Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 2 Mar 2006

Vol. 615 No. 6

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 12, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations — Rome 1 — back from committee; No. 13, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of a Council regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and co-operation in matters relating to maintenance obligations — back from committee; No. 14, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of a Council decision annexed to the communication from the Commission to the Council calling on the Council to provide for measures relating to maintenance obligations taken under Article 65 of the treaty establishing the European Community to be governed by the procedure laid down in Article 251 of that treaty — back from committee; No. 22, Competition (Amendment) Bill 2005 [Seanad] — Report Stage resumed and Final Stage; No. 24, Building Control Bill 2005 — Second Stage, resumed; and No. 25 — statements on Transport 21.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. 12, 13 and 14 shall be decided without debate; the proceedings on Report and Final Stages of No. 22 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 Enterprise, Trade and Employment; the following arrangements shall apply regarding No. 25: the statements of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, Labour Party and Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; the statements of each other member called upon shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; members may share time; and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed five minutes.

There are three proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 12, 13 and 14 without debate agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 22, the conclusion of Report and Final Stages of the Competition (Amendment) Bill 2005, agreed?

It is not agreed. I am conscious that the Report and Final Stages of the Bill could conclude before 1.30 p.m. but one must object in principle to the application of a guillotine. The Competition (Amendment) Bill 2005 is important because it will have a significant effect on the retail sector. I urge the Government to remove the guillotine from the proposal and allow the debate on the various amendments which have been presented to proceed without restriction. The imposition of a guillotine is unnecessary. In a previous manifestation, the Government Chief Whip introduced very few guillotines. That marked his early stage in office.

We must stop these debates at some stage.

He is falling into all the bad habits of his predecessors and colleagues on the Government Front Bench who have held his current position.

That shows the futility of consistency.

I urge the Chief Whip to forgo the employment of this unnecessary guillotine.

Question, "That the proposal for dealing with No. 22 be agreed to", put and declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 25, statements on Transport 21, agreed? Agreed.

I suppose I should start by congratulating the new manager of the Irish football team, Mr. Steve Staunton, on the great start to his new career.

Hear, hear.

Tús maith leath na hoibre.

Stan the man.

Is Fine Gael going to give him a run?

We have better men.

I thought Keano was our target.

Deputy Brady will be doing enough running from now on.

Steve Staunton's father is from County Mayo.

We will not need him.

We have a plan for Deputy Brady.

He should ask Deputy Glennon about such matters.

It is called a relay race.

Can I ask the Tánaiste about four Bills in her area of responsibility? Some 58 Bills were published in 2004 and 41 Bills were published in 2005. The number seems to be drying up now.

I commend the Tánaiste on meeting the representatives of the women to whom the Neary case relates. I am glad that the Government has announced it will establish a redress board to deal with the hurt and emotional scars of the women in question. It is commendable because it is the right thing to do.

Three times last year, the House was promised legislation to establish a nursing home inspectorate, but there is no sign of it. More than a year after the Supreme Court judgment on the charges imposed on people in long-stay institutions, there is no sign of legislation to provide for repayments to them. The Tánaiste is aware that many such people are reaching the end of their lives, but there is no sign of legislation to compensate them. The House has not been given an indication of when legislation to provide for the statutory establishment of the health information and quality authority will be brought before the House. There is no sign of the pharmacy legislation. I have referred to four important Bills.

In commending the Tánaiste on meeting the women involved in the Neary case, I ask her to agree to the request for a similar meeting that was made by Parents for Justice, which represents the parents of deceased children whose organs were removed for research purposes without their knowledge or consent, in its letter of 8 February last. The group would like confirmation that 54 boxes of material which were presented to the Tánaiste by Ms Anne Dunne SC, who conducted an inquiry into this matter, will not be destroyed as their contents have never been published. Will the Tánaiste confirm that the material will not be destroyed and that she will meet representatives of Parents for Justice to discuss their problems? We should have a debate on the report at an appropriate time.

The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism is delighted to accept Deputy Kenny's congratulations on behalf of the Irish football team.

The last politician to try to claim such credit for a sporting victory was Charlie Haughey in Paris.

I will check with my office whether my willingness to meet representatives of Parents for Justice to discuss the Madden report on organ retention has been communicated to them. I have indicated that I am more than happy to meet the group on foot of its request for a meeting. I will have to get legal advice on whether the documentation that was submitted by Ms Anne Dunne SC can be made available. I am certain that there is no intention to destroy it. It was passed on to Dr. Deirdre Madden when she was compiling her report. When the documentation was originally submitted to me, the legal advice I was given was that it was not possible to publish it.

The establishment of a nursing home inspectorate will be provided for in the legislation that will establish the health information and quality authority on a statutory basis. That legislation will be presented to the Cabinet next Tuesday, as will the legislation relating to long-stay charges. The pharmacy and medical practitioners legislation, which is being worked on as a matter of priority in the Department of Health and Children and the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel, will be ready later this year.

I thank the Tánaiste.

I would like to ask some questions on the findings of the report on the practices at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda. I welcome the Tánaiste's decisions to meet representatives of the women who suffered at the hands of Dr. Neary and to establish a compensation scheme. I am sure she recognises that the Government does not have a good record on compensation schemes. Almost 18 months have passed since we were told that elderly people who were illegally charged for long-term care would get their money back, but we are still waiting for the relevant legislation. When will the legislation that is needed to establish a compensation scheme for the women involved in the Neary case be brought to the Cabinet? How does the Tánaiste intend to decide who will be responsible for the payment of such compensation? That the Government's record in this regard is not good is clear when one considers its handling of the redress scheme for people who were mistreated in residential institutions. Will the women who suffered at the hands of Dr. Neary have to wait for agreement to be reached between the Department and the hospital authorities, or will they be compensated in advance of such an agreement? That question needs to be answered.

I would like to ask the Tánaiste about the serious implications of an issue that was mentioned in the report on the Neary case. The report raised doubts about current practice in other hospitals in peripheral areas. Does the Government intend to carry out a full assessment of services in public and private hospitals throughout the country? Such an assessment is necessary if we are to ensure that women can access proper care and are not subject to practices which are damaging their health. A few months have passed since the religious ethos interfered with the care of a cancer patient in the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, which is hardly a peripheral hospital. What are the Tánaiste's plans for conducting a full assessment throughout the country to ensure that best practice prevails? I suggest that the report on the Neary case be referred, after it is debated in the House next Wednesday, to the Joint Committee on Health and Children to ensure that its extensive findings are the subject of ongoing scrutiny.

As I said to Deputy Kenny, a Bill providing for repayments to those who had to pay long-stay charges will be presented to the Cabinet next week. It is intended that the legislation will be brought through the Oireachtas over the next few months and it is hoped that it will be passed by the summer. The legislation has proven to be quite complex as a result of issues relating to wards of court, etc. It is ready to be considered by the Cabinet.

The Taoiseach said yesterday that the Government is committed in principle to ensuring that women who were affected by the actions of Dr. Neary will be compensated. Although the Government has not formalised that position, we will discuss it shortly. I was anxious to meet Patient Focus, the group representing the affected women, to hear its reaction to the report and to get its input into any redress proposal the Government might put in place. The intention is to ensure we bring closure as quickly as possible for the affected women. They have been waiting eight years. They have confidence in the judge and her report and they made that clear to me yesterday. They are anxious that the Government brings early closure to this.

There are issues surrounding insurance. Everyone in the House supports the notion that the taxpayer would be liable to a minimal extent, which may result in issues for insurers. However, we would not want the women affected to experience a delay in their compensation while the Government pursues the issue with insurers. The matter may require legislation and is being examined by the Attorney General.

Yesterday, I met four representatives of the medical board of the hospital and the hospital's management team. I am satisfied that there is a determination to put into effect the recommendations of this report, especially those concerned with audit and information. Mr. John O'Brien and his team from the national hospitals office will visit the hospital to discuss a precise timeframe with the management and the clinicians. The college of obstetrics has an inspectorate and a training function in this regard. Representatives from the college visited Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in 1987 and 1992. They made recommendations following their visit in 1992 which were not implemented. I want to discuss with them how we can ensure that recommendations made will have an impact on patient safety. I also want to have discussions with the Medical Council.

Patients' safety should come before the ethos of any institution. Patient care and safety must be paramount. Professor Drumm and the HSE are very determined to ensure that appropriate standards of safety are in place across the hospital system. Given the recommendations of this report, it is particularly important that we look at what the judge called "isolated units" that may be operating in the health system and not just in obstetrics. I believe that Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital is now the safest place in the country. The hospital has seven obstetricians and two or three of them will discuss each individual case. The same applies with the anaesthetists. We want to ensure that multidisciplinary team work occurs across the different specialties in all hospitals.

It is not clear what the Tánaiste is saying in her reply. Surely she accepts that the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has been discredited——

We cannot discuss this.

She did not answer the question I asked. The Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has been discredited in this report. We cannot depend on it to carry out an assessment. Will the Tánaiste or the Health Service Executive carry out the assessment?

This has nothing to do with proposed legislation.

I do not have any expertise in this area. It is not a matter for me to carry out the inspections. The Medical Council is the regulatory body for the medical profession and it also approves the training facilities, such as the college of obstetrics. Those bodies have issues which must be examined. I have arranged to meet next week with Dr. Hillary, the president of the council, and his colleagues. I also want to meet representatives of the college. There are clearly issues for the HSE that go beyond the council and the college. I will discuss those matters with the national hospitals office of the HSE shortly. I had a meeting yesterday with one of the representatives of the office who wants to consider the implications of the report for hospital facilities throughout the country.

I thank the Tánaiste for meeting Patient Focus and those affected as well as the hospital authorities. Legislation arises from this issue and it is important that the Tánaiste indicate the timeframe involved for the redress board, given that the 25-year neglect is at the heart of this controversy. What is the timeframe for the medical practitioners Bill on foot of the 1978 Act? Will the legislation that puts the Medical Council on a statutory basis apply more widely than the original Act or will there be separate legislation to deal with the fallout from the report to which the Tánaiste referred?

Yesterday, Deputy O'Donnell described the lack of charities legislation as farcical and I agree with her. Today, Deputy Glennon has been reported as saying that there is no political will in the Government to deal with the problem of alcohol.

That is not what I said.

It is written in the newspapers.

The Deputy should not believe everything he reads in the newspapers.

I am sure the Deputy can clarify the issue with the Tánaiste.

This is not a matter for the Order of Business.

I would like to clarify whether the Government is serious about the issue. Dr. Conor Farren stated that if we are depending on the drinks industry for education, we are in a sorry state. Will the sale of alcohol Bill be brought back from exile? Will the Tánaiste give it some time and then put it into exile so that she can apply this voluntary code about which she has spoken before? Is there a trial period after which the situation is reviewed? Alcohol related problems cost us €2.65 billion per annum. It is important that we know how much the alcohol industry is being given to deliver the education.

The heads of the Bill on medical practitioners legislation will be published between Easter and summer so that people can have an input into defining the legislation before it is published in the autumn. That legislation informed our thinking in advance of this report. When a doctor becomes a consultant in Ireland, he or she is placed on a specialist register and stays on it for the rest of his or her career, unless he or she is struck off for fitness to practice reasons. That is not best practice. Doctors must meet certain competence assurance standards. Part of the legislation will make it a statutory requirement to meet competence assurance standards every few years. That can only be done if one is involved in ongoing training and education and if one's performance is audited. That will be a central part of the legislation and is one of the recommendations in the report.

The Medical Council is a statutory body but the profession is self-regulated. I want to see a greater input from lay people into the regulation of medics in this country. At the moment there is a huge majority of doctors on the Medical Council and that needs to change for the good of the profession and to improve public confidence. I have been discussing this with the Medical Council recently.

How much time is to be given to the trial period?

Two years from the time it was implemented.

I congratulate the Tánaiste on her commitment to implement the recommendations of the publication of the task force report on sudden cardiac deaths. The report stated that we have no good samaritan legislation in Ireland and it called for a review of the situation. Will the Tánaiste give a commitment that the Government will introduce such legislation during this Dáil term? I hope she has a more enlightened approach than the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Hear, hear.

I met a constituent who had elective surgery cancelled in recent days. Will the Tánaiste confirm that she issued a directive to hospitals that people in accident and emergency departments for three days or more should be given preference over people who are due for elective surgery?

That is not in order.

It is a regular occurrence.

Is this a mechanism to falsely reduce the number of people in accident and emergency beds?

That question is not in order on the Order of Business.

The Minister might like to clarify it.

The Deputy should put down a parliamentary question.

Was such a directive issued by the Tánaiste in the last few weeks?

That is not in order on the Order of Business.

The Tánaiste will answer.

The Deputy should put down a parliamentary question.

I have done that but I will not get the reply until the summer.

It is not in order for the people whose operations are cancelled.

I call Deputy Stagg.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Tánaiste has to reply on promised legislation.

There was no question on promised legislation.

The first question was on the good Samaritans Bill.

I call Deputy Stagg.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Tánaiste wishes to answer. I have asked her a question.

There is no promised legislation.

It would help proceedings if you would give her the opportunity to reply.

There is no promised legislation.

The Tánaiste gave a commitment this morning to implement the recommendations of a report.

I call the Tánaiste on promised legislation.

Approximately 5,000 people in Ireland die each year from sudden cardiac death and about 60 of them are under the age of 40. One of the recommendations is the need to consider whether we need good Samaritan legislation to protect people who——

We need a few good Samaritans anyway.

——come to the assistance of others and help them to use a defibrillator. This has not yet been considered and I do not know what issues are involved. However, I gave a commitment that the recommendations in the report would be implemented by the Government over the next number of years on a priority basis. The Deputy attended the launch so he has heard me say this already. We must examine the legal issues surrounding good Samaritan legislation.

What about the directive?

I gave no such directive to any hospital.

Probably the most important power or right ordinary Members of the House have is to ask a parliamentary question and be guaranteed a reply. I will proceed to promised legislation in a moment but I put down three parliamentary questions on 25 January to the Minister for Health and Children. She referred the questions to this famous section in the HSE that is supposed to answer parliamentary questions. I put down further questions on 16 February asking the Minister when I would get a reply. The replies I received on 16 February stated there was an oversight in referring the questions, that they were inadvertently not referred and that I would get a reply in a couple of days.

These questions were asked on 25 January. They are straightforward questions. Members are entitled to replies in accordance with the law as established by this House. The unit that is supposed to reply to these questions should do so through the Minister and the House. It is not appropriate that the questions we ask in the House are answered privately, sometimes by telephone. Will the Tánaiste reconsider the section of the Bill that does not require the HSE to answer through her office? If the unit answered through the Tánaiste's office, the replies would be on the record of the House. It is a major retrograde step for the rights of Members that we cannot ask questions and get replies. It is taking two months to get replies to straightforward questions.

If you are lucky.

They should be on the record of the House.

I have had a similar experience. I have received no reply to a question put down on 25 January. The question sought to ascertain the people who are involved in advising the Minister as spin doctors, consultants or media advisers. I do not expect to receive a reply. Interestingly, I put down a question about Naas Hospital around the same time and I was told in the reply that the question was being referred to the parliamentary section of the HSE. However, I got a reply yesterday which stated:

The executive has responsibility for considering new capital proposals or progressing those in the health capital programme. Accordingly, my Department is requesting the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and a reply will issue to the Deputy in due course.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, as a long-standing Member of the House, you know that the responsibility rests with the Minister, not with the Health Service Executive, spin doctors or advisers. It rests with nobody other than the person to whom the moneys are voted by this House. I strongly protest at the way the House is being abused.

Two days ago, I put down a question to three Ministers — the Minister for Health and Children, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister for Education and Children — about a serious urgent matter relating to two children who were absent without leave from school and from home. The Ministers for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Education and Science transferred the questions to the Minister for Health and Children, which means I will never get an answer to my question. This is a serious matter; it could affect the health and safety of the children concerned.

The crowd of goons on the Government benches might think it very funny but this is an abuse of the parliamentary system. Incidentally, I will be coming after the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, shortly about the Dingle programme.

The Deputy was not a bad man for abusing the system himself. He cost the taxpayer a fortune.

The Deputy was renowned for interfering when he was in the then Department of Social Welfare.

I will be coming after Deputy Noel Dempsey in a minute.

Deputy Ó Caoláin on the same issue.

I wished to raise other points. Will I raise them now or will you call me again, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle?

Yes, if they are on promised legislation.

The points that have been raised by other Deputies are very important. Over the past couple of weeks I have put down questions to the Minister for Health and Children and there has been a long delay in getting replies. I put down a supplementary question asking when the answers would issue. The reply was that the replies would issue that day. It is a magic formula because they issued on that day. It is not a coincidence. That question was the spur that extracted the information. It is bizarre.

In one of the questions, I sought to highlight the fact that the Minister has now adopted a practice of kicking to touch a greater number of parliamentary questions than any previous Minister for Health and Children. The Department replied that in excess of 45% of all parliamentary questions put down to the Minister are kicked to touch by being referred to the HSE for long delayed responses. In the case of the Minister's predecessor, the current Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, it was just under 30%. There has been a 50% increase — from just under 30% to over 45% — in the number of parliamentary questions to the Department of Health and Children that are kicked to touch and not replied to officially or properly by the Minister or her Department. The important point is that they are not on the record. This is an important issue. It must be addressed and rectified by the Minister. Members are not raising these issues for the sake of filling the Order of Business; there are many other issues we wish to address.

Having offered that criticism and asked the Tánaiste to address it, I welcome the report of Patient Focus and those it represents arising from its meeting with the Minister yesterday. I commend the Minister and her Department for meeting the requirements of Patient Focus and the victims of Dr. Neary. I hope the formula for redress which the Tánaiste is due to present shortly will meet with the expectations——

A statement is not in order. The Deputy should ask a question.

——of the spokesperson for Patient Focus. I have two questions about legislation. Will there be primary or secondary legislation regarding the proposed severe restrictions on hospital visiting? This is creating tremendous distress for patients, particularly long-stay patients and older and very young patients. It is not good enough to scapegoat visitors for the serious issue of MRSA in our hospitals. That is effectively what the Tánaiste's recent proposals are about. She should not scapegoat the visitors but take responsibility and deal with the issue.

The Deputy is out of order in making a statement. I call the Tánaiste.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

No, we must conclude. It is unfair to other Deputies who have questions down.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

I call Deputy Naughten. He must be brief.

Questions that are put down for the Minister for Health and Children are being answered privately by the hospital.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this issue, which relates to an Adjournment matter I put before the House.

It is totally out of order on the Order of Business.

On Tuesday, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs came to the House to answer on behalf of the three Ministers responsible for health, none of whom thought it worth their while to turn up.

That is totally out of order.

After reading five pages of a response, the Minister told me it was a matter for the Health Service Executive. I raised this issue in the House seven days prior to that in a parliamentary question.

The Deputy must resume his seat.

Seven days later, I raised it on the Adjournment and the Tánaiste and her colleagues did not think it worth their while to come to the House to answer it.

That is out of order.

The reply was a five-page speech in regard to people with disabilities, for whom no funding is available.

The Deputy is completely out of order.

It is a total disgrace.

Then, after the fifth page of the reply, I was told it was a matter for the Health Service Executive.

This is an insult to the House. No one has ever insulted the House the way the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children has. We want answers now. To think that no Minister of the Department would turn up to take an Adjournment debate and that an answer such as that would be given is a disgrace and an insult to the House and its Members.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

I call the next Member on the list, Deputy Costello.

On the same issue——

This place is getting like crank's corner.

I must take the Deputies who are waiting.

Will I get an answer? Will the Tánaiste answer?

This is the Order of Business.

We are all in the same boat. No-one is getting answers.

I call Deputy Costello.

The Tánaiste has not answered.

I wish to raise a different issue. I give way to my colleague, Deputy Lynch.

I remind Members that this is the Order of Business. I call Deputy Costello on the Order of Business.

I agree with everything said by every speaker in regard to this matter. The way we are treated with regard to parliamentary questions is a disgrace.

That is not the question.

The Deputies should head for Hyde Park.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

I have another question but other speakers wish to come in. I am prepared to give way to my colleague on this issue.

The Deputies should head for Hyde Park.

As the Chair has pointed out, it is not in order to have a discussion on that matter.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

Things have got so bad, they will have to bring back Micheál.

If there is not a question on the Order of Business, I propose bringing it to an end.

I will be very brief.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle-——

Has Deputy Costello a question on the Order of Business?

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I will be very brief.

A Deputy

Let the Tánaiste come back.

On the same issue——

I will call Deputy Lynch in her turn. She cannot jump the queue. There is a long queue ahead of the Deputy. I call Deputy Costello.

Should I move on to another issue before the Tánaiste comes in?

On a point of order, a number of Deputies asked questions of the Minister for Health and Children and she has not answered. She should answer. On the Order of Business, the least we can demand is that the Minister for Health and Children answers the questions.

The Tánaiste has not had an opportunity.

We are reduced to a position where we must mark our letters to the Tánaiste to read "This is a political matter for political answer" because other issues are not being dealt with and are being referred to Professor Drumm. Professor Drumm seems to be the Minister for Health and Children.

I call Deputy Costello on the Order of Business.

There is no accountability from the Minister with regard to health. That is the issue. Everybody on these benches has this problem with this Minister.

This is the same old joke.

We get the occasional late answer from the other Ministers present, the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism and the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, but we do not get answers on health. That is the issue.

We get no answers.

Will the Tánaiste not even respond to legitimate questions if legislation is promised in this area?

The Chair has no power to force the Minister to reply.

It is not in the Standing Order.

Will she just sit there and give no response?

The Deputy should read the Standing Order.

On the Order of Business, I call Deputy Joe Higgins.

A Deputy

That is an insult to the House.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

Before we move on, I have a couple of questions on legislation for the Tánaiste.

I call Deputy Joe Higgins.

The first question concerns the special task force set up by Professor Drumm — I am sure the Minister knows all about it — to consider the location of a tertiary paediatric centre for the entire country. I understand it is due to report by the end of this month. When will it report? Will legislation be required for the proposed facility?

Second, with regard to the Garda reserve, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform gave a commitment that he would bring to the House regulations that would then go to the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. At what stage are the regulations and do they reflect the input from the various Garda representative associations?

The Tánaiste should answer on promised legislation.

The group that was established to consider a location for a tertiary paediatric facility must report by the end of March, as the Deputy stated. That group is composed of representatives of the Department of Health and Children, the OPW and the Health Service Executive and it will report on time. I do not envisage that legislation will be necessary.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is proceeding with the regulations. He had invited the Garda Commissioner to make a submission, which is now to hand. The Minister will make the regulations as quickly as possible.

I call Deputy Joe Higgins.

On a point of order, numerous Members have asked the Tánaiste why she is not providing answers.

That is not a point of order.

Why do we have Adjournment debates? None of the Ministers is prepared to turn up and the answer I got after five pages was that it was a matter for the Health Service Executive. Why is the Tánaiste not prepared to respond in this House?

The Deputy is out of order.

Let the Tánaiste answer.

I call Deputy Joe Higgins on the Order of Business.

The Tánaiste wants to answer.

I am very happy to answer if I am allowed to answer.

A Deputy

All she has to do is stand up.

I call the Tánaiste.

When the Health Service Executive legislation was passed in this House, we made one fundamental change with regard to how health services are delivered. We made the chief executive officer the Accounting Officer. He is responsible——

The Tánaiste gave a commitment that questions would be answered in this House.

The Deputy wanted the Tánaiste to reply yet he will not allow her to reply.

He is the accountable person for operational matters.

A Deputy

He is not doing it.

A parliamentary division has been established in that organisation, which has not been in place for much longer than a year or 14 months. One must be fair and reasonable. The executive is currently beefing up its parliamentary affairs division.

I answer a couple of hundred of questions in the House every week on policy issues. The idea that three Ministers would be asked why two children were absent from school is a bit much.

It is the precise responsibility of the three Ministers. It is the Tánaiste's Department. She has failed miserably to live up to her responsibilities. It is negligence and she should not try to defend it. If there are serious repercussions, it will be her responsibility.

To have three Ministers asked why two children were absent from school is a farce.

I call Deputy O'Sullivan.

It is all a big joke.

The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism can laugh but this is a bad day for the people of Ballinasloe.

I call Deputy Joe Higgins, to be followed by Deputy O'Sullivan.

Did the Government give prior approval for the rally of US troops at Shannon Airport with their commander-in-chief? What legislative enactment allows Irish soil to be used in a cynical propaganda stunt by an occupation army to facilitate the ongoing invasion of Iraq?

Those questions are out of order.

There is no legislation.

The questions are not about promised legislation.

They are questions that the majority of our people are asking this morning.

Yes, but they can be raised in other ways. The Order of Business deals with promised legislation.

The Tánaiste should reply for the Government because a huge majority of our people are unhappy with Shannon Airport being used——

The Tánaiste is not offering to reply. I call Deputy O'Sullivan.

A major ESRI report will be published today in regard to participation rates in higher education. According to media reports, the report will indicate that just one socioeconomic category experienced decreasing participation rates, namely, the children of low to middle income PAYE workers, who are clearly not doing as well under the current system as other groups. All other categories experienced increasing participation rates.

The Government promised in 1997 to reform the grants system and the assessment of grants. We are still waiting for the third level student support Bill. When will it be introduced? It is clear that some students are not going on to third level because the system mitigates against them. We need to have the legislation introduced so those students will not be unfairly treated.

I understand the Bill will be later this year.

Will the Government bring it forward sooner? It is promised since 1997.

I am sure the Minister is working to produce the Bill as quickly as possible.

A Deputy

She is too busy getting her photograph taken.

It is a long time since 1997.

When will the building society amendment Bill, which is on the pink list, be published?

As Minister for Health and Children, will the Tánaiste inquire into the reason for the delay in the publication of the report of an inquiry into the 95 deaths in Leas Cross, which has been sitting on a desk in the Health Service Executive since 7 February, to be checked for accuracy? In answer to a parliamentary question, I was advised it would not be published until the middle of April, which is a disgraceful length of time for such an important report to lie on a desk in the HSE. I ask the Tánaiste to inquire personally and insist that it be put in the public domain and debated in the House immediately.

I understand we will have the building societies legislation later this year. I am anxious that the Leas Cross report be published as quickly as possible, as is the HSE. I will discuss the matter with the HSE.

When will the property services regulatory authority Bill be published? Will it cover the area of management agents and management companies? The Law Reform Commission is considering the issue of management companies.

It is not in order to discuss the contents of the Bill.

It will be 2007.

What about all the householders being brought to court tomorrow by developers on foot of management company fees? It is a disgrace. When will the Government do something about it?

More superlatives.

As they do not have them in Cahirciveen, I suppose it makes it acceptable.

Given the huge implications for the commercial and bloodstock industry in Kildare of the proposals to develop the Curragh Racecourse, when will the Curragh of Kildare Bill be brought before the House?

I understand it will be the middle of this year.

On Derby day.

As someone who has worked in the medical profession for many years, I abhor what happened in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital. In reality sterilisation was used as a way of getting around the fact that it was not possible for people to have contraception in the past. I remember a Catholic priest——

Does the Deputy have a question on promised legislation?

Some 100 women who received anti-D have been refused free medical care service by the Tánaiste even though they are dying. I ask the Tánaiste to deal with the situation.

Last night the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, appeared on network television in the US and gave a good example of how busy people should take exercise which, as a GP, I know is very important.

Does the Deputy have a question on the Order of Business?

As the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children is a very busy person, would she consider going on television and, like Condoleezza Rice, doing her pilates and whatever other exercise she does as a good example to the Irish people? As Minister for Health and Children it would be very much in her line.

I will get back to the Deputy on the matter.

After the Angelus.

Will the nurses and midwives Bill include a provision for the review of symphysiotomy, a procedure carried out on many women victims without either their knowledge or consent? The majority of these procedures were carried out in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda, some of them by the disgraced Dr. Michael Neary. Will the Tánaiste take on and deal with this issue? Like the victims of Dr. Michael Neary——

Does the Deputy have a question on legislation?

——these people are still suffering greatly. It is time the Tánaiste met with them and dealt with the outstanding issues.

The Deputy is out of touch. I met them a few weeks ago.

The Tánaiste has not met the victims of symphysiotomy.

I beg the Deputy's pardon. I met the group's chairperson.

There has been a recent increase in the prevalence of tuberculosis, which is an infectious disease. Six people in the one pub in Dublin contracted the disease. If it had happened in a restaurant, a team would have taken action and closed the restaurant. Does the Tánaiste have any plans to take action there under health legislation? When will the report into the death of Pat Joe Walsh be published? I submitted questions asking whether Mr. Carey from Belfast had completed his part of the report.

Does the Deputy have a question on promised legislation?

I got a response that failed to deal with the aspect of whether Mr. Carey had completed his report and it is sitting on a desk somewhere waiting to be published.

Mr. Carey and his colleague are preparing the report. They will submit the report, which will be published. To the best of my knowledge he has not submitted the report. It will be published almost immediately. The family will have an opportunity to see it first. I understand the timeframe for its publication is April.

What about the six people drinking in the one establishment?

In this morning's newspaper, I read about the report of Dr. Hannon, the microbiologist in the Mater Hospital. The HSE is seeking a copy of that report.

Doctors should know about it beforehand if they are so well versed. If the Tánaiste had not closed the other place it would not have happened.

It is clear from the Tánaiste's responses this morning that she is out of touch when it comes to understanding the democratic deficit in the health service.

Does the Deputy have a question on the Order of Business?

Does the Tánaiste not appreciate the risks attached to lack of information and accountability in the health service? We have had too many examples where information was not given and bad practice resulted in people's health and lives being put in danger. When she was in Opposition, the Tánaiste argued very strenuously for accountability. Her record as Minister shows——

Does the Deputy have a question on the Order of Business?

——she more than anybody else has shut down the means of communication established in this House over decades. I have a fundamental question on legislation. Will the Tánaiste change the legislation to ensure the procedures for answering questions in her area of responsibility are channelled through her and the Department of Health and Children so they are in the public domain and on the record? I am not making a frivolous point. I have tabled questions about public health nurses and doctors, social workers, areas of disadvantage and accessing health care.

The Deputy cannot make a statement.

All we get is a referral from the Minister. Approximately one month later we receive an interim reply from the HSE. It is like the third secret of Fatima. We cannot get the information, to which we are entitled and which the public needs to have. If the Tánaiste fails to deal with this issue, the withholding of information will mean we will not be alerted to problems in the health service that are affecting people's health. The Tánaiste and nobody else will be held responsible as she drove through the establishment of the HSE despite——

The Deputy is making a statement that is out of order.

——advice from the Department of Finance recommending against doing so.

The Deputy has failed to ask a question on the Order of Business.

The Tánaiste cannot find €56 million. Months after it was discovered to be lost, we still do not know where the money is.

The Deputy must conclude.

We cannot find information about important issues in the health service because the Tánaiste no longer believes that accountability is part of her ministerial brief. It is time she took responsibility.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Nothing really changes. The week I became Minister for Health and Children, Deputy McManus was saying these kinds of things and the tune goes on and on.

Things have changed.

We fundamentally changed the manner in which health services are delivered when we introduced that legislation. It was a radical step which in time will be seen as having been extremely significant. Those responsible for managing services are accountable for the money spent.

Not to the public.

They will not answer.

They are less accountable now.

It was opposed by both main Opposition parties and many people in official Ireland.

It is not working.

Expecting somebody to deliver services without being accountable for the money is crazy.

They are not accountable to the public.

I am responsible for health policy and in this House every week I answer a couple of hundred questions and I am more than happy to do so.

She shoves another couple of hundred under the carpet.

Operational issues, such as some of the issues to which the Deputy referred, are matters for the Health Service Executive and are handled all the time by the executive. I have experience where Deputies ring me and I ring them back with information. The following week I receive a parliamentary question even though I have given them the information. I will not embarrass any of them because one of them is in the House. It is a bit of a joke, quite honestly.

It is no joke.

If people want information, they will get it, and I assure Deputy McManus that there is no question of my not answering parliamentary questions.

It is not true.

Operational issues are a matter for the HSE, as the Deputy knows.

Barr
Roinn