The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No.9a (i), Stamp Duties Consolidation Bill, 1999 – First Stage; No. 9a (ii), motion re. Second Stage of the Stamp Duties Consolidation Bill, 1999; No. 30, Companies (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1999 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; No. 3, Broadcasting Bill, 1999 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; and No. 1, National Beef Assurance Scheme Bill, 1999 [Seanad] – Second Stage. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 9a (i) shall be decided without debate and subject to the agreement of No. 9a (i), No. 9a (ii) shall be decided without debate. Private Members' Business shall be No. 75, motion re. agriculture (resumed), to conclude at 8.30 p.m.
Order of Busines.
1.
There is one proposal to be put to the House. Are the arrangements for dealing with items Nos. 9a(i) and 9a(ii) agreed?
I do not have a major problem with that. However, as regards prospective business, will the Tánaiste tell us if there will be a motion to appoint a new member to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine in view of the continuing concern—
That matter is not in order at this stage.
I am sure the Tánaiste will want to comment.
I am putting a proposal to the House. Are the arrangements for—
I am disinclined to agree with the proposal unless I get an answer.
The Deputy cannot raise matters which are obviously completely out of order.
The House is not a rubber stamp. We do not have to agree to this.
The Tánaiste seems uncomfortable.
The Order of Business is not the occasion on which to raise that matter. It is obviously out of order. Are the arrangements for dealing with items Nos. 9a(i) and 9a(ii) agreed?
We will agree to it for the moment.
Agreed.
Does the Tánaiste support Deputy Ellis continuing as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine?
I have ruled that this matter is not in order. It is clearly a matter for the committee, not for the Order of Business.
It is a matter for Fianna Fáil and they cannot make up their minds.
It is not a matter for the Order of Business. I have ruled the matter out of order. The Deputy should obey the Chair.
They are asking the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to act as leader of Fianna Fáil because the leader of Fianna Fáil will not do his job.
On the Protection of the Financial Interests of the European Communities and Administrative Fines Bill and with particular regard to the revelations of the "Prime Time" programme last night, when will this legislation be introduced? Will it have application in relation to the scandals revealed in last night's programme and has the Tánaiste spoken—
We cannot look for information about what is contained in the Bill.
—to her colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development about this disturbing matter?
The planning of legislation.
Consideration of this legislation has been deferred pending EU enactment of sectoral regulations to see whether domestic legislation is required.
In the light of last night's revelations, does the Tánaiste think it is proper that the Government should focus on prioritising this—
We cannot continue to debate this matter.
—legislation to bring accountability into the administration—
Deputy Owen on the Order of Business.
On that matter, will the Tánaiste speak to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development about putting an end to the disgraceful waste of taxpayer's money on vindictive litigation—
That is not a matter for the Order of Business.
—that has been going on for seven years. The Minister, Deputy Walsh, is standing at the top of it.
(Interruptions).
We cannot discuss the matter now. The Deputy should resume his seat.
On a separate matter—
I have not called the Deputy. I call Deputy Owen. Deputy Rabbitte should resume his seat, I will call him later.
Yesterday, in response to my colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, the Taoiseach said there is no specific requirement for legislation on a single financial regulator. Yesterday at a committee of the House, staff from the Tánaiste's Department gave us a good briefing and clearly indicated legislation was being considered for the appointment of a single financial regulator, on a greenfield basis or using the Central Bank structures. Legislation is required. Will the Tánaiste explain exactly what is required in order to implement the McDowell report? Is she taking advice from the Attorney General on this matter?
We cannot discuss what is required, all we can ask is—
The Taoiseach said there is no specific requirement for legislation on this matter. The Tánaiste's staff gave a different view at the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business yesterday. As the Tánaiste is taking the Order of Business, perhaps she will clarify the position of the single financial regulator.
On the timing of the promised legislation.
Obviously the need for legislation only arises if we implement the McDowell report, either in full or in part. The Minister for Finance and I have had a number of discussions about this matter and we will shortly be bringing a memorandum to Government. Obviously there may well be a need for legislation in this area, it depends on the decisions we make.
Has any decision been taken as to what form the new single financial regulator will take? Has the Tánaiste won the argument with the Minister for Finance?
We cannot discuss what form legislation will take.
I note that the Fine Gael Party wants to leave things as they are. I saw the statement from Deputy Noonan in this regard, so clearly Deputy Owen supports the position adopted by her colleague.
We have a position while the Tánaiste does not.
I do actually.
What is it?
We cannot go into a discussion on this matter.
What is the Tánaiste's position?
The reason we—
The Chair has ruled that we cannot go into a discussion on this matter. We are on the Order of Business.
The Ceann Comhairle is very kind. They are not children.
What is the Government's position, or if the Tánaiste cannot tell me that, what is her position, on the promised legislation in respect of setting up a separate agency, outside the aegis of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, to handle the administration of Feoga and other funding? I pose the question having regard to the ongoing disgraceful waste of taxpayers' money that is going on in that Department with the apparent knowledge and collusion of the Minister.
Questions about the position or the policy of the Tánaiste are not in order on the Order of Business, although the Deputy can raise a question on the timing of legislation.
The Bill on the administration of Feoga funds was promised on the legislative list. In addition, a date was given by the Taoiseach in the House and at other forums outside the House. Now it has dropped off the list.
Was that in 1996? Who was in Government then?
The Minister is very bad with years. Anyway, he ought to remember things. Is that legislation being restored to the legislative schedule of the Government?
As the Deputy knows, there is a commitment in the programme for Government to set up an independent agency to administer Feoga grants. The review of the programme for Government, which will be published today, reiterates that commitment. As the Taoiseach said yesterday, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development will shortly be bringing a memorandum to Government – I understand before Christmas – on this issue.
Last Christmas the Tánaiste said that would be the last time there would be queues in this city for taxis. When will the Road Traffic Bill come before the House? Will it deal with this issue and will the Tánaiste keep to her word?
We cannot discuss what the Bill will deal with, just when the Bill will be introduced.
Deputy Mitchell is right. I expressed the hope that it would be the last Christmas. He will see in the programme for Government review, to be published this afternoon, that there are commitments in that regard.
The Tánaiste should come over to St. Stephen's Green with me at 5 o'clock this evening and talk to the people queuing there for taxis.
Two and a half years ago there were queues as well, Deputy.
But they are still there and the Tánaiste has been two and a half years in office.
The Deputy is a member of Dublin Corporation which has responsibility for this matter.
The Tánaiste has not dealt with the matter. People cannot get taxis.
The Deputy has been afraid to stand up to vested interests in Dublin Corporation. The middle of the year 2000—
Another promise.
Is the Tánaiste aware that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government has promised on many occasions to introduce whatever legislation is necessary to meet our commitments under the Kyoto agreement? How will increasing train and bus fares help us to meet those commitments? Surely it will result in even more traffic chaos.
These matters cannot be discussed.
Five pence.
Five pence is an awful lot to some people.
It should be reduced, not increased.
On your bike.
How can these increases be justified? Five pence means nothing to the Minister.
(Interruptions).
The Deputy should resume his seat.
Mr. Hayes
The Deputy is being heckled by the Minister for Public Enterprise. The Minister is on tablets.
On promised revised Estimates, when will the Estimate for the Chief State Solicitor's office and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions be brought before the House? Will it deal with the scandalous shortage of stenographers which had consequences in the result of a court case and a statement from the Director of Public Prosecutions yesterday?
I understand the matter was referred to the committee yesterday.
I share the Deputy's concern that it took so long to get the transcript from the criminal trial in the Wall case.
They should speed up the courts.
The court service will be established next Tuesday to deal with this and other issues to ensure we have a more efficient administration of the courts. I understand that the Estimate the Deputy referred to was referred to committee yesterday.
Is that a commitment from the Tánaiste that scandalous delays of the nature we have seen in the Wall case will not happen again?
We cannot go into the detail of that matter.
Is the Tánaiste giving that commitment?
(Dublin West): Will the Tánaiste tell taxpayers today – not in five years' time – what the Government will do about the multi-million pound rip-off of taxpayers' funds in the Emerald Meats affair, or is a cartel—
This matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
(Dublin West): People want to know today. The country is talking about it.
The Deputy should resume his seat and must find other ways of raising the matter.
The closing date for receipt of submissions to the commission on the private rented sector was two weeks ago. Will there be legislation in the lifetime of this Government to protect the rights of tenants in private rented accommodation?
There is nothing promised at the moment. As I understand it, the commission will report by June next year. It obviously depends upon what the commission suggests in that report.
My question was, will there be legislation in the lifetime of this Government?
We cannot take the matter any further at this stage.
In her capacity as Leader of the House, will the Tánaiste intervene to have a special meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, currently chaired by Deputy Ellis, to consider the Emerald Meats revelations?
Surely she is not disinterested.
It is a matter for the committee itself.
Will the Tánaiste intervene so that we will not have disorderly discussion here but will have an orderly discussion on the committee so that the Emerald Meats case can be considered by a committee of this House?
That is not in order on the Order of Business. That is a matter for the committee itself.
In view of the fact that this matter has been raised by all the Opposition parties, will the Tánaiste, as Leader of the House, ask the committee to convene to consider the matter?
I have ruled on that matter. That concludes the Order of Business.