Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is proposed to take No. 12, Revised Estimates for Public Services 2005, Votes 1 to 16 and 18 to 40; No. 13, motion re referral to joint committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann for a Council decision on the exchange of information and co-operation concerning terrorist offences; No. 14, Maritime Safety Bill 2004 [Seanad] — instruction to committee; No. 24, statements on European Council in Brussels; and No. 25, Maritime Safety Bill 2004 [Seanad] - Order for Report, Report and Final Stages.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 10 p.m. Items Nos. 12, 13 and 14 shall be decided without debate and, in the case of No. 12, Votes 1 to 16 and 18 to 40 shall be moved together and shall be decided by one question which shall be put from the Chair and any division demanded thereon shall be taken forthwith. The proceedings on No. 24 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 80 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the statements shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 60 minutes and, subject to (ii), 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 which shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; (ii) members may share time; and (iii) immediately following the statements, the Minister for Foreign Affairs shall take questions for a period not exceeding 20 minutes.

Report and Final Stages of No. 25 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10 p.m. tonight by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.

Private Members' business shall be No. 56, motion re Morris tribunal reports and establishment of commission into policing.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are four proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 12, 13 and 14 without debate agreed?

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not agreed. Concerning this proposal it is entirely wrong as, for example, Votes 28 and 29 are buried in the Estimates. Vote 29 deals with overseas development aid. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is confined to considering the Estimates but cannot put the matter to a vote. It is very important for us to have an opportunity to say why we want a vote. On that Vote the reason is that the Government has broken its promise on 0.7% of GNP for overseas development aid and no new year has been announced. Concerning Vote 28 the Government has announced €8 million for the Irish Abroad when the Commission on the Irish Abroad made a recommendation of €34 million. I could go on, but all these Estimates amount to a total of €34.764 billion. The nature of the select committee process is that it can consider the Estimates but it cannot call a vote. This is the only place where one can give the reason for calling for a vote on an Estimate and I have given illustrations regarding Votes 28 and 29. For that reason, it is absolutely outrageous that this House could slip away without giving the Revised Estimates due consideration. I have listened to various Government spokespersons referring to the solemn commitment that was given, not only on behalf of the House, but also on behalf of the Irish people, by the Taoiseach at the United Nations in September 2000. It was repeated in the manifestos of both Government parties in the election of 2002, in the programme for Government and in the agreement with the social partners, but it is now being casually cast aside. The Taoiseach has refused to say whether the 0.7% target will be achieved in 2010 or 2015. At the current rate of progress it appears that it will not be achieved before 2028.

We should have good reasons for voting on these Estimates, but I am suggesting there are strong reasons for rejecting at least two of them. The idea that one can rattle through €34.746 billion worth of Estimates without being allowed to ask questions or find reasons to vote yea or nay is absolutely absurd. It is an insult to parliamentary democracy and, therefore, we will be voting against No. 12.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This proposal is breathtaking. It involves pages of Estimates amounting to billions of euro. I have not had a chance to add up all the Estimates, but essentially the Government is asking us, in an irresponsible way, to give the nod to expenditure without having an opportunity to vote, other than doing so once for the whole collection of Estimates. The Ceann Comhairle should consider the method of doing this in future because, currently, it indicates that we are here simply to give the nod to whatever the Government may wish to do. I was certainly not elected with that in mind, however, and it is not the mandate I received.

I strongly support Deputy Michael D. Higgins's point. Questions were raised this morning as to why the OPW had rented buildings it never used, effectively flushing €19 million down the toilet. That vast amount, however, pales into insignificance when one considers all these Estimates. It is unacceptable for these Estimates to be taken with one vote and without debate. In committee, there was a limited amount of debate but no vote was taken. This is the only place where we will vote, yet we are being asked to give the nod to all these Estimates in one fell swoop. If we do not like it, we can only vote against all the Estimates together. It is a crude version of parliamentary democracy and we could do much better. I oppose this matter.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On No. 13——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is only provision for one Member of each party to speak, and Deputy Michael D. Higgins has spoken.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One per Vote, maybe.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, one per proposal.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I endorse the remarks of Deputy Michael D. Higgins and Deputy Sargent concerning item No. 12 on today's Order Paper. I object to the approach being taken with regard to these proposals. I wish to speak to No. 13 because Nos. 12, 13 and 14 are grouped together under proposition No. 2. They are to be progressed without debate in the House. We are speaking about the Council decision on the EU action plan against terrorism. While the motion concerns a specific proposal in response to objective 3 of the EU action plan against terrorism, this House has not debated the action plan itself since it was originally adopted almost four years ago, in October 2001. Apparently, the Government has no plans to debate it or any of the approximately 150 measures it contains.

Regardless of where one stands on the specific proposition or the action plan, this is of such importance that it must be properly debated with full scrutiny and attention being afforded to it in the House. I am speaking not only about No. 13 specifically, but also about a full debate on the content of the action plan, which is long overdue. I appeal to Members to recognise the import of this matter and to reject the proposition to refer No. 13 to a committee where some Members will have the opportunity to debate it away from the full scrutiny of the House and the public gaze. Sadly, that is how business is conducted in committees. We should not fail to afford this measure the necessary scrutiny it undoubtedly requires. I oppose the method of addressing it. I hope the Taoiseach will, either now or in due course, agree to a full debate on the action plan, which is overdue by four years.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Revised Estimates for Public Services 2005 have come back from committee, where they were debated in the normal way, for decision by the House.

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They were considered in committee.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They were dealt with in committee for many hours. On the motion on terrorist offences, I do not have a problem with having a debate on the EU action plan. However, the Council decision on the exchange of information and co-operation concerning terrorist offences was proposed by the European Commission in response to the objective of the action plan. It aims to increase efficiency and the exchange of information concerning terrorist offences between member states, Europol and EuroJust.

We are asking the House to vote for the decision which provides for the establishment of a designated specialist service within the police services, which will have access to all information on criminal investigations of terrorist offences and can send it to Europol. The exchange of information through Europol is covered by the 1997 Act. No further action is required consequent to the present Council decision. We are referring it to a committee of the House so it is not ending here.

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Select committees consider Estimates, they cannot vote on them.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 24, statements on the European Council meeting in Brussels, agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 25, Report and Final Stages of the Maritime Safety Bill 2004, agreed?

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I tried to raise this matter earlier when the House considered the proposal for dealing with No. 14, the instruction to committee. The Government has tabled many Report Stage amendments to the Maritime Safety Bill 2004. The amendments will provide for a completely new Part 6, emergency legislative provisions to provide for the licensing of vessels and a new section 35, which seems to be directed specifically against the scallop fishermen of Wexford and Waterford.

Seán Ryan (Dublin North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Shame on the Government.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The House is expected to discuss the amendments, which we did not see until recently, over a couple of hours. I object to this manner of dealing with legislation, which is in line with the track record of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. I also oppose the proposal to guillotine this Bill.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Where is the Minister?

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the House agrees, we can proceed with No. 24, statements on the European Council meeting in Brussels. It has been proposed that the statements will, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 80 minutes. If we do not take the statements now, it will mean that Private Members' time will have to be changed. Does the House agree?

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Green Party does not object to that proposal, in principle. The formal motion on the Revised Estimates has yet to be moved by the Minister of State. We are opposed to the Government's proposal in that regard.

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is it not normal practice for business to continue after Private Members' time if the time allotted for it is not available before the start of Private Members' time?

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have no problem with that if it is what the House wants.

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not saying it is what the House wants, I am saying it is normal practice. The statements on the European Council meeting in Brussels should continue after Private Members' time.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not normal practice. I call the Minister of State.

Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I can propose that Private Members' business be taken for 90 minutes at 7 p.m. or on the conclusion of No. 24, statements on the European Council meeting in Brussels, whichever is the later. Is that agreed?

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is agreed.