It is proposed to take No. 16, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Planning and Development Regulations 2007; No. 17, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann for a Council Framework Decision on the fight against organised crime; No. 18, motion re referral to Select Committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Finance Act 2004 (Section 91) — deferred surrender to the Central Fund — Order 2007; and No. 7, the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2007 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 10 p.m.; Nos. 16, 17 and 18 shall be decided without debate; and Private Members' business shall be No. 38, Civil Unions Bill 2006 — Second Stage; and the proceedings on the Second Stage shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 21 February.
Order of Business.
There are three proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 16 to 18, inclusive, without debate agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business agreed? Agreed.
Arising from the reply given by the Taoiseach to Deputy Rabbitte on the proposed referendum, I want the Taoiseach to know that I made my point about accepting the principles involved in respect of the protection of children. However, part of the programme of legislation to deal with that will be the issue of the age of consent. I made my position on this clear last year. The committee which dealt with the issue of the zone of protection for children and the age of consent had a view that it should be 16 on the basis of——
Has the Deputy a question? He is going back over the end of Leaders' Questions.
No, I am not going back over Leaders' Questions.
Has he a question appropriate to the Order of Business?
I am referring to the Taoiseach advising that people should come back to him on this and that is what I want to do.
The committee, on the recommendation of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, said 16, but I say 17. When does the Taoiseach expect that legislation to be published? What is his view at this stage on the age of consent as to whether it should be 16 or 17?
As I said yesterday and as the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, said, the age of consent has nothing to do with the referendum. We have deliberately formulated the proposal to ensure the age of consent does not enter into the debate in any way; this is about the age of protection, about establishing protection for children in the criminal courts and about creating a strict zone of protection. That is the issue. The legislation covering the details of other parts of this area is a matter for the future. Therefore, it does not affect the proposed referendum. The Deputy does not have to move from what I understand is his stated position. I have also made remarks on this issue, but it has nothing to do with the referendum. That is the point. That legislation will not ready for some considerable time. Irrespective of what happens, that legislation probably would not be ready before the referendum, even if it was held in the autumn.
In respect of the zone of absolute protection and the age of protection, has that been decided by Government? Is that 16 or what age has been determined by Government?
That does not arise on the Order of Business. The Deputy is going back over——
It will be important legislation, to which the Taoiseach has rightly referred.
The Deputy cannot refer to what might be contained in legislation.
The Taoiseach has asked——
Yes, Deputy, and there are structures provided in the House, which Deputy Rabbitte used.
Yes, but the Taoiseach——
I cannot allow the Deputy to ask another leader's question now on the Order of Business.
This is an important matter.
Of course it is and that is why it should be dealt with in accordance with the rules of the House.
In terms of the legislation and as part of the background we have to consider, in respect of the age of protection and the zone of absolute of protection, which I fully support, what age has the Government determined it should be?
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
It does.
It is fundamental.
I refer Deputy Kenny to the very long reply given. I believe four legislative issues arise out of this which will be dealt with over a long period — there is no possibility that it will be dealt with now. It might take a few years for some of it to be dealt with. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, gave a detailed reply on that matter yesterday. I refer Deputy Kenny to that reply.
I wish to raise two matters, the first of which relates to Standing Orders. Has there been a change in Standing Orders in terms of providing equality of time in major debates for all parties in the House of two Deputies or more? I refer to the public statement by the Tánaiste that he had only five minutes to speak on the Moriarty tribunal; he was busy writing his inspirational work for the weekend and could not take up that five minute slot and he could not find any of his colleagues to tell them he was not taking up that slot.
The Deputy is well aware that times are decided by the House in the morning.
I might not agree with what the Minister, Deputy McDowell, always has to say——
This does not arise on the Order of Business.
——but I want to defend his right to say it.
Has the Deputy another question on the Order of Business?
The Labour Party has a long tradition in defending oppressed minorities. If a decision has been taken somewhere to deny the Minister, Deputy McDowell, as Deputy Sargent said, the opportunity to speak, or that he gets less time——
Has the Deputy a question appropriate to the Order of Business.
This relates to Deputy Sargent's question. Can we rewind the clock to give the Minister, Deputy McDowell, an opportunity to come to the House to speak on that matter?
The second matter I want to raise relates to the Privacy Bill sponsored by the same Minister. At the weekend he got the chairman of his constituency to put down a motion denouncing the Bill, saying it was a charter for those with things to hide. Is there a precedent for a Minister disowning his own Bill in this fashion, having come into the House sponsoring it and——
That does not arise now.
——arranging for his constituency council to oppose it? Does the Taoiseach believe the Minister will still see it through the Oireachtas?
There are plenty of precedents of Ministers coming into this House and voting against Bills proposed by their own parties. I can remember a number of them.
Their own parties.
They are usually Fine Gael-Labour ones.
The Taoiseach should tell us about this one.
This one is irrational.
I am not sure if I got an answer to the question about the muzzling of the Minister, Deputy McDowell. I certainly support his right to speak on the Moriarty tribunal.
It would be better if the Deputy spoke to the Order of Business and raised a question on it, if he has one.
I do not want to be party to muzzling the Minister in this regard.
On promised legislation, my question refers to the Taoiseach's original reply to Deputy Kenny's question on the 28th Amendment of the Constitution. The Taoiseach said there should be a strict zone of protection for children. This could be delivered, at least in part, if the Criminal Law (Trafficking in Persons and Sexual Offences) Bill, which refers to sexual exploitation of children, was enacted. I am not sure what the Taoiseach's plans are for summer 2007, but the indications are that we will not be here. Is it intended to accelerate the enactment of that legislation to ensure the genuine sincerity of the referendum campaign can at least be reflected in it?
The heads of the Bill were completed last summer and it went for drafting. The legislation was due to be ready early in the summer, but I do not know if we can meet that timeframe. It is a Bill we would like to get through.
We have been promised the establishment of the Dublin transportation authority by three successive Ministers. Every time we ask a question about it, we are told its establishment is imminent, but we are always disappointed. The word on the street is that it is the Taoiseach who has put a stop to the passing of this Bill and that he has given commitments to the agencies which consider their interests would be affected by the passing of it. Is that true, or does the Taoiseach intend to have this legislation passed before the end of this Dáil?
On the Deputy's first question, the answer is "No, it is not". On her second question, the Bill should be ready this session.
Will it be passed this session? Will a body be set up?
That depends on the House.
The Deputy obviously is not keeping her ear to the ground.
Does the Government want the authority to be set up?
Yes.
If the Deputy listened out on the streets, she would know that.
That has not been shown to be the case.
I have two questions about the electoral Bill which is on the list to be published this session. First, is it the case that Bill must be enacted before the general election can be called? Second, when will it be published and what is the timetable for taking it?
This legislation is to address the issue arising from the recent Supreme Court judgment concerning assenting to the nomination of the non-party candidates to Dáil elections. As I understand it, it is necessary for it to be passed and it is due this session.
I appreciate that and that it must be introduced this session. The Bill has not been published yet. When will it be published and brought before the Houses? How much time will be made available for Committee Stage and when will the Bill come back on Report Stage? A general indication would allow us to make the necessary preparations for a debate on the Bill.
I do not have a date for its publication, but I do not think there will be much debate in assenting to the nomination of non-party candidates at Dáil elections. We could clear it in half an hour.
What is the reason for the delay in publishing it then?
I do not know. We will ask the Minister to hurry it up for the Deputy.
I have questions on three Bills. Taking into account the statements made by the Tánaiste last week, is there any chance the legal costs Bill will be brought forward ahead of its expected publication date? It comes within the Tánaiste's ministerial brief. The pharmacy (No. 1) Bill was to be published in this session. Is there any indication of when it will appear? Why is there a delay in publication of the pharmacy (No. 2) Bill? Has a date been indicated?
An implementation group has been established to advise on the administrative structures in respect of the legal costs Bill to regulate and assess legal costs. The Bill will be published later this year, but I doubt if it will be published before the summer. The pharmacy (No. 1) Bill has been cleared by the Government and should be published any of these days. It is not possible to indicate a date for publication of the pharmacy (No. 2 Bill) at this stage.
Today we saw the betrayal of Cork and south Munster by the decision of the Government to load a €100 million debt on Cork Airport. Some of us tried to raise the issue by a private notice question and on the Adjournment in order to get an answer from the Government explaining why it betrayed the Cork region.
This matter does not arise on the Order of Business.
Will the Taoiseach review that appalling decision?
The Chair has decided that the issue does not arise.
How can we raise it? We sought to raise it by a private notice question.
I will allow it to be raised on the Adjournment tomorrow night. A number of Deputies sought to raise it tonight, but it was not possible to facilitate them. If they resubmit it tomorrow, I will allow it.
Thank you.
I wish to go back to the matter I wished to raise under Standing Order 31. Will it be possible to allow the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to make a statement in the House on the negotiations with the Irish Postmasters Union?
That matter does not arise on the Order of Business.
Of course, it does. The litter Bill was found to be infirm, as it does not require local authorities to remove graffiti. Is it true that it will be amended before the general election? All of my constituents are asking me to ask the Taoiseach about graffiti.
There is a problem with graffiti. I am not aware if legislation is required, but I will check.
It requires legislation. The local authorities carry out the work.
I am aware of the Ceann Comhairle's ruling on secondary legislation, but does the Taoiseach have any information on when the Minister for Transport, under the State Airports Act 2004, will make a commencement order to allow Cork Airport Authority to become an independent authority? When that commencement order is made, will the Government allow time for a debate to facilitate those of us on this side of the House who are unhappy with the Government's decision?
I will ask the Minister to get back to the Deputy on the matter.
The Taoiseach indicated to me some time ago that the postal services (miscellaneous provisions) Bill had fallen off the wagon. In view of recent developments in the communications sector, could he confer with the Minister sitting next to him who may know the whereabouts of the wagon? Can he bring it back in order that we can have a major debate on a very serious issue for the postal service? Does he know the whereabouts of the wagon?
At one stage there was a recommendation for an ESOP in the postal and telecommunications area, but that concept was dropped. That is why the Bill ceased.
Will any such Bill be brought before the House?
Not in the foreseeable future.
Merchant ships between Ireland and England are grossly exploiting crew members and abusing them seriously.
Does the Deputy have a question appropriate to the Order of Business?
I have. As we sit here, International Transport Federation inspectors are barricaded aboard the Merchant Brilliant.
Does the Deputy have a question on legislation?
This is most important for workers' rights. There are two proposed Bills, namely, the criminal justice Bill and the protection of employment Bill, under which the Government might move in an emergency fashion to protect the workers concerned.
The protection of employment Bill is marked for priority drafting and will be circulated this session.
Does the Taoiseach have anything to say about the pirates plying the seas around this country?
Is there proposed legislation to ensure children under three years of age, suffering from undiagnosed conditions such as hearing defects or autism, will be offered an assessment and diagnosis within a 21 day period? Distressed parents are being given the run-around by statutory bodies.
Has legislation been promised?
No.