I asked earlier about the commencement of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, particularly in respect of section 32B. I think the Taoiseach indicated that the Legal Services Regulatory Authority has not been established but it has been established. It was announced to have been established in 2016. Section 32B is not dependent on the authority. The section concerns how to deal with clinical negligence issues. The very heart of the Vicky Phelan case and the cases before the State Claims Agency were cases against the State. The idea around section 32B was to prevent that kind of trauma and to give tools to the State Claims Agency to settle early, to provide for disclosure of medical and all other records and to work towards an early resolution. The Minister is obliged to work with other Ministers and other agencies to bring about pre-action protocols. This has not happened. It was suggested yesterday at a meeting of the Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach that if this section had been commenced, things might have been different. I am not saying definitively that they would have been different but they might have been different and a different approach might have been taken to these cases - from the State's perspective at any rate. We are good at empathy and rhetoric but very poor at seeing through what we have committed to in legislation. The Act was signed into law in December 2015. It is now May 2018. That key section dealing with how the State deals with people who have cases against it has not been commenced. Does that not go to the heart of the problem and cut across all the rhetoric we have heard in the past two weeks? We and the public need and are entitled to some explanation as to why that section has not been commenced. The programme for Government promised mandatory disclosure. That did not happen. I understand why people become sceptical about commitments that are made when the evidence is that the follow through leaves an awful lot to be desired even in respect of legislation passed by the Oireachtas.

I do not accept what the Deputy has said. This is part of a major reform of our civil liability law in respect of personal injuries. The Legal Services Regulation Act is coming into force on a progressive basis. The section to which the Deputy referred is Part 15 of that Act. I accept that it has not yet been commenced but it is one of a number of reforms that are being progressively rolled out. It will involve a major change in the manner in which these actions are dealt with. It will be incumbent upon the parties to sit down pre-action or pre-trial.

From speaking to the recently established authority that appointed a chief executive officer last year, my understanding is that the commencement order will be made prior to the summer recess. These new reforming protocols can take place at the earliest opportunity and this year.

The programme for Government contains a range of commitments to young people, their schools and their communities. The collapse of Carillion has had a negative effect on these commitments on two fronts. First, schools building projects awarded to the Carillion consortium face indefinite delay, despite some work being near completion. These are not the only projects stalled as a result of the company's collapse. Projects awarded to Sammon are also in jeopardy. In my constituency our local GAA club, Naomh Fionnbarra, was directly affected with subcontractors walking off site in January due to non-payment. There is less than two weeks' work left to complete with just a pitch to be laid - a pitch which is sitting in the subcontractor's warehouse - and minor fencing and lighting work to be completed. It was hoped that with Sammon, the main contractor, now in examinership a speedy resolution could be found. However, I learned yesterday that the Minister for Education and Skills has, in effect, fired Sammon and now intends to retender for this minor work, delaying its completion for at least another four months. That work would take literally days to complete. I ask the Taoiseach if the Minister for Education and Skills can reconsider this decision to retender and instead find a more reasonable, more proportionate and timelier solution.

One of these companies has gone into liquidation and the other has gone into examinership. My Department is working with all the interests involved to try to secure the quickest completion of those buildings possible. In some cases, we obviously need to sit down with the examiner to see if the latter can make a commitment to complete the work. The Department will take a decision based on the best interests of the school in dealing with the examiner and with the National Development Finance Agency, NDFA.

Carillion is involved through a public private partnership. Under the terms of that partnership, it is not the State that has the obligation to complete the works, it is the Dutch Investment Fund, DIF, the contracting party. It is for the latter to issue the tenders. It has made a call for tenders and has yet to make a decision. The State's financial position is protected. We have to work with the authorities in both cases - the examiner appointed by the courts or the remaining shareholder in Carillion - to try to secure the best interests for children. That is what we are doing.

We talked about reforming the law. I think there is consensus in the House on modernising our harassment laws, which have not been updated since the era of the text message. I refer to issues such as stalking, cyberbullying and revenge porn. I understand the Cabinet discussed the matter this week and has agreed to proceed with a Bill I introduced and which passed Second Stage last year. These matters are the cause of grave concern in the broader community, particularly in respect of young victims of cyberbullying, which is a really serious issue. How is it envisaged that this Bill will be progressed? Is it intended to go to committee speedily? My office has already been in touch with the Department of Justice and Equality and we would be delighted to facilitate the early passage of the Bill.

Deputy Howlin is quite correct. It is important legislation. My Department has been progressing matters in recent months. I acknowledge the importance and the assistance of the Deputy's Private Members' Bill - one of more than 20 Private Members' Bills on my desk in the Department.

Rather than engage in any action that might be seen to be doubling up, yesterday I recommended to my Government colleagues that we would accept the content of Deputy Howlin's Bill and use that as a platform for legislation. I would be very happy to engage directly with Deputy Howlin. I ask him to accept, perhaps, that his Bill is not perfect-----

Of course.

-----but it does amount to the basis for what will be an urgent and important change in legislation. I would be happy to engage bilaterally with the Deputy with a view towards advancing matters before the end of this term.