It is proposed to take Nos. 1 and 2. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the proceedings on No. 1, if not previously concluded shall be brought to a conclusion at 1 p.m. The following arrangements shall apply: (1) the speech of each Member shall not exceed 20 minutes; (2) Members may share time and (3) a Minister of State shall be called to make a speech in reply not later than 12.50 p.m. The Dáil on its rising today shall adjourn until Tuesday, 7 November 1995.
Order of Business
Are the proposals for dealing with No. 1 satisfactory and agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal that the Dáil on rising today will adjourn until Tuesday, 7 November 1995 satisfactory and agreed?
While not formally opposing the Government's proposal, may I use the occasion to ask the Taoiseach yet again if he will give us details of the legislative programme arranged for the following week? A cursory look at the Order Paper will show that Private Members' Business far out-weighs any firm programme of Government legislation.
I would be more than happy to arrange a discussion on the likely timing of legislation with the principal Opposition party through that party's Whip if that would be helpful. I have given indications in the House over recent weeks of legislation that is at a very advanced stage of preparation and which will be available to be taken either when the Dáil resumes or soon thereafter.
I remind the Taoiseach that Fianna Fáil is the largest Opposition party as opposed to the principal Opposition party. Will the Taoiseach state if the Government is proposing that we also adjourn during the week of the divorce referendum?
I am more than happy to be corrected by Deputy Harney as to the proper description of Fianna Fáil; I think "principled" might be a better word. The matter of an adjournment for the week of the divorce referendum has not yet been considered. I would be happy to get views from the Opposition parties and others as to whether that would be helpful.
A Whips' meeting was postponed yesterday until next Wednesday. Will the Taoiseach, through his Whip, indicate this week what legislation it is proposed to take when we come back? We on this side of the House would like some time to prepare rather than be told next Wednesday what legislation is coming up the following Tuesday.
I understand from the Minister of State and Government Whip, Deputy Jim Higgins, that there will be a meeting of the Whips next Wednesday at which he will be able to give the Deputy very full information.
That will be too late.
If the Deputy has problems about the timing of meetings, perhaps the easiest thing to do is have a discussion through the normal channels with the Minister of State.
I have no problem with meeting on Wednesday and have already agreed to that. However, I asked the Taoiseach if he could indicate exactly what legislation will be taken the following week so we know this week before going home.
The Deputy will be back here next week even though the Dáil is not sitting. I gather he has indicated he will be attending a meeting on Wednesday. Obviously the Government will make this information available to the Opposition parties as soon as possible, either at the Whips' meeting or independently of the Whips' meeting if that is possible.
That will be too late.
Rather than taking up time in the House on a matter that can best be dealt with through the normal channels of communication which exist in this and every other Parliament, I suggest that Deputy Ahern discuss the matter with Deputy Jim Higgins. I have no doubt he will be facilitated in every way possible by the Minister of State.
May I at this stage ask for clarification in respect of the proposal relating to the Adjourment of the House? Matters appertaining to legislation generally may be raised on the Order of Business.
May I ask the Taoiseach on what basis the Attorney General intervened with RTE in the proposed showing of a "Prime Time" programme and whether he knew of this intervention?
I sought clarification from the House. Is the proposal for the Adjournment of the House satisfactory and agreed? Agreed.
May I again ask the Taoiseach on what basis the Attorney General directly intervened with RTE in the proposed showing of a "Prime Time" programme?
It does not arise.
Did the Taoiseach know of this intervention?
That matter can be dealt with in many other ways. It is not relevant now.
The matter is extremely relevant——
It is not relevant now and the Deputy knows that.
——and I ask the Taoiseach to give a direct answer to my question. He is answerable to the House for the actions of the Attorney General.
On the question of competition policy, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications has been subjected to much criticism in the House and I wish to congratulate him for awarding the mobile phone licence to a consortium led by a private Irish company.
With state help from Norway.
It is a mixed entity.
Given the paucity of Government legislation on the Order Paper may I ask the Taoiseach to give us an indication of the legislation which will be taken in the House in a fortnight? The deputy leader of my party asked a question about the Attorney General's involvement in an issue——
It is not relevant now.
What is the Taoseach hiding from?
Nothing.
It would be better for the Attorney General to pay more attention to legislation than intervening in issues not relevant to his brief.
If there is a specific question on promised legislation I will hear it; otherwise I will proceed to the business ordered.
Having regard to events in late 1994 and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs then expressed wish that the Attorney General would come before the House to explain some of his actions, does the Taoiseach contemplate the introduction of legislation which would allow the Attorney General to come before the House to explain his intervention with the national broadcasting authority regarding a child sex abuse programme?
Let us deal with this matter in a circuitous way.
It is a matter for legislation.
I answered questions about that matter yesterday and the day before.
Can we hear the reply again?
It does not arise now.
Will the Taoiseach repeat the reply?
If the Deputy was here he was not listening.
We are every interested in the answer. Does the Government have any proposals to change the law on contempt given that the Attorney General has taken it upon himself to act as television censor?
There is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the ruling of the Chair in respect of references to the Attorney General and I will have no more of it.
On the Programme for Government, I understand from the newspapers that the Government parties will today hold a summit on long-term unemployment, an issue which it has suddenly discovered.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Taoiseach place in the Library the papers which will form the basis of the Government's discussion on unemployment in which it has developed a new found interest?
The provision of papers of that kind is not relevant now.
Will the Taoiseach outline the basis on which compensation arrangements appear to have been agreed with Limerick farmers in advance of the Environmental Protection Agency's report?
That matter clearly does not arise now.
I want to know under what legislation this compensation is being paid and why it is being paid two weeks before the publication of the Environmental Protection Agency report.
It is a very good question and it should be put down in the proper manner.
(Interruptions.)
When is it proposed to introduce the legislation dealing with votes for emigrants?
Work is proceeding on the provision of representation in the Seanad for emigrants. This will require a constitutional amendment which, in turn, will require a referendum. Work is being done by the Minister for the Environment on the many technical aspects of this matter. It is likely the question of a referendum and a date for it will determine retroactively the date for the introduction of the legislation on representation for emigrants. It is not possible, therefore, for the Government to answer Deputy Kitt's question as to the date for the introduction of the legislation. Although no decision has been taken I expect that the referendum might be one of a number to be taken on the same day.
We heard that before.
I am endeavouring to answer as accurately and fully as possible the Deputy's legitimate question. Obviously one of the factors which will determine the introduction of the legislation is the determination of other questions to be taken on the same day. I assure the Deputy that this issue is being worked upon intensively by the Minister for the Environment and it is high on his agenda.
Last Tuesday I asked the Taoiseach when legislation would be introduced to allow for the setting up of new permanent headquarters for the Environmental Protection Agency and the decentralisation of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry to Johnstown Castle, County Wexford.
Please, Deputy.
This relates to promised legislation. I am reading from a document presented to us by the Government Chief Whip. I was surprised to hear the Taoiseach say he was not aware of this. Does he not speak to his Chief Whip?
I want to help Deputy Byrne, but if he wishes to raise a matter appertaining to legislation then he should do so.
A person with a less generous nature might suggest that the Taoiseach misled the House but I put it down to his bad humour that day.
The Deputy attacked the proposal.
The Deputy cannot make up his mind whether he is for or against it.
I support it.
(Interruptions.)
My erroneous impression at the time was that legislation was not required to deal with this matter. I now understand that legislation is required to deal with the legal underpinning of the present use of Johnstown Castle. That legislation is at an advanced stage of preparation. It is currently being drafted in detailed form and will be brought forward as soon as possible.
When?
As soon as possible.
Will the Deputy support it?
Order, please.
On behalf of Deputy Byrne, I thank the Taoiseach for his apology. On promised legislation, documentation submitted to the Select Committee on Legislation and Security suggests that the Government has plans to change the official secrets legislation.
Does the Taoiseach have any plans in that regard or is it a secret?
Is legislation promised in this area?
It is in the Programme for Government.
The freedom of information Bill is being prepared in the Tánaiste's office and I expect it to be available for discussion in the House around next April.
I read in yesterday's newspaper that the privilege and compellability of witnesses Bill was approved by Cabinet the previous day. If it was approved by Cabinet, when will it be published and when will it be taken in the House?
As the House has already been informed, that Bill was cleared by Cabinet and I expect it to be published shortly.
When will it be taken in the House?
The Deputy's party wanted a two week delay between the publication of the Bill and the debate in the House. I am sure the Government will want to facilitate his party as much as possible in that matter. It will be debated in the House no more than two weeks after the date of its publication.
Obfuscation.
What plans does the Attorney General have to avoid a conflict of interest in the State's role in the Goodman lawyer fees——
We should leave the Attorney General out of this. I am proceeding to the business ordered.