It is proposed to take No. 3, Equal Status Bill, 1999 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage, No. 32, statements on Partnership for Peace – Kosovo, to be taken not later than 1.30 p.m. and the order shall not resume thereafter. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the following arrangements shall apply in relation to No. 32: the opening statement of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party shall not exceed 30 minutes in each case; the statement of each other Member called upon shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; Members may share time; and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed ten minutes.
Order of Business.
There is one proposal to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 32 agreed?
Is time being given to any of the parties who would have something critical to say about Partnership for Peace in this debate? The Green Party has been making points on this matter, so much so that, it seems, the Taoiseach wants us banned.
We cannot pre-empt that debate.
What time is available to parties other than Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and Labour?
The Taoiseach has read out the order.
I am asking for clarification of the order because it does not seem as if time is provided for parties other than the Government, Fine Gael and Labour.
The statements are not due to finish today; they are commencing today. Will the Deputy please resume his seat?
When the debate is resumed —
The Deputy is being disorderly. The debate will commence today at 1.30 p.m. or earlier but will not end today.
I am not being disorderly.
The Deputy has asked a question and I have clarified it for him.
Will the Taoiseach simply confirm that some time has been allocated to those parties who are opposed to PfP? Otherwise we will not have a debate in this House. The pro-PfP parties will come out and make their statements.
That is a nonsense and the Deputy knows it.
No, it is not.
Order, please. Will Deputy Gormley please resume his seat?
It is dishonest.
When the Chair is on his feet, Deputy Gormley will resume his seat. The Deputy is being disorderly. The question is: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 32 be agreed".
Vótáil.
Will the Deputies who are claiming a division please rise?
Deputies Gormley, Sargent and Higgins (Dublin West) rose.
The three musketeers.
As fewer than ten Members rose, I declare the question carried. The names of the Deputies who claimed the division will be recorded in the Journal of Proceedings of the Dáil.
This is not democracy.
(Dublin West): What about minorities?
The Deputy should resume his seat. He is completely out of order.
Is there a need to introduce legislation or is the Government seeking a derogation of the EU directive on the awarding of public service contracts? The Taoiseach when he was Minister for Finance signed the directive in 1992. The Taoiseach said yesterday that the Government would protect post offices throughout the country. However, the advertisement seeking tenders for the social welfare payments system appeared last February. Why did the Government not seek the advice it is now seeking on whether a tender must be put out when the advertisement was placed last February? Is the Government seeking a derogation from the EU directive which the Taoiseach signed as Minister for Finance in the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government in 1992? It is interesting that a Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government is trying to close down post offices now.
If I signed the directive in 1992, the Government of which the Deputy was part had an opportunity to change it, but it did not do so.
Does the Taoiseach remember signing it?
Does the Taoiseach know what he signed?
How can a directive be changed?
The Taoiseach without interruption.
No advertisement was placed. The indicative pre-notice, which is mandatory under EU law, was listed. No advertisement was placed and the matter is being considered by the Government and the Attorney General.
Why did the Government not get advice before now?
Why was the advice of the Attorney General not sought before the indicative notice was placed in newspapers? The Government is trying to catch up on something which is causing it great difficulty around the country. It is now kicking the matter into touch by asking the Attorney General for further advice. The Government should have sought this advice in February. According to one article, the Government has already got advice from the Attorney General. Obviously, it is ignoring it and seeking another time-consuming hiatus.
It will wait until 12 June.
The Deputy is extremely ill-informed.
As always.
If she had read a newspaper, she would be aware from leaks and aspects of the advice given by the Attorney General which are in the public domain that he outlined a number of options, including the fact that post offices could be considered on a social rather than a financial basis.
Deputy Owen rose.
We cannot have a debate on the matter. I will allow brief comments.
Why did the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs not sort out that matter before the indicative advertisement appeared in the newspapers? It is most incompetent behaviour. Why did the Minister not seek that advice last February before he caused a scare among people running post offices that they will lose the social welfare payments?
The Deputy would have accused the Government of interfering in the tendering process.
The way to do business is to get advice before one jumps.
The only scare is being created by Deputy Owen. There is no danger to rural post offices.
I am not creating it. The Government has changed its mind because of the elections.
I gave the Deputy ample latitude. We are dealing with the Order of Business and we cannot have a full scale debate on the matter.
Did the Taoiseach listen to Jim Gibbons?
Is a derogation being sought on the directive?
The Deputy should know about seeking the advice of the Attorney General. Remember the Lynch affair.
I gave the Deputy plenty of latitude. We cannot pursue the matter now by having a full scale debate on it. We are dealing with the Order of Business.
Is the Government considering introducing legislation under the postal section to refer to Article 6 of directive 92/50, which is the subject of this controversy, which would specify that An Post is required to provide under an administrative provision the service of social welfare payments? If such legislation was introduced, there would be no legal doubt about whether this was a matter for financial tendering or a social provision. I will not enter the controversy about how the Government has handled this but the fear of the closure of over 1,000 post offices was put on the public record by Ms Vera Hogan on behalf of the post offices, not by the Opposition parties. All of us want to maintain this provision and whatever level of incompetence rests with the Government, there is an avenue which could ensure and put beyond legal doubt the role of An Post. Has the Government considered the legislative measure I outlined, under Article 6, which provides for the derogation?
Deputy Quinn is correct, that is the crucial article. The Attorney General has been examining this issue for some time and has explored a number of options, one of which is whether it is possible to consider that rural post offices are providing this service on social rather than financial grounds. If it falls under financial regulations, one would have to follow the EU tendering position; if it is a social provision, one could take a different course of action. The Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs has addressed those issues in a memorandum and the Attorney General is looking at the legal basis. I do not know at this stage whether it will require legislation but the Government's intention has been to avoid losing the base of rural and urban post offices.
The Government has done its best to create that impression.
The matter could have been handed differently three years ago but unfortunately the then Government made a hospital pass.
No, the Taoiseach signed it. This should have been built in.
People want to hear only part of the story. I spoke to the president of the post masters' and postmistresses' trade union. The union was told the last time that this was the end.
The last Government got no legal advice.
The Government is trying to close them.
This issue was signalled three years ago and the then Government's position was that nothing further could be done.
We are getting the advice it did not get.
The Government will close them after 11 June.
I suggest that we stop playing games. There is a way to make this secure from any legal challenge. I invite the Government to introduce legislation, an option specified in Article 6, rather than an administrative regulation or order. To remove the uncertainty and address the issue, I ask the Taoiseach to include on the list of promised or desired legislation a Bill to clarify that the payment of social welfare moneys through An Post is a social rather than a financial service. That would put this beyond doubt.
If the indicative advertisement had not appeared, whatever its basis, concern and fear would not be expressed by people inside and outside this House who feel urban and rural post offices may close in various communities. The Government caused this scare by advertising before getting the advice it has now sought, and I welcome that it is correcting what it did last February. The Taoiseach signed the directive in 1992 and the legislation can be introduced. Instead of leaving this in limbo, why will he not introduce the necessary amending legislation to secure post offices as part of rural and urban communities for the future?
The indicative pre-notice advertisement is an obligation under EU law. The postmasters' and postmisstresses' union highlighted this matter long before the advertisement. They raised the issue for precisely the reason suggested by Deputy Quinn. On the last occasion no advice was sought and the action taken by the current Minister is in line with Deputy Quinn's suggestion. The last Government gave a three year extension and indicated that the contract would then go and the post offices would close. That is the way it was left and that is why there was concern.
That assumes An Post would not win the contract.
It assumes the contract would go to tender. That was clear when the costs were examined the last time – 80p as against 7p, the file is clear on that point.
That could not be anticipated.
The contract does not end until later in the year and the Minister has done precisely what Deputy Quinn suggested. He has sought an examination of how he could, under EU law, make this a social provision – which is what the Government wants – rather than a financial provision.
The Government is playing catch up.
When will we see the legislation?
Consideration of the matter is not yet complete, but that is what the Minister is trying to do. If he can do that he will proceed on that basis.
Does the Taoiseach share my view—
We must move on. I allowed Deputy Quinn and Deputy Owen to ask a final question and the Taoiseach replied. We have spent almost 20 minutes on this subject.
On promised legislation, the Taoiseach has not responded to the question I put to him. Does he consider that legislation to copperfasten the position is the proper step to take, rather than introduce regulations?
We already addressed that.
We cannot continue the debate but the Taoiseach may wish to make a final brief comment.
I repeat, that is precisely what the Attorney General is considering. It is one of the options.
Legislation is firmer.
On promised legislation, following clashes between Irish and Spanish vessels in March 1998, the Minister promised to amend the law to ensure that the Air Corps and the Naval Service could go outside the 12 mile limit and could deal with ramming and damage to fishing gear. Given the recent incident, has the Minister a timeframe for the introduction of amending legislation?
On a related matter, did the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources mislead the House yesterday when he said he had no jurisdiction over what happened 67 miles off the west coast? In The Irish Times today, Dr. Sym mons of Trinity College said we had every right to apprehend the vessel.
We arrested the vessel.
It was released afterwards. The owner of the Irish vessel had it rearrested.
It was fined £100.
The Minister was entitled to detain the vessel because it was engaged in an act of piracy under the UN Convention of the Sea, 1996. Did the Minister mislead the House in saying he did not have that jurisdiction?
Absolutely not.
As the Minister said, if the State had no jurisdiction it would hardly have arrested the vessel in those waters in the first place. The case is now with the DPP and the gardaí are prosecuting so I will say nothing about it. The question of legislation is being examined to see whether it can be done. That has been under examination by the Office of the Attorney General for some time.
The Government already has the power.
The Government indicated in March last year that the law would be amended.
On another matter, the most fundamental right of a Member of this House is the right to ask a parliamentary question. On yesterday's Order Paper a question of mine was down for answer today by the Minister for Defence but it has been removed from today's Order Paper. I know that a debate on Kosovo is scheduled for today, but that fundamental right should be defended and you, a Cheann Comhairle, should be its defender.
The Deputy should come to my office to discuss that, he should not raise the matter in this way.
On a point of order, every question on Partnership for Peace has been removed from the list for Question Time today.
That is because there is a debate on the matter.
Surely Question Time would add to the debate to be held later today.
The Chair must follow the rules of the House. What has been done is in order, according to the rules and precedent.
Ten questions have been removed from the Order Paper.
There is a debate on the subject.
Why can the Minister not answer the questions under his departmental brief?
It is not in order to raise these matters on the Order of Business.
No interpretation by any dictionary could state that a series of statements on a particular subject constitutes a debate. The word "debate" explicitly implies that there is dialogue, an exchange of views and a response to those views.
Fifteen questions were removed, including priority questions.
I put it to the Chair—
The Deputy is questioning Standing Orders. If the Deputy wishes to pursue changing those orders he should take it up at another time.
I am querying the interpretation of Standing Orders. It may be the convention that statements have now been construed as being similar to a debate for the purposes of the office for which the Chair has responsibility. However, that does not tally with the reality. Questions that were put down by Members, in order to inform themselves for a series of statements, have been pre-empted.
The questions were put down before the debate and they should stand.
The Deputy should pursue the matter by changing the appropriate Standing Order. That is the only way this can be done.
A Cheann Comhairle—
On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle—
The Deputies must resume their seats and proceed with the Order of Business. We cannot discuss the changing of Standing Orders on the Order of Business. It is out of order. There is a sub-committee to deal with Standing Orders and I suggest the Deputy take the matter up with that sub-committee. The Chair will—
I wish to respond, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Chair for that invitation but I do not seek to change the Standing Orders but the interpretation of existing Standing Orders.
On a point of order, the questions were already tabled before a debate was decided upon. Therefore, it is—
That is not a point of order.
—illogical for questions to be removed. It is different if they are put down afterwards.
We cannot continue with this debate. What has happened is in order under Standing Orders and precedent. The Deputy must resume her seat.
(Dublin West): Arising from the alarming report of the Environmental Protection Agency which shows a frightening one third of—
The Deputy must relate his question to the Order of Business and promised legislation.
(Dublin West): I was only on the short preamble to my question. Deputy Deasy was allowed to continue for five minutes and he was totally out of order.
Will the Deputy proceed with his question?
(Dublin West): I am in order. Deputies Deasy, Quinn and Owen were out of order for the past five minutes. I am only on a short prologue.
Deputy Higgins is also the leader of his party.
It is immaterial who is and is not in order. I am telling the Deputy to proceed with his question.
(Dublin West): We must stand up for minority rights.
The Deputy must proceed with his question.
(Dublin West): A frightening one third of some 13,000 kilometres of river channel has been shown to be polluted in the EPA report. That is a frightening statistic. What legislation is being brought forward in an urgent fashion to restore the rivers of this country to their natural state of cleanliness?
An Environmental Protection Agency (Amendment) Bill is due to be prepared later this year.