The Order of Business is No. 1, Childcare Support Bill 2017 – Committee Stage, to be taken at 12.45 p.m. and to adjourn no later than 1.45 p.m. if not previously concluded; and No. 2, statements on the CervicalCheck screening programme, to be taken at 1.45 p.m., with the time allocated to all Senators not to exceed six minutes.

I propose an amendment to the Order of Business that the Minister for Justice and Equality come to the House to explain why the Government has failed to enact the Corporate Manslaughter (No. 2) Bill 2016 as was proposed and debated by us, as was proposed in the previous Seanad and voted down by the previous Fine Gael-Labour Government and is now not the law of the land. I raised this on Wednesday with regard to the ongoing scandal surrounding cervical cancer checks. Having watched the proceedings of the Oireachtas Committee on Health yesterday, it was a debacle of mismanagement. A debacle is one thing but what they have actually done is kill people. This, unfortunately, is the reality. Every person before the committee, bar one, was a man. They were sorry but there will be no consequences for their mismanagement and failure to act. I again ask why the offence of grossly negligent management causing death is not a law of the land. Section 3(1) of the Bill states:

(1) Where an undertaking has been convicted of corporate manslaughter and a high managerial agent of the convicted undertaking—

(a) knew or ought to reasonably have known of a substantial risk of death or serious personal harm,

(b) failed to take reasonable efforts to eliminate that risk,

(c) that failure fell far below what could reasonably be expected in the circumstances, and

(d) that failure contributed to the commission of the corporate offence,

that agent shall be guilty of an offence called "grossly negligent management causing death".

If we had managed to pass that legislation, the penalty for that offence would be 12 years in jail. Never mind the advisers to Government and the people who came in here with the Minister for Justice and Equality at the time and said there was no need for section 3, we will be back here in a year's time and see who was convicted. Nobody will have been convicted, however, because the Law Reform Commission has said that as a result of the hepatitis C scandal and the fact that nobody was convicted arising from that, there is a gap in our law. No legislation has been put in place since, and this was confirmed by the Law Reform Commission, that has managed to plug that gap in our law so that those high managerial agents go to jail.

If the legislation was in place, we would not need any commissions or tribunals because the courts would do the job, find out the facts and convict people. People would be held accountable. The best this Government is hoping for is a bit like Siteserv - set up a commission, set up a committee and let it go away but month by month, women will die as a result of gross mismanagement causing death. Those responsible should be in jail, but unfortunately, while some women will be in their graves, the Government will not enact the Corporate Manslaughter (No. 2) Bill. If it comes back on Committee Stage, I propose that it be renamed the Corporate Womanslaughter Bill because, unfortunately, the reason for the legislation is the hepatitis C scandal where thousands of women were knowingly infected and women died.

Here we are again.

Is the Senator referring to the Corporate Manslaughter (No. 2) Bill, which is on the Order Paper?

Correct. I am asking the Minister for Justice and Equality to come to the House.

It is not the job of the Minister for Justice and Equality to schedule Seanad business.

It is our job. That is why we have the Order of Business. I am proposing an amendment to the Order of Business to allow the Minister for Justice and Equality to come in and spare the taxpayer another commission of inquiry and the need to build another shelf to put another report on with more recommendations that people be held to account and sent to jail for killing women.

I am advised that the Minister cannot come into the Seanad to say why the Seanad has not scheduled the Bill. We will let the Deputy Leader deal with the Senator's request.

We propose amending the Order of Business for the Minister to come in and explain the Corporate Manslaughter Bill.

The Senator cannot propose it in that way. It is not in the Minister's power to explain to us why the Seanad has not done it.

I will take the Leas-Chathaoirleach's advice.

It is up to the Seanad.

The Minister could explain why the Government has not enacted the Bill.

Why does the Senator not do it through Private Members' business?

It is because the health committee brought up issues which make the Corporate Manslaughter Bill relevant.

The Senator will have to frame his amendment differently.

I would like to amend the Order of Business to invite the Minister for Justice and Equality to the House to debate cervical screening and the legislation around it.

That is scheduled for today. The Minister for Health is coming in.

He is not in charge of this Bill. Would it help to take the Corporate Manslaughter (No. 2) Bill today?

It is not in the power of the Minister for Justice and Equality to do that.

It is his Bill.

It does not matter.

We move an amendment that the Bill be taken today.

Does Senator Daly want to take his own Bill today?

Yes.

We would have to allow time for Members to table amendments. There is a two-day deadline for amendments so the Bill cannot be taken today.

We can start it today.

We cannot take Committee Stage, unfortunately. Can the Senator take this up with the office of the Cathaoirleach?

No. I will ask the Minister for Justice and Equality to come into the House to discuss the issue.

It is not the Minister's job. I will have to rule it out of order.

Can the Minister for Justice and Equality come into the House to discuss cervical cancer?

That is what the Minister for Health is coming to the House to do today. The Senator may put down an amendment to ask the Minister for Justice and Equality to come to the House.

I am putting down an amendment that the Minister for Justice and Equality come to the House to discuss cervical cancer.

It is out of order.

No, it is not.

If it is separate to the Bill, we will take the amendment.

The amendment is tabled.

Recent history should teach those of us in political life some lessons about taking responsibility for the actions of others. Ministers have come under pressure in recent times on a number of high-profile cases such as the blood transfusion anti-D cases, which affected 100,000 women. In 1991 the blood transfusion board was alerted by British hospitals that a batch of anti-D produced in 1977 may have been contaminated. It would later emerge that the blood donor whose plasma was used to make the anti-D had jaundice and hepatitis but these facts had slipped through a sloppy screening process. Despite the alert, no alarm was raised and no action was taken to trace the women who had received doses from the batch, which would have ensured screening slip-ups were not repeated. They were repeated and, in 1982, plasma from another infected donor was used to make anti-D, creating another potentially lethal batch. Hepatitis C awards so far have amounted to €1 billion, with the last awards being paid in 2016. To date, 80 women have lost their lives. We have to ask if the system has learned anything.

Bridget McCole was aggressively and hostilely treated by this State to the point where she was forced into a settlement on the day before she died on the basis that if she did not accept it, it would bring her all the way to the Supreme Court. In respect of the cervical screening failures, in recent days we have learned that senior officials were aware of CervicalCheck concerns but the State put women through an aggressive and hostile litigation process nevertheless. Would we know anything about the cervical screening issues but for the brave moves of Vicky Phelan, who was prepared to forgo her anonymity to tell us what had happened to her?

All of these cases make me wonder about governance in the public sector. They make me wonder about when political responsibility kicks in. They make me wonder about the most dangerous piece of administrative law ever to have found its way into the public service. Members may not be aware of the Carltona principles or the ideas expressed in them. As established by Carltona v. Commissioners of Works in the UK and having found their way into the Irish public service, the principles make acts of Government Department officials synonymous with the actions of the Minister in charge of the Department. It means a public servant speaking in an official capacity is speaking the words of the Minister. This is lethal because I have seen Minister after Minister dragged into the Dáil and forced to resign over decisions taken by administrative people who remain faceless and hide behind the Carltona doctrine.

I call for a debate on governance in the public sector, which should examine the impact the Carltona principles continue to have on public decision-making and whether they are healthy in a modern State. In the past few minutes, my colleague has raised the issue of people making decisions but he should not tell me that the Minister for Health is advised and informed of every single decision that is taken in the Department of Health and has to take the hit if something goes wrong. The same applies to the Department of Justice and Equality and any other Department. It is time we looked at corporate governance in the public sector, in particular how the people who make decisions are responsible for those decisions. Very often a Minister is not aware of what happened until the action has been started. What is the Minister do in that case? Is he or she to come out and say his or her senior officials made a mistake? We have seen the most aggressive treatment towards the women in this case. For some particular bloody reason it always seems to be women.

Yes.

I wonder how quick the action would have been if the same slip-ups had occurred in respect of prostate tests. I ask for an open and honest debate on governance within the public sector.