It is proposed to take No. 21, motion re Public Health (Tobacco) Bill, 2001; No. 22, motion re referral to joint committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of a proposal to the Treaty of Amsterdam – a proposal for a Council framework decision on joint investigation teams; No. 23, motion re referral to joint committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of a proposal to the Treaty of Amsterdam – the proposed Council decision concerning Ireland's request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis; No. 24, motion re referral to joint committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of a proposal that section 17A of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966, shall continue in force for the period ending 8 March 2003; and No. 54, Public Health (Tobacco) Bill, 2001 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages.

It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: (1) the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 10 p.m.; and (2) Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 24 shall be decided without debate. Private Members' Business shall be No. 125, motion re school building programme.

There are two proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed to?

No, Sir. I am opposing this proposal because of the Taoiseach's unexpected absence from the House today in curious circumstances. Meetings with visiting Heads of State are usually arranged to avoid a clash with the Taoiseach's parliamentary duties. At 5.30 p.m. yesterday, totally out of line with precedent, my office was informed that the Taoiseach would not be taking the Order of Business today, despite the fact that his appointments diary had listed him as taking it. I had been intending today to renew my challenge to the Taoiseach to debate—

That matter does not arise under a proposal for a late sitting.

—the abortion referendum, an issue on which he is running scared.

Will the Taoiseach stay out all week?

I do not know how Deputy Noonan can relate that matter to a proposal for a late sitting of the House.

I call Deputy Quinn without interruption.

It is not just today that the Taoiseach is running scared; we are being asked at the commencement of business today to give our assent to a programme for the first three weeks of March during which we would normally sit for nine days but in reality we will sit for five and when, because of the way in which those days will fall, the Taoiseach will only be accountable to answer questions on one of them. If ever there was a case of a Taoiseach running for cover in the dying days of an Administration, it is now. He should be present in the House today and we should be sitting in the normal way.

Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed to?

Deputy Quinn is not being asked to do anything except to agree to the Order of Business for today. There is nothing in it to do with business tomorrow or the next day or for the month of March. The visit by the Hungarian Prime Minister was arranged in January. He arrived at Dublin Airport this afternoon, is meeting with the Taoiseach and leaving immediately afterwards for Brussels. The Taoiseach is virtually always here for the Order of Business; he will be here tomorrow and was here for questions this afternoon. It is unreasonable for the Opposition to object on this occasion when he is meeting a visiting prime minister.

Normally, if there was a change in who was taking the Order of Business, my office—

That matter does not arise. I wish to put the question on the proposal for the late sitting.

The Taoiseach was listed to take the Order of Business.

Why can we not discuss parliamentary business in Parliament?

Deputy Shatter, you will withdraw that remark or leave the House.

The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to respond to the Tánaiste. It is a tradition of the House to allow Members to respond. Which remark do you mean, Sir?

The remark about casting reflection on the impartiality of the Chair.

I did not cast reflection on your impartiality, Sir.

You will withdraw the remark or leave the House.

I withdraw the remark, Sir.

Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 21 to 24, inclusive, agreed to?

No, Sir. We are protesting, Sir, at the way in which business is being managed in this House. This proposal is but one indication of the cavalier attitude of the Government. In its run to the country it will no longer be accountable to this Chamber. I have cited earlier, Sir, that this House is being denied its constitutional right to hold the Taoiseach and the Government accountable as is our obligation under the Constitution as elected Members. I ask the Tánaiste if she is a party to this sordid little arrangement that is ongoing where the Taoiseach will only answer parliamentary questions once in the first three weeks of March. Is she aware of what is going on? Has she been consulted? Can I hear directly from the Tánaiste that she is giving her political approval to this set of parliamentary arrangements that will effectively deny accountability in this Chamber?

Nos. 22, 23 and 24 are about referring matters to joint committees.

We know that.

I do not have any problem with that and I do not know why Deputy Quinn has.

They could be widened but does the Tánaiste have a view?

I have plenty of views on many things.

We will now take leaders' questions.

Will the Tánaiste comment on the welcome statement by the Referendum Commission that, contrary to its earlier statement, it will now be in a position to provide information by way of 20 page booklets to each household, which will be delivered by An Post? I put it to the Tánaiste that the man sitting on her left was able to inform the nation last night that this will happen. What level of discussion took place between the Government and the Referendum Commission and what were the considerations which led the Government and the commission to believe it was not legitimate to involve the Opposition parties in those discussions?

In replying to Deputy Noonan's question, will the Tánaiste clarify the reason it has taken the Government so long in the first instance to establish the commission? In light of its guillotining of this legislation prior to Christmas, the Government knew clearly what was intended and when the referendum would take place. Is the debacle within the Referendum Commission the inevitable outcome of the squalid fight or phoney war between the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil over the so-called national stadium at Abbotstown? Is this the price we have to pay for the stand-off between the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach?

I understand the Referendum Commission, following discussions with the Government Supplies Agency—

Is that the man sitting beside the Tánaiste?

The Deputy should just listen.

Allow the Tánaiste to continue without interruption, please.

—came to the view yesterday that it would be in a position to provide a 20 page document to every household over the weekend of 27 February. I was not involved in any discussions with the Referendum Commission nor do I believe the Government was involved in any discussions with the Referendum Commission.

Who told the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform?

Please allow the Tánaiste to reply without interruption.

As Deputy Quinn probably knows, there was a High Court challenge to the referendum. On the day that challenge was determined, the Government announced the date and proceeded to put in place the commission.

After eight days.

We were not legally able to do that before the High Court decision was made.

Why 6 March?

I call Deputy Noonan but before he commences, the Ceann Comhairle made clear here on Thursday the Standing Order in relation to leaders' questions.

We are all to be like church mice.

The Ceann Comhairle stated:

I must again emphasise the fact that under Standing Order 26 leaders' questions and supplementary questions are strictly confined to the leaders of Fine Gael and the Labour Party and replies confined to the Taoiseach. No other Member from either side may intervene or raise a point of order.

I ask the House, therefore, to obey the Standing Order. Leaders' questions have been a very successful facility in this House.

That is a new rule, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. There is nothing in Standing Orders to the effect that one cannot—

That is the Standing Order agreed by this House.

It is not. The Chair is wrong.

I call Deputy Noonan.

The Chair is interpreting Standing Orders incorrectly. The Chair is wrong.

The Chair is never wrong. I am quoting the Ceann Comhairle.

The Chair is regularly wrong.

The Chair is not wrong. That is the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle. I call Deputy Noonan.

(Dublin West): The Standing Order was stitched up between the Government and Fine Gael.

It is a matter of public record that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was in a position to inform the people last night on television that this new arrangement was about to be made by the Referendum Commission and the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Ahern, was in a position to go into detail on it this morning on "Morning Ireland". I again ask the Tánaiste, what level of discussion took place between the Government and the Referendum Commission? Will she also inform us who is drafting the 20 pages of information which is being circulated, and was the Government consulted on the draft?

As Deputy Noonan is aware, that is entirely a matter for the commission. I am surprised Deputy Noonan is not pleased that the commission is in a position to deliver information to every household—

I said we were pleased.

—because I thought that was the problem.

The Deputy has no interest in the referendum—

The Deputy does not have any proposals.

I ask Ministers and Opposition Members to allow the Tánaiste to speak.

My understanding is that An Post indicated to the commission yesterday that it would be in a position to make the deliveries from 27 February.

Who talked to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform?

The commission, of course.

Why did he not talk to us?

It is like the iodine tablets.

On a separate matter, the Tánaiste will be aware, as will every Member of this House, that a large public meeting will take place tonight in the Mansion House. The meeting has been called out of a sense of absolute frustration, anger and betrayal on the part of different groups who have been led up the garden path by this Administration in relation to the Disabilities Bill and who believe that not only is it inadequate legislation but it removes existing rights in legislation if implemented in its drafted form. In the light of such unprecedented opposition and the anger that is now manifest across the country, will the Tánaiste, with whatever residual power the Progressive Democrats have in this Administration, give an undertaking to the House that this Bill will not see the light of day in terms of Second Stage? She has that power, or so she boasts in relation to other matters of Government policy. In the dying days of this Administration, will the Tánaiste exercise that residual power and kill this Bill which does not deserve to live?

I once read a book entitled "Seven Types of Ambiguity". On Question Time today I asked the Taoiseach about this Bill and he appeared to indicate in his usual ambiguous way that section 47 was to be amended, but he did not say that categorically. How stands the Bill? Can the Tánaiste put that on the record in a forthright way?

I presume that is a compliment, Deputy Noonan. It is an improvement on what you had to say about me on Saturday night in my constituency, but I hope you enjoyed yourself there.

He spoke the truth.

If the Tánaiste addressed her remarks through the Chair, we might get the silence required by Standing Orders.

I am aware of the public meeting that will take place this evening.

Will the Tánaiste attend it?

I am also aware of the major concern among members of the disability community, their families and those who work with them. The Government had a long discussion about these matters at the Cabinet meeting today, which the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, attended. The Government wants to get the Bill right. We have already indicated, as has the Minister of State, that amendments will be accepted—

Withdraw it.

—and she wants to further consult with members of the disability community. The Minister of State will make announcements later this evening on the outcome of the Government discussion.

In the Tánaiste's widespread experience in this House and in consultation with various groups, does she believe that the listed groups which are scheduled to speak – Kathy Sinnott of the Hope Project, Deirdre Cahill of NAMHI, Donal Toolan of the Forum for People with Disabilities, John Dolan of the Disability Federation of Ireland, Seamus Greene of the National Parents and Siblings Alliance and a speaker for people with a disability in Ireland – are all wrong?

The Deputy did a lot for disability as Minister for Finance.

He did a lot.

I ask the Minister, Deputy Martin,—

Would you look at who we have?

—to obey Standing Orders.

No wonder they are complaining.

The Government does nothing we ask.

Deputy Quinn, without interruption.

I did—

I ask the Minister not to intervene.

He is wounded again.

Standing Orders are very specific on leaders' questions and the Chair is obliged to implement them.

The Minister, Deputy Martin, started in education.

I ask Ministers not to intervene.

What about the poverty strategy?

The matter needs to be clarified tonight.

I ask Opposition Members other than the leaders of parties not to intervene.

Zero tolerance seems to mean that we should kill everyone in sight.

Deputy Farrelly should allow Deputy Quinn to continue.

I can readily understand why the Minister for Health and Children—

He started the rot as Minister for Education and Science.

—was provoked into such a disorderly intervention. He knows the strength of feeling in his constituency about the Sinnott case. He knows precisely the sense of betrayal every citizen felt when that case was pursued in the courts.

Hear, hear.

We have to give citizens of this country who have disabilities equal rights under law.

Which Deputy Quinn did.

Deputies are talking about the fact that no provision for rights is made in the Bill.

Did the Minister for Education and Science hear what the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, said about him?

It is clear that there was a crisis discussion in Cabinet today as the behaviour of the Government has all the hallmarks of it. The frantic efforts of the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, who has beseeched different Ministers in the Chamber today, is evidence of that. Can the Tánaiste assure the House that the Disability Bill, 2001, which is due to be taken on Thursday, will be withdrawn—

It needs to be rewritten.

—from the Order Paper until it is completely rewritten?

Hear, hear.

Nothing short of that will satisfy the many groups and individuals I mentioned.

I say to Deputy Quinn that there was no crisis meeting today. The Government had its regular meeting.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): It is always a crisis meeting.

There were many crisis meetings during the rainbow Government, from what I understand. They went into the early hours of the morning.

The Government's crisis meeting is still continuing.

Allow the Tánaiste to conclude without interruption.

Some people are in permanent crisis.

The Progressive Democrats, for example.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Cabinet meeting will continue until tomorrow morning.

I say to Deputy Quinn that while the Government reflected on certain concerns this morning, it will not be withdrawing the Bill. The Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, will be making a full statement this evening in relation to the outcome of the Government's discussions.

She should make it in the House.

It should be made before the House.

Order, please.

On a point of information—

There can be no points of information on leaders' questions.

Once again this House will not be made aware.

I call Deputy Fitzgerald.

On a point of order—

The Minister of State can run, but she cannot hide.

If the Disability Bill is to come to the House on Thursday, may I ask the Tánaiste why the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, is making announcements somewhere else tonight?

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

Officials are preparing scripts.

Can she confirm what the changes are to be?

I call Deputy Shatter.

The legislation is due to come to the House on Thursday.

The Deputy is in order asking about legislation on the Order of Business.

The legislation is due to come to the House on Thursday, but the Tánaiste said that the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, will announce changes to it tonight. Will she announce the changes on "Prime Time" or will she come here? Will the Tánaiste tell us if section 47 will be withdrawn? Will other amendments be made to the Bill?

The Deputy has made her point.

Make the announcement in the House.

The Tánaiste seemed to suggest to Deputy Quinn that it will not be withdrawn, so why are the changes not being announced here? Why is the Tánaiste not telling us what was decided this morning?

I call Deputy O'Sullivan.

This is about legislation that is removing rights.

On the same issue, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the House needs to know what will happen to this Bill. I have consistently called for its withdrawal in recent weeks, with no response from the Government.

That is right.

The Government has finally woken up to the problems the Bill contains. The National Disability Authority and the Equality Authority, both of which were set up statutorily by the Government, have expressed concern about fundamental problems in the Bill.

They have been muzzled.

It is not enough to amend it; it needs to be withdrawn. A clear statement on the matter should be made in the House.

Hear, hear.

The Government has shown contempt for the House.

It is contempt.

A statement needs to be made in accordance with the wishes of the House.

The Minister of State intends to consult the relevant organisations before the Bill is debated in this House.

So it is being withdrawn.

There will be no debate before that.

Is the Tánaiste happy with that?

I call Deputy Shatter.

On a point of order—

Who will defend the independent organisations for persons with disabilities, set up by the Minister?

I call Deputy Quinn.

Will the announcement be made on "Prime Time" tonight?

Deputy Fitzgerald is out of order. She has made her point and the Tánaiste has replied.

Give it up.

It is a disgrace.

I call Deputy Quinn.

In response to a question I asked under leaders' questions, the Tánaiste indicated that a statement would be made in respect of promised legislation. The indication was that substantial changes would be made to the Bill. It is appropriate and proper, out of decency to this House, that the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, should come to this House to make a statement.

Hear, hear.

We will facilitate a statement by the Minister of State, as it should not be made anywhere other than in this Chamber, in the light of what is happening.

If it is not made here, it will be a disservice to the House.

The Deputy has made his point. I call Deputy Shatter.

I ask the Tánaiste to ensure that the Whips are consulted about the time.

It should be taken this evening at 7 o'clock.

Will the Tánaiste give an undertaking that the matter will be addressed in the House? It is too important to be taken anywhere else.

In deference to the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, who has responsibility in this area—

She has a responsibility to the House.

We know.

The House should be consulted.

Do Deputies want us to pursue the Bill as it is or do they want us to make changes?

A statement should be made here.

It should be made tonight.

We cannot have a debate on it now. I will hear the Tánaiste and nobody else on this.

All that should concern Deputies is whether the right thing is happening.

I call Deputy Shatter on the next matter. We have spent an hour on the Order of Business.

She will make the Government's thinking on the matter clear tonight before the group assembles.

I call Deputy Shatter on another matter.

Is this Chamber relevant?

Deputy Ryan, I have called Deputy Shatter on another matter.

The Minister of State is running away.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, this has been—

Deputy O'Sullivan, we have had a long discussion on the matter, which was the subject of a leader's question.

This is a disgrace.

I have called Deputy Shatter.

The Government is showing contempt for those involved.

It is a disgrace.

If Deputy Shatter is not allowed to speak, I will move on to the next business.

It has no respect for the importance of dealing with this issue in the House.

That is right.

I call Deputy Shatter.

It should be dealt with in this House.

Deputy O'Sullivan, the matter has already been addressed and the Tánaiste has replied. I have called Deputy Shatter.

This is not acceptable.

I will move on to the next business if the Deputy does not resume her seat.

The Chair cannot do that.

I call Deputy Shatter.

The Courts and Court Officers—

It is not acceptable, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I have called Deputy Shatter.

I have raised this issue four times in the last two weeks.

I will move on to the next business.

The Chair cannot do that.

The House should hear about changes tonight.

The Government is insulting us as well as the disabled.

The Tánaiste said that the Minister of State would announce changes tonight.

It is not good enough that we should have to hear about it on television tonight.

There is gross disorder in the House. I call Deputy Shatter.

The Courts and Court Officers Bill, 2001, has been on the Order Paper for nine months. I understand the Government has decided to appoint three new Circuit Court judges, two of whom will be appointed to the Flood tribunal, but existing legislation does not provide for that. Will the Tánaiste tell us when it is planned to order Second Stage of the Courts and Court Officers Bill? Is it intended to amend the Bill to allow for the new appointments? Will the Government give the Bill the urgency it requires due to the fact that the failure to enact it has resulted in a huge backlog of cases at High Court level? This can only be addressed by appointing additional judges to the High Court.

The Government decided today to consult the Opposition in relation to new judges for the Flood tribunal and I understand that the Attorney General plans to consult both major Opposition parties. In order to provide additional members for the Flood tribunal, the Government intends to appoint new members of the Judiciary, which requires separate legislation.

We have known that since last June.

The Whips will have to make a decision in relation to the Courts and Court Officers Bill, which is clearly a much longer Bill. A speedier legislative response is needed if we are to make the appointments referred to by Deputy Shatter.

The Bill has been sitting around for nine months.

I thank the Tánaiste for her intervention. As leader of Fine Gael, the Attorney General informed me of the Government's decision, but there was absolutely no consultation. I asked him if he was ringing me to inform me or to consult me and he said that he rang me to inform me. I neither agreed nor disagreed with the names the Attorney General mentioned.

He is a busy man.