It is proposed to take No. 10, statements on European Summit on Employment; No. 11, Irish Film Board (Amendment) Bill, 1997, Second Stage (resumed); and No. 1, Turf Development Bill, 1997, Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 10, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion after two hours and the following arrangements shall apply: (1) the opening statement of the Taoiseach and the main spokespersons for Fine Gael and the Labour Party shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; (2) the statement of each other Member called upon shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; (3) Members may share time; and (4) the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed ten minutes. Private Members' Business shall be No. 21, Motion re Crime.
Order of Business.
Are the proposals for dealing with No. 10 agreed? Agreed.
Since the Taoiseach told us on 2 October that the local government funding Bill would be before the House this month, will he say whether that promise will be honoured?
I have to admit that the timescale is becoming tight. I hope it will be concluded over the next few days and, if not introduced next week, then the following one.
In view of the recent decision of the Attorney General not to pursue Mr. Charles Haughey for additional costs in relation to the recent tribunal, will the Taoiseach say whether the Government has any intention of amending the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act with a view to ensuring that the loopholes which came to light in the process of the Attorney General's examination will be closed, thereby rendering the terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal effective?
"Yes" is the answer to that question. Since those loopholes were highlighted, we have already commenced our examination of this issue to ensure that, in this or any other instance, an individual cannot retrieve such costs. That is not to say that in this case others were not endeavouring to do so. Based on that assessment, there is a clear loophole which means the legislation will have to be amended.
If the Taoiseach wishes I can supply him with the text of the amending Bill.
Such help is always appreciated.
I have asked the Taoiseach on a number of occasions whether he can indicate which sections of the Electoral Act, 1997, the Government proposes to delete. He has always indicated he has not yet received a report on the matter from the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. Since I note from last weekend's papers that the Minister for the Environment has again indicated his intention to delete certain of its sections, can the Taoiseach inform the House which one or ones and whether he considers it appropriate to do so given that this Act deals with the funding of political parties?
The Deputy cannot go into detail on proposed legislation other than inquiring when it will be introduced.
As the Minister for the Environment never loses an opportunity, through the media, to inform the public at large of his intentions, will the Taoiseach inform the House what the Government proposes to do about funding of political parties rather than continue to tell us that he does not yet know?
It is not in order on the Order of Business for a Minister to give details of that kind.
No proposals have yet been passed by Government and, as soon as any have been, they will be made public.
Is the Taoiseach aware that he informed the House at the beginning of October he expected to have a memorandum before Government on this subject during that month? Why has there been a delay and why has the Minister for the Environment been making public comments on a matter which apparently he has not yet discussed with his Cabinet colleagues?
The Taoiseach has already informed me, on the Order of Business, that this Bill will be published before Christmas. Is that still the intention of the Government? Since the provisions of this Electoral Act relating to funding of political parties will become law in January next is he aware that, unless the new Bill is published and introduced beforehand, the Act will automatically become law? Since the Minister for the Environment is commenting publicly on sections which apparently have not even been discussed by Government surely the Taoiseach should clarify the matter for the House.
Hear, hear.
What Deputy Howlin says is correct. If this Act is not amended before January next, its provisions will come into effect then. The Minister for the Environment has stated on a number of occasions that he intends to bring proposals to Government and, as soon as they have been considered and passed, or rejected, I shall inform the House.
What is the purpose of collective responsibility when a Minister continues to comment on proposals apparently not yet discussed by his Cabinet colleagues?
Will the Taoiseach rethink his remarks to the House last week in respect of any proposals the Government might have to amend the health and safety legislation, having regard to the trenchant remarks of a High Court judge yesterday in respect of a particularly tragic accident on a major site in Dublin?
Is legislation promised?
No.
(Dublin West): Will the Government urgently bring forward legislation to amend the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989, to allow manslaughter charges to be brought against developers whose wilful negligence caused the death of a construction worker?
It is not in order to make a statement of that nature on the Order of the Business. I will allow the Taoiseach to clarify whether legislation is promised. If it is not promised, it is not in order.
It may not be promised but it is necessary.
(Dublin West): Will the Taoiseach bring forward legislation to amend the 1989 Act under which the price of a worker's life is put at £1,000 as that is the maximum fine that can be imposed on a person who is responsible for conditions which cause a death? Will the Taoiseach accept——
Does the Taoiseach wish to comment on the matter?
(Dublin West): ——that the situation on building sites is totally out of hand when a High Court judge speaks out in such terms stating that developers have blood on their hands and legislation is needed urgently?
The Deputy should seek another way to raise this matter.
In response to Deputy Rabbitte, the 1989 Act, as I understand it, and the trenchant remarks made by the judge yesterday had to do with enforcement——
And fines.
——and fines on indictment. A case could be appealed to a higher court and the fines could be far greater. It seems as though it may be more an issue of the ability of the Health and Safety Authority to enforce the law more stringently. In this case, the authority had a very detailed file on the company and the individuals concerned. I believe the matter is to be raised on the Adjournment but the Minister of State concerned has been closely monitoring this and many other cases to make sure the legislation is enforced. If the Act requires amendment,——
The fines are not a deterrent.
(Dublin West): £1,000.
The fines could be altered by regulation if that was the issue but the powers which the Health and Safety Authority can use are far more effective. It can close a site until it is satisfied that the various regulations are followed and——
Does the Taoiseach agree that the authority is significantly underfunded?
——it does so regularly. That is what it should be encouraged to do.
Will the Taoiseach agree it is likely that fines can only be raised by way of legislation and not by regulation? Will he consider the implications for judicial policy of judges asking people to make donations to charities as an alternative to imprisonment, which means people who have money can avoid imprisonment and those who do not have money cannot do so? Does he consider that this judicial practice may run counter to the concept of equality before the law?
It is not in order to discuss court practice or court decisions in this House, particularly on the Order of Business.
Maybe not, but this is affecting the equality of rich and poor before the law. Judges should bear in mind that everybody is equal before the law and there should be no special treatment under the law for people who happen to have money to donate to somebody's favourite charity.
As regards the terms of reference passed by this House, the disquieting revelation about the illegal maintenance of Ansbacher accounts at Guinness & Mahon and the public concern about the role of the Central Bank in monitoring banks and financial institutions, will the Taoiseach indicate whether specific instructions have been given to counsel for the public interest at the Moriarty Tribunal to ensure these matters are fully ventilated?
The Deputy should table a question on that matter. It cannot be raised on the Order of Business.
It is a matter of concern that needs to be addressed immediately.
It is not a matter for the Order of Business.
On promised legislation, because of the recent tragic reminder about the living conditions of many traveller families, will the Taoiseach indicate if the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Bill will be enacted before Christmas, as promised, to alleviate such hardship? Will action be taken before Christmas?
It is hoped to have that legislation before Christmas but I am not sure whether it can be enacted fully by then.
On a separate matter, is the Taoiseach aware that in a Sunday newspaper sources in Iarnród Éireann are quoted as stating that further serious accidents are inevitable——
That matter does not arise on the Order of Business.
I tabled a Special Notice Question on this matter. As there has been a second serious derailment in the space of a week, will the Taoiseach order an immediate safety review of Irish Rail——
This matter will be raised on the Adjournment this evening. It would be improper to anticipate that debate.
Deputy Spring will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
——in view of the number of accidents and the serious disquiet in Iarnród Éireann which has responsibility in this matter?
The Deputy should resume his seat. This matter is not in order on the Order of Business. It will be dealt with on the Adjournment this evening.
Sources in Iarnród Éireann have said there will be further serious accidents. Will the Government grasp this issue and order an immediate safety review?
The matter is not in order on the Order of Business.
To return briefly to the point raised by my colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, on the Health and Safety at Work Act, does the Taoiseach not accept there is an urgent need to review the fines applicable, in particular to the building industry where there have been dozens of deaths as a result of the failures of companies to properly apply that Act? Will the Taoiseach tell the House that he will undertake that review as a matter of urgency?
We cannot debate this matter on the Order of Business.
I am not asking for a debate. I am looking for a commitment from the Taoiseach.
The Deputy has made his point.
I know the Taoiseach has a genuine concern as he has a history of being involved in this area.
I call Deputy Finucane.
I ask the Chair to give the Taoiseach an opportunity to speak to the House.
If the Taoiseach wishes to respond——
As I understand it, the HSA has the power to go to a higher court and seek a jury trial if it so wishes. I introduced the 1989 legislation in the House. If there is a deficiency, it will be examined but that is my understanding of the position.
The House is asking the Taoiseach to give a commitment to introduce legislation to make effective the level of fines so that the Health and Safety Authority will not be obliged to go to court in the manner he has just described. The level set in 1989 when he introduced the legislation has been adjudicated by the authority and by the courts to be too low. Will the Taoiseach give a commitment now that he will introduce the legislation?
I call Deputy Higgins to ask a final question on this subject.
(Dublin West): I put it to the Taoiseach that the power of closure is a correct power to enforce but it has come too late for many workers including those in Zoe Developments. Will the Taoiseach agree that the deterrent of, say, manslaughter charges is needed to bring these developers who seek profit at the cost of workers' lives, to heel?
A Cheann Comhairle, is there any possibility somebody else can have an opportunity to speak?
Does the Taoiseach wish to reply?
I answered this question last week and this week. The Minister of State has already discussed this matter with the Health and Safety Authority. If it believes its powers need to be amended there will not be any difficulty, but that is not what it has been stating for some time. I have no difficulty in providing for larger fines. However, if the fine in some of these instances was as large as one could make it, and there are difficulties in that regard, it would not make much difference. That would bring us back to a position on these issues outlined correctly by Deputy Bruton earlier.
(Dublin West): What about manslaughter charges?
That is another matter.
In view of the value for money audit carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the management of inland fisheries and his critical analysis of that operation, will the Taoiseach allow a discussion of that report in the House?
That is a matter for the Whips.
I wish to raise two matters about forthcoming legislation. When will the education Bill be published? Will it be published in time for a discussion to take place on it before Christmas? Can I take it from the Taoiseach's letter to me concerning digitalisation, an issue I raised last week, that the legislation required for its introduction will be encompassed in the broadcasting Bill to be introduced in the spring?
The education Bill will be published before Christmas. I stated in my letter to the Deputy on the other matter that it would be within the ambit of the legislation.
I thank the Taoiseach for his helpful reply and letter, but I want to establish if we are being told that the proposals for digitalisation will be primarily set out in the broadcasting legislation? I take it that is what the Taoiseach has confirmed.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the unusually large number of bombscares in Dundalk last night? Does he appreciate the level of concern they engendered in the town? Will he assure the people of Dundalk and the Border region that there will be an increase in surveillance in the run-up to Christmas?
The Deputy should table a parliamentary question on that matter.
This is fairly urgent. The incidents involving bombs last night were serious.
The Deputy has made his point and he can table a parliamentary question on it.
I would like an answer; surely the Taoiseach can give one.
I note what the Deputy said.
In view of the crisis in the courts resulting from the invalid appointment of court clerks and the fact that a large number of cases have been thrown out, does the Taoiseach accept this matter is urgent? Does he also accept that the Bill published in my name to deal with this matter is capable of doing so and avoiding further cases being thrown out of court? Will he consider allowing Government time to discuss and hopefully pass that Bill?
The Bill is tabled for Private Members' time.
Is the Bill opposed?
Has it been moved?
Yes.
I understand that the Bill was not opposed when it was moved in the House.
It is a Private Members' Bill and can be taken in Private Members' time.
The Bill was moved last week. In view of the urgency associated with this matter, will the Taoiseach agree to take the Bill in Government time to ensure the loophole that exists can be closed?
There is a precedent for this.
Will the Minister for Justice agree to take it?
This matter can be raised with the Whips.
It is a matter for the Whips.
The Minister for Justice, when in Opposition, always wanted me to accept his Bills.
This is a most urgent matter. I request the Government to allow time to take this Bill to close the existing loophole as quickly as possible, otherwise it would seem to be happy with a position where a large number of cases are being thrown out of court on a daily basis.
Will the Government accept the Bill?
Will the Government accept the Bill or allow time to debate and accept it?
The Taoiseach has no proposals on this.
It is a matter for the Whips.
I am waiting for the Taoiseach to reply. Is he happy with the present situation?
Some weeks ago there were many comments made in the House about the number of road deaths and accidents. Following a near major accident involving a bus on the Chapelizod bypass, has the Taoiseach asked the Minister for Education to instigate an up to date report on the present State transport system which is carrying large numbers of children to school?
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
It is a matter of safety and we should ask——
It is not a matter for the Order of Business. The Deputy can table a question on the matter.
When will the Government publish the report on school transport in view of the substandard buses being used and the level of overcrowding on second level school buses?
This is not a matter for the Order of Business.
The bus involved in the accident was not overcrowded.