It is proposed to take No. 8a, motion re Priority Questions, No. 8b, motion re ministerial rota for parliamentary questions, No. 23, the Roads (Amendment) Bill, 1997, Order for Report and Report and Final Stages, and No. 5, the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 1998, Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. 8a and 8b shall be decided without debate and that the Dáil on rising today shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 3 June 1998.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 8a and 8b agreed to?
No, we should have a debate today during Government time on what the Taoiseach knew about the donations to Mr. Burke.
We are dealing with the motion regarding Priority Questions.
I am aware of that, but I do not think we should take any motions without debate. I give notice that in light of the fact that the Government has not volunteered that the Taoiseach will give information on this subject, we cannot agree to any Government motions on the Order of Business. The priority business of the House should be an explanation from the Taoiseach regarding what he knew about Ray Burke's dealing with Fitzwilton-related companies in 1989 when the Taoiseach was a member of the Government, and what and when he knew about the truth regarding the £10,000 paid by Mr. Burke to Fianna Fáil. The Taoiseach has an obligation to explain these matters and it is in his interest and that of the House that it be done today, not next week. The matter should not become the subject of weekend speculation.
If we deal with both proposals on the Order of Business I will allow a brief comment from party leaders.
This is not a matter which can adequately be dealt with by brief comments from party leaders. We want a full debate with provision for questions and answers.
If the Deputy tables a substantive motion there can be a full debate on the matter.
I will not agree to any Government proposals on the Order of Business unless and until the Taoiseach agrees to personally explain to the House his knowledge and involvement in all these matters and fully answers questions regarding them.
I remind the House we are dealing with Nos. 8a and 8b on the Order Paper.
We are not accepting the Order of Business. We agreed to it at the meeting of the Whips but that was before the knowledge we now have was available. I ask the Taoiseach to indicate, on the basis of the Private Notice Question, that a proper statement will be made by him and that time will be provided after Question Time for this matter to be dealt with in the manner suggested by Deputy Bruton. We cannot have a weekend of speculation and innuendo. Everybody in the country can speak about the matter but we cannot. The person who has the information is a Member of the House. He inadvertently misled the House earlier this year and now he has the opportunity to put the record straight. I ask the Taoiseach to reconsider and to give an undertaking to change the Order of Business and order statements for after Question Time.
I will allow another brief comment before the Taoiseach replies. The matter cannot be debated now.
All Opposition parties tabled requests for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 31. Those requests have been refused so we have no option but to oppose proposals by the Government for the day's business unless they include an arrangement for the Taoiseach to explain what he knew about the donations received by Mr. Burke, about which the former Minister made misleading statements to the House last September.
I agree this matter should be dealt with after Question Time but the period available between Question Time and the Adjournment is less than an hour and it is not possible to deal with this matter in that time. Today's sitting should be extended to provide for an adequate debate, including statements and questions and answers, on this matter.
The Order of Business was agreed by the Whips. Five motions under Standing Order 31 have been put down. As the Ceann Comhairle is aware, I never seek to influence or even comment on such motions to his office. I followed that policy today and have done for the past 11 months. I did not know whether the Ceann Comhairle would accept the motions. If they had been accepted, there would have been a debate on this matter later today.
For once I agree with Deputy Bruton. I would be glad to make a statement to the House. I did not mislead the House and if others did, that is a matter for them. I would like to make a statement today and I am willing to answer any questions I can. I am conscious that the Flood and Moriarty tribunals are continuing their inquiries. That some of these matters are now in the public domain arises or at least partly arises from the fact that when my party was dealing with orders of discovery or affidavits for the tribunals, it gave full and comprehensive answers. Those issues are now in the public domain.
I am sure the inquiries will follow them up but it is not satisfactory that I have not had an opportunity to say my piece. I hope the Whips can agree on a suitable procedure because I wish to make a statement today and to answer questions. I hope I will have that opportunity.
It is a matter for the Whips.
The Order of Business is a matter for the House. As Deputy De Rossa pointed out, if time is not ordered now, time might not be available for an adequate discussion. We need answers not just about what the Taoiseach knew but on the dealings of Mr. Burke as Minister with responsibility for communications, a portfolio which both the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil agreed he should hold regardless of what other responsibilities he held.
Answers are required on what he did and why he did it with regard to matters concerning communications. That cannot be dealt with quickly. The Taoiseach can probably deal with our concerns regarding the donation to Fianna Fáil comparatively quickly but the other matter, which is also of grave moment, concerns the integrity of decision making in the State and requires extensive treatment. The debate should commence at midday and not be delayed until after Question Time. It could recommence after Question Time. A one and a half hour debate would not be adequate to deal comprehensively with all the matters involved.
The Taoiseach and I are on the same wave-length on one matter at least, that this matter must be dealt with comprehensively and quickly.
The questions at issue are serious and time is required to enable all participants to prepare adequately for them. On the motion for the Order of Business my party will seek a debate of two hours duration to facilitate an accurate and meaningful discussion. This should take place after Question Time and should continue until 6 p.m.
It might help us to prepare for the debate if the Taoiseach told the House what reassurances he gave the Tánaiste which caused her to offer such a fulsome defence of Mr. Burke at the time. It might also help us to prepare if the examination and investigation by Deputy Dermot Ahern——
We cannot get involved in a question and answer session at this stage. I am only allowing a discussion on how——
Many of us went forward on the basis of the Tánaiste's reassurances.
A proposal to change the Order of Business can only be put forward by the Government.
A number of suggestions have been made. Deputy Quinn seeks a period of two hours, Deputy De Rossa said the period after Question Time is not long enough and Deputy Bruton wants adequate time. It is a matter for the Whips. I do not care what is decided because I am ready and will be here all day anyway.
The problem is that if the Whips do not agree, the order remains as it is agreed by the House.
They will agree.
Will the Government agree to adequate time being made available?
Yes.
Can we proceed with the proposals for the Order of Business? Are the proposals for dealing with Nos. 8a and 8b agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with the Adjournment of the Dáil agreed? Agreed.
Subject to what might be altered later in the day.
It might be helpful if the Government Whip would come before the House at a specified time — I suggest midday — to make an announcement regarding the Order of Business. Perhaps we should reconvene at that time so we will know what the Government proposes and we can make whatever decisions or amendments we wish to make to the order. It would be constructive if midday were agreed as the time limit.
We agree.
Can we proceed to the normal business?
Is that agreed by the Government?
There is no need for that.
I will be the judge of that. Is it agreed that the Government will come to the House——
We just formalised this with the main proposal.
I will come to the House at midday.
Is there anything else we can do for the Deputy?
I call Deputy Rabbitte on the Order of Business.
A comprehensive copyright Bill was promised by the Government. When is that likely to be published? The Bill before the House is an abstract, four section Bill. I do not wish to give the impression that I do not welcome it because a rumour was circulated that preparation of legislation had been closed down in that Department. After 11 months this is the first Bill the House has received from these three photogenic Ministers. There are major issues involved in copyright legislation but the Bill before the House is simply an abstract to overcome a problem. Is the major Bill imminent?
The Deputy is photogenic as well.
The Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 1998 fast tracks the penalties issues. A complaint was made by the United States to the World Trade Organisation and this Bill is necessary to tackle that problem. A comprehensive copyright Bill of more than 400 sections is currently being prepared and should be ready by July.
I have two questions for the Taoiseach on promised legislation. With regard to the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill, June 1995 was the deadline by which the Irish Government had to alert the European Commission about special areas of conservation. It is nearly three years since that deadline was set. Has there been a speeding up of preparation of the wildlife Bill in light of that shameful fact? What is the position in regard to the promise made by the Tánaiste that by March or April 1998 we would have the Administrative Procedures Bill, a Bill to give to citizens rights in dealing with public institutions following the Freedom of Information Act?
It is hoped the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill will be ready in late 1998. A revised draft of 78 sections has been sent to the parliamentary draftsman. The Administrative Procedures Bill will be included in the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill which will be ready next year.
(Mayo): I raised previously the Government's proposal to introduce legislation to regulate the private security industry and a Private Members' Bill on the issue was turned down. The Taoiseach said that the Government was awaiting the report of an expert group. That group reported some months ago, yet there is no mention of the matter on the Government's list of promised legislation. At what stage of preparation is the legislation and when will it be introduced? The present position where anybody may set up a private security firm is wide open to exploitation by criminal elements. In that regard I wish the Garda well in its intervention in the Caple Street siege and hope it brings the matter to an early and speedy conclusion.
The report is with the Minister who made statements on the issue during Private Members' time. No specific legislation is promised on that matter, but the Minister will make a statement on it shortly.
I wish to correct one suggestion on special areas of conservation and ask the Taoiseach a question. On the wildlife Bill, in view of the fact that the directive referred to was signed in February 1997 and the listing of sites is outstanding, when will the list of sites be forwarded to the European Union? Is it proposed to bring forward separate legislation on cross-ownership of the media ahead of and separate from the broadcasting legislation so that there is no conflict of interest between owners of newspapers, radio and those who may be applicants or make tenders to provide delivery systems for digitalisation? Such legislation on cross-ownership was brought forward by a backbench committee of the Tories in Britain and is hardly radical. Will cross-ownership legislation be put in place to eliminate the possibility of abuse of their position by people who may have beneficial interest in those making applications for multiplex systems?
On the details of listed areas, that is a matter for the Minister. On the second question, there is no such legislation. The Deputy advocated that the Minister should consider Tory legislation, at which I am surprised, but I will bring that to the attention of the Minister.
Lest there be confusion let me expand on that point. Even the Tories saw the dangers of predators attacking the communications system. Will the broadcasting legislation include a prohibition on cross-ownership or alternatively will other legislation dealing with cross-ownership be put in place before tenders are advertised and licences sought for the delivery of multiplex systems?
We should ask Tony O'Reilly.
The broadcasting Bill will be ready late in the year.
Too late.
The Deputy will have to wait and see what is included in that Bill.
At what stage is the school attendance Bill which was ready before we left office 11 months ago?
As I said on a number of occasions recently, the Minister intends to bring forward a comprehensive Bill which will be better than the worthless legislation that exists at present.
On the television coverage of major sporting events Bill, which will transpose Article 3a of the EU directive designed to ensure free coverage of major sporting events, will this legislation be enacted before the end of this session so that sporting events in the autumn and winter of next year will not be privatised and available only to people who pay for the relevant channel?
That legislation will not be available until late in the year. Most contracts are made on an annual basis and most major sporting events organised on a three-year basis. As long as the legislation is introduced this year it will be in place for the next round of events.
Is the Taoiseach aware the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform refused on two occasions to meet private security firms? What is the reason for that?
That matter does not arise on the Order of Business.
So much for proposed legislation.
When will the proposed legislation relating to asylum seekers be introduced?
The Minister will make a statement shortly on all aspects relating to that matter.