The Order of Business is as follows: No. 5, Carers Leave Bill, 2000 – Second Stage (Resumed); No. 6, Criminal Justice (Illicit Traffic by Sea) Bill, 2000 – Order for Second Stage; No. 1, Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill, 2000 [Seanad]: Second Stage; and No. 51, Statements on the Report of the Joint Committee on Education and Science on Science and Technology, 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 proceedings on No. 51, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 4.45 p.m and the following arrangements shall apply: the statement of the chairperson of the Joint Committee on Education and Science and the main spokespersons of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties shall not exceed ten minutes in each case and the statement of each other Member called upon shall not exceed five minutes and Members may share time.
Order of Business.
There is one proposal to be put to the House and that is the proposal dealing with No. 51. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Yesterday we regretfully accepted the Chair's ruling which did away with the policy allowing Opposition party leaders to raise topical matters of interest on the Order of Business which were not necessarily related to legislation. I asked at that time that an immediate effort be made to amend the Standing Orders so that this morning we could continue with that practice. The Government has shown a marked reluctance to deal with this matter, which primarily affects Opposition parties. It is a right we gained that we have now lost. The Government is showing great reluctance to call a meeting of the necessary committee and to agree a motion. The Fine Gael Chief Whip, Deputy Flanagan, has tabled a very fair amendment to Standing Orders which has been circulated. I ask the Government to agree to that amendment to Standing Orders so that the procedure allowing Opposition leaders to raise matters of topical interest can resume. Obviously it cannot resume today but it should be in place for next Tuesday. If this continues it will be an effort to silence the Opposition and a clear indictment of the Government for wanting to do so.
The Opposition is silent already.
Deputy O'Flynn should be quiet. He knows where he is sitting. Will the House agree to the amendment tabled by my party so we can proceed to restore the rights the Chair bestowed on Opposition parties which he felt he had to withdraw yesterday? It is not fair to those who elected us if the Opposition is silenced, as the Government is trying to silence us. Government Members can amend the Standing Orders again once they are returned to Opposition if they wish but we demand that this right is restored to the Opposition immediately.
On the same topic, it is clear from the Chair's response to my letter yesterday that he has completely misunderstood the position of the Labour Party. I want to clarify the matter in relation to what Deputy Owen said and what the Chair wrote to me. My party does not feel it has a difficulty in participating in the work of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges sub-committee on Dáil reform. We are resolutely refusing to co-operate with the charade of Dáil reform on one hand while at the same time the Fianna Fáil component of this Government wants to tear up the rules regarding general elections, rules that were agreed in this House. They want to have the capacity to raise not £2 million but £3 million from corporate donations and elsewhere going into the next election. Because of the revelations from the tribunals and the ongoing disrepute into which politics has been dragged by some members or former members of Fianna Fáil, this party refuses to co-operate in the charade of Dáil reform on the one hand through this so-called sub-committee while at the same time the Minister for the Environment and Local Government wants to tear up the rules that have governed very effectively and fairly the last five by-elections in this State. As the language used in the Ceann Comhairle's letter states that we felt we have some difficulty in participating in that Dáil sub-committee, I wanted to apprise him of our real position on this lest there was any lack of understanding.
Let me assure the Deputy I understand the position very clearly, but the point he made is a political matter, not one of procedure.
Two Members on this side of the House suggested to the Chair yesterday that until such time as the Standing Order is changed perhaps he would reconsider his ruling yesterday and allow that procedure to continue, which I hope would be only for a matter of a few days until the Government wakes up to its responsibility. In the meantime he is unwittingly silencing the Opposition in its role here, which I know is not what he is trying to do. Given the reluctance of the Government to agree the amendment of this Standing Order, perhaps the suggestion made by Deputies Bruton and O'Keeffe yesterday would be one he might reconsider today and communicate with us on it.
(Dublin West): I strongly support the idea that the Opposition is allowed to raise questions of major importance of the day with the Taoiseach and that the Government is obliged to answer them. People around the country support the idea that urgent issues should be raised immediately with the Government and that we should have an immediate response to them. The proposal by Fine Gael is completely unacceptable to—
We cannot discuss the proposal at this stage.
(Dublin West): I lay down the marker that it continues the privilege extended to only Labour and Fine Gael. That there are other voices in this House, those of Deputy Healy, mine and others.
They will have an opportunity to make that point.
(Dublin West): We want to be included in any new proposals.
The motion on this matter is not before the House.
I wish to add the Green Party's voice to the feeling emerging that when Deputy Owen speaks, she does so as if she is speaking on behalf of all the parties in Opposition, but that is not the case. There is a need to be inclusive. The Chair might take that into account, as it is not in order for one person in Fine Gael to speak on behalf of all members of the Opposition.
Mr. Hayes:
That is the Deputy's illusion, no one else's.
I appeal to the Chair to restore the status quo that applied up to this week, as in that environment people will be much more prepared to discuss a change. If the existing facility to the Opposition is withdrawn, that will put the Government in a position to dictate whether there will be a new Standing Order and, if so, its terms. I beg the Chair to allow the parties to discuss the new Standing Order starting from the status quo, which is the one that applied up to yesterday. If he does that, he will provide the atmosphere and the environment whereby each of the parties will be encouraged to carry out his suggestion, which I emphasise is very good one, that we should make sure that the rules conform to the practice. I urge him to do that. If he does that, I am convinced there will be no difficulty in getting the Standing Order agreed.
I made my statement on the matter.
I support the request from Deputy O'Keeffe that the status quo should obtain until such time as what Deputy Quinn suggested would be given an opportunity. For a variety of reasons, this House is seen by those outside it as not being relevant. With all due respect to you, Sir, if this measure proceeds, it will shut down the relevance of this House, diminish its status and its ability to raise issues of current interest that are being discussed everywhere outside this House but under this ruling may not be raised within it. With respect, it would be absurd if we cannot raise issues of topical interest as they arise spontaneously in this House. Anything other than that is a diminution of the stature of this House. We have always done that with the Ceann Comhairle's distinguished predecessors and with him until quite recently. I do not know the provenance of this measure. It is most unfortunate. I ask the Ceann Comhairle to rethink it.
The business of this House is conducted in accordance with Standing Orders and that is the way it must continue. The Members determine Standing Orders; the Chair only implements them. The Chair does not introduce or change them.
I do not wish to disagree with what the Chair said about Standing Orders. It is precisely because of that we in Fine Gael drafted an appropriate Standing Order, which would meet his suggestion that topical matters should be allowed. When he introduced the latitude that was enjoyed by Members, he did so in consultation with Members. There was a feeling on the part of Government and its representatives that this was an attempt on the part of the machinery of this House to allow for topical matters to be raised to make this House a little more relevant to the people outside it. In the course of the debate yesterday, the Taoiseach indicated and volunteered to the House that he is spending too much time here and answering too many questions. He does not want to be accountable to Members of this House.
The Deputy is misrepresenting him.
He said that yesterday. As a result of the Ceann Comhairle's statement yesterday morning, he is unwittingly protecting the Taoiseach and the Government and muzzling Members.
He does not need to be protected by you lot.
Quiet, Conor. A reshuffle must be afoot.
A number of Deputies have spoken on this matter and I have listened attentively. There are a number of inaccuracies in what has been said. The first major one is that none of the Chair's distinguished predecessors allowed this system that the Chair introduced. What Deputy Rabbitte said about that is entirely inaccurate.
It would not be the first time.
The Chair brought in a system which he believed was appropriate to the modern operation of the House and I totally supported it. I was the first Taoiseach to operate under those rules. I did so and I would always follow not only Standing Orders but also the precedents of the House, which the Chair and his distinguished predecessors have built up in practice. This measure was one the Chair introduced and I complied fully with it day in and day out for the past number of years. The Chair formalised that measure in a number of statements. I would be glad to do that again in the future, as per the Chair's ruling. The Chair's ruling was abused many times and everyone has watched that happen, but I have continued to comply with it irrespective of what happened.
The Taoiseach is a martyr.
The Ceann Comhairle made a new ruling and new suggestion yesterday, that this matter should be debated and resolved, as I hope many other issues on Dáil reform put forward by the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party, other parties and the Independents will be. As the Chair suggested yesterday, the Government parties have called a meeting for next Tuesday at which the Government is prepared to discuss and agree that and other issues.
I do not want to be disorderly, but—
We cannot have this debate now.
—it is essential the method of questioning—
A meeting has been called for next Tuesday.
—-is not buried in other Dáil reform proposals. It is essential this Standing Order should be changed immediately and as a separate matter.
A meeting has been called and we cannot deal with it further here.
Without doubt, if it is not changed, the Chair will be implicated in a method of muzzling the Opposition—
The Deputy should not pass reflection or make accusations against the Chair. She should leave well enough alone.
That is only a method of muzzling the Opposition—
The Deputy should not pre-empt the discussion that will take place at the forthcoming meeting. We must proceed with the Order of Business.
The Taoiseach has said this can be discussed next Tuesday but that is only a method of burying these proposals behind a fog of all such other changes and doing down the Labour Party in its right to—
We cannot proceed further with this debate.
The Ceann Comhairle cannot allow this to happen on the basis of his ruling.
I cannot allow disorder to continue. The Deputy should resume her seat. There is a procedure decided by the House to deal with this matter.
I have a responsibility to my party in the House.
The Chair has a responsibility to ensure that Standing Orders are complied with and that is exactly what I am doing.
The Ceann Comhairle has a responsibility to ensure that his ruling is implemented. He said yesterday that he must implement Standing Orders—
The Deputy cannot enter into arguments with the Chair. The Deputy is continuing to be disorderly.
The Chair should not allow the Government to hide behind a fog—
The Deputy is being disorderly and she should resume her seat. The Deputy's party has a motion before the House and that is the way to proceed with it.
Yes, and I want it agreed in the House today. It is clear the Government is trying to hide behind—
The Deputy is being repetitious.
This is a trap set by the Government and we will not allow it to get away with it.
There must be order in the House.
I wish to respond to the Taoiseach's comments.
The Deputy cannot question a reply. That cannot continue.
I want to clarify the position.
Very briefly.
The Taoiseach referred to accuracies and inaccuracies. I want to confirm, to avoid any misapprehension, that the sub-committee meeting convened for Tuesday next, 13 February, will not be attended by the Labour Party—
That is marvellous.
—or, I understand, the Green Party.
We will not be browbeaten into it.
We will have to survive without them.
I would not talk about an extension if I was Fianna Fáil.
It is not a matter for the Chair.
I understand the meeting will not be attended by the Green Party either.
That speaks for itself.
The meeting cannot be properly constituted because it will not have a quorum.
The Deputy has made his point. We must proceed with the business of the day.
The Deputy should resume his seat. I have given ample latitude to Deputies and there cannot be any further argument. I call Deputy Owen on the Order of Business.
This morning we heard what could be referred to as the Nairobi fudge from the theoretical Minister for the Environment and Local Government when he said he was in charge in theory of the waste management problem in Ireland. Regarding No. 54, the waste management (amendment) Bill—
I thought there was too much democratic centralism in the Deputy's party.
Why has the Government only promised publication of that legislation in mid-2001? This means the earliest it can be discussed is late 2001, if at all, and that the totally unsatisfactory nature of the waste management system in Ireland will worsen. What is the Minister for the Environment and Local Government doing in his Department? He has not kept any of his promises. Two years ago, he said a tax on plastic bags would be introduced. He is now suggesting that matter will be dealt with in the Bill. What is he doing and why is he in Nairobi instead of here dealing with this crisis?
He is burying his head in the sand.
Has the Taoiseach had an opportunity to communicate with the Minister on the proposed waste management (amendment) Bill since he left for Nairobi? The Taoiseach told the House that the Finance Bill would be the vehicle for the introduction of the tax on plastic bags, a proposal which goes back to early 1997. Is the Taoiseach clear that the Minister does not have different ideas from him regarding waste management? Will the Taoiseach outline the matters on which the Government agrees given the chaos in the waste management area?
Will the Taoiseach clarify whether the proposed tax on plastic bags will be included in the Finance Bill, as he announced, or in the waste management bill, as announced by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government on the radio this morning? In the programme circulated to Members, the publication date for the Waste Management Bill was indicated as mid-2001. On the radio this morning, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government stated that the Bill would be published this session. Will the Taoiseach clarify if the Bill will be published this session? In which Bill will the tax on plastic bags be included?
I said last autumn that the tax on plastic bags would go ahead and that it would be included in either the Finance Bill or the Waste Management Bill – whichever could be progressed the quickest.
Whichever came latest.
It is the view of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government that the waste management bill, which was scheduled to be introduced around May or June, should be brought in sooner. He wants to introduce the Bill ahead of schedule and he is endeavouring to ensure that happens. If that is the case, it would be more appropriate to include the tax in that Bill.
The Taoiseach should ring the Minister and tell him.
While the Bill is scheduled for the summer, the Minister hopes to introduce it sooner. As I said on two occasions earlier in the week, he intends to make a comprehensive statement about all these matters shortly.
Regarding the publication date for the Finance Bill, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has urged us tog out in the national colours in relation to the criticisms by the EU. However, many people are conscious of the difficulties in the IT and housing sectors that are causing niggling doubts about the economic strategy being pursued by the Government.
Does the Deputy want more personal tax?
I want to hear what the Taoiseach has to say about the sin-binning of the Government on this issue. Major issues are at stake and perhaps the Taoiseach could indicate the approach that will be taken in the Finance Bill to try to satisfy the concerns of Europe and our national needs.
The Finance Bill will be published this day week and it will contain the measures put forward by the Government. A number of the issues raised by the Deputy hopefully will be dealt with in that Bill.
Does the Taoiseach still have confidence in the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development in light of what he did not say yesterday and what is in the newspapers today?
Is this related to promised legislation?
Yes, because the Minister of State will bring forward legislation to deal with the crisis in the beef industry and is responsible for dealing with the proposed ban on T-bone steaks. He is responsible for legislative measures on the Order Paper, including the FEOGA payments. He is one of the Ministers in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.
It does not relate to the Order of Business.
Where is the Minister of State?
It is a fair question in light of what we know and the crisis in the food quality area.
The Deputy could pursue the matter in other ways.
It is a simple question that could have been answered if the Ceann Comhairle had not interrupted. Does the Taoiseach have confidence in his Minister of State, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe?
The Deputy should submit a motion along those lines if he feels strongly about it.
There is no need. The silence from the Taoiseach is the answer.
He is hiding.
Will the Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, get his chips?
Regarding the terrible accident in County Louth yesterday, I wish to express the sympathy of the House to the families of the three young people involved. Will the Taoiseach be specific about when the road traffic Bill will be introduced? The legislation is now 18 months behind schedule. Has the Taoiseach any plans to introduce legislation to outlaw company cars such as the one involved in the accident in County Louth?
The Deputy's questions would be more properly dealt with by way of parliamentary questions.
The legislation is due this session.
Will the Taoiseach request the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to immediately establish a task force in the Moate area in view of the impending loss of 64 jobs at the Dawn Dairies plant?
The Deputy should raise that matter in another way.
I tried to have it raised during the Adjournment Debate. This is a very relevant issue in the constituency I represent.
The Deputy could table a parliamentary question. It is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
It is important to the people in Moate.
If it is an important matter, it should be dealt with in the proper way.
I tried to raise it in the proper way. This is part of the problem with this place. We cannot raise anything that is important to constituents. This place is totally irrelevant.
Following the tragic death of Ross Davies in a canoeing accident in Dunmore East, I moved the Second Stage of a Private Members' Bill on 30 and 31 March 1999 – the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Water Safety) Bill, 1998. The Minister at the time accepted the spirit and intention of the Bill and said he would introduce legislation. Will the Bill be in place for Easter this year?
The Bill was published two months ago.
I am aware of that.
The Deputy is asking that it be taken in the House. I will find out the scheduled arrangements for that.
It would be important to have it in place for this summer.
I accept that.
Bearing in mind that the final draft of the consultants' report on the RTE application for a £50 licence fee increase is to be with the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands by tomorrow at the latest, will the Taoiseach give the House an undertaking that there will be an early decision on this application?
Is it to do with legislation?
We will publish the report.
There is no legislation required.
Will the report be published? We can get it under the Freedom of Information Act.
It is only appropriate this morning that we should acknowledge the contribution of Deputy John Bruton to political life, both as Taoiseach and Leader of the Opposition, and to wish him well in the future. While we wish our colleagues well in their endeavours over the next 24 hours, let us hope they are not too successful in case it might give some of the disgruntled comrades similar options.
Deputy Power is well used to it.
(Dublin West): I presume the Minister for the Environment and Local Government is in Africa to get used to the heat which will come on him in a real way on the waste management issue before long. On legislation, every year a scandalous 10% of children leave schools in the State functionally illiterate, which in the 21st century is an outrage.
The Deputy cannot make statements.
(Dublin West): That is not due to the teaching profession but to under investment in education. A commission on the education system was flagged this morning. Is legislation to come before the Dáil in this regard and will the Government guarantee definitive action on illiteracy in particular?
Is there legislation on this?
The report is being considered.
What efforts will the Taoiseach and his Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development make to remove the ridiculous ban which has been placed on Irish T-bone steaks?
The Deputy can pursue that matter in other ways. It is not appropriate to the Order of Business. Deputy McManus.
Deputy Ned O'Keeffe will fix it.
All Irish T-bone steaks are from cattle under 30 months.
Ned will make a meal of the bones.
They must make some effort to preserve the rights of the Irish farmers.
Keep the T-bones and get rid of Ned.
T-bone Ned.
Last year by way of resolution this House passed the terms of reference to establish the Lindsay tribunal to investigate the infection with hepatitis C and HIV of haemophiliacs, many of whom have died. We now find that the Minister for Health and Children is hiding behind his legal advisers, despite the fact that the terms of reference clearly require him to provide full disclosure of all documentation to the Irish Haemophilia Society. Will the Taoiseach state now—
It is not true.
—that he will no longer keep this information secret, that he will provide the society—
It is not a question for the Order of Business.
—with the information to assist in what has been one of the worst—
We had an Adjournment Debate on it on Tuesday.
—health tragedies affecting people who are so vulnerable?
That is not appropriate to the Order of Business. I allowed an Adjournment Debate on Tuesday. Deputy Sargent.
The Taoiseach surely has some insight into this appalling situation, where—
Deputy Sargent.
—the State is preventing information being disclosed to people who have suffered, some of who have died, as a result of the State's misdemeanours.
The Deputy should resume her seat. Deputy Sargent, a question on the Order of Business.
Can we please have a statement from the Taoiseach?
I call Deputy Sargent.
Nobody is speaking out. The Minister for Health and Children has refused to release information.
I have called Deputy Sargent.
On a point of order, there has been no refusal by anybody to disclose any information.
That is not a point of order.
No, but it is very important because we put this on the record the other night in the House. It is very disingenuous and unfair to bring out a distorting perspective on this issue. The judge, who is the chairperson of that tribunal, has put on the record that the Department and everybody else have been fully co-operative and we have done nothing, and will do nothing, to hinder the full discovery of the truth.
Deputy Sargent.
A Cheann Comhairle,—
Deputy McManus must resume her seat. I gave the Deputy the opportunity on Tuesday. The Deputy is being totally disorderly on this matter.
A Cheann Comhairle, the Minister for Health and Children—
The Deputy should resume her seat. Deputy Sargent on the Order of Business.
—can waive his privilege to serve these people who have been so badly served by the State.
Deputy Sargent.
People have died as a consequence of what the State has done to them.
I have given the floor to Deputy Sargent.
The Minister for Health and Children can choose to waive privilege.
Deputy Sargent has the floor. Please, Deputy. I called Deputy Sargent.
His predecessor, who was not a great Minister for Health and Children, chose to waive the privilege in the interests of Brigid McCole.
On promised legislation,—
The Minister for Health and Children had a choice and he has chosen not to disclose it.
Deputy Sargent.
On a point of order, the Minister for Health and Children may have inadvertently misled this House. He has conveyed the impression that—
He is head of the Department.
I would not like him to stand in a position where he did inadvertently mislead the House. My colleague, Deputy McManus, has pointed out that by waiving privilege the Minister for Health and Children can give additional information to the tribunal. Is that not correct?
Yes.
I spoke to the House about it two nights ago. I put what the process involved on the record.
The Minister is saying that he is co-operating fully but by waiving privilege he could give more.
The process is that I am seeking legal advice on the matter. That is important because there are legal implications. There is a very fundamental constitutional issue here.
And there is a legal precedent.
I said we are progressing the matter and I will be meeting the association this afternoon to discuss the matter with them. I have not refused anything.
Meantime the—
This is totally disorderly. I called Deputy Sargent. Deputy Sargent has the floor. I have called him about a dozen times.
I tried to respond about a dozen times. I was going to ask about one Bill but I feel I have no choice but to ask about at least three to find out where the EPA report published today, which is quite scathing on discharge of waste waters and bad management in that area, will be dealt with. Can the Taoiseach tell me if it will be in the water services Bill? When will the EPA (Amendment) Bill be published? If there is a new publication date for the waste management Bill, what is it? The matter will be in one or other of those Bills but I would like to know which one.
May I also ask about the rail safety Bill? Given that the Minister has published a consultancy document today, will that include a customer charter also? It would be appropriate that customers as well as the Minister have confidence in the public transport system.
Is the Deputy returning to the plastic bags again?
No, the discharge of waste water.
There is a waste management (amendment) Bill due in early summer and the water services Bill, which contains 180 heads, will consolidate and update the water services legislation.
What about the EPA (Amendment) Bill?
On the environmental protection Bill, the heads of that Bill have been approved and the Bill is in draft form. The heads of the railway safety Bill are expected shortly and the Bill should be ready some time in the middle of the year.
Will the Government be introducing legislation, will a ministerial order be required or will the Government fight the EU decision to ban T-bone steaks?
That is a matter for a parliamentary question.
A question for the Minister of State, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe. He will see us right.
There has been much slippage on children's issues recently. I would like to ask the Taoiseach about the promise to establish an ombudsman for children. Last year in its mid-term review,—
A brief question.
—the Government promised to establish that office during 2000. We are now well into 2001 and there is no sign of legislation for an ombudsman of children. Will the Taoiseach tell us the reason for the delay in bringing forward that legislation and at what precise stage is it? Has the Cabinet agreed the heads of the Bill?
The Childrens Bill is long-published and is before a select committee. The heads of the ombudsman Bill were approved last spring and the Bill has been in the line for drafting. It is due, as the Deputy will see from the schedule, in the middle of this year.
A Cheann Comhairle,—
No. We cannot have a debate on the matter. We have already been 40 minutes on the Order of Business. Deputy Owen.
I want to ask the Taoiseach—
No, I have called on Deputy Owen to ask her question. This is totally disorderly.
Why has it taken 18 months to get the heads of the Bill. It is an outrageous length of time.
This is totally disorderly. I call Deputy Owen on her question on the Order of Business.
I will try to be in order given that this is probably the last morning I will face the Ceann Comhairle from this seat on the Order of Business. I may do it another time but probably not from this seat. I am sure the Ceann Comhairle will be relieved to hear that. That is why I hoped he might have been nice to me this morning.
Will there be an opportunity to bring forward the Arts Bill, which is not due until late 2001, so that we can discuss the row brewing about removing the Abbey Theatre from Dublin's northside?
The Deputy should ask a question on the legislation.
We northsiders must ensure that some of these cultural facilities remain on Dublin's northside. What will the Taoiseach say about that because the public is concerned and it is a topical issue?
We cannot debate the issue. The Taoiseach should reply on the legislation.
I am not sure what will happen and I know it is not my business, but I thank Deputy Owen for her courtesy in the position she has held many times over the past three and a half years and wish her well in whatever position she holds next week.
The arts Bill is due late this year. The heads of the Bill are expected to be cleared before Easter and I am sure the other issue raised by the Deputy will be well aired before that, here and elsewhere.