It is proposed to take No. 13, motion re ministerial rota for parliamentary questions; No. 14, motion re referral to joint committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann for a Council Framework Decision on the organisation and content of the exchange of information between member states; No. 15, Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008 — financial resolution; No. 22, Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008 — Second Stage (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, shall be decided without debate; statements shall be made tomorrow immediately after Leaders' Questions, by way of tribute to An Taoiseach, on his leaving office; the statements shall be confined to party leaders and shall not exceed five minutes in each case; the Taoiseach shall be called upon to make a statement in reply which shall not exceed five minutes; and ordinary parliamentary questions to the Taoiseach shall be taken on the conclusion of the statements until 11.29 a.m. Private Members' business shall be No. 38, motion re neurology and clinical neurophysiology services.
Order of Business.
There are two proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, without debate agreed to? Agreed.
Is the proposal regarding statements for tomorrow agreed to? Agreed.
I call Deputy Kenny on the Order of Business.
Does the Government propose to use its veto at EU level if the outcome of the WTO talks is not fair or balanced? It is within the Government's remit, as the Taoiseach will be aware, to use a veto. It is a matter of considerable concern and one which I would not like used as a weapon against the Lisbon treaty which the Fine Gael Party strongly supports. Will the Taoiseach confirm that, if the deal is unbalanced or unfair in the eyes of the Government, the latter will use its veto if necessary?
Will the Taoiseach take action in respect of what is occurring across the country in that elderly patients in particular and medical card holders are shocked that they may not be able to get their medicinal products——
That is not in order.
I will explain why it is in order, if I may. The situation is a mess. People are being told that 1 May is the date from which they will not be able to get their medicines without paying for them. I recognise that a case is before the courts, but this is a matter in which the political system should surely be able to devise a conclusion that will result in an attempt to put in place a system to provide medicines across the country. In the context of the pharmacy No. 2 Bill, what are the contingency plans to provide medicines and drugs to patients across the country in the event of their being unable to get them after 1 May?
The pharmacy Bill is not for this session. No final date has been set for it. May I say a brief word on the WTO?
Briefly.
On the WTO issue, we are unhappy that the talks have proceeded in a very unbalanced way, which we have made clear to the President of the Commission. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in Germany today to continue her talks on the WTO issues. Until we are satisfied that it is a balanced agreement, we will not support it.
Is it the Government's intention to repeal the Tribunals of Inquiry Act 1921? If so, when will the necessary legislation be brought before the Dáil? In the context of statements made by the Taoiseach during the weekend regarding that Act, will he clarify the status of the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005, which was published in November 2005 and is on Second Stage? Is it intended to proceed with the Bill?
In the context of the stolen Bank of Ireland laptops and the lost financial, personal and medical details of 10,000 customers——
That is not in order.
It is in the context of promised legislation, namely, No. 65. The criminal justice (cybercrime and attacks against information systems) Bill is promised and has been on the Order Paper for a considerable period. What has happened to it?
On that Bill, the heads have been prepared. I do not have a date for the Bill's publication. The tribunals Bill is on Second Stage and the position is that it should proceed.
I had hoped that the Ceann Comhairle would have allowed a Private Notice Question on the issue of the laptops containing financial information, as Financial Regulator consolidation legislation is due before the House. It is extraordinary that five weeks were lost before the situation was reported and that there was not even chip and pin technology protecting the information. When will the financial services regulatory Bill be introduced so that we can debate this matter?
Another issue causes serious concern. Two years ago, when a girl in my constituency was killed tragically, the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated that it was a watershed. Since then, there has been a 22% increase in murders and attempted murders in this city.
Deputy Bruton knows that——
Some 37 items of legislation have been promised by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, but there is still no effective strategy for dealing with gangland activities. We need high-level input from the Taoiseach and senior Ministers if they are to get their act together.
Hear, hear.
Deputy Bruton cannot raise that matter now.
Detection rates in respect of knife and gun crimes are falling. We must address this issue in some shape or form.
Deputy Bruton knows that we cannot debate it now.
On the financial services regulation Bill, the advisory forum is working to assist and advise the Department on the completion of the project. The initial work indicates that the consolidation aspect of the project will involve 45 Acts, 250 statutory instruments and 70 commencement orders. The forum hopes to report on the totality of the position at the end of this year.
It was stated that Nero took up music while the city burned. While this may not be relevant apropos of the issue raised by Deputy Bruton——
It is not.
Does the Taoiseach believe that the daily ritual of gangland killings is serious enough to intone to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the need to introduce one of the Bills in question or alternative legislation to combat the obvious increase in gangland crime? Three Bills in particular — the covert surveillance Bill, the crimes Bill and the criminal justice (confiscation orders) Bill — will have an impact on organised crime. Does the Taoiseach believe that the situation is serious enough to ask someone to do something about it?
The covert surveillance Bill, a relatively short Bill, is to place existing practices by the security forces on a statutory basis in line with the ECHR obligations. The draft heads are being finalised on that legislation. Regarding the confiscation orders Bill, most of the provisions of the framework decision have already been implemented in the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Bill 2005. Work is being done to look at some of the other aspects, but most of it is already law.
Then it is time to take action.
I have questions on two items of promised legislation, the first of which is the eligibility for health and personal social services Bill. In the Taoiseach's response, he might address the issue regarding the contingency plans to be put in place in light of industrial action by pharmacists on 1 May, which will have a significant effect in my constituency.
Second, when will the health long-term residential care services Bill, which has been promised repeatedly, be before the House?
That Bill will be this session. It will be next year before the first Bill mentioned by the Deputy will come through. I have already answered regarding the pharmacy Bill.
What about the contingency plans?
I cannot answer that.
What will the Taoiseach do in terms of the glut of legislation from the Department of Health and Children? Is he aware that, under the heading of Bills in respect of which heads have been agreed and texts drafted, there is not a single item of legislation from the Department? What can the Taoiseach do regarding promised legislation? It is not possible to indicate at this stage the publication date of the dentists Bill, the health corporate bodies Bill, the human tissue Bill, the pharmacy No. 2 Bill or the public health miscellaneous provisions Bill. Is the Taoiseach aware that the indicated date of publication of the other four Bills in section C, where the heads of the Bill are yet to be approved by the Government, is 2009? Does the Taoiseach accept there are serious matters amiss within the Department of Health and Children in terms of its responsibilities regarding promised legislation and that they are clearly not being addressed by the Minister he re-appointed, Deputy Harney?
All of the legislation cannot come from the Department altogether. The adoption Bill, which has about 160 or 170 heads, will be in this session. The child care Bill, which has almost 40 heads, will be in this session. The residential home Bill will also be in this session. The Department cannot just bring forward all of the legislation.
Those have been in the pipeline for ages.
We cannot have a running commentary on the matter. If the Deputy wants a running commentary, he should go to Punchestown.
The adoption Bill dates back to the Hague convention of 1993. This is 2008.
I wish to raise two issues that I have raised a number of times regarding a promise the Taoiseach made a long time ago on the control of the sale of alcohol through the control of advertising to young people. The Bill in question was withdrawn from the House. The Taoiseach made a great speech at a vintners' meeting many years ago.
We cannot go into that now.
However, this is more vital than ever in light of the information that came out in today's newspapers regarding the abuse of alcohol and the need to curtail it.
Second, Members were promised year on year that no services would be removed from the health services without being replaced by better services and this is a complete untruth. When will the health information Bill be introduced to the House in order that Members can be sure that whatever information they get from the HSE or the Minister will be the truth, what was promised and what should be delivered?
The Taoiseach, on those two items.
On the sale of alcohol, priority is being given to measures to curtail the distribution and sale of alcohol. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, will launch the heads of that Bill tomorrow, as well as the Gordon Holmes report. Discussions with the industry to try to build up protocols to assist in such control will continue, at least for a time, rather than the legislation,
It is not working.
It is worth the effort. As for the health information Bill, there is a detailed discussion paper on the wide-ranging and complex issues involving this Bill. It is being prepared in the Department and has been forwarded to the Health Service Executive and the Health Information and Quality Authority for their comments. It is intended that the document will form the basis of a public consultation exercise. However, it is likely that it will take until next year before the legislation is prepared.
Is the Taoiseach aware there is a statutory duty on the HSE to publish annual reports about its children's services? Can the Taoiseach explain the reason the 2005 report only became available approximately four weeks ago, as well as the lack of reports for 2006 and 2007? When will these reports be made available? Does the Taoiseach accept that neither the HSE nor the Minister of State with responsibility for children appear to be aware of the huge gaps in children's services? Will the promised child care Bill, which was mentioned a few moments ago, make the HSE directly responsible to the House for its abject failure to meet its statutory obligations?
The Taoiseach, on the child care Bill.
That Bill will come before the House. I will bring the Deputy's remarks to the attention of the Minister.
When can Members expect to see before the House the long overdue heritage fund Bill? Although it was promised by the Taoiseach last year, it has not appeared to date. It would make provision for the acquisition of important heritage objects that are going abroad and elsewhere. It is of the utmost importance that this Bill be brought before the House at the earliest opportunity.
An independent review has been carried out that supports the creation of a heritage fund, which will require legislation. While it will be a short Bill, I do not have a date for it at present.
I refer to remarks I heard the Taoiseach make last night and that he has made a few times recently, the effect of which, as I understand it, is that a statute that precedes the foundation of the State is not appropriate for inquiring into matters of public interest. Will the Taoiseach ask the Attorney General to advise whether legislation is necessary to refurbish the compellability law that permits of inquiry by parliamentary committee? While I do not suggest the 1921 Act is unsuitable in all circumstances to inquire into matters of public interest, most emphatically there are a great many matters that could be inquired into by parliamentary committee. Since the Abbylara judgment, the view in the House, regardless of whether it is well based in law, is that inquiry by parliamentary committee is not permitted. We should restore that right.
Hear, hear.
Is legislation promised in this area?
Yes, there is the Tribunal of Inquiries Bill. However, I understand the point and I will ask the Attorney General about the point raised by the Deputy.
Last Tuesday or Wednesday, the Taoiseach indicated he might revert to me in respect of the Stardust tribunal inquiry and its current status. To be fair to everyone involved, will it be possible for him to do so in the next day or so?
The Deputy has raised this issue, which was mentioned earlier today, a number of times. While we had agreed on a selected senior counsel to take up this role and everyone was satisfied with that, as has been stated, we have encountered difficulties in this regard. I am trying to resolve the issue and I hope to do so as quickly as I can. However, I will provide an update for the two Deputies who raised the issue.