The Order of Business shall be as follows: No. 17, motion re Second Interim Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments. Private Members' business shall be No. 37, motion re Management of the Public Finances.
Order of Business.
There are no proposals to put to the House. On leaders' questions I call Deputy Kenny.
Regarding the Flood tribunal—
That does not arise this morning. It was decided yesterday. I have called Deputy Kenny on leaders' questions.
I wish the Taoiseach well in his endeavours in England with the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. I am surprised he is not here as I understand there are restrictions on flying out of that military airport.
Regarding No. 17, is it proposed to extend time on this debate for the Taoiseach to answer questions or will he take questions arising from his statement? He has indicated that he intends to give as much detail as possible. Will the Tánaiste clarify whether Opposition Members will be entitled to ask supplementary questions or will the Taoiseach give extra time to take questions on his statement?
Based on the answer the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources gave to a Priority Question from Deputy Gilmore yesterday, will individual Ministers take questions from Opposition Members in the debate on the Flood tribunal report? I will oppose the Order of Business if I do not get clarification on extra time or the Taoiseach taking supplementary questions on his statement.
I call Deputy Quinn.
On what item?
On leaders' questions.
Was that a leader's question?
Yes.
Are we not still dealing with the Order of Business?
No, we have disposed of the Order of Business.
Deputies
We have not.
Deputy Kenny was called—
I was called and I rose—
—for leaders' questions.
No, I was not.
The Deputy should resume his seat and the Chair will explain. We took Riar na hOibre and there are no proposals before the House.
There are.
There are no proposals before the House. We move on when no proposals have to be put to the House.
I object to this.
The Tánaiste read out the Order of Business.
If we do not get clarification—
It is the prerogative of Government to decide the business of the House within Standing Orders. We have moved on to leaders' questions.
I propose an amendment to the Order—
The Deputy cannot propose an amendment because there are no proposals to put before the House.
The Flood report debate is to conclude at 3.30 p.m. today if not previously concluded.
That was agreed yesterday.
I ask the Tánaiste—
It was agreed yesterday and there is no provision today.
It was not agreed.
The Chair is speaking. I ask Deputy Kenny to resume his seat. He is in the House long enough to know the procedure. There is no provision for questions on the Order of Business following—
It was not agreed.
They are talking all over the country, but they will not talk in here.
On a point of order—
Deputy Kenny should resume his seat. There are no points of order when the Chair is on his feet.
The position is clear. The precedent in the House is that when there are proposals to be put to the House there is a brief comment from one representative of each party.
May I propose—
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat while the Chair is speaking.
The position, in accordance with precedent and Standing Orders, is that there is no provision at this stage for asking a question. We move straight to leaders' questions and following leaders' questions we move straight on to the Order of Business when Members may ask questions once they are appropriate to the Order of Business.
I seek a response—
There is no response. I have ruled. I am calling the Deputy on leaders' questions.
On a point of order, I ask for clarification.
The Ceann Comhairle should be asking questions too.
If the Deputy has a question to ask which is appropriate to the Order of Business, it should be asked after leaders' questions.
With the greatest respect, I want to ask the Tánaiste if the Taoiseach will be taking supplementary questions.
Deputy Kenny, you are totally out of order. It is not in order—
The Taoiseach is not prepared to answer questions.
Leaders' questions are taken at this stage. Following leaders' questions we will move to the Order of Business, and if Members have something to ask on the Order of Business, they can do so, but not at this stage.
I will be objecting to the Order of Business.
The Chair has ruled. I call Deputy Quinn.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Quinn is speaking.
Would it be in order if Deputy Kenny was to formulate the questions that he wishes legitimately to put to the Tánaiste through the mechanism of leaders' questions?
Yes, there is no difficulty with that. If he wishes to use leaders' ques tions for that purpose, so be it. I called him for leaders' questions.
You did not call me on leaders' questions. You called me on No. 17. I wish to make the point that I am objecting to the—
That does not arise. The Deputy is being disorderly.
I wish to ask a legitimate question now.
The Deputy is being disorderly.
This is not Zimbabwe.
The Chair has ruled that you are not in order. The Deputy has two choices; he may ask his question by way of leaders' questions now or if he has a question appropriate to the Order of Business, he may ask the question when we come to that stage. We are not at that stage now.
I wish to ask the Tánaiste a leaders' question.
You may ask a leaders' question.
May I ask the Tánaiste if the Taoiseach will give extra time or take supplementary questions in his response to this debate today? Has the Tánaiste been apprised by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the contents of the files dealing with the allocation of passports and with which the former Minister, Ray Burke, was centrally involved?
Will the Government allow time not just for questions to the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste about the appointment of Ray Burke but also to address the undoing of corrupt decisions? Will the Minister for the Environment and Local Government be asked to look at the decisions that were made in the period being considered by the Flood tribunal? The Minister has the power to do so. Will he undo some of the decisions which are clearly, from a planning point of view, flying in the face of reasonable planning practice?
Following the Taoiseach's reply to the sets of questions and inquiries that have been put on the record of the House yesterday and today, if it becomes manifestly clear that the Taoiseach has not answered all the questions correctly or comprehensively or has evaded those questions – he has indicated that he will answer all the questions – and if the Tánaiste regards the role of the Progressive Democrats as the watchdog in this coalition Government, would it warrant her, on behalf of her party, to ensure that time is subsequently made available to ensure all those questions are answered?
The matter relating to Deputy Kenny's question was dealt with yesterday. The format for the discussion on the motion before the House was agreed on the Order of Business yesterday. The Taoiseach took questions during leaders' questions yesterday in relation to certain matters. The Taoiseach will answer any of the questions raised in this debate in his contribution at lunch-time today. He will answer as fully and as comprehensively as possible.
In answer to Deputy Quinn's comments, if I did not trust the Taoiseach I would not be in this position now. I hope that answers the Deputy's question.
The Tánaiste is very foolish.
The Deputy is not leader of his party. He is not entitled to intervene.
I raised certain issues with the Taoiseach when he appointed Mr. Burke. I accepted his assurances in good faith and in his contribution today the Taoiseach will detail the extent of those.
What if he does not answer the questions?
I do not anticipate that he will not answer the questions. He will answer the questions. I am not going to deal with a hypothetical situation.
In answer to Deputy Sargent's question, the corrupt assets bureau should and will have the power to recover any wealth accumulated by individuals as a result of corrupt decisions.
What about corrupt rezonings?
Deputy Sargent, there is no provision for a further intervention from you.
If buildings have been erected in these sites, we are not anticipating knocking down the houses.
The Israeli army will knock them down.
If anybody gained as a result of corrupt decisions, they should lose whatever they have gained.
(Interruptions.)
I have discussed the passport file with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and I believe he intends to make a statement later this week on that matter.
When the Tánaiste says she believes that if anybody gained from corrupt decisions that retribution should be paid, does she mean that she envisages action with respect to Mr. Ray Burke? He had an increased remuneration from the Oireachtas because of his Cabinet membership but he was not acting in the public interest.
The Tánaiste for a final reply on this question.
I am well aware that one needs to be careful in these matters, given what happened on a previous occasion and for which I was heavily criticised.
The Tánaiste was correctly criticised on that occasion.
Yes, and rightly so.
The Tánaiste is on safer ground now.
People should apply the same standards to all cases. A person accused of corruption must first stand trial. It is a matter for An Garda Síochána and the Director of Public Prosecutions to move on the conclusions of the Flood tribunal. I will not anticipate the outcome of any future trial.
I call Deputy Sargent on the second leaders' question.
Is the Tánaiste aware that the Czech EU negotiator, Mr. Pavel Telicka, has said that there is a plan B for EU enlargement if the Nice treaty is rejected for a second time? He has said that elements of the Nice treaty relating to enlargement can be copied into the accession treaties with applicant countries. The Green Party and other parties and individuals on the "No" side welcome that provision. We also welcome the opportunity to support a Dáil declaration backing EU enlargement in advance of the second referendum, to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in proceeding with enlargement.
Deputy Sargent is trying to wriggle off the hook. He is hoist on his own petard.
I ask the Tánaiste for time to be made available for such a debate and a decision on such a declaration as soon as possible.
I call Deputy Kenny for a supplementary question on Deputy Sargent's question.
It should be noted that the leader of the Greens in Germany is voting "Yes". It might be appropriate for Deputy Sargent—
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Kenny, without interruption.
—to at last recognise that the Nice treaty is of great importance for this country and that the Green Party, like its German counterparts, should vote "Yes" also.
Does the Tánaiste agree that the Green Party is a very successful international European movement? It has moved beyond Europe but is predominately within the European Union. It is very well represented in the European Parliament by Daniel Cohen-Bendit—
Who said it is a bad treaty.
—who has some experience—
(Interruptions.)
Silence please. Members should allow Deputy Quinn speak without interruption.
Would the Tánaiste agree with the advice of Daniel Cohen-Bendit, who has been politically active since 1968 – a little bit longer than Deputy Gogarty – and has had direct experience from his background and from his parents of the war and savagery that tore the European Continent apart for over two centuries, heard on the radio this morning, that notwithstanding many of the reservations held by many of us about the Nice treaty, on balance there are literally millions of reasons from Sarajevo to Srebrenica as to why the people should vote "Yes" on 19 October?
It is blatant nonsense to suggest that the will of the people as expressed in a constitutional referendum can be set aside by a motion of this House. The will of the people—
We voted already.
Because it is so important, the people are being asked to vote again.
(Interruptions.)
The enlargement Commissioner, Mr. Verheugen, said that if "the Treaty of Nice is rejected in Ireland again, I do not know how we can continue with enlargement. I do not even know whether or not we could." I sought the advice of the Attorney General this morning and I quote what he said in a letter to me, "The Dáil would not be competent to pass such a declaration. The question is put to the people and the people give the affirmative or negative in accordance with Article 47.1º. A decision by the people in a referendum must be followed by the Dáil and Seanad. They are bound by the people's decision.
We have no option in relation to the people's decision."
(Interruptions.)
It is clear that over 90% of Deputies favour enlargement and that is why we are seeking a "Yes" vote. I agree with what Deputy Quinn said about the Green movement throughout Europe. It has a positive attitude to enlargement and understands and embraces what is important about the European Union. It understands the benefits that have come to Ireland and many other countries. It wants to allow those countries which have lived under communist regimes for so long to be reunited with the European family.
We are closer to Berlin than Boston, unlike the Tánaiste.
Yesterday's decision is historic for the European Union and I and most people here want to see those countries included as quickly as possible. I do not want the people to be misled by unsubstantiated statements by unnamed officials made over cups of coffee or wherever.
I am not going to join the Tánaiste in casting slurs on people very qualified in European law when they make comments saying enlargement is possible. Some 100% of Deputies in this House support enlargement.
No, the Deputy does not.
(Interruptions.)
A question please, Deputy Sargent.
I will ask a question if allowed to. Will the Tánaiste explain why if people on her side of the House are so keen for enlargement, they did not push for enlargement under the Amsterdam treaty?
Not possible.
It was possible before the Nice treaty sought to undermine it. I ask the Tánaiste to bear in mind that Mr. Verheugen speaking in the European Parliament would not be drawn on a plan B because he said he did not want to give arguments which would favour the "No" side. He knows about a plan B. I ask the Tánaiste to reflect on the fact that there is a number of Green parties throughout Europe which do not face a referendum but which do not support the Nice treaty. She should reflect on the facts and not generalise to distort the truth.
Even the group Deputy Sargent represents in his questions this morning have many members who support the treaty. Deputy Harkin, for example, is campaigning for a strong "Yes" vote. The Amsterdam treaty made it clear that if the Union was to reach 20 member states, there would have to be an intergovernmental conference and Nice was the outcome of that.
Does the Tánaiste remember as far back as 18 April this year? Neither the Tánaiste nor the Taoiseach were in the House at the time but it was subsequently highlighted as "golden" Thursday as a result of a series of announcements. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste announced approximately 1,300 new jobs. Will the Tánaiste cast her mind back to that time? Will she recall at the time if she was aware the Taoiseach was lying when in Macroom in the company of Mr. Donal Geaney the chief executive of Elan, he announced that approximately 300 jobs would be established in the semi-conductor plant which had been lying empty for some time? Did anybody bring to the Tánaiste's attention after her press conference that the Taoiseach had lied to the public when he announced that a decision had been made—
It is not appropriate to use the word "lie".
I am not accusing the Taoiseach of lying in this House.
To use the word "lie" in the House is not appropriate.
I checked the Standing Orders. I am not accusing the Taoiseach of lying in this House.
To use the word "lie" in the course of debate in this House is not appropriate.
Will you give me a parliamentary equivalent which has the same effect?
That is a matter for yourself, Deputy, but the word "lie" is not acceptable in this House.
Knowingly untruthful.
To borrow a phrase from a former member of the British secret service, he was highly economical with the truth. Was the Tánaiste aware that the Taoiseach had deliberately misled the people of Macroom when he said that a decision had been made—
It is not acceptable to accuse a Member of this House of deliberately misleading—
I can ratchet it down, a Cheann Comhairle. Lying has one effect, deliberately misleading has another. How about straightforward conning the people? Would that be a parliamentary term?
I ask the Deputy to be more tempered in the language he uses in respect of Members of this House.
A lot of people in Macroom that day believed the Taoiseach was telling the truth. A lot of people believed that the presence of Mr. Donal Geaney beside him represented confirmation that a decision had been made by Elan. I ask the Tánaiste, who was then responsible for the same Department for which she has responsibility today, if anybody from IDA Ireland or from her Department brought to her attention soon after the announcements of "golden" Thursday that no decision had been made by the board of Elan, that the IDA had not been involved in any shape, size or form in this and that the statement was, in effect, misleading.
I described this yesterday as the organ grinder and the monkey. The Tánaiste is responsible for and liaises directly with the Industrial Development Authority. Was this merely a political stunt because one of the consultants to Elan was Mr. P. J. Mara? Was it an attempt in a very marginal constituency to hoodwink people and to fool them into thinking the Government and the agency for the attraction of investment into this country were at one on the purchase of a plant and the creation of several hundred jobs? It had an impact on people's voting attitudes there. Was the Tánaiste made aware of this before that visit took place and subsequently by the IDA that no such development had been authorised by its board?
Is the Tánaiste at all concerned that asking people to trust the Government in relation to the forthcoming referendum is a very hollow request given the facts now emanating about the economy and the fact the Government was so wrong in predicting and indeed stating the state of the economy? When the Flood tribunal is taken into account and the involvement of Mr. P. J. Mara in the announcement which has been referred to—
Deputy Sargent, it is not appropriate to broaden the question. A supplementary question must be related to the question Deputy Quinn asked.
Deputy Kenny referred to Mr. Mara as well. The Tánaiste really needs to reflect on what people will be motivated by in the forthcoming referendum. Trust is certainly not something on which she should rely.
What is the purpose of a supplementary question if not to broaden the question?
Supplementary questions must be directly related to the question asked by the leader.
I was aware that there were discussions between the IDA and Elan. In fact the IDA brought Elan to see me a few weeks before last Christmas regarding this project. Mr. Geaney attended that meeting as did the chief executive of the IDA. There were negotiations between the IDA and Elan about the project in Macroom. I believe that the Taoiseach made the announcement in good faith.
(Interruptions.)
Allow the Tánaiste to continue without interruption.
I believe that to be the case. We all know what happened to Elan in the meantime as things have changed dramatically in recent months. The IDA was active with Elan, which is a fact as I attended a meeting myself where this matter was discussed.
The facts that emerged tell a different story.
The board had not approved it.
Unfortunately the Tánaiste has not answered my question. She jumped from April to the previous November. I simply asked a question about the announcement on golden Thursday, 18 April. The IDA had not been asked for assistance, there was no agreement and the board, as Mr. Marney is quoted as saying on 20 August, had not made the decision. She did not answer that question, so let me try another. If, as she says, the Taoiseach was misled by Mr. Donal Geaney, who allowed him to lie to the people, because he misled them—
I must ask the Deputy to withdraw the remark that the Taoiseach lied.
I am sorry. He allowed the Taoiseach to con the people.
I ask the Deputy to withdraw the remark that the Taoiseach lied to the people.
He allowed the Taoiseach to inadvertently con the people. Is that all right?
Allegedly and inadvertently.
He dropped the people of Macroom in the mire.
He allowed him to lead them up the garden path.
I still must ask the Deputy to withdraw the remark. The Deputy knows he is out of order.
If I have to withdraw that remark, then the consequent observation I have to make is even worse.
The Deputy must withdraw unequivocally the remark that the Taoiseach lied to the people.
Under what Standing Order is the Ceann Comhairle acting?
The Deputy knows that he is out of order.
I will not have myself put out of the House over that remark so I withdraw it unequivocally.
Since Mr. Geaney allowed the Taoiseach to make a statement, which is here in writing, that a decision had been made by Elan, which Mr. Geaney knew to be false, and possibly constituted a lie as it was uttered in public – on behalf of Mr. Geaney that is—
He is another Fianna Fáil man, so the Deputy should be careful.
—does the Tánaiste, as the watchdog of the coalition, think that Mr. Geaney is a fit person to preside over our national pension reserve fund, in light of what we now know?
He has lost half a million already.
Silence, please.
I will not, even under privilege, comment on whether or not people are fit to hold positions.
The Tánaiste was willing to comment on Ray Burke yesterday.
I say to Deputy Quinn in the hope that it will be helpful, that at no stage around that time did the IDA say to me that it was a false announcement. No alarm bells were ringing that this announcement should not have been made. The understanding was that it was a genuine investment. If people were misled, then clearly some of the matters that the Deputy refers to would be serious. If the Taoiseach was misled and there was no truth in it or had no standing in the organisation, then some of what he said would be true.
He was misled.
Let us establish if that is true.
It is true.
Is it proposed to give time for statements on Northern Ireland arising from the discussions between the parties and between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister?
The House has adopted a helpful approach to matters relating to Northern Ireland for some considerable time and, clearly, if it would be helpful, the Taoiseach may discuss the matter with Deputy Kenny on his return this afternoon.
Has the Tánaiste any information indicating when the building control Bill will be published and taken in the House?
It will be the middle of next year.
I have two questions relating to possible legislation. First, are there any plans to introduce primary or secondary legislation or legislation by way of ministerial order to re-introduce college fees this year? Second, has the Government plans to introduce a supplementary budget to assist farmers who are suffering a major drop in income?
There are no plans for a supplementary budget and none to re-introduce university fees.
We have a health service in deep trouble and there is a need for much legislation but, unfortunately, such legislation is not on the legislative programme. The Voluntary Health Insurance (Corporate Status) Bill has appeared for the first time. I seek a clear statement from the Tánaiste that there is no intention to sell off the VHI or to privatise it.
The Deputy must speak to the Order of Business.
Can we have a statement from the Government that there is no intention to do that?
We cannot discuss the content of legislation.
It is the first time it has appeared on the programme and we are entitled to know. It should not be a secret.
Could I suggest that the Deputy submits a parliamentary question?
I believe that the Tánaiste wishes to address the issue.
The legislation makes minor amendments to the existing legislation regarding the VHI.
Cleaning it up for privatisation.
The Tánaiste's party indicated in the Agreed Programme for Government that it would introduce a national development fund which, I take it, would prevent the Minister for Finance from using funds from the ACC or the 3G licence to paper over his deficit. However, I see no legislation proposed on the list. Have the Progressive Democrats laid to rest their promise on this fund drawn from the sale of State assets?
As the Deputy knows there is a commitment in the Agreed Programme for Government to establish such a fund. It remains to be seen whether or not it needs to be established on a statutory basis, but the intention is that any proceeds from privatisation would go into the fund and be used for infrastructure.
If it is not established on a statutory basis, will Ministers be able to use it on a whim?
No, it will be up to the Government to decide on what pieces of infrastructure it will be used.
The Tánaiste should get the man from Elan to run it.
In reply to the question from Deputy Stanton, the Tánaiste indicated that there was no intention to introduce legislation to re-introduce third level fees, therefore is it her intention to speak to the Minister for Education and Science to reprimand him as he continually threatens to do so?
That matter does not arise on the Order of Business. I suggest that the Deputy submits a parliamentary question.
It is relevant.
We can only deal with promised legislation.
It relates to legislation on third level fees.
What is the Deputy's question on promised legislation?
My question is to ask if the Tánaiste intends to speak to the Minister for Education and Science—
That is not a question on promised legislation.
An bhfuil sé i gceist ag an Rialtas Bille a thabhairt isteach mar thoradh ar an toradh a bhí sa Chúirt Uachtarach inné maidir le interim barring orders mar is cás an-dona é do mhná mar tugadh breis is míle acu anuraidh?
I addressed this matter yesterday on the Order of Business. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is having urgent discussions with the Attorney General to decide if a change in legislation is required in light of the Supreme Court judgment.
When can we expect to see the Bill on building control?
The middle of next year.
In light of the tribunal report is any legislation planned with a view to making planning decisions more watertight? At present, when there is a development plan—
Is any planning legislation promised?
No specific planning legislation is promised but the Minister for the Environment and Local Government said in his contribution last night that he is considering the implications of the Flood tribunal to see whether legislation is necessary.
Is any legislation promised to get meat factories to pay proper prices for cattle?
That matter does not arise on the Order of Business.
Around the country there are people protesting outside meat factories to force them to pay proper prices.
I suggest the Deputy submit a parliamentary question.
We need legislation. Will there be legislation given that the Minister for Agriculture and Food has abdicated—
I suggest that the Deputy submits a parliamentary question on the matter.
When will the national spatial plan be announced?
I think the Minister for the Environment and Local Government intends to bring that to Government before Christmas.
Which Christmas?
As regards section B – Bills in respect of which heads have been agreed and texts are being drafted – I wish to ask the Tánaiste about No. 25, the National Monuments Bill, where publication is described as being expected in 2003. It proposes to amend the 1930 and 1994 legislation. When in 2003 will that legislation be published? Perhaps the Tánaiste would take this opportunity to confirm to the House that the 1994 legislation is entirely adequate to protect Carrickmines Castle and that it is being flouted blatantly by those who are proceeding with the development.
I do not have a specific date. The heads of the Bill were approved by the Government on 16 October 2001 so, I hope, it can be published early in 2003.
On the other matter, is the Tánaiste satisfied that the 1994 legislation is being abused regarding Carrickmines Castle?
That matter does not arise at this stage.
With regard to promised legislation, when will the Road Traffic Bill be published? Can we ensure that the current legislation, the Road Traffic Act, 2002, will be implemented to prohibit boy racers from coming south of the Border and killing people on the roads south of the Border? In your constituency, a Cheann Comhairle, there is a reciprocal arrangement as stated in an article in today's newspaper.
It is not appropriate to go into detail.
The Minister has the power to transfer this across the Border. This is an important matter. The power exists and the Minister has yet to implement it.
The Deputy has asked a question on a Road Traffic Act and the Tánaiste will answer it.
I am informed by the Minister for Transport that the present legislation will be implemented gradually. On the matter raised by Deputy Naughten, it is not possible to indicate at this stage.
Previously I inquired in the House if it was intended to amend the Broadcasting Act to facilitate Ministers who may wish to read the news on television. It is pertinent to make inquiries again as to whether it is proposed to amend the Act because the present attitude to the Act—
Deputy Durkan—
—is in breach of the letter and the spirit of the legislation. I ask that an amendment be brought forward to facilitate that if it is intended.
No such legislation has been promised.
I wish to ask a very important question for the women of the country. Being a woman, I know the Tánaiste will answer this question honestly. Will she confirm if there are any proposals to tax child benefit? I would like a straight answer.
It does not arise.
It should arise because it is a very important question.
I will tell the Deputy.
There are other ways of raising that matter other than on the Order of Business.