The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 42, statements on the ASSEM 111 Summit in Seoul, South Korea; No. 1, Trinity College, Dublin (Charters and Letters Patent Amendment) Bill, 1997 – Report and Final Stages, in accordance with the Order of the Dáil on 25 October; No. a2, Irish Film Board (Amendment Bill, 2000 [Seanad] – Second Stage; No. 2, Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, 2000 [Seanad] – Second Stage; No. 43, Statements on the National Development Plan to be taken not later than immediately following the announcement of matters on the Adjournment under Standing Order 21 and the order shall not resume thereafter. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) the proceedings on No. 42, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion after 70 minutes and statements shall be confined to the following Members, who shall be called upon in the following sequence, and the following arrangements shall apply; (i) the statement of the Taoiseach and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case; and (ii) a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed ten minutes; and (2) the proceedings on No. 43, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 4.45 p.m. and the following arrangements shall apply; (i) the statements of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; (ii) the statement of each other Member called upon shall not exceed five minutes; and (iii) Members may share time.
Order of Business.
There are two proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with item No. 42 agreed?
(Dublin West): I wish to protest as the Taoiseach has made no provision for any other Deputies elected to this House other than Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour Party Members, which is quite unjust. I will not make a major issue of the matter this morning. However, I would say to the Taoiseach that there are other voices in this Dáil which do not belong to these parties and who must have the right to express their views on critical international or national issues. This matter should be taken into account and provided for in the future.
Is the proposal for dealing with item No. 42 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with item No. 43 agreed?
No. The idea that we would have a debate where Members would be confined to five minutes, and which would be all over in approximately one hour, about the Government's greatest failure to deliver a decent infrastructure for our people is not acceptable. The Irish people are in despair at the Government's failure to provide adequate facilities for traffic, adequate public transport and adequate servicing for housing land. As that is what the debate is about, there should be no time limit placed on it. Members should not be confined to five minutes as people have much more to say about this appalling failure of the Government.
Is the proposal agreed?
No.
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas. |
Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel. Tá–continued |
O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick. |
Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
|
Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis J.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe. |
Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.Mitchell, Gay.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Penrose, William.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Spring, Dick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Yates, Ivan. |
In light of the recent judgment in a libel case where the Oireachtas was criticised for the absence of guidelines for juries on the scale of damages in particular cases, does the Government intend to provide for this matter in legislation it is bringing before the House?
The defamation Bill is at an early stage of preparation but I am not sure if that matter is covered. I will pass on the Deputy's comments to the Minister.
As the Taoiseach may or may not be aware, the lack of guidelines for jurors in regard to the scale of damages was the problem in this case which received a certain amount of prominence. I understand the libel laws as such, the issue of what constitutes libel and so on was not in dispute, only whether the damages were proportionate. Will the Taoiseach ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who presumably is familiar with the legislation as he is preparing it, whether it deals with this issue?
The Minister has told me it does not. I understand the Supreme Court made it known that it was considered excessive and the case was sent back to the High Court. The Act is in the early stage of preparation. It does not cover that issue.
That is very costly for everybody.
Does the Taoiseach consider the statement issued by the IRA to be sufficient to meet the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement so that the Executive can continue to do its work and the bodies associated with the Agreement can proceed to consolidate the progress that has been made?
A number of developments can be seen as positive. The programme for Government, which has been produced by the Executive in recent days, the budget for next year, which the Executive has agreed, the Executive work programme and the level of co-operation within the Executive are strengthening the institutions. This view is widely held throughout Northern Ireland and is well presented in this morning's Belfast Newsletter editorial which takes a positive view of all that is happening.
There are still some negative elements. Yesterday's statement and actions are helpful. I would like to see full engagement between General de Chastelain and the republican movement. Nevertheless the outlook is positive. It would be unthinkable that anyone would try to undermine these positive elements.
I agree with what the Taoiseach has said about the positive steps which are being taken, both within the Executive and with regard to the inspection of arms dumps. Would the Taoiseach agree that the Good Friday Agreement commits those associated with paramilitaries to more than mere engagement, which is a rather elastic word, with General de Chastelain? It commits them to the actual decommissioning of weapons. That was put into the Good Friday Agreement – perhaps it need not have been but it was – by all parties. There seems to have been little progress in this area which was committed to in the Good Friday Agreement, as distinct from inspection which was not committed to in the Agreement.
Would the Taoiseach agree that the risk with inspection as a permanent arrangement is that it almost seems to confer legitimacy on the matter being inspected? If senior people from around the world are allowed to look at arms dumps there is an inference that there is nothing wrong with arms dumps. As the Taoiseach has said on many occasions, there clearly is something wrong with arms dumps in a democracy unless they are controlled by the Dáil, which these are not.
There are two aspects to this question. The inspections are not intended to show legitimacy. They are intended to show and prove that the arms are beyond use at this stage. It is hoped the second inspection will show this to be the case. This does not take away from the fact that the Good Friday Agreement declared that arms were to be put beyond use and out of operation. That can only happen by the engagement of the international independent commission on decommissioning and the republican and loyalist groups. I note from this morning's Belfast Newsletter and from what I have been hearing that there is a view in Northern Ireland that no one seriously expects the decommissioning of loyalist weapons to happen while all the feelings of vengeance and terror remain close to the surface. That issue must be dealt with.
I have continually urged Sinn Féin to urge the republican movement to engage in and renew the process with General de Chastelain. I say this knowing there can be only one conclusion to that process.
Would the Taoiseach agree that another helpful step on the path to peace would be an indication by the republican movement in particular, and also the loyalist paramilitaries in so far as they are involved, that it no longer wishes the continued exile from Northern Ireland of the 1,200 people who have been forced to leave the country under threat of intimidation and even death? This indication would be similar to the British Government's statement that it is no longer pursuing people who are on the run for politically motivated crimes.
Hear, hear.
I ask the Taoiseach and the House to request that the totally illegal and criminal expulsion orders against people who were expelled from Northern Ireland by republicans for various reasons be cancelled, so that people who wish to return can do so.
I agree with Deputy Quinn's views on this matter. I will raise it wherever I can.
We should also try to make progress with regard to people who are on the run, or are termed OTRs. I know this arises in a different context because it concerns the legal position of the British Government and its various arms. I am not trying to equate the two categories because they cannot be equated. I find it increasingly difficult to respond to queries from the United States and Britain regarding people who left Northern Ireland in the early years of the troubles and who are not sure whether they are listed as expelled or what might happen to them if they return. The sooner we regularise those matters the better. I do not say they will be easy to regularise. The British Attorney General has considerable difficulty with these issues. However, it would help if we could come to a finalisation of those matters.
I will raise Deputy Quinn's first point, with which I agree.
I strongly support what Deputy Quinn said on this topic earlier in the week and again today.
Will the Taoiseach reconsider his use of the word "regularise" when he said he believed these issues of exclusion should be regularised? I am sure he did not mean to say that. These exlusion orders were never legitimate. They were issued by organisations which have no legitimacy and never had. They should simply be withdrawn. We must take a very clear stand on this. We cannot be in a situation where this sort of thing is legitimised or even regularised. It must stop and the House must be clear about that. I know this is the Taoiseach's view. Perhaps in his eagerness to be conciliatory he used a word he did not mean to use.
I invite the Taoiseach, using the status he holds on behalf of us all, to indicate that the British Government and others including the IRA and paramilitaries should recognise, within the context of the Good Friday Agreement, that as we have nearly completed a programme of release of prisoners who were found guilty, by whatever means, and put in prison, it is now time for a unilateral and total statement of intent by all relevant parties that the fears of people who felt obliged to leave Northern Ireland, who were coerced or intimated into doing so or who feel they may be the subject of criminal prosecutions, from whatever jurisdiction, in the context of the violence of Northern Ireland, are now removed, in the context of the prisoner release programme and as a further confidence building measure on the path to peace.
If I used the word "regularise" in connection with people who were excluded by paramilitaries I did not intend to do so. I thought I had used the word in the context of others who were properly excluded. Withdrawn is the correct word. I take Deputy Quinn's point. Many of these cases involve people who are not sure of their category. Many have now settled and have families. I feel particularly sorry for people who have ageing family members whom they cannot visit because they were in some way caught up in the troubles 30 years ago. I would particularly like to resolve cases such as these. Resolving all the cases might take some time.
Do not forget "the disappeared".
I hope to accommodate every Member who is offering, but I will only be able to do so if Members who are called are extremely brief and to the point.
When will the Competition and Mergers Bill be published? Given that the House will not sit for 12 days and in the intervening period 15 people will probably be killed and 230 people injured on our roads, when will the Road Traffic Bill be published and introduced in the House?
The Tánaiste has promised new legislation in the area of competition and mergers. While we, on this side of the House, welcome her U-turn on the groceries order and the ban on below cost selling, when will the new legislation promised outside the House be brought forward?
A request for authority to draft the Competition and Mergers Bill, 2000, is before the Government. I hope a decision will be made at the next Government meeting. The Road Traffic Bill will be introduced this session.
What has happened to the Irish National Petroleum Corporation Limited Bill? Will it be published and, if so, when? The Taoiseach informed me on 12 October that he was unaware of it.
It is not yet clear whether legislation will be required.
It is almost one week since one of our leading air companies, Transaer, collapsed leaving 500 people jobless, most of whom live on the north side. Will the Taoiseach direct the Tánaiste to ask FÁS – east region – to interview the people concerned—
The matter should be pursued in other ways. It is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
This is a very important matter. Five hundred jobs have been lost in my constituency and that of the Taoiseach. It is very important that positive action is taken.
The Deputy has the option of raising the matter on the Adjournment. It is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
If the company was located in Mayo or anywhere else, there would have been immediate action.
The Deputy should not use up the time of other Deputies.
He is a north side Taoiseach.
We want action. Five hundred jobs have been lost.
The Deputies have other options to raise the matter in the correct way.
Has the Attorney General reported to the Government and a decision been made on whether to appeal the Sinnott case to the Supreme Court? Will the Taoiseach give some consideration to having a debate in Government time on the extraordinary production from the Department of Education and Science entitled, A Programme on Masculinity, which seems to be an attempt at the deconstruction of manly virtues?
It is a matter for the Whips to discuss.
Does the decision of Louth County Council last night to reject the draft waste management plan for the north east region have implications for the Local Government Bill? When will that long promised Bill be brought before the House? Now that the Government's waste management strategy is in total disarray given the rejection by several county authorities will there also be a Bill to amend the 1996 Waste Management Act?
The Second Stage of the Local Government Bill has been ordered.
The Taoiseach's response is not adequate. I asked whether the decision of Louth County Council has implications for the Local Government Bill.
That is not appropriate. The Deputy should table a parliamentary ques tion. This is the Order of Business. The Deputy may only ask questions about promised legislation.
Legislation has been promised.
In recent days the select committee dealing with the Broadcasting Bill has received a raft of amendments which substantially change the Bill's content, in particular the method by which digital terrestrial television services will be introduced. As it is a virtual rewriting of the Bill, will the Taoiseach agree to its return to the Dáil to allow Members an opportunity to debate its content?
The amendments have been published. It is a matter for the select committee to decide.
It is a new Bill. It is a serious matter for Members who contributed on Second Stage that the Bill has been totally changed.
We cannot discuss the matter now.
Can the Bill not be recommitted to Second Stage in view of the circumstances outlined?
The amendments should be out of order.
The Broadcasting Bill has been through the House on Second Stage. I am aware that there are substantive amendments which were urged on me on the Order of Business. It is a matter for the select committee to decide how the Bill should progress. As far as I am aware, the debate will commence next week.
We cannot have a discussion on the matter now in fairness to other Deputies who have indicated that they wish to ask questions.
For the past two years I have been asking the Taoiseach about legislation to protect tenants in private rented housing. Given that 28 families in the Taoiseach's constituency are facing eviction, where is the legislation on the private rented housing sector? Has the Government approved its preparation?
As the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, and I have said on a number of occasions, the report has been received. It is both balanced and representative of all the interests involved.
I am asking about legislation.
Legislation will be prepared.
Has it been prepared? Has it been approved by the Government?
It has not been prepared.
When will this be done?
We cannot have cross-examination.
A smokescreen.
I have indicated several times to Deputy Gilmore that there will be legislation. He almost seems to be disappointed that there will be legislation.
I am waiting for it. The Government has been in office for three years.
The report is only out four weeks.
Order, please.
Twenty eight families in the Taoiseach's constituency are facing eviction. How many more will be evicted?
Will Deputy Gilmore please resume his seat?
When the Deputy's party was in Government for two and a half years, it did nothing about the matter. It ignored it. It did not even establish a group or a commission.
Families are being thrown out of their homes on to the road and the Taoiseach is doing nothing about it.
The Taoiseach is running housing policy on the basis of reports. The Bacon report—
The Deputy should resume his seat. He has not been called.
Constituents of mine cannot afford private rented accommodation and the Taoiseach says wait for the next report.
If the Deputy wishes, I will conclude the Order of Business and the Deputy can carry the responsibility. Will he please resume his seat?
I have to support my colleagues. There is an appalling crisis.
We are on the Order of Business.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the crisis facing child care providers in relation to planning applications? Many premises are being closed down.
Is this about legislation?
Yes. Is the Government planning to introduce legislation on this issue? Does it have a policy on it? What action will it take?
The Deputy should table a parliamentary question. Questions about what legislation the Government is planning are not in order.
Will the Taoiseach take an interest in the matter? On the one hand, the Government is trying to provide places and, on the other, premises are being closed.
The regulations being enforced by planning authorities have been provided for in the planning Act. On the other hand, we have an extensive policy on the provision of child care places. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform last week announced the allocation of £41 million to assist in this task.
On two occasions this week I requested permission from your office to raise an important matter on the Adjournment with the Minister for Public Enterprise, namely, the dispute between Bord na Móna and the ESB in my constituency which is giving rise to concern. More than 100 jobs are involved. It is my understanding that the Minister is not opposed to having a short debate on the matter, either by way of an Adjournment debate or a parliamentary question, but your office has informed me that the matter is of no relevance to the House.
It is not appropriate to raise the matter in this way.
I find this extraordinary. Will you furnish me with a note in writing on how this decision was made?
The Deputy cannot challenge the decision of the Chair in these matters.
It is not an irrelevancy.
The Deputy has made his point.
(Dublin West): A major part of the telecommunications industry sold off by the Government is set to be bought by a businessman who recently walked away with £250 million profit from the sale of the mobile phone licence granted to him by the previous Government.
The Deputy cannot proceed with statements.
(Dublin West): It concerns legislation. This is one of our millionaire patriots.
The Deputy must ask a question on promised legislation.
(Dublin West): I refer to the Communications Regulation Bill, and in the hope of ensuring that there is some restraint on the shameless speculation on assets that properly belong to the Irish people—
The Deputy is making statements.
(Dublin West): When will the Communications Regulation Bill, which is to extend the power of the Director of Telecommunications Regulation—
What the Bill will do is not relevant to the Order of Business.
The legislation will be ready next year.
On the question of air safety, my colleague, Deputy Allen, has on many occasions been refused a copy of the Snow report, despite his furnishing a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
That is not relevant to the Order of Business.
I received a communication from the Minister—
Be brief. Do you have a question on the Order of Business?
Copies of the Snow report will be supplied on request to interested parties with a legitimate interest. Does the Taoiseach agree that my party's spokesmen on Tourism, Sport and Recreation and on Defence have a legitimate interest in the report, as it relates to defence policy?
The Deputy can pursue that matter in other ways. I call Deputy Sheehan.
Does the Taoiseach recognise that the report is being used against the proposed development of Eircom Park?
I have ruled on that matter. The Deputy should resume his seat. I call Deputy Sheehan.
In view of this does the Taoiseach agree that there is a contradiction within the Department of Defence on this issue?
I now conclude the Order of Business. We proceed to the next business.