It is proposed to take No. 17, financial motions by the Minister for Finance.
Order of Business.
On the 25th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, will the Taoiseach call in the British Ambassador and tell her that, in view of the new evidence that has come to light, it is the wish of Dáil Éireann that a new inquiry is held into the events of this day 25 years ago in Derry when 13 innocent men died at the hands of the British forces? It would be reasonable for the Taoiseach to tell the British authorities that justice must be seen to be done, as in the case of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four.
As the Deputy will recall, Deputy David Andrews raised this matter with me earlier this week and in response I said that the Government would take up this matter with the British authorities. Since then we have done so and furthermore we intend to raise it at the Anglo-Irish Conference where the Tánaiste will meet the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland within the next seven days. Taking up the matter at the highest political level is the most effective way forward and that is the course we intend to follow.
Will the Taoiseach say at what level contact was made by the Government and to whom in the British Government?
The matter will be pursued at the level of the Tánaiste with the Secretary of State within the context of the Anglo-Irish Conference. That is the most effective way forward in this matter. Since 1985 a structure has been in place under the Anglo-Irish Agreement to deal with issues of this nature which affect the views of sections of the community in Northern Ireland, as this issue does most certainly. That is the appropriate way forward. The Tánaiste has this matter very much in hand and, in the past 24 hours, stated the Government's position pursuant to my response to the question in the House by Deputy Andrews.
Will the Taoiseach say if contact has been made based on the new evidence? I listened carefully to what the Tánaiste said last night. Has there been an initial reaction from the British Government? This is a matter on which we should not wait for Anglo-Irish meetings. In the previous cases I mentioned the British Government had to be dragged from such meetings in order to eventually get justice. Will the Tánaiste indicate what was stated by the British authorities?
I assure the House we will not rely on initial reactions in this matter but will pursue it with vigour and consistency until a satisfactory outcome is reached. The appropriate level at this point for the matter to be taken up is that of the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs with the Secretary of State within the context of the Anglo-Irish Conference. We will not be placed in a position of not pursuing the matter by initial reactions of any kind.
I appreciate what the Taoiseach has said, but in view of the fact that substantial new evidence has arisen and the findings of the Widgery inquiry are totally discredited, and particularly as today is the anniversary of Bloody Sunday, will the Taoiseach consider taking up the matter at prime ministerial level? Is the Government prepared to make available to any new inquiry that hopefully will be established, material from its archives on that episode in our history?
I must dissuade Members from debating this matter now.
The Deputy will recollect I was not in Government at the time. I was in Opposition and I would have to take into account the views of the Government of the time in regard to the matter. If information of substance is available on the files of the Irish Administration, I can discern no reason it should not be made available to any subsequent inquiry. I am not aware of the content of any such information, but I will make inquiries to discern what information is available and, if it is of a kind that could be made available and would be useful to a tribunal of inquiry, it will be made available.
I am very conscious of this issue. I was in public life at the time of the Bloody Sunday events and I am very conscious of the appalling effect it had on public opinion at the time. I am also very conscious of the scars that remain in the minds and hearts of many of the families affected to this day and the sense of incompleteness they feel in regard to the matter, the sense that issues affecting them and the integrity of their loved ones remain unresolved. This is a human issue that needs to be resolved regardless of the political views of the community affected. This is a human rights issue, not one to be pursued in the context of one community seeking vindication at the expense of another. If the events had occurred in a different community in Northern Ireland, the same considerations would apply. In any comment we make on the matter in this House, it is important to approach it in that way, to see it as an issue of the rights of human beings to vindication, regardless of their political tradition, rather than to look at it in the context of seeking to pursue any other approach of a broader political kind. This is a human rights rather than a political question.
I agree with what the Taoiseach said. I hope the Tánaiste will be successful in the role outlined by the Taoiseach, but if he is not, will the Taoiseach give a commitment to the House that the Government will proceed on this matter, with the support of Dáil Éireann, to the European Court of Human Rights?
I would not make a decision of that nature in the context of a hypothetical question of the kind posed by the Deputy. This is a serious matter we need to pursue in a very deliberate way. I am not raising any extensive expectations of what may occur at the Anglo-Irish Conference when the matter is raised by the Tánaiste beyond saying, as we all know, that he will raise the matter with the utmost vigour and effectiveness but, as I said in response to earlier questions from the Deputy, we intend not to be put off by any initial response and to pursue this matter in a deliberate, careful and effective way until we receive a satisfactory outcome to what is a human rights issue of considerable importance.
Now that the votes on Programme 2000 are in the bag, will the Taoiseach take any new initiative to resolve the nurses' dispute?
This is not a matter proper to the Order of Business. There are many other ways of raising this issue.
As we are entering a dangerous stage, I urge the Taoiseach to do so.
I am trespassing on the Order of Business by responding to this question. It would not be particularly helpful for me to be drawn into an extensive question and answer session on this subject. As the House is aware, the Minister for Health, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and others are seeking a resolution of this matter on an ongoing basis. Meetings are taking place over present days on the matter with a view to seeing if a solution can be found. As far as the Government is concerned, I set out the parameters within which a solution must be found in the statement I made on the occasion of the launch of Programme 2000. I will furnish the Deputy with a copy of my remarks on that occasion in case he has not already received them.
On promised reform of the Vocational Education Act, 1930 given that the Taoiseach indicated to me earlier in the week that Bill will be introduced after the passage of the education Bill which will be introduced nearer to the summer, if not before an election, will the Government consider not implementing the ministerial order which would dissolve the five town vocational education committees pending the reform of the Vocational Education Act? As I understand the dissolution of the town vocational education committees is imminent, I ask the Government to defer this until the overall package is put in place and to ensure the matter is dealt with in tandem.
What is the position about the legislation referred to?
As the Deputy acknowledged, I gave him information on the timing of the legislation last week. It is not appropriate for me to become involved in making statements about matters——
Like Waterford.
——that are contingent on or antecedent to legislation that is properly the responsibility of the Minister for Education.
What is in the pipeline?
I suggest the most appropriate course for Deputy Martin to follow would be to table a parliamentary question to the Minister for Education.
That is another problem.
(Interruptions.)
On the day it is hoped Programme 2000 will be concluded satisfactorily, does the Taoiseach or his Ministers intend to make any positive intervention or to take an initiative in regard to Irish Life where a considerable number of people are due to be laid off next Monday?
That matter is the subject of discussion between the management and the unions of the company in question. The various agencies of the State that assist in the resolution of industrial disputes are available to the parties in respect of any intervention that might be appropriate, but it would be best to allow this matter to be pursued by the parties concerned in the appropriate way.
On the Employment Equality Bill in regard to which the Government circulated an amendment for Report Stage, as the last amendment had to be withdrawn when Democratic Left objected to it and the Bill was left in suspended animation, will the Taoiseach confirm that the amendment to section 37 has the support of the three parties in Government?
Yes, I can put the Deputy's mind at rest on that topic.
On that legislation, at the Whips' meeting last night it was proposed that the Bill be guillotined in an hour and three-quarters. I and the Progressive Democrat Whip objected to that. Will the Taoiseach give a guarantee that the legislation will not be guillotined and that the pressure groups involved in that Bill will have an opportunity to see exactly what the Government is proposing?
The Deputy is under a misapprehension. The Government Whip has informed me that there is no question of an artificial time limit being placed on this Bill. It is scheduled for next week and, hopefully, it can be concluded then but, if it is not, it can be taken on another day.
The Taoiseach made a statement that is totally incorrect.
This matter can be developed further when the measure comes before the House.
I have a copy of the proposed schedule outlining that an hour and three-quarters is given to that Bill. Is that correct?
Yes, as far as next week is concerned. That is the amount of time available for it——
We objected to that.
——but if further time is necessary it will be provided. There is no question of that being the total time limit.
That is only as a result of our objection. The Government tried to guillotine the Bill. It tried to muzzle the debate.
I would have thought the Deputy would understand that the schedule for next week will only include the amount of time to be taken on a given subject next week and does not contain any reference to subsequent weeks.
This matter can be resolved by the Whips.
I thank the Taoiseach for acceding to our request. He is trying to muzzle us on the compellability of witnesses Bill. This is the Government of openness, transparency and accountability. Did the Government schedule that Bill?
(Interruptions.)
On the nurses dispute, will the Taoiseach take into account the legitimate interests and rights of retired nurses? The major question of relativity and indexation has not yet been addressed in the talks. It is of deep concern to the pensioners concerned and should be covered in any overall settlement. I ask the Taoiseach to take a personal interest in the matter.
I also urge the Government to seek a new inquiry into the Bloody Sunday killings. Does the Taoiseach have a publication date for the Bretton Woods Agreement (Amendment) Bill and propose to consult the various interest groups on the matter which is of immense concern to the Debt and Development Coalition and overseas aid agencies?
The relevant legislation is at an early stage of preparation. We do not expect it to be introduced in the first half of the year, perhaps in the second.
Is that the reason we will be sitting late?
Is the Taoiseach aware that we face a complete shut down at Aer Lingus next Wednesday because of a dispute over the princely sum of £27,000?
Is the Deputy free?
Yesterday, the Taoiseach informed me that the legislative programme for the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications for this session was virtually nil.
I did not.
That is a gross distortion of the facts.
This is a serious attack, I am boiling with rage.
I find the Taoiseach very amusing this morning.
(Interruptions.)
Does the Taoiseach know anything about the dispute at Aer Lingus and is he planning to help? Will the new Minister take an interest in the matter?
I am sorry but this is not strictly relevant to the Order of Business.
The Taoiseach answered Deputy Kitt's question about the nurses dispute.
That may be so but it was not done with the condonance of the Chair.
Why will the Taoiseach not answer a question about the dispute at Aer Lingus?
The Deputy should pursue that matter in another way.
I indicated to the Deputy yesterday that the legislation to which he referred will be introduced in the second half of this year.
The Government Chief Whip informed us last night that for the next few weeks the House will sit until 10.30 p.m. to clear the backlog of legislation before the election. Does this mean that the newspaper industry Bill, which is included in schedule C, will not be dealt with during the lifetime of this Dáil?
We will do everything possible to facilitate the Deputies opposite for the rest of 1997 to ensure they have adequate time in the evenings with their families and for other interests.
The Taoiseach is starting early.
We have a very large legislative programme which we will pursue with vigour throughout 1997, 1998, 1999 and subsequent years.
From this side of the House.
I hope the Deputies on the Opposition benches will still be able to get their beauty sleep.
(Interruptions.)
I asked the Taoiseach what is the status of the newspaper industry Bill. Unfortunately he will not answer the question as he has no intention of bringing it forward before the election. He is trying to mislead the House.
I will be delighted to answer the question for the Deputy.
It is under the heading "miscellaneous".
The Deputy is missing the point.
It is under the heading "long finger".
The newspaper industry Bill to implement the report of the Commission on the Newspaper Industry will be introduced in the first half of the year but, if not, early in the second.
Will legislation be introduced this session to enable formal designation of a new institute or institutes of technology?
As the Deputy is aware, the Minister for Education has indicated that she is undertaking an objective study of the claims which have been made for changes in status by a variety of institutions.
(Interruptions.)
Any legislation necessary to give effect to recommendations made will be brought forward as a matter of priority.
On a point of information, there is a community which is concerned to know if it was the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, or the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Bruton, who oversaw the rise in the price of the pint.
(Limerick East): There is not a man left in Fianna Fáil.
I did not know that the Deputy prefers a pint.
I do. Will the Taoiseach tell us who is in charge?
Is it Pat the Baker or Pat the Publican?
I regard this as a serious matter.
So do I but half of the Taoiseach's staff are laughing.
We are not staff.
The Taoiseach's colleagues.
This increase is not justified.
We will drink to that.
The Minister for Enterprise and Employment and the Minister of State at his Department are pursuing a vigorous course of action. Last night the Minister met the Competition Authority to decide what action can be taken under the relevant legislation. The Minister of State is to meet the vintners organisation today. I am aware that the possibility of concerted price increases is facilitated by the licensing laws administered by the State which limit the number of suppliers of this product, particularly in Dublin, because they preclude the transfer of licences from rural Ireland to Dublin. This creates an artificial market in which concerted price increases are possible. Concerted price increases in the licensed trade have been illegal since 1965. Under the restrictive prices order of that year they were rendered illegal. Any concerted increases in drink prices would constitute a serious breach of the law.
Is the Taoiseach talking about a cartel?
Yes. The 1965 legislation has been reinforced by the competition legislation introduced more recently. The Government takes a serious view of the matter which has been a source of difficulty for successive Governments dating back to 1965 and probably previously. No perfect solution has yet been found. It is the Government's intention to pursue the matter with vigour. The Minister for Justice will also be involved.
What is happening with regard to the proposed broadcasting legislation? We have been promised the Broadcasting Bill in this House by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, yet under the Government's legislative programme it now seems to have been dropped to appendix C and does not even come under what is now proposed as legislation to be published prior to Easter. Is the Broadcasting Bill for publication prior to Easter?
As the House is aware, procedure now exists for the publication of proposals for legislation in the form of heads. It is intended the Minister's proposals in this matter will be made available for discussion in the House or in the appropriate committee before Easter.
Why was that not done in the Government's proposed legislation programme prior to Easter?
Because the legislation programme refers to legislation. I am referring to the publication of heads of a Bill, which is not legislation in the normal sense. It represents proposals for legislation.
It is flirtation.
I have just informed the Deputy that it is the intention of the Government that the proposals for legislation as regards broadcasting will be published and made available for discussion in the House or in the appropriate committee of the House before Easter.
We are being fobbed off as regards broadcasting legislation.
The Deputy should appreciate that the publication of the Government's proposals will allow for a more informed and earlier debate on the subject, a matter of wide-ranging importance and great public interest, than would have been the case if we had waited until legislation was ready before initiating any discussion.
It is wasting time.
We should have had a White Paper to discuss the question of broadcasting. It was not forthcoming at the proper time.
What is the likely time schedule for implementation of the Prompt Payment Bill?
We expect the legislation on that matter to be published before Easter.
What is the likely time schedule for its implementation?
That depends on the House.
When is the Electricity Bill, which has been promised for more than 12 months, likely to be produced?
That legislation will be available in 1998.