Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 30 Jan 2008

Vol. 645 No. 1

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 6, motion re ministerial rota for parliamentary questions; No. 7, motion re referral to joint committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann for a Council framework decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences; and No. 11, statements on the reports of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights relating to violent incidents arising from the conflict in Northern Ireland, the Barron reports.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. 6 and 7 shall be decided without debate and the proceedings on No. 11 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 3.30 p.m. tomorrow and the following arrangements shall apply: the statements of the Taoiseach and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and Sinn Féin, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case, the statements of each other Member called upon shall not exceed 15 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 ten minutes.

Private Members' business shall be No. 25, motion re confidence in the Mahon tribunal, which shall also take place tomorrow immediately after the Order of Business and shall be brought to a conclusion after 90 minutes on that day.

There are three proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 6 and 7, without debate, motions re parliamentary questions and referral to joint committee of EU Council decision on custodial sentences, agreed? Agreed.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 11, statements on the reports of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights relating to violent incidents arising from the conflict in Northern Ireland, the Barron reports, agreed?

No, that item is not agreed to by us. We are unhappy with the proposal and we are opposed to taking it in the format of statements. There was no consultation whatsoever with the Whips. No meeting took place and no agreement was reached on this format. The Taoiseach stated in the Dáil in April 2007 that a debate on these matters would be taken after consultation with the Opposition parties and only then would the debate take place. No consultation has taken place.

Most, if not all Members, will have received a letter from Justice for the Forgotten referring to the important upcoming Dáil debate on collusion. It was outlined in the letter that the debate which had been promised for over a year was finally due to take place and that the motion, which had yet to be decided, would be moved by the Taoiseach in the Dáil at 5 p.m. today. The Oireachtas joint committee proposed in its final report that it would get direction from the Dáil and Seanad in regard to its recommendations. Rather than statements, Justice for the Forgotten was promised that a motion would be moved, a debate would take place and a direction would be given. None of that has happened.

In effect, we are to have a discussion in a vacuum. It appears that there is time to fill, given that no legislation is forthcoming from the Government, and there is no intention that this debate will proceed in any useful or positive fashion. For that reason, we are unhappy with the proposal. I have compiled a motion which would give direction to the recommendations from all of the committee reports. Reference is made in the proposal to only the Barron committee. Up to this morning we had the entire gamut of reports, including the original Irish Victims Commission report carried out by the former Tánaiste, Mr. John Wilson, and the MacEntee report. Now it is confined to only the Barron reports.

We have had ten years of investigations, reports and recommendations and when the time comes for a debate in the Dáil, we only get statements. This is not good enough. It is certainly not good enough for the victims of the various serious atrocities that took place in this jurisdiction and it will not bring closure to the victims. This is no way to treat the recommendations that have come from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights that a full debate would take place in this and the other House and that we would point the way forward with recommendations.

The promised debate is not now to take place. The Taoiseach referred earlier in response to questions during Taoiseach's Question Time to the upcoming debate on collusion. We do not have a debate and the word "collusion" is not even in the text of the terms or theme of address as presented on the Order Paper.

As Deputy Costello indicated, we were expecting a motion and without a motion there clearly can be no proposal for action. No actions will arise out of statements presented here and again tomorrow. The great fear of campaigning groups, not just Justice for the Forgotten, although very particularly that group, and all of the other groups as well, was that this issue would not be dealt with. We expected this issue to be substantively addressed and that there would be an outline of proposed steps of action to be taken to which we could all subscribe. This was against the backdrop of a decision already taken unanimously in this Chamber in regard to the murder of Pat Finucane. It is not beyond the ability of all in this House to unite and come to agreement on the steps to be taken to move forward with some speed to see in place the fully transparent, accountable and public inquiry that is necessary into both the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and each of the other atrocities that were visited on innocent civilians here in this State at the hand of loyalist paramilitaries operated and controlled by British state forces. That is what collusion is all about. That is what was promised and that is not what we are seeing here.

My fear, and that of many who I have cited, is that this will become just another milestone along a list of milestones down through the years of campaigning, and that it will bear no fruit. That would be a great calamity. It would in the end of the day be a further insult to the great people who are campaigning on these issues for many years and for whom there is an urgency in their lifetime to move forward to truth and justice on behalf of their loved ones, and indeed some of whom themselves are victims.

I concur with Deputy Costello. These are points that I intended making again strongly in the course of the opportunity to present. I appeal to the Taoiseach, in consultation with the Chief Whip, to revisit this with an immediacy.

I was not aware that there was this view among any of the Deputies, from Sinn Féin or the Labour Party.

We were not consulted.

The Taoiseach's Department was aware.

I was asked last year on a number of occasions if I would have a debate in the House on this issue. I was pressed before Christmas and I stated that, unfortunately, we could not fit in a debate before Christmas.

It is not a debate.

It is a debate.

No, it is not. There is nothing coming out of it.

It is an opportunity for Members of the House to express their views on these issues, and that is what I will do.

It is not going anywhere.

I consider this a debate where we can express our views. If, as Deputy Costello mentioned, somebody on another occasion wants to take some comprehensive motion and get agreement from everybody on that and the full range, perhaps that can be examined on another day.

This is an opportunity which people have sought for many months. I have spent an enormous amount of time dealing with Justice for the Forgotten, who are fine people, and many of the other groups. They want these issues aired in the House.

It is a technical point whether this is statements, a debate or a motion.

How can we move it forward?

This is an opportunity, if people have an interest in contributing to this and putting forward their views. If somebody wants to do something more comprehensive again, we can listen to that. This is the first I have heard that these statements are not satisfying what Members' want.

He is badly served.

Question put, "That the proposal for dealing with No. 11 be agreed to".
The Dáil divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 23.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Andrews, Chris.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Behan, Joe.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Áine.
  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Browne, John.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conlon, Margaret.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Curran, John.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Hoctor, Máire.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kennedy, Michael.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Mansergh, Martin.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McDaid, James.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O’Brien, Darragh.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Hanlon, Rory.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • O’Keeffe, Edward.
  • O’Rourke, Mary.
  • O’Sullivan, Christy.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • White, Mary Alexandra.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Ferris, Martin
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Morgan, Arthur.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • O’Shea, Brian.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Sherlock, Seán.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Upton, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Tom Kitt and John Curran; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Thomas Broughan.
Question declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with private Members' business agreed to? Agreed.

On the legislative list, I note the Bill in respect of the EU reform treaty is listed for publication. Did the Government discuss the question of a date for the referendum on the treaty at Cabinet today and did it decide on a date? If so, what is the date?

In respect of a letter I sent to the Taoiseach on this matter and a related one, did the Cabinet discuss the question of children's rights? Did it discuss extracting from the broader issue of children's rights the issue of protection for children from sexual predators? Did the Cabinet agree to decouple that issue from the broader issue and to have a referendum on it on the same date as the referendum on the EU reform treaty? If so, what is the date? Will Members be given the heads of that Bill at an early date for discussion?

With regard to the debacle over water charges for schools, has the Cabinet finalised its position on the issue? The EU directive introduced in 2000 made it clear that water is deemed a precious commodity and we should have incentives in terms of conservation. The Government has decided to charge from the first litre, whereas the directive clearly allows for a contribution to be made to the schools, above which use a charge should apply. What is the Government's position on the issue now?

The Taoiseach is aware of the vicious and premeditated murder of Paul Quinn late last year and that this was a predetermined, preordained and premeditated murder, allegedly carried out by members of the Provisional IRA. I asked before Christmas for an opportunity to discuss this in the House so Members could express their views on what I regard as a litmus test for the peace process and for an opportunity for Members to state their view that the late Paul Quinn was not deemed to be a criminal. Will the Taoiseach confirm that there will be a debate on this next week and, if so, on what day will the debate be held?

The Chief Whip has informed me he is scheduling a debate on the Paul Quinn murder for Thursday next week.

So there will be no legislation next week either.

There will be three Bills in the House next week.

One of them was only published today.

Deputy Kenny also raised the water charge issue. The Government made its decision and issued a statement on that some weeks ago. The Deputy could put down a question on the matter for the Ministers involved.

The Government has discussed the issues surrounding the EU referendum. It also discussed the suggestion made by Deputy Kenny. We have asked the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Smith, to discuss it with Deputy Kenny, Deputy Shatter and the Labour Party. If it is possible and practicable to decouple it in a way that would secure consensus, we will examine it. In the first instance, however, it is best to have a discussion with the Ministers. I would like that to take place as soon as possible.

Has the Cabinet fixed a date for the reform treaty referendum to be held? Will it be before or after the summer? If a date is fixed we can plan a proper programme of information for the electorate so voters can be properly informed when they go to vote. As Deputy Shatter pointed out, we must agree on a method of decoupling the sexual predators and children's protection issue from the wider issue of children's rights.

The Government has a firm view. It is better to deal with that issue first, as the Deputy's letter suggested. If that is not possible, it means the EU referendum will be held alone. We were considering whether we could include the comprehensive children's issue as part of the EU referendum but it is not possible. I understand there is too much work and it is just not possible to have it ready, whether we hold the referendum in June or September. That is out of the equation. We need to resolve whether it is possible to include the decoupled issue and to get all-party agreement on it. I hope we can do that fairly quickly.

I thank the Taoiseach for offering to consult both Fine Gael and the Labour Party on the referendum on children and the possible decoupling of the two elements of that referendum. We will be glad to participate in those discussions. Deputy Howlin is already on record on the matter. Do I understand the Taoiseach correctly that the plan is to either have the European referendum on its own or to hold that referendum along with the issue relating to the sexual exposure of children, the age of consent and that dimension of the children's issue?

What consideration has been given to an approximate date for the referendum? It is important that we have a time scale for the referendum. There was a suggestion by one Minister — I do not know whether it was intentional — that there was a possibility the European referendum would not be held until the autumn. When is it intended to establish the referendum commission? Is it intended that the referendum commission will publish information on the treaty? There appears to be a lack of information on the treaty among the public and there is a hunger for that information. When is it intended to publish the White Paper on the treaty?

I also have questions on the long-term residential care services legislation, dealing with nursing home payments. The Government did not publish that Bill prior to Christmas to allow for consultation with the organisations representing the elderly. I am told those consultations have not taken place. When will they take place? When is the Bill likely to be published?

On the last question, legal issues arose which have now by and large been resolved. The Attorney General was directly involved in those issues and the questions raised have been resolved. If the consultations have not taken place, they are due to take place soon. The Bill is listed for this session and the Minister for Health and Children is anxious that it be dealt with in this session.

On the first question, the Government's intention is to get agreement on the stages. There will be a memorandum for Government on the referendum Bill. The commission will be established after that. The Government's view is that we move on it this side of the summer, if that is agreed. We must ensure agreement on it. We have clarified that the comprehensive children's issue cannot be taken, and there appears to be all-party agreement on that. Deputy Howlin and Deputy Shatter have made it clear and the Minister, Deputy Smith, has reported that to me. What remains is Deputy Kenny's suggestion that we decouple the segment from it. We have to find out if that is possible and whether we can get all-party agreement on it. It is not a simple issue either; there are arguments about it. If we can do that, we can proceed but we must get the work programme moving quickly because there will only be a little over four months.

If that cannot be done, we can proceed with the referendum anyway. We are preparing the referendum Bill and obviously will have consultations on it. The White Paper is in train and the Minister, Deputy Roche, has been active in talking to various groups and presenting the case on behalf of the Government. He has talked to Members of the Opposition as well. If we could resolve the decoupling issue, we could finalise the date. However, I do not wish to do that until we have agreement following the consultations I promised.

During the last session the Government issued a list of Bills that were to be published in that session. When we asked questions about the Bills we were assured by the Taoiseach that they would be published before the end of the session. The session effectively ended yesterday. However, the Irish Sports Council (amendment) Bill, the broadcasting Bill and the student support Bill have not been published. The employment agency regulation Bill has not been published and has been demoted to category C. The employment law compliance Bill, the appropriations Bill and the ombudsman (amendment) Bill have not been published. The latter has been promised since 2003. The adoption Bill and the nursing homes support scheme Bill have not been published while the criminal justice (forensic sampling and evidence) Bill has been dropped to category B and has not been published. The criminal justice (miscellaneous provisions) Bill has been dropped to category C and has not been published. The prevention of corruption (amendment) Bill and the Dublin transportation Bill have not been published. The latter was promised in 2003. Of the 17 Bills promised, four were published, three of the remainder have been demoted from the primary list for publication and the rest will have a repeat performance for this session. Why were they not published as promised?

There are different reasons in the various cases. The Sports Council (amendment) Bill is in category A and will be published in the spring. Officials working on the Bill are engaging in consultation with the Department of Finance about various issues, including the National Coaching and Training Centre. The enforcement provisions in the broadcasting Bill are the subject of a legal review in the office of the Attorney General. It is expected that the review will conclude, and the Bill will be published, in this session. The student support Bill was cleared by the Cabinet today. The employment regulation Bill will not be taken in this session. The employment law compliance Bill will be ready. The ombudsman (amendment) Bill will be ready. The adoption Bill should be ready in February. I have just dealt with the nursing homes (support) Bill. The criminal justice Bill will not be ready in time for the spring session. The prevention of corruption Bill and the Dublin transport Bill will be ready. Other Bills will be added to that list as well.

Will they be published this time?

So I am told.

I would like to raise with the Ceann Comhairle the procedure for making available written responses to parliamentary questions, many of which are due today. What procedure is recommended by the Ceann Comhairle's office? Should such responses be in Members' pigeon holes by the end of Question Time? Should they be placed there simultaneously with Question Time? Will they be available later tonight? Is a ruling or a view on that available from the Chair?

I am informed by the clerk that responses are normally available by the end of Question Time.

Can I invite the Ceann Comhairle's office to check what the procedure is?

Will the Chair advise people of what the practice should be?

That will be done.

A large number of questions has been tabled today, understandably. Today is not a normal day. I would like details of the procedure on normal days of business.

We have written to Ministers on the matter the Deputy has raised.

I thank the Chair. I take it that Ministers still reply to the Chair.

That is reassuring.

On the student support Bill, the Taoiseach said a moment ago, in response to Deputy Stagg, that the Bill was cleared by the Cabinet today. Can I take it the Bill will be published in the next couple of days?

I understand so. I am not sure what day it will be published. It was cleared today.

Based on the Taoiseach's vast experience of Cabinet matters, how much longer does he think we will have to wait for the Bill?

A few days.

Can the Taoiseach indicate when the legislation is likely to be discussed in the House? Will the normal practice or convention of giving Opposition parties a fortnight to review new legislation be adhered to in this case?

Two weeks.

I thank the Taoiseach.

The Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008, which is 141 pages long, was published yesterday. Given that it was acknowledged a moment ago that two weeks are conventionally afforded to Deputies to review new Bills, why is the Government considering the introduction of this legislation next week? I urge the Taoiseach to ensure that the conventional two-week period, at least, is made available to Deputies to consider the implications of the Bill. Such a timeframe is necessary if Members are to have an opportunity to take submissions, for example. Many people will wish to make submissions on the considerable changes being proposed in this legislation. It is not an administrative Bill — it is a Bill that fundamentally changes jurisprudence in a number of areas and many aspects of human rights law. It creates new procedures for detention and new sanctions in the legal profession. Each of these measures requires the widest consultation with the bodies involved, without undue delay. It seems extraordinary that the convention of allowing two weeks for consideration is not being adhered to in the case of a 141-page Bill.

The Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008 was published on Monday, with the intention of starting the consideration of the Bill on Thursday of next week. It is obvious that the debate on the Bill will continue for some time. People will have plenty of time to engage in consultation.

I will not argue with the Taoiseach about what constitutes a fortnight. I am much more interested in the principle that complex legislation of this nature simply cannot be dealt with on the run. I am concerned about some of the fundamental principles and assumptions at the heart of the Bill. I do not wish to be controversial when I suggest that the usual timeframe be provided for, at least, so that the legislation's implications can be considered.

When the parents of a young autistic boy in County Wicklow who is being denied the right to avail of ABA schooling went to court to vindicate that right, the full force of the State was levelled against them. The family in question is now burdened with a massive legal debt which could put their home at risk. The education (Ireland) Bill, which could help to meet the needs of the boy in question, is well down the Government's legislative list. Can the Taoiseach tell us when that Bill will be brought to the House? Will the Taoiseach take an interest in this case? Does he appreciate the injustice being done to autistic children in County Wicklow, who cannot access ABA schooling provided by the State? If those children were living in County Dublin, they would be able to access such educational provision. The boy in question, Seán Ó Cuanacháin, has been assessed as needing this form of schooling — it would make all the difference to him and to others. I ask the Taoiseach to examine this case. A change of policy in this regard would not cost a huge amount of money, but it would make a huge difference to the individual families concerned.

As this issue is to be discussed on the Adjournment this evening, the Taoiseach will have to confine his response to the legislation mentioned by Deputy McManus. The reply to be given by the Minister during the Adjournment debate cannot be pre-empted.

The matter will be discussed later. Preparatory work on the heads of the education (Ireland) Bill is ongoing. A body to be known as Education Ireland will be established as a limited company, on an interim basis, pending the publication and enactment of the legislation.

Five reports on the misdiagnosis of cancer are pending. I do not expect the Taoiseach to be able to give me answers in respect of all five. Many people are concerned about the failure to publish any of the reports to date. Deputies were given an undertaking in the House that the Ann O'Doherty report would be published by the end of November. The report has yet to be published as a result of the delays that have arisen. Tomorrow is the last day of January. There is great concern in the midlands because the report on the mammography services at the Midland Regional Hospital in Portlaoise has not been published to date. Can the Taoiseach indicate when the O'Doherty report will be published?

I will have to raise it with the Minister.

Can the Taoiseach given an undertaking in the House?

Deputy O'Sullivan knows that is not really in order.

The Members of this House who represent the Kildare North and Kildare South constituencies met representatives of the pharmacists at a constructive meeting last evening. It emerged at the meeting that the long and drawn-out nature of the dispute between the HSE and the pharmacists will have a negative impact on patients and the general public, unfortunately, as time progresses. Does the Taoiseach think the pharmacy (No. 2) Bill can be brought to the House to have a positive impact on this issue in the short term? We have not been given an indication of when the Bill is likely to be published. Reference has already been made to the forensics Bill, which will create the national DNA database. Is it intended to establish the full laboratory facilities needed to run the database or is it intended to continue to refer cases overseas?

The forensics Bill will not be introduced in this session. It will be introduced in the next session. It is not possible at this stage to indicate a date for the publication of the pharmacy (No. 2) Bill. Progress on the legislation depends on the implementation of the new Act and the development of the necessary framework in the proposed Bill. As the remaining pharmacy group recommendations relate mainly to pharmacy services and contractual matters, the development of a framework for this Bill will depend on how the issues evolve at the discussions currently taking place at the HSE.

There are no discussions taking place. The HSE is not willing to talk.

I wish to correct a point the Taoiseach made earlier about the proposal from some voices to decouple the addressing of the spill-over from the C case from the addressing of the substantive issue of children's rights in terms of the Constitution. Sinn Féin has not given its agreement to this proposition. In fact, at the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children last week I indicated that our preference would be for both of these referendums to be held on the same day if possible. If not, I am still of the view that we should comprehensively address children's rights. This has only been reconfirmed this week by the publication of the CSO's headline statistics on crime. Under the section dealing with child abandonment, neglect and cruelty, it can be seen that this increased by 86.8% in 2007 to a total of 566 recorded cases. I do not want to overstate this, but as that crime statistic demonstrates, there are many children out there desperately and urgently in need of constitutional protection.

My great fear, understanding as I do the urgency of addressing the implications of the C case, is that this will be addressed and everything else will be put on the long finger. This is a reasonable fear because the Taoiseach has indicated previously in the House that he also had concerns on when this might be visited if it were not to be accommodated together with the C case issues in the current year, 2008. That is on the record and I reiterated it at the committee last week. Not all of the people there had the same recall as I had, but the Taoiseach will agree that this is an accurate reflection of what he said to me during previous exchanges here on the floor of the House. I ask the Taoiseach to think long and hard about the decision to decouple and to move forward on the single issue of age of consent and all of the difficulties associated with this. I understand the urgency, but there are many other areas in which children are being abused daily, not only sexually.

We cannot have a Second Stage debate. The Deputy must appreciate that.

I appreciate that. I conclude by asking the Taoiseach to take this on board and not to rest on the basis of having been informed there is all-party agreement. There is not, and those are the reasons.

My question on the Order of Business is as follows. A quick examination of the legislative programme in the area of health——

The Deputy will just have to ask the question.

Given that we have been waiting for years for two key pieces of legislation promised, in the autumn 2007 programme, for 2008, I now find that in the new programme just published it is stated that it is not possible to indicate when they will be published. This is all about people's rights to access health and social services. I am speaking of the eligibility for health and personal social services Bill and the health information Bill. Perhaps the Taoiseach would take my concerns on board. They are not unique to me.

No date is fixed for the eligibility for health and personal social services Bill or the health information Bill. There is a detailed discussion paper on a whole range of sensitive issues.

My preference all of last year, based on the commitment we gave in 2006, was to hold a referendum on the substantive issue of children's rights. This suggestion emanated first from the constitutional review group set up by the then Taoiseach, former Deputy John Bruton, in 1996. This was considered by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on at least two occasions, and it was concluded that we should revise the Constitution. A Bill was introduced by the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, on 19 February last year and we sought all-party agreement to bring the Bill forward. It was felt that it was wrong to rush the Bill prior to the general election. I was asked here not to do that and I agreed, but said that we would give a commitment to deal with the matter within 12 months or so. The general election then took place and the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children started up in the autumn. The committee is now in agreement that it will not be possible to go through the substantive issues and tease them all out during 2008. It might complete its work but it will not be in a position to deal with legislation that covers all of this area.

Deputy Kenny has put forward an alternative proposal that we consider the limited issue of the age of consent and the Government is prepared to consider this and see whether we can get agreement. Whether this is possible or not, we must consider it because it is not a simple issue of the age of consent — there are other matters that must be dealt with. We cannot fix a date until we do this because we cannot plan a referendum without agreement on the subject of the referendum. We must make a decision on that issue and then we can decide on a date for the referendum. We want to do this by agreement because we must deal with the referendum Bill itself.

There is a danger that if the issue of the age of consent is decoupled from general issue of children's rights, the referendum on the general issue may be put on the back burner. I have seen this happen previously. I will not say it is not a possibility. However, this is a danger irrespective of whether the issues are decoupled. We will need to discuss it and come to a decision on whether it is possible to do this.

I ask the Taoiseach to take on board the concerns I have expressed.

I have heard the Deputy's concerns and I have listened to the NGO groups. The House must stand by the commitment that we gave. However, if the committee working on this believes it is not possible to complete the work then it is not possible. That is the reality. If it is possible to deal with the more limited issue of the age of consent, which is not being pressed for by NGO groups — one of them has made a statement on the issue but I am not sure how strongly it feels — we must consider this and come to a decision.

The substantive issue, which was recognised in the Whitaker review of 12 years ago, remains to be dealt with. The Bill is before the House but we need to obtain agreement through the committee.

Today I received three pieces of correspondence from the Ceann Comhairle's office regarding four questions I put down to Ministers, three of which, relating to the upkeep of the N72 and N73 roads in County Cork, were disallowed on the basis that the Minister has no official responsibility to Dáil Éireann for this matter, which falls within the remit of the National Roads Authority. I also posed a question to the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources about Lombardstown Post Office and the continuance of its operation and, again, I was told that the Minister has no official responsibility.

There is no need for them.

When is it deemed possible for a Member of this House to ask a question he or she feels is pertinent to the running of his or her constituency and is important enough to raise on the floor of the House by way of a parliamentary question, without being told it is an operational matter not for the Minister but for the NRA? Is it now the case that the Minister for Transport no longer has responsibility for roads and that the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources no longer has responsibility for An Post?

This is a long-standing issue I have raised with the Whips at an informal meeting held to facilitate possible Dáil reform. In the interim my obligation is to implement Standing Orders.

Two of the issues I want to raise have already been touched on but it is important I mention them. While I appreciate the Taoiseach has said the pharmacy (No. 2) Bill is a long way off, in light of the crisis regarding the pharmacies and the HSE could he consider a debate in the House on that issue? The health (long-term residential care) Bill has been discussed in the House since last February and the Taoiseach has still not given a date for its publication. People are being held to ransom in nursing homes and I urge the Taoiseach to resolve the matter. I received a letter today from a prominent consultant in the north-east area who has advised that the health service in that area is unsafe. Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda cannot cope.

The Deputy knows we cannot discuss that.

I urge the Taoiseach to bring forward the health information Bill so we can get some truth from the HSE. The present spin is unacceptable and wrong and patients are at risk.

Discussions on the health information Bill, which is to legalise the framework for governance, are ongoing between the HSE, the Department of Health and Children and HIQA, but there is no date for the legislation. I have already said discussions on the pharmacy (No. 2) Bill are ongoing with the HSE and until they get a framework there is no——

They are not ongoing, that is the problem. The HSE is not acting.

They are ongoing. There are two sides to that debate, I have heard both sides and if they could resolve it, that would help.

At the end of last term there were more than 50 Bills in respect of which the heads had yet to be approved by Government. I see from the Chief Whip's office that 17 Bills are to be published during this term. This is a record low number of Bills to be published during any term. When can we expect the outstanding Bills to come before the House? When will the noise pollution Bill come before this House? It is important that it be brought forward.

A Deputy

The Deputy is correct.

There are serious problems in some local authority estates around the country where people have set up businesses and it must be addressed.

I do not have a date for that Bill but I gave a list earlier. This session we have the pensions Bill, the student support Bill, the health (long term residential care services) Bill and the finance Bill, which will take up most of the time of this session.

I am sure the Chair would welcome a noise pollution Bill.

I probably create some noise pollution too.

My point was half answered by the Taoiseach but I want clarification. I understood that the health (long term residential care services) Bill was to be published before Christmas and that at the request of the Opposition, because of the lack of time available for debate, it was postponed. Could the Taoiseach give us a date for the publication of that Bill? Will it be in the next week or two? There is always debate between Second and Committee Stages, but people want to know when it will be published.

It was delayed before Christmas for two reasons: the Opposition asked that there be consultation with the groups and there were legal issues that had to be resolved by the Attorney General. The legal issues have been more or less resolved but the consultation with the groups must take place. The Minister was anxious before Christmas to move it on and she is even more anxious now. While some people have concerns about the Bill, others want it passed because it is beneficial, as Deputy Crawford said. A large number of people are lobbying for this to be dealt with in its present form.

I have an e-mail here from somebody paying €4,750 per care month.

It would make a substantive improvement for the majority of people. We are having that consultation. The legal points have been more or less resolved and when those consultations are finished I hope we can get ahead with it. The Minister is anxious to get it through in this session.

Will it be published in the next week or so?

It will be published in a few weeks.

I apologise to Deputy Ciarán Lynch. Several Labour Party Members raised their hands at once and I missed the Member from Cork, no offence to the county.

It will be like the wedding feast at Cana. On forthcoming Bills outlined in the legislative programme, which was given to Members, item 24 under the Department for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is the designated land (housing development) Bill. This is to provide for a "use it or lose it" scheme which could be deployed by local authorities on a selective basis to accelerate the development of appropriate land zoned for housing and to address the issue of land options. In the autumn schedule this was indicated to be brought forward in early 2008, however no date has been given for it. Given that the purpose of this Bill is a "use it or lose it" scheme and we have not used it, have we lost it and has the Bill been ditched? If not, when will the Bill come before the House?

Item 25 is the social housing (miscellaneous provisions) Bill, which is to provide a programme of social housing reforms aimed at improving services and their delivery including strengthening local authority powers to deal with anti-social behaviour, expanded paths to home ownership for social housing tenants and to provide for the rental accommodation scheme. This Bill has been indicated to come before the House since 2004 and 2005. It was indicated to come before the House in early 2008 and is now scheduled for mid-2008. There is a long-standing issue relating to the ability of local authority tenants who live in flats to buy their own homes. This right to buy is denied to them. It requires a legislative framework for that to happen and in the ten years that those people have been denied that right, the prices of their properties have grown and interest rates have climbed. Could the legislative framework for this area be brought forward in light of the fact that the Bill has been further delayed?

Given the item raised by my Labour Party colleague, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, on Deputy Martin's pronouncement on a co-location project in Cork South-Central, is the Minister bi-locating on the issue of co-location? He has one position in Cork and another at the Cabinet. Is co-location under review at the Cabinet?

I cannot allow the last question.

The heads of the designated land (housing development) Bill were approved more than a year ago and the Bill has gone for drafting. I do not have a date for the presentation of the Bill. The heads of the housing (miscellaneous provisions) Bill are finished and the Bill is almost completed but it will probably not come before the House before the autumn session.

I appreciate the Taoiseach's frankness because in pursuing this matter with the Minister of State at the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government with responsibility for housing, one is literally chasing him around the House. This is a long standing issue. I accept that many aspects of the housing (miscellaneous) Bill have to be dealt with and that much has to be incorporated into the Bill. However, the aspect that relates to the legislative framework to allow local authority tenants to buy their homes is just one part of it. Can that legislative framework be brought forward by a ministerial order to facilitate that process?

The heads of the Bill are approved and the Bill is almost drafted. All of the issues raised by the Deputy are dealt with in the Bill but I am told it will be the middle of the year before it will be presented.

The student support Bill was promised by the Government at the last general election. Does the Taoiseach have a date for the introduction of this Bill and a date by which the new grants system will be up and running? The deadline for the introduction of this Bill is fast approaching.

The student support Bill will be dealt with in this session.

Barr
Roinn