It is proposed to take items Nos. 5, 2 and 7. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, (1) No. 5 shall be decided without debate; (2) the Second Stage of No. 2 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and the following arrangements shall apply in relation to the debate: (1) speeches of the Minister and Minister of State and the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, Progressive Democrat Party and the Technical group shall not exceed 30 minutes in each case; (2), the speech of each other Member called on shall not exceed 20 minutes and (3), the Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon not later than 6.45 p.m. to make a speech in reply not exceeding 15 minutes. Private Members' Business shall be No. 11.
Private Business. - Order of Business.
In respect of the legislation in regard to interpretative centres, which is promised for tomorrow, will the Taoiseach ensure that Ministers will accept full responsibility for all the decisions taken in this matter and not allow officials to be targeted for blame as the chairman of the Labour Party attempted——
There will be no reflection on officials.
That is the very point the Deputy is making.
There should be no reflection on officials in this House. That is a long standing convention——
My concern is that a Member of the House, namely the chairman of the Labour Party, attempted to blame officials for what were clearly ministerial decisions. I am asking the Taoiseach to instruct his Ministers to fully accept their responsibilities in this matter and not attempt to hide behind officials or allow part of the Government to blame officials when Ministers are responsible.
My Ministers are fully aware of their collective responsibility in this and all other matters.
Perhaps the Taoiseach would inform Deputy Kemmy of that.
In relation to the legislation which is promised for tomorrow, I understand that the Mullaghmore issue is to be appealed to the Supreme Court. May I ask the Ceann Comhairle, having regard to the way the sub judice rule operates in this House, if it is in order for the Government to introduce legislation on a matter which is currently before the courts?
I would have preferred notice of that question but I understand it does not apply to proposals of that kind. I would like to consider the matter.
How can you rule that it does not apply in this instance when it does apply to matters that are not before a court but before a tribunal?
I understand it has never been applied to the passage of legislation.
As long as somebody can produce a Bill in the House and discuss it, you can say what you like. That does not make sense.
The Chair will not be drawn into that argument.
I am not surprised that the Chair is not going to be drawn into that argument. I do not think the Chair is on safe ground in that argument.
The Deputy will not succeed in drawing me into it.
Would the Taoiseach answer a question he did not answer during Question Time. Which Minister will introduce the legislation tomorrow and will there be a Supreme Court appeal in this case?
And will the Minister be arriving by helicopter?
No, that will not be necessary. The Minister for Finance will introduce the Bill tomorrow. He has responsibility for the Office of public Works. The Bill will be entitled the State Authorities Development and Management Bill and is to address the problem arising from the Supreme Court decision in relation to the authority, that was found to be non-existent, to carry out both building and management of properties on behalf of the State. That aspect of the planning process is a matter on which there are two different judicial judgements and, consequently, is being referred to the Supreme Court for adjudication. In the meantime, work on the three sites is being suspended.
Since the Taoiseach promised in the Programme for a Partnership Government to make State authorities accountable to planning authorities in respect of planning decisions, can he explain why he is making the appeal to the Supreme Court in direct contravention of what is promised on page 48 of the Programme for a Partnership Government? How is it in the interest of this House to introduce emergency legislation which allows any Minister at any point to carry out any development without the prior authority of this House for such a development?
Deputy McDowell should read the Programme for a Partnership Government again. It mentions the consultation process that should exist. If the Deputy wishes I will read it out.
It is meaningless.
In the meantime, we have asked the Supreme Court for a very early decision on this matter and the Government will consider how to implement the Programme for Government and the ways and means in which that can be done.
What about the powers of any Minister?
I want to dissuade Members from anticipating the legislation. All relevant questions will be answered when the legislation is introduced tomorrow.
I do not want to anticipate tomorrow's debate.
I call Deputy Bruton now and I will call the Deputy again.
May I ask the Taoiseach if collective responsibility involving all 15 Members of the Government will apply to tomorrow's legislation? Would he explain how he was able to tell us last week that Deputy Michael D. Higgins, Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, would introduce the legislation on national monuments and heritage affecting the Office of public Works when this legislation affecting that office is to be introduced by the Minister for Finance? Can he explain why there appears to be divided responsibility in regard to this legislation?
The Deputy should read what I said last week. I laid down the functions of each Minister. As the House is aware, the Office of Public Works is ultimately the responsibility of the Minister for Finance. In this and every other case collective responsibility applies.
The Taoiseach said he is in charge of future policy.
That is a different Bill.
What is the position? Some legislation is the responsibility of the Minister for Finance and other legislation is the responsibility of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht.
Is Deputy Rabbitte offering?
On a different matter.
I did not catch the Taoiseach's answer to the second part of my question, that is, why it was so urgent to confer on any Minister the power to carry out any development on State land without prior authority from this House.
I thought the Deputy would appreciate the large number of projects around the country that have a question mark over them and the position of contractors carrying out work. The present situation must be rectified as a matter of urgency. That is what the legislation is about and Deputies will be free to ask any other questions in this regard in tomorrow's debate.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that it is unprecedented in any parliamentary democracy for Ministers to be given a blank cheque to carry out development anywhere in the country and be able to tell the taxpayers at the end of the year how they spent their money and now want an Appropriation Vote in respect of that development?
That is nonsense.
That is what the Government is looking for.
Deputy J. Mitchell rose.
May I ask the Taoiseach if he will make the position——
That is the third person from those benches——
I will give way to Deputy Mitchell if it is on the same matter.
Deputy Rabbitte.
Will the Taoiseach make the Government's position clear in respect of comments made by public officials who stated that, when they required political instruction in handling the currency crisis, there was no one available to give them that instruction?
Not so.
That is in the newspapers this morning. The Dáil is entitled to a reply.
I want to ask a related question in regard to the protection of officials and specifically the Mullaghmore issue. Will the Taoiseach clarify whether all the steps taken by the Office of Public Works were with the approval of the Minister for Finance or if any work was undertaken by officials in breach of the instructions of the Minister?
All these questions are relevant to tomorrow's legislation. The normal procedure in the Office of Public Works, as in every other Department, was followed.
Will the Taoiseach defend his officials against the unfounded attacks by the chairman of the Labour Party, Deputy Kemmy, who tried to side-step the political division between Fianna Fáil and Labour by blaming officials who could not defend themselves.
The Deputy will have an opportunity tomorrow when the legislation is before the House to make any case he wants and it will be adequately answered by the Minister concerned.
The answer is either "yes" or "no".
Stand up and be counted.
A report presented to the European Parliament last Friday brought one of our marketing organisations into question on the collection of export refunds and, as An Bord Bainne is the flagship of our Irish agricultural marketing section, would the Government make a statement clearing the good name of the board?
Is the Deputy asking the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste?
In view of the fact that the Government parties sought to attribute much of the currency problems to speculators, could I ask the Taoiseach when the legislation promised to regulate stock exchanges and their members, which was to be introduced in this House last autumn, will be introduced and if it will deal with this problem which the Government claims is so significant?
That does not obtain now.
It does, Sir.
It was promised in a previous Dáil and it does not obtain now. As it is now 4.35 p.m. we will proceed to the Order of Business proper.
On a point of order this legislation was promised in this House at column 940 of 8 July 1992. There is continued responsibility in this House from one Dáil to the next and we have the same Minister in this case. He continued to be Minister for Finance and is accountable to this House for that promise. In view of the fact that he and his colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, seem to make so much of the activities of speculators, could they now indicate if they intend to introduce legislation to deal with the subject which was of such concern to them when they sought excuses for the failure of their policy?
As I said, that was not promised in this Dáil. It is not a matter for the Order of Business; it can be dealt with in another way.