The Order of Business will be No. 22, motion re referral to select committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of a proposal for the dispatch of a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force for service with the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea; No. 23, motion re referral to joint committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of a proposal under the Fourth Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam – proposal for a Council regulation establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the member state responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the member states by a third country national; No. 6, Asset Covered Securities Bill, 2001 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; and No. 52, Family Support Agency Bill, 2001 – Second Stage (resumed). It is proposed notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders that Nos. 22 and 23 shall be decided without debate. Private Members' business shall be No. 117, motion re commissioning of MOX plant at Sellafield.

There is one proposal to put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 22 and 23, without debate, agreed?

No, I am not agreeing to the Order of Business. Despite requests to the Government Whip, the Government is refusing to have the normal statements on the Ghent Summit of last Friday. It has been custom and practice in the House that informal summits are debated by way of statements. This happened following the summits at Stockholm, Lisbon, Finland and Berlin. I predicted that as soon as the Taoiseach established his forum on Europe he would try to remove European issues from the House—

We are moving away from the motion before the House regarding Nos. 22 and 23.

I am absolutely in order to give reasons for my opposition. I also thought it was part of the duties of your office, Sir, to protect Members of the House. An attempt is being made to create a very significant precedent. The Taoiseach is refusing to make a statement in the House on the Ghent Summit, even though issues central to the Parliament were debated.

To deal with the Deputy's point about his rights in this debate—

It is not acceptable—

I remind the Deputy that Standing Order 26(2) provides for only a brief statement opposing the proposal before the House. The Deputy's remarks should be directed to the proposal before the House. The proposal before the House concerns Nos. 22 and 23.

I am addressing the issue. Despite attempts to resolve the issue without raising it in the House, the Government is refusing to make the customary statements on the Ghent Summit either today, tomorrow or Thursday. That is unacceptable and I am opposing the Order of Business for that reason. It is an absolute farce that as soon as the forum on Europe has been established in Dublin Castle the talking shop has begun and European issues will be buried there with no statements in the House.

I wish to assist. Questions

Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 8 today were on the Ghent Summit and I answered them.

The Taoiseach had no option.

That has nothing to do with it.

I ask the Deputies opposite to listen – it would do them a lot of good. The informal councils are not reported on in the House and never have been.

Yes, they are reported to the House. What about the councils at Stockholm, Lisbon, Finland and Berlin?

They were formal councils.

They were not.

They were. Informal councils are not reported to the House.

The Taoiseach is misleading the House.

The Taoiseach, without interruption.

Informal councils are not reported to the House.

On a point of order—

I call Deputy Howlin.

—the ones I have listed were all informal summits.

That is not a point of order. I have called Deputy Howlin.

Clarity is necessary on the reporting mechanism. I want to raise the referral to the joint committee of No. 23, which is an alternative arrangement to the Dublin Convention. While I have no difficulty with it being debated by the committee, I want to alert the Government to the fact that every proposal under this heading comes at the last minute with a tele phone call to Opposition spokespersons saying there is not time and it will have to be referred without debate. The cavalier attitude of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to very important issues should not be tolerated by the House. Even the Government gets late notice. This protocol has been with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for three months and did not go to Cabinet until 9 October. In future we will not agree to simply referring these matters to committees at the last minute, with late briefings and inadequate preparation.

In the interests of orderly debate, will the Taoiseach correct the record that the summits at Stockholm, Lisbon, Tampere and Berlin were all informal and that there was normal reporting to this House by way of statement after each summit? I ask the Taoiseach to return to his Whip and have the normal statements on Thursday.

The Deputy is entitled to a response.

We are not having a discussion on the issue. I have already stood and put the question.

The Whips can discuss the issue.

On Deputy Howlin's question, I understand there are delays and these issues crop up at short notice. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform told me that short notice is given in regard to these issues. However, we will endeavour to improve matters. The Minister does his best to deal with the issues as soon as possible and to give as much notice as possible.

I will now take leaders' questions. I call Deputy Noonan.

It is now widely accepted around Leinster House that there will be a statement from the Provisional IRA at 5 o'clock, with the customary P. O'Neill signature. Has the Taoiseach advance information of the contents of the statement? Is the conventional wisdom correct that this will indicate that the IRA has again engaged with General de Chastelain with a view to putting arms beyond use? Can the Taoiseach confirm that it is expected General de Chastelain will reply positively before 6 o'clock?

While we all welcome the developments that seem to have taken place over the past number of days, will the Taoiseach outline to the House in his reply the steps that need to be taken to ensure that the institutions are not suspended by the end of this week and if it is his understanding that the Ulster Unionist Party led by David Trimble will meet with General de Chastelain some time later today to obtain from him an up to date report as to what action, if any, has been taken by the IRA? Can one reasonably assume that the message that will be conveyed to the Ulster Unionist Party will be of a sufficient scale and import to enable it to announce that it is prepared to go back into the Executive?

The statements yesterday from the leadership of Sinn Féin have clearly been helpful. I have not seen any text nor am I aware of the text of what will be issued later this evening, but the important issue is the statement by the chairman of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, General de Chastelain, and until I see that statement, we will have to remain cautious but optimistic. That statement will reply to what Deputy Noonan and Deputy Quinn have asked, namely, will it allow us not only to move on without seeing the collapse of the Assembly, the Executive, the North-South Bodies and the other mechanisms within the Good Friday Agreement but to see them get a new lease of life so that matters can move forward in an unhindered way? It is a year to the day since the North-South Bodies ran into difficulties, but I ask everybody to wait until they see General John de Chastelain's statement. It is important that statements are not made before he reports. While he has not confirmed he will report I presume he will do so later today. It is for him to judge whether it is in line with what we hoped to achieve in early August. If his statement is positive I assume there will be movement on the issue of the institutions and that there will be new life in the procedures that have not worked effectively since the last week in October of last year. I cannot be any more helpful until I have seen General de Chastelain's text. Given that he is independent, I have not contacted him and I do not want to put any more pressure on him or his colleagues than is right for me to do.

It is clear that a number of arrangements have been made in the background. Is it the understanding of the Taoiseach and the British Government that any move by the Provisional IRA in the direction we hope will be accompanied by a parallel move by loyalist paramilitaries? In his discussions with Sinn Féin, has the Taoiseach raised the issue of the standing down of the IRA as distinct from decommissioning? It appears to many of us that an army without arms is the ultimate paradox. Does he agree that if the IRA is moving on decommissioning is it not time to commence discussions on the complete standing down of that organisation and the progression of Sinn Féin to becoming a fully democratic party?

If we can move forward and get the institutions working, normal politics will work. No agreement has been made with the loyalist parties as part of any discussions that have taken place. It is to be hoped that the British Government will ultimately be able to persuade them to decommission their weapons. I hope the Secretary of State will continue to try to make progress in this area but it is not linked. However, other issues are linked and these were discussed last July. They include demilitarisation, advancing the stability of the institutions, which is linked to this aspect, and the policing agenda, where substantial progress has been made although more is required.

I have discussed the issue of the standing down of the Provisional IRA many times. On at least two or three occasions Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have said it is their wish that, ultimately, the peace process will reach the stage where the provisional army would not only be inactive but that it would no longer exist in any form. However, we must continue to work to achieve that. This means ensuring the aspects which prevent it from happening, be it demilitarisation, the events in the Ardoyne area and tensions in other parts of north Belfast and on the Garvaghy Road, must be addressed. People must see that these difficulties do not persist. In the meantime probably the most we can do is to ensure that guns remain silent and that people are not involved in targeting or other activities. We must continue to work to achieve the stated position of the republican leadership, where there will be no army, structures or paramilitary activities.

Three months ago, 96 haemophiliacs affected by contaminated products from foreign owned pharmaceutical companies asked that the terms of reference of the Lindsay tribunal would be extended to enable the tribunal investigate. In reply to a question by Deputy McManus today, the Minister for Health and Children indicated that he is considering what action to take in the light of the decline by the chairwoman of the tribunal to accept that the terms of reference would be broadened to include this. Will the Taoiseach indicate if, at today's Cabinet meeting, the Government made a decision on establishing a new tribunal and, if so, when will the decision be communicated?

Will the Taoiseach indicate the reasons given by Ms Justice Lindsay for not extending the terms of reference of the tribunal? Will he also indicate if it is the view of the Attorney General that these are reasons which inhibit her from extending them? Against that background will he indicate if it is the Government's intention to establish further tribunals to deal with the issues that are not within the terms of reference of the Lindsay tribunal and which the Irish Haemophiliac Association has requested be included?

In answer to a question from Deputy Quinn a fortnight ago I indicated it was the Government's intention to see if it was possible, with the agreement of Ms Justice Lindsay, to amend or extend the terms of reference of her tribunal to allow the issues arising form the international dimension to be addressed. She has given the reasons she does not consider this to be compatible with what she is doing, or desirable. The legal reasons have been stated and circulated. I will ask the Minister to pass a copy to Deputy Noonan.

The Government is now considering how to proceed. If I recall correctly, 95% of the blood products were international, so clearly there is an outstanding issue. With the Attorney General, the Minister is considering the best way to address this issue and we hope to make a decision in the next week or so.

I remind the Taoiseach that he does not have a week. By the end of this month the depository of documentation in Pensacola, Florida, will be effectively returned to the pharmaceutical companies and the documentary evidence which will be critical to any such inquiry will no longer be available. Will the Taoiseach confirm that an application from Ireland for that documentation would be successful only if it could point to some form of action that would be taken in this State, such as a new tribunal or an extension of the existing one? Will he also confirm that time is rapidly running out, that if we are to get to the truth of what happened in this instance we have less than seven days to file a formal request with the authorities in the US to ensure essential documentation is not destroyed, lost or becomes unavailable and that for legal action to have a prospect of success there would have to be a Government decision on a form of inquiry that would enable due process to investigate into the documentation? The Taoiseach does not have a couple of weeks in which to make a decision, it must be made in the next three of four days. What does he propose to do?

Nobody mentioned a couple of weeks. I said next week. We are trying to do something that will achieve the desired end. The Minister is aware that time is short. That is why he considered extending or amending the terms of reference of the Lindsay tribunal but for the reasons outlined that is not a desirable way to proceed. We must find a way that is not merely cosmetic but will resolve the issue. I hope the Minister and the Attorney General will find an appropriate mechanism but it will not be easy.

Was the matter considered at today's Cabinet meeting?

There is no provision for a second supplementary question.

Extensively.

A subject that is often discussed, but little acted upon, is that of people with disability. When will the disability Bill come before this House?

It will come before the House in the course of this session.

The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Tom Kitt, has communicated proposals that seem to be in lieu of the Whistleblowers Protection Bill, 1999, to the Select Committee on Members' Interests. Has the Taoiseach clarified which Minister is to sponsor this legislation? I thought it was to be the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue. He is probably more interested in trumpet blowing than whistleblowing.

Do you have a question appropriate to the Order of Business?

Is the legislation to be brought forward during the life of this Government?

The responsibility lies with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, and with the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt. The legislation is Deputy Rabbitte's Bill with suggested amendments.

On the Order of Business last week the Tánaiste told the House that the heads of the Housing (Private Rented Sector) Bill would be with the Government before Christmas. Will the Taoiseach confirm that?

That question was answered last week.

I am asking the Taoiseach to confirm the commitment the Tánaiste gave to the House.

I also confirm what I said the previous week. The heads of the Bill are expected late this year and the Bill is expected next year.

During the debate on a Government motion last week, the Minister for Public Enterprise said she recognised that a change in the ownership of Aer Lingus is not now an issue.

What is appropriate about that?

He is getting down the runway.

This Bill is No. 110 on the Government list of published legislation. It was in the Seanad but the Bill was withdrawn. On foot of last night's statement by the Minister that she is about to sell part or all of Aer Lingus, will the Bill be reintroduced?

Where stands the Bill?

She will need it if she is going to proceed.

The Aer Lingus Bill has been withdrawn.

Will the Bill be required to implement the Minister's decision? She withdrew it last week.

There will be questions on Aer Lingus immediately after the Order of Business.

As we head into the general election I recall the single biggest issue raised with me during the last one was immigration. Some very intemperate things have recently been said about immigrants. There has been a motion seeking the appointment of a Minister to co-ordinate immigrant affairs in my name on the Order Paper for some time. Will the Taoiseach provide the opportunity for that debate to resume allowing the issue to be discussed in advance of the election and outside its heated atmosphere?

It sounds like a job for Deputy Jacob.

I will ask the Whip.

Will the Government provide time tomorrow or Thursday to discuss the Ghent Summit?

Deputy Noonan raised this earlier. We have never had that on informal meetings. I have asked that to be checked and the note I got back says that it has not been the custom to make statements in advance of informal European Councils. No statements were made on the informal council at Bonn. The Deputy referred to Stockholm but the meetings at Stockholm and Lisbon were full European Council meetings, not informal ones. The spring summit is a formal meeting. If the practice is that we do not have a discussion in advance of informal meetings, I do not see any reason to change.

Tell us what is in our interest.

Can we have a translation in Irish?

In view of the huge delay in getting post-mortem results – up to eight months in some cases – will the Taoiseach bring forward the coroners Bill?

Work is in progress in the Department to give effect to the coroner's report. The Bill will not come forward during this session.

The Taoiseach will be familiar with the proposal of his Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, to pilot an orthodontic 50% subsidy scheme on the northside. Is the Taoiseach aware that the Eastern Regional Health Authority has repeatedly refused to introduce this measure?

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

If I were allowed to finish I would—

It is appropriate to ask a question relating to legislation. It is not appropriate to make a second statement.

Let me ask the question.

Ask the question.

Is it proposed to create the legislative framework necessary for the introduction of the scheme? The Eastern Regional Health Authority has repeatedly refused to do introduce it despite the Minister's urging. Legal advice counsels that he must have a legislative framework, yet he is refusing to come to the House.

I suggest the Deputy submit a parliamentary question.

Legislation was promised to this House.

We are moving on to the next question, Deputy.

A commitment was given to this House.

Resume your seat, Deputy.

On 9 October last the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, replied to an oral question about funding for ABA units for children with autism. He gave an incorrect answer which caused some distress and offence to the parents concerned.

Keep to the Order of Business.

I ask the Taoiseach to allow the Minister the opportunity now to correct the record.

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

The Minister misled the House.

The Minister wants to get up. Let him up.

The Deputy will have to find some other way of raising the matter.

This is an opportunity for the Minister to correct the record.

It does not arise on the Order of Business.

That is no way to treat the Minister.

Resume your seat please, Deputy Shortall.

It is outrageous.

Please resume your seat, Minister. Deputy Shortall, I ask you to resume your seat.

The Minister misled the House.

You will have to put down a substantive motion if you wish to make that allegation about the Minister.

On a point of order—

I am not taking a point of order. There must be order in the House. Do you wish to leave it, Deputy Shortall?

No I do not.

I ask you to resume your seat or leave the House.

There are 25 published Bills relating to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Do those which are published for this session have to give way to the five additional Bills announced as part of the Justice and Home Affairs Council package that the Minister has indicated will take precedence over all others? How many of the five special Bills will be published before Christmas and will the three Bills listed in the list for this session be proceeded with?

I answered this question a fortnight ago, but I will do so again. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has a very long list of legislation before the House in one form or another; at least seven or eight Bills, aside from those mentioned by the Deputy, that are to be published this session.

There are 33 Bills.

There are three or four other Bills.

They make 36.

As I said a couple of weeks ago, the only way to deal with them was to take those Bills on either a Monday or a Friday. That will have to be discussed with the Whips. It is still the position.

Which Bills will be published?

Three of them.

Which ones?

If the Deputy listened rather than shouted at the Chair, he would have heard that three are to be published.

Which?

Three of the Bills are to be published, three of the five.

Which ones?

Three of them. Which five out of the 11 is the Deputy talking about?

Which three?

I will ask the Minister—

Please, Deputies.

A fortnight ago I explained the position. I was asked by the Labour Party to give a briefing to the Whips, which was given last Wednesday night. The spokesperson knows precisely the list and the Bills involved.

It is a quick pick.

No, it is not. If the Deputy does not want a briefing, that is fine. The Labour Party was briefed last Wednesday night on the Bills in question.

It does not know.

It does. The party spokesperson of Deputy Howlin was briefed last Wednesday night. I am seeking agreement on the times the Bills can be taken. Can I take that is agreed?

Can we see the list first?

The Deputy was given a list last week.

Can we see the contents of the Bills?

The Deputy now wants the contents of the Bills. The Deputies wanted the names of them a minute ago.

Get real.

Can we have order in the House? I call Deputy Mitchell.

It is like a game of "The Weakest Link." In respect of promised legislation, does the Taoiseach know if there is any health Bill promised that will cover dental treatment, especially orthodontic treatment?

That matter does not arise on the Order of Business.

I am asking the Taoiseach to confirm that there is promised legislation.

That matter is covered by existing legislation.

It is not.

Currently, it takes—

Can we have silence for Deputy Brian Hayes?

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. It currently takes 16 weeks to turn around an application for child benefit or carer's allowance. Given the appalling record of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, does the Taoiseach know when we are likely to see new prompt payment legislation in respect of social welfare?

It is promised—

Is Deputy Brian Hayes expecting to need child benefit?

Could I—

On a point of order—

I will hear the Deputy's point of order when I have concluded with Deputy Shatter and before moving to

No. 22.

The Criminal Assets Bureau strikes fear into the hearts of both drug barons and other gangsters right across the State. Does the Taoiseach know, in the context of the Criminal Assets Bureau having acquired assets in excess of £23 million, if a statement is to be made this week in the House concerning the circumstances surrounding the resignation of Mr. Barry Galvin as chief legal officer of CAB?

That matter does not arise at this time

Will the Taoiseach tell the House if it is the fault of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the Minster for Finance that Mr. Galvin is no longer in that position?

That matter is not relevant. Deputy Shortall, on a point of order.

There are between—

Deputy Shatter is totally out of order. I ask him to resume his seat. Deputy Shortall, on a point of order.

Is it the case that a Minister is required to correct the record at the first opportunity?

The Deputy will have to raise that matter in some other way. We are moving to No. 22. The Deputy should submit a motion of substance.

I certainly regret that a typing error occurred in the printing. The point was on the wrong side of the letter "i"– that is what happened. I thought that the Deputy would have realised this. Most Deputies, when something like this happens, realise it.

Is the Minister apologising?