It is proposed to take No. 16, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2007-20 the specific programme ‘Civil Justice' as part of the general programme ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice'; and No. 16a. motion re “The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act”; No. 23, Criminal Justice Bill 2004 — Second Stage (resumed).

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 16 shall be decided without debate; the proceedings on No. 16a. shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after two hours and the following arrangements shall apply: the speeches of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; Members may share time; a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed five minutes.

There are two proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No.16, motion of referral to joint committee re civil justice programme and motion re membership of committee agreed?

We feel we cannot agree to this or any other part of the Order of Business until we have a commitment from the Tánaiste regarding a very important matter to be dealt with today by the Health Service Executive.

The Deputy did not proclaim her interest this morning.

What was that?

I am sorry, but the Minister of State has made a charge and my good name is being impugned.

He should stand up and withdraw it.

I ask him to withdraw it now.

I withdraw nothing.

The Minister of State said that I did not declare my interest this morning on the radio. That is impugning my good name and I ask him to withdraw that charge now.

He should stand up and explain himself.

I withdraw my remarks.

I thank the Minister of State for withdrawing the charge. Will the Tánaiste agree to come into the House so that we can debate the issue surrounding the money wasted on two computer systems in the health service? The decision to be made today will have great significance in the management of the health service and we need to debate it in this Parliament. If it is not possible to debate the issue today, we should ensure that we have this debate at the very earliest opportunity next week. I ask the Tánaiste to agree to that provision so that we can ensure this matter is dealt with in the appropriate way.

I second that request and Members will be aware that I asked for that debate under Standing Order 31. In ensuring that we learn lessons from what has happened, I ask the Government to facilitate such a debate.

I oppose the procedure followed for the motion regarding the civil justice programme, as it is without debate. This is one of a number of motions relating to justice and home affairs that have been processed without debate in this House. This motion is only a small part of The Hague programme and the Minister admitted in committee that The Hague programme had to be revisited because it was tied to the adoption of the EU Constitution. Therefore, we are passing a motion that has been overtaken by events and we should put it on hold. The Hague programme frontloads contentious measures including judicial and police co-operation without regard for the great differences between member states on the issue of human rights protection. I urge that this motion be put on hold and that we have a proper debate on The Hague programme as I requested several times in the past year.

On a point of order, regarding No. 16, I wish to record that this is the second time this week that a motion has come back from committee to this House without a previous report being supplied to the Whips, as has been the agreed protocol. I would like an explanationfrom the Government as to why that is not happening.

This matter went to the committee where it was fully discussed. In response to Deputy McManus, we have had a debate for the past two evenings on PPARS and other issues.

It was about overspending in general.

I am sorry but, as the Deputy knows, this issue was extensively dealt with. The board of the Health Service Executive will make decisions this morning. It is a matter for it and I am sure, in due course, the House will be in a position to raise this issue again.

I will put the question.

I want to point out to the Tánaiste that we are talking about today's decision.

The Deputy cannot speak twice on the same motion.

I appreciate that but we could not debate a decision being made today over the past 48 hours. I am talking about a debate flowing from a decision that will be made by the HSE today. The Government is again avoiding responsibility by refusing my request.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 16 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 16a, motion re “The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act”, agreed?

There is wide support on the proposal as it is presented to the House. Before we agree to it I would like an assurance that the Government would ensure that similar and equivalent measures that we are seeking for Irish citizens in America who are on the run would be introduced here for non-nationals in Ireland, including American citizens who are on the run from the authorities because they do not have work permits.

I would be supportive of that but I would also like to amend the Order of Business as it relates to this item. Speaking slots of 15 minute have been proposed after the opening speakers. I propose that the subsequent slots would be of ten minutes' duration because the cycle that is proposed would preclude the Technical Group from receiving a second speaking slot. On that ground I would ask the Government to be prepared to change the Order of Business.

We would support that.

I would be happy to accede to that if the House is in agreement.

Is the proposal agreed to? Agreed.

Can I have some response to my question from the Tánaiste?

We can deal with that during the debate.

We are not dealing with it in the debate as it is not covered in the debate.

I am sure the Deputy can raise it in the debate with the relevant Minister.

And he can ignore it again.

I congratulate the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I understand that on Tuesday he marked the anniversary of his 44th year of election to this House. We do not see that very often these days. He is looking fit and well on it.

Hear, hear.

Regarding three areas where there has clearly been serious wastage of public money, PPARS at a cost €150 million, electronic voting at a cost €60 million and the e-lab project at a cost of €35 million, making a total of almost €250 million, can the Tánaiste confirm if the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, is speaking for the Government when he says the amount of money misspent is relatively very small? Is that view shared by the Government, or does collective responsibility apply to comments made by Ministers in that regard?

It is 1%. To what legislation does the 1% relate?

It is the legislation governing the competence of Government. It has been promised a great deal outside.

Is legislation proposed in this area? We are speaking about 1%.

Stop digging, Noel.

The Opposition have one-track minds at the moment.

The Minister said it was relatively very small. If he were to say that to the people in Mullingar who are waiting seven years for €10 million to finish off their hospital, they would give him his answer fairly fast.

Is Deputy Kenny in favour of sacking civil servants like Deputy Durkan suggested yesterday?

Will the Tánaiste give the House an update on a report referred to in today's newspaper regarding an investigation into a £13 million portfolio of property owned by the IRA in Manchester, and whether this has anything to do with the Northern Bank raid?

Given the Tánaiste's confirmation that excessive charges were paid to consultants in the PPARS project and the serious revelations that have now come to light, I have been contacted by a number of people about other projects.

To what legislation does this refer?

I suggest to the Tánaiste that perhaps the Government should have the Department of Finance carry out a review of all information technology projects that have been conducted by agencies similar to PPARS. There is legitimate concern about a number of other projects.

She should have a look at the voting machines to see if they have gone rusty.

The questions must relate to promised legislation.

I did congratulate the Leas-Cheann Comhairle on the anniversary of his election.

That is not related either to promised legislation.

They have money to burn and they are burning it.

Likewise, I congratulate the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. On promised legislation, the House has been promised by the Government over the past three years that the building control Bill will be introduced in this session. It is now promised for this session. Can the Tánaiste indicate whether it has been passed by Cabinet?

I join Deputy Kenny and Deputy Quinn in congratulating the Leas-Cheann Comhairle on serving 44 years. I wish him many more years in Leinster House, if that is what he wishes. It does prove that politics is not necessarily bad for our health.

I wish to clarify something as I have been asked to do so by the staff involved. Deputy Kenny referred yesterday to a party that cost €40,000. That party was paid for by the staff involved. They have asked me to clarify that.

Wrong again.

Was this the Deloitte & Touche party?

What were they celebrating?

It must have been a big party.

It was their Christmas party. Furthermore, they say that was clear from the details that were submitted to Deputy Kenny and which were obtained under the freedom of information legislation.

The building control Bill has not yet been cleared by Cabinet but it is the intention to have it this session.

Will the Tánaiste indicate when we will have a debate in the House on the UN summit that was held last month? We must discuss issues such as the failure of the countries involved to deal with the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The Deputy should conclude.

It is important that we would have a debate in the House on the summit.

That is a good idea and it should be discussed with the Whips.

On behalf of the Green Party I join the congratulations to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle on his 44 years in the House and I wish him many more.

Given the CMOD meeting on 1 June at which consultants were regarded as having produced work mirroring the work of other consultants, it is important that we would look at the Ministers and Secretaries Act and perhaps include training in computers for Ministers so that consultants are not able to pull the wool over their eyes and, as a result, charge exorbitant fees beyond what is needed. Technology must be brought into the legislation so there is an awareness that we will not be throwing away a great deal of taxpayers' money on the basis of lack of expertise among Ministers. Can the Ministers and Secretaries legislation be amended in that regard?

A crash course.

I was talking to student nurses yesterday, all of whom are going abroad. In terms of the nurses (amendment) Bill, is there a way we can encourage nurses trained in this country to stay here? We need them.

We will have legislation on nurses in the House next year. As Deputy Sargent is aware, the vast majority of nurses educated here remain here.

On promised legislation, I wish to ask about the long-standing promise to introduce random breath testing for motorists, which is a target in the current road safety strategy. Unfortunately there does not seem to be a reference to it in the programme for legislation. Will the Tánaiste outline the Government's intentions in this regard? Does it propose to introduce random breath testing? Why is there no reference to relevant legislation in the current programme?

I am sure random breath testing would be covered by an intoxicating liquor Bill or a transport Bill. I do not see any legislation promised in that area.

I call on Deputy Durkan.

I asked the Tánaiste her intention in that regard. This has been recommended for umpteen years by everybody involved in road safety.

The Deputy should table a question.

The Tánaiste has given a commitment to introduce legislation to provide for it. What does she now intend to do in respect of random breath testing?

The Deputy should table a question to the line Minister who has responsibility in this area.

I am asking the Tánaiste whether she intends to fulfil the promise she has made to introduce random breath testing.

I personally did not make a promise on this matter.

The Government has done so on a number of occasions. Is it the Tánaiste's intention to introduce random breath testing?

The Deputy should table a question.

The Deputy should put down a question. There is no legislation on the list before me.

I am asking whether the Government intends to introduce random breath testing.

The Deputy is out of order.

Is it promised?

No.

Is that a "No"?

It is promised.

It should be.

Is the Tánaiste saying she will not introduce it?

They do not know whether it is or not.

Why does the Tánaiste not hire a consultant to tell her what position she should take?

I call on Deputy Durkan.

Has the Tánaiste no intention of introducing it?

The Tánaiste should give a random answer.

Has the Tánaiste no intention of introducing it?

I have answered the Deputy's question. There is no promised legislation on the programme, as the Deputy knows.

I call on Deputy Durkan.

It is a matter for the Deputy to pursue with the line Minister. I will not speculate on what might occur.

I am asking whether the Government intends to introduce random breath testing.

The Deputy should table a question to the line Minister.

The Deputy should pursue the matter by way of a parliamentary question.

Let me refer to two promised Bills. In view of the concerns expressed by some members of the Government, would it be possible to rush the broadcasting authority Bill into the House so we could all discuss the issue in question as soon as possible? In view of the Government's litany of overspending and miscalculations, would it not be timely to mark its progress to date by introducing the national monuments Bill? It would allow us to mark the occasion suitably as a milestone to inefficiency, incompetence and bungling.

The Deputy would get a fairly good nomination.

The Tánaiste, on the promised legislation.

The Deputy could get a fairly good nomination himself from time to time.

Deputy Durkan is a bit of a national monument himself. Both Bills will be introduced next year.

The Tánaiste must be first in the queue.

Maybe.

They are looking for a few monuments in Parlon country to make up for the civil servants who have not yet arrived.

John Wayne.

Is the Tánaiste, as Minister for Health and Children, happy that the Government has capitulated abjectly to the major alcohol producers in not proceeding with the legislation to ban or curb advertising which glamorises alcohol? Does she have the same confidence in the multinational firms that control alcohol as the Taoiseach when he says the firms themselves are now policing this advertising? Alternatively, would she not agree with me that it is a case of expecting the fox to restrain itself when fat chickens come into view? If the Tánaiste takes seriously her responsibility as Minister for Health and Children, will she put forward the relevant legislation again?

We are to pursue the voluntary code in the first instance. Deputy Joe Higgins should note that there are more issues associated with drink culture than advertising alone. In the United States during prohibition years, it is a fact that there was more drinking than there was at other times.

That is not true.

That was a long time ago.

How long will the Tánaiste give them?

I am sure we have already had an opportunity in the parliamentary Labour Party to wish the Leas-Cheann Comhairle warm congratulations on his achieving 44 years in this House.

On today's Order of Business, we are informed that questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs are scheduled for this afternoon. Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle offer me guidance on a very important matter in this regard? A practice has grown in which parliamentary questions are transferred arbitrarily from one Minister to another without consultation with the spokespersons or the Office of the Ceann Comhairle. Today I tabled a question on the ratification of the United Nations Convention against Corruption and compliance therewith, which is a specific function on the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The preparation of the domestic legislation would be a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform after ratification, which I understand has not happened. The question has been transferred by the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform without consultation with me, who tabled the question as a priority question today.

This practice is happening not only in respect of questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs today but also in respect of other questions. The Office of the Ceann Comhairle is supposed to protect the Order of Business, put through the process of this House. Ministers and their Department officials are consulting one another and arbitrarily transferring questions, as today. It is absurd. My question on ratification today refers to the fact that the United Nations Convention against Corruption needs four or five signatures to become a legal instrument internationally. That is the function of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Canvassing for support of the convention is a function of our ambassador to the United Nations. It is only in the event of its having been made a legal instrument that its transfer into domestic legislation arises.

What will the office of the Ceann Comhairle do to ensure some respect for Deputies and spokespersons who go to the trouble of tabling questions? They should reasonably expect that they will be answered by the correct Minister. A few minutes ago, the Tánaiste advised a Deputy to table a question to the line Minister. However, questions have been put to line Ministers and they have been outrageously and improperly transferred to colleagues. What will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle do to ensure there is respect for this House?

The Chair has absolutely no function in this matter.

I am afraid he does.

The Chair has no function.

The Chair is in the House longer than I am but I am afraid he is wrong. He does have a function.

The Chair has no function in the transfer of questions. It is a matter between the relevant Departments.

Will the Chair place the issue as an item to be dealt with by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges? It is an abuse of the House.

I suggest that the Deputy should consult the Office of the Ceann Comhairle. However, the Chair has no function and never has had a function in this matter.

The Office of the Ceann Comhairle has a function in respecting the ordering of business and the right of spokespersons to have questions placed on the Order Paper. There is no point in advising Members to contact the Office of the Ceann Comhairle. I am asking from the floor of this House for respect for the procedures of this House. That is what is at stake. No Minister has the right——

There is no provision in Standing Orders——

I have been a Minister, a member of Cabinet, but I would not have tried to engage in the racket of transferring questions arbitrarily.

The Deputy should have a bit of respect for the Chair.

Deputy Noel Dempsey would not want to provoke me, given my memories of him when I was a Minister.

There is no provision in Standing Orders for the Chair to have any function in this matter.

Deputy Michael Higgins is very easy to provoke.

It would be very easy, yes. The Deputy was not so forthcoming then.

He should calm down.

It is a matter between the Departments. I suggest to Deputy Michael Higgins that he consult the Office of the Ceann Comhairle.

I am asking the Chair to place this matter on the agenda of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges as a potential and continuing abuse of the procedures of this House.

Hear, hear.

The Deputy should get the representative of his party to ask for it to be included on the agenda.

That is the step I can take. The Chair has a step to take as well.

Let me repeat that the Chair has no function in relation to the matter.

On a related matter, which I raised yesterday, it is important——

We cannot have a discussion on it.

If the Leas-Cheann Comhairle knew the scale of the problem, he would believe it to be important.

It is important as it affects the rights of Members of this House.

In that case, it should be raised in an orderly manner.

I hope I am being orderly. If the Chair listens to what I have to say, I am sure he will agree.

It should not be the same subject. It does not arise on the Order of Business.

It does.

It does.

It is similar to the point made by Deputy Michael Higgins——

The Chair has ruled. It does not arise on the Order of Business.

Can I just explain it? I submitted a question to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on 29 August for written reply on the first day of this session. I received a reply to the effect that the information could not be compiled in the time allowed and that I would receive a letter subsequently. The Minister had one month to prepare a reply but I have not yet received the information I sought.

Again, the Chair has absolutely no function.

That is an abuse of the rights of the Members of this House. The question related to the expenditure of taxpayers' money in respect of refugee centres.

The Chair has no function in regard to this matter.

I should get the information I sought. The matter should be raised by the Chair as a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Is there any other matter on the Order of Business?

Ministers are acting in an arrogant, dismissive way.

We cannot have a discussion on this matter now. We must proceed to the next item.

It must not be tolerated. I have been treated in a dismissive, arrogant way.

It is out of order on the Order of Business.

I asked the question on 29 August and I have yet to receive the information I sought.

It has been suggested that the matter be——

It is important that we at least understand the scale of this issue.

Correct.

Last week I submitted a question for oral answer to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It was a general question on insurance but it was transferred to the Minister for Transport——

That is the same thing.

——who patently cannot answer a question on insurance, except on one narrow section of the insurance industry. The Office of the Ceann Comhairle agreed it was absurd, as did the General Office. The question has disappeared and nobody will answer it.

Will the Deputy ask a question?

The Ministers are allowed do this. We do not have a function to keep them accountable. We have established tribunals because of the lack of answers to questions in this House.

Deputy Howlin obviously forgot what it was like to be a Minister.

The Minister for Health and Children has seemingly made a new ruling in her Department, so she will not answer any parliamentary questions. They are all referred to a quango that she has set up outside.

These questions do not arise.

Deputy Stagg assumes it did not happen in his time.

Members of the Government should laugh while they can. They will not do so for much longer.

On a point of order, it is not good enough for Ministers to laugh at these contributions. It shows their arrogance and dismissive attitude.

Sit down.

The public will make them pay for their arrogance and pigheadedness. The Minister, Deputy Dempsey was a disgrace on the radio yesterday. They are wasting taxpayers' money. He said that €65 million of taxpayers money was unimportant.

Deputy O'Donnell on the Order of Business. Deputy Allen should resume his seat.

Members of the Government will laugh on the other sides of their faces.

It is small change to the Minister because it is not his money.

The heat is getting to Members of the Government.

Order, please. Deputy O'Donnell on the Order of Business.

I support the points made by Opposition Deputies on the fundamental matter of the transfer of questions without consultation or reason.

Hear, hear.

The question Deputy Higgins tabled, as outlined by him today, is a matter for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. This issue of the United Nations Convention against Corruption is central to the furtherance of our development programme in overseas countries, a programme which has been recently expanded, and this House is concerned about corruption. This issue has been raised domestically and internationally as contingent and relevant to the expansion of our programme which will amount to €1.5 billion when it reaches its full capacity of 0.7%. It is a matter for urgent debate in this House. It is fundamentally a matter for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In domestic terms, when the convention is due to be implemented by legislation, it is a matter for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform but, in terms of debate and legitimate questioning of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, it is a matter for that Minister.

On the second matter——

On the Order of Business.

It is on the Order of Business. I rarely make an intervention in this regard but I have sympathy with the points raised. The parliamentary question is the fundamental vehicle for holding the Government of the day to account.

Hear, hear.

That is a matter for this House. Deputies on this side have an equal interest in holding the Executive to account.

Hear, hear.

It is our function and I support the points that have been made by Deputy Higgins.

Laugh now.

We know Deputy Durkan has never been in Government. He has no experience.

Step up to the table and answer the question.

On a point of order, will my question be restored to the Order Paper? I am grateful to Deputy O'Donnell for her support.

The Chair has no function in that regard.

Will the question I tabled properly as a priority question be restored to the Order Paper for answer this afternoon?

The Chair has no authority to do so.

The Minister for Foreign affairs is here.

On a point of order, will the Chair investigate the situation wherein I cannot get information sought through a parliamentary question?

The Deputy should go to the Ceann Comhairle's office.

I raised the matter yesterday. I was told I could raise it on the adjournment. I was refused the adjournment. That is the answer I received yesterday.

This question could be resolved in a system of shared democracy in this House by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who happens by coincidence to be present. There is quite a time difference between the present and when the questions are due to be answered. I formally ask the Minister for Foreign affairs whether he will answer the question that was put to him in the first instance.

No, I will not. I am informed that it is a matter for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

I am informed that the Minister's information is incorrect. It is a matter for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform if it has been ratified and has become an international instrument. It is not a matter for that Department ——

The matter cannot be debated any further.

The question dealt with ratification and canvassing of support for ratification to enable it. The one word that the Minister's Department is using is "implementation".

The matter cannot be discussed further.

Implementation is relevant when it is an international legal instrument.

The House should mark this day. A new point in arrogance has been reached.

On a point of order and in support, I had the same experience as Deputy Howlin with regard to the same question. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle has a function. I am aware he is reluctant to use it.

The Chair has no function in the matter.

If a Minister or anybody treats the House with contempt, action can be taken.

By putting down a substantive motion.

The time has come when action should be taken against Ministers who refuse or avoid answering parliamentary questions, which is their responsibility. I ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to do that.

Members have the right to put down a substantive motion to deal with the matter.

We may have to do that.

I have been waiting for a while to speak.

That is not the Chair's fault.

I did not say it was. I congratulate the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and thank him for the impartiality and fairness he shows to all Members when he is in the Chair.

That is much appreciated. It is quite shameful that the Minister is refusing to take a legitimate question.

Are we on the Order of Business?

It is not a matter that we intend to let lie. It is a great pity, considering that requests are coming from both sides of the House, that he would do so and that the Tánaiste appears paralysed in terms of determining this matter. Last night, the Tánaiste said the amount of money going to consultants was excessive. When it comes to awarding contracts to consultants, does the Government pay any attention——

This has nothing to do with the Order of Business.

Legislation will be required to address the matter. With regard to Deloitte & Touche, is the Tánaiste aware that this company was censured by its own professional institute, the Institute for Chartered Accountants, consequent to the McCracken tribunal——

I ask the Deputy to put a question.

——where it was found to have been remiss in its activities? Surely that is a matter the Government should take into account when awarding contracts to consultants.

The matter cannot be dealt with now.

I have a second question.

On the Order of Business.

In terms of the protection of patients, which can fall under a number of Bills including the medical practitioners Bills, will the Tánaiste ensure that women with cancer will not be denied lifesaving treatment by way of clinical trials because of a decision of three men——

The question does not arise on the Order of Business.

——that patients cannot have access to clinical trials on denominational grounds? Will the Tánaiste make that commitment to women in Ireland suffering cancer or will we have to take the case to court——

The Deputy should table a parliamentary question. It is not relevant to the Order of Business.

——so the law is changed as a result of a judge's decision rather than one by this Parliament?

I share Deputy McManus' view that patient safety has to be paramount in this area. The Department is currently working on guidelines for ethics committees. She can be assured that no patient will be put at risk as a result of the ethos of any institution.

They are being put at risk.

They are at present, I know that.