On a point of order, an effort is being made to close down these inquiries on the basis that information given will be passed onto other parties. That is the essence of the case before the High Court which will be heard next week. The Deputy should be aware of that. Efforts are being made to close down those inquiries on the basis that information given under section 19 will be passed onto other parties.
Order of Business (Resumed).
Who is making those efforts?
If the outcome of the court case is positive, which I hope it will be, it will require precisely the legislation that we have prepared.
It has been agreed to take the Bill in Private Members' time.
One cannot get information and then retrospectively change the rules.
One can do it for 12 years for tax for certain people.
Why did the Deputy not do it when he was in office?
There was 12 years' retrospection in that case. Has the Tánaiste talked to the Taoiseach about that?
On a point of order, is it now in order for all Ministers to take questions from Deputies on the Order of Business? Has a precedent been set?
That question is not in order on the Order of Business.
(Dublin West): The Taoiseach indicated a few weeks ago that he was going to try to have this country join the Partnership for Peace, an organisation led by NATO and which includes countries that engage in international kidnapping, as we have seen in the past few days. What legislation does the Taoiseach anticipate will be necessary—
The Deputy can only ask about promised legislation.
(Dublin West): I am asking the Taoiseach about promised legislation. Will there be provision for a referendum of the Irish people?
Is there promised legislation?
There is no promised legislation. We discussed this matter two weeks ago during Private Members' time and I set down the Government's position on that occasion.
The Tánaiste indicated that some party is seeking to close down a series of inquiries instituted under her Department. It is important that she clarify who exactly is involved as these are serious allegations.
The Deputy should find another way of raising this matter as it is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
We will have to return to that matter. Was the Taoiseach able to clarify over night whether the proposed psychological service agency would have legislative backing? It has been promised in the House but the Taoiseach seemed to be confused yesterday about whether orders would be laid to establish such an agency.
As I stated yesterday, it is to be set up, in the first instance, on an administrative basis.
(Mayo): In December 1997 the SMI report on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Garda Síochána was published. It recommended the most fundamental reform of the Garda Síochána since 1922. What has happened to that report? When will we see legislation to give effect to its recommendations?
The criminal justice (Garda) Bill will be ready in mid to late 1999.
When will the Local Elections Bill, which will govern contributions and expenditure at the local elections on 11 June, be published? The Minister for the Environment and Local Government has undertaken to give a briefing on the contents of that Bill in advance of its publication, for which I thank him. When will that briefing take place? Planning for the local and European elections can only take place on an informed basis. The information is currently available to the Government but not to the Opposition.
It is hoped the Bill will be published next week. I understand the Minister intends to hold the briefing on Tuesday.
Will the inspectorate for child care be underpinned by legislation? When will it be established? It was recommended that an inspectorate should publish reports on abuse. It was originally intended that such an inspectorate be set up on a statutory basis. The Taoiseach then said it would be established some months ago but there is no sign of it yet. Will it be underpinned by legislation and when will the inspectorate be established?
At this stage it is to be set up on an administrative basis. It is hoped that the legislation will later establish the inspectorate on a statutory basis, but that will be some time away.
Will you, a Cheann Comhairle, assist me in clarifying the procedure for 3.30 p.m. today? I understand that, since the motion in the name of the Leader of Fine Gael was the one accepted, the Fine Gael Party has primary responsibility for its organisation. However, it is not clear, from my recollection of Standing Orders, whether provision can be made for ques tions to be put to the Taoiseach or whether there will be simply a series of statements. Can this matter be agreed in principle now and the details worked out by the Whips later?
In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 31, the mover of the motion will have 55 minutes and 20 minutes will be allowed for the reply.
I think the House can change that by agreement.
There are no proposals to change it.
I am proposing that it be changed.
We cannot change Standing Orders in that manner; we must abide by them.
Is it the Taoiseach's desire that questions be put and answered in the course of this afternoon's debate?
The arrangement is that the debate will commence at 3.30 p.m. and the mover of the motion may speak for 55 minutes. The House cannot alter Standing Orders.
I do not wish to enter into a dispute with the Ceann Comhairle but surely precedents have been set in recent times by the greater degree of openness which has been evident in the House, particularly from the current Administration, to answer questions at the end of a series of statements. Since the Taoiseach appears to be quite confident about this afternoon's events, is he prepared to facilitate such questions?
The mover of the motion may share time if he so wishes.
I will abide by Standing Order 31. The Ceann Comhairle correctly ruled out of order any comment on this matter. I would like to have been on the "Morning Ireland" radio show to respond frankly to these matters. This matter, like everything else in the past week, is a nonsense. I must comply with Standing Orders in order to answer it. With respect, it seems that the file on this matter is in the possession of the Moriarty tribunal. Other matters arose in regard to the Flood tribunal last week and I am endeavouring to respond to them. I will do whatever the Ceann Comhairle wishes me to. In this case, he is asking me to abide by Standing Order 31. The allegations made this morning were a load of lies and I will come into the House this afternoon and respond to them.
Is the Taoiseach calling Mr. Burke a liar?
I did not hear any comment from Mr. Burke.
The operation of Standing Order 31 is a long-standing practice: the House cannot change it at this stage.
The Ceann Comhairle has granted me permission to move this motion under Standing Order 31. If it is agreeable to other parties, I would be happy for discussion to take place between the Whips on an orderly alteration of the use of time in the debate. Obviously, that would have to be done formally. I would be happy to allow the Fine Gael Whip to enter into discussion with the Government Whip, the Labour Whip and others to see whether such alterations can be agreed on. If agreement is not reached, I will use the powers which have been granted to me.
I am going about the business of running this country. I will return to this House later – at a great deal of inconvenience – to respond to matters raised under Standing Order 31. However, it is disgraceful that I should have to respond to something which is completely without foundation. The account was not an investment account, it was an ordinary account. The money was not even a donation.
We should not anticipate matters which may arise later today.