On a point of order, am I right in saying that the Chair is responsible for the upholding of the dignity of this House? A number of unsuccessful attempts were made by the Minister to imply that there was something wrong with the contract signed when I was Minister for Justice.
Order of Business.
We have moved on from that matter.
It is important for my good name in this House that the Chair allows me to remind the Minister that on 25 June he said that the Deputy will appreciate that careful and detailed consideration was given to the Esat Digifone proposal and that the agreement with it is designed to ensure full protection to the public and the environment. Will the Minister withdraw any inference that there was anything wrong with the contract signed on that day?
The Deputy has made her statement and I take it that it is accepted by the Minister.
It is important for my good name that there should be no doubt in this House that there was anything wrong with that contract. The Minister should be condemned for trying to imply that there was something wrong with it.
I have called the Order of Business.
On a point of order——
I have called the Order of Business and we must proceed with it.
On a point of order——
On a point of order——
On a point of order——
On a point of order——
It is proposed to take: No.11, Motion re: Membership of Joint Committees, No. 12 — Supplementary Estimate [Vote 31], No. 13, Motion re: Leave to Introduce Supplementary Estimates [Votes 10, 26, 27, 28 and 29], No. 14, Motion re: Referral of Supplementary Estimates [Votes 10, 26, 27, 28 and 29] to Select Committees, and No. 30, Financial Motions by the Minister for Finance [1998] (resumed).
On a point of order——
On a point of order——
On a point of order——
The Taoiseach is taking the Order of Business.
It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. 11, 12, 13 and, subject to the agreement of No. 13, No. 14 shall be decided without debate, and in the case of Nos. 12, 13 and 14, any divisions demanded thereon shall be taken forthwith. Private Members' Business shall be No. 72, Motion re. Transport.
There is one proposal to be put to the House.
On a point of order, it would be better for the order of the House if the point of order being sought to be made was allowed to be taken.
I will allow Deputy Noonan to make his point of order.
Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. While I was listening to the Minister's explanations, he decided to make an adverse comment on my record as Minister for Justice. Is it in order that this clownish excuse for a Justice Minister should cast aspersions on his predecessor?
Many political charges were made across the floor of the House. We must return to the Order of Business. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14 agreed? Agreed.
The Minister's performance is only fit for a pantomime. What pantomime will he be appearing in over Christmas?
Jack and the Beanstalk.
The Boxer.
Was the Taoiseach listening to the Minister's appalling——
Pathetic.
Inept
——example of unwillingness to enforce the law in a fair and just way?
We are not going to have a repeat of the debate on this matter.
Does the Taoiseach not consider it makes weird sense to pass legislation in this House if Ministers are going to interfere with its enforcement in a political fashion?
That matter has been dealt with under the principle of collective responsibility.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform entered into a verbal contract with Deputy Blaney?
Under collective responsibility that matter has been dealt with and cannot be reopened.
Will there be legislation as a result of the verbal commitment given by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to Deputy Blaney in respect of the termination of a commitment for ESAT Digiphone to erect an antenna in Donegal?
There is no promised legislation.
It is normal for the Taoiseach to stand and address the House when he is replying to a question.
I did not know the Deputy had such respect for the protocol of the House.
Does the Taoiseach agree with the decision made by the Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to abuse his power?
We have dealt with this for 45 minutes. I have said that under collective responsibility that question is out of order. The Deputy should resume his seat.
If the Deputy knows so much about protocol he should resume his seat.
Given that the Minister disagrees with the commitment——
The question is not in order on the Order of Business.
Is there proposed legislation to alter the contract made with Esat Digifone given that the Minister clearly said here that he does not agree with that contract?
There is no promised legislation.
He should stand over what he said.
The Minister gave us to understand that he does not accept the contract made with Esat Digifone.
The Deputy is not in order pursuing the matter. He should accept the ruling of the Chair.
Typical Fianna Fáil.
I want to raise a point on promised legislation which would be helpful to the House. Will the Taoiseach allow for a debate to clear the air?
The Deputy is out of order and should resume his seat. The matter cannot be pursued further.
Does the Taoiseach propose to remove item 39 from the Order Paper which concerns the jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments by the courts, in view of the fact that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has arrogated to himself the enforcement of contracts as a political matter?
I do not intend to remove that item.
There is a report in The Irish Times today stating that the Government was today going to clear legislation in respect of alterations to the compellability of witnesses legislation. In view of the newspaper reports at the weekend that Allied Irish Banks gave favourable terms and conditions to the Fianna Fáil Party overdraft, will the Taoiseach indicate if the legislation was cleared at Cabinet today, when it will be published and when it will be debated?
What is the implication in the question in relation to Fianna Fáil?
As the Taoiseach knows, the legislation in question proposed to investigate, subject to Government proposals, the allegations that AIB facilitated tax evasion during the 1980s. This matter could go to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Has the Government decided to bring forth this legislation as it has repeatedly been asked to? Is the report in today's newspaper accurate?
It seems the Deputy asked a question about this legislation and matters under investigation at AIB, and he connected that to Fianna Fáil. Is the Deputy making an allegation?
Since it concerns the investigation into AIB, has the legislation come through?
That is not what the Deputy said.
If it has not come through, is there any connection between the delay and the allegations made in a newspaper at the weekend? I am giving the Taoiseach the opportunity to answer that.
That is not what the Deputy was trying to do. The legislation was cleared by the Government today and will be circulated shortly.
It is not like the officials to be so slow.
Insinuation and innuendo. I thought the Labour Party had left that behind.
(Dublin West): Is there a precise timeframe for the introduction of the Ground Rent Bill in view of the anxieties expressed about it by many people? I almost forgot the question because of the extraordinary spectacle of the Opposition wanting to put the boot into small communities throughout the State. It is acting more like a Government than an Opposition, it should stand up for small communities.
How big is the Minister's boot?
Big enough to fit into his mouth.
Not half big enough for some of the Opposition.
The constitutional difficulties previously highlighted in the Bill are still being examined.
On 26 November I raised the Fund Raising for Charity and Other Purposes Bill and was told by the Tánaiste that there were major problems with it, disturbing matters had arisen about the legislation and it had been discussed recently by Government. Has the legislation been revised and the publication date brought forward? Is a more comprehensive charities Act required to harmonise legislation between this country and other EU members in that area? What is the revised publication date?
I do not have a date for the introduction of the Bill but it is true that the law relating to administration and regulation is being reformed to make sure that all Bills are in line with the Costello committee report and any other recommendations which have been made since then.
When will the fraud offences legislation be published? In view of the collapse of the Aer Lingus Holidays case last week because of a lack of necessary legislation, there is a danger that we will not be able to prosecute fraud cases in the courts until that legislation is brought forward.
The latest date for the legislation is mid-1999. There are 63 heads in the legislation which is being worked on and should be ready by the summer.
Has the Government advanced the preparation of the legislation to give effect to the establishment of a human rights commission as required by the British-Irish Agreement? When will that legislation be published?
That legislation has priority and is being worked on. The heads will be available soon so that it can go before the committees of the House.
Is there a requirement for a statutory instrument to enforce the worsening of the drugs refund scheme, as proposed by the Government? If there is, when will it be laid before the Houses?
That is a matter for the Minister for Health and Children. As I said last week, if the Minister needed a statutory instrument, which was not the information I had at the time, he would have to lay one before the House to comply with the scheme which will be in operation in the new year.