It is proposed to take No. 1, the Gas (Amendment) Bill, 1998 [Seanad] Second Stage (resumed), and No. 22, the Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Bill, 1997, Order for Report and Report and Final Stages. Private Members' Business will be No. 51, motion re health care and personal social services (resumed).
Order of Business.
I wish to raise a matter which was mentioned yesterday, namely, the legislation which must be enacted before the end of next month on the release of prisoners under the Northern Ireland Agreement. Will the Taoiseach agree to having the heads of the Bill discussed under Standing Order 78A in the justice committee of the House immediately in order that there can be maximum public debate on the criteria to be used in sanctioning releases and clarity as to whether the release policy applies only to those already convicted or to those who may be convicted in the future of offences of a paramilitary kind committed in the past?
As I stated yesterday, the heads of the Bill or any work on it has not yet come to the Government. In numerous cases there has been discussion of heads of Bills in the relevant committee and I have no objection to getting the views of Members on various aspects in this case.
Does the Taoiseach agree that a measure of clarity is necessary as it is not clear from the Belfast Agreement whether the relevant provision applies only to those already convicted or to those who may be convicted in future of offences committed in the past? The Agreement specifies that such people to which it applies will be released within a maximum of two years. Will the Taoiseach ensure maximum transparency regarding individual decision making and the procedures adopted in view of the understandable concern of victims' families?
Of course there must be maximum clarification. In the Good Friday Agreement we were talking about the release within two years of people already convicted. There is no doubt about this and I am certain of it as I have been asked a similar question on at least three occasions in the past 24 hours.
I support the issue raised by Deputy Bruton and which I mentioned in the House yesterday. The normal practice in the past has been that under pressure of time a Bill is introduced at the very last moment and effectively guillotined with little or no discussion due to the exigencies of parliamentary time. In view of the unique sensitivity of this legislation as a cornerstone in building confidence in Northern Ireland, will the Taoiseach consider developing the idea proposed by Deputy Bruton, namely, that the relevant committee would discuss the parameters of the legislation in an open and comprehensive manner, that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would then draft the Bill which would be returned to the committee and enacted so that those North of the Border and elsewhere can be assured that the House has had a full and comprehensive debate on all issues surrounding this very sensitive measure? It is a unique approach to drafting legislation and I do not suggest it be made a precedent for other legislation, but given the amount of work the Department must do and the number of Bills currently on the Order Paper, will the Taoiseach consider this approach and perhaps consult the party leaders to find a mechanism which addresses in a constructive manner the concerns we are articulating?
I have listened to what has been said by the party leaders. The work on the legislation is not advanced — much work remains to be done. I am aware that this is a sensitive and very important issue in the context of the families of victims, many of whom I and others in the House have met. Given that we must move fairly quickly on this issue and the huge workload of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I do not have a problem with working out a mechanism with the Whips in this case. The heads of the Bill will be brought to a committee of the House in some form, even if they are preliminary, at as early a stage as possible where they can be discussed in detail and subsequent to which the Bill can be drafted.
I thank the Taoiseach for that statement. Can the House take it that all the Government has agreed to with any external party is that which is contained in the Agreement, that there are no other agreements on this topic?
Yes, in relation to this and all other issues.
What initiatives is the Taoiseach taking to bring the Garda pay dispute to an end? The dispute is having an enormously damaging effect on Garda morale and on public confidence. It is important that the issue be brought to a speedy conclusion.
It would be more appropriate to raise this matter by way of a parliamentary question. However, the Taoiseach may wish to make a brief comment.
I appreciate that the matter may be outside the terms of the Order of Business but the matter is an extremely urgent one.
The Government would like to see the Garda negotiating teams return to the negotiating table. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has invited them to do so on a number of occasions. If that could be achieved, we could move on within the parameters set out under the PCW and conclude these matters. The Government is very anxious to see the matter brought to a successful conclusion.
Irish troops serving in South Lebanon came under mortar and artillery fire yesterday. Will the Taoiseach or the Minister for Defence make a statement on the situation in order to reassure the families of those serving in the Lebanon?
The Minister for Defence is awaiting a full report on this matter. These unfortunate incidents occur from time to time. Our main priority is the safety of the members of our Defence Forces and I am happy to inform the House that the personnel involved in the serious incidents yesterday are all safe. As I understand from the preliminary report I received, indiscriminate shelling was carried out for a number of hours. I am sure the Minister for Defence will make the full facts available when he receives them.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. I was informed on 1 April 1998, in a written reply from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that legislation on the ratification of the Convention on the Safety of United Nations Troops and Associated Personnel would be brought forward. That convention cannot be ratified until a number of states pass the necessary legislation. In view of the concern of the Taoiseach and the House about continuing attacks on UNIFIL, will the Taoiseach assure the House that information will be made available in the near future to allow the House to debate the continuing attacks on Irish troops, particularly in South Lebanon?
I have noted the Deputy's comments and I will check the matter with the Department of Foreign Affairs. The ratification of the convention is, however, some way off.
Will the House have an opportunity to examine the recent evidence from Greenpeace that contamination from the Sellafield plant in Cumbria has resulted in parts of the Irish Sea being categorised as nuclear waste? Will the Government bring legislation forward to deal with this matter or will it fully support the STAD group in its court case on THORP which is closely related to this matter? What measures does the Government propose to undertake in this regard?
The OSPAR Convention is due to hold its ministerial meeting in July. Will the Taoiseach agree to provide some time in the House for a debate on the Government's preparation for that in view of the disturbing information released yesterday about the extent of radioactive discharges into the Irish Sea? It is desirable that the House should debate the matter and elicit what action the Government proposes to take under the OSPAR Convention to deal with this important question.
The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland has not yet received the Greenpeace survey. It is understood that the survey suggests the level of radioactive contamination found in sediment near the Sellafield discharge pipe exceeds the EU Basic Safety Standards Directive due for implementation by the middle of 2000. Ultimately, the Government wishes to see contamination being eliminated completely. BNFL is fully aware of our views on this matter from the content of successive statements made by Irish Ministers over the years. The revised BNFL discharge authorisations are being considered by the UK environmental agency at present and the Department of Public Enterprise has forwarded two detailed submissions to the agency as part of a consultation process. The Government's views have recently been discussed directly with UK Ministers by the Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise, Deputy Jacob, and he will take up the matter again at the OSPAR ministerial meeting in July. It is for the Whips to decide whether some discussion can take place on the matter in the House prior to the meeting.
Some weeks ago on the Order of Business, the Taoiseach promised a full Dáil debate and question and answer session on Luas. I understand there was a tentative agreement among the Whips that such a debate would be taken tomorrow but, when the business of the House was ordered, such a debate was not included. It is important that a question and answer session should take place before 38 boreholes are drilled in the inner city area. Will that commitment be honoured and can the debate be taken next week?
My understanding on the matter is slightly different. A long and detailed question and answer session took place in the House on a series of Private Notice Questions some weeks ago.
We did not receive many detailed answers.
I waited for more than an hour to take the Order of Business while the question and answer session was ongoing. While there was a tentative agreement to hold a question and answer session, Deputy Yates tabled a Private Member's motion on the matter and it was also taken.
I was entitled to do that.
That superseded the agreement which existed. If the Deputy still wishes to have a debate on the matter, his party Whip should raise it with the Government Whip.
On a point of order, I wish to clarify the matter for the Taoiseach. I have already raised the matter with the Government Whip and requested that the debate take place tomorrow. I would not like the Taoiseach to have been misled.
The Deputy's diligence is not in question.
We will be seeking Government time to debate this matter.
In regard to Sellafield and the dumping of nuclear waste in the Irish Sea, the Taoiseach mentioned that Government time could perhaps be made available for a debate. In view of the fact that myriad issues seem to be lined up for discussion in the House, I ask that an urgent meeting of the relevant committee take place at which the matter could be discussed.
I remind the Taoiseach that, during the previous Government's term of office, the Dumping at Sea Bill was introduced, the toughest piece of legislation in Europe in regard to this matter. I am sure the Taoiseach would agree that there is no point in having tough legislation on dumping in our seas when we find that the outflow from Sellafield is causing grave concern. Will the Taoiseach arrange for the relevant committee to meet urgently today or tomorrow to discuss the matter?
That is a matter for the committee to decide on.
In respect of promised or necessary legislation, is the Taoiseach satisfied the Government possesses the necessary legislation to enable the contingency plan to be put in place which would allow the Army to provide the necessary security to ensure that the Tour de France proceeds?
As I stated previously, I hope we will not experience any difficulties in regard to the Garda. If such difficulties arise, the necessary security will be put in place.
The House will presumably rise at the end of June or beginning of July. Legislation may be necessary to provide the scale of security arrangements which the Garda Commissioner and the Minister for Defence envisage. Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the necessary legislation exists to enable a contingency plan to be put in place and, if not, when will such legislation be brought before the House?
These are operational matters and there is a long-standing practice that, where necessary, the Army may be called on to assist the civil authority. I do not believe there is any need for that to be put on a legislative basis.
Is the Taoiseach sure?
I am not positive but I do not believe it will be necessary.
This matter cannot be discussed further on the Order of Business. I call Deputy Gay Mitchell.
On a point of order, surely the role of the Army is to accompany the gardaí?
That is not a point of order.
They would accompany them.
Giving policing powers to the Army is a serious matter.
This cannot be discussed on the Order of Business. I call Deputy Mitchell.
It will be dealt with through the mergers and monopolies Bill.
Ireland has the largest battalion serving for the longest period of time in UNIFIL and it has recently come under attack. Legislation has been promised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to give effect to the convention on the safety of United Nations troops and associated personnel, a convention which cannot be ratified until the accession of 22 countries. Why is that legislation not scheduled to be introduced sooner and will the Taoiseach take steps to bring its introduction forward? He can put it before a committee if necessary while the House is in recess during the summer. Our troops are under attack and this legislation should be brought before the House.
I already answered that question.
What can be done to bring forward the introduction of that legislation? Will the Taoiseach look at the possibility of introducing it before it is too late? Twenty two countries must ratify the convention.
As I stated earlier, the introduction of that legislation is some way off. If would be useful if it could be brought forward but it will not necessarily assist the situation to which the Deputy refers.
If 22 countries ratify it, it will have an effect.
Can the Taoiseach give the House further information on a matter which was raised yesterday, the implementation of the EU directive on parental leave? Does the Government intend to fulfil the time requirements for implementing the directive?
I answered this question yesterday. The Bill will be published in about two weeks. It would be nice if it were ready for 2 June but, like many other member states, we are a little late.
Yesterday the Taoiseach gave a confusing and possibly inaccurate reply with regard to the Government's decision on the recommendations on asylum seekers. Will he clarify the Government's position on proposed legislation in this area? Has it accepted the recommendations and is the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform proceeding with legislation? If so, when will that legislation be brought before the House?
I reject the allegation that I gave misleading or confusing information. For the past week the Deputy has been seeking to confuse the public on this matter. The Deputy was given the answer when she asked that question last Tuesday morning on the radio programme "Morning Ireland" and the Minister replied. The Minister's reply then is precisely the same as it is today.
The House must proceed with the business of the day.
I seek your advice on a point of order. Ireland has ratified a number of UN conventions and I am aware that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is due to answer questions in the House tomorrow. However, when matters arise with regard to a breach of a UN convention, such as the United Nations convention against slavery, as was demonstrated by the appearance last weekend of a photograph of 368 people being marched to a market to be sold as slaves, what mechanism exists in the House to raise such matters? Can a matter be referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs as a matter of urgency? Can the committee be asked to report to the House within a certain time?
Obviously, there is no time now to put down questions on this matter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
That is not a matter for the Chair and certainly not for the Order of Business. We must proceed with the business of the day.
If it is not a matter for the Chair, I can find other ways of raising it. However, it is extraordinary that if a parliament has evidence of the existence of slavery in 1998, it cannot be given a statement that the matter will be raised in the European Union or with other heads of government.
There are many ways of raising the matter but it cannot be done on the Order of Business. We will proceed to No. 1.