It is proposed to take No. 10.
Order of Business.
In view of the important meetings in which the Tánaiste is involved and the statements made by some of the Unionist leaders this morning, can the Taoiseach confirm that the Government remains totally committed and interested in moving towards all party talks before the end of this month and is totally opposed to an elected body?
I am sorry, Deputy. Much time was devoted to this subject yesterday and I cannot allow a repeat of it on this morning's Order of Business.
I do not wish to repeat what I stated yesterday. I did not raise this question yesterday. The Taoiseach may wish to take this opportunity to ensure the total support of this House for the Mitchell report. As the Tánaiste is meeting the British Government today, it should be seen that we are totally opposed to an elected body.
We all know the procedures which apply at this time.
Only anything relevant to the Order of Business can be permitted.
Will the Tánaiste make it clear that this House totally supports the Mitchell report and opposes an elected body? An elected body should be properly discussed only after all party talks have convened at the end of February.
I want to assist the Deputy but we must have regard for the procedures of the House.
On two occasions this week, the Minister of Justice expressed her concern that the Judiciary does not impose consecutive sentences for crimes committed by a person while on bail. Is it the Government's intention to amend the 1984 Act with a view to giving clear legislative direction to the Judiciary?
The Government will bring forward a general criminal law Bill and any suggestions a Member wishes to make on it can be made at that stage. However, in regard to specific legislation other than that which has been promised, the Deputy would be better advised to put down a specific question.
We will make our points known when the Bill is published. The Minister has expressed her concerns and I am anxious that they be taken on board in any legislative programme the Government will publish. Can the Taoiseach assure me that the Government will, in the forthcoming proposals on crime, ensure the Judiciary is given clear legislative direction so there is no misunderstanding in this area?
Should we not await the proposals?
I think so.
The Minister has made many worth-while comments. She is the Minister for Justice and a member of the Government. The public wants to see the Government dealing with these problems in a satisfactory manner. We cannot do that if we do not change the legislation.
The Deputy has made her point effectively and adequately.
The Minister has in train the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which we expect will be available in the first half of this year, and a criminal law Bill which will abolish the distinction between felonies and misdemeanours and also make changes in regard to distinctions in different types of service in prison. I expect that legislation to be available in February.
When a matter is being dealt with, as opposed to the general topic of a Bill, the best course for the Deputy to adopt would be to table a parliamentary question. I cannot be expected to give a section by section interpretation of the contents of a Bill that has not yet been approved by Cabinet in its final form.
Can the Taoiseach update the House on the progress made with the child abuse register? This proposal was made after the Kilkenny incest case and the then Minister for Health, Deputy Howlin, was successfully introducing it. I understand some constitutional, legal and administrative matters that may be holding it back, but it is a matter of urgency. Can the Taoiseach update the House on its current standing?
Is there legislation proposed in this area?
There is no legislation promised in this area.
There should be.
The provisions concerning child abuse are covered in the Child Care Act which has been enacted. I am sure the Deputy is aware there are differing views about a child abuse register. There is a fear among a number of professionals that they might not be able to consult, advise and assist people if the content of such consultations had to be recorded in accordance with a rigid code. There is also strong belief that we need to have this information. I am not able, however, to resolve that matter this morning, nor am I able to give the Deputy any further information. I suggest that he table a question to the Minister for Health, who will give him the most up-to-date indication of Government thinking on this extremely contentious and difficult matter.
Is the delay in bringing forward legislation to provide for a referendum on bail due to differences between the Government parties, as media reports have suggested?
(Interruptions.)
Deputy O'Donnell has been offering for some time.
The Deputy has obviously been taking a course in the Abbey School of Acting.
The Taoiseach has been acting for some time.
There are transparent differences in the Government on reforming our bail laws. The Refugee Bill, 1995, which deals with asylum seekers is currently before the Select Committee on Legislation and Security. This ground-breaking legislation has the overwhelming support of all parties in the House. A problem has arisen, however, over the use of the term "public policy" as a way of undermining possibly all the benefits of the legislation. The select committee has adjourned to allow the Government to consider the matter and replace this term with "public order". Has the Minister for Justice raised the matter with her Cabinet colleagues as the legislation cannot progress any further until this is done? This and related amendments has the support of all Members of the select committee. In that context it is a further test of the effectiveness of the committee system.
Members of a committee can best show their respect for the committee system by raising matters relevant to its business at the committee, rather than attempting to raise them here——
The select committee has adjourned to allow the Government to consider the matter.
——thereby putting at a disadvantage other Members of the committee who may not wish to express their views in the House and would prefer to do their business at the committee. The select committee is due to meet again next week. I have no doubt that the Deputy will be able to put these questions at the committee, as is appropriate in the case of business referred to it by the House. If we were to review work in train in committees daily on the Order of Business, we would undermine the committee system. I am sure that is not the Deputy's intention.
May I respond?
This is primarily a matter for the select committee. Committees are autonomous bodies and I would not dream of intervening in their internal affairs.
The Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Deputy Burton, has assured the select committee that the Bill cannot progress any further until the advice of the Attorney General and the Government on this issue has been sought.
The Deputy has already made that point effectively.
On a point of information, lest the House be misled by the Deputy's comments, the select committee of which I am chairman was adjourned on her application.
Another Oscar.
It was adjourned to allow the Government consider the issue.
I would prefer if the internal affairs of committees were not raised in the House.
In October last the Taoiseach informed my party leader that the amendments to the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, would be ready within two weeks. During the same week he informed me that they would be ready before Christmas. Will he indicate their expected date of arrival?
The legislation in question will not be ready until the second half of the year.
As the lives of children, particularly in Dublin, are being put at risk daily, will the Taoiseach indicate the current status of the control of horses in urban areas Bill? I understand that the general scheme has been prepared for some time. When will it be presented?
This matter has been raised repeatedly by a number of Deputies. The Government has afforded this legislation a high priority and it should be available before Easter.
Will the Taoiseach indicate when legislation will be introduced to ensure proper education standards, consumer protection and employee rights in private education?
No specific legislation has been promised, but as the Deputy is aware, the Government is preparing education legislation. The matter can be addressed in that context.
On a point of order, a specific commitment is given on page 29 of the Programme for Government. What is the up-to-date position?
This should not lead to argument now.
In view of serious public concern about the extent of the ESB redundancy package as revealed in the reply to a Private Notice Question yesterday, will the Taoiseach explain the reason for the delay in introducing the electricity Bill? The next two power stations will not be the subject of a public competition.
I expect the electricity Bill to be available in the second half of the year. It is being worked on at present. In commenting on redundancy payments it is important that one should not include paid pension contributions and refunds of any such contributions in any description of a hand-out because they are not.
As the Taoiseach is aware, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications conveyed the information to the House.
The Deputy will doubtless pursue that matter in a more appropriate way.
The Malicious Injuries (Repeal of Enactments) Bill, 1996, item No. 8 on the Order Paper, which was published this week, was not promised in the document, A Government of Renewal and I know the reason. Its purpose is to abolish the malicious damages code. Given the escalating crime rate I wonder if the public realise what is being proposed. When will it be presented?
As the Deputy is no doubt aware, malicious damages claims were abolished in the overwhelming majority of cases many years ago.
No.
Claims only now exist in regard to riotous assembly or damage associated with——
They were restricted in 1986 by a Fine Gael led Government.
Persistent interruption of the kind the Deputy is engaged in is intolerable, especially from a seated position.
(Interruptions.)
I am not misinformed.
The Deputy should please restrain himself. I allowed him to ask a question and he should be good enough to extend the Taoiseach the courtesy of listening to the reply.
I can inform the Taoiseach that there is much business under the malicious injuries code these days.
If this continues, I will proceed to the business of the House.
The Deputy is making the case that malicious damages claims are being abolished in this Bill. They were abolished in 1987, I think, with the exception of claims arising from riotous assembly and damage associated with the Northern Ireland problem.
They were restricted, not abolished.
The Deputy should listen.
The Deputy suggests that a general claim for malicious damages has existed up to now, but this is not the case.
Householders have to meet this expense through their insurance policies.
The Deputy should please resume his seat.
The Taoiseach is misleading the House. Legislation was introduced in 1986 to restrict malicious damages claims. The Government is now abolishing them.
The Deputy has unnecessarily brought an element of disorder into the House this morning.
This legislation was not promised in the Programme for Government. What about the house that was petrol bombed in Dundalk over Christmas? How will they be able to claim.
The Deputy should please allow the Order of Business to proceed in an orderly fashion.
When is the legislation dealing with credit unions likely to be presented?
We expect that legislation will be introduced in the middle of the year, perhaps in June.
Because of the delays encountered in public bodies paying their accounts, will the Taoiseach indicate when the prompt payments Bill will be introduced? It should be introduced as a matter of urgency.
It was promised by the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte.
I will to check that matter with a view to obtaining the precise information for the Deputy.
The Government proposed to separate the executive functions of Ministers, secretaries and officials under the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924. In its policy document last February it stated it would deal with this as a matter of urgency. Has the matter been taken off the long-term list? What reform proposals is the Government considering in this area?
That matter is being considered in the context of the strategic management initiative which, as the Deputy knows, involves a clearer definition of the respective roles of Ministers, secretaries and officials. That initiative is being advanced on the basis of consultation with a view to getting the agreement of all the relevant partners. Obviously, it is not possible to draft precise legislation to give effect to an agreed approach until the approach is agreed. The legislation, therefore, will be introduced later in the process, when we have reached agreement on the details of the distribution of responsibilities as between Ministers, secretaries and officials.
Based on what the Minister of State said in her reply to the committee on this issue which the Taoiseach and I attended, may I take it we are now dealing with a five to seven year plan and that the legislation has been taken off the agenda? Will there not be any reform of the Ministers and Secretaries Act?
The Deputy's assumption is incorrect. We are trying to agree on a structure that will work. The Ministers and Secretaries Act has not been amended substantially since 1924. We want to implement a workable structure that will distribute responsibilities between Ministers, secretaries and officials. There are many difficulties to overcome in terms of overlap between, for example, policy and administration. A definite line of distinction cannot be drawn between policy and administration in respect of every matter in each Department. There are many difficult and grey areas with which we must deal. In drafting an approach that will work we want to talk to all those working the system so that the general legislative principles drawn up for the respective roles of Ministers, secretaries and officials are delineated on the basis of the best available experience. We want to implement a policy that will work in every Department of State and that will require a lengthy consultative process. The best way to reach agreement on such delineation of roles is to have practical consultations with all concerned, rather than introduce general legislation and work out the details later.
This issue is about ministerial accountability. At the change of Government the Taoiseach held the simplistic view that this matter could be dealt with in a matter of weeks. He stated that in the document, A Government of Renewal, and subsequently. He has now stated that the matter will not be dealt with for years.
The Deputy should not import words into what I said. I did not say the matter would not be dealt with for years.
That is the reality.
The Minister of State said seven years.
I do not know when the legislation will be ready because I do not know, in terms of the detailed advancement of the strategic management initiative on the basis of consultation, when we will be ready to put agreed proposals into legislative form. I did not say that would be years down the road. I simply do not know at this stage. The matter is being approached on the basis of consultation, not diktat.
Does the Government propose to introduce legislation to deal with the new phenomenon of alcopop drinks, the alcoholic drinks dressed up as soft drinks, about which there is a great deal of public disquiet. Parents are concerned about this cynical exercise. Will the Government consider regulating or, indeed, banning the sale of those products? Will legislation be introduced in that regard?
I respectfully submit that the Deputy should raise that at a more appropriate time.