Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is proposed to take No. 7, motion re orders of reference of committee; and No. 4, Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2011 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 10 p.m.; and (2) No. 7. shall be decided without debate. Private Members' Business shall be No. 24. – motion re hospital services.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are two proposals to be put to the House today. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight agreed to? Agreed.

Is the proposal to deal with No. 7, motion re orders of reference of committee, without debate agreed to?

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can the Taoiseach shed light on this matter? It relates to a change to the Select Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform to include the Taoiseach and his Department. Given that we are asked to take this matter without debate, will the Taoiseach explain to the House the rationale for the inclusion of himself and his Department, whether this means that the Taoiseach will be an ex officio member of the committee, and whether he can be called before that committee to be held to account?

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Department of the Taoiseach is in the same group as these others which means that the Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach will come before that committee.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the proposal agreed? Agreed.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Standing Orders are clear on the right of the House to ask for documents which are important for discussions. The Taoiseach will be aware that Fianna Fáil Members, including me, asked repeatedly for all background documents to be published before a decision should be taken to amend the terms of reference of the Smithwick tribunal. None were produced and the motion was guillotined through the Dáil and Seanad in one day. We had asked for it to be delayed. We had asked for the Government to give full background material to Deputies in the House.

It has now been revealed that the Government had in its possession very serious letters from Mr. Justice Smithwick which were withheld, clearly deliberately, from the Oireachtas. It is not possible to argue that they were irrelevant to our discussions.

The Government agreed at the time to revise the motion if the tribunal indicated that the deadline could stop it fulfilling its objectives. The tribunal has articulated exactly such a concern. The Taoiseach should bring forward a motion to change the deadline. When will he do this? Is he happy with the risk that a critical witness might withdraw because of Government spinning?

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a question more than a matter of legislation.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is in order.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Let me be clear about this. As the Deputy is aware, when the motion went through the House some years ago setting up the Smithwick tribunal of inquiry part of the remit was that within ten days of public hearings being held an internal report would be produced. The Minister for Justice and Equality required that an interim report would be produced, which has been produced. In accordance with the deadline being set for November it is perfectly clear that there is no intention to interfere with the work of the Smithwick tribunal. The Justice has pointed out the number of witnesses who must be heard and the position in respect of papers held by the British authorities.

It is in the interests of the taxpayer that there be a connection related to progress being made by any tribunal of inquiry. This should be obvious. The Justice pointed out in his letter the range of hearings that must be held and the witnesses from which evidence must be taken. If the tribunal comes back to the House, which sets up tribunals, the Dáil will reflect on what the tribunal states about its ability to conclude its hearings.

Deputy Martin will agree that we have had tribunals stretching out over a long period that have cost a vast amount of money.

A Deputy:

This one is different.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While one cannot put a figure on the truth it is important that the Dáil, the House of the Oireachtas, is informed at intervals about what progress is being made in any tribunal. In respect of this tribunal, conducted from this jurisdiction and about alleged collusion between members of the police force, it is important that it is seen to retain its absolute independence, which it will. In respect of a timescale for its conclusion, it is important to note that occasionally there should be a progress report and it is the right of the House of the Oireachtas which set up the tribunal to hear it.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I seek the guidance of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle on this. This is a serious matter. A significant scandal is involved to a certain extent. I am not referring to the rights or wrongs of progressing a tribunal. At issue fundamentally is that the Taoiseach and the Minister were asked to provide any background materials or documents that gave rise to the Minister's decision to change the terms of reference and put forward the amendment. We asked for the documents but none were forthcoming. The documents were withheld from Members. The debate took place in the context of documents not being made available. Now, in the aftermath of the debate, we find that the most serious of concerns had been raised by a chairman of a tribunal in respect of the actions taken by the Minister to affect and to have an impact on that tribunal. The tribunal was set up by the House. In amending the terms of a tribunal, in changing the direction of a tribunal or in trying to speed up a tribunal it is obvious that the Members should be in full possession of all documentation relating to the proposal put before us. For some reason, these documents were withheld from Members, violating their right to a proper, fully informed debate on the status of the Smithwick tribunal.

This is a serious issue in terms of process and procedure in the House. What has taken place is unacceptable. The Taoiseach should apologise to the House for the manner in which the debate was orchestrated and choreographed. It seemed to have everything to do with spinning and with the view that the Government was taking on the judge and the tribunal and that it would do the devil and all yet again. This is a sensitive tribunal with regard to the perception of people and the perception of how we do our business in terms of being fully fair, objective and impartial and so on. Many people were looking askance at what was going on in terms of this issue. It is unforgivable that the debate took place in the context of the documentation being withheld. The Taoiseach knew or, at least, the Minister for Justice and Equality knew about the correspondence with the judge. I asked the Taoiseach specifically to provide me with this material. I asked him not to rush the matter through the House, not to guillotine it and to give some background material to the Deputies opposite in respect of the decision. It is unforgivable and unacceptable and the Taoiseach should apologise to the House for it. I will take the advice of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle on the matter.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You asked me for guidance, Deputy. I cannot be expected to rule on this matter without notice. Notice should be given to the Chair if you expect me to deal with it on the spot. It is something you can come back to and you can put down a substantive motion. Does the Taoiseach wish to comment?

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not believe there is any scandal involved in complying with the conditions of the motion that set up this tribunal, which has been sitting for more than six years, which has begun public hearings and which, in accordance with the motion setting it up, was required to produce an interim report. It is only right and proper that while respecting the right of the sole Chair and his independence in doing his job, at the same time the taxpayer, who funds this, should be entitled to a progress report at intervals as to how the tribunal is doing its work. As I have made clear before, if the Smithwick tribunal comes back here in the autumn and suggests it is unable to complete its work for given reasons, the House must make a decision on that.

This is not about tribunals conducting their work in secret indefinitely. It is a case of respecting their independence and allowing the sole member to conduct his business in accordance with the motion to set up the tribunal but it is also about understanding that the taxpayer funds the bill at the end of the day. There have been discussions in the House before about the Flood and Moriarty tribunals and all the tribunals that have gone on for many years. When I was on the other side of the House, there were claims from Members that they should be expedited, that interim reports should be produced and that they should be concluded by particular dates. In this case, we require an interim report, which we now have. If Mr. Justice Smithwick comes back in the autumn with reasons he is unable to conclude the tribunal report inside a particular time, then it is a matter for the House to decide and discuss and to make its decision in that regard. The Deputy can take it that there is no intention to interfere with the work and the responsibilities of the Justice in this tribunal.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach is not addressing my core point. The Members debated the amendment to the terms of reference in the absence of any knowledge of the deepest concerns held by the judge about the Minister's actions. That is the point. One can argue the merits and demerits of the other points and anything else after that but I am adverting to the net point. Why was the documentation withheld from Opposition spokespeople? Why were people not made aware of the concerns the judge had in respect of the decision taken by the Minister? That is the core point. The House was completely by-passed. It is unacceptable and unforgivable.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should table a question to the Minister for Justice and Equality.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not putting down a question. It is improper behaviour.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are not having a debate. There is a question of a substantive motion. I call Deputy Gerry Adams.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Following revelations that religious orders benefited to the tune of €468 million from property sales, will the Government bring forward legislation to ensure that a portion of this money goes towards compensation for the victims of abuse in religious institutions, including those who were held in Magdalene laundries? On the issue of equality, will legislation be introduced to permit the former residents of Bethany Home to apply for redress? I pay tribute to the good people who campaigned on behalf of these citizens, who were victims of these systems.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Government's appointment of Senator Martin McAleese to chair the interdepartmental committee. When will the Government publish the terms of reference for the committee to inquire into the Magdalene laundries?

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They will be published in a short period. I cannot give the Deputy an exact date but as soon as they are discussed and concluded they will be published.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach did not note my question.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot recall Deputy Adams's question. I am sorry Deputy.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Do you want me to say it again?

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was on the Magdalene laundries.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Given that the religious orders benefited to the tune of €468 million, will legislation be introduced to make at least some of this money part of compensation for victims, especially those of Magdalene laundries?

Moreover, on an issue of equality, can legislation be introduced to include people who were in Bethany House in any compensation scheme? They are blocked at present.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not know whether legislation is promised. A Thaoisigh, is legislation promised?

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister for Education and Skills is dealing with that matter.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I call Deputy Kevin Humphreys.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Michael Woods will be employed as a consultant.

Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I refer to proposed criminal justice legislation that was mentioned in the House, namely, the spent convictions-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister will close the doors on him. One should not go back too far in the records.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Order, please. Deputy Kevin Humphreys.

Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Martin. I refer to criminal justice legislation, namely, the Spent Convictions Bill 2011 that was introduced as a Private Members' Bill by Deputy Calleary. When it was debated in the House, the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, stated it would be reintroduced after dealing with the original Bill's omissions and limitations. Can the Taoiseach indicate when the aforementioned Bill will be reintroduced to the House?

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, I do not have a date for it yet. However, I will ask the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, to respond to the Deputy.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There must be a breakdown in communications within the Labour Party.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When will the Government bring forward legislation with regard to upward-only rent reviews, which are putting thousands of businesses throughout the State out of business? What effect will this have on the Exchequer with regard to the changes in the banks? In addition, how many jobs does he envisage will be created through this change in legislation?

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot give the Deputy an accurate date although work is proceeding in this regard. The issue of costs, jobs and so on will be a matter for debate when the Bill is presented before the House.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On forthcoming legislation, when will the Government publish a Bill to enact the European stability mechanism and amend the Lisbon treaty and when will it come before the House?

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Work obviously is proceeding on this matter. The decision in respect of the European stability mechanism, ESM, is to kick in during 2013 and the Attorney General will consider the question of what must be done to make it effective in Ireland.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Previously on the Order of Business, when I asked the Taoiseach about legislation to give effect to the programme for Government commitment in respect of burden-sharing with senior bondholders in Anglo Irish Bank, he replied that the Government would wait until after it had discussed the matter with the ECB. Will the aforementioned legislation pass through both Houses of the Oireachtas before 2 November, when a non-guaranteed bond for three quarters of a billion euro will mature? Will there be enough time, if the Government gets approval from the ECB, to impose burden-sharing on that bondholder in respect of the aforementioned bond for three quarters of a billion euro? It is due to mature seven weeks after the Dáil reconvenes after the summer recess.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot give the Deputy a full answer to that question. Obviously the Minister for Finance will open discussions with the ECB early in the autumn. If it is necessary to make time to give effect to that, depending on the outcome of those discussions, it will be done. As the Deputy is aware, it cannot be done from a unilateral point of view and there must be agreement in this regard.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It can be done. As a point of order and to correct that statement, it can be done by unilateral decision. Nothing legally prevents the Government from applying burden-sharing in respect of non-guaranteed bonds in any bank. If I may correct the Taoiseach, there is nothing to that effect in the memorandum of understanding.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy, we are not having a debate on that.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Whether we wish to do it unilaterally is a different question.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are not having a debate on the matter now.