Dáil debates
Wednesday, 28 June 2006
Leaders' Questions.
10:30 am
Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This summer Irish audiences are watching with new eyes a dark and divisive chapter in Irish politics. It has been described as spellbinding, heart-rending and harrowing, and has pitted brother against brother, sister against sister, friend against friend. That is the Progressive Democrats Party's contribution to the summer of politics in the letter from its trustees. I understand that "The Wind that Shakes the Barley" is also packing them in.
The Taoiseach might wonder what that has to do with Leaders' Questions and I will tell him. Last night, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, proposed a simple Bill dealing with home defence to do three things, namely, to remove any question of home owners having to retreat, to prevent intruders to a household from suing a home owner who acts reasonably, and to create the presumption that force used by a home owner in defending his wife, family and home is reasonable.
The Government refused to accept that Bill because the feud in the Progressive Democrats camp sparked by the writing of a Bill for a Progressive Democrats Senator by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has been carried into the heart of Government and is affecting its work. The Taoiseach has effectively mollified the sweet 16 people on his own backbenches, at least for the moment, but the recent rumpus within the Progressive Democrats is affecting the work of the Government the Taoiseach leads.
I have three questions for the Taoiseach. Does he believe that a home owner should have to retreat if his home is invaded or subject to intrusion? Does he believe that a home owner should have to prove that the force he used in defending his home is reasonable? Does he think that a home owner should be liable to be sued by someone who breaks into his home by day or night? Does the Taoiseach believe that is reasonable? These are simple questions arising from Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's home defence Bill.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The use of force must be proportionate and that is the issue. Obviously a person has the right to defend himself, his property and family, but it must be proportionate.
Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
People do not have that right now.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That right is in the law. The objection of the Government and others to the Fine Gael Bill as drafted is that it goes too far. A gate-crasher into a party——
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach should not listen to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
He is worried about a gate-crasher in the Progressive Democrats Party.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I ask Deputies to allow their leader, Deputy Kenny, to hear the reply.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I must tell the Fine Gael backbenchers that everyone who has read their Bill considers it to be over the top legally.
Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Did the gang of 12 tell that to the Taoiseach?
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is not a suitable Bill to put on the Statute Book. While the issue of somebody defending his property must be proportionate, the Fine Gael Bill is not.
Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I agree that the use of force must be proportionate, but the point made in Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's Bill is that the home owner should not bear the onus of proof of the use of force. In response to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform's advice on gate-crashers at parties, recently a perfectly innocent young woman attending a party was shot dead. There are 500 burglaries a week where there are no parties.
At 2 a.m. tomorrow, when a house in this city or any other town is burgled, does the Taoiseach believe that the owner of that house should have to retreat? Does the Taoiseach believe that the owner of that house, in defending, inside his house, his wife, family and property, for which he has paid taxes, stealth charges and so on, should be liable to be sued by somebody who breaks in and trespasses with the intent of evil-doing or stealing or whatever? Does the Taoiseach believe that the home owner should have to prove that his defence of his property and his wife and family was reasonable?
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is no stranger to changing Bills that he publishes and presents to the House. For instance, he has tabled 352 pages of amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill that he published. The Taoiseach and the Minister say that in the autumn, or sometime in the future, the Government will bring forward a Bill to deal with these issues.
There are people watching us this morning whose houses were burgled last night, where there were no parties, where the only gate-crashers were the thugs and criminals who broke into their property with evil intent, stealing to feed cocaine habits or whatever else. The Taoiseach meanwhile tells me that Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's Fine Gael Bill goes too far. I will repeat the three questions. Does the Taoiseach believe that a person is entitled to defend his home? Does he believe that the person should have to prove the defence was reasonable? Does he believe that somebody should or can be sued for defending his wife, children and property?
If the answer is "Yes", he should bring the Bill to committee and argue on the merits of the Progressive Democrats-Senator Bill written by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and whatever weaknesses or strengths there may be in the Fine Gael Bill. The legal advice we have received is that the Bill is constitutional, does not go over the top and puts back the pendulum slightly so that priority is given to home owners rather than thugs and criminals who break in to violate a person's property which, according to the Constitution, is supposed to be "inviolable" in this country.
Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister for zero tolerance is muttering.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy has asked me three questions. He asked me whether people have the right to be safe in their homes. The answer to that question is "Yes". He asked me whether people can use force to protect themselves. That is defined as reasonable force and is currently in the law. People who are attacked in their houses by intruders or others are entitled to use reasonable force.
Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, but the presumption is not there.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is the law. The Deputy also asked whether it is right that a person who defends himself or herself has to make his or her own case. He should know that the presumption of the criminal code is that the accused is innocent. The law is based on that presumption.
Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
So there is no need for the Bill proposed by the Minister, Deputy McDowell.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No. The Deputies opposite should not try to change legal principles which have been in place for hundreds of years. The presumption of the criminal code is that the accused is innocent. We can refer to all the circumstances we like, but we know we must have the law of the land. We cannot allow people to feel threatened or intimidated in their homes.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputies opposite know my views on these things. If we do not have clear and good law, people will start to take the law into their hands.
Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We need to improve the law.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We had a controversy about that last year, when an intruder who was retreating from a property was shot in the back with impunity.
Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is it all right outside the property?
Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is the Deputy saying that one should wait until intruders leave one's property before one shoots them?
Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That has nothing to do with the Fine Gael proposal because the incident took place outside the property.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We had that debate. How can one write a law——
Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have written the home defence law.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——that allows the occupant of a house to wait until the intruders have gone out the door and then it is all right to shoot them in the back? Let us be sensible.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I remind Deputy Kenny, who seems to want to make this a populist issue, that people are entitled under the law to use reasonable force.
Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is the Taoiseach siding with the thugs and criminals who commit 500 burglaries a week?
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We cannot have a situation in this House whereby Deputy Kenny can ask his question in silence, but the member of the Government who responds is not allowed to be heard.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach, without interruption.
Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach is not responding to the points which have been made.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will be brief. I do not intend to stand up and just say populist things.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If Deputy Kenny wants to achieve a position in law whereby, when a person walks into a house, the defence of reasonable force cannot be used any more, or there is no longer a presumption of innocence——
Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Nobody is saying that.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——or one is allowed to blast away one's gun at anyone——
David StantonBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——that is not the way the law works and I oppose that.
Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach's comments are a fig leaf.
Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What about the Progressive Democrats Bill?
Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is the wind that could shake the Bertie.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In some of this morning's newspapers, the Government has floated the notion of a constitutional referendum on the issue of child rape. Can the Taoiseach confirm that it is the Government's intention to hold such a referendum? Will the proposed amendment differ from the suggestion made after the recent crisis by the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, that the Constitution would be amended to reverse the Supreme Court decision? Is the amendment that is now proposed in line with the Minister's suggestion or is it in line with the amendment to protect children's rights that was proposed by the all-party committee? I would like to ask the Taoiseach about this issue, which plunged the country into outrage and the Government into disarray. Why is the Government prepared to do everything other than allow for an independent investigation of what transpired during the recent period of crisis?
The Taoiseach's website makes it clear that he is responsible for liaising with the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. If one examines the guidelines for the Office of the Attorney General, it is clear that it has a responsibility "to maintain not only a strategic viewpoint but to keep client Departments informed of the possible consequences of the litigation for them and for other Departments of State". The Office of the Attorney General did not live up to its responsibilities in this instance.
The country was outraged during the recent crisis because people in authority, who might have been expected to respond to unfolding events, were in a position of knowledge or were capable of responding, did not seem to know what was happening. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform brought the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2006 to this House, but it was disowned by his Government within 36 hours. Indeed, it was disowned by himself. He claimed more authorship last night of the Defence of Life and Property Bill 2006, which has been introduced in the Seanad by a Progressive Democrats Senator, than he did of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2006 when it was introduced in this House.
Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
He praised himself.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is admitted that the latter legislation is deeply flawed. I would like to ask the Taoiseach about the proposal to introduce a constitutional amendment and about the all-party committee that will examine these matters on the basis of terms of reference which are the subject of a large measure of agreement on all sides of the House. We do not understand how the issues of child rape and the protection of our children can be examined until it has been clearly and independently established what went wrong in the Office of the Attorney General, what went wrong between that office and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and what went wrong between that office and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. We do not know what went wrong in those instances. We had to take the unusual step last week of writing to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to seek to establish how many cases were struck out as a result of the Supreme Court decision.
If we are to deal seriously with these matters, which were of such gravity that they outraged the people and plunged the Government into disarray that it manifestly has not recovered from since, is it not important that there should be an independent investigation of such matters? I congratulate the Taoiseach on putting down the shortest lived rising since "Slattery's Mounted Fut".
Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
They are the back-off benchers.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will try to be helpful and move this important issue on by repeating that it would not have made any difference if the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Attorney General or the rest of the Cabinet had known anything about this matter in advance. It would not have influenced the Supreme Court decision in any way and no more preparatory arrangements would have been made. We encountered a difficulty, in a way that can often happen in law, as a result of the Supreme Court decision in the CC case that we had to create a defence of honest belief.
I would like to put on the record the Government's proposed terms of reference for the all-party committee, as I have not done so before now. They are:
—To review the substantive criminal law relating to sexual offences against children;
—To review the substantive law in relation to child protection;
—To examine the issues surrounding the age of consent in relation to sexual offences;
—To examine court procedures relating to child sexual abuse cases;
—To consider the implications arising from the Supreme Court decision of 23rd May 2006 in the CC case including the desirability or otherwise of a constitutional amendment in relation to the outcome of that case;
—To examine the issues of the desirability or otherwise of amending the Constitution to include a general right to protection for children; and
—To make recommendations on the issues not later than the autumn.
The proposed terms of reference are matters for discussion. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has given the terms of reference to the Opposition leaders. I saw the Opposition statement that was published at the weekend which, by and large, repeats the issues which have been highlighted by the Government. As Deputy Rabbitte has said, there is total agreement, more or less, on these issues.
I do not think it is necessary for me to go back over the issue again. It would not have made a bit of difference if the Attorney General had been following this case from the time that he and the Director of Public Prosecutions decided to put together a legal team to fight the case. The legal team, which thought it had a good case, did its best. It won in the High Court, but lost in the Supreme Court. Several issues remain such as the constitutional one. I already gave an assurance that these issues will be dealt with by the committee. A good number of bodies have lobbied on the issue of children's rights which should be considered by the committee. Other constitutional issues should also be considered by the committee. I will pass the views on to the Deputy if he so wishes but they are best dealt with in the committee. While the full judgment of the Supreme Court has not been released, several difficulties arise out of it that we need to deal with quickly. The Government is prepared for its front people to deal with these issues in the early autumn.
The O'Sullivan examination is concentrating on the 1995 procedures. I have already stated there was a breach of one of those procedures which will be reflected in the report. The official dealing with the case did not follow the procedures. I am sure the official does his or her best at all other times. However, in this case procedure was not followed. There is no more to it than that. However, if the procedures had been followed, it still would not have made any difference. The report would have gone to the Attorney General but he could not have influenced the Supreme Court decision. The official was not going to highlight to the Attorney General the need to draft a new Bill.
It is not a question of difficulties between the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Attorney General. The Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions were fighting the case. It was their staff which had co-operated on the case. An investigation into the office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which was not involved in the case, and the Attorney General's office, which was working in co-operation with the joint team, will make no difference. It was only the notification of the procedure, coming from the 1995 report, that the Attorney General should have been made aware of. This will come out in the O'Sullivan report. As we get near to the end of the session, this committee needs to be put in place to get on with the work. There are some substantive issues that have been discussed at great length that must be dealt with by the committee.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach claimed he did not want to go back over the events and then he did just that. He knows well the events are not just disputed by me but by persons outside of the House. He also knows the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform had possession of this information going back to 2002. I am not interested in tracing the history of it. What happened, happened and we are looking forward with great interest to reading the full judgment of the Supreme Court. I want answers from the Taoiseach on the question of the all-party committee.
Is the committee to be established on a statutory basis? Will a motion be put to the House before it rises for the summer recess? Why is the Government prepared to agree terms of reference with the Opposition on nearly all matters except an independent inquiry into what went wrong? The administration and oversight of the criminal justice system, especially in so far as it relates to our children, is of such importance that we need to know what happened. Scapegoating an official in the Office of the Attorney General is not adequate given the crisis provoked by the series of events. My first preference would be not to have a commission of investigation style inquiry if it could be done by parliamentary committee.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy's time——
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I know a Cheann Comhairle. You let the Taoiseach go on for about ten minutes. Do you have to interrupt me in mid-sentence?
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Rabbitte, you went on for four minutes. The Taoiseach was given two minutes extra because you took two minutes extra. You cannot go on asking questions for five minutes and then expect the Taoiseach to be cut short.
Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will the Ceann Comhairle be quiet? Would he ever sit back and relax?
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is a matter of parliamentary accountability. Ideally I would like the matter to be examined by parliamentary committee. However, the Government has steadfastly refused to refurbish the law since the Abbeylara judgment, which was a narrow enough area. Inquiry by parliamentary committee has worked effectively in the past but that option is now unavailable until the Government refurbishes the law. The Government seems prepared to agree terms of reference with the Opposition but is not prepared to have independent inquiry into the crisis that transpired. Is the Taoiseach going to put down a motion to cause the committee to be established on a statutory basis? Will it have compellability powers? Is the Taoiseach just head-hunting Members on this side of the House to establish an all-party committee that will struggle with, admittedly, complex issues but will not look back at the crisis provoked some weeks ago?
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not want to get into a debate. This issue holds the record for the longest Leaders' Question of one hour and 28 minutes several weeks ago. There is not much point in repeating myself. Deputy Rabbitte knows the Supreme Court made a decision striking down an Act in a case which the State lost. As he correctly stated the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions put in place a legal team on the issue in 2002. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions knew about that. A procedure was in place that they should have been kept informed later on but they were not. It would have made no difference to the situation, however. It is no good confusing the issue.
The Government is anxious, as stated four weeks ago, to establish an all-party committee to deal with these issues. The terms of reference for it were released to the Opposition several weeks ago. If the Opposition wishes to engage, through its spokespersons, with the Minister, we would be happy to do so this week to conclude the matter.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Issues arise under section 1 of the 1935 legislation for those who have been convicted before the courts of statutory rape and those in respect of whom prosecutions are pending. In the CC case the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional section 1 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. In addition, the Supreme Court ensured that Mr. A, who had been convicted of such an offence, remained behind bars. There are 16 persons in custody having been convicted of an offence under section 1 of the 1935 Act. This cohort of persons are those who are likely to be directly affected by the decision of the Supreme Court in the Mr. A case. There are 42 persons on charges before the courts under section 1 of the 1935 Act. In the CC case, it does not prevent the Director of Public Prosecutions from preferring charges of sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault and, in appropriate circumstances, a rape charge.
Other issues arise from section 2 of the 1935 Act under which three persons have been convicted of an offence and no other offence. A total of 12 persons have been charged but not yet tried under this section. The position is that the offence of rape depending upon the factual circumstances can be preferred and the Director of Public Prosecutions is not prevented by the CC case from making such a charge.
The committee will have to deal with the defence of honest belief. It is a result of the decision of the Supreme Court in the CC case that we have had to create a defence of honest belief. No Member would have ever created a defence of honest belief. At no stage in the past 16 years has anyone recommended the creation of such a defence. No Government ever entertained such a notion.
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What about the Law Reform Commission?
Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach is giving the same old rubbish.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The reason for this is obvious because it creates a real and extra burden for the victim of unlawful carnal knowledge. It means the victim can be subject to rigorous cross-examination by counsel for an accused who may transpire to be a sexual predator. The idea of an 11 or 12 year old girl being grilled in the witness box as to her make-up, perfume or style of dress or the manner in which she comported herself, will undermine the effectiveness and prosecutions of unlawful carnal knowledge. Parents and citizens will be horrified by such a prospect. In those circumstances, I wonder whether the existence of the prospect of such cross-examination by experienced counsel will have an effect on such prosecutions.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Government introduced the law that could allow such a scenario.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That was because the Supreme Court made a judgment.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Allow the Taoiseach without interruption.
Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Government made a hames of the Act.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What is the answer to the question I asked?
Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What about video evidence?
11:00 am
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The answer to the question is that it is therefore important the terms of reference of the Oireachtas committee are urgently agreed. It must address all the issues, including the sensitive issue of young girls, perhaps 11 or 12 years of age, being cross-examined in court rather than talking about who did what in the Attorney General's Office. That is irrelevant and we need to get on with that work and quickly.
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What kind of committee will it be?
Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is because of a law the Government brought in.
Johnny Brady
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A Cheann Comhairle——
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What kind of all-party committee will it be? The Taoiseach did not answer the question.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is no provision for a further supplementary question in the Standing Order. We have already gone ten minutes over time on that question. I call Deputy Sargent.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach took up his entire time——
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Rabbitte, I have called Deputy Sargent and I would ask you to——
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It makes a farce of Question Time if we do not get answers.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——allow Deputy Sargent to speak without interruption.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What kind of all-party committee will it be? That is disrespectful to the House.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Rabbitte should resume his seat and allow Deputy Sargent to speak.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are entitled to answers and we did not get them.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy cannot take Deputy Sargent's time.
Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am not taking Deputy Sargent's time. We are entitled to answers.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Sargent has been called. The Deputy will have to find another way of raising this matter.
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will it be a committee with powers? The public needs to know that.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Sargent should be allowed to speak without interruption.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It would be a turn of events if we did get answers but I hope to get an answer to this question. Will the Taoiseach respond to what I heard clearly from a number of teachers at an INTO conference, that in trying to buy a house, even after six years teaching they could only borrow a maximum of €200,000. They were expected to come up with an additional €150,000 from somewhere. I do not know what is the answer to where those teachers can get the additional €150,000 under the Taoiseach's watch, unless he recommends to them a course of action I would not recommend, namely the Tom and MickBailey approach.
According to today's newspapers, while our earning power is up, a fifth of the population face a poverty trap. The earning power of some of the supporters of Fianna Fáil is extraordinary. What message does it send to people who ask how they are expected to afford a basic house in the Ireland of 2006 when they see Mick and TomBailey paying €25 million to the Revenue Commissioners, which is effectively a fine, yet the Taoiseach welcomes them to the Fianna Fáil tent in the Galway Races? What message does it send when a Minister of State like Deputy Fahey is able to avoid tax in building up a multi-million euro property empire? In 2005 his empire included——
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy is moving on to another question.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No, I am asking about Fianna Fáil supporters, be they in Government or out of Government, and whether the example and behaviour of those individuals is something the Taoiseach is endorsing, standing over and recommending for other people to emulate. Twenty properties in Ireland — Minister Fahey — and seven abroad. He owns half a share in a property company and has stocks and work in progress worth €1.4 million. He has a hazy recollection——
Seán PowerTrevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——of receiving donations from Monarch Properties. He failed to declare interests in a Moscow hairdressing business——
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Sargent has moved on to another question.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have not moved on. It is the same question. A Minister of State in the Government——
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I ask the Deputy to desist from casting aspersions on Members of this House.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I would like to ask the Taoiseach whether he is standing over his Minister of State——
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——who is under investigation by the Ombudsman for giving 75% of total State compensation for fisheries vessels lost at sea——
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I ask the Deputy to desist from going down that road.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——to two constituents, and giving half of Ireland's mackerel quota to just one boat, the Atlantic Dawn.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is not appropriate to cast aspersions on Members if the Deputy cannot substantiate them.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am simply reading the record for the Taoiseach's benefit.
Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is the truth.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am not casting aspersions or making accusations.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am giving facts to the Taoiseach to help him recollect his position as Taoiseach.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy, you have to be careful.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does the Taoiseach relate to the business incentive saying, "Fortune favours the brave"? Under the Taoiseach's watch——
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The time has concluded.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——fortune favours the corrupt and the greedy. Will the Taoiseach change that and will he sack the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey?
Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Hear, hear.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I presume the Ceann Comhairle's ruling is on the tax question.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not know how many questions Deputy Sargent asked.
Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach should just answer the question.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
But under Standing Orders, a Cheann Comhairle——
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
They are all facts.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——I can only answer one question, the one on tax breaks.
John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
All around the mulberry bush.
John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I know it is embarrassing for the Taoiseach.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On the tax question.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I was not sure which question to answer, a Cheann Comhairle.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Standards in public office.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I assume the Deputy is referring to the Revenue Commissioners study on the top 400 earners which focused on the problem that has arisen with high earners and low tax due to miscellaneous tax reliefs brought in by all Governments over the past 25 years. The difference is that, unlike others, we have done something about it.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have brought in 33 anti-avoidance measures and terminated 17 tax relief schemes provided by the Government.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister for Finance took an overall view of the schemes on the Statute Book and has eliminated a large proportion of those, effective from 1 January. It is the greatest overhaul of the tax relief schemes since the early 1960s. Because of all the measures introduced to prevent tax avoidance, in 2002 the top 1% of earners paid 18.6% of all income tax and this year it is expected that those earners will pay more than 20% of all income tax. Because of the changes in the law and the anti-avoidance measures the Government has brought in——
John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What about the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey?
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——the top 1% of taxpayers are now paying 20% of all income tax. In contrast, those earning the average industrial wage, which is estimated to be in excess of €30,000, will pay 6% of all income tax.
Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What does this have to do with the questions?
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In 1997, those earning at or under a far lower average industrial wage paid more than 14% of all income tax. This shows that through the Government's policies, we are now seeing high earners paying not alone a significant amount of tax but also a significant total of overall tax revenue. This shows the effectiveness of the Minister's policy.
If the Deputy has anything to say about breaches by the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, of the Ethics in Public Office Act, which was introduced ten years ago, I suggest he should talk to Mr. Justice Smith, because he is the appropriate officer.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
You are the Taoiseach.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If the Deputy has anything to say about the probity of anything else in regard to the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, he should say it outside the House and let the Minister of State deal with it.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is in the newspapers.
Conor Lenihan (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Sargent would not say it outside the House.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It has been said many times by many people to the Taoiseach. There is nothing new in what I say.
Conor Lenihan (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Then the Deputy should say it outside the House.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is what is startling.
Conor Lenihan (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is a cowardly approach.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The newspapers tell us this morning that the Taoiseach got his way with his nervous backbench Deputies, as if he has some influence on the matter.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy should return to the question.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am asking the Taoiseach——
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy is abusing Leaders' Questions.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Far from it. I am trying to get to the heart of what Leaders' Question is for.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy is moving all over the place. He is entitled to one question on one topical issue but he is going outside that.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am asking the Taoiseach a question and the Ceann Comhairle is interrupting me.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy is not entitled to make allegations against Members in the House that he cannot substantiate.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I would like to see them try and substantiate it because it is well documented.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I ask the Deputy not to go down that road.
Conor Lenihan (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If it is so well documented then why does the Deputy not say it outside the House?
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No problem. Will the Taoiseach stand idly by while dodgy builders in the Galway tent like Mick and Tom Bailey and dodgy builders in Governments like the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, set the real standards for Government under this Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government?
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy's time is concluded. I ask him to resume his seat and allow the Taoiseach to reply. The Deputy is not entitled to——
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is the standard the Taoiseach is setting and he must answer for that.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That has nothing to do with the question about tax.
Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It has everything to do with it.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Government has overseen a rise of 270% in house prices.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy is abusing Leaders' Questions.
Conor Lenihan (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A Cheann Comhairle, what are the rights of Members?
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy is.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will the Taoiseach sack the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey——
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That does not arise.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——and is he happy with the standards being set in Government by his Minister? Is he going to ensure that Fianna Fáil, which is continually associated with greed and corruption will——
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy's time is concluded. I ask him to resume his seat.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is what I am asking.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
From looking at the facts and figures in the recent reports from Revenue, it is clear that it is because of the actions of this Government and the laws we have introduced that people who evaded tax in the past, are no longer doing so, whether they are dodgy builders——
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——legitimate builders or any other kind of builders. They are now paying large sums of money to the Revenue. Settlements have led to the tax system being cleaned up. People who had all kinds of systems of evasion, within the country and outside of it, are now being detected because of the extensive laws we have introduced. The data supplied by the Minister for Finance in reply to recent questions shows he has restricted the relief for high earners. A series of measures taken by the Government in recent years, which the Minister has detailed to the House in reply to parliamentary questions, complements this action. A significant amount of tax is now being paid. The highest earners, who comprise 1% of the total number of taxpayers, now pay almost 20% of all income tax.
Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
How much have PAYE workers paid over a number of years?
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Standards in Public Office Act has been in place since 2001. As Head of Government for the past nine years, I have introduced legislation in this area which some Members believe is unduly strict.
John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Who believes that?
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Standards in Public Office Commission is part of the system for investigating Members. I am not the investigator.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach knows well what went on.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach should be allowed to continue without interruption.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am not the investigator of these matters.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Taoiseach knows well what the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, has done.
Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Sargent must either put up or shut up. If he has evidence, he should give it to Mr. Justice Smith. If he does not, he should come into the House tomorrow and withdraw his statement.
Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have no difficulty in telling the truth. The Taoiseach knows well that the Minister of State was aware of the situation.
John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A blind eye is being turned to corruption.