: I have a question for the Chair first before my question for the Taoiseach. A Cheann Comhairle, you ruled out of order a tranche of questions, as you sometimes do, relating to the communications portfolio and specifically one question on arrears owed to——

An Ceann Comhairle: That is not relevant to the Order of Business.

Mr. Broughan: The post office network is the responsibility of that Minister.

An Ceann Comhairle: If the Deputy wishes to resubmit the questions to my office, I will look at them this afternoon.

Mr. Broughan: I will resubmit that question. My question to the Taoiseach relates to the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Last week the clár for the Dáil stated that there would be a motion before the House yesterday. I took that to mean a tranche of amendments for the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which we are due to discuss next week on Committee Stage. Will the Bill be dealt with on Committee Stage or will the Minister produce a new Bill in October?

The Taoiseach: It will be discussed on Committee Stage next week. There is no new Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Durkan.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: A Cheann Comhairle, I have been trying to speak for ten minutes. I signalled to the Chair ten minutes ago.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Durkan.

Mr. Durkan: I received a considerable amount of correspondence from the Ceann Comhairle’s office in the past 24 hours. I am always delighted to get such communications but was it really necessary to write to me 36 times to tell me about the issues that were not relevant to the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources? It is a good job I had put down 37 questions.

An Ceann Comhairle: It does not arise on the Order of Business. If the Deputy wishes, he can come to my office and I will be glad to discuss them with him. I call Deputy Connolly.

Mr. Durkan: I have been a Member of the House almost as long as the Ceann Comhairle and I am as good a judge as to what is or is not relevant as any other Member of the House. I have never previously seen Question Time emasculated to the extent that the Minister is not [703]responsible for anything and does not have to answer for anything——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy cannot raise that matter now.

Mr. Durkan: I am raising it now. You always say you have no control over the Minister’s replies——

An Ceann Comhairle: This House passed the legislation that transferred responsibility.

Mr. Durkan: ——but if we are not allowed to ask the questions, we can get nowhere. I wish to lodge the strongest possible protest at this. A total of 36 questions have been ruled out of order and other questions have been decimated and emasculated. The Minister should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. N. Dempsey: I do not disallow them.

Mr. Durkan: You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr. N. Dempsey: Try asking a few relevant questions.

Mr. Durkan: Are you totally irresponsible? Are you responsible for anything? It is no wonder the system is running so badly.

An Ceann Comhairle: I am delighted to inform Deputy Durkan that the number of questions submitted and answered is at an all-time high.

Mr. Durkan: I am not surprised.

An Ceann Comhairle: There were over 43,000 parliamentary questions last year. I am equally delighted to inform him that a smaller percentage of questions are refused now than ever before. I call Deputy Connolly.

Mr. Durkan: I must get them all then.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should be more careful when submitting his questions.

Mr. S. Power: You get the golden boot.

1 o’clock

Mr. Connolly: I wish to ask the Taoiseach about a report which was promised last December. We were assured it would be put into the public domain but it has been leaked because some people were given a view of it. I ask that the Walsh family be apprised of the contents of the report before further leaks occur.

An Ceann Comhairle: That has already been addressed.

[704]Mr. Connolly: The issue was leaked into the public domain by those I have mentioned.

An Ceann Comhairle: That was dealt with this morning.

Mr. Connolly: Will the Walsh family be briefed?

The Taoiseach: I wish the report could be fully published.

Mr. Connolly: Could the family be briefed on it?

The Taoiseach: I will raise that point with the Tánaiste but she does not have a report. There are now legal battles.

Mr. Connolly: This is developing in a way that is distasteful to the family.

The Taoiseach: I agree.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: I wish to raise two Bills, the defamation Bill, which I have long advocated, and the privacy Bill, about which I have considerable reservations because they are driven more by efforts to spancel media comment on ministerial misdemeanours than by anxiety to protect the public interest.

Two issues arise on these Bills. When will they be circulated? The Minister announced them at a press conference yesterday, in breach of parliamentary procedures. I understood that Bills must be circulated within the Houses before they could be announced outside. That should be considered at this afternoon’s meeting of the CPP. Were these Bills announced without Cabinet approval and, if not, when was Cabinet approval given?

The Taoiseach: The press conference to announce the Bills took place yesterday and they have been approved by Cabinet. Considerable work was done on these Bills at Cabinet in the past year. The Bills are being circulated in the normal way, if they have not already been circulated — the text has been available. I have no control over when Bills are circulated but the Cabinet approved the text and the Bills would have gone to the office in the normal way.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: Drafts were sent around by e-mail last night and it was clearly stated that the text would form the basis of the Bills which the Minister will present. It was also stated that the attached text was not definitive and may be subject to change. That was what we received last night after the press conference. I have still not seen a Bill circulated in the House in the normal fashion. What is going on?

[705]Mr. Quinn: Surely the Deputy does not expect the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to consult the Taoiseach on an issue?

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: There are rules, processes and procedures, as the Ceann Comhairle knows.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has pointed out that he intends to ask his Whip to bring the matter to the attention of the CPP.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: I want the Ceann Comhairle to deal with this. I also want to know when the Bills will be circulated in the normal way.

The Taoiseach: I understand that they are being circulated in the normal way.

Mr. Stagg: I asked the Taoiseach last week about secondary legislation under which the Minister for Education and Science would sign the necessary statutory instruments to bring into force the section of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 that will make mandatory the provision of individual education programmes for children with learning difficulties, but I got no answer to that question.

I had hoped the Irish abroad would have television coverage of the all-Ireland hurling and football finals this year following the enactment of the broadcasting Bill. When will that Bill be brought before the House?

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving in to the pressure from Members to allow normal questions on the Order of Business.

An Ceann Comhairle: To be absolutely clear, it is entirely at the discretion of the Chair, there is no divine right.

Mr. Stagg: The Ceann Comhairle had no notion of doing it until we kicked up.

The Taoiseach: The broadcasting Bill is undergoing the consultation process we agreed so it will probably appear in 2007. I asked the Department of Education and Science to supply the details to the Deputy so I apologise that he has not yet received an answer to that question. I will ask again for them today.

Mr. Kehoe: I asked some months ago about the charities regulation Bill. It was promised in the last session and this session. Will the Taoiseach give an undertaking that it will be included in the priority listing for the next session? The Taoiseach has stated that it is complex legislation but I would appreciate if it was published and debated because it is of some importance.

The Taoiseach: The Bill has priority for drafting. It is a long Bill but we hope to publish it in the autumn.

[706]Mr. O’Shea: The full enactment of the Official Languages Act 2003 is imminent and the scheme from the Department of the Taoiseach has long since been accepted. Will the Taoiseach explain why there is not a single reference to the Irish language in the ten-year social partnership draft agreement?

An Ceann Comhairle: That does not arise on the Order of Business. A debate on the agreement is coming up soon.

Mr. O’Shea: This is a ten-year plan without a single word about the Irish language in it.

The Taoiseach: There will be a debate on the agreement.

Mr. Wall: We will go on a long holiday tomorrow and we will be leaving behind two permanent residents who are protesting outside the gates and another person who travels hundreds of miles to protest each week. Now this man’s daughter is travelling from Northern Ireland to protest with him.

An Ceann Comhairle: That does not arise on the Order of Business. The Deputy must find another way to raise the issue.

Ms Burton: There is special legislation before the House today on building societies. There is a long-standing issue on the credit unions and their capacity to lend money for housing and home improvements.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy can raise that issue when the Bill comes before the House.

Ms Burton: The Minister promised that this issue would be considered for reform. This is important to thousands of members of credit unions.

The Taoiseach: I will bring the Deputy’s views to the Minister’s attention.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Kitt): I move:

That Dáil Éireann requests the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights, or a sub-committee thereof, to consider, including in public session, the Report of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Bombing of Kay’s Tavern, Dundalk, for the purpose of making such recommendations in relation to legislative or administrative provisions as the committee [707]considers appropriate, and to report back to Dáil Éireann by 17 November 2006.

An Ceann Comhairle: Amendment No. 1 is out of order.

Dr. Cowley: Why is the amendment out of order?

An Ceann Comhairle: Because there is a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Dr. Cowley: What is the charge on people’s lives? Car accidents are not being properly investigated and people have died as a result. I am calling for a special unit to investigate road traffic accidents.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy might listen to the Chair. When the Chair is speaking, Members must resume their seats.

Dr. Cowley: I do not know why the issue cannot be debated. Something is wrong and I protest.

An Ceann Comhairle: The situation is that there are Standing Orders governing amendments, and amendments that place a charge on the Exchequer are not allowed and never have been allowed. If the Deputy feels that should be changed, he should use the appropriate methods to change it. We cannot spend the day debating amendments that have been ruled out of order.

Ms Shortall: May I make a point on section 2?

An Ceann Comhairle: We do not deal with sections on Report Stage. They were dealt with on Committee Stage. We only deal with amendments on Report Stage, but the Deputy can speak to Deputy Crowe’s amendment.

Amendment No. 1 not moved.

Mr. Crowe: I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, line 21, after “2006” to insert the following:

“/ Achtanna um Tráchtar Bhóithre 1961 go 2006”.

On the previous issue, there is a group that meets on fatalities, with two members of the NRA and six gardaí. It happens unofficially but I do not know how much it costs. The amendment seeks to insert the Irish language wording for Road Traffic Acts at that point. The matter arose in discussions on Committee Stage and I am [708]interested to know why the Minister would be opposed to it. There are similar proposals in later amendments, but I cannot understand why the Irish language wording would not be included in the Bill. We have campaigned in Europe for recognition of the status of the Irish language, so it does not make sense to me why the Minister would not insert that wording in the Bill. The amendment involves a minor technical change and I hope the Minister will agree to it.

Ms Shortall: The Minister gave some assurances following a discussion on this matter on Committee Stage. I want to revisit the issue because queries have been raised with me concerning the legality of this. Section 2 arises out of two Supreme Court rulings on how EU directives are to be transposed. This deals with the issue in the future. I had a concern about the robustness of previous penalties which were applied. On Committee Stage, the Minister indicated that this section would not have any retrospective effect. I am concerned about the national car test, for example, and in particular the offence of driving without displaying an NCT certificate. This is an offence under Article 5, SI 395 of 1999. Last year, there were nearly 17,000 breaches of this regulation. Similarly, in the Kennedy case, the offences were created as a result of an EU directive. In this case, it was 96/96/EC. It was transposed not by the European Communities Act but by the 1961 Road Traffic Act.

Minister for Transport (Mr. Cullen): It is unnecessary to insert the Irish translation of the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2006 here, as suggested by Deputy Crowe. The Bill will be translated into the Irish language when enacted and therefore there is no need for the amendment.

As regards Deputy Shortall’s point, we discussed this at length on Committee Stage. While I am not a legal person, I have obtained legal advice to assure myself in this regard. That advice [709]confirmed what I said on Committee Stage, that the legislation is strong and the previous penalty points are secure. The Deputy is correct in that there is no more challenged law in this country than the road traffic legislation. The view expressed to me, however, is that the position is strong as it is.

Mr. Crowe: I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, line 27, after “phone” to insert the following:

“and any other electronic equipment or general apparatus which may negatively affect a driver’s capacity to drive”.

The original Bill referred to mobile phones, but other electronic equipment is used in vehicles that can impair a driver’s capacity to drive. Such equipment includes electric shavers, DVD players and televisions, which I have seen being used in cars. The amendment aims to strengthen the Bill’s provisions in this respect. The current situation is madness. Everyone accepts that the mobile phone is out, but shavers, DVDs and TVs should be as well.

Mr. Cullen: Essentially, section 3(1) has only one purpose, namely, to put an end to the dangerous practice of holding a mobile phone while driving a motor vehicle. The subsection has been drafted to make it illegal to drive a motor vehicle while holding a phone by hand, or supporting it by the neck, shoulder or any other improvised or contrived methods involving the body. It is fair to say that this prohibition enjoys total support in the House, including Deputy Crowe. I would be concerned about changing the nature of the prohibition through extending its application to include any hand-held piece of equipment, as proposed by the Deputy, because a level of unnecessary complexity and ambiguity would be introduced to subsection (1) that would dilute its effectiveness.

The power to impose prohibitions or restrictions on the use of mobile phones, in-vehicle communication devices, and information and entertainment equipment for the purpose of preventing or avoiding driver distraction arising from the use of an array of in-vehicle technologies and other equipment on the market, which is what the Deputy is referring to, is given to the Minister in section 3(4). This power will be exercised through the making of regulations by the Minister. We discussed this on Committee Stage. It would be the appropriate way to deal with the many technologies and equipment which Deputy Crowe no doubt has in mind.

It should also be remembered that it remains open to the Garda Síochána to prosecute under the long-standing offences of careless driving for [710]the inappropriate use of technologies and equipment referred to in subsection (4), or any other equipment. Given that the legislative framework is now in place to do this, I ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Crowe: I have no problem in withdrawing the amendment if the Minister is saying that he will examine the possibility of making regulations in this regard. The current situation is ridiculous. In some cases it is quite serious because people are following soaps on televisions in their cars while driving. It is crazy.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Kirk): Amendments Nos. 4, 13, 16 to 22, inclusive, 31 to 34, inclusive, 41, 48, 51, 53 and 57 to 60, inclusive, are cognate and may be discussed together.

Mr. Crowe: I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, line 28, to delete “the” and substitute “An”.

This is a technical amendment and it makes sense. The Bill refers to “the Garda Síochána”, whereas the title is “An Garda Síochána”.

Mr. Cullen: It has been the tradition in all Road Traffic Acts from 1961 onwards and in other Acts, such as the Criminal Justice Act, to refer to the Garda as “the Garda Síochána” in the English language version of the Acts and “An Garda Síochána” in the Irish language version of the Acts. This is standard practice in all our legislation. That is the difference of definition between the two.

Acting Chairman: Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related and may be discussed together.

Ms Shortall: I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, line 6, after “to” to insert “promote driving with due care and attention or to”.

I have no idea why amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are grouped together, as they deal with different matters. The purpose of amendment No. 5 is to direct the Minister to promote positively good, careful and attentive driving. The vague language in the Bill talks about “interfering with driver capacity”. The Minister takes a more positive approach to the matter and the language used in the Bill should reflect that. Amendment No. 6 seeks the inclusion of a new paragraph as follows:

(e) any other equipment, apparatus, thing or activity which may impair or interfere with the driving capacity or capabilities of such a driver.

to leave an opening for the Minister to deal with developments in technology which are taking [711]place at a fast rate. This would allow the Minister to ban or deal with new devices or apparatus that may come on stream without the need to resort to primary legislation. That would be a sensible approach which would widen the Minister’s powers and enable him to keep up to date with various in-car technologies. I hope he can support it.

Mr. Cullen: This follows on in a more expansive way from Deputy Crowe’s amendment. We discussed this matter on Committee Stage and obviously we want to keep the legislative framework as flexible as possible in terms of regulating in-vehicle communications systems. The Deputy is correct in saying that the ever-increasing use of technology is expanding daily. I note that one will soon be able to watch television on mobile phone. There are all sorts of questions about who will license them from some of the pay-per-view channels and so on. It is a serious issue. As stated on Committee Stage if I start to go down the road in primary legislation of identifying issues, a range of other issues would have to be added. Including it in a broadly based way where we have set the scene in terms of the use of hand-held mobile phones and allow for regulation to deal with a range of other issues more than covers the matter. Amendment No. 6 deals with the same issue.

Deputy Crowe referred to activities such as people shaving, drinking coffee, applying make-up, eating sandwiches or reading the newspaper. The list is endless. We have made the right start. The most overt and obvious danger in a car is the hand-held phone. Some would say that smoking cigarettes in a car is another issue. As a smoker, I am concerned about that one. There is a range of issues but we must start somewhere and I think we have made the right start. There will be a gathering up of all kinds of in-car technologies into the future. We are in the right frame and the strong advice to me is to keep it flexible.

Ms Shortall: My aim is to make the section more flexible so that if a new device comes on the market in six months’ time, the Minister will be able to deal with it appropriately without having to go back to the drawing board. There has been much interesting research recently on the general issue of the ban on the use of hand-held mobile phones, some of which was covered in the media last week in the context of the accident rate for people who use mobile phones, whether hand-held or not. The research appears to indicate there is very little difference in accident rates involving people using hand-held and hands-free mobile phones. Some of the research has indicated that a hands-free phone is more dangerous because it involves the person stretching to wherever the phone is located on the dashboard. [712]There has been research on that for the past ten years and it was covered in a recent newspaper article.

Does the Minister have a view on that? Does the issue of banning them arise at European level? One must start somewhere. I am not criticising the Minister but one must look at the research and work on an evidential basis. It appears there is little difference in accident rates. Perhaps the Minister would commission a study on that issue because we may be fooling ourselves into thinking it is perfectly safe to use a hands-free unit when the research does not show that.

Mr. Cullen: There is evidence based on that issue. I have power to make regulations to prohibit and go further. However, we must strike a balance and I would like to get public buy-in to the approach we are taking in all these areas. The Deputy is right to acknowledge we are generally in agreement that we wanted to start with the obvious one. I would like some more information on it. It feeds into the European regulations that may be made and getting agreement in Europe.

A person said to me that having a passenger in the car and chatting with the passenger is equally bad, and worse still is trying to control one’s children in the back seat of a car. I am not saying everybody has that problem but there are inevitably day to day distractions within a car and I am trying to strike a balance on what one does in a car. Obviously the important thing is to concentrate on one’s driving.

We have made the right start in terms of hand-held mobile phones. I accept this issue will not go away because of the expansion of technologies. The Road Safety Authority has a keen interest in what is happening in this area. I would like to see a European approach to this issue. At a European Council meeting in a general discussion on road safety, I raised the matter of a European-wide set of regulations and standardisation.

We will come to another amendment later with which I have much sympathy, where the Deputy talks about tinted glass in cars. That is a genuine issue and one that will have to involve manufacturers. Some of these issues will involve some agreement between the different promoters of this type of equipment and how we use it.

Amendment No. 6 not moved.

Mr. Cullen: I move amendment No. 7:

In page 4, line 25, to delete “to a mobile” and substitute “to the use of a mobile”.

I indicated on Committee Stage that I would bring forward this amendment. Section 3(7) sets out the defence provisions for the offence of holding a mobile phone while driving under subsection (1) or the offence of using a mobile phone [713]or an in-vehicle communication device contrary to a prohibition on their use that may be introduced by the Minister by means of regulations under subsection (1). It arose out of either Deputy Shortall’s or Deputy Olivia Mitchell’s amendment that I accepted. This amplifies the point I made on Committee Stage. Amendment No. 7 is a drafting amendment to bring greater clarity to the subsection. The insertion of these words in the amendment in the subsection accurately reflects the offence referred to in subsection (6) relating to the use of a mobile phone or an in-vehicle communication device. It amplifies it arising out of Deputy Olivia Mitchell’s amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman: Amendment No. 9 is a technical alternative to amendment No. 8 and amendment No. 10 is related. Amendments Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive, may be discussed together.

Ms O. Mitchell: I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, to delete lines 27 to 29.

In all the amendments I have resubmitted, I have not tried to second-guess the Minister or to introduce new issues, partly because he promised another Bill but also because we have to give the new Road Safety Authority an opportunity to establish what needs to be done in many areas. Much of what is important can be done by way of regulation. I am anxious that the Bill we pass is sound. I kept my amendments to areas where the Act would be vulnerable in the future.

This is one of the areas where I consider that allowing people to use a hand-held mobile phone to call the Garda or an ambulance is leaving a hostage to fortune. I accept that in an emergency people must be able to telephone the ambulance, the Garda, the fire brigade or whoever else they want. Subsection (7)(b) caters for that whereas subsection (7)(a) opens up a minefield. There are opportunities for deceit by people who might later pretend they were telephoning the Garda when it might transpire they were telephoning to renew their passport. As well as the opportunity for deceit, one is offering a possible defence to people. The Bill would be much stronger if we were to remove what I consider a gaping hole.

Mr. Cullen: I understand where the Deputy is coming from. The fallout from recent Supreme Court rulings has made everyone in the House very familiar with the importance of providing reasonable defences for offences in legislation. Subsection (7) has been drafted so that the use of a hand-held phone would be considered permissible in two circumstances only. The first would be a call to the Garda or the emergency services on numbers prescribed by the Minister. It would be the intention to prescribe 999 and 112 as these [714]numbers. Calls to these numbers can be traced including, I understand, calls from pay-as-you-go mobile phones. That was the point raised by the Deputy on Committee Stage.

Given that subsection (7) is a defence provision, the onus would be on the person caught using a hand-held mobile phone to show to the satisfaction of the Garda or the court, as the case may be, that he or she was calling a prescribed emergency service. It would be relatively straightforward for a Garda to establish whether a call was to a prescribed emergency service telephone number. As indicated previously on Committee Stage I do not want to remove this defence provision from the Bill.

Ms O. Mitchell: I accept what the Minister has said. I feel that is covered in subsection (7)(b).

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Debate adjourned.

17. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if it is reasonable that the biggest exporter of software in the world should have one of the worst performances in terms of the delivery of broadband services at home; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26962/06]

Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. N. Dempsey): The Deputy may be aware that the communications market in Ireland is fully liberalised and that the Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg, is the statutory body with responsibility for regulatory oversight of this market.

The Government recognises however that a principal reason for the slow roll-out of competitive, affordable broadband services in Ireland, principally in the regions, has been a lack of investment by the private sector in the necessary infrastructure. The Government’s regulatory and infrastructure policy has supported the private sector developing a competitive, affordable and rapidly growing broadband market that offers choice of products and providers to Irish consumers and businesses.

Ireland’s broadband take-up is growing very strongly. By end-March 2006, there were 322,500 broadband subscribers in Ireland. This is equiv[715]alent to almost 8% of the population or approximately 22% of households. Broadband take-up here grew by 112% over the 12 months to March, which is more than twice the EU broadband growth rate.

It is estimated that there are already well over 350,000 broadband subscribers up to mid-2006, which is equivalent to approximately 8% of the population or one quarter of households with broadband. This compares to a figure of approximately three in ten households in the EU at the end of 2005. Ireland is now one of the fastest growing broadband markets in the European Union. Broadband take-up has more than tripled to date since I set a target of 400,000 in late 2004.

The combination of telecommunications regulation and competition is driving prices down for the benefit of Irish consumers and businesses.

The Government is addressing the infrastructure deficit in the regions by building high speed, open access metropolitan area networks in 120 towns and cities nationwide. These networks will allow the private sector to offer world-class broadband services at competitive costs.

My Department offers funding assistance for smaller towns and rural communities through the county and group broadband scheme, GBS. The GBS initiative is continually under review to ensure that it supports private sector roll-out of broadband services to new locations.

My Department’s website, www.broadband.gov.ie, gives full details of broadband pricing and availability around the country. The website also lists the different products on offer and the contact details for each service provider. Almost 70 of these broadband providers offer almost 300 different types of broadband products. There is a choice of broadband services that can technically deliver broadband to any customer in Ireland at the moment.

Mr. Durkan: The Taoiseach expressed the view recently, when attempting to justify expenditure on electronic voting machines, that people in a country which is a leading worldwide exporter of software should, at least, be able to vote electronically. Does the Minister agree that we should equally expect that a country that is a leading exporter of software should be able to demonstrate how good the software is by ensuring broadband provision throughout the country is at least on a par with that available elsewhere in Europe?

Is the Minister aware of the recent OECD and EU reports on telecommunications technology in Ireland generally? These reports made severe criticisms of the costs associated with the provision of and access to broadband and the methodology used in its provision and demonstrated that the Irish consumer is the victim. Is he aware that in an open economy such as ours, it is essen[716]tial that action is taken to drive forward the provision of broadband in a way that has not happened?

Will the Minister confirm that provision of broadband so far is only approximately 50% of what was anticipated for the end of 2005? Although Ireland is progressing at a faster rate than other European countries, this is only because we started from a much lower base. Despite this, we were placed further ahead four or five years ago.

Will the Minister indicate whether he as policy director has given instructions to ComReg and the service providers with regard to ensuring that obstacles to the provision of rapid broadband service are dealt with and resolved, for example, local loop unbundling, line rental costs and number change difficulties, which cost a fortune and take a colossal amount of time. Will the Minister indicate whether, because of the high dependence of the economy on such services, he has a programme or agenda in mind to seriously challenge those with responsibility for their provision?

Mr. N. Dempsey: The Deputy will be pleased to note that our international costs for broadband are the lowest of anywhere in Europe and that our domestic costs approximate the mid-European average.

With regard to our targets, I set a target of 400,000 broadband subscribers for the end of this year. In late 2004, there were just over 100,000 broadband subscribers. Many people said we would not achieve this, but I am delighted to inform Opposition Deputies that we will achieve that target quite comfortably and will be well on the way to 500,000 subscribers by the end of 2007.

We have put regulations in place with regard to local loop unbundling, line rental costs and number portability. We have also passed legislation giving responsibility in this area to an independent regulator, ComReg. The regulator must work within the law and the Constitution and cannot make unilateral decisions that have no basis in law or it will find itself in trouble. We are moving to strengthen ComReg’s powers, but this will not allow Ministers on a whim to direct private companies to roll out broadband faster. What we are trying to do is to create a climate that will make it commercially attractive for providers to roll out broadband and put in place stronger regulation that will enable ComReg to try to speed up its provision. We also hope to be in a position to provide the 10% to 15% of people throughout the country who are outside the loop with broadband, either through group or MANs schemes.

Mr. Durkan: Is the existing legislation adequate to ensure the rapid provision of service and the removal of the obstacles to this? Is the [717]Minister satisfied it is strong enough and that ComReg has the necessary power? Do we comply with EU and national legislation in the provision of broadband and other telecommunications facilities?

Has the Minister a plan or programme for investment in telecommunications infrastructure for the future?

Without strategic investment there will be little or no chance of this country competing with other countries in the development of our respective economies. Will the Minister agree this investment has not taken place in the past four or five years?

Mr. N. Dempsey: The Deputy will be aware from my statements on the subject since I became Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, that I am not satisfied with the state of play regarding broadband and neither is the Government. As far back as 2002, the Government stated it was not satisfied the private sector was providing sufficient broadband capability. This was the reason the Government issued a policy document which put in place the metropolitan area networks, the group broadband scheme and also the roll out of broadband service to all schools. I agree with the Deputy that we are not in the forefront in Europe. If the Government had not tackled the matter, we would be even further behind. I agree the existing legislation is not adequate. This the reason the Government is drafting the Bill to give co-competition powers to ComReg. This legislation will be brought before the House in the autumn. Both Deputies opposite indicated they would be supportive of this Bill which will give extra powers to the regulator.

One of the frustrations which is being voiced by the Deputy and which I have voiced is that in the past the attitude of the service providers has been very negative. They have tended to take the legal route and contest everything, thus slowing the process. I hope the combination of powers and a change of attitude from the incumbent will help to deal with some of the issues to which the Deputy referred, in particular the local loop unbundling and the number portability.

18. Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he intends for RTE to play a lead role in driving digital take-up here; if he has mandated RTE to begin a process of review and renewal to ensure, as the organisation itself has noted, that public service broadcasting will survive in the current competitive environment; his views on whether there is a need to review the structure of the television licence fee with the increasing preponderance of non-traditional television set technologies for receiving television services; if he will request [718]RTE to offer new public broadcasting services in view of its continued success and profitability and the high earnings of its presenters and management; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26679/06]

Mr. N. Dempsey: My core policy objectives for the development of the broadcasting sector including RTE are detailed in my Department’s Statement of Strategy 2005-2007.

These objectives are to create an environment that encourages the maintenance of high quality Irish radio and television services by commercial, community and public service broadcasters; to seek to retain access to a range of high quality programming in analogue and digital form, on a universal and free-to-air basis; and to secure a viable future for high quality public service broadcasting.

My key priorities for achieving these objectives include developing the regulatory framework by bringing forward a Bill to provide for the establishment of a single content regulator for both public and private broadcasters and the restructuring of RTE from a corporate point of view, ensuring adequate public funding for RTE and TG4 so they can deliver on their statutory mandate, building on progress made in maximising the effectiveness of television licence fee collection and facilitating the successful establishment of a digital terrestrial television platform on a pilot basis in 2006.

The purpose of the digital terrestrial television pilot is to help inform my decision on the roll out of DTT and the transition to digital broadcasting. In addition, the pilot will generate awareness and discussion among interested parties about a full national roll out of digital terrestrial television.

A number of the issues raised by the Deputy, including the public service broadcasting remit of RTE and the operation of the television licence regime, are currently being considered in the context of the development of the legislative proposals that will form the basis of the forthcoming broadcasting Bill.

Mr. Broughan: I thank the Minister for his reply. In the context of his objectives for public service broadcasting and RTE, is he concerned that currently there seems to be an atmosphere of fear and loathing in Donnybrook, Dublin 4, as some of the newspapers have characterised it? There has been a night of the long knives and there is blood on the tracks. Is the Minister concerned that recent events in Radio One have resulted in the removal or shunting to the graveyard shift of three of the jewels of public service broadcasting? Programmes removed include the major arts programme, “Rattlebag”, fronted by Myles Dungan, which provided a number of years of distinguished broadcasting, and the eclectic music programme presented so brilliantly by [719]John Kelly, “Mystery Train”. The easygoing and affable broadcaster, John Creedon was moved first to the afternoon and then to the graveyard shift. Is the Minister concerned by what is happening in public service broadcasting, given the profitability of RTE and the huge salaries being paid to broadcasters? The leading broadcaster, Pat Kenny, earns almost €900,000 per annum, Mr. Gerry Ryan earns almost €500,000, Mr. Joe Duffy earns almost €300,000 and the director general earns €400,000 per annum. Is it possible that additional programming could be made available to encompass some of the programmes which have been shafted? Is RTE management trying to create a type of Radio Five in BBC terms to take on the new national talk broadcaster? We may need both a Radio Four and a Radio Five. Will the Minister ask for additional services? Is there the possibility of a 24-hour news programme? Both I and the Deputies opposite have asked many times for a Parliament programme which would cover Parliament, the county councils and all the other activities of politics, along the lines of the BBC programme.

The Minister was unclear in a reply to my colleague, Deputy Shortall, last April about other devices for receiving television such as a 3G phone or a computer linked to an LCD screen. Do such devices require a television licence according to current legislation? Will the Minister address this gap, if it exists, in the broadcasting Bill? Who will collect the licence now that An Post is not interested in doing so?

The Minister has trotted out once again an account of his belated conversion to digital broadcasting in the last days of this Government. He attended a conference a few weeks ago at which a member of the European Commission stated that the digital switchover should be well advanced by 2010 in all member states, with a final deadline of early 2012. Will he agree there is no chance that Ireland will be so advanced? The NTL-Chorus report published yesterday showed the bulk of cable television subscribers are still analogue subscribers. Just like the situation with broadband, the Government has been dilatory and it needs to take strong action. The RTE report on digital broadcasting states that analogue reception on the east coast will by 2008 be seriously affected by the UK digital roll out which is now well advanced for 2009 to 2010. The Minister needs to take strong and early action to encourage digital roll out and use RTE as the flagship.

Mr. N. Dempsey: In answer to the Deputy’s first question, I do not believe everything I read in the newspapers. I have read different versions of the so-called fear and loathing in Dublin 4. I am not worried by something reported in a newspaper. I agree with the Deputy with regard to the [720]radio programmes. I listen to the radio when I am travelling and the programmes referred to by the Deputy are three excellent and enjoyable programmes. I heard a discussion about the reasons for “Rattlebag” being moved. The explanation given by the head of radio at that stage was not unreasonable.

It is good for RTE to challenge itself, and it is good for programmes to be moved around. I will not get involved in how individual programmes should be managed or the daily running of RTE. The Deputy would be the first to challenge me if I did. The concept of shaking up the schedule, being innovative, changing programmes around and trying to hold people’s interests is not a bad principle, especially in broadcasting as it gets even more competitive.

As somebody who always resented the inference that I was not earning the salary I was being paid out of the public purse, I will not comment on the salaries some of the people are being paid in RTE. The information is available and somebody clearly thinks the personnel are worth their salary. The issue would be subject to negotiation and I am sure RTE management is as good a negotiator as anybody else. Some of the salaries are based on returns coming back to the station relating to advertising. I do not know the details of the matter. We all feel that we earn our salaries. I will not comment on anybody else’s salary.

There is merit in the Deputy’s comments on Parliament programming. I recently met a person who has put forward a suggestion that there be a public service broadcasting station devoted entirely to parliamentary and political affairs. It would cover this House and the Seanad, along with the European Parliament and county councils etc. I am aware of another approach we are involved with which proposes to webcast the meeting of at least one county council. Such a development would be positive.

If the Deputy is telling me that this is of interest to the Labour Party, I would be delighted to convey that to the person concerned. It would be of interest to our party and the Deputies in Opposition. I will go back to the relevant person and convey that to him.

Mr. Browne: We will get even more exposure.

Mr. N. Dempsey: On the issue of licences, the Deputy is correct in that I did not give a very specific answer to the question he raised. In the context of the broadcasting Bill, the issue will need to be considered.

Mr. Broughan: Will the equipment I mentioned need a licence? Will a computer linked to an LCD screen require a licence, for example?

Mr. N. Dempsey: This is a debate which must be addressed in the broadcasting Bill. There needs to be anticipation, as God knows what will [721]happen in the next six or 12 months as all the platforms come together. The question must be addressed, and it will be with the broadcasting Bill.

On the matter of An Post, the Deputy may be one step ahead of me. An Post indicated at one stage that it was not interested in continuing to collect licence fees. That was approximately 18 months ago. I raised the matter when we had a meeting with An Post. As it was not interested, I indicated we would put it to tender. I was told at that stage that An Post was interested and thinking the matter over again. More recently, with the retirement of the chief executive of An Post, it was stated by the outgoing chief executive that this was not an area in which An Post was interested. That is not the official information I have from An Post.

The Deputy may be aware that we have moved responsibility for the collection of the licence fee from the Department to RTE which clearly has a vested interest in maximising the take. From that point of view, I know the licence fee will be collected by An Post for the coming year. After that, if An Post indicates it is not interested in continuing collection, it will be open to others.

On the subject of digital terrestrial television, I am firmly set on the current course. We started on DTT in 2000, provided for it in 2001 and advertised at that time. We got no response from the commercial market. We started drawing up a trial run for the Department itself for DTT, which will begin in the autumn. The pilot scheme will be in place for a maximum of two years. We will move the platform from that.

We will be well within the 2012 target which the Commission has set for DTT and switching to digital. The Deputy is correct in that certain parts of the UK are rolling the system out over a period of three or four years. Wales is scheduled to have it around 2010. That will affect analogue television reception of BBC and HTV programmes. We should look after our own.

19. Mr. Ferris asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources his views on whether the strategy group established by his Department on the future of the fisheries sector is sufficiently representative of those involved in the sector. [26947/06]

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Browne): The new seafood strategy group that I announced in Killybegs last week will develop a comprehensive, integrated, market-led vision for the future of the Irish seafood sector. It is based on a strategy that is centred on innovation, product development and value maximisation for our coastal communities and sustainable management of our marine resources and ecosys[722]tems. This strategy will also feed into the new national development plan being drawn up for the 2007 to 2013 period so that the sector has access to the necessary development funding in coming years.

Given the importance of this review, I, along with the industry, wanted the seafood strategy group to be chaired by an independent, eminent and committed person, with wide experience in the Irish and global food industry. I was pleased when Mr. Noel Cawley, the former chief executive of the Irish Dairy Board, agreed to become chairman of the group. The other two group members are an tUas. Ruan Ó Bric, chief executive of Udarás na Gaeltachta for 25 years, and Mr. Joey Murrin, chairman of the National Salmon Commission. Between them, the group members have a wealth of relevant knowledge and experience at the highest level, and I am satisfied that they are eminently suited to carrying out this important task.

The strategy group will begin an in-depth consultation with all stakeholders immediately. Regional meetings are planned for July in Wexford, Kerry, Galway and Donegal, and all stakeholders, including the fisheries sector, will be invited to these meetings. Individuals and organisations will also be invited to make written submissions to the group. Accordingly, I am satisfied that all stakeholders will have every opportunity to participate fully in the development of the new strategy and I encourage them to do so.

Mr. Ferris: I thank the Minister of State for his response. Does he agree that the Government has failed to formulate a comprehensive strategy for the fishing industry, as requested by the main fishing organisations? Does he agree that it took considerable pressure from those organisations representing all sectors of the fishing industry to bring about a scenario where the Government will consider having them consulted as part of a future strategy?

I welcome that the strategy group has met the industry. Unless there is a comprehensive outcome which will contribute to the survival of the industry as well as its development, the strategy group will be little more than a talking shop. It will not have the support of those involved in the industry.

3 o’clock

Will the Minister of State give an assurance that when the fishing organisations make their submissions to the strategy group later this summer, their views will be accorded priority? Will he assure the House that the recommendations they make for the future of the industry will be treated accordingly?

From the debates we have had, especially during the passage of the recent Bill, everybody is acquainted with the current state of the industry, irrespective of where they come from. We are also aware of the input and contribution of those [723]who are actively involved in the industry and on the fishing fleets. It is important their views are taken into consideration and that they are given a paramount position in the development of the industry for the future.

Mr. Browne: Two months ago the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and I met in Dublin the industry liaison group, which is representative of all the fisheries organisations, processors and exporters. The suggestion came from them that we would create a totally independent group to look at the fishing industry in terms of quota reductions, the number of fishermen, the need for research and development and the need to introduce modern technology, innovation and added value, and, more importantly, to draw up a vision for the future of the fishing sector that will carry us over the next five or six years.

As a result, we drew up terms of reference and sent that to all the fisheries organisations and, indeed, to the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and those on the Opposition Front Bench. We received a number of recommended additions to the terms of reference which we have included — we have included practically all the fisheries organisations’ additional recommendations to the terms of reference.

We also asked a number of eminent people to become actively involved under the chairmanship of Mr. Noel Cawley. Indeed, Mr. Cawley was very acceptable to the fishery sector as well as to the Department. Mr. Cawley and his group held a meeting yesterday morning with the industry liaison group. They have agreed to meet regularly over the coming months or as requested and agreed by Mr. Cawley and his group. I hope that this group will make recommendations by the end of September, although it may need a little extra time. The first meeting will take place in Wexford over the next week or two, and then across the country there will be meetings with full, open and frank discussion.

It is important to take on board that this is an independent look at the industry. Mr. Cawley has been very involved in drawing up strategies in the food sector in the past and we must acknowledge that the fishing industry is an important food sector. I hope that by the end of the year we will have a strong vision for the future of the fishing industry and that we can move forward together. As I stated in Killybegs, it is a matter not of the Department versus the fishermen, the fisheries organisations, the exporters and the processors, but of all of us moving forward together. Mr. Cawley’s group will also look at the Department’s role and we also may have some questions to answer. It is a totally independent review and we should leave it at that. The fisheries organisations are quite happy that some of the concerns they [724]had over the past couple of weeks on the independence of the group and on their input have been ironed out. We should move forward together. Let us get on with the vision and develop a fishing industry strategy for the future.

Mr. Ferris: I thank the Minister of State for his response. Without the fishermen everything else falls. There is much suspicion among those actively fishing, particularly given the way they have been treated over the past 30 years and in the recent past. The contact I have with the organisations is also one of suspicion and worry that if the submissions to develop the industry of those who fish day and night while at risk from the elements do not take precedence over everything else, the Minister will achieve nothing. I want the Minister of State to give an assurance here that their submissions will be afforded the considerations to which they are entitled.

Mr. Browne: Mr. Cawley agreed to take the job on the basis that it would be a totally independent review. The eminent group which we set up agreed to consult widely with the industry and to have a number of regular meetings with the industry as it progresses through to the final vision.

It is also important to maintain the group’s independence. The fisheries organisations sought an independent group, which would look at the entire fishing industry, including the positive and negative aspects, the quota reduction and that too many fishermen are involved in the context of quota, and which would draw up a strategy that would enable fishermen and their families around our coastline to have a decent income for the future.

Let us be honest. What is happening at present, with reducing quota and the same number of fishermen, will not provide a viable fishing industry for the future. The group will look at all the aspects, including decommissioning, research and development, innovation, added value and new boats, replacement boats or removing fleet from the industry. We should not tie the hands of Mr. Cawley and his group because they would not take it on board. Mr. Cawley has been successful in the food sector and we should give him a chance. No doubt when he drafts the vision for the future, it will be one with which the fishermen will agree. Knowing Mr. Cawley, he cannot draft a fishing policy for the future without entering into dialogue with the fishery sectors and the communities on how any new policy for the future will affect coastal communities and the jobs in those communities, which is also important.

20. Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he will [725]clarify the position regarding the future development of Ros a’Mhíl harbour, due to his Department’s commissioned report to assess the viability which recommended two separate developments and in further view of the commitment given by the then Minister, Deputy Fahey, of €14.8 million for Ros a’Mhíl; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26682/06]

Mr. Browne: In 2000, the Department commissioned O’Hare and Associates to carry out an assessment of the capability of the existing infrastructure and onshore facilities at Ros a’Mhíl fishery harbour centre to service safely and efficiently the existing and future requirements of the fishing industry and other potential sources of commercial traffic.

The thrust of the report recommended a phased development. Phase one of the development entailed the provision of dedicated ferry berths in an area of the inner harbour dredged to 3.6 meters and a small craft harbour in the same dredge area. Phase 2 involved the provision of a deep-water berth, with facilities for vessels up to eight metres draught. The report went on to recommend further phased developments.

This Department appointed consulting engineers to the project in July 2001 and they estimated the total cost of the development at €30 million. In 2004, the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs agreed to co-fund phase one of the development. The dredging of the inner harbour and the dredging for the small boat facility is now complete at a cost of €5.1 million. This amount does not include any sum to cover the contractor’s claim for additional fees.

Planning permission was sought and obtained for the overall development in 2002 and all statutory permits are in place. Amendments subsequently made to the development were submitted to Galway County Council for planning approval. Planning permission has been received for amendments to the layout of the inner harbour entailing construction of a rock spoil breakwater and shore access area. Currently, amendments to the proposed layout of the ferry berth pontoons and the configuration of the proposed deep-water quay are with Galway County Council for approval.

Mr. Perry: In light of the announcement by the then Minister, Deputy Fahey, of the investment of €14.8 million, while I welcome what the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, stated on the work carried out, this development is required because Ros a’Mhíl is a major fishery harbour centre situated close to the most productive fishing grounds. The Department’s fishing figures for the past three years show that Ros a’Mhíl is the second most important fish landing port in the country. The difficulty is that landing of fish declined over the past year as the new generation of vessels are [726]unable to land. Fishing boats over 100 ft. have been prohibited from entering the harbour and unless deep-water facilities are provided Ros a’Mhíl’s declining trend in fish landings will continue. One processing company cannot get fish.

From the tourism point of view, Ros a’Mhíl is the main port of access to the Aran Islands. With in excess of 350,000 passengers per annum, it is the fourth largest port in terms of passenger movements in the country. There are six ferries to the Aran Islands on a daily basis and a deep water berth would facilitate visits from cruise liners, with passengers disembarking for Connemara and the Aran Islands.

Given the fishing, tourism and commercial potential, the difficulty is that this was agreed in the national development plan and the then Minister, Deputy Fahey, announced €14.8 million for Ros a’Mhíl. The development has been slow and phase 2 has been frustrated. The Minister of State replied that certain works have been done, which I have seen, but there is a deep concern that the development will not proceed as originally envisaged. No funding is ring-fenced in the Department’s budget, which we discussed a few weeks ago.

Mr. Browne: The dredging is complete and representatives of my Department and the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs are carrying out a detailed analysis of the need for a dedicated passenger ferry terminal and the building of a number of pontoon berths required. The next stage is the completion of phase 1 through the installation of the pontoon berths and I hope planning permission will be granted in this regard soon. The contract will be awarded in the autumn with the work completed by spring 2007. The provision of the deep water quay is the next stage and this will provide a facility for the larger pelagic vessels using the harbour and for visiting foreign and domestic trawlers. The deep water quay will also be available to serve other industries such as offshore exploration.

With regard to funding, €84.35 million is available under the national development plan while up to the end of 2005 the Department had spent €120 million under this programme. This year €22.5 million is available for fishery harbour development. Planning permission rather than money is the issue. I hope permission will be granted soon and then we can go to tender to award the contract.

Mr. Perry: I thank the Minister of State for his reply. He said the project is ready for tender. The funding announced by the former Minister for the Marine, Deputy Fahey, is critical. Will the building of the deep water facility proceed, given that I have been assured planning permission is in place and funding is all that is required?

[727]Mr. Browne: A number of stages were agreed and the next phase is the installation of the pontoon berths. As soon as planning permission is granted, that project will go to tender and a contract will be awarded in the autumn or earlier, if the permission comes through quickly. The work will be completed by next spring. Phase 2 is the provision of the deep water quay, which will be built after the pontoon berths have been installed. These phases have been agreed by both Departments and the people in Ros a’Mhíl. The issue is obtaining planning permission, installing the pontoon berths and then moving on to phase 2, the provision of the deep water quay, which, as the Deputy stated, is important for large pelagic vessels.

Mr. Perry: I thank the Minister of State for the clarification because there was major uncertainty among the people of Ros a’Mhíl. There was ambiguity among the key partners in the fishery harbour regarding the direction and timescale of the development. They sought clarity on the timsecale and funding, not promises. The original cost of the development was estimated at €29 million, which was agreed by the Department and designs and costings were produced for the provision of dedicated ferry berths and a deep water pier 200 metres long with a minimum depth of 8 metres. Does the Minister of State agree to that?

Mr. Browne: I am not in the business of making promises. If planning permission is granted to provide the pontoon berths, the contract will be awarded in the autumn and completed by spring 2007. I have visited a number of ports in recent weeks. I intend to visit Ros-a-Mhíl in the next two or three weeks and I will have discussions while I am there. Phases 1 and 2 have been agreed. Phase 1 is about to be achieved as the planning permission should be granted soon. The Deputy and the people of Ros a’Mhíl should not be worried because we will honour whatever commitments have been agreed.

Mr. Perry: There were massive celebrations when the former Minister for the Marine, Deputy Fahey, made the original announcement in 2000. A marquee was erected amid high expectations. There has been much disappointment since but I am assured the Minister of State is not in festive mode and he will deliver what he has outlined. If he does not, the next Government will.

Mr. Browne: The former Minister, Deputy Fahey, made a commitment to Ros a’Mhíl and the development is under way. The senior Minister and I intend to see it through to the end. The Deputy should have no concerns. The first phase will be completed next spring and when we return following the election, we will complete the project.

[728]Mr. Durkan: Á la marquee. The Minister of State should not hold his breath.

Mr. N. Dempsey: We would not like to have the people of Ros a’Mhíl waiting for the Opposition parties to get back into Government.

Mr. Perry: The Minister needs a rest.

Mr. N. Dempsey: I am mad for a fight.

21. Dr. Cowley asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources his views on whether a long-term strategic plan for the oil and gas industry operating here, and a repayment of at least 20 per cent on gross profits, should be enforced by statute on these speculator companies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26681/06]

Mr. N. Dempsey: The fiscal terms for the licensing regime under which offshore exploration companies operate are provided for by the Finance Act 1992. The system is straightforward and is based on a corporation tax rate of 25% applying to profits earned. Historic capital expenditures are 100% deductible at the start of production. No royalty or production bonus or their equivalents are required. The regime was introduced with a view to establishing a risk-reward balance, which reflects Ireland’s circumstances, including the industry perception of relative prospectivity, and acknowledges the realities of competition for internationally mobile exploration/ production investment.

I recently put in motion a review of the licensing regime under which offshore exploration companies operate in the State. My Department will engage the advice of external experts to independently validate the proposed changes and terms of reference for such engagement are being finalised. My concern is that the regime in place must be sufficiently progressive to accommodate both future variations in oil and gas prices and the high cost of deep-water field development. Amendment of the existing terms would only apply to future licences. Changes in the make-up of licensed entities are a normal part of the exploration business and, in the instance referred to, I very much welcome the renewed interest in the Irish offshore scene by the incoming partner. Since exploration is a licensed private sector activity, the question of a strategic plan for the industry prepared by Government does not arise.

Dr. Cowley: I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. I welcome the review of the fiscal terms and I am glad the Private Members’ motion tabled by the Technical Group was instrumental in this happening.

[729]However, it will only be when 50% of the Corrib gas field has been exploited that the company will have to pay 1 cent in tax. Given the 100% capital write off, it will be light years before tax is paid. In the meantime, significant funding is needed for hospital beds and so on. A licence was granted to Tony O’Reilly’s companies, Providence Resources and Sosina Exploration, in November 2004. They, in turn, sold it to Exxon Mobil while retaining a 20% stake but Exxon Mobil is paying all the exploration costs, which are estimated at hundreds of millions of euro, before anything is found. It would have been much more equitable if the Exchequer had received this money. This leaves a dirty taste in every person’s mouth in the context of the Corrib gas project because such funding could have been targeted at the local community. In County Donegal, an Irish company, Grianan, states it will give 10% of gross profits to the local community. It would be wonderful if 20% of gross profits resulting from exploration went to the local community affected. It would also act as an incentive. Will the Minister consider it?

I am on record as seeking a 50% stake in any oil or gas discovery for the State, including royalties. Sounds emanating from Providence Resources and Sosina Exploration suggest they have great hopes that much more gas will be found. It would be a shame not to be able to take advantage of such a situation. Both Norway and the community on the Shetlands have done well from exploration. Why should we always be the poor relation? Will the Minister comment on whether the local community should benefit?

Mr. N. Dempsey: I have stated all along that the community in the immediate vicinity of the pipeline and the terminal should benefit from any gas find. I have believed for a long time that where people are discommoded by a development in the national interest they should gain locally, and that includes those near the pipeline. Unfortunately, no one can gain from it until the gas is piped ashore, which has been a difficulty in the Corrib area.

I agree a local community, wider region and nation should benefit from any gas or oil exploration success. That is Government policy. Where Deputy Cowley and I differ is in what he might demand or feel is reasonable in that context. Our disagreement is a matter of figures rather than principle.

At present, the corporation tax rate of 25% applies to finds, with a 100% write-off of historic capital costs. That was deemed necessary when it was put in place between 1987 and 1992, particularly in the Finance Act 1992. Despite what Deputy Cowley previously described as generous terms — I agree they are generous — we have received few responses. We must keep exploration attractive and not put people off by taking [730]too much. Circumstances have fundamentally changed, particularly with the rise in prices of oil and gas during the past 18 months to two years. This enables us to review and revise the terms to ensure the State and taxpayers benefit more from future finds without scaring companies away.

We must remember 25% or 50% of nothing is nothing. If we do not attract exploration companies, the State itself must carry out that exploration. I recently spoke to someone who knows about these matters. Regarding the area off the west coast of Ireland, the usual cost for an exploration well is €20 million but it is estimated it will cost €70 million in some places. We must maintain a balance in the terms to make it attractive to prospectors. However, we are reviewing the terms and we will seek a greater take.

If, as I hope and as seems to be the case, greater prospectivity occurs and we have more discoveries, we will be in a much stronger position to increase the terms. I have spoken to experts who are not directly associated with oil exploration companies and who have conducted negotiations for other countries. They state if companies believe they have a good chance of finding oil and gas, they do not mind the terms increasing or the State’s take being larger so long as they know they have a return.

I do not want to rake over old sores, but in the case of the Corrib, the costs have doubled during the past two years while the company is waiting to bring the gas ashore. The price has gone up so it is balanced to a certain extent. However, we must progress the issue.

Dr. Cowley: I agree that unless the Corrib gas does come ashore we can never profit from it. The difficulty is that a material deviation has taken place in the development plan under the 1992 terms. This deviation takes the form of transporting material several kilometres instead of putting it behind concrete dams at the site in Ballinaboy, and the Advantica report suggests major changes in pressure and so on. Does the Minister agree this is a material deviation requiring the development plan to be thrown out and negotiating a new plan to take people’s safety fears into account? I attended a briefing with Shell and I am disappointed because it appears it will not change its position and is intent on doing what it intended from day one.

Mr. N. Dempsey: Neither the Deputy nor I should anticipate what Shell intends to do. The Advantica report deals with all safety issues in an objective way — I was asked about this matter prior to and after the report was published. It was given a free hand to examine those issues of concern to the people in the area. I categorically state to the Deputy that any future consent I give, and there are a number I must still give to Shell as the Corrib developer, must contain specifications [731]fully in line with the Advantica report, and Shell accepts that. I assure the Deputy and people locally that all aspects of safety have been dealt with and will be fully met in any future consent.

22. Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if, in view of his recent comments that the ESB should not be broken up into smaller parts or atomised, he will publish the Deloitte & Touche report on the ESB that he commissioned and is in possession of; when the energy Green Paper will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26622/06]

24. Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources when he expects to publish the Deloitte & Touche report; the bodies, groups, persons or agencies who have to date had sight of this report; if he expects the contents of the report to be reflected in proposed legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26571/06]

44. Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the reason he has not published the Deloitte & Touche report; if he has set a date for publication; the groups, persons or bodies who have to date had access to part of its contents; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26579/06]

91. Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources when he intends to publish the Deloitte & Touche report with regard to dominance in the electricity market; the discussions which have taken place to date within the Government with regard to the report; and the consultation or action plan which is envisaged following publication of the report. [26590/06]

Mr. N. Dempsey: I propose to take Questions Nos. 22, 24, 44 and 91 together.

In my recent address to the Energy Ireland conference, I stated that the Government did not favour the privatisation or atomisation of the ESB in any circumstances. Future possible directions for the electricity sector, taking into account all relevant considerations including the development of the all-island single electricity market, competition, security of supply, generation adequacy and consumer needs, will be articulated in the energy policy Green Paper, under preparation in my Department, which will be finalised shortly. I intend to publish the report by Delo[732]itte & Touche into the electricity sector in the wider context of that Green Paper. The Department of Finance and the Commission for
Energy Regulation have received copies of the Deloitte & Touche report in confidence.

Mr. Broughan: This is one of a series of reports the Opposition has been eagerly awaiting in recent months. Why did the Minister not publish the Deloitte & Touche report while the Dáil was sitting? He is creating a situation where he can pre-empt the discussion and lay down his policy and, because the House will not be in session, we are at an incredible disadvantage. The report has cost taxpayers millions of euro, as far as I am aware, and appears to have been leaked in a selective way to certain journalists. For example, an article published last February claimed that Deloitte & Touche advocated splitting up the ESB into three companies, a transmission company, a power generation company and a customer supply company, and reducing its market share to 40%. Will the Minister confirm that that is the basic tenor of the report?

The Minister’s reply refers to the energy Green Paper. When will that be published? The Minister has been lethargic, as has his predecessor, Deputy Dermot Ahern, on so many areas of policy — energy is as bad as broadband and digital radio and television. The United Kingdom Government is moving on to its third energy review over the past three or four years. Given the sky-rocketing price of oil, up to €74 or €75 a barrel, is it not incumbent on the Minister to publish the energy Green Paper and present it to Dáil Éireann in session to ensure we can have a proper public debate on it?

What is the Minister’s reaction to today’s news that the ESB is seeking to increase its prices by an astonishing 20% this year? Every summer, when the Dáil is not in session, the Labour Party, Fine Gael and the other Opposition parties hear about all these reports, which are usually followed by an announcement from CER around late August, again usually pre-empted by Government.

Is the request from the ESB that prices be increased again by 20% from early next year not shocking? Does it not mean that the Minister will have personally overseen the highest energy price increases in decades — 61% and rising — during the period of this Administration? Will that not be part of the Minister’s legacy? We heard the Taoiseach blathering on this morning about the billions of euro spent on the health system, when we know more billions must be spent and additional manpower provided. That is the point, given that Ireland is rated 25th out of 26 in Europe in terms of health provision. Is it not a fact that energy prices are escalating, there is little competition in the market, there is a major report on the ESB and we are waiting for an [733]energy Green Paper and a White Paper, yet nothing is happening?

Mr. N. Dempsey: I am aware that the Deputy does not know what is happening but because he is not aware of what is happening——

Mr. Broughan: I am not the Minister. I would love to be but I am not.

Mr. N. Dempsey: I am not criticising the Deputy, I am saying that just because he does not know what is happening does not mean that nothing is happening.

Mr. Durkan: Murphy’s law.

Mr. Broughan: Does the Minister know what is happening?

Mr. N. Dempsey: I would not like anyone to think that the diligent officials in my Department who are working on the energy paper are doing nothing. They are committed to this issue and have put in long hours with me over a considerable period to produce an energy paper that will be well worth the wait for Deputy Broughan and the other Deputies.

Mr. Broughan: When?

Mr. N. Dempsey: Over the coming weeks.

Mr. Broughan: In the first week in August.

Mr. Browne: Is the Deputy going on holidays?

Mr. N. Dempsey: If I can be around the first week in August, so can the Deputy.

Mr. Broughan: If the Minister tells me I will be around.

Mr. N. Dempsey: As soon as I can fix a date. It should be around that time.

Mr. Broughan: The Minister will do it that week.

Mr. N. Dempsey: I will probably be working throughout August. The Deputy should not make any holiday plans for August.

Mr. Broughan: I will go in July.

Mr. Browne: Down to Wexford.

Mr. N. Dempsey: The Deputy raised a number of questions, including the reason I did not publish the Deloitte & Touche report before now.

Mr. Broughan: Before the Dáil rises.

Mr. N. Dempsey: The reason is that it is an important part of the energy paper but it is not [734]the be all and end all. The Deloitte & Touche report is part of that. We have used it as an input in terms of the electricity sector in the overall energy paper we are producing. That is the reason it has not been published before now. It will be published some time after the energy policy document is published. It did not cost millions of euro. I do not have the figure available to me but it cost just over €1 million. It is a quality report, as I said previously.

The Deputy talked about selected leaks. The one aspect that has frustrated journalists, whatever about the Deputy, is that there have not been any leaks about the Deloitte & Touche report. The article the Deputy refers to that appeared last February is incorrect but it was a good piece of journalism in that they went into the website, examined the terms of reference for the study Deloitte & Touche eventually got and made a number of assumptions which were not accurate.

Regarding the ESB seeking a 20% increase, that is a matter for the Commission on Energy Regulation. Neither the ESB nor the CER will consult me on that matter. The levels of increase in electricity and gas prices are reflective of what is happening with fossil fuels generally but there is no doubt there is room for savings in terms of reducing costs and increasing efficiencies in the ESB. The level of efficiency of a variety of the plant in the ESB leaves a lot to be desired — it is not near the European average. There are labour practices in the ESB that add to the cost for the consumer and I am sure the Commission on Energy Regulation will take all those into account, as it did last year. I look forward to the Deputy’s full support in ensuring we reduce ESB costs as much as we can——

Mr. Broughan: I will do so if the Minister follows Labour Party policy.

Mr. N. Dempsey: ——to make it much more efficient and make the market much more competitive when we move that forward.

Mr. Broughan: Is the Minister agreeing with the Labour Party?

Mr. Durkan: Would it not have been wiser to publish the Deloitte & Touche report thereby giving everybody, including the public and journalists, equal access to it? They would not have had to speculate if that had been done, and it is easy to speculate. The Minister might be able to resolve some of that speculation now. For example, what is his policy direction on the future ownership of the grid? Will it be kept in public ownership and will there be any change in that? For instance, in respect of any future agreements entered into in the aftermath of the need to introduce more competition, is the Minister satisfied that the security of the grid will be maintained [735]given that that is of absolute necessity? Will he further indicate whether he and his Department have learned from the experiences of Eircom regarding investment in infrastructure and providing for the future? What are those experiences and how will the Minister deal with them?

Having read the Deloitte & Touche report, is the Minister confirming that nobody has seen the report other than the two bodies to which he referred? Is that true? Is the Minister certain about that because if it were not true it would be very embarrassing for many people, including and most importantly the Minister?

Mr. N. Dempsey: I would not be so foolish as to make a statement like that on any report that has had this type of circulation, but all the copies of the Deloitte & Touche report are personalised to the individuals and organisations that received them. To my knowledge they are all still accounted for. However, I would not——

Mr. Durkan: They would not have revealed it.

Mr. N. Dempsey: ——predict that nobody else would have seen it. Many journalists have asked me about its contents. The Deputy can ask the journalists. They have heard nothing from me.

On ownership of the grid, security of supply, the experience with Eircom etc., in my Energy Ireland speech a few weeks ago I clearly stated the importance of maintaining the grid and the transmission lines in public ownership, whether that is in a semi-State company like the ESB or in a separate company. The Government is determined they will stay in public ownership and will not go to a private company at any stage. From the point of view of security of supply and competitiveness it is extremely important that no single player has control over the transmission system to block others out and prevent competition etc. I can give the Deputy absolute assurance that there is no fear of the grid going into private ownership at any stage.

Mr. Broughan: I warmly welcome what the Minister has said and that the company will not be privatised or atomised especially considering what my colleague said about Eircom. I ask about rising electricity costs. Will the Minister consider giving CER some sort of strong consumer mandate? To put it the other way around will the Minister give consumers a role in CER either in terms of a consumer panel as proposed in the report of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources on energy before these energy price decisions can be made? In other words will the Minister amend the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill as I requested on Second Stage to give consumers a role?

[736]Has the Minister discussed the role of the ESB in the all-island market with the Northern Ireland Minister, David Hanson MP, who criticised the role and the more than 60% market share of the ESB in the Southern part of the market after next summer? Did the Minister make any similar comments to him about Viridian, the old Northern Ireland Electricity company which also owns a network and operating assets? In other words has the Minister discussed the future of the ESB with the Northern Ireland Minister following his criticisms of ESB in the context of the operation of the all-island market? Given the Minister’s view that it should not be broken up or atomised and that structural reforms are needed, how does he envisage the generation side reaching the point of 40% or more in the all-island market where we could have true competition at the marginal cost level?

Mr. N. Dempsey: On consumers’ interest, there are two aspects to the remit of the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER. One is competitiveness, which encompasses various aspects, and the other is consumer protection. I believe it has considered establishing consumer panels. However, more importantly, the national consumer agency, recently announced by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, will have a role in the current application for a price increase. The ESB seeks an increase from CER, which puts it forward for public consultation. One of those consulted, representing the consumer interest, is the new national consumer agency.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I wish to advise the House of the following matters in respect of which notice has been given under Standing Order 21 and the name of the Member in each case: (1) Deputy Finneran — that the Minister update the costings to 2006 levels in determining the grant level under the new farm pollution grant scheme; (2) Deputy McHugh — the decision of the Health Service Executive to cap the monthly allocation towards the purchase of incontinence wear for residents of nursing homes in County Galway; (3) Deputy Shortall — the need to fund fully a school group to prevent its closure in view of the critical service it is providing; (4) Deputy Hogan — that the Minister clarify his policy on the broadcasting of religious services on local radio stations; (5) Deputy Jim O’Keeffe — the issue of unauthorised development concerning the construction of a slipway and jetty at Walton Court, Oysterhaven, County Cork, which impedes access for the public along the foreshore and results in a hazard to navigation and the urgent need for the Minister to take action under the Foreshore Acts to ensure that the developer [737]removes all works from the foreshore and restores the area to its former condition; (6) Deputy Hayes — to ask the Minister why the Golden sewerage scheme is subject to major delays despite the pressing need to upgrade the facility (7) Deputy Connolly — the remedial works scheme at Mullaghmatt, County Monaghan; (8) Deputy O’Connor — that the Minister respond to the accommodation crisis in a school in Tallaght; (9) Deputy Crowe — that the Minister report regarding the difficulties being experienced in a school in Tallaght; (10) Deputy Crawford — that the Minister ensure that all available beds are used in Monaghan General Hospital; (11) Deputy Perry — that the Minister appoint a full-time endocrinologist in Sligo General Hospital and provide a counselling service, paediatric diabetes nurse, chiropody services for all with diabetes, a community diabetes nurse specialist and free doctor visits or selected number of visits annually for diabetes patients; (12) Deputy Cowley — that the Minister explain the reason Ballina Urban District Council has encroached upon a special area of conservation for a car park; (13) Deputy Lowry — to discuss the urgent need to include a post-primary school (details supplied) in the school building programme and to swiftly proceed to construction; (14) Deputy Stanton — to debate the need to ensure that respite care grants are all paid without any more undue delay given that people are depending on them; and (15) Deputy Naughten — the need for the Minister to ensure that Irish beet growers receive a fair allocation of funds under the sugar restructuring budget.

The matters raised by Deputies Crawford, Shortall, O’Connor and Crowe have been selected for discussion.

The Taoiseach: I am very glad of this opportunity to have an early debate in this House on Towards 2016, the ten-year framework draft social partnership agreement, negotiations on which concluded on 14 June last. Deputies will be aware that we have already had a debate on the draft agreement in the Seanad on Wednesday, 21 June.

As I said in my reply to questions in this House last Wednesday, I recognise that all parties have dedicated a great deal of time and effort to the negotiations and I again record my appreciation of their continued commitment, both to the immediate goal of securing a new agreement and to social partnership itself, often in the face of difficult negotiating conditions and misguided criticism, to which I will return later.

Towards 2016, if ratified, will be the seventh social partnership agreement we have negotiated since the process was initiated in 1987. I am glad to say that our economic and social circumstances have been radically transformed for the better [738]since those early days. Social partnership has been central to bringing about that transformation. In particular, the industrial relations environment, which has been transformed, has been critical to our success in attracting increased investment.

As with previous social partnership negotiations, the present draft agreement has reflected the NESC strategy, which provides a strategic analysis of the key opportunities and challenges facing us. A shared understanding of those issues and a consistency of approach in responding to them have been central factors in our successful adaptation to change over many years.

The evident track record of successful economic and social change through social partnership has been recognised and attracted very positive comments, from many international organisations and agencies, including the IMF, the OECD and the European Commission, which have understood its role in the transformation of our economy and society. It is why the European Council urged all member states to develop national reform partnerships, like Ireland, to underpin the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs, since neither governments acting in isolation nor public policy alone can deliver the change required.

Some have argued that the draft agreement, in so far as it relates to pay and the workplace, is really relevant only to a minority of private sector employees who are trade union members and that it is essentially a public service pay agreement. This displays a grave misunderstanding of how the Irish labour market works. While it may be true that a majority of employees in the private sector at any one time are not organised members of trade unions, it is equally true that wage determination is always shaped by the organised sectors, within the context of underlying labour market conditions. Wage norms and trends are strongly established, especially in small labour markets.

We know from our own experience the dire consequences when these norms are out of kilter with conditions across the economy generally. Collective bargaining across Europe is a powerful influence on wage setting, even in countries with much lower rates of trade union membership than Ireland. What matters is that the bargaining takes place on the broadest basis possible and with full awareness of the economic and social context. That is precisely what the partnership process secures.

Our model is successful precisely because it is flexible enough to take account of the wide diversity of situations in employment across the economy, while providing certainty and confidence that can successfully and effectively guide not just the setting of pay rates, but also all aspects of the employment relationship, in the right direction.

Employment standards issues arose, in admittedly a small number of companies, in the latter [739]part of last year and caused widespread upset and passionate concern among many thousands of workers and citizens over the potential for displacement and a “race to the bottom” in the labour market. This demonstrated the need for mechanisms to provide assurance on decent standards and fairness, without compromising flexibility or adding unreasonably to the burden of regulation of the labour market. Setting that delicate balance requires the active engagement of all of the parties in our employment system. We are fortunate that the social partnership process provides precisely that opportunity. The proposals in the new draft agreement regarding employment rights and compliance represent a fair balance between the legitimate interests and objectives and will provide confidence for the future in a rapidly changing labour market.

The terms of the pay agreement are quite straightforward, with 10% payable over 27 months in four instalments of 3%, 2%, 2.5% and 2.5%. An additional 0.5% will be added to the payment from 1 July 2006 for those earning €10.25 per hour or less. As with previous agreements, provisions are included which enable employers to plead inability to pay or to seek offsetting productivity changes where circumstances require it. In addition, the parties have agreed to make a recommendation to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment as regards increasing the national minimum wage with effect from 1 January 2007. The proposed level of pay increases strikes a fair balance between the pressures on the enterprise sector to be competitive in international markets and the need to secure the living standards of our workforce.

The public sector pay terms are the same as for those of the private sector, except that the first payment will fall due on 1 December 2006 rather than 1 January 2006. As was the case under Sustaining Progress, these payments will only be made after the delivery of verified changes. The changes include better opening hours, more flexible operating arrangements, the application of ICT to achieve greater efficiency and improved promotion and recruitment practices, including in particular opening up more senior jobs to competition from those outside the public sector. The second benchmarking body is due to report its findings by the end of 2007. A parallel benchmarking process in respect of the pay of craft grades and related non-nursing and general operative grades is to be completed by the second half of 2007. Again, payment of any recommended increases will be dependent on ensuring the delivery of substantial change and flexibility.

The agreement is about much more than pay. The draft agreement addresses the need to maintain a supportive macro-economic environment to enhance productivity and competitiveness, the successful management of and response to social [740]needs and social change and the imperative of building a more inclusive society. Put simply, it is about mobilising our collective resources to improve people’s lives. Draft copies of the agreement have been circulated among Deputies, so I will only briefly set out the main elements.

Chapter two describes the macro-economic context to the agreement. A certain level of economic growth is assumed in the short to medium term. The draft agreement endorses the key national strategies, such as the NSS and NDP, which will inform investment and planning over the period. It also details key actions planned or already in place in terms of sectoral strategies in key areas such as science, technology and innovation, better regulation, public enterprise, manufacturing, transport, housing, energy, telecommunications, education and training, the environment, rural development and the agri-food sector.

Social partnership provides an effective mechanism for driving progress on the social agenda over the next ten years. As well as acting as a forum for dialogue and engagement between the key actors, it provides the means for us to work together to deliver better outcomes for the most vulnerable people in our society. In the developmental welfare state report published last year, NESC suggested that our strong economic performance could serve as a new context within which to seek major improvements within the social sphere. This requires a process of reinvention and repositioning of our social policies and the critical recognition that economic progress and social well-being are equally important and mutually reinforcing. The NESC analysis recognises that increases in social welfare alone will not overcome many of the difficult social problems we face as a society. The delivery of quality public services is essential. We also need to be proactive in encouraging innovative and pioneering responses to social challenges. Community and voluntary groups throughout the country have a key role to play in delivering these responses.

Towards 2016 sets out an ambitious agenda aimed at delivering tangible social change. It adopts a longer term perspective, recognising that many of these social challenges are particularly complex and require coherent and strategic responses. Significantly, the agreement puts in place a new social policy perspective based on the life cycle framework. This approach seeks to move us away from a situation where policy is developed along departmental lines to one where the focus is on the outcomes we need to achieve for people at different stages of their lives. The agreement sets out a vision and long-term goals for children, people of working age, older people and people with disabilities. It also highlights a number of emerging challenges and includes measures for responding to them. These include, for example, the integration of migrant communi[741]ties, the acute needs of children in disadvantaged communities and support for the role of the community and voluntary sector in the future.

A range of priority commitments are set out under each life cycle stage to be pursued over the first phase of the agreement. For children, a number of measures aim at increasing the supply of child care and improving educational outcomes. For people of working age, there is a focus on measures to promote employability and access to employment, in recognition of the key role that employment plays in helping people to escape poverty and to improve their opportunities. For older people, the social partners have agreed to work together to develop an effective infrastructure of long-term care services on the basis of principles set out in the agreement. The social partners have agreed that the implementation of the national disability strategy provides the most appropriate mechanism for delivering the outcomes we wish to see for people with disabilities. A number of key issues have been highlighted so that they can be addressed through the Disability Act and the sectoral plans process. These goals cannot be achieved during the usual three year agreement. In this context, the Government and the social partners recognise that a ten year framework agreement is more appropriate for this type of effective social dialogue.

On the criticisms made of social partnership, it never ceases to amaze me that the most voluble critics, who denigrate social partnership and, therefore, the social partners, and deny its role in our economic and social transformation, never enlighten us with their suggestions for an alternative. Social partnership works and, despite the difficulties that have occasionally arisen, has proven itself a reliable and effective means of identifying, analysing and addressing key social and economic challenges.

One of the loudest and most often repeated criticisms is that social partnership is anti-democratic. Since its beginnings almost 20 years ago, social partnership has been based on an invitation by the Government of the day to the social partners to join it in discussing how to jointly develop policies and behaviours which better serve the needs of our people. It is entirely appropriate and democratic to recognise the independent roles and contribution made by various social partners.

At the same time, the partners fully recognise and accept that the Government must be able to exercise fully its prerogatives within the framework of political accountability. The Government entered these negotiations on the basis of our published programme for Government. We have been no different in this respect than previous administrations. We have maintained close ministerial oversight at all stages of the negotiations and the terms of the draft agreement were approved by the relevant Ministers in a process led by the Tánaiste and me. We are satisfied that [742]the outcome is entirely consistent with our programme. In implementing the agreement, we will be fully accountable to the Oireachtas. The substantive elements of the agreement require the introduction of 12 Bills, each of which will be subject to close scrutiny and debate here and in the Seanad. The expenditure implications will be dealt with in the budgetary and Estimates process in the normal way, with the normal full accountability, approval and oversight by the Oireachtas. All the implementation arrangements of the last agreement were reported on regularly to the Oireachtas. My ministerial colleagues were also answerable in this House in respect of their particular responsibilities under the agreement. This will continue. I welcome greater parliamentary scrutiny of the process and hope Oireachtas committees will take a greater interest in the substance of social partnership. I also see particular value in direct Oireachtas engagement with the chairs and directors of the social partnership institutions, NESC, NESF and NCPP. The social partners would also be happy to avail of opportunities to share their experiences and their views on the process.

The ten year duration of the draft framework agreement does not bind future Governments unreasonably. The ten year perspective is a realistic acknowledgement of the scale of the development objectives we share with the social partners, arising from the NESC analysis. While the detailed arrangements, including pay, set out in the agreement pertain to the first phase, it is right that we should set out a longer term agenda for social dialogue. It will be for each Government over that period to engage in the detailed discussion on the basis of its electoral mandate. The democratic process and social partnership are, therefore, complementary aspects of modern governance and I look forward to continuing engagement as a means of expressing this complementary relationship.

4 o’clock

While talks on the farming sector have not yet concluded, the farming pillar has participated in the negotiations on the non-pay agreement. The draft agreement will now be subject to ratification over the coming weeks, in line with the internal procedures of each social partner pillar and organisation. All concerned will recognise the benefits of the new agreement for themselves and for the country as a whole. Therefore, it will be ratified and we will continue our successful experience of partnership to the benefit of all our people.

Mr. Bruton: I thank the Taoiseach for bringing this document to the Houses. It is extraordinary that we are setting out programmes for the next decade when the Dáil never had any role in Sustaining Progress. There was no prior debate on the framework within which it should be negotiated, no discussion on its proposals, no adoption or ratification by Parliament and no monitoring [743]report of the numerous commitments and programmes agreed. There is an unhealthy relationship between the social partnership foundation that is so important to the economy and the parliamentary system, which is equally vital. Anyone who has looked at arrangements over the past years will notice the dismal failure to create a bridge between social partnership and the Oireachtas.

Social partnership was born out of crisis and has been an important vehicle for unity of purpose across employers and trade unions and, gradually, a wider initiative. This was underpinned by the political initiative of Alan Dukes, the Tallaght strategy, which offered a level of social partnership within the political system to a Government dealing with intractable problems. At its birth, Parliament had a role in social partnership but this has decreased. The Oireachtas has been entirely eclipsed in its role in contributing to decisions on the distribution of scarce resources and legislation. Very few interest groups will approach parliamentarians for assistance with a major struggle about an important decision. Instead, they will go up the back stairs to meet Ministers and use monitor groups and steering group meetings within the partnership system. That is an unhealthy development. Major decisions on the distribution of available resources should be resolved primarily in these Houses. This is not a criticism of social partnership but of the way it has developed.

The basic institutional framework of social partnership provides an example. There are two implementation bodies, four research agencies, nine high-level policy committees and four major progress reports delivered each year. That presents a stark contrast to the support available to the Oireachtas for democratically elected representatives to deliver their mandate in crucial areas of decision making. We must examine developing a proper relationships between the institutions of social partnership and the Oireachtas.

I am disappointed the Taoiseach did not take this opportunity to do so. This debate is welcome but is merely a debate of one hour at the end of the process. It offers no real basis for participation by the Oireachtas in the next ten year strategy. We need a role in how the agenda is set. It is predominantly set by the NESC, which does much good work. As elected representatives we should be able to shape the agenda of partnership.

We must also have a role in the development proposals. The heads of Bills are supposed to be presented to Oireachtas committees so they can have an input at an early stage. This has been done in only two cases. There is no sense that the Government shares with Parliament as it does with social partners. This was clear in the debate on employment protection. No attempt was made to reach consensus in this House on the matter. [744]All debate took place between employers and trade unions.

Members of the Oireachtas represent civil society in its broadest sense. Those at social partnership talks represent vested interests. This term may imply criticism but they come from a particular angle and represent a particular group of people. We must make sure those with a broader mandate have greater participation.

Social partnership has been successful in many areas and was important in dealing with runaway debt and leapfrogging pay claims that caused inflation when Ireland was losing jobs hand over fist. It had a strategic role at that stage but has been less successful at dealing with the current reform agenda. It comes as no surprise that the social partnership model dominated by producer interests, namely Government, trade union or employer interests, has not addressed the needs of consumers. At a basic level, we see this where consumers feel disenfranchised and ripped off. We have been slow to open markets and the interests of those in markets have dominated public thinking rather than the interests of consumers, who are not represented at the social partnership table.

This Government resorted to stealth taxes after the last election. Consumers were seen as the soft touch because they were not represented in the partnership model. It was easy to impose higher charges on them. The Labour Party recently produced a document detailing 50 examples of stealth taxes.

Our pattern of housing development has been described as dysfunctional by the NESC. The interests of producers and developers have had an influence rather than the consumer, the first-time buyer or the family seeking housing with decent facilities such as schools and health services. The special development zone, a good concept of balanced development, has been used only once, in Adamstown, to achieve balanced housing development. Our dysfunctional housing system is vulnerable and is not providing the standard of service we require. We cannot blame this on social partnership but the ears of this Government are open only to some.

In the privatisation of Eircom, the interests of the workers and the State were looked after but those who had retired were given no recognition for building up the asset. The consumer was forgotten and the punter who bought the shares failed miserably. The scheme may have served some insiders and the Government but it did not cater for the national interest. Members on both sides of the House agree this was badly planned. We must learn from this and ensure we do not hear only those represented at the table.

It is disappointing that social partnership has not focused on public service reform. Everyone knows this is a key issue. The Government has spent a considerable sum on health but people feel discontent. Many of the working practices in the health system must change. They are holding [745]back capacity to deliver to the front line. Partnership, however, has stepped back and not addressed them. It has not helped to create the momentum.

The Taoiseach correctly said recently that consultants are tough negotiators and will not give up contracts. If we accept that this is a key obstacle that must be moved, we must enlist the support of the broadest base to insist that this change and to face down the vested interests wherever they are found. That has been missing in social partnership. We have not faced down vested interests in the public service to ensure we get delivery to the front line. That is why people have been disappointed. They still see laboratories working for only certain hours of the day and consultants not being in accident and emergency departments when they are needed to make critical decisions about discharge, retention or admission. These issues afflict our capacity to deliver services.

We still have not put performance accountability into the public service systems. The unions in the education sector, for example, have not yet conceded the obligation to have proper accountability at school level. We are moving away from the level of accountability that must be in place to achieve best practice standards in education and other areas. The key issue in this regard is public service reform.

Fine Gael was first to point out that benchmarking would be paid without getting the reform to match it. We urged that it not be paid until that reform was in place. Looking back on that process many people now agree that we were absolutely right. The Government had not pushed the reform agenda. No union was forced to go beyond any difficult existing position. One did not hear screams from any group that benchmarking was asking it to deliver too much change. If it was a serious programme of reform, it would have caused that. We must ensure that we create a public service that is achieving the highest professional standards and is seeking to achieve best practice.

That is what benchmarking is about — achieving best practice in the delivery of education, health and so forth. Personnel are then paid because they are delivering best practice. That was the hidden ingredient. It was not simply a dead process of looking at comparative pay, estimating the gap and paying it. It was supposed to be about examining what is done in successful organisations and moving the public service organisation to do the same. That is what benchmarking must be about if it is to continue.

Under this agreement, it is due to continue. I welcome its continuation but it must be based on the Government establishing a real agenda of reform. Scarcely was benchmarking paid on the last occasion when we heard the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform state that the way prisons were run had to be reformed and the Minister for Health and Children saying that the [746]administration of hospitals had to be reformed. However, those reforms were not included in the benchmarking negotiations to secure such change when the opportunity presented, an opportunity with a €1.3 billion price tag.

We must develop social partnership so it has the opportunity to confront the serious challenges we face. Those challenges must be put on the agenda and the voices of consumers and users of public services must be heard. We must also hear the voices of families who are being squeezed, whether they are first-time buyers or are trying to cope with child care or the many other pressures families must endure. We must hear the concerns of communities. The Taoiseach correctly pointed out that community is struggling to survive in the new, dysfunctional housing environment that has been created. That must be addressed but it is not being addressed sufficiently through the partnership process. I believe we must retain and develop partnership and make it confront the greater challenges that exist.

I welcome the life cycle debate that has been opened in this partnership agreement. I have long believed that we do not take note of the pressures on people. Our welfare system has largely been based on the old set up of the breadwinner being a man, the woman being at home and all the State had to deal with was unemployment and sickness. The truth is, however, that for families trying to cope with the difficult task of rearing children in the current tough environment, we must develop far more sophisticated interventions and supports. I welcome that element of the agreement and the NESC has been far-seeing in pushing for it.

My time is concluded. Fifteen minutes is not enough to do justice to what is supposed to be the start of a ten-year strategy but I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on it.

Mr. Quinn: I compliment all the negotiators who compiled this document. The duration of the negotiations is an indication of the necessity to shift from the old tax trade-off against wage moderation, which is long past its sell-by date. Another approach is required. That is reflected in the comments made by the Taoiseach and by many of the commentators who were directly involved in this process.

I was involved in the process in the past and am familiar with its internal operations and mechanisms. Most of the time it is the social partners and the civil servants who are involved, as the Taoiseach would be the first to admit. Political involvement is limited and tends to come more or less in a Supreme Court manner rather than in a District Court manner, when many of the options have been teased out.

Much work has gone into the agreement and I salute all the people who gave their time to it. Reading the document is wonderful and if its content were to be achieved, we would have heaven on earth. However, I doubt the capacity of this [747]Administration to deliver. The Taoiseach this morning, in response to Leaders’ Questions, damned his own competence and that of his Government when he said that after nine years the Government is still trying to talk to the consultants about getting them to the negotiating table or about getting €500,000 worth of equipment operating after 4.30 p.m. The Taoiseach is a man of many talents and abilities but if he can come to that conclusion after nine years, only he can provide the answer.

Last night, I launched a book by Paul Williams entitled The Untouchables. It is about the history of the CAB, which has been in existence for ten years. The Taoiseach will recall that a Private Members’ Bill, which was renamed the Proceeds of Crime Bill, was brought forward by the current Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism and was supported by all sides of the House. By the end of July, within four weeks of the death of Veronica Guerin, the House had passed six Bills. The CAB was up and running and was statutorily empowered by October when the House returned after the summer recess. When this House was united following the atrocity of her murder and, indeed, the murder of Jerry McCabe, which preceded it, we moved very quickly.

Looking at this document, little of which I disagree with, although we need more time to examine it in the future, what is strikingly obvious is the absolute inability of this Administration to deliver. I can offer some examples, but I will be positive and discuss the good parts first. On behalf of the Labour Party and the wider labour movement, I welcome the section on employment rights and what the Government proposes to do in that area. As I said to the national council of ISME two weeks ago, the people in the private sector who secretly take pleasure in the demise of the trade union movement as a representative force — approximately one sixth of the workforce is now represented by trade unions and the bulk of that one sixth is in the public service — should be careful what they wish for because what will replace it will be far worse.

What is facing small companies, in particular, and those companies that refused to allow trade unions to represent their workforce is the employment lawyer, who knows adversarial confrontation and will take employers to the cleaners in terms of costs. We have already seen this happen in the Taoiseach’s Government offices. Individual public servants are now rushing to lawyers rather than to their public sector unions to address confrontations where there are perceived wrongs in the place of employment.

We have already tried, through the establishment of the PIAB, to get the lawyers off the back of the insurance industry, where 42% of the cost of insurance was due to legal costs. Those who think the retreat of organised labour in the shape of traditional trade unions will make their job easier with regard to employees are seeing a false [748]dawn. The labour movement has transposed individually negotiated rights, whether in Guinness or Jacobs or any of the other old benchmark firms, on to the Statute Book of this republic and they are in place for all. That is the first point that should be made about the role of trade unions in social partnership.

Senator Shane Ross once asked in the Seanad what right trade unions have to negotiate if they only represent a minority of the workforce. They could represent a larger section of the workforce if certain companies allowed them to organise. Many people thank God for the presence of the trade unions at the negotiating table because it is more than their jobs are worth to get a trade union into the workplace.

The norm that is struck in social partnership pay negotiations will filter out beyond the corral of organised trade union members into the entire workforce. To that extent, it is of benefit to people who would like to be represented by trade unions but cannot be. Equally, it offers protection to employers who can rightfully say that the agreed rate is so much and they will not go beyond it. It provides a role and a benchmark that is clear and productive and adds to the marketplace in an open market economy an element of certainty that is necessary in terms of going forward three years.

I will not comment on the terms of the pay deal; that is for individual workers to vote upon in due course. I am talking about the process rather than the terms set out in the second section of the document.

I draw the Taoiseach’s attention to a last minute “Jesus we forgot something, we’d better get it in quick” instance. The five objectives on page five are set out, with the last including deepening capabilities, achieving higher participation rates and more successfully handling diversity, including immigration. Those last two words are where someone said we have left something out and we must put it in. It screams at the reader. The contents do not mention a word of it except when it comes to work permits.

Ten years seems like a long time, but it is only as far back as 1996. Like yesterday or tomorrow, it is very close. If migration rates are maintained at current levels, 10% of the population of the Republic of Ireland — 400,000 people — will be foreign nationals. They are not just workers from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. They come with families and have children who present at national schools. They have cultural attitudes and linguistic problems of integrating in society.

The rest of the northern European experience is crying out to us in this respect. We should talk to our Danish and Dutch colleagues or to the Swedes who opened their borders to immigrants about the problems of cultural respect and integration at the same time. We have so many lessons to learn. The Netherlands, a tolerant, open society from the time of the reformation, took in Sephardic Jews expelled from Portugal [749]and Spain and Protestants driven across the border from Catholic France and transformed the country. That open, tolerant, liberal society, which maintained that tradition until the 1990s, has now gone into reverse because of the convulsions it is experiencing in migration.

There is a free market neoliberal option of saying we need the workers, that we can forget about them once we no longer need them, and that we do not have to integrate them. The failure to integrate migrants into Dutch and Danish society, however, has transformed two open, tolerant countries into reactionary, conservative countries with a nasty tinge that none of us wants to see happen in this country. We will certainly not be Ireland of the welcomes for those people unless we are careful. We have no excuse because what we can see in the EU in a similar environment is what will happen here within ten years, only as far back as 1996. The increase of 400,000 people is the same as the populations of Cork, Limerick and Galway put together. This document does not deal with that.

Irish parents are now presenting their children for junior infants at overloaded primary schools where there are 36 children in the class, half of whom do not speak English as their first language. The parents are running to wherever they can to find another place for their children. We have a great national school system but no teacher can cope with that situation. On top of mainstreaming children with learning difficulties, schools must cope with children whose mother tongue is not English. We are overloading the system.

There is a gap between real thinking and aspiration in this document. The aspiration is to address the infrastructural deficit, as outlined on page 21. I agree with every word; there is still a significant infrastructural deficit. I have two cuttings from today’s newspapers which demonstrate how we are not dealing with the infrastructural deficit in a strategic manner. The Macroom bypass and the Fermoy bypass are reported. The Taoiseach knows from his time in a local authority how long it takes to secure the paperwork, to hold public hearings and to make the compulsory purchase order for a bypass. This is nonsense. We should be looking at the road from Killarney to Rosslare with one hearing, one inquiry and one team.

Money is not the object. The Taoiseach already said this morning that there is a problem spending the capital budget. Part of the problem is that the Government is taking small bites when it should be swallowing loads. The Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill will not address this problem if the mentality in the National Roads Authority and the Government still focuses on bypasses. We would never have completed the gas pipeline from Cork to Dublin if we had used the bypass mentality. It was a single project with a single hearing, we took it in stages and it delivered. The Taoiseach knows that [750]the construction work, which is now coming in ahead of time and under budget, is only a third of the timeframe for a project. Two thirds of the timeframe is taken up by planning, preparation and the legal process.

Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats are stuck in a bypass mentality. There is no great vision. The infrastructural deficit is on the Government benches. The capacity deficit is in the Government after nine years of unprecedented wealth. Not since the building of Leinster House was there such prosperity in Ireland, but this Government is incapable of getting expensive medical machines to work after 4 p.m. in the public sector and is still locked in a bypass mentality for infrastructure. Having said that, I want to see this document implemented and the Government that will replace the current Government next May will proceed to do it.

I endorse the Taoiseach’s comments about the democratic deficit in social partnership. It is an open, participatory, inclusive process. When we return in the autumn, we should put in place a structured reporting mechanism where we take this document, if it is ratified, and divide it into sections for Oireachtas committees, establishing quarterly meetings with the relevant players from the social partners. During the Government that was formed in 1993-94, we tried to set up the NESF to address what we thought was a democratic deficit in the role of Oireachtas Members. We found that Oireachtas Members did not want to attend, however, and the level of participation was poor by all parties. Oireachtas Members want to be in the Chamber, not elsewhere. Therefore, we should bring in the social partners responsible for negotiating and implementing this agreement to our various committees in order to get a progress report and hold them to account in a manner that suits the culture and tradition of this House.

Mr. Morgan: I wish to share time with Deputies Finian McGrath, Connolly and Sargent.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Morgan: I am extremely disappointed with the amount of time that has been allocated for the discussion on this partnership deal. It would have taken several days to deal adequately with this issue. In his address, the Taoiseach said that some people who are critical of the agreement have no alternatives to offer, but he is wide of the mark. People such as myself are critical of the current social partnership model but would be happy to submit an alternative model that would be all-embracing and would deal with the real issues affecting low-paid migrant workers as well as indigenous workers.

The two demonstrable outcomes of social partnership are its manifest failure to halt a trend towards increasing inequality — not to mention reducing or eliminating inequality — and the [751]decline in trade union membership amongst workers. The new social partnership deal is not underpinned by an objective of bringing about a fairer distribution of wealth. That should be at the core of this deal but it is not even there. Its greatest flaw is that, like its predecessors, it fails the low paid completely.

While I welcome the fact it includes measures to improve the enforcement of labour law, it was outrageous that trade unions were forced to bargain for the rights of workers to be free from exploitation — imagine that in the 21st century. Vulnerable workers have had to await the outcome of a social partnership deal before seeing their existing rights enforced. The proper enforcement of existing labour law should not be seen as a concession to unions or used as a bargaining chip in negotiations. The requirement for workers to bargain for basic rights and entitlements is, along with the democratic deficit created by the process taking precedence over this House, among the fundamental defects of the social partnership process as it is currently structured.

A deal such as this must be deemed inadequate when the wage increases that have been conceded amount to a mere 10% over 27 months. This pay rise barely covers the rate of inflation over that period. Irish inflation is already soaring at significantly higher rates than the EU average of
2.2%. At 3.9%, it is close to double that figure. At a time of growing income differentials between the highest and lowest paid workers, the additional miserly 0.5% increase for low-paid workers is derisory.

A recent NESC report found that in the Twenty-six Counties the richest 20% of the working age population now earns 12 times as much as the poorest. That represents one of the highest levels of income inequality among OECD countries. While increases contained in the new deal may seem significant to some higher paid workers, low-paid workers lose out where, as in this agreement, percentage wage increases are applied. Where are the measures to reduce wage differentials between the highest and lowest paid workers? These should have been at the core of any agreement dealing with pay issues.

I agree with the comments made earlier in the debate by Deputy Bruton, that special interests need to be faced down in the public service. However, there are even more pressing needs to face down the significant private sector interests. Much of what is contained in the agreement is broadly aspirational and reflects Government promises, already given, to implement legislation. In the past, it has taken the Government years to deliver on promises contained within social partnership deals. For example, the Dáil has only recently passed legislation on a commitment to parental leave contained in the last deal. The inclusion of the inability-to-pay clause means wage increases conceded in the agreement are [752]inextricably linked to the term “competitiveness”. If giving a pay increase is not in the interests of business and its competitiveness, the get-out clause lies in that argument.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to address many of the other issues concerning this agreement. On the whole, the deal as it stands is unacceptable and has been found wanting on many levels.

Mr. F. McGrath: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the new national wage agreement, the ten-year framework social partnership agreement 2006-15. I pay tribute to workers, members of the trade union movement and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I thank and commend all workers for their contribution to the development of the economy. When I hear people going on about the Celtic tiger, it gets up my nose when many of them forget to mention the magnificent, hard and dedicated work of Irish and foreign workers in this State. They have made a great economic and social contribution to the development of the economy. Their sweat, money and taxes have built the country. I thank and commend our workers as well as our foreign nationals for their great contribution to the country.

As regards the broader issues in this debate, it is essential that our workers are well paid for their labours. I challenge the employers on this matter and demand justice and fair play for all workers. Exploitation and low pay should never be tolerated. Anyone who exploits their staff should be strongly challenged.

I welcome the sections in page 5 of the agreement dealing with integrating an island of Ireland economy, as well as reinventing and repositioning Ireland’s social policies. I strongly support the ICTU and I urge the Government and employers to listen seriously to its constructive views. The ICTU’s solutions are sensible options to resolving many conflicts on this island. Congress is and should always be a major player. I commend again Irish workers for their magnificent contribution to the broader economy.

Mr. Connolly: We have had social partnership for over two decades and I have advocated it for all those years. I am delighted we have concluded a social partnership agreement, entitled Toward 2016, which will help us on our way forward. I generally agree with the concept of social partnership in that it allows us to plan for the long-term and permits companies to know their costs well in advance. A number of issues must be addressed, however, if the agreement is to receive universal acceptance, which it has not received. When it comes to voting on the agreement, I believe it will be quite a tight vote. We must address the issues of house price inflation and the amount the Government takes in stamp duty. We must also examine the faults in our health service, [753]in addition to energy costs for consumers, which include a State take in excise duties.

The sum of 10% over 27 months sounds good but many people on lower incomes are left further behind after each national wage agreement. We must address that problem by expanding the back-to-work scheme, child care services and medical cards. We must take these matters on board if we are to take this group of people along with us.

A number of workers’ rights have been stitched into the social partnership agreement, including term time and parental leave. These are all welcome developments but they often come at a cost to the public who are denied the service that these people would normally be asked to provide. It is all right to give somebody a day off but such leave should not take away from the public services these people would normally provide. They should be replaced by someone else in the public service. Cash-strapped Departments can use this mechanism — giving staff all the unpaid leave they want — to save money. That is not good enough, however, because people deserve a service, so staff on leave should be replaced. We must address these issues and cannot allow them to continue unchecked.

Mr. Sargent: On behalf of the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, I acknowledge the hard work of all those who worked to bring about this agreement, Towards 2016. Much of the agreement, especially the social provisions, is aspirational. Commitments need to be more concrete. Other aspects of the agreement are simply a rehash of existing policies. Many commitments are belated. I would be interested to hear why it has taken nine years for the Government to even consider drawing up a national strategy for family carers. However, aspects of the agreement, such as special pay increases for those on very low incomes and the belated decision to establish the office of the director of employment rights compliance with 90 labour inspectors and measures to address displacement of workers with cheaper labour, are welcome.

Some concern has been expressed that the social partnership process bypasses our democratic institutions. I share that concern. The commitments contained in the agreement are binding on succeeding Governments and because of this, it is important that the Dáil has a meaningful way of engaging with the partnership process and the finalising of agreements. That way is not, as the Tánaiste has suggested, through the Government.

The Green Party has consistently called for the establishment of a special Oireachtas committee to oversee and interact with the social partnership process. I repeat that call. My colleague, Deputy Boyle, our finance spokesperson, has stated that any Dáil debate on the agreement should be structured around a motion on whether the Dáil will agree or reject the agreement. With regard to the involvement of the State’s democratic insti[754]tutions, I am pleased to note that the agreement states, in a section on monitoring and reviewing arrangements, that “a meeting of all the parties to this ten-year framework agreement with the political process, chaired by the Taoiseach, will take place annually”. I raised that issue on the Order of Business this morning. Will the Taoiseach elaborate on how this engagement with the political process will take place? I have yet to receive a formal invitation to such a process. I hope this is not an indication that the Government considers Opposition parties to be outside the political process.

Whether the social aspect and its life cycle approach and the other aspects of the agreement deliver for individuals is very much dependent on who is in Government until 2016. The Government has distinguished itself as a failed guardian of important aspects of previous agreements. For example, the commitment to provide 27,000 social housing units in the next three years, while welcome, will not be achieved if the parties opposite remain in Government. I also note that the commitment falls short of the National Economic and Social Forum recommendations. Moreover, I ask the Taoiseach to indicate clearly what his interpretation of “honouring” this commitment means, given his rather liberal interpretation of honouring previous commitments on social and affordable housing.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has observed that it is the meat in the sandwich that makes the difference. I was interested to read the speech of the Minister’s party colleague and close ally, Senator Morrissey, in the Seanad on the issue. The Senator indicated that the agreement would not bind Progressive Democrats policy. I observe that the Taoiseach’s partners in Government do not intend to take social partnership too seriously. I am sure this fact has been noted by putative parties to the agreement.

The successful implementation of the agreement depends on good Government and a sound economy. With this in mind, I have listened with interest to the Taoiseach’s recent radio interview on the agreement. I welcome the fact that the Taoiseach has acknowledged that energy is a major driver of inflation. However, his insistence on producing an inflation figure with energy excluded is puzzling. It seems in no way relevant to the individual trying to feed his or her family or pay for medical treatment. Energy is the economy fundamentally. I hope this will spur the Government to adopt a more ambitious approach to energy policy.

Significantly, the Taoiseach appeared to convey the impression that he is complacent about the level of inflation which is approaching 4%. The Taoiseach also appears to be satisfied with house price inflation at 15%, even though one in five first-time buyers are being forced to take out 100% mortgages to buy houses that have an average price of more than €300,000. Judging by the [755]way he has repeatedly talked up the housing market, he appears to want house prices to continue to rise rapidly.

The 27-month pay deal comes to 4.05% per annum. Inflation, excluding house price inflation, is at 3.9% and is likely to continue to rise as the Taoiseach has admitted. I put it to the Taoiseach that if he maintains his complacent attitude to inflation and continues to spur house price inflation with his public pronouncements, the value of the pay deal and other aspects of the agreement will be wiped out. In this context, it would be fair to include in the agreement some kind of safeguard which would allow changes in the pay deal if inflation reaches certain thresholds.

In its editorial on the social partnership agreement, The Irish Times observed that “there are economic storm clouds on the horizon”. If the Taoiseach’s policy and public statements continue to push inflation and personal debt, I fear it may be correct.

I welcome aspects of the agreement but I observe that it is only as good as a Government that implements it. Whether its provisions are delivered depend on the ability of Governments in office until 2016 to manage the economy in the face of domestic pressures, such as housing demand and inflation, international pressures such as rising energy costs and the Government’s desire to have a trustful relationship with representative groups and with the people. Unfortunately, the Government is failing on each of these fronts.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle: Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 are related and may be discussed together.

Ms Shortall: I move amendment No. 11:

In page 5, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

4.—(1) As and from the commencement of section 3, a person who drives or attempts to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place where any of the windscreens or windows to the front or either side of the driver’s seat are non-transparent is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine of €5000.

We discussed this matter at some length. This amendment relates to tinted windscreens and side windows on vehicles and the fact that it would be impossible to enforce the new law in respect of hand-held mobile phones if one cannot see the driver. That is the main reason we need to move [756]to outlaw tinted windows. I suspect there are other reasons. It should be possible for the Garda or anybody else to see who is driving the car. On Committee Stage the Minister said he would look at standards and move towards change on a Europe-wide basis. That type of approach is like the retrofitting of cyclops mirrors. If we wait for the rest of Europe to do it, we will be waiting forever. This is an area where the Minister could lead the way. He can certainly introduce these changes in respect of cars in this country and, if issues arise in regard to foreign registered cars, they can be dealt with. The majority of those driving vehicles with tinted windows are Irish and could be dealt with if a change in the law were introduced. I ask the Minister to reconsider that issue.

Minister for Transport (Mr. Cullen): This matter was discussed on Committee Stage and I said we would return to it on Report Stage. I understand the motives of Deputy Shortall and other Deputies in tabling these amendments. I share their concerns about modifications to windscreens and side windows that result in excessively blacked out windows. However, regulating for the control of modifications to the glazing of motor vehicles gives rise to certain complex issues. I shall detail some of them with as much clarity as possible.

The regulatory framework for vehicle standards is set at a European level through a harmonised system of motor vehicle type approval. Standards for new cars in the EU are specified in a range of EU-type approval directives that are incorporated into a system known as EU vehicle whole type approval. Whole vehicle type approval facilitates the achievement of a single market for cars through harmonised safety and environmental standards. New cars must have whole vehicle type approval to be placed on the market in the EU and it is not open to a member state to ban vehicles which have it. To receive whole vehicle type approval a car must meet the technical specifications for a range of items, including the glazing and the field vision of drivers, which are set down in a series of separate directives. The technical specifications for glazing in these directives allow for tinting. There are enforcement difficulties in distinguishing between type approved and non-type approved glazing.

As I indicated on Committee Stage, I intend to develop national technical standards for glazing opacity in motor vehicles with a view to incorporating them into the construction, equipment and use of vehicle regulations. In that regard, I propose to ask the Road Safety Authority, on its establishment, to examine the matter and advise me on appropriate standards.

In the meantime, one of the recommendations contained in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on the mid-term review of the NCTS is the establishment of a technical standards forum to consider and make recommendations on vehicle [757]technical matters associated with the national car test, NCT. I now intend to implement that recommendation. The matter of excessively blacked-out windows could be referred to such a forum on its establishment and I intend to do that. The outcome of the work of the proposed technical standards forum also involves industry. I intend to include all the stakeholders on it so that I can tie them into an agreement. I will ensure the manufacturers’ representative is also on it. We may lead Europe in this regard.

I had intended dealing with the issue of glazing through the NCT, but now that the Deputy has raised it, I have had another look at it. We will put the issue into the mix of the forum and it is hoped we will get a resolution on it. If we have a resolution in time for the second Bill in this area, we will include it. I am acting as quickly as I can on the issue. To act unilaterally without agreement from the stakeholders would be a pointless exercise and would not put real meat on the bone.

Ms Shortall: The Minister seems to be taking a reasonable approach. However, he just said that if he could get agreement with the stakeholders, he would move to legislate in the other Bill promised. Earlier he said there were EU restrictions with regard to this. Which is it? We have been back and forth through the arguments in respect of cyclops mirrors. My advice is that there is nothing stopping the Minister from requiring the retrofitting of cyclops mirrors. The Minister of State spent some time dancing around the issue and took the same line as the Minister that he could not move unilaterally without the rest of Europe. Then he said that if he could get agreement ——

Mr. Cullen: I wish to make it clear that I will deal with the glazing issue. I just set out the backdrop with regard to Europe.

Ms Shortall: I wonder what causes the difficulty. Is it at European level or does it relate to stakeholders?

Mr. Cullen: The difficulty certainly relates to the standards set at European level. Notwithstanding that, we can look at the issue.

Ms Shortall: Europe sets minimum standards, does it not?

Mr. Cullen: Yes. There appears to be much conflict with regard to the tinting being done, much of which is non-type approved. We can try to deal with this area. Even if I do not get agreement, I agree with the Deputy it is the right thing to do and I think we should do it. If we get enough of a consensus to make it work, I will move ahead with it.

Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.

[758]An Ceann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 form a composite proposal and will be discussed together.

Ms O. Mitchell: I move amendment No. 14:

In page 5, line 29, to delete “and”.

This amendment attempts to make the legislation more robust. On Committee Stage the Minister said the section was adequate and that it limited the authorisation period. I have spoken to a number of people since and the information available to me is that it is open to interpretation and could allow a series of authorisations to be granted at the same time. We did not introduce random breath testing because it would be seen to be unconstitutional to give draconian powers to gardaí to stop people and the only way we felt it would be constitutional was if it were limited in some way. Perhaps this legislation hinges on our ability to show we are being proportionate and that we will impose limits.

The section attempts to constrain the powers of gardaí by reference to times and places, perhaps to places where drink driving was historically prevalent. My amendment seeks to include a definite expiration date. This would add to the legislation and make it more robust. I have spoken to legal people on the matter and they feel the section is quite open.

Mr. Cullen: Section 4 of the Bill outlines the scheme for roadside alcohol testing, known as mandatory alcohol testing, and the legal basis for the establishment and operation of Garda checkpoints. Mandatory alcohol tests can only be pursued on the specific written authorisation of an officer of the Garda not below the rank of inspector. That authorisation must be in writing and must clearly establish the place, date and the hours at any time between which a test may be operated. An authorisation may, potentially, straddle two separate dates. However, the hours during which the checkpoint may be established must be clearly set out in the authorisation.

The proposed amendment seems to envisage that an authorisation may extend for a period of up to eight days. This could not be the case based on the provisions presented in the text of the section. Authorisations must be specific. As I indicated on Second and Committee Stages, it is envisaged that the Garda Commissioner will prepare detailed guidelines for the operation of the checkpoints that will address this issue.

There is need for transparency in procedures for setting up checkpoints. With this in mind, the wording of the section was drafted very carefully following a significant consultation process with the Garda Commissioner and the Attorney General to get the correct balance of proportionality. I understand from where the Deputy is coming, but we carefully examined this area. More than any section, this one caused the greatest concentration and focus of both internal [759]advice from the Attorney General’s office and external opinion. The best experts tried to get the balance right so that we could be confident in producing the legislation to the Oireachtas that it captured correctly the balance of proportionality and, therefore, had the most robust chance of withstanding any challenges in the court. Between the Garda Commissioner guidelines that will be set out and the advice from the Attorney General, we feel this is the best we can deliver and that it will withstand any challenge.

Ms Shortall: It is not clear from what the Minister said how this new arrangement will overcome the issue of proportionality unless there are draft guidelines of which the Minister is aware.

Mr. Cullen: I have not seen the guidelines. They will be an operational matter for the Garda.

Ms Shortall: Has the Attorney General suggested particular guidelines?

Mr. Cullen: I do not have a set of guidelines now.

Ms Shortall: With all due respect, having delayed this issue all last year on the basis of the Attorney General’s concern about constitutional issues, it is bit much that we are now being told there is no problem. The public deserves an explanation why there has been such a volte-face in this regard. Last year there were particular constitutional problems, but now there appears to be no problem. It would be nice to have an explanation how the Minister got around these problems.

5 o’clock

Does the Minister intend to set a target in respect of the number of checkpoints that will be set up in the different Garda divisions? This should not be left to the whim of the local Garda inspector. For example, we saw from figures relating to the roadside breathalyser that two Garda divisions made no use of it. This may be because of the particular leaning of the local Garda inspector or some other reason. Last year we were told some gardaí were concerned about complaints from publicans. If the mandatory testing is to work properly, the Minister needs to set clear guidelines in respect of targets. He needs to set targets for the next six to 12 months in respect of the number of checkpoints that should be set up. Otherwise this may not have any real effect. I ask the Minister to consider sending out a directive to the Garda Síochána or else ensuring that targets for the numbers of checkpoints would be contained in the new road safety strategy. I would welcome his commitment.

Mr. Cullen: I agree with the Deputy. There has to be transparency. It would be helpful if people in any area could expect a defined number of checkpoints and they should be informed at the [760]end of every quarter or period of time that these checkpoints have been set up. I would be interested in the statistics of the number of people caught randomly as opposed to the previous way.

The Road Safety Authority is having discussions with the Garda Síochána because it is beginning to develop the road safety strategy which will take over from the strategy which ends this year. I am not the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who is directly responsible for the day to day operations of the Garda Síochána. However, there is no difference between the Deputy’s view and mine.

Ms O. Mitchell: I accept the Minister’s good faith but if a proposal does not appear within the four corners of the Act then there is no guarantee it will be implemented. All the Opposition can do is try to make the legislation robust. We cannot depend on promised guidelines or on the whim of gardaí— no matter how senior the garda might be — in determining how precisely he limits and is proportionate in his actions. This should be copperfastened in legislation.

Question, “That the words proposed to be deleted stand”, put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Ms O. Mitchell: I move amendment No. 15:

In page 5, line 30, after “operated” to insert the following:

“, and

such date and time being not more that 8 days after the date referred to in paragraph (a)”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 16 to 22, inclusive, not moved.

Ms Shortall: I move amendment No. 23:

In page 6, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:

“5.—Section 49 of the Principal Act is amended—

(a) in subsection (2) by the substitution of “50” for “80”,

(b) in subsection (3) by the substitution of “67” for “107”,

(d) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (4):

[761]

“(4A) Subsections (2) to (4) shall apply to a person who is the holder of a learner permit as if the references therein to 50, 67 and 22 were references to 20, 27 and 9 respectively.”.”

This amendment relates to the blood alcohol limit for drivers. It proposes to bring Ireland into line with the majority of European countries in respect of the blood alcohol limits allowed. This country has a very serious problem with drink driving and there is a long way to go before the culture is changed. The Minister stated on Committee Stage that he believed we should follow a zero tolerance level in respect of alcohol and driving. That is all very well but this thinking must be put into effect in legislation. I am somewhat concerned about the approach adopted in recent times by the Minister and some of his Government colleagues. In an effort to deflect criticism the Minister is using the mantra of personal responsibility. I agree that everybody should take personal responsibility in respect of driving and many other aspects. However, Government is responsible for ensuring adequate detection rates.

In a comparison with most other European countries, Ireland fares abysmally when it comes to detection rates. The chances of being stopped and breathalysed are very slight. So long as a regime is in place that does not have a detection system on a par with the rest of Europe, people will continue to take chances. We know they are doing that and sadly, we saw carnage on our roads again last weekend, as there is all too frequently, particularly on weekend nights. The message has not got across.

It is known that when people are detected, the samples show they are not just one drink over the limit but rather are significantly over the limit. The Minister needs to take steps to ensure that the limit is reduced in line with the rest of Europe. Other countries have had successes and we should learn from what they have done. Is there something about Irish drivers that we can tolerate a level of 80 mg when others regard 50 mg as the appropriate limit? Research shows that the accident risk between 50 mg and 80 mg is quite significant in terms of response times and reaction to unforeseen circumstances. If the Minister is serious about clamping down on the issue of drink driving and if he is serious about changing that culture which desperately needs to be changed, he needs to introduce a new regime. Along with random breath testing, we need to have modern, progressive blood alcohol limits in line with the rest of Europe. For that reason I propose a reduction in the limits from 80 mg to 50 mg.

I refer to comments made by the Minister earlier in the year. I am concerned at his approach to road safety. He is very fond of issuing press statements, making announcements and flying kites. This is his opportunity to follow through on some of those ideas. I do not see the follow-[762]through in this legislation. We have certainly waited long enough for this Bill. When challenged about the omissions from the Bill, the Minister takes the line that it must be looked at further. He was looking at it last year and this year it is the road safety authority who are looking at it. He now says there will be another Bill. It is always another year away before radical change is brought about.

The public is increasingly pointing the finger at those who have responsibility for the legislation and for the enforcement regime and on the huge inadequacies in both those systems.

This point was made by the European Union Transport Ministers. One Minister said it was because of a fear of losing votes in the case of coming down too hard. There is a general view among politicians and among European Transport Ministers that the public has moved on past where politicians are. The days of being afraid of incurring the wrath of publicans or any other vested interests should be long gone. The public is looking for leadership on this matter; the public wants to see an end to the increasing level of carnage over many years. This is an opportunity for the Minister to show leadership on the problem of drink driving and to reduce the limits.

I refer to the issue of zero tolerance which should be a zero drink limit for learner drivers. My amendment proposes a zero limit or a negligible limit for learner drivers. We are far too lax regarding the more than 400,000 learner drivers on the roads. They are predominantly young people who end up with their cars wrapped around trees while some lie injured on the side of the road, late on Friday and Saturday nights. There is an onus on all to move to end this situation and to bring about an enforcement system that actually means something. I suggest that as well as reducing the limit for all drivers down to the European norm, that the limit for provisional drivers should be reduced to 0.2 mg, in line with the rest of Europe. I urge the Minister to support this amendment.

Dr. Cowley: I support Deputy Shortall’s amendment. It is a good one. There was a slogan some years ago, “Just two will do”, which was unfortunate as people would then get the idea that, provided they were below the limit, they could still drive. That is correct. The difficulty is that people do not improve with alcohol. Alcohol is a depressant on the central nervous system. A person who is completely drunk can be seen to have completely lost his or her marbles. A drunk would go around like somebody who has some type of brain lesion. Certain brain lesions can mimic the effects of alcohol. Cerebellar control comes from higher centres, so the higher centres are depressed. The result is that a person who is drunk demonstrates the effects of somebody with a brain lesion or brain damage. If a person drinks for long enough the effects will be permanent. Psychoses can result from excess chronic alcohol [763]usage. Unfortunately, this can lead people to end their days in a psychiatric hospital.

It is well known that the more alcohol taken, the more depressed the central nervous system will be. It also affects the higher centres of the brain in the cerebrum. A person drinking a number of pints of beer, for example, will be more affected than a person who has drunk just one or two pints. The difficulty is that the amount taken leads to a proportionate increase in disability. Somebody who is completely drunk is totally disabled and not fit to walk, let alone drive a car. The effect of 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres blood alcohol is different from the effect of 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres blood alcohol. It is proportionate, and there is an effect at the lower level.

Other countries in the EU have introduced the lower level because they feel it is not safe for a person to drive above this level, but the penny has not dropped with us. Although we are good Europeans in various ways, the message has not been brought home to us. It is time for the stipulation to be that no alcohol is acceptable for a person who is driving. That will not happen until the limit is reduced to as low as possible. People above the 50 milligram per 100 millilitres blood alcohol limit should not drive. I support the amendment.

Mr. Cullen: The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the legal thresholds of the amount of alcohol a person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle may consume before he or she is committing an offence. It would introduce a reduced blood alcohol level for drivers on provisional licences. For the sake of clarification I point out there is an offence relating to drink driving that does not refer to any particular level of alcohol having been consumed. That is often forgotten.

Road safety policy is pursued within the framework of the road safety strategy adopted by the Government. The current strategy does not promote a reduction in current alcohol levels. The focus of the strategy is on compliance with the current thresholds, which were established in the Road Traffic Act 1994. That is the immediate focus of this Bill.

This is the correct approach at this stage. I would not rule out a move to change the overall approach to alcohol levels at some stage. However, such a move should await the implementation and enforcement of other provisions being promoted in this Bill and the achievement of compliance with the current legal framework for drink driving.

I agree with the thrust of Deputy Shortall’s comments, and the intent of the Bill centres on enforcement. The clear and significant level of enforcement is a key component of the Bill. Points have been made about some countries which have tried to enforce a zero alcohol limit for new, learner or young drivers, and that seems [764]to be working well. I indicated that this was a good idea worth considering. People have contacted me from the equality sector, regarding discriminatory behaviour etc. who have argued that it would be appalling to enforce such a limit on younger or inexperienced drivers.

Ms Shortall: Let them do so.

Mr. Cullen: I am just letting the Deputy know the mixed views we are getting on the issue, that it would be all wrong and grossly unfair to young people to do this to them.

Ms Shortall: This is about leading rather than following.

Mr. Cullen: I have no problem leading. This Bill has been described as the most radical move in road safety policy for a long time. It contains provisions for random alcohol testing, which nobody ever believed would be introduced in this country.

Ms Shortall: It remains to be seen how radical it will be.

Mr. Cullen: We will see. We have done and are doing a good job on the legislation and I expect to see the results carried through to practical application.

Deputies Cowley and Shortall have correctly made the point that young people are drinking excessively and wrapping their cars around trees. If these people ignore the 80 milligram per 100 millilitre blood alcohol limit, they will not pay much attention to the 50 milligram per 100 millilitre blood alcohol limit. The level of the limit does not affect those people. They are simply abusing the law. They have no consideration for themselves or their passengers, as we have seen in some recent accidents. They do not have any consideration for other road users either.

I am not ruling the move out, and there is a body of work to be done on the issue. The blood alcohol limits in the UK, which has one of the best road safety records in the world, are the same as ours. It is not necessarily about blood alcohol limits.

Ms Shortall: The pubs close at 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m.

Mr. Cullen: My personal view, and I believe that of the Deputy, is that the issue concerns enforcement and the belief that one may be caught. It will clearly involve a culture change. People will need to see that it is no longer acceptable in Irish society to go out on the road half out of one’s mind with drink, risking one’s own life among others. We must get that message through, as we have in other areas of Irish society which have seen total change in fixed positions on a range of social policy over the years. Mindsets have definitively been changed, and I hope we [765]change our mindset in our attitude to drink driving and speeding.

Mr. Gormley: The Minister stated that he would not rule out a move to addressing blood alcohol limits in the long term. How long must we wait before that particular topic is addressed? The Minister spoke of people contacting him regarding discriminatory behaviour, ageism etc. Why is it not possible to introduce zero blood alcohol limits for all drivers? Why pick on the younger drivers?

Mr. Cullen: It is a matter for consideration.

Mr. Gormley: I ask the question because it seems that with regard to overall alcohol policy, this Government exercises a “softly softly” approach. It does not want to disturb the alcohol industry too much. We have seen this before with the Minister for Health and Children’s proposed introduction of the alcohol products Bill, which was mysteriously shelved.

Will the Minister take a tough line on the issue of alcohol? What has been stated today is very like what the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health and Children have said with regard to the alcohol products Bill. The system is more or less self-regulation, and the alcohol industry would police itself. That will clearly not work. The Minister has stated that he will consider the issue at some stage in the future. How long will it be left before it is considered? How long must we wait?

Mr. Cullen: I spoke on this at length on Committee Stage and I consulted the Road Safety Authority, which is drafting the new road safety strategy that comes into being next year. It is doing that with some urgency as a new strategy has to be in place when the current strategy ends at the end of this year. That is the timeframe and work is already being done on it.

Mr. Gormley: Will we get legislation relating to zero blood alcohol limits?

Mr. Cullen: I will wait for the recommendations. I will not ask the authority to do a job and then do it myself. It would be wrong to pre-empt the authority, ask them to do something and then decide what it is, irrespective of what the authority believes. It will come back with a strategy which I hope we will all discuss. All or part of it may require legislation, and we will provide that.

I have the latest relevant statistics. Some 84.6% of people tested through blood and urine samples were over the legal limit. What is more interesting is that 53.6% of people were over twice the legal limit.

Mr. Gormley: That is an absolute disgrace.

Mr. Cullen: I agree with the Deputy. There is no disagreement between Deputies on any side [766]of the House on this issue. It is astonishing that 53.6% of people who gave blood and urine samples in this area were over twice the legal limit. It is criminal beyond belief. Unfortunately, we see the results on our roads.

Ms Shortall: The Minister read out those figures and stated they were interesting. That is quite an understatement. Those figures are a national disgrace and an indictment of the Government’s ability to tackle this problem.

We all accept that there is a serious cultural problem with alcohol in this country and it is a problem on which all agencies and interests must work together to overcome. The Minister has an opportunity in this legislation. I would go so far as to say he has a serious responsibility to change that culture and one does that by changing the law and ensuring the law is enforced. Those figures show that most people ignore the fact that there is a limit in place at present. It is the Minister’s responsibility to ensure a proper enforcement regime is in place.

I ask the Minister not to continue doing this. Any time we ask him about enforcement, Garda numbers, Garda activity or such like, he states that these are matters over which he does not have control and which are for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. That kind of buck passing is no longer good enough or acceptable from the Minister. A few months ago he set up this supposedly high level Cabinet sub-committee to deal with road safety so the Minister should stop making excuses. The Government is supposed to be dealing with this issue collectively and giving it priority attention. He should do so and stop stating that is someone else’s responsibility. It is the Minister’s responsibility as the person who has responsibility for the road safety strategy.

My party is stating here that it is time to show leadership on the matter and send out a strong clear message that drinking and driving will not be tolerated. One does that by bringing our limits into line with those of the rest of Europe and by ensuring, first, that the Garda gets a clear message from Government that it wants this matter tackled. At present, there is widespread ambivalence about alcohol and drink driving.

We know what has happened previously when attempts were made to reduce the limits. These Houses were overrun for a day by the vintners when they came in here. There was a significant backlash. We know what happened last year when there was talk of introducing café bars. The Minister should not play games on this. There is a massive vested interest in the drinks industry. It is his responsibility to stand up to these people because that kind of ambivalence is leading to the loss of life on a weekly basis in this country.

I urge the Minister to bring us into line with Europe and ensure that a clear message goes out to develop a new culture of respect for alcohol, at least when it comes to driving. There are many [767]other matters. The Minister has flunked on the question of advertising by introducing a voluntary code. That is nonsense. He is doing the equivalent on the issue under discussion with some kind of voluntary self-regulation. He is stating people have personal responsibility. The Minister has responsibility for the law and for enforcement and he should take action on that. I am disappointed that he has not used this opportunity. All last year, any time we raised this we heard from the Minister that he was looking at it. This year the line has changed and it is the Road Safety Authority which is looking at it. How long more must we wait?

I am not prepared to accept the Minister’s further long-fingering on this. I am pressing this amendment.

Mr. Gormley: Briefly——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Shortall has replied to the debate.

Mr. Gormley: ——the Minister has given figures here which are a national disgrace.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: We cannot have a Committee Stage debate.

Mr. Gormley: The Minister spoke of a culture. He must change that culture. At all levels there [768]must be an interdepartmental approach to this. I have spoken at length about this at the Joint Committee on Health and Children. People are dying on our roads. We speak of personal irresponsibility, but the buck stops with the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Chair must put the amendment.

Mr. Gormley: I urge the Minister to send out the strongest possible signal here today that he means business. If he does not accept the amendment——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I ask Deputy Gormley to resume his seat.

Mr. Gormley: The figures given here today are truly astonishing.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Gormley should not ignore the Chair.

Mr. Gormley: The Minister cannot put his head in the sand any longer. He must act.

Mr. Cullen: A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Minister has spoken twice on this.

Amendment put.

[767]The Dáil divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 76.

Tá
Breen, James.	Breen, Pat.
Broughan, Thomas P.	Bruton, Richard.
Burton, Joan.	Connaughton, Paul.
Connolly, Paudge.	Cowley, Jerry.
Crawford, Seymour.	Crowe, Seán.
Cuffe, Ciarán.	Deasy, John.
Deenihan, Jimmy.	Durkan, Bernard J.
Ferris, Martin.	Gormley, John.
Healy, Seamus.	Higgins, Michael D.
Hogan, Phil.	Howlin, Brendan.
Kehoe, Paul.	Lowry, Michael.
Lynch, Kathleen.	McCormack, Pádraic.
McGrath, Finian.	McGrath, Paul.
McManus, Liz.	Mitchell, Olivia.
Morgan, Arthur.	Murphy, Catherine.
Neville, Dan.	Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
O’Dowd, Fergus.	O’Keeffe, Jim.
O’Shea, Brian.	O’Sullivan, Jan.
Pattison, Seamus.	Penrose, Willie.
Perry, John.	Quinn, Ruairi.
Rabbitte, Pat.	Sargent, Trevor.
Sherlock, Joe.	Shortall, Róisín.
Stagg, Emmet.	Stanton, David.
Timmins, Billy.	Twomey, Liam.
Upton, Mary.	Wall, Jack.

[767]Níl
Ahern, Michael.	Ahern, Noel.
Andrews, Barry.	Ardagh, Seán.
Brady, Johnny.	Brady, Martin.
Browne, John.	Callanan, Joe.
Callely, Ivor.	Carey, Pat.
Carty, John.	Collins, Michael.
[769]Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.	Coughlan, Mary.
Cowen, Brian.	Cregan, John.
Cullen, Martin.	Curran, John.
Davern, Noel.	de Valera, Síle.
Dempsey, Noel.	Dempsey, Tony.
Dennehy, John.	Devins, Jimmy.
Fahey, Frank.	Finneran, Michael.
Fitzpatrick, Dermot.	Fleming, Seán.
Fox, Mildred.	Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
Glennon, Jim.	Grealish, Noel.
Hanafin, Mary.	Harney, Mary.
Haughey, Seán.	Healy-Rae, Jackie.
Hoctor, Máire.	Jacob, Joe.
Keaveney, Cecilia.	Kelleher, Billy.
Kelly, Peter.	Killeen, Tony.
Kirk, Seamus.	Kitt, Tom.
Lenihan, Brian.	Lenihan, Conor.
McEllistrim, Thomas.	McGuinness, John.
McHugh, Paddy.	Moloney, John.
Moynihan, Donal.	Moynihan, Michael.
Mulcahy, Michael.	Nolan, M.J.
Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.	O’Connor, Charlie.
O’Dea, Willie.	O’Donnell, Liz.
O’Donoghue, John.	O’Donovan, Denis.
O’Flynn, Noel.	O’Keeffe, Batt.
O’Keeffe, Ned.	O’Malley, Fiona.
O’Malley, Tim.	Parlon, Tom.
Power, Peter.	Power, Seán.
Roche, Dick.	Sexton, Mae.
Smith, Brendan.	Smith, Michael.
Wallace, Mary.	Walsh, Joe.
Woods, Michael.	Wright, G.V.

[769]Tellers: Tá, Deputies Stagg and Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher.

[769]Amendment declared lost.

Ms Shortall: I move amendment No. 24:

In page 6, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:

“5.—Where a person applies to renew a learner permit but has not taken the driving test since the previous occasion on which the person was granted a permit, the licensing authority shall refuse the application if it is satisfied that the person has failed to take reasonable steps to obtain and fulfil an appointment to take the driving test.”.

This amendment relates to my suggestion that people are required to take a driving test. That is not too much to expect. In recent years the Government has failed to tackle serious problems we have with provisional drivers. We have an intolerable situation whereby approximately 500,000 unqualified people drive various types of vehicles. There is no question but that is a factor in the poor accident rate in the country.

For a long time the Minister has spoken about what he will do in respect of the driving test system. However, the initiative of 45,000 additional tests is quite disappointing as it represents a drop in the ocean of what is actually required to tackle the problem and bring waiting lists down to an acceptable level of six to ten weeks within a reasonable time. The initiative [770]states that waiting lists will be at 26 weeks within five years and will continue to deteriorate after that unless immediate action is taken.

An issue which came to my attention when I examined the situation is that people play the system. They drive on a provisional licence for two years and then apply for their next licence. All that is required is evidence that a person has applied to do a driving test and he or she does not need to actually do the test. The person then cancels the test and continues to drive on the new provisional driving licence he or she just received. That is done on a widespread basis.

Last year 23,000 tests were cancelled. If the Minister is serious about tackling this matter and bringing about sense or reason, it is obvious he must move to close that loophole. People are using the system. It represents an extraordinary waste of the tight resources in this area. We need all the test slots we can get. However, last year 23,000 were completely wasted at considerable expense to the taxpayer. It happens on an annual basis.

The Minister and his predecessor signalled they would bring an end to the practice of provisional licence holders driving unaccompanied which makes no sense whatsoever and does not happen anywhere else. It is a scandal and should be finished as quickly as possible. The Minister keeps stating it will be done as soon as the waiting lists are brought under control. However, that is a chicken and egg situation because the Minister [771]must put in place a testing regime to ensure the system can cope with existing demand and he is not doing so. Sooner or later he must end that practice.

The Minister should move immediately to introduce a system whereby people are obliged to take a test before they can renew their licence. Surely, it is not too onerous or too much to expect that people sit a driving test. The Minister can do so at the stroke of a pen by agreeing to this amendment. A system can be in place within a year as most test centres have waiting lists reduced to less than a year. New provisional licences could be time-limited to one year and if holders wish to renew them they would have to show evidence they sat a test. It is a basic requirement.

Ms O. Mitchell: I strongly support this amendment. When I first came to this brief, the fact I found absolutely unbelievable, as do many members of the public, was not only was there such a long waiting list for driving tests but 400,000 drivers did not have to pass a test. Once people sit the driving test a certain number of times, they never have to do so again and people made a life choice based on this. It makes a nonsense of having this huge bureaucracy to pretend we have a testing system to which one must apply. That bureaucracy is based in Ballina and is hugely costly, possibly inefficient and completely underresourced.

However, the rules are in place and we do not implement them. People sit the test but do not have to pass it, and after a certain point they do not even have to bother sitting it. It makes absolute nonsense of road safety aspirations and strategies and the crocodile tears we cry when we hear of further road accidents and road deaths. Licensing, testing and instruction systems are fundamental and must happen before anything else does. The system allows indifference to prosper.

Deputy Shortall’s amendment is only a beginning, and represents a sensible place to start. If we do not require retesting, people can either continue as they are and never bother take a test at all, apply for the test and not show up because it is not that important to them or show up without having made any preparation and fail yet again. They further reinforce the failure of the system by turning up again and again.

If the Minister does not show he is serious about changing the testing system, he will not receive co-operation from the public. The public thinks it is a laugh that we tolerate such an incredibly inefficient system which would not be tolerated in any banana republic. I support the amendment.

Dr. Cowley: I have sympathy with Deputy Shortall’s amendment and I agree that many [772]people refuse to take the test. However, I feel consideration for older people should be entered into the equation. I asked a parliamentary question about the number of people over 65 years of age who are on provisional licences, and the reply was a couple of thousand.

Many of them have been driving for years and have never been involved in an accident. Many of them do not drink. They live alone in isolated rural areas and use the car as an essential lifeline. A restricted category should be created whereby an older person would still be allowed to go to the church or shop. This could be confined to daylight hours or a certain radius of, perhaps, five to ten miles.

I have been approached by many such people who have driven on provisional licences without incident for more than 20 years. They travel only limited distances. Perhaps they could have got a licence in the past but did not do so. They feel they would be unfairly discriminated against if they had to take a test because when they receive an invitation to take a test they feel threatened. They want a concession equivalent to one for younger people who are waiting for a driving test but who, in the future, may have to undergo mandatory training and spend an interval before they can apply for a licence.

Otherwise, these people in their mid-60s and mid-70s who live in remote areas will not be able to go to shops or to church on Sundays. They do not drink. They may be unable to take the test because it is too complicated. It is not that they do not want to do what is right, of course they do. However, at the same time they do not want to be stranded. They would settle for a limited test or a compulsory training programme if necessary.

Mr. Cullen: I rest my case.

Ms O. Mitchell: Deputy Cowley is putting the kibosh on it now.

Dr. Cowley: I am putting the kibosh on it because I must speak for my constituents——

Ms O. Mitchell: The Deputy does not have to do so.

Dr. Cowley: ——and my older constituents in particular who deserve consideration.

Ms Shortall: What about the young men killed on the roads?

Dr. Cowley: I am talking about areas with no public transport. Those people deserve special consideration and I ask the Minister to take that into account.

Mr. Crowe: Everyone accepts there must be a requirement for people to sit the test. I sympath[773]ise with the amendment but I have difficulty with the words “failed to take reasonable steps”. Deputy Shortall might expand on that. My experience is the opposite in terms of the people with whom I deal. Many young people want to take the test but cannot because of the backlog. As a public representative those are the cases I hear about.

The 23,000 cancellations every year is a substantial number and I do not understand how they can be justified. I would understand if people were not in the country when called to do the test, but 23,000 appears to be a very high figure. I am concerned that if we insert the words “failed to take reasonable steps” in the Bill, there would be increased bureaucracy at local authority level over what is a reasonable step. In other words, it may create a form of bureaucracy that will be difficult to resolve. Some sort of guarantee should be given that people will get the opportunity to sit the test in the period of their licence. That is not unreasonable. As I said, my experience is that people want to sit the test.

I spoke previously about the fact that some Members who are spokespersons did a mock test for one of the radio stations and we all failed. During the test I experienced the palpitations and so on that I felt when doing the original test. That was a wake-up call for me in terms of upskilling and not taking it for granted that I can sit even a mock test without first doing a pre-test course. That is my difficulty with the amendment and I would like Deputy Shortall to explain what “failed to take reasonable steps” means. My experience as a public representative is of young people contacting me to ask if I can do anything to get an earlier date for the test because they need it for a specific job and so on.

Another problem, and I raised it with the Minister, is the difficulty experienced by many young people along Border areas to get employment and so on. I have asked the Minister to examine the possibility of facilitating people sitting tests, especially those in areas of high unemployment, who have no alternative in terms of public transport. We must provide facilities to help such young people, and possibly older people, living in those areas.

Mr. Cullen: I am not sure whether I or Deputy Shortall should endeavour to answer the questions raised. We are on section 4, which deals with mandatory alcohol testing. This is more appropriately a matter for section 10 but I will deal with it now. It is not necessary to stipulate the conditions under which learner permits have effect in the Act. Those are dealt with in regulation. I appreciate the point Deputy Shortall is seeking to provide for, but detailed requirements concerning conditions to be met regarding eligibility for a learner permit and any renewal thereof should be set out in regulation rather than [774]in the Act which should deal with the enabling provisions.

Deputies have spent the past 45 minutes attacking me for not doing anything and putting matters off. I am happy that what I have achieved in road safety in the 18 months since I came into office has been to the point and that I have fulfilled much of what people sought for many years. The record in that regard will speak for itself.

This different arguments surrounding the issue of learner permits and who should have what, where and when must be teased out. I have had more suggestions and ideas from people on this issue than on any other and continue to get them daily, verbally or otherwise, from those who visited other countries. That is their right. On its appointment, the Road Safety Authority identified this issue as one of the key ones it wants to resolve and on which it wants to move forward.

Irrespective of whatever happened with different Ministers, I have set out to tackle the backlog which I agree is unacceptable. People driving on their own on provisional licences is unacceptable. It is wrong that someone can drive into a test centre, do a test, fail it, get back in their car and drive on the road again. That is beyond debate. It is wrong and we will have to change it but I do not want to change it in a way that discredits the whole process. There is little point in changing the system if we cannot implement the change we legally bring about. Issues must be resolved before we do that.

It is wrong to say we are dealing with only 40,000 tests. Of more than 100,000 tests — the backlog is approximately 130,000 — 40,000 as a proportion were outsourced but with the additional contracted workers we have brought in, the bonus scheme we put in place and our own driver testers, the majority of that proportion will be dealt with under the scheme. That sets us fair to change the learner driver approach radically.

I have sympathy with what Deputy Cowley said but I do not see any way we could have an amnesty for people driving on our roads, irrespective of who they are, without having done a test. There was an amnesty many years ago and I do not intend going down that road for any particular group. A number of people approached me on this issue. One lady who was driving on a provisional licence for 35 years told me that she presumed she would not be included in any future developments and that she would have to sit a test. She said she was an excellent driver and could not understand why she would have to take a test. I was trying to establish why she never took the test but I did not get an answer to the question. This woman was young, in her mid-40s. Now that I am a bit older I consider people that age to be young.

Ms Shortall: It is. We agree.

[775]Mr. Cullen: I continually tell my children that I am still young.

Ms O. Mitchell: The Minister’s children will never think so.

Mr. Cullen: In spite of our best efforts. I agree with the Deputy. Any fair assessment would conclude that we are making major progress in this area. I will resolve it but there is no point in my approaching it in a piecemeal fashion. Many different elements must be put in place. There are different interpretations of what is meant by a learner permit and a graduated licence. It is a combination of a starting point but with a graduated system leading to a full licence. It should not be easy to get a licence. It should be easy to apply to do the test and know that one can do it in a reasonably short timeframe, but the process of getting a licence should not necessarily be easy. It should be difficult enough and therefore appreciated when one gets it, with the assurance that one has reached a serious level of competence. For the reasons we have discussed on numerous occasions, I cannot accept the amendment.

Ms Shortall: The Minister said any fair assessment would show progress is being made. The only valid way of assessing road safety is by examining the figures, and the figures are going in the wrong direction. The numbers of fatalities and serious injuries are increasing. That is the only yardstick we can use. More lives are being lost, therefore, and the performance across a range of areas is not acceptable and is inadequate. That is why we need a new system in place.

6 o’clock

Regarding the Minister’s proposal on learner drivers, I have said from the outset that his projections are way off the mark. The additional 45,000 tests will do little to solve the problem. The Minister talked about the backlog of 130,000. There is a current waiting list of 130,000. In addition there is a backlog of 270,000 people driving around with provisional licences, who do not apply for a test. This is the true figure. The Minister will not make serious inroads with the meagre resources he has provided. The Minister rightly stated that all the complaints about the backlog come from people who want to get their tests completed as quickly as possible. It is for their sakes that we should end the system whereby a driver need never take a test. Some people apply for a test for the sake of renewing a provisional licence and then cancel.

Mr. Cullen: I need the people in place to do it.

Ms Shortall: They may defer the test and then cancel it later in the year and do so every year. As the IT system is such a shambles, that driving test slot is simply lost. Those slots should be filled by people genuinely trying to pass a test and get their full licence as quickly as possible. This loop[776]hole means that provisional licence holders need never take a driving test and can drive legally for the rest of their lives. My amendment refers to “reasonable steps”. Obviously some people will occasionally need to cancel for genuine reasons such as being sick. However, I am referring to the people who cancel twice a year or every year. That practice must be brought to an end. Unless the Minister agrees to the amendment, he is saying it is acceptable to have a system in which a provisional licence holder need never take a driving test in their lives.

Mr. Cullen: I am not saying that as the Deputy knows.

Ms Shortall: The Minister should move to close off the loophole and this is the opportunity to do so.

Dr. Cowley: Other countries provide for restricted categories and define when and where certain people can drive. I do not see why we cannot be innovative. Surely the system is supposed to suit the people. If a category needs consideration, at least we should hold an investigation to determine whether such a proposal is possible.

Mr. Cullen: I do not believe any system exists anywhere that provides for people to get a licence to drive without any test.

Dr. Cowley: We were the first country in Europe to introduce a smoking ban, on which I compliment the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin. Just because something is not done elsewhere does not mean we should not consider it here. Older people need every consideration because we will be old ourselves sometime.

Ms Shortall: A person can grow old waiting for a driving test in this country.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Ms Shortall: I move amendment No. 25:

In page 6, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:

“5.—Where a person who holds a full driver’s licence is convicted by a court of an offence under section 49 or 50 of the Principal Act or an offence of driving without due care and attention or careless or dangerous driving or dangerous driving causing death, the person shall (upon the expiry of such, if any, period of disqualification as the court may impose) be required to surrender his or her driving licence to a licensing authority and shall if otherwise eligible and be entitled to apply for a learner permit, and notwithstanding any other provision of the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2006, the person may [777]drive unaccompanied only during the first year in which he or she holds such a learner permit, unless by the expiry of that year he or she has taken or re-taken as the case may be such driving test and passed such test.”.

The purpose of this amendment is to send a clear message in respect of road traffic offences. It was a very good idea first floated by the Minister and discussed on a number of occasions. Unfortunately we did not get the follow through, which seems to be a hallmark of his.

Mr. Cullen: In all fairness——

Ms Shortall: He releases the press statement and fails to follow through. The amendment provides for a system whereby a person who is found guilty of a serious traffic offence, as part of the penalty in addition to paying a fine or serving a prison sentence, he or she would need to resit the driving test. In the case of very serious traffic offences it is justified. I urge the Minister to support the amendment.

Mr. Cullen: The Deputy knows my general position on the matter. I do not disagree with her. The Deputy knows I have asked the road safety authority to consider this area. I reiterate that the courts have the power to require a person disqualified under a consequential order to obtain a certificate of competency by successfully undergoing the driving test as a prerequisite to having the driving licence restored. I am not sure they exercise that power very often. The conditions attached to a learner permit, including when a learner has become disqualified, are also set out in the regulation. I accept what the Deputy says. In general much of this is not enforced, which is unacceptable. We need a new regime that will meet the requirements of competency, efficiency and delivery of good standard in good time when people want it. I will not accept the Deputy’s amendment, which is premature.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Ms Shortall: I move amendment No. 26:

In page 6, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:

“5.—Where a person has been convicted of an offence under section 49 or 50 of the Principal Act, the court sentencing that person may direct that following the expiry of the period of disqualification imposed on the person, the person may not drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle for such further period, not exceeding 5 years, as may be specified, unless the vehicle is fitted with an alcohol ignition interlock which measures alcohol concentration in the breath prior to ignition.”.

[778]An alcohol ignition interlock is a device fitted to a car. If a court orders a person to have such a device fitted, the person must blow into it before being able to turn on the ignition. This is new technology, which has been tried in many countries, such as Australia and some European countries. While it is at an early stage the indications of the device’s potential to tackle the problem of drink driving are very encouraging. As the Minister said earlier, those who are caught tend not to be just over the limit; large numbers are significantly over the limit. Similarly those who are caught tend to continue to reoffend. We need such a system to prevent those hardened lawbreakers from starting the car unless they can pass the breathalyser test.

When I spoke about this on Committee Stage the Minister indicated that this technology was all very new and might have an application. As the indications are that it will be an important tool, we should legislate for such devices in the Bill. If the RSA later decides to implement the recommendation it would not be necessary to draft new legislation. Today a spokesperson from the Road Safety Authority indicated that it very much favoured alcolocks. Let us get ahead of the posse by putting the legislation in place so that we can introduce them when the need arises.

Mr. Cullen: The Deputy is right that I am waiting for confirmation from the Road Safety Authority on the matter, which has been raised by a number of bodies. It is interesting technology. If a person needed to blow into an alcolock and if he or she were over the limit it would end many problems. There are difficulties with some of these systems regarding who maintains and monitors them. That issue remains to be resolved. It is also an issue at European level as I recounted earlier. The courts can also impose this condition. Close monitoring of offenders is also required under the system. Apart from the narrow issue, I want these wider issues considered to determine how it could be introduced here.

There may also be issues regarding the EU Single Market, which I mentioned earlier. I do not want to pretend that inability to take action in this area is because Ireland is a member of the European Union. Obviously inasmuch as it is possible we want to move forward in harmony. I would be interested in the totality of a system that might be devised here involving the courts etc. The Road Safety Authority is very interested in the idea and I will wait until it comes back to me. I know one of the younger members of the authority has some very positive views on the matter.

Ms Shortall: I accept what the Minister has said and will withdraw the amendment on the basis that there is an undertaking to include it in the next step.

[779]Acting Chairman (Mr. Sherlock): Amendments Nos. 27, 29 and 30 are related and may be discussed together.

Dr. Cowley: I move amendment No. 27:

In page 6, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:

“5.—Section 106 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting the following new paragraph after paragraph (d):

“(e) Where a member of the Garda Síochána is present at the scene of an accident, resulting in the death or serious personal injury, he or she shall require where possible the driver(s) of the involved vehicle(s) to—

(i) provide (by exhaling into an apparatus for indicating the presence of alcohol in the breath) a specimen of his or her breath, and

(ii) accompany him or her or another member of the Garda Síochána to a place (including a vehicle) at or in the vicinity of the scene of the accident and there to provide a specimen of blood or urine for examination for the presence of drugs including illegal drugs and alcohol, and to provide a specimen of his or her breath by exhaling into a special apparatus (if not already provided).”.”.

I am amazed that there is no provision for the automatic testing of a person involved in a road accident. A driver who kills somebody in a road accident can walk away without being tested for alcohol or other drugs which could have interfered with his or her ability to drive safely. The Minister has claimed that, with the introduction of mandatory breath testing for drink driving, the Government’s safety strategy will start to yield benefits but the terrible reality is that the Bill leaves it to an individual garda to decide whether to administer a test in the aftermath of an accident. I am aware of tragic cases in which people were killed but the driver was not tested for alcohol or drugs.

The European Transport Safety Council’s report, which was published on 9 May 2006, criticised Ireland for having the second lowest rate of alcohol testing within the EU and for the fact that only one fifth of gardaí are trained to use breathalysers. We all accept the need for public responsibility but a minimum level of legislative provision is also necessary if we are to ensure that somebody who commits a crime is brought to justice. Given that so few gardaí are able to use breathalysers, it is no wonder that people get away with drink driving.

The law as it stands provides that somebody may be required to submit to a preliminary test, which leaves the decision to the discretion of an [780]individual garda. I propose to amend the legislation to require that all drivers at the scene of an accident shall be required to submit to a test. Requiring everybody to be tested may give rise to resource problems because there are insufficient gardaí but there is an obligation on the Government to ensure that all drivers involved in serious or fatal accidents are breathalysed. If it is not practical to administer a test at the scene of the accident, it should be administered at the earliest possible opportunity. The Bill will be a complete farce if it is enacted without a provision for alcohol and drug testing.

Alcohol is the most commonly abused drug. This year alone, more than 200 people have died in road traffic accidents. I was glad to have assisted Public Against Road Carnage in devising a petition, which collected more than 20,000 signatures in County Donegal, to demand that the provision I propose form part of the Bill. People were appalled that this lacuna exists.

My amendment also provides that a person can be tested for drugs because a major problem exists in that regard. Yesterday, the Irish Independent reported that young people use cannabis as a drug of choice. Cannabis has a detrimental effect on young people and drivers and these drugs are commonly abused in secondary schools.

The drug problem is a result of the withdrawal of gardaí from rural areas. Young people aged between 20 and 25 who regularly drive while under the influence of drugs are a serious danger on our roads but they have little chance of being caught because of the lack of random drug testing. If a garda does not smell alcohol or discover drugs, he or she has no reason to arrest a person.

Ecstasy tablets, which cost €5, are widely used. They are reputed to give a high equivalent to the consumption of five to eight pints of beer. I have never taken ecstasy but young people on provisional licences who pay high insurance premia are happier to take this drug than to drink alcohol. With no alcohol in their blood, they have nothing to fear from breathalysers. Mandatory random drug testing, as well as additional gardaí, would help in increasing detection rates. Large areas of the country have been left without gardaí. If people think they can get away with drink driving, they will attempt to do so.

Over the past ten years, alcohol consumption has increased by 41%. The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Ms Nuala O’Loan, has stated that the use of breathalysers in situations where injuries occur is consistent with human rights law. It is important, however, that gardaí are trained in the use of breathalysers.

Ms O. Mitchell: Is amendment No. 28 also being taken at this stage?

Acting Chairman: No, we are dealing with amendments Nos. 27, 29 and 30.

[781]Ms O. Mitchell: My amendment No. 28 addresses the same issue as Deputy Cowley’s amendment but I am happy to discuss it later.

I resubmitted amendments Nos. 29 and 30 because they provide for mandatory drug testing. Drugs have been implicated in a number of accidents. The drugs in question were for the most part prescribed. The Minister outlined the difficulties involved in devising a foolproof comprehensive test and noted that nine different testing systems had been tried in Europe but none worked. I accept that difficulties exist but they can be overcome. All I ask is that provision is made in the Bill to enable the Minister to introduce regulations when a suitable test is developed.

I do not wish to pursue people who are on prescribed drugs but want to emphasise the need for hard information as a basis for policy. Everybody has an idea with regard to improving road safety but the danger arises that, by attempting too much, we lose our focus on the real causes of accidents. That is why it is important that information is gathered at the scene of accidents. Amendment No. 29 is necessary if the other amendment is accepted. I will come back to amendment No. 28 if it will not be accepted now.

Mr. Cullen: Amendment No. 27 proposes that section 106 of the principal Act be amended so that where a member of the Garda Síochána is present at the scene of a collision where death or serious injury has occurred, he or she shall require the driver to provide a breath sample to establish the presence of alcohol. The driver may accompany a garda or another member of the Garda Síochána to a place, including a vehicle,to provide a blood or urine specimen for examination for the presence of drugs or alcohol. In the first instance, section 106 of the principal Act relates to the offence of leaving the scene of a collision or a hit and run. There would be little point in applying this amendment to hit and run cases because there is no driver to test.

There is no roadside test available for drugs, a matter about which all countries are exercised. Some nine systems have been tested recently and all have failed. There is no available method for taking a test. When such a test is put in place, many of the matters raised in other areas will come to the fore again. Significant research is being pursued by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, which is involved in the international forum that deals with the issue. Should a garda form the opinion that drugs have been consumed, he or she can use section 14 of the 1994 Road Traffic Act to require the person to accompany him or her to a station to take a blood or urine sample.

Amendment No. 29 proposes that a member of the Garda Síochána can request a person in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle to accompany him or her to a station if the garda is of the opinion that the person is under the influ[782]ence of drugs and has been involved in a road traffic accident. A roadside breath sample can be requested to indicate the presence of alcohol from any driver involved in a collision. My difficulty with this amendment is that the detection of a driver under the influence must, until a robust method for preliminary drug testing is found, be based on the determination by a garda on the incapacity of the driver to control the vehicle. Certainty was brought to mandatory alcohol testing and I do not want these amendments to allow any opportunity for people to challenge measures in this. I appreciate the Deputy’s intent but we must keep the legislation as tight as possible.

Amendment No. 30 proposes to introduce mandatory testing for substances other than alcohol. Given that the amendment proposes a link to the mandatory alcohol test system proposed in section 4, I presume it refers to drugs. A system for testing for the presence of drugs is not available. Once that system is in place, we will have to define procedures in legislation and I cannot stab at these in the dark.

Dr. Cowley: There is a case to be made for it. Deputy Olivia Mitchell has an amendment that refers to alcohol testing without drug testing and, on that basis, I withdraw the amendment.

Acting Chairman: Subsections 2 to 7 of the new section proposed by amendment No. 28 introduce a matter comprehended but not discussed previously. I ask that Deputy Mitchell take this into consideration.

Ms O. Mitchell: I move amendment No. 28:

In page 6, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:

“5.—(1) A member of the Garda Síochána, present at the scene of a road traffic accident, shall require any person who was in charge of vehicle that was involved in the road traffic accident to—

(a) (i) provide (by exhaling into an apparatus for indicating the presence of alcohol in the breath) a specimen of his or her breath, or

(ii) accompany him or her or another member of the Garda Síochána to a place (including a vehicle) at or in the vicinity of the checkpoint and there to provide, by exhaling into such an apparatus, a specimen of his or her breath,

(b) (i) leave the vehicle at the place where it has been stopped, or

(ii) move it to a safe place in the vicinity of the road traffic accident, and keep or leave it there until the person has com[783]plied with a requirement made of him or her under paragraph (a).

(2) A member of the Garda Síochána, for the purposes of making a requirement of a person under subsection (1) may indicate the manner in which the person must comply with the requirement.

(3) A person who—

(a) refuses or fails to comply forthwith with a requirement under subsection (1)(a) or (b)(i) or such a requirement in a manner indicated by a member of the Garda Síochána under subsection (2), or

(b) without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails to comply immediately with a requirement under subsection (1)(b)(ii) or such a requirement in a manner indicated by a member of the Garda Síochána under subsection (5), is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction—

(i) to a fine not exceeding €5,000,

(ii) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months,

(iii) to disqualification from driving for a period not exceeding 2 years, or

(iv) to any combination of (i), (ii) and (iii) of this subsection.

(4) A member of the Garda Síochána may arrest, without warrant, a person who commits, is committing or has committed an offence under this section.

(5) In a prosecution for an offence under—

(a) this section,

(b) section 49 or section 50 of the Principal Act, or

it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that an apparatus provided by a member of the Garda Síochána for the purpose of enabling a person to provide a specimen of breath pursuant to this section is an apparatus for indicating the presence of alcohol in the breath.

(6) Nothing in this section shall be used to delay in any way, the provision of any medical assistance to a person injured in a road traffic accident.

(7) A person who does not comply with a requirement under subsection (1) by availing of protection under subsection (6), shall continue to be obliged to comply with such requirement as soon as may be medically practicable.”.

[784]The amendment is self-explanatory. It requires the Garda Síochána to test anyone involved in a road traffic accident for alcohol. It provides for a fine in the case of those who do not comply. The circumstances to which the Minister referred, where drivers may be unconscious, are catered for but the obligation is not removed. Whenever it is medically practicable, the test will be done.

The Minister stated that it would be unfair if one driver were conscious and the other unconscious but it is not a question of fairness. We are introducing mandatory alcohol testing for people who may be perfectly innocent. One may be stopped and tested on the way home. It would be strange if we could do that, on the one hand, but could not test someone at the scene of a road traffic accident on the basis that it would not be fair unless we stopped everyone else.

Mr. Cullen: I did not mean it that way. It would be challenged in court and we would lose.

Ms O. Mitchell: Testing is carried out in many cases for the purposes of prosecution, but I seek testing for the purposes of information on which to base policy. People think accidents are caused by drink driving and speeding. Perhaps this is true, but we should seek to ascertain to what extent this is the case. I would like this amendment to be accepted. It seems nonsensical that we can stop and test innocent people but those involved in an accident may not be tested.

Dr. Cowley: I support this amendment for the same reason I proposed the previous amendment. It is farcical that many are killed on our roads with no one held responsible. We are about to pass a Bill that will allow a driver to drink and drive, kill several people and walk away from the accident without being tested for alcohol. This amendment would redress the situation.

The Minister cannot ignore 20,000 signatures collected recently and handed in to his office yesterday. People want the Minister to address the situation. Tragedies have occurred, with people killed, and the driver walked away without being tested. Alcohol is perhaps the most common drug of abuse. It is unfortunate that the Bill does not address the situation.

Mr. Crowe: I was tempted to state that there is not a pub in Ireland where people do not drink and drive. We have all heard the urban legend of those who are over the limit and feign injury after an accident. When the garda comes to take the alcohol test the person claims to have had a drink to settle their nerves in the hospital, house or wherever. There is a difficulty then because, supposedly, they cannot be charged with being over the limit. There is also a difficulty where the fire brigade is called because the firemen will not give a breathalyser test.

I agree with the sentiments in this amendment. Such action needs to be taken. Everybody wants [785]to get rid of these lunatics on the roads but people will use all sorts of ploys to avoid being tested. The Minister must examine this issue. I do not know if this is the way forward but one hears on the grapevine that this is happening more often so it must be addressed.

Mr. Cullen: I do not have any evidence, overwhelming or otherwise, to suggest that people involved in serious accidents who are out of their minds with drink are not being tested for alcohol or drugs consumption. The Road Traffic Acts provide that a member of the Garda Síochána may require a person in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle to provide a preliminary breath specimen where the vehicle is involved in a road collision. Garda discretion with regard to the use of preliminary roadside tests in such circumstances is necessary having regard to possible injuries sustained and I do not propose to alter that.

If we make it mandatory and somebody, for whatever reason, cannot be breathalysed on the road, the case will be thrown out of court and the person will walk away because procedures were not followed. We cannot make it mandatory because it will simply open a Pandora’s box of escape routes for everybody. If somebody is unconscious on the side of the road, they patently cannot be given a breath test and if it is a mandatory procedure, the case will be thrown out of court because the procedure set out in law was not properly followed. That might seem bizarre but that is the situation.

The gardaí must have flexibility to deal with this. The power of the gardaí to require a person to provide a breath sample where a collision has taken place already exists and the gardaí certainly exercise it. Given that and the need to maintain Garda discretion in this matter, I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment. I remind Deputies that the Road Traffic Acts also place an obligation on a person to provide a blood or urine sample in a hospital. This applies where an event occurs involving a vehicle which results in persons being injured or a person claiming or appearing to have been injured whether the person is admitted to or attends a hospital and a member of the Garda is of the opinion that at the time of the event the person had consumed an intoxicant. An intoxicant includes alcohol and drugs or any combination of alcohol and drugs.

There must be that discretionary base when going into a court case.

Ms O. Mitchell: I withdraw the amendment.

Dr. Cowley: I wish to speak on the amendment.

Acting Chairman: The amendment has been withdrawn.

Dr. Cowley: I should have spoken before that. I was on my feet before it was withdrawn.

[786]Acting Chairman: The amendment is withdrawn.

Dr. Cowley: I accept what the Minister has said but it is terrible that there are people who will be over the legal limit and will not go to a hospital but who will walk away from an accident and not be breathalysed. It is a farce that it is not included in the legislation.

Acting Chairman: The Deputy’s observation will be recorded.

Amendments Nos. 29 to 34, inclusive, not moved.

Acting Chairman: Amendments Nos. 35 and 54 are related and may be discussed together.

Mr. Cullen: I move amendment No. 35:

In page 9, line 42, to delete “section 138(3)(a)” and substitute “section 138(3)”.

This is a drafting amendment recommended by the parliamentary counsel. It corrects the existing text.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman: Amendment No. 37 is related to amendment No. 36. Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 will be discussed together.

Ms Shortall: I move amendment No. 36:

In page 9, line 44, to delete “4” and substitute “5”.

The purpose of these amendments is to increase the disqualification periods for the most serious offences as well as dangerous driving. I hope the Minister will accept them.

Ms O. Mitchell: I second the amendment.

Mr. Cullen: The advent of the new administrative disqualification and fixed charge system for certain drink driving offences placed the spotlight on the range of mandatory disqualifications currently applied under the Road Traffic Acts. The immediate consequence of a decision to apply an administrative disqualification of six months to a specific group of drink driving offences means that the periods for minimum disqualification that apply following convictions for drink driving offences generally required review.

That review established that there was a need to look critically at the overall range of minimum disqualifications that are currently applied in respect of the more serious offences created under the Road Traffic Acts. The disqualifications in question are known as consequential disqualifications as they are applied as a consequence of conviction of an offence. The range [787]of offences to which they apply was set out in the Road Traffic Act 1994. That Act, with an amendment promoted through the Road Traffic Act 1995 in respect of certain drink driving offences, also established the minimum periods for such disqualifications.

Given the much higher profile that applies to road safety now and accepting that there is a broad consensus on the need for more consistent deterrents that reflect the seriousness with which society views breaches of traffic law, it is timely that the system for consequential disqualification should be reviewed. The section therefore provides that the minimum period of disqualification for the most serious offences, which include dangerous driving causing death or serious injury and the most serious drink driving offences, will be increased from two years to four years in respect of a first offence and from four years to six years for a second or subsequent offence. The new offence of striking a railway or other bridge which gave rise to death or serious injury has been added to the list.

The Deputy proposes that the periods be increased from two years to five years for the first offence and from four years to ten years for a second or subsequent offence. These proposed increases are disproportionate, having regard to the disqualifications generally. The periods in the Bill are a significant increase on the current position and it is still open to the courts to apply longer periods if it is deemed appropriate to do so. I recall when dealing with other issues similar to this it was pointed out to me that if one includes disproportionate provisions in the Bill, the courts will just do something different. The court will look at the proportionality of the provision and the range of years involved but it is open to the court to impose a longer period and a more severe penalty.

Ms Shortall: The Minister said I am seeking that the period be changed from two years to five years, but I am not. The Bill as drafted provides for a period of disqualification that is not less than four years for a first offence and six years for a second offence. I suggest that instead of four and six years, it should be five and ten years.

Mr. Cullen: There is not a great deal between us. The current period is two years and I am increasing it to four years. The Deputy is proposing that it be five years. I prefer to leave the Bill as it is.

Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.

Mr. Cullen: I move amendment No. 39:

In page 11, line 39, to delete “said”.

Amendment agreed to.

[788]Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.

Ms Shortall: I move amendment No. 42:

In page 12, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“8.—The speed limit on any non-national road in respect of which a local authority has not specified any alternative limit, whether before or after the commencement of this section, is 60 kilometres per hour.”.

I feel strongly that the default speed limit on our roads is too high at 80 km/h. Given that there are many more country roads and lanes than there are decent roads, it makes more sense to have a lower default speed limit that applies everywhere and on those roads that can take a higher speed, it should be up to a local authority to designate the speed limit. The default speed limit being so high leads to ridiculous situations on dangerous, narrow roads. It is not practical to talk about putting in place lower speed limit signs on these minor roads so it is logical, therefore, to put the signs on the better roads.

Mr. Cullen: The Oireachtas has only recently reduced the overall speed limits and the default limit. I have given strong powers to local authorities to look at this. I do not agree, however, that it is impractical for local authorities to look at signs on these roads. A person going out over a few weeks would resolve the ludicrous situation of roads which are clearly unfit for 100 km/h speed limits. It is possible to come off a dual carriageway with a 60 km/h speed limit on to a country road with a limit of 100 km/h.

At national level, the Oireachtas has done everything possible to overcome this. It is only recently that we set the default limit at 80 km/h. Deputy Shortall wants to reduce the limit to 60 km/h but I am not minded to go down that road yet. I would rather have full implementation of the powers the local authorities have in this issue, one they have failed to address. There has been sloppiness at local authority level and I have urged councillors to get the managers to get the issue on the agenda and resolve it for once and for all. That would be a better approach.

Ms Shortall: I move amendment No. 43:

In page 12, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“8.—(1) Where road works are being carried out by any person including a local authority, the person shall erect and maintain such signs as comply with requirements prescribed by the Minister for Transport, and such further or other road work signs if any as are required to obviate any danger to the public.

[789]

(2) A person (including a director, member, officer or employee of a body corporate whose default contributes to the non-compliance) who fails to comply with subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and on summary conviction shall be liable to imprisonment for 12 months or to a fine not exceeding €5,000 or both.”.

Again, I feel strongly about this. Since I met the father of the late Aisling Gallagher, I have been exercised by this issue. He spent a lot of time explaining the circumstances in the untimely death of his young daughter and brought home to me how lax the current regime is in regulating road works.

It was only when I tried to investigate some of the issues he raised that I realised we have a system where the National Roads Authority sets down regulations covering the management of road works carried out by a contractor. If there is a temporary surface on the road, the speed limit must be reduced in a corresponding fashion and clearly marked with safety alerts. That is how it should be. However, I was amazed to discover that the same requirement does not exist when local authorities are involved in road works.

As a result of that absence of regulation, a situation arose where Aisling Gallagher’s father alleges she was driving along a familiar road on what appeared to be a brand new surface but which was not flagged as temporary and which had markings on it. When she had to brake, she had no grip because the surface was only temporary and, sadly, she went off the road. There have been allegations that similar conditions have pertained to other fatal accidents and it was through meeting him and hearing his story that I discovered there is no proper regulatory regime covering local authorities.

This is an appropriate place to close that gap because this Bill is primarily about road safety. We should introduce a new system whereby local authorities would be legally obliged to comply with the guidelines set down just as any other contractor is and failure to comply would attract penalties including a fine of up to €5,000 or 12 months imprisonment.

Dr. Cowley: I strongly support this amendment and congratulate Deputy Shortall for bringing it forward. I tabled a similar amendment but it was ruled out of order because of a potential charge on the Exchequer. The amendment allowed for an annual audit of fatal and serious road accidents to establish their causes. Current statistics are the tip of the iceberg on the number of accidents caused by road conditions. I also called for a special road traffic accident unit to be set up which would co-ordinate a full investigation of all serious and fatal accidents and make recommendations to ensure the prevention of such accidents in future.

[790]Since the start of the year, 203 people have been killed in road accidents and we must learn the lessons. The numbers are not going down and we must find out the causes of these accidents. If we do not know the causes, we cannot prevent further accidents. A certain percentage are due to road conditions and we can do something about this. Aisling Gallagher’s case makes it clear there are people who are not doing their jobs, such as local authorities involved in road works, and who are not following basic recommendations laid down by law by the NRA. As a result, people are being killed.

Aisling Gallagher’s case was tragic. She was a young girl about to go to America with her whole life in front of her but she was killed around Christmas last year. She was doing nothing wrong, her car was in perfect working order, she had tax, insurance and her licence and she was driving at the proper speed. There were no drugs or alcohol in her blood but she died because someone did not do his job. The surface was temporary and markings were put down on it.

The HSA said it would not investigate because the lines were put on a temporary surface improperly. That was the excuse. Thanks to the persistence of Mr. Gallagher and myself, the case is now being investigated by the Health and Safety Authority. I was shocked to the core by the haphazard nature of the system of investigating serious and fatal accidents. For instance, I met the NRA, together with Mr. Tommy Gallagher, on 10 March 2005. The authority’s representatives said it was not the NRA’s responsibility to ensure that its directives, specifications, standards or guidelines were being implemented at any one site. They were not obliged to visit work sites or inspect work. They were not responsible or accountable for the competence or otherwise of the staff employed by any local authority on projects that had been funded by the NRA. We were informed that when the NRA funds a project, the local authority is not in any way answerable to the NRA regarding safety, work methods, work programmes, engaging in good work practices, risk assessments, contingency plans, health and safety regulations or correctly following the NRA directives. We were told in no uncertain terms that the only people any local authority was answerable to were the elected representatives.

Acting Chairman: I wish to advise the Deputy that his contribution is outside the terms of the amendment.

Dr. Cowley: With respect, Sir, it is not. This is all within the terms of the amendment, including the case of Sinéad McDaid who was killed on loose chippings because there was one sign up which was hidden by grass. I do not believe that is outside the terms of the amendment either. We are talking about rural conditions and people being responsible while others are fined. At present, however, nobody will take responsibility [791]for national secondary roads. Somebody must be made responsible for them, otherwise we will not get to the bottom of it.

I also wish to refer to the case of a man who was paralysed in Wexford because he skidded on loose chippings, which were swept up the next day. Another girl was killed in Edenderry, County Offaly, as a result of loose chippings that were swept up the following day. Such chippings are supposed to be swept up when the job is done.

Acting Chairman: I wish to advise the Deputy that his contribution is outside the terms of the amendment. He is giving what I would describe as a general Second Stage speech. He should confine himself to the amendment.

Dr. Cowley: With respect, Sir, I have to say that——

Ms O. Mitchell: The guillotine is at 7 o’clock.

Mr. Cullen: The Deputy is using up everybody’s time.

Acting Chairman: He is indeed.

Dr. Cowley: Everybody’s time. What about Sinéad McDaid’s time? How about Aisling Gallagher’s time?

Ms Shortall: That is a cheap shot.

Dr. Cowley: It is not a cheap shot.

Acting Chairman: If the Deputy will not conclude, I will ask an tAire to respond.

Dr. Cowley: Somebody must be responsible for investigating these cases.

Ms O. Mitchell: Why did the Deputy not turn up on Committee Stage?

Acting Chairman: Fan go fóill. I am asking the Deputy — I am telling him — to confine himself to the amendment. He is going outside the bounds of the amendment. He should please confine his remarks to the amendment and then I will call an tAire.

Dr. Cowley: With respect, Sir, I disagree that I am talking outside the terms of the amendment. I challenge that.

Acting Chairman: I am advising the Deputy that he is.

Dr. Cowley: I will not make an issue out of it. I strongly support this amendment. The NRA, the HSA and the Garda Síochána are not in a position to co-ordinate post-accident investigations properly. Somebody must be responsible for [792]doing so. What is the point of making regulations if they are not implemented?

Mr. Cullen: I wish to reply to Deputy Shortall’s question by giving her some up-to-date and, hopefully, relevant information. As she knows, the 1996 traffic signs manual deals with this issue. I will try to foreshorten my reply because there is not a lot of time available. I examined the issue regarding local authorities, which seems to be central to what Deputy Shortall is saying. The overall manual is currently the subject of a comprehensive review. The immediate focus of that review is the presentation of a new chapter 8 relating to road work signage. A draft of the chapter has been circulated to local authorities for their views. It is my intention to publish the chapter as soon as the review has been completed, probably later this year when the consultation process is over. With its publication, the signs described in the new chapter 8 will provide the only reference point for the provision of road signs at road works. The chapter will represent a direction to local authorities from the Minister and, accordingly, they will be required to comply with the provisions that are set out in it. The Deputy is correct and the process to deal with the matter is already well under way.

Ms Shortall: I am satisfied with the Minister’s reply and I withdraw the amendment.

Dr. Cowley: That had to happen because of the death of Aisling Gallagher.

Mr. Cullen: The Deputy should stop grandstanding.

Dr. Cowley: This is true, Minister, and I hope it will be enforced now.

Mr. Cullen: All of us in this House are equally concerned with those matters.

Dr. Cowley: I wonder.

Mr. Cullen: The Deputy should not grandstand in here.

Dr. Cowley: It takes so much to get action.

Mr. Cullen: The Deputy should not do that.

Dr. Cowley: I can give the Minister more names if he wants.

Amendments Nos. 44 to 46, inclusive, not moved.

Acting Chairman: Amendments Nos. 47 and 49 are cognate and may be discussed together.

Dr. Cowley: I move amendment No. 47:

[793]

In page 12, line 36, after “learner” to insert “and exempted older persons”.

I am referring again to older people who deserve some consideration. I ask the Minister to examine the possibility of mandatory retraining or some type of limited test for older people who have been driving for years. Older people do not want to evade their responsibilities but to do the right thing. In years gone by, however, they could have bought a driving licence without sitting a test, but did not do so. The Minister should examine the situation and try to provide some special restricted category for them. I recognise, as the Minister says, that it does not happen elsewhere but we introduced the smoking ban and other countries are following. The system should assist older people who deserve our support. I ask the Minister to examine that matter.

Ms Shortall: I have some sympathy with the last speaker concerning the position in which many older people find themselves, especially as we have allowed a regime to continue where one never has to take a test. It is essential for everybody to sit a certain test to establish a minimum level of driving competency. After that, however, there is the potential for a graduated licensing system. We have been promised that but there has been no move on it yet. Other jurisdictions issue restricted licences whereby drivers cannot drive at certain times or beyond certain speeds and must adhere to horsepower limits. We need to consider such a system.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with older people who may not have any experience of using technology. I ask the Minister to look at the manner in which the theory test is administered. It is simple for most people. Young people like it because they can press the buttons without difficulty but it is terrifying for many older people. The Minister should consider introducing the option of a written theory test in a limited number of centres. Many drivers are put off by the theory test but they might be eased into the testing regime if the Minister could re-examine the written test option. The whole idea of having a graduated licensing system also has merit.

Mr. Cullen: This issue was raised earlier. I understand where the Deputy is coming from and as a result of this debate I will feed this idea back into what is going on with regard to the permit issue. We must be clear on two fronts, however. First, we are not suggesting that any category of people can go on to our roads without meeting any standards whatsoever, including medical standards. That would not be acceptable. Second, we have an EU-wide recognition of driving licences. In other words, there is an equalisation of the standard across Europe whereby driving licences are recognised. If we contemplated going some way down that road, we would have to bear in mind that it would not impact on our ability to have Irish driving licences recognised for people [794]going on holidays and renting cars in an EU-wide scenario. Notwithstanding the Deputy’s position, which has been well articulated, I am not in a position to accept the amendment at this point, but I will feed it back into the review that is currently under way.

Dr. Cowley: I thank the Minister for that commitment.

Mr. Cullen: I thank Deputies for their support and co-operation and the discussion that took place on the Bill. I appreciate the effort by all parties to have the Bill passed. I also thank my officials.

Ms O. Mitchell: I thank the Minister, his officials and staff for the major effort that went into the Bill. If there was criticism, it was borne out of frustration to be able to do more in the Bill. I hope the Minister will follow through with some of the commitments he gave because we all want the same thing, an improvement in road safety.

Ms Shortall: I wish to echo those comments and thank all the officials for their hard work.

Acting Chairman: As it is now 7 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: “That the amendments set down by the Minister for Transport and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed.”

The following motion was moved by Deputy Rabbitte on 4 July 2006:

That Dáil Éireann, noting that it is now more than four years since the last general election:

deploring the many failures of the current Government including:

—the failure to deal with rising crime rates, the lower detection rates and the continuing unacceptable level of crime, ranging from gun murders to vandalism and anti-social behaviour;

—the failure to adequately protect the children of the nation by its incompetent, disjointed and ill-judged response to the issues raised by the Supreme Court judgment in the CC case;

[795]—the failure to ensure value for taxpayers’ money and the shocking waste of public money on such ill-judged and mismanaged projects as electronic voting and PPARS, a health sector computer project which ran dramatically over budget without delivering an effective payroll system;

—the failure to deal with the crisis in accident and emergency units and to clear all hospital waiting lists within two years, as promised in May 2002;

—the failure to deliver affordable child care for hard-working families;

—the failure to provide adequate school buildings in developing areas; the increase in the number of children in classes of 30 or more; and the reneging on the commitment to reduce class sizes for children under nine to below international best practice of 20:1;

—the failure to honour the commitment that 80% of all taxpayers would pay at the standard rate; the delay in closing off loopholes that allow a number of super-rich individuals to avoid paying their fair share of taxation; and the reliance instead on more than 50 stealth taxes;

—the failure to deal with rising prices which has now resulted in an annual inflation rate of almost 4%;

—the failure to deliver the required level of broadband roll-out to meet private and commercial needs;

—the failure to deal with escalating house prices which have increased at nine times the rate of inflation since 1997 or to deliver the required level of social and affordable housing;

—the failure of the Government to deliver an adequate strategy for road safety, particularly in regard to the implementation of the penalty points system;

—the failure to ensure that the benefits of economic growth were shared out fairly, as a result of which, according to Central Statistics Office figures published this week, 21% of the population are at risk of poverty; and

—the failure to halt the decline in the numbers engaged in farming and the continuing low level of income for many farm families;

censures the Government for its many failures;

believes that this arrogant, tired and fractured Administration has lost initiative and [796]coherence and has descended into aimless drift; and

concludes that the interests of the country and people would therefore best be served by the dissolution of the 29th Dáil and the holding of an early general election.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “General Election” in the first line and substitute the following:

“commends the Government for the strategic vision which it has displayed and the competence with which it has discharged its duties, such that:

—more than 600,000 jobs have been created since the Government took office in 1997 while the rate of unemployment has been reduced from 10.3% to 4.3% over the same period;

—a new strategy for science, technology and innovation to 2013 is being implemented, involving the initial investment of €2.7 billion up to 2008, which will drive economic growth, continue to create high quality and high paying jobs and facilitate social advancement;

—a truly integrated national transport network is being developed in Ireland through a record €7.8 billion investment in transport infrastructure over the past 9 years and a further €34.4 billion investment under Transport 21, which is the largest infrastructure programme ever undertaken in this State and will mean that €9.4 million is invested in transport every day for the next 10 years;

—the introduction of a national disability strategy has supported and reinforced the equal participation in society of people with disabilities through a €900 million multi-annual investment programme for disability support services and the implementation of a range of new legislative measures;

—the Office of the Minister for Children was established giving a clear focus on the needs of children at the heart of Government with the responsible Minister at the Cabinet table and an integrated approach to the implementation of the National Children’s Strategy across all the relevant Departments;

—countless deaths and serious illnesses caused by second hand tobacco smoke are being avoided and the quality of people’s lives have been vastly [797]improved because the Government took the courageous step of introducing a smoking ban in workplaces across the country;

—the economy is being managed in a way that delivers increased prosperity for all citizens, allows increased resources to be used to improve public infrastructure, and allows for enhanced social services aimed at addressing the needs of the less fortunate in our society;

—Ireland’s fiscal performance is among the best in the developed world, with Government indebtedness the second lowest in the euro area;

—this country now has a far more equitable tax system where the top one per cent of earners pay more than 20% of all income tax and the top 4% of all earners are expected to contribute about 40% of the total income tax yield for 2006, and where those on or below the average industrial wage will pay only 6% of all income tax, and where OECD data shows that once again Ireland has the lowest tax wedge (i.e. income tax plus employee and employer PRSI) as a proportion of gross wages in the EU;

—the necessary resources have been provided to meet the priority needs in frontline and essential services such as new health units and disability services in the health area, special needs teachers and assistants in the education area and greatly increased numbers of gardaí to ensure public safety and to fight crime;

—the net impact of the Government’s successful measures to boost employment and improve social welfare rates has been to remove 250,000 people from consistent poverty;

—the public is getting maximum value for money, through a robust framework that has been put in place for appraising and delivering capital projects from the multi-annual programme of capital investment which, at twice the European average, is transforming our infrastructure, with most projects now coming in ahead of time and within budget;

—there has been an unprecedented reduction in waiting times for hospital procedures achieved through the National Treatment Purchase Fund and increased investment in hospitals and specialist staff, so that in most instances, the NTPF will offer treatment to any patient waiting more than three months;

[798]—the establishment of the Health Service Executive and its role in bringing unified management for the first time to major projects in information technology, hospital buildings and new services, is achieving consistent national service standards and best value for money;

—significant improvements have been achieved over recent months in some of our 35 A & E departments through the substantial actions and unprecedented focus by management to address the problems that existed there;

—there has been a five-fold increase in investment in school buildings, a new proactive approach to school planning in developing areas has been introduced and by next September there will be 4,000 more teachers in our primary schools;

—an unprecedented programme of resourcing and reform of the criminal justice system has been undertaken, including bringing the strength of the Garda Síochána up to 14,000, so that serious crime rates are now lower per head of population than 10 years ago;

—the Prison Service had sufficient resources to end the scandal of the ‘revolving door’;

—the most comprehensive range of legislative measures to combat crime and anti-social behaviour in all its forms was introduced;

—there was an immediate response by the State in successfully appealing to the Supreme Court the decision of the High Court to release ‘Mr. A’ and that emergency legislation was speedily enacted to deal with the issues arising from the Supreme Court judgment in the ‘CC case’;

—a new comprehensive approach to road safety was introduced involving the establishment of the Road Safety Authority and the Garda Traffic Corps, the expansion of the penalty points system including the introduction of a fully computerised nationwide system from April and the soon to be enacted Road Traffic Bill 2006 will introduce mandatory alcohol testing, privately-operated speed cameras and a ban on hand-held mobile phones when driving;

—the €499 million Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme 2000-2006 was implemented, securing the creation of 41,000 new quality child careplaces by [799]programme end, of which 29,000 were in place by the end of 2005;

—the €575 million on-going investment in the New National Childcare Investment Programme 2006-2010, will create an additional 50,000 child careplaces;

—there have been substantial increases in child benefit, which has quadrupled since 1997, and is now supplemented by the early childcare supplement, a universal payment of 1,000 euro per annum in respect of each child under the age of six;

—there have been very substantial improvements in maternity benefit, parental leave and adoptive leave since the Government took office;

—radical reform in the area of consumer protection was introduced by establishing the new Consumer Agency and abolishing the Groceries Order, which kept prices artificially high;

—the regional broadband strategy has resulted in a rapidly growing, competitive broadband market that has seen a tripling of broadband take-up, falling prices and greater choice in services and providers for the consumer;

—the largest ever spending on social welfare at €13.5 billion (equivalent to double the spend in 2000) was introduced in the last budget benefiting 1.5 million people;

—the commitment in the programme for Government to increase child benefit to €150 for the first two children and €185 for each subsequent child was achieved in this year’s budget;

—the carer’s allowance was increased to €200 per week for those over 66 (an increase of almost €43 in two years) and €180 per week for those under 66 (an increase of more than €40 in two years) and that the respite care grant increased to €1,200 (up from €835 in two years);

—pensioners have a decent income by increasing rates this year by €16 to €193.30 (contributory) and €14 to €182 (non-contributory);

—the policies and investment were put in place to deliver record increases in housing supply, including the building of one third of all houses in Ireland in the period since 1997 — more than half a million new homes — and the needs of almost 100,000 households were provided for through various social and affordable programmes in the same period; and

[800]concludes that the best interests of the country and the people are served by allowing the Government to complete its programme before the dissolution of the 29th Dáil and the holding of a general election, which is due next year.”

—(The Taoiseach).

Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): I wish to share time with the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O’Donoghue; the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith; Deputies Peter Power, O’Malley and Hoctor.

Acting Chairman: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms Harney: I am pleased to contribute to what is effectively a motion of no confidence in the Government. There is much interest in the World Cup. I was pleased last night to watch some of the match between Germany and Italy. This debate reminds me somewhat of bumble bee soccer. Everybody is swarming around the ball, they are all over the pitch, there is no coherence, no co-ordination, no strategy and certainly no goals being scored as there is not in bumble bee soccer.

7 o’clock

To govern is to choose, as Napoleon once said. Next year the people will be involved in the serious business of choosing a Government. They will recognise that in choosing one, they have the capacity to drive the country forward or backwards. Elections are not about personalities, who looks good on the front cover of Hello magazine or who can provide the best political entertainment in either this Chamber or on television and radio. It is about the serious business of governing society for a five-year period. If there is anything we have learned during the past 30 years, it is that Government economic management determines the success or failure of the economy. If we do not keep our eye focused on the ingredients that delivered unprecedented economic success, economic dry rot will set in, but unfortunately by the time it is noticed, it will have disastrous consequences.

I often feel there is a view in the Opposition that the economic performance of the country is on automatic pilot, that one can go into the Department of the Taoiseach, press a button, keep one’s finger on it and regardless of who pilots or co-pilots the aeroplane, it will go in the same direction. Statements such as, “we are on your side”, or “we are going to change a few procedures” sound fine, but the people are entitled to know what specific policies the would-be Government opposite will pursue in office. I suggest that if the parties opposite, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and the Green Party, are in Government together, they will not be able to get their act together in the cockpit. They will be wrestling over the controls on issues such as Aer Lingus, defence policy——

[801]Mr. Durkan: I would not say that. We know all about wrestling over controls on the Government side also.

Ms Harney: ——age of consent, Great Southern Hotels, school examinations, health reform. There is such incoherence among the three parties opposite that the plane would never take off and if it did, it would crash into the first mountain.

I wish to highlight some of the transformation that has taken place in Ireland during the past nine years. Unemployment is down from 10.9% to 4.3%; instead of 1.4 million people at work, 2 million people are at work; instead of a single person on average industrial earnings of €19,300 in 1997, that person is on €32,000 today; instead of paying tax after €70, they do not pay any tax.

Mr. Durkan: House prices went up tenfold. The Tánaiste should include that also.

Ms Harney: I will deal with that issue. Those people do not pay any tax on €304 per week.

Mr. Durkan: They do not have a chance.

Ms Harney: When one factors in what one calls stealth taxes and inflation, the average single person on the average industrial wage takes home €180 more than nine years ago.

Mr. Durkan: I hope the Tánaiste is not serious about that.

Ms Harney: I want to concentrate on three other issues where the Government’s track record must be acknowledged. First, is the reduction in income tax which means we have the lowest income tax on work in all the European Union, second is the job record, and third is consistent poverty. Some 250,000 people have been removed from consistent poverty during the past nine years, down from 310,000 to 60,000.

Mr. Stagg: So sweet.

Mr. Durkan: Hospital trolleys.

Ms Harney: Let us take insurance reform. When we started to reform insurance, we did not get involved with simple woolly ideas. We got involved in serious structural change. We had a plan. We faced down the vested interests and even though parties opposite wanted me to allow everybody to get their legal costs, which would have meant no change, we resisted that. What has happened? Motor insurance has been reduced by €1 billion during the past three years and insurance on employment, employers’ liability and public liability insurance is down by more than €600 million, a saving to consumers of €1.6 billion. When the Opposition talks about waste, let it talk about the facts. We have turned the corner on health reform.

[802]Mr. Durkan: Really.

Ms Harney: In June the number awaiting admission on trolleys was down by 39%.

Mr. Durkan: In the middle of summer.

Ms Harney: I shall list all the hospitals, as of Monday last, where there was nobody waiting more than three to six hours for admission to a hospital bed, which is the international standard. It is a long list of hospitals: St. Luke’s in County Kerry, St. John’s in Tullamore, South Infirmary in Cork, south Tipperary, Portlaoise, Navan, Roscommon, Cashel, Nenagh, Louth County Hospital, Portiuncula, Mullingar, University College Hospital Galway, Cavan, Monaghan, Ennis, St. James’s Hospital in Dublin, St. Vincent’s, Letterkenny and Waterford. That is 23 out of 35 hospitals where people were not waiting more than three to——

Mr. Stagg: What about Naas General Hospital?

Mr. Durkan: It was not among them.

Ms Harney: It is not. Comparing like with like, we have turned the corner. What is important about health reform? Members opposite criticise the establishment of the Health Service Executive.

Mr. Durkan: Rightly so.

Ms Harney: Everybody must acknowledge that one entity, which is what the Health Service Executive has become, is better than 58 bodies.

Mr. Durkan: What about MRSA?

Ms Harney: I have given but three examples recently of what that reform is delivering. In cancer care, everybody in the country, regardless of where they are treated, will get quality assured care. At total of 60% of breast surgery in this country in 2002 was performed by surgeons who did fewer than ten cases per year. That is highly dangerous and will change. It would not have changed under the old health board regime. In paediatrics, there will be a single hospital for very sick children. The old health board regime would not have had the capacity to do that. In the north east where there are 300,000 people and five hospitals, 50% of the elective work in the region comes to Dublin, so the patients are voting with their feet, and 25% of all hospital cases in the region come to Dublin. We are going to get a single new state-of-the-art hospital with the five hospitals being satellites of that new hospital.

Mr. Durkan: When?

Ms Harney: For as long as I have been a Member, I have heard people say that is the solution but nobody put it into practice.

[803]Mr. Durkan: What about the people who are dying?

Ms Harney: My time is limited. As Ed Murrow, the US journalist said, do not confuse slogans with solutions. The Opposition is strong on slogans, but very poor on solutions. For the remainder of our mandate, we will focus on solutions. Many of the challenges society faces are challenges that come from success. The Government, with its coherent vision for the future and its coherent economic policy, elements fundamental to the success of any Government, will focus on providing the solutions the people are entitled to expect of their Government.

Mr. Stagg: Will the Government implement the Hanly report?

Acting Chairman (Mr. Glennon): I call Deputy O’Donoghue and ask Deputies to allow him speak without interruption.

Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism (Mr. O’Donoghue): Since Mullingar all those false dawns ago we have listened to the meaningless meanderings of an Opposition that is tiring the public with its rhetoric.

Mr. Durkan: The Minister has been prone to a few meanderings himself. Does he remember zero tolerance?

Acting Chairman: Please allow the Minister to continue.

Mr. Durkan: I am sorry, but he provoked me. What does he expect?

Acting Chairman: Deputy Durkan is too easily provoked.

Mr. Durkan: I am sorry. I am very sensitive. If he does not mention it again, I will say no more.

Mr. O’Donoghue: That was only the first sentence.

The remnants of the rainbow coalition government, the constituent parts of which include old Labour, the retired revolutionaries of the Democratic Left and the battered survivors of Fine Gael’s last debacle, are joined today by the Green Party and “whatever you’re having yourself” in an attempt at the greatest public deception since the foundation of the State.

They say they will replace the Government’s policies with their own but they will not say what they are. They say they have a different vision for the country, but they will not say what it is. They say they can do things better, but they will not say how they will do it. They say that they know what they are doing, but they are the only ones saying that.

[804]Mr. Stagg: The Minister’s spin doctor has told him to repeat the same thing over and over.

Mr. O’Donoghue: Two years ago, the Mullingar man of Irish politics, Deputy Enda Kenny, promised the people a comprehensive policy strategy within 18 months. He has been ably assisted by the microphone man of Irish politics — the man with an opinion on everything and a policy on nothing — Deputy Rabbitte, or to give him his correct title, Pat the talker; the man who brings us today’s talk today.

Mr. Durkan: The Minister has been known for more than one opinion also.

Mr. O’Donoghue: After nine years of wrestling with the responsibilities of enforced retirement, one would have expected a coherent policy or some semblance of a strategy. Sadly, these are not forthcoming. If the Opposition cannot tell us what it will do in Government and how it will do it, one cannot know what it will do.

Mr. Durkan: The Minister should save his speech for Listowel Writers’ Week.

Mr. O’Donoghue: At least Fine Gael is consistent. It is 25 years since it won a general election and 25 years since it put a credible economic policy before the people. Kerry might have failed to win five all-Ireland senior football titles in a row, but Fine Gael is going for six general election defeats in a row.

Mr. Durkan: I assure the Minister I would not take that line.

Mr. O’Donoghue: In 1987, 1989, 1992, 1997 and 2002 Fine Gael sought the endorsement of the people and the people said “no”. Each time Fine Gael substituted policy with a chant of “go on, go on, go on” and each time the response was “no”, “no”, “no”. After the last election, the 33 “no’s” turned into 33 lost seats.

Mr. Durkan: Let the Minister tell us about his forte, crime.

Mr. O’Donoghue: Tonight’s motion gives us the opportunity to see if anything has changed.

Mr. Durkan: It gives the 16 backbenchers the opportunity to vote with the Minister.

Mr. O’Donoghue: The motion gives us the opportunity to see whether the Opposition’s rhetoric lives up to its performance. The answer is “no”, 33 times “no”

Mr. Durkan: Where did we hear that before?

Mr. O’Donoghue: In contrast, by every criterion which may be used to judge the success of a government, this Government has been a suc[805]cess. Working in partnership with the most educated generation in the history of the State, we have created wealth and prosperity over the past nine years. The people enjoy a way of life that is unprecedented in terms of disposable income and the choices available. It is wonderful that after nine years we have ended mass unemployment, witnessed massive increases in pensions and children’s allowances, experienced radical reductions in income tax and pursued a just and lasting peace on this island.

Mr. Durkan: The Government is collecting more taxes from them all the time.

Mr. O’Donoghue: We do not claim to have got everything right, but we know that all the energies of this talented and experienced Government are focused on constant and relentless improvement.

This motion is not about the Government, but about the Opposition. It is about an Opposition which relies as much on quick-pick criticisms as it does on quick pick solutions.

Mr. Durkan: The Minister is familiar with them himself.

Mr. O’Donoghue: Its criticisms do not survive the test of detailed analysis nor do its solutions stand the test of even cursory examination.

Mr. Timmins: Can we have this on DVD?

Mr. Howlin: Here in truth endeth the lesson.

Mr. O’Donoghue: Nobody knows what the Opposition wants to achieve or what standards it wants to set. Nobody knows the route it wants to take because it does not know itself.

We know the goals we want to achieve, the standards we want to set and the route we want to take.

Mr. Stagg: Why has the Government not done it up to now?

Mr. O’Donoghue: If the Opposition believes it is possible to provide top-class quality services to the people without getting the fundamentals of the economy right, it is as blinded by its prejudices as it is ignorant of the knowledge of what is required.

Mr. Durkan: Let the Minister tell us about struggling with conscience. It is an uneven contest. The Minister has upset me again.

Mr. O’Donoghue: We are determined that this new Ireland, which we have created with a vibrant, imaginative, innovative, educated and entrepreneurial generation, will be an Ireland of fairness, equality, opportunity and advancement.

[806]Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food (Mr. B. Smith): I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the motion and to set out how a modern agrifood sector has developed under the Government. It has been said that the two parties opposite are united more by what they are against than what they are for. This is certainly the case with regard to farming.

Mr. Stagg: On a point of order, will the Minister of State circulate his speech?

Acting Chairman: His speech will be circulated.

Mr. B. Smith: The Opposition motion was moved by the Labour leader who in a previous incarnation as a Democratic Left representative called farmer taxation a joke. His then leader
sneered that farmers were rolling in it. When it was suggested that Ireland might seek the agriculture portfolio in the Barroso-led Commission, the former Labour Party leader, Deputy Quinn, said that Ireland should look forwards not backward. Such is the high regard for farmers exhibited by the Labour Party. Fine Gael and Deputy Durkan and his colleagues have aligned themselves with the Labour Party. The same Fine Gael constantly predicts doom for the Irish farmer.

How Fine Gael can claim to be the friend of Irish farmers beggars belief. That claim is completely cynical, as is the Fine Gael-Labour Party motion. Rather than being a backward pursuit, the reality is that agriculture and the agrifood sector is one of the largest indigenous sectors in the economy, with annual sales exceeding €18 billion. The Government constantly and successfully promotes the development of the agrifood sector. We should continue to be aware of its importance to our economy as it accounts for approximately 8.6% of GDP, 8.5% of employment and 8.5% of exports.

I was disappointed to hear Deputy Howlin sneer when the Minister, Deputy O’Donoghue, spoke about significant progress made in creating jobs for the people. I am disappointed by the attitude of the Labour Party towards the creation of employment.

Mr. Stagg: Does the Deputy want us to apologise?

Mr. B. Smith: It would rather see the people go on the boats and planes to England and America.

Mr. Stagg: That happened for a long time under the Fianna Fáil regime.

Mr. B. Smith: We are proud that emigration has ended.

Mr. Stagg: The Government should be ashamed of itself. It did not create the boom, but it threw it away.

[807]Mr. B. Smith: The Opposition will not get the opportunity to destroy the economy.

The high level of these exports at €7.5 billion and the use of mainly indigenous resources mean the sector accounts for a significant level of the net foreign earnings from the trade of manufactured goods. The commitment of the Government to the long-term development of agriculture, food, forestry, and a vibrant rural economy is evident from the high level of public expenditure on the sector each year. The expected spend by the Department this year will be more than €3.2 billion. Last year was a very good year for farm incomes which rose by 24%, according to the Central Statistics Office, to reach a record €2.8 billion.

Mr. Durkan: That was before the WTO talks and the farm review.

Mr. B. Smith: Deputy Durkan should know that WTO talks are still in progress. The Deputy should not show his complete lack of knowledge of the sector.

Mr. Durkan: The very fact the Minister of State does not know about it is a clear indication of where he is going.

Mr. B. Smith: The WTO talks will continue next July.

This rise in aggregate farm income was due to a record level of payments to farmers by this Government in 2005. Total direct payments amounted to more than €2.2 billion, which included more than €1 billion under the single payment scheme, €550 million in rural development measures and more than €600 million in premia payments in respect of previous years. The rise in farm incomes is welcome even allowing for the once-off factors that occurred last year. This rise justifies the decision to adopt a full decoupling approach and the extra money in farmers’ pockets will assist farming in adapting to more competitive market pressures.

Mr. Stagg: Is that the reason farmers are leaving in droves?

Mr. B. Smith: They are not leaving. That is a black lie.

Mr. Stagg: The Government is starving them out of the country.

Mr. B. Smith: With the assistance of the Chair, I will give the Deputy one statistic——

Acting Chairman: The Minister of State to continue without interruption.

Mr. B. Smith: The figure is 0.1%. I remind Deputy Stagg who has consistently spoken against the interests of Irish farming——

[808]Mr. Stagg: I am a farmer’s son and have never spoken against the interests of farmers in my life.

Mr. B. Smith: I never heard the Deputy speak in favour of anything.

Mr. Stagg: I often did and the Minister of State heard me but he did not like it.

Mr. B. Smith: For the first time, exports of food and drink from this country amounted to €7.5 billion.

Mr. Stagg: The Minister of State should calm down and not get excited.

Mr. B. Smith: I get excited when I listen to untruths. We have listened to Deputy Stagg for too long in this House misrepresenting rural Ireland, misrepresenting the farmers and misrepresenting the agri-food sector. I am very glad to support the Government amendment to a motion that has no substance. It is a motion put forward by two parties who lack direction and who lack any distinct policy. They only outline what they are against.

Mr. Durkan: Those are famous last words.

Mr. Stagg: The Minister of State should keep the spin going. He should calm down and not get excited.

Mr. B. Smith: I get excited when I listen to untruths. I believe in the truth.

Mr. P. Power: In the brief time available to me I am delighted to address this motion which is divorced from the reality of modern Ireland and based on the politics of cynicism. It does not refer to the fact that this country is the envy of every other economy in Europe and sadly, it is a motion that does not refer to the Government’s record and achievement in bringing about lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

Deputy Rabbitte addressed the nation as only he can. He welcomed the motion because it would focus people’s minds. I remind him that he should be very careful about what he wishes for because he might get it. The first thing the people in Limerick will focus on will be——

Mr. Stagg: Senator Peter Callanan told the Deputy that old story and he told it to everyone else also.

Mr. P. Power: ——the future of Shannon Airport. They will look at what the Opposition has to offer.

Mr. P. Power: Fine Gael has an enlightened view on the future of Shannon Airport. It supported the Government policy of giving auton[809]omy to it. On the other hand, the Labour Party takes a diametrically opposed view.

Mr. Stagg: The Government will flog it off tomorrow.

Mr. P. Power: If the putative Government was in power tomorrow morning, will it be autonomy for Shannon Airport or will it be brought back under the umbrella of Aer Lingus under a failed policy?

Mr. Stagg: The carpetbaggers will be in control of it, the same as Telecom Éireann.

Mr. P. Power: The second issue the people of Limerick will focus on will be the future of Aer Lingus, which the House will discuss tomorrow. Fine Gael supports the Government’s reform programme in giving extra capital to Aer Lingus while the Labour Party is diametrically opposed to it.

Mr. Stagg: We told the Government how to do it without the carpetbaggers.

Mr. P. Power: The people will ask themselves whose policy will it be; will it be the Fine Gael or Labour Party policy? It is like the three card trick merchant; one never really knows what is under the cards.

Mr. Stagg: Deputy Fiona O’Malley will tell them how it is done, how two parties work together.

Mr. O’Donoghue: Find the lady.

Mr. P. Power: The electorate will be invited to participate in an effective guessing game at the next general election. They will not have a clue which card or which of their chosen policies will come up trumps. The only policy upon they agree is that they want to get into Government and share power without sharing one single policy——

Mr. B. Smith: Get them out.

Mr. P. Power: ——before the people. This is an economy of full employment, of the lowest tax, the highest growth and the lowest debts in Europe. They want to get into power and throw that away.

Mr. Stagg: We have the worst services in Europe.

Ms F. O’Malley: This motion was supposed to teach the Government something of a lesson and in some way to cast aspersions on the record and the performance of the Government. This tactic has clearly backfired.

Lessons have been dished out but they are lessons on how to govern and what it means to [810]govern: to govern is to choose. The Members opposite have suggested themselves as an alternative government, but I question the basis for that suggestion. No policies were proffered yesterday. Deputy Rabbitte mouthed a list of platitudes which like motherhood and apple pie, we are all in favour of but there was not one detail as to how——

Mr. Cuffe: What about the Kenny report when it comes to platitudes?

Ms F. O’Malley: ——any of it would be presented.

Acting Chairman: Allow the Deputy to speak without interruption.

Ms F. O’Malley: Why do they bother tabling a motion claiming they are ready for an election when they have not even bothered to put together anything of the fare they will offer the voters? If an election were called tomorrow, not one——

Mr. Durkan: What about the affordable housing the Deputy was complaining about?

Ms F. O’Malley: ——policy was given yesterday. They will have an opportunity today. What are their big ambitions for the country? Where is the vision? How do they propose to keep the success this country has enjoyed to date?

This failure in the Opposition’s ability to produce a policy has more to do with the fact that there is more that divides the proposed Government than unites it. We only need to look at the business of this House. Not just this week but last week——

Mr. Durkan: I advise the Deputy not to go there either. There is a three-way division on the other side of the House.

Ms F. O’Malley: There was a big division on Private Members’ Business last week.

Mr. Stagg: Is the Deputy backing Deputy McDowell or Deputy Harney?

Ms F. O’Malley: Yesterday on the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill, there was the same problem. The Opposition could not agree as they did not have any coherence, and this was the case also with the Defence (Amendment) Bill and we have already heard all about transport and difficulties with energy.

Mr. Durkan: The Deputy is promoting nuclear energy. What about her friends around her?

Ms F. O’Malley: It might do Deputy Durkan some good to listen.

[811]Acting Chairman: If this continues any longer I will ask Deputy Durkan for his script.

Mr. Durkan: Mine will be very short.

Ms F. O’Malley: I remind Deputy Durkan that if he stands for nothing, he will fall for anything from every interest group that comes his way but he will still be lost.

Mr. Durkan: The Deputy has been practising that for a long time.

Ms F. O’Malley: Good governance is about choices. Knowing why one has made those choices and remaining steadfast to them. Consistency, courage and cohesion are all vital elements in a successful Government. There has been no evidence of any of this in the debate to date.

A general election is a job application. When applying for a job, one puts one’s best foot forward, highlights achievements,——

Mr. J. Breen: The Deputy should stand for leader of the Progressive Democrats.

Ms F. O’Malley: ——play to one’s strengths and stresses one’s enthusiasm for the challenges the post will offer. No job applicant ever got a job by down playing the other candidates.

Ms F. O’Malley: The same holds true in politics. Decrying the Government’s performance is all very well——

Mr. Stagg: All her party did was go up a ladder and say Fianna Fáil could not be trusted.

Ms F. O’Malley: The people want to know what the Opposition will do if given the opportunity——

Mr. Durkan: They know what the Government has done and what it has not done.

Ms F. O’Malley: ——and what choices an alternative Government would make.

Mr. B. Smith: It is a proud record.

Mr. Durkan: That is what the people will make a judgment on.

Ms F. O’Malley: Deputy Durkan is like an old bellows. I ask him to stay quiet. The trump card the Opposition continues to play is that it is time for a change. This is no panacea. If the Opposition thinks that will win them the next election, they are in for a shock. They will have to try harder and credit the people with intelligence.

Mr. Durkan: Many others are in for a shock also.

[812]Ms F. O’Malley: Coherent and costed policies will have to be presented to the people.

Mr. Kehoe: The Deputy might be up there on her own next time.

Ms F. O’Malley: The Labour Party and Fine Gael missed that golden opportunity in the Private Members’ motion tonight. The Deputies give the impression that they are looking to take over a scout den rather than a nation.

Mr. Durkan: With some of the activities on that side of the House, we could be forgiven for this.

Ms F. O’Malley: It is a nation which has enjoyed enormous prosperity. The people will not yield the prudent and careful management of the country on the basis of the Opposition “not having had a go for ages”. Government is very different to being in Opposition.

Mr. Durkan: One might not think so.

Ms F. O’Malley: Governance is about being prepared to make hard choices, experience, conviction, dedication and drive. The Opposition has sadly been lacking all of these throughout the debate. Ireland is not a perfect nation, but it is not the grim, desolate and dangerous place set out by the Opposition. To say it is is to let the people down.

I will conclude on this point.

Mr. Kehoe: I am glad the Deputy is concluding.

Ms F. O’Malley: In the next election the Government will stand on its record. I have no doubt it will be successful on that record.

Deputies: Hear, hear.

Acting Chairman: Deputy Hoctor has two minutes.

Ms Hoctor: I will only be getting revved up in two minutes. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. When I heard the Labour Party’s Private Members’ time was to be devoted to a censure motion I was not surprised. It is another reflection of what goes on in Tipperary North, with attempts to highlight Nenagh hospital and downgrade it in their view.

Mr. Stagg: Deputy Michael Smith is looking after Nenagh hospital.

Ms Hoctor: The Labour Party was not looking after it anyway. We only have to look at the record of the Labour Party and its investment in Nenagh hospital, which was nil. For it, it did not exist.

Mr. Stagg: The Deputy wished to close it. Deputy Smith pulled a quick one on her.

[813]Ms Hoctor: It should have been fixed at the time of Barry Desmond.

Mr. Kehoe: The Deputy wished to close it.

Ms Hoctor: May I continue?

Mr. Kehoe: The Deputy wished to close it and Deputy Michael Smith wanted to keep it open.

Acting Chairman: The Opposition is eating into its own speaking time.

Mr. Stagg: I thought Deputy Hoctor was supporting the Hanly report, until the rug was pulled from under her feet.

Acting Chairman: The Deputy is eating into his own speaking time.

Ms Hoctor: I will again state that the Hanly report will be good for Nenagh hospital. We have already seen what has happened to Nenagh hospital.

Mr. Stagg: The Deputy better not tell that to her constituents in Nenagh if she wants to come back here.

Ms Hoctor: Deputy Stagg should see the pilot projects that are there. He knows nothing about it.

Mr. B. Smith: Exactly.

Mr. Stagg: Deputy Smith is cuter than the Deputy.

Mr. Parlon: Deputy Stagg knows nothing about it.

Ms Hoctor: Deputy Stagg can go back to Brendan Howlin and Barry Desmond and see what they did for the hospital.

Mr. Stagg: Deputy Smith pulled the rug from under Deputy Hoctor at that meeting.

Ms Hoctor: I invite the Deputy to go back and look at their record for Nenagh hospital. It does not exist because they did nothing for it.

Mr. Stagg: I do not need to go back. I know it without going back.

Ms Hoctor: The Deputy should stay in Dublin, where he belongs.

We are grateful for the opportunity, however brief, to make the case against this ridiculous motion. It is a motion of annihilation and self-destruction for a party which has no record of delivery as far as north Tipperary is concerned. I stand by the statement.

[814]Mr. Wall: The Deputy’s party is there long enough without any change.

Ms Hoctor: We have performed exceptionally well on a number of issues without a Minister in Tipperary North. There has been delivery on the Silvermines rehabilitation, and a delivery of €2.7 million on an extension to Nenagh hospital to include accident and emergency, X-ray and laboratory facilities.

Mr. Stagg: The Deputy’s time is up.

Acting Chairman: There should be order in the House.

Mr. Stagg: The Acting Chairman is abusing his position.

Ms Hoctor: Some €500,000 in funding has been announced for——

Acting Chairman: I have already informed Deputy Stagg that the exchanges across the floor were eating into the speaking time for the motion’s proposers.

Mr. Stagg: That is not allowed under Standing Orders.

Acting Chairman: I am allowing it——

Mr. Stagg: The Acting Chairman is abusing his position.

Mr. B. Smith: That is an outrageous accusation. It should be withdrawn.

Mr. Stagg: As a member of Fianna Fáil, the Acting Chairman is abusing his position.

Acting Chairman: I am allowing Deputy Hoctor to finish. If the Deputy would allow some order in the House——

Mr. Stagg: I will not withdraw the allegation. As a member of Fianna Fáil, the Deputy is abusing his position in the Chair.

Mr. B. Smith: It is an outrageous accusation.

Mr. Stagg: It is a forum and the Deputy has used her time.

Acting Chairman: I call Deputy Hoctor.

Ms Hoctor: I should be afforded the courtesy at least to continue.

Mr. Stagg: It is four minutes past the time. This is outrageous.

Mr. O’Donoghue: Deputy Stagg has been wandering all night.

Mr. B. Smith: He has nothing to say.

[815]Mr. Stagg: It is outrageous that the Chair is allowing a Fianna Fáil speaker to take Opposition time.

Ms Hoctor: Over €500,000 of the €2.74 million will be spent this year in the refurbishment of the hospital.

Mr. Stagg: It is Opposition time.

Ms Hoctor: The money has been set aside by the Government to see that project through. There is no question of underspends, staff cuts or ward closures. It is especially encouraging that the radiology department will be included in the development plan. Whatever doubt remained about the X-ray unit has now been dispelled. The money is in place and the Government has looked after the issue.

We are proud of our record in Tipperary North. We intend to be back after the next election. I await the policies of the Labour Party to see how it may try to match our efforts.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I wish to share time with Deputies McHugh, Connolly, Catherine Murphy, James Breen, Gregory, Gogarty and Cuffe.

Acting Chairman: Is that agreed? Agreed. The Deputies have 15 minutes.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Sinn Féin has no difficulty in supporting the points in the Fine Gael and Labour Party motion as tabled, but it clearly does not go far enough. Amendment No. 2 in the names of the Sinn Féin Deputies reads:

After “May 2002;” in the sixth paragraph, to insert the following new paragraph:

“—the failure to end the inequitable and inefficient two-tier system within our health services and the drive to privatise our health services through massive subsidies for the private health business while the public system is in crisis;”.

Amendment No. 3 reads:

After “farm families;” in the fifteenth paragraph, to insert the following new paragraphs:

“—the privatization of the national airline, Aer Lingus;

—the failure of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to promote community safety and human rights and his misuse of his position to target individuals and groups in pursuit of his personal political agenda;

—the ongoing erosion of Irish neutrality and independent foreign policy through the continued provision of Shannon Airport facilities to US combat forces;

[816]—the giveaway of our natural resources of gas and oil to multinationals such as Shell against the national interest and regardless of the concerns of local communities like those of Rossport, County Mayo;

—the failure to fulfil the Taoiseach’s commitment to provide for representation in the Dáil for citizens in the Six Counties and the overall sluggish approach to the peace process by the Irish Government;

—the failure to protect working-class communities from the scourge of illegal drugs;

—the failure to ensure the enforcement of employment law and in particular the failure to prevent the exploitation of migrant workers who continue to make a huge contribution to the Irish economy and to Irish society;

—the failure to address income inequality and low pay resulting in this State having one of the highest levels of income inequality amongst OECD countries where the richest 20% of the working age population now earns 12 times as much as the poorest 20%;”

The Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats Government has brought inequality in society and incompetence in government to new depths. This is despite the fact that vast amounts of revenue are at its disposal. Never had an Irish Government, and seldom had any government in the world, such resources with which to build a society and an economy on the basis of equality and excellence.

These resources have been grossly mismanaged by the Government. It has pursued fatally flawed policies, nowhere more so than in the health services. Health policy is dominated by the privatisation agenda of the Progressive Democrats. While our public system struggles with shortages of beds and staff, the Government is pouring public money into the private health business. It is bolstering the two-tier system that makes our health services both inequitable an inefficient.

There is no mention of the two-tier system in this motion. That is because the Fine Gael and Labour parties cannot agree on it. The true political alignment in this Dáil was exposed just after midnight last night when Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael joined together to vote through a defence Bill that undermines Irish neutrality and independent foreign policy. They were opposed by Sinn Féin, the Green Party and several Independent Deputies. The Labour Party, sadly, abstained.

This is the latest example of how on real policy issues, there is little or no difference between the two large right-wing parties, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. In typical opportunistic fashion, the Labour Party simply went into hiding, fearful to vote for [817]the Bill lest it alienate many of their members and supporters, who value neutrality.

Ms O’Sullivan: Did the Deputy listen to Deputy Costello’s comments last night?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The party was equally fearful of exposing too stark a difference between itself and its proposed Fine Gael partner in government.

There are also such gaps between Fine Gael and the Labour Party in other key matters, such as the privatisation of Aer Lingus, which Fine Gael supports and Labour, quite correctly, opposes. That is not to say that Deputy Rabbitte and his company would not swallow Fine Gael policies whole in order to get into Government. The Labour Party would do so in future, as it has done in the past. That is a mistake for the Labour Party. In the meantime, it must rally its support base to make the gains it believes possible in the general election.

Both Fine Gael and the Labour Party take the Green Party for granted in all of this, as do greater sections of the media, hoping that party will “do a Labour” and make up the numbers in a coalition. I have no doubt the Green Party will think very hard before going down that road. Few in the media, as is clear tonight, care to set out these uncomfortable facts. They are too busy teeing up the personality contest between Enda on one hand and Bertie on the other, and their respective side-kicks Pat and Mary.

The real issues are there and many are issues of difference between Fine Gael and the Labour Party. When the general election comes, it should not be fought on the narrow ground on which Fine Gael and the Labour Party agree. That is the reason we have tabled these amendments, challenging the Government’s record on issues including the two-tier health system, the privatisation of Aer Lingus, the sinister role of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the erosion of Irish neutrality, the sell-off of our natural resources, the scourge of drugs in working-class communities, the rights of workers and the sluggish Government approach to the peace process.

I do not expect the Taoiseach to dissolve the Dáil during the summer recess, but whenever he does, Sinn Féin will be ready and waiting to challenge this Government and provide the real alternative in Irish politics, now and in the future.

Acting Chairman: Before Deputy McHugh begins, I indicated prior to the previous speaker that there were 15 minutes in the slot. The time allocated is actually 20 minutes.

Mr. McHugh: I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this Labour Party motion. There is no doubt that everything but the kitchen sink has been included in the motion. It is a recitation of some of the worst excesses of this Government. [818]These include the wasteful expenditure of taxpayer’s money on projects and schemes which have proved to be useless, and ongoing expenditure on some of those failed projects.

The money wasted in such projects and other areas is unforgivable, not alone for the excessive amounts involved, but equally because of the good use the wasted money could have been put to in the provision of badly needed infrastructure throughout rural Ireland.

I come from the constituency of Galway East, which is crying out for investment in sewerage, water, roads, rail and broadband. These are all vital elements to enable a region to make some progress and an attempt to catch up with other areas not as neglected by successive Governments as Galway East. The lack of basic services such as water and sewage has led to the price of service building land becoming exorbitant. The lack of investment in services is totally counterproductive.

The younger citizens in our society are also suffering because of a lack of investment in primary and secondary school buildings. Many young pupils are housed in totally inferior buildings which would not have a hope of meeting health and safety regulations.

The motion also highlights the rising crime rates. No matter how the Minister, Deputy McDowell, dresses up the situation in legal speak, throughout this country people are afraid and have no confidence that the forces of law and order are equipped to protect them.

We spent a large portion of our time today discussing the Road Traffic Bill 2006. It is a wasted exercise if the resources to implement it are not provided. They are not being provided and until they are, people will continue to die.

Mr. Connolly: We have given three hours debate to an unlikely event. I do not detect any real desire for a summer election. If we held a straw poll on the Government side of the House, or on the Opposition side of the House, it would show that nobody wants a summer election. This call for a summer election is akin to whistling past the graveyard.

It is accepted that the most likely date for an election is in 12 months time, in May or June of next year. We all know what is happening here. If the main Opposition parties and we are serious about a general election, why offer the Government side a pairing arrangement? Why ask Deputies not to support their own motion and give the Government a way out? Are we afraid of our wish being granted? That is not logical. If we are serious about this here, let us pull the pin on the pairing arrangement. Let us stop this because otherwise it is a charade. That is what I believe. This is too serious an issue.

Tomorrow morning there will also be calls for an extension of Dáil sittings. We will call for the recess to be put back for another couple of weeks to sit and debate urgent issues. If we are serious [819]about that, let us sit down and form an all-party committee here. Let us agree at the start of a term that we will extend Dáil time to debate these issues, not stand up here to call for an extension of Dáil time. Let us do something about it.

We should extend the Dáil term and meet international norms. The dual mandate has been done away with. I have called for this previously and if we are serious, we should call for it again. Regrettably, I will not support this motion.

Ms C. Murphy: I would have masochistic tendencies if I sought a general election since I was only elected to the Dáil in March last year. However, I must admit to being less interested in who fills particular portfolios and more interested in the functioning and direction of government. The progress of this Government will be measured by the electorate in terms of solid delivery on the grounds of key public services. There are high profile failures on that score.

It is well understood that this country is awash with money, but has financial opportunity yielded the kind of results that should have been produced? It seems, for example, that there is a paralysis in decision making when the decision on a couple of hundred buses to ease the traffic crisis in Dublin and the surrounding counties is continually delayed. There is a failure to recognise and plan for the rapid nature of population growth. That is why in places like Kildare there are too many examples of where class sizes are above 30 or where entire housing estates are without water for days on end because critical infrastructure lags behind housing development, not because of delays in the planning process but because of the failure to fund projects.

Recently a report issued by TASC identified 450 public bodies in existence at the end of 2005. The report touches on the key Government style, which I would describe as a hands-off model. It is ad hoc, it is irrational, it is expensive and it is not improving services.

The Government amendment commends the Government for the strategic vision it has displayed and the competence with which it has discharged its duties. Try telling that to the parent who contacted me today in utter distress because vital educational supports have been removed from her child who has special educational needs or to the 370 children aged six or over who have home tuition provided because this cash-rich State cannot provide them with a school place. It is time we decided that we are living in a society and stop this idea that we are living in some sort of an economy and trying to present that as some sort of a boon in its own right.

Mr. J. Breen: Never have I seen a situation where so many in the country are in open revolt against a sitting Government, where Ministers are in constant battles against those working under [820]them, and despite the availability of vast financial resources, where the constant squandering of public money has resulted in wide scale dissatisfaction among the grass-roots supporters of even the Government parties. Whether at national, provincial or county level, the result is the same. This Government has lost the support of the people and of the Acting Chairman, Deputy Glennon, and his 15 backbenchers.

The same theme is to be found consistently across every Department, that is, unfortunately, ineptitude and failure. County Clare can give a snapshot of the national picture in almost every department. Ennis General Hospital has gone from threats of being reduced to an accident and emergency unit with no night cover to a promise of €20 million investment at some unannounced date. No one is sure of the current status of the hospital, not even the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney.

This week has seen the release of statistics showing the latest increase in drug use and associated crime, yet in County Clare, despite promises of the Minister, Deputy McDowell, of increased Garda numbers, the Garda drug unit is staffed by two permanent and one temporary member to cover the entire county.

One of the biggest shames visited on County Clare in recent times has been the installation and attempted installation of telecommunications masts at Ard na Crusha, Ballynacally, Kilkee, Tober and Ennis. Next Saturday will see a large protest against the proposed mast at the ESB site on the Rocky Road in Ennis. An Bord Pleanála gave permission for the mast, saying that not to do so would be in contravention on Government national policy on telecommunications.

The plight of Gama workers in Ennis, and nationally, might never have been rectified but for my Independent colleague, Deputy Joe Higgins taking up their fight initially. Worse still has been the abuse of labour rights of Polish workers by the ESB at Moneypoint in County Clare.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, holds a special place in the hearts of the people of County Clare. He has consistently deferred the issue of boundary extension application by Limerick County Council when he should have issued a strong and resounding “No”. He has persistently stalled and prevented the development of sewerage schemes at Carrickaholt, Labasheeda, Kilkee, Mullach, Quilty and Feakle and he has single-handedly increased the profit of national water companies because the water quality to Ennis has been below the safe human consumption level for years.

Mr. Gregory: People would welcome an election at this time to give them the opportunity to remove this wasteful Fianna Fail-Progressive Democrats Government which has failed dismally to provide for the needs of people on a range of [821]critical issues. On the housing issue, for instance, in my constituency a two-bedroom terraced house in what were corporation built estates like Cabra costs close to an incredible €500,000. It is way beyond the ability of a majority of local young people to obtain a home and remain living in their own community. The Government must accept its share of responsibility for this. For the Taoiseach after nine years of inaction to speak of his support for the Kenny report is a bit like his cynical statement to the anti-war marchers that he is against the war in Iraq, having handed over Shannon Airport to the United States war machine.

The two-tier health service and the appalling scandal of the accident and emergency units is one of the hallmarks of this Government for which they will pay a heavy price at the next election. The failure to tackle the drugs-crime crisis again demonstrates the inability of the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government to effectively tackle the critical issues of concern to people.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, attempted to ridicule the Independent Deputies — anything to divert attention from his own failure — with all the arrogance of the Progressive Democrats, the 3% party. That is the level of support for them. If Podge and Rodge formed a party, they would get more support than the Progressive Democrats. My message to the Minister, Deputy McDowell, is that when he is kicked out by the electorate we may well have Independent Deputies in government. There were Independents in government in the past and there will be again, and we will do better than this lot.

Mr. Gogarty: This motion to call an early election is opportunistic, cynical and pointless. Without a Dáil vote of no confidence, the only person who can call an election is the Taoiseach. One could cite many reasons that an election should be called and that voters would relish were one called. Fianna Fáil have squandered the fruits of the boom and filled the pockets of their developer paymasters. They have under invested in education, made a mess of health, betrayed tens of thousands of young people trying to get a house and sentenced thousands more to a life of unproductive commuting. However, the reality is an election will not be called as a result of this grandstanding. In fact, I would argue that the two parties favouring the motion would be seriously inconvenienced if the Taoiseach went to the country this summer.

When the election is called voters should be given a range of strong policy-driven options all aimed at bringing Ireland through the many challenges it will face in the coming era of high energy prices and economic uncertainty. In fact, with the exception of the Green Party and possibly a few others, they are faced with more of the same. Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, the Labour Party and the [822]Progressive Democrats all signify the triumph of style over substance, populism over policies, Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee. The Mullingar Accord is a flag of convenience and the symbol on the flag is a sheep not only because the Mullingar Accord is characterised by timidity, fear of showing leadership and a preference of the safety of the flock, but also because they are just like Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats in that their only message to the electorate is they can run the country more efficiently than the Government.

Ms O’Sullivan: What about our education proposals?

Mr. Gogarty: The electorate, therefore, will be given a choice between an incompetent Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Administration and a bland, uninspiring Fine Gael-Labour Party clone. They are the Dolly alliance, a chip off the old block and a mirror image of the current Government. All these parties readily accept and actively seek corporate donations. Because of this, they are tainted by big business and the whiff of corruption even when their intentions are honourable. They are afraid to make long-term, sensible decisions for the good of the country because they are always focused on short-term electoral considerations of a populist nature. It does not matter which of the larger parties is in government following the next election. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats are tired and need to be given a break but the supposed Fine Gael-Labour Party alternative is more of the same.

If an election is called and voters want policies that are visionary, sensible and address quality of life issues for current and future generations, the only choice is Green. The more Green Party Deputies returned next year, the more people will have a focused and honest voice. Whether it is Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee, the Green Party will make the difference. We have policies to improve our health and education systems; to protect our environment; to guard against bad planning and corruption; to tackle gridlock; to improve Government and democratic input; to deal with the looming energy crisis; and to protect and enhance our quality of life.

Deputy Cuffe will outline reasons the Green Party offers the only alternative following the next election.

Mr. Stagg: On a point of order, the Chair is obliged to enforce a Standing Order, which sets out specifically the speaking slots for the various parties during private Members’ time but the Chair has breached it again. I did not interrupt because an Opposition Member was in possession but the Chair was in breach of Standing Orders by allowing the Fianna Fáil Member an additional five minutes, thereby reducing the length of the Technical Group slot. I ask the Chair to abide by Standing Orders. The alterna[823]tive is to continue with 20 minute slots, which will result in the Government losing its slot. The Standing Order is clear that the party which moves the motion has 15 minutes to respond at the end of the debate. I have no objection if the debate runs to 8.35 p.m.

Acting Chairman: As I informed the Deputy earlier, interruptions will be factored into the time for the debate.

Mr. Stagg: The Chair is not entitled to waive Standing Orders.

Acting Chairman: In the same way, I will adjust slots to take account of the time lost. The debate was on schedule until this interruption.

Ms Shortall: No, it was not.

Acting Chairman: Until this interruption, the debate was on schedule. I ask Deputy Cuffe to resume.

Ms Shortall: On a point of order, Deputy Burton is scheduled to contribute at 7.50 p.m.

Acting Chairman: The schedule states four and a half minutes from 7.50 p.m.

Ms Shortall: It is 7.55 p.m.

Acting Chairman: There were two and a half minutes remaining in the slot. The debate did not begin at 7 p.m. and is running approximately two and a half minutes late. That is why I presume the Deputies misunderstood the current position. That is why two and a half minutes were available to Deputy Cuffe.

Mr. Stagg: Will the division be called at
8.30 p.m.?

Acting Chairman: I will not be in the Chair
at that time but my instruction to the person
taking over will be that the debate commenced two and a half minutes late and it has been delayed by another two and a half minutes because of this exchange. How the Chair deals with this at 8.30 p.m. is a matter for the person who takes over. I am dealing with the debate as I find it.

Mr. Cuffe: I was inspired by the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism earlier. In the 1970s I spent time in the Kingdom not 100 miles from Caherciveen. A man drove along the beach every Sunday in a Hillman Avenger with a sad looking greyhound on the end of a piece of string running behind the car. A match commentary could be heard on the radio while the man had The Sunday Press spread out on the passenger seat. The man was cute and he was a character but not necess[824]arily harmless and the Minister shares those characteristics.

The Green Party would happily form part of a Government that would take on board our policies.

Ms Burton: Deputy Gogarty does not agree.

Mr. Cuffe: With regard to children’s issues, we would ensure quality as well as quantity. In planning, we would build living communities rather than soulless housing estates and end the legacy of bad and corrupt planning. We would implement the Kenny report on housing rather than talk about it and we would build affordable, energy efficient homes. With regard to transport, we would have the political courage to join the dots and build more Luas lines. The rainbow coalition was a good Government and we would be happy to add colour and depth to a future rainbow.

Mr. Wall: Tell Deputy Gogarty that.

Ms Burton: I wish to share time with Deputies Shortall, O’Sullivan, Neville and Bruton.

E.M. Forster’s novel Howard’s End contains the famous phrase “Only connect”. The challenge for the alternative Government is to connect our booming economy with our social wellbeing. The central challenge for the next Government will be to create and sustain not only a successful economy but a successful society. The alternative Government will have as one of its central themes “Every Child Matters”. That means we must address the gaping deficit in local facilities, primary school places and lift children out of poverty.

The Government parties made a number of simple promises to children during the last election. They promised class sizes of 20 and under for children aged nine and under. Since then they have dithered and flip flopped on this and many other promises to children. If we are to connect our successful economy and create a successful society, tax justice matters. It may come as a surprise to the Government parties that a single worker on the average industrial wage pays tax on overtime and bonuses at 42%. Despite their promise four and a half years ago that only 20% of workers would pay tax at the 42% rate, approximately 33% of PAYE workers still pay tax at the top rate. That is the position of ordinary workers.

In tandem with this, the scandal of top earners paying little or no tax continues apace, as highlighted by the last week’s publication of the Revenue Commissioners’ study on the effective tax paid by the top 400 earners. The number of high earners paying a zero effective rate increased from five to six. Moreover, the number of top earners paying an effective tax rate of less than 15% increased by 55 to 79, a staggering increase of almost 50%. The figures highlight that tax avoidance by Ireland’s top 400 earners [825]increased significantly, due to the continued expansion of property-based tax breaks, in particular.

8 o’clock

The Progressive Democrats big idea is to extend such tax breaks to private hospitals as the tax breaks for hotels are phased out. Our health service will be investor and tax driven rather than care centred. People want a society with a caring and quality health care system, not a society where care is only seen in the context of a tax break for a small band of high net worth investors.

Other blatant avoidance mechanisms continue to be nurtured by the Government. As young couples struggle to pay stamp duty on second-hand houses, people would be surprised to know high rollers in the property development business have the option of neatly sidestepping stamp duty by either licencing arrangements or conveying shares in a company rather than the property.

The Labour Party’s campaign for tax justice has at its core the introduction of a minimum effective tax rate of 20% for the wealthy, including those notionally non-resident from our shores for tax purposes but who seem to spend almost all of their time in the country. The minimum effective tax rate would ensure that while necessary tax incentives could be provided, not even the very wealthy could avoid making a contribution at the lower PAYE rate of 20%. This is one of the reasons we need a general election and a new Government to connect the economy with the wellbeing of society.

Ms Shortall: I will concentrate on the area of road safety and the Government’s grim record in that regard. The number of fatalities on the roads has steadily risen in recent years from 335 in 2003 to 396 last year. Regrettably, those numbers seem to be heading for more than 400 this year. Behind this trend is the devastating impact of death and serious injury on thousands of families. The impact has been most acutely felt in respect of young people. We now know that one in four drivers killed on the roads is aged under 25 years, as are 40% of those who die in motorcycle collisions. To put these figures in context, one must bear in mind the number of drivers under 25 years of age is only approximately 12% of the total.

As I have often stated, the Government is not to blame for these deaths. However, it is undoubtedly responsible for addressing the key causes behind them and serious injuries. In that regard, it has dismally failed to live up to its responsibility. The fact that legislation was only passed today to introduce much needed measures such as privatising the operation of speed cameras, mandatory breath testing and banning the use of mobile phones while driving says a lot about the low priority road safety is afforded by the Government. One can add to this the fact that the Rules of the Road are 14 years out of date, driving instructors are in no way regulated and [826]there is still no compulsory practical instruction for motorcyclists.

The fact of the matter is that many measures included in the road safety strategy have been dragged from the Government as a result of pressure from the public, the media and the Opposition. The more I examine that document, the more I am convinced it was rushed out for media purposes without being properly thought through. The Government has not even been able to set a target for serious injuries because it cannot agree on the definitions. The strategy stated the target would be set in the first annual review. Not only was no target set, but there has not even been an annual review of the strategy. The target of 11 million speed checks for the current year, probably the most important road safety target, was simply ignored by the Government. Even now when the Road Safety Bill has been passed, it will still be several months before all of these long promised measures are in place.

Tenders have not yet been sought for the operation of speed cameras and we know it will be the end of the year at the earliest before they are in place. That is simply inexcusable. We still do not have an explanation from the Government, the Garda Síochána or the Attorney General’s office as to why we had to wait so long for the introduction of random breath testing. Suddenly it seems the phantom constitutional problems have disappeared.

In the area of driver testing there is the scandalous situation where 410,000 provisional drivers are on the roads, while waiting times for tests are up to 12 months. There is a long litany of delays and missed targets, as there is in so many other areas of Government activity. The problem regarding road safety is that when it comes to incompetence and delays, it involves life and death issues. When it comes to the next general election — the sooner it happens the better — a large percentage of the public simply will not forgive the Government for its incompetence in this critical area.

Ms O’Sullivan: It is hard to credit that in rich Ireland where another large surplus was announced yesterday more than 100,000 children, or more than one quarter of primary school children, are in classes of 30 or more. This figure has risen in the past three years. Our classes are among the largest in Europe. Would a Government with any sensible priorities not make it a core issue to tackle when it has money to spare? Would a Government which gave a specific undertaking in its programme for Government to the people to reduce class sizes not take the steps necessary to fulfil this undertaking? The Government does not.

Despite having the money and making the specific promise, it has broken its trust with schoolchildren. The promise to children under nine years of age and their families that the pupil-teacher ratio in their classes would be on average [827]20:1 has no chance of being fulfilled. The Minister admitted this. How can members of the Government hold their heads up with a record like this on such an important issue?

The Minister for Education and Science’s standard reply is that she spent the money on tackling disadvantage and children with special needs. However, that does not stand up. It is only this year, after nine years in government, that it finally introduced new measures to tackle educational disadvantage, just before the next general election. Up to now, there has been absolutely no addition to the schemes introduced by Niamh Breathnach in the 1990s, including the ground-breaking early start and breaking the cycle programmes.

On special needs, a Bill was enacted but it has not even been implemented. The resources and specialist staff such as educational psychologists and speech therapists are in such short supply that parents cannot access them when they need them. Schools try to arrange assessments and provide individual education plans for children with special learning needs without the supports they were promised. My colleague, Deputy Stagg, raised this issue on many occasions.

How can the Government state we have an education system which serves the needs of all children when the Department of Education and Science’s most recent study of reading shows literacy standards have not improved one iota since 1998 and one in three children in disadvantaged areas experiences serious literacy and numeracy problems? A Government in good economic times must be judged by how it spends taxpayer’s money. When it comes to the most basic aspects of the education system, it has failed to make a difference.

I will now outline some of our positive proposals because those on the Government benches constantly bleat that we state nothing positive. The Labour Party presented positive measures which we will implement in government. We published four policy documents on pre-school and primary education alone, including specific proposals to address educational disadvantage, the cost of going to school and the right to read. We also promised one year’s free pre-school education for all children and reduced class sizes. I would love to hear the Green Party’s policies to which Deputy Gogarty referred. He stated it would have 50 policies but it has not told us any of them yet.

Ireland has passed out most European countries on wealth production. However, we have fallen behind in offering opportunities to our children. This must change and it will change under a Labour Party and Fine Gael Government. Sometimes when I am in Dublin, I watch a programme called “Desperate Housewives”. It is about dysfunctional self-obsessed people who, despite having buckets of money to spend, cannot seem to get anything right. We have our own des[828]perate Ministers and it is about time they got out of the drama and back to reality and that we had a general election.

Ms Shortall: Hear, hear.

Mr. Neville: I thank the Labour Party for giving me the opportunity to raise the issue of the Government’s neglect in dealing with the needs of psychiatric services and its failure to introduce suicide prevention policies. I will begin by quoting from the report on suicide of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children which was launched today. Regarding mental health it states:

Those with mental illness are known to be at higher risk of death by suicide but the type of mental health service one can access is a matter of luck. Funding for mental health services is allocated in a random manner with scant regard for need. The provision of mental health services for adolescents is high on aspiration but low on action.

The Government has failed those of our people who suffer from an psychiatric illness. In 1997, 11% of the total health budget was allocated to psychiatric services. At a time when most of our European partners are increasing their relative contribution to the services, the Government has reduced its contribution from 11% to 7%.

The Government has scandalously failed patients with a mental illness, their families, mental health service professionals and service providers. It is of no concern to it that up to 500 people take their lives each year and that in excess of 60,000 attempt suicide and self-harm. It is of no concern to it that Ireland’s youth suicide rate was the fifth highest of the 25 European Union countries in 2004 after Lithuania, Finland, Estonia and Latvia. It is politically immoral of the Government to neglect this issue.

This year the Government allocated a paltry sum of €1.2 million towards suicide prevention measures. It set up the national suicide prevention office which has not contributed anything other than to try to mask the inaction of the Government. To justify this, it recently hijacked the work of NGOs.

I support the motion to replace the Government with an alternative that will deal with the urgent need to develop psychiatric services, the appalling neglect of child and adolescent psychiatric services and tackle the serious public health issue of suicide and attempted suicide. Our people of all ages who are in such a personal crisis deserve no less.

Mr. Bruton: Last night and tonight we saw the start of a campaign to spread fatalism about the country’s capacity to do better. Government members want us to leave it to them. They say the Opposition cannot agree on policies or strategies and that we should leave it to them to man[829]age technical change in the way they managed e-voting and the health computer systems. They say we should leave it to them to give people value for money, as they did with MediaLab Europe, Stadium and Sports Campus Ireland and the East and West Link toll bridges which bled people dry. They say we should leave it to them to deliver on their promises but the funny aspect about last night was that when it came to promises, there was a deafening silence from the benches opposite about the promises on which they had delivered.

What has happened to the high profile promises made, including those the then Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, made to the effect that waiting lists would be brought to an end in two years? Waiting lists were only brought to an end because the Minister stopped publishing them. The reality is that they got longer because people could not even get an appointment. They must wait for one. They are not even registered on the list.

What happened to the promise that we would have classes of 20 for children under nine years? That was another solemn promise made in the general election campaign and repeated in the programme for Government. The silence from those on the opposite side of the House was deafening as to what had happened to that promise.

We were told we would see a reduction in taxes and that one in five would pay tax at the 42% rate but over 225,000 taxpayers have been denied that promise. The promises were coming thick and fast from the Government but where was the strategy to deliver on them? There was none. That is why the people are sick of the Government.

The Government produced a health strategy in 2001 but it collapsed before it got off first base. It collapsed in respect of its promise of 3,000 extra hospital beds and that there would be 60 primary care centres. Every pillar of that strategy has disappeared.

Another major strategy was to complete decentralisation in three years. Ten thousand jobs were to be moved to the regions to deliver regional regeneration. What has happened to that strategy? It has collapsed also. There will be a delivery of 10% in the so-called three year strategy. The Minister will say the implementation committee said it could not be done. It said it could not be done because not a shred of thought had been put into producing a decentralisation strategy that could be delivered in three years. It was an abuse of power to bring forward that strategy without first putting together a business case for the moves, having a strategic plan as to how it would be delivered and anticipating the meltdown in key skills that was inevitable. These matters were not thought about. The strategy was put together on the back of a betting slip and, not surprisingly, it has not been delivered.

[830]Not one Minister came into the House last night to step up to the plate and take responsibility for waiting lists not being brought to an end or to explain why we had not achieved the small class sizes promised or the reduced waiting times for patients in accident and emergency departments as was solemnly promised. The Government parties came into the House and tried to talk down the chances of the country doing better under a Fine Gael-Labour Party Government.

The truth is we do not accept the fatalism that has spread among the parties opposite. We do not accept that this is as good as it gets. The country could do a great deal better with a proper programme of well thought out reform, with Ministers taking responsibility for promises they make and having proper strategies when they make promises. That is the Government we want but sadly we have not seen it since 2001. The parties opposite have degenerated on that front.

It is difficult to take lectures from the Progressive Democrats about incoherence on the Opposition benches. That is from a man who meets every question with an open mouth and has burnt off the Government backbenches with his approach. It is difficult to take that strategy from the Government.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): It is a pity that when such debates are held, we do not have a two way debate but rather considerable interjection and heckling from the Members opposite, as I observed last night and tonight. It is a tactic which continues to be employed. Presumably, the consultants from the United States reckon it is the getting them somewhere.

Mr. S. Ryan: The Minister can do better than that.

Mr. Cowen: As far as the Government is concerned, we will defend our record of solid achievement. The country is in a different position from the one it was in in 1997 when we took office and since 2002, significant progress has been made. It is not clever or true to say every problem is solved or that every Government solved every problem.

Mr. Crawford: I thank the Minister.

Mr. Cowen: It is also not true to say that where there are problems, no progress whatsoever is being made. That simplistic debate is a turn-off for the electorate which is more sophisticated than that and deserves a higher level of debate.

Reflecting on what the Government is doing in the areas of health, education, social welfare and the capital programme, expenditure in these areas accounts for 80% of the budget. Where is the waste in education if three quarters of expenditure is on pay and pensions and we have an additional 10,000 teachers?

[831]Ms O’Sullivan: We still have larger class sizes.

Mr. Cowen: With respect, we listened to what the Deputy had to say, yet she interrupts again. At what stage will the Opposition deal with the issue of such waste by being specific? Where is money being wasted in education? It is the Opposition’s contention that we should be spending more money on education. We are doing this. One Member opposite referred to disadvantaged programmes. The Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, introduced the disadvantage programme which provides for an additional 640 schools in the primary sector, 180 in the most disadvantaged areas, and 200 post-primary schools. The programme will be rolled out and will provide an additional 300 teachers. We are providing more teachers than we envisaged in the 2002 programme.

We have decided to provide more money to deal with people with disabilities and special needs. There are now 7,000 special needs assistants where there were 300.

Ms Burton: The Government did not do that.

Mr. Cowen: We should be clear about this issue if we are to debate it but we should acknowledge what is being achieved. If they wish, Opposition members can come forward with alternative approaches on the way the money can be spent but we must ensure it adds up. They cannot pick and choose to suit their argument.

Mr. Hayes: The Minister should acknowledge that the Government wasted money on e-voting machines.

Mr. O’Dea: Let the Minister speak.

Mr. Hayes: The Minister should acknowledge that point.

Mr. O’Dea: Deputy Hayes’s colleagues were allowed to speak.

Mr. Cowen: To take education as an example, Deputies Rabbitte and Kenny sat at the Cabinet table and agreed to cut teacher numbers and free school funding. That happened. We replaced that agenda with a sustained commitment to education.

On crime, there is much debate each week in the House about Garda numbers but the rainbow Government cut Garda numbers.

Ms Burton: That is a lie.

Mr. Cowen: In 1997 it opposed our plan to hire 1,200 extra gardaí. In 2002 it stated it would be impossible for us to hire a further 2,000 gardaí but now states we have not hired enough. That does not inform the public about the issues to ensure we have safer streets in our communities.

[832]Mr. Kehoe: The Minister should talk about what is happening today.

Mr. Cowen: We will defend our fiscal policies and continue to manage the economy responsibly.

Deputy Kenny spoke about election bribes. He should look at his party’s programme at the last general election. It was an appalling indictment of an Opposition which had no clear vision of where it was going. The Government will continue to work through the national development plan, the plans we have for research and development which will be central to our economic development agenda, our education and health reforms, an issue we should debate more often in the House regarding the sectional and vested interests which are dictating at the expense of the public good. With resources and reforms there are sustained improvements. Some 3,400 patients are being treated every day in accident and emergency units. This comes to 1.25 million annually.

Where there are problems, let us identify and discuss them. However, let us not conduct a debate, as I have seen it here, continually in an absolutist fashion, on the idea that everything would be rosy tomorrow if the Opposition parties were in government——

Ms Burton: It would be better.

Mr. Cowen: —— and things are going terribly badly because we are in government. It is really an attempt by the Opposition parties to overcome the frustration at being out of power, which I can understand. I look forward to next year and having a sensible, literate, informed debate on the economic and social direction the country should take, which will not be based on fatigued government or energetic opposition. Let it be based on facts and let the people make their choice on the basis of real information rather than the disinformation that has passed for debate in this House for the past two nights.

Mr. Allen: The Government parties have had nine years.

Ms McManus: I wish to share my time with Deputy Rabbitte.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms McManus: I agree with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, that this is a good opportunity to consider the record of the Government and separate it from its rhetoric. The trail of broken promises and cynical posturing by Ministers have alienated even committed Fianna Fáil voters. The Minister spoke about consultants. In his desperation to convince, the Taoiseach at every opportunity uses the phrase “the Government working with the people”. His spin-doctors have obviously told him that the [833]people understand all too clearly how he and his Government have lost touch with them and their concerns. Somehow he is trying to gather some cover for himself by reinforcing a message that he and his Government are working with the people. However, nobody is fooled by that line.

At the last general election the Taoiseach made promises to bring hospital waiting lists to an end within two years. Last week in the Seanad the Leader of the House, Senator O’Rourke, said of these promises that “they are untruths as well”. Those are her words, not mine.

Mr. Cassidy: She would know.

Ms McManus: She is right. The Deputy can dismiss something as easily as that.

Mr. Cassidy: It is a factual statement.

Ms McManus: It does not work that way, because the people believe her and do not believe the Government which has hidden hospital waiting lists but they have not gone away. Some 20,000 are still waiting for surgical procedures and others for medical ones. Some are waiting for more than 12 months. None of the targets on waiting times set out in the health strategy has been met. In the west some are waiting for four years to see a specialist. This is the great record that the Minister, Deputy Cowen, wants us to debate. I am happy to debate the record, as opposed to the rhetoric.

The Government’s amendment to the motion is also full of untruths. It is full of self-congratulation and self-delusion. We only need to consider how we compare internationally to get a true picture. The 2006 European health consumer index puts the Irish health service second last out of 25 OECD countries.

Dr. Devins: Those figures are four years out of date.

A Deputy: They are worse now.

Ms McManus: Long waiting lists, bleak medical outcomes, bad scores for infant deaths, MRSA infections in hospitals — I trust Government Deputies will not want to speak about this — and the lack of a health ombudsman typify the index findings. We are only above Lithuania and instead of hanging his head in shame, the Taoiseach came into the House last night and tried to flimflam us again.

This is the same Taoiseach who described as unintelligent people who had the temerity to complain when their loved ones were left on trolleys in casualty departments. He said: “It is a pity people are so unintelligent.” That barefaced effrontery of the Taoiseach and his Government is most evident in the part of their amendment dealing with the Health Service Executive. Whatever the HSE is, it is certainly not bringing unified management to major projects in infor[834]mation technology, nor is it achieving national service standards or best value for money. It is laughable that any Government would claim this bureaucratic muddle of its own making. The HSE is incoherent in its management structures, unaccountable and known for its secrecy, and lethargic to the extreme in improving standards. Regarding value for money, I need only mention PPARS.

I do not blame staff within the HSE or its chief executive. However, I do hold to account the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, who from day one mishandled the transfer from the old system of administration to the new. Her pigheadedness in failing to prepare and plan properly has caused endless problems. Most importantly, there are real dangers arising from the lack of accountability within the health service. That is one lesson that should have been learned from the contaminated blood and Mr. Neary scandals. However, thanks to the Government, the system has become less accountable, less democratic and less transparent than it was before the HSE was established.

Mr. Rabbitte: I thank all colleagues in the House who contributed to a debate that brought the Taoiseach into Private Members’ time for the first time since he came to defend Ray Burke. The debate brought the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Tánaiste in to sit beside each other, although the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform refused to yield the Tánaiste’s usual seat.

I am bound to say it was an odd debate in many ways. The Taoiseach approached it from a very unusual point of view. He pretended to believe it was the task of the Opposition at the end of term to come to the House and praise the Government. He then proceeded to dismiss the issues raised in the motion and went on to wade through a thicket of self-congratulatory rhymes about money spent. Glancing at the motion I cannot see how he could dismiss a motion about crime rates, lower detection rates, and the waste of money on PPARS, e-voting and other areas. Regarding promises made, it was he, not the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, who promised to abolish waiting lists in hospitals in two years. He seems to believe that the increases in 50 stealth taxes in the lifetime of the Government are not worthy of debate in the House. Inflation is running at 4%. House prices have increased by nine times since 1997 but the Taoiseach believes these issues are not for debate in the House.

The Taoiseach went on to make an extraordinary charge against me five times that I was mad for power. This comes from the man who keeps trying to invite me to share power with him at every chance.

[835]Mr. Rabbitte: The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform looks across to the Opposition benches for what he believes is a cold house for him. He is quite wrong about this because there was considerable concern on these benches for the manner in which he hyperventilated last night. I believe he is suffering from Stockholm syndrome, which occurs when the captives become so friendly with the jailers that they make common cause with them. I believe the Minister has been captured by Fianna Fáil.

The Minister went to the trouble of dictating a script, from which I wish to deal with a few points. His main concern is that a Labour Party-Fine Gael alliance would fall apart. He instanced the period from 1982 to 1987 as an example. The period between 1982 and 1987 is as close to five years as does not matter. He did not mention 1989 to 1992.

The Minister said 10% of the people were unemployed in 1997. He did not refer to the fact that in 1992, when his former leader — for whom he had more regard than he has for the present one — left office as Minister for Industry and Commerce, the unemployment rate was 14%. He tried to impute motives to me arising from exchanges I had with the Ceann Comhairle, in which he claimed I had referred to the Ceann Comhairle’s family. I reject that claim. I made a political charge but did not refer to the man’s family one way or the other.

The Minister outlined a mathematical formula which he considers very clever and which he has used on several occasions, including in an interview with Pat Kenny. The equation states: “Fine Gael plus Labour equals slump.” This comes from the man who would have us believe “Fine Gael plus Labour plus Deputy McDowell equals success” and the only problem with the former equation is that the Minister is not included. He went on to claim that any alternative Government would be dependent on Deputies Cowley, Gregory and Finian McGrath and a Seamus Treacy. I do not know any Seamus Treacy and hope no Government has to rely on him but I recall a Government which relied on Harry Blaney and Tom Kildea and Deputies Fox and Healy-Rae.

Mr. J. Brady: It was a good Government.

Mr. Rabbitte: Now, apparently, support from Independent Deputies for an alternative Government is a sign of terminal breakdown.

The Minister seems to have persuaded himself that only he has the divine right to rule in this country. Despite worsening crime figures, falling detection rates and his failure to reform the Garda, somehow he has an automatic right to be returned. The row within the Progressive Democrats would be a squabble in a shoe box were it not for the fact that one Minister happens to be in charge of health while the other is in charge of the criminal justice system. I am glad to see [836]Deputy Glennon, who is the first to show of last week’s 16 worried backbenchers. Deputy Johnny Brady was never part of that group.

Mr. Glennon: Deputy Rabbitte’s numbers are wrong.

Mr. Cowen: They are the equivalent of the entire Labour parliamentary party.

Mr. Rabbitte: They did not even come to the House last night to support the Taoiseach.

Mr. Glennon: That is wrong.

Mr. J. Brady: That is a lie.

Mr. Rabbitte: Deputy Johnny Brady was here. However, he was not one of the 16.

Mr. Naughten: Deputy Johnny Brady was not part of the 16.

Mr. J. Brady: On a point of order, I was here last night.

Mr. Rabbitte: I confirm that.

Dr. Twomey: He is not one of the apostles.

Mr. Rabbitte: I listened to the scatter of backbenchers who contributed, including Deputies O’Connor, Hoctor, Peter Power and Fiona O’Malley. Fear could be smelled in my office. Deputy Hoctor accused the Labour Party of seeking to downgrade Nenagh Hospital. My understanding is that the Government she supports wants to downgrade Nenagh Hospital, whereas Senator O’Meara is leading the charge for its preservation. The Senator had the support of Deputy Michael Smith who, as Minister for Defence, rebuked Deputy Hoctor for moving to implement the Hanly report at Nenagh.

Dr. Devins: Deputy Rabbitte is wrong.

Mr. Penrose: Does Deputy Devins want to speak up?

Mr. Rabbitte: I do not know which side Deputy Fiona O’Malley supports.

Mr. Howlin: She is with the Tánaiste.

Mr. Rabbitte: She supported the Government tonight.

Mr. Howlin: Poor Deputy McDowell is by himself.

Mr. Rabbitte: This is the same Deputy Fiona O’Malley who last week took to the letter page of The Irish Times to tell us about the Government’s woeful performance on spiralling house prices.

Deputies: Hear, hear.

[837]Mr. Penrose: She was right.

Mr. Rabbitte: As Deputy O’Connor and I are friends, I will not say anything about him.

A Deputy: That will put the fear in him.

Mr. Rabbitte: The Tánaiste told us this is a land of boom and bloom and milk and honey. She outlined all the good she is doing for the health service. We hope she is doing good work but, nine years later, the fact that the hospital service is causing such grief to her Fianna Fáil colleagues that they are disowning her and saying these issues would not arise if a Fianna Fáil Deputy was in charge is evidence of the reality.

The Tánaiste plucked insurance from the sky and asked us to look at how she had reformed that issue. In May 1997, I was a given the report of a working group chaired by the former director general of the Federated Union of Employers, Dan McAuley, which recommended the establishment of what is now the PIAB to reduce the legal costs of insurance claims. That recommendation was finally implemented six years later. The Tánaiste and the Minister of State, Deputy [838]Treacy, sat on the report until they were forced to act because of the outcry about the price of insurance, which was uneconomic for businesses and unaffordable for young drivers.

Tonight is the opportunity for the 16 Deputies whose concerns about the performance of this Government caused them to briefly revolt and whose suggestions for policy innovations were rejected at parliamentary party meetings.

Mr. Cowen: Place your trust in Deputy Rabbitte.

Mr. Rabbitte: This is their opportunity to cast their vote ——

Mr. Cowen: Just because the Labour Party trusts him does not mean we will.

Mr. Rabbitte: ——to back up their principles, unless they are motivated by electoral panic.

Mr. Cowen: There will be no reverse takeovers here.

Dr. Twomey: We can smell the fear now.

Amendment put.

[837]The Dáil divided: Tá, 82; Níl, 61.

Tá
Ahern, Bertie.	Ahern, Michael.
Ahern, Noel.	Andrews, Barry.
Ardagh, Seán.	Blaney, Niall.
Brady, Johnny.	Brady, Martin.
Browne, John.	Callanan, Joe.
Callely, Ivor.	Carey, Pat.
Carty, John.	Cassidy, Donie.
Collins, Michael.	Connolly, Paudge.
Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.	Coughlan, Mary.
Cowen, Brian.	Cregan, John.
Cullen, Martin.	Curran, John.
Davern, Noel.	de Valera, Síle.
Dempsey, Tony.	Dennehy, John.
Devins, Jimmy.	Ellis, John.
Fahey, Frank.	Finneran, Michael.
Fitzpatrick, Dermot.	Fleming, Seán.
Fox, Mildred.	Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
Glennon, Jim.	Grealish, Noel.
Hanafin, Mary.	Harney, Mary.
Haughey, Seán.	Healy-Rae, Jackie.
Hoctor, Máire.	Jacob, Joe.
Keaveney, Cecilia.	Kelleher, Billy.
Kelly, Peter.	Killeen, Tony.
Kirk, Seamus.	Kitt, Tom.
Lenihan, Brian.	Lenihan, Conor.
McDowell, Michael.	McEllistrim, Thomas.
McGuinness, John.	Martin, Micheál.
Moloney, John.	Moynihan, Donal.
Moynihan, Michael.	Mulcahy, Michael.
Nolan, M.J.	Ó Cuív, Éamon.
Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.	O’Connor, Charlie.
O’Dea, Willie.	O’Donnell, Liz.
O’Donoghue, John.	O’Donovan, Denis.
O’Flynn, Noel.	O’Keeffe, Batt.
O’Keeffe, Ned.	O’Malley, Fiona.
Parlon, Tom.	Power, Peter.
Power, Seán.	Roche, Dick.
Sexton, Mae.	Smith, Brendan.
Smith, Michael.	Treacy, Noel.
Wallace, Mary.	Walsh, Joe.
Woods, Michael.	Wright, G.V.

[839]Níl
Allen, Bernard.	Breen, James.
Breen, Pat.	Broughan, Thomas P.
Bruton, Richard.	Burton, Joan.
Connaughton, Paul.	Costello, Joe.
Crawford, Seymour.	Crowe, Seán.
Cuffe, Ciarán.	Deasy, John.
Deenihan, Jimmy.	Durkan, Bernard J.
English, Damien.	Enright, Olwyn.
Ferris, Martin.	Gilmore, Eamon.
Gogarty, Paul.	Gormley, John.
Gregory, Tony.	Hayes, Tom.
Healy, Seamus.	Higgins, Joe.
Higgins, Michael D.	Hogan, Phil.
Howlin, Brendan.	Kehoe, Paul.
Kenny, Enda.	Lowry, Michael.
Lynch, Kathleen.	McCormack, Padraic.
McGrath, Finian.	McGrath, Paul.
McManus, Liz.	Mitchell, Olivia.
Morgan, Arthur.	Murphy, Catherine.
Murphy, Gerard.	Naughten, Denis.
Neville, Dan.	Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
O’Dowd, Fergus.	O’Keeffe, Jim.
O’Shea, Brian.	O’Sullivan, Jan.
Pattison, Seamus.	Penrose, Willie.
Perry, John.	Quinn, Ruairí.
Rabbitte, Pat.	Ring, Michael.
Ryan, Seán.	Sherlock, Joe.
Shortall, Róisín.	Stagg, Emmet.
Stanton, David.	Timmins, Billy.
Twomey, Liam.	Upton, Mary.
Wall, Jack.

[839]Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Stagg and Kehoe.

[839]Amendment declared carried.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.

Question put: “That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.”

The Dáil divided by electronic means.

Mr. Stagg: Given the importance of the issue at hand and the absolute failure of the Government [840]to effectively or meaningfully respond to the motion, as a teller, under Standing Order 69 I propose that the vote be taken by other than electronic means.

An Ceann Comhairle: As Deputy Stagg is a Whip, under Standing Order 69 he is entitled to call a vote through the lobby.

Question again put: “That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.”

[839]The Dáil divided: Tá, 81; Níl, 61.

Tá
Ahern, Bertie.	Ahern, Michael.
Ahern, Noel.	Andrews, Barry.
Ardagh, Seán.	Blaney, Niall.
Brady, Johnny.	Brady, Martin.
Browne, John.	Callanan, Joe.
Callely, Ivor.	Carey, Pat.
Carty, John.	Cassidy, Donie.
Collins, Michael.	Connolly, Paudge.
Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.	Coughlan, Mary.
Cowen, Brian.	Cregan, John.
Cullen, Martin.	Curran, John.
Davern, Noel.	de Valera, Síle.
Dempsey, Tony.	Dennehy, John.
Devins, Jimmy.	Ellis, John.
Fahey, Frank.	Finneran, Michael.
Fitzpatrick, Dermot.	Fleming, Seán.
Fox, Mildred.	Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
Glennon, Jim.	Grealish, Noel.
Hanafin, Mary.	Harney, Mary.
Haughey, Seán.	Healy-Rae, Jackie.
[841]Hoctor, Máire.	Jacob, Joe.
Keaveney, Cecilia.	Kelleher, Billy.
Kelly, Peter.	Killeen, Tony.
Kirk, Seamus.	Kitt, Tom.
Lenihan, Brian.	Lenihan, Conor.
McDowell, Michael.	McEllistrim, Thomas.
McGuinness, John.	Martin, Micheál.
Moloney, John.	Moynihan, Donal.
Moynihan, Michael.	Mulcahy, Michael.
Nolan, M. J.	Ó Cuív, Éamon.
Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.	O’Connor, Charlie.
O’Dea, Willie.	O’Donnell, Liz.
O’Donoghue, John.	O’Donovan, Denis.
O’Flynn, Noel.	O’Keeffe, Batt.
O’Keeffe, Ned.	O’Malley, Fiona.
Parlon, Tom.	Power, Peter.
Power, Seán.	Sexton, Mae.
Smith, Brendan.	Smith, Michael.
Treacy, Noel.	Wallace, Mary.
Walsh, Joe.	Woods, Michael.
Wright, G. V.

[841]Níl
Allen, Bernard.	Breen, James.
Breen, Pat.	Broughan, Thomas P.
Bruton, Richard.	Burton, Joan.
Connaughton, Paul.	Costello, Joe.
Cowley, Jerry.	Crawford, Seymour.
Crowe, Seán.	Cuffe, Ciarán.
Deasy, John.	Deenihan, Jimmy.
Durkan, Bernard J.	English, Damien.
Enright, Olwyn.	Gilmore, Eamon.
Gogarty, Paul.	Gormley, John.
Gregory, Tony.	Hayes, Tom.
Healy, Seamus.	Higgins, Joe.
Higgins, Michael D.	Hogan, Phil.
Howlin, Brendan.	Kehoe, Paul.
Kenny, Enda.	Lowry, Michael.
Lynch, Kathleen.	McCormack, Padraic.
McGrath, Finian.	McGrath, Paul.
McManus, Liz.	Mitchell, Olivia.
Morgan, Arthur.	Murphy, Catherine.
Murphy, Gerard.	Naughten, Denis.
Neville, Dan.	Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
O’Dowd, Fergus.	O’Keeffe, Jim.
O’Shea, Brian.	O’Sullivan, Jan.
Pattison, Seamus.	Penrose, Willie.
Perry, John.	Quinn, Ruairi.
Rabbitte, Pat.	Ring, Michael.
Ryan, Seán.	Sherlock, Joe.
Shortall, Róisín.	Stagg, Emmet.
Stanton, David.	Timmins, Billy.
Twomey, Liam.	Upton, Mary.
Wall, Jack.

[841]Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Kehoe and Stagg.

[841]Question declared carried.

Bill entitled an Act to amend certain provisions of the Building Societies Acts 1989 and 1992, in particular, to alter the powers of building societies; to facilitate the extension of the membership of building societies; to increase the investment powers of building societies; to amend provisions regarding the conversion of building societies to public limited companies, and to provide for miscellaneous matters relating to building societies.

[842]Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. N. Ahern): I move: “That Second Stage be taken now.”

An Ceann Comhairle: I call on the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Noel Ahern, to move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

[843]Mr. Gilmore: I wish to raise a point of order before we proceed with Second Stage. I refer to Standing Order 136 which states:

A public Bill (not being a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order) affecting private interests in such a way that, if it were a private Bill, it would, under the Standing Orders relative to Private Business, require preliminary notices before its introduction, is known as a hybrid Bill and shall be subject to the provisions of Standing Order 60 of the Standing Orders relative to Private Business.

9 o’clock

As I read it, Standing Order 60 of the Standing Orders relative to Private Business requires that where a public Bill is ordered to be read a Second Time in either House on a day appointed and it appears to the Ceann Comhairle or the Cathaoirleach, as the case may be, that the Standing Orders relative to Private Business may be applicable to the Bill, the Bill shall be referred to the examiner who shall examine the Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Business and shall proceed and report forthwith, and the order of the day relating to the Bill shall not be thereby affected. However, if the examiner reports that any Standing Order applicable to the Bill has not been complied with and the Joint Committee on Standing Orders reports that such Standing Order ought not to be dispensed with, the order of the day relating to the Bill shall be discharged.

Standing Order 1 relating to private Bills, states: “Every Bill promoted for the particular interest or benefit of any person of locality, as distinguished from a measure of public policy, shall be treated as a private Bill”. I submit that there is a particular interest or benefit relating to particular persons in the Bill and that, therefore, the issue of whether it is a private or public Bill arises. It appears that, in so far as there is a private interest dimension to the Bill, it is a hybrid Bill under Standing Order 136.

I wish to ask if the Bill has been referred to the examiner and if there is any report from the examiner in respect of its status as a private or hybrid Bill. If this has not been done, what consideration has been given to the issue of it being a hybrid Bill?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The order of the House takes precedence over what the Deputy says. Because it is an order of the House, we have no option but to proceed with the Bill. That is what the House ordered, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders.

Mr. Gilmore: Standing Order 118 requires the Ceann Comhairle to examine a Bill to establish if it complies with Standing Orders.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the order of the [844]House takes precedence. The order of the House is that we proceed with the Bill.

Mr. Gilmore: I do not want to make life unnecessarily difficult for you on this matter, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The order of the House takes precedence over Standing Orders.

Mr. Gilmore: I ask you to hear me out, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, because I think there is an issue here. There are provisions in the Bill, specifically sections 19 to 21, inclusive, which relate to private interests. For example, there are issues relating to the division of whatever moneys will arise from the demutualisation of one building society. A separate set of rules is being established for a second building society. There are issues relating to the rights of individual members of building societies, as distinct from members of their boards. This is unusual legislation in so far as it relates to individual companies and individual members of those companies and in so far as it relates differently to different building societies.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: We must proceed with the Bill in accordance with the order of the House.

Mr. Gilmore: Can I get an answer to my question?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The order of the House takes precedence.

Mr. Gilmore: I would like an answer to my question. I would like to know if the Bill——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Chair has ruled on the matter. The ruling is that the order of the House takes precedence.

Mr. Gilmore: May I ask one simple question? The order of the House was made this morning. The Bill has been published since 9 June. Was it referred to the examiner? It is clearly a hybrid Bill. I would like to know if it was referred by the Ceann Comhairle who, under Standing Order 118, has a responsibility to this House to examine Bills to ensure their compliance with Standing Orders. As I understand it, the requirement is that the Ceann Comhairle must refer a hybrid Bill to the examiner who will then report to the House. There is an entirely different process for dealing with a private Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Chair has ruled on what the Deputy has put forward. We will proceed with the Bill.

Mr. Gilmore: I will return to the matter.

[845]Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. N. Ahern): I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

The purpose of the Bill is to amend and update certain provisions of building societies legislation contained mainly in the Building Societies Act 1989. The Bill is based, to a large extent, on recommendations of a review group which contained representatives of relevant Departments, the Financial Regulator and three building societies. The group proposed a package of reform measures. It concluded that any building society wishing to demutualise and develop as a public company should not be unduly restricted as regards the conditions under which they could pursue that option. However, it also recommended that any society wishing to continue to develop as a mutual should be adequately protected in retaining its mutual status. In addition, it considered that various provisions of the legislation should be updated to widen the powers and flexibility of building societies, subject to an appropriate level of approval by the Central Bank.

The main legislative framework for the building society sector is the Building Societies Act 1989 which broadened the range of business a building society could undertake, including activities such as holding and developing land for residential and commercial purposes, investment and support of corporate bodies, a wide range of financial services, conveyancing and auctioneering services. These extended powers enabled building societies, subject to Central Bank approval, to compete more equally with banks which were becoming increasingly active in the mortgage market that had been largely the preserve of the building societies.

An important change introduced in the 1989 Act enabled a building society to decide voluntarily to demutualise, in other words, to drop its mutual society status and become a public company. The Bill is, in a sense, an extension of the process begun in the 1989 Act in extending both the powers of building societies and their options for demutualisation.

During the 1980s nearly two thirds of mortgages were provided by building societies, with their proportion of total mortgage lending reaching a peak of over 70% in the early 1990s. However, since the enactment of the 1989 legislation, there has been much change in this area. The number of building societies in Ireland now stands at three: EBS, Irish Nationwide and the ICS. They account for approximately 20% of the mortgage market. This has resulted mainly from mergers and demutualisations. Two societies have converted into public companies under the provisions of the 1989 Act. Irish Permanent demutualised in 1994 and now trades as Permanent TSB, while the First National Building Society, now First Active, converted in 1998. Both demutualisations took place under the so-[846]called “protective provisions” in section 102 of the 1989 Act precluding a takeover for five years which are being amended in the Bill.

Although the timescale for processing the Bill is tight, it is very desirable to avoid any uncertainty for the market and bring closure to the issues surrounding possible future building society demutualisations. This is a technical Bill consisting almost entirely of amendments to the 1989 Building Societies Act and dealing, as it does, with financial services issues, the subject matter is somewhat outside the mainstream of my Department’s functions. Its production has been very much a collaborative process between my Department, the Departments of Finance and Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Financial Regulator, the building societies and the Attorney General’s office.

I shall outline briefly some of the main provisions of the Bill. A number of sections contain either standard provisions in a Bill or purely technical amendments to the principal Act. While the main focus of attention in this area has been on the change in the demutualisation provisions, the Bill also provides for a number of other reforms in the legislation governing the operation and regulation of building societies. These arise from matters considered by the review group and subsequent proposals from the sector which have been agreed with the relevant Departments and the Financial Regulator. These include amendments to increase the powers and discretion of societies, subject to approval by the Central Bank, as appropriate, in matters such as the range of services they provide, how they source funding, the bodies in which they can invest, categories of customers who can be given membership and the extent to which specific approval of society members and the Central Bank is needed in order to undertake certain functions. I will outline briefly some of the main changes.

Section 7 allows building societies to extend membership to additional categories of customers and establish loyalty schemes for members. Section 8 broadens the scope of building societies to raise funds from different sources in line with other financial institutions and also extends their power to provide security for borrowings by various bodies in which they are empowered to invest.

Section 9 brings the powers of building societies in regard to mortgages into line with those of other financial institutions, including clarification of powers relating to refinancing and top-up loans and allows mortgages to be provided without the society having a first charge against the property. Section 10 permits a building society to make unsecured or partly secured loans without first having to adopt the power specifically to do so. The Central Bank will have a general supervisory role with regard to the making of these loans rather than prescribing a specific loan limit as currently.

[847]Section 12 extends the existing powers of building societies to invest in or support other bodies, including investment in unincorporated bodies such as partnerships, as well as corporate bodies. Section 13 extends the range of financial services that can be offered by a building society, including any activities under the EU codified banking directive not otherwise permitted by the legislation. Examples of new services that could be provided arising from this include trading for the accounts of customers in money market instruments and other financial instruments and portfolio management and advice. Section 15 provides that powers ancillary or incidental and related to powers already adopted by members of a building society and approved by the Central Bank will not have to be separately adopted and approved.

Sections 19 to 27 provide for amendments of the legislative provisions relating to demutualisation. The main change in this area involves giving a building society discretion to decide to opt out of the five-year post-conversion protective provisions in existing legislation which preclude any individual or institution holding 15% or more of the shares of a demutualised society for five years. There are, in fact, two elements involved in this matter in the Bill. First, section 21 amends section 101 of the Building Societies Act 1989 to allow a building society, in specified circumstances, to propose a conversion scheme that will, effectively, disapply the provisions of section 102. This opt-out provision is designed to operate in a way that will not adversely affect any society wishing to retain mutual status. A society will only be able to disapply the protective provisions if it has, for the preceding five years, required a minimum of €10,000 to open a share account.

Section 19 contains a further provision to protect against pressure for demutualisation being brought to bear through members of a mutual building society. It extends an existing provision, in section 74 of the 1989 Act, precluding members from proposing conversion resolutions at annual general meetings. The reason for this change is that there were doubts as to whether certain types of resolutions referring to conversion were covered by the existing provision and also the need to cover resolutions relating to access to membership which, under the Bill, can constitute a route towards demutualisation. However, I have considered amendments tabled by Deputies to this section and accept that the current wording could be interpreted as being rather restrictive. In response to these concerns, I am prepared to bring forward an amendment on Committee Stage to ensure there will no be question of restricting the right of members to raise any issue for discussion.

The second element of the provisions relating to conversion and sale of a building society involves the insertion of a new section in the legislation providing for an integrated process of [848]conversion and immediate acquisition. Section 22 provides that a society opting to convert without the protection of the five-year post-conversion protective provisions will be empowered to do so through a combined “conversion-acquisition scheme” which will form part of the conversion scheme and as such, will be approved by the members of the society. This will enable the society to agree a trade sale of the company to be implemented immediately on demutualisation. If, for any reason, that acquisition does not proceed, for example, owing to some condition of the agreement not being fulfilled, the conversion will be terminated and the society will continue as a mutual building society.

These provisions merely provide additional options for demutualisation but they are not are not in any way prescriptive as to which, if any, of these options are taken. The Bill is primarily about giving building societies more options. It gives the existing building societies and any that might come into existence a greater range of options on their corporate status. As is well known, the Irish Nationwide Building Society has indicated a desire to be able to demutualise without the present five-year post-conversion restriction on conversion. It will, however, still be open also to any society to demutualise with the cover of the existing protective provisions. The Bill supports any society wishing to remain mutual, but allows any society which sees its future outside the mutual sector more ways to pursue that strategy. The decision rests entirely with each building society. That decision is ultimately made by its members who must decide whether to approve a conversion scheme. That will still be the case with the Bill.

It might be useful to outline a little more fully how the conversion process will actually operate. The demutualisation process is governed by a conversion scheme under the Act. While the scheme is drawn up by the directors of the society, it must be approved by its members and confirmed by the Central Bank which must consider any objections or representations made. There is also provision for members of the society to petition the High Court for cancellation of a conversion scheme. Where the conversion process is duly completed, the society must be registered under the Companies Acts, whereupon it will become incorporated as a public company; in effect, changing from a building society to a bank.

The intention of the Irish Nationwide Building Society to demutualise, following enactment of the changes provided for in this Bill, has been well signalled. The question of entitlements of members or borrowers of the society in the event of demutualisation has been the subject of media speculation. However, these entitlements are not prescribed in the legislation. The only specific provision in that regard in the legislation is a condition that any entitlements arising from a shareholding in a society are restricted to members who have held shares for at least two years. This [849]provision is being amended to make it absolutely clear that it does not restrict possible entitlements solely to shareholders.

As in the case of the two demutualisations that have already taken place, the details regarding entitlements are matters to be determined in the conversion scheme which governs the conversion process, subject to confirmation by the Central Bank. While the details of the conversion scheme are matters for the society and the Central Bank, I would be surprised if the precedents of the other two demutualisations did not generally apply, whereby qualifying shareholders and mortgage holders received entitlements, and where people qualified on both counts, they received dual entitlements.

I would like to clarify some of the proposed amendments. The criterion for opting out of the protective provisions has been formulated in a way that ensures sufficient protection for a society that wishes to remain a mutual society. This is achieved by making it a condition for opting out of the protective provisions that a building society has for at least five years prior to demutualisation restricted access to membership by requiring a minimum deposit of €10,000 to open a share account. In other words there will now be a five-year period of protection either before or after demutualisation, depending on whether a society wants to have the option of being sold following conversion to a public company. This is logical. The five-year buffer period prior to conversion is designed to discourage any potential predators and carpetbaggers, as opportunists trying to make a fast buck are termed, who could quickly emerge and have a destabilising effect if the post-conversion protection was dispensed with and nothing put in its place. This type of pre-conversion protection has, in practice, already been applied by the Irish Nationwide Building Society.

It is important to be clear that the Bill does not oblige any member of a society to have a total of €10,000 on deposit for a period of five years to qualify for entitlements on conversion, as some reports have wrongly suggested. The specific conditions to be satisfied by individuals to qualify for entitlements will be set out in the conversion scheme, which must be approved by the members and the Central Bank. The €10,000 provision is a technical provision that acts as the condition for allowing a society to opt out of the existing five-year post conversion restriction on takeover, while also providing protection against possible predators and carpetbaggers. This provision is also favourable to longer-term members. I know some people are looking forward to proceeds from conversion offsetting possible shortfalls in endowment mortgages.

I would also like to correct a report that if a society wants to remain mutual, membership will be restricted to those who deposit a minimum of €10,000. As I have indicated, this condition is merely the criterion for giving an institution the [850]option to demutualise without the protection of the five-year ban on takeover after conversion.

Contrary to what was implied in a recent newspaper article, a society that has not, up to now, restricted access to membership would not have to wait for five years to convert from mutual status to a public company if it were to decide to embark on a policy of demutualisation. It is immediately open to any society to pursue demutualisation, if it so wishes, under the existing 1989 Act provisions, in the same way as the two societies that have already successfully converted. The Bill does not alter this option. However, a society would have to restrict access to membership for five years before it could avail of the new option under the Bill to dispense with the five-year post-conversion protective provisions.

The Bill will result in building societies in future having four possible options with regard to their status, namely, to remain mutual, to demutualise under the existing protective provisions, to opt out of those provisions and be taken over immediately or to opt out and be sold at a later date.

There is no reason to assume that a building society should inevitably take the demutualisation route. The legislation is designed to ensure that, in opening up additional options for institutions that wish to convert, no new dynamic is created that might bring additional pressure for demutualisation to bear on a society that wishes to remain mutual.

The provisions in the Bill have been developed in response to proposals from the sector and deal largely with technical aspects of financial services. The Government has a broadly neutral position on these matters. The objective is to ensure that the legislative framework facilitates efficiency and flexibility while maintaining a proper regulatory regime. These reforms reflect the fact that significant changes have taken place in the financial services sector in recent years.

The position in that regard has changed considerably since the 1989 Act was enacted. At that time, prospective house buyers, particularly first-time buyers, were very much at the mercy of building societies. Waiting lists were the order of the day, not only for mortgages, but often even for the right to apply for a mortgage. Matters have improved beyond recognition in that regard. The 1989 Act, which we are now amending, played a role in that transformation. The lending institutions have also developed greatly and have facilitated hundreds of thousands of additional households into home ownership, especially during the past ten years or so of tremendous growth in the housing market.

I acknowledge the role that some of the lending institutions now play with regard to affordable housing. Originally, local authorities, through the Housing Finance Agency, were the sole providers of mortgage finance to affordable house purchasers. In recent times, Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank, followed by the Educational Building [851]Society and IIB Homeloans entered the market with loans tailored to meet the needs of purchasers of affordable housing.

Today’s mortgage lending sector is not entirely without issues, but these are very different from the issues that were current in the 1980s and early 1990s. Since around the middle of last year, I have consistently expressed concern about the likely impact on house prices of increased lending and, in particular, 100% mortgages. In a recent quarterly bulletin the Central Bank commented that the gradual acceleration in house price inflation since last autumn had coincided with some easing of credit conditions and that this seemed, at least in part, to reflect an increased effort on the part of mortgage lenders to market some new products, specifically 100% mortgages.

As regards the longer-term evolution of building society legislation, this Bill is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a root and branch overhaul of building society legislation. Any more comprehensive updating of the legislation could best be looked at in the light of developments in legislation relating to the wider financial services sector and corporate governance generally. In this regard we are mindful that reviews of company law and financial services legislation are in progress. The far-reaching changes that have taken place in the mortgage lending market, including the much reduced number of building societies remaining, their smaller share of mortgage lending and the fact that they are now supervised by the Financial Regulator, in common with other financial institutions, have largely removed the rationale for a separate code of building society legislation. This point is reinforced by the fact that some of the changes being made by this Bill will further reduce the distinctions between building societies and banks.

The Government has, accordingly, decided in principle that the building societies legislative code should be brought within general financial services legislation at a future date. This will give a chance to reflect further on the role of the mutual sector and its continuing contribution to promoting diversity and price competitiveness in the mortgage market. Meanwhile, this Bill implements a number of important reforms and updating of building society legislation and brings clarity to the options available to societies regarding their future corporate status. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. O’Dowd: This is important legislation which will fundamentally alter the rights of mutual building societies to demutualise or to stay as mutual companies. This is rushed legislation and only one hour and 20 minutes remains to deal with all Stages of the Bill.

This Bill is supported by the collective wisdom of the building societies, the Financial Regulator and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Fine Gael is not [852]opposed in principle to the Bill. The views of those who borrowed from the Irish Nationwide Building Society and have fought a campaign in the press and in the courts to win justice, equality and fairness before the law are strongly and sincerely held. These views have been reflected in some of the Fine Gael amendments to the Bill. I am concerned that there will not be sufficient time to discuss these amendments line by line. Proper legislation depends on proper scrutiny. Any error made at this stage will continue into the future. A rushed Bill is bad law. This Bill has been in preparation for many years. I suggest that the Bill should not be rushed through all Stages tonight.

Members of the Irish Nationwide Building Society have brought issues to my attention. Section 19 amends section 74 of the Building Societies Act 1989 to extend an existing exclusion of conversion resolutions from the scope of members’ powers to proposed resolutions at an annual general meeting, and to include also any resolutions relating directly or indirectly to the conversion or restriction of access to membership. The Minister of State’s amendment will not cause any change. He proposes to allow them discuss anything they wish except a resolution. They will not be allowed place a conversion resolution before the meeting. The Minister of State proposes that members may raise issues but they cannot legally propose a motion to mutualise or demutualise the society.

Mr. N. Ahern: That is always there.

Mr. O’Dowd: The Minister of State’s proposal will not change anything. I do not wish to accuse him of misleading the House but he is not being completely clear that there is no change and this is really window dressing.

I met the borrowers recently. They have endured trauma, penal interest rates and have been forced to fight their case in court. This Bill will not vindicate their rights. They want this Bill to be amended to put aside a special fund to meet any requirements which the courts may lay upon the new plc company when it comes into being. These people feel wronged and that they are not being listened to. The Minister of State has not listened to their views.

Fine Gael has three amendments to the Bill. I refer to the practice in the United Kingdom. A court procedure must be used before a company can be demutualised. The court may appoint an examiner to ensure the assets and liabilities of the company are in order. The company may even demutualise after that. Fine Gael proposes including this process in the Bill. Our amendment proposes that an application may be made to the High Court for an order sanctioning the conversion of a society into a company. It will propose that in any application, the Minister for Finance, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and any person, including an [853]employee who alleges that he or she would be adversely affected by the carrying out of this conversion, will have a right of audience. This right will be enshrined in law.

Fine Gael proposes that before the court can make any order, the court must be satisfied that all the assets and liabilities are in order. We propose that the court may appoint an independent actuary or other person who is deemed by the court to be sufficiently qualified for the purpose to investigate the society seeking conversion into a company and to report to the court on any issues arising from such investigation.

This is the current law in the United Kingdom. I ask the Minister of State the reason it is not the law here. The Bill should be amended to vindicate the rights of borrowers to ensure their case can be properly and independently heard and validated by a court.

Mr. N. Ahern: That is done by the Financial Regulator.

Mr. O’Dowd: We want the right to go to court, as is the procedure in the United Kingdom.

Mr. N. Ahern: They are free to petition the court.

Mr. O’Dowd: Fine Gael wants that provision in the Act. This would make a difference to these borrowers who have been treated so appallingly. They borrowed money, went to court and won their case. The costs were awarded against the building society but it passed the costs of €100,000 onto the borrower. Before there is a transition from a mutual society to a plc company, these issues must be properly examined.

It is clear that first-time buyers get a better deal from the mutual building societies. The mutual society puts profit and effort into the service of members. The Educational Building Society is one of the most competitive societies. It is important that mutuality is retained. Studies undertaken by the House of Commons have found that where mutuality does not exist in a market, consumers are worse off, rates are higher and the executives of companies that were formerly mutual societies are higher paid. It has been found that mutuals perform better than their plc rivals in a variety of financial performance indicators. The inquiry found that substantial increases in remuneration had been enjoyed by directors of those institutions which had been demutualised but there was no corresponding improvement in performance. It found that we need diversity in the financial market, we need a challenge and we need mutuality.

That is the issue in a nutshell. This Bill is attempting to face north and south at the same time. It is allowing the Irish Nationwide Building Society to demutualise. For the last five years, there has been a condition on new members that they would have a minimum figure of €10,000. [854]Having that money in place and having made the rule, it can go in for immediate conversion and acquisition if necessary, or conversion and takeover it that is desired.

On the other hand, the Bill is attempting to protect the only significant company that remains a mutual society. The issue is that the only main building society is the Educational Building Society. Under this proposed Act, if it wishes to demutualise, it can. It can do so in either of the ways that are currently available. If it wishes to demutualise tomorrow it will have to wait five years with regard to the rule of new members having €10,000 on deposit.

Mr. N. Ahern: That would be before it would be taken over.

Mr. O’Dowd: That is the point I am making. It can demutualise immediately but it cannot become a private limited company in terms of ownership of more than 15% of the shares for a period of five years.

Mr. N. Ahern: It cannot be taken over.

Mr. O’Dowd: Nobody taking it over may own more than the 15%. I do not object to the principle enshrined in what is being done. If the body wishes to stay mutualised, it can do so.

Pressure is clearly building from people which have been referred to as “carpetbaggers”. There is a feeling that they would like to get their hands on the EBS. Anybody who may have borrowings or shares in the EBS may want it to demutualise, and they may want to get their €15,000 or €20,000.

I have looked at the experiences in the United Kingdom in the 1990s. The amounts of money were smaller when such bodies demutualised, and the benefit to the individual, be it the borrower or investor, was quite small. It was approximately £2,000 or £3,000. The money amount proposed for the Irish Nationwide is much bigger, significant sum. It would mean much to many people.

I have been told that if the Educational Building Society demutualised tomorrow, the benefit for the membership would be quite small. It would be much smaller than the current figure for Irish Nationwide.

This Bill is being rushed through. We have put down serious amendments to it, as the Government’s amendment does not clarify anything. The future, particularly for the mutual building society, could be getting involved with credit unions nationally or international mutual banks. We need such market forces at play. We support the Bill in principle on the basis that we are neutral with regard to what building societies wish to do. We would like to see mutuality protected if that is the wish of a company.

The only issue which arises is in section 19, which we will return to. Perhaps the Minister of State will clarify on Committee Stage the ques[855]tion of resolutions. If, for example, at the next annual general meeting of the Educational Building Society, the management and directors do not place a resolution on demutualisation before the meeting, such a resolution cannot be discussed. The issue can be discussed. Is that the difference?

A member can stand up and seek the company to demutualise, and 1,000 people could agree. There would be a debate but a legal decision cannot be made if the resolution does not come from the top. That gives protection to the idea of mutuality. That is the reason it must come from the directors.

The argument then can be if a sufficiently large number of investors or members of the Educational Building Society wants to demutualise, the road for them is to sack the directors.

Mr. N. Ahern: That is the rule as it stands. We are not bringing in a new rule.

Mr. O’Dowd: I appreciate the point being made by the Minister of State. I am trying to clarify the debate. Perhaps the Minister of State has received e-mails also from people who would like the membership to be able to propose the resolution. I appreciate that is not covered in the Bill, and I am not arguing that it should be. I wish to clarify the matter with the Minister of State that it cannot be so.

Mr. N. Ahern: My understanding is that rule existed as it was supposed to be. There has been concern about some discussions that have been evident at AGMs lately. Some people feel the discussions should not have got on the agenda. Some people wanted it made clearer that the issue could not be spoken on at all. The amendment allows its discussion.

At a finance committee in the Oireachtas, for example, a Member may want to put down a motion ordering the Minister for Finance to carry out an action. If it cannot be done, the Member may find a roundabout way to do it. The motion could relate to a report being brought forward, for example.

Under the amendment, the matter will be allowed to be discussed. The pure view of some people is that the issue should not even be talked of unless a directive came from directors.

Mr. O’Dowd: We will have an opportunity to discuss it on Committee Stage. We will be pressing our amendments to a vote, but we will support the Bill in principle. I thank the Minister of State’s departmental officials and all the people in financial institutions to whom I spoke about this Bill. I was anxious to understand it fully, which I believe I do. We will be in favour of the Bill, but we will vote on Committee Stage for our amendments.

I urge the Minister of State to reconsider his position on them. We are trying to vindicate the [856]rights of the people who have been dispossessed of their finances, and their homes in some cases, by the building society.

Mr. Gilmore: I am deeply unhappy at the way in which this Bill is being handled by the Government. It has been preparing this Building Societies (Amendment) Bill for at least three years. The world and his mother knew this Bill would facilitate the demutualisation of the Irish Nationwide Building Society.

I have no objection to the demutualisation of the Irish Nationwide Building Society, and I wish the members of the society well. The legislation which provides for it and which provides for other matters relating to building societies requires more scrutiny than is being allowed for in the House tonight.

The Government has been preparing this legislation for three years. I have a copy of the legislative programme of the Government for the spring session of 2004. It tells us that the Building Societies (Amendment) Bill would be published by Easter 2004. The Bill was not published until three weeks ago. The Government has deliberately chosen to have the Bill put through all Stages in this House in two hours, late at night on the penultimate sitting day of the session. It is no way to make law.

A Bill, particularly one of this complexity and in which there are issues of public interest arising, requires the kind of question and answer consideration and line by line examination that can only be given on a proper Committee Stage that we will not be afforded in tonight’s debate.

10 o’clock

Moreover, I believe this to be a hybrid Bill. Standing Orders provide for different rules for the treatment of public Bills and private Bills. A private Bill is defined in Standing Orders on private business as follows: “Every Bill promoted for the particular interest or benefit of any person or locality as distinguished from a measure of public policy shall be treated as a Private Bill”. As the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern stated, there are issues in this Bill which are matters of public policy but there are also issues in the Bill which are clearly matters of private interest.

A set of rules is being established in the Bill specifically for one building society. For example, there is a rule which confirms a status on a rule already made by the Irish Nationwide Building Society on the deposit of €10,000 for the period of two years. That is something that does not apply generally to the population. It is not a matter of public policy. It is a private matter which applies only to the members of that society. Second, a separate set of rules is being established in this Bill in respect of members of the other building society which is also a private matter. Third, distinctions are being made in the legislation as between the rights of individual members of building societies and their board of directors which ultimately may have implications in terms [857]of beneficial interest and how it applies to directors as distinct from members. For example, it is known that in the case of the Irish Nationwide Building Society it is proposed that 15% of the so-called windfall will be reserved for the staff and directors of the building society. That involves significant financial implications, for the directors and staff of the building society and for the individual members. These are matters of private interest.

Matters of private interest being legislated for, I submit, are required to be dealt with by an entirely different procedure in this House than the normal procedure for a public Bill. Where there is a Bill which has both the private interest dimension and the public interest dimension, the Bill is regarded as a hybrid Bill.

I appreciate this is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle. The point I am making is not in any way a reflection on the Chair because the Chair has been put in a difficult position by the way in which the Government is rushing this legislation. The Chair of this House has a function in deciding whether a hybrid Bill is referred to the examiner, which is an office of this House established for the purpose of examining private Bills and determining how they are to be addressed. Let me explain what I mean by this, and its implications.

The first occasion on which a hybrid Bill appeared in these Houses was on 3 July 1924. It was the State Harbours Bill 1924 and there was a motion in the Seanad which referred that Bill to a joint committee for examination, in particular for its private aspects. I refer to what Senator Douglas, the then Leader of the Seanad, in explaining why that Bill was being dealt with as a hybrid Bill and why it was being referred to the joint committee, stated because it has relevance to this Bill. He stated:

This is the first case of what is known as a hybrid Bill, and a hybrid Bill is one which, having been introduced as a Public Bill, is, in the opinion of the Chairman of the Dáil in which it was introduced, one that should, nevertheless, as private interests were affected, comply with the Standing Orders relative to Private Business. Consequently the Ceann Comhairle referred this Bill on his own authority, as provided in the Order, to the Examiner, and the Examiner has sent a message that this Bill has complied with the Standing Orders relative to Private Business. When the Bill is a hybrid Bill it is treated, as far as the Committee’s examination is concerned, the same as a Private Bill, but in all other stages it is treated as a Public Bill. The object of that is that private interests may petition during the Committee Stage, which is proposed to be by Joint Committee, exactly the same as a Private Bill, and their interests can be heard.

In other words, the procedure which is laid down in the Standing Orders of this House for the treat[858]ment of either a private Bill or a hybrid Bill allows for a procedure, through a joint committee, whereby private interests who are aggrieved by their private interests being in some way compromised or affected by what are the private aspects of the Bill may petition that committee and may have it teased out.

I have received, during the course of the past couple of weeks since publication of this Bill, a number of submissions or pieces of correspondence from which it appears there are private interests which require to be heard in so far as the private issues in this Bill are concerned. Unfortunately, the way in which the Government is dealing with this Bill denies that right, which is provided for in the Standing Orders of this House and for which there is precedent going back as far as the early and dangerous days of the foundation of the State. In other words, in 1924, in those early the days when the Civil War was still a reality, the parliamentary practice and democratic practice upheld democratic rights of the individual citizen whose private interests were being affected by legislation which was going through the House and the ordinary citizen who was affected by that legislation could petition a joint committee, have his or her case heard etc. That right is being set aside by this Government.

Instead, we get this Bill, from which substantial amounts of money will accrue to individual pockets and by which other pockets may be deprived of part of that windfall, depending on the way in which it is distributed. Those people are being denied the right to have their case heard. The way in which the Government is dealing with this legislation is fundamentally undemocratic. It is in my view in breach of the Standing Orders of the House. It is, for whatever reason, literally rushing this Bill through the Oireachtas in the dead of night.

Reading the Long Title one would think that this Bill is designed to merely tidy up and perhaps update a little of the existing legislation governing building societies. The Bill is not designed to be one law; it is designed to be two laws, one for each of the existing building societies operating in Ireland. It is designed, not specifically as a matter of public policy but as a Bill to facilitate the demutualisation of one building society.

There are many questions to be asked about it, which, unfortunately, the time allowed for its debate will not permit. Why, for example, have we been presented with a Bill which deliberately and artificially creates different sets of rules for the two current mutual building societies? Why does the Bill facilitate the speedy demutualisation and sale of one building society, while effectively blocking the other building society from demutualisation? Why has the Minister of State not seen fit to prescribe, in even the broadest terms, some guidance on how this fast-track demutualisation and sale process should progress rather than give free rein to some interested parties? Why is the Minister of State proposing legislation which pur[859]ports something as undemocratic as disallowing the membership of a building society to decide on demutualisation? I appreciate the Minister of State is making an amendment in that regard but it is still an issue that must be addressed. Why does the Minister of State appear unconcerned that the management of a building society, which until recently used practices described by an Ombudsman ruling as being invalid and unlawful, may substantially be rewarded as a result of the demutualisation process? Why has no attempt been made to address the corporate governance issues associated with this financial sector within the legislation?

The origin of building societies lies in the struggle of working people to put a roof over their heads in the early 19th century. It is a struggle with which many in Celtic tiger Ireland can identify. Building societies first emerged in 19th century Britain as self-terminating savings co-operatives. Members, usually working men, could pool together to build their houses and when the last house was built, the society was disbanded. Later they became permanent societies that continued to admit new members. The essence of a building society is mutuality, that is, it is jointly owned by those borrowing and saving.

Ireland has only two remaining building societies, the Irish Nationwide Building Society, INBS, and the EBS. It has been well publicised that the board of the EBS wishes to retain its mutual status while the board of the INBS wishes to demutualise and then sell as soon as possible. Demutualising a building society turns it into a bank and, therefore, one of the questions the House must address is whether more banks are needed and whether building societies still have a role in the housing and mortgage market. The concept of mutuality has worked well for many people who could not have borrowed from other institutions. At a time when many families find it difficult to purchase a home, we should re-examine the concept of mutuality and question whether this is the time to engage in demutualisation as house prices escalate and more people are priced out of the market. The demutualisation of building societies in Britain is being re-examined.

Sections 19, 21 and 22 work together to facilitate the desires of the respective boards governing the two existing building societies, the INBS and the EBS and, in doing so, two sets of rules are created. According to the membership rules for the INBS, a customer must have at least €10,000 in his or her share account for five years to be deemed a member. Strangely, section 21 stipulates that a building society that wishes to avoid the five-year rule set down in the Building Societies Act 1989 needs to restrict membership to those who lodge that amount with the society for five years.

Who drafted the section? What input had the board of the INBS? The section is tailored to [860]allow the speedy demutualisation and sale of the INBS and, in the process, to enrich the corporate management at the expense of the membership. As well as identifying the INBS as an ideal candidate for fast-track demutualisation and sale, the section also prevents the EBS from doing likewise. Currently, the amount one must have in an account to be deemed a member of the EBS is €127. This means that to demutualise and sell while avoiding the five-year rule, the EBS would have to increase this sum almost by a factor of 100. Section 21 purports to protect building societies from carpetbaggers but it does much more because it protects the respective aspirations of the boards of the INBS and the EBS with scant regard for their customers or for the public.

Section 22 provides for a building society fulfilling the €10,000 provision under section 21 to avoid the five-year rule laid down in the Building Society Act 1989. The rule imposes a five-year waiting period between demutualisation and sale. Section 21 waives this condition for the INBS. Is it in the country’s interest or in the long-term interest of INBS customers that the five-year rule is not adhered to following demutualisation? The INBS and its management have been the subject of years of accusations — some substantiated — of bad business practices, lack of accountability and failing to pass on interest rate cuts. Late last year, the Ombudsman ruled against the INBS for its practice of charging early repayment penalties that were higher than a fair measure of the loss of the account to the building society. The ruling described the practice as “a penalty and amounted to a clog or fetter on the equity of redemption and, accordingly, was invalid and unlawful”. Other issues that borrowers were unhappy about were the very high penalties charged to borrowers in arrears, the failure to pass on interest rates cuts to non-home loan borrowers and the general lack of information provided by the society. It is incumbent on the society to iron out such problems and to remedy them prior to a sale taking place, and surely it is incumbent on the Minister, the Government and the Financial Regulator to ensure that happens in the public interest.

If section 21 is the “Nationwide” section, then section 19 is the “EBS” section or the section that seems to have been drafted by the EBS board. Under the Building Societies Acts 1989 and 1992, only the board of a building society could initiate demutualisation and the members of a society could not put forward a conversion resolution at a general meeting. Section 19 extends this stipulation by preventing a resolution from the membership to discuss conversion. I appreciate the Minister of State has indicated a willingness to amend and it is a great pity we will not have time for a fuller examination of his amendment on Committee Stage.

No provision in the Bill prevents the directors of a building society from taking a large slice of [861]the value of the society after demutualisation. The directors of the society can name their price. Recent press reports suggest 15% of the proceeds of the sale of the INBS could be earmarked for directors and employees. If this happens, it will mean the windfall each member receives will be approximately €2,000 less than the amount they would have received if the total amount had been distributed equally among members, employees and directors. If the directors and employees of the society receive 15% of the sale price, the legislation makes no provision to control how it is distributed within that group. It could very well be decided in proportion to salary and a director might receive a windfall up to €10 million. This means that, according to this legislation, on the one hand, members of one building society are being restricted from discussing demutualisation while, on the other, it is perfectly legal for the board of another building society to decide that individual directors can gain a large sum from the demutualisation process at the expense of society members and, ultimately, its borrowers. As a result of these shortfalls and the way in which the Bill is being progressed through the House, the Labour Party cannot support it.

An Ceann Comhairle: Before calling Deputy Ó Caoláin, I wish to deal with the status of the Bill which Deputy Gilmore addressed in detail in his contribution. I am satisfied the legislation is not a hybrid Bill. In addition to the ruling made earlier by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in respect of the primacy of the order of the Dáil of today, the Building Societies (Amendment) Bill 2006 is a public Bill as it is an instrument of public policy which was moved by the Government and proposes to amend the principal Act, the Building Societies Act 1989, itself a public Bill at the time.

Even if Deputy Gilmore’s contention were correct, in so far as it could be said to affect private interests, the Bill provides for public policy which would outweigh those interests and, accordingly, the Bill is a public Bill in any event, whichever way it would be interpreted. In this regard, I refer the Deputy to the ruling of some of my very illustrious predecessors. First, the Railways (Road Motor Services) Bill 1927, which applied to all railway companies, was a measure of public policy and, accordingly, was a public Bill — Official Report of Dáil Éireann, Vol. 19, col. 477. Second, while the Railways Bill 1933 affected private interests, a matter of public policy that outweighed those interests arose and the Bill, accordingly, was a public Bill. The fact the Government moved it, while not a test, strengthened the case for the ruling — Official Report of Dáil Éireann, Vol. 46, cols. 576-578.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I propose to share time with Deputies Finian McGrath, Connolly and Cuffe.

I wish to put on record Sinn Féin’s opposition to the way this legislation is being rushed through [862]the Dáil. This legislation is primarily designed to facilitate one building society, the Irish Nationwide Building Society, in giving up its mutuality and enabling it to be taken over immediately.

While Irish Nationwide by its past treatment, including overcharging of members and the fact its chief executive had to be compelled to come before the Flood tribunal to explain why his society had not complied with a tribunal order, has done the reputations of building societies no service, neither should its record be used to advance the cause of demutualisation.

Before the demutualisation of the Irish Nationwide Building Society proceeds, measures must be taken to ensure those members who were scandalously treated in the past receive fair recompense. Mutual bodies, including building societies and credit unions, reflect the principle that our needs can often be satisfied by acting together rather than alone. Mutuals are usually formed so members can obtain goods and services which would otherwise be unavailable or prohibitively priced. When demutualisation happens, it is those disadvantaged communities whose needs are not met by banks which lose out.

A study of mutuality and corporate governance by the Centre for Business Research at Cambridge University found the beneficiaries of the wave of demutualisation which occurred across Britain during the 1990s included, “corporate managers whose earnings and status were enhanced following conversion, and speculative investors who profited from windfall gains”. The losers were borrowers who faced higher loan costs and communities left with a reduced diversity of service.

Private sector banks motivated merely by profit have, in recent years, pulled out of disadvantaged areas such as parts of inner-city Dublin and rural areas where, because of the low incomes of those living in the area or the small population, they foresee low profit margins from the retention of those services. These types of areas benefit from the development of mutuals and gave birth to the credit union movement, one of the great movements of our country.

Properly run true mutuals can provide a better service at a lower cost. Sinn Féin supports the sections of the Bill which enable building societies which do not wish to demutualise to expand the range of products and services they can offer. While we may discuss the demutualisation of building societies now, the experience of other states suggests credit unions are the next likely target for financial predators.

I wish to deal with an important related issue. The future viability of the credit union movement is undermined by the failure of the Government to make changes on restrictions on lending practices of credit unions under the Credit Union Act 1997. Under the 1997 legislation, credit unions are restricted as to the proportion of their loans to be repaid over five and ten year periods. These restrictions do not apply to banks and other fin[863]ancial institutions. It means credit unions find themselves in breach of the law and if nothing is done, they will have to refuse top-up loans and many loans of five years and over.

Many credit union borrowers are on low incomes and have no equity to offer as security for bank loans. The credit union is their only source of borrowing. These restrictions cause difficulties for low-income families attempting to reschedule loans. The Minister must make a statement to the House on this matter and must take action to change the restrictions on credit union lending practices without further delay.

Provisions under the Building Societies Act 1989 preclude 15% or more of the shares in a successor company being held by any individual or institution for five years after demutualisation unless the Central Bank directs that these provisions should not apply. This protective provision should be retained. It is not acceptable to remove it simply to facilitate one building society, in this case Irish Nationwide, whose central managerial track record is dubious to say the least.

What impact will this legislation have on the capacity of new mutuals to be formed in the confidence they will retain their proper function of enabling their members to engage in self-help? We should not make it easier or more attractive to demutualise. We should increase protection for mutuals, in particular protecting them from so-called “carpetbaggers”, individuals who join building societies and possibly in the future credit unions, to vote for demutualisation and share in the distribution of assets.

Where building societies choose to demutualise, increased protective provisions must be built into law to prevent individuals pushing for demutualisation because they are likely to gain a personal windfall. We cannot realistically expect those who would potentially make a huge personal gain from demutualisation to argue against it on the basis of the benefits of mutualisation for communities. By restricting the ability of directors and employees to make windfall gains from demutualisation, this conflict of interest is removed. I tabled an amendment to this effect and hope we will discuss it, although the time is extremely restrictive.

I fully endorse the position adopted by Deputy Gilmore of the Labour Party and the arguments he presented on the question of the procedures for addressing this Bill. Despite the Chair’s judgment a moment ago, real and serious questions are raised and I have no doubt they will continue to be discussed and debated. I intend to oppose the passage of this Bill for the reasons I outlined.

Mr. F. McGrath: I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on the Building Societies (Amendment) Bill 2006. It is important we have an informed debate and I [864]regret the shortness of this debate. I also must admit I received mixed messages on this Bill.

Mr. Tom Doherty, the head of IT at the EBS, told me the Irish Nationwide Building Society can demutualise if it wishes. The position of the EBS is not weakened by the legislation. He stated it is put on a level playing field with the banks in the way they are regulated and run their business. That is one view. He also believes a scare story on demutualisation was put about during the week which could not be raised by members at the AGM. He stated that story is not true and no further restrictions will be applicable after the legislation is implemented than before.

I also heard an opposing view on this issue. People, including my constituents, are concerned and believe it appears from the proposals that members of the EBS, a mutual company owned by its membership as is the Irish Nationwide Building Society, will be discriminated against. In short, should this Bill be passed in its current form, it will restrict members of the EBS from having a future democratic influence on its destiny and will be a move to restrict the ability of the owners of the EBS to determine through democratic means and within the rules of the mutual society the future of the company. To propose to discriminate against such a group of people as the membership of the EBS, which numbers many thousands, cannot be permitted, given that it will differ significantly from the rights of Irish corporate owners.

Other concerns are raised about the proposal of a restriction based on an entry fee of €10,000, clearly referred to in the Bill. There is no common sense on how this figure was arrived at and, if anything, it suits the private agenda of the boards of directors of the Irish Nationwide Building Society or the EBS. I welcome the debate. However, it should have been longer and more detailed.

I also take this opportunity to commend the work of the staff of the credit union movement, who have done a vast amount of work throughout the State, particularly in disadvantaged areas. I will support any progressive amendments which come before the House.

Mr. Connolly: The import of this Bill is that legislation will be updated so building societies will be enabled to demutualise and convert into companies while protecting the development of mutual societies. However, the Irish Nationwide Building Society will be the most immediately affected by the enactment of the Bill. As soon as the Bill clears the Oireachtas, the way will be paved for the demutualisation and sale of the Irish Nationwide Building Society. Under previous law the Irish Nationwide Building Society would have had to wait five years after demutualisation before it could be sold to another company. The Irish Nationwide Building Society will now be free to opt out of a five-year ban. The EBS will not have that option, however, as this is [865]restricted to building societies which have required a minimum deposit of €10,000 for five years to qualify for membership. After demutualisation, the Irish Nationwide Building Society will change from a company owned and controlled by policy holders to a public limited company. That will leave the company open to a stock exchange flotation or to be purchased by another company, which is the most likely scenario.

With such a stampede to pass legislation within the next 24 hours, it is most likely that the Irish Nationwide Building Society will be sold before the year’s end — some people reckon it will be before November. Under existing legislation, however, members could not propose a conversion resolution. Section 19 of the Bill does not even allow a discussion on conversion at annual general meetings. Members will never be allowed, therefore, to question the EBS’s policy of remaining mutual or even contemplate demutualisation. How can that be justified in a democracy? Section 19 must be amended to permit discussion or proposals to initiate a demutualisation.

The corporate governance question needs to be addressed but the Bill fails to do that. Building society boards have tended to be dominated by strong individuals, and the Irish Nationwide Building Society is certainly in that category, with a mere three non-executive directors. Such a small board will be able to dictate and decide the terms of the demutualisation and the way the proceeds will be distributed.

The Bill should be amended to set a minimum of seven non-executive and a maximum of two executive members of the board, in line with best corporate governance policy. Any board considering demutualisation should be required to have a minimum of nine members for the period during which demutualisation is being arranged. A members oversight committee should also be a prerequisite to review the demutualisation proposal.

Mr. Cuffe: I was amused by the Ceann Comhairle’s reference to precedence under Standing Orders. He appeared to put significant emphasis on the railways legislation from the 1920s. It is no coincidence that this Bill is being railroaded through the House.

I feel a grave sense of unease at discussing a Bill for the first time at 10.30 p.m. on the evening before the Dáil rises for three months. That does not reflect well on the Government and it is not a good move for the legislators. It is not a good day for democracy to move legislation through the House at what is close to the 11th hour. This legislation should be debated fully and any proposal to make changes in the mutual status should be debated fully by all those who will be affected. I am concerned that we are simply pushing this measure quickly through the House

I propose that the Bill should only come into operation following a period of consultation with building society members and borrowers and fol[866]lowing an analysis of the likely advantages and disadvantages to all future building society members and borrowers and after all ongoing investigations by the Ombudsman for financial institutions into building societies’ charging practices are complete and the report published. We are moving too quickly on this issue. It is a bit like electronic voting — we buy all the equipment first and then do the testing. We are lashing this Bill through the House this evening not having had the in-depth period of consultation I believe is necessary.

Demutualisation should not be possible without genuine prior consultation with the members and borrowers. It should not be possible without a study of the way it will impact the Irish mortgage market. We need to see the results of the investigations under way. If charging practices while the company is not a mutual one are not fully investigated and acted upon before the company is sold, it would be damaging to Ireland’s reputation in the international financial area.

The Green Party opposes section 19. The current Act stops members from proposing a demutualisation motion but instead of removing this, the Bill would prevent members from even discussing demutualisation. It gives members even less of a role in running the society, which is not good.

There should be some greater element of equality in what may occur, and the expected sale profit of perhaps €1.5 billion should be divided in an equitable manner, but the Government’s Bill fails to provide for the way the profit will be divided and effectively hands the board a blank cheque. That is not the way to do business in this House or elsewhere. Furthermore, the Green Party believes that a members oversight committee should be appointed. That committee would review any demutualisation proposal. It is best practice in corporate governance that a members oversight committee be established to monitor a demutualisation proposal. Rather than putting legislation through the House that allows the directors to do what they want, we should carefully analyse any change. Any building society’s board of directors should have a minimum of seven non-executive members and a maximum of two executive members. Otherwise, we are simply handing over the blank cheque. Best practice and corporate governance would suggest that prior to considering any demutualisation proposal, the board of directors should be reformed to ensure it is not dominated by the interests of a small group of individuals.

I am concerned about putting legislation through the House that is clearly motivated by one or two cases. It would be more appropriate if we were passing legislation that had a wider remit. I am concerned that we are looking after the interests of particular companies and individuals in the type of legislation being put forward.

The Green Party opposes the Bill in its current form. We have submitted amendments on the [867]legislation and there is a risk, as Brendan Burgess points out, to our international reputation if, for instance, a foreign company buys the Irish Nationwide Building Society and then has to spend hundreds of millions of euro sorting out outstanding claims against it. We will be accused of not acting correctly and our financial reputation could suffer. We must reform this area but the legislation should be broader in its content and should not be seen to facilitate changes in any one organisation. To that end, the Green Party opposes the Bill.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. N. Ahern): I thank the Members for their views and comments, particularly Deputy O’Dowd who supported the principle of the Bill. It is a while since the question of the Bill was first raised and it has been discussed on and off for a number of years, but that does not mean it was drawn up in a day. There was a long process involving the Attorney General, Departments and the Financial Regulator, but it was difficult to come up with a formula that would take account of different circumstances for the different bodies involved.

As I said in my opening comments, the Bill amends the 1989 Act. The recommendations arose from a review group whose members were representatives of building societies, Departments, the Central Bank etc. They recommended greater discretion to building societies that wanted to opt out of the five-year rule. Listening to some Members I am not sure they fully grasped that but since 1989 it has been possible for building societies to demutualise. Some of them have taken that option but they were unable to sell on the company. They turned it into a public limited company but were unable to sell on for five years. I hear what Deputies have said they would like to see in the Bill. However, the Bill is not meant to cover everything. It is a framework Bill. The details of what happens afterwards or how building societies demutualise is covered in the individual conversion scheme and is subject to the rules of the building societies. Deputy Gilmore said that nothing could now stop the directors of the Irish Nationwide Building Society making a killing and they could take 15%. Somebody can stop them. The members of the building society can stop them. By passing the Bill we are not sanctioning any activity. We are giving options.

Up to now building societies had two options based on the 1989 Act. They could remain mutual or demutualise with the five-year rule. We have now extended the scope. Building societies can still remain mutual or can demutualise under the existing protective provisions, or they can now opt out of these provisions and be taken over immediately or opt out and be sold at a later stage. All we are doing is giving options. Any building society that decides to demutualise must [868]undergo a long and almost tortuous process. It is not just a case of the directors coming in and everybody rubber-stamping it.

The conversion process involves the preparation of a statutory conversion scheme by the society, on which the Central Bank must be consulted; the issuing of a statement to members outlining the proposals; the right to inspect the scheme; and approval of the scheme by members of the society. Members are required to give approval and if they are not happy they simply refuse. While they may not be able to bring forward the schemes themselves, they have the important right to refuse. The process also involves application to the Central Bank for confirmation of the scheme and the issuing of public notice of this, the right of any person to make objections or representations to the Central Bank, confirmation of the scheme by the Central Bank following consideration of any objections or representations, the right of members of the society to petition the High Court for cancellation of a conversion scheme and finally the registration under the Companies Act. Many procedural stages must be followed. While the process may be initiated by the directors, the members are very important. While some may be in a great hurry to take their money and run, I am sure they are good at looking after their own interests and if they do not feel they are getting a fair share, they can simply reject the scheme, which would deny the directors, staff and anyone else from getting more than they want them to.

Some Deputies spoke about credit unions. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has no role regarding credit unions. In the future the Department may no longer deal with legislation such as this, which is a bit of a throwback to the days when mortgages were linked to housing or whatever. However, there is now much financial and banking legislation, which is more appropriate to the Department of Finance and its agencies.

Demutualisation has been allowed since 1989. Some Deputies spoke as if we were introducing that provision tonight. The Bill does not push any building society towards demutualisation: it gives them the option. It is then up to the members.

I have tried to amend one aspect over which some concern was expressed. Deputy Gilmore may have been correct in referring to different sections being for different groups. I have tried to be fair in that regard. While the proposal for demutualisation comes from the directors, some motions that reached the floor of a society’s AGM have been blocked. I have tried to loosen the provisions somewhat to allow it to be discussed. We all know from public meetings we attend in different walks of life that in discussion it is possible to get across the thinking of the floor to those in control without the need to pass a motion. I am making that change which gives it the flexibility it required. I would not like to be associated with trying to deny free speech — none of us could do that in our occupation.

[869]Mr. O’Dowd: Except here on a Bill like tonight’s.

Mr. N. Ahern: I thank Members for their views. I understand the Whips agreed to let the Bill pass tonight and I thank the parties for their co-oper[870]ation in that regard. I accept the points made that Members would like more time, but so be it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: As it is now 10.44 p.m., I am required to put the question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day.

Question put.

[869]The Dáil divided: Tá, 100; Níl, 33.

Tá
Ahern, Michael.	Ahern, Noel.
Allen, Bernard.	Andrews, Barry.
Ardagh, Seán.	Brady, Johnny.
Brady, Martin.	Breen, Pat.
Browne, John.	Bruton, Richard.
Callanan, Joe.	Carey, Pat.
Carty, John.	Cassidy, Donie.
Connaughton, Paul.	Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
Cowen, Brian.	Crawford, Seymour.
Cregan, John.	Cullen, Martin.
Curran, John.	Davern, Noel.
de Valera, Síle.	Deasy, John.
Deenihan, Jimmy.	Dempsey, Tony.
Dennehy, John.	Devins, Jimmy.
Durkan, Bernard J.	Ellis, John.
English, Damien.	Enright, Olwyn.
Fahey, Frank.	Finneran, Michael.
Fleming, Seán.	Fox, Mildred.
Gallagher, Pat The Cope.	Glennon, Jim.
Grealish, Noel.	Hanafin, Mary.
Harney, Mary.	Haughey, Seán.
Hayes, Tom.	Hoctor, Máire.
Hogan, Phil.	Jacob, Joe.
Keaveney, Cecilia.	Kehoe, Paul.
Kelleher, Billy.	Kelly, Peter.
Kirk, Seamus.	Kitt, Tom.
Lenihan, Brian.	Lenihan, Conor.
Lowry, Michael.	McCormack, Pádraic.
McDowell, Michael.	McEllistrim, Thomas.
McGrath, Paul.	McGuinness, John.
McHugh, Paddy.	Martin, Micheál.
Mitchell, Olivia.	Moloney, John.
Moynihan, Michael.	Mulcahy, Michael.
Murphy, Gerard.	Naughten, Denis.
Neville, Dan.	Nolan, M.J.
Ó Cuív, Éamon.	Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
O’Connor, Charlie.	O’Dea, Willie.
O’Donnell, Liz.	O’Donoghue, John.
O’Donovan, Denis.	O’Dowd, Fergus.
O’Flynn, Noel.	O’Keeffe, Batt.
O’Keeffe, Jim.	O’Keeffe, Ned.
O’Malley, Fiona.	O’Malley, Tim.
Parlon, Tom.	Perry, John.
Power, Peter.	Power, Seán.
Ring, Michael.	Roche, Dick.
Sexton, Mae.	Smith, Brendan.
Smith, Michael.	Stanton, David.
Timmins, Billy.	Treacy, Noel.
Twomey, Liam.	Wallace, Mary.
Walsh, Joe.	Woods, Michael.

[869]Níl
Breen, James.	Broughan, Thomas P.
Burton, Joan.	Connolly, Paudge.
Cowley, Jerry.	Crowe, Seán.
Cuffe, Ciarán.	Ferris, Martin.
Gilmore, Eamon.	Gogarty, Paul.
Gormley, John.	Gregory, Tony.
Healy, Seamus.	Higgins, Joe.
Higgins, Michael D.	Howlin, Brendan.
Lynch, Kathleen.	McGrath, Finian.
McManus, Liz.	Morgan, Arthur.
Murphy, Catherine.	Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
[871]O’Shea, Brian.	O’Sullivan, Jan.
Pattison, Seamus.	Penrose, Willie.
Quinn, Ruairí.	Rabbitte, Pat.
Ryan, Seán.	Shortall, Róisín.
Stagg, Emmet.	Upton, Mary.
Wall, Jack.

[871]Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Stagg and Crowe.

[871]Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle: As it is now 11 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the House today: “That the amendments set down by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for Committee Stage and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, in respect [872]of each section undisposed of that the section or, as appropriate, the section as amended is hereby agreed to in Committee, the Title is hereby agreed to in Committee, the Bill as amended is, accordingly, reported to the House, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed.”

Question put.

[871]The Dáil divided: Tá, 100; Níl, 34.

Tá
Ahern, Michael.	Ahern, Noel.
Allen, Bernard.	Andrews, Barry.
Ardagh, Seán.	Brady, Johnny.
Brady, Martin.	Breen, Pat.
Browne, John.	Bruton, Richard.
Callanan, Joe.	Carey, Pat.
Carty, John.	Cassidy, Donie.
Connaughton, Paul.	Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
Cowen, Brian.	Crawford, Seymour.
Cregan, John.	Cullen, Martin.
Curran, John.	Davern, Noel.
de Valera, Síle.	Deasy, John.
Deenihan, Jimmy.	Dempsey, Tony.
Dennehy, John.	Devins, Jimmy.
Durkan, Bernard J.	Ellis, John.
English, Damien.	Enright, Olwyn.
Fahey, Frank.	Finneran, Michael.
Fleming, Seán.	Fox, Mildred.
Gallagher, Pat The Cope.	Glennon, Jim.
Grealish, Noel.	Hanafin, Mary.
Harney, Mary.	Haughey, Seán.
Hayes, Tom.	Hoctor, Máire.
Hogan, Phil.	Jacob, Joe.
Keaveney, Cecilia.	Kehoe, Paul.
Kelleher, Billy.	Kelly, Peter.
Kirk, Seamus.	Kitt, Tom.
Lenihan, Brian.	Lenihan, Conor.
Lowry, Michael.	McCormack, Pádraic.
McDowell, Michael.	McEllistrim, Thomas.
McGrath, Paul.	McGuinness, John.
McHugh, Paddy.	Martin, Micheál.
Mitchell, Olivia.	Moloney, John.
Moynihan, Michael.	Mulcahy, Michael.
Murphy, Gerard.	Naughten, Denis.
Neville, Dan.	Nolan, M.J.
Ó Cuív, Éamon.	Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
O’Connor, Charlie.	O’Dea, Willie.
O’Donnell, Liz.	O’Donoghue, John.
O’Donovan, Denis.	O’Dowd, Fergus.
O’Flynn, Noel.	O’Keeffe, Batt.
O’Keeffe, Jim.	O’Keeffe, Ned.
O’Malley, Fiona.	O’Malley, Tim.
Parlon, Tom.	Perry, John.
Power, Peter.	Power, Seán.
Ring, Michael.	Roche, Dick.
Sexton, Mae.	Smith, Brendan.
Smith, Michael.	Stanton, David.
Timmins, Billy.	Treacy, Noel.
Twomey, Liam.	Wallace, Mary.
Walsh, Joe.	Woods, Michael.

[873]Níl
Breen, James.	Broughan, Thomas P.
Burton, Joan.	Connolly, Paudge.
Costello, Joe.	Cowley, Jerry.
Crowe, Seán.	Cuffe, Ciarán.
Ferris, Martin.	Gilmore, Eamon.
Gogarty, Paul.	Gormley, John.
Gregory, Tony.	Healy, Seamus.
Higgins, Joe.	Higgins, Michael D.
Howlin, Brendan.	Lynch, Kathleen.
McGrath, Finian.	McManus, Liz.
Morgan, Arthur.	Murphy, Catherine.
Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.	O’Shea, Brian.
O’Sullivan, Jan.	Pattison, Seamus.
Penrose, Willie.	Quinn, Ruairí.
Rabbitte, Pat.	Ryan, Seán.
Shortall, Róisín.	Stagg, Emmet.
Upton, Mary.	Wall, Jack.

[873]Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Stagg and Crowe.

[873]Question declared carried.

The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: May I make a suggestion? We have only 20 minutes for this debate. I invite the Minister to give a three minute dissertation on the 35 amendments that we will consider in the debate.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell): If the House is willing to discuss the amendments made in the Seanad together, I am happy to accede to the Deputy’s suggestion. The first amendment made by the Seanad relates to section 5. It was on foot of an adaptation of a Fine Gael amendment in that House and it provides that a record shall be made as soon as is practicable but a failure to record the direction with regard to the preservation of a crime scene in writing shall not by itself render any evidence inadmissible. There was agreement that it would be a travesty of justice if a failure to make a clerical record of an uncontested decision ended up with evidence being rendered inadmissible.

11 o’clock

The second amendment originated in an amendment which was put forward by Senator Cummins. It was adapted on foot of a suggestion I made. It extends the definition of a place in the context of a preservation of the scene of a crime regime to include a dwelling, residence, building or abode, a vehicle whether mechanically propelled or not, a vessel whether sea-going or not, an aircraft whether capable of operation or not or a hovercraft.

The next set of amendments looks complicated and formidable but they are the parliamentary counsel’s amendments to our amendments. In response to amendments tabled by Deputy Jim O’Keeffe in this House, that there should be no [874]reduction of the minimum mandatory ten-year sentence where there was a second offence, the parliamentary counsel came to the conclusion that the original wording offered by his office was open to the interpretation that the maximum sentence was prescribed and that life imprisonment would be available for the first offence but might not be available for a second or subsequent offence. Obviously, that would be nonsense. There was a view that the relevant provisions relating to minimum mandatory sentences should be amended to make it clear that the maximum sentence still applied.

The amendment to section 148 is a purely technical amendment to substitute the word “education” for “educational” when using the term “vocational education committee”. The last amendment is one proposed by Senators Henry and Norris. It arose out of an amendment which Deputy Ó Snodaigh originally made to the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act, which abolished the notion that the Minister could designate a part of a prison to be a place for the detention of people who were not guilty by reason of insanity. Unfortunately, when I accepted Deputy Ó Snodaigh’s amendment, because I considered it a correct amendment, there was a consequential change. Section 13(1) was still based on the proposition that the Minister could designate part of a prison to be a place of detention for people who had been acquitted under the Act. It was decided that the provision should be tidied.

The amendments are not amendments of substance. I do not wish to excite further divisions between Fine Gael and the Labour Party this evening as they already have had their divisions——

Mr. Morgan: Why not? That is not like the Minister.

Mr. McDowell: None of these amendments is contentious. Four of them arise from Opposition [875]amendments and give effect to those amendments, whether they were made by this or the other House and whether they are applicable to the Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill or this Bill. I do not expect the Deputies to have any difficulty with the amendments.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: In the spirit of the Minister’s remarks, I should formally ask if the Minister’s amendments are supported by his Progressive Democrats colleague, the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, in light of the obvious situation that exists within that party.

Mr. McHugh: That was under the belt.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: In this instance, however, those divisions will not surface. I expect the legislation has the support not just of the other side of the Cabinet but of the Progressive Democrats side of the Cabinet. The development of this Bill reinforces the case for the parliamentary process and dealing with legislation in a way where there is a genuine and constructive effort on the part of the Legislature to improve the legislation, discuss it and put down amendments on all Stages. Above all, it reinforces the case for not using guillotines on serious legislative measures. The consequence of a guillotine can mean that the beneficial effects of the legislative process are stymied.

It is clear from the Minister’s comments that the Seanad has further improved the Bill following Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil. That rebuts the case of those who suggest the Seanad is a useless body. Clearly it has given thorough consideration to the Bill and the amendments made there have improved the Bill. Some of them are technical. They are approved by the parliamentary counsel and I accept his view. A number of them were proposed by Fine Gael on different Stages in both Houses and were accepted by the Government so obviously I support them.

The only issue of substance that is affected is that of minimum mandatory sentences. I have long held the view that if the House is to legislate for minimum mandatory sentences, those sentences should be both the minimum and mandatory. The history of that issue, however, has been that due to the deference to judicial discretion, minimum mandatory sentences have effectively been neither minimum nor mandatory because of the exceptional circumstances clause. That is the reason I put down an amendment to ensure that whatever about a first offence, on a second offence the minimum mandatory sentence should be exactly that.

A number of the Seanad amendments arise from the acceptance of Fine Gael’s approach and its incorporation in the Bill. Obviously I accept the amendments that the parliamentary counsel [876]deems necessary as a consequence of that change. I support the amendments made in the Seanad.

Mr. Howlin: I thought I had concluded my contributions on this legislation last week. It was certainly a marathon effort and bolting together various legislative measures was not an ideal way of dealing with this Bill. However, I paid tribute to the Minister last week for approaching the Bill in an open way by taking on board reasonable suggestions from this side of the House — not every member of the Government does that. It makes it worthwhile to do the work and research when there is a listening ear for reasoned argument that will make an impact on legislation. In that spirit the other House had an opportunity to go over our work with a fine tooth comb and has seen fit to make further suggestions that have been accepted by the Minister. I have no difficulty with any of them.

The Minister, even late in the evening, could not resist having a go at the Opposition over divisions.

Mr. McDowell: The eyes of the media are on us. The Deputy can be absolutely sure of that.

Mr. Howlin: The good thing is that everything here is captured for posterity. If I were in the Minister’s position, I would not mention disunity or division. The old adage that people in glass houses should not throw stones holds true.

Mr. McHugh: Strike the remarks from the record.

Mr. Howlin: I have a cordial relationship with my colleague, Deputy Jim O’Keeffe, which is more than can be said for Progressive Democrats Cabinet Ministers or parliamentary party members, who are now barely on speaking terms. It is very noticeable around the House. If I were in the Minister’s position, I would not draw attention to it so clearly.

When we legislate for a provision for an oral directive, it is important that it is subsequently recorded. There must be a level of practicality and I have no difficulty with the amendment which states that a mistake in not recording the directive in written form does not negate its usefulness. That is sensible, although I hope there will be a written recording.

The bulk of the amendments were tabled by the Minister and relate to mandatory sentencing for firearms and drug offences. The intention of the House and the Minister is that there would not be a lesser provision for a subsequent offence than for an initial offence and that should be clear in the text of the Bill. I have no difficulty with that. The other amendments are not of great moment and I accept them. I thank the Minister for providing us with a written brief so that we did not have to trawl through the Bill once more.

[877]The Bill, its tortuous journey through these Houses notwithstanding, is not bad legislation. It will strengthen the arm of the Garda Síochána and act as a buffer in the increasingly complicated and difficult fight against crime. We will make political capital on these issues but we recognise the extraordinarily difficult and at times life threatening job members of the Garda Síochána do. I was happy to issue a statement congratulating the force on the successful raid on a drugs factory in the last week. I hope the force is further armed by this legislation.

Mr. Morgan: I will begin by expressing my support for the republican wing of the Progressive Democrats in the struggle for the leadership of the party. It is not exactly my own brand of republicanism but I have heard the Minister proclaim it loudly on many occasions. Unlike mine, it is not anchored in the 1916 Proclamation. We have differences but given that the Minister’s leader has never proclaimed any brand of republicanism, we will stick with Deputy McDowell for now.

Mr. McHugh: We will stick with him as leader for now.

Mr. Howlin: He is the sole trader. He would surely be leader in that outfit.

Mr. Morgan: On behalf of my colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, I will support amendments Nos. 1 and 2 but I have difficulties with some of the other amendments.

We recognise the urgent need for reform of the Judiciary and we support judicial discretion over sentencing outcomes. We also acknowledge that the Minister is not introducing absolute mandatory minimum sentencing but he is introducing minimum sentences and pushing judicial discretion in that direction. That causes considerable unease in my party and its support base. Under the Constitution, judges are responsible for administering justice in this State and this should include the determination of punishment. Punishment must be proportionate to each crime and to that end the public must be protected while maintaining the discretion to ensure proportionality in the interests of justice.

In supporting amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and expressing some difficulty with the others, I derived some pleasure from my colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, causing the Minister some discomfiture by having to refer to the amendment accepted from him earlier. It was a solid amendment and I acknowledge that the Minister accepted it, even if it required further amendment this evening.

Mr. Cuffe: I welcome some of the changes to the Bill. The watering down of the proposal for anti-social behaviour orders is a step in the right direction and I am pleased that the Minister has [878]accepted that the Children Act must be fully implemented. It was worrying that many parts of the Act had been gathering dust on the shelf over recent years.

I take a jaundiced view of some aspects of the Bill, such as electronic tagging and the toys for boys approach to policing. More helicopters, four wheel drive vehicles and electronic tagging will not help to address the causes of crime. I also have a wider concern about the Bill that while the Minister is keen to address certain aspects of policing and enforcement, he does not have the same vigour when it comes to addressing the causes of crime. The Minister’s political ideology leaves him with a blind spot when it comes to tackling the areas of social exclusion in the State that are often breeding grounds for violent crime. Many of these areas need dramatic State investment in environmental improvement, housing, education and family support, and none of that comes cheap.

I urge the Minister to ponder that and to examine the trends in these areas. As a result of the economic boom, there have been improvements in employment but people have been left behind. They require support in those areas and an investment in everything from bricks and mortar to raising people’s hopes. I accept that some aspects of the Bill will help but there is a commensurate need to do more to tackle the causes of anti-social behaviour and crime.

Mr. McDowell: I thank Deputies for contributing to this debate. There is consensus that the amendments made in the Seanad were sensible and I am glad this House is willing to identify with them and accept them without division. I fully accept it is embarrassing for Fine Gael and the Labour Party to contemplate division. Within two weeks they have divided three or four times on matters of central importance. This is a
harbinger of what might be to come if the electorate were foolish enough to elect a slump coalition.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: The Minister is incorrigible.

Mr. Howlin: The Leas-Cheann Comhairle should put the question by Order of the House.

Mr. Bruton: To protect us from this.

Mr. McDowell: Deputy Cuffe made the point that one should be conscious of the causes of crime. I agree completely that one should be, because remedial and reactive measures are not the only way that society deals with criminality and the causes of crime. I remind the Deputy that the resources to which he addressed his mind just a moment ago do not emanate from nowhere. They come from the pursuit of policies which, as Deputy Kenny said yesterday in the House, are ones where the Government creates the envir[879]onment for the generation of resources within society.

Mr. Howlin: The Minister will be back in Fine Gael yet.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: I feel the knock on the door.

Mr. McDowell: The crucial thing that must always be remembered is that those parties that consistently opposed efforts to create a congenial climate for the creation of resources in this society should now rethink their positions. I am a good man for rethinking my position.

Mr. McHugh: He does not always come to the same conclusion though. He is always right, that is his final conclusion.

Mr. McDowell: Other Deputies seems to be totally blind to the fact——

Mr. Howlin: The Minister thinks he is always right.

Mr. McDowell: ——that they opposed, tooth and nail, every single tax reduction to which they are now irrevocably committed to maintaining, when they were put before this House.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: Codology.

Mr. McDowell: They voted against every Finance Bill and every measure that was introduced to make Ireland successful.

Mr. Howlin: We brought in that rate of tax as a bulwark of economic policy.

Mr. McDowell: They have a sad attachment to the outdated ideology of another era.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: The Minister is floundering.

Mr. McDowell: It may well be that in the remaining eight, nine or ten months of the life of this Dáil——

Mr. McHugh: Eleven.

Mr. McDowell: We will bring it to wherever the Opposition wants. It may well be that there will be considerable changes of stance on the part of some parties jockeying for public support.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: What does the Minister have in mind?

Mr. McDowell: The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Two parties have brought Ireland from its knees to a standing position.

Mr. McHugh: Write it down.

[880]Mr. McDowell: Two parties have always been the central components of slump coalitions.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: The Minister actually believes this rubbish. What a sad case.

Mr. McDowell: From now on, there is only one issue, namely, whether we want to continue Ireland’s success or if we want to elect a slump coalition because that is what the rainbow has on offer.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: The Minister for ridicule thinks he is at the L&H debating society.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The time for this debate has expired and I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: “That Seanad amendments Nos. 1 to 35, inclusive, are hereby agreed to in Committee and agreement to the amendments is hereby reported to the House.”

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: A message will be sent to the Seanad apprising it accordingly.

The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is Seanad amendment No. 1 agreed to?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: May I ask who is proposing the amendment on behalf of the Government? Will they outline to the House exactly the raison d’être behind each of the amendments presented?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I call an tAire Stáit on Seanad amendment No. 1.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: With your indulgence, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, will colleagues agree to the procedure that applied to the previous legislation, which was very useful and mature? That is, that the Minister of State would address the composite number of amendments — there are six in total. He could give a short address outlining the background to each amendment. He could then allow each of the other Deputies to respond accordingly. That means that everyone will get a fair chance to participate.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Kitt): I would be very happy to do that with the agreement of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Amendment No. 1 is to section 1 of the Bill, which contains the list of definitions. It proposes to delete the words “unless the context otherwise requires” from line 27, which I am advised by the Parliamentary Counsel are no [881]longer required as a result of the Interpretation Act.

Amendment No. 2 reads “Section 5: In page 6, line 22, ”by the Taoiseach“ deleted.” The purpose of this amendment is to delete the words “by the Taoiseach” from section 5 of the Bill, which deals with expenses incurred in the administration of this Act. I am advised that this amendment will make the Bill consistent with the similar section 6 of the Statistics Act 1993, which also comes under the responsibility of the Department of the Taoiseach.

Seanad amendment No. 3 reads as follows:

Section 20: In page 13, subsection (2), lines 40 to 42, paragraph (a) deleted and the following new paragraph substituted:

“(a) paragraphs (a) and (b) do not apply to a member of the Forum to whom section 15(3)(a) applies who is nominated as a member of Seanad Éireann or is elected as a member of either House of the Oireachtas, and”.

We have done this to make sure we cover the position of those who are nominated as Members of the Seanad.

Seanad amendment No. 4 reads, “In page 14, subsection (4), line 20, ”member or“ deleted.” That is just a tidying up exercise.

Seanad amendment No. 5 reads:

In page 14, subsection (4), line 21, “Forum” deleted and “Forum (subject to subsection (5))” substituted.

Seanad amendment No. 6 reads:

In page 14, between lines 23 and 24, the following new subsection inserted:

“(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to a person, who is for the time being entitled under the Standing Orders of either House of the Oireachtas to sit therein, to whom section 15(3)(a) applies being appointed under section 15(2) as a member of the Forum.”.

This is probably the most significant amendment. It came from a proposal by Senator Ryan in the other House. I thank him again for alerting me to this matter.

Seanad amendment No. 3 proposes a small but important change to section 22(a). This subsection makes an exception in the case of the forum to the requirement contained in section 21 that a member of the council, forum or centre who becomes a public representative, must cease to be such a member. The amendment is required to include Senators who are nominated in addition to those who are elected.

The purpose of Seanad amendment No. 4 is to delete the words “member or” from subsection (4). The Parliamentary Counsel has advised that these words are superfluous.

Seanad amendment No. 5 is required to refer in subsection (4) to a proposed new subsection (5).

[882]Seanad amendment No. 6 proposes that the new subsection (5) be inserted. The purpose of that new subsection is to make an exception to persons who are, for the time being, entitled to sit in either House of the Oireachtas and to whom section 15(3)(a) applies, from being disqualified from membership of the forum. This is an important amendment as otherwise there would be a contradiction in the Bill between section 15(3), which defines the composition of the forum and requires that 15 members of the forum shall be Members of either Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann, and section 24 which would otherwise disqualify elected Members from membership of the forum. This amendment comes to the heart of the issue raised by Senator Ryan in the Seanad. We are accepting that there was a contradiction there and we are putting forward this amendment to rectify it. I thank Members of the Seanad for proposing these amendments, which I commend to this House.

Mr. Bruton: I have no objection to these amendments being made. I still regret the Bill has missed the opportunity to forge a more mature relationship between the Oireachtas and the various institutions of the social partnership of which these are prominent parts. As I said earlier, the Dáil should have a role in shaping the agenda of social partnership. Currently that is a task primarily done by the National Economic and Social Council from which the Dáil is excluded. Token membership for Members of the Oireachtas on some of these fora which are dealing with subsets of the overall agenda of social partnership is not an adequate response.

Recognising that social partnership is a permanent feature of the way we do our business, we need to have a more mature relationship with the Oireachtas where people who are elected this House to represent the broad citizenship have a greater say instead of relying primarily on representatives from interest groups, who have a valid say, but not to the exclusion of Members of the Oireachtas who have a broad mandate. While this was a missed opportunity, the Minister of State knows the views of the different Members so I will not labour the point at this stage.

Ms Burton: I am sure the Minister of State is relieved at this late hour that the end is in sight. I said to him previously this is really the quango of quangos, the über quango and the quango to beat all the quangos. It is a conglomeration of them all. In that sense it will have a breadth of representation which will always be interesting. Social partnership has served the country well but, like all structures that become embedded, it runs the risk of becoming exclusive, especially to newer people and interest groups.

I was interested to hear the debate on social partnership and wage matters being referred to again as the national wage agreement. In the end is my beginning. We are back where we were [883]approximately 20 years ago on terminology. Nonetheless, I hope the body will serve some useful purposes. I think there are many problems with the membership of such bodies. Those willing to serve on them actively are a fairly select group of people and, being willing to serve, they are actively in demand. Since the National Economic and Social Forum was conceived in the 1992-94 period, it has done much valuable work, especially on sectoral issues and broad issues affecting Departments, such as children’s access to pre-school education and the question of educational opportunities in society.

There is a problem about Deputies and Senators genuinely being able to participate in such bodies. Often they meet on a Wednesday morning, which is difficult for most Members. Nonetheless they do valuable work. Some imagination must be put into acquiring continuous capacity to draw people of talent to serve. I wish the Minister of State well with the future organisations and operation.

Mr. Boyle: The amendments are largely technical in nature and there is no reason for the House to divide. They will be widely accepted but they show, as other speakers have said, a continuing flaw that lies at the heart of the Bill and the structure that is being proposed in that the proper involvement of the Members of the Oireachtas in the partnership process is not being properly acknowledged in legislation. I speak as one who was a member of the National Economic and Social Council. My last meeting was on the day of the general election in 2002 and because I was elected that day, I was obliged to resign. I did not have a choice in the matter.

It is curious that the main set of amendments arising from the Seanad, as the Minister of State has acknowledged, came from Senator Ryan who recognised the huge dichotomy that existed between clauses that restrict Members of the Oireachtas from being involved in bodies such as those mentioned in the Bill, while at the same time there is one body, the National Economic and Social Forum, that is very much part of the Bill and of which Members of the Oireachtas are a constituent part. While that kind of double-think is going on, this is a structure that will continue not to interact properly with elected representatives.

There is a job of work to be done in explaining all the constituent parts. Even after my own membership of the National Economic and Social Council, I am at a loss to know what the Centre for Partnership does. It has never been properly explained in all the debates in this House or analysed in subsequent committees of the House. We are very clear on what the National Economic and Social Council and the National Economic and Social Forum are about and they play valuable roles in informing debate. That debate could [884]be better informed and wider and more interactive if more actors were involved.

The only other point I would make in this limited debate is that there is Dáil acknowledgement of the national partnership agreement. We have been promised a debate in the House and that there will be a motion surrounding such a debate. As legislators we should insist that such partnership agreements can only come into effect after a vote in this House, that it is not only a matter for the Executive, especially when there are areas in this agreement that are meant to be binding for ten years, which potentially and most probably will cover the lifetimes of other Governments. On those grounds all Members should be involved in such decision making. It is not likely we will have such a debate until October, by which time the main social partners, ICTU and IBEC, will have had their decision-making processes. It is a matter to which the Government should give consideration as the first business of the House when it returns at the end of September or early October, namely, a formalisation of the role the House should play in such agreements in the future.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: As other Deputies have done, I indicate acceptance of the amendments as presented. I will not repeat any of the points already made. One would be tempted to ask who else might incur expenses other than the Taoiseach and the Administration etc.

The only point of importance to make, especially this week, is to echo the Minister of State’s commendation of the further scrutiny of the legislation by the Seanad and the useful role it has played in terms of greater exactitude in the final legislation that will go to the President. Surely, against the backdrop of repeated guillotines in this and the previous week, there must be a realisation that what we are putting through in this most imperfect and truncated opportunity for Members is legislation that is likely to be littered with flaws, faults and issues that may have to be revisited.

On the point the Minister of State made about the final amendment, which was attributed to Senator Ryan, I have no doubt that if the legislation had gone through without that having been identified, the Minister of State would have had to come back. That is a fact. That is the import of it. Given all the legislation, from the Defence (Amendment) Bill last night to the Building Societies (Amendment) Bill tonight and so many other Bills over recent weeks, surely the lesson must be taken on board from this exercise that this is something to be avoided at all costs. Greater sitting time would accommodate the requirement of better scrutiny and a more perfect legislative process. I have no doubt that all Members would be enthused by such an approach. On behalf of my colleagues I acknowledge the amendments as presented and record support for them.

[885]Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Kitt): I thank the Opposition Deputies for their comments and their welcome for the amendments. As the Deputy rightly said, the main amendment came through from the Seanad, which demonstrates its importance. We acknowledge its role and the role of Senator Ryan in particular.

This will not be headline legislation, but it brings together three important bodies, including the national centre for partnership and performance. I have noted some of the work it does and find it exciting because it is visionary. Perhaps we should publicise it more because it is looking at partnership in the workplace, particularly the workplace of the future. This is welcome. It is important to have such a body of committed people in the sophisticated economy and society in which we live. They can try to look into the crystal ball to see what issues may arise in the workplace, such as work-life balance, bullying and harassment and other complex issues that need to be addressed. We need a body like this to do that. In the area of technology there is huge potential to make life easier for everybody. It is important to bring the three bodies together and create a synergy between them and that is what we are doing.

Deputy Bruton raised the issue of the lack of Oireachtas involvement in the partnership process. In the context of the social partnership, I believe it is the duty of Government to govern. However, I acknowledge that as partnership has expanded to the voluntary pillar etc., there is an issue to be addressed. We need to put our heads together as to how we do this. Deputy Quinn spoke earlier in the debate on partnership on the new agreement Towards 2016, and mentioned the role of committees. There is so much detail in the agreement that I believe there is significant potential for committees to examine some of the issues in the coming years. I accept partnership is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Perhaps we could look at the issue under the process of Dáil reform. We have not got far with regard to Dáil reform, but we could deal with it in the context of reform of the role of committees. I am not sure we can do it in the short term, but I acknowledge there are issues that need to be addressed in the context of the Oireachtas as whole with regard to scrutiny of such a major document as Towards 2016. It is certainly a comprehensive agreement.

I thank the Deputies for their co-operation on this technical business at this late hour.

An Ceann Comhairle: The question is: “That Seanad amendments Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, are hereby agreed to and agreement to the amendments is accordingly reported to the House.”