It is proposed to take No. 29, Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1996, Second Stage; No. 7, motion for leave to introduce Supplementary Estimate [Vote 31]; No. 9, Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1996 (from the Select Committee on Legislation and Security), order for Report and Report and Final Stages; and No. 1, Universities Bill, 1996, order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Second Stage of No. 29 shall be decided without debate; No. 7 shall be decided without debate and any division demanded thereon shall be taken forthwith; the Report and Final Stages of No. 9 shall be taken today and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 6.45 p.m. today by one Question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Justice; and Private Members' Business shall also be taken tomorrow between 12 p.m. and 1.30 p.m. and the proceedings thereon shall be brought to a conclusion at 1.30 p.m. Private Members' Business shall be No. 34, motion 14 concerning toll roads.
Order of Business.
There are four matters to be put before the House. Is it agreed that the Second Stage of No. 29 shall be decided without debate? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 7 satisfactory and agreed to?
I have no difficulty with matters being agreed without debate. However, why is a large Supplementary Estimate on agriculture being taken in October?
The Deputy is aware there are particular problems in this sector relating to BSE, which have involved certain costs. I suggest that any questions he or other Deputies wish to pose be addressed to the relevant Minister.
No. 7 gives the House leave to introduce this Supplementary Estimate. It is unusual to introduce such a large Supplementary Estimate at this time of year. I read through it this morning and the majority of its provisions do not relate to the matter to which the Taoiseach referred. Why is a Supplementary Estimate for agriculture being introduced at this stage, given that a nominal Supplementary Estimate for agriculture was introduced in May to provide assistance to the rendering industry? This was in order because the industry is the subject of a new subhead. However, the matter before us concerns a normal Supplementary Estimate being taken at the end of October. Has the Government decided to bring forward into the 1996 accounts expenditure it hopes to incur in 1997? What is the purpose of its introduction?
The purpose of introducing a Supplementary Estimate is to allow additional expenditure over and above that which was provided under the relevant heads in the original Estimate. I am not prepared to provide a justification, subhead by subhead, for the individual additional demands in respect of particular heads concerning the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry because I was not briefed to do so. I understand the Opposition agreed this matter would be decided without debate. The Opposition had the option to have a debate wherein questions could be asked and answered about the provisions of the subheads of the Supplementary Estimate. If such a debate is required, we can consider making time available. However, I understand the Opposition agreed to take the matter without debate.
Let us not debate this matter now.
I only became aware of the Supplementary Estimate this morning and it is not a question of agreeing or disagreeing. If it merely concerned BSE, I would be aware of the purpose of the Supplementary Estimate. However, it falls under a range of subheads which seem to involve expenditure brought forward from the 1997 figures into 1996. Why is this Supplementary Estimate being introduced at the end of October, out of line with every other Department? I am not opposing the Taoiseach but it is within my rights to inquire about a Supplementary Estimate for one Department with vague subheads, which seem to be linked to European moneys. In the absence of a reply it seems expenditure which would normally have been incurred in 1997 has been brought forward because the Government has access to sufficient funding. Perhaps our spokesperson at the relevant committee will discover the answer.
I have no difficulty in arranging a debate on this matter. I understand there was agreement between the Government and Opposition Whips that it would be taken without debate. Where there is agreement between the Whips that a matter be dealt with without debate, I cannot be expected to engage in a debate on the Order of Business and deal with the reasons a particular item of business is being brought forward. I have no reason to believe that what Deputy Ahern said about this Supplementary Estimate is not correct. Equally, I am unable to contradict what he said. If we are to have a debate on this, it would have been better to have had that signalled in advance, when we could have arranged a debate.
I want to get off this subject as otherwise I shall have to put the question.
I want to clarify a point. As far as I was concerned, there was no agreement on this. I asked for a copy of the Estimate which I received this morning. It was as a result of that that our party leader raised the matter. I did not agree to have it discussed without debate.
My understanding was that the matter had been agreed to, but I accept what the Deputy said. This matter will now be referred to the relevant committee of the House where all questions Members wish to ask about this Supplementary Estimate can be raised.
I take it that questions have been raised and that there is no objection to this proposal. I will put the question again, that the proposals for dealing with No. 7 be agreed to. Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 9 agreed to? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with Private Members' Business this evening agreed to? Agreed.
I understand that since the Central Statistics Office survey a few weeks ago, 10,000 people have signed off the live register and are waiting to see what action will be taken by the Department of Social Welfare. As no guidelines have been issued to social welfare officers, does the Government intend to bring in any further legislation to deal with social welfare abuse?
No specific legislative proposal is being brought forward by the Department of Social Welfare in regard to this matter. There is an intensification of efforts to eliminate social welfare fraud in the light of concerns expressed in the wake of the publication of reports on this matter. The efforts of the Minister for Social Welfare are obviously meeting with success in that there has been a considerable reduction in the numbers signing on. This is also linked to the fact that we have had a record level of employment creation and a record degree of employment opportunity for those who, hitherto, were on social welfare. The fact that many more new jobs have been created than was the case two or three years ago also assists in reducing the level of employment benefit claims.
When will we see the legislation providing for a food inspectorate, and will the food inspectorate take over functions of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry?
The matter of a board to deal with food standards is receiving priority attention from the Government. The preparation of legislation was approved today, and drafting will be advanced on a priority basis. At this stage I cannot give the precise date of the introduction of the legislation in the House. However, consideration is being given to making interim non-statutory arrangements so that no time will be lost in taking the necessary measures, even in anticipation, as far as that is possible, of the passage of the legislation.
On the Order of Business last week the Taoiseach mentioned, in response to questions on the third banking force and the disposal of the TSB, that legislation could be introduced. Has the Taoiseach received any report from the meeting of the parliamentary Labour Party which will allow him to proceed in this regard?
That is not in order.
The Telecommunications (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is presently before the House and Report Stage will be taken next Wednesday. Given that it is now generally agreed that the shares in Telecom Éireann have been sold off at a scandalously low price, and that the investors from overseas will have got back almost half of their money within the first six months——
This is not relevant.
I want to ask the Taoiseach whether, under the procedures for seeking that documents be brought before the House, the contract signed with the overseas investors on 26 July can be brought before the House for inspection. It is a document which is central to the legislation.
This is not relevant.
The procedures allow me to seek documents which are required by the House.
I am sure the matter can be dealt with effectively in so many other ways.
Will the Taoiseach consider publishing the contract to sell 20 per cent of Telecom Éireann?
This is not question time.
On a point of order, I put it to the Chair——
I am ruling on the matter. There is no point of order.
Under Standing Orders, I am entitled to seek documents that are required in the House.
The Deputy may not embark upon a speech in the process.
I will not do that. Will the Taoiseach bring forward this secret document selling off 20 per cent of a State company for almost nothing? It is a secret document, a private deal, and it has not been published. Where is the document?
It is open to any Deputy who seeks information or documentary evidence in regard to a particular item of legislation to raise that during the debate on the legislation.
I did that, and I was told no.
It is not a matter for the Order of Business.
Surely it is the Ceann Comhairle's job to decide that. I raised the point during the debate and I was told by the Minister that it was a secret and confidential document, confidential to the Government and the overseas investors, and that I had no right to know what was in it.
Members who are dissatisfied with the Minister's reply have a remedy, indeed many remedies.
It is a secret deal. The Government should publish the contract.
The Taoiseach said that a food inspectorate would be established on a non-statutory basis prior to the introduction of legislation. When exactly will the board be established?
Decisions on the matter were taken today. I cannot give the Deputy a precise timetable. However, this is an issue of high priority. It is important that we have all the necessary arrangements in place to give assurances in regard to food quality and ensure that they are respected at every point in the food chain and that people can have the sense of confidence they need as consumers. That is why the establishment of this board is being treated as a matter of priority by the Government. I cannot say exactly when the board will be established. It will be necessary to get a high quality board, to get people who are willing to serve and who represent all relevant interests in society, including, in particular, consumers. We want to take the time necessary to get the best people we can to serve on the board. That process of search is just starting. I cannot say definitely when we will have all the people we need for the board. We will treat this as a matter of priority.
As part of the policy of openness, transparency and accountability, the Programme for Government promised to examine the possibility of legislation to enable journalists to protect the confidentiality of their sources in certain circumstances. As the Taoiseach has more or less abandoned all the relevant Bills, when can we expect legislation on this matter?
The Deputy is engaging in a selective presentation of the facts. As the House is aware, the preparation of a freedom of information Bill is at an advanced stage. Also, the Government is working on amendments to the Ministers and Secretaries Acts which will have a major effect in changing the structure of Government, making Government more accountable and more open, moving away from the doctrine that Ministers are individually and personally responsible for everything, and allowing more people to be accountable in regard to different aspects of public administration under their care. So far as the question of the protection of sources is concerned I will make inquiries about that matter and will revert to the Deputy.
When is it intended to publish the Medical Practitioners (Amendment) Bill?
I expect that legislation will be available in about seven months' time.
In relation to the Universities Bill, will the Taoiseach indicate whether the amendments promised by the Minister will be published in tandem with the debate today? Will he confirm that a subcommittee of the Higher Education Authority has been established to draft further amendments to the Bill? I am concerned that the Oireachtas seems to be the last to have an input into these amendments even before the Bill is debated here.
Second Stage of the Bill will be taken today and the Minister will give an indication of her views on the subject during the debate. It is not customary in the House, as every Deputy is aware, to publish Committee Stage amendments to a Bill that has not yet passed Second Stage.
Has the Taoiseach or the Minister for Enterprise and Employment any plans to intervene in the industrial dispute at the Royal Dublin Hotel which is having a bearing on tourism?
The Deputy should raise this matter at a more appropriate time.
Perhaps the Minister would intervene——
Not now Deputy.
What is the Government's position on gender equality given that the Government statement laid on the table of the House today the Taoiseach said that gender equality requires continued advances for women but that it is conditional on other matters, which are obviously of concern? Will the Taoiseach clarify the Government's position because we are debating an equality Bill before the House? It is particularly important that we know where the Government stands on equality for women.
I am afraid the Deputy is engaging, not for the first time, in misquotation.
Gender equality requires continued advances but it also involves a major change in——
That is not conditionality. Consult a dictionary. The Deputy's party made use of a dictionary in the past.
This is not the time for disputation of that kind. I am calling item No. 29, the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1996.