Today's Order of Business is No. 6 – Trustee Savings Banks (Amendment) Bill, 2000 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; No. 47 – Housing (Gaeltacht) (Amendment) Bill, 2000 – Second Stage (resumed); No. 48 – Aviation Regulation Bill, 2000 [Seanad] – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; and No. 49 – Youth Work Bill, 2000 – Second Stage (resumed). Private Members' Business shall be No. 107 – Motion re National Stadium (resumed) – to conclude at 8.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
There are no proposals to be put to the House. I call Deputy Owen on the Order of Business.
Will the Taoiseach offer any explanation or justification for the Department of Health and Children spending £600,000 to sponsor the Irish Masters Snooker Tournament at a time when people are waiting for months and years for operations? That money alone could pay for 350 cataract operations and take people out of suffering and near total blindness. Will the Taoiseach indicate what understanding his Government has of the needs of people when it can spend this money on something like this? If money is to be spent on snooker it could be distributed to small clubs throughout the country to provide people with recreational activity in their leisure time. Instead of seeking an independent sponsor for a tournament of this kind the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, wants to secure soft publicity. The Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Deputy McDaid, must be cross that his Department is not getting it. Will the Taoiseach explain where £600,000 can be found to sponsor this tournament when so many people are waiting for life saving operations, yet the health services cannot deliver that kind of service?
For many years the Irish Masters Snooker Tournament has been sponsored by a cigarette company. This has been strongly objected to by members of the public who are anti-smoking and wish to promote healthy living. Minister Owen knows—
I thank the Taoiseach for elevating me.
—that cancer is the biggest killer in this country.
What about the lack of treatment facilities?
As somebody interested in sport the Deputy is aware that sponsorship is an aid to prevention.
The Taoiseach has an obsession with professional sport.
What about the outstanding hip operations? People all over the country are waiting for them.
Is snooker going to the national stadium?
The announcement by the Minister for Health and Children will involve health expenditure of £200,000 per year over the next three years. This money is being provided from existing funds earmarked for health promotion and anti-tobacco initiatives by the Department. The money is part of the initiatives already in place for anti-tobacco promotion in the health promotion unit and the Office of Tobacco Control. The other sponsor, Citywest, will host the tournament next March.
Health sponsorship of this prestigious international event, which has an enormous audience, will heighten the public profile of the health agencies involved and will strengthen the anti-smoking message we have been trying to follow for a long time. The extensive television coverage of this major sports tournament involves many snooker stars who are well known throughout the world.
It is the equivalent to a couch of potatoes in terms of physical fitness.
It will bring home to viewers, especially young people, the positive aspects of not taking up and quitting smoking.
Supporting spectator sport is pathetic.
The message is consistent with Government approved policy on tobacco and health which was launched in the report, Towards a Tobacco Free Society. I understand Deputy Allen was especially in favour of the report, yet he does not want to do anything about implementing it.
What will it do for the people who watch the tournament in bars while drinking and smoking?
The Government is committed to implementing the policy. I make no apologies for it. Rather than talking about trying to do something to deal with the number of people smoking, the enormous numbers dying from smoking related illnesses and the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds on trying to save their health when they have already got cancer, we are now spending £600,000 over the next three years to do something positive. Thank God we have reached the day where we have done something positive.
I call Deputy Owen for a brief supplementary question. This is not a debate. We are on the Order of Business.
That is the worst defence I have heard.
The Deputy should not make a statement. She should ask a question.
Will the Taoiseach indicate what efforts were made to have this prestigious event sponsored by a private company not associated with smoking? I would have no problem with that. The Taoiseach is trying to hide behind the excuse that action was taken because a tobacco company sponsored the tournament on previous occasions. That is the weakest defence he could give. If he spent this money to develop recreational services for young people throughout the country to prevent them from taking up smoking there might be some justification for it. This is not an anti-smoking sponsorship. It represents a PR spin doctoring opportunity for the great master of spin, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin. There is no justification for it.
I ask the Deputy to resume her seat and I call on the Taoiseach. There is no justification for this.
We spend an enormous amount of money on sport and on prevention of smoking. For at least 25 years, people have argued that we should put money into the prevention aspects. This tournament which was watched on a world-wide basis, either on recording or otherwise—
(Interruptions.)
It is a spectator sport.
The sport has an enormous audience. This event was sponsored and well known for its cigarette sponsorship. We have now taken positive action to show young people that some of the best sports stars are anti-smoking. This will give a very healthy and positive image and is an excellent initiative.
I call Deputy Howlin on another subject.
(Interruptions.)
I hope the Taoiseach will have as much to say in response to the question I now wish to ask. On 4 January, the Leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Quinn, wrote to the Taoiseach outlining the serious concerns over the conflict of interest that arises with the joint treasurer of the Fianna Fáil Party, the current Minister for the Environment and Local Government, having promulgated a Bill to substantially increase the allowable spend in the next election. Since that letter was written, it has emerged that the Minister concerned had given directions in this matter to his civil servants early last year.
The Deputy is not allowed to make statements. He must ask a question.
We have listened to a 15 minute response from the Taoiseach in a prepared script to another question.
The Deputy is only entitled to ask a question. This is not a debating opportunity. Has the Deputy a question?
I have two questions, one of which is directed at you, Sir. Do you as Ceann Comhairle have a responsibility to protect Members of this House in terms of briefings so that they get the full truth, that information is not withheld from them—
I have no responsibility in that matter.
—and that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, in a written briefing to the spokesperson of the Labour Party, on the contents of the electoral Bill, omitted any reference to this essential part? Has the Taoiseach reflected on the points made in the letter of 4 January? When will he respond in writing to those points and does he now believe one of the two jobs currently held by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and Joint Treasurer of Fianna Fáil should be taken from him?
I have received private correspondence to which I will respond. I do not see a conflict of interest in relation to anyone in this House, either in Government or Opposition, holding either a ministerial role or spokespersonship and being an officer for a political party. That has always been the case.
I was asked this question yesterday and the Deputy asked if I reflected on it. Deputy Gilmore yesterday asserted that I misled the House and that my colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, misled Deputy Gilmore in relation to the electoral amendments. Both these statements are without foundation.
No.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy had his say yesterday in relation to misleading the House. Now he will have to listen to me correct that statement, therefore he should be quiet.
(Interruptions.)
The Bill comprises 57 sections. The electronic voting provisions account for 14 sections, while six sections deal with photographs, logos and ballot papers. The remainder of the Bill is comprised of a wide range of miscellaneous amendments on electoral law, including 31 amendments of the 1992 Electoral Act and other amendments of nine further Bills. On the Order of Business of 5 October, Deputy Gilmore, referring to the Government's legislative programme for the autumn session—
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
And the £1 million?
I outlined clearly the concept of the Bill. I am not required to delve into the detail of promised legislation on the Order of Business. I gave an outline of the main areas covered by the Bill to be helpful to Deputy Gilmore at the time. In doing so, I indicated the Bill would include various amendments to electoral legislation, including providing for photographs, party logos, ballot papers and electronic voting. The Deputy knows my reply was neither required nor intended to be an exhaustive citation of every aspect of the Bill. Similarly, in providing Deputy Gilmore with a note on the Bill, the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, provided an outline of the Bill's provisions. It is not the practice to provide exhaustive details of individual Bills.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please. The House must listen to the Taoiseach.
Members ask questions but they do not want answers. If I may add a further note – I did not mislead the Deputies, they misled me. The Deputies did not tell the House, and they have not told the House since Christmas, that not only did my party receive a bonus from this, their party also received a bonus of approximately £500,000.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please. I will allow Deputy Howlin to ask a brief supplementary question.
Will the Taoiseach accept that the misinformation he gave previously has been compounded by the absolute misinformation he has given to the House—
Deputy, please.
May I ask the Taoiseach a couple of very direct questions?
A question, please, Deputy.
Does the Taoiseach understand that on 20 December the Minister for the Environment and Local Government said on national radio that he had a direct involvement in fundraising for Fianna Fáil? Does he accept that the person with a direct involvement in fundraising for Fianna Fáil should be the person to set the limits of expenditure for the next election? Will he also accept that an additional spend given to the Labour Party is totally pointless when we do not accept corporate donations and do not have the war chest that the Taoiseach is now gathering for the next election?
(Interruptions.)
Governments make these decisions and the House passes them.
(Interruptions.)
Why did the Taoiseach prepare a briefing note?
Order, please. Deputies must resume their seats. We must proceed with the Order of Business proper. Deputy Howlin must resume his seat.
On a point of order, the Taoiseach—
I cannot allow Deputy Gilmore to ask a question. These are Leaders' questions. The Deputy is not the leader. What is the point of order?
The point of order, Sir, is that the Taoiseach accused me of making misleading statements in the House yesterday. Can I ask the Taoiseach—
The Deputy cannot. That is not a point of order. We are moving on to the Order of Business. On a point of order, Deputy Owen.
The Taoiseach today got an ample opportunity to supposedly correct the record of the House. He said he was accused yesterday by Deputy Gilmore of misleading—
That is not a point of order.
The Ceann Comhairle must give a Member of the Opposition the same opportunity to clarify—
The Deputy cannot instruct the Chair on what it should do.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy will resume her seat. We must have order and proceed with the Order of Business proper. A question on the Order of Business. If Deputies do not wish to proceed with the Order of Business—
Deputy Gilmore has been accused of misleading the House.
(Interruptions.)
We are proceeding with the Order of Business. The Deputy will resume her seat. There are other ways to deal with the issue. Deputy Gilmore, briefly.
Throughout last session, I very properly and in order raised questions in this House about the promised electoral Bill. I asked on a number of occasions about the content and purpose of the Bill. On all of those occasions the Taoiseach gave various responses with regard to photographs, logos and electronic—
The Deputy must be very brief.
On none of the occasions that I asked the Taoiseach about the Bill did he tell us anything about increased funding. Neither did the Minister for the Environment and Local Government when he gave me a briefing on the matter. If that is not misleading the House and misleading me, I do not know what is. The Taoiseach's response to date is only—
I have allowed the Deputy to make his point.
(Interruptions.)
The contents of a Bill are not a subject for the Order of Business. Deputy Howlin, a final supplementary, very briefly.
Was the Taoiseach aware that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in February last year gave hand written instructions to increase substantially the spend and to incorporate that into the electoral Act? Was the Taoiseach aware that that was the position early last year?
It is a straight question.
And it requires a straight answer
I would have been aware of that when the Minister brought the proposals to Cabinet. I do not know the date on which that happened.
When was that?
Whenever that was.
Why then did the Taoiseach not inform—
Because—
We cannot have any further crossfire.
—what I told—
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy asked a question, does he want an answer?
What about the money?
The Deputies must allow the Taoiseach to reply.
I indicated in the House that various amendments, including provisions for the inclusion of photographs and party logos on ballot papers and electronic voting, would be introduced in respect of the electoral legislation. It was quite clear that these were provisions for electoral changes and the Deputy's party gained proportionally more than any other party from these proposals.
(Interruptions.)
The Taoiseach is wrong and he knows it.
Order, please. Can we proceed with the Order of Business?
Our party does not have that sort of money.
This is grossly disorderly.
I wish to ask a final question.
I have already given the Deputy too much latitude. We are on the Order of Business.
A final question.
No, the Deputy has already asked two final questions. We cannot proceed further; this is the Order of Business. It is totally disorderly to have such a debate. When the Bill comes before the House all Members will have an opportunity to debate it. I ask Deputies to allow the Order of Business to proceed.
It is disorderly for the Taoiseach to give misleading information.
On promised legislation, a Cheann Comhairle.
Deputy Gay Mitchell rose.
If Deputy Mitchell has a question on the Order of Business he may ask it.
(Interruptions.)
I have a question on promised legislation.
I have called Deputy Mitchell on the Order of Business. I will call Deputy Rabbitte on promised legislation when his turn comes.
Ceann Comhairle—
I have called Deputy Mitchell. I will call Deputy Rabbitte when his turn comes. Deputy Mitchell on the Order of Business.
In relation to this legislation, in view of the fact that there is wholesale opposition to this provision, will the Taoiseach withdraw the relevant section of the Bill? The provision is wholly unacceptable and it will not be supported by the Opposition.
That matter is not relevant to the Order of Business.
I ask the Taoiseach to withdraw that section of the Bill because it is wholly unacceptable, particularly in light of current events. The section in question is completely out of step with public opinion and with the opinion of the House.
Will the Taoiseach inform the House, with clarity, whether the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, as published, will be brought before the House or whether the amendments he has promised will form part of the Bill?
The Bill is to be introduced in the Seanad in the next week or so.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that the Bill, as it stands, will not contain provisions for increased spending? Is the Taoiseach pressing for the inclusion of provisions on increased spending in the Bill or will they, as Deputy Mitchell asked, be withdrawn?
Yes or no.
I should point out that the Bill is not before the House, it is before the Upper House.
The Minister has said that the Bill will be introduced in the Seanad and that there will be amendments to it. He will outline the position in the Seanad when the Bill is introduced.
Has a Government decision been taken in respect of that matter?
(Interruptions.)
I call Deputy Joe Higgins.
Has a decision—
Deputy Howlin must realise that other Members wish to participate on the Order of Business.
(Dublin West): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle, it is nice to see you again. I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the Christmas card he sent me. For reasons of which he is aware, I have not had the opportunity to offer my thanks before now.
We object to this favouritism.
What is the weather forecast, Deputy Higgins?
(Dublin West): A recent report by Gunne estate agents shows extortionate rises in the rents charged by private landlords during the past three years, particularly in Dublin, and illustrates the fact that young people and tenants in general are now at the mercy of these people to an extent that the great Michael Davitt, the champion of tenants, would find absolutely appalling. I understand that the Housing (Private Rented Sector) Bill is listed at the very end of the legislative programme and is not expected to be published until the summer of 2002, a date which lies beyond the lifetime of this Parliament. In view of that fact and in light of the report to which I refer, will the Taoiseach bring forward the introduction of the Bill and expedite relief for long suffering tenants as expeditiously as the Government yesterday approved massive pay rises for Ministers, himself, politicians and high flyers in the public service?
This legislation is urgent but it is also very complex in nature. The Government has accepted the principles of the report to which Deputy Higgins refers. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is dealing with the landlord and tenant aspects of the Bill while the Department of the Environment and Local Government is dealing with the other aspects, including financial matters. I assure the House that the work will proceed as quickly as possible. This is priority legislation.
Mr. Hayes
Will the Taoiseach make time available in the House this week for statements on Northern Ireland? In that context, will he comment on the sinister development in Mitchelstown in recent days when a gang armed with baseball bats and Kalashnikovs were intercepted by the Garda Síochána?
The Taoiseach is due to take questions on Northern Ireland later today.
Mr. Hayes
To date, the Taoiseach has made no comment in respect of that incident. Will he agree to making time available for statements on Northern Ireland in that context?
That is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
Mr. Hayes
Will he tell us his view in respect of the current intent of the IRA, members of which are moving about armed with Kalashnikovs and baseball bats?
Taoiseach's questions today are on Northern Ireland.
Mr. Hayes
All of them?
Yes.
Mr. Hayes
So there will be no statements?
In view of the outright opposition to the provisions contained in the Fisheries (Amendment) Act – the Bill was introduced and rushed through the House before Christmas – will the Government withdraw or amend it immediately?
The Bill is only now due for Second Stage.
A campaign is being mounted which will be similar to the one which accompanied the rod licence war.
The Deputy can raise that matter when Second Stage is taken in the House.
The legislation to which I refer has already gone through the House.
The Deputy supported it.
I did not support it.
His party did.
It emerged yesterday that hospitals in Britain have retained over 100,000 body parts including, in some cases, the heads of babies. In view of the fact that the inquiry here into organ retention has been bogged down since its launch last April and that there is no adequate legislation relating to the handling of human tissues, will the Taoiseach undertake to initiate the drawing up of legislation to deal with this area? It appears that what is happening in Britain at present would be considered legal in this country and that this area is not properly controlled by way of legislation. This matter has been raised by the medical profession and a handling of human tissues Bill is required.
The most appropriate way to raise this matter is by way of parliamentary question.
Will the Taoiseach provide an undertaking to introduce legislation, particularly in light of the seriousness of this matter?
Is there promised legislation?
If I may, I wish first to refer to the matter raised by Deputy Deenihan. I believe that the Bill to which he referred is still at Second Stage. Another Fisheries Act was passed, but the Bill—
I was referring to the Bill that was passed.
I understand that the Bill to which the Deputy refers is still before the House.
No, it is not.
I will clarify the matter with the Minister.
I was referring to the legislation which was passed before Christmas. The Taoiseach will have another rod licence war on his hands if he does not act quickly.
With regard to Deputy McManus's question, I understand that the Minister for Health and Children is investigating this issue as a matter of urgency. I believe the Deputy is correct that there is no legislative cover in respect of this matter.
I wish the Taoiseach every success at his very important meeting in London this afternoon. Will he indicate when he expects the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Bill to be introduced? I raise this matter because a supplier of conservatories and windows is currently collecting deposits, from elderly people in particular, and is then not carrying out the work. Apparently and surprisingly, this is not covered under existing legislation—
The Deputy should not embellish his question.
—which is a good reason for expediting the Bill.
The Bill, which was published last year, is currently before a Select Committee of House which, I am sure, will take account of the matters raised by the Deputy.
The Twenty-First Amendment of the Constitution (No. 6) Bill to provide for a referendum to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is expected by the middle of 2001. Will the enactment of that legislation tie in with the reported planned referendum on the Nice Treaty? Has the Government decided whether those referenda will be held at the same time?
Yesterday the Taoiseach said new legislation would not be necessary to introduce the Minister for the Environment and Local Government's plan to force local authorities to adopt incineration. Will he clarify that statement in light of the Department's opinion that the Waste Management Act, 1996, would have to be amended? When will such amending legislation be published?
During Question Time and on the Order of Business yesterday I gave an account of the Nice Treaty. The linguistics and jurists groups have not completed their work on the treaty. That will happen in the next week or so. The agreement is to be signed in Nice by the Foreign Ministers on 21 or 22 February. The Government will then make a decision based on the Attorney General's advice.
I said it appeared unlikely there would be a referendum on this issue in any other country. However, I have always stated that because the enlargement process is so important, I would give the people an opportunity to support enlargement which is the position of political parties all over Europe. During January parties across all divides, regardless of what position they previously held on European issues, strongly supported the Nice Treaty on enlargement.
There are other issues as well.
Yes, but regardless of the side issues, the view in all countries in Europe has been fundamentally based on the process of enlargement. That is the position of every other Parliament and I am sure it will be the case here.
The Twenty-First Amendment of the Constitution (No. 6) Bill to provide for a referendum to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court must take place in any case. We hope that legislation and the referendum will take place this summer. Other issues arising from the All-party Committee on the Constitution will also be dealt with. I hope a number of those issues can be dealt with together.
I did not say legislation would not be required on the incineration issue but that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government has considered all available options to bring the process to an early and satisfactory conclusion and that he will make a statement at the appropriate time on waste management planning. The Minister intends to do so in due course.
Will the Taoiseach clarify whether amending legislation will be introduced regarding the Human Rights Commission Bill in view of the mishandling of appointments to the board? Nominees suggested to the Government were not appointed and are being considered subsequently.
Perhaps the Deputy should table a parliamentary question on this issue.
Is there a resolution to this issue and will amending legislation be necessary in view of the increased numbers being appointed to the board?
Subject to correction, there is a resolution to the issue and legislation is required to increase the numbers.