The Order of Business shall be No. 24, motion re report of the Committee on Members' Interests of Dáil Éireann; No. 25, motion re Irish Pound Notes and Coins (Cessation of Legal Tender Status) Order, 2001 – draft; No. 6, Euro Changeover (Amounts) Bill, 2001 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; No. 48, Sex Offenders Bill, 2000 – Report and Final Stages (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. 24 and 25 should be decided without debate. On rising today, the Dáil shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. tomorrow and the Order of Business shall be taken following the announcement of matters under Standing Order 21. In the event of a Private Notice Question being allowed, it shall be taken immediately after the Order of Business. Private Members' Business shall be No. 122, motion re cancer services.
Order of Business.
There are two proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 24 and 25 agreed to?
They are not agreed to. A number of important Bills are being held up by the Government and it is our intention to raise them repeatedly in the House. I wish to draw attention to the Children Bill, 1999, urgent child care legislation which is awaiting Government amendments on Report Stage. Until that legislation is brought to a conclusion we will not agree to the Order of Business.
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.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.Hanafin, 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.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Wright, G. V. |
|
McGinley, Dinny.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.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Spring, Dick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack. |
Is the motion in relation to the adjournment of the Dáil today and the taking of business tomorrow agreed?
The Taoiseach might recall that on a famous occasion the late Mr. Justice Hamilton said that there would be less need for judicial inquiries if Ministers answered parliamentary questions in the House. We will have a busy afternoon with Private Notice Questions and so on and I will not vote against this issue but I advise the Taoiseach that there will not be co-operation in the ordering of business next week unless the Minister for Health and Children answers the relatively straightforward question put down by Deputy Gay Mitchell on 28 March to which, in the third month after that date, Deputy Mitchell still has not got a reply.
Deputy Noonan, that question does not arise on the issue before us. The question is in relation to the adjournment of the Dáil today and the taking of business tomorrow.
I will put it this way to you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. It will be done in a very orderly way next week so it is either 30 seconds now or a lot of time next week if this question is not answered.
It does not arise on the Order of Business. Is the proposal in relation to the adjournment of the Dáil today and the taking of business tomorrow agreed?
Will the Taoiseach reply to the point?
This matter was raised last week.
We still have not got an answer.
The Deputy did get an answer.
I asked the Minister about it then and I asked him again today. As I understand it, a question was put down seeking a compilation of data about appointments, committees and other details. There was no time limit on it, to be helpful to the Departments.
There was a time limit.
I understand the Minister's Department has been compiling this data which is almost ready.
Three months?
It is not three months.
It was asked on 28 March.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I am trying to answer Deputy Noonan's question.
That is not three months.
It was the very end of March into early April, just over a month, which is not unusual but the data is almost ready.
Three sitting days.
Is the proposal in relation to the adjournment of the Dáil today and the taking of business tomorrow agreed? Agreed. We now move on to Leaders' questions.
All of us in this House are concerned about the news emanating from Northern Ireland. Does the Taoiseach believe that Mr. Trimble's threat to resign as First Minister of the Northern Executive poses the most serious threat yet to the Good Friday Agreement unless the republican movement makes a serious and credible move towards decommissioning by 30 June 2001? I know the Taoiseach will be aware of the surprise and disappointment expressed by spokespersons of both the SDLP and Sinn Féin. Will he agree that the onus to resolve this impasse now rests with the two sovereign Governments? Furthermore, will he make a commitment to this House that all the preparatory work necessary for negotiating a settlement will be made by him and the British Government and its officials so that when the new British Government takes office on or about 9 June, negotiations towards a resolution can commence immediately with a view to all-party agreement being reached on decommissioning and other matters before the de Chastelain mandate runs out on 30 June?
By way of supplementary to Deputy Noonan's question, will the Taoiseach accept that there is a level of brinkmanship both in the statement of Mr. Trimble and the response of Mr. McGuinness to that statement that threatens to put at risk the acknowledged good work of the institutions put in place subsequent to the Good Friday Agreement? Has the Government plans to amend the decommissioning regulations, which are due to expire on 22 May, and in terms of those regulations what amount of time does the Taoiseach envisage will be required before the decommissioning commitments entered into by all parties in the Good Friday Agreement are achieved?
I thank Deputy Noonan and Deputy Howlin for their questions on this issue. The Government is surprised by Mr. Trimble's statement. I met Mr. Trimble at some length, with his colleagues and my own, last Friday and he made no mention of this. I understand from the British Prime Minister that he only heard word of it five minutes before it was announced and that Seamus Mallon only heard about it two minutes before the announcement.
The Government recognises the need for urgent progress to be made on the implementation of all the outstanding aspects of the Agreement and we expect that all the pro-Agreement parties will work constructively with the two Governments, particularly following the British general election, to overcome all the remaining obstacles.
I can tell Deputy Noonan that over recent weeks we have made substantial progress. We are working on the policing issue in particular. We are also looking at what we would need to do to extend the decommissioning remit. The British Government has said it is likely to extend the de Chastelain remit to February, at least, but since the 8 March meeting in Hillsborough we have endeavoured to find a way of making as much progress as we possibly can on the various issues, though they are not connected. We will continue that right up to tomorrow morning when the last meeting will take place shortly before the election is called, as is expected, when the officials will no longer be available to us. I hope that progress will leave us in a position to take up these matters after the election but we have learned many times over the past seven or eight years that the process is usually not helped by deadlines, although we were working to try to achieve as much as we could by the end of June. That is still the position of the two Governments and we will continue to do that to the best of our ability.
What about the decommissioning regulations?
We hope to take our lead on that matter from General John de Chastelain. Perhaps we will have to move outside the remit of some of the existing issues to extend or alter the schemes. Both Governments indicated that they would favour such a move and I believe the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would also be in favour of it. However, we must wait for a period because we have not yet received a clear signal from General John de Chastelain regarding the change he would require in that remit. We can, therefore, leave it as it stands for a period or wait to see if it can be extended. In my opinion we will be asked to extend it in due course.
In light of the statements that have been made by party leaders in Northern Ireland, does the Taoiseach agree it will be impossible to resolve this issue through cross-party negotiations in that jurisdiction and that, consequently, the onus will devolve to the two sovereign Governments? Will he contact Prime Minister Blair and inquire if the British officials could be allowed to work through the British election campaign in order to continue the satisfactory work they have been doing with Irish officials until now? I know the British Government will remain in office until election day and that it is the precedent that its officials do not remain involved in negotiations. However, will the Taoiseach request that an exception be made in this instance? Given that, once the election takes place, a new UK Government will be formed on 9 June, that the relevant meeting of the UUP will take place on 23 June and that the deadline set by David Trimble is 30 June, there will be precious little time to resolve this matter in round table negotiations unless the A, B and C plans are put in place by 9 June.
We have been considering this matter for some weeks. During the past three weeks in particular we made as much progress as possible in terms of seeing what more we can do on the issue of putting arms beyond use while dealing separately with the issue of policing, a number of lesser but important outstanding issues and the difficulties that already exist in the North-South Ministerial Council. The final meeting takes place in the morning. The difficulty is that the key officials who deal with these matters – they are very close to Prime Minister Blair – are obliged to resign their positions, leave No. 10 Downing Street and return to party headquarters. They will, therefore, be out of the equation after tomorrow. We will, however, in so far as is possible, remain in contact with them.
Is the Taoiseach stating that negotiations will cease after tomorrow's meeting?
The key officials—
Would civil servants not be in a position to continue with the negotiations?
The civil servants of the Northern Ireland Office will continue with their work. However, the key people responsible for driving forward the process in recent years are not civil servants, they are political advisers to Mr. Blair. However, in so far as is possible, we will remain in contact with the civil servants involved. We will then have to resume negotiations immediately after the election. During the course of the election campaign, the Government will remain in contact with Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the UUP and the other parties. We will also remain in contact with the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State's office. We hope to maintain those contacts, even in a limited way, over the next four weeks.
As stated previously on Question Time, this will place an enormous amount of pressure on the system after 10 June. I have already reported to the House that the Prime Minister has a series of meetings arranged for that week and it is unlikely, from the information in my possession, that he will be available until after 15 June. That means that there will be only two or three weeks in which to make progress. The call the First Minister has made will not help the situation. However, we must deal with matters as they stand and try to make as much progress as poss ible after 9 June. While the Prime Minister will not be available until after 15 June, his officials should be available after 7 or 8 June.
Would it be possible to ask a brief supplementary?
I would prefer it if the Deputy did not do so. The arrangements for leaders' questions have been working extremely well and we would like to keep it that way.
I wish to establish a matter of fact.
I call Deputy Howlin on the second leaders' question.
When will the Taoiseach bring before the House the report he commissioned from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on allegations that there was improper interference with a witness statement that was used in the 1970 Arms Trial?
Has the Government reflected on my proposal that, in the first instance, persons such as an eminent historian, a judge and an official of this House should be appointed to examine the various files available – whether in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in the archives of this House or in other Departments, over which privilege has been claimed and which are not yet in the public domain – so that the facts can be established before an inquiry is put in place?
The Minister is continuing his work. At this stage he is endeavouring to ensure that all files in his Department, the Department of the Taoiseach, the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and elsewhere are made available. He then intends to check the logs of those files before reporting to the House. As the Minister said in the Seanad last week, he is not ruling out any of the suggestions that have been made. At this stage, however, we are intent on ensuring that all the relevant data and information is available and that files in the archives are checked to ensure they are complete. I hope when that exercise is complete, the Minister will make a statement on the matter in the House.
In relation to the extraordinary difference in the memories of Deputy O'Malley and the Taoiseach concerning life under the leadership of Charles J. Haughey, does the Taoiseach still hold the view that the relationships between Ministers under Mr. Haughey and those between Ministers and himself are entirely the same?
Or is he just keeping his head down?
Yesterday morning I was asked questions about this matter. First, I was asked if I saw a TV programme the other evening and I replied that I was busy enjoying myself. I was then asked a second time if I had seen the programme and I said "no". On the third occasion, I was asked if I was ever intimidated by Mr. Haughey. I was never intimidated by anybody.
That is why Mr. Haughey referred to the Taoiseach in the way he did.
Are there any other matters on the Order of Business? We will proceed to Private Notice Questions.