It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 4 and 5. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders or anything in the Order of the Dáil of 7 July 1995, that any divisions demanded today should be taken forthwith; the sitting shall not be suspended between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m.; the proceedings on No. 1 if not previously concluded shall be brought to a conclusion at 2 p.m. and any amendments from the Seanad not disposed of shall be decided by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments thereto, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Equality and Law Reform. The proceedings on No. 4 shall be brought to a conclusion within one hour and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the opening statement of the Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons of the Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrat parties shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; (ii) the statement of each other Member called shall not exceed five minutes in each case; (iii) Members may share time; and (iv) a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon not later than five minutes before the statements are due to conclude to make a statement in reply. The proceedings on the Second Stage of No. 5, if not concluded by 5.20 p.m. today, shall be adjourned forthwith. The Dáil on its rising today shall adjourn until 12 noon on Wednesday, 27 September 1995.
Order of Business.
Is it agreed in respect of No. 1 that any division demanded today should be taken forthwith? Agreed. Is it agreed that the sitting shall not be suspended between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. today? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 1, the Family Law Bill, 1994 agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 5, the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1995 satisfactory?
Fianna Fáil oppose the Order of Business on the grounds that, for many weeks, we have sought a debate at the commencement of the new Dáil session on the affair involving Deputy Lowry, now better known as "the Minister for Rumours and Anonymous Letters". We do this on three grounds. First, the Minister made serious allegations about the conduct of business people who apparently voted for Fianna Fáil.
I must dissuade the Deputy from embarking on a speech regarding that matter.
I will not make a speech.
It does not arise now. There are several ways to deal with that matter under the proceedings of this House.
For several weeks my party sought a debate in this House and surely if I am opposing the Order of Business I can briefly state my reasons.
You may make a comment. You may not deal with the main subject. That is a matter for another time.
I will not deal with the main subject. Second, the Minister engaged in smearing the reputations of every employee of the semi-State company. Third, he is now involved in a witch-hunt involving hordes of accountants who are attempting to drum up some justification for statements made by the Minister. We sought to bring the Minister before the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies but he refused. We sought to have a debate on the matter today but this request has been refused because the Minister is apparently away on holiday. We want to have a debate on the matter next week but that has also been refused.
Will the Taoiseach say, perhaps before there is a vote on the Order of Business, when we might have a debate about Deputy Lowry and the false allegations he made during the summer?
The Taoiseach wishes to intervene.
The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications will speak in the Dáil and answer all questions put to him by any Member on the matters referred to in the week commencing 9 October 1995. The matters concerned are inherently complex and time is required to make adequate investigations so that the report presented to the Dáil will be a full and comprehensive one. The Minister received certain disquieting information and most reasonable members of the public and Members of this House will agree, that he had a clear obligation to have those matters disclosed to him investigated. That is what he is doing in a responsible and appropriate manner.
Using 25 accountants?
When his investigations are complete he will inform the House thereon. Furthermore, unlike what happened when the previous Government presented the beef tribunal report to the House, Deputy Lowry will answer questions.
I ask the Taoiseach for clarification before my party decides how it will vote on the Order of Business. Will, the Taoiseach give an assurance that Deputy Lowry will appear before the committee and that the compellability of witnesses Bill will not have to be used to have him do so.
That is a matter for the committee concerned. The Minister will appear before the Dáil, the body which established the committee, and he will answer questions in this House.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the Minister refused a unanimous request from a committee of this House? How does that compare with the manner in which Members of this side of the House were summoned to committees at his behest in November 1995. Will the Taoiseach order the Minister home from holiday to answer questions before the committee and in this House? It is not acceptable for a Minister to absent himself for two weeks and refuse a unanimous request from an all-party committee of this House to appear before it.
There are many other ways to deal with this matter. I will now put the question.
May I have a response to my question?
I would explain to Deputies that it was this House which established the committees. The Minister has a first responsibility which he will exercise, to report to and answer questions in this House on the matter in question. There is a marked contrast between the way Deputy Lowry proposes to proceed in this matter — wherein he will answer questions in this House — and what happened in the case of Deputy Brennan's party, when not a single question was answered on the very serious matters in the beef tribunal report — upon preparation of which huge sums of public money had been spent.
Deputy Lowry, in conducting the investigation in a responsible manner——
Where is he?
——and in being willing to answer questions, shows a different approach to accountability than that shown by Fianna Fáil when it had the responsibility.
The Dáil is sitting next week. Where is the Minister?
I am now putting the question.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Costello, Joe.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Walsh, Éamon.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calley, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Foley, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick West).
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
The last matter to put before the House for its approval or otherwise is that the House, on its rising today, shall adjourn until 12 noon on Wednesday, 27 September 1995. Is that satisfactory and agreed? Agreed.
Having regard to the fact that there will not be any oral questions taken today, will the Taoiseach indicate when he believes the postponed summit might take place? What progress has been made in that regard over the past two weeks? Does he visualise himself and Prime Minister Major meeting in the next few weeks? Will the Taoiseach outline the latest position to the House?
That matter is not strictly relevant but if the Taoiseach wishes to reply——
As a matter of fact, the Deputy tabled a written question for which I had prepared an answer but I received news this morning that for some reason he has withdrawn this written question. Therefore, the answer cannot be provided in that normal way.
Because I get the usual replies which are one liners.
The answer was a good deal more than one line. It was a comprehensive answer.
Thank you.
The best I can do is ask the Deputy to resubmit his written question and we will answer it. It will then be on the record.
We will have oral questions in a week's time and I could ask it then.
If the Deputy wants to hold over his question until Question Time next Wednesday, I will answer it then also. To give a brief response to the Deputy's question, the position is that I came to the view that there would not be any useful purpose served by proceeding with the summit until we were satisfied it would achieve the objectives for which it was being called. I had reason to believe that in two respects that purpose would not be served. Therefore, I suggested to the British Prime Minister that the summit be postponed and he agreed. We have not set a new date for the summit. We will set that date as soon as we are ready and as soon as the work and the conditions exist to ensure the summit achieves its stated objective.
We cannot have a debate on the matter now. The Deputy has asked a question and he has received a reply.
May I ask if the contact at official level which commenced on Monday week is still in operation or have those talks also ceased?
The contact is continuing. The date and timing of individual meetings is a matter for pragmatic decision-making from day to day and week to week. Intensive work is being done and there are contacts on almost a daily basis between officials of the two Governments with a view to sorting out the problem. I would have to say that it is not just the two Governments that are involved; the peace process belongs to everybody. there are others who need to clarify their positions in regard to arms as well. To my mind, in democratic politics the use of arms and the retention of arms is irrelevant. Trust needs to be created not just among one's own supporters but amongst the supporters of one's traditional antagonists in regard to this matter. It is not just for the Governments to devise solutions that will give others the trust and confidence they need to come to the table, it is for the parties directly involved who have contacts with paramilitary organisations to find those solutions too. If they are not satisfied with the proposals that the Governments are putting forward let them put forward their own.
I very much agree with what the Taoiseach has just said. In view of the fact that he is going to meet with the new leader of the Official Unionist Party next week does he see any possibility of either bilateral or all party talks beginning in advance of the summit between the two Prime Ministers?
Contacts are continuing. I will be meeting the British Prime Minister before the end of the week in Majorca when discussing European matters. Contacts are ongoing. I very much welcome the fact that as a result of the change in the Unionist Party we now have a situation where the Unionist Party is willing to talk to the Irish Government. In effect, almost every relevant party is talking bilaterally to almost every other relevant party, with one of two exceptions. The next step is to get them all around the one table. For that to happen and for there to be genuine negotiation, as distinct from an exchange of views, there has to be trust. The people who hold arms have a insist on the right to hold arms have a responsibility to recognise that it is not their own supporters they need to worry about in the first instance but the supporters of the people who fear them as these people need to be given confidence. Rather than saying it is a matter for the Governments to come up with a solution I challenge the paramilitary organisations and the parties associated with them to come up with answers in the present dialogue. The arms that are held by the IRA are a political problem first and foremost for Sinn Féin.
The arms that are held by the UDA and the UVF are first and foremost a political problem for the parties associated with those two organisations, the Progressive Unionist Party and the Ulster Democratic Party. If the problems of Sinn Féin, the Progressive Unionist Party and the Ulster Democratic party are to be solved, trust must be built up in the minds and hearts of the people who fear that arms might be used against them. Those parties have a responsibility to solve that political problem. The Governments can help them and this Government has made strenuous efforts to do so. We have said we do not believe that the disposal of arms on an instalment basis should be a precondition for talks. That does not mean we believe there is no problem. There is a problem of trust and there is a fear that those arms will be used again. There is a fear every time the words "the peace process is in crisis" are used that it implies some form of threat of use of arms. If that is being said, that creates fear and there is a responsibility on the part of people who say those things to alleviate that fear. I want to create a situation in which everybody involved, all the parties North and South, and all the parties within Northern Ireland have a sense of ownership not only of the solution but of the problem. It is for all the parties to be creative and if they are not happy with particular suggestions made by Governments they should come up with better proposals.
I thank the Taoiseach for his comprehensive reply to my question. From what he has stated on very fundamental issues perhaps we should ask the Whips to convene a debate on Northern Ireland next week. What the Taoiseach has said is different from what we were talking about a few months ago. It would be very useful if we could debate these issues in the House.
I agree with those who might say that consistency is not the only valid test of political action but in this instance I want to stress that my view and that of the Government on the decommissioning of arms has been absolutely consistent. We believe it is an important item that must be dealt with but it is not the only item on the agenda. We recognise that other issues have to be dealt with as well as recognising that if we are to get people to the table — and there is no point in having empty chairs at the negotiating table — the arms issue has to be dealt with in a manner that satisfies the traditional antagonists of the people who hold the arms. It is not a matter of satisfying their own supporters but their traditional antagonists. That is where creative thinking is necessary. That is why I particularly welcome Deputy McDaid's intervention at the weekend. He has shown an ability to think. I challenge the organisations associated with republican and loyalist paramilitary organisations to show the same degree of imagination that Deputy McDaid has shown.
May I dissuade Members from the notion that we can debate this matter now?
Did the Taoiseach elicit from the Unionist leaders a response to that suggestion when he met them yesterday and today?
I can only repeat that I cannot permit a debate now nor will I allow this matter to be turned into a mini Question Time. I am proceeding to deal with the business ordered.
A Cheann Comhairle——
On promised legislation.
Can we have a promised Minister first, a Cheann Comhairle?
I have no control over that, Deputy.
Given that the House has not sat since July and there are no section 30s or oral parliamentary questions today a little latitude might be appropriate. In view of the anger among the staff of semi-State companies at the Minister's reckless allegations, will the Taoiseach bring back the Minister — it is one thing to call the Dáil——
As I said earlier, this matter does not arise now.
Will he bring the Minister back next Tuesday for the meeting of the committee? Does the Taoiseach have any control over him at all?
Does the Taoiseach intend to allow time for a debate on the proposal by the National Roads Authority to impose further taxation on motorists who are already paying £1.3 billion?
The Deputy should have said that to Pádraig Flynn.
That matter does not arise now. The Deputy should put down a question in the ordinary way.
I am asking the Taoiseach if he will allow a debate on this proposal——
It is not in order now, Deputy.
Why is it not in order?
Deputy Dempsey knows the procedure in the House very well.
It was in the national plan prepared by Deputy Smith——
I call Deputy Dermot Ahern.
The proposal will increase tax on motorists who are already paying £1.3 billion.
The Deputy will have an opportunity to ventilate his views on this matter at another time.
It was in Deputy Smith's speech.
The Minister denied he would allow it at Question Time.
It is not a matter for me in the first instance.
It will be in the second instance.
So much for local democracy. There has not been consultation with the local authorities. The Minister will wash his hands of the entire matter.
Deputy Dempsey, you may not ignore me.
A Deputy
He will do so at his peril.
That is correct. I had called his colleague.
Given the difficulties experienced by some committees, particularly the Committee on the Family, during the summer in trying to get witnesses to come before it and the continuing difficulties we as a Parliament will experience in this area am I correct in saying that we were given an undertaking that the compellability of witnesses Bill would be published during the summer so that we would have it for this session? The legislation is not on the Order Paper and I should like to know when it will be published.
Is legislation promised in this area?
The legislation is currently being drafted by the parliamentary draftsman and it is the intention to bring it before the House in the forthcoming session.
Does it apply to Ministers?
Does the Taoiseach intend to raise with the British Prime Minister the ongoing problems in the British nuclear industry? There seems to be a lack of co-ordination in the Government——
The Deputy should raise that matter in another way at another time.
The Government does not seem to have an overall strategy on how to deal with this issue. Will the Taoiseach reply to my question?
The Taoiseach may not answer it as the matter is out of order.
Will the Taoiseach reassure the House that the legislation dealing with freedom of information and the review of the Official Secrets Act will be brought before the House during the autumn even though the Department of Justice has expressed extreme resistance to it?
How stands the legislation?
To my knowledge, no indication has been recently given that the legislation will be brought to the House before Christmas. It is the intention that it will be brought before the House early next year. The memorandum which comes to Government before the drafting of the legal form of the legislation can begin is at an advanced stage of preparation. That is why I believe the legislation will be presented to the House early next year.
It is going backwards.
Will the Taoiseach outline the difficulties with the Department of Justice? Does it oppose the ethos of the legislation in principle?
That matter should be pursued in another way, perhaps by way of question.
On a point of order, will the Chair refer to the next meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges a new principle which it was sought to instigate this morning in the Taoiseach's defence of the continued absence of his Minister, Deputy Lowry, that is, the question of whether or not it meets the accountability rules of this House that a Minister is accountable only at times of his own choosing either before the House or a committee of the House? I ask that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges meet as a matter of urgency in view of the serious nature of the allegations——
If the Deputy wishes to raise a matter with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, he knows the procedure. He has representatives on that body and he may proceed to table an appropriate motion should he think fit.
Moving from the question of transparent unaccountability, it may not have been brought to the notice of the House that we have a second Minister in difficulty. Has the Taoiseach any comment to make about the fact that his former colleague in Government, Deputy Deasy, is claiming a lack of confidence in the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Yeats?
The Deputy knows full well that if serious charges are to be made against any Member of the House, particularly a Minister, there are procedures for that purpose. It should be done by way of substantive motion, not by allegations and innuendo across the floor of this House.
I am grateful for your advice, a Cheann Comhairle.
He is completely House trained.
I have a question which touches on a number of areas of legislation. What sum does the Government intend to allocate to promoting the divorce referendum? May we have a breakdown of it?
The Deputy is raising a very wide issue.
Let me put it to the Taoiseach——
The Deputy may not proceed along those lines.
There is confusion engendered by the Government.
Is there a proposal to bring legislation before the House before Christmas to enable the Dublin light rail transport initiative to get going?
Will it go through the south east?
Is it intended to move the trade marks Bill now that it has been promised for three years? Let me also ask the Taoiseach again, gently and politely, what he is doing regarding the right to interrupt during debates in this House. He promised to do something about it a long time ago.
The matter of the right of Members to make an orderly intervention in the course of a contribution by another Member is part of the package of proposals that the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach and Government Whip, Deputy Jim Higgins, will be presenting shortly to Government and to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. My support for that initiative remains undimmed.
The text of the Dublin light rail Bill will be available for Government approval in about November. It may or may not, therefore, be presented to the House before Christmas. If it is not presented before Christmas, I hope it will be shortly thereafter.
Regarding the trade marks Bill, the text is at an advanced stage of preparation. I expect that we shall see the legislation in the House within the next two months or so.
Will the Taoiseach update the House on progress in the preparation of the control of horses Bill, especially in view of the very serious situation in parts of Dublin during the particularly hot and dry summer which led to neglect of and cruelty to various animals which were roaming the public places of the city?
The heads of that Bill are before the Government. I expect we will see the legislation in the House sometime in the middle of November.
Has the Taoiseach any plans to honour the international victories of some of our sporting heroes during the summer?
I suggest that the Deputy table a parliamentary question on that matter. It is one I am sure the Government, my colleagues and I would consider in a proper manner. If the Deputy tables a question it will be answered next week.
The Taoiseach should have a look at his press release.
Under the Ethics in Public Office Bill, does the Taoiseach propose to censor the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry for publicly threatening the regional manager of the IDA with the loss of his job?
Let us not make allegations of this kind across the floor of the House without giving serious thought to the matter.
Are those the types of decisions being made by the Minister, Deputy Yates?
I would like to see a public show of solidarity.
That is the type of bullyboy tactics being adopted by the Minister, who is trying to compete with the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry.
I must ask you not to make serious allegations in this flippant way.
The Minister, Deputy Yates, made the allegations. I did not make them. What is he going to do about them? He used the national broadcasting service, RTE, to threaten a regional manager with the loss of his job.
Deputy Cullen, please resume your seat.
It is outrageous.
It is disgraceful behaviour. Three Ministers in Wexford will dance to his tune.
I have admonished the Deputy time and again to resume his seat and if he persists in this fashion I shall have to deal with him in the usual way.
It would be more correct for this House to deal with the Minister.
Deputy Cullen, I expect more co-operation from you when you rise again.
Will the Taoiseach indicate if juvenile justice legislation is likely to come before the House during this term?
We expect that the general scheme of the Bill will be circulated shortly and that it will be ready this session.