It is proposed to take Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 2 and 3. It is also proposed notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders that: (1) Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 shall be decided without debate; and (2) statements shall be made at the conclusion of No. 12 concerning the Blood Transfusion Service Board which shall not exceed ten minutes in each case. Private Members' Business shall be No. 22.
Order of Business.
There are two matters to be put to the House. Is it agreed that Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 shall be decided without debate? Agreed. Are the arrangements for statements agreed?
The statements in question relate to a matter of deep concern to many women throughout the country who, understandably, want to get as much information as possible on the issue. I understand that statements are being allowed but that does not provide for ministerial reply to any questions that may be raised in the course of contributions from other speakers. I think it would be useful if the House would agree that the Minister be allowed to take a few brief questions at the end of the discussion or alternatively, that he make an opening statement and a concluding statement in which he would respond to Members. I cannot stress enough the extent to which women are looking for reassurance on this extremely important and worrying matter.
A great many families are concerned about this matter and it is important that it be spoken about. An article in this evening's Evening Herald says that it is not only women who are at risk as a result of these blood transfusions. We will not get to the bottom of the matter unless we have a question and answer session and at the very least the Minister should reply to matters that are raised during the course of statements. It is not satisfactory that Members make statements only and I think my suggestions should be looked at.
I agree with Deputy Bruton. This is an important issue and we should deal with it in a calm manner and without raising unnecessary fears. I compliment the Minister for agreeing to take statements and I think it would be his style to wish to respond. I would be happy with that.
I very much appreciate the Minister's offer to take statements on this extremely important matter but there is a need to allow him to respond to questions raised by Opposition Members and which may not be covered in his statement. I suggest that we amend what is proposed and provide at least five or ten minutes for the Minister to reply to questions that may arise either in the course of contributions or from his statement.
I thought that was agreed by the Whips.
Statements are to be made at the request of the Minister concerned who will be happy to respond to the debate on this complex matter. He and his officials are also willing to meet the Opposition spokespersons after the statements have been made as technical and complex questions may be asked and he may not have the information available. However, he wants to ensure that everyone is made fully aware of the position and no one should make accusations without first receiving proper information.
Will he reply in the House?
He will but he may not be in a position to respond to some of the complex questions that may be raised. To ensure that Opposition spokespersons receive full information he will meet them individually or collectively after we leave the House.
That is reasonable.
Can we clarify that the order has now been varied?
We do not have to change it; the Minister will reply.
It is proposed that the Minister will have the right of reply. Is that agreed? Agreed.
On the Order of Business, what is the position in regard to the Juvenile Justice Bill?
Work is progressing. About two weeks ago on the Order of Business the Minister for Justice made a comprehensive statement in which she outlined the exact position. We are hoping to introduce it as soon as possible.
I do not want to be churlish but does the Taoiseach remember that this Bill formed part of the Joint Programme for Government agreed with the Progressive Democrats long ago?
It was a while ago all right.
One could put it to music at this stage.
As the Taoiseach is aware, that was merely a temporary arrangement. I thank the Taoiseach, the Minister and the Government for agreeing, at the request of my party, to give more time for the debate on the Extradition Bill and to take Committee and Final Stages next week. As it is complex legislation it is important it is not rushed.
I am very concerned that the Government has abandoned the Matrimonial Home Bill, the principle of which was accepted by all parties in this House. Indeed, it was acceptable to the Chief Justice. Will the Taoiseach ask the Attorney General to seek outside advice as to how the Bill may be made constitutional short of holding a referendum?
As the Deputy is probably aware, it was not the text of the Bill that was struck down by the Supreme Court but the principle. Everybody is aware of the position when the Supreme Court strikes down a Bill. It would be easy to change the text if that was all was required. We do not propose to reword it as it would meet the same fate.
I have no wish to be offensive but I have read the judgment and the Chief Justice made it quite clear that the principle was not out of order. I understand from the legal advice I received — the Taoiseach may not have much time for this——
This should not lead to argument now.
—— that there are ways by which the Bill can be made constitutional. The Minister should not dismiss this because people are trying to help him. There are ways by which the Bill can be made constitutional——
There are also ways of asking questions and they must be relevant.
If the Government does not do this the divorce referendum will be put in jeopardy.
Perhaps the Minister should consult Frank Clarke. Does the Taoiseach intend to take any action to end the vindictive pursuit by SPUC of students perhaps by way of assisting them financially to end the court cases being pursued, given that the people have vindicated the stance taken by the students in providing abortion information?
The Deputy will have to find another way of raising the matter. It is clearly not in order now.
In introducing the Bill dealing with abortion information which we were told last week was almost complete, will the Taoiseach provide for assistance to students so that the can extricate themselves from this vindictive campaign by SPUC?
The Deputy is clearly using the Order of Business for other purposes. I am proceeding now to the Order of Business proper.
Deputy Rabbitte rose.
Does the Deputy have a relevant matter to raise?
I do.
Let us hear it.
I am seeking your assistance, Sir. I put down a question to the Taoiseach relating to the use of private consultants in making his case to the beef tribunal but he transferred it to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry.
The Deputy is out of order.
I put it down to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry last week and he transferred it to the Taoiseach. I am in your hands as to how I may pursue this matter. I have had a bad day because I put down a similar question to the Minister for Equality and Law Reform relating to the control of legal costs in personal injuries actions and he transferred it to the Minister for Justice.
I feel sure that the Deputy will pursue that matter to the ultimate.
The Deputy is having a bad day.