Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Oct 2000

Vol. 523 No. 5

Order of Business.

The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 45, National Pensions Reserve Fund Bill, 2000 – Second Stage (resumed); No. 44, Aviation Regulation Bill, 2000 [Seanad] – Second Stage (resumed), and No. 46, Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill, 2000 – Second Stage (resumed). Private Members' business shall be No. 67, Courts Bill, 2000 – Second Stage (resumed), to conclude at 8.30 p.m. tonight.

There are no proposals to be put to the House.

In light of the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle which seems to imply that a motion may be taken by the House to consider whether a Member of the House is acting in accordance with the standards the House would expect of its Members, is it the intention of the Government to propose a motion expressing the House's concern that Deputy Lawlor should appear before the Flood tribunal to answer questions placed on the public record yesterday by counsel for the tribunal bearing in mind that as a Member of the House which established the tribunal he, like everyone of us, has an obligation to be seen to comply with the orders of the House in regard to the powers of the tribunal and to co-operate fully with it?

I and my colleagues anticipated that you would so rule in respect of Standing Order 31, which is why we did not seek to adjourn the House to debate this matter. We think a debate would be improper. I wrote to the leaders of the various parties and the Independent Deputies seeking that a motion would be taken without debate, expressing our displeasure as Members of the House at what has happened and calling on Deputy Lawlor to either attend the tribunal or to resign forthwith from the House.

The Chief Whip, the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Séamus Brennan, received that request in writing last night and had notice from me to that effect. As it his prerogative to order the business of the House, why has the Taoiseach seen fit not to include such a motion? It could be taken without debate and not interrupt the business of the House. It would leave it unambiguous to the rest of the nation how we, as elected Members of the House, feel about the behaviour of one Member.

How might the Standing Orders be amended, given that this issue appears not to be properly dealt with by them? Would you be amenable to the suggestion by Deputy Gormley of a meeting on this point?

The issue of Dáil reform is subject to the deliberations of a sub-committee.

Will you accept the motion now?

There is no need for reform.

Given the level of concern in the House, would you be amenable to a meeting at this point?

The committee is free to meet; the Chair is not preventing the committee from meeting.

(Dublin West): Will the Taoiseach indicate what he considers to be a proper response by him and the Dáil to the contempt that Deputy Lawlor has shown to the people, who wish their public representatives to answer the questions that arise with regard to planning irregularities in Dublin and who wish to see alleged nefarious practices investigated, the full truth established and the planning process removed from those who would corrupt it?

The Flood tribunal was established by the unanimous will of the Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. In his letter last night, for which I thank him, Deputy Quinn reminded me of this. Every citizen and every Member of the Oireachtas has a legal, moral and democratic duty to co-operate with the tribunal, not to obstruct it and to comply with its lawful orders. I would expect any citizen and Member of the Oireachtas who disputes the validity or legality of any tribunal order to make his or her case to the tribunal and, if necessary, to the courts.

The Attorney General has been informed that under the 1997 Act, the jurisdiction of the High Court is being invoked today by the tribunal to compel the compliance of Deputy Lawlor with its orders. I do not want to put at risk any of the remedies that have been initiated or are available to the tribunal under the 1997 Act. The House foresaw that issue when we debated the legislation, when we included a provision in the 1997 Act to the effect that if anybody did not comply with the orders there was a legal basis for the chairman of the tribunal to seek such compliance. We gave the tribunal that power.

Under the legislation introduced by the Government and agreed by the House, anybody can be compelled without criminal proceedings and by a fast track process to obey the lawful orders of the tribunal. As I understand this process will commence today I propose to say nothing further. I also understand that the DPP will have received a criminal complaint on the matter and I cannot comment further for obvious reasons other than to make the political point that it is our strong view that there is an obligation on Members and every citizen to fully co-operate with the tribunal.

It is important that the Taoiseach was given and took the opportunity to say what he has said. It is a very important statement on the requirement on Members of the House to comply with the orders of the tribunal. I hope that as a result of what the Taoiseach said, Deputy Lawlor will take the sensible, correct and democratic course and appear before the tribunal.

I am appalled at the response of the Taoiseach. The eyes of the nation are looking at this House and how we conduct our affairs in public. There is a simple remedy to the Members of the House to express their views unambiguously and unanimously. This especially applies to Members on the Government side who control the Order of Business, decide its contents and who could have put a resolution of the kind expressed by the Taoiseach on the Order Paper. That could have been decided without debate so as not to prejudice any proceedings in any other part of the jurisdiction.

However, the Taoiseach has chosen not to so do. As a result, everybody in this House is devalued in the eyes of this democracy. It is not good enough for the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste or for anybody who stands for election to this House. I ask the Taoiseach and the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, if it still exists as a republican party, to assert the primacy of this Assembly and uphold the dignity of people who stand for election, who make laws and must abide by them. I implore the Taoiseach to reconsider the matter and do the right thing.

The Deputy should resume his seat.

Is it not the case that the Standing Orders of the House can be decided by the House? If so, how is it that Deputy Lawlor is still present in the Chamber when it is the overwhelming view of the people that he should be suspended until such time as he is involved with and attends the Flood tribunal. Is that not the case, and, if not, when can we amend Standing Orders to achieve that?

I pointed out to the Deputy that it is a matter for the sub-committee.

We need to change Standing Orders—

That is a matter for the sub-committee. We must proceed to the next business. I have allowed ample time on this item and I will not allow any further discussion on the matter.

As an elected Member I have a right to put forward a view.

Very briefly, Deputy.

This is a very important matter. Given the overwhelming view of all Members and given that Deputy Lawlor is present, would he not accept the views of the elected Members of the House?

If the Chair wishes to hold a debate on the matter I would welcome it.

We must proceed with the business. We are on the Order of Business.

There was concern that holding a debate on this matter might prejudice Deputy Lawlor's rights, but given that he has said he would welcome a debate, would the Taoiseach not agree that the House should have a debate because the overwhelming majority of Deputies want Deputy Lawlor to appear before the Flood tribunal and if he does not appear they want him to explain himself? They want standards to be applied to Members of the House in the same way as they are applied to ordinary citizens. There are not two laws in this country, one for Deputies and one for ordinary citizens.

We are seeking a resolution by the House along the lines of the statement made by the Taoiseach.

The Order of Business is already before the House.

We are asking the Government to amend the Order of Business to allow that to occur. There is nothing in Standing Orders to prevent that occurring. I challenge the interpretation of Standing Order 56, which was introduced as late as 1996 to prevent the Chair from ruling such requests out of order.

We cannot have a debate on the Chair's ruling.

We are asking for the Government side, even later today, to allow the House to endorse in the form of a resolution, without debate, what the Taoiseach has already put on the record. I do not take the carrot offered from the backbenches of Fianna Fáil that we might hold a debate. That may well prejudice the outcome of this matter.

When the House debated the legislation it put in place the procedures that allow the tribunal to deal with those who do not appear before it or who do not follow the orders it has laid down. Under that legislation any person can be compelled without criminal proceedings by a fast track process to obey the lawful orders of the tribunal. I will not get into the business of putting at risk those remedies which have been initiated. I have been advised that those remedies are being moved today both in the High Court and with the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the way to proceed and to achieve an adequate resolution of this matter. I have indicated the Government's view on this matter.

A Cheann Comhairle—

We must move on. The Deputy cannot make a statement. I will facilitate him if he agrees to ask questions. We cannot continue with a debate on the Order of Business.

I want to make a formal request to the Taoiseach on the Order of Business. Is the Taoiseach, on behalf of the Government, the Fianna Fáil Party and the Progressive Democrats prepared to put in the form of a motion the words he has just uttered so that this House can endorse the sentiments so ably expressed by himself which would leave the public in no doubt about how we feel inside the Chamber?

The Deputy should not proceed with a statement.

I am making a request that the words the Taoiseach has uttered on behalf of the Government could be formulated in a motion which can be endorsed by every Member of this House without debate so as not to prejudice proceedings anywhere else. I invite the Taoiseach to bring forward such a motion either later today or tomorrow morning. Failure to do so leaves us all open to the accusation that there is one law for citizens and another law for Members.

The Deputy is proceeding with another speech.

I will restate my lines and then it will be a matter for Deputy Quinn, as Deputy John Bruton has already done, to agree with me. Every citizen and every Member of the Oireachtas has a legal, moral and democratic duty to co-operate with the tribunal, not to obstruct it, and to comply with its lawful orders.

Of course I agree. Do the Taoiseach's backbenchers agree with that?

It is contemptible.

It is important that the House is not divided in its approach to this matter.

We must proceed to the next item.

Given that the Government seems to have difficulty in either having a motion or a debate, will the Taoiseach agree to a joint statement of all party leaders along the lines of what he has just said? This could be formally issued and it would have the same force as a motion, although I hope it would be abided by in the same way as a motion, given that it has been agreed to by all the party leaders. Will the Taoiseach consider that and allow the Whips to discuss it? I am not asking for a decision on the matter now.

Has the Government taken note of the fact that Mr. Justice Kelly intends to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of the Government in relation to the provision of a safe and secure place for a young person who is disturbed? Is the Taoiseach happy that such a situation should arise where the courts are, of their own initiative, investigating what is tantamount to maladministration by the Government in this matter? Does he intend to co-operate with this inquiry by Mr. Justice Kelly or does he have other proposals to deal with this serious issue affecting both the jurisdiction of the courts over public administration and the public administration of child care services by the Government?

The Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Hanafin, has asked the Eastern Regional Health Authority, with the agreement of the girl's parents, to conduct a review of the total care provided to her by the health authority. That review will be carried out by an independent person and will be completed before the end of the year. There have been building difficulties with the three high support units in Ballydowd. The Department of Health and Children and the health authority are working together to resolve these difficulties. It is anticipated that one of the eight bed units will be full by the end of November. It is important that this matter is investigated and that lessons are learned from it.

I welcome the inquiry but I do not accept the excuse of building difficulties. The Government seems to be having chronic difficulties with constructing anything on time.

What are the difficulties?

At least there are buildings now.

As I understand it, the Trade Union Recognition Bill has completed its course in the Seanad. However, it is not on the A or the B list. Has it slipped down the Department's priorities?

The Bill has been published and it has gone through the Seanad. It is waiting to be taken in the House.

It is not on the A or the B list.

That is because it is already before the House.

I am sure the House will want the opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs, his predecessor, Deputy Andrews, and the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs on the magnificent achievement of being elected to the United Nations Security Council.

There is a question on the Order Paper.

I had the privilege of being the last Minister for Foreign Affairs who achieved that. It is important – I am sure the Whips could agree this – that we have a debate in this House at an appropriate time so that the Minister for Foreign Affairs can indicate to us the priorities Ireland proposes to pursue as a member of the Security Council. This is of vital importance, particularly in terms of the respect Ireland enjoys world-wide. A debate in this House would be of considerable benefit not just to us but to the people.

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue.

At least he got a chance to raise it.

Everyone will be proud of this achievement and the fact that 130 countries supported Ireland's campaign. I thank everyone who played a part, particularly Ambassador Whelan, who co-ordinated efforts in Dublin, and Ambassador Ryan in the UN. I also thank all my Government colleagues who went out of their way week in and week out to go to various functions to explain the Irish position, the arguments for our case, our record in disarmament and human rights, our overseas development aid and our peace-keeping role. It was a good achievement. I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, and the former Minister, Deputy Andrews, for their efforts.

This side of the House is pleased with the success of all involved, particularly the Minister and the diplomats. While the two ambassadors who co-ordinated the immediate campaign, Ambassadors Ryan and Whelan, deserve special credit, it is undoubtedly the case that Ministers and diplomats who have enhanced and maintained Ireland's relationship with the United Nations and all its members over many years have contributed to this success. This is not just something that has happened in a short time. It represents a period of long-term enhancement of Ireland's prestige in the United Nations by means of participation in the United Nations. Irish troops who served overseas with the United Nations deserve much credit for this honour being bestowed upon us because if they were not willing to put their lives at risk in the way they did, the reputation of Ireland in the United Nations would not be as high as it obviously is.

I have already congratulated the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I have spoken directly to Ambassador Richard Ryan in New York. This is a spectacular achievement. It is an implementation of an objective set out in the White Paper on Foreign Policy which was prepared by Deputy Spring but ably carried through by Fianna Fáil and particularly by Deputy Andrews who chose the candidate of Ambassador Richard Ryan to be the flag carrier on this occasion. The Minister for Foreign Affairs should not observe the advice of our Nobel prize winner, Séamus Heaney, that "whatever you say, say nothing" when we occupy that seat in the new year. We have plenty to say and I hope the Minister has the courage to say it.

Is the Taoiseach aware of the proposed closure of the Bon Secours Hospital in Tuam?

That matter does not arise on the Order of Business.

He is not doing his job.

(Interruptions.)

Where is all the money? Where is the Minister for Health and Children?

The Deputy should raise that matter in a more orderly way.

A huge area of north Galway will be left without a district hospital.

A Cheann Comhairle, I understand from what you said earlier that we will have an opportunity of discussing Ireland's membership of the Security Council and I want to be associated with the congratulations to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, his predecessors and all those who worked to achieve that. Yesterday on the Order of Business I raised the issue of the provision of time to discuss the deteriorating situation in the Middle East and particularly the loss of life of civilians, including a young 12 year old boy. The Tánaiste indicated that it might be possible to have time provided either today or tomorrow to discuss that matter. Will the Taoiseach indicate the form of debate we will have and when it will be scheduled? Will it be today or tomorrow in view of the eminent dangers that are taking place? Now that we have new responsibilities, it would be appropriate—

The Deputy must be brief because a number of Members are offering.

—that we would have a discussion on this topic.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs is anxious to accommodate that debate. The Whips will meet later this evening and we can agree the times at that stage.

On promised legislation, in view of the recent role of the courts in relation to autism and now the role of Mr. Justice Kelly in relation to children, when can we anticipate that the Executive and the Oireachtas will take back the responsibility we are given under the Constitution? Will the Taoiseach bring forward the legislation dealing with the appointment of an ombudsman for children? Is it possible that that Bill be taken in this session given the concerns expressed by Mr. Justice Kelly?

The heads of the ombudsman for children Bill to establish this office were approved several months ago. The Bill is in the drafting process. It will not be ready this session but I hope it will be at the beginning of the next session.

I wish to raise the transport Bill in the light of the many tragedies on our streets, particularly in Dublin, due to the lack of public transport late at night. Given that CIE is due to run out of money in January, will the Taoiseach say if the transport Bill is intended to be a smokescreen for running down public transport and allowing cherry-picking to take place?

That matter is not in order on the Order of Business.

What is the purpose of the transport Bill and will it be brought forward so that we can debate it?

It is to regulate on-street running of light rail, to make provision for public-private partnership and related matters and to regulate the physical operating environment of the light rail system. The heads of the Bill are expected in the autumn, probably in November.

Is the sub-committee of the Cabinet on tax reform still in place and, if so, does the Taoiseach think this would be the appropriate forum for inter-party negotiation on the budget rather than on the public airwaves?

That matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

There is no communication within the Government.

(Dublin West): Will the Taoiseach say that this State will take an independent position on the United Nations Security Council and not take the usual position of cow-towing uncritically to the US military industrial complex—

That matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

(Dublin West): —as it continues to build up its arsenal.

(Interruptions).

Will the Deputies please resume their seats. I call Deputy Timmins.

(Interruptions).

I call Deputy Timmins.

Yesterday, the Irish Permanent published a survey which showed that the average price of a house for a first-time buyer—

That is not appropriate to the Order of Business. The Deputy should ask a question.

—increased by £21,000 in the past year. On legislation, before the summer recess the town renewal Bill was passed in this House. One of the aims of the Bill was to bring additional accommodation on stream.

The Deputy is making a statement.

To date, no instructions or guidelines have been issued to local authorities.

That is not a matter for the Order of Business. I call Deputy McDowell.

Will the Taoiseach tell us when guidelines will be issued to local authorities?

A Deputy:

And how they were selected.

A Cheann Comhairle, I think the Taoiseach is going to answer.

The question is out of order.

I assure Deputy Joe Higgins that those of us on these benches still understand the various contributions of Trotsky and Stalin, unlike, apparently, Deputy O'Kennedy.

(Interruptions.)

Compulsory reading for parliamentary Members.

Deputy Higgins cares deeply about this, whatever about the Deputies opposite.

Order, please.

On legislation, the Taoiseach will be aware that the telecommunications regulator has announced her intention to award four third generation telecommunications licences. Is the Taoiseach satisfied that existing legislation is sufficient to safeguard the State's interest? In particular, is he satisfied that the requirement that the consent of the Minister for Finance to any charge is sufficient to safeguard the State's interest or does the Government intend to introduce amending legislation in that regard?

Again, the content of the legislation is not—

I am not aware of amending legislation.

I did not catch the Taoiseach's answer.

The other day the Taoiseach added to his title a new title of cyber champion. The reason he got that title relates to the passage of the—

The Deputy is proceeding with a statement. Will the Deputy please ask a question?

I just wanted to set the tone.

Deputy, that is not the purpose of the Order of Business.

After a great deal of hard work the Copyright and Related Rights Bill was passed in this House in July but it has not yet been put into force. When will the necessary ministerial orders and regulations be published so that this Act, which we were told a year ago was vitally urgent, will be put in place?

I think Deputy Owen heard me make that announcement the other day because I said it in my speech. I also recorded my thanks to Deputy Rabbitte and herself for the part they played in that legislation. It was—

We will all be in cyber space together.

Deputy Rabbitte is like Al Gore, he invented it.

It was a singular honour for the Oireachtas to be commended by all the international companies in the electronics and computer industry on passing the best legislation on copyright and e-commerce in the world in the past year. That was a considerable achievement. The legislation will be enacted next month.

Top
Share