It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 7, 8, the Report Stage of No. 1 subject to the Order being agreed, and 9. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: (1) No. 7 shall be decided without debate and (2) the provisions of Standing Order 120 shall not apply in relation to the Order for Fifth Stage of No. 8. Private Members' Business shall be No. 18, motion 11.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal to deal with No. 7 without debate agreed? Agreed. Is it agreed that the provisions of Standing Order 120 shall not apply in relation to the Order for Fifth Stage of No. 8? Agreed.
I wish to repeat to the Taoiseach a request made by the Deputy Leader of Fine Gael last Friday that the report commissioned by the then and present Tánaiste in regard to the activities of Tara Mines Limited should be published. My party and I would welcome a complete disclosure of the facts in this matter and I hope the Taoiseach is in the same position.
That matter is out of order at this time. It is no less out of order now than it was on Friday last when it was ruled out of order by the Chair.
I should like to support Deputy John Bruton's request to the Taoiseach. It is in the interest of all parties in this House that this matter be cleared up. It could be cleared up by permitting a brief debate. The revelations over the weekend were quite astonishing as were those arising from last week's court case. There are connections in terms of public policy, in that, for example——
This was ruled out of order quite categorically on Friday last. It is no less out of order today on the Order of Business. I would ask for the Deputy's co-operation in that matter to allow us to get on to matters of relevance to the Order of Business proper.
Sir, I am reluctant not to give you that co-operation but this is a matter of such moment it is entirely inappropriate and will bring the Government——
I am afraid I must have that co-operation. Within our Standing Orders, it is not permissible for me to allow the Deputy to process that particular business at this time. I must repeat that it was ruled out of order on Friday last. It is no more in order now than it was then. I can allow no further discussion on it.
If the Taoiseach could make a brief statement on it——
If the Tánaiste could make a brief statement on it——
If there is no other relevant matter perhaps we can move on to the Order of Business proper.
I beg the indulgence of the House. Lest there be any misunderstanding or misapprehension about this, I should say that this matter is before the courts. Deputy Rabbitte should recognise in this House, when speaking to the Chair, that there is a vast difference between revelations and allegations. Whenever the time comes, I would welcome such report being made public, when the courts have dealt with it.
A vast difference between both and the truth. In this case neither has any relationship to the truth as far as I am concerned.
As far as I am concerned, the same applies.
On another matter, approximately 12 days remain to the closing date for the famous amnesty for tax cheats. At the time of introduction of that Bill the Government promised legislation on money laundering, for the non-introduction of which the Government is in breach of EC law. The Minister for Justice has not produced the legislation; indeed it is not even included in the list for this session. Will the Taoiseach say when the Government will produce the promised legislation on money laundering? Will he say whether it will be enacted so that the tax write-off for tax cheats may not be used by criminal elements?
It is in the early stages of preparation.
It will be too late then to prevent the amnesty for tax cheats being used by criminals.
In view of the Taoiseach's statement in Bodenstown on Sunday last, would he now regard it as appropriate to have a debate on Northern Ireland in this House?
That is not a matter for this time, Deputy.
As Northern Ireland has been discussed in every fora outside this House, including Bodenstown, surely it is time Members of this House were given an opportunity of debating it?
There are many other ways available to the Deputy to raise that matter but not at this time.
Can the Taoiseach give the House any indication when the occupier's liability Bill will be introduced in this House? This legislation has been promised for some time. While I observe that it is included in proposed legislation this autumn, no Bill has been published as yet. If we are serious about tourism and this overall issue, this Bill is urgently required. When the Fine Gael Bill was before the House in May or June last the Minister promised that the Government Bill would be introduced as a matter of urgency.
Is this promised legislation?
It is No. 17 on the list of Bills circulated for publication this session.
When will it be published?
This session.
On promised legislation, can the Taoiseach tell the House precisely where rests the Ethics in Government Bill and also the Electoral Bill and say whether the latter will contain any provision to record contributions from large mining and other companies, and to assist recollection because, over the years, recollection fades and it is difficult to recall. Can the Taoiseach say whether that Bill will be brought forward——
That was Moscow.
This is Navan, much closer. Can the Taoiseach tell us what priority is being accorded the Ethics in Government Bill? It arises under promised legislation, so the question is in order.
As was stated in the House as recently as Friday last when that question was responded to, the Ethics in Government Bill will be published this session. I might remark that recollections in relation to printing machines are very faulty as well.
Is the Taoiseach suggesting there is a link?
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Who was it talked about a slightly constitutional party at one time.