The Order of Business is No. 20a, motion re Referral to Joint Committee of Proposed Approval of Extradition Act, 1965 (Application of Part II) Order, 2000 – Draft, to be taken upon the conclusion of Private Members' Business; No. 21, motion re Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996; and No. 21a the Budget Statement and Financial Motions by the Minister for Finance to be taken at the conclusion of questions to members of the Government. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m., that the motion for the general financial resolution shall be moved not later than midnight whereupon business shall then be interrupted and the Dáil shall adjourn forthwith. No. 28 shall be decided without debate. The proceedings on No. 21, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 1.30 p.m. and the following arrangements shall apply: the speech of a Minister, a Minister of State and the main spokespersons for Fine Gael and the Labour Party shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; the speech of each other Member shall not exceed five minutes and Members may share time. Following the Budget Statement of the Minister for Finance and the statements of the main spokespersons of the Opposition parties, the sitting shall be suspended for 30 minutes. Private Members' Business shall be No. 109, motion re Government Policy on Taxi Licences (resumed), to be taken directly after the Order of Business and to conclude after 90 minutes.
Order of Business.
There are four proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed to?
(Dublin West): The Dáil should not accept the Order of Business on the basis that it makes no provision for the Government to update the Dáil on two critical issues which face us, namely, the failure of the Government to resolve the teachers' grievances and the consequent fall-out for students and the chaos in the taxi industry. On these matters the Government is about as useful as a bag of meat and bone-meal is to farmers. We have no opportunity to discuss these issues. The Dáil must make provision to discuss these critical matters today.
Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 20a agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 21 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with the suspension of the sitting agreed? Agreed.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that a report of a review group on food quality assurance schemes, which was to be published this week, has been suppressed? The formation of this group was announced on 20 December last year by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe. Its function was to advise on the application of best practice to food production generally. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, addressed the first meeting of the group on 29 February 2000. The group was to have produced its report this week. Can the Taoiseach confirm that because of the embarrassing circumstances surrounding the activities of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, in relation to food quality we are now not to have the benefit of the considerations of this group? Can the Taoiseach tell the House when we might expect this?
Is it the case that the Taoiseach has completely abdicated all political responsibility for the performance and the standards of work of members of his Government and office holders to the Public Offices Commission? Is he saying to the House, as he said to Deputy Fleming, when he told him about money that had gone astray, "Don't tell me, tell the lawyers".
The matter referred to by Deputy is a matter for the Public Offices Commission.
It has long been the case that the Taoiseach is responsible for the actions of the members of his Government and of office holders in the Government. There is no sense in which any legislation can be prayed in aid by a Taoiseach who wants to avoid taking political responsibility for the action of his office holders.
The Chair understands from the media this morning that the matter has been referred to the Public Offices Commission.
The Taoiseach is still the political head of the Government. He is the one to whom they are all answerable and he is answerable for the Government.
This House decided to set up the Public Offices Commission and decided that procedure. The Deputy is arguing that we should go against what this House decided. The House decided that the Public Offices Commission was the way to go and the Deputy was part of that agreement.
The Taoiseach hires and fires.
We cannot pursue this matter any further.
Can this House absolve the Taoiseach of responsibility for the range of actions of those behind and beside him?
It is now a matter for the Public Offices Commission, as decided by this House. I call Deputy Howlin.
Can I say—
Can I have an answer to my first question?
I called Deputy Howlin. Then I will ask the Taoiseach to respond.
I hope, Sir—
On a point of order—
The Deputy cannot raise a point of order while a Member is on his feet.
When the Deputy has finished I would like to raise a point of order.
—that by the time the Taoiseach has listened to Deputy Howlin, to whom I will give way in a moment, he will not have forgotten the drift of my question because I would like him to confirm that my understanding of the suppression of this report and the reason for it is correct.
On the same matter, a complaint to the Public Offices Commission is on a point of law and does not exonerate the Taoiseach from general responsibilities and it should not be used as a shield for that purpose. I will ask the Taoiseach a direct question. The Agricultural and Food Delegation of Ministerial Functions (No. 2) Order, 1997, devolved the regulation of the meat and bonemeal to the Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe. Was the Taoiseach informed, as is required under section 13 of the Ethics in Public Offices Act, of the conflict of interest that arose between the regulator of that product and the licence holder at that time?
In reply to Deputy Dukes's question, I am not aware of any report that has been suppressed, not to mind the one he mentioned.
If it is being suppressed, the Taoiseach would not be aware of it.
In relation to the Deputy's question as to when the report will be published, I will check that and let the Deputy know.
In relation to Deputy Howlin's question, the procedure is as set out, if a member of the House declares fully and comprehensively his or her interests—
My question—
Yes. If a member—
Answer the question.
The Taoiseach is prepared to give an answer.
I will answer Deputy Howlin's question.
Order, please.
Under the Schedule and rules laid out, if a Members sets out the information in his or her annual report to the Public Offices Commission, he or she does not have to inform me—
Under section 7—
—or he or she does not have to follow other procedure. That is set out quite clearly in the section the Deputy quoted. In a later section it is stated that if it is declared, one does not have to separately declare it. That is clearly written in the document.
Can I pursue my question?
I call Deputy Dukes and then I will call Deputy Howlin.
Will the Taoiseach tell us for what is he politically responsible in relation to members of the Government? Is he responsible politically for any of its members actions or is he now claiming a position of total irresponsibility in relation to the performance of his Government? Will he tell me what in the Ethics in Public Office Act absolves him in any way of political responsibility for the actions of office holders in his Government?
I call Deputy Howlin for a final question.
I have one simple, net question. Under section 13 of the Act, office holders are clearly required to declare additional interests where there may be a conflict of interest. I will not read out the section, as I am sure the Taoiseach knows it well. When the Taoiseach, by order, devolved ministerial responsibility for regulating meat and bonemeal to the Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, was he made aware that the Minister of State was a licensed holder for meat and bonemeal? That is a simple question.
The Minister of State declared his interest in the companies in which he was involved.
That is not what I asked the Taoiseach.
The Minister of State declared his interest because I was aware of the interest. That is the reply.
Responsibility for the regulation of meat and bonemeal was devolved to the Minister of State.
I am responsible for being aware if a Minister is involved in any company and the Minister of State may be so aware.
Responsibility for the regulation, under law, of meat and bonemeal was devolved to the Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe—
Discussion on this item cannot continue at this point. I have allowed brief questions on it.
Compliance with the Act is a matter for the commission.
No Sir.
It is. That is what this House decided.
The Taoiseach is accountable to this House for compliance with the law.
We cannot continue further discussion on this matter. The Chair has ruled on that.
I asked a simple, net question.
On the Order of Business proper—
The register is not a public document.
The Deputy should not continue with this matter, as I have allowed Deputies ample latitude on it.
It is a matter for discussion, as the register—
The Chair is on his feet. I call Deputy Dukes on another matter.
The additional interests register is not a public document.
We cannot pursue that matter any further on the Order of Business.
My question is simple.
That matter cannot be pursued any further on the Order of Business.
It will be pursued otherwise.
Now that we seem to have established that the Taoiseach is entirely irresponsible for the actions of the members of his Government, could I ask on a different issue if he proposes to hold any consultations to prepare for the visit of President Clinton next week to ascertain if that visit can result in any positive outcome in terms of the peace process, particularly in view of the IRA statement of yesterday?
We have been involved in consultations during recent weeks and particularly the past few days. Last night the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, had a very useful and important meeting with the Secretary of State, Mr. Mandelson, and that process is proceeding at official level today in London. We will continue with all of the parties involved in that regard. I had a meeting with John Hume, the leader of the SDLP, on Monday and we have also had direct involvement with a number of the other parties and we will continue that. Whether it is useful in terms of what we can agree before President Clinton arrives next Tuesday, I do not know, but the elements of the difficulties we must resolve are fairly clear to everybody. They continue to move around what happened at the Unionist Party Conference at the end of October, the issues of demilitarisation and decommissioning and the completion of the implementation of the Patten report. I do not think there are any new elements. I hope between the two Governments, and even more so between the parties, we can get understandings that would allow further progress. I hope we can and we will do our utmost to achieve that.
There are four Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Bills on the Order Paper. Will the Taoiseach prioritise any of those Bills that would help to resolve the BSE crisis? The Organic Food and Farming Targets Bill is not on the list but has been published by the Green Party and would be of definite assistance in this crisis as organic farming would not countenance feeding animal residue or feed to stock. Since the Green Party does not have Private Members' time, will the Taoiseach allot Government time to that Bill, which would help to be positive in resolving this crisis?
I understand that that is a private Bill, not a Private Members' Bill. If the Deputy wants to take this up we will see what we can do. I do not think there are any legislative proposals on hand but I spoke to the IFA and the meat marketing groups last evening and there are a number of issues under discussion which we are trying to resolve so that when the beef management committee meets next Tuesday we will be able to progress this issue.
The Planning and Development Act places a requirement on local authorities to publish a housing strategy policy and I am given to understand that the Department is currently drawing up a sample policy for a local authority. When will this be published so that other local authorities can publish their own policies?
That matter would be more appropriate as a parliamentary question.
Regarding the resignation of former Supreme Court Judge Declan Costello from the Ansbacher investigation, does the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste plan to make a statement outlining the current position of the investigation, when it will conclude and the implications of the resignation of the chief investigator?
(Dublin West): On the same subject—
The Deputy cannot raise the same subject. This is exclusive to the party leader. That has no connection with the Order of Business.
(Dublin West): A Cheann Chomhairle—
Deputy Howlin was entitled to raise the matter under the party leaders' ruling. The Deputy cannot refer to the matter as it is not in order on the Order of Business.
(Dublin West): This relates to promised legislation.
First we will get the Taoiseach to reply to Deputy Howlin. If the Deputy's question relates to promised legislation I will allow him to ask it when this question is completed.
(Dublin West): I could dispose of the matter in a sentence.
The Deputy should resume his seat.
I thank Mr. Justice Costello as a High Court appointed inspector into the Ansbacher accounts. It is regrettable that the judge had to withdraw from the investigation on medical advice and we wish him a speedy and full return to health. He withdrew about three weeks back; it is not something that happened yesterday, as people may have been led to believe. I am advised that the resignation has no significant implications for the inquiry. Mr. Justice Costello was but one member, though an important one, of the three man team of inspectors. The Tánaiste has already signalled her intention to make an application to the High Court before the end of the week to appoint a replacement.
Regarding how soon the work will be completed, there is no completion date. It was originally intended that the work would finish sometime in spring. I do not know if that has changed but I understand there is still a great volume of work, so perhaps that may not be realistic.
Given that the Whitegate oil refinery is about to be sold, has the Government yet figured out if the Irish National Petroleum Corporation Limited Bill will be required?
The heads of the Bill are expected before Christmas but the Bill will be dealt with early next year.
What is the delay with the local government Bill? It was published last May but has not yet been ordered for Second Stage. It is widely reported that there is a rebellion in the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party over it.
That is not a matter for the Order of Business.
The ordering of business is a matter for the Order of Business. We still have not seen the Bill in this House but it has been changed three or four times. Where is it? When will it come to the House?
The Bill will be before the House early in the next session.
Given that the report from the Law Reform Commission on sentencing is only four years old, will the Government bring forward legislation to set up a parole board? Does the Taoiseach recognise that such legislation is now urgent in the context of a Supreme Court decision ten days ago which indicated that judges who sentence convicted persons can no longer set review dates for suspending sentences? I also speak in the context of the tragic death of an 80 year old teacher, Nancy Nolan, at the hands of a prisoner on day release who was sentenced to life imprisonment for a second time yesterday. Regarding that matter, will the Government inquire into the circumstances which resulted in this prisoner being granted day release less than 18 months after he was convicted of another offence when on early release? Will a report on any such inquiry be published?
On the legislation, the answer is yes and the parole board aspect will be included as part of the prisons authority legis lation the Minister hopes to bring forward as soon as possible.
Will the Taoiseach indicate when we will see this? This is urgent and it is important to put a structure on this.
As I said, the Minister hopes to bring this legislation forward as soon as possible, so it will be in the new year.
I refer to a point the Taoiseach made about the resignation of Mr. Justice Costello. The Taoiseach stated that a resignation was tendered three weeks ago. The Tánaiste was in the House three weeks ago and it is important—
That matter was raised under the leaders' prerogative and is not open to any other Deputy.
It is important to clarify this matter.
That may be so—
The Tánaiste was here three weeks ago.
The Deputy should resume his seat. That concludes the Order of Business.