Today's Order of Business is No. 16, motion re Standing Order 106; No. 42, National Beef Assurance Scheme Bill, 1999 [Seanad]: Second Stage (resumed) and No. 43, Equal Status Bill, 1999: Report Stage (resumed) and Final Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 16 shall be decided without debate and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order 106 or the Order of the Dáil of 30 September 1997, the Fine Gael group shall, with regard to Private Members' time allocated to the group this week, nominate a member of the Labour Party to proceed with No. 94, motion re. the health services.
Order of Business.
There are two proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 16 agreed to?
I have no problem with this proposal but I do not think we should proceed to other business until the Taoiseach has explained why he did not ask Deputy Denis Foley if he was a tax evader, if he breached exchange controls and if he told the Committee of Public Accounts about his overseas account before participating in the DIRT inquiry.
I remind the Deputy that we are on the Order of Business, No. 16.
I understand that. I am sure the Taoiseach would want the House to proceed in an orderly way and, therefore, would want to tell the House when and how he proposes to answer these questions. The difficulty is that if these questions are not answered it will be difficult to proceed with other business.
Under Standing Order 31, the Opposition parties sought to alter the business of the House and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle ruled on the matter, as is his right. We are now being asked to assent to the Order of Business to facilitate the Government. We are prepared to do so if the Government will facilitate us by replying to the questions that were the substance of the five Standing Order 31 requests.
Has the Taoiseach or the Leas-Cheann Comhairle any proposal to facilitate statements on the matters raised under Standing Order 31, perhaps by way of a Private Notice Question or in another manner? Does the Taoiseach want to avail of this opportunity, given the strength of feeling in the House on the matter?
I will allow the Deputy to speak only on No. 16. We are not debating a matter which is not related.
(Dublin West): It is inconceivable that the Dáil should agree this Order of Business until the Taoiseach indicates that he is prepared to allow time to discuss the—
I am now putting the question. We are not having a debate on the issue.
(Interruptions).
I do not know whether the Taoiseach would like to comment. Obviously you can put the question, Sir, and we can be silenced by the majority if the majority exists to silence us. It would be helpful if the Taoiseach would indicate to the House how he proposes to provide answers to what happened at the meeting in December and also how the Tánaiste obtained the information.
Deputy Bruton, we are not debating this issue.
Question, put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 16 be agreed to".
Tá
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy. |
Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donoghue, John.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas.Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael. |
Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe. Higgins, Michael. |
Níl–continued
|
Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Keeffe, Jim. |
O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Spring, Dick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Barrett and Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' Business agreed to?
I think it is, but before we agree to it formally will the Taoiseach tell us when he will answer questions about what happened at his meeting with Deputy Foley? When will the Tánaiste tell us how she was able to tip him off, as reported in the Sunday Tribune, about what was supposedly happening in the Moriarity tribunal, which is confidential?
For the benefit of Members, I will reiterate a number of points. The Chair has ruled on a number of occasions that issues currently before a tribunal are not a matter for the Order of Business. The Dáil must not attempt to have a parallel tribunal on these matters. Members will recall that the Chairman of the tribunal wrote to this effect. An extract of his letter was read into the record by the Taoiseach on 25 May 1999. I also remind Deputies that the Chair ruled on 11 May, and went on to say, it should be borne in mind the fact that the tribunal was established by a resolution of this House does not give the House a right to attempt to interfere in its proceedings.
The resolution of this House establishing the tribunal was pursuant to the statute, the Tribunals of Inquiry Acts, 1920 to 1998, whereby the judicial proceedings, including evidence and the conduct of the hearings held thereunder, are clearly the sole responsibility of the judicial chairman.
I accept everything the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has said. My concern does not relate to any of those matters but to what the Taoiseach knew and did or did not ask. It relates to what the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment did or said to the Taoiseach and also to a Member serving on the Committee of Public Accounts while in a particular position which is not being investigated by the Moriarty tribunal. Answers are required to these matters, particularly those pertaining to the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, in the interests of the good order of the House and the reputation of politics.
I do not wish to have a confrontation with the Chair but he chose to quote from correspondence from the tribunal and I wish to do the same. When the Taoiseach was before the tribunal on 27 July last year, the sole member, Mr. Justice Moriarty said "Well very good, Mr. Ahern, but I think the tribunal does not really wish to get involved in matters that should be perhaps discussed in Dáil Éireann."
While I do not dispute the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's statement, the House is entitled at least to some explanation from the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. We have tried to ensure this within the rules of the House. Four Deputies made requests under Standing Order 31 but they were ruled out by the Chair, which is his entitlement. The Taoiseach on previous occasions has intervened with the acceptance and facilitation of the Chair. We are asking the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to address a matter of grave public concern about the ethical performance of Members of this House. It is that basic.
I take the Deputy's point. I will not hear anybody else on it. It is fine if the Taoiseach wishes to make a comment on it. If not, that is the end of it.
Deputies Quinn, Ó Caoláin and Noonan rose.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle—
Deputy Noonan, we are not having a discussion on it.
The Chairman cannot cut off people.
The Chair is out of order.
Are the arrangements for Private Members' Business agreed to?
The Taoiseach has not responded.
There is no prerequisite that he must say anything. We are talking about Private Members' Business.
(Interruptions).
We are talking about Private Members' Business. If Deputy Noonan has something to say on that, I will hear it. If not, I will put the question.
The House orders its own business.
Are the arrangements for Private Members' Business agreed to?
I have to ask you, Sir—
We are not having a debate on issues that are before the tribunal.
(Interruptions).
Are the arrangements for Private Members' Business agreed to?
We need answers from the Taoiseach. We are not disagreeing with the proposal.
If the Taoiseach wishes to respond, I will hear him and that will be the end of the debate. Are the arrangements for taking Private Members' Business agreed to?
Deputy Noonan rose.
I ask Deputy Noonan to resume his seat while the Chair is on his feet.
This is a parliamentary democracy.
There is a question before the House.
The Tánaiste should stand up and tell us. She cannot have it both ways. She was very vocal when in Opposition. People are disappointed with her.
I am prepared to hear the Taoiseach if he wishes to intervene.
I understand that Deputy Foley is to be a witness before the Moriarty tribunal either this evening or tomorrow. As the Leas- Cheann Comhairle stated, the tribunal was established on foot of resolutions of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I further note that Deputy Quinn has widely publicised the fact that he has exercised his right under the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995, to make a complaint concerning Deputy Foley to the statutory Committee of Members' Interests established under the Act. As indicated in the Act, that must be investigated. The words used in the Act are that a matter "shall be" investigated.
As the Moriarty inquiry and the other matters are ongoing, I do not consider it appropriate for me or the House to comment on the matter in any detail at this time. The correctness of that view has been reinforced by the decisions of the Chair following what was lengthy correspondence on this matter on another occasion. However, my commitment to due process should not be taken as condoning any illegal acts of tax evasion.
When will the Taoiseach act?
I will take whatever action is appropriate when our knowledge of events is clear and when the requirements of due process and natural justice have been met.
The Taoiseach has asked him to resign now.
There will be no more discussion on that issue. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' Business agreed to? Agreed.
Does the Taoiseach agree, notwithstanding the comments he made, that he has questions to answer about his conduct?
Deputy Bruton, we are not going back on that issue.
His conduct in regard to this matter is not being investigated by the tribunal.
If the Deputy has another issue on the Order of Business—
Why did the Taoiseach not ask him questions in December?
We are not going back on that issue. The Deputy will leave the Chair no option but to suspend the sitting.
We will be coming back to that issue.
The Deputy may come back to it but not on the Order of Business.
The House is entitled to know if the Taoiseach considered asking Deputy Foley to resign.
The Deputy has options open to him. He cannot raise this matter on the Order of Business.
What other options? I do not wish to be disorderly but we have—
The Deputy is being disorderly. It is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
Please hear me out.
The Chair has ruled on the matter. He heard the Deputy. He also heard Deputy Bruton twice and the Taoiseach.
The Chair suggested there were other ways to raise it. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is a Member of the House for as long as I have been a Member. What other ways are available other than the ones we successfully but not conclusively invoked today?
Put down a motion on the allegation.
The Taoiseach said he was refusing to give to the House—
I call Deputy Noonan on another matter on the Order of Business.
Some time ago the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment informed the House that she had an affidavit before the High Court. The court heard the affidavit from her and her inspector and they decided to appoint Mr. Justice Declan Costello to examine issues that arose from her inspector's report.
That is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
There is new information which should cause the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to amend the affidavit because there are no longer 120 Ansbacher account holders being investigated by Mr. Justice Declan Costello but, we are told, a further 20 account holders.
Is there legislation involved?
Will the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment inform the House if it requires legislation or amending legislation?
It is not appropriate to the Order of Business. I suggest the Deputy tables a question. I call Deputy Sargent on another matter.
On promised legislation—
I am asking the Taoiseach if he will introduce legislation to enable Mr. Justice Declan Costello to examine the further 20 account holders.
I ask Deputy Noonan to resume his seat. He should resume his seat when the Chair is on his feet.
My question relates to legislation. On a point of order, Deputies always ask the Taoiseach if legislation is being introduced.
That is not correct, Deputy. They do not do that because that would allow Deputies to ask questions on any issue they wished.
Does the Companies Act need to be amended?
Will there be further amendments to the Companies Act so that Mr. Justice Costello can examine the 20 new account holders?
I ask Deputy Noonan to resume his seat. If he does not do so, he can leave the House.
The Deputy is entitled to a reply.
Why will the Taoiseach not answer the question?
It is not a question for the Order of Business.
It seems to us that there has been background contact already and there are further leaks.
The Chair is on his feet. Does the Deputy wish to leave the House? I call Deputy Sargent.
It seems the Tánaiste is—
Deputy Noonan—
There are further leaks.
If Deputy Noonan rises again on this matter, he will leave the House. The choice is his.
There is legislation on ethics in public office but a Bill on standards in public office has been promised. Will this Bill be fast tracked in light of the gross disquiet which exists in relation to politicians?
The Deputy should not make a Second Stage speech.
I am only asking if it can be fast tracked—
The Deputy asked a question on legislation. He should allow the Taoiseach to answer.
The Chair is being completely dictatorial in his style.
The standards in public office Bill will provide for a new commission—
Will it be high standards or low standards?
—and the implementation of the recommendations of tribunals which have already reported and perhaps others. The Government authorised the drafting of the heads of the Bill last September and the Bill is due to be taken later this year.
This legislation to which the Taoiseach has referred is now six months behind schedule. Will he indicate if it is intended to amend the existing legislation, the Ethics in Public Office Act, to which he referred, one section of which I invoked, or will he introduce new legislation? I refer to the item which is six months late and according to the most recently published schedule is promised for mid-2000.
Deputy Quinn will recall that his request to have full consultation in the House delayed that Bill for almost nine months. That Bill was cleared during the summer. With the help of Members, the Bill will be comprehensive and will consolidate existing legislation.
Why—
Sorry, Deputy Quinn, I have given you a great deal of latitude.
You have not given us any latitude.
The last question the Deputy asked was not appropriate to the Order of Business, it related to the details of the Bill.
The country is appalled at what is happening and you are muzzling attempts—
Sorry, Deputy Quinn, will you repeat that please?
I said the country is appalled, and I have to say that I feel, Sir, that you are muzzling attempts to try to get this matter answered.
I ask Deputy Quinn to withdraw that remark or leave the House. You have made these allegations before.
I have to tell you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that I certainly feel that this House is being muzzled but I will withdraw the comment.
That is not a withdrawal, Deputy. Will the Deputy withdraw the allegation that the Chair is muzzling the House?
I withdraw it.
Thank you, Deputy Quinn.
Will you consider in conjunction with the Ceann Comhairle – I am not asking you to respond now – the possibility that the rulings that are being given and the way in which those rulings are being used by the Government not to answer questions on matters concerning the behaviour of members of the Government, has meant that the tribunals are increasingly becoming a barrier to political accountability rather than a means of achieving political accountability and that this is extremely serious? While I respect your judgments in the matter and I do not question the judgments you have made, the net effect of them is to ensure we do not have timely accountability. Accountability in four years' time is not accountability. The Taoiseach should be accountable now for what he did at a meeting in December not in four years' time.
There is no distinction between the Chair's view of political accountability to the House and responsibility to the tribunal. The tribunal is now in place and must be allowed to continue its work which will be reported to this House in due course.
On a point of order, will you accept that the Taoiseach's decision not to ask Deputy Foley certain questions—
That is not a matter for the Order of Business.
—is not being investigated by the tribunal and that the Taoiseach is answerable to this House for that failure.
That is not a matter for the Order of Business. The Comhairle and I have ruled time and again on—
The Chair has ruled out questions concerning the Taoiseach.
I am disappointed that in the opportunity to address the issue of Standing Order 106 which you had asked Members to address, you did not afford me the opportunity to address the substantive issue at that time. Whatever assumption you made in relation to the intent—
There is an obligation on the Chair to call all Members—
—it is extremely unfair that as a Member rose to address the issue, a very important matter for the smaller parties in this House – Sinn Féin, the Green Party and the Socialist Party—
Please, Deputy Ó Caoláin.
You should have allowed me speak. In standing and indicating I wished to speak I should have been afforded the opportunity to do so.
The Chair has discretion. There is a longstanding precedent that on items put before the House arising out of the Order of Business the Leaders of the main parties are called. I ask Deputy Ó Caoláin to resume his seat and allow Deputy Owen to speak.
It would appear to us on this side that the Tánaiste is using privileged information to protect the Government. Could we have some clarity—
I ask Deputy Owen to resume her seat. There are other ways of raising the matter but not on the Order of Business.
I want to ask about legislation.
There is a substantive motion before the House.
I want to ask about legislation.
We are now moving on to No. 16.