It is proposed to take item 1, the Central Bank Bill, 1996, Order for Second Stage and Second Stage and Private Members' Business, item 32, motion 14 concerning defence policy.
Order of Business.
I welcome the Taoiseach's support for Mr. John Hume's initiative. Will he agree the Mitchell principles are a sufficiently demanding test of adherence to exclusively political means? Will he also agree that far from trying to delay Sinn Féin's entry into the talks, we should get it to sign up formally to the Mitchell principles thereby binding it to the same rules as everyone else? Will the Taoiseach agree that the Mitchell principles were designed, among other things, to get over difficulties and obstacles in the peace process? Will he also agree that by pressing Sinn Féin to push the IRA to announce a ceasefire and thereby sign the Mitchell principles, we can get over the many obstacles before us?
That is not appropriate to the Order of Business, but the Taoiseach may wish to respond.
An IRA ceasefire is important because it is the means by which we can have all party negotiations, including Sinn Féin. It is important that the ceasefire is unequivocal and one on which there is no going back. It is important that is made clear in the way in which it is framed, if it occurs. It is for the Republican movement to convince us in the terms it uses, that a restored ceasefire is unequivocal. As the Tánaiste said, the terms of an announced ceasefire will be an important and decisive factor.
It is important to realise that it is not wise to think in terms of creating a new peace process as some people have suggested. A peace process and a talks process is already available. The current talks process represents the result of painstaking work over many months. It contains a number of elements which did not exist in any previous talks process such as independent chairpersons, ground rules which are fair to all and a sufficient consensus rule which does not allow a majority to overrule the views of a minority. The process is designed to facilitate the inclusion of all parties, including Sinn Féin, and as Deputy Bertie Ahern said, transition from policies which included the use of violence to policies which exclude it. It is with such care that the Mitchell principles were devised.
I hope we will have a ceasefire which will enable the discussion to include all parties. Everybody must exercise his responsibilities in this matter and make the necessary efforts to understand and accommodate the concerns of others and to deal with their fears. In that regard, the efforts made by Mr. John Hume, in particular, to bring about a ceasefire have been helpful and useful and have the full support of the Government. His efforts are continuing with the constant involvement and support of the Government.
I join the Taoiseach in hoping there will be a renewed IRA ceasefire. There was never any justification for violence nor is there now. It is time the Republican movement made up its mind and chose between politics and violence. These are not interchangeable tactics. We have all party talks and it is important that nobody has a veto in that talks process, whether it is the Provisional IRA or the Unionists. It is equally important that the process is not stalled and that it moves on to deal with the substantive agenda. There is a huge onus on the constitutional parties to ensure that process works because when constitutional politics fails, the vacuum is inevitably filled by the men of violence who use it as an excuse. Mr. John Hume, the two Governments and everyone involved have our support in seeking a full restoration of the ceasefire so everyone can be at the talks which is what we always wished. People have excluded themselves from the talks because of their support for and continuous condoning of violence as a way to achieve their political ends.
I welcome what the Taoiseach said. When he referred to people speaking about a new process, he did not talk about anyone on the Fianna Fáil benches because we did not refer to that. Many people outside the House continuously talk about the word "permanence". The Mitchell principles are the new factor. If there is a ceasefire, the IRA, or Sinn Féin being its political representative, would have to sign the Mitchell principles which would link it to paragraphs 32 to 38 of the principles. It is not necessary to argue about these issues as we did in the spring and autumn 1995.
I was not referring to any party in the House when I spoke about people talking about recreating a new peace process. As every party in this House recognises, we have open to all a peace process and a talks process into which a great deal of work has gone, founded on the Mitchell principles and the ground rules document. No aspect of the problem is excluded in discussions and no party has a veto on what may be discussed.
The passport for entry into the talks is the abandonment of violence. There cannot be a two track process where violence is used part of the time or its use is retained as an option. The Mitchell principles clearly exclude any option for any participant to revert to violence at any time. They are unambiguous and exacting in the demands they make on those who sign up. The Mitchell principles are not an empty formula; they are extremely demanding and require wholehearted commitment. Once that commitment is made, the talks process is open. It is a fully inclusive process from which no subject is excluded.
Report Stage of the Telecommunications (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will be taken in the House tomorrow. The Bill seeks to reduce the number of worker directors in Telecom Éireann by almost half. Will the Taoiseach make the contract available to this House before the section of the Bill which effectively sells off 20 per cent of the company for a derisory price is agreed tomorrow? It would be scandalous for us to proceed with this legislation without the House having seen the details of this proposed sell off and without knowing the exact price and the conditions involved. Are we to proceed with this sale which reduces the involvement of the worker directors in the company without the House seeing the documents affecting it? It is a derisory price by international standards.
The Deputy has made his point. I do not know whether that is a matter of promised legislation.
It is not promised legislation because the legislation is before the House.
Last week I raised with the Taoiseach the proposed legislation to establish a food safety authority and he said it would be available as soon as possible. Given the widespread public concern about food safety, will the Taoiseach ensure the reports available in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry will now be published? Will he accept it is not good enough that these reports are leaked and it is important the public should have all the available knowledge in relation to these matters?
To keep the public fully informed all residue testing by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry or any other relevant agency for the purposes of establishing the safety of food will henceforth be published on a quarterly basis up to date so that the information will be promptly accessible to the public.
Will the reports the Department has to date now be published?
I am anxious to give comprehensive answers here but I am also constrained by the fact that this question has been put to me without any particular notice; this is not Question Time to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. My understanding is that all the relevant information will be published promptly.
The programme for Government promised openness in all public affairs. Is the Taoiseach now telling the House that shares held by a Minister on behalf of the people which are now to be sold off for a price equivalent to approximately three times the annual profits, given that MCI and BT——
This is not the appropriate time to debate the matter.
Under the new Standing Orders we can raise matters promised in the programme for Government, something we could not do previously. Openness was promised in the programme for Government. Is the Taoiseach now standing over a deal which sells off shares in Telecom for three times the profits, given that MCI and BT are being sold for 12 times the profits?
That matter is not relevant to the Order of Business. The Deputy will have to raise it at another time.
Does the Taoiseach stand over the programme for Government which promised openness in all matters, particularly those of a financial nature? Is the Taoiseach saying "yes" or "no"? Surely the minimum we can expect from this Government——
I am proceeding with the Order of Business.
Can we see the contract?
Is the Taoiseach standing over a deal which sells a State company for three times the profits? Can we see the agreement?
It stinks.
Are we not getting a copy of this agreement?
Deputy McCreevy asked the question I wanted to ask. Does the Taoiseach intend to comment on this? Is it not reasonable to expect the House to see the contract before we pass the legislation?
He is hiding the contract.
If the Government does not have anything to hide, it should publish the contract. It was done in the case of Irish Life.
We may not deal with the matter now. This is the Order of Business.
These are shares held by the Minister on behalf of the people.
If we do not proceed with the Order of Business in an orderly fashion I will bring it to a conclusion.
Given that in the case of Greencore and Irish Life all the details were made known, will the Taoiseach at least tell the House the inhibition that was put in the secret contract with the partners to buy Telecom on the further sale of Telecom shares?
He may not at this time, Deputy.
We cannot sign blank cheques for the Government.
Deputy McDowell will now desist and raise this matter at a more appropriate time. We will not proceed to debate this issue.
My question relates to this issue. It relates to the time schedule governing this Stage of the Bill. This is a scandal and the Taoiseach should comment on the reason he will not——
The Deputy can raise the matter at a more appropriate time. We are dealing now with matters relating to promised legislation.
My question relates to the Order Paper. We need more transparency. This legislation is before the House. It will conclude tomorrow and unless we have some agreement that the Government will be more transparent on this issue——
The Deputy is wasting his sweetness on the desert air.
What happened to the pane of glass?
Will the Taoiseach agree to defer Report Stage of the Bill until this mystery is cleared up?
What mystery?
Something stinks here and the Taoiseach knows about it.
On a point of order, the issue in relation to this Bill was put to the Whips last week. I did not agree to take the Bill in the time being provided and I am putting the Taoiseach on notice that we will not agree to taking it until we get answers to the questions put by all parties on this side of the House.
The matter can be pursued by the Whips.
Somebody in the Labour Party or Democratic Left might be interested in it also.
Will the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste agree to our proposal to retain four worker directors in Telecom?
The Taoiseach has forgotten about that.
The Government is selling the company overseas and firing worker directors. That is some Government.
On the question of commitments in the programme for Government to education for travellers, will the Taoiseach take steps to ensure the Minister for Education meets the traveller movement——
Thank you, Deputy Martin.
For three years these people have sought a meeting and the Minister has refused to meet them.
On promised legislation, when is it proposed to introduce legislation on the working time directive?
We hope to be in a position to bring that legislation before the House within the next month or so.
For Christmas?
Two weeks ago the Taoiseach promised me this legislation would be produced in two weeks' time. That contradicts the reply he has just given to Deputy O'Rourke.
Is there dissent in the Cabinet on this matter?
Does the Taoiseach wish to comment further on the question concerning promised legislation?
Deputy O'Rourke is trying very hard.
The Taoiseach is very trying.
She is exhausting herself trying to find dissent in this Government.
It will take a while to exhaust me.
The Deputy will be tired out if she continues to worry. I advise her and her colleagues to relax and look forward to Christmas. The Deputy needs to have a positive mental attitude.
The working time directive is scheduled to clear the House by 24 November. If it is being delayed until next year, that is new information to the workers and employers who are interested in it. Legislation covering superannuation for State workers, including the Civil Service, local authorities, health boards, the Garda Síochána, the Army and others, provides that whenever a grade gets an increase relevant pensioners also get it. It has been brought to my attention by many Fianna Fáil Deputies that various grades of staff have been told that, regardless of what is achieved in the negotiations taking place under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work on restructuring, pensioners will not receive their increase. One letter from the Department of Health to our spokesperson, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, and other letters I have seen make it clear that there is uncertainty in this regard. This is creating great anxiety for pensioners and widows and widowers of pensioners. Will the Minister clarify the matter? It would require legislation to make a change and that is why I ask about it on the Order of Business.
No legislation is promised on this matter. If the Deputy wishes to pursue it, he should put down a parliamentary question. I will, however, endeavour to get such information as I can on the matter for him. On the working time directive, there may be a slight variation between what I said last week and what I said today in terms of when the Bill will be brought forward, but there is no significance in that. The legislation is at an advanced stage.