It is proposed to take No. 13a — Finance Bill, 1997 — Financial Resolution; No. 13b, motion re. Standing Order No. 116; No. 13 — motion to rescind Order of Referral of the Youth Work Bill to the Select Committee on Social Affairs; No. 26 — Finance Bill, 1997 — Report and Final Stages; No. 27 — Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1997 — Report and Final Stages; No. 5 — Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill, 1997 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage.

It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 12 midnight; (2) Nos. 13a, 13b and 13 shall be decided without debate; (3) the Report and Final Stages of No. 26 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 6.45 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Finance; and (4) the Report and Final Stages of No. 27 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 9.45 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for the Environment. Private Members' Business shall be No. 60 — motion No. 21 re: Dublin area (resumed).

There are four matters to put before the House. Is the proposal for a late sitting satisfactory and agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 13a, 13b and 13 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 26 satisfactory and agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 27 agreed? Agreed.

Will the Taoiseach agree to a short debate on the mid-term ESRI report next week? It is an important report which should be debated in the House. A number of pertinent questions arise from it and I am sure others wish to contribute.

Yes, that is a good idea. We will arrange that next week.

When will the legislation to establish the hepatitis C compensation tribunal on a statutory basis be published?

I answered a question on that yesterday. I indicated there would be 48 hours of consultation from then and we hoped to have the heads of the Bill finalised either tomorrow or the day after at the latest. We then hope to make the heads of the Bill available to the Opposition parties and the public. Drafting of the legislation has already commenced but certain matters have not been finally settled. I cannot give a precise estimate as to when the Bill will be ready but it is being advanced with the greatest possible speed consistent with maximum consultation with those involved.

Last autumn, the Taoiseach announced that within two weeks the Court Services Bill would be introduced and put on a statutory basis. The legislation was to be published before Christmas as a means of trying to build confidence in the courts system, or at the time, to rebuild confidence in the Minister for Justice. It has not been mentioned for many months. Will it be published before the general election?

The heads of the Bill were approved yesterday.

Is that all?

We are proceeding rapidly to draft the legislation. It is not possible to publish an outline of the heads of the Bill.

It would be interesting to know how many heads of Bills are before the House. They are meaningless. This is a new device, only legislation has an effect in law. Last October the Taoiseach promised that this legislation would be published within two weeks. He subsequently changed his mind and said that the courts service would be placed on a statutory basis and that the legislation would be published before Christmas.

The Deputy's party is being somewhat contradictory. Only six or seven days ago it was demanding the heads of a particular Bill——

I am talking about the courts service Bill.

The Deputy is talking about the heads of a Bill as being meaningless but only six or seven days ago his party was baying for the heads of a particular Bill to be made available to it, indicating clearly that at that time it considered the heads of a Bill to be of enormous significance, even to the point of being disorderly in the House in its demand to see them. The Deputy is now indicating that the heads of a Bill are of no significance.He should make up his mind on the matter.

Provided they are presented immediately afterwards.

The Government is giving priority to court reform which it was never given before.

The Taoiseach is codding the people.

The interruptions must cease. Let us hear the Taoiseach without interruption.

We have increased the number of judges dramatically. When the Deputy's party was in office people had to wait two years to have a civil case heard. They are now being heard quickly. The same applies to criminal cases.

The Taoiseach should relax.

Bull.

There has never been as much commitment of resources to the courts as is occurring under the Government.

Nonsense.

There is no need to raise the tension.

Last October when the Taoiseach promised to introduce this important legislation he did not indicate that the heads would be made available, rather he said that the legislation would be published within two weeks. He subsequently decided that the courts service would be placed on a statutory basis. We have not seen the legislation. The Taoiseach is referring to the Bill dealing with hepatitis, the heads of which we asked to see so that we would know what was being discussed with the various groups involved. That is a different matter. Will the Government introduce the courts service Bill?

Many of the matters raised could be dealt with by the Whips.

We will introduce the courts service Bill.

When?

All of the policy decisions have been taken and the heads of the Bill approved. It is simply a question of proceeding with the drafting to which priority is being given by the Government. I cannot give the Deputy a precise date but I hope to see the Bill before the House within the next two months. It is important legislation.This is the first Government since the courts were established 75 years ago to give priority to court reform and to take a policy decision to establish an independent courts service——

Propaganda.

——in a way that is acceptable to the Judiciary. There were difficulties in proceeding immediately because there was a necessity to consult with the Judiciary to ensure the heads of the Bill would be in a form that would be acceptable to those who would have to work under them. That has now been done. I expect the Bill to be introduced in the House before the summer recess.

Can we get off this subject?

We will but this is an acknowledgement by the Taoiseach that what he announced in the House at the time and the way he proceeded was not in accord with the views expressed by Mrs. Justice Susan Denham. He has broken his own promise to introduce legislation in the House.

On the contrary——

I think the Chair should be obeyed.

——after the announcement we realised that there was a necessity for more extensive consultation with the Judiciary. That was reasonable.

The Taoiseach failed to do so.

It was a fire brigade exercise.

Having undertaken this consultation we have approved the heads of a Bill which will be introduced.

It was rushed to defend Nora but the Taoiseach was caught out.

Deputies opposite, including the one interrupting who was a practising lawyer, and anyone concerned with the law should know——

The Taoiseach has a short memory.

——that more resources have been provided for the courts by this Government than by any of its predecessors. The delays in hearing court cases when Fianna Fail was in office are being removed by this Government. If Fianna Fáil had continued in office, the courts service would have continued to be neglected. It is not being neglected by this Government.

The Bill is being used — not for the first time — to defend Nora.

If the Chair was obeyed, it would avoid much disorder.

Will the Taoiseach avail of an opportunity in the House to deal with the conflicting statements he made under oath to different tribunals established by the House? The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Dukes, said last night that he knew what the Taoiseach said in 1992 was incorrect but because he was not speaking to him at the time he did not tell him.

I never said anything of the kind.

The Minister did. He said he was not speaking to the Taoiseach at the time.

I have read the transcript and the Minister said that he was not speaking to the Taoiseach at the time. Given that he is now speaking to the Taoiseach——

Matters appertaining to the tribunal are not in order now.

Will the Taoiseach avail of an opportunity in the House to set the record straight and tell us which version is correct?

The matters referred to by the Deputy are for another place. Evidence before the tribunal of inquiry on the Dunnes Stores payments is, in my clear opinion, in the sole competence of the tribunal and may not be adverted to here. We have no right to interfere in its internal affairs.

The Taoiseach has made statements about these matters——

I am sorry but I will hear no more about it.

Soundbites.

Will the Taoiseach avail of an opportunity to respond?

The fact that the tribunal was established by a resolution of this House does not give the House a right to attempt to interfere in its proceedings in any way. I ask the Deputy to desist forthwith from any further reference to it.

Statements have been made by the Taoiseach and the Minister, Deputy Dukes. Will the Taoiseach respond to what I have said?

I have responded.

It was nonsense.

Will the Taoiseach respond in the House? Did he hear what the Minister, Deputy Dukes, said last night?

I will hear no more about the matter. It is one for the tribunal only.

I am somewhat puzzled by the Taoiseach's reply to Deputy Ahern regarding the courts commission. Since he is so adept at reconciling contradictions, will the Taoiseach advise the House as to how in October last he informed the House that the legislation in question would be introduced within two weeks and now tells us that it will take some time to produce?

I would prefer if we did not go back to that argument.

When the legislation was announced in October we were advised in representations received from the Judiciary that it was necessary to have more extensive consultations on the matter——

Panic had set in.

Here we go again.

——and that we could not establish, as we had hoped we would be able to do, the courts service on a non-statutory basis, that it would have to be placed on a statutory basis. We proceeded to deal with the matter in that way. The policy decisions incorporated in the heads of the Bill approved by the Government are based on the original policy decision to establish an independent courts service which will now be placed on a statutory basis.

If this argument is to continue, it must be at another time. I will hear no more about the matter.

I will be brief.

The Deputy heard me.

It relates to the legislation promised by the Taoiseach in the House.

We have had questions and answers.

It is a legitimate supplementary.In the light of——

This is not Question Time.

I accept that but in the light of his reply does the Taoiseach believe that consultation would avoid contradiction?

That is one for a question.

The Deputy should write that one down and circulate it, it is very pithy and eloquent.

One for The Kerryman.

Does the Minister have problems with Kerrymen?

A few.

I notice that the Government is establishing tax free zones throughout the country.When will it announce that the oldest port in Cork, Youghal, will be granted such status?

Will the Taoiseach confirm the Government's commitment to the World Equestrian Games in view of the adverse publicity over the past 24 hours?

That is a good question——

I think so, a Cheann Comhairle.

——and the Deputy should table it accordingly.

Four faults.

In view of previous promises by him. and given that everyone in the House seems to be in the traps, will the Taoiseach spring the Greyhound Bill from the Government at some stage without further objections?

The Deputy has raised that matter many times.

The difficulties relating to the Greyhound Bill are significant in terms of constitutional issues which are currently being considered.

Dogs have rights.

I cannot give the Deputy a full brief on these as they are of a substantial nature and require——

A change of Government.

——the taking of excessive opinion in some cases.

Hand the matter over to the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte.

There is a priority attached to this legislation but the constitutional difficulties cannot be resolved overnight.

We do not believe the Taoiseach any more.

I wonder if the Tánaiste does.

As I said to the Deputy on a number of occasions, and as all those involved know, I have a personal interest in ensuring that the legislation is advanced. I should say that this is a non-pecuniary personal interest.

There are no relations interests.

Yesterday the Taoiseach told the Leader of Fianna Fáil that a telecommunications Bill would be introduced. Will he be more precise as to the timing of the legislation? Given that the Communication Workers' Union conference is being held today, will he say why the Government is resisting the sale of share to workers in Telecom Éireann when it has already sold a large chunk of the company to Swedish and Danish interests?

We cannot enter the area of policy at this time. We can deal with the Bill but not policy.

Why is the Government resisting the sale of shares to the workers in the company?

Negotiations on the issue of shareholdings are taking place between Telecom Éireann and the unions representing the employees in the company. The Government fully accepts the principle of employee shareholding in the company and there will be significant employee shareholding in it. Negotiations are ongoing on the basis for this, the terms under which it will take place, etc. I assure the House that there is very strong support for the principle and practice of employee shareholding in this company.

I expect the legislation to be introduced at the end of the year. As I explained to Deputy Ahern yesterday, the legislation provides for a general reform of telecommunications legislation to prepare the industry for the liberalised market. It does not necessarily specifically deal with the matter to which Deputy Brennan referred which is the subject of ongoing, intensive negotiations to which the Government attaches high priority as to a successful outcome being obtained.

I wish to raise two matters. The first relates to promises given by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice at the time of the Dominic Lynch debacle. In addition to the promise to establish the courts service on a statutory basis a promise was given to set up an independent prisons board. What is the status of that proposal?Does it have the same status as the proposal on the courts service to which a reference has already been made on the Order of Business, that it is not yet completed?

The second matter relates to a health issue. After a series of investigations into the improper handling of child welfare cases by the health boards, including the Kilkenny incest case, the west of Ireland farmer case and the Kelly Fitzgerald case, the Government gave a serious commitment to establish a social services inspectorate to deal with such matters in the future. What is the status of this important inspectorate?

Is legislation promised in this area?

The Government has taken a decision that there will be a statutory prisons board. However, the work is at a comparatively early stage in terms of the consideration of a report which has been presented. The legislation will be prepared but I do not expect the Government to be in a position to introduce it in the House until next year.

We will do it.

The existing prisons system, exclusively dealt with by the Civil Service, has existed for 75 years. The Deputy's party was in Government for some of that time — the party's former leader was Minister for Justice — yet the system remained unchanged. The Government has taken the policy decision to change the system.

It has done nothing about it.

We need action.

I know we have the support of the Opposition in doing this. We will work to introduce the legislation as soon as possible. However, as I have stated repeatedly, we want the legislation dealing with these matters to be robust, to stand up to scrutiny and not to create difficulties in regard to accountability. The legislation will be produced on this basis.

It is like the family law legislation.

On the social services inspectorate, it is proposed to establish an inspectorate to enable reports on inquiries into child abuse and related issues to be published. The establishment of the inspectorate is not being held up by the absence of legislation. Initially the inspectorate will be established on a non-statutory basis and I expect that this will be the subject of legislation which will be brought before the House next year.