Order of Business.

The Taoiseach

It is proposed to take No. a1, Vocational Education (Amendment) Bill, 2000 – Amendment from the Seanad; No. 8, Ministerial, Parliamentary, Judicial Offices and Oireachtas Members (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 2001 – Order for Second Stage and Second and Subsequent Stages; No. 54, Adventure Activities Standards Authority Bill, 2000 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; and No. 55, Local Government Bill, 2000 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m., business shall be interrupted not later than 10 p.m. and the sitting shall be suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7 p.m.; the proceedings on No. a1 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 30 minutes and decided by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments to the Seanad amendment, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Education and Science; the Second and Subsequent Stages of No. 8 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 1.30 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments to the Bill, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Finance; the Report and Final Stages of No. 54 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 5.15 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources; and the Report and Final Stages of No. 55 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10 p.m. by one question, which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. Private Members' Business shall be No. 114, motion re health services (resumed).

An Ceann Comhairle

There are five proposals to put to the House. The first concerns the late sitting. Is that agreed?

Mr. Noonan

No, we oppose this. At 10 p.m. the Local Government Bill will be concluded by one question. That is not adequate debating time. What has happened in this House in recent weeks has been a travesty of democracy. Bills are being shuttled through and the Opposition has no time to scrutinise or debate them. In many cases, Ministers do not know what is in the Bills and rely on briefs. There is no scrutiny of legislation in the House and we are putting through the Local Government Bill on one question despite the Bill raising profound issues for local democracy. We are not doing our job and there is no point in pretending we are. I object strongly to the use of the guillotine on the Local Government Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

I point out to the Deputy that the fifth proposal deals with the Local Government Bill. We are dealing with the first proposal which concerns the late sitting.

Mr. Quinn

The House has been subjected to a parliamentary farce in recent weeks. The Government has failed repeatedly to bring forward legislation in the past six months. Legislation which was published has been delayed and hanging around between Second Stage and Committee Stage. The Opposition is being asked to provide a veneer of democracy and parliamentary scrutiny while the relevant Ministers do not know what the amendments are, which is ridiculous. We do not accept a late sitting to provide for that farce. Accordingly, we are opposed to the late sitting.

Question put: "That the late sitting be agreed to."

Tá

Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.

Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kitt, Michael P.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.

Níl

Barnes, Monica.Bell, Michael.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Farrelly, John.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.

Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Hayes, Tom.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Keeffe, Jim. O'Shea, Brian.

Níl–continued

O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Sargent, Trevor.

Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and M. Ahern; Níl, Deputies Bradford and Stagg.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the proposal for dealing with No. a1, the amendment from the Seanad in relation to the Vocational Education (Amendment) Bill, 2000, agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 8, the conclusion of all Stages of the Ministerial, Parliamentary, Judicial Offices and Oireachtas Members (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 2001, agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 54, Report and Final Stages of the Adventure Activities Standards Authority Bill, 2000, agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 55, Report and Final Stages of the Local Government Bill, 2000, agreed to?

Mr. Quinn

No. I wish to elaborate on some points made earlier specifically in relation to that legislation. The Opposition spokespersons are currently dealing with Committee Stage of the Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill while the Minister responsible for introducing the Bill is, unfortunately, ill and has not been present for a couple of weeks. We wish him a speedy recovery, but those of us on this side who have ministerial experience know that other people are not, and cannot expect to be as well versed in relation to measures in the Bill. They cannot have digested the pages of amendments prepared by a struggling Bills Office that worked through the night under conditions that are probably in breach of health and safety regulations. They cannot have digested the technical implications of what is contained in the Local Government Bill.

It is a farce that the Parliament is being asked to provide a veneer of parliamentary scrutiny of measures put forward by Ministers and Ministers of State. The Local Government Bill is being guillotined at 10 p.m. tonight and we are opposed to the measure. The Labour Party spokesman, Deputy Gilmore, will withdraw from the debate in due course to clearly indicate—

Mr. D. Ahern

Did the Deputy ever guillotine a Bill?

Mr. Quinn

The Government can run the business in this way if it wishes, but we will not legitimise this type of parliamentary farce.

Mr. Howlin

There are ten lists of amendments. They are not even available in the General Office.

Mr. N. O'Keeffe

Deputy Gilmore is away.

Mr. Quinn

The Deputy does not even know what is in it. We have a duty to oppose and provide scrutiny. It is impossible to do that—

Mr. N. O'Keeffe

Deputy Gilmore is taking over for Deputy Quinn.

Mr. Penrose

Deputy Ned O'Keeffe is the only Opposition in the House.

Mr. N. O'Keeffe

Deputy Gilmore is away.

Mr. Howlin

He is interested in the environment.

Mr. Penrose

The Deputy should join us on this side and vote with us.

Mr. Howlin

The Deputy has an interest in the environment

Mr. Quinn

Come on over, Deputy.

Mr. Penrose

The Deputy's place is here.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please. I call Deputy Noonan.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Deputy Ned O'Keeffe should stick to meat and bone meal.

Mr. N. O'Keeffe

Deputy Gilmore will—

Mr. Rabbitte

Waking Ned.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Noonan without interruption.

Mr. Noonan

Will Deputy Ned O'Keeffe give me a chance?

Mrs. Owen

We are delighted to see Deputy Ned O'Keeffe back in good form.

Mr. Noonan

I am upset by the manner in which the Government has been conducting its business this week and for the last couple of weeks. An enormous amount of legislation has piled up and is being rushed through by means of guillotine motions and without adequate debate. There has been very little parliamentary scrutiny of some very serious Bills.

We all claim to be committed to the reform of this House but the Government is paying mere lip service to Dáil reform. I am particularly concerned about this Bill, which is fundamental to local democracy. The Minister, unfortunately, is absent through illness and it is clear that the Ministers of State who are dealing with the Bill are not completely familiar with the detail of it. Amendments are coming from the Department of the Environment and Local Government, of which the Minister is not closely aware and the implications of which he is not sure. The Opposition is not being given time to scrutinise these amendments properly.

More than anything else, this is a Bill which has been constructed through deals in corners and back rooms with four Independent Deputies. Not only is there not proper accountability in this House, this is a Tammany Hall manner of legislation and we object strongly to it. The Government should be ashamed of itself. The Tánaiste, in particular, whose party has been for so long committed to Dáil reform, should be ashamed of herself.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

So she says.

Mr. Noonan

She should be ashamed to be presiding over this. This is an outrageous way to reform local democracy. The Government has done deals with self-interested people who do not have the interest of the House at heart and it is now rattling the Bill through without considering the full implications of what it is proposing. This is an absolute disgrace and we oppose it.

Mr. Quinn

I ask the Taoiseach, and particularly the Tánaiste, has the Attorney General seen the 25 pages of Report Stage amendments and have they been approved? That is a reasonable question.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Otherwise he will be given a private view of them.

The Taoiseach

A number of points have been made. The normal procedure was followed with regard to these amendments.

This Bill was in preparation for several years. It was published on 8 May 2000. It was debated on Second Stage for eight hours and it has been in Committee for three days, longer than Committee Stage of the Finance or Social Welfare Bills.

Mr. Sargent

That says a lot.

The Taoiseach

The Bill has been well and truly debated.

Mr. Howlin

There are 25 pages of amendments.

The Taoiseach

I am sorry the Minister is ill but the Minister of State, who has had a good grasp of these matters for the past 30 years, is handling the Bill very competently.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the proposal for dealing with Item 55, Report and Final Stages of the Local Government Bill, 2000, agreed to?

Mr. Noonan

No.

Question put. "That the proposal for dealing with No. 55 be agreed to."

Tá

Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy, Seamus.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert. Moloney, John.

Tá–continued

Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.

Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.

Níl

Allen, Bernard.Barnes, Monica.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis J.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Hayes, Tom.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.

Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies M. Ahern and S. Brennan; Níl, Deputies Bradford and Stagg.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

I shall now take leaders' questions.

Mr. Noonan

The Exchequer returns published yesterday clearly prove that the Estimates announced for last year's budget in December were wrong. Tax receipts have grown by only 5.3% compared to an estimate of 12.5%. VAT receipts which were expected to grow by 18% according to the Minister for Finance have grown by only 8%. Income tax is well short of the estimate also. These are worrying statistics and are largely due to the incompetence of the Minister for Finance. This being the position, will the Taoiseach confirm that if next year's budget contains tax reductions and expenditure increases similar to last year year's budget the whole surplus will be eliminated?

Mr. Quinn

I share the concern expressed by the Leader of the Fine Gael Party and ask the Taoiseach, as a former Minister for Finance, if in the light of these figures he has sought a projection as to what the next quarter outturn might be and whether there will be a recovery in some of the taxation heads following the successful resolution of the foot and mouth disease problem? Is there cause within Government circles for revising the budget strategy that was being contemplated? Will the broad economic and policy guidelines set and agreed to by the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach during the Swedish Presidency be complied with in the publication of the Government's budget on 5 December?

The Taoiseach

The expenditure figures and receipts for the half year published yesterday show that for the first quarter tax revenue has increased but not in line with the budget figures. It had been indicated at the beginning of April, after the first quarter, that the take on VAT receipts and consumer spending declined radically during February and March, the period of the foot and mouth disease crisis. The position improved in the last quarter but still there will be a difference of about £500 million. To respond to Deputy Quinn's question, it would mean we would have to look at the projections for the third quarter. Much will depend on the tourism season and other activities. Some ground will be gained but not the entire amount. The surplus for the year now being projected by the Department of Finance is of the order of £2 billion. Some independent commentators do not believe that will be achieved. Some of them were revising their figures this morning, based on yesterday's figures and the CSO figures of yesterday. We will have to monitor that during the course of the year.

In reply to Deputy Noonan, the tax strategy committee and the Government's preparation on the expenditure side in the Estimates has commenced. We have to keep in line with the broad economic guidelines. Needless to say it is too early yet to say what the frame of any tax package or social welfare package will be as we have not got to that stage but the Government will take account of the likely outturn position after the year on year as in any year and the projections as we approach the end of the third quarter. We would never make our assessments until that period. These issues will be looked at in early October when we should have a more likely correct outturn for the year as a whole. The questions I normally answer every year at this time when the figures are published – I think I have answered every year as Minister for Finance and as Taoiseach – are questions I probably asked as leader of the Opposition. Usually Deputy Noonan would say the budget was wrong because the tax figures for the first six months were way ahead of the figures projected. That has been the position. Clearly, the period of the foot and mouth disease crisis pulled back expenditure and revenue quite dramatically. That is the main reason for the fall in revenue and is indicated by what has happened in the second quarter. We will continue to monitor the situation and to look at projections during the second half of the year.

Mr. Noonan

This is a very significant reply by the Taoiseach. I put it to him that this is the first time in seven years, through the life of three Governments, that the Estimate of Revenue is falling behind what was given on budget day. I thank the Taoiseach for confirming that the expected surplus is now £2 billion according to the Department of Finance and about 18.5% according to private sector economists. Does the Taoiseach realise the combined expenditure and tax relief in the last budget was £2 billion. If that is repeated in the next budget the surplus will be gone on the Department of Finance figures and one is in deficit according to the private economists' figures. I know the Taoiseach cannot get into detail, nor would I expect him to get into detail this early in the year about the next budget, but will he confirm if it is the Government's policy to continue to budget for surpluses in the next budget and going forward?

The Taoiseach

Yes, is the answer to the last question. That is our commitment given our reckoning and the broad economic guidelines. To repeat what I said, independent economists are changing their figures today based on the CSO figures of yesterday because that is a factor on their figures. It is interesting that we are slightly worried about surpluses of more than £2 billion, which is an unusual position here. It is the policy of the Government to continue to budget for surpluses.

Mr. Quinn

I wonder if the Taoiseach has had a chance to reflect on his remarks in the House yesterday with regard to the flagship semi-State company, the ESB? If he does not correct the remarks he made yesterday under some pressure, he will do untold damage to the reputation of this company. To suggest that the management of the ESB, a company that brought electrification to every rural house in the country, was so inept that within a week of getting to the second stage of a bid it had not realised the scale of the project is to do untold damage to the reputation of management of a company that is trading competitively in 35 countries with the largest consultancy firm that personnel have here, more than 450 people trading in ESB international. He knows from his own experience as a Minister that the competitors of the ESB will have monitored what has been said. When the ESB goes to head on bids down the road, those companies will look at what has been said by the Prime Minister of the country from which this State company comes. Does the Taoiseach realise the extraordinary damage he has done to the reputation of this company?

Mr. Rabbitte

It is terrible.

Mr. M. Smith

Nonsense.

Mr. Quinn

Will the Taoiseach take the opportunity to correct the record? This is serious. If he does not understand it I can understand and appreciate his inexperience. This is serious and the Taoiseach has an obligation to correct the record.

Mr. Noonan

Will the Taoiseach agree that commercial decisions about the ESB should be taken by the board of the ESB and not by a sub-committee of Cabinet. Given that the sub-committee of Cabinet has, in effect, taken over the functions of the board of the ESB, will the sub-committee of Cabinet lay down ongoing commercial policy for the ESB? Many people would consider the four members of the Cabinet sub-committee to be competent politicians but nobody would credit them with having a lot of expertise in running electricity companies. As a matter of fact, the public would be of the view that the four together could hardly replace a fuse or wire a plug.

Ms Harney

That is one of the things I can do.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

The Taoiseach, without interruption.

The Taoiseach

During Question Time yesterday, on European questions, I was asked about this and I will repeat what I said then. I spoke to the ESB chief executive and officials on different business on Monday and I am meeting them again today with the Cabinet infrastructural committee. There are no differences, difficulties, misunderstandings or putting the position wrongly. Deputy Quinn is entirely incorrect on that matter. At the Gothenburg summit meeting, I spoke to Prime Minister Buzek of Poland about this matter. The figures and projections of the extent of what would be on offer changed on the Polish side. There was no error by ESB management, or ESBI which is dealing with this matter. The extent of the offer being put out for ESB companies was extended. The reason it was then brought to the Cabinet sub-committee was for us to examine this issue because the ESB wanted to go in to the extent of about £600 million on a project which was expected to go up to £1 billion. That would ultimately be bigger than the ESB itself—

Mr. Rabbitte

Or even bigger than the Abbotstown project.

The Taoiseach

The Government was looking at the Polish project at the request of the ESB. The considered view of all Government officials who examined this proposition was that, at a time when the priority of the Government and the ESB was to deal with the enormous infrastructural problems, borrowings and technical work which the company has to deal with, particularly in the north-west, the western seaboard generally and many other areas – I have answered questions in the House in recent months about windfarms and other developments – the ESB could not do both. That is not to say that the ESB cannot continue with other major expansion plans, both inside and outside the country, with which it wishes to go ahead and which the Government is currently considering. Eirgrid and the ESB are on the agenda for the Cabinet infrastructural committee today. That was already planned before the Polish issue developed to the present extent.

There were five or six companies in the Polish situation, now there are four. The position is clearly understood by the ESB and ESBI. They would have liked to go ahead but there was a risk in that assessment. Perhaps it might have worked out satisfactorily but the view in the Department of Finance, my Department and the Department of Public Enterprise was that the risk could be just too great. It was on that basis the Government made its decisions.

An Ceann Comhairle

A supplementary question from Deputy Quinn.

Mr. Quinn

The Taoiseach knows the ESB is a State company. It is not in a position to make the comments which he has made publicly. He also knows, and the Tánaiste certainly knows, just how damaging the remarks are and how competitors from other countries will seek to undermine many projects which the IDA is trying to attract to this country. Such attempts were made in the past and we successfully convinced those concerned to come here. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste must surely be aware of the politics of international business and investment. If the Taoiseach does not correct the record and demonstrate that the ESB was capable and in favour of going ahead with this project and saw no conflict between its requirements for investment here in Ireland and the necessity to invest commercially abroad to develop a new stream of income – I believe he is big enough to try to correct those remarks – he will seriously undermine a major flagship semi-State company and do untold damage to the future of the people who work in the ESB and the people of this country who depend on the ESB for a constant and quality electricity supply.

The Taoiseach

I reiterate that there is nothing to correct in this regard. The ESB has the support of Government for investment in overseas markets, in which the company has established a reputation for excellence. The decision that the ESB should not proceed with investment plans in Poland was made on a purely commercial basis. In buying shares first and then moving to an investment position, the ESB would be getting into something bigger than itself. The financial and commercial judgment was that this was a step too far. The ESB has other plans but this was on a scale not previously contemplated by the company and, of course, Government guarantees would be required. The electricity network in this country is in need of extensive renewal over the next five years, not the next 50 years, on the ESB's own admission. The ESB is facing a 3 billion upgrading programme between now and 2006, for which it requires all its technical and management expertise. It is an excellent company but to attempt all that and put back the IPO for five or six years would create too many problems for the company all at one time.

Mr. Stagg

The two things are not mutually exclusive. One complements the other.

The Taoiseach

The Government's first priority is that the ESB can deal with this major investment programme for its Irish consumers. There is no problem. The ESB's position is that, as it downsizes in this country in response to compe tition and loss of market share as an inevitable consequence of EU directives, it must compensate for that elsewhere. The Government is totally supportive of that.

Mr. Stagg

Where is the Minister for Finance? Is he not supposed to have some responsibility in this area?

The Taoiseach

The Government is looking at a number of other proposals. I would say to Deputy Stagg, who is ranting on about this, that it is not sound commercial practice for the ESB to attempt to take over a company which is bigger than itself. There are other projects which, on a commercial basis, the ESB will be able to take over. That is the factual position.

An Ceann Comhairle

That concludes Leaders' questions. We now move on to relevant questions on the Order of Business.

Mrs. Owen

Yesterday I raised an issue with the Taoiseach about the need for legislation to protect insurance policy holders of a company which has gone into liquidation in the UK. It is clear from the Minister's reply to me last Wednesday that there is a need for protection law for insurance holders who buy insurance from an English based company.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's question must relate to clearly promised legislation.

Mrs. Owen

The UK Policyholder Protection Act protects English insurance holders but not those small Irish firms which bought public liability insurance and the 9,000 motorcyclists who bought insurance. It is not good enough that this is "being studied" with a report awaited. As we speak, people are without insurance cover and I want to know what the Government intends to do about it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should confine herself to a question on legislation which is clearly promised. Is there promised legislation?

The Taoiseach

I will try to be helpful to the Deputy. As I said yesterday, there are important matters at stake and they are being looked at but they are not necessarily to be resolved by legislation. It is unlikely that legislation will resolve them.

Mr. Rabbitte

I wish to raise two matters. On promised legislation, I asked the Taoiseach yesterday about the legislation arising from the DIRT report in respect of the Oireachtas commission. I think the Taoiseach misinterpreted my question as being about speeding it up over the summer. I was really referring to the need to allocate the heads of the Bill to whatever committee is considered appropriate. The principles are important. It concerns the organisation of the Oireachtas, not the Executive, consultants or officials, all of whose input would be valuable. It is about how we do our business. Parliamentarians ought to have an opportunity to look at the legislation at the heads of Bill stage.

The second point is whether the Government is contemplating legislation on the regulation of auctioneers, given what we read – not for the first time – about the conduct of some auctioneers.

An Ceann Comhairle

The second question is more appropriate to a parliamentary question.

Mr. Quinn

Or even a tribunal.

The Taoiseach

Regarding the Oireachtas Commission, I understood what Deputy Rabbitte said yesterday, namely, that the heads of the Bill, which have already been cleared by the Government, would go to a committee in the first place, and I have asked that that be examined.

Mrs. Owen

What about the auctioneers?

The Taoiseach

There is no legislation.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Does the Government intend bringing forward legislation in the next session on the promised referendum on abortion? I understood from a reply at Question Time last week by the Minister for Health and Children that the agency to help mothers in crisis pregnancies would be set up under regulation. I now read in this morning's Irish Examiner that it will be set up under legislation, and wonder if that is correct. When it is likely to be done?

The Taoiseach

There is no legislation on the first matter. On the second matter, it will be dealt with by regulation under existing legislation.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Is the Taoiseach saying legislation is not necessary for a referendum on abortion?

The Taoiseach

At present there is no legislation.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Does the Government intend bringing forward the promised legislation in the next session?

The Taoiseach

Not at this stage.

Mr. G. Mitchell

There is no such intention. Therefore there will not be a referendum during the life of this Government. If the Government promises legislation one must presume it will be introduced during the term of the Government. Is it now the case that we will not see this legislation?

A Deputy

We should ask the Independents. Do they know?

The Taoiseach

I answered this last week or the week before last when replying to questions on the Constitution. I stated the Cabinet committee has not reported to Cabinet, so the Deputy is ahead of himself.

Mr. Noonan

The Taoiseach is behind himself.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Recently listed for address in the House was the Ordnance Survey Bill, which subsequently disappeared from the list. When is it intended to take this Bill?

My second question, which will receive the same resounding response on the floor of the House, pertains to the ground rent Bill, listed for publication in early 2002. Given that people are being pursued for large sums of money on the basis of this feudal charge, can the Taoiseach indicate if he will bring forward the Bill to early autumn so it can be dealt with in the current Dáil?

Mr. S. Ryan

Is there a need for legislation?

The Taoiseach

I answered the issue of the ground rent Bill yesterday, and said work is in progress between the Attorney General and the Minister. The first Bill referred to by the Deputy has been published and is awaiting discussion in the House.

Mr. Creed

The Minister for Education and Science confirmed in a reply to a parliamentary question that he has not taken an initiative, and does not plan an initiative, in terms of resolving the ongoing ASTI dispute. Given that the House goes into recess at the end of the week and will not resume until mid October, will the Taoiseach take an initiative? Secondary schools resume in September and the planned escalation of the dispute will have a major impact on them.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not relevant to the Order of Business.

Mr. Noonan

Ba mhaith liom iarr ar an Taoiseach cathain a mbeidh Bille na Gaeilge foilsithe? Tá an Bille seo chun seirbhís a chur ar fáil trí mhéan na Gaeilge do gach éinne. An mbeidh sé foilsithe sa chéad seisiún eile?

The Taoiseach

It is due in the autumn session.

Ms McManus

Recently on the Order of Business I raised the case of the brain dead woman who was kept on a life support machine against the wishes of her family and her doctors. At the time I asked about this in the context of the medical practitioners Bill. The Taoiseach has stated that this will not be dealt with under this Bill. I understand the Attorney General is advising the relevant health board in this regard and that it would appear there is a need for legislation, either by way of an amendment to the Child Care Act, a change to the proposed medical practitioners Bill or a new Bill. What will the Taoi seach do in terms of legislation to deal with such an event, which may be repeated causing grave anguish?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is making a statement. She should ask a question.

Ms McManus

Will the Taoiseach indicate what he intends doing? Maybe the Attorney General has now advised him as to what to do.

The Taoiseach

This is not a matter of legislation. Neither it is a matter which can easily be solved.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): There are ongoing disturbing reports that objects of archaeological, architectural and historic value continue to be interfered with, vandalised, stolen and even smuggled out of the State.

An Ceann Comhairle

A relevant question please.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): When will the consolidated national monuments Bill be brought forward, and will the Government bring it forward as a matter of urgency in view of the threat to irreplaceable objects and items of archaeological and other value?

Mr. Creed

Is the Deputy an endangered species?

An Ceann Comhairle

Debate on Second Stage of the Bill will be the appropriate time for that matter.

The Taoiseach

The heads of the consolidated national monuments Bill are expected very shortly.

Mr. Crawford

Has the Taoiseach or the Minister for Foreign Affairs an intention to travel to Egypt or Iran to help the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development open those very important markets?

An Ceann Comhairle

Questions about travelling are not appropriate on the Order of Business.

Mr. Crawford

It is extremely important.

Mr. M. Higgins

In the second half of 1999 the Taoiseach in answering a question in the House drew attention to a statement made at that time by the Government about the transition to digitalisation. The Taoiseach also told the House that proposals for digitalisation would be included in the then promised broadcasting Bill. Given that the opportunities for digitalisation are being entirely squandered, what legislation has he in mind to publish during the summer or in the autumn that might try to save something from this transition? A national asset is being effectively squandered. The Taoiseach stated that the pro posals for digitalisation in broadcasting would be adequately dealt with in the broadcasting legislation, but that was not the case. It is now suggested that digitalisation will not be revisited by the Government until 2003. At that stage everything will have been handed to Rupert Murdoch, and the alleged Republican Party will have squandered a national asset.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not in order. I call the Taoiseach on the question of promised legislation.

Mr. Rabbitte

The increase in the licence fee of £14.50 is more appropriate to something in Michael Guiney's window.

The Taoiseach

The Broadcasting Bill, 2001 has already been passed. There is no promised legislation. As the Deputy is aware, the Minister is still involved in the debate on digitalisation.

Mr. M. Higgins

The Taoiseach in a previous reply in the House said that digitalisation would be adequately addressed in the legislation. It was not addressed in the legislation, and I am asking whether the decision announced by the Government in the second half of 1999 will be implemented. Implementation would require supplementary legislation, and I am asking if that will be introduced. Will we just sit back and watch a national asset being squandered?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should confine himself to questions. A question on policy is not in order on the Order of Business.

Mr. M. Higgins

Does the Taoiseach propose to reconcile the statement by the Cabinet, his statement in the Dáil and the inadequacies in the broadcasting legislation? Does he intend asking the Minister to bring in the necessary legislation so the public can benefit from public and universal access—

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 4 Jul 2001

Order of Business.

A Deputy

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Jul 2001