Vol. 482 No. 1
It is proposed to take No. 8, the Children Bill, 1997, Committee and Remaining Stages. It is also proposed to take No. 7, the Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Bill, 1997, Second Stage (resumed).
It is also proposed to take No. 15, Private Members' Business, motion re public service pensions (resumed).
There are no proposals to be put to the House.
In any of the legislation the Government is considering, including the Criminal Justice Bill, does the Government intend to take steps to remedy the deficiency in the law which has been identified, whereby those apparently involved in gross negligence in regard to hepatitis C and blood transfusion cannot be the subject of any legal pursuit because of deficiencies in the law identified by the DPP?
The Government accepts there is a need to look at the law in this area, and it will do so. There has been a suggestion that perhaps some of the work of the Law Reform Commission should be looked at in this regard. I am checking that to see if any of the commission's work would fit in with that.
The Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, enacted earlier this year, made a significant change in the law through the creation of an offence of reckless endangerment. This makes it an offence for anyone to intentionally or recklessly engage in conduct which creates a substantial risk of death or serious harm to another. The penalty is up to seven years' imprisonment. As with the creation of any criminal offence it can apply only to something that happens after the legislation is enacted and obviously it would not have been an offence when the DPP took into account the issues in relation to hepatitis C. However, it is an important new provision that has been enacted and that should be acknowledged.
I will look at the other matters. There is clearly a need to look at the law in this area. This morning I asked the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to look at that matter.
I thank the Taoiseach for his comprehensive reply.
I welcome what the Taoiseach has said in response to Deputy Bruton. There is an urgent demand, however, that the Taoiseach or the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should come back to the House within a short period to remedy what must be accepted as defective legislation. I am not sure that the changes made earlier this year would, in fact, remedy the situation on their own. I ask that the matter be brought before the House again because of public concern which has been well aired over the last 24 hours.
As regards the Children Bill, 1997, I note the Government's intention to go straight from Committee Stage to the Remaining Stages. Can the Whips consider allowing some space between the conclusion of Committee Stage and the Remaining Stages because there are quite a number of amendments on today's Order Paper?
I will ask the Government Whip to look at the second matter the Deputy raised.
As regards his first question, there is the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act that I referred to in reply to Deputy Bruton. The Law Reform Commission is carrying out some work and I want to check whether what it is doing is appropriate to this matter. I am not sure that what the commission is currently doing would cover the areas we are talking about. I assure the House that we will look at this area. There is an acceptance by everybody that this matter needs to be examined. It looks as if the present legislative position does deal with this, but we will certainly examine that case.
Last week the Government accepted a Fine Gael motion on funding the Sellafield case on the basis that the Government would meet with residents' representatives. Can the Taoiseach confirm that the Government is refusing that meeting with the residents and that the meeting that had been arranged for 5 p.m. today has been cancelled?
That matter does not arise on the Order of Business.
Surely it is in order to ask the Taoiseach a question on a matter which has been accepted by this House. It is the business of the House.
It does not arise at this stage on the Order of Business.
It is an explosive issue.
The Deputy should find another way of raising this matter.
The House is discussing a motion. The Government is refusing to implement its terms by refusing to meet the residents concerned.
That is not true.
Another lie.
It does not arise on the Order of Business.
I thank the Taoiseach for the replies he gave to Deputy Bruton and Deputy Spring. I am sure the Taoiseach will acknowledge that the general public is scandalised by the fact that no prosecutions are being brought as a result of the hepatitis C scandal. Rather than refer this matter to the Law Reform Commission the Government should, as a matter of urgency, direct the Office of the Attorney General to produce the necessary legislation.
I agree with Deputy Spring that the Children Bill has received little attention in the House to date. The Second Stage was brief and it would be unwise to proceed from Committee to Report Stage today. The Bill requires more extensive discussion and it would be of benefit to the relevant Minister and to Members if there were a timespan between the completion of Committee Stage and Report Stage.
I have noted the Deputy's comments. Lest I misrepresented the position regarding the work of the Law Reform Commission, it is completing its work on fatal offences in the context of other matters and there is a view that this work might be useful in the current context. I will find out in the next few days if that is the case and that will be taken into account in any legislative changes proposed by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
I wish to draw the Taoiseach's attention to another matter of concern. The House cannot question the decisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions and I do not intend to do so. However, perhaps the Taoiseach or the Minister for Health and Children could clarify the status of the Garda investigation into the hepatitis C scandal. It is noteworthy that the Director of Public Prosecutions made his decision on the basis of a preliminary Garda report. That is somewhat confusing as I would have expected it to be based on a full and final report. The Minister should explain to the House the extent of the investigation conducted by the Garda Síochána in order to clarify this matter.
It is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide if he is satisfied with the status of the report. It is not a matter for the Minister for Health and Children.
When does the Government intend to introduce legislation on full disclosure labelling for foodstuffs which contain GMOs?
Is the Deputy referring to the Food Safety Authority?
No. During the general election campaign the Fianna Fáil Party promised it would introduce full disclosure labelling——
That was an election campaign promise.
The Deputy would know all about that.
Remember Aer Lingus.
That was then, this is now.
That was the other Fianna Fáil.
——for foodstuffs which contain GMOs, genetically modified organisms.
There is legislation on food safety and on the Food Safety Authority. The matter can be considered in that context.
Has the Taoiseach decided whether to lay before the House the Central Bank's investigation into presumed breaches of exchange controls in respect of the Ansbacher accounts?
That is a matter for the Minister for Finance. The Deputy will be aware the Minister made a statement on that matter in recent days. The Department received a preliminary report from the Central Bank last Friday. It was studied in the Department and was forwarded to the Office of the Attorney General to see if the Minister can, as he promised during Question Time, lay it before the House.
Does the Taoiseach intend to abide by the law with regard to the local elections? He appears to be under a misapprehension about the matter. In response to a question from my colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government pointed out that under section 20 of the Local Government Act, 1994, local elections are due to be held in June 1998. The Minister added, rather gratuitously, that no decision had been made to amend this section of the Act. Yesterday Deputy Howlin put the same question to the Taoiseach and the Taoiseach said a decision had not been made about it. The Taoiseach can rest easy because he need not make such a decision. The law states that the elections should be held in 1998. Does the Taoiseach intend to abide by that law?
No decision has been made to amend that position.
There is no need for a decision. The law is there.
However, the matter might come up for consideration.
Is there a general election on the Taoiseach's mind?
I was unavoidably absent from the House last Thursday when the Taoiseach gave an undertaking on various matters concerning Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant. He said a meeting would be held at an early date between the Dundalk residents and the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob. I have a document from the Minister of State which states that he will not meet the residents if there is a stenographer present. Can the Taoiseach confirm that the meeting will not take place because the Minister of State is not prepared to have a stenographer present?
That question does not arise on today's Order of Business.
Has the Cabinet agreed the Estimates for 1998? If so, will the Taoiseach bring forward the date of publication, previously scheduled for the middle of November, so the House will have sight of the Estimates in a timely manner?
I am not sure when the Estimates will be published. The Minister for Finance will make the relevant announcement shortly. The Government has finalised the Estimates for 1998.
I share the disappointment of other Members with the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding the hepatitis C inquiry. Given that legislation cannot be used retrospectively, has the Taoiseach any plans to confiscate the golden handshakes that were given to senior personnel in the BTSB?
That matter does not arise on the Order of Business.
Does the Government intend to hold a debate prior to the employment summit due to be held in Luxembourg in November? Such a debate would give the Government an opportunity to outline the position it will adopt at the summit and allow Members to debate that position.
I have no difficulty with such a debate if the Whips agree to it.
Does the Government still intend to make its decision about the local elections before Christmas?
It cannot make a decision about anything. It has not made a decision since it came into office.
