It is proposed to take No. 9, motion re. Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and No. 1, Local Elections (Disclosure of Donations and Expenditure) Bill, 1999 [Seanad]: Second Stage. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the proceedings on No. 9, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion after 60 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply: the speech of a Minister or Minister of State and the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed five minutes; and Members may share time.
Order of Business.
There is one proposal to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 9 ageed? Agreed.
Is emergency legislation contemplated to allow for the payment of the pensions to Mr. Justice Kelly?
A resolution or legislation is required. The Minister is considering that matter.
Why did the Minister not say that in the House when he announced these pension gifts, worth up to £1 million in the case of Mr. Justice Kelly, and, before this gift was promised, was an assurance obtained from Mr. Justice Kelly that he would provide answers to the House as to why he took the course he did in this case, who spoke to him about it and why?
We cannot debate the matter on the Order of Business.
Mr. J. Bruton: Unless assurances of full co-operation were given, then the gift should not have been made by the Government.
It will require a resolution or legislation. I understand this matter is up to the House. No gift can be made until a resolution or legislation is passed here.
The Minister announced it.
The Minister put forward his proposal the other day but until that is passed either by resolution or legislation it cannot be paid.
In negotiating this gift to former Judge Kelly did the Minister ask the judge as a condition of this gift, to agree to give answers and to explain to the House why he interefered in this case in the way he did? If the Minister did not ask for that assurance, surely he was in dereliction of his duty? We do not have the answers and we are entitled to them. Before State money was promised to any individual the co-operation of that individual with the agencies of the State, in giving answers that have not yet been given, should have been obtained.
These are matters that can perhaps be attended to when the Bill comes before the House. They are not appropriate to the Order of Business.
None of these matters holds until the legislation is passed. What the Minister put the other day in this case was his proposal. In the course of his speech he said "I commend these matters to the House".
Will the Taoiseach answer the question? Did the Minister get an undertaking from former Judge Kelly that he would give answers to the questions that are not answered as a condition for the House being asked to pass this legislation? Unless these assurances of co-operation were obtained I can assure him the Fine Gael Party will oppose this legislation.
The opportunity to oppose will arise when the Bill comes before the House.
Never mind the undertaking, it is possible the request was not made. Was the request made?
Members appear to be discussing—
It all relates to legislation promised. It has now been revealed on foot of a question asked by the leader of the Fine Gael Party that legislation is required to give effect to a commitment that was clearly made to former Mr. Justice Cyril Kelly in return for his voluntary resignation. When will that legislation to validate the deal done between the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and and former Mr. Justice Kelly come before the House?
A Deputy
Was there an agreement?
The Minister is considering whether it will be by resolution or legislation. One way or the other it will come before the House.
We were told that the terms of Mr. Justice Kelly's voluntary resignation were being negotiated.
I presume conditions were laid out in any such negotiations. Will they be revealed in the form of either a resolution or legislation that will be brought before the House?
The Minister will make a statement on it whenever it comes before the House. The suggestion this morning that there were negotiations about a deal is entirely wrong. It was not a question of doing a deal.
There was a deal.
It took a whole weekend.
Two of the individuals concerned did not ask about anything.
I am asking about the individual who asked.
Mr. Justice Kelly asked. It was made known that a lower figure was being talked about. The Minister then put his proposal to the House which must be ratified in due course before it can be paid.
We cannot have a debate on promised legislation on the Order of Business. Time will be made available for that.
Could the Taoiseach confirm that to buy the gift of a £30,000 per year index-linked pension which the Minister made to Mr. Justice Kelly, a barrister or any other individual of his age would have to pay £1.5 million?
The Deputy is now referring to the legislation.
If we did not get an assurance that that person, who will get something worth £1.5 million, will co-operate in telling us all the things we do not know, then the Minister who gave him that undertaking was not doing his job and is not fit for his job.
I have ruled on this matter and we cannot have a debate on promised legislation. I will allow questions on the legislation but not on the content.
The Deputy is at the bottom now.
Why did the Minister not get an undertaking from him? He has failed in his duty.
Deputy Quinn on the Order of Business.
The decisions taken over the weekend avoided a longer and comprehensive debate on impeachment which would have been required in this House. If no such undertakings were made by Mr. Justice Kelly about answering questions, will the Taoiseach give an undertaking that he will introduce legislation to amend the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act, 1997, to enable the House to require a former judge to come before an appropriate committee of the House to answer questions which may arise?
The Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights will look at this matter.
The House must look at pensions.
I hope people will co-operate with the committee so that it can do its work fully. This matter should be dealt with by the committee in the first instance.
What is the Government's view?
We do not always start at the end of everything. If the committee has difficulties or it requires other powers, then it will raise that with us and we will consider it in the normal way.
If the Taoiseach is going to wait to see whether Mr. Justice Kelly co-operates with the committee, will the Government say that the resolution providing for this exceptional pension to him will not be introduced until there is an opportunity to see whether he co-operates with the committee?
I ask Deputy Quinn to put his final question to the Taoiseach.
Will the payment of moneys in advance of such a resolution be legal and is it the intention of the Department to commence the payment in advance of any resolution? We now know that a former judge is exempt from the provisions of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act, 1997.
The Deputy introduced that legislation.
I know that.
Deputy Ahern was not sent to investigate this matter.
I call for order.
We did not anticipate what would happen. I recommend we do not open that lid. We want to find out what happened so that the unanswered questions posed by every citizen about this mysterious affair can be answered. The person who can tell us what happened is former Mr. Justice Kelly. Under existing law, he is exempt from being compelled to come before a committee of this House. Will the Government, with its current majority, give an undertaking to amend this legislation so that a former judge can be compelled to come before a committee of this House, if it is not prepared to reveal the terms of this negotiated present? We have drafted a Bill which I can give to the Taoiseach.
(Dublin West): Can I make one brief comment?
You cannot comment, but you can ask a question on the Order of Business.
(Dublin West): Could the promised legislation providing for generous pensions for these judges apply to Dublin's traffic wardens who are treated despicably.
That is blatantly out of order.
Money cannot be paid before the resolution is passed and then whatever discussions are necessary will take place. I do not know why a former judge was left out but I assume that if he was dealing with a case he would be answering questions on it.
A solicitor might know about the separation of powers.
We will have to see how that will be dealt with at the committee. I, like anyone else, would like Mr. Justice Kelly to answer these questions. We will have to see how it operates at the committee.
The Minister did not get a guarantee from him before he handed him the money.
I was not talking to him and I did not hand him any money.
The Minister's agents talked to him. That is how he does his business so his fingerprints do not appear on it.
When will the Health (Amendment) Bill be introduced and will it include procedures for updating the vetting of doctors coming here from abroad? I am particularly concerned about the fact that a doctor is working in Bantry who was banned from practising in Canada because of improper sexual relations with a woman patient. Can the Taoiseach confirm that procedures will be tightened to ensure that such a situation does not arise again and that notifications to the Medical Council will be sent to the Department of Health and Children or to the health board which employs such doctors?
We cannot deal with the details of any proposed legislation.
I hope the Health (Amendment) Bill will be available in the next few weeks. It will amend section 59 of the Health Act, 1970, to regulate as a priority the availability of drugs, medicines, medical surgical appliances, the general medical services and the community drugs scheme.
I understand the Minister for Health and Children has requested a report from the Southern Health Board concerning the employment of a consultant psychiatrist at Bantry General Hospital while being suspended from practising medicine by the British Colombian College of Physicians and Surgeons in Canada for two years with effect from April 1996. The consultant psychiatrist concerned has been employed in Bantry General Hospital since August 1996. The Minister is awaiting that report.
As regards the Criminal Justice (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill, it was announced last night in the media that this legislation would be introduced and enacted by the end of this month. When will we see the text of that Bill and when is it proposed to have it debated in both Houses?
As I said yesterday during Question Time, that is a matter of priority. Intensive discussions are continuing with the UK authorities on this matter to try to finalise the text to set up a commission for the location of the remains of victims. It will be necessary to enact that legislation in both jurisdictions. As soon as it is finalised, it will be introduced and I hope that will happen in the next week or two.
In view of the normal lapse of a fortnight between publication of a Bill and its debate in this House on Second Stage, I ask the Taoiseach to ensure that direct briefings take place between the Department concerned and the spokespersons for the other parties.
I undertake to ensure that happens.
Mr. Hayes
Can the Taoiseach confirm to the House that a constitutional referendum will take place on 11 June with the European and local elections? When does he intend to publish and enact the Twenty First Amendment of the Constitution Bill? Would he agree that the last time we had a referendum there was much public antipathy? We need to have a public debate on this issue so that people will come out and vote in the referendum.
The wording is being finalised in the Department of the Environment and Local Government this week. It must be passed by 12 May. I will ask the Minister to clarify when the legislation will be published.
In regard to promised legislation, will the fund-raising for charitable and other purposes Bill be published shortly, in light of the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo and other areas, as well as at home? What did the Taoiseach mean when he said in early February that the Bill would be published shortly? What is the parliamentary definition of "shortly", given that Bill has been necessary since the 1980s?
Work is continuing on it. I do not have a date later than what I said. Work is being done on preparing the general scheme and it is proceeding as quickly as possible.
Will the Government introduce legislation to establish a tribunal or compensation scheme to deal with the still unresolved saga of the deafness compensation cases in the Defence Forces? What is the current timetable for the White Paper on defence? When will it be published?
I understand legislation is not necessary for the first matter. The proposed publication date for the White Paper is July.
I understand, a Cheann Comhairle, you reaffirmed your decision last evening not to permit an Adjournment debate on an industrial dispute in a major industry.
We cannot discuss questions of that kind on the Order of Business.
Since the early days of this State we have had a Minister for Labour whose task it is to respond in this House to such issues. I cannot understand your judgment. This has implications, not just for—
We cannot pursue the matter. If the Deputy is still not satisfied, he should return to my office.
Unofficial disputes have been discussed in this House before.
Two weeks earlier we discussed the matter in the ESB.
I cannot comment on the matter at this stage.
We could refer the two of you to mediation.
If the Deputy is not satisfied, he should consult my office again.
I will certainly do that. However, I want to be sure, Sir, with all due respect, that your office is making the decision. The fact that this is not suitable to the answering authority is not a very good reason for not taking it.
I cannot deal with the matter at this stage.
Is a precedent being set here?
I call Deputy Jim Higgins.
Is this precedent to stay on the record of the House that, in regard to any dispute, no matter how major, there will be no answerability from the Minister?
The Deputy should contact my office for further discussions.
I will do that.
I call Deputy Jim Higgins.
On a point of order, which would be of interest to all Members, is a precedent being established to the effect that unofficial disputes may not be raised in the House?
I am not going into the reasons now.
I am asking a simple factual question, I am not asking for the reasons. As a matter of fact, are you making a ruling that unofficial disputes may not be debated?
The ruling refers to a specific question. We cannot debate the matter now.
But you are not making a general ruling?
My ruling refers to one specific question.
It is not general?
There is no question of a general ruling.
That is good.
(Mayo): Four weeks ago the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform indicated he was going to amend the Intoxicating Liquor Act to extend pub opening hours to 12.30 a.m. all year around, with a half hour drinking up time, and to end Sunday afternoon closing. There was a clear indication that this would be enacted before the summer so that the extended hours would be in place for the summer period. It is not on the list of promised legislation? What is the status of that promise now?
The proposed legislation is before Government and will be dealt with shortly.
What does the Government intend to do in relation to the report of the Public Accounts Committee yesterday on the sale of Glen Ding? Will the Taoiseach facilitate a debate in the House on the finding that the Department's version was incredible or will he propose another course of action?
I have not had a chance to read the report in full, but I understand it is unanimous. If there is a requirement to debate it, I have no difficulty with that if the Whips can find a time slot.
In regard to promised legislation, what is the delay in publishing the Youth Employment Agency (Amendment) Bill, which requires a simple amendment to the existing Act? The Taoiseach told me, in every session since I entered the House, that the legislation would be published towards the end of that session. However, it has not been published to date and we now see the Government does not plan to publish it until the end of the year. What is the reason for the delay in publishing it? Can the Taoiseach ensure it will be published immediately? This lack of interest by the Government is giving a bad impression to the youth service—
The Deputy must be brief as we are on the Order of Business.
The heads of the Bill have been cleared by the Government. The legislation will not be published this session but later this year.
In regard to the matter raised by Deputy Hayes of the proposed constitutional amendment to give constitutional recognition to local government, is it intended to consult the Opposition parties about the proposed wording of the constitutional change? That has been the general practice in regard to constitutional amendments proposed by the Government for some time.
I will discuss that matter with the Minister.
I call Deputy Finucane.
That is a bit late.
Could the Taoiseach—
He has not brought forward the wording.
He is a bit late.
Could the Taoiseach confirm—
Does this amount to anything, anyhow?
Deputy Finucane must be allowed ask his question.
Will the Taoiseach confirm if the Cabinet is making a decision today on the William Geary case?
That is not appropriate to the Order of Business. I call Deputy Joe Higgins.
Could I—
I have called Deputy Joe Higgins.
(Dublin West): I thought Deputy Bruton was going to take the Chair for a minute.
The Deputy would speak all the time if I did because I love the sound his voice – it is so melodious and frequent.
(Dublin West): Any compliments from Deputy Bruton could have me in serious trouble with my party.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy should not be so familiar with me, therefore, and should address me through the Chair.
(Dublin West): I try not to look in the Deputy's direction when I am speaking.
It is not fitting, of course, for a socialist Deputy to have a sense of humour.
He is a one man band.
(Dublin West): The four Dublin local authorities have just published a report on their proposals in regard to the housing crisis. They raised the Kenny report, which recommended legislation to halt speculation in building land. In view of that, does the Government have any proposed legislation to halt the speculators continuing to price building land for housing out of all proportion, which is contributing in a major way to the crisis which is denying young people the opportunity to buy a home.
The Minister has announced several proposals in that regard. There is no particular new legislation.
In the context of the proposed planning Bill and the housing crisis, the Labour Party has recommended that a proportion of private housing estates should be allocated to affordable homes and social housing. Will the Taoiseach acknowledge that implementing such a policy might have constitutional implications? Does he propose to cover that anomaly in the planning Bill?
We cannot discuss or ask questions about the contents of a Bill on the Order of Business.
When will the Bill be published? Is it envisaged that it will deal with this aspect?
The Bill will be published about the middle of the year.
I call Deputy Rabbitte for a very brief question as we must conclude the Order of Business.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the latest systems failure in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, where a prisoner's application for habeas corpus was heard in his absence, he was not advised of it, did not have legal representation and was not advised of the outcome?
This matter cannot be dealt with on the Order of Business.
What was at issue was the personal liberty of a citizen. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform made another long-winded apology but can the Taoiseach say what redress is open to this prisoner in these circumstances?
There are other ways the Deputy can raise this matter. It is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
What other ways are open to the prisoner?
I call Deputy Fitzgerald.
Is anybody running this Department? This gives a whole new meaning to zero tolerance.
The question is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
Is the Government considering introducing legislation to regulate 24 hour shopping and superstores as is the position in other countries?
The only questions which are in order are those on promised legislation.
It is an area that needs legislation.
May I ask about disappeared legislation?
I hope the Deputy's question is brief and in order.
Legislation was promised in respect of the introduction of the national claims agency from the Department of Finance. In the new list published regarding legislation that will be drafted by the end of this year, there is no sign of that legislation.
They are all deaf to it.
The National Treasury Management Agency Bill is due later this year.