The Order of Business today shall be No. 21, Motion re Leave to introduce Supplementary Estimate [Vote 31]; No. 22, Motion re Referral of Supplementary Estimate [Vote 31] to Select Committee; and No. 47, Mental Health Bill, 1999 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. and business shall be interrupted not later than 10.00 p.m.; (2) No. 21, and subject to the agreement of No. 21, No. 22 shall be decided without debate and any divisions demanded on Nos. 21 and 22 shall be taken forthwith; and (3) the Report and Final Stages of No. 47 shall be taken today and the pro ceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 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. Private Members' business shall be No. 109, Motion re Health Cares Services (resumed) to conclude at 8.30 p.m.

There are three proposals to be put to the House. The first concerns the late sitting. Is the late sitting agreed?

On numerous occasions the House has been promised the Report and Final Stages of the Children Bill. On a number of occasions the Taoiseach said it would be taken. It is not scheduled for this week. The ongoing row between the various Departments is delaying matters.

Is the Deputy opposing the proposal?

Yes, because of the failure by various Departments to submit amendments to the Bill years after Second Stage was passed.

I understand Report Stage is due in the week after the Nice referendum.

It was promised for last week.

The next proposal is that for dealing with Nos. 21 and 22, the introduction and referral of Supplementary Estimate, Vote 31, Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Is that agreed? Agreed. The final proposal is that for dealing with No. 47, Report and Final Stages of the Mental Health Bill, 1999. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Taoiseach could be aware that Intel employs 4,500 people in this country. Yesterday its general manager delivered a damning verdict on the Government's economic policies. In particular he described the decision in the last budget to abolish the ceiling on employers' PRSI as a major own goal. He then said that "our wage costs are moving faster than in many other competing countries and we do ourselves no favours in making decisions that further erode our competitiveness and damage our international reputation". Given that the PRSI decision will have a big impact on firms in the technology sector and that 4,000 people have already been laid off in this sector this year, will the Taoiseach agree that this own goal should be reversed immediately and that the decision to raise the PRSI ceiling should now be reversed to ensure our competitiveness and international reputation are not damaged any further?

Does the Taoiseach agree that one of the primary benefits a Government can bring to an open market economy, such as ours, is consultation with the social partners and deliberations in relation to changes in tax policy prior to their implementation, as has been the case with successive Administrations? Will he indicate why this change was introduced without any consultation with the social partners prior to its announcement by the Minister for Finance?

I understand leaders' question time relates to topical and current issues. This decision was made on the first Wednesday of December.

The statement was made yesterday.

There is not a brief on it.

I do not need any briefing on this issue.

We will see.

The debate about this through December and January led IBEC to state that it did not like it because it means IBEC must pay more resources. The Government, in turn, has made the point that the enormous reductions in taxation in each of the past few Finance Acts gives hundreds of millions of pounds back to the these companies in the private sector. Their tax bill has been lightened considerably. This year the Minister for Finance introduced the software options particularly for companies such as Intel and other technology companies which lobbied the Government so they would have an advantage over other companies. Deputy Quinn mentioned consultation with the social partners. He will be aware consultation has led to agreement with the social partners. Many of the trade union movements have stated this is an unfair advantage to give to companies such as Intel and others.

Deputy Noonan asked the question.

The Minister for Finance has also said that issues put forward by IBEC on behalf of the technology companies will be considered in his next Finance Bill.

This Government has been extremely helpful and generous to these organisations in every policy it has adopted. I know they are going through a difficult time and that the American downturn has created difficulties for them. However, it is not unreasonable when we are substantially reducing corporation tax on these companies to take some resources back. All the consultations about tax measures did not take place before the budget for obvious reasons because if we did that, there would be other difficulties. I acknowledge this issue created considerable anxiety for Mr. Turlough O'Sullivan, the head of IBEC, the chairman of IBEC and others at the time. I and the Minister for Finance have attended several meetings in recent months. I know Deputy Quinn heard me make remarks about this at the IBEC lunch a few weeks ago in the presence of the chairman of IBEC.

The Taoiseach may not be aware that 200 redundancies were announced in Dell overnight. This is also a topical issue. For over seven years now all Administrations, including the rainbow Government when Deputy Quinn was Minister for Finance, created an image of a pro-business environment. The Taoiseach is now beginning to establish an anti-business image for this country. He is raising the PRSI ceiling.

The Deputy should ask a question.

It is questions, not jokes.

Inflation, particularly fuel inflation, is going out of control. The Administration is in bad odour in Brussels. Does the Taoiseach not consider it an inopportune time to antagonise the business sector, particularly the technological sector, when the shadow from America is overhanging our economy and every international technological firm in the United States is looking for redundancies and is cutting back on jobs and on strategic decisions to establish in Europe?

I remind Deputy Noonan that 60,000 jobs were created this year. Corporation tax rates in Ireland are among the lowest in Europe.

We brought it in.

This Government brought it down.

No. We brought it down.

Order, Deputy Mitchell. Please do not interrupt. These are leader's questions.

I tell my good friend, Deputy Mitchell, that this was the great announcement made in the summer of 1997. However, when I got to Brussels nobody knew anything about it. This Government had to undertake the entire negotiations. There had not been any negotiation on that issue prior to that. It was the Tánaiste's Department and my Department which saw through the negotiations.

On a point of order. The Taoiseach has asserted that the Commission was not aware of the proposals to alter—

That is not a point of order, Deputy. The Deputy will deal with this matter in another way. I call on the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach has misled the House.

The Deputy should not charge that Members are misleading the House. The Deputy can raise the matter on his own question.

Deputy Quinn knows an announcement was made.

Deputy Quinn should resume his seat. He is out of order. Deputy Quinn will have an opportunity to raise the matter in turn under his leaders questions. The Deputy should resume his seat.

Will the Taoiseach reverse the decision?

Work was not done on this issue prior to this Government coming into office. All of the negotiations had to take place—

That is a lie.

The Deputy is being totally disorderly. The Deputy should not make such charges. Please allow the Taoiseach to continue.

On a point of order.

I hope it is a point of order.

Instead of attacking Deputy Quinn, the Taoiseach should answer my question—

That is not a point of order.

I remind Deputy Noonan that capital gains tax has been halved. I know he is opposed to that. We have continued to bring down corporation tax. We are creating 60,000 jobs per year. We brought unemployment down from 11% to 3.5%. We have continued to make employment and business in Ireland extremely positive.

The Government is beginning to be seen as anti-business.

The Deputy would love to see the economy take a downturn.

Deputy Noonan's colleagues from Dell telephoned me this morning to say that 200 agreements had been reached. I asked if that meant redundancies. They told me it did not. On behalf of Dell, I want to correct Deputy Noonan.

Order, please.

I believed, when Deputy Noonan mentioned the economy, that he was about to comment on the excellent OECD report released yesterday. This again said that the budget of the Minister for Finance last year has helped the Irish economy, and that his Finance Bill and the policies followed this year are correct. We must be careful to watch issues such as labour costs. We have been through difficult industrial relations issues and we must continue to hold the line. We have to continue to deal with a downturn—

While destroying what is left of the State companies.

Get off the stage.

—in the United States. Thankfully, the economy is in a healthy position. While there are some job losses due to the international situation, we will create a record number of jobs this year.

In view of the alarming revelations that emerged from Dublin Castle yesterday, and the Taoiseach's repeated failure to publish his plans for political party and election funding, will he now set an example as president of Fianna Fáil and return to Mr. Denis O'Brien the £50,000 donation received? Perhaps the Tánaiste and Fine Gael might do the same in the interests of politics for every elected Member in this House.

Has the Taoiseach been advised whether the Moriarty tribunal will have it's final report this year or whether there will be an interim report?

It will be when the chairman wants to make his report.

I do not know. I have no information on an interim report or a finish date. It is a matter for the chairman of the tribunal. I assure Deputy Quinn that it is the intention of this Government to enact all ten Bills in this area this year. The Government will not have a change of heart on any of this legislation and we hope to have it all passed before Christmas.

I take it from his contribution that the Taoiseach will not be refunding the money, notwithstanding the dismay of many people about the relationship between business and the funding of political parties. I would like to take the Taoiseach at his word regarding the intentions of this Government to meet its commitments. I remind him that in May 2000, this House passed unopposed the Second Stage of the Labour Party Bill on electoral donations. On 4 December 2000, the Taoiseach published a comprehensive article in The Irish Times setting out his plans. On 15 December—

A question, Deputy.

I am putting my question. On 15 December 2000, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government published the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000. On the same day, he issued a press statement to say that there would be additional amendments to the published Bill. In March 2001, that Bill went through Second Stage in the Seanad but all that is to be done there is not yet complete. The amendments are yet to be published. Repeatedly throughout this year, the Taoiseach has undertaken to deal with this issue. What more do we need to see coming out of Dublin Castle before the Taoiseach is shamed into action, and before this country can have faith in politics?

Was the Deputy not in power for much of this time?

I could be drawn, but maybe I should not be.

Please, do.

Legislation is not what caused the matters now being dealt with by the tribunals. When the history of these matters is written, it will be interesting to see why Government procedures were not followed, leading to those decisions.

They were. Is the Taoiseach referring to Carysfort College?

The Deputy knows to what he is referring.

The Electoral (Amendment) Bill has been passed, the Local Elections (Disclosure of Donations and Expenditure) Bill has been passed. The second Electoral (Amendment) Bill was passed. The Prevention of Corruption Bill is before the House. The Cabinet yesterday cleared the remaining amendments. The Standards in Public Office Bill is at the Order for Second Stage. I believe that Bill will be dealt with in the House tomorrow. The Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000 is awaiting Committee Stage in the Seanad—

With no amendments.

With help from the committee, we can make progress with that. The Government will have its amendments in shortly. The audit for allowances for parliamentary party leaders will be published shortly. The Minister for Finance is ready to publish it. The Local Government Bill, 2000, is to be resumed and will be in the Houses shortly.

It is stalled.

The Bill dealing with lobbying has made extensive progress in recent days.

It is opposed.

The Whistleblowers Protection Bill is awaiting Select Committee.

It is stalled.

We are already working on the Ethics in Public Office Act. In legislative terms, this House will have done more than any parliament in the world in this session.

I raise the issue of the Bill dealing with compensation for victims of child abuse and the statement by the chairman of the commission dealing with that matter. She cannot proceed with 714 submissions to the investigative committee because of the lack of a decision by Government on legal representation of those victims. Will the Government, which has made an apology to victims, respond in a more whole hearted way to the needs of people who are seeking to go before the tribunal?

The legislation is due this session. The Government is grateful for the enormous amount of work done by Justice Laffoy. We are not pleased that delays occurred. However, three schemes were put forward and people acted in good faith. We are grateful for the efforts made by Ms Justice Laffoy and we are glad that problems about the scheme have been resolved. We regret that delays took place.

What is the precise status of the legislation promised on foot of the DIRT report to establish a commission for the Oireachtas?

I do not believe it is on the list, but a commission Bill has been promised. This will be introduced later in the year, but it will certainly not appear before the summer recess.

I am concerned that neither the Taoiseach nor any other member of the Government knows the current position vis-à-vis this legislation, which was approved in principle. It is important that proposals should be brought forward sooner rather than later.

An interim team was established to deal with this matter. The legislation has not yet been listed but it is promised.

Has the Government given consideration to breaking off diplomatic relations with Israel in view of that country's continuing slaughter of Palestinians?

The Deputy can pursue that matter by way of parliamentary question.

It is a relevant matter.

It is not relevant to and it is not in order on the Order of Business. However, if the Deputy wishes to pursue the matter he might consider tabling a parliamentary question.

The Taoiseach wishes to comment.

It is not in order for him to do so.

On yesterday's Order of Business I referred to the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Bill, 2001, the aim of which is to establish a railway procurement agency, and inquired whether it would be withdrawn or seriously amended before it was introduced in this House. I did so because the Minister for Public Enterprise stated in the Seanad that the Bill would not refer to heavy rail. Given that no other form of rail exists in Ireland at present, what is the purpose of the Bill? I accept that the content of the Bill is not an issue, I am merely inquiring if it will be withdrawn or amended as a result of the Minister's statement in the Seanad.

All I can do is outline the formal position which is that the Bill is before the Seanad. Whatever amendments or changes are required will have to be made there.

She said the Bill is not concerned with heavy rail. With what is it concerned? There is no form of rail in Ireland other than heavy rail.

Virtual rail.

The House will be aware that I tabled a question to the Minister for Health and Children in March regarding the number of bodies under the aegis of his Department and that I recently received a reply in which 55 such bodies were named.

Where are they buried?

I indicated yesterday that there are three other bodies of which I am aware and which were not named. I ask that the Minister come before the House to correct the record.

That question is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

When a parliamentary question is answered after six weeks and the reply given is not accurate, the House is entitled to have the record corrected.

Not on the Order of Business.

Yesterday, the Minister for Health and Children stated that he is making legislative provision, by way of a statutory instrument, to establish an agency to deal with crisis pregnancies in Ireland. Given that the Minister promised a debate on this statutory instrument, will the Taoiseach indicate when it is likely to take place?

I will ask the Whips to try to agree a date on which the debate can be taken.

Last week in London 50 works of art from the County Donegal studios of the late Derek Hill were sold at Christie's auction house. This was a great loss to our cultural heritage because the works were sold to private dealers and collectors.

Is this about promised legislation?

It is about promised and published legislation. The Heritage Fund Bill was published on 10 April. When will this Bill, which is designed to ensure that works of art of this nat ure remain in this country rather than being exported, be introduced in the House?

The Bill, which is designed to deal with this issue, has been published, is scheduled to be dealt with and I hope it can be taken in the House as soon as possible.

The Minister for the Environment and Local Government has four Bills awaiting Second Stage consideration in the House – the Local Government Bill, the Electoral Bill, the Waste Management Bill and the Road Traffic Bill. Which, if any, of these four items does the Taoiseach expect to have completed Second Stage before the summer recess in order that Committee Stage proceedings on them can proceed during that period?

The Waste Management Bill and the Local Government Bill are scheduled to be taken in the coming weeks. I am not sure if the others will be dealt with.

Deputy Healy-Rae will have a long hot summer working overtime.

Which of them does the Government expect to be dealt with in Committee during the summer?

That is a fair question.

As I understand it, the intention is to conclude deliberations on both Bills before the summer recess.

I welcome the decision to take Second Stage of the Adventure Activities Standards Authority Bill. However, I encourage the Taoiseach to ensure that the Bill passes all Stages before the summer recess in order that its provisions can be implemented this summer. Perhaps the Taoiseach might ensure, in conjunction with the Whips, that all Stages are taken.

Last November, the Minster for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, promised that within months he would introduce the dormant accounts legislation. Will the Taoiseach ensure that this legislation will be taken before the summer recess?

I agree with Deputy Finucane that all Stages of the Adventure Activities Standards Authority Bill should be passed before the summer recess and I ask for co-operation from all sides to allow this to happen. The dormant accounts Bill has not yet been published. The Bill will be published this session but I do not know whether it will be taken.

On two or three occasions several weeks ago the Taoiseach gave an undertaking that No. 68 on yesterday's Order Paper, which asks Dáil Éireann to note the commencement of Human Rights Year in December 1997, would be replaced by another motion. Nothing has hap pened in the interim. It makes a mockery of the debate that is necessary on human rights and of the impending human rights legislation, to leave on the Order Paper a motion marked "resumed" which declares the duration of Human Rights Year from 10 December 1997 to 10 December 1998. It speaks of the Government that Eilís Ní Dhomhnaill, Aire Stáit ag an Roinn Gnóthaí Eachtracha, could not draft a motion to replace one that is four years old. The Taoiseach gave an undertaking that this motion would be either withdrawn on grounds of decency or replaced with a more appropriate motion which would enable us to review the outstanding international rights conventions which have not been ratified by Ireland.

I will examine the matter to which the Deputy refers. However, as I understand it, the Bill was published on 5 April and is ordered for Second Stage.

This has nothing to do with legislation. I am grateful to the Taoiseach for his reply but I am afraid he is misinformed.

The Deputy may make a brief comment.

I will be brief, a Cheann Comhairle. It is good to be accurate, even in respect of small points. My question relates to a motion which has been on the Order Paper for many weeks. Several weeks ago the Taoiseach gave an undertaking to speak to those responsible and have the motion withdrawn and replaced with a more up to date motion. If a proper motion is tabled, we will be able to consider not only the legislation to which the Taoiseach refers but also the other Bills which are outstanding and which stand as a mark against us, particularly as we were supposed to have celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration in 1998. It is a matter of being competent and this can be achieved by tabling a motion that will enable us to debate human rights.

The human rights legislation is to be passed by the summer. The motion to which the Deputy refers is a Foreign Affairs motion. I will ask the Department of Foreign Affairs about the matter.

I hope the Taoiseach has more luck with that on this occasion.

Was the Taoiseach surprised by the Garda Commissioner's comments yesterday in relation to the—

That is not in order on the Order of Business.

It relates to upcoming legislation.

Then the Deputy should ask about the legislation.

Was the Taoiseach surprised by the Garda Commissioner's comments yesterday in relation to the fact that current policing measures are not having any impact on the levels of public disorder and street violence?

It is not in order to comment on that.

Will the Taoiseach indicate when the Garda Síochána Bill and the Criminal Justice (Garda Powers) Bill will be introduced and whether he plans to increase the number of gardaí in the force?

The heads of the Garda Síochána Bill have been passed, the numbers in the Garda Síochána have now reached the necessary 12,000 and public order legislation has already been enacted.

Is the Taoiseach prepared to organise time for a discussion on the serious crisis in the livestock sector? Some 250,000 more cattle are unsold at this stage compared to this time last year.

The Deputy can raise that matter in other ways.

The Taoiseach is the one person who can give time—

The question is not in order on the Order of Business.

It is extremely important to discuss this now before there is a complete crisis towards the end of the year.

Given the grave disquiet throughout the country about the social economy programme and the fact that the criteria still appear to be very vague and do not appear to answer the needs of many local community groups, will the Taoiseach make time available for a discussion in the House on the matter in light of the remarks of the OECD report on community employment workers and given that these workers often keep these groups going?

That question is not in order.

Will the Taoiseach discuss with the Tánaiste the possibility of meeting public bodies in County Offaly? Requests to meet her have been made by such bodies and, so far, she has declined to meet them.

The question must be on promised legislation.

Recent statistics from the Central Statistics Office show that Offaly has the lowest per capita income in the country.

A question, please.

If the Tánaiste is not prepared to meet public bodies in Offaly, will the Taoiseach meet them?

The question is not in order. The Deputy should pursue it in other ways. I call Deputy O'Sullivan.

Public bodies are very angry about this.

The Deputy's question is not in order.

The heads of the Adoption Contact Register Bill were agreed by Cabinet on Tuesday. There is a lack of clarity as to whether the right of adopted people to access records will be retrospective, in other words, if people adopted before the legislation comes into effect will have the right to access their records. It is important this is clarified because the Taoiseach indicated—

The Deputy must find other ways to clarify it.

It has been indicated it will be a year before the Bill is published.

The question is not in order at this stage.

There is a lack of clarity and it is important it is dealt with. Will the Taoiseach—

The question is not in order. I conclude the Order of Business.

A Cheann Comhairle—

We now come to No. 21.

A Cheann Comhairle—

The Order of Business is concluded.

No.

On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle—

No. 21, motion re leave to introduce Supplementary Estimate—

A Cheann Comhairle, on a point order—

What is the point of order?

With all due respect, Sir, I was elected to this House, and I indicated to you for the past five minutes that I wanted to raise a matter that is perfectly in order on the Order of Business.

The Chair has completed—

I would be obliged, Sir—

No, I have concluded the Order of Business.

Your habit of concluding the Order of Business without notice diminishes the standards of this House.

The Deputy was called on the Order of Business. The Deputy got his opportunity.

I insist, Sir—

The Deputy has no right to insist.

I have a right, as an elected Member of this House, to put a question that is in order.

It is at the Chair's complete discretion.

This is entirely unacceptable.

I have concluded the Order of Business.

You have diminished the House.

We are now on No. 21.

You are repeatedly—

I have allowed almost an hour on the Order of Business.

On a point of order—

The Chair is on its feet, there cannot be a point of order.

On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle—

The Chair has complete discretion as to the number of questions to be asked on the Order of Business, and I have allowed—

On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle—

What is the point of order?

Deputy Rabbitte indicated clearly to you that he wished to ask a question and you indicated to him that you saw him. He stood in his place and you deliberately decided to pass him by, and—

The Deputy should not make allegations against the Chair.

—that was not in order.

What the Deputy states is not correct.

That was not in order.

The Deputy should not make charges against the Chair.

He had a valid question to ask.

We will proceed with the business of the day.

No.

We are on No. 21. The Order of Business is concluded.

A Cheann Comhairle—

The Deputy should respect the ruling of the Chair.

I have a question.

The Order of Business is concluded.

No.

We are now on No. 21—

I will not be prevented from asking my question.

—motion re leave to introduce Supplementary Estimate, Vote 31.

A Cheann Comhairle—

This is not acceptable.

I call on the Minister—

A Cheann Comhairle—

The Chair has concluded the Order of Business.

I have a simple question.

The Deputies must accept the ruling of the Chair.

It is not acceptable.

The Chair has concluded the Order of Business.

This is not acceptable.

The Chair is within its rights in making the ruling.

We do not accept the ruling.

Deputies will resume their seats and allow business to continue.

You have done this on a number of occasions.

It is not acceptable.

You have done this on a number of occasions and it diminishes the House.

In view of the gross disorder, I suspend the sitting for ten minutes.