The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 57, statements regarding the USA situation. It is proposed notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 10 p.m.; the proceedings on No. 57 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10 p.m. and the following arrangements shall apply: the opening statements of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; the statement of each other Member called upon shall not exceed 15 minutes; Members may share time; and following the statements the Minister for Foreign Affairs shall take questions for a period not exceeding 25 minutes. Private Members' business shall be No. 115, motion re. Aer Lingus, which shall be taken upon the conclusion of the Order of Business tomorrow and shall conclude after three hours.
Order of Business.
There are three proposals on the Order of Business. The first proposal relates to the late sitting. Is that proposal agreed? Agreed. The second proposal relates to the taking of statements regarding the USA situation. Is that proposal agreed?
May I ask a question on that proposal?
The Deputy must be brief.
As regards No. 57, statements on the USA situation, will the Taoiseach allow time for questions put to him, given that questions on this issue, including not only those of Deputy Sargent who was earlier engaged with you, a Cheann Comhairle, but also my questions—
That is provided for. There is 25 minutes for questions at the end of the statements.
I understand the Taoiseach will not respond at that time to the questions put to the Taoiseach. My question related to the EU summit in Brussels.
I must put the proposal.
Surely this is something which merits a considered response.
There is a 25 minute time slot for questions at the end of the statements at 9.35 p.m.
I will try to help the Deputy. The summit in Brussels was attended by me and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Is the proposal agreed? Agreed. The final proposal is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business tomorrow. Is that agreed? Agreed. I will now take leaders' questions. I call Deputy Noonan.
In view of the publication of the Exchequer returns yesterday, can the Taoiseach explain to the House why there is such a serious discrepancy between the outturn at the end of September and the budget estimates in respect of tax revenue? I understand the estimate was that tax revenue across all heads would increase by 12.5%. By the end of September tax revenue had increased by 2.5%. Public expenditure continues to rise in excess of 20%. Could the Taoiseach explain to the House what has gone wrong, what has happened since the Minister introduced the budget in this House and what are the new circumstances which gave rise to such a discrepancy? Is it the Government's intention to budget for a surplus in 2002? What instruction has been issued to Departments by the Minister for Finance with the consent of the Taoiseach in the preparation of Estimates for 2002?
In addition to the questions posed by Deputy Noonan, can the Taoiseach indicate if the international consultants group, which was hired by the Government to evaluate the viability of Campus Stadium Ireland and which undertook the task over the summer and which, I understand, is ready to complete its report and publish it in the next few days, will be asked to re-evaluate its conclusions on the basis of the collapse in Government revenues relative to projections and the increase, way ahead of anticipation, in Government expenditure? Both facts and figures must surely have a bearing on the viability of the Campus Stadium project and could run the risk, if not properly revised, of invalidating any conclusions which the consultants might publish in the next five days if they have not taken those factors into account.
It appears to the Chair that is a separate question. Perhaps the Deputy could ask that supplementary question in relation to his own question.
I asked the question because I know the project is dear to the Taoiseach's heart. I know that whatever lack of briefing he might have on other issues, he would know what is going on with this one.
The main question is that of Deputy Noonan. Perhaps the Deputy could use that question for his own question.
The end of September figures for the 2001 Exchequer returns show that tax revenue continues to perform more weakly than was forecast, as Deputy Noonan stated. The tax flows to the end of September show an increase of 2.2% over the receipts in the same period last year compared to a budget target of 12.5% over the 2000 outturn. The weaknesses across most tax heads in direct tax receipts, which have been evident since the imposition of the foot and mouth disease restrictions, are now also apparent in income tax receipts. They have drifted from the first quarter right through the year. The figure at all times has continued to increase. Current expenditure is slightly behind the Revised Estimates volume target, while voted capital expenditure is in line with expectations. Therefore, while expenditure has gone up this year, it was budgeted expenditure and is in line with projections. If I recall correctly from looking at the figures last night for four Departments, including the Environment and Local Government, and Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, the profiles of the figures are behind expenditure.
That is interesting. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development is under-performing.
The latest expectation for our Exchequer surplus this year is that it will be at least 1.9 billion, or 1.5 billion lower than forecast on budget day, although it could, possibly, be more than that. A shortfall of 1.9 billion would give a projected general Government deficit of 2.5%. These figures emphasise the need for us to adapt our expectations to the new economic situation and adopt a prudent approach. That is what we have to do in the short-term in order to return to good economic growth rates. Deputy Noonan asked what has gone wrong.
The Taoiseach should sack the Minister for the Environment and Local Government.
Last week the national accounts figures showed an increase in the first quarter of about 10.4%. Therefore, last year's 11.5% growth carried into the first quarter. Three issues have gone wrong. First, clearly, the effect of foot and mouth disease on tourism and other activities affected indirect taxes throughout the second, third and final quarters. Second, the global slowdown emanating from the United States and Japan affected production in the Asian economies. Last year, most of those countries, other than Japan, were forecasting good economic growth, but that has slowed down. That is not the only area affected by information-communication technologies, but it is a big one.
The eight month figures from the United States show a 50% slowdown in production and growth in the ICT sector. That slowdown is fairly unbelievable and, although it has nothing to do with the events of 11 September, it has fed right into the Asian economies, including production in our own ICT companies. While most companies in that sector have managed to maintain employment levels, the slowdown presents a major difficulty. The third reason, which is not included in these figures, is the aftermath of the events of 11 September, and we are closely monitoring that situation.
I refer the Deputy to what both the ESRI and the Central Bank have stated, based on the first six months of the year. They have projected growth for the year to be somewhere between 5% and 7%. That is a high projection and I would have thought it would be on the lower end, at 5%. The ESRI and Central Bank are carrying over that figure into next year at 4.5%. Looking at the nine month figures and the projections, the Deputy correctly asked what has gone wrong. While the first quarter was excellent, the second and third quarters were not so and we will be very lucky for that carry-over to reach 4.5%.
In short, the Government has lost control of the public finances. Why does the Taoiseach not say that, instead of giving us all this rubbish?
Order, please. Deputy Dukes should not interrupt.
I was asked a serious question, a Cheann Comhairle, and I am endeavouring to answer it in a serious manner. That is where I see the situation and we must continue to monitor it closely.
As regards the Deputy's other question, Departments have been instructed to return their Estimates with a view to maintaining existing services. No new schemes should be built into that, apart from those to be announced on budget day. We must ensure indexation and Christmas bonuses are built into the figures, but not additional, new or extended programmes. That is the basis of the circular.
The national development plan is dead.
I understand from the Taoiseach that Departments are being instructed to prepare Estimates on a "no policy change" basis. However, he did not answer another part of my question: is the Government planning to budget for a surplus in 2002? He might deal with that issue when he replies to my supplementary question. Much of the decline in the public finances is due to domestic reasons. A misconceived budgetary policy by the Government has now run the country into trouble. After four years of unprecedented prosperity we are now facing a fiscal crisis. The farming and tourism industries are in crisis as are public services, including all the State companies. The Government has spent the country into a crisis, as has often happened before with Fianna Fáil-led Governments. We now have a crisis in the public finances and are on the cusp of a major fiscal crisis.
It is 1977 all over again.
The Taoiseach has an open cheque book.
Where is the champagne now?
The Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
I can understand the reason Deputy Noonan is trying to put forward that argument, but I totally reject it. The Deputy should recall what the position was at the beginning of the year; last December's budget was considered, both here and elsewhere, as perhaps being inflationary, expansionary or putting too much money into people's pockets. I would argue the exact opposite to the Deputy.
The argument is that he put it into the wrong pockets.
Deputy Noonan, please—
I will listen and Deputy Noonan can answer.
The Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
I would argue the opposite. If we did not have last year's fiscal policy, there is no way we would be standing out as the only country in the western world that is talking about growth rates of 5%. No other country is talking about unemployment remaining at current levels or employment increasing. No other country has visa requirements for 1,000 people. Nobody else's exports are holding as well as ours, although, admittedly, they are declining.
It is precisely because of the fiscal policies of the Minister for Finance last December that we have managed to get to this stage without the kind of problems that are occurring in Asian countries. Growth in Singapore has gone from 10% to nil, while Japan's growth rate has fallen from 3% to minus 2%. Economies around the world are experiencing enormous difficulties, but we are holding our own in dealing with the situation.
As regards the Deputy's first question about next year's surplus, it is too early to say. As I stated, a shortfall of 1.9 billion would give a general Government deficit of 2.5%. We have to examine the last quarter figures, however, and the third quarter figures were worse than we thought they would be.
Sorry, Taoiseach—
We cannot have interruptions during leaders' questions.
I did not hear what the Taoiseach said, a Cheann Comhairle.
Perhaps the Taoiseach can repeat that, but we cannot have more than one question.
Did he say there would be a 2.5% general Government deficit?
I said that a shortfall of 1.9 billion would give a projected general Government surplus of 2.5% of GDP.
He said "deficit."
Is the Taoiseach aware that the Bill published yesterday by the Government is in conflict with Article 46 of the Constitution? Article 46.4 states: "A Bill containing a proposal or proposals for the amendment of this Constitution shall not contain any other proposal." Would he agree that the Bill published yesterday contains two separate and distinct proposals to amend the Constitution and to attach a criminal statute to it? On our analysis, and on the legal advice available to the Labour Party, this appears to be in breach of the procedures for amending the Constitution and explicitly in breach of Article 46.4 which states, "A Bill containing a proposal or proposals for the amendment of this Constitution shall not contain any other proposal."
TheTaoiseach will be aware that there are two Schedules in the legislation – one to amend Article 40 and the second to attach draft legislation which could, possibly, become law if enacted by this House after the amendment is made to the Constitution. Will the Taoiseach assure the House that we are not embarking on another legal quagmire which will raise more constitutional problems than it will solve?
I agree with Deputy Quinn's analysis. It seems that to attach penalties of 12 years to acts of abortion is an extraneous matter which is outside the scope of Article 46. I am seeking clarification of this matter. There are many questions which I will put to the Taoiseach on another occasion and in another way. However, will he clarify a core element of the proposal that if the proposed Bill is enacted and subsequently amended in this House, that amendment has to be put to the people? The proposed Bill gives the Minister for Health and Children power to change the terms of the Bill by orders which do not have to be put to the people or the House by way of positive motion. This seems ambiguous and we are well down the road to the legal quagmire. I do not wish to engage in a Committee Stage debate, but there are at least 20 questions which require answers before there is any clarity about the impact of the proposals.
It deals with opinions.
It refers to designated places.
I look forward to the debate in the House when these matters will be teased out in the normal way. Deputy Noonan is correct to say that whatever the people vote upon remains and cannot be changed subsequently. Any subsequent change would only relate to a change of title whereby, for example, the title of the Minister for Health and Children was changed to the Minister for Health and Disability. A referendum would not be necessary in such circumstances, but that is the only position on that issue.
We cannot have a debate on this issue.
The proposal is very specific.
It deals with records and opinions.
We are on leaders' questions. There will be ample opportunity to raise this matter at a future date. The Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
One cannot change a constitutional provision by regulation.
As regards Deputy Quinn's question, there are two provisions in the legislation. The first gives constitutional protection for the enactment by the Oireachtas of legislation, the terms of which have been seen and approved by the people. The second provision requires that a subsequent legislative amendment would be required to be approved by the people in a referendum before being signed. The Deputy suggested that these provisions are separate, but they are related. This issue has been well checked out and my advice is that it does not go against the Constitution. That is my legal advice.
The Constitution as we read it is very clear. The Article which allows for the amending of the Constitution states that one cannot piggyback on to a proposal to amend the Constitution any other proposal. One can have a series of proposals to amend the Constitution, but one cannot have a proposal to amend and, in addition, another proposal which, in this instance, is a criminal statute which may be enacted subsequent to the ratification of the change by way of amendment.
This issue is of critical importance to every Member. In the light of this fact, will the Taoiseach formally undertake to publish the legal advice he received from the Attorney General for which I will cite two precedents? In 1983 the former Attorney General, Peter Sutherland, published advice concerning a similar, so-called, pro-life amendment. In 1995 the former Attorney General, Dermot Gleeson, published his legal advice in respect of the divorce legislation. This is a matter of fundamental importance.
On a previous occasion the Taoiseach withdrew the measure regarding the sanction of judicial conduct legislation in the absence of all-party or substantial agreement across the floor of the House. It is necessary that he publish his legal advice as, on a prima facie analysis of this provision, he is in breach of the Constitution if he intends to proceed in the manner outlined in the Bill published yesterday.
The Deputy knows disagreements regarding judicial conduct proposals had nothing to do with the Attorney General's advice, but involved other matters and the efforts of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. He knows he is being mischievous in trying to connect that matter with the issue we are discussing. Valid points which are made will be examined and the advice received by the Government on any of these issues would be clarified.
Will the advice be published?
They will be treated in the time honoured manner in which Governments deal with these issues.
That is not so. The Taoiseach is running scared.
That concludes leaders' questions. I will now take questions on promised legislation.
I wish to inquire about the new list of legislation. The pink sheet refers to the Civil Defence Bill which will probably become known as the "salvation of Jacob Bill." Will this legislation include proposals for the publication of the promised leaflet regarding safety measures in the event of nuclear fallout?
What a Bill does is not relevant to the Order of Business.
In view of the tragedy which occurred during the summer when a father killed his child before killing himself—
We cannot have statements. Does the Deputy have a question on the Order of Business?
I wish to inquire about legislation regarding The Hague Convention on the protection of children and international co-operation in respect of inter-country adoptions. Why has the Government insisted on returning the Aer Lingus Bill to schedule D given that there is no information regarding what will happen to Aer Lingus? Will the Taoiseach agree to withdraw the Bill from the list so as to get rid of the confusion regarding the future of the company? If the Bill was withdrawn, we could speak without our hands being tied.
The Civil Defence Bill which is under the direction of the Minister of State, Deputy Seamus Brennan, will be taken this session. The Hague Convention Bill will be taken next year, but I do not have a date. The third Bill is already published.
Can the Taoiseach give a guarantee that a disabilities Bill will be published and introduced before Christmas? Is he satisfied that a comprehensive set of rights for people with disabilities can be legislated for without amending the Constitution?
The Taoiseach is aware that thousands of people were outraged by the Supreme Court's findings in the Jamie Sinnott case and are concerned about basic rights for people with disabilities. Is he considering a constitutional amendment or introducing strong legislation which will guarantee these basic rights for people with disabilities? Will he accept the disability commissioner Bill which the National Parents and Civic Alliance thinks should be introduced and which Fine Gael will pursue in the House shortly?
The disabilities Bill is priority legislation which I hope will be ready this session. That is the intention.
Can the Taoiseach give a guarantee in this regard?
As regards the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Bill, and in the light of today's announcement by the UK Government that it has given the go-ahead to the development of another MOX treatment plant at Sellafield, what is the Government's position on this outrageous proposition which will place Irish citizens at further risk? Will the Taoiseach reassure the citizens of this country that they are safe? Where is the Minister with responsibility for nuclear safety?
What is the Government's reaction to the UK's announcement today?
That is not in order on the Order of Business.
I refer to the announcement after the EU's special Justice and Home Affairs Council, after the appalling attacks in the United States, of up to 40 legislative measures to combat terrorism which were to be agreed throughout the Union, although only the extradition item is relevant here. The European Union Convention Bill is on the published list of legislation between now and Christmas, will the Taoiseach indicate what other anti-terrorist measures will be introduced before Christmas?
On the same matter, I ask the Taoiseach about the convention against the taking of hostages adopted by the General Assembly in 1979, the convention to protect diplomats and State officials adopted in 1973, the convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of maritime navigation adopted in 1988, the protocol for the suppression of unlawful acts against fixed platforms located on the continental shelf adopted in 1988, the convention to curb the use of plastic explosives adopted in 1991, the convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism adopted in 1999. We have not signed or ratified any of these, and it is important, in light of those attacks, that we do so.
He will send Deputy Jacob over.
The Bill referred to will be introduced next year. The Minister of Justice attended the Justice and Home Affairs Council and an effort is being made to try, by 7 December, to go through the outstanding regulations – some require legislation, others orders while others may come under a United Nations' motion. India proposed that they should all be included in a new declaration as they cover a period of 20 or 30 years. Urgent legislation may be required for some, otherwise they must come under a UN order. The examination is occurring and we will report to the Justice and Home Affairs Council by 7 December.
There were 40 measures agreed without reference to this House. The Govern ment should at least brief the committee on justice or the Opposition spokespersons on what was agreed in our name.
I will raise that with the Minister, but, as I stated, it will take some time for all countries to decide on these issues.
Whatever about the principle in No. 24, my party has questions about the 25th Amendment of the Constitution, the Protection of Human Life and Pregnancy Bill. Is it intended to introduce this in the current session?
Yes.
(Dublin West): I draw the Taoiseach's attention to No. 135 on the Order Paper, a motion condemning the 11 September atrocity and demanding that Irish airports not be used by the United States' military in waging a war on innocent Afghan people. Will he include this motion on the Order of Business and have it debated today with a vote? Most Irish people do not want further thousands of innocents slaughtered.
Deputy, we cannot have statements at this stage.
(Dublin West): In the event of a war, they do not want our airports used to assist that.
The Deputy will have an opportunity later today.
(Dublin West): I was asking a specific question under the terms of the Standing Order where we can ask about matters on the Order of Business and the ordering of business. I invite the Taoiseach to bring this motion forward to allow us to vote on a concrete issue. I asked a legitimate question within the terms of the Standing Order and the Taoiseach greeted it with silence.
Does the Taoiseach wish to comment?
During the Gulf War we had a debate and a vote. It seems that we will not have a vote this evening. It is important that we have a vote.
The Order of Business was agreed to.
Why is it that we had a debate and vote during the Gulf War but not today?
(Dublin West): I apologise for persisting. The Ceann Comhairle knows I do not like to persist against his rulings. The Taoiseach, with no reference to the Dáil, offered Irish airports to the US military. Our only opportunity to discuss this is through No. 135. Will the Taoiseach – and I ask this legitimately – have this debated and voted on today?
As the Order of Business for today was already agreed, the issue does not arise.
Will the Taoiseach bring forward the Financial Services (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, so as to allow the long promised decentralisation of Departments to South Tipperary, which was most recently promised by the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, and Deputy Lenihan?
That promise has long gone by the board.
The Bill is due next year. I do not believe that is a section in it.
It is a long way to Tipperary.
The Government's legislative proposal, Education (Children with Disabilities) Bill slipped down the priority list and will not be published until next year. Is that a reflection that the blank cheque promised to the Minister for Education and Science to deal with issues arising from the Jamie Synnott case has bounced?
That Bill and the Disabilities Bill are urgent but it is a question of getting them up.
Urgent. It is not even published.
It cannot be pulled out of a hat. It will set out a legislative basis for the special education support and create a right of assessment for support and a national council for special education, responsible for the provision of the service and expert advice. The Bill is being drafted.
The disabled must wait.
On the termination of pregnancy, will the Taoiseach give an indicative time table for the taking of the Bill to amend the Constitution and a date for the referendum?
I was asked this question yesterday outside the House and I will give the same answer – it is a matter for the Whips to work out the time table. I do not want to stipulate, although I think it will pass all Stages by Christmas.
In view of the report published yesterday showing rents in Dublin as the highest in Europe and that it is more expensive to rent a house than pay a mortgage on it, why is the Housing (Private Rented Sector) Bill still languishing in division three of the list of Bills presented? Why, 15 months after the publication of the report of the commission on the private rented sector, have the heads of that Bill not been prepared?
He has no intention of publishing it.
The work on that Bill is taking place. It will take some time but we intend to do it.
The Government does not.
In the meantime the commission is working on a non-statutory basis but it is intended to undertake that.
It is not. It is not working at all.
When will the concluding stages of the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 2000, be taken?
I understand that Bill is at select committee and so is a matter for the committee's chair. The Bill is published.
I understand that it must return here for Report Stage.
If the select committee is finished, then it should come back here in this session. The Whips must arrange it.
April's legislative programme had six Bills from the Department of Health and Children due to be published early 2002. In the updated version of that programme, the six Bills have slipped and are expected some time in 2002. These are important Bills, including the Health Medical Indemnity Bill, the Irish Medicines Board (Amendment) Bill, 1995, the Medical Practitioners (Amendment) Bill, 2000, the Nurses Bill and the Pharmacy Bill. Does the Taoiseach now understand that these Bills are delayed, that they will not be published in early 2002 and that they may indeed be published after he has left office. Will he undertake to guarantee that they will be published in early 2002 as promised in the previous programme?
I hope they will all be published. There are 45 Bills in one form or another before the House. The problem is to progress the Bills and send them on to Committee Stage. We are endeavouring to publish as many Bills as possible. I take the opportunity to ask everybody in the House to help move on a great deal of the legislation which is in various stages. Quite a deal of it could be moved very quickly.
With regard to page 13, number 99 on the list of Bills, I ask the Taoiseach if he agrees with me that the Road Traffic Bill, 2001, is probably one of the most urgent Bills. When does the Taoiseach intend to progress this Bill given that more than 200 people had died on the roads by the end of June and that a further 11 people died last weekend? It is thoroughly disgraceful that this Bill is not progressed and I ask him for an assurance that this Bill will be processed as a matter of urgency and priority.
A Deputy:
Hear, hear.
I further ask him to include in the Bill some prohibition so that people—
Argue that point when we come to the Bill, when the Bill is before the House.
—are not allowed to drive under the influence of drugs.
The Bill is urgent and it is hoped to take it in the House in November.
Number 75 on the white sheet is the ground rent Bill to abolish ground rents. It says here it will be published in early 2002. Has the Government determined whether a constitutional amendment is required to allow that Bill to be enacted and if so will the Government agree to run the amendment to the Constitution to abolish ground rent with the other proposed amendment on abortion?
There is no final decision on the Bill but the Government is anxious to find a way forward.
(Mayo): In view of the crisis in Aer Lingus, worsened by the happenings in the United States, and in view of the amendment which the Minister for Public Enterprise has published to the Fine Gael Private Members' motion which recognised that a change of ownership in Aer Lingus is not now an issue in the current circumstances, I ask the Taoiseach if the Aer Lingus Bill which is listed at 110 on the list of promised legislation and has already gone through the other House, will now be withdrawn from the order paper?
As the Minister has already said, this is not an issue in the current circumstances. There is no need either to withdraw the Bill. It is a published Bill. It has gone through the other House. Sometimes circumstances change and sometimes Bills just sit there.
Withdraw the Bill. It is causing confusion among the staff.
Order, please.
The only confusion that might be caused is what the Deputy is trying to do now. The unions are quite clear on its status and they represent the workers.
They want the Bill withdrawn too. It is causing great confusion.
The board is quite clear and so is the management. It is not an issue at this stage.
There will be opportunities for the Deputies tomorrow to pursue these matters.
(Mayo): Withdraw it.
In the context of the Road Traffic Bill, Government sources were quoted during the summer as indicating that some elements of the national development plan could not now be provided for and that particularly road building would have to be postponed.
Is this a question in relation to proposed legislation?
It is. This obviously has considerable safety implications for our roads. Will the Taoiseach bring to the Dáil a list of the roads that will not now be built as a result of the postponement of the—
The Deputy could put down a Parliamentary Question on that matter.
It is related to the Road Traffic Bill.
It is not related to the Order of Business.