Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Jul 1997

Vol. 480 No. 3

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 5a — appointment of the Committee of Selection; No. 5b — appointment of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges; No. 1 — Registration of Title (Amendment) Bill, 1997, Second Stage (Resumed) and Remaining Stages; and No. 6 — statements on the Amsterdam EU Council Meeting.

It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that:

(1) Nos. 5a and 5b shall be decided without debate by one Question;

(2) Private Members' Business, which shall be No. 8 — motion re Local Government Funding (Resumed) shall be taken on the conclusion of the proceedings on No. 5b;

(3) The resumed Second Stage and Remaining Stages of No. 1 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 1.45 p.m. today by one Question which shall be put from the Chair, and which shall, in relation to amendments to the Bill, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Justice;

(4) No. 6 shall be confined to the Taoiseach, to the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs who shall be called upon in that order; and the statements shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case; and

(5) The Dáil, on its rising today, shall adjourn until Tuesday, 30 September 1997.

There are five proposals on the Order of Business to be put to the House. Are the proposals for dealing with Nos. 5a and 5b, the appointment of the Committee of Selection and the Committee on Procedures and Privileges agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 8, Private Members' Business, agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 1 agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 6, statements on the Amsterdam EU Council Meeting agreed? Agreed. Is it agreed that the Dáil, on its rising today, will adjourn until Tuesday, 30 September 1997?

I move:

To delete "Tuesday, 30th September, 1997" and substitute "within 10 days of the submission of the Report of Mr. Justice McCracken to the House".

I ask the Taoiseach to agree to this proposal. It simply seeks an agreement in principle to the establishment of a tribunal. It is not seeking detailed terms of reference and is not in that sense prejudging any detailed recommendations that have been made by the Dunnes tribunal. Furthermore, it is important to recognise that in view of collective responsibility, many members of the present Government served in office with Mr. Haughey during the period, as Taoiseach, when he received money from private donors. They are collectively responsible with him for all his actions as Taoiseach during that period. Therefore, it is not possible for members of both parties of the present Government, which supported and elected Mr. Haughey as Taoiseach, to attempt to remove their own responsibilities in this matter.

I wish to refer briefly to the same matter. The Government is suggesting we should adjourn until 30 September 1997. That is quite ludicrous, given what was brought before the tribunal yesterday. I suggest that we should meet within ten days or a fortnight of the publication of the report of the McCracken tribunal. It would be unacceptable for this House or for the public if anything else was contemplated. I ask the Taoiseach to give consideration to this and to make it clear to the House that the Dáil will be recalled within a fortnight of the publication of the tribunal report.

On the same matter, I have an amendment that is separate from and in addition to Deputy John Bruton's amendment.

I move:

That the Dáil, on its rising today, shall adjourn until Tuesday, 30 September 1997 or not later than two weeks after the publication of the report of the McCracken tribunal, which-ever is the earlier.

In response to the positions of the Opposition leaders, I would like to say a few words about this matter on which I have reflected overnight. Everybody in this House has a duty to do everything in their power to uphold the highest standards of a democracy and to keep this Republic free of any taint or suggestion of venality. We are all deeply shocked and saddened by yesterday's events when issues which were in the public domain were confirmed. There are no parallels in the annals of our democracy. By acting resolutely and without fear or favour we must restore pride and confidence in our democracy which we will do so that any damage caused by yesterday's revelation will be properly and swiftly repaired.

The McCracken tribunal set up by the House on 7 February, five months ago, will report over the summer and will complete its worked sometime before 30 September. Last week it stated publicly its view that the tribunal should continue and complete the task in accordance with the present terms of reference. When we have the report with the conclusions and recommendations, which the Government said in its programme for Government it is committed to implementing, we will see if there are matters which require a further tribunal or need to be addressed in another way, individually or in a broader context.

Two issues arise so far, including the issue of Mr. Charles J. Haughey. He has not come before the tribunal and is entitled to do so in accordance with the rights of natural justice. The comprehensiveness of his evidence to the tribunal will be important to this House.

As regards the Ansbacher issues, the tribunal stated last week that "evidence has yet to be given in relation to the operation of the Ansbacher deposits, how and why they came into existence and so forth. It does not seem to the tribunal that decisions in terms of the scope of inquiries such as this should be taken until all the evidence has been given and I have reported to the Oireachtas. At that point, the Oireachtas will be in a much better position to judge what steps it wishes to take, which steps are entirely a matter for the Oireachtas and not for the tribunal." We should await those matters until the tribunal reports. There may be other issues, including Revenue. The issue will arise as to whether Revenue is satisfied that it has the powers under its present remit to deal with all aspects and it should be consulted on whatever we do.

The tribunal will also report on another important matter. It will report on the considerations, motives and circumstances, which it was asked to do. It will have to report on whether the admitted contributions in any way influenced Government policy and if other favours were sought or given as recompense. Having said that, when we receive the report whatever matters need to be investigated will be. I give that commitment to the House. As soon as I have the report, I will consult with the party leaders because it is a matter for this House. The tribunal was set up by the House and the report will be given to the Clerk, if I recall correctly what we agreed on 6 February. I have no difficulty in agreeing to a resumption of the Dáil within a reasonable period, whether ten days or two weeks. I ask the House to accept my word on this matter and that we deal with it on that basis.

I regret to say I believe the Taoiseach is stalling on the issue of principle. The issue of principle is clear. We know the Dunnes payments tribunal can only inquire into payments made to Mr. Haughey by the Dunne family and cannot inquire into payments made to him by others. We know that, if a serving Taoiseach received £1.1 million from one donor, he was obviously open to receiving donations from others. The Taoiseach knows the Dunnes tribunal cannot inquire into donations by other individuals to Mr. Haughey and we know that must be investigated. We should not wait until the Dunnes tribunal reports to establish this separate inquiry.

I do not want nor am I interested in private consultation with the Taoiseach about this matter because it is public business. Any business to be transacted about this issue will be done on the floor of this House. I ask the Taoiseach to agree in principle that there must be a further tribunal of inquiry to investigate whether moneys were paid to Mr. Haughey by others while he was Taoiseach serving in a Government with the current Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, the then leader of the Progressive Democrats, Deputy O'Malley, and other members of the Fianna Fáil Party currently sitting on the Government benches.

All politicians.

I want to know if payments were made privately to Mr. Haughey by the beef industry. That is not covered by the Dunnes tribunal. It is plain that the beef tribunal report was highly embarrassing for Fianna Fáil because it did not allow any meaningful debate on it in this House.

We need to get to the bottom of these donations once and for all and the Taoiseach knows that. In attempting to postpone this issue over the summer, he is allowing it to fester. It would be better for him, the Government and the country if he would agree now in principle that we will need another tribunal. He can defer its establishment and the settlement of its terms of reference until the Dunnes report is to hand, but he should agree now to the principle that we will need another tribunal if he is not interested in prevarication and delay. He was plainly not able to ask Mr. Haughey the hard questions when he was leader of the party. We needed a tribunal to get the information we now have. We do not know if the Taoiseach ever asked Mr. Haughey the hard questions or if he was afraid to do so. We need to know now that this information will be obtained and the only way it can be done is by an acceptance in principle that a tribunal should be established.

Did the Deputy ask the hard questions?

Come clean.

Do I understand that the Taoiseach, irrespective of what decision the House makes on Deputy Bruton's amendment, has undertaken that this House will reconvene not more than two weeks after the publication of the McCracken report?

That is correct. To set out at this stage, in principle or otherwise, the terms of a new tribunal before the publication of the report of the current one is not advisable.

Not the terms, the principle.

I have already comprehensively answered the question of what I will do.

The Taoiseach is hedging his bets.

There is no hedging of bets. If a tribunal is to be set up, it must have a starting point and know what it must do to achieve its desired result. The words I used were that whatever requires to be investigated will be investigated. Nothing can be clearer than that.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 80; Níl, 75.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Ray.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Collins, Michael.
  • Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Fox, Mildred.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, James.
  • McGennis, Marian.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Flynn, Noel.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Malley, Desmond.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Wade, Eddie.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wright, G.V.

Níl

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Belton, Louis.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Broughan, Tommy.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Enright, Tom.
  • Farrelly, John.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gildea, Thomas.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Higgins, Michael.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reynolds, Gerry.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, William.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Callely; Níl, Deputies Higgins (Mayo) and Howlin.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

Is Deputy Rabbitte pressing his amendment?

No, I accept the word of the Taoiseach.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

I must now put the main question: "That the Dáil, at its rising today, shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 30 September 1997." Is that agreed?

If that question is passed in its present form, does that take precedence over the Taoiseach's commitment?

I understand it does not.

Who can recall the Dáil if it decides to adjourn until 30 September?

The Taoiseach can do so under Standing Orders. Is the question agreed? Agreed.

Will the Taoiseach state whether it is the intention of the Government to repeal the Electoral Act, 1997, as indicated by the incoming Minister for the Environment and demanded by the Progressive Democrats prior to the general election, or is it the intention to fully implement its provisions, as proposed by the outgoing Government? In view of its provisions for disclosure of donations to politicians and political parties and the admissions to the McCracken tribunal, it is particularly important——

Is this promised legislation?

Selective legislation.

The Minister will be bringing proposals to Government shortly. Some aspects of the disclosure provisions of this legislation have already been implemented.

Is it intended to ensure that those provisions already enacted remain in place?

They are in place and there is no intention to change them.

On the Order of Business, may I raise two matters with the Taoiseach? My understanding is that the European Commission is due to issue its opinion on the enlargement of the Community to include applicant countries. Has the Taoiseach any idea of the date when that opinion will be issued or perhaps, arising from discussions in Amsterdam, he could inform the House of his best knowledge?

Since both the Taoiseach and Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise and Employment gave commitments prior to the general election in relation to the publication of certain matters in regard to the Brigid McCole case, will the Taoiseach say whether the Government has considered those commitments and when they will be honoured?

I understand the answer to the Deputy's first question is that that opinion will be issued on 16 July. I have heard some reports but do not have any official information of what it will contain.

The Government has had considerable deliberations on the Brigid McCole case. The Minister for Health has been examining the files and several hundred documents. Hopefully he will be in a position to make some statements on that matter shortly.

In relation to the latter matter, when the Government has finished its deliberations, if it is going to publish some information, will the Taoiseach give the House a commitment that he will also publish the advice given to the Government by the new Attorney General on these matters?

As soon as the Minister for Health has concluded his examination he will report thereon. The Minister for Health will communicate with the Attorney General on the matter.

Do all the commitments given before the election by the Taoiseach's party and the Progressive Democrats still stand? Is it still the intention of the Government to publish all the material in the McCole case?

The Government is considering what is relevant and is trying to honour the commitments in light of the relevant information. There is an enormous amount of information on this matter in the Department of Health, the BTSB and the Attorney General's office, and the Government is examining that information to see what is relevant.

There was no mention before the election of "trying to" honour commitments. Unambiguous commitments were given and I am asking the Taoiseach whether those commitments will be honoured.

The statements that will be made by the Minister for Health when he has finished his deliberations will, in our view, reveal what we stated we would do.

In your view.

I take it the commitments do not still stand.

Mr. Carey

That is not good enough.

(Dublin West): When is it proposed to enact the Refugee Bill and make the necessary resources available to bring it into operation?

The Minister for Justice will bring forward proposals on this matter, on which no work has been done since the Government came to office.

Is it intended to introduce legislation on equal status and employment equality to comply with the Supreme Court decisions on that matter, and if so, when?

Both Bills are being reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court judgment. It might be necessary to undertake considerable redrafting rather than amend one or two sections, but the matter is being examined.

Will the Taoiseach confirm the matter will be dealt with exclusively by legislation without recourse to constitutional amendment, or is a constitutional amendment being considered in regard to employment equality and equal status?

It is too early to comment on that. The question of constitutionality has arisen and there will have to be some discussion on that matter.

Will legislation be brought forward to introduce mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse? Will legislation be introduced to establish a contact register for adopted persons?

There are commitments in the programme for Government on both those matters. There are about 84 Bills in the various Departments, about 30 of which are in some stage of drafting, and on the others proposals have been put forward but very little work has been done. I hope during the summer to bring forward a legislative programme, to which I referred yesterday, and to decide on the legislation to be considered between now and the new year. I will consider all the legislation promised by the Government.

In the event of the office of the President becoming vacant prior to the resumption of the Dáil, is it the Government's intention to announce the date of the presidential election before the Dáil goes into recess?

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

Given the continuing unrest and potential for conflict in Northern Ireland during next weekend, is it the Taoiseach's intention to engage in further discussions with the British Prime Minister in the coming days?

That is quite likely. We are keeping in touch with everyone concerned with this matter.

When will there be a change in the regulations for the lifting of the cap on prizes in respect of charitable lotteries? The Taoiseach and members of his party were particularly vocal on this matter when in Opposition and immediate action was promised following the election. Will this change occur during the summer?

Discussions have taken place between the Departments of Justice and Finance on that matter.

Who is winning?

Proposals made by the outgoing Government, which enjoy a considerable amount of support among a number of the agencies involved, have also been discussed. The Minister for Finance is trying to decide how best to sign off on that issue.

Will broadcasting legislation be introduced in 1997 and, if so, which Minister will be responsible?

The Minister responsible will be the Deputy's successor. However, I do not believe legislation will be introduced during the course of 1997.

Top
Share