It is proposed to take No. 35, motion re Customs and Excise (Mutual Assistance) Act, 2001 (Commencement) Order, 2002; No. 24a– Finance Bill, 2002 – allocation of time motion for select committee; 24b– Finance Bill, 2000 – Financial Resolutions; No. 56, Gas (Interim) (Regulation) Bill, 2001 [Seanad]– Second Stage (resumed), and No. 9, Civil Defence Bill, 2000 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: Nos. 35, 24a and 24b shall be decided without debate and, in the case of 24b, Financial Resolutions, Nos. 1-32, shall be moved together and decided by one question which shall be put from the Chair; the resumed Second Stage of No. 56 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 1.30 p.m., and the sitting shall be suspended from 1.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. to facilitate an electronic voting demonstration for Members in the Dáil Chamber.

There are three proposals to be put to the House. The first concerns Nos. 35, 24a and 24b – motions re Customs and Excise (Mutual Assistance) Act, 2001 (Commencement) Order, 2002 and the Finance Bill, 2002 – allocation of time for select committee, and the Finance Bill, 2002 – Financial Resolutions. Is that proposal agreed to? Agreed. The next proposal deals with No. 56, Gas (Interim) (Regulation) Bill, 2001 [Seanad]– Second Stage (resumed). Is that agreed to?

No, Sir. As has been indicated from these benches on a number of days during the past few weeks, we do not agree to guillotining Bills. If Members wish to contribute, they should be afforded that opportunity. As a matter of principle, we ask the Government to stop guillotining measures when there are days on which the House could sit.

Third, is the proposal for dealing with the suspension of the sitting agreed to? Agreed. I will now take leaders' questions. I call Deputy Noonan.

Yesterday I asked the Taoiseach about the conflict between what seems to be the Government's view on the constitutional position of the morning after pill and IUDs and that expressed by the Referendum Commission. He assured me the commission was wrong and the Government was right. The Minister for Health and Children indicated that he believed I was quoting the commission out of context. The Taoiseach is probably aware the commission has reaffirmed its position. It now states, on the basis of independent legal advice, there is no change in the constitutional status of the use of the IUD or morning after pill. As a consequence, who are we to believe – a Government which has failed to explain matters properly or an independent Referendum Commission acting on independent advice?

At the beginning of this debate the Fianna Fáil Party issued an explanatory leaflet on the issue of the referendum. On question No. 5, it stated: "The use of emergency contraception—

The Deputy may not quote—

I shall refer to it. The use of emergency contraception such as the morning after pill or post coital IUD will be fully safeguarded. In view of the presented legal advice from the independent Referendum Commission which patently contradicts that view and given that the Government's Green Paper, paragraph 708, also raises the same fears in relation to this matter, as outlined in the Referendum Commission's advices yesterday, is it not a fact that the advice from the Fianna Fáil Party is wrong? Will the Taoiseach acknowledge and admit this?

I said yesterday morning that my advice from the Attorney General was to the effect that the morning after pill was fully compatible with Article 40.3.3º of the Constitution and did not in any way infringe on the personal right to life of the unborn accorded by the Article. The Government's strong and consistent legal advice is that the constitutional position of the morning after pill is not open to doubt that it is fully compatible with Article 40.3.3º of the Constitution. The Irish Medicines Board has similar but independent strong legal advice. The acceptance or rejection of the referendum proposal will not change its constitutional law status. There is, therefore, no question of a current or future infringement of the civil law.

It is the statutory issue concerning the criminal law, emergency contraception, which the Government is addressing. As Members will be aware, the criminal law on abortion in Ireland can be found in the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861. The matter is being challenged in another jurisdiction. Section 6 of the envisaged Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Act repeals sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861. This new Act replaces those sections with a definition of abortion which will prevent any case being made that the morning after pill will be termed an abortifacient or subject to criminal sanction.

The fact that there is currently no civil or constitutional law in relation to the morning after pill will not be altered by the acceptance of the proposal in the forthcoming referendum. There has been some doubt as regards criminal law, but it has been acknowledged that the new law will ensure the use of the morning after pill will no longer come within the scope of criminal law. It is entirely correct, therefore, to say the amendment will clarify the legal status of the morning after pill; that is the view of a number of eminent people.

I wish to mention another matter while I have the opportunity. It was said the other day in sensationalist reports that women haemorrhaging as a result of miscarriage would not receive medical care. I welcome the statement of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists, which supports the Government's approach to the twenty-fifth amendment of the Constitution and accompanying legislation.

The chairman of the institute was part of the 1983 campaign.

Order, please. These are leaders' questions.

He advocated the 1983 amendment.

Deputy Shatter should not be intervening.

In effect, the twenty-fifth amendment will legalise existing obstetrical practice in Ireland.

Members should cease interrupting.

It will protect in law the ethical principles which apply in the care of pregnant women.

The Taoiseach sounds like he is willing to debate it.

Order, please.

Is he going to debate it?

There should be no interruptions.

I intend to finish my contribution. It is sad, given that professional bodies representing psychologists, psychiatrists, obstetricians and gynaecologists, the people who deal with these issues—

Is the Taoiseach ready for a debate?

Order, please.

The point I want to make is that there were sensational reports that women haemorrhaging as a result of miscarriage would be unable to receive medical care. The statement made yesterday by obstetricians and gynaecologists—

One of them was involved in a previous campaign.

—who deal with these issues—

I know some of them.

—makes it clear that such ill-informed statements serve only to cause needless anxiety among women. Emergency treatment in the case of haemorrhaging is an essential part of patient care throughout the hospitals service. Women can rest assured that treatment in the event of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancies will not be affected by the legislation.

The Taoiseach should be ready to debate it.

They will receive appropriate care throughout the country. I would like to answer that point also.

It is a straightforward issue.

It is straightforward in County Donegal.

It is straightforward everywhere.

May I put it to the Taoiseach—

We heard the same rubbish in 1983.

Order, please.

We hear the same rubbish from Deputy Shatter in the House every morning.

The same rubbish.

Deputy Noonan to continue without interruption.

May I put it to the Taoiseach that the Referendum Commission is independent in the exercise of its functions and that its primary function is to independently inform the electorate as to the issues on which it will vote? The commission reaffirmed yesterday the statement it made on Tuesday which stated:

Whether the current criminal law outlaws the morning after pill (and similar devices) is open to question. The present constitutional position of these devices is also open to doubt. However, the acceptance or rejection of the proposal will not change their constitutional status.

That is what the Referendum Commission has to state, but the Taoiseach is taking an entirely different view.

I am not.

This matter has to be resolved, as it is absolutely crucial to the decision that many people will make. It is especially crucial for women who are deciding how to vote. I call on the Taoiseach to ask the Minister for Health and Children to come into the House this afternoon to make a clear statement of his understanding of the issues. Will the Taoiseach agree to publish the Attorney General's advice on the matter, as it seems to contradict independent legal advice received by the Referendum Commission, according to a spokeswoman quoted in this morning's newspaper?

Deputy Noonan was either not listening to me, or he simply did not hear me—

I heard it all right.

—but I will restate my comments.

We can hear the Taoiseach clearly.

The Referendum Commission acknowledges that the courts have made a decision in relation to the status of the morning after pill and similar devices and that the decision is open to challenge, as happened in England. In relation to the proposed amendment of the Constitution, the commission has stated "acceptance or rejection of the proposal will not change their constitutional status."

The Taoiseach said the same thing.

How can that be said to safeguard the position?

It is black and white.

They will not listen.

The commission also concludes "it is clear that using the morning after pill is not abortion in the criminal sense under the Human Life in Pregnancy Act."

It does not safeguard it.

Order, please.

That is what is states and what I said.

That is not true.

The Taoiseach said it would be fully safeguarded.

It will safeguard it.

I will take a question from Deputy Howlin.

I do not know what the Opposition's priorities are.

Is it a fact that the Minister for Health and Children is appealing the High Court decision to increase compensation awards to haemophiliacs who contracted hepatitis C from infected products? Has such an action been approved by the Cabinet? Does the Taoiseach support and approve of such a legal action?

When this issue was raised by Deputy Gay Mitchell on Tuesday's Order of Business the Tánaiste gave a commitment that the cases raised by him would not be appealed. The position taken by the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, certainly breaches the spirit of the Tánaiste's undertaking, if not the fact of it. Will the Taoiseach clarify the contradiction between the position of the Minister for Health and Children and the assurance given by the Tánaiste on Tuesday?

Claimants under the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act, 1997, may either accept an award or appeal it to the High Court. The decision is entirely a matter between claimants and their legal advisers, but only one option may be validly pursued. Three cases, in which claimants are seeking to increase their awards after accepting them and thereby waiving the right to appeal, are due to come before the High Court in mid-March. The claimants have also received compensation from the statutory compensation tribunal.

The Minister for Health and Children is not bringing the cases to court; he is the respondent in the cases being taken by the claimants and their legal advisers in the High Court. In a case decided in December 1999 the High Court considered that it had no discretion to hear an appeal from a claimant who had accepted an award and waived the right to appeal when the time limit for such an action had expired. I am advised that the question of the jurisdiction of courts to hear appeals in similar circumstances was not addressed in High Court judgments delivered last Friday, 15 February.

The challenge to the Minister for Health and Children's refusal to honour awards made to two men on the grounds that they had not lodged their cases in time is being contested by the Minister. I asked three simple questions. Has this contest been approved by the Government and is it supported by the Taoiseach?

The important issue here is that the Minister for Health and Children is the respondent in the case.

He is the respondent.

Is he—

That concludes leaders' questions.

He is the respondent.

I will now take other relevant questions on the Order of Business.

On 4 March next there is a distinct possibility that hundreds of thousands of students, including those facing leaving and junior certificate examinations in the summer, will suffer as a result of the closure of their schools. Given the conflicting signals emerging from teacher unions on the issue of supervision and substitution—

That matter is not in order on the Order of Business.

Hundreds of thousands of students face uncertainty—

I know, but it should be raised in accordance with proper procedure.

Does the Taoiseach plan any initiatives to intervene in this issue?

It is not relevant.

Has he consulted the teacher unions on the matter?

I call Deputy Rabbitte.

The Taoiseach seemed to indicate on the Order of Business yesterday that legal initiatives were being contemplated by the Government in respect of insurance costs. This morning's newspapers suggest that the report into this matter is with the Minister. Will it be provided for Members of the House, now that it has been put into the media domain? Is legislation planned in respect of insurance costs?

I note that the Taoiseach is visiting my constituency again tomorrow where he is always very welcome. Some of his fans have asked me to have a quiet word with him about the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy's attempts to undermine Gaelic games. Will the Government allow the Minister, who seems to have got this notion while in County Kildare, to undermine amateur games?

Details of the Finance Bill cannot be discussed now.

When is Deputy Rabbitte going to visit the constituency?

One can always rely on Deputy Conor Lenihan to sink to the occasion.

This matter has been referred to the committee. It is not relevant to the Order of Business.

Is the Minister for Finance going to be permitted by the Government to undermine Gaelic games and amateur sports in general?

That is a matter for Committee Stage of the Bill. I call Deputy Gay Mitchell.

Is this being proceeded with next week?

The GAA is stronger than that.

The Finance Bill has been referred to the committee.

As regards the insurance Bill, the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, has been in contact with the Motor Insurance Advisory Board, but has not yet received the report. I understand that is to happen shortly. Next month I am told.

Is the Taoiseach, who is a GAA supporter, going to respond to the question?

The Deputy is not in order. The Chair has not called him.

I am very much in order. The membership of the GAA is appalled by this proposal.

The Chair has not called the Deputy. Deputy Gay Mitchell has the floor.

In view of last Friday's High Court decision that the CPI based awards are unfair because they do not include, for example, property prices, will the Taoiseach confirm that the Hepatitis C Tribunal Act, 1997 (Amendment) Bill will be brought before the House shortly? Will he include a provision to allow appeals in view of the court's decision?

Questions on the provisions of a Bill are not in order. The Taoiseach on the Bill.

The Bill will be published this session.

The Taoiseach is telling the House that the appeals are not being contested by the Minister for Health and Children. There is an opportunity for the Minister to provide in the Bill for the right to appeal. I am asking that this be included in the legislation.

That is not in order. The Deputy can raise the matter when the legislation comes before the House.

I will be raising it because the people concerned are being hounded.

It is not in order on the Order of Business.

When can we expect to see the published list of sports events which will be covered free to air as is required of the Minister under television sports coverage legislation?

There are ongoing consultations with the national sports bodies regarding the compilation of the list.

In the light of the Minister's statement yesterday concerning medical cards and social welfare payments, and the equalising of limits on both, will there be legislation or some method found to ensure those who lost their medical cards will get them back?

Is legislation promised?

Legislation is not necessary, but yesterday's statement outlined that anyone who lost the card could reapply.

Will the Land Commission Bill come before the House this session to give us an opportunity to discuss the exorbitant interest rates being charged? Does the Taoiseach accept that the foot and mouth disease crisis is over and that the legislation regarding the 30 day pre-movement test should be removed?

That matter was dealt with yesterday.

The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development is not aware that the foot and mouth disease crisis is over. The Taoiseach needs to tell him that it is because farmers have a right to trade.

The Taoiseach on promised legislation.

The Land Commission Bill is due this year, but unlikely to come before the House this session. It is strange, but almost a year ago to the day Members opposite urged that we should never go back to this kind of loose regime. However, people have now changed their minds.

The Taoiseach also changes his.

In view of the fact that the Finance Bill is going to committee, is there provision in the Bill regarding-—

A question on the contents of a Bill is not in order on the Order of Business.

I did not understand that as I am only new in the House. Is there provision in the Bill for the funding of the various bypasses, including Cashel, Ennis and many more?

The Deputy can raise that matter during debate on the Bill.

In view of the serious public order situation in many towns and cities, when will the Criminal Justice (Enforcement of Public Order) Bill be seen in the House? Will it provide for the appointment of community gardaí?

A question regarding the provisions of a Bill is not in order. The Deputy may only ask about the timing of the Bill.

Last Saturday night for the second time in two weeks a young man found himself in intensive care in a Cork hospital because of an unprovoked attack.

The Deputy should ask a relevant question.

People have a right to know a more exact time for when the Government intends to protect young people at night in towns and cities. We have been hearing about this for the past three weeks.

During March.

A committee of the House heard last week that a number of foreign workers who have been brought to this country are being exploited and not being paid the national minimum wage. The Department has rightly blacklisted those employers, but there is some legal doubt about its right to do so without appropriate legislation. I understand the heads of the proposed work permits Bill have been agreed by Cabinet. When are we likely to see the Bill in order that this area is placed on a statutory basis?

The Bill proposes to place the work permits regime on a comprehensive statutory footing. Some of the cases referred to by the Deputy may not be covered by the Bill if I have heard the same reports. The Bill will not cover those people, but there is no doubt about this issue. Last year we had a case regarding some of the meat factories and it was clarified then that the employer was wrong.

My point relates to the Department's right to blacklist future applications from employers who have a bad record in this area. That is the reason there is a need for legislation. I understand this issue is an essential part of the work permits Bill. Are we likely to see the Bill before the end of this session?

It will be this year.

We are told that the Housing (Private Rented Sector) Bill is with the parliamentary counsel. Will it be published this session?

I told the Deputy two weeks ago that the Bill has been cleared and is gone for drafting. I am not too sure what the up-to-date drafting position is.

Arising from the Jamie Sinnott Supreme Court ruling and the Minister for Education and Science's infamous "blank cheque" statement, when does the Taoiseach propose to bring forward the Education (Children with Disabilities) Bill which will safeguard the rights of people with special needs to education? What are the consequences, if any, of the withdrawal of the general Disability Bill earlier this week?

The Education (Children with Disabilities) Bill is almost ready. The heads have been cleared and the legislation will be published this session.

The Taoiseach's Department is due to publish the national social and economic development Bill shortly. A national spatial plan is critical to all future development. Will the plan be published in tandem with the Bill or are we to see it at all before the general election?

The Bill will be published this session. It is not linked to the spatial strategy.

Is anything linked to the spatial strategy?

The Deputy should put a question to the Minister.

Is it being kept a secret?