It is proposed to take No. 18, Western Development Commission Bill, 1998 —— Second Stage (resumed); No. 3, Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Bill, 1998 — Second Stage (resumed). It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that any division demanded today on the Second Stage of No. 18 or No. 3 shall be postponed until immediately after the Order of Business on Tuesday, 13 October 1998.
Order of Business.
There is only one proposal to put to the House, the proposal for dealing with the postponement of any division. Is that proposal agreed?
Before we agree the Order of Business, will the Tánaiste give an undertaking that the Minister for Finance will respond here today to these very serious allegations made about the Revenue Commissioners and the role of the Central Bank in regard to what, effectively, is a defrauding of the taxpayer? This is a very serious matter.
The matter before the House is a proposal to postpone any division. Is that proposal agreed to?
Before we agree to the Order of Business I ask that the Tánaiste give an undertaking to the House——
The House is not required to approve the Order of Business. There is a proposal before the House.
The House is required to agree to a waiving of Standing Orders to facilitate the Government so that its Members do not have to vote on matters before the House today. Before we agree to facilitate the Government in this way, will the Tánaiste give an undertaking that the Minister for Finance will today facilitate the Opposition and the people by explaining why——
I must insist on order. We must deal with the proposal before the House first.
The difficulty is that this House becomes irrelevant if a story that has broken in a short space of time before the Order of Business is agreed has to be raised here. Will the Tánaiste indicate before we agree to today's Order of Business that she will ensure that the Government will allow time for this matter to be discussed in the House today? Otherwise we will have to wait until next Tuesday——
I will permit the Deputy to put that question when we dispose of the proposal before the House.
We want to get agreement from the Tánaiste before we agree to the proposal.
The proposal before the House has nothing to do with the Deputy's question.
It has everything to do with it because we will be bound by the Order of Business. If the Tánaiste were to agree to my suggestion, a time could be agreed by the Whips.
That proposal must be disposed of first.
The Tánaiste is offering.
It is important that order is preserved in the House. We are dealing with the proposal before the House.
I would like to be helpful to the House. The Government is concerned about these matters, as are all Members of this House. Obviously, the Minister for Finance cannot attend because he is at the annual meeting of the IMF and the World Bank in Washington.
The Tánaiste knew about it.
If the Whips agree, the Government is prepared to accept statements or, if the Ceann Comhairle agrees, Private Notice Questions. The Government will facilitate the House in whatever way necessary.
Today.
Deputies Quinn and Higgins (Dublin West) rose.
We must first dispose of the proposal. I will then allow questions.
The Tánaiste's comments are obviously progress. However, we are talking about blind robbery of the taxpayer.
Deputy Higgins, we will not discuss the matter now. I will allow brief questions once we reach the Order of Business. We are dealing with a proposal at present.
On the understanding that the Government——
The House will make progress if order is restored.
Will the Tánaiste vary the schedule for an early discussion on this matter rather than leaving it as the last item of business today?
Is it the case that the Tánaiste has given a clear undertaking to the House that Private Notice Questions will be accepted by her on this matter and that a member of the Government will answer those questions? Will there be an extended period of time, in so far as that is possible, for a debate this afternoon on the matter? Is my interpretation of what the Tánaiste is offering correct?
It would be better if, as the Tánaiste suggested, the Whips agreed to make time available for statements by the Government and the Opposition parties on this matter, followed by questions.
That is what the Tánaiste is offering.
I understand Private Notice Questions have been submitted to the Ceann Comhairle. It is a matter for him whether to allow those questions. If he allows them, the issue of statements does not arise.
The Tánaiste could take the initiative and offer time.
In the event that Private Notice Questions are not allowed, the Government is happy to facilitate statements. The Revenue Commissioners are independent in the exercise of their functions. The settlement to which reference has been made in recent days and which came to light in April this year was made under the regime of a different Government. I make this point in case anybody is seeking to implicate the Government.
However, the Government is concerned about the regulatory regime that applies to the financial services sector. It appears there is over-concern with monetary and prudential matters to the detriment of everything else. The Minister for Finance and I will shortly submit to the Government joint proposals on the need for an independent financial regulator. Those proposals will be discussed by the Government shortly. Deputies should be aware of this since it was the subject of some of the matters raised under Standing Order 31 this morning.
The Chair will give every consideration to Private Notice Questions. I understand one has been submitted already.
Deputies Owen, Quinn and De Rossa rose.
Three Deputies are on their feet.
Private Notice Questions——
Deputy De Rossa must understand that he cannot speak unless called upon by the Chair. I call Deputy Owen.
I understand the Tánaiste offered a specific time during the day for a discussion on this matter. However, she now appears to be falling back on the Ceann Comhairle's good will in terms of whether Private Notice Questions will be taken and suggesting that only then will the Government consider providing time. I ask the Tánaiste to be proactive on this matter and change the Order of Business to allow time today for statements on this matter followed by questions.
I agree.
The Government cannot fall back on the protection of the Chair, as it appears to be trying to do, on such a serious matter.
There should not be statements now, only questions.
Will the Tánaiste indicate the position?
The House is effectively discussing a change to the Order of Business. If the Tánaiste if offering, subject to the details being worked out by the Whips, some time later today for statements by a relevant Minister with an opportunity for Opposition Deputies to respond, followed by questions and answers, a format which is familiar to the House, then we will agree to the proposal and to the altered Order of Business.
That is precisely the point I raised in the first place. Will the Tánaiste provide time so the Government can explain the position, Opposition parties can have an opportunity to make statements and the Government can answer questions? In the course of this discussion, the Tánaiste appears to have shifted towards Private Notice Questions, but that will not permit the Opposition to respond to the Government's statement.
It is not for me to decide the rules of the House. That is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle. I understand Private Notice Questions have been submitted and it is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle to decide whether to allow them. If the Ceann Comhairle allows Private Notice Questions, the issue of statements does not arise. If such questions are not allowed, the Government is happy——
It does arise.
I agree it arises. The Tánaiste should be proactive.
The Tánaiste cannot do the Ceann Comhairle's job.
If Private Notice Questions are allowed by the Ceann Comhairle, it will not be necessary to also have statements.
That is where we differ.
Do Members want both or do they want questions and answers?
It is necessary for the Opposition to have an opportunity to respond to statements——
The Opposition did not have much of a response yesterday.
——and then to question the relevant Minister. This is what we are seeking. It is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle, not the Tánaiste or any other Member, to decide whether Private Notice Questions are taken.
Does the Opposition wish to withdraw its Private Notice Questions? If so, we can have statements and questions.
The Tánaiste has responsibility for ordering business today on behalf of the Government. If she clearly indicated, subject to the detail being agreed by the Whips, that there will be statements and questions and answers on this issue, my interpretation of Standing Orders is that any Private Notice Questions would automatically fall since the matter in question was being dealt with by a superior order of the House.
That is correct.
If the Tánaiste unequivocally states that it is the intention of the Government to order such time, the Chair is aware of its functions in relation to Private Notice Questions and that they automatically fall. The debate subsumes the content of the questions.
The arrangement of statements is a matter for the Whips.
Will the Tánaiste indicate whether she will talk to the Whips immediately after the Order of Business and make an arrangement for statements at 12 noon, 2 p.m. or another time today? The Tánaiste is aware that the Opposition must submit Private Notice Questions but it does not preclude the Government proactively making time available for a discussion. The Private Notice Questions system is not satisfactory for the Opposition because we can only ask a few supplementaries before the Chair stops us. The Minister can read a full reply but Opposition Members might only have the opportunity to ask two supplementary questions.
Wait until after 2.30 p.m. and put down Private Notice Questions.
Statements are a better way of airing this issue and allowing questions and answers.
Is this matter being taken up by the Whips?
In my view questions and answers are better. The Government will be delighted to facilitate the Opposition. We will be happy to have a discussion on this matter today.
With questions?
Yes.
It is a matter for the Whips to arrange the details. Is the proposal for dealing with the postponement of the divisions agreed? Agreed.
Item 21 on the Government's legislative programme, under the Department of Health and Children, is the Adoption Contact Register Bill. Will the Tánaiste ask the Government to bring this legislation forward to deal with the problem of children being offered for sale to adoptive parents? Will she ask the Minister for Health and Children to bring the legislation forward to close this loophole?
The Deputy is referring to the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children. The legislation is being prepared at present and is expected to be published by the middle of next year.
In view of the problem highlighted on a "Prime Time" programme last night, does the Government have any proposals to immediately introduce legislation to ensure children are not sold to adoptive parents and that anybody who is involved in such a practice will be criminalised?
The Government plans to deal with that matter in the Bill to which I referred. I understand that questions to the Minister for Health and Children on this matter have been tabled. The matter will be dealt with later today in the House. The legislation will be produced as quickly as possible.
In view of the speculation in today's newspapers about changes in Structural Funds, the allocation of moneys to the Republic of Ireland and our contribution to the budget of the European Union, will the Tánaiste indicate whether the Government intends to make time available next week or the following week for the House to debate the options open to us before any decision is made?
The matter should be discussed by the Whips.
Is the Tánaiste aware the plenary summonses she caused to be authorised on 12 October last year were not delivered until this week following the controversy in the House?
That matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
The Tánaiste was not always as shy.
Has the Tánaiste established who concealed the delivery?
The Deputy should find another way to raise the matter.
I was aware the matter would expire on Tuesday. It was on the Government's agenda for some weeks and it decided on Tuesday to proceed vigorously in this case.
I am glad the Tánaiste is at the Cabinet table.
In the past 48 hours I had the opportunity, with other members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, to meet the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. We have been promised a debate on Kosovo. Since there is conflicting advice at senior UN level on whether NATO air strikes would be the best solution to what is a humanitarian and human rights problem, will the Tánaiste ensure time is made available in the next week for a debate on Kosovo where the situation is dire?
I share the Deputy's concern. The Whips agreed last night to have a debate on the matter next Thursday.
There is urgency attached to the implementation of the legislation required to ratify The Hague convention. It should not be left until 1999 in view of the revelations of wrong-doing. The Government should consider bringing the legislation forward in the immediate future to regulate foreign adoptions.
It is the intention of the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, who will answer questions on the matter today to have the legislation which is complex completed as quickly as possible.
What is the position on live cattle exports to Libya?
The Deputy should table a question on the matter.
It is a serious matter. The Minister for Agriculture and Food indicated that the boats would sail last week. They may not sail at all now.
The Minister's boat has run aground.
What is the position on the mental health Bill?
I thought Deputy Connaughton would congratulate the Minister for Agriculture and Food on his success.
The Minister has had more success with the Iranians than the Libyans.
The Bill mentioned by Deputy Ryan is expected early next year.
Given media reports that charitable status may have been used to facilitate party political fundraising and the controversy surrounding the matter, has a date been set for the publication of the fundraising for charitable and other purposes Bill?
It is at an early stage of preparation. When a date has been set we will revert to the Deputy.
The Tánaiste is aware of the impending crisis at the Ferbane peat station in the midlands. I met all interested parties this week. There is widespread suspicion that, irrespective of the industrial relations issue, the ESB wishes to withdraw the £16 million investment. If this matter is not resolved at the talks, will the Government make time available next week for a debate on the issue given that a critical decision is due to be made late next week?
The Deputy should table a question, a Private Notice Question or seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment next week.
I tabled a Private Notice Question yesterday but it was ruled out of order.
We should not be asked to make time available to debate every single matter surrounded by controversy.
There are 300 jobs at stake in the midlands.
When can Members expect to receive a copy of the report of the review committee on hospital waiting lists on which the Minister for Health and Children has been sitting for the past three months? The matter is urgent.
That matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business. The Deputy should table a question.
Where is the Minister for Health and Children?
Deputies
He is sitting behind the Deputy.
Given the financial scandals and stories of fraud with which we are confronted almost weekly, is it the Government's intention to speed up the publication of the criminal justice Bill dealing with fraud offences?
The Bill will be ready in the first half of next year. I share the Deputy's concern. What has emerged recently about events in the 1980s and 1990s shows a society that is seriously dysfunctional. That is the reason the Minister for Finance and I will submit proposals to the Government in relation to a financial regulator to ensure such issues do not arise.
Last week at the Joint Committee on the Irish Language the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands outlined her views on the broadcasting Bill. She appears to believe it is not possible——
Does the Deputy have a question?
Given the technology now available, will the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands give a guarantee that the national television stations, RTE 1, Network 2, TnaG and TV3, will have primacy when the new satellite and cable digital systems become operational?
It would be more appropriate to table a question on the matter.
When will the protection of the financial interests of the European Communities Bill be published? Why was the Tánaiste under the impression that the Government had decided to seek recovery of the moneys defrauded in respect of the £70 million fine? Given the stance taken by her party over a period of ten years, will she press the Government to initiate actions in the courts in this jurisdiction to secure recovery of the moneys defrauded?
We are awaiting the enactment of EU regulations to determine whether domestic legislation is necessary. The second matter raised by the Deputy was dealt with in the House yesterday by the Taoiseach.
Very well.
May I draw the Tánaiste's attention to Question No. 80 on today's Order Paper in the name of her colleague, Deputy O'Malley, in which he asks the same question in relation to the beef irregularities that I have been asking for the past two days?
That matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
Will she arrange for a more productive reply to her colleague than I have received over the past two days?
That matter is not appropriate, Deputy.