It is proposed to take Nos. 10 and 11; No. 11 shall be taken at the conclusion of the announcement of matters on the Adjournment under Standing Order 20 and the order shall resume thereafter. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) the following arrangements shall apply in relation to the resumed debate on No. 10: (i) the speech of the main spokespersons for the Fianna Fáil Party and the Progressive Democrats Party, who shall be called upon to contribute to the debate first, shall not exceed 40 minutes in each case; (ii) the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed 30 minutes in each case; and (iii) Members may share time. (2) The statements on No. 11 shall be confined to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs; the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party; the Minister for Justice; the Leader of the Progressive Democrats Party; and the Minister for Social Welfare; and shall not exceed ten minutes in each case. (3) Private Members' Business shall also be taken tomorrow between 12.45 p.m. and 2.15 p.m. and the proceedings on the Second Stage thereof shall be brought to a conclusion at 2.15 p.m. tomorrow. Private Members' Business shall be No. 26.
Order of Business.
There are three matters to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with item No. 10 satisfactory and agreed?
Item No. 10 is the resumed budget debate, which prevents Members of the Opposition tabling questions to the respective Ministers for at least three weeks because of the anticipatory rule, in other words, the questions would be ruled out of order because they would be seen as anticipating the debate on that Minister's speech. Yesterday I asked the Government Chief Whip to allow a question and answer session with the respective Minister or Minister of State after his or her speech. That was refused. I now formally propose an amendment to item No. 1, to insert after (1) (ii): "After the speech by a Minister or Minister of State there should be a 15 minute period for a question and answer session with the relevant Minister or Minister of State on the content of said speech".
I cannot agree to that. I had the impression the Opposition knew all the answers because they seem to voice their opinions without waiting to hear the facts. Such a request would render the debate impracticable. Each speaker will have an opportunity to state his or her position and other speakers will be able to follow those debates and answer any points that arise in the Minister's speech. Unfortunately, Deputy McDowell is not present this morning.
What has that to do with the matter?
When he is present he constantly reminds me that we need a procedure to allow for the interruption of speakers on an orderly basis and the Government will bring forward proposals on that.
Twelve months later.
In due course such a facility will enable Members to put a point to a Member in possession whether they be in Opposition or in Government. It is among the proposals being brought before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in the reasonably near future. I am sorry I cannot agree to the amendment.
We cannot debate the matter now.
This is yet another example of the openness and accountability of the Government. In view of the Taoiseach's refusal to accede to this request will the Government Whip agree to a relaxation of the anticipatory rule regarding parliamentary questions?
That is one of the matters being considered as part of the package of proposals on Dáil reform. The appropriate way to raise a question of that nature is through the Whips. I do not have a closed mind on the matter; it should be considered. I realise the problem having experienced occasions in the past where the anticipatory rule regarding the budget debate continued for much longer than three weeks — one could not ask questions about budgetary matters for two or three months. At least the three week period is much less than obtained in the past. The Deputy's suggestion will be considered. There are many good aspects in the budget and we welcome all questions because they give us an opportunity to say more about what is in the budget. This is a budget that will appear better with age.
Since the amendment is not being pressed I declare that the proposal for dealing with No. 10 is agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 11 satisfactory?
I had an opportunity to read the report about which I am generally positive. Will the Government consider putting forward a motion on this matter? If the report were approved by this House, it would be powerful. I put forward that suggestion because I want to maintain the all-party approach to these issues and I will not be putting forward a motion. Perhaps before the debate begins the Government will consider putting forward a motion approving the commission's report.
That is a constructive proposal which will be considered carefully. The Government is most anxious to proceed, in conjunction with the British Government, with the follow through on this report. We are engaged in intensive dialogue with that Government on the matter. If a resolution of the kind suggested by the Deputy would be helpful in that process, and it might well be, we would be most anxious to act on that. I ask the Deputy to allow us some time to consider the matter. I see no reasons or principle for not putting forward such a motion; it is tactical considerations that might influence one.
We have agreed the form of debate on that matter. If the Tánaiste is anxious to put forward a motion, I would be open to that procedure. On initial examination of the report we welcome it, but I would like to see the terms of a motion before we debate the matter in the House.
That is the reason for not debating the issue in the form of a motion today. We should allow time for discussion between the parties in the House on the form of a motion and give the Government the opportunity to pursue its discussions with the British Government and with all parties so as to achieve the best outcome. It is a matter on which there may be discussion during the coming week or so.
May I take it the proposal for dealing with item No. 11 is agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal to take Private Members' Business tomorrow satisfactory? Agreed.
Yesterday I briefly raised with the Taoiseach the issue of the Bills dealing with justice matters which it is expected will be published prior to Easter. The Taoiseach informed us that the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Bill is the only Bill listed by the Government, although other Bills are at various stages of drafting. In view of the increase in crime, murders, missing persons and other matters about which everybody in the House is gravely concerned, will the Taoiseach agree to debate in Government time the Misuse of Drugs Bill for which many people outside the House are calling? In the last year our spokesperson on Justice, Deputy O'Donoghue, our senior backup team, legal officials, criminologists, lay people and others worked on a Bill dealing with this matter. During the term of office of Fianna Fáil Governments two or three Bills introduced by Deputy Shatter were accepted.
We may not discuss the matter now.
Will the Taoiseach agree to take this Bill in Government time? I accept there is a difficulty with parliamentary draftsmen but if the Bill is not perfect it can be amended in the House. I ask the Taoiseach not to wait until March or April but to take the Bill in Government time and we will accept any amendments put forward. There is a call by the public for this House to act early in this session on the crime issue and I ask the Taoiseach to agree to my request.
As the Deputy is aware, the Government is at a very advanced stage of work on a Bill on precisely that topic. I expect the text of that Bill will be approved within the next three weeks or so and it will then be published. I have expressed my appreciation of the work Fianna Fáil has done in presenting its Bill. I assure the House all the matters contained in the Fianna Fáil Bill will be actively considered by the Government in the finalisation of our legislation, which we expect to present to the House very early. Three weeks is not an unreasonable delay. There are obvious advantages in involving in preparation of the legislation people who enforce the law. The Garda Síochána and justice authorities have been involved in the preparation of the Government's Bill and it would be best and most sensible in terms of having a law that works to allow the Government to present its Bill, taking into account the proposals and ideas in the Fianna Fáil Bill for which I have expressed appreciation.
This is not the only legislation the Government is preparing to deal with crime. We expect that the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will be ready in the spring. We are also preparing a Criminal Law Bill to change the distinction between felonies and misdeameanours and a Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill to deal with the plea of insanity in criminal offences. There is a range of other measures in prospect in this area including the additional provision in the budget for prison places. This will include a significant reorganisation of prison accommodation which will make available a very substantial number of places to deal with this problem.
I acknowledge the Taoiseach's remarks about our Justice spokesperson and others involved in drafting of the Bill. The information I received from the Taoiseach's office dated 17 January lists only one Bill on this matter for publication this session. Even if a Bill is published around Easter we will be lucky if it is signed by the President before summer. It is not likely to be taken before the autumn. The Minister for Justice issued the heads of this Bill last July but our group had been working on the legislation a long time at that stage. I contend — this is open to debate — that our Bill is much more detailed and comprehensive than that outlined by the Minister, although she may have moved away from what she outlined. Since major legislation is urgently demanded by the public to deal with crime it seems reasonable to take this Bill and if the Government seeks to put forward substantial amendments we will readily agree to them. The Judicial Separation Act, 1989, was handled this way and, therefore, it seems reasonable to ask the Taoiseach to accept our proposal.
It is important to recognise that any legislation in this area will involve a substantial reduction of the rights of accused or potentially accused persons. That is something that requires the very best legal and constitutional advice available to the Government. The Government is preparing the legislation in that light because we want the legislation to work, we do not want it open to constitutional challenge, we do not want to pass legislation just for the sake of it and find it does not work in the courts. Therefore, we are taking the necessary constitutional and administrative advice from our legal and security advisers to get this legislation right.
I have assured Deputy Bertie Ahern that we will carefully consider all the proposals prepared by his party to ensure that, if not already included, the best of them will be included in the Government package. We intend to present that Bill within the next month or so.
The reason there is one item of legislation only in the programme is that, over many years, I have noticed an optimistic tendency to include items of legislation in the programme for a session which did not actually appear on time. We have given very strict instructions for this session to include only those items of legislation we are absolutely sure will appear.
I appreciate what the Taoiseach says about the rights of accused persons. Certainly in any civilised society their rights must be protected but victims also have rights and, with that in mind, we need more than legislation because there is a knee-jerk response whenever there is an escalation in crime, as at present, to introduce more laws. We need to examine the management of the Garda Síochána and the management of our prisons, expenditure on prisons has risen by 50 per cent over the past five years whereas the number of prisoners increased by 7 per cent only.
Will the Taoiseach give the House an undertaking to have a debate on crime because, given the level of public concern and as elderly people in particular are very frightened, it is unreal not to have such a debate? The Minister for Justice gave an extensive interview on a radio programme yesterday. I really believe we should have a comprehensive debate on the issue in this House as soon as possible and ask the Taoiseach to give that consideration.
The position of victims of crime in our society is the top priority of this Government.
It is as well the Taoiseach told us.
It is the intention of the Government to tackle the causes of crime and not to rely solely on legislation. It is very important to make the association between long-term unemployment, drug abuse and crime. We must remember that 80 per cent of heroin users are young, male, long-term unemployed people and that 80 per cent of the male prisoners in Mountjoy have a record of drug use. There is a direct association between long-term unemployment, drug abuse and crime. That is why this united Government — all parties contributing — has placed so much emphasis on tackling long-term unemployment, recognising that, unless it is tackled there is no hope of tackling the causes of crime. We believe that the issue of long-term unemployment is not just an issue of social justice but also one of social protection. Indeed people who are lucky enough to have money and jobs will be safe with that money and in those jobs only if the crime problem is tackled and, to do that, we must also tackle long-term unemployment.
While not disagreeing with what the Taoiseach said, what about a comprehensive debate on the issue in this House? The first duty of Government is to protect citizens.
The duty of this Government is to tackle the causes of crime. In this budget and legislative programme we are determined not just to introduce headline-grabbing measures or engage in soundbite politics as far as crime is concerned. We are determined to tackle the problem of crime in society at its roots. The roots of crime in this society are to be found in the fact that there are 140,000 people who are long-term unemployed, who have been passed by in the record economic growth we are enjoying at present. As a united Government we are determined to tackle the problem of long-term unemployment, thereby tackling the problem of drug abuse and making people safer in their homes than they are at present resulting from the policies we inherited which did not work.
What about now?
Again I must dissuade Members from the notion that they can have a debate now; clearly they cannot on the Order of Business.
The people opposite were in Government for ten years.
We are not endeavouring to hype up the escalating crime, rather to render this House relevant so that it can respond to the very real public concern about recent armed criminality. In the light of the fact that the Minister for Justice is not due to take Question Time until 23 February and has not answered parliamentary questions since before Christmas, I appeal to the Taoiseach to facilitate a debate on crime in the light of recent armed robberies, missing persons and violent crime against elderly people.
The Minister for Justice was present in the House yesterday to support the budget which will help tackle the causes of crime by tackling long-term unemployment. The Minister for Justice is not in the House this morning because she is having a meeting with the Garda Commissioner to discuss the events to which the Deputy referred and is doing her job effectively in that regard. The Minister for Justice will bring forward proposals for additional prison spaces in the near future as the Government acknowledges that additional prison spaces are necessary. Even though the Government does not perceive imprisonment as the sole solution to crime we acknowledge that more prison spaces are necessary. The Minister for Finance has made provision for them. The Minister for Justice will be coming before the House to discuss her plans to deal with the provision of additional prison spaces. We look forward to the support of the Deputy and parties opposite for the Minister's proposals in that regard.
Under item No. 24 on the Order Paper under Private Members' Business there is listed the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (No. 2) Bill, 1995, in my name. I am rather surprised to hear the Taoiseach question the legality or constitutionality of Fianna Fáil legislation, bearing in mind that the Minister for Justice was obliged to lift virtually every section of that Bill in order to give adequate efficacy to the provisions of her Bill regarding the prohibition on the publication of incest proceedings.
I might point out to the Taoiseach that the Fianna Fáil Party has presented the Misuse of Drugs Bill, 1996, and there is a widespread view throughout society that there is a real need for all-party consensus——
The Deputy appears to be embarking on a speech. Let us have a proposal to the Taoiseach.
——in tackling the drugs menace.
Another Bill on the Order Paper is the Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Bill, 1995, which the Government had no difficulty in accepting from Fianna Fáil. Therefore, I question the Taoiseach's motivation in rejecting the Fianna Fáil Misuse of Drugs Bill, 1996. I put it to the Taoiseach that petty politics is now taking precedence over tackling the crime issue in this country. I now understand, Sir — when you likened the Minister for Justice yesterday to Kevin O'Higgins — why she sat there with a smile like moonlight on a tombstone.
Obviously Deputy O'Donoghue is a glutton for praise, so I will again praise him. I praised the Fianna Fáil Party on its production of this Bill. I have assured the Fianna Fáil Party the Government will take the suggestions contained in that Bill fully into account in the drafting of its legislation expected to be approved within the next three weeks. It is important that the Government avails of all advice available to it, in terms of constitutional advice to ensure that the legislation — to the extent it involves trenching on the rights of accused persons — is constitutionally valid, and Garda advice to ensure that it works in the most administrative and security enforcement effective way. Therefore, the Government will present its Bill in the near future.
Again, I compliment Deputy O'Donoghue on producing this Bill. We will take every good idea from it, incorporate it in our legislation and give him credit for it.
We want the Taoiseach to accept it; we do not want credit.
Does the Taoiseach accept that tackling the root causes of crime and putting in place up to date enforceable legislation are not mutually exclusive? If so, how can we justify the failure of the Government to bring forward the juvenile justice Bill?
Deputy Quill, this is not Question Time.
That is promised legislation.
I call Deputy Ahern for a final question relevant to the Order of Business on this subject.
I am entitled to raise a matter of promised legislation.
The Deputy is entitled to raise a matter if it is in order.
With the Chair's kind permission, I wish to ask the Taoiseach if it is the intention of the Government to bring forward the juvenile justice Bill during this session? He acknowledged the drug problem relates to juveniles and young adults.
That is in order. Let us hear the Taoiseach on that subject.
I agree with Deputy Quill that there is no conflict between introducing more effective legislation and tackling the causes of crime; both must go hand in hand. I expect the juvenile justice Bill will be available in late spring. I am not sure if it will be available before the recess and I will not give a categorical commitment in that regard. I am aware of Deputy Quill's continuous interest in this subject in that she has raised it more frequently than any other Member. I assure her that we will bring forward this legislation as quickly as possible——
It is the root to tackling the drug problem.
——because juvenile crime is an increasing problem. People who acquire a crime habit at a young age tend to continue it for quite some time thereafter.
The Fianna Fáil Front Bench decided not to introduce a Bill dealing with crime during Private Members' time but to try to get the Government to introduce it in Government time to ensure it is enacted quickly. We thought that was the most sensible approach. The Progressive Democrats and others have called for a debate on crime. It would be unsatisfactory if the Government were to refuse to give us the opportunity to have this Bill introduced. This Bill has been checked by five constitutional lawyers, all of whom are known to the Taoiseach, and are of high standing. They know how to draft a constitutional Bill and are very aware of the dangers involved in that process. Alternatively, we could introduce the Bill during Private Members' time next week, but I ask the Government to seriously consider not opposing it and to allow it be passed to a committee when it could be integrated with the Government's Bill in time. It is wrong for the House to divide on a very important matter; we should deal with the problem. It is not a matter on which we are trying to score party political points, otherwise we would have introduced it during Private Members' time this week. I ask the Taoiseach to consider this matter.
This side of the House in particular has been working for many years on measures to deal with the long-term unemployed. From my experience, drug barons, warlords, drug criminals and pushers do not come from the long-term unemployed. They do not need the £62 per week benefit. We must deal with those organising the drugs scene. If we were to tackle that problem, we could deal more easily with the other issues.
The Deputy is well aware that drug barons only exist because people buy drugs from them. Eighty per cent of hard drug users in the Eastern Health Board area are people who are long-term unemployed, 80 per cent of them are male and 92 per cent are under 35. Those people whose lives are without hope are being exploited by drug barons. We want to deal with the drug barons, go after their money and the market they are exploiting by offering a better life to the people buying drugs and we can do this by tackling long-term unemployment.
Most of them are juveniles.
I will not take issue with you, Sir, about a special notice question which was refused by the Chair's office and not by the Chair.
The buck stops here.
I appreciate that. The Chair was in a dry state at the time of the recent flooding. Does the Taoiseach intend to change the name or the role of the Department of Justice to that of a television programme on the basis that Manuel continues to know nothing?
That is too deep a question. Still waters run deep.
In view of the unanimous support in this House for a policy to close Sellafield, will the Taoiseach confirm that he will support a case currently in the High Court undertaken by STAD in a real and practical manner by providing financial backing rather than merely paying lip service?
I will try to assist the Deputy in raising that matter at the appropriate time, but now is not the time.
On 3 October I was told a report would be available by the end of October; on 27 November I was told it would be available by the end of November and on the Order of Business on 14 December I was told it would be available soon. Will the Taoiseach tell us when the interdepartmental report on the islands will be published? Will he indicate where in the budget there is an allocation to fund the report?
The Deputy should raise that matter in another way, by tabling a question.
I raised it by question but I was referred back to the question I raised in October.
Legislation was promised in the House by the Minister for Justice on 31 January following the Brinks-Allied raid. On that occasion the Minister for Justice said that a full review of the security arrangements at cash depots would be carried out. She said assisting legislation would be brought forward if that were a recommendation of the review body. The Minister for Justice said to the media yesterday that the review was carried out but for security reasons the outcome is not revealable.
To what legislation is the Deputy referring?
Legislation which would assist security companies to provide adequate security at cash depots.
That is a separate matter.
We are not going to tell the criminals what we are going to do about that.
The Taoiseach should tell the House.
I agree there is no cross over between those two categories.
Will the Taoiseach indicate when we may expect the introduction of legislation to control the activities of wandering horses in urban areas? I request the Taoiseach to allow the heads of that proposed legislation to be discussed by the Select Committee on Legislation and Security in advance of its publication.
The legislation is at an advanced stage of drafting. The heads of the Bill were cleared by the Government before Christmas. I expect it will be published during the next two to three months. I will consider the Deputy's proposal and ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to examine it.
Bearing in mind that there is a Gaeltacht in the Taoiseach's constituency, does he condemn the fact that this House has been ignored in matters relating to the Gaeltacht? In that regard home improvement grants were withdrawn on 1 January. After the Budget Statement yesterday, during which we did not hear a word of Irish, a press release was issued by the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht withdrawing a road grant allocation.
I should not have to remind Deputy Gallagher of the procedure at this time.
(Donegal South-West): That is an indication of the Government's commitment to the Gaeltacht and that Government comprises not only Fine Gael but Labour and the Progressive Democrats.
Will the Taoiseach indicate what measures he proposes to put in place to help the beleaguered beef farmers in my constituency who are in dire economic straits?
Will the Taoiseach indicate when legislation will be brought forward to abolish the Office of Public Works?
The Deputy should table a question on that.
The Taoiseach mentioned that matter last week.
The Minister introduced a measure yesterday to provide a tax allowance of up to £800 for the elderly to enable them to purchase an alarm system. Does the Taoiseach agree that this will be of no benefit to those who need it most? It is the most cynical measure ever introduced in a budget.
That would be more appropriate to the debate on the budget which is about to commence.