The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 46, Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Bill, 1999, Second Stage (resumed), No. 9, the Company Law Enforcement Bill, 2000, Order for Second Stage and Second Stage, and No. 10, the Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill, 2000, Order for Second Stage and Second Stage.
Order of Business.
There are no proposals to be put to the House. Deputy Bruton on the Order of Business.
There are two matters I would like to raise, the first in regard to promised legislation. The Appropriation Bill has been promised. Will that Bill make extra provision this year for adequate compensation for those who suffer from autism and who have not had their legal rights over a number of years as found by the courts yesterday? Will it contain measures to ensure that we learn from the past and that all children who are being denied a right to education will be given it straight away without hav ing to go all the way to the Supreme Court to obtain it? Will the Taoiseach deal with this matter as a priority in this year's Appropriation Bill and in this year's Estimates and not next year's or wait for some other court case to be taken by somebody else?
The second question I would like to—
On the same issue, if I may.
I have a second matter I want to raise.
Because this is an issue that will attract broad consensus across this House and when we are belatedly recognising the rights of every citizen to have full citizenship – and that begins with basic education – will the Taoiseach say whether the Minister for Education and Science will exercise his right under Standing Order 42 to come into the House and make a statement today on the response of the Government to yesterday's judgment in the broadest possible context to ensure that every citizen, whether those suffering from autism or any other disability, will be able to participate fully in the education system and in other systems of this State? That would be a very welcome initiative and perhaps the Minister might reflect on it and accept that he should do that today.
The Taoiseach.
On the same matter.
We cannot have a general discussion. The discussion on this matter is confined to the two party leaders or those acting in their place.
I will be brief.
We cannot create more precedents, Deputy. We cannot have a discussion. This is the Order of Business. Will the Taoiseach—
This is a matter of interest to everybody.
Yes, but the matter has been raised. It is not strictly appropriate to the Order of Business.
Is the Taoiseach aware that there are dozens of such cases waiting—
Will the Taoiseach comment?
(Dublin West): I have a question on legislation.
The Deputy may put it afterwards. The Deputy will get his turn, but not now. The Deputy must resume his seat. We cannot open a general discussion on this matter at this stage. The question has been asked and I have called on the Taoiseach. The Deputy should resume his seat.
(Dublin West): This is very unfair. The Labour Party was allowed to comment.
The Deputy should resume his seat.
In response to Deputies Bruton and Howlin—
(Dublin West): I am not allowed to say what I wanted to say.
The Deputy should resume his seat and allow the Taoiseach speak.
In response to Deputies Bruton and Howlin, the Government is very conscious of that this is a very serious matter. There is no doubt that, over many decades, the State failed to provide the sort of education for children with special needs which they have a right to receive. We have been trying to develop a system capable of responding in a flexible and professional way. Over the past two years more than 350 specialist teaching posts and more than 800 child care assistants posts for children with special educational needs have been appointed and specialist classes for children with autism are being established in various parts of the country.
We recognise that we have to do more. The Department is working to do more and the Minister will publish details of a proposal to establish a dedicated special educational support agency which will provide advice and professional support for parents, teachers and schools. In addition, a special task force on education for children with autism will report this month. All of those issues should assist in this case. This judgment will be and is being carefully examined by the Minister for Education and Science. Perhaps today would be too soon to give a reply but I will ask the Minister to reply as soon as possible.
I call Deputy John Bruton on a new subject.
A Cheann Comhairle, if I could ask a question on that subject.
We must move on to a new subject.
On that subject, Sir—
I will allow one further brief comment on that subject.
Does the Taoiseach accept that all Members agree with the fine and eloquent words he has spoken about this case? However, many would question why Mrs. Sinnott and her son had to spend, I think, 27 days in the High Court fighting the Government to win this judgment and that taxpayers' money was devoted to fighting this case and resisting Jamie Sinnott's claim. Have any lessons been learned? These mistakes have been made in the past and no one is free of criticism. However, we should not fail to learn and we should not go on fighting cases which are eminently just when they could be settled much less expensively and with much less pain. Does the Taoiseach agree that lessons must be learned from this case and that the other 1,000 autistic children should not also have to go to court and go through the same pain and worry of whether they will succeed or lose their homes depending on whether they win the case?
In support of Deputy Bruton and by way of seeking clarification from the Taoiseach, we are all learning from cases such as this. As a society and as a nation we have to change our ways to ensure that we do not put barriers in the way of anyone trying to vindicate basic rights. In welcoming the Taoiseach's commitment that the Minister for Education and Science will make a response, will he make a statement rather than wait for a question under Standing Order 42 at an appropriate time next week? Can we have that commitment?
Action was promised after the O'Donoghue case.
I did not call the Deputy. I call the Taoiseach to reply.
We are dealing with promised legislation, or what should be promised legislation.
(Dublin West): I wish to make a comment on this case.
Deputies Sargent and Higgins should resume their seats. They are not in order and they know they are not in order.
I do not agree, a Cheann Comhairle.
(Dublin West): I wish to make a comment, a Cheann Comhairle.
The Deputy cannot make a comment. This is the Order of Business. It is not the time for comments.
(Dublin West): We have had two contributions from the leaders of the Opposition parties. I wish to ask a question about ADHD and other such issues.
I made a ruling on 14 October last year. I call the Taoiseach.
I take the point being made by Deputies. The case has been going on for years. It was lodged in the lifetime of other Governments but we should not get into an argument on it. The argument put forward by the Department of Education and Science in this case was that it was offering what it believed to be adequate education but that was not in a primary school, which was what the parents put forward. We have to take account of that. The courts have made their judgment and that has to be looked at in light of the decision in this case and the right of people to be entitled to an education system. That is what the Department was fighting for. The case is over and the judgment is made. We are doings things differently now to what we used to do with special needs. We have moved significantly in recent years but there is still some way to go. It will be addressed by the Minister.
I call Deputy Bruton on a new subject. We must move on. This is the Order of Business and time is limited.
Members of all parties are as concerned about this matter as I am and we should not squabble about this issue.
We would like to speak on it.
Members on this side are also concerned about this case.
And the 53 Fine Gael Deputies and all the Labour Party Deputies.
Will the Deputy resume his seat for a moment? I wish to clarify the position. I made a ruling on 14 October 1999 which confirmed evolving practice which allows the leaders of parties which are recognised groups to ask the Taoiseach of the day a relevant but brief question on a topical matter.
Brief.
There are only two such leaders so that is the position.
I was going to be brief, a Cheann Comhairle.
I call Deputy Bruton on a new subject.
As regards European policy, is it a deliberate tactic on the part of the Government to imitate the classical figure, Janus, who had two heads facing in opposite directions so that Fianna Fáil MEPs vote against enlargement of the Union while Fianna Fáil Ministers at home, when speaking to ambassadors from applicant countries, say they are in favour of enlargement? Is this a deliberate tactic of speaking out of both sides of one's mouth on Europe, just as the Government does on virtually every other question where there are concerns to be allayed?
Will the Taoiseach state the Government's definitive policy on enlargement? Does he accept that had the position of Fianna Fáil MEPs prevailed in the European Parliament yesterday it would have been a major setback for enlargement of the Union and the applications before Parliament?
There were 13 reports on enlargement before the European Parliament yesterday, 12 of which dealt with negotiations with individual countries. Fianna Fáil MEPs voted in favour of these 12 reports. The 13th report was from the German Christian Democrats' group and included a provision that the power of co-decision be given to the European Parliament over agri-spending and the Common Agricultural Policy.
Non-binding.
Fianna Fáil MEPs opposed this report on the basis of this proposal and not because of enlargement issues, as it would give the power of co-decision to the European Parliament over agri-spending which would be against Ireland's interests. Unfortunately, Deputy Bruton's members supported his allies in the Christian Democrats against the national interest.
Shame.
There cannot be a debate on the matter at this stage. Deputy Bruton very briefly.
Does the Taoiseach accept that it is clear that Fianna Fáil is playing a political game on Europe and that his remarks just now clearly reveal the very anti-national approach Fianna Fáil is now adopting?
Anti-national?
Fianna Fáil wants to play politics with Europe. It wants to appeal to the demagogues and those opposed to progress in order to gain votes in a small-minded way. Fianna Fáil will regret the William Hague-like approach it is now adopting to Europe.
Is that the William Hague who is a member of the same group as Deputy Bruton in the European Parliament?
I asked the Taoiseach—
You are not in a group because no group would have you.
They are a party of "Hague-ites". They used to be Luddites. Now they are "Hague-ites".
—if he would restate clearly and without equivocation his Government's position on the issue of enlargement and the membership of the 12 applicant countries—
That is not possible on the Order of Business
—against which Fianna Fáil MEPs voted yesterday.
Paisley and the communists are the only crowd that would vote with you, protecting the national interest.
I have just completed a meeting with the Bulgarian Foreign Minister, as I have with the Foreign Ministers of most of the applicant countries over the past year. In everything we are doing, we are helping the enlargement process. Equally, I stand over the Common Agricultural Policy in respect of which I successfully negotiated the current round just a year ago in Berlin.
There is promised legislation to provide for the financial and taxation year to be brought forward from April to 1 January from 2002. I understand that yesterday the Minister for Finance agreed a change in the proposed legislation to bring forward the filing date for taxation accounts for the self-employed, and we agree with this. Could the Taoiseach confirm that the legislation is going ahead, that no further change is envisaged, and that in future, starting next year, social welfare payments and tax relief will be given from 1 January so that old-age pensioners, people in receipt of child benefit or disability benefit, who have lost out so much through inflation will get some compensation from the first available date, 1 January 2001?
The Minister for Finance will bring forward legislation. Thankfully, this Minister for Finance has reversed the position of the previous Government in paying welfare in July. He brought it forward by several months this year. It is his intention, for the first time in the history of the State, to make all payments on 1 January from 1 January 2002.
Did the Taoiseach say 2002 or 2001?
We cannot debate the matter now. We cannot have a question and answer session.
2002.
It should be brought in in 2001. People are losing. Does the Taoiseach hold clinics any more? Does he know what is happening? Does he ever meet anyone on social welfare any more?
Fine Gael put it back.
Child benefit is paid only from 1 September.
I call Deputy Gormley. Deputy Noonan should resume his seat.
They have to wait until September for their child benefit.
Fine Gael pushed it back and did not bring it forward again.
The attitude is to let them wait.
Deputy Noonan, please allow Deputy Gormley to ask his question.
It is the "Marie Antoinette" approach.
On the proposed tax on plastic bags about which the Minister for the Environment and Local Government has talked for the past three years, does this measure require specific legislation? When will we see that legislation?
That will the subject of a tax provision in the Finance Bill. It will not require separate legislation from the Department of the Environment and Local Government.
In the context of the Minister's tobacco legislation and the statutory instrument laid before the House on Tuesday which has not yet been discussed, has the Government considered the implications of today's tobacco judgment on the Government's legislative plans in the context of the decision this morning of the European court? Would the Taoiseach consider spearheading a campaign in Europe to amend the treaties so that concerted action at European level can be taken against the tobacco companies?
In the context of the matter first raised this morning, has the Government agreed not to file an appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision delivered in the High Court yesterday in the case to which we have already referred?
That is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
It is a very important issue.
It is, but it is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
It is a matter of public policy to decide whether an appeal should be lodged. No appeal should be lodged. We are entitled to ask what the Government's decision on that is.
(Dublin West): I join Deputy Shatter on the first issue he raised. May I ask a question?
The implications of the judgment for Ireland are not immediately clear, but it is unlikely to affect domestic legislation. The authorities in the UK are preparing primary legislation—
I will come to the Deputy.
—to ban all advertising of tobacco products—
(Interruptions).
If the Deputy resumes his seat he will have some hope of being called, but if he persists—
(Interruptions).
—and to ban sponsorship by the tobacco industry, and it is unlikely that the UK will retreat from this position.
I did not hear the Taoiseach's reply. Perhaps he could repeat it.
I am calling Deputy Gilmore.
We did not hear. We heard a bit of noise offside.
That is simply because Members are being disorderly.
The implications are not immediately clear, but it is unlikely to affect domestic legislation. That is what I am advised this morning.
What about spearheading a campaign at European level to change the treaties?
At what stage of preparation is the Electoral Amendment Bill, which has appeared on the A list of promised legislation for the first time, and which has not appeared on any previous list of promised legislation from the Government? Since we have not heard about this Bill previously, will the Taoiseach ask the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to go to the Committee on the Environment and Local Government to outline the purpose and the general outline of this Bill in advance of publication?
The Bill makes various amendments in electoral legislation, including provision for the inclusion of photographs and party logos on ballot papers, electronic voting and other matters relating to the system of election. The heads of the Bill were approved by the Government last June. The Bill is due to be introduced this session. I will pass Deputy Gilmore's request to the Minister.
Is legislation being drafted to cater for the mandatory reporting of child abuse.
There is no particular legislation on the matter.
The Progressive Democrats promised it.
There are provisions, but I do not think they are legislative. I will find out for the Deputy.
When is the Government going to deal with this issue?
The Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell promised it.
The Deputy can put down a parliamentary question.
The disabilities Bill has been promised for publication in late 2001, which means it will probably not be enacted until 2002. It was originally promised for this year. The case of Jamie Sinnott, which was referred to this morning, is a case of a basic right to education—
We cannot discusses cases. We are running out of time on the Order of Business.
If we had a disabilities Bill, such rights would be enshrined in law, as they are in the Constitution. The judgment stated that the State had failed and continues to fail to honour its constitutional obligations. When will we have a disabilities Bill so that people like Jamie Sinnott will not have to go to court to get their basic right to education? That would be included in a disabilities Bill. It was promised for this year. Now it has been but back until late 2001. Can that Bill be brought forward?
On the same matter, is the Taoiseach satisfied that the disabilities Bill will address cases of autism—
That is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
—or is there promised legislation from the Department of Education and Science to deal with this matter?
The Education Act covers it.
It does not. If it does, why does the Minister not act?
This is a subject for a parliamentary question.
We have acted.
The courts do not think so.
(Interruptions).
That case was 27 days in the High Court and the Taoiseach will not tell us whether the Government will appeal or accept the judgment.
That is extraordinarily brazen.
Somebody has to be concerned.
You left that family on the rack.
Wait until we get to the Blood Transfusion Service Board. We will see who has a hard neck.
I am calling the Taoiseach.
I am trying to answer, but every time I try there is disorder, and then Deputies say they cannot hear.
(Interruptions).
On disabilities, there are three major Bills relating to a disability authority, equality and disabilities. They will be dealt with that in that order. More legislation than ever has been put on the Statute Book in this area. The disabilities Bill is in preparation.
As the Minister, Deputy Martin, told Deputy Sargent, under his jurisdiction in the Education Bill he was the first Minister to address the area of autism in education. The work, and the report to which I referred earlier, was started and the special posts were put in place during his period in office. We will complete that, as I said earlier.
Deputy McManus rose.
That completes the Order of Business. It is past 11 o'clock.