It is proposed to take No. 4, Motion re Revised Estimates for the Public Services; No. 10, Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Bill, 1996; No. 11, Metrology Bill, 1996, and No. 12, Statements on "Developing a Policy for Women's Health". It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: (1) No. 4 shall be decided without debate and any division demanded thereon shall be taken forthwith and (2) the proceedings on the Second Stage of No. 10, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 4.45 p.m. today.
Order of Business.
Are the proposals for dealing with No. 4 satisfactory? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 10 saisfactory? Agreed.
I know the Ceann Comhairle will allow me to extend sympathy to the parents and community of Dunblane in Scotland. In recent weeks our minds have correctly been exercised by many past tragedies involving young children and debates have taken place in the House and in the media. Everyone was shocked by what they saw on television last night, read in this morning's papers and heard on the radio about the death of these 16 young children and their teacher. The other children in that class and the wider community of Dunblane will never recover from this tragedy.
One of the marks of civilisation is people's ability to reach out to other communities during times of tragedy, and we wish to do that on this occasion. The darker side of human nature is constantly with us and it was present in an unfathomable way in this case. One could think about it forever but one would never reach a conclusion as the darker side of nature lies submerged until we are suddently forced to confront it, as happened in this case. I know I speak for everyone in extending sympathy to the parents of these children, the teachers in the school and the wider community. Our thoughts are with them at this traumatic time.
The Chair hesitates to rule against these expressions of sympathy given the very sad and tragic circumstances prevailing.
The horrific tragedy in Dunblane yesterday is beyond description and the sympathy of the Irish people goes out to this small community which will probably never recover from it. The way in which 16 children and their teacher were cruelly mown down is beyond description and words cannot fully express the sympathy we feel for the community of that small town and the wider community.
Yesterday the Taoiseach issued a statement on behalf of the Irish people. We have been in contact with the Secretary of State for Scotland and I intend to contact my friend the Labour MP, George Robertson, to convey our deepest sympathy to him and the people of Scotland on this tragedy. The general public and, in particular, the parents of school children were horrified by this tragedy and our sympathy goes out to the families of the victims and the people of Scotland.
I wish to share in the words of sympathy expressed by the Tánaiste and Deputy Mary O'Rourke. This was an unspeakable tragedy and words seem pointless but we all share in the sympathy extended to the families and small community of Dunblane. There is no point in adding further words as there is nothing we can do and unfortunately there is no way such a tragedy can be avoided. I hope we remember that this matter is above politics. All we can do is express our sympathy on this tragedy.
I hope the White Paper on Education will take into account the appeals for a review of security in schools. My feelings on this tragedy are very poignant as I attended a one teacher school in Balbriggan which had 16 pupils. In extending our sympathy to the people of Dunblane and Scotland we should look at the security provided for schoolchildren and other childen in our care.
Members rose in their places.
Now that the intensity talks have concluded, is the Tánaiste able to give the House a pointer to the agenda leading towards 10 June?
In the normal course of events I would be quite happy to impart information to the Deputy. As she is aware, I am having a meeting this afternoon with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew, which will be our first opportunity to review what has happened over the past ten days. I will be in a far better position next week to give information as requested but there is little point in anticipating today's meeting, at which I hope we will get a lot of work done.
Will the Government ensure that the Kelly Fitzgerald report is published? I do not believe the threats of legal action from people who want to protect their own interests should prevent the publication of this report. This case involved a young child who was effectively tortured to death. I think the report can be published in this House under privilege. If it needs to be done in that way, it should be done. It is in public interest that it would be published.
This matter has been addressed in the House on a number of occasions.
This matter has been referred to on a number of occasions. It was dealt with extensively at Question Time yesterday. It would be the Government's wish to publish the report also, subject to the legal advice which is to be sought. The report has implications for many individuals but, subject to getting legal clearance, the Government will have no hesitation in publishing the report.
On promised legislation, the Fine Gael Party, the major party in the three-party coalition, yesterday proposed a fundamental change in Irish neutrality in the European Parliament, in the presence of the Minister of State at the Departments of the Taoiseach and Foreign Affairs, Deputy Gay Mitchell. Is it intended to withdraw prior to publication, the proposed White Paper on Foreign Affairs as the Minister of State clearly indicated that it will not tackle the major issue of neutrality but went on to say that the Western European Union question must be examined in the Intergovernmental Conference? Is the promised legislation on neutrality to be brought forward? More importantly, since a fundamental change is proposed in promised legislation, will the Government make a clear statement in its White Paper as to where it stands on this basic question of Irish neutrality?
Is legislation promised in this area?
The programme for Government contains a provision, as did the previous programme for Government agreed between the Fianna Fáil Party and the Labour Party, that if there is to be a change in Ireland's traditional neutrality, it will only be done by the Irish people by way of referendum. That is the position. It has not changed.
I do not accept responsibility for MEPs in relation to yesterday's decision.
Does the Tánaiste accept responsibility for the Minister of State at his own Department?
We cannot debate the matter now.
The Tánaiste has distanced himself from the Fine Gael MEPs. Would he also distance himself from the Minister of State in his own Department who spoke on the same issue?
Nobody recognises more than I that you cannot always control MEPs. In view of the fact that the Intergovernmental Conference begins later this month, will the White Paper be published before then? Can the House have a date for that? Has the date been agreed?
As I have confirmed on many ocasions to the Fianna Fáil spokesman on foreign affairs, it will be published before the Intergovernmental Conference. I hope we can have a discussion as well because it is important that all parties in this House make their views known on all the issues which will be considered at the Intergovernmental Conference.
May I revisit the question which Deputy Harney raised earlier on the non-publication of the Kelly Fitzgerald report? The Tánaiste indicated a view which is at variance with that expressed yesterday by the Minister for Health when he said that the Government, subject to legal advice, will consider publishing this report which is of great importance and in the public interest.
The matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business and the Deputy knows that. There are so many other ways to deal with it.
Indeed, a Cheann Comhairle, yet it has been impossible.
It has been dealt with in the House.
It has been dealt with but it is by no means finished and I will not let it go. Publication of this report is being prevented by the Western Health Board on their legal advice. Is this Government distancing itself from that decision? The Minister for Health indicated yesterday that he was——
I am sorry, Deputy O'Donnell. I want to assist the Deputy in raising this matter.
Is the Tánaiste indicating now that the Government will take its own decision and avail of the privilege of this House to publish this report?
I cannot allow an argument on the issue on the Order of Business.
On pending legislation, may I ask the Tánaiste about the forthcoming adoption Bill? I register the Fianna Fáil Party's strong protest at the voting down of our worth-while Bill by the combined coalition parties last night. A precedent had been set in 1991 when Fianna Fáil in Government accepted Deputy Alan Shatter's Bill. When is the Government's adoption Bill to be published? Does the Tánaiste approve of the way in which Fianna Fáil's worthy Bill was voted down?
Let us not have a rehash of last evening's business.
The Tánaiste may think it is a matter of comic relief.
The way the Deputy presents it, it is a matter of comic relief.
It is no joke for those people.
I dealt with this matter in response to Deputy Woods's questions on the Order of Business yesterday and the previous day. The Fianna Fáil Party, on the one hand, wants the matter discussed in this House. On the other hand, they had three hours available and they decided not to use it. They curtailed debate on the Bill last evening. That was their decision, not ours.
We want the Bill passed.
As I said to Deputy Woods yesterday, the Government will bring forward a comprehensive Bill to deal with adoption matters as quickly as possible, within a matter of weeks.
We had a Bill which should have received all-party support. It was a fine comprehensive Bill.
We cannot have a re-enactment of the debate on the vote of last evening.
The three coalition parties decided that they did not want adoption legislation.
With regard to pending legislation, under section 3 and section 15 (7) of the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995, ——
More smiles.
——the Minister is empowered to make regulations in relation to political contribution or donations. Does the Tánaiste accept it is entirely unacceptable that the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald——
This is not relevant.
We know the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, has a ministerial car now.
Can the Tánaiste indicate the progress which has been made in encouraging fee-paying schools to enter the free secondary school system, which is an objective of the Programme for Government?
Is legislation promised in this area?
It is stated clearly in the programme for Government.
Keep trying.
I wonder why it is in the Programme for Government. It smells of hypocrisy.
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order, a Member on this side of the House has raised a question on the programme for Government. It has been the practice that such questions have been answered by the Taoiseach or Tánaiste. There has been a change in this regard in recent times. Does the Tánaiste accept that it is legitimate for us to raise on the Order of Business issues relating to the Programme for Government?
Is legislation promised?
Legislation has not been promised in this area. I am glad that the members of the Opposition take an interest in the Programme for Government. It would be our intention——
We are the only ones in the House who do.
That was very good by Deputy Burke's standards. I assure Deputy Martin that over the next year and a half, during the lifetime of this Government, we will try to implement all the promises in the Programme for Government.
Including the third banking force?
Given the spirit of the ethics Bill and the cancellation of the Labour Party's £100 a plate lunch, will the Tánaiste indicate whether all other such fund-raising functions by parties in Government, offering rare opportunities of an audience with Ministers, will be cancelled?
The Deputy's party started it.
Will the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry clarify the statement he made to Teagasc last Wednesday week about lifting the embargo in the public service which would mean he could employ additional staff in Teagasc, and the contradiction by his officials? Who was right?
The Deputy should put down a question on the matter. I wish to proceed to item No. 4. I will not entertain many more questions, most of which are irrelevant.
As the Tánaiste distanced himself from the MEPs this morning, is there anything else we need to know for which any member of the Government will have to apologise next week? Perhaps they could apologise in advance.
Will the Tánaiste accept that there is now a very serious credibility gap within the Government in terms of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, lecturing on the highest ethics in business and the Government's own attitude?
I thought the Deputies had something relevant to raise.