Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996

Vol. 472 No. 1

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 5, Motion re. Leave to introduce Supplementary Estimate [Vote 34], No. 1, Organisation of Working Time Bill, 1996, Order for Second Stage and Second Stage and No. 10, Universities Bill, 1996, Second Stage (Resumed).

It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 5 shall be decided without debate and any division demanded thereon shall be taken forthwith.

Private Members' Business shall be No. 35 — Motion No. 16re. heritage.

Are the proposals for dealing with Item No. 5 agreed? Agreed.

On 12 November the Taoiseach announced in the House, in the course of the Confidence in Government motion, that a courts services board would be established on a non-statutory basis. On Friday evening last, following a statement by Deputy O'Donoghue, we learned the Government would not now proceed on that basis. Since this is a matter of legislation referred to in the House under the relevant Standing Order, will the Minister for Finance inform us why the Government, in particular the Minister for Justice, did not relay that decision taken at a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday last in the course of the debate on the Inquiry into the Department of Justice on Wednesday or Thursday last, or when answering questions here on Thursday afternoon bearing in mind especially its pertinence to that debate? Will the Minister for Finance explain the reason for that omission and also inform Members of the present position with regard to that legislation since there appears to be some confusion about the timescale for the establishment of the courts services board on a statutory basis? The record of the House shows a conflict as to whether the Government examined the matter only in the course of the Confidence in Government motion or, as the Minister for Justice stated whether that decision was taken in May last. The Minister for Finance might inform us whether it was taken in May last and, if so, why no progress was made thereon up to 12 November.

Is this a matter of legislation promised?

Deputies

Yes.

The Government in general, the Taoiseach in particular, was very anxious to move as quickly as possible to establish this courts services board. Between the time the decision was taken by Cabinet and announced by the Taoiseach to proceed with its establishment on a non-statutory basis pending the introduction and implementation of legislation in a manner similar to that in which the Government moved successfully to establish the Criminal Assets Bureau — based on precisely the same formula — we received the third report from the Denham committee which, inter alia, contained the draft heads of a Bill which short-circuited the normal time lapse between a non-statutory operation and a provisional statutory operation. The Government then decided very sensibly that, since a lot of the work had been done by that committee, it was not necessary to proceed on a non-statutory basis.

On promised legislation, no doubt the Deputy will be glad to learn that work is proceeding on this Bill as a matter of priority and thanks to the work undertaken by the Denham committee, it is hoped to introduce it as soon as possible. I regret I am not in a position to state precisely when, but given the commitment of the Government to have this legislation enacted as soon as possible — which aspiration I know is shared by all Members, including the Leader of the main Opposition party — the House will be informed as soon as we have a more accurate timetable for its introduction.

Does the Minister for Finance agree that, following a meeting with Mr. Justice Hamilton and Mrs. Justice Susan Denham on Monday last, despite the Government having taken a decision to change its position at Cabinet on Tuesday last — which appears to have been the case from what the Taoiseach stated in the course of a press conference on Sunday last — followed by a two day debate in the course of which the Taoiseach had assured the House all questions would be answered the Minister for Justice did not refer to that changed position or, if she did, she was misleading? The Minister stated: "In May this year I obtained the approval of the Government to set up an independent courts service to run the courts." Further actions on the implementation of that decision were taken both this week and last week but the Minister for Justice did not state the nature of those decisions, blatantly misleading the House.

With the information available to him the Minister for Finance has now stated that, on the presentation of the third report of the Denham committee, the Government knew the establishment of such a board on an ad hoc, non-statutory basis was not sufficient. If the Government were honest it would look to what was said on page 50 of the first report of that committee.

The Deputy is entitled to ask whether legislation is forthcoming and when, but we cannot debate this matter to this extent now.

Does it not matter if Ministers mislead the House? Does it not matter if the record of the House is incorrect? Does it not matter if the Government takes decisions, engages in debates and yet does not inform the House of what occurred? If these matters mean anything then the Minister for Finance should reply. Given that the Taoiseach believed on 12 November it was necessary and possible — I questioned him on this point — to set up the courts service on a non-statutory basis within a week, will the Minister for Finance say how soon the necessary legislation to set it up on a statutory basis will be brought before the House?

These matters should be dealt with by way of substantive motion, and this has been stated by the Chair on many occasions. Does the Minister for Finance wish to respond? The relevance of this matter to the Order of Business is questionable.

The Government is anxious to deal with this critical issue as expeditiously as possible and the formula used recently proved successful. During the debate on the Second Stage of the Criminal Assets Bureau Act it was agreed by all sides of the House to establish the bureau on a non-statutory basis in early August and to put it on a statutory basis as soon as possible thereafter. Given that experience and the necessity to move quickly, the Taoiseach was of a similar mind on this matter. Deputy Ahern probably inadvertently created a different impression, but it was always our intention to set up the service on a statutory basis. The net question was how quickly it could be set up and put into operation as an interim measure. When we received the third report it was obvious that we could fast track the legislative procedure more quickly than we had anticipated. This is the reason we decided to proceed with the legislation. I do not know when the legislation will be introduced but I will find out and communicate directly with the Deputy. As evidenced by our desire to move on its establishment even on a non-statutory basis, it is our intention to set up the service on a statutory basis as quickly as possible.

It is correct to set up the courts service on a statutory basis; nobody is disputing this. Will the Minister accept that we seem to have policy making on the hoof and that in the wake of catastrophes the Government gives answers which have not been thought out? Does the Minister agree it would have been appropriate for the Taoiseach to inform the House last week that the Government had changed its mind?

That is the point.

We should be told about these changes in the House and not learn about them in the media.

This is not Question Time. The Chair allowed a passing reference to the matter but Deputies have gone beyond that.

The Minister was prepared to respond. This matter was raised by the Taoiseach two weeks ago——

I want to bring this matter to a conclusion as it is not relevant to the Order of Business. It is for the Minister to decide whether he wants to respond.

If Deputy Harney achieves her ambition and becomes Tánaiste in Deputy Ahern's Government she will realise the complexity of the way in which decisions are made. I assure her decisions were not made on the hoof and that there was a logical train of philosophy and thinking behind them.

The logic was that the Government wanted to save its neck.

If we had waited and set up the Criminal Assets Bureau on a statutory basis it would not be doing the work it is currently doing. Everybody in the House knows that. We were following the same procedure in this case.

That was not the question.

All Deputies said this was an urgent matter. The Deputies opposite should realise it was the same spirit of urgency which animated and informed the Taoiseach's comments.

It was the proposed vote of no confidence in the Government which got it moving.

When we realised after reading the third report that we could move more quickly on the statutory track than we had thought when we made the decision we decided to follow this route.

I call Deputy O'Donoghue on a matter which, presumably, is relevant to the Order of Business.

It is relevant to the promised legislation on the courts service.

The Deputy cannot debate the matter now.

Will the Minister for Finance accept that the first report from Mrs. Justice Susan Denham made it clear that the courts service could not be established on a non-statutory basis? The report was used by the Government——

This is not Question Time.

My question relates to promised legislation.

The Leaders of the Opposition parties have been given much latitude on this matter and I am not going to allow a debate on it on the Order of Business.

With respect, Sir, my question relates to legislation which will come before the House and is of fundamental importance——

The Deputy may ask when it will be brought before the House and nothing else. He can raise the matter in other ways.

I am entitled to point out that the Government used the courts service as a fire brigade to put out a fire which was engulfing it.

I will not hear any more on this matter.

The Minister for Finance gave the impression that the Government changed its mind after reading the third report of the working group. However, that is not the case.

The Deputy can raise that matter in another way.

Did the Government read this first report which contains copious references to the fact that the courts service should not be set up on a statutory basis?

The Deputy knows that such displays are out of order.

The Government used the report to save its political face and that of the Minister.

The Deputy should desist. This is not the time to raise this matter.

They abused the Judiciary in this regard and they know it.

There will be no further discussion on this matter on the Order of Business.

The Government is treating the House with disdain.

The Deputy will resume his seat.

I accept the importance of the Order of Business and both sides of the House should treat it with the respect it deserves. It is in this context that the Minister for Finance owes the House an explanation as to why Deputies were not informed on the Order of Business last week that the legislation——

The Deputy should raise the matter in another way.

The decision on the legislation was changed and the Minister for Finance should explain why the House was not informed about this. Why was the House not informed last week? We are entitled to an answer to that question.

The Deputy is not entitled to an answer at this time.

Was it the Department of Justice or the Attorney General who informed the Taoiseach on 12 November?

I am proceeding to the business ordered.

Before you do, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I wish——

If the matter is relevant the Deputy may proceed.

I hope to establish its relevance. What is at issue is whether the House was misled. I cannot think of anything more serious to raise on the Order of Business or a more appropriate forum in which to raise it.

The matter cannot be raised on the Order of Business. Deputies may raise the matter by way of substantive motion.

That may be done.

The Deputy is welcome to do so.

Is the Minister for Finance seriously asking the House to accept that the Government only changed its mind after it saw the third report? Is he seriously asking us to swallow that statement?

Will the Minister for Finance outline the current situation regarding the mental health Bill? Do the Government and the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications intend to intervene in the bus and train dispute which is pending in December?

The first matter is relevant.

The draft heads of the mental health Bill have been approved and work is proceeding.

On the question of legislation generally, is it the case that we need not expect urgent legislation to be introduced by the Government in the future unless the heads of the Bill are furnished by someone outside the House? That is a legitimate question on the Order of Business as it concerns laws to be made in the State in the future.

The Minister for Finance is keen on heads.

Is it the case that misleading statements made in the House by the Government will be allowed to remain on the record?

The Deputy may not ask that question.

Does the Minister for Finance support the position of the Taoiseach who misled the House?

(Interruptions.)

Thank you very much, Deputy Cullen. I call Deputy Burke for a final question.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

I have already accommodated the Deputy and I will not call him again.

I will not ask about the last matter because, obviously, the manner in which the Government misled the House is a source of great embarrassment to it. We are fortunate to have the Minister for Finance here today. Can he give us the present best guess date on which the long awaited credit union legislation will be introduced?

The record will show that two allegations about misleading the House were made against the Taoiseach. I refute those allegations on his behalf. When he is in a position to be here, he can deal with the matter as he sees fit, but I do not want the record to stand unchallenged on this matter. The Taoiseach did not mislead the House.

He treated it with disdain and kept information from it.

The Deputy is entitled to offer any political criticism he likes, but I refute the statement that the Taoiseach misled the House.

He did not inform the House on Wednesday or Thursday.

He will be well able to deal with the matter when he has time.

The House should have been informed.

I will not allow the record to stand unchallenged in respect of those allegations.

We demand answers to our questions.

With regard to the question that is in order, as the Taoiseach has frequently stated, we hope to have the legislation published before Christmas. We are still aspiring to that objective, but if we cannot meet it, the legislation will be published early in the New Year.

Since the Minister for Finance is not in a position to correct the record for other Ministers, would he like to correct his statement in reply to Deputy Harney, that promised legislation is well thought out, given that the Taoiseach stated at a press conference last Sunday, "We knew that time was not very long, we were facing a confidence motion on the issue in the Dáil"? Would the Minister like to correct his statement——

Thank you, Deputy, I am moving to item No. 4.

Top
Share