It is proposed to take No. 1a, Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Bill, 1997, amendments from the Seanad; No. 28, Public Service Management (No. 2) Bill, 1997 [Seanad], Committee and remaining Stages; and No. 2, Prompt Payment of Accounts Bill, 1997, Order for Second Stage and Second and remaining Stages. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: (1) the amendments from the Seanad to No. 1a shall be taken together and decided without debate by one question which shall be put from the Chair; (2) Private Members' Business which shall be No. 60, motion No. 23 re. Cork city and the south west (resumed), shall be taken on the conclusion of the proceedings on No. 1a; and (3) the Committee and remaining Stages of No. 28 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 2.15 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 Finance.

There are three matters to put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 1a satisfactory? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' Business, No. 60, motion No. 23, satisfactory? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 28 satisfactory? Agreed.

On the Order of Business yesterday I raised with the Minister for Finance the undertaking in the programme for Government to examine the possibility of splitting the two roles currently exercised by the Attorney General as legal adviser to the Government and upholder of the public interest. The programme also gives an undertaking to ensure that the holders of high office in the State are more answerable and accountable to the Legislature. I asked the Minister for Finance if he would involve himself and the Government in the decision taken by the Chief State Solicitor's office, in conjunction with the Attorney General, not to appear before a committee of the House which had unanimously voted that the Chief State Solicitor or the Attorney General should be called before it to explain why the State adopted its approach in the Brigid McCole case.

This matter was raised yesterday and was debated for some time.

I am coming to my point.

The matter relates to a committee of the House over which I have no control.

If I can finish my point——

It is a rehash of yesterday's proceedings and is out of order.

It is not a rehash of yesterday's proceedings as the Minister contacted me before 7 p.m. last night to tell me the Government would not waive its right of confidentiality on this issue. The Government is, therefore, refusing to meet the wishes of an all-party committee which unanimously decided that an officer of the State should come before it. Why will the Government not waive its right of confidentiality on this issue? It is working against a committee of the House. I ask the Minister to answer my question.

If the Minister wishes, he may intervene, but I will not tolerate a debate on the matter.

Shame.

I understand a comprehensive letter setting out the rationale for the position indicated was sent from the Chief State Solicitor to the committee yesterday.

There was no comprehensive answer given as to why a committee of the House has not had an opportunity to hear the reasons for the Government's refusal——

There are other ways of raising this matter, it is not in order now. No useful purpose can be served by continuing to debate the matter now.

May I ask you, a Cheann Comhairle, as the respected Leader of the Chamber what protection the parties in the House have on this issue if a committee of the House, which is nominated at the start of each Dáil, unanimously decides to ask an officer of the State to appear before it but he decides, on the advice of the Attorney General, not to do so.

I can only tell the Deputy that it would be audacious for the Ceann Comhairle to intervene or to be seen to intervene in the internal affairs of a committee of the House. The committees are autonomous bodies and have their own chairmen, committee members and staff and, accordingly, it is for them to decide the matter.

They decided it.

I understand your point, a Cheann Comhairle, but the Government can correct the matter by waiving the confidentiality right. The Minister for Equality and Law Reform who is taking the Order of Business today is an eminent legal person and he understands——

The matter should be decided in another way.

——that the Government can waive this right. This would allow the committee to debate why the Brigid McCole case was dealt with in this way.

I am sorry, Deputy Ahern, but this may not continue.

It may seem tedious but the way the late Brigid McCole was treated was very tedious.

It is not good enough for a Minister to say the Government has no say in this matter. If the Government waives its right, the officer of the State can attend the committee, which is the wish of the committee. Will the Government order that?

If Members are dissatisfied with Ministers' replies, they have a remedy. There are many other ways of raising matters in the House and I advise Deputy Ahern to utilise some of those avenues of approach. My office will assist him in the matter.

Will the Chair suggest the best approach to take?

If the Deputy makes an approach to my office it will be considered very sympathetically.

Before I take that remedy, is the Minister telling the House that the Government is refusing to intervene in this matter? As I understand it, the Attorney General would have informed the Government that it was its decision as to whether the right should be waived. This is a matter for the Government and if the Government has decided to refuse to allow the case to be made to this committee, that is a disgraceful decision.

The Deputy's imagination is running away with him.

I will not hear anything further about this matter. The Deputy knows my views and he knows how to proceed.

The legal strategy was unjustifiable. That is the reason examination of the legal strategy was excluded from the terms of reference of the tribunal. It is unfortunate that the Government has not waived this right because it must accept political responsibility in this matter. Given that Deputy Taylor is the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, and that he has expertise in the legal area, will he agree it is unjustifiable that there is no accountability in this matter and that the House cannot examine it?

I understand cogent reasons were set out in the letter from the Chief State Solicitor explaining the position in this regard. The committees operate in accordance with Standing Orders and the rules set down by the House. That appears to be the position.

Deputy Cowen rose.

I ask Deputy Cowen to have regard to what is in order and what is not in order.

I certainly will. I realise the Minister for Equality and Law Reform had to take the Order of Business this morning, but I thought the Government Chief Whip would have brought him up to date on the current position in relation to this committee. Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the meeting yesterday evening of the Select Committee on Social Affairs, it is within our Standing Orders, according to the Chairman — a party colleague of the Minister — to request these people to come before the committee to discuss the impact of the aggravated damages claim on the Health Estimate for this and subsequent years? There is no question of the committee not having the power to deal with these issues.

The powers of that committee or any other committee of this House ought not to be discussed here. They are separate, autonomous bodies set up by this House. There must not be any interference in their internal affairs.

Will the Minister for Equality and Law Reform confirm that the Government has the power to waive any claim of privilege currently being sought by the Chief State Solicitor or the Attorney General in this matter? As a legally qualified person, will the Minister confirm that is the case, and that the reason we are not progressing this issue before a committee is that the Government is allowing the cover up to continue?

That is disgraceful.

We cannot get to the truth until such time as privilege is waived.

Is there anything else relevant to the Order of Business?

This is a litmus test of openness, transparency and accountability.

Deputy Cowen must desist.

If the Government had nothing to hide it would allow its officials come before the committee. If it has nothing to hide, let us speak to these officials.

I must ask the Deputy to raise this matter at another time.

Let us speak to those Ministers in regard to their state of knowledge of the strategy over the past months.

The Deputy has made his point. He is blatantly out of order and I must now ask him to resume his seat forthwith.

May I ask the Minister to confirm——

No, the Deputy cannot ask the Minister anything now. Is there anything relevant on the Order of Business?

The Minister knows he can waive privilege.

Is there anything else relevant on the Order of Business?

This Government is refusing to waive privilege in an attempt to stop the people finding out why, how and who authorised that legal strategy, but the truth will out with the change of administration, so we might as well hear about it now.

The Deputy has wasted enough time. Is there anything else relevant on the Order of Business?

On the hepatitis C Bill which the Government is proposing to put through all Stages next Wednesday in this House I asked, subsequent to the Whips' meeting last night, whether the Government would accede to a request to have this legislation, which is not yet published, taken at Second Stage on Tuesday next, in Committee on Wednesday and for Report and Final Stages on Thursday. I appreciate that time is of the essence. I cannot understand how the Government can refuse to accede to the request because the Brigid McCole case is settled.

I have ruled on the matter.

Why will the Government not allow the Chief State Solicitor to come before the Committee in regard to this case and this case only?

The Deputy asked something relevant. Perhaps we could have a reply to the first matter in respect of legislation.

I understand the taking of the legislation can be discussed further by the Whips and that it is probable the Whips will meet later this morning to review the clár for next week.

Will the Minister explain why the Government is adopting a different attitude to a case that is settled as opposed to cases that are still in the list? All we are asking is that the Government should explain why this attitude was taken in regard to a case that is settled.

The Chair has ruled it out of order.

I will not tolerate an abuse of this kind.

The Government is abusing the committee.

I am not responsible for committees of this House.

It is here in the Programme for Government. The committees were set up to make this place more businesslike, to make it more answerable.

Will the Minister for Equality and Law Reform confirm that the admission by the Minister for Justice yesterday that she will not be the next Minister for Justice means that the Government will come out with its hands up?

When my party leader was trying to raise the issue with the Minister, some Members of the Opposition actually described what he was trying to raise as tedious.

We are the Government.

The Minister should withdraw that, at least on behalf of the Labour Party. The matter is not tedious. The McCole case involved a woman from my home county, this matter continues to fester and will not go away. The allegation that this matter is tedious should be withdrawn by whoever made the remark.

The Deputy is making a mockery of our proceedings and should desist.

Deputy Molloy rose.

Deputy Molloy can imagine how anxious I am to proceed with the business of this House.

I do not want to be disorderly, but I have been trying to get your attention on a separate matter.

I will hear the Deputy.

Could the Acting Taoiseach tell us when it is proposed to introduce legislation to give effect to the home improvement grant scheme announced by the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht?

That legislation is at an early stage of preparation. It will be introduced in the House later this year.

We can take it then that this is an election promise.

It is the Deputy's mistakes I am rectifying.

The Minister's mistakes will never be rectified.

Will the Government request the Canadian authorities to support our call for the closure of Sellafield given that nuclear waste from that plant has been found on the Canadian coast?