Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 5 Jul 1996

Vol. 468 No. 3

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 6 — Motion re Dáil sittings; No. 2 — Transport (Dublin Light Rail) (No. 2) Bill, 1996, Amendments from the Seanad; No. 7 — Estimates for the Public Services, 1996, Votes 1 to 4, inclusive, 6 to 45, inclusive, and Supplementary Estimates, Votes 3, 18 and 32; No. 14 — Statements on Shaping our Future: A Strategy for Enterprise in Ireland in the 21st Century.

It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: (1) No. 6 and the amendments thereto shall be decided without debate by one question; (2) the amendments from the Seanad to No. 2 shall be taken together and decided without debate by one question which shall be put from the Chair; (3) the following arrangements shall apply in relation to the debate on No. 7; (i) the Estimates shall be moved and debated together and decided by one question which shall be put from the Chair not later than 2.30 p.m. and if a division is demanded on such question it shall be taken forthwith; (ii) a general debate may arise thereon; (iii) the opening speech of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for the Fianna Fáil Party and the Progressive Democrats Party shall not exceed 30 minutes in each case; (iv) the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case; (v) Members may share time; and (vi) a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon not later than 2.15 p.m. to make a speech in reply; (4) the following arrangements shall apply in relation to No. 14: (i) the opening statement of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for the Fianna Fáil Party and the Progressive Democrats Party shall not exceed 30 minutes in each case; (ii) the statement of each Member called upon shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case; (iii) Members may share time; and (iv) a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed 15 minutes.

There are four matters to put to the House. Are the arrangements for dealing with No. 6 satisfactory and agreed?

We oppose the arrangements for dealing with No. 6. In recent months the party leaders and the Whips have been trying to reach agreement on Dáil reform. We have managed to complete an excellent document but there are two matters on which unfortunately, the Taoiseach will not give way, tabling questions during the recess and how matters of concern should be dealt with on the Order of Business. I oppose the Order of Business on that basis.

The Taoiseach's arguments are contrary to what he said in Opposition and at the start of the life of the Government. Section 26 of the Fine Gael document on better laws and Dáil reform states: "Fine Gael also proposes that Members have the right to put down Parliamentary Questions during the Dáil recess". A longer period is outlined and I would have no objection to that. There are more than 20 committees of the House, all of which will meet during the next three weeks and again in September. I ask the Taoiseach to allow parliamentary questions to be tabled at least once a week, not every day. I would have no objection to a longer period being specified than that set down in Standing Orders. That would help the committees in processing legislation and making the Dáil more relevant.

On matters of concern, the document brought forward by the Fine Gael Whip at the start of the life of this Government states: "One of the aims of Oireachtas reform is to make the Dáil more efficient and businesslike in order to avoid the daily wrangles on the Order of Business". The procedure to be used was set down.

This would be of help to the Ceann Comhairle, Opposition, Government and the House. Unfortunately, the Taoiseach is not interested in doing this and, on that basis, I oppose item No. 6.

I have already raised this matter with the Taoiseach and agree with the points made by Deputy Ahern. As this is the last time the House will meet before 25 July, I appeal to the Taoiseach to live up to the lofty words spoken by him on the day he was elected to office, about the supremacy of the Dáil and the importance of parliamentary questions. In the run up to his election to office he stated on many occasions in the House that the Ceann Comhairle would have to be given extra powers, if necessary, to ensure that parliamentary questions were answered. Parliamentary questions cannot be answered if we are not entitled to put them down.

There is a perception that from today on Deputies will be on holidays. That is not the reality as most Deputies will probably take no more than two weeks annual leave. If this House is to be made more relevant, we are to be seen to do our job and we are to restore confidence in our institutions and, in particular, the political process we should be given an opportunity to put down parliamentary questions during the recess. Deputy Ahern's suggestion that more than three days would be given for replies is reasonable and a good compromise, and I ask the Taoiseach to agree to it.

I have considered this matter carefully. During the recess Deputies have available to them the excellent research service supplied by the Oireachtas Library to assist them in their work in committees.

That was the case when the Fine Gael manifesto was produced.

There is no bar to Deputies who have queries about particular matters addressing them to the relevant Department. I have no doubt officials will be willing to provide that information to them.

What a somersault.

The difficulty in introducing a system of parliamentary questions during the recess — such a system has not existed at any stage since the foundation of the House — is primarily one relating to the diversion of administrative time away from other work. Parliamentary questions are not simple responses to queries. They must be vetted at the highest level by the Minister and Secretary of the Department.

Tell that to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry.

He does not know any answers.

The administrative cost involved in the extra vetting of parliamentary replies is very substantial. In the past, the cost of dealing with individual parliamentary questions was put at several hundred pounds.

What about the right of citizens to have their queries answered?

When I was in Opposition I found that a phone call to the relevant Department or the use of the research service in the Oireachtas Library was much more effective in assembling information than tabling parliamentary questions——

Why did the Taoiseach not say that at the time?

——which, if Deputy Ahern's suggestion was agreed, would not be replied to for one or two weeks.

What about the rights of constituents?

The Taoiseach should research his party's manifesto.

Tabling parliamentary questions is not the most effective way of assembling information for Deputies who are anxious to get information for a committee meeting which might take place in two or three days.

(Interruptions.)

This move to have parliamentary questions during the Dáil recess, which neither of the parties now looking for this system ever proposed or did anything about when they were in Government is not being put forward out of a sincere desire to obtain information——

The Taoiseach should read his party's document.

——as this can be obtained quite readily otherwise. Rather they are engaging in point scoring and, to be honest with them, they are welcome to score any points they like.

A Deputy

Fine Gael should scrap all its policies.

We cannot debate the matter in detail now.

The extension of the Taoiseach's logic that we should ring Departments for information is that we should not have parliamentary questions at all.

Question put: "That No. 6 and the amendments thereto be decided without debate."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 54.

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bhamjee, Moosajee.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Broughan, Tommy.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Walsh, Eamon.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hilliard, Colm M.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McDaid, James.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Question declared carried.

The next question to put to the House is in relation to No. 2, that the amendments from the Seanad to No. 2 — Transport (Dublin Light Rail) (No. 2) Bill, 1996 — shall be taken together and decided without debate by one question which shall be put from the Chair. Is that satisfactory and agreed?

We wish to oppose the taking of item No. 2 without debate.

The questions is: "That the amendments from the Seanad to No. 2 shall be taken together and decided without debate by one question which shall be put from the Chair."

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 56.

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bhamjee, Moosajee.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Broughan, Tommy.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Walsh, Eamon.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hilliard, Colm M.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, James.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Question declared carried.

Are the proposals for dealing with item No. 7, Estimates for Public Services 1996 agreed? Agreed.

Are the proposals for dealing with item No. 14, Statements on Shaping our Future: A Strategy for Enterprise in Ireland in the 21st Century, agreed? Agreed.

On the report to the Government by the State Pathologist, may I ask the Taoiseach if it is true that the Assistant State Pathologist, Dr. Bolster, resigned her position on 16 June 1996 arising out of the Government's failure to appoint a deputy assistant State pathologist?

Is this Question Time?

If it is true, it is one of the greatest scandals in our history.

The matter is clearly not one for the Order of Business. May I remind Members that we are coming to deal with the Estimates for virtually all Departments. There may be an opportunity for raising such matters then, but not now.

I understand that the report in regard to the State Pathologist's office was received——

By The Examiner.

——in the Department of Justice last Tuesday.

It is a damning indictment of the Government.

Obviously, it is the subject of close examination. There will be a need to have a thorough look at the services available in this important area of the State service so that we can ensure the necessary support is given to it. I invite Deputies not to take the sensationalist route in regard to this matter——

If she has resigned it is sensational.

——but to allow time for the report, which was received on Tuesday of this week by the relevant Government Department, to be considered. I can assure the House that the constructive and positive recommendations that might flow from that will be implemented.

I cannot permit debate now, Deputy O'Donoghue.

It is an extremely serious matter if the Assistant State Pathologist has resigned.

Yes, indeed, so serious that it must be dealt with properly.

May I ask the Taoiseach about the promised telecommunications Bill? The Taoiseach told the Dáil on 13 June that the Bill to give effect to the strategic alliance would be available in the second half of 1997. I am referring to the legislation to give effect to the sale of 20 per cent of Telecom Éireann. The Minister has told the Dáil that he plans to sign this sell off — or should I say sell out, given the derisory price——

We are discussing Government legislation only and I will not permit anything extraneous at this stage.

What Deputy Brennan raised is old hat.

I am sorry that I am boring the Minister. It is only a State asset that is being given away for nothing.

The Deputy has lost the argument.

What about B & I?

The Democratic Left Party is selling off more State assets than anybody else.

Is the Taoiseach confirming that the Bill will be published in the second half of 1997?

Let us hear about this Bill.

Is the Minister planning to sign the contract in 30 days time without legislation?

A Deputy

Will he survive that long?

May I explain the matter to Deputy Brennan? The position is that the legislation in question will give effect to arrangements already agreed through negotiation.

Will the Minister be signing the contract?

The Deputy should not interrupt if he wants to hear the reply. He cannot hear what I am saying when he is speaking himself. It is reasonable that we should allow the negotiations to be concluded so that all the details of the negotiations can be incorporated in the legislation. For that reason the sequence is, first, to finalise the arrangements and then introduce the legislation. Yes, it is the case that the legislation will be introduced during 1997.

Will the Minister sign the contract in 30 days time without legislation?

Whose interest is Deputy Brennan trying to serve, the national interest or some destructive party interest?

(Interruptions.)

I am surprised at the approach of Deputy Brennan in using the term in regard to negotiation, "let the buyer beware". In making that statement Deputy Brennan is acting contrary to the national interest, and I do not believe that his party, on reflection, would approve the approach he is adopting in this matter, which is purely destructive.

(Interruptions.)

There is no need for such disorder. Virtually all the Estimates for the public service will be debated today when Members will have ample opportunity of adverting to such matters.

Will the Taoiseach signal the Government's intention to tackle crime and will he confirm the Government's support for all Stages of the organised crime Bill?

The Government accepted Second Stage of that Bill. It pointed out the existence of a substantial number of defects in the Bill, and nobody on the Deputy's side of the House who was involved with its introduction claimed it was perfect. It is surprising that some members of the Deputy's party are taking offence at the fact that defects in the legislation are being pointed out. It is the obligation of the Government to ensure that all legislation passed is workable. As part of that process we pointed out defects in this Bill and will seek to remedy them. We will not give a blank cheque to any item of legislation without considering relevant amendments. I hope the Deputy's party will adopt an equally constructive attitude to that adopted by the Government in expressing willingness not only to provide Government time to debate an Opposition Bill but to accept Second Stage. I urge the Deputy's party to take a similarly constructive approach to Government suggestions and criticisms in regard to this Bill.

I do not often compliment the Government, but I compliment my constituency colleague, Deputy McGrath, for his spirited assault this morning on the education system.

The Deputy has more responsibility than most for the education system.

I welcome the decision of the Minister of State, Deputy McManus, to take action on drug pushers who are tenants of local authority houses, but I regret she did not take such action when I first called for it six months ago.

Why did the Deputy not do something about it for eight years?

The Minister, Deputy Barrett, should relax. He will have his day in court. The court case will be over shortly.

The Minister lost his temper before.

I asked the Minister of State on 13 June if she intended to take action on this matter under the Housing Acts, but she saw no need for it at that stage. It is a pity the events of the last couple of weeks——

The Deputy should come to the point.

Will the Taoiseach say whether it is intended to introduce new legislation in this area?

New legislation?

It has been announced that the Minister for the Environment will take action in this regard.

Let us hear about legislation in this area. The Deputy has made a sufficient speech on the matter.

I am finished the speech. Is it intended to introduce new legislation in this area, or does the Taoiseach intend to ask the Minister to introduce regulations under existing legislation?

The matter of regulations does not arise now.

The Government is considering ways in which we can ensure better management of housing estates where there is a substantial drugs problem. This problem has a number of manifestations, first in the form of tenancies held by people who are causing public anxiety and problems because of their drug-related activities. The design of estates is also a problem in that people can congregate too easily for the distribution of drugs.

A number of actions in the housing area can be taken to deal with this problem. In addition, tenants in these estates can be facilitated in coming together to deal with the problems with the aid of statutory bodies. The Minister for the Environment will report to the Government on the matter next week and on receipt of his report we will consider what further legislative, administrative or regulatory action is necessary. This is a very important aspect in the battle against drugs and I will take a personal interest in it, as the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of State, Deputy McManus, are currently doing.

I take your point, a Cheann Comhairle, that we will have an opportunity on the Estimates debate today to seek clarification on the debacle in Bord na Móna and the failure of the Government to handle this issue with competence.

Has the Deputy had a change of portfolio? I thought he was spokesman on Agriculture.

Given that Bord na Móna operates in my constituency, we depend to a far greater extent on this company than does the cosseted electorate of Dún Laoghaire.

The Deputy did not do much when he was Minister.

I would like to hear what the Deputy in possession is saying.

Will the Taoiseach say whether the fact that the deadline for dealing with this matter coincides with the Dáil recess this afternoon is intentional so that we will not have an opportunity to cross-examine the Government on the eventual decision, should a decision be made, on this matter? How is it intended to comply with the provisions of the Turf Development Act, 1946, whereby if a person is removed from the board there is a statutory requirement to outline to the Houses of the Oireachtas the reasons for removal, presumably for the purpose of discussion? The Oireachtas viewed the matter in such a serious light as to allow for the Legislature to cross-examine the Executive on such precipitate action.

That should be adequate, Deputy.

Will the Taoiseach agree that the statutory provision specifies that it is in the absolute discretion of the Government, not the board, to remove or appoint a chief executive of a semi-State company?

I have no reason to dispute what the Deputy is saying, but I will not enter into discussion with him about the interpretation of the Turf Development Act, 1946, because that is a matter for others.

How will we comply with the Act?

Please let us hear the reply.

I heard the Deputy's question and I will reply to the best of my ability. I will not enter into discussion about the interpretation of the statute beyond saying that the Government, in all its actions, complies with all statutory obligations placed on it. In this case the board of the company is the appropriate body to consider these matters in the first instance. It has had a succession of meetings about this matter, by its own decision, over a lengthy period of time. It is appropriate that the board be given as much time as it needs to consider matters, and that is what has happened.

To do the Minister's bidding.

There is no connection, as the Deputy is trying to indicate, between the fact that the Dáil recess begins today just as the board is moving towards a conclusion of its deliberations.

It is purely coincidence.

The board could have reached a conclusion at any time it wished. Its decisions as to when it should meet and when it should consider certain matters is entirely within its own competence and has not been influenced by any considerations in regard to when the Dáil is meeting. The Government, under its statutory responsibilities, will do whatever is necessary when it is called upon at the appropriate time to make a decision on the matter.

May I ask a brief——

No, Deputy. I am calling Deputy O'Donoghue. Deputy Cowen has had his say.

On promised legislation, the Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1996, will the Taoiseach indicate whether it is intended to provide in that legislation for the post of a deputy State pathologist in the light of the resignation of the assistant State pathologist because of the Government's refusal to appoint her permanently?

The Deputy is adverting to a matter he raised earlier. I call Deputy Martin.

My question is on promised legislation.

Will the Taoiseach take steps to ensure the Minister for Education, perhaps during the debate this morning, clarifies whether she has reversed her policy on freezing pupil-teacher ratios in primary schools this year following her meeting with the INTO yesterday?

The matter does not arise now. The Deputy will have an opportunity later in the debate on the Estimates.

It would be useful if we had clarification on this matter before the Dáil goes into recess. Three hundred schools throughout the country are awaiting for the results of the Minister's deliberations.

In relation to the law reform aspects of the Government's anti-crime package announced this week, in particular the proposal to schedule drug trafficking offences before the non-jury Special Criminal Court, will it be necessary to amend the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, or will that legislation provide for the use of the Special Criminal Court for organised crime and drug trafficking matters?

I understand primary legislation is not necessary to effect the Government's intentions in this matter.

The Order of Business is inordinately long this morning. Many Deputies are offering. I call Deputy Tom Kitt and I hope the matter he wishes to raise is relevant.

It is. Following the Taoiseach's reply on Telecom, will he make available the contract documentation in the Oireachtas Library?

Anything Seamus can do, I can do better.

Is this necessary on the Order of Business?

The Taoiseach explained that enabling legislation would follow the agreements and my question is in order in view of his reply. Will he ensure that the contract documentation will be made available in the Oireachtas Library?

This is not Question Time. I call Deputy Woods.

It is a document of public interest.

In view of the crisis experienced by people with disabilities because of the Government's inaction in relation to the Gaming and Lotteries Act, will the Taoiseach indicate when it is intended to introduce the amendments to the Gaming and Lotteries Act? In the interim, due to the loss of funds for people with disabilities, will the Taoiseach consider raising the ceiling by regulation before it is removed totally?

The ceiling on prize funds should be removed with regard to lotteries run by charitable organisations. There is now a crisis in this area; I am sure the Taoiseach's Deputies are well aware of them. As an interim measure the Government could raise the ceiling by regulation; such power currently exists.

What is the definition of a crisis?

(Interruptions.)

This week's parliamentary party meeting.

Deputy Cowen had a crisis in his day.

Let us hear the Taoiseach.

Minister Lowry is in the middle of a crisis and he cannot handle it.

(Interruptions.)

That is why Deputy Cowen is over there.

The Opposition are so demob happy they are already acting as if they were on the beaches. I find this cheerful atmosphere quite heartwarming.

A Deputy

The Taoiseach will have a long hot summer.

If the Opposition will allow me, I will answer the questions put to me by Deputy Woods. The position is that the Government is preparing legislation to amend the law concerning fund raising for charities. This is, inter alia, to implement the recommendations of the Costello committee. In addition, an advisory group, which includes representatives from various fund raising organisations, is advising the Government on legislative proposals and its report is expected some time in the middle of this month. In addition to considering the recommendations of the Costello committee and the report of this advisory group, the Department of Justice is also taking into account——

What about a subcommittee?

——proposals made on the matter by the Select Committee on Legislation and Security. It is hoped to introduce the legislation by the end of this year. If not, it will be introduced early next year to implement the various recommendations to which I referred. Obviously, the policy decisions must first be taken on the heads of the Bill and it will then proceed to drafting.

What about changing the regulations?

Important business must be dealt with today and there is a time limitation on that business. I want to move on to it as speedily as possible. I call Deputy Flood.

In the context of the Government's commitment to assist in the provision of an additional 3,100 units of accommodation for members of the travelling community before the end of the century, will the Taoiseach indicate when legislation will be introduced to amend the Housing Acts and the Planning Acts?

That legislation is currently at an early stage of preparation. Drafting the heads of the Bill has commenced.

In view of the fact that the advisory committee has recommended the removal of the cap on prize money offered by charitable lotteries, will the Taoiseach consider in the meantime the question of raising the limit, which is possible under the existing legislation? This is a crisis for people with disabilities and I ask the Taoiseach to consider that matter.

That is not strictly in order. I have already indicated to the Deputy when the legislation is expected to be produced but as he made the point, I will have it considered.

An inordinate number of Deputies are offering. I will not carry on the Order of Business indefinitely. We must move on. If Deputies ask brief relevant questions, I will allow them, otherwise I will move on.

Will the Taoiseach assure me that rates on farm buildings will not be introduced as referred to in a provincial farming newspaper yesterday? If they are, it will be a hot summer for rural Fine Gael Deputies. This is not a laughing matter.

Deputy O'Keeffe is a laughing matter.

The Deputy is depriving colleagues of the opportunity to raise relevant issues.

I would not like to be a Deputy representing Wexford farmers.

Will the Taoiseach indicate when legislation amending the Medical Practitioners Act, 1978, will be introduced?

That legislation is at an early stage of preparation. It is hoped to circulate a general scheme of the Bill in the autumn for Government Departments to examine. That will have to be approved by Cabinet before drafting will commence. I expect we will see the legislation, at the earliest, in the first half of next year.

Can the Taoiseach explain a reply to a parliamentary question I tabled on 6 February——

We cannot debate the matter now.

——from the Minister informing me the legislation would be brought forward by the end of this year? The Taoiseach tells us now it will be next year. What is the point in tabling parliamentary questions?

The official position is that the legislation will be produced——

This reply was the official position.

If the Deputy wants to hear the answer, he must allow me to speak. It is hoped to have it ready before the end of the year. However, having seen the amount of work which must be done and the stage it is now at, it is unrealistic to say it will be ready before the end of this year. It will probably not be ready until early next year.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

The Deputy is being unreasonable.

He is being allowed to be.

That remark is uncalled for and unhelpful.

In case the Deputy feels I have not given proper information on this matter, I stated in the House on 26 June that this legislation would not be ready until next year.

What is the difference between correct and official information?

Arising from the Taoiseach's earlier response to Deputy Cowen and the statement by the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry, in the Dáil this week, can the Taoiseach inform the House if the Minister was carrying out Government diktat or acting of his own volition when he instructed the chairman of Bord na Móna to call a specific meeting yesterday——

The Taoiseach may not answer that question.

——and subsequently instructed him to call another meeting today and to put down a specific motion? There is a turf war in this country.

As regards the announcement by the Minister for Education on primary education, some one-teacher primary schools have more pupils than two-teacher schools. Perhaps the Minister could do something to rectify this anomaly. Deputy McGrath mentioned this last night in his Adjournment matter.

The Ceann Comhairle already indicated a wide-ranging debate on the Estimates when we finish the Order of Business.

As regards promised legislation to deal with crime, will the Taoiseach indicate what Bills will be enacted by both Houses by the end of July?

That is a wide-ranging question.

We have already indicated our intention to produce the Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Legislation is also being prepared in relation to the work of the Revenue Commissioners in the drugs trade. Our objective is to have this ready for 26 July. There is also a Courts and Court Officers Bill to allow for an increase in the number of judges. We are acting in the areas of criminal law, courts reform and the assets of crime. We will also progress the work on the legislation proposed by the Deputy's party to deal with the assets of crime, as I have already indicated in a response to a question on the Order of Business from the same Deputy about half an hour ago.

Will there be action in July?

On promised legislation?

The length of this Order of Business is a record. I will call the two Deputies offering and then we will move on.

I am prompted to ask the Taoiseach a further question because he did not state in his reply to Deputy Callely's query about promised legislation that the Organised Crime (Restraint and Disposal of Illicit Assets) Bill, 1996, would be passed by this House. Is he aware that criminals' assets are being transferred out of this jurisdiction as a result of the Government's failure to immediately accept this Bill?

Deputy O'Donoghue must have a hearing problem. I told Deputy Callely it was our intention to have that Bill advanced by the end of the month.

In his eagerness to exploit this matter for party political advantage, Deputy O'Donoghue is allowing his hearing to be impaired.

Will it be enacted by both Houses?

As regards the Turf Development (Amendment) Bill, which we hope will be introduced in the House as soon as possible, I want to ensure if there is a hanging the gallows is properly constructed. Can the Taoiseach explain to the House if it is the Government's intention to insert a provision in the forthcoming Turf Development (Amendment) Bill to change the existing legislative requirement, where a person cannot be dismissed except for stated misconduct or incapacity? Where previous arrangements were authorised by the chairman and the board, how does the Government intend to organise this hanging legally, without leaving the taxpayers open to huge compensation claims?

The Deputy seems to have asked a question about when the Turf Development (Amendment) Bill will be introduced.

Where does the Deputy stand on that issue?

The question was not about when the Bill will be introduced but about its content. My understanding is that such questions are not in order here.

I can tell the Deputy when the Turf Development (Amendment) Bill will be introduced.

The Taoiseach's silence on the other issue is noted.

Let us hear the reply to the question.

We could speak all day about it.

It is expected that the Turf Development (Amendment) Bill will be introduced in the House in the middle of next year.

Barr
Roinn