It is proposed to take: No. 5 — motion re. Leave to introduce Supplementary Estimate [Vote 3] and, subject to the agreement of No. 5, Supplementary Estimate [Vote 3]; Nos. 6-17 — motions re. Partnership and Co-operation Agreements and Europe Agreements; No. 1 — Criminal Law Bill, 1996 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) No. 5 and Supplementary Estimate [Vote 3] shall be decided without debate and any divisions demanded thereon shall be taken forthwith; and (2) Nos. 6-17 shall be moved and debated together and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion within two hours by one question which shall be put from the Chair; (ii) the opening speech of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for the Fianna Fáil Party and the Progressive Democrats Party shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case; (iii) the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; (iv) Members may share time; and (v) a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed 15 minutes.
Order of Business.
Are the arrangements for dealing with item No. 5 satisfactory?
Last week when this matter was targeted by the Government Chief Whip I asked for a very short debate on the Supplementary Estimate. It was indicated that the issue would not be debated this week. At 10 a.m. today I received a phone call from the Government Chief Whip asking that the matter be taken without debate. We are still of the view that there should be a very short debate on it and unless the Government accedes to our request we will press it to a vote.
This Estimate is for a token sum of £1,000 for access to islands. The subject was debated extensively here on 7 March and we do not believe that there is necessity for another debate on the subject. At this point it is necessary to put the financial regulations in place so that the work can be done to improve living conditions in island communities. Action rather than another debate is required at this juncture.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burton, Joan.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Michael.
- McDaid, James.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
The other item to put to the House concerns the proposal for dealing with items Nos. 6 to 17 inclusive. Is that satisfactory and agreed? Agreed.
We on this side of the House welcome the conciliatory and constructive tone of the British Prime Minister's article in The Irish Times which is helpful as far as it goes. There is a compelling case for a reinstatement and maintenance of the IRA ceasefire. We do not understand why the British Prime Minister did not mention the Framework Document after all that has been said by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and what was stated at its launching about there being a shared understanding between the two Governments. They strongly commended it to the parties and people in the island of Ireland.
I am being very patient and understanding. I am anxious to help but these matters are strictly not relevant to the Order of Business. They are topical and as such the Taoiseach may wish to comment, but it places the Chair in an invidious position.
I accept that and I will be brief. It would be helpful if, on this issue, the Irish Government could convince the British Prime Minister to state his position once again. I agree with what the Taoiseach said that there should be a time frame for the talks. Having gone so far it is a mistake not to state some kind of timetable.
I must dissuade the Deputy from the tendency to debate the matter.
I will not do that, a Cheann Comhairle.
I hesitate to rule against, but it is in conflict with the normal procedure at this time.
We hope the article will be received in a positive spirit and that it will be further built on by the two Governments. It is important to ensure in the next few weeks that the window of opportunity is successfully taken up.
Perhaps the Taoiseach would wish to hear Deputy Harney on the same topic.
I too welcome the conciliatory tone of the British Prime Minister's comments in today's issue of The Irish Times. I particularly welcome his assurance that the decommissioning issue will not block all-party negotiations. The biggest obstacle in the way of the all-party negotiations remains the failure of the IRA to restore its ceasefire. We must ensure that we do not endanger the peace process by engaging in a war of words or analysing it to death. There is an enormous opportunity now and we must not let it be frittered away. That opportunity must be grasped by the politicians in Northern Ireland who must go into the talks process willing to do business and willing to compromise. I call on the leader of Sinn Féin to use his influence to have the IRA ceasefire restored so that Sinn Féin can take part in the all inclusive talks which give us a great opportunity to have a political settlement in Northern Ireland and to transform this island.
I am glad to note there is consensus in this House that the conditions have now been fulfilled wherein the IRA should restore its ceasefire straight away. It should be noted that there is unanimity in this House on that point. It is important that all who speak of consensus should recognise the democratic consensus in this House on the urgent need to restore the IRA ceasefire and on the fact that the conditions justifying that, from the point of view and perspectives of all the parties in this House, have now been fulfilled. It is particularly important to take into account that there is a big opportunity available that may not come easily again on 10 June. That opportunity arises from the specific provision for all party talks to start on that date, and from the fact that this British Prime Minister is deeply engaged and interested in ensuring a solution is found in those negotiations. He could not be more committed to that end. That is very clear from his article. It also arises because the present US Administration and US Congress on a bipartisan basis are focused now on solving this problem at this time. If the opportunity created by that focus is frittered away because Sinn Féin cannot participate because the IRA will not declare a ceasefire, it will not be easy to reassemble that bipartisan focus in the United States on finding a way through these difficult issues.
On the question of a timetable — this matter was raised by Deputy Ahern — a timetable of approximately a year, with the possibility of renewal is envisaged in the legislation setting up the election and the subsequent negotiations. It is possible the work could be done in a shorter period. When the parties get together they may well agree to do the work within a shorter time frame and set themselves targets for agreement on various topics within that shorter time frame. All the parties must agree a time frame as they are the ones who will negotiate. They must own that time frame and be committed to achieve the objectives, intermediate and ultimate, within it. That is something the parties can and should do when they meet on 10 June. It would be difficult for anybody else to do that for them before their first meeting. It is important that one of the parties there on 10 June to agree that time frame should be Sinn Féin. The only requirement to allow Sinn Féin to be there is that the IRA should restore the ceasefire.
It is also important to make the point that the assurances I gave in Finglas about the way in which the negotiations would be conducted are not assurances solely based on my authority or the authority of the Government, they are based in large measure on specific agreements negotiated between the Irish and British Governments which are on the public record, for example, the ground rules document for the talks which was negotiated by the Tánaiste. I was able to give the assurances I gave in Finglas because of agreements which bind and involve both Governments — Prime Minister Major's Government and the Irish Government. It is important that people analysing or comparing the speech I made in Finglas with the necessarily more brief article published by the British Prime Minister recognise that the assurance I gave in Finglas were, in large measure, based on earlier agreements which involve the Irish and British Governments.
That should also be taken into consideration. It is useful to have had this opportunity to respond as representatives of the entire spectrum of opinion in this State to the article published by the British Prime Minister this morning. It is important that the message which goes forth from this House is unanimous, democratic and one on which there is consensus and that it asks those who can ensure the talks are fully inclusive not to delay any longer in restoring their ceasefire. It is also important that the House acknowledges there are two ceasefires which need to be maintained and tended. The loyalist ceasefire, which remains in place, is very important to the peace process and we hope the IRA ceasefire will be quickly restored so that the talks on 10 June will not be only truly inclusive but also ultimately successful.
Will the equal status legislation apply equally to Ministers and citizens? This legislation has been promised for months.
Is the Deputy submitting that as a question?
I raise this point because of the discriminatory manner in which the Minister for Education will not call to the high school in Clonmel when passing through the town next Monday.
The Deputy is getting around the matter in another way.
It was a good try.
The Taoiseach heard about it at the £100 dinner but nothing has been done about it.
What is the position in regard to the transnational information and consultation of employees Bill which will provide information and consultation rights for employees in large multinational companies? When does the Taoiseach propose to introduce that Bill in view of the way that employees in Packard and Key Tronic in Dundalk were treated by various agencies?
The Deputy should not elaborate on the matter now.
The town of Dundalk is devastated this morning as a result of job loses.
The Chair sympathises and understands the Deputy's dilemma but there are procedures to which we must conform.
I am asking about legislation on the Government's Order Paper.
The legislation in question is at a very advanced stage and I expect it will be published before the end of next month. The Government is aware of the concern in Dundalk as a result of the recent redundancies in Key Tronic and is willing, able and prepared to mobilise its resources to the full to assist in bringing industrial projects to Dundalk to enable it to achieve its full employment creation potential on the basis of spirit of enterprise that exists in the town.
I, too, wish to ask about the equal status legislation but from a different perspective to Deputy Davern. Is the Government proceeding with the legislation and when may we expect to see it?
The Government is proceeding with the legislation. Constructive discussions are taking place between the Minister for Equality and Law Reform and the affected interests. The Minister is approaching the matter in a manner that will bring us as near as possible to complete accord across social and economic interests on this very important issue.
Legislation is promised to provide an independent regulator for the telephone sector. When will it be introduced?
We expect the legislation to provide for the independent regulator of the telecommunications industry to be available in the next two to three months, if not sooner.
May we expect it before the recess?
That is the objective.
When will the small business prompt payment Bill be published? Will the Taoiseach also indicate when legislation on the other recommendations on the Task Force on Small Business that require legislation will be published?
Obviously, I answer here in regard to promised legislation, not on non-statutory matters. It is envisaged that the legislation on prompt payment for small business will be published before the end of the year.
It was reported in yesterday's papers that the Control of Horses Bill had been published and the matter was discussed on the radio this morning, but I have not received a copy of it. When does the Taoiseach propose to let loose that Bill?
The Deputy got a copy of it, cogged it and produced it during the Dublin-West by-election.
The Minister of State ran away from the horses.
He has a different horse, he has a couple of Mercedes.
Let us hear the Taoiseach's reply.
The Deputies should contain themselves.
What about those behind the Taoiseach?
I am happy to tell Deputy Kenneally——
The Einstein of the Left has spoken.
Deputy Cowen is back with us again.
Deputy Rabbitte used to warm up for Proinsias at one time.
The legislation in which Deputy Kenneally has a deep interest will be available this week.
I call Deputy O'Dea.
The papers and the Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, said it was published.
This is not acceptable.
This is not acceptable from the Taoiseach——
Deputy Woods. I will not be ignored.
The Taoiseach had the effrontery to say——
I called Deputy O'Dea, Deputy Woods should resume his seat.
This is disgraceful, on a point of order——
There will be no point of order now. I am dealing with disorder.
On a point of order——
Deputy Woods should not seek to antagonise the Chair in this fashion. I shall not entertain a point of order when I am on my feet dealing with disorder from the Deputy.
It was not disorder.
The Government is not doing something that could be done.
I called Deputy O'Dea and he shall be heard.
I am surprised at Deputy Rabbitte's reference to the Dublin-West by-election when his party did not have the guts to field a candidate.
He was searching for documents in the Department.
Deputy O'Dea should ask something relevant to the Order of Business.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the Government stated publicly that the Control of Horses Bill has been published? He has now said that it has not. Has the Bill been published? A simple yes or no will suffice.
It is being delivered by Pony Express.
What is the Bill's status at this stage? The Government Information Service said it has been published but the Taoiseach does not know when it will be published.
It probably fell off the back of a lorry.
On a point of order——
Deputy Woods, please desist.
I want to make a point of order and the Chair is not on his feet now.
The Taoiseach does not know.
I will hear Deputy Woods's point of order later.
The Bill in its final form was approved by the Cabinet on Tuesday and is in the process of being printed. I said it would be available before the end of this week but I expect it will be available sooner, perhaps today. However, I cannot give the Deputy a categorical assurance as to the precise time the printed copy will arrive in the Deputy's pigeonhole in Leinster House. I ask the Deputy to contain his interest until the Bill arrives.
Last evening we began a debate on delivering better government. Does the Taoiseach intend to deliver a copy of the relevant document to Members so that they will be in a position to participate in the debate? Given that the debate has begun, I cannot believe that the document is not available and that is why I appeal to the Taoiseach to maintain customary order and dignity and afford normal courtesy to Members.
I am sorry that copies were not supplied to Deputies on publication. I very much regret this. It is a discourtesy that should not have occurred. The first priority for the receipt of all public documents of this kind is Members of this House. I very much regret that while copies were made available elsewhere, the print run was exhausted and, as a result, copies are not available at the moment for Members. I wish to assure the Deputy that action is being taken immediately to ensure that copies are made available to him and other Deputies as quickly as possible. I am sorry this happened. It should not have happened, and it will not happen again.
I would like to thank the Taoiseach for his assurance and trust that it will not happen again.
I thank the Taoiseach for the photocopy of the document. Will printed copies be made available to Members?
We will make photocopies available within an hour to any Member who wants one, but it is not satisfactory that Deputies should receive photocopies of documents. They should have received the original document initially. I have expressed my regrets to the House for the discourtesy involved. That applies to Members on all sides of the House.