Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Oct 1998

Vol. 494 No. 5

Order of Business.

The Taoiseach

It is proposed to take No. 17, International War Crimes Tribunal Bill, 1997 — Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; No. 2, Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments Bill, 1998 [Seanad] — Second Stage; and No. 3, Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Bill, 1998 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Private Members' Business shall be No. 27, Home Purchasers (Anti-Gazumping) Bill, 1998 — Second

Stage (Resumed) and that the proceedings on the Second Stage thereof shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is one proposal to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' Business agreed?

Proinsias De Rossa

Before we agree does the Taoiseach intend to make a statement on the controversy concerning the confusion in Government circles as to whether the State intends to recover the £70 million——

An Ceann Comhairle

I will facilitate the Deputy briefly on the Order of Business but it must first be agreed.

Proinsias De Rossa

I appreciate your offer but before we agree does the Taoiseach intend to vary what has been proposed to enable him to speak on the matter of the defrauding of £70 million of taxpayers' money?

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot discuss the matter now. The proposal before the House relates to Private Members' Business.

Proinsias De Rossa

I am prepared to agree if the Taoiseach is prepared to make a statement——

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' Business agreed?

Proinsias De Rossa

I am not prepared to agree——

Deputies

Agreed.

Proinsias De Rossa

——unless the Taoiseach is prepared to tell us exactly what he is prepared to do as regards the defrauding of taxpayers' money.

An Ceann Comhairle

As the proposal is agreed, we now proceed to questions on the Order of Business.

Deputy J. Bruton rose.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Order of Business has not been agreed.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please resume his seat?

Proinsias De Rossa

No.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Order of Business has been agreed.

Proinsias De Rossa

No, it has not been agreed.

Mr. Stagg

Who agreed to it?

An Ceann Comhairle

The question is: "That the proposal for dealing with Private Members' Business be agreed."

Question put.

Tá

Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Aylward, Liam.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley. Coughlan, Mary.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.

Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia. Kenneally, Brendan.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Desmond.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V.

Níl

Bell, Michael.Broughan, Thomas.De Rossa, Proinsias.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Higgins, Joe.McDowell, Derek.McManus, Liz.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.

Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghin.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Penrose, William.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Upton, Pat.Wall, Jack.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies S.Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Gilmore and Stagg.

Question declared carried.

Mr. J. Bruton

On the Order of Business, the Fine Gael Party requested the proposal the Government has just made, hence our reason for not opposing the Order of Business on this occasion. The particular proposition put before the House to restrict the Home Purchasers (Anti-Gazumping) Bill to one week was on the basis of a request the Fine Gael Party had made to the Government which the Government incorporated in the Order of Business. That is the reason we have taken this position. It would be ironic to vote against a request we had made.

Will the Taoiseach incorporate in the Appropriation Bill, which is promised legislation, power to allow the Government to recoup from private individuals who may have been responsible for fines imposed upon the Government, the amount of the fine, particularly the fine imposed by the EU for breaches of the EU beef regulations?

Proinsias De Rossa

I wish to raise a question I have raised already. Will the Taoiseach explain the position regarding the £70 million EU fine imposed on the Irish taxpayer as a result of the fraud of certain beef companies? Will he explain why a press secretary said last night that the information given by a Minister of State to the House yesterday was wrong and why, within hours, that information was withdrawn and different information given? Will he indicate the steps being taken to implement article 8 of European Regulation No. 729/70, which obliges the Government to recover money lost as a result of fraud in this area? Is the Taoiseach aware that this £70 million, which is to be extracted from the taxpayer, would wipe out the hospital waiting lists more than twice over and save lives?

Mr. Stagg

On the same issue, will the Taoiseach consider making time available today to discuss this £70 million fine, the three versions of the Government's intentions available to us and the Government's legal advice on this matter? Will he explain why the Government now says that under article 8 it is not obliged to pursue the matter? Article 8 does not state it has to recover the money, but it does state the Government has an obligation to seek the recovery of the money, even if that attempt is a failure. The obvious result, if the Government takes no action, is that crooks and gangsters who ripped off the Irish taxpayer and the farming community——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should confine himself to questions.

Mr. Stagg

——to the tune of £70 million will get off scot free. Will the Taoiseach make time available to discuss this matter today or will he ensure the Minister for Agriculture and Food makes a statement clarifying this matter so that there is no doubt as to the Government's intentions?

Mr. Sargent

Given that the Dáil came back in midsummer in the past to facilitate Mr. Goodman, will this matter be followed up by the Government and perhaps referred to the Criminal Assets Bureau? It is important that the Taoiseach make a statement. I would also like to hear Deputy O'Malley make a statement, given his previous concerns about this matter.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): Will the Taoiseach make time available for the Tánaiste to explain why her party is supporting the Government in having the taxpayer pick up the bill for crooks——

An Ceann Comhairle

I will not allow an expansion of the subject. Deputy Higgins should confine his remarks to the matter at hand.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): I am not taking any more latitude than previous speakers.

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot have a wide debate on the issue. I am trying to facilitate Members in asking specific questions, not in enlarging the issue.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): No question so far has been more specific than mine. Will the Tánaiste explain why her party supports a situation where the taxpayer picks up the bill for crooks in the beef industry? I understand why Fianna Fáil might agree with that, but past protests from the Progressive Democrats led us to think differently of them. Why should social criminals in the beef industry deprive taxpayers of funds that could be used, for example, to provide housing for thousands of people on the housing lists?

A Deputy

What about the tax free bonus?

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): What bonus?

Mr. Gilmore

I support the request made by Deputy De Rossa. The Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy O'Keeffe, said yesterday in the House that it was not intended to pursue the recovery, under article 8 of the EU regulations, of the money swindled from the Irish and European taxpayer by the beef industry. Will the Taoiseach clarify today if the position stated here yesterday by the Minister of State is the collective view of the Government? If it is not, what is the Government's view on this matter?

The Taoiseach

Deputy Bruton asked about the inclusion of a certain section in the Appropriation Bill. I doubt if it will be, but I will look into it.

Deputy Gilmore asked if Deputy O'Keeffe's statement yesterday was correct; it is. The text of what he said yesterday is correct.

Mr. Gilmore

Is that the Government position?

The Taoiseach

Yes. Deputy Gilmore asked if Deputy O'Keeffe's statement yesterday was correct.

Mr. Gilmore

No. I asked what the Government's position was.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Taoiseach should be allowed to reply.

The Taoiseach

Deputy O'Keeffe was asked several questions yesterday and the totality of his answers was correct. There seems to be some confusion arising from the fact that Deputies Gilmore and Rabbitte sought to confuse two separate issues in the House yesterday.

Mr. Gilmore

That is a disgrace.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Taoiseach, without interruption.

The Taoiseach

If I can explain, I can prove that conclusively. There are a number of cases involving the State versus Goodman International. There is a case involving export refunds which is ongoing. There are cases the State has taken against Goodman International relating to irregularities at plants at Rathkeale and Shannon which are being pursued, as Deputy O'Keeffe stated yesterday. The due legal process is being followed and the total cost is approximately £1 million.

There are more serious irregularities relating to the Beef Tribunal. The Government decided yesterday morning to continue pursuing those cases and issued ongoing papers for that case. There is also the matter of the European Court of Justice, with which Deputy De Rossa will be familiar.

The European Court of Justice has been examining the judgment in favour of the EU Commission for some time, and it made a statement on 1 October against Ireland's appeal on a disallowance by the Commission of some £50 million for inadequate control systems for intervention beef in 1990 and 1991 as well as £18 million in respect of tendering procedures in 1991 and 1992. Ireland considered these disallowances to be unfair and disproportionate at the time and failed to take adequate account of the significant control improvements made since 1991. The control system at the time was severely strained by the unprecedented volume of intervention beef taken into storage in 1990 and 1991, when some 250,000 tonnes of intervention beef were brought in annually. These disallowances were made under article 8 of Regulation No. 729/70. The regulation also obliges recoveries of amounts which may have been inappropriately paid under FEOGA funding arrangements. The question of recovery was examined thoroughly by a working group which included representatives of the Attorney General's office set up when Deputy De Rossa was a Minister. That group considered that recovery was against the beneficiaries of the funds and could not legally be sustained where the disallowance had been applied in respect of alleged control weaknesses.

The position was taken in respect of both the system faults and the multiple tendering issue. If a legal means of recovering the allowances was possible, the Department of Agriculture and Food would have pursued it vigorously. Related to this recovery issue is whether AIBP should be pursued for the non-declaration of deboning yields which, under the regulations, are the property of the intervention agency. Evidence given by one of AIBP officers in the course of the tribunal referred to this practice and the Department of Agriculture and Food examined the matter in great depth in conjunction with legal advisers — senior counsel and the Attorney General — in the recovery group set up at the time by the Government and which reported to the Dáil. This was the subject of our discussions yesterday and I understand summonses were served on AIBP in Ardee yesterday afternoon. The next step in the process will be for the Department to submit a claim within 21 days.

Regarding what happened in the European Court of Justice, I wish to make some further points. Deputy Rabbitte sought to confuse the two issues yesterday and today on the airwaves. All cases taken by the State against Goodman, involving Rathkeale, Shannon and beef tribunal irregularities, are ongoing and will be pursued in the normal way. Regarding the £70 million disallowance appealed to the Court of Justice, the Deputy asked why it was not being followed up and why nothing was happening, He may have forgotten about it, which I can understand, but it is more likely from what he said this morning that he clearly remembered it but sought to confuse the two issues.

Deputies De Rossa and Rabbitte will recall when they were at the Cabinet table the recovery group examined the disallowance in great depth. The Attorney General and the legal team worked on it for a long time and they came to a conclusion on the matter. On 27 March 1996, the then Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, made a statement on the possibility of recovery of the disallowance and said that he had been advised on the matter by a group of senior officials from his Department, the Department of Finance and the Office of the Attorney General which had access to an independent legal adviser. The advice to the Government from this group was that it was not legally possible to recover the disallowance in the form of a general levy on the meat industry or through levies on companies against which there was evidence of wrongdoing over the 1990-2 period. Where proceedings could be successfully brought against companies in the Irish courts, this was and would continue to be pursued.

Mr. Yates

That was the case. The last sentence is the key one.

The Taoiseach

Yes, and the Government has proceeded precisely under the terms Deputy Yates set out. I have no argument with him about that. The appeal against the £70 million disallowance went against us but we have followed up all other irregularities the Deputy set out in his lengthy statement.

Deputy Gilmore yesterday, Deputy De Rossa this morning and Deputy Rabbitte on the radio this morning sought to give the impression that the £70 million could have gone towards reducing hospital waiting lists and other matters. The judgment has no immediate effect in budgetary terms because the transfer to the EU budget of the amount of the disallowance took place when the Commission took the clearance decision in 1996. This means Deputy De Rossa actually agreed to the money being docked at the time and he should recall that.

Mr. Treacy

The national hypocritical party.

The Taoiseach

In terms of any confusion caused in the media in the briefing yesterday, I take responsibility and apologise for that.

Mr. Gilmore

On a point of order——

An Ceann Comhairle

This is the Order of Business, not a fullscale debate. Deputies will have to pursue the matter in another way, not here and now. Deputy Connaughton has a new subject to introduce and I give him the floor.

Mr. Gilmore

On a point of order——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is on its feet. The Deputy cannot raise a point of order.

Mr. Gilmore

I wish to raise a point of order.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should resume his seat. I have given ample latitude on this subject on the Order of Business.

Mr. D. Ahern

The Deputy has put his case.

Mr. Gilmore

I wish to make a point of order.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies have other ways of raising this matter. They must resume their seats. I am proceeding with the business of the day. I call item 17. We are almost one hour on the Order of Business.

Mr. Gilmore

The Taoiseach said we confused the issues.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must pursue the matter in another way.

Mr. Gilmore

I wish to make a point of order.

An Ceann Comhairle

While the Chair is on its feet dealing with disorder, I cannot accept a point of order.

Mr. Gilmore

I wish to make my point of order, a Cheann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair cannot accept a point of order while dealing with disorder. If the Deputy resumes his seat, I will allow him to make his point of order.

Mr. Gilmore

My point of order is that, on a number of occasions during his lengthy statement, the Taoiseach said I and my colleagues were attempting to confuse issues yesterday. The Ceann Comhairle permitted the Taoiseach to make a long statement on this matter and, in fairness——

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order. We must proceed with item 17.

Mr. Gilmore

The Taoiseach has confused the issue.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am proceeding with item 17, International War Crimes Tribunals Bill, 1997. I call on the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, to move that Report Stage——

Mr. Stagg

On the Order of Business——

An Ceann Comhairle

We have moved on. We are on item 17.

Mr. Stagg

We are not.

Mr. Gilmore

We have not moved on.

Proinsias De Rossa

May I make a point of order?

An Ceann Comhairle

What is your point of order?

Proinsias De Rossa

It relates to the manner in which you are moving on to other business. I have matters to raise about promised legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has been on his feet more than any other Deputy during the Order of Business. We are on item 17.

Mr. Stagg

I wish to make a point of order.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Stagg on his point of order.

Mr. Stagg

It was my intention to raise a number of issues on the Order of Business this morning but the Ceann Comhairle seems to have mysteriously moved on without dealing in the normal fashion with requests from Members to raise issues.

An Ceann Comhairle

We have had one hour on the Order of Business and we have now moved on to item 17.

Mr. Stagg

I ask for the normal procedure to be adhered to.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to avail of another opportunity to raise his issue. I call on the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Mr. Yates

On the Order of Business——

An Ceann Comhairle

No, we have moved on. We are on item 17.

Mr. Yates

There are other issues. You cannot dismiss the Order of Business in such a fashion.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are on item 17. We have moved on. We are not on the Order of Business.

Mr. Yates

We never had an Order of Business. I wish to raise some very important issues.

An Ceann Comhairle

I suspend the sitting for 15 minutes.

Sitting suspended at 11.30 a.m. and resumed at 11.45 a.m.

An Ceann Comhairle

We resume on item No. 17 — the International War Crimes Tribunal Bill.

Proinsias De Rossa

A Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should resume his seat.

Proinsias De Rossa

I wish to raise a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle

What is the Deputy's point of order?

Proinsias De Rossa

I wish to raise two points. First, a Cheann Comhairle, you graciously allowed the matter of the £70 million——

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order. We are finished with that issue. If the Deputy does not resume his seat——

Proinsias De Rossa

I am raising this matter on a point of order. Would you kindly hear me out, a Cheann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle

No. I have been hearing the Deputy all morning.

Proinsias De Rossa

And you will hear more, a Cheann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has occupied the floor of the House and has been given more time this morning than any other Deputy. He should resume his seat and allow business to continue.

Proinsias De Rossa

Am I entitled to raise a point of order?

An Ceann Comhairle

If this disorder continues I will be left with no option.

Proinsias De Rossa

Am I entitled to raise a point of order?

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not going to allow spurious points which are not points of order.

Proinsias De Rossa

A Cheann Comhairle, you cannot judge until you hear what I have to say.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am the judge. The Chair is on his feet and the Deputy should resume his seat.

Proinsias De Rossa

A Cheann Comhairle, you cannot——

An Ceann Comhairle

I want the business of the House to proceed. This obstruction will have to stop.

Proinsias De Rossa

Am I entitled to raise a point of order?

An Ceann Comhairle

If the business of the House is not going to continue, I will be left with no option but to suspend the sitting.

Proinsias De Rossa

A Cheann Comhairle, I am not prepared to let this matter rest. I wish to raise a point of order and then you can judge whether it is in order.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have judged that it is not in order. The Deputy is not in order. We are proceeding with item No. 17.

Proinsias De Rossa

A Cheann Comhairle, you have not heard my point of order.

An Ceann Comhairle

No. I suspend the House for a further ten minutes.

Sitting suspended at 11.47 and resumed at 11.55 a.m.

An Ceann Comhairle

We resume on item No. 17, International War Crimes Tribunals Bill.

Proinsias De Rossa

On a legitimate point of order, I hope you will hear me out and——

An Ceann Comhairle

Make your point of order.

Proinsias De Rossa

——you can make your own judgment on the matter. The Chair permitted the Taoiseach to make a statement in which various allegations were made and then immediately moved on to other business. The Chair gave no opportunity to those of us referred to in the statement to refute the allegations made by the Taoiseach. What arrangements is the Chair making to enable us return to the matter today so that these allegations are not allowed stand unchallenged? What action will be taken on the statement made by the Taoiseach saying he accepted responsibility for sending out an official of his Department to misinform the press?

An Ceann Comhairle

The points raised by the Deputy do not constitute a point of order. The Chair permitted comments to be made and questions to be asked on the subject this morning. The Taoiseach replied and that was the end of it. We cannot have full scale debates and discussions on the Order of Business. Deputies are aware there are other ways in which these matters can be pursued in an orderly fashion and I suggest they follow the procedures available to them regarding the comments they wish to make or questions they wish to raise.

Mr. Stagg

I also wish to raise a point of order. It is unprecedented for the Taoiseach to read a prepared script on the Order of Business. I ask that the script be circulated to Members in the normal way in line with the procedure of the House.

Mr. S. Brennan

The Taoiseach did not have a script.

Mr. Stagg

Because the Chair moved directly from the Taoiseach's script to other business, an opportunity was not afforded to Members to raise other issues under normal procedures on the Order of Business. There were other issues which I wished to raise. When can we proceed to the issues which Members wished to raise? I am not alone in my concern about the matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

The matter of a script is not one which concerns the Chair but rather the Taoiseach. The Chair is the sole judge of order and when one hour had been spent on the Order of Business there was an obligation on me to proceed with the business of the day. It is most unusual for the Order of Business to go on for an hour.

Mr. Stagg

Will the Government indicate if the script will be circulated?

Mr. S. Brennan

As far as I am aware there was no script.

Ms McManus

There was a script; we could see it. The Taoiseach was reading from it.

Mr. S. Brennan

My understanding is there was no script. However, I will check whether there was and if there was it will be——

Ms McManus

The Minister of State was sitting behind the Taoiseach. He should get a pair of glasses.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister of State probably wrote it.

Mr. Gilmore

I wish to raise a point of order regarding the questions I asked during Question Time yesterday. This morning the Taoiseach stated that the comments I made during Question Time were confusing to the House. I refute that statement and ask the Chair to advise me on when I will be given an opportunity to refute the statements made by the Taoiseach this morning regarding the questions I asked the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food yesterday? The matters referred to are complex and I think the Taoiseach is relying on their complexity to create his own degree of confusion regarding the issues.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy wishes to seek to make a personal statement on these matters I will examine the issue. However, we cannot proceed with the matter on the Order of Business.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Taoiseach, not the Deputy, is guilty and he should make a correcting statement.

An Ceann Comhairle

The matters raised, including the comments made by the Deputy, form part of the Official Report.

Mr. Gilmore

I appreciate the Chair's endeavour to assist me in the matter, but I wish to have an opportunity to correct and refute the statements made this morning by the Taoiseach.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's comments will form part of the Official Report.

Mr. Gilmore

I do not wish to take up time as I appreciate the Chair's admonition. However, the matters referred to are complex and I request an opportunity during the course of the day to refute the Taoiseach's allegation that I confused the House yesterday and that my questions were confusing. My questions were accurate and correctly put to the Minister and I would like an opportunity to demonstrate that today.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has just done so. We must proceed to the business of the House.

Mr. Gilmore

The Taoiseach referred to a number of issues. First, he referred to court cases which are being taken against Goodman in respect of individual plants, including that at Rathkeale, to which I referred yesterday and which concerns about £900,000. Second, he referred to recovery of the disallowances or fine, per se. The question I asked yesterday related to the recovery of the moneys which were swindled by the Goodman Group to which the disallowances——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has been afforded a good opportunity and he should leave it at that.

Mr. Gilmore

The Taoiseach is responsible for confusing the issue. He sent out his press secretary yesterday to muddy the water for the press and then came before the House this morning——

An Ceann Comhairle

I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.