The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 20d, motion re Joint Committee on the Constitution; No. 20e, motion re Trade Marks Act, 1996, Regulations, 2000, Referral to Joint Committee; No. 20f, motion re Standards in Public Office Bill, 2000, Referral to Committees; No. 24, motion re Agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of Romania, returned from Committee; No. 21, Supplementary Estimate [Vote 38], returned from Committee; No. 24a, motion re Employment Equality Act, 1998, (Section 12) (Church of Ireland College of Education) Order, 2000; No. 46, Electronic Commerce Bill, 2000 [Seanad], Committee and Remaining Stages; No. 8, Hospitals' Trust (1940) Limited (Payments to Former Employees) Bill, 2000, Order for Second Stage and Second and Remaining Stages; No. 1, Harbours (Amendment) Bill, 2000 [Seanad], Second Stage (resumed) and Remaining Stages; No. 47, Gas (Amendment) Bill, 2000 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages to be taken on the conclusion of the Second Stage of No. 1; No. 8a, Medical Practitioners (Amendment) Bill, 2000, Order for Second Stage and Second and Remaining Stages and No. 18, Local Government (No. 2) Bill, 2000, Order for Second Stage and Second and Remaining Stages.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 4.45 p.m. today and business shall be interrupted not later than 12 midnight and the sitting shall be suspended from 2 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. and from 7 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.; (2) Nos. 20d, 20e, 20f, 24 and 21, shall be decided without debate and any division demanded on No. 21 shall be taken forthwith; (3) the proceedings on No. 24a, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion after 30 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) speeches, which shall, subject to paragraph (ii), be confined to a Minister or Minister of State and the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed ten minutes in each case and (ii)Members may share time; (4) Committee and Remaining Stages of No. 46 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 4.20 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 Public Enterprise; (5) Second and Remaining Stages of No. 8, shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 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 Enterprise, Trade and Employment; (6) Second Stage (resumed) and Remaining Stages of No. 1, shall be taken today and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) Second Stage (resumed) to conclude at 7 p.m., if not previously concluded, and (ii) Committee and Remaining Stages to conclude at 10.15 p.m., if not previously concluded, and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion by one question in each case 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 Marine and Natural Resources; (7) Report and Final Stages of No. 47 shall be taken on the conclusion of the Second Stage of No. 1 and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 9 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 Public Enterprise and the order shall resume thereafter; (8) Second and Remaining Stages of No. 8a shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 10.45 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 Health and Children; (9) Second and Remaining Stages of No. 18 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 12 midnight 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 and Local Government;

The Tánaiste's voice is going. She has been doing too much talking behind the scenes.

We are giving the Opposition so much to discuss. It has been looking for things—

The Tánaiste is going very quiet.

I have plenty to say but I do not wish to abuse the privilege of the House. The Order of Business continues: (10) the Dáil shall sit tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and shall adjourn not later than 5 p.m., there shall be no Order of Business within the meaning of Standing Order 26 (2) and (3) and, accordingly, the business to be transacted shall be No. 20g, motion reaffirming confidence in the Government to conclude at 5 p.m. and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the opening speech of the Taoiseach and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 30 minutes in each case; (ii) the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed 20 minutes; (iii) Members may share time; (iv) a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed 20 minutes and the proceedings thereon shall be brought to a conclusion at 5 p.m. and, in the event that the debate concludes earlier, any division demanded thereon shall be postponed until 5 p.m. and (11) the Dáil, on its rising tomorrow, shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 3 October 2000.

There are 11 proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 20d, 20e, 20f, 24 and 21 agreed?

No, Sir. I have a problem with No. 20f, the Standards in Public Office Bill. In light of the Government's experience with the appointment to the EIB, which is a public office, will this Bill deal with the scrutiny by the House of future Government appointments such as the appointment it will probably make this month to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development? Will the Tánaiste indicate whether that appointment will be scrutinised by the House or if she has discussed it with the Minister for Finance or the Taoiseach?

The question before the House is the proposal to take this item without debate.

That is correct, a Cheann Comhairle.

That is the only question.

Before the House decides on that question, it is important that it knows whether it will deal with appointments to international bodies, with which the Government has had such difficulty. Another such appointment will be made this month to the EBRD.

The Chair interprets the Deputy's comments as opposing this proposal.

As regards No. 20f, it is proposed that this long awaited Bill which was published this morning will be immediately referred to two committees. The purpose of that course of action is not clear. Is Second Stage of the Bill being taken in a nominal way following which the Bill will be referred to the committees or is it simply going back to the two committees which discussed these proposals over the past two and a half years? The legislative intent is not clear. Is the Government trying to kick this issue into touch again or what is it asking the committees to do? I do not recall this parliamentary procedure being proposed before. Will the Tánaiste clarify what is intended by this proposal?

What are the committees to do?

Deputies know that the terms of this Bill were the subject of widespread consultation with Opposition parties at an earlier stage. The intention is that the Bill will go to the committees. I understand this has been sought to discuss the Bill before Second Stage.

May I clarify this point, a Cheann Comhairle?

We cannot have a discussion on the Bill.

I am talking about procedure, Sir.

If it is on procedure, yes. I call Deputy Bruton for a final word on the question.

Will this Bill deal with the standards of Government appointments to international bodies? In particular, will it cover the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development?

Perhaps you might assist me, a Cheann Comhairle. This is a new parliamentary procedure. Having had prior consultation with the set of proposals for a committee, and having taken those proceedings from the committee, the Government has introduced a Bill. The Government is clearly declining to move Second Stage of the Bill and is referring it back to committees it controls by virtue of its majorities. One can only conclude that having extracted the Bill from the Government, it is now employing a parliamentary device to ensure it is not enacted.

Nonsense.

The Opposition does not want the Bill.

We do want the Bill, but it is for the Government to move Second Stage.

The Chair is putting the question: "That the proposal for dealing with Nos. 20d, 20e, 20f, 24 and 21 be agreed."

On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle.

There cannot be a point of order when the Chair is putting the question. The Chair has put the question.

On a point of order.

There cannot be a point of order. The Chair is on its feet putting the question that the proposal be agreed.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 24a agreed?

I wanted to indicate to the Chair that the Opposition spokespersons were prepared to facilitate the passing of 20e, with which I gather there is some urgency. I was indicating that I wanted to be helpful to the Government, but unfortunately, Sir, you move with such alacrity in the Chair I did not have an opportunity to do so. We are anxious to facilitate the Government on this if that is now procedurally possible.

The decision has been taken on that matter and we are now dealing with No. 24a.

No. 24 concerns an agreement between the Governments of Ireland and Romania, one of the countries covered by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. This month a vacancy arises for an Irish director of that bank and before agreeing to take this important motion without debate I would like the Tánaiste to outline the Governments plans. Will the Tánaiste indicate that the Government will make an announcement regarding the filling of the post in the EBRD before the recess?

I will be happy to agree to Deputy Rabbitte's suggestion.

Will the Tánaiste be so kind as to respond to my question concerning a proposal by her that the motion on Romania be taken without debate? Before agreeing to that will the Tánaiste indicate—

We have already discussed that.

We have not.

We are on the proposal dealing with No. 24a.

No, Sir, we are on No. 24. I accept the correction by the Chair, but I wish to ask a question concerning No. 24. Will the Tánaiste indicate whether the announcement regarding the EBRD appointment has been fixed between herself and the Taoiseach? Will it be announced before the recess?

That is reasonable.

The proposal now before the House—

Is there a proposal to appoint a former Minister and member of the Progressive Democrats?

No, there is not.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 24a agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 46 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 8 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 1 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 47 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 8a agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 18 agreed to? Agreed. Are the proposals for tomorrow's sitting and the taking of the motion of confidence in the Government agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal that the Dáil at its rising tomorrow shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 3 October 2000 agreed to?

No. It is not the view of the country or Members that the Dáil should adjourn for three months at a time when the Government has so much to account for—

Honesty and integrity – what a joke.

—and when the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have failed to account for their recent actions and words which have caused so much damage to public confidence. I believe, and I think the people agree, that the House should not adjourn.

I accept that the practice for quite some time has been what the media and many of us refer to as a long summer recess. I ask—

It is known as the great escape.

The House is not adjourning. Rather the plenary session of the House is adjourning, but the committees will meet in July and September and that should be properly noted. We are not doing ourselves any service by creating the impression that the House is adjourning.

Hear, hear.

I therefore ask the order to be amended to note that the plenary session of the Dáil be adjourned—

Yes.

—but that the committees continue. No doubt the media will cover the proceedings of the committees with the same alacrity with which they cover plenary sessions of the House. The Labour Party does not oppose the adjournment. We know the logistics relating to other arrangements in the House which will improve the working conditions for all of us – our working conditions should be as good as those of others.

Will the Tánaiste indicate whether there are provisions and whether they will be communicated by the Government for the recall of the Dáil should that be necessary? On a number of occasions in recent years the Dáil has been recalled. If the committees make progress during July, would it not be appropriate to have a one or two day session in July to complete and advance Bills? I propose an amendment that we make provision for the Dáil to be recalled if there are Bills which could be progressed to Report Stage, as has happened previously. More than 20 Bills either have been published or are in progress. We can be more productive in the way we do our work. We should, therefore, come back for two days at the end of July. I propose this by way of amendment.

The Dáil cannot rise at a time when business and tourism interests and workers in Arklow face a very bleak future. We need to come back if we are to be responsible and accountable to the people in relation to the rail strike and legislation dealing with such matters as fundraising and charitable organisations in respect of which legislation is 20 years overdue. Although the committees have much work to do, we cannot honestly bring this plenary session to an end until we have much more under our belts. We are behind on many Bills.

(Dublin West): Notwithstanding that the committees will continue to meet it is being proposed that the Dáil should adjourn until October. There is unfinished business which must and should be dealt with before the House goes into recess. Iarnród Éireann is refusing to talk to half of its workforce—

The Deputy should not deal with that business now; it is a question of whether he supports or opposes the proposal.

(Dublin West): That is one of two crucial points. Iarnród Éireann is refusing to talk to half of its train drivers. This is causing dreadful problems for commuters and industrial workers. There is also a flagrant abuse of power by certain Garda authorities in the manner in which the report on the tragic death of John Carthy is being used and abused in the most cynical and heartless way. If Dáil Éireann means anything we must have a discussion—

The Deputy cannot continue with statements; he has made his position clear, he is opposing the proposal. That is all that is necessary at this stage.

(Dublin West): I am opposing the proposal that the Dáil should rise tomorrow. The John Carthy situation must be debated before the recess if the Dáil is to take itself seriously. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should bring the report before the House.

The Deputy has had his say.

I will oppose the adjournment unless the shameful information which came to hand about three or four weeks ago is dealt with in the Chamber before the House rises, that is, that one in four children under the age of 14 years lives in poverty. Child benefit should be increased immediately to £100 per month per child.

Deputy Quinn, a date must be suggested in the amendment.

I share the views expressed by Deputy Quinn. While the Dáil will not meet in plenary session, the committees will continue to function in July and September. As Deputies are aware the construction works which will be under way around the premises require a somewhat longer adjournment than might otherwise be the case.

Renovation works generally.

The last time the Deputy was in Government the Dáil adjourned from 5 July to 8 October.

Not to renovate the Government.

As Deputy Quinn is aware there are procedures in place for the recall of the Dáil. They have been used in the past and, if necessary, they will be used again. The Government shares the concern expressed by Deputy Higgins in relation to what appears to be a selective leak from a report which I understand was received yesterday by the Garda Commissioner. I understand the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will not receive it until tomorrow. It is highly inappropriate that a report of this kind on the tragic death of John Carthy should be leaked in this fashion.

From where is it coming?

It is most unfortunate and highly improper.

Will Deputy Quinn be more specific on the amendment he has proposed bearing in mind that Standing Orders—

On a point of order—

I am dealing with Deputy Quinn.

—the Tánaiste has now informed the House that the report was leaked.

That is not a point of order.

What will she do about this? Who leaked the report?

Order, please.

Will gardaí arrive at somebody's house at 6 a.m?

The Tánaiste should stand by her words for once.

There is an investigation under way—

By whom?

I understand the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has initiated an investigation into the leaking of the report.

Who will conduct the investigation?

We must proceed with the business of the day.

I wish to formally propose an amendment to the proceedings to the effect that the Dáil shall resume for a two day session on Tuesday and Wednesday, 25 and 26 July 2000. There are 20 Bills either which been published or are in progress. The Government should accept this amendment.

The question is: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

I am putting the main proposal, that is, "That the Dáil, on its rising tomorrow, shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 3 October 2000.". Is that agreed?

No, it is not. This is not the right thing to do and the Tánaiste knows it. The House should not go into recess for three months when there are so many questions to be answered by her and others.

Given that the Tánaiste has secured agreement that the House will not sit for three months, during which period she will not be answerable to the House, will she take the opportunity of the confidence motion to deal with the consequences of her recent intervention in a current criminal trial?

That does not arise on the Order of Business. I call Deputy Howlin.

I think it is important. The Tánaiste should indicate if she will be dealing with this.

It does not arise on the Order of Business. I call Deputy Howlin.

Will the Tánaiste account to the House in the same way she has so often demanded others should?

I have called Deputy Howlin.

The Tánaiste is shaking her head.

Deputy Bruton is out of order. He knows the matter he is raising is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

I want to know if the Tánaiste is accountable to the House for sabotaging a trial.

The Deputy will have to find another way to raise that matter.

I want to raise a matter of the utmost seriousness, which was briefly alluded by the Tánaiste earlier. Will the Tánaiste inform the House of the nature of the investigation that will be held into the leaking of the report of the Abbeylara investigation? Who will do the investigating? Will she unequivocally condemn the selective leaking of the report of a Garda investigation before the Members of this House had sight of it?

That is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

I think the Tánaiste would like to put this on the record.

Deputy Belton raised that matter in order.

(Mayo): On the same matter, a commitment was given to this House by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that the report on the Abbeylara shooting would be published and debated. It is inconceivable that this report is with the Garda Commissioner and that the Minister still has not had sight of it. The Minister should see that report today. I want a commitment from the Tánaiste that time will be set aside tomorrow to debate the Abbeylara report and to answer questions. This is vitally important.

I understand the Tánaiste has already commented on this matter.

As I said earlier, I share the concern that has been expressed, as does the entire Government. It is wrong that this report was leaked on a selective basis, which appears to have happened – although, clearly, since we have not got the report, we cannot be certain. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will investigate the matter. He has not seen the report. I understand the Garda Commissioner received it last night. He will prepare his observations on the report and make them available to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform tomorrow. The Minister intends to publish this report as quickly as he can after it is made available to him.

(Mayo): He should demand it.

The Deputy can take it that the Minister is extremely active in relation to this matter.

In relation to that matter—

I call Deputy Yates. We are not having a debate on this matter now.

In relation to the investigation of the leaking of the report, what will be the nature of that investigation and who is to conduct it?

We are not having a debate on that matter. I have called Deputy Yates.

A simple answer would allay the fears and concerns of people on a matter of great—

It is not a matter appropriate to the Order of Business.

Leaks were referred to a couple of weeks ago as well. The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, who is the appropriate person as head of the Garda Síochána, is responsible for investigating that matter.

Who is leaking?

In the past two days I have tabled Private Notice Questions about the rail problem. There is no facility for Private Notice Questions tomorrow and it was disallowed as a Standing Order 31 matter. I ask you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, in view of the worsening situation with the closure of the—

That is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle's office.

Perhaps, you could say to the Ceann Comhairle that this is the last opportunity—

I call Deputy Rabbitte.

Is the Tánaiste committed to making time available to discuss the Abbeylara report? If not, will it go to a committee next week?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: We have already dealt with that matter. I call Deputy Theresa Ahearn.

Will the Minister come before the committee next week?

I have called Deputy Ahearn.

I think the Tánaiste wants to reply, Sir.

We cannot have a debate on that matter as it has already been discussed once.

What could be more important on the second last sitting day of this session?

As Deputy Rabbitte knows well, Standing Order 26 is very specific.

With all due respect, this is not a meeting of the Fianna Fáil party.

I ask the Deputy to withdraw that remark which is a reflection on the Chair.

Maybe you should circulate a list of the matters we can raise.

If the Deputy does not withdraw the remark I will ask him to leave the House.

I look forward to the Tánaiste's reply and I—

Is the Deputy withdrawing the remark?

I withdraw the imputation against yourself, Sir.

(Mayo): A commitment was given—

I have called Deputy Ahearn.

(Mayo):—to this House by the Minister that the report would be published here and would be taken.

That stands.

(Mayo): Will it be debated tomorrow? It would take one hour.

The business for tomorrow has already been agreed. I call Deputy Ahearn. That matter should have been raised on the discussion of tomorrow's business.

(Mayo): Can we not agree to a one hour debate tomorrow? There is a public responsibility to answer in respect of this matter.

I have called Deputy Ahearn.

(Mayo): We need a commitment in relation to this. It must be debated.

There should be a meeting of the justice committee to receive the report.

I appreciate, Sir, you are in charge of maintaining order and the procedures of the House. However, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will be quite happy to agree with the Opposition spokespersons to refer the report to a committee or—

Will he appear himself?

I am sure he will.

Are the Tánaiste and the Government aware of the profound disquiet and disappointment of people with disabilities at the amended building regulations announced by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, which are far more about exemptions than compliance?

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

It is very serious for people with disabilities—

Does the Deputy have a question specific to the Order of Business?

—that local authorities are not obliged until December 2003 to provide the basic facilities—

I call Deputy Sargent.

I want to ask the Government why—

The Deputy knows she is out of order.

It is very serious.

I appreciate it is serious but it is not a matter for the Order of Business. I call Deputy Sargent.

It is being long fingered like the disability Bill, transport—

I ask Deputy Ahearn to resume her seat.

I have been waiting to raise a matter of promised legislation. Since the Order of Business began, more than one million gallons of radioactive contaminated water have been discharged from Sellafield. Does the Government see the urgency of getting two more votes for OSPAR, which would win Ireland's position and end discharges? Only two more votes are needed and we should be lobbying those people. Is the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, doing that?

It would indicate some urgency on the part of the Government to resolve the issue if the railway safety Bill were brought forward earlier rather than waiting until 2001, as is written in the document. Will the Government make progress on resolving that issue? It will fester over the summer and kill off a great deal of tourism business. Workers will lose their jobs—

The Deputy has asked a question on promised legislation.

A huge investment is being made in railway safety. However, the heads of the Bill in question are expected later this year and it will be next year before the final Bill is ready.

I would now like to formally move No. 20b on the Order Paper and propose that it be taken in Private Members' time.

I think we should deal with the other matters Members want to raise first.

The Ceann Comhairle indicated I should raise it at this stage.