It is proposed to take No. 1, the Tourist Traffic Bill, 1998, Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. Private Members' Business is No. 49, the motion on the Supplementary Order Paper re: Committee of Public Accounts.
Order of Business.
There are no proposals to put to the House.
On the proposal to establish a super regulator for the financial services industry, I read in this morning's paper that it could take up to 15 months before this measure is introduced. Does the Taoiseach not regard this matter as urgent? Will he give a guarantee to the House that the necessary legislation will be introduced before Christmas? There is no point telling us that another group of experts will look at this matter.
Deputy Barrett, allow the Taoiseach to answer your question on legislation. The second part of the question is not appropriate.
The Government's assessment is that we should carry out a proper examination of what will be required in setting up an independent regulatory authority. Whatever form it takes, it will take a number of months. The Government intends to set up a group and legislation will be introduced in due course but it certainly will not be until well into next year.
I find it extraordinary, given that we have heard on numerous occasions that the Government has been considering this matter, that it will be at least 15 months to two years before it is established. On promised legislation, last week the Taoiseach gave an undertaking about whatever changes are necessary to ensure outstanding DIRT is collected, aside from establishing who is responsible. In view of the conflicting evidence at last week's Committee of Public Accounts——
Deputy Barrett——
This relates to promised legislation.
——it is not appropriate to the Order of Business to go into detail. The question the Deputy has raised is a matter for Private Members' Business tonight. I will take a question on legislation.
On promised legislation, the Taoiseach gave us a guarantee that if changes were necessary, he would introduce the legislation. I am asking about the promised legislation.
The Deputy may ask a question about the legislation but he does not have to make a statement.
I would like to make my point.
We want some order in the House.
I appreciate that.
It is not appropriate to make a point but it is to ask a question about legislation. It is not appropriate to go into detail.
Is it appropriate to give the main Opposition party the opportunity to ask about a matter of grave concern on the Order of Business?
The Chair is obliged to implement the Standing Orders. Standing Order 26 allows a Deputy to ask a question on legislation but not to go into detail.
To be in order, that is precisely what I will do. In light of the conflicting evidence at the Committee of Public Accounts where the Revenue Commissioners stated there was no settlement and AIB stated there was one, what proposals has the Government to establish the facts? Having established the facts, what proposals will be in the legislation to ensure the collection of the outstanding taxes in question, which is a considerable amount of money and of grave concern to the public?
There are three matters in this.
The Committee of Public Accounts is meeting now and the Chairman of the Committee has indicated that he may, during the course of his investigations, require different legislation. The Government has stated that if that happens, it will certainly be open to looking at the proposals. In the meantime, there will be a debate in the House tonight. The Government has agreed a motion with the party which tabled it and it will be debated tonight. We will wait until there is a request from the Committee of Public Accounts and for its deliberations to reach whatever stage they can to see what legislation will be required.
To confirm what the Taoiseach said, the Government has agreed to various changes to the Labour Party motion and there will be a full opportunity to discuss it later. Following today's Cabinet meeting and Labour's successful conference on Structural Funding attended by Commissioner Wulf-Mathies, does the Government intend to facilitate or even participate in this debate by publishing its own proposals on regionalisation and Structural Funds? Will there be a debate in the House because as I understand from reports in the papers at least, the Government's proposals will be presented to the Fianna Fáil Party before they are presented to the House?
I understand a debate was promised last week.
That is correct. A debate will be arranged between the Whips, the week after next.
When will the Protection of the Financial Interests of the European Communities and Administrative Fines Bill be introduced in the House? It relates to the transposition of EC regulation 2988/95 into Irish law.
The consideration of this legislation, the Protection of the Financial Interests of the European Communities and Administrative Fines Bill, has been deferred pending the EU enactment of the sectoral regulations to see whether domestic legislation is required?
When does the Taoiseach expect the EU to implement the regulations so that we may look at the issue again?
That is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
I do not know.
The Taoiseach might inquire.
Will the Taoiseach confirm, as was suggested by a Sinn Féin spokesman on the radio this morning, that in the context of the current talks on decommissioning, Sinn Féin is intimating that there might be decommissioning if the Irish Government was to give an undertaking to intervene in Northern Ireland if events such as what happened in 1969 occurred in Northern Ireland?
Questions on Northern Ireland were answered today at Question Time.
One could not give notice of such a question because it emerged only this morning.
The Taoiseach answered questions on the issue this afternoon. It is not in order and the Deputy may submit a question.
A Sinn Féin spokesman was on the radio this morning speculating in this way.
The Taoiseach indicated he would bring forward the necessary legislation to deal with problems in the banking sector. Will he consider initiating a bank commission, as was done in the 1920s?
That question was already dealt with.
The Taoiseach also indicated last week that he would come back to me on the question of the Aarhus Convention and when we would ratify it?
There are three strands involved in that question and my office will be in touch with the Deputy to see which one he is interested in.
What sanctions does the Government have to control the meat factories?
That is not in order on the Order of Business.
The Taoiseach should answer the question.
On legislation arising from the referendum on abortion, I ask the Taoiseach about the Green Paper on abortion which was promised to be published last June. We were then informed it would be published shortly or as soon as possible but it has not appeared in any form. Will the Taoiseach indicate when it will be published and whether it will be in this session? He would agree that submissions have been made and I understand the work has been done by the civil servants and yet we have not seen sign nor sight of this important paper.
It does not appear on any of the lists because, as the Deputy is aware, it is not legislation. The work is ongoing in that regard and I hope it will be published during this session.
The Taoiseach said there was an agreed motion in relation to this evening's Private Members' time. However, I remind the House that we have agreed an Order of Business which states that the item for Private Members' time is No. 49. I have not been made aware of any agreed motion or any changes to the motion tabled by the Labour Party. This is a serious issue because the Labour Party had to use Private Members' time to get some movement in this area.
We cannot debate the matter now.
We have agreed an Order of Business which is different from what will happen. In fairness to the Opposition, and particularly the main Opposition party, we should be told about the agreement. This motion will be dealt with in Private Members' time.
Does the Deputy have a question in relation to the business before the House?
This relates to Private Members' time, not Government time. What proposals does the Government have in relation to this matter? It should not be left to the Opposition to continually drag from the Government what steps it intends to take to deal with this issue.
The Deputy is out of order.
Have another amnesty.
If there are proposals, surely they should be discussed in Government time, not Private Members' time.
I ask Deputy Barrett to resume his seat.
With the greatest respect, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I will not sit down.
I ask the Deputy to have respect for the Chair. I ask him to resume his seat while the Chair is on his feet. The Deputy asked a question about the business for today. I call the Taoiseach to respond.
I said at the outset that Private Members' Business will be No. 49, the motion on the supplementary Order Paper. I remind Deputy Barrett that the Committee of Public Accounts has asked to be allowed to pursue its work. It does not want to be interfered with at this stage. It is generally agreed that it is doing an excellent job on this matter and it should be allowed to continue its work. It has been agreed with the committee, based on its legal advice, that if a resolution of the House is required under the 1923 Act or if legislation is required, it will bring forward proposals.
That is nothing to do with the change to the Private Members' motion.
I am trying to answer the Deputy's question comprehensively. In relation to Private Members' time——
In other words, the committee is covering the Taoiseach's back.
Please allow the Taoiseach to continue.
The Deputy would probably like another tribunal to inquire into these matters. It does not suit the Deputy when a committee is doing a good job. He would like to take another angle.
It suits the Taoiseach grand.
The Taoiseach without interruption.
What did the Taoiseach say in 1993?
That is a very unfair remark against the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, Deputy Jim Mitchell, and should be withdrawn.
It is on the record of the House.
The Labour Party tabled a motion for Private Members' time this evening. Suggestions were made about the wording of the motion and it has been altered. It is now a motion which, as far as I am concerned, has been agreed with the Labour Party. It is a matter for the House to decide whether it will support it tonight.
We will not have a debate on the matter. I call Deputy Stagg.
On a point of order, I do not accuse the Taoiseach of bad faith but he told the House that what we all understood was item No. 49 on the Order Paper——
That is not a point of order. I call Deputy Stagg.
It is on the supplementary Order Paper.
On a point of order, I wish to correct Deputy Dukes because he is misleading the House. I made it clear when I first read the Order of Business and when I answered Deputy Barrett that I was referring to the supplementary Order Paper.
It has not been published.
To assist the House, the motion as circulated was amended and the General Office was notified in good time. Arising from that, a supplementary Order Paper has been agreed by the House.
Regarding the Dublin docklands development legislation, does the Taoiseach intend to introduce new proposals in this area in view of the indication that the EU is not willing to accept the legislative structure that has been put in place?
That is not appropriate to the Order of Business. I suggest the Deputy submits a question on the matter.
The matter will require legislation. We have been informed that the State aid policy which the Taoiseach introduced in the hope of helping deprived urban areas has come apart.
The Deputy has it wrong.
It is important that we have an idea of the Government's proposals on this area.
Is legislation promised?
No.
Does the Taoiseach have any plans for public consultation prior to the publication of the Bill relating to a human rights commission as recommended by the United Nations?
Will the Taoiseach speed up the publication of the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill, given that the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources may find himself in a European court because of the damage to the Boyne estuary? There is an urgent need for this legislation to be published.
The first Bill referred to by the Deputy will establish the human rights commission in the State. This arises from the multi-party talks and the British-Irish Agreement. I hope the Bill will be ready this session.
Will there be consultation?
The people voted for the British-Irish Agreement which contains the proposals. The legislation will be based on those proposals. The Wildlife (Amendment) Bill will be introduced shortly.
I want a statement made in the House corrected. I have received a notice which states: "Just received, 4.30 p.m., 20/10/98". It is the revised agreed motion which was not on the supplementary Order Paper. Therefore, the Order of Business as read by the Taoiseach indicating that Private Members' Business would be No. 49 was incorrect. If one looks at the Order Paper, No. 49 is the original motion.
Who wrote the note?
That side is very good at writing notes.
I have only received the amended motion, with a note that states "Just received, 4.30 p.m., 20/10/98".
Who wrote the note?
The Whip's Office.
The Deputy's Whip's Office.
We cannot debate the matter now.
It is unfair that such a serious matter should be dealt with in that manner. I understood that a motion on the Order Paper could not be changed. I asked a simple question about the Government's proposals in relation to this issue and I still cannot get an answer. We are hiding behind the Committee of Public Accounts which is doing an excellent job. However, what steps are being taken to ensure the collection of the outstanding taxes?
No steps.
Will the Taoiseach ask the president of Sinn Féin, Gerry Adams, for an explanation for the behaviour of a segment of the youth section of his organisation in Dublin over the weekend?
That is not relevant to the Order of Business.
It is a Sinn Féin organisation and those involved attempted to intimidate the Garda and the public. Will the Taoiseach raise this matter with Mr. Adams? The two groups are synonymous; they made that clear on Sunday. To hell with other sensitivities, we will not allow these people to behave in that manner.
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
Approximately five or six months ago, a delegation comprising building workers and representatives of trade unions met the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. We were led to believe that legislation would be forthcoming in relation to the C45 system. Is the Taoiseach concerned that a number of building workers in the city are facing jail?
A question on legislation, Deputy.
My point relates to proposed legislation. The Minister for Finance led us to believe such legislation would be forthcoming. Is the Taoiseach prepared to do something for employees who wish to work under the PAYE system and not the C45 system which is so open to abuse? A group of workers are facing jail.
And rightly so because they are unofficial pickets. They should be in jail.
Does that apply to the nurses in dispute in Cork? Should they be in jail?
Let us hear the real Taoiseach.
The Deputy is suggesting that the Cork nurses should go to jail.
I ask Members to allow the Taoiseach to respond without interruption.
Any changes to the C45 system will be made in the Finance Bill. Submissions are usually made on that matter by the CIF and the building unions.
Some 20 months after its Second Reading, what has happened to the Children Bill? It took 20 years to get it into the House. Will it take another 20 years to have it passed?
I understand the Bill is on Committee Stage.
It is not on Committee Stage. No amendments have been introduced. What has happened to the Bill?
The Taoiseach is not being kept informed.