Departmental Investigations.

65. Mr. Quinn asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the total costs incurred by the State, at the latest date for which figures are available, arising from the various inquiries instigated by or on behalf of her Department; the element of these costs which has been removed from the other parties involved; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29930/03]

67. Mr. Penrose asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the position in regard to each of the inquiries being carried out by or on behalf of her Department; the projected date for the conclusion of each such investigation; the inquiries in respect of which reports have been referred to the DPP; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29926/03]

Ms Harney: I propose to take Questions Nos. 65 and 67 together.

Some 16 investigations into company law matters have been initiated by me since I took office as Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. In respect of three cases, the High Court appointed, on an application by me, inspectors under section 8 of the Companies Act 1990. The inspectors appointed to Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited presented their report to the High Court on 10 June 2002. The report which was subsequently published has been passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Section 8 inquiries into the affairs of National Irish Bank Limited and National Irish Bank Financial Services Limited are continuing. A further interim report was submitted to the High Court in July 2003. An investigation under section 14 of the Companies Act 1990 was completed in 1998 and the report has been passed to the DPP.

Some 11 investigations were initiated by me under section 19 of the Companies Act 1990 of which six have been concluded. Of the six investigations completed, two reports have been passed to the DPP. A number of summary prosecutions have since been successfully concluded in one case. One report provided an input into the successful application to the High Court for the appointment of inspectors under section 8 while a fourth report was passed to the relevant High Court inspectors. One report was completed in September 2002 and a further report was completed in March 2003. Both reports have been referred to the Director of Corporate Enforcement.

Some three investigations under section 19 are ongoing and the authorised officer is working towards completing reports of the investigations by mid-2004. Two investigations were held up in legal appeals. These inquiries are now the responsibility of the Director of Corporate Enforcement. An investigation was undertaken under section 59 of the Insurance Act 1989 and a report in this regard has been referred to the DPP and to the inspectors undertaking the section 8 investigation of the company.

The costs incurred since 1997 on company investigations initiated by or on behalf of my Department currently amount to approximately €10.3 million. This amount does not include the salary costs of Civil Service staff working on a number of these investigations or the legal costs, which are primarily being borne by the Vote of the Chief State Solicitor. Most of this €10.3 million derives from the costs to date of the High Court inspectors appointed under section 8; €5.3 million in the case of National Irish Bank Limited-National Irish Bank Financial Services Limited and €3.5 million in the case of Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited.

The question of recovering costs from the section 8 investigations does not arise until such time as the inspectors complete their investigations. The issue of recovering costs in the Ansbacher inquiry is now before the courts. Section 19 as originally enacted did not provide for the recoupment of costs. This has changed with the enactment of the Company Law Enforcement Act 2001.

Mr. Howlin: Will the Tanáiste accept that ongoing inquiries have, after seven years, become a saga? What prosecutions have ensued and how many individuals have been charged on foot of such prosecutions? Does she believe that expenditure by her Department of €10 million plus the costs incurred by the Civil Service and the significant legal costs which fall to another Department for payment, should result in a clear benefit to the public by way of identified and published results?

The Tanáiste referred to a few specific investigations and said a number had been referred to the DPP. An investigation under section 14 of the Companies Act completed in 1998 has been passed to the DPP. Are these reports merely lodged with the Attorney General or does the Tanáiste have any dialogue with him in this regard? Are we to expect no result to ensue from these investigations?

Ms Harney: Substantial tax revenues have been recovered on foot of many of the inquiries.

Mr. Howlin: How many?

Ms Harney: That is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners who have already indicated that substantial moneys have been recouped to the State on foot of the National Irish Investment Bank inquiry and others.

Under the corporate enforcement mechanism, we introduced legislation establishing a new independent officer to head the properly resourced office before completion of the inquiries as a result of what was coming through from them. He is having considerable success. I am sure the Deputy is aware he is an independent office holder and that he has been involved in a number of high profile prosecutions in recent times.

On prosecutions concluded during my watch, there were a number of prosecutions following the investigation into Garuda Limited. We do not have any way of knowing the DPP's thinking on matters referred to him. He is very active these days. I know the reports are not gathering dust in his office. I am quite certain that if action can be taken on them, it will be taken. A number of inquiries remain outstanding. I understand a report on the NIB inquiry, one of the more significant ones, is due shortly. The reason such inquiries take so long and cost so much relates to the ongoing legal battles involved. Inquiries under section 19 seem better able to produce the type of preliminary results which will allow the Director of Corporate Enforcement to initiate activity. Responsibility for inquiries has been taken out of the political system and passed to an independent office holder and that is how such matters should be dealt with.

I genuinely believe we have received a great deal of value for money and that there has been a change in corporate behaviour as a result of inquiries in this area. Many changes have resulted from activities in other places, particularly in some of the tribunals of inquiry, such as the Dunne inquiry which dealt with payments to politicians set up by the Government of which the Deputy's party was a member. There are so many inquiries I cannot remember the name. The inquiry dealing with payments to Ben Dunne - the McCracken inquiry - led to many inquiries which have borne a lot of fruit and have been very successful.

Mr. Howlin: I agree with much that the Tanáiste said. How many investigations are currently outstanding and when will they be completed? Can the Tanáiste tell us the number of people who have been successfully prosecuted subsequent to inquiries initiated on her watch?

Ms Harney: Prosecutions in terms of inquiries initiated by my Department relate, in the main, to the Garuda investigation. The Director of Corporate Enforcement has since taken over many of the functions and reports in that regard. I can obtain the relevant information for the Deputy.

A number of inquiries remain outstanding; two relate to National Irish Bank Limited and National Irish Bank Financial Services Limited. I understand a final report in that regard is due shortly. The official in my Department with responsibility for the inquiries at the time the new office was established is currently working on reports relating to three investigations. It is hoped they will be completed by next summer.

Child Care Services.

66. Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment her views on whether the lack of child care provision is one of the most significant barriers to women returning to the labour market; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29851/03]

Mr. Fahey: One of the main challenges in the area of employment policy is to increase the overall numbers of those at work, including women. Participation by women in the labour market has, during the past ten years, increased by one third. The employment rate for females in 2002 stood at 55.2%, which compares to the EU average rate of 55.5% for females in employment in the same period.

I accept the provision of child care facilities is an important factor in encouraging women to take up employment and the Government is committed to meeting the diverse needs of parents and children through supporting the development of accessible, high quality child care services. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which has overall responsibility for the formulation of national policy on child care and for the implementation of child care services, established structures to bring the key players together at national and local level to ensure effective development.

The principal aim of the Equal Opportunities Child Care Programme 2000-06 is the development of quality child care to meet the needs of parents in employment, training or education. Funding made available under the programme amounts to €436.7 million up to 2006. As of 30 November 2003, €234.6 million has been committed under the programme. It is estimated that the grants to child care providers and community groups to date will create 26,948 new child care places and will also support more than 25,919 existing places.

Both IDA Ireland and FÁS, which operate under the aegis of my Department, have introduced initiatives designed to facilitate the increased participation of women in the workforce. IDA Ireland has identified six of its existing business parks for the development of child care services. This will benefit both employers and employees and thereby enhance the attractiveness of IDA Ireland parks to international investors. FÁS has operated a pilot child care allowance scheme since 2001 to facilitate primary child carers who wish to seek training to get back into the workforce. A sum of €6.7 million has been allocated to the scheme in 2003.

Mr. Morgan: I take it from the Minister of State's reply that the average return to work rates in both Ireland and the EU is decreasing. Will the Minister of State confirm that this is the case? The averages in 1999 were 68% in Ireland and 63% in the EU. The Minister of State referred to a figure of 55.2% in Ireland. If this is the case, is there any prospect that this return to work percentage will ever be met? Are we tackling a mountain with a teaspoon? Are we ever going to lower this barrier for women returning to the workplace?

Given that IDA Ireland is at last beginning to earmark areas in its parks for child care facilities, would State-run child care facilities speed up this process and ensure that such necessary facilities are put in place?

Mr. Fahey: The figure of 55.2% employment rate for females is a comparison with the EU rate of 55.5%.

Mr. Morgan: It is lower.

Mr. Fahey: The rate of employment among females in Ireland jumped 15% since 1994 to 55.2% in 2002. The employment rate for women aged 25 to 29, standing at 78%, is much higher than in most OECD countries. All the evidence suggests that there has been a significant increase in the number of women entering the workplace. This is due in no small way to the increased child care provisions that have been made.

We all accept that there is a need for continuing increases in the number of child care places provided. Since 1992, when hardly any child care facilities were available in this State, there has been significant investment and a large number of places provided. This has been accompanied by a significant increase in the number of women joining the workforce. While I am the first to accept there is a need for further places, I do not accept that State provision of such places is the answer. However, there is a good combination between State and private sector provision under current arrangements. One can see the level of support given by the State in, for example, IDA industrial parks and working class areas where women are returning to the workforce.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

Adjournment Debate Matters.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I wish to advise the House of the following matters in respect of which notice has been given under Standing Order 21 and the name of the Member in each case: (1) Deputy Cassidy - the need for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to give an assurance that he will do everything possible to ensure the continuation of the missing persons helpline and to outline what steps, if any, he intends to take to expand this service; (2) Deputy Crawford - the urgent need to provide funding towards the extensions to Ballybay College and to Castleblaney College where there is a serious risk to pupils and staff who must cross the N2 primary road which forms part of the campus; (3) Deputy Durkan - the need for the Minster for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to investigate the circumstances surrounding the arrest on several occasions of a person in County Kildare, the mother of two small children and party in a family law dispute, and to state whether he is aware of the repeated hospitalisation of one of the children and the potential danger of liability in the event of the involvement of State agents or agencies; (4) Deputy Neville - the exposé by "Prime Time" on RTE last night which claimed to have uncovered a list of 105 Irish people suspected of trading child pornography through Internet chatrooms; (5) Deputy Michael Moynihan - the progress of Aghinagh national school, County Cork; and (6) Deputy Fiona O'Malley - the need to discuss the implications of the electricity regulator's recent warning and attempt to curtail the expansion of wind energy onto the national grid.

The matters raised by Deputies Crawford, Michael Moynihan and Neville have been selected for discussion.

Leaders' Questions.

Mr. Kenny: Does the Taoiseach agree that the prime motivation for the announcement on decentralisation last week was the political interest of his party to avoid decimation at the local elections next year and that the programme has been heavily influenced by political considerations? Clearly, having a Minister in or adjacent to a constituency has meant more civil servants in the raffle for the public service. Of the eight Departments to be decentralised, five are either in or close to Minister's constituencies and only one quarter of the posts will go to towns mentioned in the national spatial strategy.

Given that the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, has openly boasted that this was heavily influenced by political considerations and his involvement was central to the announcement of the transfer of civil servants to his constituency, does the Taoiseach consider that the Minister of State, for one, is clearly in breach of paragraph 1.4 of the Public Office Commission's code of conduct for Ministers and Ministers of State?

The Taoiseach: I do not agree with the Deputy. As Minister for Finance, I was actively involved in the decentralisation in the 1990s of approximately 4,500 public servants to various centres throughout the country. This has worked extremely well. In 1999 the Government stated that, due to the population growth in the greater Dublin region - 2 million inhabitants were enumerated there in the previous census - we would have a further period of decentralisation. A committee has worked on this since. We said we would wait until the national spatial strategy was launched before completing the work. We have done so and identified 53 locations in 25 counties for the decentralisation of 10,300 people. This is in keeping with previous decentralisation programmes. The schemes have been set out and the implementation group will hold its first meeting next week.

While Deputy Kenny said that the locations to which offices are being decentralised are either in or near Minister's constituencies, Ireland is a small country and it is to be expected that locations could be seen as being near certain places. It is not unlikely that they would be. I consider Mayo as being near Dublin. I noted over the weekend that many Opposition Members claimed they had an influence in this as well. We seem to have a great competition in claiming who has the most influence.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Allen: Who is in Government?

An Ceann Comhairle: Allow the Taoiseach speak without interruption, please.

The Taoiseach: I suppose that as Taoiseach I should claim full credit.

Mr. Kenny: The Taoiseach did not answer my question. I asked him if the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, who has galloped in here from Parlon country, is in breach of paragraph 1.4 of the code of conduct for office holders. This paragraph states clearly that ethical behaviour requires Ministers to take decisions in the national interest over and above personal and parliamentary interests. The Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, said that no other public representative in the Laoghais-Offaly constituency, including the Minister for Foreign Affairs, had done anything for the people of that constituency over the years and that he was the great person to sort out their problems. This reminds me of the words of that great Mayo writer, Paul Durcan. When he wrote about the national spatial strategy, he said the Garden of Eden will be transferred from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism under its new Minister, Condoleezza Rice.

The criteria and analysis used in this non-political exercise, under the Taoiseach's direction, meant that 53 towns out of 130 were entitled to rejoice somewhat at the initial announcement, which was generally supported throughout the country. However, trust in politics is lost when cynicism such as we have witnessed creeps in.

Will the Taoiseach publish the analysis and criteria used in the selection of the 53 towns so people in Boyle, for instance, can understand why they were not considered suitable for an allocation of some element of the public service? The Taoiseach said on the 9 o'clock news that these criteria were based on discussions that had been taking place for three years. Does he consider that the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, is clearly in breach of paragraph 1.4 of the code of conduct for office holders?

The Taoiseach: The criteria and what the Government was doing in respect of decentralisation and balanced regional development are published in documentation pertaining to our European effort of a few years ago, which was to try to divide the country on a regional basis, and the national spatial strategy.

On a serious note-----

Mr. R. Bruton: That is not an answer to the question that was asked.

The Taoiseach: Deputy Kenny is mistaken in that he is just thinking in terms of individual locations. The attempt is to have a regional spread and to try to locate Departments and agencies in a cluster. One of the general objections of public servants to decentralisation was that enormous difficulties would arise if it were carried out in a haphazard way, whereby people could not be promoted within a region. In the considerable consultation that took place in recent years, the public servants made this point validly and expressed it at their conferences in the four years since the Government launched its decentralisation programme. A serious point that must be made is that there is now regional balance, and it has been achieved in a proper manner.

On Deputy Kenny's question on the statements of Deputy Parlon or other Deputies-----

Mr. Kenny: He is an office holder.

An Ceann Comhairle: Allow the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach: A question has been tabled to the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, by a Fine Gael Member from the same constituency which castigates the Minister because he did not transfer his Department to that constituency.

Mr. D. Ahern: I did even better. I located my previous Department there.

Mr. Kenny: The Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, is an office holder.

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle: The Taoiseach, without interruption.

The Taoiseach: Deputy Kenny and I have been Members of the House for long enough to know that there is a code of ethics whereby those who have been elected to the House try to remain elected. That is the code of ethics in this House.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Durkan: Is that in published form?

Mr. Kenny: To hell with freedom of information.

The Taoiseach: They claim everything. Opposition Members issued statements some days ago stating that their role in presenting the cases to Ministers visiting their constituencies is what turned the issue around. Fair play to them.

(Interruptions).

The Taoiseach: The Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, is also entitled to work for his constituency. What else would he be doing except working for it?

Mr. Kenny: Leaflet No. 1.

Mr. Rabbitte: Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the quality, coherence and efficiency of Government will not be impacted upon as a result of the announcement on decentralisation in the budget? Does he not think it is fair to say that the announcement was to steer attention away from the fact that 52% of all taxpayers will now pay at the highest rate of tax and that it will cost them €600 on average?

I ask the Taoiseach if he recognises the following quote by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, from a reply to a parliamentary question dated 12 November 2002:

As I have said on many occasions of late, there is a wide range of important issues that must be taken into consideration before a final decision is taken on the matter. It is vital that all involved are consulted, be they staff concerned about their futures or departmental managements concerned about the delivery of the public services for which they have responsibility.

Why was there no consultation in line with the Minister for Finance's commitment to the Dáil in this reply to a parliamentary question?

Can the Taoiseach help me reconcile the Tánaiste's statement of 2 January 2002 on previous decentralisation by three Ministers? She insisted that the exercise should not generate a repeat of the earlier behaviour of three Fianna Fáil Ministers who had transferred sections of their Departments to their constituencies. Adding to the tensions between the coalition partners, the Progressive Democrats Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, criticised it as "the worst kind of bogman politics".

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle: Allow Deputy Rabbitte without interruption, please.

Mr. Rabbitte: The Tánaiste insisted that decentralisation would have to be achieved in a meaningful and efficient way rather than by using a scatter-gun approach around the country. Does the Taoiseach agree with her? Does he recall when she objected to the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, inviting his colleagues to bid for the civil servants for their constituencies? What does the Taoiseach think of the Progressive Democrats Minister, Deputy Parlon, the first at the hireling fair who gives the impression he will drive the tractor up to Dublin and help the civil servants with the removals himself? If this is the role of the Progressive Democrats, why does it not decentralise to Mount Street and be done with it?

Mr. Parlon: Ours is not a redundant party, unlike the Labour Party.

Ms Harney: We are not like Deputy Rabbitte, who has already done that.

The Taoiseach: Deputy Rabbitte should note that part of our remit is to try to decentralise to large and appropriate towns in 53 locations.

Ms McManus: Thomastown.

The Taoiseach: The plan was carefully balanced on the basis that there would be a cluster of decentralised bodies within regions, each in close proximity to each other.

On Deputy Rabbitte's question, I do not believe the efficiency of Government will suffer. I remember the arguments made when the then Department of Social Welfare was to move to Sligo and the Revenue Commissioners to Tipperary. There are many arguments to show that these moves have been effective. Given that multinational companies in the west can deal with their parent companies in various continents, we should have no difficulty if the decentralised bodies are in close proximity. My experience indicates that people who are stuck in offices in the city centre - some of which are not very appropriate - and who are on top of each other all the time might be much better off and much better tempered if they were based in regional locations.

Mr. M. Higgins: Set me free.

The Taoiseach: I see no difficulty with this. I assure Deputy Rabbitte that there is nothing to be read into the fact that decentralisation was part of the budget. The one unfortunate issue that has arisen in the past week regarding decentralisation is that it has in some ways concealed the fact that the budget-----

Mr. S. Ryan: The Taoiseach can say that again.

The Taoiseach: If the Labour Party were really interested in the marginalised, it would note that 30% of the less well-off have enjoyed increases from almost 5.7% to 7%.

Mr. M. Higgins: Ray Burke-----

The Taoiseach: Deputy Michael D. Higgins should be proud about this. I know he is annoyed about it. The top 30%-----

Mr. M. Higgins: I am not. I know language when I hear it.

The Taoiseach: -----receive increases of only 0.04% to 0.07%. Moreover, the welfare increases in this budget and even in those of more difficult times have been very helpful. Instead of people barely getting what they needed to maintain their standard of living, 400,000 people will get three times the rate of inflation.

Mr. Durkan: It is 21 cent a day.

The Taoiseach: These are the kinds of measures for which Members should have applauded the Minister for Finance, but unfortunately they did not get enough coverage. I know Deputy Higgins is pleased about that-----

Mr. M. Higgins: I am not.

The Taoiseach: -----but these are real and socially progressive policies.

Mr. M. Higgins: If children had four legs they could be-----

An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry, Deputy Higgins. These are Leaders' Questions. I have called the leader of your party to ask a supplementary question and out or courtesy to him I would ask you to allow him to ask it without interruption.

Mr. Rabbitte: I am not sure what the Taoiseach means by all those civil servants on top of each other. Clearly more fun goes on in the Civil Service than I was aware of.

Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the quality of governance will not be affected? Does he genuinely believe the business of Government can be done by e-mail? Is it the case, as has been suggested by a former Taoiseach, that, for example, civil servants participate in no less than 300 interdepartmental committees on behalf of their Ministers? Is the Taoiseach saying he intends to stick with the budget day commitment to the implementation of this package, as it has been rolled out, within three years? Would it not have been more rational and reasonable to have truly engaged in the consultation promised by the Minister for Finance and to have compiled a league table of locations in the country consistent with the national spatial strategy? That table could have been consistent with a range of socio-economic factors, such as the availability of infrastructure, and self-contained, autonomous units of Government might be transferred to those areas.

This is the scatter-gun approach the Tánaiste claimed to fear and the hireling fair which repulsed her before the election. Is the Taoiseach saying now, on mature reflection and having got what he can to deflect from what was otherwise a very bad budget, that he will persist in implementing this against the public interest?

The Taoiseach: The efficiency of governance will not be affected in any way. Moving a large core of Departments out to regional locations is good for them and it will be better for the staff in terms of quality of life and opportunities. It will make for better balanced development in the country. With modern technology I do not see problems arising - we are not just talking about e-mails. Meetings can take place in locations all over the world without everyone having to be in the one room. If those days were ever relevant they are long out of date. There are no difficulties with these issues.

The consultation and examination carried out by the Minister and the committee which dealt with this were long enough. As Deputy Rabbitte knows, people will go on forever about these issues. Everyone wanted decentralisation in their areas, but it is not possible to cover all 130 or 140 locations seeking decentralisation. That would be a scatter-gun approach. Only one third of those locations will be involved but they will be good locations.

I agree with Deputy Rabbitte on some of the better issues in the budget were overlooked but perhaps they will be brought to light. The entry point to taxation for a single PAYE worker was €97 per week a few years ago but after this budget it is now €247 per week, an increase of over 150%. Unfortunately, some of these matters have been hidden. The proportion of income tax yield from those with earnings at and under the average industrial wage is projected to be about 6%. The equivalent figure was only 14%. Some of these matters should be in the public domain.

Mr. Rabbitte: Even when the Taoiseach is not asked a question he reads the note.

Mr. Sargent: I do not want to ask the Taoiseach questions about the former Minister, Mr. Ray Burke, because that matter is before the courts, but I want to focus on the Taoiseach's track record. After all, he castigated the Opposition for hounding an honourable man out of office so it is important that he go back to last week in the Dáil when we asked him about a meeting he had with the head of Royal Dutch Shell. He told us, very interestingly, that he has had "a fair few meetings over the years that might border on the unethical, but I am not guilty of it in this case." The interesting question, which we did not have an opportunity to ask at the time, is what exactly does the Taoiseach regard as unethical. He told us that the code of ethics here is that once you are elected to Dáil Éireann you stay in Dáil Éireann.

Beyond that, has he attended any other meetings that might be considered unethical? Did any of them involve, for example, Mr. Gilmartin? Did any of them involve the Sweepstakes? We saw a recent "Prime Time" programme on the Sweepstakes which went back to the 1970s and 1980s. Is it not strange that any candidate could call to the offices of the Sweepstakes in Ballsbridge and ask for his or her election deposit? I know times have changed, but the Taoiseach was a Deputy for nine years before the Sweepstakes ended and he received the annual report year after year, as did every Deputy. Did he ever suspect at the time that there was anything unethical about its operation? Can the Taoiseach look me in the eye and tell me that after he became Minister in 1987 there was no procurement project in which he was involved that was not clean and above board? It is important we know that.

The Taoiseach: I will not remind Deputy Sargent of some of the nice things he said about people when they were appointed Ministers. I will not get into that because these matters are before the courts. I recall the day I spoke about Shell and I will tell the Deputy what I was referring to. When people want to invest in and bring employment to this country, they want to know if there is political interest and if the country is stable-----

Mr. Sargent: The Taoiseach told us that. I raised another matter.

The Taoiseach: The Deputy asked me a question and I want to tell him not just about that meeting but others. I would always take an interest in these matters and meet people. The best Governments all over the world, with the highest ethical standards, do that.

As regards the issues I referred to which bordered on the unethical, in my involvement in Northern Ireland I sometimes felt less than comfortable meeting people who had been involved at first hand in acts which make me feel uncomfortable. However, in the interests of the peace process I continued. That is what I meant that day. If the Deputy wants me to spell that out I can do so, but I would rather not.

Mr. Sargent: I got a limited answer so I take it that if the Taoiseach had more time he would have told me more about the 1970s and 1980s, during his time as Minister for Labour and so on. It is important we have a clear understanding of the Taoiseach's approach to corruption. We had an exchange in the Dáil in which the Taoiseach tried to put us in a league - he said there are cases involving trillions and that we are not in that league, that there is a way to deal with this and that it cannot go on forever.

I want to be clear on where the Taoiseach stands on this issue. The Berlin-based Transparency International group has said that Ireland is more corrupt than 17 other countries. Of course, most other countries that are corrupt are poorer countries in the developing world. That league was compiled before the tribunals report so we do not know what the future holds in that regard.

Is it not time that clear political leadership is given to the ending of corruption, not just in terms of statements but of removing rezoning windfall profits, reforming the planning Acts, giving more resources to the EPA, given the amount of illegal dumping, and allocating more resources to the Garda, given the promise of an extra 2,000 gardaí? Are these not matters that must be seen in action rather than in words?

The Taoiseach: I believe in democracy, the rule of law, human rights, the suppression of terrorism and good governance. I do not think Ireland is a corrupt country.

Mr. Eamon Ryan: Does the Taoiseach believe in tribunals?

The Taoiseach: Issues must be investigated but compliance with tax, welfare and justice legislation in Ireland is high. We are nowhere near the league of countries considered to be corrupt. We are not in the same zone and the fact that former office holders and other people in society are dealt with under legislation shows how fair and honest is this country. The Deputy's line is not right.

Mr. Sargent: It is not my line.

The Taoiseach: With regard to my political life, I worked in the House at a time when there was almost 20% unemployment. I have always worked to find ways of investment. One does not grow jobs on trees; one attracts foreign direct investment.

Mr. Sargent: They probably grow on trees.

The Taoiseach: Jobs are created in an up front way and they are not driven out. We should be proud of what we have achieved in creating wealth and jobs and solving issues.

Mr. Sargent: The Taoiseach could drive jobs in here.

Ms O'Donnell: Hear, hear.

Requests to move Adjournment of Dáil under Standing Order 31.

An Ceann Comhairle: Before coming to the Order of Business I propose to deal with a number of notices under Standing Order 31. I will call the Deputies in the order in which they submitted the notices to my office.

Mr. Neville: I request the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to discuss the following matter of national urgent importance, namely, the exposé by "Prime Time" and RTE last night, which claimed to have uncovered at least 105 Irish people suspected of trading in child pornography through Internet chat rooms; the likelihood that such pornographic material is being made in Ireland to facilitate such trading; the serious abuse of children which results from such activity; and the lack of resources for the Garda to deal with this criminal activity through Operation Amethyst.

Mr. Morgan: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 on the following specific and urgent matter, namely, the necessity for the State to comply with the Kyoto Protocol on the reduction of greenhouse gases; the fact that the European environmental agency has indicated that, by the deadline for compliance with the protocol, the State's carbon emissions will be 39.8% above the 1990 level, whereas a 13% increase was permitted; the incomprehensible inaction of the Government in regard to international commitments on global warning; and the fact that the continuing policy of a do nothing approach by the Government will cost us dearly, both in terms of fines and continuing damage to the environment.

Mr. Ferris: I wish to move the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to discuss the following matter, namely, the urgent need for the immediate appointment of four child care assistants to Nano Nagle school, Listowel, County Kerry, and the provision of an extension to the existing school building to meet the humane facilities required.

Mr. O'Dowd: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to discuss the following specific and important matter of public interest requiring urgent consideration, namely, the extent of the activities of paedophiles in the State both on the Internet and in society; the need for the Garda to expedite investigations in this area; and the need to update legislation to take account of technological changes.

An Ceann Comhairle: Having considered the matters raised, they are not in order in accordance with Standing Order 31.

Order of Business.

The Taoiseach: It is proposed to take No. 12, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of a Council framework decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties - back from committee; No. 13, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of a Council framework decision on confiscation of crime related proceeds, instrumentalities and property - back from committee; and No. 4, Social Welfare Bill 2003 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. and business shall be interrupted not later than 10.30 p.m.; Nos. 12 and 13 shall be decided without debate; and Private Members' Business shall be No. 37, Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill 2003 - Second Stage, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 10 December 2003.

An Ceann Comhairle: There are three proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 12 and 13 without debate agreed?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: We all accept that bypassing any stage in the processing of legislation is a violation of the democratic process. On measures and motions such as these, which come before the Houses of the Oireachtas for scrutiny purposes, the House is being bypassed, without careful and considered perusal of what is involved in a detailed way. The Government and the Dáil have approved the establishment of the Sub-committee on European Scrutiny. I have raised repeatedly with the Taoiseach that adequate and careful scrutiny of measures that will have a significant impact on the civil and legal rights of ordinary citizens is not accommodated. We are again being asked to approve two motions that have a judicial element. Both arise from decisions taken in courts, which have been brought forward for our attention and approval.

Last week the Taoiseach urged me to ensure members of my party attend the Sub-committee on European Scrutiny. My colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, has a better attendance record at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights than some of the members of that committee. There are only five members in our party and we cannot cover all the committees operating in the House. I ask the Taoiseach not to adopt this kicking to touch or diversion.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has made his point.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I ask him to accept that I raise this point repeatedly on these measures out of genuine concern for the rights of citizens in this State and it is our duty and responsibility, as a Parliament, to properly examine, discuss, debate and come to a decision regarding the impact and effect of such measures.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has made his point. A brief comment is allowed under the Standing Order.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I ask the Taoiseach to re-examine the processing of issues in this House. I regret I must oppose these motions because-----

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.

The Taoiseach: We have set up the scrutiny process under which various Council framework decisions are sent to a committee of the House. That was a major legislative move forward in comparison to what we did in the past and we all agreed we should do that. The Minister goes before the committee and considerable time is spent on the preparation of the documentation by officials, which is laid before the committee. The Minister provides a narrative of what is involved, takes questions, debates the issues and the debate concludes in a similar manner to a Second Stage debate in the House. The Minister takes on boards the comments of members. The committee reports back to the House and the report is received on the Order of Business.

The alternative would be not to have the sub-committee and to bring all the motions before the House.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: There must be another way-----

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has made his point. He is out of order.

The Taoiseach: I do not want to get into an argument about this but I do not see another way of proceeding. If there is, perhaps the Whips can discuss it. This is a genuine way of bringing the issues forward and having debate, with Ministers and committees involved. I know it involves a great deal of time for Members of the House in attending various committee meetings, for which they do not always receive as much public credit as they should, in my view. They report back to the House.

Mr. R. Bruton: They get little consideration from the Government.

The Taoiseach: There should be more recognition of the work of Members in the committees. I do not find the matter as amusing as some Deputies opposite seem to do. Committee meetings are an important part of the work of the House. Everything does not have to take place in the Dáil Chamber.

Mr. R. Bruton: The Government should give greater recognition to the recommendations from committees.

The Taoiseach: They are recognised. The Deputy's statement is incorrect. The Government takes account of them.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I wish to raise a point of order.

An Ceann Comhairle: What is the Deputy's point of order?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I will hazard an attempt at it anyhow. The Taoiseach, in his reply-----

An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry, Deputy. Only a point of order is allowed.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Perhaps that is not a point of order. Is that correct, a Cheann Comhairle?

An Ceann Comhairle: No, Deputy, it is not a point of order.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Let me approach it another way. Perhaps I can find a textbook formula---

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is abusing the Standing Orders of the House.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The Taoiseach continually refers to "reporting back".

An Ceann Comhairle: That is not a point of order. The Taoiseach, to continue his reply.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: There is not an effective reporting system. A member of a committee, only last week, here in this Chamber-----

An Ceann Comhairle: That is not a point of order. I ask Deputy Ó Caoláin to resume his seat.

The Taoiseach: There is another answer which I could give to Deputy Ó Caoláin. Quite frankly, having looked back over the reports after the Deputy raised the matter last week - perhaps Members may not wish me to say this - there are often more people at committee meetings than is the case at Second Stage debates. The reality, irrespective of whether this pleases the House, is that there is far greater involvement and debate in committees than on various stages of Bills in the House. I would like to hear about the great system to which the Deputy referred. I do not believe it is there.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with Nos. 12 and 13 be agreed to."

The Dáil divided: Tá 74; Níl, 25.

Tá

Níl

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Ó Snodaigh and F. McGrath.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business agreed to? Agreed. On the Order of Business, I call on Deputy Kenny.

Mr. Kenny: I understood there was to be a statement in respect of the European Arrest Warrant Bill 2003.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Chair will be making a report to the House when we come to No. 22 on the Order of Business.

Mr. Kenny: On the list of legislation published by the Government Whip on 29 September, there were 22 Bills listed for publication up to the end of this Dáil session. Will the Taoiseach inform the House as to how many of these have actually been published?

The European working time directive was transposed into law by the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. When can we expect the necessary secondary legislation and statutory instruments to give effect to that, in view of the importance attached to the Hanly report and the extension of the working time directive to junior doctors?

The Taoiseach: I do not have information on the working time directive. I will have it checked out for the Deputy.

Last week, I gave information on the legislation programme. Eight of the Bills on that list have already been published and there are eight more, of which some were cleared at Cabinet today, to be published soon. The commitment was to have them published before the next session. There are six other Bills which will be ready in January. There are three Bills published that are not on the referred list. However, the final list of published Bills will be close to that list from the Whip, without one or two Bills. They will be replaced by three other Bills not on the "A list".

Mr. Rabbitte: The Labour Party has brought to the Chair's attention that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has come out of the House with two different versions of the European Arrest Warrant Bill 2003, which is to amend the Extradition Act 1965.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Chair has already pointed out to Deputy Kenny that a report on the matter will be made when we come to No. 22 on the Order of Business.

Mr. Rabbitte: I apologise. I thought the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was so anxious to put legislation through the House that he put two different versions of the same Bill through.

Mr. Ferris: Like a Fianna Fáil backbencher.

Mr. Cassidy: It is a lovelier place to be than where the Deputy is.

Mr. McCormack: There are 40 people waiting to go.

Mr. Durkan: Deputy Cassidy should be careful because he might not be there for long.

An Ceann Comhairle: Order.

Mr. Sargent: A member of the Garda Síochana recently asked me about promised legislation on the laundering of red diesel and the effects on the water table of the toxic acids used. He is surprised there is not more debate on it.

An Ceann Comhairle: To what legislation is the Deputy referring?

Mr. Sargent: When will the water services Bill come before the House?

Mr. Rabbitte: There are very few Green members of the Garda.

Mr. Davern: I do not think that "laundering" is the word to use.

The Taoiseach: The Bill will be published before Christmas.

Mr. J. Higgins: The disturbing revelation on RTE "Prime Time" last night showed that abuse of the Internet may be driving-----

An Ceann Comhairle: What legislation is the Deputy referring to?

Mr. J. Higgins: -----perverse sexual exploitation of young children by an indeterminate number of people. It speculated that there are more people involved than we might imagine. Since the Garda would not comment on most the issues raised-----

An Ceann Comhairle: That issue has been raised by Deputy Neville and allowed on the Adjournment Debate. Has the Deputy a question on legislation for the Taoiseach?

Mr. J. Higgins: What legislative provisions is the Government contemplating in addressing the question?

The Taoiseach: The Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 is considered to be one of the best Acts of its kind in any country.

Mr. Morgan: I ask about legislation that has taken in excess of 80 years and affects a considerable number of people. Why has the ground rents abolition Bill taken so long? Given that this affects a considerable number of Government properties and buildings, is there any possibility of expediting this Bill and when can we expect it?

The Taoiseach: Nothing has changed with it. It is still grounded.

Mr. S. Ryan: I have referred previously to the Abbotstown sports centre authority Bill. Given the recent draw for the soccer world cup qualifying matches, does the Taoiseach propose to introduce a further Bill to deal with the need for a sports stadium? Alternatively, would the Taoiseach support an amendment at the GAA congress to deal with this important issue?

Mr. M. Smith: All those in favour should indicate.

Mr. S. Ryan: I ask my question in the context of the Abbotstown sports centre authority Bill. Does the Taoiseach propose to introduce a further Bill to deal with the need for a sports stadium for Ireland, which has been promised for years?

An Ceann Comhairle: We can only deal with promised legislation.

Mr. M. Smith: The Deputy's leader is against it.

Mr. S. Ryan: It was promised before the general election when Fianna Fáil scuppered Eircom Park. The Progressive Democrats scuppered Abbotstown.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Ryan is being disorderly.

Mr. N. Dempsey: The Deputy should get a motion passed at the parliamentary Labour Party.

Mr. Rabbitte: The Minister would put a roof on Fitzgerald stadium first.

Mr. Durkan: In order to meet the transport requirements of the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, can the Taoiseach indicate the status of the critical infrastructure Bill?

Mr. Morgan: It has been relocated.

The Taoiseach: The critical infrastructure Bill has been circulated to Department for comments.

Mr. Durkan: The Taoiseach should hurry it up, as the strains of the big country will be revving up shortly.

Mr. N. Dempsey: We have completed a brand new bypass around Kildare.

The Taoiseach: We will work hard on Monasterevin for the Deputy also.

European Arrest Warrant Bill 2003: Referral to Select Committee.

An Ceann Comhairle: A division was challenged last Friday on the question that the European Arrest Warrant Bill 2003 be referred to the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, pursuant to Standing Order 120(1) and paragraph 1(a)(i) of the committee's Orders of Reference. In accordance with an order of the Dáil of 4 December 2003, that division must be taken now.

Before proceeding with the division, it has been drawn to my attention that there was a breakdown in administrative procedures in the publication of the text of the European Arrest Warrant Bill, which led to two versions being published. Firtst, the printer omitted to include the Schedule from the text that had been supplied to him and, second, a change to the text of section 9 was made when the Bill was republished to rectify the original error.

In the circumstances, I rule that the version as published on the first occasion and which was circulated to members is the valid document, as presented under Standing Orders, and any amendments should be addressed to that version. Accordingly if the Minister wishes to have the Schedule and the change to section 9 included, it must be done by way of amendment. I also rule that since Second Stage procedure relates to the general principles and not the detail of the Bill, which is appropriate for Committee Stage, the proceedings of last Friday are not affected by the difficulties that I have outlined.

I have reviewed procedures, especially in view of the pressures that are experienced at the end of each session, and I have decided that the normal 48-hour rule for publication will be operated except in very exceptional cases for specific operational reasons.

Mr. Rabbitte: With respect, Sir, is it not expedient that you should rule thus? The Minister was speaking to one Bill last Friday and the Opposition was speaking to a different Bill. We can hardly blame the printer, to whom you advert in your ruling. It was a matter for the Minister to come to the House with the Bill he intended to enact. Are you satisfied in these circumstances how an action would lie if this were tested in court since this House thought it was enacting one Bill and ended up enacting a different Bill?

I am surprised that one of the greatest legal minds on the Government benches ought to have fallen into this trap. It is highly unusual. I do not recall any set of circumstances where the Minister proceeded with one kind of Bill in the one hand and a different version of the Bill in the other hand and the House was supposed to address it in those terms.

I do not believe there is a precedent for this. I hope, Sir, you are satisfied there is no infirmity in your ruling that we now proceed as if it were a minor and not substantial difference in the Bill, when the entire Schedule of approximately 50 pages was omitted. I do not know where the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, is. He is probably making a speech on the economy somewhere.

Mr. P. McGrath: There will be a camera there for sure.

Mr. Rabbitte: If he attended to the processing of his own legislation it would be more appropriate.

Mr. Martin: The Minister is in the Seanad.

Mr. Kenny: Given that this was pointed out to you by the Labour Party-----

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Kenny should be allowed to continue without interruption.

Mr. Kenny: The printer seems to have been blamed. In your investigation, were you informed as to who made the change in the text, which was submitted with the second printing to rectify the situation? If there was a change in the text, was that on the instructions of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? The consequence is that the members of the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights will be faced with a huge raft of amendments tabled by the Minister on Committee Stage to comply with your ruling.

Mr. Sargent: Given that we are dealing with a Bill that had a truncated Second Stage and given that the Green Party opposed the guillotining of that stage, it is appropriate that we should re-open Second Stage and have the matter dealt with in the full knowledge of what has happened. Otherwise it would not be fair and it would not be correct to say we had a valid Second Stage.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Sinn Féin also takes this view. The debate on Second Stage was guillotined, which we opposed. We believe Second Stage should be re-opened. When we consider what has already taken place here this afternoon in terms of scrutiny of EU motions and legislation, this is a very embarrassing incident concerning domestic legislation. There is a clear dichotomy between the documentation presented on two different occasions.

It is imperative that we re-open the Second Stage debate, allow the opportunity for each Member to address the same text and those Members who were not accommodated on the first opportunity should also have the chance to participate directly. Any other decision will not meet the needs of this House.

An Ceann Comhairle: I intended to allow one Member from each party. However, as Deputy Costello indicated before his leader I will allow him to speak also.

Mr. Costello: On Friday we debated the very serious matter of the European Arrest Warrant Bill, which abolishes all extradition arrangements we have with all other countries in the European Union and introduces a warrant mechanism. This has a fundamental impact and if we do not get it right, there could be legal and constitutional challenges and we could end up in a constitutional quagmire over this.

The Bill that I debated was the larger 84-page one, which has now been withdrawn. The Bill now in circulation is the 34-page one. I was not debating the Bill that has now been placed in my pigeonhole, as the version that you have said will go on to Committee Stage. It is inappropriate that those of us who debated the Bill did so on the basis of a version of the Bill that we will not now address on Committee Stage. It is a very serious matter and the only way to rectify it transparently is to take Second Stage again.

Mr. Rabbitte: In this instance, two possibilities arise. We can follow normal practice, withdraw the Bill and start ab initio. An alternative course would be to adopt the suggestion that we take Second Stage again once we know what it is we are debating.

An Ceann Comhairle: Having considered overnight this matter and the points Deputies have made, the Chair has ruled that the first Bill circulated was the only valid Bill before the House, despite the fact that it contained an error.

Mr. Rabbitte: Yes.

An Ceann Comhairle: I understand the Schedule was circulated subsequently and that Members were aware of it. The Second Stage debate was held in accordance with an order of the House made on Thursday morning. The principle of the Bill was not infringed upon by the particular amendment which was included in the third draft of the legislation which was circulated. The Chair ruled in accordance with a great deal of precedent. Second Stage debate is confined to the general principle of a Bill.

Mr. M. Higgins: The general principle of which Bill?

An Ceann Comhairle: In this instance, the general principle of the legislation was not infringed upon by the amendment which was made. This amendment will be the subject of debate on Committee Stage.

Mr. M. Higgins: Of which text?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Chair has ruled on two issues. First, the copy of the Bill originally circulated was the valid Bill before the House.

Mr. Stagg: Members did not know it was before the House.

An Ceann Comhairle: It was circulated to Members.

Mr. Rabbitte: I submit that the Ceann Comhairle ought to allow the Government, whose duty it is to bring legislation before the House, to comment on whether it is satisfied with the ruling of the Chair. This matter concerns us all. The argument that making an 85 page submission to a Bill is purely a matter of detail is difficult to accept.

An Ceann Comhairle: My understanding was that the Schedule, which was 50 pages in length, reproduced in Irish and English the text of the Council framework decision of 13 June 2002 and of the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between member states on which the Bill is based and which are referred to in its text.

Mr. Rabbitte: Would it not be better before disposing of the matter to seek the advice of the Attorney General? Did the Office of the Ceann Comhairle have resort to that calibre of legal advice before it arrived at its decision?

An Ceann Comhairle: In accordance with many past rulings, the Chair takes the view that knowledge of rules or other legal experience or qualifications needed to interpret statutes in a court of law are not necessary to interpret Standing Orders correctly. The Chair is guided by Standing Orders rather than by legal opinion outside Standing Orders. I am citing in this regard two rulings by predecessors of mine which go back over a long number of years.

Mr. Sargent: Can the House be provided with an account of the Government's legal advice?

Mr. Costello: The Schedule to the Bill was not the only part of it which was missing. A substantial amendment to section 9 was also missing.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Chair has already referred to the matter and dealt with it.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Will the Minister not come to the House to explain?