There are five proposals to put to the House. Are the arrangements for today's sitting agreed?

I have no particular problem with the business ordered but there is the outstanding issue of the Taoiseach refusing to come into the House. This is not funny.

The Deputy is wasting his time.

Send the Deputy "the blacks".

The Government parties have a peculiar view of their duty as a Government and of accountability. We will continue to oppose every Order of Business until the Taoiseach comes into the House to answer questions on the resignation of Deputy Ned O'Keeffe. Will the Minister for Education and Science, as a senior and experienced member of the Cabinet, advise the Taoiseach to come into the House to make a statement and answer the question put? We will oppose the Order of Business until we get that commitment.

We are worried.

One does not know who the Government will come after next.

The Government has been in office longer than many recent Administrations and it seems, as a consequence, to have lost its sense of accountability. I am sorry the Government must come into the House. I know it is a pain but it is called democracy. It took Fianna Fáil long enough to come in here in the first place and the party is still learning.

The Labour Party will co-operate with the Order of Business because of the business that has been ordered and the extraordinary changes to the normal routine for Thursday on the understanding that our concern for accountability will not be dismissed and, second, and more pertinent to today's business, because we expect the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to be accommodating in regard to amendments on this issue which unites the nation so that there is co-operation and sensible amendments will be looked on in that light and treated accordingly.

Well done.

The Order of Business does not provide an opportunity for the Taoiseach or anyone on his behalf to correct yesterday's Dáil report when the Taoiseach told us that most EU member states had voted on the Nice Treaty. We have done some research to find that is not the case. Is the Taoiseach trying to mislead the House? Given that the Minister for Defence has not placed the partnership work programme under Partnership for Peace in the Oireachtas Library, is there a strategy to keep information from the House and to give us wrong information? An opportunity should be provided on the Order of Business to correct the record and put matters in order.

That is absolutely untrue and the Deputy knows that.

The partnership work programme is not in the Library.

Question "That the arrangements for today's sitting be agreed to" put and declared carried.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 21a agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 1a agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 22 agreed to?

I am somewhat confused as to why the Government wants to take this when I recollect that Fianna Fáil abolished car tax many years ago?

That was then, this is now.

Fine Gael doubled it when it got back into office.

We cannot discuss the matter.

Fine Gael's problem is that it is living in the past.

Is this the measure the Minister for the Environment and Local Government sneaked in without notice after the budget?

It is the measure—

We have tabled an amendment to this resolution, yet we have only been allocated five minutes. We require much more time. I ask the Government Chief Whip to give us more time. Five minutes is not adequate. The partnership work programme, to which Deputy Sargent referred, is not in the Library one week later. Will the Minister for Defence address that?

Is the proposal for the Adjournment of the Dáil today agreed to? Agreed. I will now take Leaders' questions.

Today is International Women's Day and I regret very much that because of the threat of foot and mouth disease many events have been cancelled. Does the Minister for Education and Science think that a decision taken by the Minister for Finance yesterday was singularly inappropriate on the eve of International Women's Day? He appointed seven members to the Fund Reserve Commission, only one of whom is a woman. Has the Government departed from the commitment that women should comprise at least 40% of the membership of State boards or has the Minister for Finance not heard about it?

On the same topic in solidarity with the women of the world on this day, the Minister for Education and Science and I were in Cabinet together when a formal Government decision was made, noted and rigorously enforced by the former Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Mervyn Taylor, that women should comprise 40% of the membership of State boards. While there would have been difficulties achieving that target in respect of casual vacancies that arose from time to time, there was absolutely no room for discretion in respect of a new board. I have no doubt the Minister recalls the persistence with which Mervyn Taylor pursued and enforced that Government decision. Was that decision formally changed? If not, has the Minister for Finance been allowed to ride roughshod over a collective decision?

It is the Government's policy to do its utmost to achieve the 40% level.

What does that mean?

Deputy Noonan asked the question.

It is as if women do not exist.

Nought out of ten for effort.

Order, please.

The Minister should stand in the dunce's corner.

I understand the percentage is of the order of 35% or 36%

The Government is on 14%.

It has fallen below the target.

The Government has abandoned the target.

I am informed the percentage is 34%. The target has not been abandoned. This is a highly specialised committee.

The target was ignored.

Are there not any women specialist accountants? It is the old excuse that there are not any women experts.

The Minister should not seek help from his male colleagues.

Order, please. These are Leaders' questions. The Minister, without interruption. I ask the Minister to address the question.

Are no suitable women available?

All I can say beyond that is that there is no change in the position of the Government which is still pursuing the same target.

Is that the Minister's message on International Women's Day?

The Ministers of State, Deputies Coughlan and Hanafin, are blushing with embarrassment.

A Donegal blush.

Is the Minister saying there are not any qualified women to serve on this highly specialised board and that women do not have expertise or interest in their future pensions? Is that the position of the Government? Is the Minister aware that one in seven is approximately 14% and not 40%? Will the Minister confirm that the reason the gender balance on State boards is still showing a reasonably high percentage of women is because he is taking into account the average of appointments made by his predecessors and that on board after board in the past three years—

Take the figures for judges.

The targets have been abandoned.

—the Government has not complied with the policy of appointing 40% women. While the policy position is de jure 40%, the de facto position is that the Minister has abandoned the policy.

I understand that at the highest levels of banking and the financial sector, the Minister would have had some difficulty in getting candidates for the job.

That is a scandal in itself.

I could give the Minister the names of a dozen suitable people.

Even the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, is embarrassed.

Deputies must allow the Minister to reply.

The dinosaurs of Irish politics.

If the steps taken by the previous Government had been adequate, and if they had not found themselves at times in a similar difficult situation, we could well have exceeded 40% by this time. There are difficulties.

One in seven.

The Deputy's party could not find them either.

They appointed female and male hacks.

The policy regarding 40% will continue.

It is most appropriate that the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, is taking the Order of Business. How, in anybody's name, can he and his Department appeal the case of Jamie Sinnott to the Supreme Court?

Hear, hear.

Have we learned nothing in recent years? I commend the Minister when on a previous occasion in relation to allegations of abuse of young vulnerable people in institutions under the care of the State he courageously ignored legal advice and allowed us look at that for which we might be collectively responsible. Why is the Minister pursuing this family and denying it rights granted by the High Court? Does the Minister agree this is not a technical appeal on a point of clarification to the Supreme Court, but a full frontal assault on the rights of a citizen of the Republic to get the same kind of education to which every other child is entitled under the Constitution? Why is the Minister doing this? Has he learned nothing?

Will the Minister for Education and Science inform us why he has concealed from the House a codicil to Mr. Justice Barr's judgment in the High Court to the effect that if the compensation to the Sinnott family was further frustrated by the Minister and his Department they would be subject to serious punitive damages which would accrue to the taxpayer?

There is no concealment of anything. The issue raised by the Deputy has been a matter of public record and has been stated openly. This is a technical appeal. The appeal by the State to the Supreme Court in the case of Jamie Sinnott v. The Minister for Education and Science, Ireland and the Attorney General is pending and is expected to open on 27 March. It is being conducted in order to clarify points of law arising from the judgment of Mr. Justice Barr in the case, in particular whether the State's duty as regards the provision for primary education extends to such provision for adults and in effect any person. Given that the Supreme Court now has jurisdiction over this matter, Deputies will realise it would be inappropriate for me to make any further comment on the issues arising in the case.

The Government could withdraw the appeal.

It is a serious issue.

Ceann Comhairle, are we still dealing with the questions raised?

The Minister should explain to the House why he is persecuting this young man.

We are. Deputy Shatter is completely out of order, as is Deputy O'Keeffe.

The outcome of the appeal will not affect the damages which have been paid to Jamie Sinnott and his mother. These amount to £42,000 to enable Mrs. Sinnott to put in place a home based applied behavioural analysis programme for her son. In addition, £15,000 has been paid to Mrs. Sinnott to cover expenses already incurred by her in providing an education for Jamie. Even if the Supreme Court finds that the State's duty in respect of the provision of primary education is confined to making such provision for children, the State will provide continuing education and training for Jamie Sinnott and others with similar disabilities, appropriate to their needs as adults with disabilities and in a setting appropriate for adults.

The House should also know that the Government has decided to pay all costs arising from the High Court case and the Supreme Court appeal, whatever the outcome. Deputies will be aware that this is a most unusual step in such a case, but it has been taken to ensure the Sinnotts are not exposed financially in circumstances where the need to have legal certainty on important issues requires an appeal to the Supreme Court.

I assure the House that I regard it as unacceptable that any parents, particularly of a child with special needs, should find it necessary to resort to litigation to secure their children's educational entitlements. While the Government has presided over an unprecedented level of improvements in special education services, I am fully aware that much more remains to be done. Since the 1993 judgment in the O'Donoghue case a great deal has been done, and that continues. A total of 122 special classes have been established to date at a cost of more than £7 million per annum. In October 1998 the Government made a decision that the needs of children with a disability or a special need would be met, regardless of the cost. A total of 78 classes have been established since then and the number of assistants in classes has increased from 299 to 1,700 in the past two years. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt about the Government's commitment to provide services, which has been publicly questioned.

In October, immediately after the Jamie Sinnott case, I announced a new package for children with autism.

On a point of order, the practice in the House is that if a script is being read by a Minister is it circulated. It is a rather long script and not just speaking notes.

We are dealing with Leaders' questions.

Are scripts allowed without being circulated?

This is an extremely sensitive matter.

Absolutely.

I do not want to have to appeal this case. The Deputy should allow me to speak here if I cannot speak outside.

Why can the Minister not speak outside?

We will go into that another day. There can be much misrepresentation of a situation, as the Deputy will be aware.

I ask the Minister not to respond to interruptions.

I intend to protect not only Jamie Sinnott and his mother but to provide for costs for both sides. At the same time we must have clarity for the operations of the Department in future because of the points of law raised in the initial case. We have to be sufficiently mature to have those considered while protecting the people concerned. I want to give the assurance that not only have we provided for the next two and a half years' education which Jamie Sinnott's mother wishes to have – that is what the money is for – but I will continue to provide that from the educational point of view, irrespective of the outcome.

Big deal.

That is the question people are asking, never mind the big deals.

I ask the Minister not to respond to interruptions.

I assure Deputies that is our approach but we have to have the basic issue resolved. That is the legal advice I have. Otherwise we would have to provide a primary education for life for any person – and the judgment states "any person", not just someone with a disability – who is not happy with the education he or she got in the first instance. That is one issue on which we need clarity in order to know how to proceed. If Opposition Members were in Government they would also have to ask the Supreme Court to clarify this matter so we would have a clear definition for the future.

If Mr. Michael McDowell was a Deputy and not Attorney General what would he have to say?

I have heard replies from various Ministers in my time and some of them were given the benefit of the doubt because they did not have much experience. However, I can think of no Minister with more experience than Dr. Woods. I am ashamed and appalled by what he has put on the record.

You are still the Minister for Education and Science. Is that not true? Yet you are running to the Supreme Court—

Deputy Quinn should address the Chair.

Am I correct in assuming the Minister for Education and Science told the House that on a matter as fundamental as the human right of access to education for a disabled person, it is the Supreme Court which will make policy and not the Cabinet of which he is a member? If he wants clarification, let the clarification be put into law, let the law be brought in draft form before the House and let us decide.

What is it about the Government? It has money coming out its ears and can build any pet project anywhere yet it goes to the Supreme Court to deny the rights of a disabled child and his parent to get an education.

That is not true.

The Minister will force every parent to go to the Supreme Court to vindicate their rights, but in his generosity the Minister will pay their costs.

Untrue.

The Minister's response was appalling. At this stage, will he not simply cancel the appeal to the Supreme Court, form his own policy in relation to what he wants clarified, bring that to the House and let us decide on it in this republican assembly? If anyone wants to go to the courts subsequently, let them do so.

The facts in this case are not in contention. The matter of separation of powers to which Deputy Quinn referred is in question. That has to be clarified so that it becomes clear that it is this House which decides.

Not this way.

We are in an age of litigation.

Bring in a law.

Order, please.

Solicitors are already advertising widely for cases which did not relate to the Deputy's questions. These issues must be resolved and the Supreme Court is the place to resolve them.

Why not here?

We cannot do that if the Supreme Court decides how education is to be run. We must test this in the Supreme Court to find out what the outcome will be.

This is a disgrace.

There were 117 cases lodged for individuals previously—

People desperate for their rights.

I remind Deputy Howlin that we are dealing with Leaders' questions.

Almost half of those cases have been withdrawn because the services are being provided throughout the country. It is not an issue of provision of services, which are being provided and will be improved every day.

Withdraw the appeal.

There is no question of a person with a disability not getting the support he or she rightly deserves. The Government is ensuring that does not happen and decided in October 1998 that that would be the position. However, these matters have to be clarified. I do not want to go down that route but we have no alternative. We must have this clarified by the Supreme Court. I have given assurances about the Jamie Sinnott case.

That concludes Leaders' questions.

In relation to the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the Private Rented Sector Bill, will the Minister confirm that neither of these Bills will be seen before the next general election? Is he satisfied to preside over a doubling of numbers on the housing lists in Dublin at a time when public purchasing and building of houses has dropped by 25%? Does he believe that is an expression of the urgency of the Government in tackling the housing problem in Dublin?

Work is at an advanced stage on the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in the Department and the heads of the Bill are expected fairly soon.

On promised legislation, in light of the information now on the public record about vigilantes operating in Kerry and interfering with the operations of the Garda, will the Government bring forward as a matter of urgency the Criminal Justice (Garda Powers) Bill, which is No. 28 on the list? That should ensure that the only rule of law in the State is enforced by the Garda who are accountable, through the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to the House.

We cannot discuss the provisions of a Bill. That is not in order.

These vigilantes are subverting order.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has asked for a full report on the alleged activities from the Garda Commissioner. Any activity that would subvert—

The question is not in order. We can only deal with promised legislation.

The heads of the Criminal Justice (Garda Powers) Bill were approved by Cabinet on 15 February 2000 and it is expected in the middle of this year.

There is a serious and grave threat to our national broadcasting service. The entire staff of RTE had to be evacuated—

This is not in order on the Order of Business.

It is a serious development. I am anxious to find out if the Government is doing anything to protect the public broadcasting service.

It is not in order on the Order of Business.

Does the Government consider that women know as little about sport as it considers them to know about pensions? Only two of the 11 members of the board of Sports Campus Ireland Development Limited are women. That is only 18% of the board. Obviously the Government does not think women know anything about sport.

That is not in order.

It is in order under the equality legislation.

The Deputy did not mention the Equality Bill.

The Chair cut her off.

Is there a promised Equality Bill?

I do not think legislation is promised in that area.

It is clearly in breach of the equality legislation.

There has been a motion in my name on the Order Paper for some time seeking the appointment of a Minister to co-ordinate immigrant affairs. Given that immigrant women are allegedly being sold into slavery in brothels in Ireland and that this is International Women's Day, will the Minister find an opportunity to allow a debate on that motion in the near future?

I will ask the Whips to examine the matter.

The Local Government Bill was scheduled to be discussed all day today but due to the foot and mouth legislation, the debate has been curtailed to one and a half hours. However, the draft schedule that has been circulated for the week after St. Patrick's Day does not include the Local Government Bill. When is it intended to resume the debate on that Bill, since it clearly will not be completed today, or is the debate today merely an exercise in getting the process started so the Minister for the Environment and Local Government can tell his councillors it has been introduced but that he has no real intention of progressing it?

I understand the schedule is still under consultation.

When will it resume?

The Deputy should speak to his party Whip.

Can I take it the Bill will be back on the schedule at a point high enough to be debated when the House resumes after St. Patrick's Day?

That matter must be discussed by the Whips.

The Government orders the business of the House.

Deputy Healy-Rae is vetoing the Bill.

The debate is starting today and will be scheduled as soon as possible.

There is independent policing in Kerry and now somebody from Kerry is determining Government legislation. It was ever thus. The Government does not know how to govern.

It will be a long time before the Deputy is governing.

We have already heard how women's rights to representation are consistently being eroded by this Government. Women's rights are human rights. What is the cause of the delay in establishing the Human Rights Commission, given our obligation under the Good Friday Agreement and the apparent commitment of the Government to this legislation? Why is amending legislation not introduced as a matter of urgency so the Human Rights Commission can begin its work and hold its first meeting? Will the Minister clarify whether amending legislation to the Human Rights Commission Act will be introduced or whether the Government will delay until the human rights convention is incorporated into Irish law? Is the Government treating this as a matter of urgency? What is causing the delay?

There are two Bills. One was enacted last year. The Human Rights (Incorporation of European Conventions) Bill is expected this session.

I call Deputy Sargent.

On a point of order, the Minister appears to misunderstand the point raised. The Human Rights Commission legislation was enacted but the Human Rights Commission amending legislation is proposed. That is different from the European conventions legislation. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform informed the House that he would introduce amending legislation to increase the number of members on the commission so it can start its work. He made a complete mess of the original appointments to the commission. When will that Bill be introduced?

That Bill was enacted last year.

It is a straightforward amendment.

An amendment to the Bill is promised.

I will have to consult with the Minister as to when that amendment might be brought forward.

The Government should treat it as a matter of urgency.

We are approaching another holiday weekend. The level of road casualties and the Selby crash must remind us again of the need for the road traffic Bill. The National Roads Authority is able to operate at a low UK standard for crash barriers. Will the road traffic Bill be urgently enacted and will it have the European EN1317 requirement? This is a matter of life and death and it should be clarified.

The Bill is expected to be published this session.

(Mayo): My question relates to another matter of life and death and promised legislation. The House will be aware that 150 people die each year from lung cancer caused by exposure to radon gas. In July 1998, the Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise, Deputy Jacob, promised legislation to deal with the effects of radon gas in the workplace. It is not dealt with by the Health and Safety Authority, which passes the problem to the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. Specific legislation was promised but we have seen no trace of it. When is it proposed to introduce the legislation promised almost two years ago?

This is a Seanad Bill which is awaiting Committee Stage debate in the Seanad.

The Taoiseach is out of the country and the Tánaiste has been out of the country for some days—

The Taoiseach is not out of the country.

He is on the island.

I am not sure when the Tánaiste is due to return. The House is adjourning this evening for almost two weeks. In light of the adverse economic consequences of the foot and mouth crisis, does the Government intend making a statement on the introduction of measures that will assist business in this difficult time?

That question is down for the Tánaiste this evening.

The difficulty is that there is no Question Time today and no Adjournment debate. The Dáil is not due to sit next week. It suits the Government to allow matters to proceed on autopilot.

Does the Minister wish to comment?

There is no legislation involved.

(Dublin West): I wish to ask a question on legislation. First, however, our thoughts will be with Deputy Noonan and Fine Gael over the weekend as they fervently hope that the homeless cheque will not turn up again on their doorstep.

A bottle of smoke.

That is irrelevant to the Order of Business.

(Dublin West): It is, a Cheann Chomhairle. If Deputy Noonan has a problem, he should consult with Fianna Fáil who has never turned away a homeless cheque, regardless of its parentage.

Fair play.

Will Deputy Higgins return to the Order of Business?

Every cheque that goes to Fianna Fáil finds a home, even if an extension has to be built for it.

(Dublin West): Even cheques whose parentage was severely disputed were willingly held onto by Fianna Fáil.

A question on the Order of Business, Deputy.

(Dublin West): The insurance industry is again showing overweaning arrogance with the report today that Axa will hardly insure drivers in County Louth.

The Deputy is making a statement. Will he please ask a question?

(Dublin West): A Ceann Chomhairle, one needs to get up a bit of speed before one gets going.

The Deputy should not appear so helpless.

(Dublin West): This is a serious matter. I ask the Government to bring forward legislation to control the insurance industry. It is exploiting young drivers and now, apparently, will not insure drivers in County Louth. The cost of home insurance also went through the roof overnight. Can legislation be introduced to control this greedy cabal which has so much power over our lives by virtue of the position it holds?

The Minister should start his reply with finding a home for a cheque.

There is an Insurance Bill, 1999 with amendments from the Seanad. Perhaps that might be relevant.

Does the Tánaiste still propose to represent the Government on St. Patrick's Day in Edinburgh?

This matter is not relevant to the Order of Business.

Is this appropriate given the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the UK?