Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 28 Feb 2008

Vol. 648 No. 4

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take No. 9, motion re the proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the report by the Minister for Defence regarding service by the Defence Forces with the United Nations in 2006, back from committee; No. 17, statements on pharmaceutical pricing; and No. 2, Student Support Bill 2008 — Second Stage (resumed).

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 9 shall be decided without debate. The proceedings on No. 17 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 1.40 p.m. today and the following arrangements shall apply — the statements of a Minister or Minister of State 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 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 take questions for a period not exceeding 30 minutes.

There are two proposals to be put before the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 9 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 17 agreed?

I object to this. The all-party Oireachtas committee dealing with this matter discussed it for two and a half days and it would have made very good public television. At the end, it emerged the Minister for Health and Children gave an instruction to the HSE to get on with the implementation of her proposals for 1 March. Two proposals were voted on by the committee, one tabled by the Labour Party and one tabled by Fine Gael. Both were voted down. A bland amendment was then tabled which had to be accepted unanimously.

Genuine concern exists among the vulnerable and the elderly that arising from this they may not be able to obtain their prescription drugs. The Minister made an arrangement for what she states is an independent audit. The pharmacists state they will not break their contract. It should have been possible to have had rational discussions on this and to reach a conclusion without the mess which may emerge on 1 March.

I would prefer to have a motion tabled on this matter. One after another, Fianna Fáil speakers have blamed the HSE and stated it is terrible that vulnerable people may be faced with pharmacists withdrawing their services from the scheme. Having a series of statements again today merely reiterates what many speakers already stated at the Oireachtas committee. Therefore, I object to this and state it should be a motion upon which the House can vote after hearing what speakers have to say.

The Labour Party is opposed to the proposal for dealing with this matter for two reasons. The first of these is that the format is not satisfactory. Last week, I called for a debate in the House on a report from the committee which spent a great deal of time considering and discussing this matter. Such a debate should be accompanied by a resolution on which the House could agree. This would give a direction to the Minister for Health and Children and the HSE on what is to be done about this long drawn-out dispute which should have been settled long ago.

The second reason is that while the debate proposed will be useful to ventilate opinions on the dispute, it will not deal with the problem which will arise at the weekend, namely, that this new contract will be implemented by the HSE on 1 March irrespective of what is stated here and irrespective of the consideration given to the matter by the independent body established under Mr. Sean Dorgan.

When the matter was before the committee, my colleague, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, proposed the following motion:

That no changes be made to contracts between the HSE and community pharmacists in advance of the setting up and reporting of an independent body, whose remit will be to make recommendations on the reimbursement to pharmacists for drugs supplied under the State's community drugs schemes, in consultation with the interests concerned.

All week I have been listening to the Tánaiste and Ministers saying we should not prejudge independent bodies set up to examine various matters. An independent body has been set up to examine this dispute which has been going on for a long time, which threatens the future of many community pharmacists and which is causing enormous concern to medical card holders, pensioners and people who do not know whether they will get their prescriptions where they normally get them.

The changing of the contract on 1 March should be put on hold until the independent body has examined this. Will the Tánaiste change the format of today's statements so that we can debate a resolution, perhaps the one proposed by Deputy Jan O'Sullivan at the committee last week? If not, will the Tánaiste give an assurance that the implementation of this measure will be put on hold until the independent body has done its work?

Deputy Kenny referred to motions that were put before the Joint Committee on Health and Children by both Labour and Fine Gael, but that is only part of the story. A motion had been put before the committee by the chairman of the committee, Deputy John Moloney, which had the indication of support of all opinions in the committee. I commend Deputy Moloney's preparation of that motion because it demonstrated he has good instincts on this issue. On the following day, however, his motion was withdrawn and that brought about a forced division in the committee. There could have been unanimous support for the chairman's proposition because it met, as I recall, the views of all opinions, including those of this Deputy who attends those committee meetings.

Why was Deputy Moloney's motion not allowed to stand? What interference took place? Why was it withdrawn and why was a much diluted amendment presented from the Government bloc in relation to the committee's deliberations? That is a serious matter. I very much regret that was the case because the committee had been working very much as a single, unified body in addressing this issue. The divisions were both unnecessary and unfortunate.

It is imperative that we have a motion that gives clear direction in today's debate. Statements simply will not suffice. There should be a motion before this House. It is within the gift of Government to present a motion along the lines as that drafted by Deputy Moloney and to put it before this House that clearly outlines the necessary actions to avert the crisis that will undoubtedly loom, particularly for those dependent on medical cards and the drugs payment scheme to access their medication.

This is a very serious matter. Many people, in particular older people, are very concerned as to what will happen in the outworking of all that is threatened as of 1 March. This very serious issue requires the intervention of the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Mary Harney. So far she has refused to address this issue in any substantive way. Today's statements and a question and answer session will not suffice because there is no opportunity to direct the Minister to specific actions. That is what is required today to avert a very serious situation.

I oppose the proposal for No. 17 and appeal again to the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance and the Minister for Health and Children to accept the collective view of the Opposition that we need to go forward with one voice from this House on this issue. A motion must be put down that clearly demonstrates not only Opposition voices but those of Government Members — it has been demonstrated to me at the Joint Committee on Health and Children that Government voices on that committee also concur with that view. From where is the interference coming and the silencing gag being applied and why is that happening?

On a point of order——

No, the Tánaiste must reply on behalf of the Government.

We discussed this issue yesterday morning and, as has been said, it was well ventilated for three days at the Joint Committee on Health and Children under the chairmanship of Deputy John Moloney. Today's statements will give an opportunity for the Minister for Health and Children to update the House and the public on the situation and to explain precisely what is envisaged. As a result of ongoing discussions, an independent process to deal with the issue of the prescription fee has been set up. It will examine how we can help smaller pharmacies, particularly those with a high dependence on medical card holders, to be better looked after financially than under the present arrangements. The wholesalers have agreed to this on the basis of a fair return for their product and on foot of an Indecon report that sets out the situation.

Which the Government ignored.

They have not agreed.

They get a better return for certain.

The Minister for Health and Children will outline the situation in full upon taking the statements and I ask that we proceed on that basis.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 17 be agreed."
The Dáil divided by electronic means.

This morning every pharmacist across the country is looking at Dáil Éireann to see how Members vote on this issue. I am giving the Government Members, including the Progressive Democrats, the Green Party and the Independents, another opportunity to change their votes so we can see whether they talk as loud in here as they do outside the Dáil. I am calling a vote by other than electronic means.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The Deputies can take their tablets.

The vote will now proceed.

Question again put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 17 be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 55.

  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Andrews, Chris.
  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Behan, Joe.
  • Brady, Áine.
  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Browne, John.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conlon, Margaret.
  • Connick, Seán.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Curran, John.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Flynn, Beverley.
  • Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Hoctor, Máire.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kennedy, Michael.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • O’Keeffe, Edward.
  • O’Rourke, Mary.
  • O’Sullivan, Christy.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • White, Mary Alexandra.

Níl

  • Bannon, James.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Coonan, Noel J.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creighton, Lucinda.
  • D’Arcy, Michael.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Enright, Olwyn.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.
  • O’Mahony, John.
  • O’Shea, Brian.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
  • Sheehan, P. J.
  • Sherlock, Seán.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Upton, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies John Curran and Tom Kitt; Níl, Deputies Damien English and Emmet Stagg.
Question declared carried.

Perhaps the Tánaiste would ask the Taoiseach, who is meeting with the Polish Prime Minister, Mr. Donald Tusk, to express our sympathy to the Polish people on the death of the two young Polish men, Pawel Kalite and Marius Szwajkos, who were victims of an unfortunate and savage attack in Drimnagh. This shames us all. I ask the Tánaiste to communicate the sympathy of the Irish people to the Polish community in this country.

Today's newspapers carry a report on a citizen who defended his wife and family at 4 a.m. yesterday in another savage attack. During the last Dáil, Fine Gael brought forward a Private Members' Bill to rebalance the law in favour of the victim of crime. The Government voted against that Bill and promised to introduce a Bill to vindicate the rights of the homeowner. According to the then Minister, the heads of a Bill were already agreed. Yesterday, however, the Tánaiste, in reply to Deputy Charles Flanagan, said that the promised Bill is not on the Government's legislative programme. Who dropped it from the programme? Why is it not included in the programme given the huge interest in this issue?

The criminal law (defence of life and property) Bill will amend existing legislation regarding the defence of the person and the person's home. The heads of the Bill were approved and we expect the Bill to be dealt with later this year. The Deputy can be sure that the Taoiseach will, in the appropriate way, convey the sympathies of all Irish people at the savage killings of these two Polish citizens, who were contributing very positively to their community in this country.

Perhaps the Tánaiste will confirm the position with the Bill I mentioned. Yesterday he said the Bill was not on the legislative programme but today he says it will be taken this year. Which is correct? Is the Bill on the legislative programme? Yesterday he said it was dropped. If it is back on the programme, it might have been better if the Tánaiste had said as much before being asked.

I will always admit to a mistake. If I was in error yesterday, I am very sorry.

To err is human and to forgive is divine.

We do not need any philosophy at this hour of the morning.

We like the southern philosophy, the deep south-western category.

I join Deputy Kenny in expressing sympathy to the families of the two young Polish men who were so savagely murdered some nights ago. Unfortunately, this is not the first time there has been this type of occurrence on our streets. We have discussed it in the House previously. The House and Irish society must have a serious discussion about the random violence that is occurring and the degree to which people are unsafe going about their business on our streets. I hope the Garda is successful in apprehending the culprits and bringing them to justice. I express my sympathy to the families on their really awful loss.

I wish to raise two matters. On Tuesday, a roof tile blew off a building on Pearse Street and traffic throughout the city ground to a halt. On Wednesday, the safety system in the port tunnel crashed and traffic in the city again ground to a halt. The Government has been promising the Dublin transport authority Bill since 2006. The then Minister, Deputy Martin Cullen, promised in 2006 that the Bill would be published by Christmas that year. Christmas 2006 came and went but there was no Bill. It was the same story with Christmas 2007. The Bill is still on the legislative programme. When will it be introduced to provide for some co-ordination of traffic in Dublin?

Second, it is reported that the Health Service Executive has frozen funding for the homeless sector. According to the report, 60 new projects which were assessed for funding by the Homeless Agency cannot proceed in 2008. A total of 55 homeless people died on our streets in 2006. Money has been spent in this country on voting machines, equestrian centres and computer systems that never worked.

Does the Deputy have a question on legislation?

While I and this party are in the House, this Government will not cut funding to the homeless services. I want a statement from the Tánaiste today that the funding for the homeless services in this country will be restored.

That is not in order, Deputy Gilmore.

It most certainly is in order.

It has to be in order.

Of course it is.

It most certainly is. If the economic fortunes of this country are turning and revenues are beginning to tighten, the first thing that will not be cut are services to homeless people. I want an assurance from the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance — the Minister for Health and Children is sitting beside him and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, who is the line Minister, was present earlier — that the funding for the provision of services for the homeless will be continued. A great deal of work was put into formulating a homelessness strategy, which all parties supported, with the objective of ending homelessness in 2010. Much work was done at national and local level on securing locations and so forth. Now, however, the Health Service Executive, presumably at the direction of the Government, is cutting the funding. It will not happen, a Cheann Comhairle. It must not happen to the homeless.

Serious issues must be raised in an appropriate manner.

What is a more serious issue?

How? We cannot raise them or talk about them.

Deputy Gilmore is here long enough to understand that. It must be raised in accordance with Standing Orders. I am obliged to implement the Standing Orders of the House, as Deputy Gilmore knows.

You can set fire to those Standing Orders.

Deputy Gilmore has raised a serious issue but it must be raised in the appropriate way. Otherwise, there will be a free for all here——

That is what it should be.

——and Parliament cannot work. The Deputy must understand that.

To assist the Ceann Comhairle with keeping order, there is a promised social housing Bill.

When the Tánaiste responds about that Bill I ask him to assure the House that funding for the homeless services will continue and not be cut, as has been reported in the last two days.

The Dublin transport authority Bill is due this session and the social housing Bill is due in the middle of this year. A significant amount of progress has been made on homelessness in Ireland. That is accepted by all who work in the area. Significant resources have been devoted to it and I am not aware of any cutbacks this year. What was being suggested was that there would be further developments of the services, which are part of the ongoing plans in the implementation of the strategy, which have to be considered. I am not aware of any cutbacks in the existing level of services, which themselves have been considerably enhanced in recent years. While unfortunately the problem is still with us and there are issues, these matters must be considered on an ongoing basis. I am not aware that there is a cutback in services envisaged.

We cannot have a debate now, Tánaiste.

The existing level of service, which has been increased progressively in recent years, continues this year. There are some plans, as part of the implementation of the strategy, for further developments but I am not sure when and how they are going forward this year. That is the position.

A Cheann Comhairle——

We must move on. I call Deputy Olivia Mitchell. I cannot have a debate on this issue now, Deputy Gilmore, you must understand that. It is not possible.

It is the last day, a Cheann Comhairle.

Then every Deputy can raise serious issues, if that is going to be the position.

I am not trying to raise any old issue and the Ceann Comhairle has had no difficulty with me regarding being in order on matters. This is not something that passes lightly. It is not about maintaining existing services. Additional services must be provided to achieve the homeless strategy by 2010. What happened was that plans and the various projects were all in place and the HSE, presumably on the direction of somebody in Government, pulled the financial plug. I simply want an assurance from the Tánaiste — I am quite happy if he wants to check out the facts and come back to me on the matter later in the day — that it will not happen. I want an assurance that the homeless of this country will not be the first to feel the wallop of tightening economic times.

The issue cannot be raised in this manner. I call Deputy Olivia Mitchell.

Since the collapse of the property market and particularly the collapse in the sale of apartments, more and more builders are taking their apartments off the market and putting them up for rent. They are retaining them in their own ownership, which gives them a vote in the management companies. They now have control of almost all the management companies in new apartment developments and it seems they will have control of them indefinitely. That leaves the ordinary young person, who has tried to buy a home——

Does the Deputy have a question regarding legislation?

——in a very vulnerable position. Legislation was promised to regulate this area. The authority was set up in 2005, a management designate was appointed in 2006, it has been given substantial budgets, but it can do nothing. It is twiddling its thumbs because no legislation was ever passed to put it on a statutory footing.

To what legislation is the Deputy referring?

The property services regulatory authority Bill.

I understand that, most likely, the Bill will be taken later this year.

Later this year? This is an urgent matter.

When I signalled first I was intending to ask about the Dublin transport authority Bill because I recall that Deputy Mary O'Rourke, in March 2001, said a two-month consultation period would be provided before legislation would be introduced for the authority. People are furious about what happened in Dublin this week and some leadership is needed. Since that issue has already been raised by Deputy Gilmore, I wish to ask about an issue which is very pertinent, given the fact that both the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Health and Children are in the Chamber today.

The health (nursing homes) (amendment) Bill is promised, but the Minister for Health and Children indicated that it would be retrospective in its application to 1 January. There is now much confusion as to whether that continues to be Government policy. Given that the two relevant Ministers are here, I ask the Tánaiste to indicate the current position. Many people have big commitments and need certainty.

Can I make a point, a Cheann Comhairle?

Is it on the same issue?

Yes. There has been some speculation that the Government is going to wait until the inspection process for public and private nursing homes is put in place and agreed with HIQA. Is it intended to delay the legislation until that process is in place?

I understand it is not intended to delay because of the issue raised by the Deputy. On the Bill itself, we expect the Cabinet to finalise the issues this coming month. Some technical and constitutional issues have arisen regarding the possibility of bringing this Bill forward. The question of retrospection is not one that can be easily accommodated. It is due to be finalised by Cabinet and will be brought before the House immediately thereafter.

The Dublin transport authority Bill was promised, as we know, some years ago. Has the Bill been before the Cabinet yet? The Minister for Transport has published his sustainable transport plans and, as other speakers have pointed out, Dublin city is increasingly grinding to a halt. There appears to be a row going on between the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil regarding bus competition in the Dublin market. Has the Bill been brought before the Cabinet?

The heads of the Bill have been brought before Cabinet. Once the Cabinet approves the Bill in full, it will be put before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Just to clarify, has the complete Bill been before the Cabinet?

The complete Bill is not yet finalised before Cabinet.

The point is that the Bill was ready one year ago. It was in the Department, ready for publication one year ago. What is causing the delay?

Just to bring it to the Deputy's attention, nothing is ready for publication until the Government approves it.

Yes, but the point is that I understand the Government did approve it. That was the information we received some time ago. Obviously, there is a serious issue there.

I have nothing further to add.

In light of the carnage on our roads, when can we expect the road traffic Bill to come before the House so we can discuss the apparently minimal impact of the road safety strategy 2007 to 2012? On another issue, the HSE has withdrawn funding for special housing aid for the elderly.

That is not in order at all.

It is nonsense to say this has been transferred to local authorities because local authorities——

That is not in order at all.

——have been given no extra funding for this scheme.

The issue is road transport.

The road traffic Bill, which will deal with a number of road safety and road traffic issues arising from the road safety strategy, will be before us later this year at the earliest.

At the outset, I join Deputies Kenny and Gilmore in an expression of sympathy to the families of the two Polish men who were so cowardly and brutally slain in this city this week.

I wish to refer to promised health legislation, that is, Bills in respect of which heads have yet to be approved. I note that the Minister for Health and Children is sitting next to the Tánaiste and Members spoke earlier about gridlock and no progress. However, the Dublin city traffic situation, bad as it is, hardly compares——

We cannot have Second Stage speeches now, Deputy.

It hardly compares——

We must deal with legislation. Time is moving on.

——to the health legislation situation. Can the Tánaiste advise the House whether the Minister sitting beside him is responsible for the dentists Bill, the eligibility for health and personal social services Bill, the health (corporate bodies) Bill, the health information Bill, the human tissue Bill, the mental health (amendment) Bill, the pharmacy (No. 2) Bill and the public health (miscellaneous provisions) Bill? I ask the Tánaiste to note in his response when it is proposed that these Bills will be published, let alone come before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Is the Tánaiste concerned that in each of these cases, it is not possible to indicate a publication date at this stage? This is the case regarding all the signalled legislation and all but one item under the Department of Health and Children brief.

On the legislation, Tánaiste. We must move on.

Is it not the case that the former Tánaiste and current Minister for Health and Children is barely treading water in her brief?

There is no need for commentaries. On the legislation, Tánaiste.

Six Bills were passed last year. Two health Bills are on the A list. A number of the Bills the Deputy has just mentioned, which show our commitment to continuing reform in this area, are currently under preparation. The nurses Bill has gone for consultation. In fact, we are still awaiting a policy paper from the Deputy's party regarding that matter.

In light of the re-emergence of Brazilian beef in Ireland, the failure of the Ministers for Health and Children and Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to introduce labelling and the World Trade Organisation being debated everywhere except in the House, will the Tánaiste arrange with the Whips a full debate on the WTO and agriculture?

That is a matter for the Whips.

It is an urgent issue being discussed by everyone else, but there is no opportunity for the House to debate it.

I am sure the Deputy is creative enough to find another way to raise the matter, but this is not the way.

Ensuring a debate is a matter for the Tánaiste and the Whips.

It is a matter for the Whips.

I would like to express my sympathies to the families of the two Polish men who were savagely murdered in Dublin recently.

Will the Tánaiste and the Minster for Health and Children, who are both in attendance, ensure that houses built under the social housing Act will be occupied?

We cannot have a discussion on this matter this morning.

Currently, a €7 million facility in St. James's Hospital is being left idle.

The matter is not in order.

It is mismanagement of the highest order. If financial savings are to be made, they should be made at management level and not at the expense of the homeless and the most vulnerable in society.

Legislation is not promised.

Where are the promised reports to the House?

We cannot have a discussion on this matter.

Yesterday, the Minister for Health and Children was not present to answer Deputy Gilmore's questions because she was at the Select Committee on Health and Children with me, but she is now present. On 6 November, she promised the House the reports by the end of November. The Ann O'Doherty report remains hidden behind the legal fig leaf.

This matter is not in order.

It is not good enough for the people of the country or the women who have suffered as a consequence of events.

It is not in order.

It is not in order that the reports are not available.

That is not my fault.

For many weeks before the general election last year, the House debated the Criminal Justice Act 2007 in response to the then serious crime and violence situation, which has since escalated substantially. The Act was described by the Government, of which the Tánaiste was a member, as being the most draconian response to crime ever. Is the Tánaiste aware that fewer than half of the Act's sections have been the subject of commencement orders? In light of this and given that the Government appeared tough on crime by enacting criminal legislation described by it as "draconian" and unprecedented, does he agree there is an element of deception? Will the Tánaiste ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to sign the commencement orders to bring the Act into force? It is meaningless without such orders.

I will bring the Deputy's opinions to the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, but I am sure the Deputy has already articulated them directly. Sometimes, enabling provisions are enacted with commencement order provisions to ensure that elements are put in place sufficiently ahead of proceeding. I do not have the details to hand as to why the situation would be the case as outlined, but I will ask the Minister to let the Deputy know.

In light of the Ethics in Public Office (Amendment) Bill 2007, will provision be made by the Government by way of an amendment or otherwise for the definition of a personal political donation or a political donation for personal purposes?

The House cannot discuss the contents of legislation on the Order of Business. The Deputy must know this by now.

This is my first issue.

And it is not in order.

As the Minister for Health and Children is present, may I ask her whether she will make a statement as to when the acute hospitals review will be published?

It has serious permutations for hospitals at Mallow, Nenagh and Ennis.

I must call on the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Ciarán Lynch, to move for leave to introduce his Bill, the Local Elections Bill 2008.

Barr
Roinn