The Order of Business today is as follows: No. 7, Heritage Fund Bill, 2001 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; No. 1, Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000 – Amendment from the Seanad; No. 8, Family Support Agency Bill, 2001 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, Private Members' business shall be No. 73, Disability Commissioner (No. 2) Bill, 2001 – Second Stage (Resumed), and the proceedings on the Second Stage thereof shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. tonight.
Order of Business.
I shall now take leaders' questions.
Could the Taoiseach inform the House what negotiations on Aer Lingus have taken place between the Government and the European Commission which, I understand, is bringing forward a package of proposals to assist European airlines this afternoon? Is the Government disposed to put equity into Aer Lingus or to support it by way of underwriting loans? Will he confirm that the Shannon stop-over is part of the Commission's package, and will he state the Government's attitude to the continuance or otherwise of the Shannon stop-over?
It might be helpful for the House to know that I have allowed Private Notice Questions this evening.
I accept that, a Cheann Comhairle, but the Taoiseach will not be answering those questions. This is a matter for Government and, having listened to the Minister for Public Enterprise earlier this morning, it is clear that she needs help on this matter.
An understatement.
Unfortunately, it is true. I wish to add to what Deputy Noonan stated. Considering the manner in which the Cahill plan was successfully negotiated and implemented with the help of the social partners, particularly of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, is he aware of today's press reports that congress's new secretary general, David Beggs, wrote to the Secretary General of the Taoiseach's Department seeking an urgent meeting to enable congress to be involved in both the analysis of the problem and, more important, in what will be a difficult solution? Can he give an undertaking that the social partners, particularly congress on behalf of the unions in Aer Lingus, will be involved in ensuring that whatever proposals emerge will have the support of those involved, and that the proposals' implementation will be subject to their agreement?
The Aer Lingus board met yesterday to be updated on the industry's current state, the company's trading position and the plan that the board and management have prepared to address this serious situation. In that plan which they worked on for some weeks, they have conducted costs analysis, looked at the forward bookings and other matters. It is expected that the plan will be finalised soon for presentation to the Minister for Public Enterprise. Aer Lingus staff and the representatives will be briefed today. The Minister will analyse the situation prior to receipt of the plan and there are contacts between the Minister, her officials, the board and the staff representatives, including congress.
In relation to Brussels, the Minister is preparing for the next transport council meeting on 16 October. She has already been to Brussels in the past week. At the upcoming meeting, the financial situation of European airlines will be dis cussed, including the EU Commission's proposals for state compensation for the impact of the events of 11 September.
The Government is committed to saving Aer Lingus, but only on the basis that it is viable. That is the issue. What is involved is a viability plan to save the company and that is our priority. The Minister for Public Enterprise will work urgently with all the parties in an effort to ensure we will have an airline, however altered in the future, that protects the maximum number of sustainable jobs. We will help in whatever way we can, within the rules.
I have noted the reports concerning changes in Shannon policy in this morning's newspapers. My information is that they are not being tabled at any meeting in Brussels today. They have not been put forward for discussion today. The Government position remains unaltered.
Have they been put forward?
No.
Why is the Taoiseach emphasising "today"?
They have not been put forward.
I put it to the Taoiseach that one of the reasons the Nice Treaty referendum was not passed was the perceived remoteness of the European Commission from the day-to-day concerns of ordinary people. If the EU Commission forces the closure of Aer Lingus by the application of European policy, and leaves 3,000 to 3,500 workers without redundancy payments, the Taoiseach's prospects – or anybody else's – of putting the Nice Treaty successfully to the people will be substantially diminished.
They are gone anyway.
We should not raise a matter which is not an issue and not on today's agenda. It has not been put forward, and I do not believe it will be. The proposition of a future European-US regional area has led some to draw conclusions. However, if it is put forward, the Minister will do what she has always done, and that is reject any policy change.
That is the trouble. The "Minister for State disasters" does not give us any confidence.
It is now approximately four years since this House established the Flood tribunal. The nation, and Members on all sides, have been sickened by the stream of disgusting revelations concerning corruption and wrongdoing by a small number of people. In June of this year, the chairman of the tribunal, Mr. Justice Flood, requested of this House additional resources and personnel to help him in his work, having regard to the longer than expected time that the inquiry has required, and having regard to his imminent retirement. Has the Government considered this matter? Is it in a position to indicate when it will respond formally to Mr. Justice Flood? Can the Taoiseach confirm that before any formal response is made, the parties in this House who are party to the resolution – because the tribunal, contrary to assertions made by the Taoiseach, was not set up by Fianna Fáil but by this House – will be consulted as to the identity of those who will be appointed to assist Mr. Justice Flood?
Is there any prospect of an interim report from the Flood tribunal, and if such a report is brought forward, will the Taoiseach make arrangements to have it fully debated in this House?
A number of requests were made by Mr. Justice Flood on staffing and resources and they were dealt with. Mr. Justice Flood made further requests for additional people and I know discussions have taken place on that issue although I do not know exactly what position those discussions have reached. I know that certain names and the availability of those people were discussed last month but that discussion is not concluded. I will check into the matter. When it is known that individuals have become available I will check with the leaders of the House. I will get an update on that.
There was a view, if it has not been said by Mr. Justice Flood, that there would be an interim report before the summer. That did not happen. It was then suggested that there might be a report before Christmas but I have no information on that matter. If there is a report, it certainly should be debated in the House.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that the request was not to the Government but to this House, and that the Government has the responsibility to co-ordinate the response of this House to the request by Mr. Justice Flood? Will he outline why it has taken such an inordinate length of time to meet this request, having regard to the realities of the situation, and to the fact that some untoward event could cause the tribunal's disappearance? Can the Taoiseach explain the delay? When he refers to the possibility of names being mentioned, who is mentioning the names?
The Deputy knows the procedure quite well.
The procedure rests unfortunately for the time being, Deputy Smith, with the Government. That is what worries me, as do some of the names that I have heard. Will the Taoiseach answer?
What about the blank cheques?
If Deputy Quinn is suggesting that the Government is attempting to select people for the Flood tribunal to suit its own interests, he should withdraw the accusation.
It is mud-slinging.
I made no such suggestion. If I have touched a raw nerve, that is the Government's problem, not mine.
Deputy Quinn should resume his seat. Order, please.
In relation to the competition Bill, when does the Taoiseach intend to deal with the disgraceful situation of young drivers being ripped-off by the insurance industry?
The competition Bill will be published this session.
I seek the Chair's permission to move item No. 24a, the Independent Garda Ombudsman Bill, 2001.