It is proposed to take No. 9, Motion re. Referral of Proposals for a Prevention of Corruption Bill to Joint Committee; No. 10, Road Transport Bill, 1998 – Financial Resolution; No. 26, Social Welfare Bill, 1999 – Second Stage (resumed); No. 27 – Health (Eastern Regional Health Authority) Bill, 1998 – Second Stage (resumed); No. 1 – National Disability Authority Bill, 1998 [Seanad] – Second Stage; and No. 28, Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) Bill, 1998 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages – shall be taken at 6.15 p.m. today and the order shall resume thereafter. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) Nos. 9 and 10 shall be decided without debate; and (2) the proceedings on the Second Stage of No. 26 (resumed), if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 1.15 p.m. today. Private Members' Business shall be Prohibition of Ticket Touts Bill, 1998 – Second Stage (resumed) – to conclude at 8.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
There are three proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with items 9 and 10 agreed?
I ask the Tánaiste for clarification on this. I thought the Government would have put forward substantive legislation on corruption rather than proposals of this nature. The Tánaiste will be aware that the Law Reform Commission in Britain and others have published substantive legal proposals on this issue. There is no difficulty, therefore, in terms of the availability of substantive proposals. Why is the Government not putting forward its own solid and substantive Bill instead of putting forward ideas into which it is presumably trying to get the Opposition to buy?
This referral is a technical measure, as Deputy Bruton knows. We will need changes to our legislation in this area, as we have said in this House before. We are also dealing with the ethics in public office legislation, which will go back to the Government from the committee very shortly and will be finalised. There are, as Deputy Bruton knows, wider issues which have to be addressed.
Is it not the case that the latest legislation on corruption in this jurisdiction was enacted in 1916 in the House of Commons in Westminster? There has been no legislation in that area since then. The burden of proof is reversed only in respect of contracts. It would be simple to amend the 1916 legislation to extend the burden of proof to other exercises of power by office holders, who if they received payments, would have to prove they were not corrupt.
If it is so simple I do not know why Deputy Bruton did not do it during his two and a half years in Government.
Or even think of it.
Order, please.
That is the first titter of support the Tánaiste has got from those behind her.
There may well be the capacity in the standards in public office legislation to deal with some of the outstanding issues, if such exist. I share Deputy Bruton's view that the law in this area is deficient and perhaps we need to address it on an all party basis.
Why not introduce legislation?
As the Deputy knows, we do not have legislation ready.
Is the proposal for dealing with items 9 and 10 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with item 26 agreed? Agreed. I call Deputy John Bruton on the Order of Business.
Is the Tánaiste satisfied that Commissioner Flynn's—
On a point of order, have we disposed of the Order of Business?
Yes.
I think we have yet to agree item 28.
That was done yesterday.
It was not done yesterday.
My understanding is that is not the case. You are asking us in today's Order of Business—
There is no guillotine on item 28.
The Order of Business states "and the order shall resume thereafter". Can we get clarification on this? We would be opposed to this if it were a guillotine motion. Do I take it the business—
There is no guillotine.
There is no guillotine motion.
I am just trying to get clarification. Will it resume at 6.16 p.m.?
Yes.
If it is not disposed of by 7 p.m., will it continue?
Yes.
It will continue next week.
Does the Tánaiste now regard Commissioner Flynn's position as impossible or has it become possible?
This matter is not relevant to the Order of Business.
Has she withdrawn her view, as suggested by the Taoiseach yesterday, that Commissioner Flynn's position is impossible?
To what legislation does that relate?
The Deputy will have to find another way to pursue that matter as it is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
They have no answer – silence is just as significant as an answer.
I understand from the interview on "Morning Ireland" this morning that the Government is divided along party lines on bringing forward promised legislation to enable asylum seekers to work.
The Deputy is 100 per cent wrong.
He must have been brushing his teeth during the interview.
Who will have specific responsibility for this legislation? Will it be introduced by the Tánaiste's Department, which is responsible for the labour market, or will it be introduced by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who is clearly opposed to this proposal? Could we have clarification on this promised legislation?
It would be unfair to say the division is on party lines. Work permit legislation is clearly a matter for the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I brought proposals to the Government which were discussed on Monday. They remain on the Government agenda and I hope we will reach a conclusion on this matter in the next couple of weeks. There are obviously other issues in regard to refugees for which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has responsibility. He is dealing with those issues.
The Taoiseach, in a previous reply, indicated that the existing work permit legislation is being revised, simplified and modernised, and it needs to be. Can I take it the legislation which will enable asylum seekers to enter the Irish labour market is separate from the current work permit legislation? The Taoiseach appeared to inadvertently link the two in a previous reply. Are we talking about the modernisation of work permit legislation, on the one hand, and specific legislation to enable asylum seekers to enter freely into the labour market after six months, on the other?
No, it is the same legislation. Clearly, the current situation in regard to work permits is unsatisfactory. They are dealt with on an administrative basis under the Aliens Act, 1975, which has been updated in the most recent legislation. The procedure is administrative and legislation is required to put it on a statutory footing. The issue of asylum seekers will be dealt with in that legislation; that is the proposal currently before the Government.
In relation to legislation which will allow asylum seekers to work and promised legislation, I suggest the Tánaiste should assert her authority in this area and not allow herself to be suborned by the ethos of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
It is not appropriate to make such suggestions on the Order of Business. The Deputy should use another opportunity to raise this matter.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has a disgraceful record on this issue.
The Deputy is being disorderly; he should resume his seat.
The Taoiseach informed the House yesterday that he had not spoken to Commissioner Flynn – the pivotal figure in Ireland's EU negotiations – since 23 December and that he had no intention—
The Chair has ruled that this matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
Does the Tánaiste believe there is any point in having an EU Commissioner if neither she nor the Taoiseach is talking to him?
The Deputy should avail of another opportunity to raise this matter.
It would be helpful to know where matters stand.
The Deputy's questions are not helpful on the Order of Business.
The Taoiseach answered them yesterday.
I do not wish to be disorderly but—
The Deputy is being disorderly and should resume his seat; the matter cannot be pursued in this way.
(Mayo): Yesterday, the chairman of the Garda Complaints Board warned that it was not able to deal properly with its responsibilities and stated it had a huge backlog of complaints. He suggested that the Garda Complaints Act, 1986, should be amended as a matter of urgency. Are there any proposals in this regard? When will the long promised equal status Bill be published?
On the first matter, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform made it clear yesterday that he will shortly bring proposals to Government in regard to the Garda Complaints Board.
(Mayo): What about the equal status legislation?
It should be published some time after Easter.
On related promised legislation, namely, the Bill on Bord Gáis Éireann, the Bill on gas regulation and the Bill on the Irish Energy Centre, does the Tánaiste feel a greater degree of urgency is required to deal with the structuring of the gas industry in Ireland in light of very expensive decisions which have already been made in regard to pipelines between Northern Ireland and Scotland and their implications for Ireland in terms of energy use? When will the Bills be published and will they be dealt with together given that they are so closely related?
Three Bills from the Department of Public Enterprise are currently before the House. The Bills on Bord Gáis Éireann and gas regulation are expected to be published in early 2000. The Bill on the Irish Energy Centre is also expected to be published within the same timeframe.
There is serious concern in many quarters regarding the publication of the broadcasting Bill. The Taoiseach stated recently that the Bill would be published in this session. Can the Tánaiste provide a more accurate date?
It will be published before Easter.
I want to return to the question I put to the Tánaiste earlier in light of the ESRI report on serious labour market shortages. In a reply on promised legislation, she indicated that a document is currently before the Cabinet on which it is divided, although on individual rather than party political lines. Presumably the Progressive Democrats are divided too.
Splitting an atom.
Does the document propose the heads of a Bill and when does the Tánaiste expect this internal division on non-party political lines to be resolved? When will the measure be enacted?
I informed the Deputy that the heads of the proposed work permits legislation are currently before the Government and the first discussion on the matter occurred at last Monday's day long Cabinet meeting. I hope that when certain matters are clarified between different Departments, we can finalise our view on this matter within the next three weeks or so.
In regard to the ESRI report, I do not believe we should control inflation by increasing unemployment. I believe we can continue to generate new jobs in this economy and control inflation at the same time. That, of course, requires us to be conscious of competitiveness, taxation measures and other factors.
Does the Tánaiste agree one of the ways in which we could deal with this issue would be to enable people who want to work to do so?
Absolutely.
That is a matter on which the Tánaiste could take action. When is the legislation likely to be enacted, as distinct from when agreement will be reached on it?
Deputy Quinn was formerly in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, as was his successor from the Opposition, and nothing was done about work permits legislation. It is somewhat rich to be criticising this Government now.
Those were different times.
The Tánaiste's comment is even below her normal standard. When will the legislation be enacted?
I expect the legislation to be published towards the summer of this year and enacted before the end of 1999.
It will become law after the summer recess?
I hope so.
Given that the Agenda 2000 proposals will be at a very crucial stage in Brussels tomorrow, will the Minister for Agriculture and Food be meeting Commissioner Flynn?
The question is not appropriate to the Order of Business. Questions must relate to promised legislation.
Deputy Connaughton should be serious about agriculture.
Does the Government intend to introduce a Supplementary Estimate in the House?
Questions on Supplementary Estimates are not appropriate to the Order of Business.
My question relates to the ordering of business in the House. The Government made an announcement yesterday in relation to housing which will require the expenditure of State money. I want to know when the Government will introduce a Supplementary Estimate in this House to give effect to that.
The matter can be dealt with during Question Time. That concludes the Order of Business; we must proceed with the business of the day.
We are entitled to an answer.