It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 2 and 9 and, subject to the Order being made on No. 9, the Report and Final Stages of the Court and Court Officers Bill, 1995. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 10.30 p.m.; and (2) subject to the Order being made on No. 9, the Report and Final Stages of the Court and Court Officers Bill, 1995, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. 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 Justice. Private Members' Business shall be No. 25.
Order of Business.
There are but two matters to be put to the House. Is the late sitting agreed?
No. For the last week, this side of the House has sought an opportunity to debate the Book of Estimates for 1996 which the Government completed last Thursday night. From previous experience Members will know it takes three days for the book to be ready after it is agreed, which means the Government would have the Book of Estimates today or, at the latest, tomorrow.
Will the Taoiseach give some time to discuss it this week? We have received a draft Order of Business for the week which does not allow an opportunity to discuss the 1996 Estimates; the Appropriation Bill is to be taken without debate; and there was an attempt to take the joint communiqué on Northern Ireland without debate, but that has been changed. It has been the practice in this House for many years to have a debate either on the Appropriation Bill, the draft Estimates, or the Estimates in their final form. Before this side decides whether we oppose the Order of Business, I ask the Taoiseach for a debate on this issue during the week.
My understanding is that Deputy Bertie Ahern is wrong to say it takes just three days from the date of clearance of the Estimates for the full printed copy to be available. I understand it takes approximately eight days for that. We will publish the Estimates as soon as possible. All the relevant decisions have now been taken and I expect they will be available next Monday.
When the Dáil has risen.
As far as debates on financial policy are concerned, we have no problem with providing a debate on the Appropriation Bill if the Whips will discuss the matter.
We have been discussing it for the last week.
If the Opposition wants a debate on the Appropriation Bill, it can have it.
Where is the Book of Estimates?
It was refused point blank.
The technology brought into the Department of Finance when I was the Minister there — although I do not claim any credit for the technology — means that it takes approximately three days to deliver the Book of Estimates. That has been done for at least the last two years. Therefore, excluding Sunday, the Book of Estimates will be in the hands of the Minister for Finance, if he so wishes——
There were exceptional circumstances last year.
Which Deputy Rabbitte caused, as usual.
(Interruptions.)
The Member who is in possession, without interruption.
If the Minister so wished, we could debate the Estimates in the House. Will the Taoiseach agree to a debate on the 1996 Estimates before we complete our business on Friday?
The Estimates will be published next Monday.
How convenient.
If the Opposition wants to sit next week to debate them, we will so do.
I am surprised to hear that it took 11 days to print the Estimates. I believed, as Deputy Bertie Ahern did, that advances in technology had made it possible to print them much sooner than that. However, will the Taoiseach make available to the finance spokesperson ordinary, typed copies of the Estimates as we do not need the printed version in order to have a debate? We could then have a meaningful debate on the Appropriation Bill later this week. Otherwise, the Bill on the 1995 Supplementary Estimates is very unreal and unsatisfactory.
There was not any debate on the Estimates before Christmas in 1992, 1993 or 1994.
It was not requested.
The right questions were not asked.
They were published.
We have indicated to the Opposition that, if it so wishes, we can sit next week and discuss the Estimates after they have been published. That is fine if that is what Deputy Bertie Ahern wants.
If the Government cannot make an ordinary copy of the Estimates available we should meet next week. There is no point in the Taoiseach quoting precedent. He was a champion of Dáil reform and told us here, just under a year ago, that when he got into office his Government would be run as if it was behind a pane of glass and would be so different that we would not recognise it.
It is a stained glass window.
It is about time that he started to honour the commitments he made. We should meet next week to discuss the Estimates. There is no point in the Taoiseach laughing — will he agree to meet next week? We should meet next week if he cannot provide us with a copy of the Estimates this week. Is the Taoiseach giving the House that commitment?
My understanding is that there was a suggestion, which did not come from this side of the House, that it might be appropriate to adjourn this week.
It did not come from this side of the House.
If the Opposition wants to sit next week to discuss the Estimates we will do so; that would not cause a problem.
I must again correct the Taoiseach. The suggestion to adjourn on Friday came from the Government Whip. There are two issues. The Government tried to push back the date of publication to next Monday in order to avoid the Estimates being debated in this House.
That is not true.
It takes three days to produce the Book of Estimates. There was a general election in 1992 and the Government broke up in 1994; every other year we discussed the Estimates.
(Limerick East): What happened in 1993?
Before we call a vote, will the Taoiseach give us a commitment that the House will sit for at least one day next week, to be agreed by the Whips, to discuss the draft Estimates?
I say quite categorically that I am advised by the Minister for Finance that it is not possible to publish the Estimates within three days of the decision and that Deputy Bertie Ahern's information is incorrect.
That is incorrect.
I do not doubt that Deputy Bertie Ahern is sincere in giving the information, but I must tell him that it is wrong. The Estimates cannot be made available in the necessary form in less than eight days. The Estimates will be published next Monday and we are quite happy to discuss with the Opposition — I understand that there is a Whips' meeting tonight — what form of debate it wishes to have on that matter.
Does Deputy De Rossa have to proof read the document?
We are quite happy to have the Estimates discussed, as we will be happy to have the budget and next year's Estimates and budget discussed.
That is a huge change in attitude.
Is the late sitting agreed?
We will not press a division on the clear understanding that the House will meet next week and that the arrangements put forward by the Government over the last two weeks have now been cancelled.
I have said four times that I am quite happy to meet next week.
Is the late sitting agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with Item 9 agreed? Agreed.
Does the Government plan to introduce legislation to change the public financial accounting arrangements?
The answer is in the negative.
That being the case, will the Taoiseach explain why a £16 million Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Health was passed last week for expenditure which will arise in 1996? Is this not a fraudulent deception in order to deflate the Estimates for 1996 and pay the amount into a special account? Will he agree that this was not done before?
Deputy McCreevy's question requires an answer. It has come to the Opposition's attention that on the papers surrounding the Supplementary Estimate there is a note that the money is not required for 1995. It has always been the practice that money voted by this House, or an Oireachtas Committee, related to the year it was passed. We require the Taoiseach to clarify the legal standing of an Estimate of £60 million which we passed in this House, the small print of which declares that the money is not required until 1996.
The liabilities in question accrued this year and in earlier years and are being provided for prudently in an Estimate passed this year.
That is totally incorrect. In the Irish system we do not have accrual accounting. I have discussed it with the Minister for Finance. This is a device to increase the Estimate for this year by £60 million, which will be paid into a special account and will not be expended until next year. It has taken £60 million out of the Estimates for next year, which represents 0.5 per cent. This is a fraudulent accounting device. The Taoiseach knows that I do not use such phrases, inside or outside this House——
Yes he does.
I am saying quite clearly on this occasion that this is fraudulent accounting device to pay moneys which will not be expended until next year into a special account. It has decreased next year's Estimate and should be changed.
I have already explained to the Deputy that the liabilities in question exist and provision is being made to meet them.
They do not exist.
It is back to the 1980s.
It is a perfectly prudent arrangement and the proper approach. I am surprised that Deputy McCreevy is raising this matter. I remind the Chair that Deputy McCreevy is raising a matter in regard to an Estimate which was passed last week. If the Deputy had concerns about the Estimate, the appropriate time for him to raise them — if he was doing his job — was last week and not a week later. The Deputy and his colleagues might be more attentive to their parliamentary responsibilities.
I am not a member of the committee.
(Interruptions.)
I am not prepared to rely on a committee. It is fraudulent of the Taoiseach——
Deputy McCreevy has had great latitude.
——to stand over this type of creative accounting.
I am calling another Deputy. Will Deputy McCreevy resume his seat?
It must be noted that such a liability does not exist.
Absolutely.
No person is owed this money by the State, no person has a decree against the State or could turn up at Government Buildings and ask for one single penny of the money. To say that such a liability exists is falsifying the position.
The Deputy wants the matter to go to court so that the lawyers can make money.
Surely this House has a duty under its procedures and the Constitution to consider in every year the Estimates for that year and no money should be provided this year for expenditure next year. We do not operate an accrual system, rather we operate a simple income and expenditure system.
The hepatitis C issue is a nice one.
That is not the issue.
May I ask the Taoiseach——
This is a case of fiddling the books.
——whether on reflection he would now accept that what he is doing is cooking the books and disimproving this year's accounts so that next year's will appear artificially better than they are?
This matter will be dealt with in Private Members' time this evening and should not be debated further now.
This matter will not be dealt with this evening.
Deputy McCreevy is not a member of the committee at which the Estimate was agreed. It was in preparing for the Appropriation Bill, the Bill that passes all Estimates, that he discovered this matter. The Deputy was carrying out his work diligently.
(Limerick East) Deputies Woods and Geoghegan-Quinn attended that meeting.
What is the legal position? As Deputy McDowell stated, there is not a legal liability on the State in regard to this matter. The Government may believe that a liability of £60 million may arise, but a legal liability does not arise at this stage.
The responsibility of decency does arise.
We do not operate an accrual system of accountancy.
Does the Deputy want us to take the matter to court?
This does not represent openness, transparency or accountability. We are raising a genuine matter involving a half per cent of expenditure, but irrespective of whether the sum involved is £1 or £60 million, what happened is technically and legally wrong. Will the Taoiseach explain the Government's view on the matter? If he cannot do so now we will give him time to check it out. He is asking us to pass an Appropriation Bill which anyone with even a little knowledge of accountancy would know is incorrect. Will the Taoiseach make a statement on the matter now?
I disagree with the suggestions of Deputies Ahern and McDowell that the Government does not have a liability to the women infected by hepatitis C——
That is not fair.
——through a blood transfusion. By any normal understanding of the term, this Government, its successor and its predecessor — these events occurred under its predecessor — has a liability to compensate those women.
We agree with that.
Furthermore, the concept of meeting——
The Taoiseach is shuffling money.
——that liability was not opposed by the Fianna Fáil Party when it came before the relevant committee last week, which was attended by Deputies Woods and Geoghegan-Quinn,——
It is the first item on today's business.
——neither of whom raised an objection to this provision. The liability exists, must be met and is being provided for. I have heard no objection to that and I am surprised at the way the Deputies are using this issue in the House.
Will the money be paid before the end of the year?
The Taoiseach is shuffling money.
Furthermore, I indicated in response to a request from Deputy Ahern that if he wishes we will provide for a debate on the Appropriation Bill which will appropriate moneys passed with the agreement of Fianna Fáil last week for this purpose. If Fianna Fáil wishes to renege on what it agreed last week in regard to this provision, it will have an opportunity to debate the matter on the Appropriate Bill.
That is a case of shuffling money.
Furthermore, if the Fianna Fáil Party wishes to object to this provision it will have an opportunity to do so next week when we discuss the Estimates.
The Taoiseach is well aware of what is at issue here.
Fuddy, duddy.
It is appropriate that the Government should make provision at the earliest opportunity to set money aside to meet its liabilities to the women infected by hepatitis C——
That is not the issue.
——and I believe that Fianna Fáil and, regrettably, the Progressive Democrats are wrong in attempting to make a politic issue of the matter.
Obfuscation.
(Interruptions.)
I will hear nothing further on this issue. Are there other matters arising on the Order of Business? I call Deputy Noel Ahern.
My question relates to the same issue.
The Deputy may not raise it now, the matter will be debated in Private Members' time.
In regard to item No. 2, was a vote taken at the committee meeting last week or have we to formally vote on the matter?
On a point of order, am I correct in stating that the only occasion on which the Dáil approves the Estimate under item No. 2 is when the supplementary Estimate for Health comes before the Dáil and that a committee of the House does not have a right to approve an Estimate?
I want to disabuse Members of the notion that they can debate Estimates on the Appropriation Bill now. They may not. This is the Order of Business and I will only hear questions that are relevant to the Order of Business.
On a point of order, this is the first time that item No. 2 has come before the House for vote. Last week the committee agreed——
The Deputy said he wished to raise a point of order. He is making a speech.
It is a point of order.
I am not making a speech. Last week the committee agreed that the money should be provided as and when required. Will the Taoiseach confirm that none of the money will be required before the end of December and that all of it will fall to be paid next year? That is the only matter at issue.
This is not Question Time.
The accounting procedure being used by the Government is a sleight of hand.
A tribunal is being established immediately at which liabilities of this nature may be raised.
Does the Taoiseach mean before Christmas?
Did he order a turkey for the tribunal?
In any reasonable understanding of the matter, the State has a moral liability to the women in question and it is important that should be met.
That is not the issue.
(Interruptions.)
Does the Taoiseach want to pay the money——
Sorry, Deputy Woods.
The Taoiseach must look after Democratic Left.
The Taoiseach is fudging the issue and he knows that.
In regard to accounting, the Taoiseach knows better than anybody on this side of the House——
Deputy McCreevy may not interrupt from a seated position. I understand a debate on the Estimates will take place next week.
That is not provided for here.
On a point of order——
I am proceeding to other business.
The Opposition has a right to be heard.
This is a disgrace.
Deputy Ahern should resume his seat.
The Government is cooking the books, the Opposition has a right to be heard.
This is outrageous.
On a point of order——
Will you not hear the Leader of the Opposition?
Is the Deputy raising a point of order?
Yes.
I am waiting.
Is it right that Estimates which provide for expenditure in 1996 and which have been incorrectly processed through a committee of the House can be presented to the House——
The Deputy is putting a question which I will find impossible to answer.
With all due respect, that is your job.
On a point of order——
I am proceeding to the business of the House.
On a point of order——
I am entitled to raise a point of order.
I will not be dictated to or intimidated by the Deputy.
You should protect my rights. You stated in answer to a question from my party leader——
The Deputy's present leader.
(Interruptions.)
I know from where I am coming, what I am looking at is the three card trick Government —"now you see it, now you don't". Nick Leeson is in jail in Singapore for less than what the Government is trying to do.
Is this the point of gross disorder the Deputy wished to raise?
I was provoked, a Cheann Comhairle. With regard to your ruling, how is the House in a position to proceed when you were unable to answer the question put by Deputy Ahern?
The questions will be answered when the Estimates are presented to the House.
We have to deal with the matter now.
The Estimates are now before the House.
This is an abuse and we will not put up with it.
On a point of order——
I will hear no point of order. If the Deputy does not allow me to proceed to the business of the House——
The Estimates are to be taken without debate or clarification.
The Deputy is seeking to shout down the Chair.
I have tried to raise a point of order, but you have overruled me.
The Deputy is continuing to shout down the Chair.
I want a debate about issues which are the source of enormous controversy.
The Deputy can have his debate in due course.
The Government has shone little light on the Estimates which it is seeking to steamroll through the House.
On a point of order——
The Deputy is seeking to continue the gross disorder. He may raise these matters at some other time.
You should withdraw that remark.
On a point of order——
I am proceeding to other business.
You stated in your heated exchanges with Members on this side of the House that we may raise these issues when the Appropriations Bill is debated in the House. No provision is made in the schedule for this week for a debate on that Bill which the Government is seeking to railroad through the House. We are, therefore, seeking clarification of a major matter of public accounting now.
The Chair is not in control of the business of this House.
I have already informed the Deputy that he can have a debate whenever he wants it.
Why did the Taoiseach not propose that?
(Interruptions.)