It is proposed to take No. 14, the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Bill, 1998 — Second Stage (resumed) — and No. 1, the Voluntary Health Insurance Bill, 1998 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. Private Members' Business shall be No. 49, motion re. Health.
Order of Business.
There are no proposals to put before the House.
Is it proposed to provide Government time for a debate on the serious situation which has arisen this week in respect of the decrease in cattle prices and the effect this is having on incomes in rural areas? Is the Taoiseach aware of the severity of this situation——
The Deputy is aware that this matter is not in order.
——and the lack of confidence among people involved in the agriculture industry in the Government's ability to deal effectively with this? Will the Government provide time for a debate on this or for a debate on promised legislation involving the national beef assurance scheme Bill so that the critical problem faced by farmers can be discussed in the House? I refer here to developments which took place this week.
The Taoiseach may reply to the Deputy's query about promised legislation.
We debated this issue on Tuesday and Wednesday of last week, a debate to which the Minister for Agriculture and Food replied. The national beef assurance Bill is due for publication in the middle of next year.
Is the Taoiseach aware the situation has worsened dramatically in recent days?
We cannot debate the matter now. I call Deputy Quinn.
The situation is far worse than it was last week.
I accept that but the matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
I have no wish to be in conflict with the Chair. However, I hope the Taoiseach will provide time for a debate on this.
He should appoint a Minister for Agriculture and Food who knows what is going on.
The Deputy should resume his seat. I call Deputy Quinn.
The Taoiseach is probably aware that a motion has been circulated by the Labour Party which is worded as follows:
That the Committee of Public Accounts is hereby instructed to examine and report to Dáil Éireann upon the circumstances surrounding the payment of approximately £14 million by AIB to the Revenue Commissioners in settlement of outstanding liabilities for DIRT, including, in particular, the state of knowledge of directors and officers of AIB in relation to the extent of its compliance with its statutory obligations and the extent and nature of the disclosure made by it to the commissioners and, secondly, the use of non-resident accounts in the banking system for the purpose of tax evasion, the information known or available to the Revenue Commissioners, etc.
In view of the manifest dissatisfaction expressed in another part of the House earlier today, will the Government provide time to debate what would otherwise be a Private Members' motion to enable the Committee of Public Accounts to carry out the task it manifestly wishes to complete and to accept without controversy or in amended form this motion or a similar one to enable the Committee of Public Accounts to undertake a task with which it currently cannot deal?
I understand that matter has been before the Committee of Public Accounts today.
It was not this matter. The committee has dealt with its regular business today. Under new legislation this House, which is the superior body, is entitled to request the Committee of Public Accounts to undertake a particular task. We have tabled a Private Members' motion and I believe our concerns are shared by the Government. If the Government deems the motion worthy — in its current form or in an amended one — to be dealt with tomorrow without much debate, the Committee of Public Accounts can undertake the task it manifestly wishes to undertake.
I am not aware of this issue and, unfortunately, I am not up to date regarding what has occurred at the committee's meeting today other than——
The Taoiseach is too busy touring.
I was obliged to be in the House for Question Time. I will investigate the matter and I will ask the Government Whip to give consideration to the motion tabled by the Deputy's party.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the Committee of Public Accounts would be facilitated under the 1923 legislation, which established the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, to investigate this matter on foot of an instruction from the Dáil? Is he further aware that such an instruction would give the committee powers it currently lacks and that this should be considered as a matter of urgency by the Government, otherwise the committee effectively cannot compel witnesses to appear before it? Will the Taoiseach consider doing that?
I will make a decision when I check what occurred at the committee's meeting today. I understand the chairman of the committee contacted the Government Whip earlier with a view to discussing these issues. I am sure that discussion will take place but I am uncertain about the nature of the suggestions put forward by the chairman. We will listen to what he has to say.
Will the Taoiseach indicate when the Bill, promised by the Tánaiste last week, to provide for a new regulatory body for banking will be introduced and if it is being dealt with as a matter of urgency? When does the Taoiseach expect the Estimates to be published?
The proposals to which the Tánaiste referred last week — in the form of a joint memorandum from herself and the Minister for Finance — will be before the Government next week. If it is necessary, we will ensure the Bill is speedily introduced. The Estimates are normally published approximately two weeks before the budget which would mean they should appear in mid-November.
When he became Minister for Finance in 1991, was the Taoiseach informed whether the arrangement with AIB was a policy or a Revenue matter?
That is not a matter for the Order of Business.
The Taoiseach wants to facilitate the House on this issue.
The Deputy may put down a question on the matter but it is not appropriate to discuss it now.
The Taoiseach wishes to reply.
He is very silent.
This matter is vital to the work of the Committee of Public Accounts which cannot proceed in its deliberations unless it knows whether this is a policy or a Revenue matter. There are other ways to raise the matter but it cannot be raised on the Order of Business. The Deputy should resume his seat.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the Minister for Agriculture and Food and his Minister of State promised the House——
Deputy Crawford, that is not a matter for the Order of Business. Your colleague, Deputy Connaughton, raised this earlier and it was ruled out of order. I ask you to resume your seat.
Will the Taoiseach ensure priority is given to the land annuities Bill in light of the collapse of the price of beef. Many farmers were not paid their land annuities this year because of the collapse and the Government is not doing anything about it.
As I said last week on Tuesday and Wednesday, it will be the middle of next year.
Deputies and the public at large are now entitled to have sight of correspondence between Ministers and the Government Whip, and it is most enlightening. Arising from having such correspondence before me here where the Whip told the Minister for Public Enterprise to be realistic about the list of Bills she was proposing, what happened the Irish energy centre Bill, the road transport Bill and the telecommunications Bill which the Minister wanted to publish this term and which are now in the new list of heads not ready for Government?
From what the Deputy said, he probably has the information. The Irish energy centre Bill, which is to establish an Irish energy centre as an agency under the aegis of the Department, is to be ready by March 1999.
In July of this year, it was to be ready this year.
The geological survey Bill will be ready next summer and it is proposed to publish the road transport Bill as soon as possible.
The Minister said she would publish it this year.
(Mayo): In the wake of the Nash murder judgment yesterday, in which the unsatisfactory situation was raised time and again that the definition of insanity was formulated in 1843 and has not changed, in view of the fact that amending legislation in the form of the criminal law (insanity) Bill and a mental health Bill has been promised for a considerable period and a considerable amount of work was done by the previous Government,——
A question, please, relevant to the Order of Business.
(Mayo):——what is the position with this legislation, particularly given that an erstwhile adviser to the present Government said on “Morning Ireland” this morning that there was no need for any change to the existing legislation?
There were a number of legal issues to address in this Bill and a mental health Bill, which was an associated Bill, got preference. The Bill will be ready early in 1999.
I intended to ask several questions on the Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill in light of the murder trial completed yesterday. However, in view of the lacuna in legislation, does the Taoiseach intend that the Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill will be tied in with a mental health Bill and that the two must go together regardless of whether one is completed?
That is not appropriate.
It is promised legislation, with all due respect, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and it is unusual for two Bills to be linked in this way. Will the Taoiseach clarify this matter because the drafting of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill has actually been carried out since 1996 and I would have thought it would be ready by now.
There is an overlap between the two Bills. It was decided following lengthy legal advice when they were drafting this legislation to give preference to a Mental Health Bill. I hope a Mental Health Bill will be ready before the end of this session. Then the other Bill, the Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill will be completed at some time in the middle of next year. I do not think that is a long Bill, but it will be ready after the Mental Health Bill.
Is the Taoiseach aware that he told the House in February that the heads of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill would be before the Government during the summer? Has the Government considered the heads of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill; have they been approved, and are they being drafted?
The drafting of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill took place some considerable time ago, perhaps as long ago as 1996, but then it ran into legal difficulties. It was decided because of the overlap that the Mental Health Bill should take precedence and then that Bill was moved forward. The intention now is to take the Mental Health Bill as quickly as possible — I hope before the end of this session — and then it will be followed by the other one.
The Taoiseach is talking about two different Departments.
What about the promise in the Government's programme before the summer to introduce legislation to establish a social services inspectorate. This was one of the specific commitments given by the Minister Deputy O'Donnell to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. That legislation has vanished off the Government's current programme.
Have you a question about the legislation, Deputy Shortall? What is the current status of that promised legislation?
The Deputy must be realistic.
Has the Taoiseach decided to scrap the idea altogether or when can we expect to have it on his programme?
I dealt with this at some length last week or the previous week. The item has been removed from the legislative programme. In view of the urgency of establishing a social services inspectorate, it has been decided to proceed with it on an administrative basis. That is what is happening with it.
Does the Taoiseach not now intend to establish it on a statutory basis?
It is not appropriate to ask questions——
Has the Government now decided to dispense with that commitment to introduce legislation?
Deputy Shortall, I ask you to resume your seat?
If a Bill was promised and it is now no longer going to be introduced, that is a fair question.
The Taoiseach has explained the status of the Bill.
Deputy Shortall has asked a valid supplementary.
The decision made was to set it up on an administrative basis, to look at its operations and then base the legislation on that experience. It was thought to be more realistic and feasible to set it up immediately on an administrative basis, to see the practical operation of it and then set it up on a legislative basis.
It is still not set up.
I understand the vocational education Bill was to reform the vocational education committees and the method of their appointment prior to the local elections next June. I see in the Government's list that this Bill is not expected to be published until late 1999, which would be well after the local elections. Is it still the intention to bring this Bill before the House in advance of the local elections so that the method of appointing the vocational education committees can be changed before the vocational education committees are actually changed in June?
I understand it is not necessary to have it passed before the local elections. It can be accommodated. There is no difficulty——
Who told the Taoiseach that?
——but the legislation is still listed for some time next autumn.
As I understand it, the Dublin county councils are legislatively prevented from appointing vocational education committees next June.
We cannot have a discussion on it now.
I ask you to bear with me, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and I ask the Taoiseach to listen to my reasonable request.
It must be appropriate to the Order of Business.
This is very appropriate to what is happening at this time in rural Ireland. Will the Taoiseach give time for statements on the crisis?
That question has already been dealt with.
What is the proposed date for the publication of the Broadcasting Bill? It has been reported that it may not be published until the spring. In the last session the Taoiseach undertook to see if legislation was necessary to remove anomalies with regard to the non-salaried staff in CIE. Has legal opinion been received on this matter? Will legislation be necessary and, if so, when will it be published?
The Broadcasting Bill is due this session; I understand shortly. I will check the position. I have received correspondence, including legal opinion, on the non-salaried staff in CIE and I will contact the Deputy on the matter.
The Taoiseach will be aware the previous Government took a strong line on the proposal to build an underground nuclear waste dump in Cumbria.
That is out of order. The Deputy can submit a question on that matter.