Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Dec 2001

Vol. 545 No. 5

Order of Business.

The Taoiseach

The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 48, Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill, 2001, Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage; No. 19, motion re statement for the information of voters in relation to the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill, 2001; and No. 19a, Financial Motions by the Minister for Finance [2001] shall be taken on the conclusion of questions to members of the Government

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that; (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and the motion for the General Financial Resolution shall be moved not later than 12 midnight whereupon business shall then be interrupted and the Dáil shall adjourn forthwith; (2) the Report and Final Stages of No. 48 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, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Health and Children; (3) No. 19 shall be taken immediately upon the conclusion of No. 48, and shall be decided without debate; (4) following the Budget Statement of the Minister for Finance and the statements by the main spokespersons of the parties in Opposition, the sitting shall be suspended for 30 minutes; and (5) Question Time tomorrow shall be taken at 3.30 p.m. until 4.45 p.m. and in the event of a private notice question being allowed, it shall be taken at 4.15 p.m.; and the order shall resume thereafter.

An Ceann Comhairle

There are five proposals to be put to the House. Is the late sitting agreed to? Agreed.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 48 agreed to?

Mr. Noonan: No, sir. I oppose this on the Order of Business. The proposal is that there be a guillotine motion at the end of the Report Stage on the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill, 2001. I do not think this is the way to do business in this House for the following reasons.

When the Bill was published, the Taoiseach communicated with the leaders of the Opposition and asked us to consider approaching this on a consensus basis. We took it at face value. While we raised questions with the Taoiseach and looked for information, we have not broken on this issue. However, the Taoiseach is now insisting that a guillotine be applied on Report Stage of the Bill, in circumstances where a guillotine has already been applied on Committee Stage. The net effect of this is that not even section 1(2) of the Bill has been adequately debated on Committee Stage and it will not be adequately debated on Report Stage. The remainder of the Bill, including key amendments to section 1(2) are being dealt with by way of Government guillotine. That is not consensus building and the Taoiseach's stated intention of achieving consensus on this issue is totally negated by the procedure he has followed both on Committee Stage and now as proposed on Report Stage.

This is not ordinary legislation. This is an amendment to the Constitution. It goes to the heart of the Constitution because it deals with Article 40, the personal rights section. The right being discussed and the debate which is being guillotined is about the right to life. It is not a theoretical discussion because at the core of the Government's proposal is restricting a right about the life of pregnant women, which was conceded in the X case by the Supreme Court. Obviously the Taoiseach is aware that a judgment of the Supreme Court on an Article in the Constitution becomes part of the Constitution. So, at the core of this is a delimitation of a right that exists both by the will of the people in 1992 and by judgment of the Supreme Court. I object very strongly to the Taoiseach trying to force this through by way of guillotine. We all know the procedures of the House. If there had been sufficient time on Committee Stage to deal with this issue, we would understand why it might have to go through rapidly on budget morning if the same ground was being discussed again. However, this ground was not discussed on Committee Stage when the guillotine applied.

There is an emerging lacuna in the Bill which has not been dealt with by the Government or the Minister, namely, the progress made by a scientific team in the United States in cloning human embryos which casts serious doubt on section 1(1). There has not been any attempt by the Minister to deal adequately with this issue. I ask the Taoiseach not to insist on a guillotine today and to provide the additional time available. I do not know of any valid parliamentary reason that Report Stage cannot continue next week. I do not understand why the Government wants to rush this through by 1.30 p.m. in advance of the budget. It would be trite to say there is no connection between this proposal and the budget. I cannot see the urgency. Rather than pushing it to a vote this morning, I appeal to the Taoiseach to accommodate this side of the House by giving additional debating time next week to this issue.

Mr. Quinn

This matter has been before the House and the public on a number of occasions. The Taoiseach indicated that he wants a comprehensive and informed debate and that he wants sufficient time for this to take place outside the House. It is impossible for a reasoned debate to take place outside the House if the people charged with formulating and scrutinising the legislation inside the House have not been able to complete their task. The guillotine imposed on Committee Stage meant that amendments in the names of members of my party and other Opposition Deputies were not reached. Therefore, questions remain unanswered. If they are unanswered in the House, they are incapable of being answered outside the House.

According to the Taoiseach, there is no rush to have this legislation enacted. He has not yet set the date for the referendum. He is on record as saying it will not take place before the end of January next year. There is ample time beyond that point when it could be held and still allow for the period of time recommended in the sixth report of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution which specifically called for a proper period of time to elapse between the completion of the legislation in the House, its signature by the President and the date of the referendum. There has already been scrutiny and criticism of other referenda, most recently the referendum on the Nice Treaty. Aside from the merits or demerits of the treaty, many commentators said that the majority of people, when called upon to vote in that referendum, were not aware of the net issues.

As Deputy Noonan said, the march of scientific progress has not stopped during this debate. The cloning of human embryos is now a scientific reality. We do not have any space in our legislation to deal with the possible ethical abuses of that new scientific reality. It could have been an opportunity to attempt to address some of the issues highlighted in the legislation drafted by Deputy Upton.

For those reasons, I ask the Taoiseach, before he marches his troops to dutifully vote this down as they have done with every other measure, to explain to the House why we are having this referendum. Is it because he promised it to a member of his family on her death bed or because he has been hijacked by four Independents?

Mr. D. Ahern

That is terrible.

Mr. Cullen

The Deputy should withdraw that.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is disorderly to refer to the family of any Member. That remark should be withdrawn.

Mr. Creed

Who leaked it to The Star?

Mr. Quinn

I withdraw the remark, but it was carried in the newspapers and it was not refuted. The remark was attributed to the Taoiseach in the newspapers. If it is not true, he should with draw it. Why are we having a referendum? What is the rush?

Mr. Fahey

The Deputy is worried about standards.

Mr. Quinn

The remark was attributed to the Taoiseach in the newspapers. It was not withdrawn.

Mr. D. Ahern

That is beneath the Deputy.

Mr. Quinn

Why are we having a referendum? What is the rush? Why can the Taoiseach not give Members time to do the job we were all elected to do? I know Fianna Fáil Deputies do not want to contribute to this debate, but some of us do.

Mr. J. Brady

That is as bad as Deputy Richard Bruton and the Fine Gael Party.

The Taoiseach

I appreciate the amount of effort people have put into the debate. As regards the point about time, since September 1997 the Government has dealt with this issue, which has been around for 20 years, in one form or another. I thank people for not having a divisive debate. It might be contentious on some of the issues, but it has been a detailed debate. Since 1997 and the preparation of the Green Paper by the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Cowen, we have been meticulous in seeking as broad a view on this issue as possible. Unfortunately, it is not an issue on which it is possible to get consensus. It is not the only such issue in life, but moral, social and ethical issues are difficult because people have different perspectives.

Mr. Creed

Including the Attorney General.

The Taoiseach

I do not want to label them because people are entitled to their views. They expressed those views during the preparation of the Green Paper. For that reason we consulted widely and produced the Green Paper which was widely accepted by everyone, regardless of their views, because it reflected their various suggestions.

In the normal course of events we would have drafted legislation but because of the type of issue and for the reasons Deputy Noonan and Deputy Quinn espoused, we brought it to the all-party committee where it was well debated. People did that calmly and professionally. Last summer I read the committee's debate where people argued their positions and articulated their views and the views of those who advised them. They should be commended for that. When the committee finished, it was felt it would be unlikely to reach a consensus, although consensus on the agency was achieved and that has moved on. It was then believed we should bring in outside experts. We brought in obstetricians, gynaecologists and the churches who expressed their views and contributed to the deliberations. The Government, through the Cabinet committee, went through the issue in considerable detail. The Cabinet committee examined it at all times.

I do not want to make this issue a political football and I have not done so. Deputy Quinn asked why we are dealing with it. We know there are outstanding issues. Justice Niall McCarthy and an eminent former public servant, Ken Whitaker, who chaired a constitutional committee set up by the previous Taoiseach, told Members of the Oireachtas they had a duty and a responsibility to legislate in this difficult area. They spelt out what we had to do. They said it was a difficult area and that we had left it in a difficult position. I was pressed at least every second week for the past three years about the fact that I, my party and the Government had given a commitment but we were not dealing with it. I explained each time that we were going through the process. My promise was to deal with the question of abortion. It came from an awareness made clear to me both inside and outside the House by almost every group that the judgment in the X case had demonstrated the profound legal difficulties created in the first case by the 1983 referendum and amendment. There was unfinished business. That point was made by Ken Whitaker to the Oireachtas committee and it was said to me several times in the House that the responsibility of parliamentarians is to set guidelines of law as clearly as they can and not to deliberately leave to the courts the settlement of many obscurities. Both of them said that we did not legislate, that we left obscurities and we did not do our job. They also said it is up to the Legislature to express, very clearly, what it wants to be the law of the land.

Following the judgment in the X case the people voted in 1992 for women to have the right to travel to other jurisdictions to procure abortions and to have information on such services freely available to them. However, we did not deal with the other issues which have remained contentious and difficult. The Government, having gone through a long consultation process, brought the matter to this stage in early October in a calm and cool way. When the Bill was published I said I would answer any questions and use all the advice available. Deputy Noonan went to considerable trouble to ask me to answer a long list of questions about which we had no argument, other than as to how the letter reached my office. I accept that it happened as the Deputy said. Last week I checked again, because I could not recall at the time, and discovered that the Deputy was right.

We answered the questions and dealt with the issues. I have not been in any way emotive about this and assure Deputy Quinn that I know what he is saying. It was for these reasons and no others that I dealt with it. Looking at the passage of previous legislation through the House it can be seen that we have spent far more time on this issue than we have at other times in the last 20 years. I can go through the litany, if necessary. We have gone way over time on Second and Committee Stages.

Ms Fitzgerald

We did not get through half of it. Many wanted to speak, but did not get the chance.

The Taoiseach

The select committee had five full days to process the Bill. I said it could take longer if it wished, but it did not so wish. That is the reason we have to press on with the issue. I said at the beginning of this session that the Bill would have to pass through the Oireachtas by Christmas. That is the timeframe the Government has set down for its passage and to which I am going to stick.

I thank those who have contributed to the debate both here and in the Seanad. Having consulted more widely on the issue than on any other for four and a half years we, on this side of the House, have done our best to put the best possible Bill before the people.

Mr. Flanagan

If that is the Government's best, it should step aside.

The Taoiseach

I hope the people acknowledge this at least, regardless of whether they support the Bill. I hope they will support it, but whatever the case we have done our very best with the best knowledge available. We have listened to the best brains and all the groups which made a case. That is as much as we can do.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 48 be agreed to."

Tá

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

Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.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'Kennedy, Michael.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G.V.

Níl

Allen, Bernard.Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis J.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.

Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul. Cosgrave, Michael.

Níl–continued

Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.De Rossa, Proinsias.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Hayes, Brian.Hayes, Tom.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.

McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Spring, Dick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.

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

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 19, motion re statement for the information of voters in relation to the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill, 2001, agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with the suspension of the sitting today agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal in relation to the taking of Question Time tomorrow agreed to? Agreed. We will now take Leaders' questions.

Mr. Noonan

My question arises from the Taoiseach's intervention on the Order of Business. I have no disagreement with his summary of the events which brought us to this point in respect of the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill. We have had a long discussion on it and the Select Committee on Health and Children also had a long discussion on it. It is worth noting that no agreement was reached at that committee and that three different positions were adopted at the end of the debate. Does the Taoiseach recall that on the Order of Business he promised Members of the House that everybody who wanted to speak on the Bill would get an opportunity to do so? Does he also recall saying in the House that he thought the issues were so important that Committee Stage should take eight or nine days? Does he recall requesting all of us to approach this matter on a consensual basis so that there would be no contention? Do you recall—

An Ceann Comhairle

I ask the Deputy to address his questions through the Chair rather than directly to the Taoiseach.

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): They are direct questions.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not in order to direct questions to the Taoiseach. They have to be addressed through the Chair.

Mr. Noonan

Through the Chair, does the Taoiseach recall saying in the House, and the commitment made by the Minister for Health and Children, that Committee Stage would take place here in the House and not in a committee room? While the Taoiseach's presentation was soft and non-contentious—

Mr. Creed

And long.

Mr. Noonan

—his actions have belied the position he adopted this morning. He has not sought consensus. He has tried to railroad the Bill through the House. The Government guillotined Second Stage when some Members still wished to speak. The debate was also guillotined on Committee Stage before section 1 had been completed. The Ceann Comhairle will agree it is an enormously serious issue when legislation, which it is proposed to enshrine in the Constitution, was not subject to any scrutiny on Committee or Report Stages beyond section 1. That was the only section of the Bill that received complete analysis.

To be frank, I do not know what the medium-term effect of the legislation will be. The Supreme Court may decide in future to adopt a very liberal interpretation of this legislation. It could be, as in 1983, the door through which a more liberal abortion regime comes into the country. On the other hand, a Supreme Court down the line, depending on its personal composition, could take things back to a more fundamentalist stage where both the right to information and travel could be challenged. In addition, new scientific announcements from the United States make the preservation of life which has not been implanted, both in stem cell research and experiments on in vitro fertilisation, a grey area. Everybody knows that, whatever the nature of such life, it is life outside the womb and is not implanted. Thus, a whole new area of uncertainty has been opened up.

The Taoiseach is taking on a huge weight of responsibility in proceeding by way of guillotine with a matter that is so detailed and the interpretation of which may subsequently be so uncertain. I do not doubt the Taoiseach's bona fides on this matter. I know exactly what he wants to achieve and that view can be shared by many people on all sides of the House. However, I question the prudence of what the Taoiseach is doing because this is very like 1983. He may achieve exactly the opposite of what he is setting out to do in the short term when the courts analyse the Bill.

There is a misunderstanding about the nature of legislation going into the Constitution. Such legislation has constitutional protection preventing the Supreme Court from striking it down as unconstitutional when it has passed through the Houses and protecting it from subsequent challenge. There is nothing in the Constitution, however, which prevents the Supreme Court from interpreting not only the subsections being inserted in Article 40, but also the entire Act which is now to be attached to Article 40 of the Constitution at any time in the future. There is no constraint that anybody in this House can place on any Supreme Court at any time in the future from analysing every section.

Mr. Fahey

Is that so?

Mr. Noonan

We have a new constitutional lawyer in the Minister, Deputy Fahey, but I assure him that what I am saying is accurate.

Mr. Deasy

He is the Minister for shrinking ships.

Mr. Noonan

The Taoiseach should not railroad the Bill through, but instead allow the House more time to analyse and assess the impact of the legislation.

Mr. Quinn

Are we having this referendum on the legislation to amend the Constitution at the behest, if not the demand, of four Independent Deputies? Is the guillotine being brought forward today to enable the legislation to go to the Upper House so that it will have passed through both Houses in time for the Catholic bishops to decide, in a fortnight's time, whether to support it?

Mr. Creed

The silence of the lambs.

The Taoiseach

When I gave a commitment to deal with this issue, the four Independent Deputies had not been elected. We progressed the matter later in Government, which was a different period and had nothing to do with what happened. As regards the Deputy's second question, I have no idea when the Catholic bishops meet or what is on their agenda. They do not inform me of that, although they may inform the Deputy.

In reply to Deputy Noonan, I have already said a good deal and I do not want to go back over the matter. I said I would deal with this issue and I was conscious of the fact that it would not be easy. I did it because I knew it was the right thing to do. My priority was the protection of human life in pregnancy. The fundamental purpose of this legislation is the protection both of the pregnant woman and the life she is carrying. That is what we have set out to do and I have no doubt that the people also share that objective.

Mr. Rabbitte

Why did the Taoiseach not put it in the programme for Government?

The Taoiseach

If I did not believe that, I would not have dealt with it. In order to realise that objective, we undertook what has been an extensive process. It has energised the minds of people who take this issue seriously as well as those who, perhaps, do not. We have moved to establish the crisis pregnancy agency, to which the House agreed. People throughout the country have respect for the chairperson of the new agency, Ms Olive Braiden. I also made a point about the responsibility of parliamentarians. This was clearly set down in the judgment by both justices and by Ken Whitaker as part of the task he was given by the previous Government. Mr. Whitaker said the responsibility of parliamentarians is to set guidelines and laws as clearly as they can and that they should not deliberately leave the settlement of a whole lot of obscurities to the courts. It is up to the Legislature to express very clearly what it wants in law. This Government has endeavoured to do that, not overnight but over four and a half years, through the Cabinet committee and the Green Paper and with the assistance of the people who sent in submissions and those who carried out detailed research.

Following the X case judgment, decisions were made which, in some cases, created ambiguities. There are those who believe we should legislate for abortion in this country where a woman is suicidal. That point has been put strongly but we believe that making exceptions in this case would lead to a regime where abortion would be available on demand. In every other country where abortion is permitted on the grounds of mental health, it is generally accepted that this criterion has created precisely that position. Medical evidence does not tend to support the contention that pregnant women are likely to commit suicide if they cannot have an abortion. For those reasons it is wrong to characterise that as being anti-women. We should remember—

Ms McManus

On a point of order—

An Ceann Comhairle

This is leaders' question time. The Deputy is not the leader of her party and cannot interrupt. She should resume her seat. It is grossly disorderly of a Deputy to interrupt. A point of order cannot be made except by one of the leaders.

Mr. Stagg

There is nothing to that effect in Standing Orders.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has ruled. The Deputies should resume their seats.

Mr. Stagg

The Ceann Comhairle is mistaken. There is no rule to the effect that one cannot raise a point of order.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair's ruling is always right.

Mr. Stagg

The Ceann Comhairle's ruling is wrong.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Taoiseach, without interruption. The Deputy should resume his seat.

Mr. Stagg

The Chair is wrong. There is no basis for his ruling.

Mr. Martin

The Deputy should have respect for the Chair.

The Taoiseach

We believe the measures proposed in the Bill, into which we put a huge amount of effort, are progressive and reflect the views of most people in what is increasingly a pluralist society. We never believed we could satisfy the extreme views. We see on the one hand the desire for constitutional protection of life in the womb even when it means a mother's own life can be sacrificed while, on the other, there are those who argue that abortion should be provided on demand and should be the sole prerogative of a pregnant woman. Between the two extremes, there is a broad mass of people and we tried our best to reflect that.

Deputy Noonan has raised on a number of occasions the issue of the latest research on cloning in the United States. I do not claim to be an expert on this matter which I have raised with a number of people who are knowledgeable in this area. I accept that scientific advances are being made in the United States and elsewhere but this legislation has nothing to do with research into embryonic cloning. That issue is being dealt with by an entirely separate commission. I have no doubt that in the fullness of time – Deputy Noonan is right in this regard – on another day in this House, somewhere in the distant future, people will have to deal with that issue but it does not affect the issue currently under discussion.

An Ceann Comhairle

I call Deputy Noonan for a supplementary question.

Ms McManus

On a point of order—

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has no point of order. The Deputy is aware of the consequences if she continues to be disorderly.

Ms McManus

The Taoiseach has misled the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is disorderly. This time is reserved for party leaders.

Ms McManus

How can that be right? The Taoiseach misled the House and I cannot raise a point of order.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is being totally disorderly. I call Deputy Noonan for a supplementary question.

Mr. Noonan

A Cheann Comhairle—

Ms McManus

On a point of order-—

An Ceann Comhairle

This is leaders' question time.

Mr. Stagg

Why can the Deputy not make a point of order?

An Ceann Comhairle

I will accept a point of order from a leader but not a Deputy during this period. The Chair rules that that is the position. A supplementary question from Deputy Noonan.

Mr. Howlin

The Chair cannot make up the rules; the House makes the rules.

Mr. Stagg

There is no rule.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is the rule that this period is reserved for leaders.

Mr. Stagg

Where is it?

Mr. Howlin

Tell us where it is.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is in the rule book as the Deputy will—

Mr. Rabbitte

The Chair is unnecessarily torturing itself.

Mr. D. Ahern

It was accused of political bias last night.

Mr. Noonan

I put it to the Taoiseach that his fears that the decision on the X case will open the doors to abortion on demand is not borne out by the facts. The judgment on X, which judgment is now part of the Constitution, was made nine years ago and since then the only recorded analogous case is the C case. Where is the evidence that the X case led or will lead to abortion on demand when over a nine year period there has only been one analogous case, with which Members are familiar? The question is simple. Why, after all he has said, was a guillotine applied during the Second Stage and Committee Stage debate on this Bill which occurred in a committee room rather than in the House? Why does the Taoiseach consider it necessary to guillotine Report Stage at 1.30 p.m.? What is the reason for the rush? Why can he not allow Members to deal with this important legislation fully until the final amendment is moved and disposed of?

The Taoiseach

We have had 22 hours of debate on this legislation, far more than we had on recent referendums. The procedure followed is precisely the same as that on other constitutional referendum Bills. Some 14 Members who are not members of the Select Committee on Health and Children attended and participated in the debate on Committee Stage. It was open to the committee to sit longer if it wished. As I said at the start of the session, I wanted to have this Bill dealt with within the session. The Bill which has taken up a considerable amount of Oireachtas time has continued throughout the session and will not be finished until the end of the session. Based on what happened when these issues were far more divisive and difficult in Irish society when we had a 50:50 vote, a much longer time has been accorded to the matter than heretofore.

Mr. Quinn

On Thursday, 15 November during leaders' questions I raised the contents of the report of the Irish Refugee Council in relation to the accommodation standards some asylum seekers were enduring here. In reply to the quotes I read from the report, into the record of the House, the Taoiseach said:

However, accommodation providers and other companies engaged by the State are required to ensure that all accommodation centres comply with and operate in accordance with all statutory requirements of local authorities and other agencies in regard to planning, building by-laws, bedroom capacity, food, food hygiene, water supply, sewage disposal, fire precautions and general safety. All the planning requirements and statutory regulations are observed and in circumstances where asylum seeking parents and children are accommodated in centres operated by the agency, particular emphasis is placed on meeting their needs.

The Taoiseach may be aware that yesterday in Cork, two asylum seekers blamed this country's authorities for the tragic death of their six month old son who scalded himself to death with a kettle in their cramped Cork hotel bedroom. The room in question was 13 feet by nine feet and, after four weeks of continually being refused a larger room, they were offered more spacious accommodation only hours after their six month old child died. On the basis of what the Taoiseach must have known, because he was quoting from something at the time, will he now retract what he said on 15 November as being inaccurate? Will he acknowledge that the supervision to which he made reference was not available and that this tragedy was known to the authorities at the time he spoke in the House? On that occasion the Taoiseach either willingly or, more realistically, unwittingly, misled the Dáil. The standards he read into the record of the House were manifestly not maintained on this occasion.

Mr. Noonan

Arising from the issue raised by Deputy Quinn, will the Taoiseach comment on reports that the Government plans to change our citizenship laws, to bring about a situation where the children of refugees and asylum seekers who are born here would not have an automatic right to citizenship. There are reports that the Government intends to change the constitutional position. Is such legislation planned? If so, will it come from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform? Has the Government made a decision on this?

The Taoiseach

In reply to the matter raised by Deputy Quinn, first I extend sympathy to the family on the tragic loss of their seven month old child. That is the most important point, regardless of the circumstances involved.

I have the facts regarding the case, information on the family, the reason they moved from Kenmare to Cork and arguments about compliance with the housing Act and other matters, but that does not change the fact that a child died. I do not want to go into the detail of the facts.

I chair a committee on asylum seekers. It is not only a Cabinet committee, we bring in other agencies involved in this area. An enormous amount of effort goes into purchasing and renting accommodation, making sure it is of a high standard, making sure that the children are in school, that a medical service centre is provided for them and that there is direct provision of food and allowances. All these matters are debated and reported.

It is generally felt not only by the agencies here but externally that we are probably one of the best on this, but like everything else, we must keep abreast of developments. There have been many problems in getting accommodation and a great deal of effort has gone into that. The people involved are very committed, dedicated and sincere about providing adequate accommodation, even though the figures have greatly risen in recent years. The Minister's answers to this during Question Time are chapter and verse. We keep pressure on ourselves to deal with this matter as best we can.

A major problem is to obtain adequate accommodation for these people and to get others to accept and respect them. We have battles about this practically everywhere we try to obtain accommodation and they have to be worked through. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others spend an enormous amount of time trying to convince people to allow asylum seekers into their communities. That is what is happening. The accommodation position has improved a good deal in terms of capacity in different places.

In reply to the matter raised by Deputy Noonan, there is no legislation promised in this area. Many of those working in the maternity hospitals have highlighted the enormous growth in the number of pregnant women who come to the hospitals within a few days of arriving here and those people are quite clear on their entitlements and what it means if their babies are born in Ireland. This matter has been raised loudly and clearly with the Government in recent times by the maternity hospitals and other interests and we have examined it, but we have no proposals to amend legislation in this regard.

Mr. Quinn

Is the Taoiseach satisfied with what he read into the record on 15 November? It states that he said to me that when he contacted the relevant section earlier he was told that cots are provided in each reception and accommodation centre where infants are accommodated and toilet and bathroom facilities are provided in accordance with whatever are the relevant statutory requirements. He said that the memorandum agreement stipulates that, as a minimum, cots, which were mentioned in the report, infant formulae, infant food, access to fresh water for the preparation of infant formulae, sterilisers sufficient for a number of infant children, water boiling facilities, refrigerators, microwaves and bottle warmers, must be provided.

This tragic accident happened on 6 March. Somebody in Government services withheld the information from the Taoiseach. They allowed the Taoiseach to read that into the record, knowing that in the case of one tragic accident of which we know, that was not true. Where this accident took place that led to the death from shock of this seven month old infant, there was no table on which to place the kettle. The kettle of boiling water was on the floor. After several seconds of screaming the toddler went quiet and died before it could be admitted to the South Infirmary.

I ask the Taoiseach to do two things, to make an inquiry in the Department as to why he was misled and to apologise publicly now on the record for the criticisms he made of the report when he tried to rubbish its conclusions which state that conditions of this kind exist. We have proof of that, tragically for all concerned. This is no way to treat a human being. It is no way for the Taoiseach of this country to be treated by the authorities who are responsible to report to him which led him to mislead the Dáil on that occasion.

The Taoiseach

I do not want to get into a major issue on the tragic loss of a child's life. I have the report put forward by the people in the agency. From reading it, it seems, in fairness to the staff involved, whom I do not know, that they did everything possible before and after this tragedy to help the family. It would be wrong for me not to defend the staff. Yet the seven month old child was scalded in the centre and subsequently died in the South Infirmary. The people who prepared the note believe that the size of the room was appropriate and that they had provided the necessary facilities, yet a tragic accident happened.

I am sure Deputy Quinn would accept that regardless of the size of one's home, tragic accidents can happen. It is not fair to abuse the members of the staff. The report indicates that because the child was sick they had to arrange to move the family from Kenmare to Cork city and in all the arrangements afterwards the representatives of the Southern Health Board seem to have done everything for them. This is a tragedy for the family and every Member of this House, including myself, have the deepest sympathy for them.

I contend that the greatest of efforts are made by the Government, the agencies and the organisations to help asylum seekers in every way that we can. We have invested tens of millions of pounds in recent years in providing accommodation, resources, staffing, education and health services and will continue to do so. It is an obligation the country feels it has to these people. Ours is considered in many places to be the most liberal and easiest of regimes and some people outside here regularly say that because of that our system is abused to an enormous extent.

Mr. Quinn

Who has said that?

The Taoiseach

Many other countries say it. Countries from where these people come say that.

Mr. M. Higgins

They are not very reliable.

The Taoiseach

We continue and persist to do the most that we can to help them. That is the right thing to do. We have the most liberal system, but we continue as best we can to provide services to a high standard for asylum seekers and refugees.

An Ceann Comhairle

That concludes Leaders' question. I will now take relevant questions on the Order of Business.

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): I want to ask the Taoiseach a question on promised legislation. Yesterday the Dublin City Coroner presiding over an inquest into the stabbing of a 12 year old called on the Oireachtas to urgently reform the coroners legislation to allow additional medical evidence to be introduced. On Monday in County Mayo a herbalist, who was treating a lady who happened to be my former secretary and is now deceased, refused to turn up at that lady's inquest, despite witness summonses.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should confine his remarks to questions on promised legislation.

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): On promised legislation, the report of a review group on amending and updating coroners legislation has been on the desk of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for four years. What has happened to it?

The Taoiseach

A coroners Bill promises to give effect to the working group report on the coroners service. The latest report I have is that work on it is in progress in the Department, but such a Bill will not be introduced in this session.

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): This session?

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

The usual snail's pace.

Mr. Rabbitte

More than a week ago the Taoiseach told me that he thought the Attorney General would be joined in the appeal to the Supreme Court of the Abbeylara case. I do know if the Taoiseach is aware that the Attorney General yesterday acquiesced in a date in April being given for the mini-CTC judicial review, which means that it cannot conclude its work and falls with the Dáil. Has a formal Government decision been made in terms of the Attorney General being joined in the Abbeylara case and seeking the earliest possible date from the Supreme Court to permit the Oireachtas, whatever about the facts of the Abbeylara case, to get on with its other work?

The Taoiseach

I replied to the Deputy on this matter last week. The Attorney General has not reported back to Government, but it is his intention to join in that case. He intends to report back as soon as he has finished his conclusions, but that is his intention.

Mr. Creed

The Taoiseach will be aware that since the abolition of corporal punishment in the early 1980s schools have been struggling with an alternative system of discipline. Last week in the High Court the position of school principals was further undermined in respect of their capacity to police and patrol their individual campuses. Will the Taoiseach indicate if the Government intends to bring forward any legislation—

An Ceann Comhairle

Is this a question on promised legislation?

Mr. Creed

—to provide for strengthening the hand of school managers in respect of discipline in schools?

An Ceann Comhairle

That question is more appropriate to parliamentary questions. Is there promised legislation?

The Taoiseach

There is no promised legislation.

Ms McManus

I would like to raise an issue in relation to what the Taoiseach has said. He may not realise it—

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot refer to what was said during leaders' questions. That is completely disorderly. If the Deputy has a question about relevant—

Ms McManus

It is relevant.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is it a question on promised legislation?

Ms McManus

Yes, it is legislation with which we are dealing and in that sense promised. Will the Taoiseach accept that the statement he made in relation to—

An Ceann Comhairle

That question is not in order on the Order of Business. The Deputy should resume her seat. I call Deputy Fitzgerald.

Ms Fitzgerald

It is clear from some of the questions this morning that, in many instances, children's rights are not vindicated. Will the Taoiseach indicate the progress being made in relation to the ombudsman for children Bill? Will it be published this term?

The Taoiseach

It is due to be published in the next week or so.

Mr. M. Higgins

As the Dáil will sit on Friday, I put it to the Taoiseach that the Whips should agree a period of time to discuss the deteriorating situation in the Middle East, the threat of war and the appalling slaughter of civilians.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a matter for the Whips.

Mr. M. Higgins

We need to know because today is budget day and obviously tomorrow's business may already be ordered, but perhaps the Government will provide time for statements, with questions and answers, because the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs yesterday was unanimous in deploring what Ariel Sharon, in particular, was doing in the region.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has put his question.

Mr. M. Higgins

It is important that we should have time to discuss this matter.

The Taoiseach

I will speak to the Government Whip. If we can agree a time, I would be agreeable.

Mr. Durkan

Will the Taoiseach indicate the legislative proposals, if any, he has in mind to address the issues contained, and yet to be ratified, in the Nice treaty?

An Ceann Comhairle

Is there promised legislation?

The Taoiseach

Not at this stage.

Mr. Durkan

There has to be some time.

Mr. Howlin

My question is to you, Sir. Two weeks ago today a citizen was defamed in the House and I understand a complaint was lodged under Standing Order 58. Where stands that complaint and when can we expect an adjudication from you in relation to the good name—

An Ceann Comhairle

As I assured the Deputy last week, the matter is being dealt with.

Mr. Howlin

How long will it take, Sir, because obviously—

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot give a definite time. It is ongoing.

Mr. Howlin

I am sure, Sir, you realise that every day this issue goes unanswered—

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is fully conscious of its responsibilities under Standing Order 58.

Mr. Howlin

Will the House be informed of a decision before we rise for the Christmas break?

An Ceann Comhairle

I will consider that matter, too.

Mr. Shatter

In the context of promised legislation, the Defence Forces ombudsman Bill was promised to be published by the beginning of November, but there is no sign of it. Will the Taoiseach indicate if it will be published this side of the Christmas vacation or, if not, when will it be published?

The Taoiseach

The text of the Bill is expected on 11 December.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): Will the Taoiseach clarify his reply to Deputy Michael Higgins? Did he agree that the Dáil will set aside time on Friday—

An Ceann Comhairle

The Taoiseach said he would consult with the Whips.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): I know, but the Taoiseach orders the business and in view of the state terror being inflicted on the Palestinian people with the connivance of the American Government, it is critical that we have time to debate the issue.

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot discuss it now.

Mr. Flanagan

Eight months ago on the publication of an OECD report the Tánaiste promised extensive reforming legislation in the area of deregulation. Will the Taoiseach indicate if that legislation will be published before the end of the year?

The Taoiseach

On which particular matter?

Mr. Flanagan

Deregulation in respect of public houses, pharmacies and other—

The Taoiseach

There is a pharmacy Bill, but the issues are under discussion by the regulatory group.

Mr. Gilmore

The Taoiseach has reassured the House on a number of occasions that the heads of the Housing (Private Rented Sector) Bill will be approved by Government before Christmas. Is that the case? Will the Taoiseach agree to refer the heads of the Bill, when agreed by Government before Christmas, to the Select Committee on the Environment and Local Government in order that some progress can be made during the month of January on this important legislation to provide protection for tenants in private rented accommodation, with a view to having the legislation enacted in the limited remaining lifetime of this Dáil?

The Taoiseach

The heads of the Bill will be through by Christmas. At this stage that is the priority, which I hope we can achieve.

Mr. Gilmore

Will the Taoiseach agree to consider my request that the heads of the Bill be referred to the select committee because we would be anxious to co-operate with the Government in putting in place legislation to provide protection for tenants, and the committee could usefully use the month of January, if the Government agrees the heads of the Bill before Christmas, to do a lot of work on the Bill before it comes formally before the House?

The Taoiseach

I will make the Minister aware of the Deputy's views.

An Ceann Comhairle

I understand Deputy Upton wishes to introduce a Private Members' Bill.