The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 21 – motion re Planning and Development (Licensing of Outdoor Events) Regulations, 2001 – referral to committee; No. 22 – motion re Membership of Committees; No. 23 – motion re Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1989 (Section 57) (TSB Bank) Order, 2001; No. 24 – ACC Bank Bill, 2001 – Financial Resolution; No. 4 – Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001 Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 24, shall be decided without debate. Private Members' business shall be No. 125 – motion re Garda Reform.
Order of Business.
An Leas-Ceann Comhairle
There is one proposal to be put to the House, the proposal to take Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 24 without debate.
I understand that No. 22 has to do with the replacement of a member of a committee. I wonder if the Taoiseach has any further announcement to make consequent upon the action he is taking and, if so, does he intend to make that announcement this afternoon.
He has not been asked to take No. 22, on the Order of Business, without debate. We are not prepared to accept that because the circumstances surrounding the enforced resignation, of the person who has caused this vacancy, have not been properly explained to this House. I refer to Deputy Beverley Cooper-Flynn, the statement of the Taoiseach on 27 March, his statements on radio last weekend and her refusal to comply with his request. Her departure from the Committee of Public Accounts and her replacement, are matters of legitimate public concern and should properly be the subject of debate in this House. We do not accept the Order of Business.
Perhaps the Ceann Comhairle might see fit to advise on how this matter can be more fully attended to by the Dáil given that it is being debated hotly outside this House. Like the last matter he saw fit not to allow, regarding the GAA, it is an issue that needs to be debated here, not simply hived off to a committee, if this House is to be accountable.
Will the Leas-Ceann Comhairle allow the Taoiseach to respond to the issues that I have raised? He certainly seemed disposed to say something in reply to Deputy Quinn, and to me, so perhaps we could hear from the Taoiseach before the question is put.
This is the normal procedure for filling a position on a committee. It is nothing exceptional.
There was nothing normal about her departure.
There was nothing normal about it at all.
Does the Taoiseach have nothing further to say?
Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with items 23 and 24 be agreed to".
Tá
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.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 P.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.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.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Barnes, Monica.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis J.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Clune, Deirdre.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan. |
McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghin.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Bradford and Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Will the Taoiseach explain to the House the circumstances by which he now finds himself in bad faith, in bad standing and in bad odour with the GAA, the Tánaiste, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, members of the Government and all the rules of Cabinet procedure over an issue of £60 million? Is it not the case that the Taoiseach attempted to manipulate the GAA by allowing it to believe there was an unconditional grant of £60 million, failed to consult the Tánaiste and the members of his Government and that now, after the event, he is telling the GAA that it is not an unconditional offer but an offer in principle? Will the Taoiseach explain what he thought he was at when he brought all the financial procedures we have ever legislated for in this House into disrepute in that way and tried to subvert and corrupt a major national organisation?
What about Esat?
Typical sleazy Fianna Fáil.
The Deputy has a short memory.
(Interruptions.)
Please allow Deputy Quinn to speak.
When did the first set of negotiations take place, some of which were reported in The Sunday Business Post alluding to the possibility, or the probability, of £60 million being given to the GAA over three years? Who was involved in those negotiations? Was anybody else other than the President of the GAA and the secretary general involved? Why was the decision to make this announcement taken at the time it was taken?
To start with the last question first, the meetings took place with the GAA and the FAI. In regard to the GAA, there were meetings on 14 September and 15 December last year and on 13 February and 3 April. Meetings were held with the FAI on 19 February, 6 March, 3 October, 9 November and 22 November 1999 and on 23 February and 5 March this year. All of those meetings, I believe bar none, were attended by the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation and myself.
Did the Tánaiste know about them?
Allow the Taoiseach to reply without interruption.
Deputy Dukes asked me a number of questions on the GAA and I will endeavour to answer all of them. From the outset of the Stadium Ireland project, the GAA confirmed it was committed to using Stadium Ireland and in fact the association was represented on the stadium steering committee which oversaw the feasibility study and it is currently represented on the board of Stadium Ireland by its general secretary, Mr. Mulvihill. That commitment came into focus for a firm decision once the outline bid documents issued to consortia for the provision of facilities at Sports Campus Ireland on a design, build, finance, operate and maintain basis. It would not have been possible for the five consortia to make a realistic bid if they did not know what the national sporting organisations intended to do, and 31 May is the date for those bids to come forward.
In recent months, particularly since Christmas, we have had discussions with the IRFU, the GAA and the FAI to reach a successful conclusion. Following its executive meetings, the IRFU made its position known publicly. The FAI had a specially convened meeting of the entire association on 6 March and the GAA's annual conference was held last weekend.
They were battered into submission.
In finalising their proposals, the bidders needed to be fully aware of the position of the three major field sports organisations regarding their use of Stadium Ireland. As I said, the final bids are expected to be submitted by 31 May.
I should point out that the letter which issued to the GAA on 6 April, as is the case with the one issued to the FAI on 6 March, was based on discussions that had been taking place over the period I mentioned and the time had been reached to put on paper the details of the proposals that formed the basis for more detailed formal talks. Those who are familiar with the GAA and its rules and procedures will know that the annual congress is the one meeting every year at which major decisions are made. It is only at congress that fundamental changes to the whole organisation can be agreed. I admit that last week's meeting was more rushed than would normally have been the case.
Some admission.
I understood the previous week that the congress would be called off for obvious reasons but that was not the case. It decided to hold the congress and asked some of the delegates from County Louth not to attend. This year's congress took place over the weekend. The association was anxious to inform its organisations and delegates to the congress of the details of the stage reached in discussions with the Government which have all taken place in good faith over the dates I mentioned. We thought that was a reasonable, practical and courteous thing to do and I issued the letters on that basis.
In further reply to Deputy Dukes in particular, it is correct that our colleagues in Government did not have the full facts. I do not believe we broke any Cabinet procedures because the position we took was that we would finalise the discussions.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): If in doubt, leave them out.
It was left to the three wise men.
(Interruptions.)
Allow the Taoiseach to reply without interruption.
I do not believe all of the meetings were secret. Many of them were covered in the media but clearly the meeting we had last week and the final offer was not clear, and certainly was not clear to the Tánaiste.
It is still not clear.
So it was solely a Fianna Fáil bribe.
This morning the Government discussed the recent developments in relation to funding for sport. The objective of Government policy is to make available a high quality infrastructure throughout the country for sport at all levels. It is the objective of the Government to secure an appropriate sharing of sports infrastructure to achieve the best use of available facilities for the benefit of all sports activity. Discussions have been taking place with the sporting bodies, the FAI and the GAA in particular, and the IRFU in furtherance of this objective and some matters remain to be finalised. The establishment of Sports Campus Ireland reflects the policy of providing a comprehensive range of facilities. The funding offers made in good faith to the FAI and the GAA will be honoured on the basis of the letters conveying those offers, but the Government believes, and I reiterated it this morning, that where sporting facilities are funded by the taxpayers, those facilities should be shared as widely as possible to the benefit of the whole community. In the legal discussions that will continue, the offer of financial assistance to the GAA and the FAI will be pursued in that context because it is not just a question of Croke Park, a point I have made time and again. It is a question of using these facilities throughout the country.
I did not ask about that.
The Government and the GAA acknowledge the value of good community relations in terms of access to various facilities—
The Taoiseach is using taxpayers' money to bribe his way to the next election.
(Interruptions.)
Please allow the Taoiseach to reply.
—and the Government will consider in the near future a report from the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation on the funding arrangements proposed and the strategies to be pursued in the ongoing discussions with the sporting bodies to ensure the success of Sports Campus Ireland. An external overview will be carried out on the project to take account of the total cost implications, including the ancillary costs such as access infrastructure and the strategies to manage the ongoing operating costs. That is what the Government decided this morning. A full memorandum will be brought by the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation to the Government's meeting to discuss this matter in two or three weeks.
I wish to reiterate that I am always frank and honest. I admit that there were breakdowns in communication and I apologise for that.
(Interruptions.)
We will proceed to deal with these issues and ensure the betterment of sport in this country.
In the miasma of verbiage the Taoiseach has just uttered, there are only a few facts which seem to be concrete. The first of these is that the Taoiseach appears to be on the most expensive ego trip embarked upon by any holder of his office in the history of the State.
A question please, Deputy Dukes.
The second is that he has now admitted—
The Deputy should ask a question.
I will do so in a moment. The second thing that has become clear is the Taoiseach's approach to this matter. He spoke of his final offer to the GAA and stated that things were "unclear". With regard to the impressive number of meetings attended by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation but not the Tánaiste, were he and the Minister operating on the basis of any approach agreed by the Government?
To colonise the GAA.
Were they operating on foot of provision approved by the Government for expenditure of £60 million over three years? We must remember that the £60 million to which I refer is only the visible part of the iceberg and that there is a further £70 million under the water.
A question please, Deputy Dukes.
What Government decision was at the basis of the undertakings apparently given by the Taoiseach and the other Ministers? Was that provided for in the Government's expenditure forecasts for the year 2001? What conditions were to be attached to it? I do not recall the exact phrase he used, but how can the Taoiseach state that the offer to the GAA was offer "in principle"? Why, after the events at the weekend, has it become an offer in principle when it was a firm offer when the discussions were taking place?
It was an unprincipled offer.
Will the Taoiseach explain why he is playing fast and loose with rules designed to protect taxpayers from having to subsidise ego trips of this kind? What are the other members of the Government going to do about this?
I said that the offers were in good faith and that the legal agreements had to be—
The Taoiseach said it was an offer in principle.
I said it was an offer in good faith. I gave a written commitment—
(Interruptions.)
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I will answer the questions if Members stop interrupting.
Before the Taoiseach does so, I wish to point out that only three Members are entitled to participate in leaders' questions: the Leader of or Leader representing Fine Gael, the Leader of the Labour Party and the Taoiseach. No other Member, either in Opposition or on the Government side of the House, is entitled to participate in leaders' questions. I ask that the Taoiseach be allowed to conclude without interruption as this is his final reply.
How do you spell "principle"? Is there an "a" in it?
I hope that in the future Croke Park will be a landmark to a good sports organisation.
Nothing would ever be done if Deputy Rabbitte had his way.
In my opinion the stadium will be a tribute to the GAA which had the foresight to develop a national stadium for its games. It is to the organisation's credit that it did so.
I stated that our discussions took place in good faith and I have already outlined the position vis-à-vis our own communications.
Does the Tánaiste agree with that?
The Campus Ireland project has been put to the Government. The up to date position was outlined at a meeting in early March which was attended by a number of Ministers, including the Tánaiste. However, the discussions with the GAA took place subsequent to that. In the legal agreement we will be obliged to draw up with the GAA, we will make our points about the outstanding issues. However, these negotiations took place in good faith.
The Government has developed sport in Ireland from the point where it was a Cinderella entity to which only a few million pounds per year were allocated to a position where there is now a reasonable base for it. With regard to sports infrastructure, the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation has invested huge amounts of money into the development of local authority swimming pools throughout the country.
(Interruptions.)
He has also invested heavily in basketball and other sports.
(Mayo): Taxpayers have done so.
I agree, but it takes someone to organise the making of such investments.
(Interruptions.)
The Taoiseach should be allowed to continue without interruption.
I assure the House that all the proper accounting procedures in relation to these matters and Government procedures will be seen to have been adhered to.
It is still a men only club, is it not?
A Deputy
The GAA has women members.
Yes, but they were not present at the discussions.
I remind Deputy Barnes that this is leaders' question time.
Does the Taoiseach not agree that the GAA has provided wonderful service to this country over many years? Does he agree that in the context of the Good Friday Agreement, against a background of national and political struggle on this island over generations, the GAA was on the verge of making an historic decision which would reflect the new ethos embodied in the principles of that Agreement, namely, to reverse rule 42 and allow other games played by men and women in this country to be played at the wonderful new stadium at Croke Park which should be completed? Does he further agree that his intervention was deliberately designed, on the eve of that historic congress, to thwart that decision and reverse it? The latter was the considered view of many delegates who attended the congress who expressed the view that the decision would have been to reverse rule 42. Is it not true that the Taoiseach was motivated to cynically intervene at the eleventh hour – without informing his so-called partners in Government who are locked in at the back of the bus and who cannot get out – in order to effectively prevent the GAA from expressing a democratic decision in a particular manner? Was it not his sole aim to do so in order to continue with a project which, by his own admission, has to date broken every procedural rule in the Cabinet book regarding the expenditure not of his money or that of Fianna Fáil but that of taxpayers, for which the Government is accountable to the House?
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Deputy Quinn has asked his question and, if he so desires, Deputy Dukes is now entitled to ask a supplementary question.
I have lost any faith that the Taoiseach might respond in a clear and direct way to any question put to him. His performance on this question has—
The Deputy must ask a question.
Will the Taoiseach indicate specifically what Cabinet decision mandated him and the Ministers for Finance and Tourism, Sport and Recreation to make this offer to the GAA? On foot of what Cabinet decision were they operating when they allowed the GAA to believe that a sum of £60 million would be paid up front and, perhaps, that a further £70 million would be forthcoming? If a Cabinet decision to that effect was made, how was it made without the knowledge of the Tánaiste? Will the Taoiseach answer those questions and then we will perhaps know what the Government is attempting to do in respect of this matter?
I will reiterate what I said earlier.
A Deputy
Please do not do so, Taoiseach.
I will do so in order to make matters absolutely clear. Part of the problem is that Members do not listen.
(Interruptions.)
I provided details of the meetings which took place with the GAA and the FAI. I also provided details of the meetings with the IRFU but I cannot indicate the dates on which these took place.
When did the Cabinet meeting take place?
In addition, I stated that the Campus Ireland project was brought before the Cabinet.
We went through this issue in detail at a recent meeting, although not a Government one, with a number of Ministers and officials from the Department of Finance and other Departments. We outlined where we had got with the FAI and the IRFU and we proceeded to continue the negotiations with the GAA.
The Taoiseach has misappropriated State funds.
I have already stated that the Government discussed this morning's recent developments in terms of funding for sport.
This morning.
The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to continue.
The objective of Government policy is to make available a high quality infrastructure for sport at all levels throughout the country.
The Taoiseach should give us the date of the Cabinet meeting.
It is the Government's objective to secure an appropriate sharing of sports infrastructure to achieve the best use of available facilities for the benefit of all sporting activities. Discussions have taken place with the sporting bodies, particularly with the FAI and the GAA, to further this objective.
The Taoiseach is the culprit. He has misappropriated State money.
I remind the Deputy this is leaders' question time.
It is waffle.
The Taoiseach should answer the questions asked.
The establishment of Stadium Ireland reflects this policy of providing a comprehensive range. The funding offers were made in good faith. The Government believes sporting facilities funded by the taxpayer should be shared as widely as possible for the benefit of the whole community. Our legal discussions with the GAA and the FAI in finalising the offer of financial assistance will be pursued in that context. I have also stated there will be a full report by the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation for the funding arrangements proposed and the strategy to be pursued in the ongoing discussions with the sporting bodies. I also said that we decided to have an external overview of the Stadium Ireland project to ensure it works and to take account of the cost implications and the ancillary costs, such as access infrastructure and the strategies to manage the ongoing operating costs. Deputy Quinn's view of why I would try to influence a GAA conference is so off the wall I should not bother replying to it.
A Deputy
The Taoiseach is off the wall.
(Interruptions.)
Allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
The reason that issue had to be concluded was that a final decision had to be made once the outline bid documents issued to the consortia for the provision of facilities at Stadium Ireland on a design, build, finance and operate basis.
What has the £60 million got to do with that?
I will tell the Deputy if she listens. The five consortia had to know what sporting events were likely to take place.
How does one design something?
They had to know the answer from the GAA and they had to discuss it at their conference last week. I hope that answered the question.
What was the date of the Cabinet meeting?
What was the date of the Cabinet meeting for Esat? Where was Deputy Owen? She was out getting the buns again.
(Dublin West): I take it the Taoiseach was not being devious and cunning.
No.
(Dublin West): He surprises us again.
I will ask the Taoiseach two questions and I hope I get two answers. When was it agreed between him and the Tánaiste that in principle the GAA should get £60 million? Why did he decide to issue the letters and to make public the offer on the eve of the conference which was on the verge of making an historic decision that was supported by the majority of individual members of the GAA, as evidenced by the reports from their representatives?
The Deputy would know.
I would not know and I am not pretending to know.
Deputy Quinn, without interruption. I ask the Deputy to address his remarks through the Chair.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle should address the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs.
Deputy Quinn, without interruption.
I am quoting statements on the public record from delegates who were at the conference. Unlike many Fianna Fáil Deputies, I do not presume to know things I do not know. When was it agreed with the Tánaiste, with whom I presume the Taoiseach is still in a partnership Government? Why did the Taoiseach decide to issue a letter on the eve of an historic congress which was going to reverse a decision in the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement and in accordance with the wishes of the majority of GAA supporters and players? Does he agree that many of the delegates from Roscommon and the other county boards, who struggled hard to bring about this historic change, must feel a little like the way Deputy Albert Reynolds felt when he showed him his vote?
The stadium project team made a presentation on 2 March on the progress achieved to date to me, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works and all the relevant officials in Government buildings. We said at those meetings we would continue the discussions. We did not clear the end of those discussions with our Government colleagues.
The Taoiseach should answer the question.
When did they find out?
Please allow the Taoiseach to conclude.
That will be dealt with in the memorandum when it comes to Government. The Department of Finance officials and everyone else was involved. As regards the second question—
It is £60 million of State money.
The Progressive Democrats Party is being taken for granted.
Allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
Do Members want an answer?
They do not.
I remind Deputies that this is leaders' questions. The Taoiseach is entitled to reply now and no one else is entitled to intervene.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle should get the Taoiseach to answer the questions.
Deputies should achieve their aspiration to be leader before they interrupt at the rate we have had interventions this afternoon.
We are back to the era of temporary little arrangements.
I ask Deputies to allow the Taoiseach without interruption so everyone in the Chamber may hear his reply.
I have answered Deputy Quinn's first question and I will now answer his second question.
The Taoiseach did not answer my first question.
I did answer it.
Deputy Quinn should allow the Taoiseach to conclude his reply.
I will answer the first question again. I would answer the two of them if I could get a minute's silence. As regards the first question, I said that on 2 March Stadium Ireland gave a full progress report and all the relevant Ministers and officials were present. We continued our negotiations. At that stage we reported on the FAI position. We did not give the figures on the GAA position because we did not conclude those meetings until last Tuesday night. The discussions continued until Friday.
It is like Alice in Wonderland.
That leads to the second question. We will now bring a memorandum to Government with the full position on all the negotiations, which we must still finish with the IRFU.
The Tánaiste will not sign a blank cheque.
The Taoiseach is free and easy with the taxpayers' money.
The Taoiseach did not tell the Tánaiste.
As regards the second question, the FAI had a meeting on 6 March and it held a conference. We had to give it a letter and we had to give one to the GAA last week for the same reasons. Not in legal form, but in written form we had to set out the terms we would work towards and try to come to legal agreements on which to sign off. For the same reason, the president of the GAA and his officials made clear to me and my colleagues last Tuesday night that he could not go to his congress and give a clear position to the five bidders unless he knew they would commit a certain number of games and people to Stadium Ireland. He also had to know his financial position. I do not apologise to anyone for helping the Gaelic Athletic Association out of a huge financial problem.
An accessory after the fact to bribery.
We now move on to other matters.
On a point of order, it is important that the official report shows that the Taoiseach has now admitted by inference that there was not—
That is not a point of order. I call Deputy Sargent on the Order of Business.
That matter warrants further inquiry. Can the Taoiseach tell me if, prior to the publication of the Forestry (Amendment) Bill, there will be an inquiry into the growing evidence that nine tonnes of lindane, which is a highly toxic substance, was used by Coillte in 1999?
Does the Deputy have a question about legislation?
It is legislation that I am talking about. Will it provide for an inquiry into that abuse?
What the legislation contains is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
The Bill will update the Forestry Acts of the last 50 years. Work is in progress and the Bill will be ready early next year.
Will legislation be necessary to provide funds for the scouting associations? Some £4 million is required—
Get them to change their names to the GAA and they will get it.
That matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
The communications regulation Bill is scheduled to be published in mid-2001. As a draft is in circulation, I understand its contents are known to many of the players within the industry and that it needs to be brought forward as a matter of urgency because of a number of developments within an Irish owned company. It would not be unusual for draft legislation to be in circulation. In view of the crisis in the sector, will the Taoiseach give an undertaking to bring forward the legislation as a matter of urgency?
Will the Taoiseach expedite the legislation in view of the fact that 250 jobs are in jeopardy? A £5 million investment in the midlands is also in jeopardy.
The heads of the Bill were approved by the Government on 6 March. The Bill is expected in mid-year, I hope before the summer.
I do not normally make such a request, but in view of the urgency of the matter will the Taoiseach consider publishing the heads of the Bill to provide for a degree of certainty in what is now a very uncertain marketplace?
I will examine that matter.
Given that over 150,000 are employed in the tourism industry which is in danger of collapse because of cancellations due to the foot and mouth crisis, will an amount similar to that to be made available to the GAA be made available to tourism?
That matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business. I suggest that the Deputy table a parliamentary question on the matter.
When will the Committee and Report Stages of the Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill relating to the Nice Treaty be taken? Given that the referendum is only eight weeks away, when will the order establishing the Referendum Commission come before the Dáil? Is it proposed to establish the commission or will the larger parties which are in favour of the treaty use their position to press the referendum through without fair representation for those who wish to adopt the "no" position?
The second part of the Deputy's question is not in order. The passage of the Bill is a matter for the House.
The Bill will be before the House this week and the debate will continue in the first week of May.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation has said that legislation will be necessary to allow local authorities to waive rates? Is such legislation planned?
That matter does not arise now.
If a Referendum Commission, in which Deputy Ó Caoláin has such a close interest, is established, will it, as part of its duty of fairness, be required to publish and circulate documents making the case for the inclusion of the death penalty in the Constitution? Would Deputy Ó Caoláin be in favour of this?
As he said in recent months, does the Taoiseach still believe that soccer will not be played in Croke Park during his lifetime?
That matter does not arise on the Order of Business.
It certainly does.
(Dublin West): Considering that the Taoiseach has been on some very long solo runs since 4.15 p.m., he might be forgiven for forgetting half of Deputy Ó Caoláin's question. Will the Referendum Commission on the Treaty of Nice be established soon?
It will be established. The Departments sponsoring the legislation, the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, must provide the necessary funding. The process will then involve the Minister for the Environment and Local Government.