It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 8, 9 and 13. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos, 1, 8 and 9 shall be decided without debate. Private Members' Business shall be No. 21.
Order of Business.
Is it agreed that items Nos. 1, 8 and 9 shall be decided without debate? Agreed.
The Government promised legislation to regulate the position in regard to occupiers liability which could become quite an important issue during next year's tourist season from the point of view of access to national monuments and so forth. When will this legislation be produced? The Taoiseach will remember that the Government rejected a Fine Gael Bill on this subject because it was drafting its own Bill.
As already indicated this legislation will not be published until next session.
Would the Taoiseach like to take back our Bill?
(Interruptions.)
Will the Taoiseach say if the disgraceful decision of the Government this morning to extend this amnesty requires legislation in this House?
No.
I put it to the Taoiseach that section 1 of the tax amnesty for tax cheats, which is officially called Waiver of Certain Tax Interest and Penalties Act, provides that the specified period means the period beginning with the passing of the Act and ending on 30 November 1993. That is a decision of this House and for it to be changed it requires legislation. Will the Taoiseach review his statement that it does not require legislation and indicate to this House when he proposes to bring forward the proposal? How will applications by those who wish to avoid their tax liabilities received since yesterday be dealt with?
The Deputy should be aware that the Government take decisions which are subsequently put into legislation in the next Finance Bill. That happened on numerous occasions.
It requires legislation but the Taoiseach said it did not.
I said "no legislation, now".
So it requires legislation?
The Deputy should listen carefully to what I said.
I am listening.
I was asked if I was going to introduce legislation now. I am saying "no" to that question. The regulation of this will be in a subsequent Finance Bill.
Which amnesty is this?
Given previous court decisions in this matter, is it in order to legislate in this way for a tax amnesty in retrospect? If people apply today or tomorrow in pursuit of this tax amnesty will the legislation to be brought in cover them or only those who apply from the date on which the new amnesty is introduced? What we are talking about here is a new amnesty.
It will not alone cover those who have come in up to the date but those who will come in on the extension. This is nothing new and the Deputy is well aware of it.
A Deputy
Nothing new?
(Interruptions.)
The problem with Deputy De Rossa, like many others is that——
When will the tax amnesties come to an end?
——it is a question of sour grapes that the amnesty is not a flop.
When will we see an end to tax amnesties for tax cheats? What about the workers and the income levy which was imposed?
(Interruptions.)
The Taoiseach referred to sour grapes but the people who are sourest of all in respect of his Government's decision are the compliant tax-payers who pay their taxes. Why has the deadline, in addition to the ground rules, been changed? People who had agreed to pay sums of money to the Revenue Commissioners and where no dispute was involved are now being covered by the amnesty. Surely that is changing the whole purpose of the amnesty and is being done because the amnesty was not successful, no hot money came back.
This is not the time to debate this matter.
When is the right time?
For the benefit of the House I wish to state that the number of people who will come into the tax net now will expand the tax base for the future and provide badly needed revenue which will assist all general taxpayers. I would remind Deputy Harney that her party was in Government during the period 1989-92 when advantage was taken of a previous amnesty and she did not object then. We should be clear about where the consistencies lie.
How many new people will come into the tax net?
This is a disgrace. Perhaps my comrades beside me here will tell me when it will be abolished.
It is not bad for a socialist Government.
What progress is being made in regard to legislation for the abolition of ground rents which have been described as an anachronism from the last century by a prominent former Fianna Fáil Minister?
We are still in the very early stages of compiling that Bill.
At Question Time last Thursday I tabled a priority question asking if the Minister was aware of allegations of a fraud. The Minister began by saying that she was not so aware and if I had information in that regard I should supply it to the Garda. She then stopped and stated it would appear her information was out of date and would report again to the House on the matter. I gave notice then that I would raise the matter by way of special notice question today. I am not saying the Minister deliberately misled the House but, as her information was not accurate and she stated she would have to check it, I ask you Sir, to request the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to investigate the matter and find out why that information was not supplied to the House. I have been unable to raise the matter since last Thursday when, as the main Opposition spokesman on Justice, I was denied an opportunity to properly question the Minister on the matter.
The Deputy will appreciate that it is not for the Minister to decide whether a matter is dealt with by way of a private notice question.
I asked you, Sir, to request the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to investigate the matter.
I will do that. I have received an explanation in regard to this. The question was disallowed as it did not meet the criteria required for private notice questions in that it did not relate to a matter of public importance which arose suddenly.
A couple of grand here or there means nothing to Fianna Fáil; fraud does not matter to the Government.
Deputy Mitchell was advised of other appropriate ways to raise the matter. We are not going to debate it now.
I am asking you, Sir, to investigate why the information available to me from the gardaí was much more detailed than the information the Minister read out to the House which would have gone on the record had I not been in a position to challenge it. I want you, Sir, to investigate why misleading information, however unintentional, was read on to the record of this House.
I will take up that matter with the Ceann Comhairle's office.
In relation to promised legislation, when will the new defence Bill be published to allow the Naval Service board vehicles suspected of carrying drugs, ammunition or explosives without having to call on the gardaí to accompany them?
Is the Deputy referring to the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill?
No. I understand the Taoiseach is examining the role of the Defence Forces.
Legislation has not been promised in that regard.
In a document published recently legislation was promised.
Legislation has not been promised.
It is regrettable that the Taoiseach is not aware of what is happening, but the Minister of State——
This is not promised legislation. The Deputy should table a question on the matter.
This matter came before the Select Committee on Legislation and Security as promised legislation. Will that legislation incorporate a provision whereby the Naval Service will be allowed board vessels it suspects are carrying drugs, ammunition or explosives without having to call on the gardaí to accompany them? That is a simple question.
The Minister for Defence will be taking questions in the House tomorrow and the Deputy should ask that question.
This is promised legislation.
It was not promised by me in this House.
It has not been promised.
It does not have to be promised by the Taoiseach. I must ask for the protection of the Chair. This matter was discussed in the House as promised legislation and relates to a defence Bill dealing with the new structures and role of the Defence Forces. When will it be published and will it incorporate that important provision?
It is on the list.
I will have the matter investigated and communicate with the Deputy if I have anything further to add to what I said.