Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 8 Apr 1997

Vol. 477 No. 2

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take the report from the Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy on the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1996 [Seanad] and No. 1, the Finance Bill, 1997 — Second Stage. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 10.30 p.m. and the Second Stage of No. 1 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 10.15 p.m. tomorrow night and the following arrangements shall apply: the opening speech of the Minister for Finance and of the main spokespersons for the Fianna Fáil Party and the Progressive Democrats Party shall not exceed 45 minutes in each case; the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed 30 minutes in each case; Members may share time; and the Minister for Finance shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed 20 minutes. Private Members' Business shall be No. 54 — Heritage and Cultural Events (Televisual Access Protection) Bill, 1997 — Second Stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There are two matters to be put to the House. Is the late sitting agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 1 agreed? Agreed.

During the short Easter recess the former Fine Gael Leader and Taoiseach and one of his leading backbenchers, Deputy Mitchell, have been taxing their minds and the country about telephone tapping. On 21 January 1983 the then Leader of this party called for a judicial inquiry into telephone tapping. On the same day the Government responded saying it believed a commission should also be set up. As the Government is so concerned about this matter — in view of the briefing being given — will it set up a judicial inquiry or commission to deal with it or is this matter being held up for some ulterior motive?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is this a matter for promised legislation?

There is no promised legislation on the matter.

There was.

I do not fully understand the references Deputy Ahern is making. He referred to a call by the Leader of his party in 1993——

It is not that far back.

A successful case was taken by two journalists against the State. If there had not been a reasonable basis for that case it would not have been successful. Clearly the procedures obtaining at that time deserved to be remedied and have been remedied since then. It is important that those who are charged with responsibility for protecting the public should have a measure of discretion, under proper control, to gather information in the most effective way possible to prevent crime. I remain to be convinced that a public inquiry would serve any great purpose at a time when the public is anxious that those whose job it is to prevent and detect crime should be able to do so, subject to proper controls, with the maximum freedom and resources.

If the Taoiseach comes to the conclusion we should have an investigation, an inquiry, a commission or any other investigation into this matter, he has my support. I would rather if he would speak with some of his back benchers who seem to think somebody on this side of the House has something to worry about. So far as I am concerned the events of 15 years ago are long past, but if the Taoiseach believes there is a necessity to investigate them further, he should go ahead and he will have my support.

I am not quite sure what references the Deputy is concerned about. Certainly I have no reason to wish to inquire into the activities of past Governments, including Governments involving the Deputy's party. I am willing to look at any bona fide case made for an inquiry but there have been court proceedings in one such case and a court settlement in another. That this happened clearly indicated there was something that ought to be remedied and, to the best of my knowledge, that has been remedied. I am not convinced, at this juncture at least, of the need for any further public examination of the matter beyond that which took place in the court in public.

When can we expect the legislation to put the hepatitis C tribunal on a statutory basis?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is this promised legislation?

That matter is at an advanced stage of preparation. The Minister for Health has brought proposals before the Government today, preparatory to the drafting of the relevant legislation. It will be brought forward soon. I cannot give the Deputy a precise date but the matter is receiving priority.

On that issue — the Health (Compensation Tribunal) Bill — I have just received the Government press release on the Bills it proposes to take before the summer recess. The Bill putting the compensation scheme for hepatitis C on a statutory footing is not on the list of Bills to be taken or published, before the summer recess. Will the Government decide to give this Bill priority so that it will be taken prior to the summer recess?

That the legislation does not appear on the list in appendix C does not mean it will not be published before the summer recess. It is our intention to publish it well in advance of the summer recess.

Why not include it in that list?

The Deputy can take it we are working on that basis.

It is the Government's list.

If the Deputy wishes to amend his copy of the list he can do so. We considered this matter this morning at the Cabinet. This legislation is receiving priority.

When does the Government intend to publish legislation to allow adoptees contact their natural parents and bring to an end the situation where people are cruelly misled and encouraged to grieve at the wrong graves?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is this a matter of promised legislation?

Work is being done on this legislation. It is the intention of the Minister of State responsible, Deputy Currie, to have legislation ready for discussion in the House in the second half of the year. Obviously there is a matter of the balancing of different rights and this needs to be dealt with with great care.

Does the Taoiseach agree with the views expressed by the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, on behalf of the Labour Party, that the President's reasons for referring the Employment Equality Bill to the Supreme Court were "entirely bogus"? If not, will the Taoiseach apologise to the President for the abuse of her constitutional right and prerogative to take such action and raise matter with the Council of State?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

Deputy McDaid has possibly misapprehended this matter. I am advised that the Minister criticised the views of a number of trade union leaders in respect of this matter and did not criticise the President. I advise the Deputy to refrain from making the President the subject of debate in the House.

The Minister in question intervened in a matter due to go before the courts.

When will legislation to dispose of shares in Aer Lingus be introduced, given that the company is in an advanced stage of concluding a deal on the matter? Is it the agreed policy of the three parties in Government to dispose of shares in this company?

It is desirable that Aer Lingus should make the necessary arrangements to place itself in as strong a position as possible, in terms of finance, logistics and alliances, to increase its business and defend the employment of those working within the company. That matter is currently under examination by the board of Aer Lingus and any legislation required to give effect to its decisions will be promptly introduced. However, at this stage there is no basis for introducing legislation because no agreements, the implementation of which would require such legislation, have been concluded to date.

Where stands the non-nationals Bill to deal with the citizenship and investment procedure? The Taoiseach and several Ministers are probably aware that certain investors in several companies are in danger of not being able to complete investment decisions. At least one large company contacted Government and Opposition in respect of a potential closure. It seems unfair that some of these companies should be left on the wrong side of the line as a result of a procedure taken in the Attorney General's Office in September last.

It is not a question of a procedure taken in any office. The position is that it is essential that any matter affecting citizenship, which is a valued right in any state, should be dealt with on the basis of a solid statutory footing. That is important in respect of any matter concerning the granting of privileges by any state. The relevant legislation is currently being prepared by the Minister for Justice on the basis of an agreed outline which was approved by the Government. It is likely that the legislation will not come before the House until shortly before the summer recess or early in the autumn session.

I received the same representations as the Government and, as I understand it, at least one major company, which has been a long-term employer in the State's textile industry for several decades, cannot carry out its business because its investor changed before 4 September when the Government decision was made and its closure is imminent. I believe that is the procedure. It is not for me to decide individual cases but it seems the technicality involving one particular company, which has lobbied several Ministers, should be considered sympathetically.

It is very important that any matter concerning the granting of the privilege of citizenship in the State should be dealt with on the basis of a clear and transparent statutory foundation. The Government is currently preparing legislation in this regard. Dealing with such important matters without preparing the necessary foundation would be hazardous from the point of view of all concerned. That is the basis upon which we are currently proceeding. I have no doubt many companies could benefit from investments but it is important that this should be done on the basis of a solid statutory footing or foundation and the Government is making preparations in that regard.

I would accept the Taoiseach's statement if 18 other companies had not got through on one basis and, because one investor changed, another did not. If, as the Taoiseach stated, that is the position, it is fine. No one will obtain citizenship for investment until legislation is introduced. However, the Taoiseach is aware that this is not the case.

The position in regard to the cases that were processed is that they had reached a point where commitments had been entered into. This overrode the issue to which I referred. However, for future cases, it is important that the matter be dealt with on the basis of a solid statutory foundation for the protection of all concerned. We do not want to be in a position where other interests, such as competitors, for example, might seek to unravel arrangements that have been made on the basis that due statutory procedure had not been followed. The Deputy will understand that everyone wishes to achieve certainty in a matter of this nature. That is why we are proceeding to establish a solid statutory foundation for it. If the Deputy wishes I can provide further information on this matter. I assure him that the Government is taking the appropriate action.

In view of the crisis faced by the beef industry and the financial ruin with which 100,000 farming families are confronted, do the Taoiseach or Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry intend to make a statement to the House about the action the Government proposes to take in respect of marketing our beef products or opening up the live export market?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That matter is not appropriate. The Deputy may pursue it by way of parliamentary question or otherwise but it is not a matter for the Order of Business.

I note the Taoiseach's silence on the matter in the House. This is the place to raise matters of this sort because people are facing financial ruin.

In support of Deputy Molloy, the Government made a specific commitment in Partnership 2000 which states:

The Government are committed to ensuring that any change in EU policy is achieved in a manner which protects the legitimate interests of Ireland's farming and rural communities and the food industry and, recognising the importance of agriculture and food to the national economy, the Government will seek to ensure that any change in supports and protections will be gradual, phased and compensated.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may raise that matter at a more appropriate time.

Is that document worth anything?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not raise the matter at this time.

This is a very important time. Is the document important to the Government?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has ruled on that matter. The Deputy may pursue it at another time but he may not do so now.

This matter is very important to the 100,000 farmers facing extinction.

In light of another recent syringe attack, when it is intended to take Second Stage of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Bill, 1997, which is a further monument to the year of the photocopier in the Department of Justice?

That legislation is before the House and it is a matter for agreement between the Whips as to when it will be taken. I assure the Deputy that the Government is anxious to have the legislation enacted as quickly as possible. We deplore the increased incidence of syringe attacks. Many of those using syringes as offensive weapons are not drug users but people who use the weapon as a means to obtain money under threat. It is an appalling crime which the Government intends to stamp out. I am glad we have the Opposition's support in that aim.

In the light of the Taoiseach's reply will he accept the concept of minimum mandatory sentencing which was proposed in the Fianna Fáil Bill and poorly copied subsequently?

What is the Government's position on the pending ambulance drivers' strike? Will the Minister for Health intercede before it occurs? My information is that the Army is to be called in when the ambulance drivers go on strike, yet it is the Army's view that it is not qualified to deal with the strike. Is it the Government's intention to allow the Army to take over the service if the ambulance drivers go on strike on 14 April?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has had much latitude on this matter. This is not the appropriate time to raise it.

It is less than a week away.

This is an important issue.

The Taoiseach will answer the question.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Taoiseach may not answer it.

He is allowing them to go to the brink.

Will the Taoiseach allow Government time to discuss the beef price collapse?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We must move on to the business of the House.

May I have an answer from the Taoiseach because the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry has gone to ground? Farmers have been let down time and again. Every Deputy has been approached on this issue in the past few days yet there is a deafening silence from the Government. Will the Taoiseach allow Government time to discuss it?

Barr
Roinn