The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 21 – Revised Estimates for Public Services, 2000, including Vote 20 on a Supplementary Order Paper and Supplementary Estimate [Vote 6] (returned from Committee); No. 22 – Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2000 – Financial Resolutions; No. 44 – Statements on European Summit, Feira, Portugal; No. 7 – Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2000 – Order for Second Stage and Second and Subsequent Stages. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that, (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 10.30 p.m.; (2) No. 21 – Revised Estimates and Supplementary Estimate [Vote 6] for Public Services, 2000, shall be moved together and shall be decided without debate by one question which shall be put from the Chair and any division demanded thereon shall be taken forthwith; (3) No. 22 – Financial Resolutions Nos. 1, 2 and 3, shall be moved together and shall be decided without debate by one question which shall be put from the Chair; (4) the proceedings on No. 44, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion after 70 minutes and the statements shall be confined to the following members, who shall be called upon in the following sequence, and the following arrangements shall apply; (i) the statements by the Taoiseach and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party, shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case; and (ii) a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed 10 minutes; and (5) the Second and subsequent Stages of No. 7, shall be taken today and the following arrangements shall apply; (i) Second Stage to conclude at 7.00 p.m. if not previously concluded; (ii)Committee and Remaining Stages to conclude at 10.30 p.m. if not previously concluded, and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion by one question in each case which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments to the Bill, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Finance. Private Members' business shall be No. 101 – motion re Government Policies.
Order of Business.
There are five proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for that late sitting agreed to?
Yes.
No, Sir. Given the very serious nature of the matter I raised under Standing Order 31, which I do not wish to revisit, and since we are being asked to extend the normal sitting time to 10.30 p.m., will the Taoiseach consider – and it is the prerogative of the Government, not this House – extending that time to enable the Government or some member of it to offer some explanation to this House and the public of what action it proposes to take?
Private Members' business tonight will allow the Deputy an opportunity to raise that matter.
I would prefer if I were to interpret the political content of Private Members' time. In this instance I am talking about a time motion which we are being asked to agree. In view of the refusal to allow a motion under Standing Order 31, I am asking the Taoiseach, before the Labour Party gives its assent, whether the Government will consider arranging for a member of the Government, if it can find one, to come in and answer the question on every person's lips as to what action it proposes to take.
Is the Deputy opposing the motion?
I am waiting for a reply.
Is the Minister for Finance available?
Under the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974, the Director of Public Prosecutions is completely independent in the discharge of his functions, and any action to be taken in the light of Monday's Circuit Court judgment is a matter for the DPP alone. It would be entirely wrong for any member of the Government to appear to attempt to influence him in this or in any other legal proceeding. The House knows that.
Would the Taoiseach agree there is also an issue of political accountability here, and that the Tánaiste is accountable to this House for her political actions?
(Dublin West): The Taoiseach must make time to discuss the implications of the judgment in the Circuit Criminal Court.
That matter was raised under Standing Order 31. The Ceann Comhairle ruled it out of order. We cannot have a debate on it now. I am putting the question on proposal No. 1.
(Dublin West): This relates to the Order of Business today.
The question is: "That the proposal for the late sitting be agreed to."
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 21 agreed to?
No, sir. I cannot agree with this proposition until an issue of political accountability concerning two of these Estimates is cleared up. There is an Estimate, to be taken without debate, of £835 million for the Tánaiste's Department, and an Estimate of £57 million for the Courts Service, also to be taken without debate if that is agreed. Before agreeing, we need to know whether the Tánaiste, if she is not to account for her comments on a recent court case—
That does not arise on the question.
I will just finish the sentence, if I may. If the Tánaiste is not prepared to account in another way, we must debate these Estimates, in particular the Tánaiste's Estimate, which has not been considered prior to her recent com ments. Therefore, the Tánaiste must be accountable to the House for her recent comments. These Estimates should not be taken without debate until the Tánaiste has given an account to this House—
Deputy Bruton is out of order on this matter. The Ceann Comhairle has already ruled on it.
I want to say one more sentence and then I will stop.
Deputy Bruton is being constantly interrupted.
The Chair will continue to intervene where a Deputy is out of order.
The Chair has an interest in intervening.
I have no quarrel with the Chair. Let me say one sentence, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. The Tánaiste has frequently demanded accountability of others. She should therefore understand that she must be accountable too.
The Estimates have come back from the committees in the normal way, having been debated at the committees.
The question is: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 21 be agreed to."
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.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.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Reynolds, Albert.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
|
Ahearn, Theresa.Allen, Bernard.Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael. Coveney, Simon. |
|
Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Hayes, Brian.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz. |
Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Yates, Ivan. |
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 22 agreed? Agreed.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 44 agreed?
No. It is clear that anyone who is in any way critical of the direction in which the European Union is heading has been excluded from the debate. The Green Party, Sinn Féin and the Socialist Party tabled questions on the matter only to be told that it would be dealt with. We were even told that defence matters would not be raised in Portugal, but they were. We now find that we have been excluded from this important debate. That is undemocratic, it amounts to censorship and is unacceptable.
(Dublin West): I tabled a question to the Taoiseach for oral reply today about his dealings with the British Government regarding Northern Ireland, but it was disallowed by the Ceann Comhairle because it would anticipate statements scheduled for today on the European Council meeting held in Feira. Inexplicable though that decision might be, I now find that 70 minutes have been set aside for the debate and that the Government, Fine Gael and the Labour Party have stitched it up between themselves, each of which will have 20 minutes, with ten minutes for the reply. It will not be possible for small parties or Independents such as myself to contribute. Unless this is changed, I will oppose the proposal most strenuously.
I cannot agree to the Order of Business as presented. I tabled two questions to the Taoiseach for oral answer today on the European Council summit in Portugal, but they were disallowed on the basis that they would anticipate statements on the summit. The same happened following the Helsinki summit. The record will show that the Taoiseach indicated at that time that the questions should not have been disallowed. Yet, it has been repeated today. Independent representatives and I as a representative of a smaller party are routinely excluded from statements. It is imperative that the Taoiseach put into action the sentiments he has expressed, that it is patently unfair that our questions are disallowed on the one hand and that we are censored in terms of participation in statements on the other, in this case statements on the Portuguese summit. This is completely unacceptable. I ask all opinion, not just Independents and members of small parties, to join with us in opposition to the Order of Business unless the Taoiseach indicates that the matter will be revisited and that time will be accorded to Independent Members and members of small parties during the course of statements on the summit.
The Standing Order disallowing parliamentary questions does not differentiate between Members.
(Dublin West): The proposal to cut us out of the debate does differentiate. We are being silenced.
This is the procedure which has been followed by successive Governments for many years. Deputy Ó Caoláin raised this matter with me before. On that occasion he resubmitted the questions which were subsequently dealt with. If Members wish to change the arrangements, we can discuss some other way of dealing with the matter.
Vótáil.
Will the Deputies who are claiming a division please rise?
Deputies Higgins (Dublin West), Healy, Gregory, Ó Caoláin, Gormley and Sargent rose.
As fewer than ten Members have risen I declare the question carried. The names of the Deputies who claimed a division will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 7 agreed to? Agreed. On the Order of Business I call Deputy John Bruton.
We are taking business tonight which, inter alia, deals with the fact that a recent court case must be brought to an end as a result partly of comments made by the Tánaiste. Will the Taoiseach indicate if the Tánaiste will make a statement on her role in the matter in the House in advance of that debate? Does he agree that in view of political developments, including developments today, it would be most unwise for the House to adjourn for three months on Friday?
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
The business of this House should continue next week and I wish to give notice to you, Sir, and to the Government that that is the view of the Fine Gael Party. It is ludicrous in current circumstances to contemplate an adjournment of three months.
That matter does not arise on the Order of Business today.
I wish to make it known to you, Sir, in the most formal manner possible that if the courts and the tribunals can do their business, this House must also be free to do its business and it should not be sent away for three months by a Government that has no mandate.
That matter does not arise on the Order of Business today. It may arise later in the week.
I am giving notice of it, Sir.
In view of the way matters on the Order of Business have proceeded, if the House takes a full 70 minutes to debate No. 44, it will only have a very short time to consider Second Stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill by 7 p.m. It will not be possible for either of the Opposition speakers to make a contribution or for the Minister to conclude, unless his opening statement is his conclusion. I suggest to the Taoiseach that the Whips modify that order. I do not seek an extension of the sitting beyond 10.30 p.m. but it is unnecessarily rigid to order the conclusion of Second Stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill by 7 p.m.
That can be looked at.
On promised legislation, when will the Standards in Public Office Bill be published? Publication was promised for this week at the latest.
The Bill was finalised by the Cabinet today and it will be published later this week.
I understand the Government proposes to introduce an emergency Medical Practitioners Bill. Will the Taoiseach indicate on what day it is to be taken?
I hope it will be taken on Friday.
If the main Opposition parties want to accommodate the business of the House perhaps they might consider using less than the probable 20 minutes which will be allocated to their party spokespersons on Second Stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill. Twenty minutes would be a luxury to the smaller parties.
Does the Taoiseach have any proposals for dealing with outstanding legislation? I hope it might restore some confidence in the political process. The Criminal Justice (Protection of Confidential Information) Bill is one such. Given the news relating to Fianna Fáil today, will this Bill be published? Has a precedent been set in terms of the length of time it takes between the publication of a Bill and its enactment? The Wildlife (Amendment) Bill is now one year in abeyance at a time when there is increasing destruction of the natural environment. It will not now be enacted before the recess.
The Criminal Justice (Protection of Criminal Information) Bill will be published later this year. The Wildlife (Amendment) Bill is before a committee.
Last week I asked the Taoiseach if the report on the Abbeylara shootings will be made available to the House before the recess. There is a possibility that the House may have to set up an inquiry.
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
It does arise if the House has to set up an inquiry.
I have already told the Deputy that as soon as the report is with the Minster for Justice, Equality and Law Reform he will publish it. The Minister does not know when he will receive it.
On the question of promised legislation, will the Taoiseach have any regard to the remarks yesterday of the Governor of the Central Bank in respect of the legislation promised either by the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment or the Minister for Finance, assuming they are talking to each other, concerning the regulation of the financial services industry? The Minister for Finance is back in the House without having disturbed the calm in the Lebanon.
That has already been answered by the Minister for Finance at Question Time today.
This legislation is urgent. There are very few remaining days left in this session. When will it be published?
It will not be published in this session, but the discussions are ongoing. I hope it will be published in the autumn.
In view of the political erosion in the Government, does the Taoiseach anticipate when the Coastal Zone Management Bill, which deals with coastal erosion, will be introduced?
The heads of the Bill will be ready shortly, but the Bill will not be ready until early 2001.
Does the Taoiseach anticipate that he will be introducing it?
Yes.
I understand the Government took decisions on inflation today. At Question Time the Minister for Finance did not feel free to give the information to the House. Will the measures require legislation and will there be a statement during Private Members' business informing the House of them or does the Taoiseach intend to make an announcement outside the House?
No legislation was discussed at the Cabinet. Some work has to be completed on the measures and they will be published later.
(Dublin West): On promised legislation, heroin addicts regularly get a very bad press, but if they steal a handbag they go to trial. If one is a very famous public figure before a tri bunal over alleged planning corruption one may escape subsequent trial.
A question on promised legislation.
Contempt of court.
(Dublin West): Can the Government see, perhaps through the defamation Bill which could be brought forward, that legitimate political and public debate could be allowed on matters of controversy involving tribunals without avoiding a trial?
Is there a defamation Bill promised?
It is expected shortly, in the autumn session. It is to amend the law of defamation drawing on the Law Reform Commission's committee report on the newspaper industry.
On promised legislation, recently the Taoiseach gave an undertaking that he would endeavour to ensure that all Stages of the Children Bill, 1999, would be completed before the summer recess. Will the Taoiseach agree it is a poor reflection on the Government that a Bill to extend pub opening hours—
Does the Deputy have a question on the legislation?
—has been given priority over the urgently needed juvenile justice legislation and that children in trouble with the law must continue to wait?
It is at committee.
Yes, but it has been there for several months.
I call Deputy Michael D. Higgins.
He promised to undertake—
Deputy Shortall, I ask you to allow Deputy Higgins speak.
Priority can be given to extending pub opening hours—
Deputy Shortall, please.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the commitment given in the PPF to introduce legislation to provide for the right to be represented by a trade union, that is, the industrial relations legislation. Will this legislation be in place shortly in order to prevent the outrageous situation where companies which deny the right of workers to be represented by a trade union are establishing in Dublin and elsewhere?
The Bill is at Second Stage.
Which legislation?
We will now move on.
Which legislation? The Taoiseach did not say the legislation to which he was referring.
The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill.
Yes, but the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill does not automatically give workers the right to organise, to which he signed up in the PPF.
We cannot discuss the content of legislation.
On the Fund-raising for Charitable and Other Purposes Bill, I understand the Baileys had one of their files marked charities - donations to political parties. Will this affect fund-raising for political parties or—
We cannot discuss what is in the legislation but only the Bill itself.
When does the Taoiseach expect the Bill will be taken? I asked about this Bill on a number of occasions.
I expect it in the autumn, and the legislation some time next spring.