The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 9, motion re. Partnership for Peace and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (resumed).
Order of Business.
There are no proposals to put to the House. Before we commence on the Order of Business, if I may anticipate events, I wish to make a brief comment on the latest revelations—
This week.
—concerning the NIB and certain Deputies. Strictly speaking, these are not matters for the Order of Business, but a practice has evolved on the Order of Business in this Dáil and the preceding Dáil that Leaders of parties, which are recognised groups under Standing Orders, have been allowed to ask the Taoiseach of the day a relevant, but brief, question on a topical matter. I will, therefore, allow a brief question from Deputies John Bruton and Ruairí Quinn this morning but, in doing so, I have to point out:
(i) that these issues may come before the Moriarty tribunal and the standard ruling under Standing Order 56, namely, that the Dáil should not attempt to have a parallel tribunal on these matters, may apply; (ii) it is a long-standing ruling of the Chair that serious charges may be made against a Member only by substantive motion where the whole House has an opportunity to decide on the matter and not by innuendo or otherwise across the floor of the House; and (iii) the initiative for making a personal explanation rests with the Member concerned, not the Chair.
I ask Members to co-operate with me so that the business of House is conducted in an orderly and fair manner to all Members concerned. I call Deputy John Bruton.
Does the Taoiseach agree there is widespread concern that a Deputy, who is a member of Fianna Fáil and a key supporter of the Government, obtained more favourable treatment from a bank as a result of political representations than other clients of that bank would have obtained at that time and that it is a cause of public scandal? Does he also agree it is questionable whether it is appropriate for the Deputy in question to remain as chairman of a committee of this House in the circumstances, particularly a committee which deals directly with the area in which he was engaged in a failed business? Will he agree to ask all other members of the Cabinet to make a similar statement to the one he made last night that he was not one of the persons who made representations to the bank on behalf of the Deputy in question? In asking each Minister to make such a statement, he should also ask them to make it clear that they did not, or if the case was that they did, suggest that the bank might have difficulty in its business if it did not accede to these representations.
Will he ask the Attorney General to advise him, and through him the House, on whether the Moriarty Tribunal has any jurisdiction in this matter? My reading of the terms of reference suggests it does not because it is confined to payments to named individuals and Deputy Ellis is not a named individual. The suggestion, therefore, that this matter is being referred to the tribunal may be nothing more than a device to prevent legitimate questions being asked about the matter. The Deputy and others may be hiding behind the tribunal rather than facilitating it.
Having regard to the fact the Taoiseach exonerated himself last night unilaterally from the charge of bringing influence to bear on National Irish Bank and its chief executive, Mr. Lacey, on behalf of Deputy Ellis, will he now ensure that the serving members of his Cabinet exonerate themselves from any such charge, bearing in mind the seriousness of the suggestion implicit in the report yesterday that undue influence of a threatening nature was brought to bear on a bank whose ownership had recently changed and that it would not be in the best interests of the new owners of the bank to effectively jeopardise the survival of the Government? Does he think, as a former Minister for Finance, that direct representations by a Minister for Finance, Deputy Albert Reynolds, who admitted that it probably happened, although he cannot remember it, were appropriate in the circumstances? Will he offer a personal view on the matter?
Unfortunately, it is a sad fact that a number of serving and former Members of this House have found themselves in financial difficulties. It is a matter of public record that some of them, in common with other members of the community, have been successful in their attempts to have some or all of their debts forgiven by various financial institutions. I am not aware of any facts about the case of Deputy Ellis which make it any different from previous instances involving current or former Deputies. However, if anyone has any evidence to the contrary, it is incumbent on them to furnish it to the Moriarty Tribunal or to state it publicly.
It has nothing to do with the Moriarty Tribunal.
We should be careful both inside and outside the House not to give credence to unsubstantiated allegations or reports but to seek to have them examined in an appropriate way. If allegations are made or evidence is brought forward, I will, as Taoiseach and leader of my party, investigate it. However, I have not received any reports.
Deputy Ellis issued a public statement yesterday through his solicitor about the relief of his debt by National Irish Bank to his benefit following representations to the bank in 1989. That statement has also been furnished to the Moriarty Tribunal and will fall to be considered by that body in the normal way. Deputy John Bruton may or may not be correct as to whether it falls within its terms of reference. That is a matter it must consider. I have checked that with the Attorney General and his view is that the tribunal would have to look to see if it falls—
He did not say it does.
He did not say it does or does not, but that it is a matter for the tribunal.
Then it does not.
I expect that both Deputy Ellis and Deputy Albert Reynolds, who also issued a public statement yesterday about this matter, will co-operate fully with any tribunal or questions asked.
None of my colleagues have given me any information to indicate they made representations and I am sure they would if they did.
Did the Taoiseach ask them?
My office contacted National Irish Bank and was told that it has instituted a search of its records. As of now, it has not uncovered any record of any contact between Ministers or anyone else in connection with the case of Deputy Ellis. It told my office that if it uncovered any such records, it would inform us.
Will the Taoiseach reconsider his suggestion that this is a fairly normal transaction given that 90 per cent or more of the debt was written off? There have been write-offs but a 90 per cent write-off is almost unprecedented, particularly where an asset of considerable value remained in the possession of the person whose debt was written off. Why has the Taoiseach not asked his Ministers if any of them made representations? Why has he left it to them to come to him? Surely he has a proactive responsibility in regard to this matter? Surely he would regard it as a matter of the gravest concern if an implicit threat was made by any member of his party, whether a current Minister, to this bank about its future operations? Surely that is an issue which Deputy Bertie Ahern, either as Taoiseach or leader of Fianna Fáil, must be willing to address? Was there any suggestion, however slight – innuendoes suffice in these circumstances – of difficulties being placed in the way of this bank in its work if it did not make the enormous write-off in this case? Can the Taoiseach satisfy himself and the House on that point?
I am sure the Deputy remembers the interest rates at the time, particularly as he is a big farmer.
Has the Taoiseach and his party learned nothing from the saga that resulted in the departure from this House and the Cabinet of former Deputy, Raphael Burke? Bearing in mind that unhappy set of events which resulted in the loss of a seat for the Fianna Fáil Party, will he not directly ask his Cabinet colleagues, who are sitting beside him, rather than institute the "up and down every tree" routine once again?
I thought McCarthyism was over on that side not on the Labour side. That is an unusual line for the Labour Party.
The Minister cannot see the woods for the trees.
I call the Taoiseach for a final comment.
I have a relationship with my colleagues in Government and they speak to me. I do not have to chase them.
Where is the Tánaiste today?
If they have something to tell me, they will do so.
Will the Taoiseach not ask them?
It is not the old school class effort.
It was not always like that.
It is now. Deputy John Bruton seems to have hard information about threats that were made. Yesterday I got the impression that Deputy Noonan was about to mention the third name. If Deputy Noonan or Deputy John Bruton have such evidence, it would help if they gave it to the House.
Put up or shut up.
(Interruptions).
The Chair must point out that we cannot have an extended question time on this issue.
We have a procession of tribunals because Ministers would not answer questions. This is another example of it.
I have not given the floor to Deputy Quinn. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat. He is being disorderly.
I will allow a final brief comment because we cannot continue on this matter.
A Cheann Comhairle, I notice the Taoiseach had a prepared script. He obviously had notice of the arrangement you were going to make.
He has it everyday now in case he will be wrong.
I am concerned about the possibility that threats were made and that the national radio and television stations have indicated they have information that threats may have been made. That being the case, there is an obligation on the Taoiseach—
The Deputy should tell them to put it down then, he should not go chasing red herrings.
—as leader of Fianna Fáil and as head of a Government consisting of a number of members of Fianna Fáil, to make inquiries as to whether anybody for whom he has accountability to this House or to the country was involved in such activity. He should not wait for people to come to him but should ask them because he has a habit of averting his eyes to matters to which he does not want his attention drawn. On this occasion he should go out and look.
I will repeat my question. Will the Taoiseach explicitly ask the serving members of his Cabinet if they were involved in this episode?
Deputy Higgins rose.
I made it quite clear in my opening statement that this is confined to the two party leaders. The Deputy should resume his seat.
(Dublin West): On a point of order, this is a carefully choreographed sham between the Taoiseach and Deputy Bruton—
(Interruptions).
That is not a point of order, the Deputy will resume his seat.
I had no notice of these arrangements whatsoever other than that statements would be made, and the suggestion made by Deputy Higgins is unworthy of him.
Deputy Higgins should withdraw that remark.
Will Deputy Higgins resume his seat.
(Interruptions).
The Deputy is being disorderly.
Deputy Robespierre.
If any of my serving colleagues have anything of note to tell me I will put it in the public domain.
We are asking them now.
I have already been in contact with National Irish Bank and as I said it has already instituted a search of its record. It has uncovered no record of any contact. Obviously no one in the House has anything else to say as they have declined to take the opportunity to do so. My two colleagues, for whom I have some responsibility, have already made statements.
We will now move on to other matters on the Order of Business.
What action will the House take on the agreed recommendation made by the Joint Committee on Health and Children this morning that both the Government and nursing unions should engage in direct dialogue? Will the Taoiseach take into account that—
I have clearly indicated to the House that—
—this recommendation was made by members of the Government parties as well as the Opposition?
—there will be an opportunity to deal with that matter in due course. If the matter is dealt with now or attempts are made to do so it may prejudice a later decision. The Chair has clearly indicated these matters will be facilitated during the course of the day.
Neither junior hospital doctors nor nurses are willing to change intravenous drips for patients. Both groups have said this is the case. This is a grave situation.
There will be ample time this evening to discuss this matter.
The nurses need to clarify what they are looking for—
I wish to point out to the Deputy that many backbenchers were unable to raise matters on the Order of Business yesterday and they will be prevented from doing so again today. The Deputy should give way to them. Arrangements are already in train to provide for a discussion on these matters.
On emergency services.
Yes, this evening. These matters will be dealt with during the Private Notice Question, as has been indicated.
On a point of order—
The Deputy is depriving many of his backbenchers of an opportunity—
I would not wish to do that. However, the questions allowed this afternoon are solely about emergency cover and not the substance of the dispute. This dispute can and should be avoided.
It is up to the Deputy submitting the questions to decide their nature. There is no curtailment.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that those parties who are opposed to Partnership for Peace will not get an opportunity to speak—
That is not a matter for the Order of Business.
I thought it was, a Cheann Comhairle. We will not get an opportunity to speak on this subject today and we are limited to 15 minutes. Do you think this is fair and would you change the order so we can speak for a longer period?
That matter has been decided by the House already. Deputy Jim Higgins.
There are people in the gallery—
The matter has been decided and cannot be reopened. The Deputy should resume his seat and allow other Deputies an opportunity to put legitimate questions.
It is terrible that all the parties in favour—
The Deputy is being disorderly. Deputy Jim Higgins.
(Mayo): On Tuesday evening, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, announced his intention to introduce legislation to extend pub opening hours, regularise discos and allow for changes to the sale and transfer of licences. What is the status of the so-called millennium Bill, that is the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, which is on Second Stage and proposes all night opening hours on the eve of the millennium? Is that Bill being proceeded with? We welcome the U-turn in the extension of pub opening hours and the regularisation of discos.
Has the Bill been approved by Deputy Healy-Rae?
It is probably more sensible to bring forward one comprehensive Bill. That decision will be made as soon as the Minister proceeds with the drafting.
When is it planned to publish the Comhairle Bill? Deputy Barrett raised the disabilities Bill some weeks ago and was told there is no publication date. Is the Government still committed to publishing a disabilities Bill in its tenure?
The Comhairle Bill will be published next Monday. It is intended that the disabilities Bill will be a rights Bill which will compliment the anti-discrimination provision under the Employment Equality Bill and Equal Status Bill, which will hopefully be enacted shortly.
Is there a change in Government policy towards keeping small rural post offices open? Is the Taoiseach aware there is a post office closing at Gurtymadden in Loughrea this week? What about the rural proofing about which we were talking?
That is not a matter for the Order of Business. Deputy Rabbitte.
They cannot get someone to take it.
They have it already. The Minister knows what happened.
They cannot get someone to take it.
The Minister is letting them down.
The cumann structure has obviously broken down. What is happening to the old party?
Has Deputy Rabbitte a question? He should proceed.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the Companies (Amendment) Bill but before I do I wish to draw his attention to an item on radio this morning on Cheeverstown House in my constituency. Parents have contacted me about their concern that they will be unable to maintain services for handicapped children if it is picketed. Will the Taoiseach intervene in this extremely difficult situation?
The Deputy can deal with that matter at a later stage.
Will a Committee Stage amendment to the Companies (Amendment) Bill, which would permit the Ansbacher issue to be referred to this House or one of its committees and which the Minister indicated he was positively disposed towards, be brought forward by Government or will it accept the Labour Party amendment? When will Report Stage of the Companies (Amendment) Bill be taken?
It was agreed that should be ordered for next Wednesday.
The public wants to know whether the Ansbacher issue will be referred to a committee of this House or to the House itself? The Minister indicated he was positively disposed towards accepting the Labour amendment. Is that still the view of the Government?
We cannot anticipate decisions on amendments.
Has the Chair completed its inquiries regarding the switching of a reply to a Parliamentary Question? If so, will the matter be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges?
The Chair has no function in the switching—
I understood the Chair was making inquiries.
If these inquiries are under way they will be—
I am asking if they have been completed.
To which Parliamentary Question is the Deputy referring?
The reply to the Parliamentary Question which was leaked.
That matter has been dealt with and I understand the Deputy concerned has been corresponded with.
Will it be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges?
That is not a matter for the Chair.
As Chairman?
No, it is not a matter for the Chair.
Is it open to a Member of the House to refer the matter?
It is open to any Member of the House to do so but it is not a matter for the Chair.
Will the Taoiseach assure the House that where due process has been completed with regard to the Ansbacher accounts, if people are found guilty of tax evasion they will be removed from either State boards or—
That is not relevant to the Order of Business.
(Dublin West): As regards the promise of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to amend the licensing laws, when will the Bill come before the Dáil? Will the Government bring in a Bill at the same time dealing with the enormous destructive capacity of this dangerous drug, alcohol, in order to ban all advertising?
We cannot discuss the substance of any Bill on the Order of Business. The Deputy may raise questions on the timing of the legislation.
(Dublin West): As there is a Bill forthcoming, extending pub opening hours it is appropriate to ask if legislation banning advertising of this dangerous drug will also be intro duced. When will the Bill be brought before the Dáil?
The Deputy has given up red wine.
The general scheme has just been cleared so it will take some time to draft the Bill.
Why did the Government, despiteits positive pronouncements at the national ploughing championship, lose its nerve and disregard the advice of Teagasc to grant a decent allocation to small and medium sized family farms?
That is not a matter for the Order of Business.
It is an absolute scandal. It is a cop out.
It is not a matter for the Order of Business. The Deputy should resume his seat.
(Interruptions).
There are other ways open to the Deputy to pursue the matter.
What is the status of the Mental Health Bill? Can the Taoiseach confirm that it is in the office of the Attorney General? Will it be a comprehensive Bill or will further legislation be necessary to update our hopelessly outdated laws?
A description of the Bill cannot be provided on the Order of Business.
I am particularly interested in what way it will apply to people with schizophrenia and their carers.
The Bill will be in this session.
It will be of great interest to Members.