Amendment No. 9 in the name of the Minister and Deputy Ferris is related to amendments Nos. 14, 27 to 64, inclusive, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 78, 86 to 99, inclusive, 104, 105, 137 and 144 to 150, inclusive, and they may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 50.
I am sure Department names will continue to change in the future. Is it possible to include new Department names in legislation?
We will discuss the Deputy's point after the Minister moves the amendment.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 107, subsection (1), lines 37 and 38, to delete "the Minister for Environment and Local Development" and substitute "the Minister for the Environment and Local Government".
There is a considerable number amendments tabled in my name which relate to changes to the title of various ministerial offices and the names of Departments. Deputy Ferris tabled a number of similar amendments and I compliment him and his backup team on the thoroughness of their research into the text of the Bill. Rather than prolong our discussion by going through the amendments one by one or by reference to particular sections, I hope the Committee will agree to deal with the amendments in question en bloc.
Essentially, the amendments are designed to take account of the change to the title of the Minister for the Environment and the Department of the Environment effected by the Environment (Alteration of Name of Department and Title of Minister) Order, 1997, which was made on 22 July last. The transfer of exploration and mining functions and petroleum and offshore exploitation functions from the Minister for Public Enterprise to the Minister for Marine and Natural Resources were effected by Statutory Instruments 314 of 1997 and 429 of 1997, respectively. The change to the title of the Minister for Education and the Department of Education was effected by the Education (Alteration of Name of Department and Title of Minister) Order, 1997, dated 30 September. The amendments put the current and correct ministerial and departmental titles in place in the relevant sections of the Bill.
To answer Deputy Fleming's question, we were advised by the parliamentary draftsman that it was not strictly necessary to do so. However, since we were tidying up legislation and as these were now the names of the Departments, we thought it would be more comprehensive to so do. It is not strictly necessary for us to do this but we thought it necessary for the sake completeness. It will not be necessary to change names in the future but we believed it was in order to do so now so the Bill would be as complete as possible.
This brings us in line. We are consolidating legislation and it is appropriate that we are as up to date as possible. Deputy Noonan and Deputy Fleming raised the question of what would be done in the future but it is appropriate we tidy up the legislation now.
I have doubts about this if the advice from the parliamentary draftsman is that under a consolidation Bill we could continue with the existing titles and dedication of functions. The life of Administrations is of necessity temporary. We have no guarantee that the Bill will be enacted by the time the titles change again or that soon after it is enacted the titles will not change under the next Administration whether in one, two or three years. This is work for a generation.
These statutory instruments went through the Dáil some weeks ago. On 22 July the change of title of the Minister for the Environment was passed by a statutory instrument and on 30 September the change of title of the Minister for Education and the Minister for Public Enterprise was passed. The changes have already been made. If in six months time, God forbid, there is a change in the Administration and the names are changed again, we will have to wait until the next consolidation Bill. These title changes have been effected, have been passed by the Parliament and have legal effect. That is why they are being changed in this Bill. We are doing this for the sake of completeness. If we had not done so it would not have affected the Bill.
If one's terminology runs with the latest fashion there is always a problem with consolidating legislation where the work is expected to last a generation. If the draftsman's advice was that there was no need to make these changes, the Minister may quickly find himself in the situation where the titles are not relevant.
The Deputy is correct. We have changed the names of various Departments. The Government which took office in January 1993 changed a variety of departmental names which have been consolidated.
The Department of Industry and Commerce has been called all sorts of things. Everyone knows it is the Department of Industry and Commerce.
It has been called that for over 40 years. Some of the people in that building think the same way as they did 40 years ago. Would the Deputy agree?
There is a problem. The names of Departments change regularly and some of these changes have been dramatic. Not all of them are dealt with in this Bill. The Department of Enterprise and Employment is now the Department of Public Enterprise. It is hard for Members to keep up with these changes and find out which Department is dealing with which issues. Perhaps it would be helpful if Departments prepared a note outlining their previous names. Even Members would find that helpful.
That is a good idea for those of us with an interest in the history of Departments. I will mention it to my Department and we may do so in the coming weeks and months. The Department of Finance is the only Department whose name has not changed because it is written into the Constitution. Every other Department's name has been changed.
I thank the Minister for accepting these valid and legal amendments. They are in accordance with the statute.
When one is referring to a Minister's or Department's title in the future there should be some reference to the functions carried out by that Department. Someone taking legal action against a Minister might find that the name has changed half way through the court proceedings. We should refer to the function of the Minister or Department rather than their name.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 50, as amended, agreed to.
SECTIONS 51-95.
Question proposed: "That sections 51 to 95, inclusive, stand part of the Bill."
In some cases the primary tax legislation will be included in this Bill but the detailed implementation may occur elsewhere by way of statutory regulation. For instance, if a disabled driver claims exemptions, the primary mandate is in the legislation but the detail is in the regulation. Is there any proposal to consolidate the regulations?
That is a valid point. It is intended to consolidate these regulations. The PAYE subcontractors tax is a minefield. It is intended to consolidate the guidelines used by tax inspectors. This work is ongoing.
Does the Minister agree that much of the tax law applicable to the financial services sector is by way of regulation?
No. Income tax has fewer regulations than VAT which has a number of regulations, orders and other instruments and it is intended to consolidate them. Every so often the Revenue Commissioners produce guidelines for these areas which they distribute to practitioners. This is one of the best services they provide. It is intended that this will also be consolidated.
Is there a timetable or is it just a good intention?
There is no timetable at the moment.
Is there a commitment that it will be done?
Yes. Hopefully, it will happen within the next six months to a year.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 in the name of Deputy Ferris is out of order as it is of the nature of substantive amendment of the statute law.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Section 96 agreed to.
Sections 97 to 125, inclusive, agreed to.