It is proposed to take No. 5. It is also proposed notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders that: 1. Business shall be interrupted at 4.45 p.m. today; 2. Second Stage of No. 5 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall be brought to a conclusion at 4.45 p.m. today; 3. The proceedings on Committee Stage of the Waiver of Certain Tax, Interest and Penalties Bill, 1993, being dealt with in Select Committee, shall be brought to a conclusion at such time tomorrow as the committee may see fit to discharge and complete Committee Stage by one question which shall be put from the Chair of that Select Committee and which shall in relation to amendments include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Finance; and, 4. The Dáil shall sit tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and shall adjourn not later than 4 p.m.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal that business be interrupted at 4.45 p.m. today agreed? Agreed. Are the arrangements for dealing with No. 5 satisfactory? Agreed. Are the arrangements for dealing with the Waiver of Certain Tax, Interest and Penalties Bill, 1993, agreed?
The Select Committee is sitting at present; it sat at 10.30 a.m. Deputy Cox, the Progressive Democrats' spokesman on Finance, was anxious to be here to raise points about certain aspects of this matter. However, he had to be at the committee. It is impossible to operate in this fashion.
A Deputy
Get a few more TDs.
I understand a briefing by the Department of Finance is taking place at present. I do not know how long that briefing will take. A two day debate on Committee Stage of this Bill is inadequate. The committee should be allowed to decide the time it wants to conclude rather than having it laid down in advance by this House. It is very unusual to have the House dictating to the committee the period it should sit and imposing a guillotine on it. These committees were set up so that there would be adequate time to discuss difficult matters which needed teasing out. The committee will not have the opportunity to do this if it is being guillotined from above by this House.
The Deputy has made his point.
I rise to support the import of what Deputy O'Malley has said. Eighty one amendments have been put down to the Bill. Until we had spent time going through the detail of the Bill, I do not think any of us could have envisaged this happening. The motivation behind the House ordering the work of the committees has been the traditional poor attendance on Fridays. That will not happen in the case of this Bill, which, for example, permits statements of self-declaration by people seeking to avail of the amnesty and the granting of a certificate in return for that. This means they can never be probed by the Revenue Commissioners at any stage in the future or have their statement looked behind——
This point can be made during the debate on the Bill.
I ask the Government to permit the committee to order its own affairs so that it can deal with the 81 amendments in the order it thinks appropriate. This would be a major improvement.
Last night the House agreed to complete Committee Stage of this Bill at 1 p.m. tomorrow. This motion seeks to give the committee flexibility to extend the debate for an hour, two hours or three hours tomorrow. If the committee wants more time it has the flexibility to take it. This motion is helpful to the committee; it does not take away its flexibility.
It seems that this problem could be overcome by the deletion of the word "tomorrow" so that the committee is allowed to complete the debate "at such time as it sees fit".
In other words, ad infinitum.
As the Government has a majority on the committee — one assumes that the Government TDs will attend — it can decide the time it wants to complete the proceedings. This would meet the point of concern. I understand that there was general agreement to the time schedule. It appears that a number of people who gave their agreement now feel, in view of the number of amendments which have been tabled, that they will need more time. That is understandable; at the time they gave their agreement they probably did not foresee the number of amendments which would be tabled. The deletion of the word "tomorrow" might allow a measure of flexibility, which in any event the Government could control because it has a majority on the committee.
The stumbling block is clearly the proposal that the committee can conclude the debate at whatever time it sees fit "tomorrow". Given that he wants to have the debate concluded by Tuesday, would the Taoiseach agree that if the facilities of the House were available to it on Monday, the committee could continue tomorrow until whatever time it wished and resume on Monday and continue until whatever time it wished to conclude? It would be better to adjust the proposal today to allow the committee to conclude its business by Tuesday.
May I put the question in respect of the amendment?
We want to take Report Stage on Tuesday: the other arrangements can be reviewed today if Deputies wish. There was agreement last night that the Committee Stage proceedings of this Bill would finish at 1 p.m. tomorrow. On a request for more time, we built in flexibility this morning to allow it to go on for a few more hours to facilitate Members. The Government's objective is to complete the Report Stage by Tuesday and we had agreement on this. Why do some Members continually row back from the agreements reached? I know the Fine Gael Party is not doing it.
I will hear Deputy Enda Kenny and then I will put the question.
The Whips spent a considerable amount of time discussing whether this Bill should be referred to a select committee. It is fundamental that the Bill, in the first instance, is referred to the select committee. I am happy that a degree of flexibility has been built into the committee system which allows committee members to discuss the Bill at greater length.
I suggest that the Whips meet at 3 p.m. today to review the position and if the Members feel that the proceedings should continue on Monday, we could deal with that at our meeting at 3 p.m. today.
Is it agreed that it be looked at by the Whips? Agreed.
That is perfectly acceptable, Sir, but may I clarify the matter? If the Whips agree today that the committee should reconvene on Monday is there anything in the order to be put to the House that disbars it?
We will deal with that tomorrow morning and if necessary we can clarify matters. Are the proposals in respect of No. 3, the Waiver of Certain Tax, Interest and Penalties Bill, 1993, agreed subject to talks among the Whips? Agreed. Is it agreed that the Dáil shall sit tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and shall adjourn not later than 4 p.m.? Agreed.
Will the Taoiseach give an indication as to when the legislation dealing with alleged miscarriages of justice will be brought before the House? We have agitated about miscarriages of justice in other jurisdictions and have been successful in having some of the cases reviewed but we do not have any mechanism for looking at miscarriages of justice in our own jurisdiction. That weakens considerably the case we are putting to other nations.
To what legislation is the Deputy adverting?
I am referring to legislation which arises from the Martin report which provides a mechanism to review cases after conviction where it is alleged there is a miscarriage of justice in the farming of the prosecution, the proceedings of the court or in some other way. This has been promised for quite a while and I am anxious to know when it will be introduced.
The Deputy is referring to the criminal procedure Bill which we expect to publish in July and take in the next session.
In view of the considerable difficulties that now appear to be arising in relation to the Structural Funds, which are of such importance, will the Taoiseach clarify whether there was an agreement in respect of the amount Ireland is to get?
I am sorry Deputy, the matter to which he refers is clearly not relevant to the Order of Business——
If there is an agreement, I presume all parties——
——and can be clarified in many other ways. The matter is not in order and the Deputy knows that.
It is relevant to the future of the country. I am giving the Taoiseach the opportunity to clarify the position.
Are minutes of the meeting available?
Is there a written record of the agreement at the Edinburgh Summit?
The Deputy must desist from any further reference to the matter, it is not relevant to our business now.
We debated the outcome of the Edinburgh Summit in the House and as there now seems to be some doubt as to what the conclusions meant we should have a further discussion on it to allow the Taoiseach to clarify the commitments made.
I have ruled on that matter and I will not allow the Deputy to circumvent my ruling.
The reality is that there is no written agreement on the £8.5 billion whereas the Spanish have a written record as to the agreement made with them.
I am right and you will see that I am right.
I would like to see the letter.
On promised electoral reform legislation, given that the census of population report was finally published yesterday will the independent statutory electoral commission be established, as promised in the Programme for Government? Will that proposal be brought before the House next week?
No, if it were to be brought before the House next week I know Opposition Members would express their outrage at cramming in more legislation. The Bill will be published and taken in the autumn.
We have been promised for the first time in almost a century, to use the Minister's own words, a new tier of statutory representative institutions which will be established by Order. I am referring to the new regional committee structure. Will the Taoiseach ensure that this House will get the opportunity to debate this Order and the establishment of a new tier, given the importance of the establishment of new institutions?
Matters apertaining to Orders are not appropriate now.
Perhaps the Taoiseach may be in a position to respond?
The House will be given the opportunity to debate this in full.
I represent one of the largest three seat constituencies in the country. Because of the enforced absence of Commissioner Flynn who is in greener fields, and the fact that Deputy Hughes is a relatively new Deputy, will the Taoiseach give the people the opportunity to elect a further representative in due course? Will he indicate when that might happen?
That was decided by this House recently.
We were told by the Taoiseach a few days ago that the Extradition Bill was now being delayed, which was the phrase he used——
This was raised yesterday morning and on a number of occasions recently.
——because there was a legal or constitutional problem. I thought all the problems relating to it were identified a long time ago. Will the Taoiseach tell the House what is the legal or constitutional problem?
I cannot allow a rehash of that matter again this morning.
I am very doubtful that there is any new legal or constitutional problem but there may, indeed, be a political problem, which may be far more fundamental.
I am sorry, Deputy O'Malley.
Does that mean we will never see this Bill?
That is nonsense.
The Deputy has made his point and that should be adequate.
I thank the Taoiseach for allowing a debate on the regional authorities. Will he also allow a debate on the proposal to establish the 36 county enterprise boards?
I am sorry, Deputy, I thought you had something relevant to raise.
The Chair permitted a question relating to the establishment by Order of regional authorities, the same applies to the county enterprise boards. This appears to be a significant element of the Government's job strategy and the House should be allowed to debate it.
This Government spawns quangos like tadpoles.