The Order of Business today shall be No. 30, motion re Referral to Joint Committee of Freedom of Information Act, 1997 (Prescribed Bodies) (No. 4) Regulations, 2001; No. 31, motion re Referral to Joint Committee of Electricity Regulation Act, 1999 (Eligible Customer) Order, 2001; No. 32, motion re Membership of Committees and No.1, Ordnance Survey Ireland Bill, 2001 [Seanad] – Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. 30, 31 and 32 shall be decided without debate and that questions shall be taken from 3.30 p.m. until 4.45 p.m. In the event of a Private Notice Question being allowed it shall be taken at 4.15 p.m. and the Order shall not resume thereafter.
Order of Business.
There are two proposals to be put to the House. The first is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 30, 31 and 32 without debate. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The second is the proposal in relation to the taking of Question Time today.
Given that a Private Notice Question has been allowed by your office and given the change in times for questions, will the Taoiseach consider allowing an additional quarter of an hour for Question Time to allow the normal three quarters of an hour for the Private Notice Question?
I agree to that. Therefore the House will complete its business at 5 p.m. today.
We will commence the Private Notice Question at 4.15 p.m. and the House will adjourn at 5 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Over the past four years the Taoiseach and his Ministers have been telling the Irish public that they have a plan of campaign which would lead to the closure of the plant at Sellafield. Instead of succeeding in their campaign to close Sellafield, a major expansion has been announced by the British Government with its approval of the new MOX plant at Sellafield. This poses additional environmental and health risks to the people of Ireland. Sellafield is very near the east coast of Ireland and there have been serious doubts about the effects of the plant on the health of the Irish nation previously. Does the Taoiseach accept that his four year campaign to close Sellafield has been an abject failure? Given his commitment to raise the Sellafield issue with the British Prime Minister at every available opportunity, does the Taoiseach admit that he has been singularly ineffective in influencing him, despite the apparent good relationship they enjoy? Has the Taoiseach raised the issue of the approval of the MOX plant at Sellafield with Mr. Blair on a number of occasions? Does the Taoiseach plan, at the first available opportunity, to request the Prime Minister not to go ahead with the planned MOX plant? Will the Taoiseach indicate to the House if he believes he has any influence with the Prime Minister Mr. Blair where Irish interests are concerned, other than in matters relating to Northern Ireland?
In addition to Deputy Noonan's
queries, may I add some additional questions? Can the Taoiseach confirm that, upon entry into office four and a half years ago, there existed an interdepartmental committee chaired by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government? The committee followed on from the excellent success achieved by Deputy Stagg in ensuring that permission for an underground storage plant was refused. Can the Taoiseach confirm that the committee was disbanded or downgraded when he became Taoiseach, to the extent that a Minister of State was responsible for its operation rather than a Minister? Can the Taoiseach confirm that an interdepartmental committee which met on a frequent basis and which had access to technical, scientific and legal advice, was effectively mothballed and has met infrequently, if at all? In the light of this major threat to the environmental safety of the people of this island, does the Taoiseach propose to reinstate the status of the committee and give it the priority it enjoyed under the previous Administration?
In reply to Deputies Noonan and Quinn, I confirm that the Government, as it has during the past four years and as have other Governments, including those of which I have been a member, will continue to do everything it can on every front, legally and politically, to stop the British Government from pursuing its proposals.
The Government is not making any progress.
It is getting worse.
That is the position of the Government.
The plant is expanding.
Is the Taoiseach asleep?
The announcement yesterday that the MOX plant is to be commissioned is difficult to comprehend for a number of reasons. A new look at safety and exposure to risk was expected in the light of recent tragic events. I thought the British Government would look at such issues, considering it is actively involved in the aftermath of 11 September. The proposed plant has been the subject of frequent strong exchanges between the two Governments over the past four years and long before that. It is the subject of arbitration proceedings initiated by Ireland against the United Kingdom under the OSPAR Convention. A high level meeting between Irish and British officials is due to take place tomorrow. We asked that no decision be taken on the matter while arbitration is in progress and we expected that request to be honoured, something we will pursue tomorrow. The United Kingdom's view that the manufacture of MOX fuel is justified does not accord with the Irish view, that the economic case has not been made in accordance with the requirements of EU law.
The Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, will send a message.
The reason we have made this case is that—
Salvation is at hand.
Order, please.
Deputy Jacob will send a message.
He will send a prescription for iodine tablets.
Pass it over.
Deputy Noonan may ask a supplementary question.
A Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order—
The Taoiseach had not concluded.
I had not.
That is for sure.
A Cheann Comhairle, we have to go through Leader's questions, to which I will reply, as per Standing Orders. If this procedure cannot be observed, I will ask my Members to interrupt every time Opposition Members speak. If we want it that way, we can have it that way.
The Taoiseach is touchy.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please. It is Leader's questions.
Has the Minister for Education and Science passed the note?
There will be an opportunity for other Members to ask questions later in the debate, so I ask Members to abide by Standing Orders.
A few Members cannot ask.
The United Kingdom view is that the manufacture of MOX fuel is justified, but our view is that the economic case has not been made in accordance with the requirements of EU law. The OSPAR Convention and the OSPAR case are important because when the United Kingdom put in its planning application, for commercial reasons as it stated, no attempt was made to include figures or to make an economic case. A series of Xs was included right through the economic assessment, which was entirely inappropriate. One cannot attempt to make a case while ignoring the economic position.
In response to Deputy Noonan's question, I assure him that our advice has always been that there are three ways in which we can fight this: under the OSPAR Convention, under EU law or under UN law. The OSPAR Convention arbitration process was the first step. While success would not close the plant, it would give us the economic assessment and information which we did not have. We are advised that we have a sustainable case under EU law, specifically Directives 142 and 227 of the EURATOM Treaty. We can fight the decision on the basis of directives and procedures which we think the United Kingdom has infringed. I assure the House that the Government believes the development of the MOX plant to be totally unsatisfactory. I have raised the matter with Mr. Blair on several occasions and I will do so again.
He is not listening.
It has been raised at all levels.
What was his response?
Order, please. These are Leader's questions.
What was his response?
Clearly the response was unsatisfactory. Yesterday's response was entirely unsatisfactory. We will make our views clearly known at tomorrow's meeting and I will make my thoughts known to the Prime Minister.
I presume the Taoiseach is aware that the British Prime Minister, while addressing the House of Commons this morning, stated that there is incontrovertible evidence that the attacks on the United States were organised by Mr. bin Laden's group. Mr. Blair's declaration of this fact is, in all probability, the first step in declaring war against Afghanistan and possibly other countries within the next few days. In view of the ease with which a ship on the high seas carrying plutonium rods may be deemed a terrorist target, will the Taoiseach, as an interim measure, request the British Government today to defer its plans to construct the MOX plant at Sellafield until a peaceful world order has been established, whenever that may be?
Deputy Noonan's request will be met at the meeting tomorrow. I hope to speak to Mr. Blair today. I will certainly speak to him within the next 24 hours. I take the point made by Deputy Noonan, but it is not the only point. Effectively, what will happen is that France, Germany and a number of other countries that have decided not to engage in the recycling of spent nuclear fuel will bring the fuel up the Irish Sea to be recycled at the MOX plant and then parade back down the Irish Sea again. It is an entirely unreasonable position on the part of the British, but they have not listened to our case for nine or ten years. The EURATOM Treaty allows Ireland to make a case concerning the justification of the plant, with specific reference to withholding of information on the cost of the plant, the fact that its capital cost was excluded from the economic case and the violation of the obligation to subject the plant to a proper environmental assessment. We can fight the decision on these grounds which, admittedly, are perhaps the grounds under which we have to fight it. The Government believes it has a sustainable case under EU law.
The case we are taking under the OSPAR Convention is important so that we can access information. Our sustainable case, we hope, is under Directives 142 and 227 of the EURATOM Treaty. We will proceed with that and the point made by Deputy Noonan.
Yesterday I raised with the Taoiseach the legality and constitutional appropriateness of pursuing the 25th amendment to the Constitution. I made it plain, based on very good legal advice I had received and which in the past has proven to be well informed, that Article 46.4 was not being properly utilised. Subsequent to that the Taoiseach's senior spokespersons rejected my assertion and in an informal media briefing yesterday evening gave a draft or a copy or a note of what purported to be an extract from legal advice. When queried by some of the senior journalists they stated that there was no written advice given by the Attorney General to the Government in relation to the constitutionality of this provision and that oral advice had been given by the Attorney General to the Cabinet in consideration of the proposal. I find that extraordinary for a matter of such complexity; the Minister for Foreign Affairs is right.
I am not agreeing with the Deputy.
I am sorry, I thought the Minister was nodding in agreement.
It is extraordinary. Was the briefing given by a very senior member of the Taoiseach's staff accurate, that the only advice given to the Cabinet was oral advice in relation to the constitutionality of this provision?
I was of the view yesterday that there was merit in the case being made by Deputy Quinn and I have had no advice today that would make me take up a different position. On an associated issue, the conduct of the referendum, will the Taoiseach confirm that the Government has decided that the Referendum Commission will not be funded in the manner in which it was funded in advance of the Nice Treaty? What arrangements will be put in place through the Commission to fund both sides and contrary arguments?
I thank Deputy Quinn for giving me the chance to give the advice that the Attorney General has given.
Deputy Quinn asked yesterday about the 25th Amendment to the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill. I answered the Deputy correctly yesterday but I did not have a chance to talk about it later. I can clear the issue up to the Deputy's satisfaction as his legal advice is based on a radical misunderstanding of Article 46.4 of the Constitution.
There is only one proposal in the Bill to amend the Constitution, namely, to insert into the Constitution the text set out in the First Schedule and the text of a criminal statute, as set out in the Second Schedule, is not a proposal within the meaning of Article 46.4 of the Constitution. The Bill to amend the Constitution does not propose that the Schedule to legislation should become or have any legal effect. A "yes" vote in the referendum on the Bill to amend the Constitution will only give effect to the amendment set out in the First Schedule and will not give effect to anything in the Second Schedule. A separate, subsequent decision by the Oireachtas to enact the Bill in the terms of the Second Schedule is the only way in which the terms can become law or have any effect. If the referendum is carried, the changes that it effects in the Constitution will lapse if the Legislature fails to enact the terms of the Constitution. As I said at the press conference the other day, the amendment to the Constitution to accommodate the Good Friday Agreement and to amend Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution came into effect only when the State became bound by the terms of the Agreement. The vote was on 22 May 1998 and it was Christmas 1998 before it took effect. The terms of that agreement, many of which had nothing to do with the Constitution at all, were not proposals to amend the Constitution within the meaning of Article 46.
The point Deputy Quinn made yesterday was that it is precisely because it is unlawful to propose a criminal law and a constitutional law in the same Bill that the present amendment was drafted as it is. It was drafted deliberately to avoid containing two proposals, which was the Deputy's concern, and it does not contain two proposals. The legislation, the text of which is set out in the Second Schedule, is not being processed for enactment; all that people are voting for is to accommodate that legislation in the Constitution should the Oireachtas, at a later stage, pass it into law. I assure Deputy Quinn that based on my legal advice, which was checked long before this and the Good Friday Agreement also, what he said yesterday was based on an erroneous assumption – that matters set out in the Schedule of the Bill to amend the Constitution amount to legislative proposal.
To be helpful, I wrote to Opposition Leaders about points for clarification in a non-confrontational way, as this debate has in the past been emotive and if anyone seeks information I am happy to reply on any point and to give briefings. My purpose is to ensure we all know what we are doing; if there are some other purposes that is fine also but I would rather there were not, on this issue. I am not making that point about Deputy Quinn's contribution, but about other issues.
Regarding Deputy Noonan's question, no decision has been made on funding or how the Referendum Commission will work but as soon as it is I will let him know.
I appreciate the Taoiseach's reply but I disagree fundamentally with his analysis. He has not answered my first question, which related to whether the advice given was oral advice. His spokesperson said yesterday that the advice was oral. In light of the seriousness of this matter, the fact that it will be subject to litigation – we have had the X and C cases – and in the interests of clarity I have two questions, so that if the Irish people are asked to vote on an amendment to the Constitution, the provisions of that amendment are legally sound. Despite varying views we are all agreed that the amendment must be appropriate. Does the Taoiseach have written advice from the Attorney General? Will he publish that advice in a manner similar to the way Attorney General Peter Sutherland published his advice in 1983 and Attorney General Dermot Gleeson published his advice in 1995? Those are two direct questions.
I assume the Deputy is asking about the advice on Article 46.4?
Yes, the advice in relation to the constitutional appropriateness is what I am talking about – yes, Article 46.4, on the process.
The answer is, yes.
That concludes Leaders' Questions. We will now take questions on the Order of Business.
On the Order of Business and arising from what the Taoiseach has just said, he has indicated new information to the House, that the Second Schedule to the Bill as published is for information purposes only. Does that mean that the Second Schedule will not be subject to the normal scrutiny of Second Stage, Committee Stage and Report Stage in the House? If it is not subject to the normal scrutiny of the House and is not, in effect, part of the legislation but merely there for information purposes, is it not true that then it is not subject to amendment at all? Once a referendum is passed, the subsequent legislation introduced may not be amended. Is the Taoiseach saying to us that the 25th Amendment to the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill, as outlined for information purposes in the Second Schedule of the Referendum Bill, may not be amended at all by the Government or anybody else?
No, I am not saying that. The Bill would be debated as part of the overall discussion. It will be debated right through the Stages but the Presidential signature would be withheld. After the vote it would have to come back to the House and as I understand it, amendment made in the course of that debate could be taken into account.
We have two contradictory pieces of advice now from the Taoiseach. He has indicated in reply to Deputy Quinn that there is only one Bill and that the Second Schedule to that Bill is there for information purposes and information purposes only. If there is only one Bill, how can a full parliamentary debate take place, including Committee and Report Stages, with the possibility of amendments being made on the proposal of the Government or Opposition? How can this be?
I do not understand the second part of the Taoiseach's advice to the effect that amendments made in the House, but not in effect signed off by the President, can subsequently be introduced in the event of a referendum being successful and can be included in subsequent legislation. This is a legal quagmire; the Taoiseach is very unclear about what is happening and has a responsibility to put the written advice of the Attorney General before the House in order that we are not put in the position of buying a pig in a poke on behalf of the Irish people.
It is very simple; one is either for it or against it.
We have been promised a Bill to amend the Constitution which contains an additional proposal to introduce a new criminal statute in regard to abortion. As we see it, this is inextricably linked through Article 46.4 to the amendment process and is, therefore, flawed. The Taoiseach, however, rejects that opinion and has promised to provide us with the legal advice he has received on the matter. Will the promised legislation on the protection of human life in pregnancy come through the House in the normal way? Will we have a Second Stage debate? Will it be possible to amend the Bill in any way as it passes through the House?
Yes, of course.
If that is the case, suicide could be reintroduced. We know that, traditionally, Fianna Fáil is a slightly constitutional party; we are just testing its constitutionality.
At least we know where we stand.
I will not be suspicious about the Deputy's motive in asking these questions. I have provided the advice received on Article 46.4. The procedure is the same as that used in regard to the Good Friday Agreement which the people approved by referendum.
It is not.
It is the same structure and procedure.
It is not the same.
The debate on the legislation will follow along the lines outlined by Deputy Quinn. It will not receive presidential consent and will, if amended, go before the people for decision after which it will not be possible to amend it. That is the procedure. If the Deputy is in any doubt about that, I will be happy to provide him with the legal advice.
That is not what the Taoiseach said a minute ago.
The procedure is precisely the same as that which I employed during the lengthy debate on the Good Friday Agreement.
If the Second Schedule is an integral part of the Bill and will be debated as such on all Stages, Deputy Quinn's legal advice appears to be absolutely correct. If, on the other hand, it is provided purely for information purposes, as the Taoiseach stated, it is not an integral part of the Bill and the Taoiseach's advice is correct. The Government cannot have it both ways. We cannot accept a Joe Jacob explanation on this issue. It is either one thing or the other.
Deputy Noonan is trying to have it both ways; he should make up his mind and get off the fence.
The Taoiseach seems to be on both sides of the argument.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
I understand why Deputy Noonan would want to create confusion about this issue.
The Taoiseach did that himself, we are just pointing it out.
Everybody knows that the schedules to Bills are always debated. Deputy Noonan will be particularly aware of that from his experience of the Finance Bills. Let us stop playing games.
The past weekend saw seven deaths on our roads. In light of that, will the Taoiseach treat the road traffic Bill with a sense of urgency as it is essential that firm measures are put in place to deal with traffic offences?
That question was asked yesterday; Deputies should not ask the same questions every day.
There might be a different answer today.
In view of the serious nature of the question, I will allow the Taoiseach to comment if he wishes to do so.
Yesterday's answer still applies; the Bill will be published in November.
On promised legislation, namely the twenty-fifth amendment to the Constitution Bill, the Government Whip indicated during yesterday's Whips meeting that all stages would be taken before 29 November and that the Government had instructed that the Bill be disposed of prior to the Christmas recess. It was also indicated that the Tánaiste was not supportive of that timetable and wished to see the Bill debated in spring. Has the Government decided when the Bill will be taken and, if so, what is the proposed timetable?
It has been agreed that all stages will be taken before Christmas.
Has the Tánaiste agreed to that?
Yes.
On 7 August, when most Members were on holidays, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment choreographed the closure of Gateway 2000 with the loss of 2,000 jobs as opposed to the figure of 900 circulated to the media at the time.
The Deputy should put a question to the Taoiseach.
Thousands of other jobs have been lost in the meantime. Will the Taoiseach allocate time for a debate on the economy of the Dublin region, particularly the north and west? Will he respond to the invitation issued by the city manager, John Fitzgerald—
The questions are not appropriate to the Order of Business.
The Taoiseach has not replied to a letter from the city manger sent four weeks ago.
The questions are not appropriate to the Order of Business; the Deputy should find an alternative means of raising the matter.
This is my only opportunity to raise this matter with the Taoiseach who is a key representative in this region. Will the Taoiseach undertake to establish an employment task force in the region?
For several months now, the Opposition has asked about the introduction of the work permits Bill. Representatives of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform were yesterday at a loss to provide any definite answers on the system during a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. Where is the Bill and why has it been pushed in to 2002? What is the Government afraid of? Why has the work permit system not been established on a statutory basis?
The Bill is due early next year.
The Taoiseach told us that a year and a half ago.
Maidir le reachtaíocht atá geallta, táimíd ag súil le Bille na Gaeilge le ceithre bhliain anuas. Deir an liosta go bhfuil súil ag an Rialtas go bhfoilseofaí an Bille i dtús na bliana seo chugainn. An dóigh leis an Taoiseach go mbeidh Acht na Gaeilge ann roimh olltoghchán? Ba mhaith liom freagra don cheist chéanna maidir leis an Ground Rent Bill.
The Bill is due in spring according to the most recent list.
Cad faoin cheist eile maidir leis an Ground Rent Bill?
Decommissioning will happen before that is introduced.
Mr. Coveney
When can we expect to see the residential institutions redress Bill, promised before the summer? The Bill must be introduced in order that victims of institutional abuse can receive the compensation they deserve.
The Bill has been published and will come before the House as soon as possible.
In the course of a reply to me yesterday, the Taoiseach stated that the commission on the private rented sector was still operating on a non-statutory basis. That is not the case. The commission reported in July 2000. The proposed Private Rented Tenancies Board which, I think, the Taoiseach meant to refer to, was supposed to be established on a non-statutory basis but that has not yet been done. Does the Government have any interest at all in the plight of the country's 150,000 private tenants and will he accelerate the preparation and publication of the Bill which was recommended and which was promised in the report of the Commission on the Private Rented Sector 15 months ago?
The Bill is due early next year. It will take some time to draft that Bill, I understand.
When does the Taoiseach expect the Residential Institutions Redress Bill, 2001?
That question has just been answered.
As soon as possible.
A significant number of young people have suffered—
The Taoiseach has answered that.
They have grown up and they have got no redress—
We must conclude the Order of Business. I call Deputy Michael D. Higgins.
The Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs made a statement yesterday, and it is welcome, that Ireland will proceed to the ratification of seven of the 12 international conventions on terrorism which we had not yet ratified. On the legislative programme, if these seven are to be ratified, that will require work by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and his Department. If, at the same time, there is a commitment being given at the Council meeting – to the proceedings of which we do not have access – on reforms in security at the level of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, how is it proposed to harmonise these two legislative programmes and have they implications for the European Convention on Human Rights? Will the Taoiseach set out a timetable, so that we can see which legislation is likely to come first and the relationship of one batch of legislation to the other. Otherwise, all three commitments will be quite meaningless.
I take the Deputy's point and we can set that out. The Justice and Home Affairs Council, which met about a fortnight ago, agreed to assess, in all of the countries, what conventions remain to be ratified. In our case, we have ratified 13 of them, ranging from the Tokyo agreement of 1963 right up to the New York one at the end of 1999. There are also six other conventions which we have not ratified. Some of those date back to the early 1970s. Then, there are some new proposals which were also discussed at the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting. There has also been a suggestion from India for a composite motion at the UN to try to achieve some agreement on many of the outstanding ones, because if we have to wait for the legislative base to go through all Parliaments, that would take a long time. That would not be helpful in the aftermath of the events of 11 September.
We are looking at the six or seven most important conventions, including conventions on prevention and punishment of crime and the taking of hostages, to see how we can best deal with those. If we were to get involved in drafting each one individually, I am concerned that that could take a few years. We have to see if there is any other way of dealing with these issues. Other countries are taking the same approach. Legislation will be required and that can lead to constitutional problems – for instance, the difficulties we had in relation to extradition over the past 20 years. The examination is proceeding and, as the Deputy has requested, I will ask the Minister to set out clearly what the position is.
The Taoiseach's answer is helpful. If the conclusions of the European Council meeting were entirely within the framework of the international conventions – the UN conventions – it would be possible to envisage what the legislation would be like, but the problem is in relation to the balance. When the Taoiseach says there are other matters which have been agreed by the Ministers, one is left with the problem of whether the legislative programme deals with the international conventions not ratified or, if it deals with such additional items, are these consistent with that legislation and with the ECHR. That is the problem on which we need parliamentary scrutiny.
I take the Deputy's point. Of the list of about 20 conventions, we have ratified 13 over the years, leaving at least six which we have not ratified. Then there are the new proposals which were brought forward, to which the Deputy has referred. There are still some outstanding issues from Canberra, back in 1999.
There were 40 proposals before the Justice and Home Affairs Council.
Yes, but we have ratified many of those, such as Tokyo, The Hague and Montreal. There are at least 13 which we have ratified. That list went back over everything since 1973 and each country was asked what it had done. That is also being done at UN level, right across the world. Deputy Michael D. Higgins made a valid point about the amount of work involved in the legislative programme. It is not just a matter of declaring that all of those conventions are law. In our case, they could infringe on various constitutional issues. We have not really got very much work done on this. That is the Deputy's point and I agree with him. Between now and 7 December, when we report back to the Justice and Home Affairs Council, we have to come to a conclusion on that. We also have to review why some of these resolutions were not ratified at the time. Some of them go back 30 years and I do not know the answer to that question. We now have to look at all of those issues. I will ask the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to give priority to this – most of the conventions are in that Department's area – and to give the Deputy a report on the matter.