It is proposed to take No. 5, Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1996 [Seanad] — Second and remaining Stages; No. 13, Motion re. Health Act, 1970; No. 8, Adoption (No. 2) Bill, 1996 — Second Stage; No. 6, An Bord Bia (Amendment) Bill, 1996 [Seanad] — Second and Remaining Stages. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. and business shall be interrupted not later than 12 midnight; (2) the Second and remaining Stages of No. 5 shall be taken today and shall be debated together with No. 13 and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 1.15 p.m. today by one question in the case of the proceedings on No. 5 which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Health and one question in the case of the proceedings on No. 13, such questions to be put from the Chair forthwith and successively; (3) the Second Stage of No. 8 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 9.30 p.m. tonight; (4) the Second and Remaining Stages of No. 6 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 12 midnight by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry; and (5) Private Members' Business shall be No. 34 — Motion re. crime and the proceedings thereon shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. tonight.
Order of Business.
There are five matters to put to the House. Is the late sitting to midnight satisfactory and agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with Nos. 5 and 13 in respect of health matters satisfactory and agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 8, the Adoption (No. 2) Bill, 1996 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 6, An Bord Bia (Amendment) Bill from the Seanad, agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' Business this evening to conclude at 8.30 p.m. agreed? Agreed.
Now that the Second Stage of the Organised Crime (Restraint and Disposal of Illicit Assets) Bill has been passed, will the Taoiseach give some indication of the timetable for the Committee Stage? It is important that the Government give its backing through the Select Committee on Security and Legislation if we are to have the Bill back in the Chamber on 25 July. I understood from my contact with the Minister for Justice during the weekend that the Bill would pass Second Stage this week and would proceed to the Select Committee on Security and Legislation and that the Bill, in its amended form, would be returned to this House on 25 July for the remaining Stages.
Last night the Minister for Justice could only refer to everything that was bad about the Bill, saying it was unworkable and perhaps unconstitutional. The Taoiseach has been constructive and agreed to Second Stage of this Bill being taken in Government time, so I will not start arguing about it.
Last year the Fianna Fáil Party introduced the Misuse of Drugs Bill——
Let us not have a rehash of last evening's debate.
I will be very brief.
The first matters referred to by the Deputy are quite in order.
The excellent Misuse of Drugs Bill left this Chamber and was buried in a committee.
In a spirit of co-operation we have agreed to many matters this morning but there is no point in agreeing to burying a Bill in a committee. I was in the Chamber for most of the debate except for one hour and ten minutes. The Minister for Justice seemed to miss one point. She continually referred to the commission——
It is out of order to have a rehash of the debate of last evening.
She continually said that the provisions of the Bill were already in legislation. There is legislation that deals with the situation when charges have been served or there is intent to serve charges, but our Bill deals with the situation when no charges have been served but the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners or a Garda chief superintendent is that the assets are illicit.
The legislation has a long way to go in this House, through Committee and Final Stages.
The Minister either does not understand or seeks to misrepresent the situation. Will the Taoiseach confirm that we are still working to complete the Fianna Fáil Bill in amended form by 25 July 1996?
When I announced that the Dáil would be recalled on 25 July to consider measures affecting crime, I wanted measures that not only were pointed in the right direction but would actually work in practice, would be the basis for successful prosecution or administrative action and would comform with constitutional requirements. That overriding requirement remains. There are, as the Minister for Justice outlined — and this is no criticism of the Opposition — major flaws in the Bill which was produced at comparatively short notice. It was understandable that there should be such deficiencies. It is the Government's intention to remedy those deficiencies. We are working towards a programme of having the matter debated in the House again on 25 July. This will involve an intensive schedule of work in the relevant committee in the meantime. Arrangements will be made to that end with the committee. The overriding consideration has to be that whatever proposals we pass, regardless of their original author, they must be satisfactorily workable.
I agree with the Taoiseach but we will have more than adequate time between now and 25 July to resolve that issue. If one works from the basis of what is constructive rather than destructive, it would be a great help to the House. We will work on that basis. Will the Taoiseach arrange for the Whips to meet today to work out a timetable? Is it proposed to take any other business on 25 July.
It is not necessary for the Deputy to raise the matter of a meeting between the Whips. A meeting will be organised today.
I wish to refer to the details of the legislative package announced by the Government but before doing so I express my surprise and disappointment that no member of the Cabinet was present in the House last night when the Private Members' motion was discussed.
There was.
I am sorry but no member of the Cabinet was present for the entire discussion.
Is the Deputy now a member of the Cabinet?
The Minister was present for most of the debate.
Cynical opportunism.
Last Thursday when the Taoiseach looked to the Opposition for assistance he promised he would listen carefully to what it said. He referred to the need for workable legislation. In Opposition he championed the cause of Dáil reform and said he wanted to make the House relevant but he will not do so by calling a press conference at 8 p.m. to announce Government proposals. When the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, then Minister for Health, published the Kilkenny incest inquiry report in the Shelbourne Hotel on 18 May 1993 the Taoiseach rightly expressed his concern that the House was being ignored. What happened here last night was a disgrace and leads me to the conclusion that the Government is more interested in PR.
The Deputy has no interest in it.
I dissuade the Deputy from making a speech.
It did everything it could to avoid a vote on the issue of crime this week. When an opportunity presented itself to sit in and listen no member of the Cabinet was present for the entire discussion on the Private Members' motion.
The Deputy wanted to move a motion to shut down the Dáil.
The Deputy should desist from making any further comments by way of speech.
I will not be intimidated from the Government benches in raising matters of legitimate interest both inside and outside the House.
Where is Deputy McDowell this morning?
Where are Deputies Deasy and Shatter?
Perhaps the Minister of State will listen to Deputy Shatter, if he does not want to listen to me.
He is defending criminals.
Does the Minister of State not believe they should be defended? I thought we were talking about civil liberties. It is my duty to remind the Taoiseach of the great promises he made. If the Tánaiste was sitting in this seat, I would love to hear what he would have to say. In the forthcoming referendum will a single issue be put to the people or will other issues be put to them? Has a precise date been agreed and when can we expect the proposed legislation?
As the House is aware, all members of the Government were involved yesterday from early morning until 3.30 p.m. in meetings with the European Commission. As a result the Cabinet meeting which normally takes place on a Tuesday morning was deferred until 5 p.m. At that meeting we considered the major crime package subsequently announced. There was no other time to announce it other than immediately after the meeting, if it was to be announced at all.
Why was it not announced in the House at 8 p.m. after the Cabinet meeting?
The announcement was made at 7.30 p.m. It was appropriate to announce it in detail at the earliest possible moment.
The Minister could have announced it in the House when she spoke on the Fianna Fáil Bill.
The interruptions should cease.
I am surprised that the Deputy and others who have been looking for a package of this kind should adopt what I regard as a somewhat petty attitude this morning.
This argument should cease.
If the Dáil is relevant, why did the Minister not make the announcement here?
This is not Question Time.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the arguments he advanced against the Organised Crime (Restraint and Disposal of Illicit Assets) Bill, 1996, were advanced against the bail Bills which Fianna Fáil introduced last year and which are now being adopted by the Government? In that context is it the Government's intention to do with the organised crime Bill what it did disgracefully with the Misuse of Drugs Bill? It took a poorly watered down version of Part I and presented it as the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Bill, 1996.
The Deputy's language is intemperate. The position is that the Deputy and others have been looking for an approach where all views are taken into account. If their views are to be taken into account on a matter such as this, they must be willing to listen to other concerns. The use of language such as "disgraceful" suggests that there may be more than a little opportunism in the Deputy's approach.
I welcome the Government's acceptance of the argument that the right to silence in drug trafficking cases should be curtailed. The appropriate amendment was moved yesterday to the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Bill. Does the Government intend to introduce similar proposals in relation to other serious crimes apart from murder and drug trafficking?
I am sorry, this is not Question Time.
It relates to the Government's package of proposals. It has promised to introduce legislation to deal with this matter.
Is the Deputy referring to specific legislation?
It was announced yesterday as part of its package.
The package announced yesterday is part of an overall response to the issue. A number of other items are being considered by the Government. We will report on our further consideration of the matter as decisions are taken between now and 25 July and subsequently. It would not be appropriate, however, to comment on any particular potential additional measure until a decision has been taken.
Since we have had a surplus of Government opportunism on this matter is the Taoiseach willing to present to the Opposition the opinion of the Attorney General or any other outside advice he has taken in relation to the organised crime Bill?
The Government will present its legal view on the Bill in question to the committee when it considers the matter. The legal arguments the Government will advance will stand on their merits and will be seen to be valid by the Deputies participating in the debate. It will be open to Deputies to argue otherwise. We hope that in the debate a reasonable understanding will be reached across all parties on what is legally workable and unworkable.
The purpose of the Government is not to make the point the Deputy has been making of a partisan kind but to reach agreement on legislation which will work. Beneath some of the rather predictable remarks which have been made from the Opposition benches there is a genuine wish that we should as a group of political representatives act together in an agreed way to deal with crime. That is the approach the Government is taking. While we will put forward our legal reservations we will also be willing to listen to counter arguments from the Opposition on the legal issues in question.
Yesterday the Government said the Minister for Justice has been reviewing criminal law for the past year. Have any proposals come from that review and, if so, when will they be incorporated in legislation? When will the review come to an end or is it a permanent navel gazing exercise?
May I have an answer to my question about whether proposals have emerged and when we will see them in legislative form?
Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn should have let Deputy O'Dea into the Department on the odd occasion when she was Minister.
Can I take it no proposals have emerged from this year long review and that we will not see any legislation?
What did the Deputy do for eight years?
The Minister for Justice said — Deputy O'Dea probably knows this but I understand his need to put the question —that a process for an annual review of criminal law has been instituted and a crime (miscellaneous provisions) Bill will be introduced at least once every 12 months. The criminal law is live and given that new precedents, judgments and problems arise all the time it is necessary to have a mechanism at least annually to deal with any difficulties which arise. The first annual criminal law revision Bill will be presented to the House on 25 July in the form of the Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Obviously, we will seek to include as many reforms as possible in it. We will have available to us a mechanism for the ongoing review of the criminal law to deal with any problems which arise — new precedents are set every day in the courts — and which cause difficulties, or opportunities as the case may be, for those involved in law enforcement.
Will the Taoiseach make time available between now and the end of that session for a full Government statement on the Bord na Móna crisis, given that the questions the Minister has only now put to the company should have been put three months ago?
This matter does not arise now.
His Department has the answers to these questions and I suspect this is a device to avoid debate on the matter before the Adjournment of the Dáil. Will the Taoiseach make time available——
The matter raised by the Deputy is clearly out of order.
The Deputy achieved nothing when he held responsibility for this portfolio.
The board of the company has had 48 hours——
The problems in Bord na Móna can be discussed in many ways in the House but they cannot be debated now.
This is a device to avoid the matter before the Adjournment of the House.
On the question of the Attorney General's advices, it was agreed last week that it is important to address the constitutionality of legislation so that we have an effective response to the impact of organised crime. Will the Taoiseach further consider that request so that we do not have to wait until Committee Stage to hear the Attorney General's advices? Given that the Bill has been initiated by this side of the House — I acknowledged that it is unprecedented for Opposition legislation to be taken in Government time — it would greatly assist us if the Attorney General's advices were communicated to our spokesperson in writing in advance of Committee Stage. Obviously the priority is to ensure that the constitutionality issue is dealt with adequately.
The Deputy made that point recently.
If there is a counter point of view to ours — and I do not believe there is — we need to be aware of the Attorney General's advices before Committee Stage. Will the Taoiseach further consider this point so that the quality of the legislation will be what we wish it to be?
Last week the Deputy referred to the possibility of referring the Bill to the Supreme Court. As he was told on that occasion that is the sole prerogative of the Head of State. Obviously, she will take account of the discussions in the House but it is entirely a matter for her. I appreciate that the Deputy is putting forward this suggestion in a constructive way.
Any Deputy who has been in Government will know the Attorney General's advice is not made available to anybody other than the Government. This is a well established practice in terms of the relationship between the Government and the Attorney General who is the adviser to the Government on legal matters. The question of making the Opposition parties as fully aware as possible of the concerns about the Bill is a different issue and we will be as constructive and open as we can on it. As I have already indicated to Deputy O'Donoghue, I will ensure that the Government's legal views are communicated in the Select Committee in a very full and open way and that the Government will listen to any legally based counter arguments which may be advanced by others in the committee. At the end of the day, it is important that we work constructively to have a Bill which works. In that regard the Government will be as constructive and co-operative as possible with all Deputies in the House. I hope the matter can be dealt with in that way.
Will the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill be published a few days before the Dáil meets on 25 July so that Deputies on this side of the House can be constructive?
We are working on a number of proposals and it is our intention to give as much advance notice as possible to the Opposition in regard to all legislation to be considered on 25 July. I am sure we will not be able to give the customary 14 days notice sought but we will give as much notice as we can so that the legislation can be carefully considered. Bearing in mind that we are dealing with an urgent matter, I ask the Opposition to understand that the Government may not be able to give the extent of notice it may wish to give in every case.
Given that the Taoiseach will be the uncrowned king of Europe for the next six months, would it not have been appropriate last week to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the birth of Charles Stewart Parnell, the uncrowned king of Ireland? This important occasion seems to have gone by unnoticed.
This is a good question and it should be tabled accordingly.
It will be too late as another 150 year will have passed before it is answered.
As the Deputy is aware, both persons represented the constituency of Meath.
We heard the timetable for the debate on the organised crime Bill. Will the Taoiseach, as Leader of the Government, give the timescale for the ending of the débâcle in Bord na Móna? The Attorney General's advice is that the Minister cannot do what he would like to do. Will the Taoiseach confirm——
The Deputy is out of order and must desist.
The Minister said he would not interfere with the board but now he wants to change the motion.
Is it proposed to permit written questions at the special sitting on 25 July?
Yes.
In view of the national crime emergency, does the Taoiseach see any role for the Members of the Oireachtas? Given that he talked about joint agreements why was the Government not represented at the debate here last night? Why is it that the crime package, which he announced, was not circulated to the Members of the Oireachtas at this time of crisis? Is there any respect for Members?
The matter cannot be debated now. I am proceeding to the business of the House.
This is the third day of Ireland's EU Presidency and I wish to recognise that this is the first time the House has allowed the flag of the European Union to be displayed in the House which it will for the duration of the Presidency. It is an appropriate gesture by the House to recognise Ireland's role in Europe.
I asked a question and I have not received an answer.