Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Sep 1999

Vol. 508 No. 1

Order of Business.

The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 1, Údarás na Gaeltachta (Amendment) No. 3 Bill, 1999 [Seanad] – Second Stage. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Private Members' Business shall also take place tomorrow directly after the Order of Business and shall be brought to a conclusion after 90 minutes. Private Members' Business shall be No. 71, motion re Ansbacher Accounts.

There is one proposal to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' Business tomorrow agreed to? Agreed.

Could I draw the Taoiseach's attention to item 39 on today's Order Paper, Report Stage of the Companies (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1999? Will the Government agree to take Report Stage of that Bill tomorrow to allow an amendment to be made to section 21, which has already been amended extensively by the Tánaiste, to allow the publication in a proper way with due notice of the Ansbacher list, so that people on the list will not be the victims of selective and malevolent leaking and will have an opportunity to give answers about their situation?

Will the Taoiseach deal with the criminal offence of leaking this information in a selective way without the due statutory authority which I am seeking? Will the Ansbacher list be given to the Garda Commissioner so that he can establish if a leak has occurred? Are the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and other Ministers willing to be interviewed by the Garda Síochána to establish all the facts about who was responsible for the criminal offence of leaking names on the Ansbacher list, if such a criminal offence was committed?

Deputies:

Hear, hear.

There is an order for Report Stage of the Companies (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill. I am sure the Whips will agree when that is to be taken but it will not be taken tomorrow.

In regard to the other matter raised by the Deputy, I am satisfied the State has not breached any of its obligations under the Companies Acts in any way. I am satisfied the Government has not leaked any information to the media. The Government is not going to lend credibility to any speculation in the press or elsewhere about the contents of the report. It would be wrong to con firm or deny any alleged leaks and I have no intention of so doing.

How can the Taoiseach be satisfied without allowing the Garda to investigate the 15 people who received the document? If he does not give the Ansbacher list to the Garda Síochána, how can it know if a leak has occurred? Will the Taoiseach give the Ansbacher list to the Garda Commissioner and allow him, not the Taoiseach, to decide whether a leak has occurred? Will he make himself available to be interviewed, as one of the people who had the document and who must, therefore, establish his innocence in regard to complicity in the leaking of this document?

Guilty until proven innocent – is that it?

I call Deputy Quinn on the same matter.

I remind the Taoiseach of the attitude he took to leaks during the presidential election when we had a dawn raid before the election on a person who was never prosecuted.

(Interruptions.)

Was Deputy Bruton interviewed?

There will be another opportunity to debate—

I ask the Taoiseach to take this leaking seriously—

(Interruptions.)

I must remind the House that we are on the Order of Business at the moment and short questions must be asked. I call Deputy Quinn to ask a question on the Order of Business.

They have gone very quiet over there.

Time will be provided for a debate later today.

You have already, a Cheann Comhairle, ruled on this matter of considerable concern. I hope you will allow me ask the Taoiseach the following question.

The Deputy may ask a short question.

Can the Taoiseach confirm to the House that he received a copy of the report prepared by the inspector for the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment? If so, on what legal basis under the Companies Act, 1990, did he receive the report? Is he aware that Government personnel are telling journalists and others in this House that they have copies of the report, none of whom is listed in the categories set out in section 21 of the Companies Act?

That is the dirty tricks department.

It is still alive and well.

I received a copy. Under law, the Tánaiste is authorised to give copies to those whom she designates. I do not believe that anyone, other than those shown on the list, has a copy.

In view of the fact that the Tánaiste said they were legally prohibited from giving this report to other people, could she not now designate you, a Cheann Comhairle, as an authorised person? Could you not, Sir, put the report in the Oireachtas Library? Is it not the case that the Tánaiste could do that?

Why not?

The Taoiseach is the head of the Government.

Under section 21(3)(b) a person can be authorised by the Minister.

That is how the Taoiseach got it.

The Tánaiste has refused to do this. There is no reason or legal impediment preventing her from making the Ceann Comhairle an authorised person and making the report available to this House.

Or the chairmen of the committees of the House.

Or the chairmen of the committees of the House.

Does the Tánaiste wish to comment?

I took advice on this and, other than the people prescribed in the Act, the only person who got a copy of the report was the Taoiseach, as head of the Government. I authorised that he receive a copy. No advisers to the Government or any Minister received a copy of the report.

The Minister for Finance got a copy in France.

(Interruptions.)

May I ask a brief question?

Very brief. There cannot be a debate at this stage on this matter.

I know, Sir, I just want to ask a brief question.

The Deputy may ask a brief question.

It will help the debate later this evening if we can extract some information now in relation to matters of fact. You ruled out, Sir, a special notice question along these lines.

We have now established quite clearly that the Tánaiste could, if she so chose, nominate a Member of this House to receive a copy of the report. She has declined to do so, notwithstanding the fact that she said last Christmas that she was very anxious to have this report published as soon as possible because she was horrified by its contents.

In a fair way.

Why was it leaked?

(Interruptions.)

Does the Tánaiste think it fair that people, other than those designated by law under the 1990 Act, are boasting to Members of this House and others that they have copies of the report? Does she think it fair that—

Who are they?

Name the people on the list.

Is it fair to leak names?

Does she think it fair—

(Interruptions.)

Order, please. The Deputy has made his point.

Does she think it fair that, unless—

We are on the Order of Business.

(Interruptions.)

The Deputy must conclude very briefly.

I will; I am responding to a supplementary reply from the Tánaiste. Does she or the Taoiseach think it fair that selective leaking of the names in this report is ongoing across the country?

Who says it is a leak?

I call the Taoiseach.

It would be dangerous for people to give any credence to the names that are going around because it does not mean that they are leaks.

(Interruptions.)

This is not a kindergarten.

Nobody can confirm or deny those matters.

I will allow Deputy Bruton to ask a final question on this subject. We will then move on.

I have already written to the Tánaiste to this effect today. Will she authorise the Garda Commissioner, as an authorised person under paragraph (b) of the Act, to receive a copy of the report so that he can compare the names that have appeared in the newspapers with the names on the list to see if there is evidence that leaking has occurred? He can then independently decide whether he wishes to interview all those who received the report, including the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach, to establish if there was any complicity in the leaking. Will the Tánaiste agree to that so that the issue of leaking can be cleared up?

Is the Deputy sure it is a leak?

The one way to find out is to give the report to the Garda Commissioner. He can then compare the two lists—

Is the Tánaiste confirming it is a leak?

No, I am not.

—and see if any names that have appeared in the newspapers are on the list. He will then know whether he needs to make inquiries. Will the Tánaiste take that sensible step to clear the air in regard to whether there has been leaking and, if there has been, to allow criminal proceedings to be taken against the individuals, including any office holders who could have been involved?

People's reputations are being hurt.

Does the Taoiseach wish to make a final comment?

I can answer here for the Government. As I said, we are quite satisfied that we in the Government have leaked no information.

(Interruptions.)

The House must come to order. We must move on. We are on the Order of Business.

Will the Tánaiste make the list available to the Garda Commissioner to allow him to verify whether leaking has occurred?

I have not seen the Deputy's letter. I will take advice on it.

We must move on. Are there any other matters on the Order of Business?

Will the Tánaiste give the Ansbacher report to the Garda Commissioner so that he can verify whether leaking has occurred and, if it has, to take whatever steps are necessary?

You have the power.

Will the Tánaiste do that?

The Deputy has been given latitude on this matter. He may pursue the matter later today when the debate opens.

The Tánaiste's mouth is moving but her tone is not audible.

The Deputy should resume his seat. I have allowed the Deputies generous latitude on this matter. We are on the Order of Business and we have—

Will you do that?

(Interruptions.)

We are on the Order of Business. Has Deputy Quinn a new item?

To prove whether there has been leaking, will the Tánaiste give the Ansbacher report to the Garda Commissioner so he can compare the newspaper reports with—

This matter can be pursued only one way and that is the orderly way. The Deputy will have an opportunity later to pursue the matter.

(Interruptions.)

Is Deputy Quinn offering on a new subject?

The Tánaiste wants to intervene.

No, I have ruled. We have discussed this matter for long enough. Deputy Quinn on a new item.

A Cheann Comhairle, when the Tánaiste occupied this post on previous occasions she was very vocal. I am amazed at how dumb she has been struck on the questions put by Deputies.

A new item please, Deputy.

On a separate issue—

Deputy Quinn on a separate matter.

(Interruptions.)

On a previous occasion, the Government decided to publish the legal advice it received in respect of a certain matter. As the Tánaiste said she received legal advice not to publish this report and not to nominate another person—

I have called for a separate matter.

May I please ask the question? This is about publishing legal advice.

Yes, but it is not appropriate on the Order of Business.

Deputies:

It is.

It is. A Cheann Comhairle, please let me put the question.

The Chair, not the Deputy, decides what is appropriate.

(Interruptions.)

Let us not get off to a bad start.

If the Deputy does not ask a brief question, he must resume his seat.

Will the Tánaiste publish the legal advice that prevents her from publishing the Ansbacher accounts report?

The Deputy should read the Act, he should read the court order of last week.

Deputy Bruton wrote to me and I gave him that information. I will give the same information to Deputy Quinn.

Mr. J. Bruton rose.

Has Deputy Bruton a new matter to raise?

I am a little puzzled.

We are not puzzled at Deputy Bruton's puzzlement.

(Interruptions.)

The Deputy must resume his seat. There is a debate tonight. If this matter is to be pursued, it must be pursued in an orderly way.

I see the release of tension on the Government side—

Deputy Bruton should not ignore the Chair. Are there any new questions on the Order of Business? The House will not pursue that matter any further at this stage because there is provision for a full debate later today.

Why did the Tánaiste authorise the Taoiseach to receive those names?

I have said that matter—

He is the head of the Government. He is head of the Office of the Attorney General as well.

I ask Members to be orderly. When the Chair is on its feet, the Deputy should resume his. If there are no other questions on the Order of Business, I will proceed with the business—

A Cheann Comhairle—

I can give the floor to the Deputy only if he will ask a question that is not related to what has already been discussed. We have dealt with that matter more than adequately on the Order of Business, which is not the appropriate place to discuss it. The appropriate occasion is later. If the Deputy has a new question, I will permit him to raise it.

The House is back after a relatively long recess. I want to be orderly. Three section 30 notices were raised with the Chair and were turned down. A special notice question was also raised and turned down.

I am merely drawing to the Chair's attention that we have little or no other way of raising this matter since two other avenues were closed by the Chair.

I have given opportunities on the Order of Business.

I accept the Chair's ruling but I wish to draw it to his and his advisers' attention that other avenues open to Deputies were closed on a matter that is being discussed across the country.

The Deputy cannot enter into argument with the Chair. The Deputy must resume his seat. Does Deputy Ó Caoláin have a new matter?

(Dublin West): Is the Government going to continue to stand over—

Deputy Quinn rose.

I have asked the Deputy if he has a separate question.

Does the Taoiseach intend to make Government time available to discuss the national plan before it is finalised and before discussions with the social partners are finalised?

As I said previously, we are willing to do that. If time can be found, we will arrange it.

In light of the Taoiseach's earlier announcement regarding the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, what legislation will be brought forward to implement the recommendations of the victims' commission and when can it be expected? Can the Taoiseach also say when the national minimum wage Bill will be brought before the House? Go raibh maith agat.

No specific legislation is mentioned in that report but it is being examined. If legislation is required, it will be brought forward. The legislation on the other matter will be introduced before Christmas.

During the summer, the Tánaiste announced cuts to the community employment schemes which she, thankfully, went back on in a meeting with the INOU and ICTU last Friday.

She has not gone back on them.

She has at least agreed to fulfil the partnership agreement which was that she would make no cuts without consultation and without transferring the money into unemployment services. Has the special monitoring committee been established under the Taoiseach's Department to ensure the Tánaiste does not go back on what she told these two groups?

Put down a parliamentary question.

The partnership agreement the Taoiseach is about to negotiate—

What the Deputy is raising is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

It is, because the partnership agreement—

The Chair decides what is appropriate and the Chair has decided this matter is not.

Will the promise given by the Tánaiste last Friday to set up a committee—

If the Deputy will resume her seat, I will ask the Taoiseach if he wishes to comment.

People on these schemes are in a terrible state. They do not know if they will be on them next week or next year. Has the Taoiseach taken control of this monitoring committee?

Is there any comment?

Which legislation, a Cheann Comhairle?

The community employment scheme.

There is no legislation on that.

The Taoiseach does not know the answer.

Maidir le reachtaíocht atá geallta, bhí an Youthwork (Amendment) Bill geallta faoi lár na bliana seo agus in a dhiaidh sin faoi dheireadh na bliana. Ar an liosta atá os ar gcomhair tá an bhliain 2000 luaite. An féidir linn an liosta seo a chreidiúint nó an bhfuil na dátaí seo ag athrú ó lá go lá?

An bhliain seo chugainn.

In view of the announcement today, in reply to a parliamentary question, that Ireland is appointing an ambassador to NATO, will the Taoiseach take an early opportunity to correct the record of the House? He said previously in the House he would not make such an appointment.

That is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

The record of the House must be corrected. The Taoiseach said an ambassador to NATO would not be appointed.

The matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business. I call Deputy McManus.

I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the nursing Bill. It is clear from the list of proposed legislation that it is slipping back in the Government's programme. The intention is to amend the Nurses Act. Is this part of the "do nothing" policy the Government is adopting in relation to nurses which is going to lead us down a destructive and damaging course—

The Deputy's comments are not appropriate to the Order of Business.

—which will have a severe impact on our hospital services?

There should simply be a question on when the legislation—

The question relates to legislation. It would be helpful if there was an indication from the Government that it was taking seriously the impending crisis in our hospital services because of the action that is likely to happen on the part of the nurses. The Government is simply not listening to what is happening among health service personnel.

The Nurses Act requires amendment and probably has for a long time. The Commission of Nursing which was set up by this Government has reported that the legislation should be amended. The heads of the Bill are being prepared. I have no doubt the nursing profession will be most appreciative of the fact that the Minister for Health and Children is amending the legislation.

The Government has had plenty of time.

With regard to the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, on what date before Christmas will the legislation be published? Is the Taoiseach aware that information with regard to management changes on the Inland Fisheries Board is being selectively leaked by various Fianna Fáil sources?

That matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business. I call Deputy Howlin.

When will we see the Courts Bill? Will it encompass a mechanism to review the prosecution of individual cases where there is public disquiet or will that be encompassed by separate legislation?

The Bill is to give effect to the report of the working group on qualifications for appointment of judges to the High Court and Supreme Court in certain matters and it will be published this session.

Will the Bill encompass a mechan ism to review the prosecution of cases where the—

We cannot discuss the contents of the Bill as that is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

Will special legislation be needed to deal with that or will the Government introduce legislation on that matter?

If the Deputy wants to table a question on the contents of the legislation or wants me to check them, I will.

(Mayo): Two and a half years ago an expert group commissioned by the previous Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, reported and recommended the establishment of a prison service board. Today we have the list of promised legislation to be published between now and Christmas and the prison service Bill is left languishing, lost in the section C list, as indeed is the attachment of earnings Bill, which has been promised time and time again. Why have both Bills not been addressed as matters of urgency given that there have been several damning denunciations of our prison service in reports published during the summer?

The board has been established on an interim basis subject to the Bill passing and I hope it will be ready around Christmas. It might be published early next year.

I wish to raise the long promised legislation to amend landlord and tenant law to provide protection for tenants in private rented accommodation. I do not see mention of this legislation in any section of the Government's legislative programme. Has the Government abandoned plans to introduce legislation to provide protection for such tenants?

As I said before, that matter is subject to examination because of constitutional difficulties, which have not been resolved.

This is in gestation for a long time. Is it intended to introduce legislation to give protection to tenants in private rented accommodation?

A commission is working on that matter, which has not yet reported its position.

Wrong Bill.

Which Bill is the Deputy talking about?

Will there be legislation—

I call Deputy Yates. There are many other Deputies offering. We can not pursue the matter any further on the Order of Business, Deputy Gilmore.

I am asking a legitimate question. A promise has been made and many tenants are paying high rents, are subject to eviction and so on, and they want to know—

The Deputy cannot make a statement on the matter.

—whether the Government intends to introduce legislation to give them rights or protection. I want the Taoiseach to give a straight answer to that.

The Deputy got a straight answer.

Will there be legislation?

When the commission reports, a decision will then have to be made.

A Cheann Comhairle, I tabled two questions to the Taoiseach, which you disallowed, in regard to the Cabinet guidelines for officeholders on corporate hospitality.

We cannot raise issues appertaining to disallowed questions.

May I ask for details? In regard to the Riviera Six, does the Taoiseach propose to take any—

(Interruptions).

The Deputy's geography is wrong.

This matter is not in order on the Order of Business. The Deputy should resume his seat as he knows it is not in order.

The Government announced during the summer recess that it intends to set up, through legislation, two funds to provide for partial future pension liabilities. According to the Government's legislative programme, it is not intended to do that until next year. May we take it from that that it is not intended to make provision in this year's Estimates for the fund?

The Superannuation (Partial Prefunding of Future Liabilities) Bill is being prepared and the expected date of publication is early 2000.

A Cheann Comhairle—

I call Deputy Barrett. We cannot pursue the matter.

I asked a specific question which was in order.

The Deputy did not get an answer.

The Order of Business has gone on for 30 minutes. I will allow a final question from Deputy Barrett. We cannot have a debate on the matter.

I am not asking for one.

The Deputy has asked a question and received an answer.

My question was in order, but it was not answered.

We cannot have supplementary questions on the Order of Business. The Deputy should resume his seat. I call Deputy Barrett.

The Taoiseach will recall that he gave me a guarantee that the disabilities Bill would get priority after the completion of the National Disability Authority Bill, which has been enacted. I refer him to the recent list of published legislation which states in regard to the disability Bill: "Not possible to indicate expected date of publication at this stage." Does the Taoiseach agree that that does not give an indication of priority to a very serious matter? I ask him to personally intervene to see that this is done.

I recall what I said to the Deputy. It is being looked at to see how it can be implemented and it is a priority.

That is not a priority.

It is a question of how the National Disability Authority Board is working and how it can fit in, but it is trying to reach a resolution of this matter as quickly as possible. It still is a priority.

It was drafted in the Taoiseach's Department.

A Cheann Comhairle, will you call me tomorrow?

Will Deputy Rabbitte be called tomorrow?

Top
Share