First, can we agree the sitting to complete consideration of the Bill? It was proposed that, if necessary, we should sit today, tonight and tomorrow, to finish it but that does not suit everyone.
Business of Select Committee.
Who proposed that?
It was a suggestion, which is the same as a proposal. However, it does not suit Deputies Currie, McDowell and Rabbitte. It is suggested that we agree a sitting time for today and next week so as to complete consideration of the Bill.
It is important to state why it does not suit us. Tomorrow the Committee of Public Accounts will meet and the Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy will begin consideration of the Competition Bill in the Dáil Chamber at 10.30 a.m. To my knowledge the Opposition spokespersons were not contacted about the sitting tomorrow. There was a committment at an early stage that the chairpersons of committees would liase with each other. Those of us concerned with the Competition Bill cannot attend the Committee of Public Accounts meeting tomorrow as it is being held at the same time. For that reason it is completely unthinkable that a meeting of this committee could be rostered as well.
I agree that there is probably a lack of liaison between the chairpersons of the various committees, but that can be sorted out. What time shall we conclude today? Is it agreed that we adjourn at 4.30 p.m. and have a sos from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.? Agreed. What days will we meet next week? Are Wednesday and Thursday acceptable?
There will be a clash on one day.
Are Tuesday and Wednesday suitable?
I have not got next week's programme for the other committees with me.
I have been informed by the Clerk that the Consumer Credit Bill will be debated on Tuesday and Wednesday.
That poses a problem.
Are Thursday and Friday suitable?
What is the rush?
There is no rush but the idea is that we should seek to conclude Bills before us before the summer holidays as other Bills will come before us in September. The Electoral (Amendment) Bill will also come before this committee.
We were assured that these two Bills would be discussed in tandem. We now find ourselves in the position that we are rushing through this Bill so that it will not be on the agenda when the other Bill is published. I object strongly to this.
The problem is that if we do not complete consideration of the Bill before we go on holidays — August is the holiday month——
We could deal with it in September.
Other Bills will come before us in September. A number of other items will also be referred to us.
We cannot take the other Bill in September because Second Stage has to be taken before Committee Stage.
With due respect, you are talking about another Bill.
This is very important legislation. The junior partner in Government has referred on a number of occasions to the importance of this legislation to it; it has been at the centre of everything it has done up to now. We were again told of its importance on Second Stage. The legislation, which affects all of us, is of immense concern to every Member. Members of the Fine Gael Party have told me that they would like to be able to make a contribution to this Bill and believe that it should have been debated by a committee of the entire House. I have received certain "instructions" in regard to the debate, one of which is that I should resist any on this immensely important legislation. There is no reason the legislation should be rushed through. Due to other commitments I will be unable to be present next week and I do not understand why we should not come back to this legislation in September if necessary. I will strongly resist any proposal to complete consideration of the Bill before the end of this month.
I endorse what Deputy Currie said. This is potentially an important measure one way or the other. The terms of the Bill and the exact wording of it are of crucial importance to its efficacy. For example section 14 which deals with actual knowledge is of such crucial importance to the workability of this Bill that we have to be very careful about every word used in it. We were given no indication that it was proposed to dispose entirely of this Bill either this week or next week. We were given a firm assurance by the Taoiseach that this Bill and the Electoral (Amendment) Bill would be discussed "in tandem". As is clear from the definitions section, section 2, this measure is designed to dovetail with the Electoral (Amendment) Bill. In those circumstances it is wrong to consider one Bill without considering the other Bill or having knowledge of its contents. There is no proposal to publish the other Bill or to discuss its terms in tandem with this Bill. The undertaking given by the Taoiseach is being breached here. We are not being allowed to discuss the two Bills in tandem. The text of this Bill will be set in stone by the time we see the Bill which is supposed to complement it. This is not an occasion to rush through legislation and there is no reason we could not deal with other business next week. This Bill needs to be considered extremely carefully with a fine comb and if more sittings are required in September that is fine. No one indicated to my party, or to any other party in Opposition, that it was proposed to deal with this Bill during the remaining days of July.
Nobody wants to give the impression that the Bill is being guillotined. There is a request from the Government that we complete the Bill by the end of July.
We were given an assurance by the Government that this Bill would be discussed in tandem with the Electoral (Amendment) Bill.
I did not interrupt the Deputy. There is a request that the Bill be completed by 31 July.
That is not acceptable.
I will have to go another road, but I will let Deputy Rabbitte make a contribution.
I have no objection to meeting next week consistent with the committee appreciating the position of parties, especially smaller parties. For example, we agreed last week that the Consumer Credit Bill, a major and complex Bill, would be rostered for two days next week and both Deputy McDowell and I as Opposition spokespersons are concerned with that Bill. I have no objection to meeting next week on whatever day is agreed but I have a serious objection to agreeing a date by which the Bill must be concluded. The first I heard about the 30 July deadline was today; it was not intimated to us before now. It is fantastic to suggest that we should conclude the Bill by 30 July given that it has taken the Government 17 months to draft and publish it. In her speech on 17 February 1993 the Minister promised that the first draft would be available within weeks. It has taken longer than that. Having seen the Bill, one can appreciate why it has taken longer.
This is a very important Bill. Before the meeting started Deputy McDowell and I were talking about the definition of "actual knowledge". A number of definitions need teasing out line by line. I am amenable to any reasonable scheduling but I cannot agree to the proposal that the Bill should be concluded by 30 July. Since contributions to political parties are excluded from the remit of this Bill it is essential that we see the Electoral (Amendment) Bill before we give any definitive view on it.
The maintenance Bill is due to be discussed in Committee in the last week of July. There will be a major row if there is an attempt to force this Bill through without full and proper discussion.
I do not have a problem if it is decided to sit here 24 hours a day from now until the end of July to deal with the Bill line by line.
That is not the point. It has already been pointed out that the three spokespersons have other important responsibilities to the House with which they must deal during the next two weeks. Nobody wants to be here in August, but we are prepared to deal with the Bill whenever possible between now and the end of July and to come back in September to complete the discussion. We see no reason we should accept the end of July as a termination date for discussion of Committee Stage of the Bill.
In case anybody believes we, on this side of the House, do not have an interest in it, I want to inform the Opposition that we do. The Whips should meet to work out a satisfactory agreement. That is a reasonable request.
That would be a positive way forward but we do not know who is acting as convenor for the Fine Gael Party. Its resident convenor, Deputy Finucane, is absent and Deputy Higgins is substituting for him on the Committee, but I do not know if he is acting as convenor in his absence.
Let us worry about that.
We should take up Deputy Connolly's suggestion and ask the convenors to meet and work out a satisfactory solution before we return after lunch.
Is that agreed?
It is a fair way of facilitating everybody. Is it agreed to discuss it during lunch time?
No, we should lay it down very strongly here.
We should give the power to the convenors and not send them out with their hands tied.
We should send them out with their hands tied in that there should not be an end of July deadline. By imposing an end of July deadline, in effect, the debate will be guillotined. The Bill must be teased out line by line as it is one of the most serious Bills Deputies and Senators have dealt with to date.
I made it clear that I will facilitate Members of the committee for all the hours they want.
But you have imposed a deadline of the end of July.
We have not heard why the Taoiseach's solemn commitment that this Bill would be considered in tandem with the Electoral Bill is being reneged on, but I do not expect the Chairman to know the reason.
That has nothing to do with me.
I know but I want an answer from somebody with responsibility in this area.
My job is to act as Chairman of the committee. We have now agreed the sitting hours for today and I hope we will have reached agreement on further sittings after lunch.
Given that Report Stage cannot be taken until the Dáil reconvenes in the autumn, why is there an urgency to have Committee Stage completed by the end of July? Perhaps we could bear that in mind when discussing deadlines and timetables. So long as the Bill is ready to go back to the Dáil for Report Stage when it reconvenes in the autumn, we will have done our duty.
I put forward a reasonable proposal and we are all reasonable people.
I think it was accepted.
I do not believe it was. Deputy Nealon had a reservation about it. I do not mind a reservation, but I would not like the Chairman to have to put the matter to a vote and that is the only alternative if we do not reach agreement. As we have always been able to reach agreement in this area, why can we not reach agreement now?
I agree with Deputy Connolly that we should meet during lunch hour to reach agreement. Deputy Nealon's point must be addressed. In the short time since the Bill was published we have already had a major controversy relating to the passports affair which caused the Minister to introduce a major amendment, namely, No. 33.
If the Deputy wishes to discuss amendment No. 33 he will have ample opportunity to do so when we reach it.
I do not. In respect of an end of July deadline, I want to make the point that as a result of a public controversy the Minister has deemed it necessary, in the brief time since the Bill was published, to introduce a major amendment to the Bill as drafted. The report of the beef tribunal is anticipated in the next few days or weeks.
Deputy Rabbitte, with all due respect——
I would not like to try to discuss ethics in Government on that matter.
I want to make the point that it is likely that the conclusions of the tribunal will expose further loopholes in the legislation.
If the Deputy feels further loopholes are exposed at any stage he is free to put down all the amendments he wishes.
I should be allowed make my point. It is very likely that the findings of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry will suggest other necessary amendments to this legislation before it is enacted.
Is the Deputy pre-empting something?
No, I am merely saying it is unwise for us to try to impose a guillotine on a measure such as this in the present climate. We should roster it reasonably over lunch hour but a deadline of 30 July is probably unachievable.
I take it there will be agreement over lunch with regards to sittings.
As Report Stage cannot be taken until October, there is plenty of time to deal with Committee Stage.
I have no problem with that.
There is no reason it should be done in the month of July.
The Government does not intend to guillotine the debate. We are prepared to sit until midnight tonight and tomorrow night, if Members wish. I am prepared to sit all next week to make sure the Bill gets a proper line by line examination. If because of his other activities, Deputy McDowell is not free to be here, that is his problem. There are three weeks between now and the end of July and it should be possible to finish Committee Stage by then. My staff want to get on with other duties in the Department and to deal with other legislation. We are prepared to sit whenever necessary between now and 31 July to ensure we finish Committee Stage. When Report Stage is taken in the autumn the Electoral Bill will be published; we expect it to be published in the very near future. Any necessary amendments can be put down on Report Stage.
With respect, that is not acceptable. We were told the two Bills would be considered in tandem. The Committee Stage——
We agreed to try to resolve the matter over lunch; if not, we will return to it after lunch.
I welcome the fact that the Minister said there will not be a guillotine on the debate. She also said she is prepared to discuss the Bill line by line for as long as it takes. That is the position of Fine Gael Members and I am sure it is also the position of the other Opposition parties. However, she said that is subject to Committee Stage being finished by 31 July which is, effectively, a guillotine.
Deputy Currie, we agreed to resolve the matter over lunch. If it is not resolved, we will return to it at 2 p.m.
May I finish my point? I am prepared to convenience the Minister's staff, but the convenience of Members of this committee and the House must also be considered. I hope agreement can be reached during lunch time because if there is an insistance that this Committee Stage debate will have to be concluded by 31 July, there will be no agreement.
We cannot pre-empt what will happen over lunch and we should leave it until we return following the lunch break when hopefully the matter will have been resolved. Who is acting as convenor? It is Deputy Avril Doyle.
It is up to Deputy McDowell to defend himself but the Minister's remarks were designed to leave the impression that there was a lack of intent on the part of Members on this side of the House to match her sitting hour by hour to midnight or for as long as is necessary. That is not the case. The Minster seems to disregard the argument that there are five other committees of the House sitting until the end of July, two of which sit tomorrow: the Committee of Public Accounts and the Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy, which will consider the Competition Bill. We have already agreed that the Consumer Credit Bill will be taken two days sequentially next week and other business of this House is being conducted. Therefore the Minister's offer to sit tomorrow or until midnight tonight is not reasonable and that invitation should not be left on the record.
Ethics in Public Office Bill, 1994: Committee Stage.
We all accept that Members such as Deputies McDowell, Rabbitte and Currie have problems with regard to other committees. We will try to resolve this problem over lunch through the convenors, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction.
As Members are aware, the Bill before us today is the Ethics in Public Office Bill, 1994. The Bill fulfils a commitment in the Programme for a Partnership Government for legislation in this area including the establishment of a register of Members' interests on a statutory basis. It provides for the making of annual written statements of certain personal interests of Members of the Oireachtas, office holders, senior public and civil servants in designated positions and designated directors of State bodies. The Bill requires once off declarations where a potential conflict of interest could arise in the performance of official duties or functions between the public interests and the interests of the individual concerned or a connected person, such as close relatives or business partners. In addition it provides that gifts worth over £500 to office holders, their spouses or children, which are given by virtue of that office, are to become the property of the State.
Arising from the Bill, personal appointments by office holders, that is, Ministers, Ministers of State, etc., will be temporary and will end when the office holder leaves office. The Government will be precluded from appointing such persons to permanent positions in the Civil Service. The Bill also amends the Prevention of Corruption Acts, 1889 to 1916. Once enacted the Bill will be overseen by select committees in respect of Members and by an independent commission in respect of all other groups coming within its remit.
The establishment of both bodies is provided for in this Bill and they will provide guidelines and advice on compliance and undertake investigations into possible contraventions of the provisions of the Bill. The Bill contains many technical provisions. It has 36 sections, is divided into six parts and has two schedules.
Prior to consideration of the Committee Stage of the Bill it should be noted that in addition to the Tánaiste the following Deputies have tabled amendments: Deputy Austin Currie , Deputy Michael McDowell and Deputy Pat Rabbitte. As always the text of all amendments can be found on the list of amendments which was circulated this morning.