It is proposed to take No. 13 — Financial Motions by the Minister for Finance (resumed). Statements on the closure of Seagate Technology Plant shall be taken today, following the announcement of matters on the Adjournment under Standing Order 21. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the following arrangements shall apply in relation to the statements: (1) that the statements of the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party and of each other Member to be called upon shall not exceed ten minutes in each case. Members may share time and the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment shall be called upon not later than 4.40 p.m. to make a statement in reply.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal for taking statements agreed to?
The problem that led to the unfortunate suspension of Deputy Ferris from the House is related to the timing of this debate. Given the urgency of this and its enormous impact in Clonmel, which depends on this one plant for a large proportion of its employment, the feeling on this side of the House, as expressed strongly by Deputy Ferris, is that this debate should take place this morning. I appreciate that the Tánaiste would wish to participate in the debate and that she is currently in Clonmel. Obviously we would want her to take part in the debate. Would it be possible bring this debate forward with a view to ensuring that the House expresses its views on this issue at the earliest possible moment?
I support Deputy Bruton. However, irrespective of the timing, the format here is inadequate to ventilate a crisis of this scale. The usual procedure whereby the Minister responsible submits to questioning in the House is necessary. We need, therefore, to extend the time and to provide for the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to take questions at the end of the formal contributions.
I want to express the strongest sentiments of the Labour Party in relation to this matter, for two reasons. First and foremost, the Order of Business as proposed until 10 o'clock this morning was for the continuation of a rambling debate on a budget that is deemed by a majority of people to be a budget in favour of the rich.
That is the opinion poll. Deputies on all sides of the House know what the mood on a Thursday is. To suggest that we would have this order at this time in face of a crisis of such an urgent nature is an insult to all involved. There is no reason we cannot have this debate as the first item of business. I accept that the Tánaiste is somewhere else. She is in Clonmel telling lies about my colleague.
The Deputy should withdraw that term.
Deputy Ferris was phoned by his son's sister-in-law who told him that the Tánaiste said: "Ferris is responsible for the closure of Seagate". That is outrageous.
It is not in order and it is unparliamentary to accuse a Member of telling lies.
Even when they have done so?
Since Deputy Ferris is not here, let me clarify the matter.
The Deputy should withdraw his accusation.
I withdraw the statement that Deputy Harney is telling lies. In her panic she accused Deputy Ferris, on the record in front of workers, including the sister of Deputy Ferris's daughter-in-law, of being responsible for releasing this news. The Tánaiste knew three months ago that there was a problem in this factory but did nothing about it. What we are looking for is a debate now with questions and answers from a member of the Government.
Will the Taoiseach reply to the points made?
In support of what has been said before, I ask the Taoiseach to give the Seagate matter priority over the budget debate. It is worthy of a much fuller statement than can be made in the time allocated, and it needs to be made because it goes to the heart of a policy on which we have depended, namely, the good will of transnational corporations which is not guaranteed. We have to recognise that and make provision for it.
It is clear that the will on this side of the House is that there should be a more adequate debate, that there should be greater time allowed and provision for questions and answers. I propose either that the Taoiseach extend the debate to 6 p.m. this evening or bring it forward to 12 noon. There is no good reason, as has already been said, we should continue with a budget debate when there is a crisis in Tipperary. It is essential that, in any change to the order, we provide for questions and answers by the Ministers concerned.
Like everybody else I was shocked and saddened for the people in Clonmel and their families who, two weeks before Christmas, have received this devastating news.
Did the Taoiseach know three months ago?
As soon as she could the Tánaiste left to meet community leaders, politicians and others in Clonmel.
What did she do last October? It is too late now.
She made arrangements today to meet staff and management of Seagate and leaders of the local community in Clonmel. Naturally she wants to be here for the debate. Unfortunately, nothing will change in the course of this day that will make any difference. The Tánaiste has been involved in this and, on three occasions in recent months, has spoken to the company, in contrast to what happened in previous crises of this nature over the years, and she would like to be able to inform the House of those meetings.
She talked to Premier Dairies as well, but that did not make a big difference.
I am open to the Whips discussing the extension and format of the debate. I just would not like to agree to it without talking to the Tánaiste. It is important, before the Dáil rises today that we have as full a debate as possible. It was mainly the workers who have tried so hard to make this plant a success, notwithstanding horrendous losses of $27 million last year and rising losses this year to the extent of $60 million. I reiterate what the Tánaiste and I said last night, that not only should we have a debate, we must, with community and business leaders take constructive action to assist the workers by setting up the task force and getting a new operator into the plant.
Does the Taoiseach realise that speculation and rumour are rife and that the people who will lose their jobs want to know the precise position? The sooner statements are made in the House the sooner the full facts will be known about the closure and the Tánaiste's plans to replace these jobs. I urge the Taoiseach not to delay the statements. The Tánaiste is talking to the workers as we speak but if she uses a helicopter she can be present in the House at 12 o'clock or 12.30 p.m. I stress the necessity of having an open debate and giving Members an opportunity to question the Tánaiste following statements.
I am concerned that the Tánaiste misled the House of 6 November. It is clear she knew about the problems at this plant three months ago, yet on 6 November she told the House——
These matters can be raised during the debate.
I seek your guidance, a Cheann Comhairle.
My guidance is that the House has to agree the arrangements for the debate. Deputies cannot discuss the content of the debate now.
This is a very important point.
You, Sir, are in charge of the House. On 6 November the Tánaiste told us that the Cork project was very much part of the company's plans for the future. If she knew then that the Clonmel plant was in trouble she must also have known that the Cork plant was in trouble.
The Deputy cannot make charges across the floor of the House. If she wishes to make a charge against the Tánaiste she should table a motion. It is not appropriate to raise the matter this way.
She misled the House by giving it incomplete information on 6 November.
If the Deputy wishes to pursue that matter she must do so in the correct way. She is completely out of order.
I will certainly pursue it. However, you, Sir, are in charge of the House and you must ensure that Ministers give full information.
It is also my duty to apply the rules of the House, which I am trying to do.
I hope the Tánaiste recognises that she gave wrong information to the House.
I wish to clarify——
The Taoiseach is offering. I will call the Deputy after him.
The last time the Taoiseach spoke he made a speech.
I wish to clarify what the Taoiseach is offering and what we are prepared to accept. The Government has collective responsibility for this issue and the information is either in Kildare Street or with the IDA in Wilton Place; it is not necessarily in Clonmel. We can have all the necessary information for a debate at 12 o'clock or 12.30 p.m. This would emphasise the urgency of the matter. If the Taoiseach is offering, without reference to the Whips, a debate with a question and answer session at this time we will accept it. However, if he is not offering this we cannot accept the Order of Business.
How can the Taoiseach offer to have the debate at that time given that the Tánaiste will not be present? The Deputies cannot have it both ways.
I do not want to keep making the same point. I am not offering what the Deputy outlined. My information is that during the debate on Seagate some months ago the view of the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, was that the risk level was relatively low. We thought there were no problems.
When was the Tánaiste told differently?
I could take the debate but the Tánaiste has been dealing with the matter——
Since October.
——and I am anxious that she should be present. I will not allow a debate where Deputies can say the Tánaiste said this, that and the other.
That is what she has done.
I am offering to have a debate when the Tánaiste is present. Nothing will happen during the day which will change the position.
When will she be back to answer to the House?
She is busy.
We will have the debate this afternoon when the Tánaiste is present.
A Deputy
The Government should send a helicopter to collect her.
If Deputies wish to have a question and answer session we can discuss that.
If the Tánaiste was here the Opposition would be saying something different.
She should have been in Clonmel three months ago.
If the Tánaiste was present the Opposition would say she should be in Clonmel.
Why did she not tell the workers?
The Government should ring Charlie and ask him to send a helicopter to collect her.
Order, please. The Taoiseach is in possession.
It seems the Deputies prefer to shout rather than to listen.
The Taoiseach has the floor and Deputies should desist.
It is obvious we cannot have a debate this morning as the Tánaiste will not be present. It is only fair that she should be present. It is proposed to have statements this afternoon but if Deputies want an opportunity to ask questions we can discuss that. Unlike others on previous occasions, the Tánaiste did not fly to the venue the morning after. She is at the plant trying to resolve the problem for which she should be congratulated.
She is giving out about Deputy Ferris in front of his relatives.
On the points made by Deputy Owen, naturally the workers are concerned about their jobs and worried about the rumours. This is precisely the reason the Tánaiste is talking directly to them.
She should have done this three months ago.
She is taking the correct action.
She should have taken action three months ago.
I wish to——
I am putting the question.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Michael.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Daly, Brendan.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dennehy, John.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Blaney, Harry.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moffatt, Thomas.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Flynn, Noel.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wade, Eddie.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Broughan, Thomas.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cosgrave, Michael.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gormley, John.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Owen, Nora.
- Penrose, William.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerard.
- Ring, Michael.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wall, Jack.
- Yates, Ivan.
I protest in the strongest possible way at the manner in which this motion has been railroaded through the House. It was put down——
The motion has been decided and we cannot rehash the matter. I am proceeding to the next business, item No. 13.
On a point of order——
I want to raise a matter.
Does it relate to the Order of Business?
This is a different matter from that which has just been raised. Does the Taoiseach intend to make time available for the Minister for obfuscation and confusion, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform——
Arrogance.
——to lay before the House the statement issued in the dead of night last night from his Department prescribing new procedures to deal with refugee applications? As this procedure will effectively replace an Act passed by the Dáil, will the Taoiseach explain why it is not on today's Order Paper as a document laid before the Dáil?
I remind the Deputy this is not Question Time, it is the Order of Business. Perhaps the Deputy would put down a question on the matter.
This is an extraordinarily serious matter.
I have ruled it is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
A diktat has been issued from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The statement has not been made available to Members, it has not been laid before the House.
I have to proceed with the business of the House, I call Deputy Bruton on the Order of Business.
It supplants an Act passed by the House and is a violation of the right and function of the House to legislate. Will we have legislation by diktat from the Department?
It appears there is no point in me giving information to the House in the morning. Yesterday morning, and every morning for the past two weeks, I was asked about the difficulties regarding the legislation on refugees. Members asked if I could do something to move the issue forward. On two occasions yesterday morning — the second Member who raised the matter came into the Chamber late — I explained the difficulty regarding the High Court and what the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would do. He did that, but Deputy Shatter is still complaining about it.
With respect, the Minister has prescribed an entirely new procedure. I was in the House yesterday when this matter was raised and heard exactly what was said. The procedure he is prescribing should be formally laid before the House and we should have a debate on it at the first available opportunity next week. We cannot legislate in this way, particularly as the House devoted 18 months to the enactment of the Refugee Bill.
I suggest the Deputy put down a Private Members' motion on the subject.
The Deputy should ask his colleague to withdraw the court case.
We have nothing to do with a court case, what is that about?
When will the Central Bank Bill, which will integrate the Central Bank into the European system of Central Banks, come before the House? Will the Taoiseach ensure it is introduced quickly because, in the light of the Seagate closure, we must examine the effect on employment here of the fall in currency values in East Asia? We must ensure the euro is managed in such a way that such a sudden impact on jobs does not recur.
This is important legislation which deals with the integration of the Central Bank into the European system of Central Banks. The Bill is almost complete and I hope it will be published very shortly. I think it has to be passed by the end of February.
Will the Taoiseach ensure the Minister for Finance deals with the effect here of developments on currency markets in East Asia? We have witnessed an appalling and graphic example of this today, with the loss of 1,400 jobs in Clonmel.
I will raise the matter with the Minister for Finance. What the Deputy has said is obviously a factor in what happened. Overnight I read the memorandums, which I am not saying were meticulously prepared in the past six months, on the assessment of the matter to which the Deputy referred. People thought there was an under supply in the market and that it would be difficult to meet demand, but that was turned on its head in a matter of six months.
In view of the flagrant breach of the principles of Partnership 2000, specifically paragraphs 9.6 and 9.7 which refer to the right of workers to be consulted and informed about the future of their enterprise, does the Government propose to hold a debate next week on the state of health of Partnership 2000?
There will not be a discussion on that matter next week, but the budget debate allows a general discussion on any issue.
A budget debate consisting of a sequence of statements which do not relate to each other is hardly the type of dialogue the House needs to deal with this matter. On the one hand, the trade union movement claims Partnership 2000 is at risk and, on the other, we have a clear breach of its principles with respect to workers' rights as stakeholders in an enterprise.
We cannot discuss the matter now. The Deputy must ask a brief question.
I appreciate that. I am simply saying it is not sufficient for the Taoiseach to say the matter can be dealt with in the context of an ongoing debate on the budget. Will he review the commitment to the budget debate and substitute a debate on this issue, which would include an exchange of views, including questions, before the House rises for the Christmas recess?
That will not be possible next week. As the Deputy knows, there is a mechanism to resolve issues of grievance between the Government and the social partners and that will be used if there are such difficulties.
That is all very well, but the House has voted on the matter and has a right to be involved in it.
Will the offer he made regarding statements today include provision for questions to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment or will it be confined to statements from Members consisting of no more than ten minutes each? When Deputy Rabbitte was in Government he took questions for an hour on the problems associated with Packard and the charge was led by the current Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
I tried to avoid a vote on the issue. When I was asked by Deputies Rabbitte, De Rossa and Owen to extend the time, I said I would discuss the matter with the Tánaiste, but the House has divided on the matter. However, I will convey the views of the House to the Tánaiste.
I want to raise two matters, one of which relates to a point of order and the other to legislation. I want your guidance, Sir, on this matter. A number of questions were raised under Standing Order 31 this morning and refused on the basis that there would be a debate on the Seagate closure in the House today. It is clear that such a Standing Order would apply to that issue which arose suddenly. It is a matter of national interest which cannot be dealt with in any other way in the House. A full debate on this issue has been denied on the basis that the Government would bring forward a motion to be debated in the House. A proposal has been carried which restricts the rights of Members of this House to debate this issue and which sets aside Standing Orders which give every Deputy the right to comment by way of statements on this issue. The Ceann Comhairle should look seriously at the actions he has taken today which have denied the Members of the House an opportunity to participate fully in a debate on this serious national issue.
My second point concerns abortion legislation. Today's issue of The Irish Times has published an opinion poll which shows that 75 per cent of the people believe that abortion should be legislated for in this State in certain circumstances. In view of that, and of the appalling circumstances in which a 13 year old girl found herself in recent months, will the Taoiseach agree to bring forward urgently legislation which would implement the effects of the Supreme Court decision in the X case? It is clear there is a public demand for such legislation and this House would be failing in its duty if it did not bring forward such legislation as a matter of urgency. Democratic Left will support the Taoiseach and the Progressive Democrats in bringing forward such legislation. The Taoiseach will not have to depend on the vicarious vote of the three Independent Deputies who are currently keeping the Government in power and who are opposed to such a move.
The decision made under Standing Order 30 was in order because on the Order of Business arrangements were made for a discussion today. Standing Order 30 would not have given any more scope to the House to discuss the matter than there is at the moment.
It would have.
It would not have given an immediate opportunity either. I am making that explanation to the House by way of courtesy.
I concur with what you have stated, a Cheann Comhairle. In my recollection, Standing Order 30 has been used regularly in this House over the years as a mechanism for raising issues, but it has never been conceded. Deputy De Rossa will remember that the last time this happened in February 1995, when he was a Minister, he followed exactly this procedure. Since he obviously does not remember, I will remind him that on that day, when it was also a matter of a serious national issue, the time he picked for the debate was exactly the same as the time chosen today. The reason today was that the Tánaiste would not be back in the House, although that was not the reason on the last occasion.
In relation to the second issue, the Minister for Health and Children recently set out in the House how the Government hopes to proceed with the issue of abortion. We propose to work immediately on a Green Paper, after which there will be consultation with the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. If legislation is then required I hope the Deputy will keep his promise to support it.
I would keep my promise, despite the long list of promises which the current Government has betrayed since assuming office.
The Deputy will forget about it in ten days.
The procedures the Taoiseach proposes to follow on abortion legislation will delay the implementation of such legislation for years. Urgent legislation is required because we do know the day nor the hour when a similar situation will arise for another child who will be found to be pregnant as a result of rape, incest or some other circumstance. It is an urgent matter.
It is not proposed to discuss the matter any further. The time allowed for the proposed arrangements are well beyond the norm at this stage.
When we have finished with the Order of Business this topic will finish very quickly.
We have spent nearly an hour on the Order of Business. I will allow some final brief questions.
As one of the TDs who raised the Seagate matter under Standing Order 31, I would ask that an opportunity for questions be part of the arrangement, otherwise it will be a charade, to a large extent?
I also wish to raise the matter of legislation which is, or ought to be, promised in relation to the Control of Horses Act. Last Thursday there was a head on collision in Cherry Orchard between three horses and a car. It created carnage. Does the Taoiseach consider that any further amendment to the Control of Horses Act is necessary? Clearly, the Act has not been implemented and is not working. Does the legislation need to be fine tuned to ensure that local authorities are required to take action and do so?
Driving licences for horses.
The Bill was passed by the House and it is a very good Bill. We need the will of people to implement it.
Some £2 million was made available to implement it.
Money has been made available. The Deputy should ask his party's members on local authorities to raise the matter there.
I am not blaming the present Government, but a practice has developed of denying Members the right to ask questions of Ministers by transferring questions. I believe the decision is taken, for the most part, by civil servants without reference to their Ministers and there is a tendency for the House to accept that. I want to raise this matter with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I want to give notice to other Members of the House that if they are experiencing the same problem it is time we stood up for ourselves and launched a campaign about it. The constitutional rights of Members are being denied by sleight of hand. It is time the Houses of the Oireachtas and the staff became persuaders on behalf of——
This matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business but there are other ways the Deputy can raise this matter.
I will write to you formally, a Cheann Comhairle, and I will ask for the matter to be raised at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Arising from the reply the Taoiseach gave a few minutes ago to Deputy De Rossa on the question of abortion, can he indicate to the House whether the memorandum setting out the proposals for drafting the Green Paper has been brought by the Minister for Health and Children to the Government? Can he indicate whether the Government has disposed of that? Can he also outline the timetable and arrangements for that Green Paper on foot of that memorandum?
I assume the Deputy is talking about the memorandum on setting up the working group?
Yes.
That has been cleared and all the work has been done.
Will it be published?
No. It is a memorandum for Government.
Will the details of that working group be published?
It has been cleared through the Cabinet. The Minister has already made a statement on the kind of format he will use.
As regards the preparation of the official script for the debate this evening, will the Taoiseach refer to the Official Report of 18 December 1991, when an announcement of a 1,300 job project for Clonshaugh industrial estate by Seagate Technology was revoked by the then Minister?
That matter can be dealt with later on if needs be.
Yes, but it is a net point and I will not delay the House.
It is not appropriate on the Order of Business.
This is the second time this has happened. On that date, the then Minister, Deputy O'Malley, announced that 1,300 job project was not proceeding.
There are many ways in which the Deputy can deal with that.
Any evaluation of this issue and what has happened in Clonmel cannot be adequate without evaluating the background to that earlier decision.
Did the Deputy take that into account when he took a decision to grant aid it?
Dr. Upton
I agree with the concerns expressed by Deputy Mitchell in relation to questions to the Taoiseach. I have had experiences rather similar to those he alluded to.
That is not a matter for the Order of Business.
Dr. Upton
Is the Taoiseach prepared to act on the logic of the press statement issued by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, last night, and amend the Refugee Act or, alternatively, implement it? It seems outrageous.
The Deputy cannot pursue that matter any further.