It is proposed to take No. 54, Adventure Activities Standards Authority Bill, 2000 – Second Stage (resumed) and No. 55, Company Law Enforcement Bill, 2000 – Order for Report and Report and Report and Final Stages. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. and business shall be interrupted not later than 10.00 p.m., and the sitting shall be suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.; the proceedings on the resumed Second Stage of No. 54, shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 6.30 p.m.; and the Report and Final Stages of No. 55, shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 p.m. by one question, which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Private Members' Business shall be No. 119 – motion re Aer Lingus.
Order of Business.
There are three proposals to be put to the House. Is the late sitting agreed to?
Is it the intention of the Government to have late sittings on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, and Friday sittings, from now until the recess to clear business?
Yes.
Noting the late sitting, I cannot see why it is not possible to have questions and answers on the Gothenburg Summit given that we are giving extra time to a number of issues. This is obviously an issue on which people want to have an opportunity to ask questions, yet there is only provision for statements this week. Is it not possible to have a question and answer session, given the late sitting? Otherwise the late sitting is about nothing more than filling time.
On the same topic, we will not be opposing this Order of Business proposal but perhaps the Taoiseach, with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, will reconsider the standard format for statements to allow for some form of question and answer session. I would ask the Taoiseach and the Whips to consider some format for that. This is an important issue and I share Deputy Sargent's concern.
That is probably a matter for Thursday, the day on which the statements are being resumed.
I appreciate that, Sir, but you, in particular, will realise that advance notice helps to produce constructive results in such matters.
The last time we moved away from the standard format was six months ago when we did arrange to have some sessions in committees. I do not know if they were beneficial, but other than that the standard rule of the House provides for statements.
On that point—
We cannot have a discussion on it. Is the late sitting agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 54, the conclusion of Second Stage of the Adventure Activities Standards Authority Bill, 2000, agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 55, Report and Final Stages of the Company Law Enforcement Bill, 2000, agreed to? Agreed.
We will now move on to Leaders' Questions.
The growing level of dissent and disunity in the Cabinet about Europe is beginning to make the British Tory Party look united and cohesive. First out of the traps was the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Cuív, who voted "No" and told everybody else to vote "Yes". He was followed by his cousin, the Minister, Deputy de Valera, who expressed the view that the Irish people were against any further European integration. This was followed closely by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, who pulled the rug from under the Taoiseach at a most sensitive time at Gothenburg. Yesterday the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources lambasted the Common Fisheries Policy quota which was actually negotiated by Fianna Fáil in 1972. Last night the Attorney General, a former Progressive Democrat, added his tuppence to the debate when he called on himself in his official capacity to reform his own office in the processing of European directives for which he has one of the primary responsibilities. In view of the fiasco unravelling around the Taoiseach, would he take a grip on things, give leadership and ensure that he will have some credibility in Europe and that Ireland's role and influence will not continue to be damaged there?
I wonder if the Taoiseach could explain to the House the assurances which he gave, and indeed which his colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, gave, to all of the applicant member states of the European Union that Ireland was committed to enlargement given that, in Gothenburg, his Minister for Finance was undermining him and flatly contradicting what was going on and, in Ireland, a procession of Ministers and Ministers of State were undermining the position of the Government with respect to the commitment on enlargement. How can other countries, whose relations with us are of particular importance, both for our economy and for employment here, take the Taoiseach's words seriously if he is being constantly undermined by colleagues in Government on a daily basis?
If I may, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I will give a brief report on the weekend meetings first. I will report in a more detailed way on Thursday. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and I had an opportunity to brief the European Council. The full morning session was taken up—
Was it the official or the Cabinet view?
He should have briefed his officials.
Please allow the Taoiseach to finish without interruption.
The full morning session with the European Council was taken up with a discussion on the vote in this country and we also had a separate session the following day with the applicant countries, where again we assured them of our position but explained to them, equally, that the Irish people had voted against the Treaty which was put to them. We explained that issue and clarified the issue in question and answer sessions, not only with the European Council and the applicant countries but also with the foreign media and with the applicant countries' media in particular, where I was asked by the applicant countries if I would answer questions put by their media.
The position of the Government on this remains as I spelt out last Tuesday but perhaps I should state it again briefly. First, the Government fully respects the outcome of the refer endum. Second, the Government is convinced that the people, in voting against the Treaty of Nice, were not voting against the European Union nor – more importantly, in this instance – against the enlargement of the European Union because that is what is at issue in Europe. I believe that at Gothenburg I succeeded in persuading our partners and the applicant countries of this. Third, the Government is firmly committed to the enlargement of the Union and it is the consensus view within the Union that ratification of the Nice Treaty is necessary for enlargement to proceed. That was clearly stressed at the weekend. I should say that the conclusion of Gothenburg is that all of the applicant countries, or those who fulfil the criteria, will present candidates in the 2004 European elections.
The outcome of the referendum of course has created a difficulty for the European Union, for the applicant countries and for Ireland, and it is a difficulty which must be resolved. As I have said, we need to engage in a period of reflection on how to proceed. Our EU partners have indicated that they will offer whatever help they can.
What are the Taoiseach's Ministers at?
Deputy Mitchell, this is Leaders' Question Time.
When is the next—
Deputy Gormley, please.
The Taoiseach would want to mind his back.
The Belgian Presidency has indicated that it will assist us in whatever way it can.
I have already answered questions in regard to what the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, said—
He has denied that.
—and that has been well publicised. There is no point in me saying anymore.
The Deputy rejected him.
The Attorney General fulfilled a speaking engagement last night at the Institute for European Affairs which was arranged some time previously.
They were lucky.
The occasion was a speech to lawyers who are members of the European lawyers' group—
And two journalists.
Please allow the Taoiseach finish.
—and his address was made in a personal capacity, as has been the practice in his office for many years. He emphasised at the commencement of his address his commitment to the ratification of the Nice Treaty and in the course of this address he reiterated points which he had made, in a personal capacity, on many occasions.
Why does he not introduce the reforms he advocated?
Deputy Shatter, please.
The points he made, on the issue of the democratic deficit in European matters and the need for reform of parliamentary procedures, is exactly the point he has made in several speeches—
Did he give the Taoiseach this note before or after the vote.
—and the media have been reporting them each time he has done so. I would refer Members, who want to look at—
There is nothing very original in that.
Please, Deputies.
—what the Ombudsman actually said when he was talking about his report last year.
We heard it all before. Would he do something?
He gave a detailed account of what the Attorney General said on that occasion, and he said the same last night.
He is a part of the Government.
He is trying to implement—
In fact, I am just glad that the Irish media take so much notice of what our excellent Attorney General says and I thank them for doing so.
These are Progressive Democrats electoral stirrings from the undergrowth.
What about the Common Fisheries Policy? Is there any chance of a—
I call Deputy Noonan to ask a supplementary question.
A general election is in the air.
Deputy Shatter, there is only one Leader of Fine Gael, that is, Deputy Noonan and he has been called.
Without urging the Taoiseach to return to the days of una duce una voce would he not agree that unless a coherent view of European policy in Government is expressed in a consistent way by Ministers there is very little hope of being successful in a further referendum on the Nice treaty without which the enlargement of Europe cannot proceed on any equitable basis?
I agree there must be coherence on this important issue which has created a difficulty for Europe. Equally so, we have to be careful, as has been said by a number of speakers on all sides of the House, that in dealing with that issue we are not seen to be ignoring the people's wishes.
Why hold another referendum?
Deputy Gormley must allow the Taoiseach to continue.
What Deputy Noonan said is entirely correct. If we do not deal with the enlargement process we will find ourselves in an extremely difficult position. I endured two difficult days last week explaining to the European Council and enlargement countries that this country is not against enlargement. We need to deal with the issues raised during the campaign. Many Members said they were in favour of enlargement during the debate in this House. I take people at their word. We have to, in a coherent manner, put forward a case which will convince the people to ratify the Nice treaty. We must look at that issue in conjunction with many others. We cannot make a decision in that regard until we have had a period of reflection on how best to deal with the issues involved. That will take some time. We must do this calmly.
I welcome the support of parties on the Forum of the European Union where we will engage in discussions over the next few weeks.
It is a good job somebody is supporting the Taoiseach.
If the Taoiseach cannot convince his Ministers to support him how can he convince the country to do so?
Deputy Quinn on another question, please.
Would the Taoiseach agree that prior to the commencement of the council in Gothenburg two meetings took place, one held by the European People's Party and the other by the Party of European Socialists, at which six Prime Ministers in the Party of European Socialists and three with the Christian Democrats heard from myself and Deputy Noonan our support for the position which the Taoiseach subsequently carried successfully with the formal council meeting the following day? Would he agree that his position and the strategic importance not just for Ireland but for the whole of Europe in terms of enlargement and the ending of the historic division of this continent which has seen the ravages of fascism and communism for nearly 70 years, was deliberately undermined in Gothenburg by the Minister for Finance and that his attempts to paper over the crack between himself and his euro-sceptic Minister for Finance was formally repudiated by the spokeswoman for the Minister for Finance?
If our Constitution still enshrines the principle of collective responsibility, when will the Taoiseach act in this regard? This is not a game between some members of Fianna Fáil, this is about the future of the European Union and the future of this country and its relationship to other European nations. The deliberate stirring up a conflict in Gothenburg by the Minister for Finance has had very negative results for us right across the continent, a conflict that has now been compounded by the Attorney General attempting to do as the Minister of State Deputy Ó Cuív did – private in part and yet having responsibility as Attorney General.
At least he voted for it.
How does Deputy Cowen know he voted for it?
He was standing beside him when he voted.
What action will the Taoiseach take to ensure that collective Cabinet responsibility, which has clearly been breached – and deliberately breached on this important issue – will be re-asserted?
Deputy Michael Noonan.
(Dublin West): Why were my questions on Gothenburg ruled out of order?
We are dealing with leader's questions. Deputy Higgins is not included. I addressed a similar question from Deputy Gormley and suggested he call to the Ceann Comhairle's office. The matter does not arise on leader's questions. Deputy Noonan.
Does the Taoiseach think it somewhat peculiar or even bizarre, certainly ironic, that he received more support from me and Deputy Quinn in Gothenburg than he did from the Minister for Finance who undermined him on the first available occasion?
Did the Taoiseach have prior notice of the Minister for Finance's remarks? Did he have prior notice last night of the Attorney General's speech?
I agree that it is vitally important that we handle the situation with the European Council in a careful manner. We have to analyse the issues which need to be addressed. They have to be included in the Future of Europe debates. We must also look, through the forum, at the issues surrounding the Nice Treaty.
I have looked very carefully at what the Minister for Finance had to say. Any fair reading of it will show he was referring to the fact that I had already stated we had to fully respect the outcome of the referendum. He made his support for the Nice Treaty and enlargement absolutely clear during his press conference. He made it absolutely clear that he believes the European model should be followed-through and debated. He also said there were some aspects which he believed, if they were pushed, could work against it. In that regard he mentioned the broad economic guidelines. His comments are on the record.
I sat through the debate on the broad economic guidelines in the European Council last Friday evening with the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, who left from there to attend his press conference.
On the second issue, I did not, nor do I ever clear or see the Attorney General's speech in advance.
In light of what the Taoiseach said, can he now give an undertaking to this House that he will proceed as a matter of urgency to establish the forum on Europe, proposed by the Labour Party and accepted by Government at last week's Cabinet meeting? Will he indicate to the House when he proposes to establish that forum and has he any ideas on what shape it will take?
I hope to be in a position to circulate a draft terms of reference to the House soon. I have looked closely, in recent days, at the two previous forums. The forum should have an independent chairperson and a strong secretariat. It should be modelled on the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation with other people being able to attend at a later date.
I propose, subject to the views of my colleagues and other parties in the House, that we will deal with three essential matters; the issues relating to the Nice Treaty and enlargement; the additional issues of the future of Europe debate; and seeking a broad consensus of support for these issues from the Irish people in a wider forum. They are the three important points involved.
It may not be possible to hold meetings prior to the summer recess but we should try to have the structures in place before the end of July so that we can start early in September.
Will the forum on Europe legislation be put in place? Do I take it from his remarks that if he is modelling it on the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation the political parties from Northern Ireland will be invited to participate?
I do not think it requires legislation. The Forum for Peace and Reconciliation did not. I have already received requests from some of the parties in Northern Ireland to be involved in the forum, if not in the first aspect then in the second, which will deal with the future of Europe.
Will the Taoiseach indicate when legislation will be introduced to provide for the new system of work visas and permits that have been spoken about on a number of occasions?
I hope legislation will be published in the autumn.
On item 41 on the Government's legislative programme, will the Taoiseach indicate if, in view of the grotesque vandalism and demolition of the unique neo-classical building at Wiggins Teape on the East Wall Road at the weekend, measures will be introduced to require a permit or licensing before the demolition of any building can take place? Will he also indicate what other steps will be taken to address this problem and if those responsible for the vandalism will be prosecuted?
It is not appropriate to make a Second Stage speech on promised legislation.
It concerns the building control Bill, which is promised legislation.
The heads of the building control Bill are available and I understand the Bill will be introduced in the next session.
Having regard to the legislation to which the Taoiseach referred, will he draw the attention of the Attorney General, Mr. McDowell, to the mandatory and exclusive role of the Attorney General under Article 30 of the Constitution-—
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
The Constitution places a mandatory obligation on the Attorney General to advise the Government and his role is exclusive to that.
When the Government has recovered from its attack of post-referendum panic perhaps the Taoiseach will indicate to the House in the context of the speech yesterday by the Attorney General if he is to introduce proposals to provide for greater transparency in the manner in which Departments and the office of the Attorney General process draft regulations and directives from the EU? Is any legislation promised?
No.
With regard to the needs of persons with a disability and the means of redress for those whose rights have been denied, when is the long promised Disabilities Bill due to be introduced?
The Disabilities Bill is the last of a series of measures introduced by the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Mary Wallace. It is almost ready for drafting and will be introduced in the autumn session.
Is the Taoiseach confident that a majority of his Deputies do not agree with Deputy O'Kennedy? The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment gave an undertaking to the EU Commission that the part-time workers directive would be given legislative effect by the Oireachtas by June 2000. I do not know if the communications unit has brought to the Taoiseach's attention a report in today's Irish Examiner to the effect that 183,000 part-time workers have been advised through their union that the Bill will not be passed by the House before the Dáil rises.
That is not relevant to the Order of Business. A question on legislation.
I am referring to the Protection of Employees (Part-time Workers) Bill. I am sure it is not being delayed in the office of the Attorney General because the Attorney General is not one to allow his private views to become involved with his public duty. Why is this legislation being delayed? Some 183,000 workers are waiting for the Bill to be passed.
The Protection of Employees (Part-time Workers) Bill was published six months ago. I understand it is at Committee Stage but I will check that.
It is awaiting Committee Stage, which is a different matter.
When will the Court and Court Officers Bill be introduced to the House so that I can exercise my duty as a legislator as I have been publicly advised to do by the Attorney General, and expose the conflict of interest it presents to him? Is it proposed to proceed with a separate referendum on judicial discipline and accountability? Will legislation be introduced and will the discipline elements apply to the Attorney General?
The Court and Court Officers Bill might be introduced to the House this session. It will depend on the progress of other legislation. There are no proposals to address the other matter raised by the Deputy.
Maidir le reachtaíocht atá geallta, Bille na Gaeilge chun seirbhísí Stáit a chur ar fáil tré mheán na Gaeilge, cathain a fhoilseofar an Bille sin?
It has been passed by the Cabinet and I hope it will be drafted in the autumn.
The Minister for Finance said it was remarkably healthy that the Irish people said "No" to the Nice treaty.
We are on the Order of Business.
Given that it is so healthy will the Taoiseach introduce new legislation for a new referendum and is this a way for the Government—
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
It does. The newspapers report that there will be a new referendum. That will require new legislation.
A question on promised legislation.
My question is in order.
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
Please do not try to suppress debate.
I ask you to withdraw that remark. It is a reflection on the Chair. Withdraw the remark or leave the House.
I withdraw the remark. Will the Taoiseach answer my question?
There is no promised legislation.
New legislation will be required if there is to be a new referendum.
I call Deputy McManus.
With regard to the recent tragic case of a brain dead woman who was kept unnecessarily on a life support machine against the wishes of her family and medical advice, there has been a failure by the Government to provide a legislative framework for this kind of situation. Does the Taoiseach intend to deal with this by way of the Medical Practitioners Bill and will he introduce it at an early stage or will he please introduce legislation in line with the X case to ensure this situation does not cause anguish and grief to another family?
Work is in progress on the Medical Practitioners Bill but it will be some time before it is completed. I do not believe it covers the issue raised by the Deputy.
Will the Taoiseach indicate when the Waste Management (Amendment) Bill will be introduced? Will he assure the House that adequate time will be provided to debate the Bill and that it will not be guillotined like the Local Government Bill when some Members had only two or three minutes to speak on it?
The Bill is before the House.
When will it be debated?
This session. It is for the Whips to decide.
I do not wish to incur the wrath of the Chair but I am compelled to raise a point raised by other Deputies earlier, namely, the ruling out of parliamentary questions on the basis that they anticipate debates.
As I pointed out to two other Deputies this afternoon, that matter should be raised in the Ceann Comhairle's office, not on the Order of Business. A number of Deputies are offering, I hope with legitimate questions on the Order of Business.
There is a fundamental issue at stake.
The Deputy is being disorderly. The Chair has pointed out that the Deputy can raise the issue in the Ceann Comhairle's office.
I do not wish to raise it in this fashion but there is no other way to raise it of which I am aware.
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
I have been in this House for years and, for the first time, over a dozen questions I tabled were ruled out of order today because they impinged on an area which is most sensitive for the Government at present. The question of the Nice Treaty—
That is a reflection on the Ceann Comhairle's office and I ask the Deputy to withdraw it.
Why were all those questions ruled out of order?
I ask the Deputy to withdraw the reflection on the Ceann Comhairle's office.
I am not reflecting on the Ceann Comhairle's office.
The Deputy did reflect on the Ceann Comhairle's office.
I am merely asking—
The Deputy gave a reason the questions were ruled out and I ask him to withdraw the reflection on the Ceann Comhairle's office.
If the Leas-Cheann Comhairle wishes to have me expelled from the House, he should do it.
I do not wish to have the Deputy expelled. He made the allegation.
I must stand up for my rights and my entitlement to raise legitimate questions.
The Deputy is totally out of order and I ask him to resume his seat or leave the House.
I asked a question—
Will the Deputy withdraw the reflection on the Ceann Comhairle's office?
I am not reflecting on the Ceann Comhairle's office.
The Deputy reflected on the Ceann Comhairle's office. If he does not withdraw it, I will ask him to leave the House.
He is not reflecting on the Ceann Comhairle's office.
I ask Deputy Durkan to leave the House.
That is not fair.
The Deputy must leave the House.
I am asking why questions on a topical issue were ruled out of order.
The Deputy is not leaving the House so I must send for the Ceann Comhairle.
Too quick.
Twelve questions were ruled out of order on the basis that—
The sitting is suspended.