Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Mar 2001

Vol. 532 No. 1

Order of Business.

The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 19, Finance Bill, 2001 – Financial Resolutions (Nos. 1 and 2); No. 20, motion re Referral to Joint Committee of Freedom of Information Act, 1997 (Prescribed Bodies) Regulations, 2001; No. 1 Broadcasting Bill, 1999 – Amendment from the Seanad; No. 47, Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill, 2000 [Seanad] – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; No. 48, Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill, 1999 [Seanad] – Order for Report and Report and Final 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 p.m., (2) Nos. 19 and 20, shall be decided without debate and in the case of No. 19, Financial Resolutions (Nos. 1 and 2) shall be moved together and decided by one Question which shall be put from the Chair; (3) the resumed debate on No. 112 – motion re health services, shall be taken on the conclusion of Private Members' Business tonight, and shall, if not previously concluded be brought to a conclusion at 10 p.m. tonight and any division demanded thereon, and the putting of any question consequential thereon, shall be postponed until immediately after the conclusion of Private Members' Business on Wednesday, 7 March. Private Members' Business shall be No. 111 – motion re environment and local government.

There are three proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed?

I oppose the Order of Business as there is no provision in it for an explanation from the Taoiseach as to why a former Minister of State, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe resigned. Nor is there a provision for the Opposition to ask questions of the Taoiseach on this issue.

The Labour Party is opposed to taking this or any Order of Business which fails to deal with the Taoiseach's consistent refusal to tell the House why Deputy Ned O'Keeffe was forced to resign, or why the Government is continuing to undemocratically block, on Committee Stage, the Labour Party's Bill to ban corporate donations. The Taoiseach has discourteously failed to show the courage to reply to my letter of 4 January relating to the conflict of interest between Deputy Dempsey's roles, as Minister for the Environment and Local Government, and as joint treasurer of Fianna Fáil.

I oppose the Order of Business, on behalf of the Green Party. Fraudulent activity has been revealed in the agricultural sector, going back to 1998. There have been difficulties in the Department itself, concluding with the resignation of Deputy O'Keeffe. If we are to have consumer confidence in food, and if people are to be able to make up their own minds, all facts regarding these matters must come out. Deputy Jim Higgins' vital motion should have been taken, especially in so far as it concerns the delay in introducing legislation on the Irish energy centre and other energy-saving measures.

On a point of order, is the Taoiseach going to sit there silently, even though three parties have asked—

That is not a point of order, Deputy Quinn.

(Interruptions.)

The Deputy's silence speaks volumes.

Question put: "That the proposal for a late sitting be agreed to".

Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.

Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V.

Níl

Barnes, Monica.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis J.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Farrelly, John.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.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, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Callely; Níl, Deputies Bradford and Stagg.
Question declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with items Nos. 19 and 20 agreed?

At some stage the House will have to properly discuss the enforced resignation of Deputy O'Keeffe and the responsibility and accountability of the Taoiseach to the House.

This issue has been dealt with many times.

The Taoiseach cannot hide forever and we will continue to oppose the Order of Business accordingly.

Silence again.

Question, "That the proposal for dealing with items Nos. 19 and 20 be agreed to" put and declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with item No. 112 agreed?

Question, "That the proposal for dealing with item No. 112 be agreed to" put and declared carried.

On leaders' questions, I call Deputy Noonan.

This procedure involves the leaders of the Opposition parties raising topical issues of the day with the Taoiseach. Undoubtedly the most topical issue today is the discomfort to my party and me arising from a donation of £33,000 to the party four years ago—

The Deputy is correct about that.

—which was returned to the donor by the party and about which I have made full disclosure and informed the Moriarty tribunal. I put it to the Taoiseach, who has had some discomfort about payments of £8 million to Mr. Haughey and up to £5 million to Deputy Lawlor and the hundreds of thousands pounds rolling out of the Flood tribunal every day in respect of Mr. Burke, that it is time he gave a commitment to the House to introduce a ban on corporate donations and to set low limits for personal donations so the process of renewal of politics in the House can commence.

The Deputy forgot about Deputy Lowry.

On the same topic, will the Taoiseach agree, as Deputies Fleming and Andrews agree, and as Deputy Roche might possibly one day agree—

Deputy Quinn is rattled. Maybe we will find out about him.

Deputy Quinn without interruption.

—that this has passed from an "if" question to one of "when"? I support the point made by Deputy Noonan and ask the Taoiseach if he is prepared to sit down with all parties to decide how best we can end corporate donations, set proper limitations and restore trust in politics?

That is some offer from Deputy Quinn. Is he going to come to the all-party committee?

If that principle is accepted, yes.

That is not a principle; it is a pre-condition.

Please allow the Taoiseach to reply.

I have answered questions on these issues many times over the past four years. I remember standing up in the House time and time again and saying that the appropriate place to deal with these matters and to give full disclosure and full facts was in the tribunals. I was always berated by Deputy Noonan's colleagues – he was not leader of his party at that stage. It was always said that I had to give answers in the House and we could not wait for people to be called before the tribunals. I have not changed my mind and still believe we should stick with the tribunals and that people should co-operate fully with them.

A Deputy:

The Taoiseach is in favour of corporate donations.

On the second matter, last April I met Deputy Noonan's predecessor and Deputy Quinn and said there were issues around corporate donations that I was absolutely convinced should be dealt with in the House on an all-party basis in the interests of politics and democracy. I made that offer but it was refused. I am glad that 11 months later Deputy Quinn has agreed to that proposal. I will arrange that meeting as soon as I return.

The Taoiseach is not listening.

Does the Taoiseach accept—

Deputy Howlin, please allow Deputy Noonan to speak.

I put it to the Taoiseach that there is full agreement in the House that there should be co-operation will all tribunals.

There is not on the Deputy's side of the House; it made a corporate decision not to co-operate with it.

Deputy Noonan without interruption.

There are one or two in every party.

Deputy Roche defended Deputy Lawlor in the House last December.

Deputy Shatter, allow your leader to proceed.

The Deputy's comments are the moral equivalent of a bank robber complaining about a lack of bank security.

I put it to the Taoiseach that there are issues relevant to politics which are not within the remit of the tribunals and one of them is whether we ban corporate donations.

I do not want to hear from the Taoiseach of issues around the corporate donations but that he realises that corporate donations are generally seen as bad for politics. Politics cannot be renewed without a commitment from him that they will be banned. Can we have a commitment from the Taoiseach that they will be banned and all of us will discuss the ancillary issues in any committee he wishes to set up?

Deputies:

Hear, hear.

I give Deputy Noonan full marks for hard neck coming in here today talking about corporate donations.

Answer the question.

I would be very glad to continue with the agreement I clearly had with Deputy Bruton, as Leader of the Fine Gael Party. The problem on that occasion was we could not convince Deputy Quinn to join with us. If we can, as it seems now, I am prepared to move on and discuss these issues.

Will the Taoiseach accept when he extended to me an invitation to participate in the committee to which he has just referred, I wrote back and said we would be happy to participate in such a committee provided the principle of banning corporate donations was accepted in advance and he wrote back and said he was not prepared at that time to accept that pre-condition? Will he further agree that he said he had received legal advice to the effect that such a ban on corporate donations would be unconstitutional? In the light of what we all now know, and the additional wisdom we all get each day, will he agree that the principle of banning corporate donations has found favour outside the House in all three Opposition parties and among some members of his own party, as none of us benefit from the ongoing besmirchment of politics as a result of them? Will he accept from me now that the Labour Party is prepared to enter into discussions with the Fianna Fáil Party and other parties—

Without conditions.

—on condition that we recognise that time has moved on.

Pre-conditions.

Yes, but pre-conditions demanded by the media outside the House and by all the Opposition parties inside the House and by many members of the Fianna Fáil Party. On that basis will he agree that as Leader of the Government he has a responsibility to lead and to rescue politics from the mire into which the revelations from the tribunals continue to thrust it?

I, on behalf of my party, have published the legal advice available to us today. Will the Taoiseach undertake to publish the Attorney General's advice which he suggests would make it unconstitutional to ban corporate donations so that we are all working from the same legal starting point? Does he realise that many of his Deputies want to walk tall again without a cloud over them brought down by the corporate donation issue?

We can walk tall.

Will he lift the veto which the Minister for the Environment and Local Government has placed on the Labour Party Bill which cannot be discussed in committee because of the communication between the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and the chairman of that committee, Deputy Healy-Rae?

I assure Deputy Noonan that the only veto in all of this issue is the one placed by the Labour Party. If that is moved progress can be made. I would remind the House that it was I and my colleagues who fought very hard for the setting up of the McCracken tribunal. It was this Government—

The Taoiseach cannot re-write history.

Those opposite do not want to listen. If they had listened they would not be where they are today.

(Interruptions.)

I call Deputy Quinn.

The Taoiseach very cleverly kicked the ball of high distraction into the parliamentary assembly and I commend him for his tactic, but I will take him back to the question. All of us know how we have to get elected to this House, how difficult it is to put ourselves up for election from whatever political party and that politics has been damaged by the revelations from the tribunals and the presumption now that a corporate donation in some way or other has come with a price tag of its own. We are all being damaged by that. If the Taoiseach has legal advice to the effect that to ban corporate donations is unconstitutional will he please agree to publish it? Will he ask the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to lift the veto he has imposed undemocratically on the chairman, Deputy Healy-Rae, and allow that committee to discuss the Bill which was passed without division in the House last May, informed with the legal advice? If he does that, and many of his backbenchers want it to happen, we could all make progress. Will he do that?

When I was rudely interrupted by members of Fine Gael I was pointing out that this side of House set up the Moriarty and Flood tribunals. That is fact.

(Interruptions.)

Allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

It is terrible for the Opposition but it is fact. I know it would like to think otherwise.

(Interruptions.)

Allow the Taoiseach without interruption.

We on this side of the House are happy, at any stage, to continue to discuss the matters we endeavoured to discuss last year. The Public Offices Commission Bill and all the other issues went to committees of the House and all were agreed. For better or for worse the legislation was passed. I stated the Government had no difficulty and would continue to do what we had been doing when the Tánaiste, the Attorney General and I met the then leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy John Bruton, and Deputy Quinn. The difficulty, as rightly stated by Deputy Quinn, was that he wished to impose a pre-condition. I did not then accept a pre-condition nor do I now. However, I accept we cannot continue as we have over the years. Perhaps times were different, but that does not make corporate donations any better. They were wrong – there were major difficulties around corporate funds and big money. As in the recent case if a donation is given by an individual and passed from a company through Jersey and back here to Baggot Street, it does not matter whether it is corporate or otherwise. The problem is not corporate but big donations which are perceived to be wrong. That is the issue. I am ready and willing as I was last April, to sit down and talk about the definitions of "corporate donation" the size of it and so on. Had it been done last April it would have been finished, the amendments would have been agreed and the Public Offices Commission Bill, which the Minister for Finance has before the House, would be dealt with.

That is right.

If the House is saying that my offer of last year without pre-conditions to sit down and discuss all these matters including the Attorney General's advice, which is based on a previous advice given by the Honourable Justice McCracken which is the final part of his report where he states that he believes these matters are unconstitutional—

That is not true.

It is true. It is fact. He set it out in his report and it was around that basis—

(Interruptions.)

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

Every time I try to reply to any of these questions the tactic is that Deputies try to shout me down. They either listen to what I say or they do not. I am prepared to sit down. I have been in this position many times but on this day Deputies Noonan and Quinn – not so much Deputy Noonan because his party has a different view which is consistent with Deputy Bruton's view which was to participate in the all party group – should agree to do what we did last April without pre-condition. I reckon we can solve this quickly in all our interests. I urge people to do that.

By burying it.

The Labour Party does not want to resolve it.

The issue of the status of a letter from the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to the chairman of the select committee was raised. The Chair has ruled previously that the Minister is entitled to write to a chairman of a select committee, as is any other Member of the House. However, any such letter is not binding on the independence of the select committee—

Or the independence of the chairman.

—which, under Standing Orders, is only obliged to report to the House. That concludes Leaders' questions.

I commend the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development on the marathon question and answer session in which he engaged earlier. My colleague, Deputy Penrose, put one question to the Minister for Education and Science during the debate. If the Government gave a direction prohibiting school trips to the UK, in particular, that would enable schools to obtain a refund.

That does not arise on the Order of Business. That could be the subject of a Leaders' question. It is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

The legislation will be circulated tonight.

The question has already been asked.

Could a provision be included in the proposed legislation to achieve something which we all want and which otherwise will not happen?

Is legislation promised?

No, but I was present when the question was asked. The advertisement placed by the Department of Education and Science specifically stated: "It is recommended until further notice the following activities should be cancelled: firstly, schools tours to Britain and Northern Ireland, including those using Britain as a land bridge; school tours and field trips within the country; and all inter-school activity, sport and cultural and musical events and all non-essential events. . . ". Deputy Penrose and other colleagues raised this issue during Private Notice Questions. The various travel organisations should refund the cost of the trips and I think some have.

A recommendation is not strong enough legally while a direction is.

Given the impending referendum on the Nice Treaty, can a day long debate be arranged on it as a matter for urgency for obvious reasons?

I agree with the request. The Whips can discuss it.

(Dublin West): With regard to the new variant of homelessness which has burst upon us, the apparently unwanted, even despised, cheque for $50,000 which cannot find a home, unloved as a lamb from Carlisle—

That is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

(Dublin West):—hot as could be until discovered and then nobody wanted it, I seek a debate on the privatisation of the mobile telephone network and the shady dealings that went on between the main parties in this House and telephone companies.

The Deputy should keep it up. He will bring down the Opposition.

That is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

(Dublin West): It is appropriate given people all over the country are talking about it.

The Deputy must find another way to raise the issue.

I refer to the legislation to establish a compensation tribunal for victims of institutional child abuse. There is concern among a number of the victims that pupils of day schools might be excluded from the tribunal. I ask the Taoiseach for clarification given that the Department of Education and Science has a regulatory role in regard to all schools. Will he confirm that pupils of day schools who suffered abuse will be covered by the tribunal?

That is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

It is promised legislation.

The Deputy cannot ask questions about what is in legislation.

Top
Share