It is proposed to take No. 1, Radiological Protection (Amendment) Bill, 1998 [Seanad]; No. 30, Local Elections (Disclosure of Donations and Expenditure) Bill, 1999 [Seanad] – Second Stage (Resumed) and No. 32 – Solicitors (Amendment) Bill, l998 [Seanad] – Second Stage (Resumed). Private Members' Business shall be No. 78 – Motion re Capital Programme for Refurbishment and Upgrading of Swimming Pools (Resumed).
Order of Business.
There are no proposals to put to the House.
On promised legislation, the Government promised telecommunications regulation legislation and legislation to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Acts. In the context of that legislation, will the Minister direct mobile telephone operators to take account of recent research by Leeds University? That research shows there is no need for mobile telephone masts. Small transmitters the size of a cigarette packet have been developed in Leeds University which can provide all the facilities currently provided by a mobile telephone mast. It would obviate much difficulty in many parts of the country if this legislation required planning authorities and operators to take account of this latest research from Leeds University.
The Deputy has gone into great detail on that point.
Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me to do so.
It is a pity it was not discovered when Deputy Owen held ministerial office.
The telecommunications regulation Bill will be ready late this year. I do not have a date for the wireless telegraphy Bill, but it will drafted after the other telecommunications Bills that are being drafted.
Will the Taoiseach draw the Minister's attention to the research published today which suggests we do no longer need masts for this purpose?
What should we do with them now?
This issue is causing problems in many parts of rural Ireland and is not a matter for the giddy responses given by the Minister for Public Enterprise.
Will the Taoiseach inform the House if the Government has decided whether it is necessary to introduce legislation or, alternatively, a resolution to give legal effect to the extraordinary generous pension settlements agreed between the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the two former judges who recently resigned?
The examination of that matter has not yet been completed. Irrespective of whether it is necessary to introduce legislation or a resolution, such legislation or resolution must come before the House and be passed by it to give it effect.
Will the Taoiseach indicate when the Government proposes to bring forward whatever mechanism is agreed upon?
It is under examination and it will be a while before it is brought forward.
Can I take it that the two people in question are not in receipt of any State money and have not received any indication from the State when the deal agreed between them and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will come into effect?
There was no deal.
The first part of the Deputy's question is correct. They are not in receipt of any State money. The second part of his question is incorrect as there was no deal.
On promised legislation, the Government promised legislation to reform the structures of Údarás na Gaeltachta and that elections to Údarás will take place on the same day as the elections to local authorities, 11 June. Is it still the Government's intention to proceed with both items?
I dealt with that matter yesterday. That legislation is almost ready. If it is not ready in time, the election will be postponed until later in the year. A statement on this matter will be made shortly.
Will the Taoiseach join me in congratulating the Garda Síochána on securing a conviction yesterday against Mr. Joe Delaney in respect of the brutal murder case? In terms of some of the issues that arise out of the case, will the Taoiseach indicate if subsequent to the enactment of the Criminal Justice (No. 2) Act, any further legislative measures are contemplated to give protection to jurors in similar cases in future?
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform spoke about this matter. I am not sure if it is covered in the last Act. The Minister said he will examine this issue. The Garda always do a good job and it did a particularly good job in this case.
Deputy Bruton raised the issue of the plight of 150 traffic wardens with the Taoiseach yesterday morning. Did the Taoiseach have an opportunity to talk to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to secure an extension of time to negotiate the new terms of work that will apply to those traffic wardens when they move to Dublin Corporation?
This matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
Friday is the deadline in this case. If we do not raise it again today, it will be too late.
I communicated Deputy Bruton's views.
Was there any result?
On promised legislation, has the Taoiseach given thought to the publication of standards in public office Bill? I raise this matter because a Fianna Fáil Cork county councillor believes elected candidates who break their election promises and do not live up to what they promised in Government should be subject to criminal proceedings. I ask the Taoiseach to take account of his record on the issue of Partnership for Peace and calling for a referendum.
We cannot discuss that matter now. The Deputy asked a question on proposed legislation.
I would be glad if the Taoiseach would indicate whether the date of publication of that Bill will be postponed to give him time to consider the ramifications?
The legislation is being drafted. It should be ready later in the summer.
Legislation is promised on the UN convention for the protection of UN personnel serving abroad. Given that a UN force may go into Kosovo and that if Irish personnel serving abroad are attacked they will be protected by 23 countries, but not by Ireland, will the Taoiseach now introduce that legislation or will he accept the Fine Gael Private Members' Bill as a matter of urgency?
A parliamentary draftsman has been assigned to that legislation, which is due later in the year, to enable Ireland to accede to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations Associated Personnel. If there is a requirement to bring it forward, I am sure that can be done.
Deputy Sargent wants to put half our politicians behind bars. I have a different question for the Taoiseach in respect of the standards in public office Bill. I could not hear the Taoiseach's answer. Having regard to what seemed to be reported in Ireland on Sunday, whereby the entire massed ranks behind him are in revolt, led by the Minister for Finance, is the Taoiseach still proceeding with that Bill? Will it be discussed unofficially at Punchestown today? Does the Taoiseach think the Bill will proceed?
Legislation is proceeding. Like all matters, it is discussed in the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party as well.
(Mayo): In light of the recent UCD survey which showed that 80 per cent of asylum seekers to this country have some form of third level qualification, has the row between the Taoiseach's party and the Progressive Democrats in relation to work permits for asylum seekers been resolved? If so, when will we see the long promised legislation?
Hope springs eternal.
In the human brain.
The legislation is still before the Government but I hope it will be sorted out soon.
(Mayo): When?
As soon as possible.
Do I take it, therefore, that the 150 Kosovar refugees who, it is indicated in today's newspapers, will come to these shores in the next week or so, will not be allowed to work, even if they want to do so and even if there are people here who would like to employ them?
The Deputy appears to be discussing the contents of legislation.
They have a different position. They have a temporary regulated status. As far as I know, in that case they could work.
What is the problem in the Government on the issue of refugees working here?
The PD's sensitivity.
We just have not finalised it.
It was promised by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell.
It is on the agenda but has not yet been discussed. We know what that means.
The Deputy remembers it.
I do.
(Dublin West): The broadcast last night by RTE of “States of Fear” showed the most appalling, widespread and systematic cruelty of children in industrial schools. The new information that emerged was that it resulted from a systematic perversion of the courts and the justice system.
That is inappropriate to the Order of Business. The matter the Deputy is raising would be more appropriate to a parliamentary question.
(Dublin West): My point is that if the Government is introducing legislation to generously compensate judges for making mistakes, will the Taoiseach introduce legislation—
If the Deputy has a question on the Order of Business, will he please ask it?
(Dublin West): A Cheann Comhairle, I would have asked the question by now if I had been allowed to do so. Does the Taoiseach propose to introduce legislation to provide a commission of compensation and support for the innocent victims of the systematic perversion of justice inflicted on little children in this State over many decades?
The Deputy is continuing with his statement. He has asked the question.
A Cabinet subcommittee has been working on this matter since last year. It is a very serious matter. Irish society still has to face up to many of the problems of child abuse in the past. That subcommittee will, hopefully, bring forward recommendations shortly which may or may not require legislation.
Will the Taoiseach comment on reports that sexual abuse of this kind still continues?
I have called Deputy Stagg.
Will the Taoiseach indicate when we might expect ministerial orders or regulations required under the telecommunications regulations Bill to stop Esat cherrypicking and advertising for customers who pay £100 per month upwards only? The director of telecommunications regulations cannot prevent this because the Minister has not made the regulations. When might we see these regulations?
I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and received a comprehensive reply from the Minister in the form of a copy of a reply he sent to a constituent of mine who had no contact with me. However, the Minister refused to answer the question in the House. Will the person who refused the question examine the issue of sending a comprehensive reply to a constituent but not to a Deputy?
It is not appropriate to raise that matter on the Order of Business. The Deputy should find another way to raise it.
That is a lie.
It is not a lie.
It is a lie. I did not refuse to answer it.
Who did?
Did the Taoiseach give further consideration overnight to introducing legislation to allow once-off payments to a small number of honourable public representatives who missed out on the retirement scheme but who have given a lifetime of service?
The Deputy has already raised that matter. We cannot have matters repeated every morning.
I did not get a reply yesterday morning. Did the Taoiseach consider the matter overnight?
The Taoiseach should put down a parliamentary question on that matter.
As regards the revelations in last night's television programme, does the Taoiseach agree it is time the State apologised to all those children who were forgotten and abused while in the care of the State?
Hear, hear.
That question is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
Perhaps the Taoiseach will reply because, as we saw last night, those children were in the care of the State and forgotten about. The least they can be given now is an apology.
The Order of Business is not the appropriate time to have a debate on the matter.
I invite the Taoiseach to suggest to the Whips that time be taken in the House for Members, on behalf of previous and successive Administrations, to offer the minimum of an apology and to give an undertaking that, in so far as we have any control over the situation, it will not happen in the future.
That matter can be considered by the Whips.
I do not think anybody could object to that.
That matter can be discussed with the Whips. The Cabinet subcommittee has been examining these issues for some time to see what recommendations can be brought forward. What went on in these institutions over the years was inhuman and degrading. All those children were isolated and without help. As regards Deputy Bruton's question, I hope nothing like this is happening today. The late Donogh O'Malley closed those institutions based on the Kennedy report in 1970. As a society, however, we have not dealt with these matters. These programmes are based on facts made available by the Minister for Education and Science. I have had many discussions with him regarding their contents, about which he is greatly concerned. My colleagues and I are anxious to find a mechanism to deal with the issue properly. It is a job which remains to be done and it cannot be left undone. These people were isolated and treated in an unbelievable manner. I know times were different then, but that does not excuse child abuse. These matters have to be dealt with and I hope our recommendations will help to do so.
The matter will be referred to the Whips.
If this is left to legal advice, we will be told not to say a word for fear we might incur compensation claims. For my part and that of my party, I simply want to apologise – no more, no less – and I believe that is true for every other Member of the House. I ask the Taoiseach to kill the argument about compensation, ignore it for once, and let the House give a public apology for things that should not have happened and which will never happen again.
The Chair understands the party leaders are agreeable to the Whips meeting to arrange a time and a date for this matter to be discussed.
Will the Government consider amending the statute of limitations which currently means victims of child sexual abuse who are three years beyond the age of 18 are prohibited from taking action, unless they were of unsound mind at the time? This is a prohibiting factor with regard to people who have been sexually abused taking action. Does the Government intend to amend the statute of limitations in this regard?
The statute of limitations, which would preclude anyone having a say beyond the period of three years, will have to be looked at as part of the overall process.
It should be amended.
It is part of the process.
I am very taken by Deputy Quinn's intervention, but I do not accept that we are not doing today what we did in the past. There is no interest in the House in bringing forward prison reform legislation. In view of the fact that 75 per cent of the prisoners in Mountjoy come from five areas in Dublin and that if they go in without a drug problem they are likely to leave with one—
The Deputy should not make a statement on the Order of Business. He should put a question.
In ten years we will say we did not know what was happening in the prisons.
The Deputy should not make a statement.
Will we have prison reform legislation to correct the hypocrisy in our institutions today before we apologise for what happened ten, 20 or 40 years ago? We are doing nothing about our prisons.
The Deputy is being disorderly by making a statement.
When will we see real reform in the prisons so that children going into prisons do not come out with drug problems?
The Deputy is repeating himself.
The interim board has been set up and the legislation will be presented later this year.