Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Nov 1996

Vol. 471 No. 2

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 5, motion re Ministerial Rota for Parliamentary Questions; No. 8, Telecommunications (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1996 — from the Select Committee on Enterprise and Strategy — Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; No. 1, Central Bank Bill, 1996, Second Stage (resumed); No. 9, Universities Bill, 1996, Second Stage (resumed). It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: No. 5 shall be decided without debate; the Report and Final Stages of No. 8 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 1.15 p.m. today by one question which shall be put by the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications; and Private Members' Business shall be No. 32, motion 14 — motion concerning Defence Policy (resumed) and the proceedings thereon shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. tonight.

I avail of the opportunity to express congratulations to a good, great and consistent friend of Ireland on his re-election as President of the United States, William Clinton. As a country we have much to be grateful for in respect of President Clinton's first term. We look forward to a second term. We would also wish to commiserate with Senator Dole and express our appreciation of the integrity with which he addressed Irish issues and all other issues in the campaign.

I join with the Taoiseach on behalf of this side of the House and congratulate President Clinton on his historic re-election. During his first term of office he was a great friend of this country both economically and through the summits I was honoured to attend. Probably the most impressive event I have ever attended was the two days with all his senior people and advisers for the purpose of promoting the Irish economy. He has continued to do that as well as to promote the peace process. His continued commitment and energy is badly needed to re-establish peace and, probably more importantly, to build a political settlement. Like the Taoiseach I wish Mr. Dole well in whatever he decides to do in the future. I thank also the Senators from both the Democratic and Republican parties and the Congressmen for their continued interest in the peace process.

I join with the Taoiseach and the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party in congratulating President Clinton on his spectacular win last night. I am sure the Taoiseach is envious of the fact that he could have such a spectacular win since that will not be facing the Taoiseach next year.

(Interruptions.)

At least I have succeeded in waking up all Members who look tired and sleepy. I do not think things are going as well as is pretended. I have no doubt President Clinton will continue to show the interest in Ireland, and the concern for the peace process in particular, that he has shown during his first term of office. We are fortunate to have somebody in the most powerful position in the world politically who has such a keen interest in Irish affairs.

Let us now proceed with the Order of Business. There are three matters to put before the House. Is the proposal that No. 5 be decided without debate satisfactory and agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 8, the Report and Final Stages of the Telecommunications (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1996, satisfactory?

We on this side of the House object to the guillotine on this Bill today as proposed in the Order of Business because it reduces the number of workers in Telecom Eireann and sells off shares at a scandalously low price to foreign investors without as much as a protest from the left wing parties in this House. I therefore ask——

The Deputy ought not to anticipate the debate on the measure which is coming before the House this day.

Can I ask that this Bill not be guillotined until the contract documents are brought before this House so that the public can see what a scandalous deal this is?

This is heavy stuff.

My party objects strongly to the Report and Final Stages of the Telecommunications (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill being taken today without the Government or the Minister having made available to the House the full details of the contract that has been entered into in respect of the sale of this major national asset. As this is the first time part of a State company has been sold without full disclosure of the details of the contract of sale, my party takes a very strong view on it. Accordingly, we oppose the proposed Order of Business.

I am sorry the Opposition is taking this view because I understand no objection was raised at the Whips' meeting by either party last week to taking this legislation in this way today. There may have been communication difficulties between the Opposition Whip and the Opposition spokesman which did not enable the Opposition party to convey its views.

We thought the Government would come up with the goods.

Of course, at this stage the Opposition is perfectly entitled to take this course of action; it is fine if it wants to divide the House on the matter.

Where is the contract?

Why not show the contract?

It would rock the foundations of the State.

That matter should not give rise to debate now. I call Deputy Harney.

What is the big secret?

We sought this information on Committee Stage and we thought it would be forthcoming. When Greencore and Irish Life were disposed of during the life of the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government all the details were fully disclosed. It is out of order and highly inappropriate that the details will not be put before the House and the public. Whose interests is the Government protecting?

Publish the contract.

There is no comparison between a public flotation, which occurred in the case of Irish Life, where under the Stock Exchange rules the company is sold to the public at large and a private deal, which is normal in commercial enterprise, where certain confidentiality requirements occur.

The Government is selling overseas.

It is a secret deal.

It suggests a need for greater transparency.

Would the Opposition parties have us get a lesser price for State assets because we failed to preserve confidential information relating to those with whom an arrangement has been made?

It is an Irish asset.

There is to be no attempt to shout down a Member.

The consequence of what the Opposition is seeking would, of course, be an unwillingness on the part of potential purchasers to do business with the State in regard to valuable assets.

Will the Taoiseach agree to give way under the rules of the House?

I do not propose——

Bluster.

What about the Dutch Stock Exchange?

(Interruptions.)

As I do not regard Deputy Burke's intervention as likely to be of any great relevance to this subject——

(Interruptions.)

This is an injection of gross——

Whenever there is difficulty, Deputy Burke breezes in here to engage in noisy interruptions which do not add very much to the deliberations of the House and, for that reason, I do not propose to yield to the Deputy.

I will put the question after I hear Deputy Bertie Ahern. There is to be no debate now. The matter is on the Order Paper and scheduled for debate today.

It is very funny, Deputy Rabbitte; it is another betrayal by the left.

How can the Taoiseach say that the sale of a national asset is subject to a private deal? How can something like that not be accountable to the national Parliament? It is the sale of a national asset and it cannot be a private detail.

The Deputy does not understand it.

The details are well known.

I say to my friends in the Labour Party and Democratic Left that today will long be remembered as the day they cut the number of worker-directors from four to two. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Deputy Bertie Ahern has no understanding of the concept of a joint venture.

It is a sell out.

It is a sweetheart deal.

If Deputy Bertie Ahern thinks one can have a joint venture on the basis——

There was no competition.

——of not respecting confidentiality when confidentiality is requested by those with whom one is doing the joint venture and in circumstances where one is in competition in that joint venture with others——

(Interruptions.)

The Chair deplores in particular the attempt to shout down any Member of this House.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

This is a free and democratic assembly and free speech must prevail here. I am putting the question.

On the basis of free speech——

I ask Deputy Burke to resume his seat.

We do not know to what we are agreeing.

Have respect for the Chair.

On the basis of free speech, can I say this is a sovereign Parliament of the Irish people? The Taoiseach stated he is selling this asset and at the request of the purchaser there will be confidentiality. At the request of the Irish taxpayer, there cannot be confidentiality.

Members of the House——

It is a sell off.

What about the Dutch shareholders?

Publish the contract; what has the Government to hide?

I refuse to be treated in this way by Deputy Burke. Members of the House will have ample opportunity to ventilate their views on this subject during the debate which is about to ensue.

Question, "That the proposals by the Taoiseach on the Order of Business for dealing with the Report and Final Stages of No. 8 be agreed to" put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 56.

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Bhamjee, Moosajee.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Broughan, Tommy.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Dukes, Alan M.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Walsh, Eamon.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Fox, Mildred.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hilliard, Colm M.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, James.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Question declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business this evening agreed? Agreed.

Would the Taoiseach agree that it is desirable to put any proposals on the NATO Partnership for Peace to the people by way of referendum?

The question is not relevant to the Order of Business. This is not a lucky dip.

The Taoiseach is no prize.

Surely a major statement on the question of joining the NATO Partnership for Peace is a matter of importance. Is the Taoiseach refusing to answer the question?

It is not a proper question in the ordinary way.

Is it being disallowed?

I have had no notice of the question.

It is not in order. Questions in order on the Order of Business are those that deal with promised legislation. The Government's position on this matter was set out in the White Paper on Foreign Policy. In case the Deputy has not read it I will send him a copy.

Is there to be a referendum on the proposal to join the NATO Partnership for peace? Are the people to have a say?

It is in the White Paper.

A masterpiece of ambiguity.

Surely this is a matter for Question Time.

Does the Government intend to introduce legislation to provide for a referendum on this issue?

Over a year ago my party moved a Defamation Bill in the House. The Taoiseach then said that the Government was considering the law in this area. In view of the fact that the Commission for the Newspaper Industry and the Law Reform Commission have recommended change and of the current interest in libel and defamation, will the Taoiseach advise if the Government intends to introduce amending legislation or will it accept our Bill which is awaiting Committee Stage?

The matter is being considered but it is not a high priority.

In view of the present climate of uncertainty and recognising the enormous work undertaken by the staff of the House, is the Taoiseach satisfied with the security arrangements within the House? Is this not a case where we can be proactive rather than reactive?

I would prefer if the Deputy raised this matter in a more appropriate way. He will agree it is a delicate matter.

There is an explosive and catastrophic problem along the border between Zaire and Rwanda. Yesterday the leaders of the Great Lakes states appealed to the international community for assistance from the UN. In his role as President of the EU could the Taoiseach use his office to ask for UN intervention to provide safe corridors for the one million Hutus in the area? Could he also use his influence within the member states of the EU to prevent further sales of arms from member states to the region? This is a serious matter facing humanity.

I hesitate to rule the matter out of order. It has been dealt with rather extensively in the House in recent times. The Taoiseach is free to intervene if he wishes.

I would appreciate even a brief response from the Taoiseach.

I am in the difficult position that if I do not respond because the matter may not be in order it may be construed as a lack of interest, and I would not wish to give that impression.

I do not accuse the Taoiseach of that.

The House is aware that in the past week the Government has made available substantial financial assistance to assist in the humanitarian aspects of the problem. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs is keeping in close touch with the issue, in his capacity as Minister and also as President of the EU Council of Foreign Ministers.

This is a humanitarian tragedy of potentially grotesque proportions. It is important that the African states who are best placed to promote a resolution, are given every support possible by international bodies, including the EU, in resolving this tragedy peacefully. This continues to be the role played by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs. Later today I hope to meet senior people from the South Africa governing party when this matter will again be discussed.

In reply to Deputy Harney about the Defamation Bill in my name, which is awaiting Committee Stage, the Taoiseach said it was a matter of low priority. How low a priority for the Government is freedom of speech in this society?

Freedom of speech is a very high priority for the Government, but it is important that people's reputations should be protected. That is also a priority. In preparing defamation legislation one seeks to balance the rights of individuals serving in any public capacity to their reputation——

Especially Ministers.

——against the concern of those in the publishing business to advance allegations, sometimes for the benefit of the publications in question and sometimes from an altruistic motive.

I call on Deputy Andrews.

The Taoiseach is doing nothing about it.

I have called Deputy Andrews. Deputy McDowell, you are not entitled to intervene.

Deputy Michael McDowell is a weekly columnist in a newspaper. It is not entirely appropriate that he should promote the interests of the newspaper in the House without first declaring his interest.

At least he puts his own name to his articles.

(Interruptions.)

I know Rwanda. I have visited the country, including Kigali. There was a report on the radio this morning of arms going into Rwanda and surrounding countries from European countries. Surely this is an obscenity. Will the Taoiseach prevail on the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to visit this part of the world with the other members of the EU Troika and also prevail on Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali to visit the area, see the situation at first hand and do something about it?

The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs have been doing their best but this is not good enough in the circumstances. The matter needs to be addressed urgently. The arms situation there is an obscenity and it should be investigated as a matter of urgency.

The Chair has allowed some latitude in the matter, it cannot be debated now.

The hypocrisy is shameful.

If Members believe the matter should receive special treatment there are many ways open to them to do so.

I am grateful to the Chair for his patience. I have been talking about the matter for the past fortnight.

Has there been further progress on the credit union Bill? When will it come before the House?

As I have already indicated to the House, we hope to be able to introduce that legislation before Christmas and, if not, immediately afterwards.

Will the Taoiseach make a statement about the arms for Rwanda, Burundi and Zaire provided by the European arms industry?

That is an outrageous statement from the Deputy.

I respectfully suggest that Deputy Andrews pursue the matter later in another way.

Is it not time, as holders of the Presidency of the European Union, to expose this whole arms obscenity?

Will anything be done about the shambles in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry which means headage and arable aid payments will not be paid until mid-December, despite the fact that this is not in compliance with the famous Charter of Rights for farmers or commitments in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work? Will the Taoiseach take charge of the matter, given the huge drop in farmers' incomes, or does he agree with the Minister for Social Welfare that, like himself, they are rolling in it?

A total of £130 million has been paid out.

The Deputy must raise that matter in another way.

Area aid was promised to be paid by October, but I suppose we did not believe that would happen. When will the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill be published?

We hope to publish that Bill either this month or next month.

On promised legislation, is the Taoiseach aware of a comment in a Sunday newspaper attributed to a Labour Party source to the effect that it was extremely concerned that somebody was "putting the frighteners on the Taoiseach" in regard to Cabinet confidentiality?

(Interruptions.)

I want an assurance that is not the case. If it is not the case, when can we expect to see the legislation on Cabinet confidentiality promised in the Programme for Government?

Legislation was promised in this area

Legislation was promised not only by the Chief Whip but in the Programme for Government.

I observe Deputy Molloy offering.

On a point of order, you stated earlier this was a democratic Assembly and that we are entitled to ask questions about promised legislation on the Order of Business. I asked the Taoiseach a question about promised legislation and I deserve the courtesy of a reply.

The Deputy did a little more than that.

I have already answered questions on that subject in the House, but I do not know if the Deputy was present at the time.

The Taoiseach should answer the questions now.

The matter is under active consideration, but we are not in a position to have a referendum on the matter this year. I have outlined in considerable detail the reasons it is not possible to do so this year and the problems that are currently being examined.

Cathain a bheidh a reachtaíocht a bhaineann le bunú Teilifís na Gaeilge os comhair an Tí?

I do not think legislation on Téilifís na Gaeilge is required.

Legislation was promised.

I do not think that is correct.

Surely the Taoiseach is aware that the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht informed the House on a number of occasions that it is proposed to introduce legislation for the establishment of Téilifís na Gaeilge and until that happens it will operate under the aegis of the RTÉ authority and the legislation covering it.

I have no indication of specific legislation being promised in regard to Téilifís na Gaeilge.

A flight of fancy.

There is, however, a proposal for a general broadcasting Bill founded on the Green Paper. We hope to have the heads of that Bill considered by Government in the near future. I expect it will be some time next year before legislation is produced.

Will Téilifís na Gaeilge operate as an independent authority or under the scáth of RTÉ.

There are other ways and means of dealing with that matter.

A broadcasting Bill will be introduced in the House next year. The heads of it have yet to be approved by Cabinet and drafting will follow. The matter to which the Deputy referred will be dealt with in the context of that legislation. Promises have not been made about specific or separate legislation to deal with the matter.

When will the baby be delivered?

Deputy Harney did not even put it in the Programme for Government. What is she guffing about and the scams she tried to pull?

In the light of the seriousness of what is happening in Zaire——

Will the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht withdraw his allegation about a scam?

I heard no such allegation.

I withdraw it.

Deputy Molloy was quicker than Deputy Tully.

I call Deputy Andrews and Deputy Molloy should allow him speak.

My honour is at stake here.

Please, the Deputy heard the Minister's acknowledgement.

There are things going on here about which the Chair does not appear to be aware. The Taoiseach made an allegation about me which I ask him to withdraw.

I will not withdraw it. I did not make an allegation against the Deputy.

The matter should be referred to the Committee on Procedures and Privileges.

I said that Deputy Molloy was more successful in getting a withdrawal from Deputy Higgins than Deputy Tully was when he sought a withdrawal.

I have always considered the Taoiseach to be a fair-minded person——

Deputy Molloy was not fair at the time.

I ask the Taoiseach to examine the records of the House in regard to that matter.

I was a Member of the House then.

I ask him to withdraw the implication of what he said here.

I was a Member of the House then.

He was not here when the matter was withdrawn.

I was here and I remember the matter concerning the Deputy, Deputy Crinion, etc.

Let us not go back in history.

Members opposite are getting ready for an election.

Out of their deep charity, would the Chair and the Taoiseach consider giving time for a debate on the problem in Zaire and the central African area and, more particularly, to address the question of our EU partners being accused of supplying arms to that area? Surely this is a matter of the utmost urgency.

The Deputy's question is strictly not in order now, but in view of the gravity of the situation in that country the Taoiseach will respond.

I thank Deputy Andrews for raising the matter again. I have already indicated the Government's deep concern about the events in eastern Zaire and the fact that the Government has made available humanitarian assistance. The Tánaiste is working tirelessly with EU heads of Government with a view to assisting African heads of Government, who are closest to the situation, to resolve what could become a humanitarian and political disaster for the people of that part of Africa.

What has become a disaster.

Deputy Andrews has requested a debate on the subject and it will be considered. Perhaps the Whips could discuss the matter and arrange a debate when the relevant people are present and in a position to participate. Given that Ireland currently holds the European Presidency, people may not be available at particular times for this important debate which should take place as soon as it is feasible.

I appreciate that.

Is it intended to introduce two Finance Bills in the next financial year, 1997?

The Government will only be around for one of them.

The Taoiseach adverted last week to the need for a new independent food agency to monitor safety. When the legislation is being drawn up, will the Taoiseach take into account a reply to a parliamentary question yesterday that of 4,000 staff in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, only 14 are responsible for the food industry? There are five grades——

There are 2,000 inspectors.

The reply to the parliamentary question stated 14 people were involved. Does the Taoiseach agree they may be slightly overworked, given the incompetence currently being displayed?

There are not many working in County Cavan.

Regarding the commitment in the programme, A Government of Renewal, in relation to people with disabilities, will the Taoiseach outline his proposals to address the crisis in terms of the provision of services, particularly for people with a mental handicap?

The Deputy should pursue that matter in the usual way.

It is in the document and it is a crisis.

I would prefer the Deputy to put down a parliamentary question because the matter deserves a thoroughly researched reply. He did not give me notice of his intention to raise this matter.

We do not receive thoroughly researched answers to parliamentary questions.

It would be better if a comprehensive reply was provided.

We do not get answers.

I suggest the Deputy puts down a parliamentary question.

It is on today's Order Paper.

Top
Share