Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002

Vol. 549 No. 1

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 55, Residential Institutions Redress Bill, 2001 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; No. 78, Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, 2001 – Second Stage (resumed) and No. 56, Gas (Interim) (Regulation) Bill, 2001 [Seanad] – Second Stage (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 10 p.m.; (2) 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 5 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 Education and Science; (3) the resumed Second Stage of No. 78 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10 p.m.; and (4) 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 not resume thereafter. Private Members' Business shall be No. 125, motion re school building programme (resumed) to conclude at 8.30 p.m. tonight.

There are four proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed to?

Over the first three weeks of March the House would normally sit for nine days during which there would be six occasions on which the Taoiseach would answer questions and take the Order of Business. However, because of his reluctance to come into the House and the Government's failure to deal with issues, we are being denied our responsibility as Opposition parties to hold the Government to account. The proposed sittings for the first three weeks of next month will result in only one Order of Business and mean we will not be able to hold the Taoiseach to account in the House regarding his responsibilities.

Yesterday the Tánaiste was not in a position to do so – she cannot explain much these days – but the Taoiseach can explain the reason it is pro posed to have only five instead of nine sitting days during the first three weeks of next month. Given this, will he also explain the reason he is trying to have a large programme of legislation passed by the House, necessitating the use of the guillotine, in breach, Sir, of your recommendations on late amendments? Why is the Government ordering business in this way?

The only question before the House concerns the late sitting this evening.

I seek clarification on the points I have raised before we decide that question.

I assume the Deputy is opposing the proposal.

Before we agree to the proposal I am asking the Taoiseach to explain the reason the order for the first three weeks of next month will, in effect, diminish the powers and responsibilities of the House in holding the Government to account.

I understand the House will sit for eight days during that period and that discussions with the Whips are ongoing about sitting longer, including on two Fridays. The House does not sit on St. Patrick's Day and normally does not sit on the day before or the day of a referendum. We are here until 10 p.m. Since resuming after Christmas and also during the last session we have been sitting longer hours. As I said before, if the House wishes, during the week of the referendum we could sit on the Monday, to which I do not have an objection, if the Whips agree.

Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 55, Report and Final Stages of the Residential Institutions Redress Bill, 2001, agreed to?

On the matter of No. 55, I have here a letter which you sent to me and, I presume, to all my colleagues in the House, about your ruling stipulating that you will not entertain amendments after what you call the 11 a.m. preceding day deadline. Last night, at a very late hour, the Minister concerned with the Residential Institutions Redress Bill tried to remedy some of its disgraceful omissions at the last minute. Does this letter apply only to the Opposition or does it apply also to the Government? Are two rules being enforced? This was a last minute decision by the Minister, just like we have seen on another Bill. The Government seems to be making up legislation on the hoof, as it goes along, on major omissions. What is the value of this letter to the Opposition if the Government can introduce amendments at any stage on Committee and Report Stages?

First, the letter was sent to all Members, irrespective of which side of the House they are on. On the other point, I would need to have received notice. The question before the House concerns the proposal for dealing with No. 55. Is that agreed to?

What is the point, a Cheann Comhairle? I know all Members received it, but does it apply to all Members equally?

It applies equally to all Members of the House.

How then are we to take—

I would want notice of that question. The Deputy should have given notice.

With due respect, Sir—

Either the amendments are admissible or they are not.

—I would have given notice if we had known the Minister was going to make this announcement last night.

The proposal before the House is the one dealing with No. 55.

Will it include the late amendments?

That is a matter I will have to consider.

I ask you to outline to the House the exact role and function of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges? Does it meet any more?

That matter is not—

On the point raised by Deputy Rabbitte, these amendments were circulated late last night, yet their content and subject matter was amplified on every radio station throughout the State before any Member received a copy of them. At the same time you write to Members imposing deadlines for amendments that appear to apply only to Members on this side of the House, not the Government.

As I said, I would have required notice of that matter. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 55—

May I ask—

I cannot allow the Deputy to intervene. Under Standing Orders only one Member from each party may speak. I cannot allow other speakers. There has been one speaker from the Labour Party, Deputy Rabbitte, and one from Fine Gael. Under Standing Orders they are the only ones who can speak.

In the interests of clarity are these amendments admissible? Clearly, they do not comply with your instructions.

The Chair will consider that matter and convey—

Clearly, they do not comply with your instructions.

The Chair is not going to give an immediate answer on that matter.

Can we defer it?

Is the Chair going to proceed with No. 55?

That is the proposal before the House which has to be decided on.

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

Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.

Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.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.

Tá–continued

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.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'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V.

Níl

Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis J.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Hayes, Tom.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.

Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.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.Spring, Dick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.

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

During the vote I had the opportunity to look into the point raised by Deputy Rabbitte regarding the tabling of the ministerial amendments to the Residential Institutions Redress Bill. I can confirm that all these amendments were received in time before the deadline and Deputies may rest assured that if the position were otherwise, it would have been brought to my notice and I would not have allowed the amendments.

Why were they kept a secret?

The amendments were in on time so there was no need for the Ceann Comhairle to get involved in the matter.

A Deputy

They were circulated this morning.

The Deputy just did not spot them. He is wrong again.

If they had not been in on time, I would have been made aware of the fact. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 78 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal on the taking of Question Time tomorrow agreed?

This item refers to tomorrow's business. At the commencement of this week, in the original schedule it was proposed to take the Disability Bill. That has now been removed following pressure and a crisis Government—

We are not dealing with that matter now. We are dealing with the taking of Question Time tomorrow.

We are discussing tomorrow's business.

No, we are not.

We are discussing the taking of Question Time tomorrow.

Which is tomorrow's business.

The proposal is about Question Time tomorrow, not tomorrow's business.

I want to ask a question on tomorrow's business. An item has been removed from the schedule for tomorrow and I want to know if the Government has formally withdrawn the totally discredited Disability Bill. Will the Taoiseach indicate what is the position of the Government now because the hapless Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, simply does not know?

That does not matter. As I pointed out, this question relates to the proposal for tomorrow's Question Time.

Will the Taoiseach answer the question? The nation would like to know. It is not an unfair question. Why bother coming in here at all?

Does the Taoiseach wish to comment on the matter?

That is a question on legislation which I will answer later.

The Taoiseach should have been at the meeting in the Mansion House.

Is the proposal for dealing with the taking of Question Time tomorrow agreed? Agreed. We will now have leaders' questions. I call Deputy Noonan.

The Taoiseach is refusing to debate the abortion referendum with me, and his explanation this morning was that he has been explaining the issue for four months or so. When the Minister introduced the legislation, the definition of abortion given was the termination of a pregnancy after implantation in the womb. The Minister argued in the House that this put the use of the morning after pill and the IUD beyond doubt. The referendum commission, in its information leaflet, is taking an entirely different view.

It is stated in the introduction booklet being distributed that the acceptance or rejection of the proposal will not change the constitutional status of the morning after pill or the IUD. Will the Taoiseach explain the position to us because this assurance from the commission is totally at variance with the assurances given by the Minister when the legislation was being put through the House?

The Taoiseach will be aware that I wrote to him on 13 February raising two items of legal concern, one of which was the legality of the morning after pill and whether a "Yes" vote on 6 March would make the morning after pill subject to a legal challenge from an individual citizen and prevent the legality of the morning after pill becoming permanent and real. The Fianna Fáil booklet, issue No. 5, on emergency contraception states that the use of emergency contraception such as the morning after pill or post-coital IUD will be fully safeguarded. In light of today's report on the front page of The Irish Times, taken from the website of the Referendum Commission which was posted late yesterday, will the Taoiseach indicate now, in response to the letter I wrote to him over a week ago and what is now coming from the Referendum Commission, what is the status of the morning after pill and whether a “Yes” vote will make the morning after pill subject to a legal challenge and possibly make it illegal?

I welcome publication of the Referendum Commission document, which is on the website www.refcom.ie. I hope people will download the document and read it.

That is as much information as we will receive.

It will not be of much use if people receive the information after polling day.

It would be useful if they read the whole document.

The Taoiseach is not of much use.

We should not take two selected lines and put them back to back.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

People should read the entire document.

The Deputies opposite should talk to Deputy John Bruton.

Tell us the defence.

The Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

It is scaremongering.

I commend the Referendum Commission on what is an excellent document. Deputy Quinn asked me about the legal issues in a letter drafted in legal terms. In fairness to him, I have asked that a technical legal position be given as soon as possible.

Before 6 March.

Or 7 March.

I hope it will be done by tomorrow.

It will be done by 7 March.

Or 8 March, International Women's Day.

On the second issue, one should not take a line out of context and juxtapose it back to back with another, which is what was done today. One of my colleagues or I will comment on the matter later today.

The Taoiseach is kicking to touch.

What the Government has continually stated about the morning after pill is and remains the position.

It remains our advice.

What is the position?

What is it?

A supplementary question from Deputy Noonan.

(Interruptions.)

It is a strange position.

A supplementary question from Deputy Noonan.

What is the position on the morning after pill?

Order, please.

Alas, poor Yorick.

The Minister for Health and Children, on behalf of the Government, has on a number of occasions given assurances that the Government's proposal will give constitutional protection to the use of the morning after pill and IUDs. The Referendum Commission, however, is stating the exact opposite.

It is not.

It is not stating the opposite.

In the information it is providing for each household the commission states—

I have read it.

—that the acceptance or rejection of the proposal will not change the constitutional status of these methods of birth control.

Read the sentence before it.

Order, please. These are leaders' questions.

Will the Taoiseach explain—

Read the sentence before it.

We have read the sentence.

No interruptions, please.

Will the Taoiseach provide an explanation which is consistent with the assurances given by the Minister for Health and Children?

Read the booklet.

As we have said on many occasions in this House, the Attorney General's advice is that the morning after pill is fully compatible with Article 40.3.3º of the Constitution and does not in any way infringe on the personal right to life of the unborn accorded by the Article. That is what he said. That is the position; the Referendum Commission is not stating anything different.

Hear, hear.

Article 40.3.3º of the Constitution concerns conception, not implantation.

A question from Deputy Quinn.

The Taoiseach is missing the point.

I call Deputy Quinn.

Deputy Owen is missing the point. She has never had one.

The Opposition is trying to confuse the issue.

On a separate matter, a Cheann Comhairle, my colleague, Deputy McManus, sought the adjournment of the House to discuss the crisis in the accident and emergency departments of a number of hospitals in Dublin. Radio listeners are aware of the extraordinary situation that arose yesterday when people in ambulances seeking to get into a hospital on an emergency basis were turned away as a result of a breakdown of the system. I am sure the Taoiseach's briefing note mentions that the accident and emergency department in Beaumont Hospital was effectively closed for two hours yesterday. The ward is designed to cater for 59 people, but more than three times that number were there yesterday. One toilet was available to them. Does the Taoiseach regret the fact that he has squandered any coherent planning for medical and health facilities in the last four years? Does he think the crisis reached yesterday is a fair testimony of the structured neglect on the part of the Government during the last four years?

Does the Taoiseach have any proposals to improve the situation in accident and emergency departments? The emergency unit in Beaumont Hospital closed yesterday for two hours as there were 34 patients on trolleys and 25 queuing in a waiting room. The chief executive of the hospital said the crisis was so severe that it could not have been any worse. Does the Minister have any proposals to relieve the emergency in accident and emergency departments in the main Dublin hospitals?

Another review group.

They closed parts of the hospital in Monaghan.

On a general point, we have increased investment in the health service by 125%.

Tell that to somebody on a trolley.

It is the Government's fault.

I mentioned that statistic in reply to Deputy Quinn, who asked if we are doing anything. In reply to Deputy Noonan, who asked if we are doing anything in particular, I cite the winter initiative, which includes the provision of an investment package worth over €40 million, aimed at alleviating service pressures.

We are now in the spring.

The package provides for the recruitment of additional accident and emergency consultants, 13 of whom have been approved, of whom 12 are in place.

Does the Taoiseach think that is satisfactory?

Over 700 beds have been contracted by the Eastern Regional Health Authority.

There are no beds.

Beds for those awaiting admission to hospitals have been freed up by the release of patients whose acute phase of treatment has been completed.

I understand what happened yesterday.

It is happening every day.

A Cheann Comhairle—

Order, please.

It is chaos.

These are leaders' questions.

The Taoiseach must not get annoyed with us again.

We listened to Opposition questions.

Order, please.

Let the Taoiseach reply.

I welcome Deputy Briscoe to the House.

(Interruptions.)

The Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

In reply to Deputy Noonan, over 700 beds have been made available this year, of which Beaumont Hospital's share will amount to 37. At short notice, the board of the hospital asked the Minister for Health and Children to buy St. Joseph's Hospital, Raheny, where 70 beds are available. He agreed to purchase the hospital at a cost of £11 million where beds will be brought on stream later this year. Beaumont Hospital, therefore, will have 107 additional beds and also benefit from other improvements announced by the Minister in terms of paramedical, nursing and medical staff. Yesterday's events are not that unusual.

Unfortunately, that is the problem.

Now you are talking.

That is some comfort.

Accident and emergency departments are not closed when full, instead ambulances are diverted to other hospitals. Certain hospitals used to be on call in Dublin, but now they are all on call and accident and emergency units are opened to patients from other hospitals, as happened yesterday.

Is the Taoiseach justifying what happened yesterday?

The Deputy does not want to listen.

Medical staff continued to treat the patients in the hospital and diverted new arrivals to other hospitals. The Government will continue to deliver money, resources, consultants for accident and emergency departments and beds to Beaumont and other hospitals.

It is a pathetic performance.

A supplementary question from Deputy Quinn.

Tell that to people on waiting lists.

The Taoiseach is engaging in diversionary tactics.

Does the Taoiseach agree that those who tried to get a relative or workmate into a hospital in Dublin yesterday would be amazed at his complacency if they were to listen to his explanations? Does he agree that hospital staff, many of whom I have met, work under extraordinarily stressful conditions? Many nurses are leaving their employment as the scale and level of stress are too much. After the five richest years we have ever seen, is this to be the Government's legacy? Having spent so much money, the situation has still not improved. Is it not a total indictment of the Government's managerial competence that, notwithstanding the investment of so many resources, we are in such a state today? When will the people wake up in confident expectation of the availability of a decent health service?

The health service is improving dramatically. We have provided more beds and about 4,000 extra staff.

Some 31,000 bed nights were lost last year.

Some 31,000 bed nights.

There is an enormous amount of extra resources, a new health strategy—

And absolute chaos.

—and the bed allocation document.

There have been 71 reviews.

The policies of the Minister for Health and Children are working and the standard of facilities is improving.

He will blame his predecessor.

I thank Deputy Quinn for reminding me to congratulate the excellent staff once again, not for working in bad facilities as he would have us believe, but for working in excellent facilities.

That is disgraceful.

(Interruptions.)

The health service has excellent facilities—

Come on.

—and excellent staff. We are continuing to improve them. I remind Deputy Quinn that it was only a few years ago, when we were living in bad times, that it was difficult to find things to cut. What did he cut? He cut the waiting list initiative.

Hear, hear.

Order, please.

There has been a 50% increase in waiting lists in the Mater Hospital.

The Government has made a bags of it.

That concludes leaders' questions.

(Interruptions.)

We have spent £1 billion.

A sum of £1 billion.

We now come to other relevant questions on the Order of Business.

Did Deputies hear the news yesterday?

I call Deputy Jim Higgins.

The Chair suggested that I may ask a question in relation to promised legislation. The Taoiseach refused to answer the question regarding tomorrow's business, but indicated that he would do so in the context of promised legislation or legislation. Is he in a position to confirm that the Disability Bill has been withdrawn?

(Mayo): The industry and I have been pressing for a considerable period of time for the publication of the communications regulations Bill to strengthen the powers of the regulator and to update the regulatory framework. My understanding was that the Bill was to go to Cabinet last Tuesday. Did the Bill go to Cabinet or will it be published?

The Deputy's information is correct. The Bill was cleared by the Cabinet yesterday and I am sure it will be published within the next few days.

(Mayo): I welcome the belated appointment of additional personnel to the Flood tribunal. In view of the fact that lies and perjury have become commonplace in the courts and tribunals, behaviour which goes unpunished, is there a proposal—

The Deputy should not refer to proceedings in the tribunals.

(Mayo): Is there a proposal to introduce a new perjury Bill? The Taoiseach is aware that the Bar Council has been pressing for such a Bill.

Not at the moment.

(Mayo): So this behaviour will continue.

Such a Bill will not be introduced in advance of the election.

I wish to return to the Disability Bill which has fallen out of favour with all Members on this side of the House and with groups which represent those with disabilities. Can the Taoiseach confirm that the Bill is formally withdrawn in its entirety and that it is back to the drawing board?

Will the Taoiseach clarify whether the Government intends to introduce a new Bill or if it is still attempting to amend this flawed legislation? Which approach is the Taoiseach taking?

Section 47 of the Bill has been withdrawn and the Minister of State has said she will take the entire discussion back to a consultative process. The Bill will not reappear until the consultative process is over.

So it is dead.

I do not know how long that will take.

It has already taken five years.

May I attempt to make the Taoiseach aware of the crippling cost of employer's and public liability insurance, particularly for small businesses? I remind him of the various promises he gave regarding the updating of legislation, particularly concerning the inauguration of a personal injuries assessment board. Why has this legislation not been introduced? Has the Cabinet cleared this legislation and when can we expect it? The current situation is leading to dire consequences for businesses. Jobs are being lost on a weekly basis because of the enormous increase in the cost of insurance. This situation requires a multiagency approach, but the Government is taking no approach.

The personal injuries board is being established. The Deputy knows there is considerable opposition from the legal profession, but the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, is continuing to implement it. The legislation will be implemented.

When will the legislation be published?

The Minister of State is going ahead with his proposals and the legislation will be introduced shortly.

I wish to refer to the promised legislation to amend the Courts Acts to provide for additional Circuit Court judges and the availability of the additional judges to the Flood tribunal. When will this legislation be introduced? Is it envisaged that the members will be available to the tribunal in advance of the legislation or are they to be made judges before being made available to the Flood tribunal?

If it is not possible to get the Courts and Court Officers Bill through, we will require a separate Bill. However, the legislation will have to be passed before Easter.

I wish to refer to No. 80 on the Order Paper. An immigrant woman died this week giving birth to a baby in a Dublin hospital, an immigrant was recently kicked to death and others have been attacked. Does the Taoiseach agree it is time to resume the debate on this motion and on my amendment which seeks the appointment of a Minister to co-ordinate immigrant affairs? For two years I have been seeking such an appointment and a resumption of the debate. It is time for a compassionate, co-ordinated and proactive approach. Will the Taoiseach consider resuming the debate?

I join Deputies in expressing sympathy to the family of the deceased lady. Unfortunately, when she came into the country, her medical records and charts were not available. Dr. Peter McKenna has clarified the position in this regard, but I will ask the Whip to look at the issue of the debate. A committee compris ing Departments and agencies has been working on the co-ordination of refugee issues for some time.

On reflection, will the Taoiseach confirm that, following the Labour Party's Private Members' motion last week regarding insurance, there is no prospect of any legislation being brought forward in the lifetime of this Government in respect of insurance?

Will he clarify whether he and his Government will support the attempt by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to kill off Gaelic games? Are they going ahead with this daft proposition regarding professional sportspeople?

I have already answered the question regarding insurance.

The Taoiseach has not really answered the question. He has been winging it.

The Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, is preparing the legislation and is setting up the board. The finance committee is under discussion in the House.

Does the Taoiseach support the killing off of Gaelic games? I know he proposes to divert 200,000 people from Croke Park to the Bertie bowl. How did the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, get off the leash on this matter? Will the Taoiseach tell the GAA clubs he has been opening for the past five years how the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, got off the leash to kill off Gaelic games?

The Deputy is not in order.

Whenever I travel around the country Deputy Rabbitte seems to be there as well. I thought it was only party leaders who went up and down the country.

Will the Environmental Protection Agency (Amendment) Bill be published this session? Will the House have an opportunity to deal with the Bill in this session and will it contain measures to deal with the horrific cases of illegal dumping of hazardous and non-hazardous waste? It is important that the legislation is produced as soon as possible and that we have an opportunity to deal with it in this session.

The Bill will be published this session, but it is unlikely to come before the House this session.

The promised electoral Bill has to be enacted before the general election. In view of the fact that there are only seven sitting days in March and three left in February, when will the Bill be published and when will it be brought before the House?

The Bill will be published shortly and must be passed this session.

When will legislation to deal with the issue of children being allowed in public houses late at night be introduced? Will we see such legislation shortly? I also wish to refer to the closure of the Dáil and schools due to the decision to hold polling on the referendum mid-week. Is legislation promised to allow for voting on Saturdays so people can vote more conveniently?

The Minister intends to amend the law as soon as possible in light of the Glimmerman case.

What about voting on Saturdays?

Will the general election be held on a Saturday?

No decision has been taken on that, but it is an interesting debate.

I wish to refer to the Residential Institutions Redress Bill and the welcome decision to extend its provisions to other categories of survivors. Why did the Minister not include those who suffered serious abuse in day schools?

The contents of the Bill are a matter for discussion when the legislation comes before the House.

Will the Taoiseach reconsider this decision and ask the Minister to do likewise?

The Deputy can make that point when the Bill comes before the House, but it is not in order at this stage.

There is an unanswerable case for including those who suffered abuse in day schools. Why is the Government excluding such people?

A state of national emergency was rightly introduced last year in light of the foot and mouth disease crisis. In the context of that measure, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development imposed a regulation requiring dealers to hold cattle for 30 days which was supposed to be lifted when Britain was declared free of foot and mouth disease. It has not yet been lifted. This is causing pressure on smaller marts throughout the country. The Minister has committed himself to lifting the regulation, which should be done immediately.

Is this promised legislation?

I recall that two or three weeks ago the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development re-enacted the provision.

He extended the regulation until the end of February.

He said he would lift it when Britain was free.

As far as I can recall, it was not his intention to do so. I will ask him to communicate with the Deputy. As I understand it, he extended the period.

The Minister for the Environment and Local Government made an announcement this morning about electronic voting. Will special legislation be required for a two tier voting system? How will we help elderly people, who may not be computer literate, to get used to the system?

This is not really a matter for the Order of Business.

It is a serious one.

The legislation has been enacted. The problem of the educational process must be addressed. The Minister will be dealing with the matter.

I fully support what Deputy Shortall said about the Residential Institutions Redress Bill, 2001. The trauma, suffering and pain caused by people in non-residential institutions—

The Deputy will have an opportunity to have his say later. He cannot make these points on the Order of Business.

Will the Taoiseach let us know when the Land Commission Bill will be enacted? He is aware that both County Laois and County Offaly have suffered from declines in income. When will he and his Government provide industries for County Offaly? It is an absolute disgrace how the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the whole Front Bench have let down the people of County Offaly.

The Deputy will have other opportunities of raising that point.

I will know where County Offaly is after the next election.

Will the Taoiseach arrange for his Minister for Education and Science to meet the parents and students from Ballyfin today to accept a petition from them? The Laois-Offaly area is being closed up. It is time something was kept open for a change.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The heads of the Land Commission Bill will be approved this week and the Bill will appear some time later in the year.

That concludes the Order of Business.

Top
Share