It is proposed to take No. a5, Appropriation Bill, 1998, Order for Second Stage and Second and Remaining Stages; No. 7, Fisheries and Foreshore (Amendment) Bill, 1998, Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; No. 2, Protections for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Bill, 1998, amendments from the Seanad; No. 3, George Mitchell Scholarship Fund Bill, 1998, amendments from the Seanad; No. 5, Scientific and Technological Education (Investment) Fund (Amendment) Bill, 1998, Committee and Remaining Stages; No. 4, Education (No. 2) Bill, 1997, amendments from the Seanad; No. 33, Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments Bill, 1998, [Seanad] Order for Report and Report and Final Stages and No. 18, motion re Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. and business shall be interrupted not later than 10.30 p.m.; (2) the Second and Remaining Stages of No. a5 shall be taken together today without debate and shall be decided by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Finance; (3) the Second Stage of No. 7 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall adjourn at 1.30 p.m. today; (4) the proceedings on No. 2, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 4.45 p.m. today and any amendments from the Seanad not disposed of shall be decided by one question which shall be put from the Chair; (5) the proceedings on the Committee and Remaining Stages of No. 5, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 6.30 p.m. today by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Education and Science; (6) The proceedings on No. 4, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 9.30 p.m. and any amendments from the Seanad not disposed of shall be decided by one question which shall be put from the Chair; (7) the proceedings on No. 18, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the opening speech of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; (ii) the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; and (iii) Members may share time; (8) Private Members' business shall be No. 53 — Building Societies (Amendment) Bill, 1998, Second Stage (Resumed) and the proceedings on Second Stage shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
There are eight proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. a5 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 7 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 2 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 5 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 4 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 18 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' Business agreed to? Agreed.
Does the Taoiseach have any proposal in the Finance Bill to change the law with regard to the identification of tax evasion by tribunals? Is the Taoiseach aware of the public outrage arising from the report in today's papers the Mr. Charles Haughey's tax bill has been reduced to zero? Does the Taoiseach propose to change the law so that any tax evasion exposed by tribunals can be dealt with by the law?
This matter has arisen overnight. I have nothing to say except that I understand it is being examined by the Revenue Commissioners in terms of an appeal. In relation to legislation, the House is aware that the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Finance have been actively reviewing the existing powers of the Revenue Commissioners to combat tax evasion. This review involves looking at extra powers relating to access to bank accounts and the examination of the affairs of banking institutions. The Revenue Commissioners introduced legislation relating to this area in 1992 and recently made proposals to the Department of Finance with regard to re-examining this area in 1999.
I am not replying specifically to this issue because I am not certain of the position. In terms of the general question, the Department of Finance, in conjunction with the Revenue Commissioners, has examined areas it considers requires additional powers under the 1999 Finance Bill. I am not saying that definitely covers this issue. This issue is more likely to be appealed by the Revenue Commissioners to the courts.
Will the Taoiseach confirm he is sure this decision will be appealed? If there is to be any change in the law, can it be changed in such a way to ensure it will refer to the current case of Mr. Haughey?
We cannot discuss the content of what will be in any Bill.
The taxpayers are outraged by this decision.
Given that this House established the McCracken tribunal which found, as a matter of fact, that at least a minimum sum of £210,000 was given to Mr. Haughey who admitted receipt of that sum, I am sure the Taoiseach will be anxious to agree that it is incomprehensible to the ordinary compliant taxpayer that an appeals process can find that was not a matter of fact, particularly when the recipient admitted receipt of that sum? To restore some minimalist faith in the tax collecting system, will the Taoiseach arrange, as a matter of urgency, for the Minister for Finance to consult the Revenue Commissioners and, before this House adjourns today or tomorrow, to make a statement on this matter of great public concern? Otherwise credibility and compliance in the tax system will disintegrate or we will all be seeking to establish tribunals to present our tax cases.
The Deputy should not make a statement on this matter.
As long as one can afford a smart lawyer, one can get everything.
On the same matter, is it the case that when the Taoiseach was Minister for Finance he appointed the appeals commissioner concerned without advertisement and that he is his brother-in-law? Without in any way reflecting on that man's competence, does the Taoiseach agree that it gives the wrong impression to the public, that the brother-in-law of the Leader of Fianna Fáil should adjudicate on the tax affairs of a former Leader of Fianna Fáil?
That aspect of the matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
Is that not undesirable and ought the man concerned not have allowed himself to be seized of this matter because of the impression it gives?
The individual concerned, the appeals commissioner, Ronan Kelly, is my brother-in-law. He dealt with this case, but I had no involvement in that. He was working in his professional job and he was the appeals commissioner in this case. In so far as the question of legislation arises, the Minister for Finance is involved with the Revenue Commissioners in examining where legislation needs to be strengthened. In this case the issue involved is whether this decision will be appealed to the courts. Deputy Owen asked if that is definite, I am not sure of that.
The damage is done. The credibility of the system has been undermined.
From my contact with the Department of Finance, it appears that it will.
I hope it will.
I remind Deputy Allen all taxpayers can use the appeals system——
Provided one can afford it.
——to appeal a tax assessment. Everyone has that right.
This decision is incomprehensible.
If one can afford a smart lawyer, one can side step everything.
The Deputy should not interrupt. He should allow the Taoiseach to answer the question.
It is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners to decide how they will handle this issue.
Because of other questions put to the Taoiseach he was unable to answer the one I put to him. I asked him if he would request the Minister for Finance to take some time between now and the close of business tomorrow to come into this House and give an explanation in plain English as to how this incredible fiasco has come about. The ordinary citizen is bemused. It behoves the Government to at least offer an explanation. The Taoiseach is not responsible for this action, but he is responsible to explain it to the House.
It is pay back time and we now know the real meaning of pay back time.
Procedures of the House provide for asking the Minister for Finance to speak to the House. I presume the Revenue Commissioners will make a statement in due course and from that it will be obvious what they will do.
There is a political involvement here.
There are other ways this matter can be raised.
The Taoiseach is refusing my reasonable request to make time available between now and the close of business tomorrow for the Minister for Finance to come into this House and give all of us who are stunned in this Chamber an explanation of what happened.
The Deputy cannot pursue that matter any further on the Order of Business.
The taxpayers are demanding that it be pursued.
This is scandalous.
I am seeking a commitment from the Taoiseach to make time available for the Minister for Finance to explain what happened and what he will do in relation to the Revenue Commissioners. That is a reasonable request. Against the background of the revelation that was made on the floor of this House, I strongly urge the Taoiseach to seize this moment and rectify this matter now.
This House is not a court of law.
I want the Taoiseach to come back to this House before the close of business today and tell us that he can confirm that the Revenue Commissioners will appeal this decision. The Dáil will go into recess tomorrow and the public are outraged by what they have read in their newspapers today. They cannot believe this decision. Having regard to everything they believed about Fianna Fáil and everything else, it is important for the Taoiseach's sake and image that this matter be explained.
That is disgraceful.
We will have to have another tribunal to discover what happened in this case.
We cannot allow a discussion on this matter now.
I am not saying the Taoiseach had anything to do with this decision. The Dáil will go into recess tomorrow.
The Deputy should not forget that every citizen has a right to an appeal.
Of course one has the right to an appeal. I want the Taoiseach to confirm what will happen in this case.
We are giving him an opportunity to say what will happen.
I thought he would know that.
We cannot pursue this matter further on the Order of Business.
Whenever a matter of this gravity arises, the Taoiseach is briefed before he comes into this House. I am surprised he was not able to confirm that there would be an appeal. In a decision of this nature the Revenue Commissioners would have to make an appeal. Will the Taoiseach confirm later, perhaps at the start of Question Time, that this decision will be appealed as the Revenue Commissioners will be able to confirm that? This is a matter that cannot be left to fester over the Christmas recess. For the order of this House, I ask the Taoiseach to confirm that this matter will be cleared today, that this decision will be appealed and that he will give us more information about such legislation.
Who appointed the appeals commissioner in this case?
Allegations should not be made by way of innuendo across the floor of the House.
Who appointed him?
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
It does arise.
I will give the Taoiseach the final word on this matter.
I asked this morning if the Revenue Commissioners will appeal this decision. The answer was that the issue of an individual's tax affairs is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners to pursue, but in cases where a large amount of tax is involved, it is their standard practice to appeal those cases to the courts.
This is no ordinary individual.
I assume that is what they will do.
As in the case of AIB and other sweetheart deals.
I wish to raise a question on another matter, but perhaps another speaker wishes to raise another question on this matter.
I asked a question twice, but I have not got an answer from the Taoiseach. Can I take it from the Taoiseach's failure to answer my question that he is not prepared to make time available to allow the Minister for Finance to come into the House and make a statement on this matter? Is that a correct interpretation of the Taoiseach's evasion of this matter.
It is.
This is incredible.
This is not Question Time. This is the Order of Business.
A tribunal was set up by this House which found that a man was corrupt while in office in this House. He received £210,000 on which a minimum tax of £80,000 is due. That is a matter of fact.
This matter cannot be pursued further at this stage. I have allowed a good deal of latitude on it. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
Where are the Progressive Democrats in all of this?
Where are the watchdogs?
I want the Taoiseach to give an undertaking that the Minister for Finance will come into this House and explain what happened.
The Deputy should resume his seat.
I will not. I want a minimal commitment from the Taoiseach that the Minister for Finance will come into this House and explain what happened. That is no more and no less than that to which I am entitled.
This is not Question Time. It is not a court of law. The Deputy should resume his seat.
I am here to do a job. I want the Minister for Finance to come in here and tell us what happened.
Ample latitude has been allowed on this matter. It should not be pursued now. The Deputy may find other ways to raise this matter during the day, but we cannot pursue it now.
This is a disgrace. All we are asking the Taoiseach to do is to give a commitment that the Minister for Finance will come into this House and explain what happened.
This matter has been dealt with as much as it can be on the Order of Business. The Deputy is being disorderly and he should resume his seat.
Will the Taoiseach please answer the question?
The Deputy is being disorderly and he should resume his seat and allow the business of the House to continue.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I will not allow any further cross examination on this matter. It has been dealt with.
I wish to make a final comment. The Taoiseach must understand that justice must be done and must be seen to be done.
The Chair is on his feet and the Deputy must resume her seat.
That is what we want in this House so that the public can understand what happened in this case.
I ask the Deputy to resume her seat. We must continue with the Order of Business.
Is the Taoiseach adamantly refusing on the Order of Business to allocate time for a statement on this matter?
It is not in order to ask for that on the Order of Business. It is a matter for the Whips to work it out.
I want some indication from the Taoiseach.
I will allow questions on promised legislation.
Perhaps Deputy Quinn did not hear me but I said that if he wants to ask the Minister for Finance a question he can do so on the Adjournment or by tabling a private notice question.
Big deal.
After Christmas.
The Minister for Finance cannot come into the House and speak about the Revenue Commissioners because they are an independent body.
He can.
The Revenue Commissioners will say if they are appealing it. The Minister cannot outline to the House details of a case before the Revenue Commissioners, the Appeals Commissioners or the courts. Deputy Quinn knows that.
A lot was said during the term of the last Government.
This matter can be taken on the Adjournment either today or tomorrow.
This has come about on foot of an inquiry established by this House. As the Taoiseach orders business with the consent of the House, I ask him to make time available to enable the Minister for Finance to make a statement on the matter. I am not dictating what the content of the statement should be, but time should be allocated to assuage the legitimate outrage of the people. The Taoiseach should ask his backbenchers about it.
The Deputy cannot proceed with a statement. He has asked a question and he should resume his seat.
Has the Deputy not heard about tabling private notice questions?
Open the box.
Please allow the Taoiseach to reply.
If Deputy Quinn wants the Minister for Finance to make a statement, there is a simple procedure to be followed. I will consult the Minister about using that procedure. Both the Deputy and I know he is limited in what he can say.
The Minister is busy with the bookies.
The Taoiseach should bring him into the House.
The Taoiseach was not in the House yesterday when the Tánaiste answered questions on the Order of Business. Has he asked the Minister for Health and Children to make a statement in the House about Tallaght Hospital? Now that the report has been published, it is clear that selective elements of it were leaked. I want the Minister to be called to account in order to restore confidence in the hospital.
The Deputy should not proceed with a statement.
His actions have undermined trust in the hospital.
I allowed the Deputy to ask a question, but it is not in order to make a statement.
We are talking about people getting services from that hospital.
This matter was raised yesterday on the Order of Business and on the Adjournment last week. When I allow the Deputy to ask a brief question, she always proceeds to make a long statement. That is not in order on the Order of Business.
I have not made a long statement.
I ask the Deputy to put her question on the Order of Business.
The Dáil will go into recess tomorrow and these issues will not have been publicly aired. I ask the Taoiseach to ask the Minister for Health and Children to make a personal statement about Tallaght Hospital so that we can go on our Christmas break knowing that the people will have confidence in the service and management of Tallaght Hospital.
There are more spin doctors than medical doctors in Tallaght Hospital.
The Minister has made it clear he had no involvement in leaking any part of the document. He made a statement last Wednesday which was publicly circulated and he asked the board to report back to him. The Minister is prepared to make a statement if that can be worked out with the parties and the Whips.
Enough money was not provided to the hospital.
Did the Taoiseach tell Deputy Quinn he would permit the Whips to meet before the House rises to see if an hour could be devoted to the important issue of Mr. Haughey's tax affairs?
We have moved on from that subject.
We have not been given clarification. Was the Taoiseach aware that the issue of Mr. Haughey's tax affairs was with the Appeals Commission?
The Minister is prepared to answer questions for an hour. The first time I knew my brother-in-law had anything to do with this matter was when I read it in this morning's newspapers.
For the sake of transparency, I ask the Taoiseach to explain the procedure for the appointment of appeals commissioners.
The Deputy is making further allegations by innuendo across the floor of the House. The Deputy is out of order and should resume his seat.
It is a valid question.
I will not allow any further discussion on that subject as I have given it more time than I should have on the Order of Business.
The public is asking that question.
The Deputy is depriving his colleagues from asking questions which are in order.
The Deputy cannot make up his mind as to whether he will run in the European elections.
I deserve an answer.
The Deputy is being disorderly and I ask him to resume his seat.
What type of health service is the Government presiding over when a woman's twins are taken from her after their birth?
That is not in order on the Order of Business. The Deputy can pursue that matter on the Adjournment.
It is a disgrace.
Will the Taoiseach report to the House today or tomorrow on his meeting yesterday with the German Chancellor?
The report of the EU summit will be discussed tomorrow and I will refer to that issue.
Yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs said he would like a debate on Partnership for Peace. When will time be made available for that important debate? Will it be held before the European elections?
It will take place in the next session.
Is the Government planning to change the arrangements on VRT voted through on the night of the budget and, if so, could the Minister for Finance inform the House of any change before it goes into recess?
I have no knowledge of any change.
The Taoiseach was complaining about the builders, yet car prices are being gazumped.
(Dublin West): As we are now nine days from Christmas, I ask the Taoiseach to ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to stop banging the stable door on unfortunate asylum seekers whom he is deporting every day.
I ask the Deputy to relate his question to the Order of Business.
(Dublin West): I ask the Taoiseach to ensure that no more deportations take place before Christmas.
There is no Christmas spirit in Caherciveen.
That is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
(Dublin West): It is the season of goodwill.
When will legislation be introduced to establish a child sex offenders register, given that there were 39 attempted child abductions in recent weeks?
That matter was discussed last night on the Adjournment. There are proposals in that regard which will be discussed in the next session.
Yesterday I raised a question about the juvenile justice Bill but the Tánaiste was not in a position to reply. Perhaps the Taoiseach could clarify if the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform have completed their amendments to this long awaited Bill and when Committee Stage will be taken.
I understand amendments are being drafted which relate to the Children Bill. There are new important areas which have been identified for inclusion in the Bill. Discussions with the Probation Service have been completed, resulting in the inclusion of 11 new heads in the Bill. When the new heads are ready to be added to those already approved, they will be sent to the Government for approval. It looks increasingly likely that the amendments will not be ready before Christmas, so it will be early in the new year.
After 32 months.
(Mayo): The Government received a memorandum from the prison governors complaining that prison officers have assumed absolute control of the prisons, in that officers are paid overtime even when they are on sick leave.
The Deputy should not proceed with a statement. He should ask a question.
(Mayo): They are paid up to £750 per week. When are we going to sort out the Prison Service? When will we see the prison service Bill?
As the Deputy will be aware, an interim board has already been set up. The legislation to put it on a statutory basis will be taken during 1999.
On 16 December 1997, exactly one year ago, all parties in the House supported a motion on racial discrimination. Two items of proposed legislation were included in that motion, the Equal Status Bill, 1997 and the immediate full implementation of the Refugee Act, 1996. This motion was supported by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and by the Taoiseach. Will the Taoiseach ensure the commitments in that motion are adhered to, given that it is 12 months since it was passed by all parties in the House and the two key elements in the motion have been disregarded? This decision of the House has been disregarded by the Government in a most disgraceful way and asylum seekers are not being dealt with fairly by the Government.
The Deputy has asked a question. She should not continue with a statement.
They are being unjustly deported as we speak.
The Equal Status Bill is being worked on and I hope it will be taken in the House early in 1999.