Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach his Department's legislative priorities for the remainder of the 29th Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28242/06]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach his Department's legislative programme for the current Dáil session; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28322/06]

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for the current Dáil session. [29212/06]

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach his Department's legislative priorities for the remainder of the 29th Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30666/06]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach his Department's legislative responsibilities for the remainder of the 29th Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30785/06]

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.

My Department has one item of legislation on the A list, the statute law revision Bill, which will be published this session. The Bill will continue the process of modernising the Statute Book by repealing over 3,000 ancient statutes dating from between 1200 and 6 December 1922 that are now redundant or obsolete. The Bill will also positively retain in the region of 1,350 statutes from the same period, as they are not proposed for repeal at present. Ultimately, it is the intention that all legislation predating the foundation of the State should be repealed. Where we need to keep the provisions of any pre-1922 legislation, it is intended that they will be re-enacted in a more modern form.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Are we likely to see any legislation to prepare for a referendum between now and the general election?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are two issues, one of which concerns Northern Ireland. As I stated last week on the Order of Business, that appears more likely to go to an election than a referendum. It is still in abeyance and will be until the legislation is finalised in two weeks' time.

On the second issue, the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, will be involved in discussions with the parties regarding the rights of children under the Constitution.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. He assured us on a number of occasions that there would not be a referendum. What brought about the change of heart?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When asked questions of this nature, I always state that nothing is ever agreed until the Cabinet is prepared to make a decision. It will not have the status of agreement until then.

On the question of children, in the summer, the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, informed the UN that we were examining the possibility of legislative change. That was on the cards.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach envisage that legislation will be required, on foot of the St. Andrews Agreement or, in the worst case scenario, as a result of a need to move to the so-called plan B, in the context of the two Governments' role in bringing forward greater all-Ireland integration? If such legislation falls under the remit of other Departments, will the Taoiseach's Department have a co-ordinating role in respect of it?

Will the further statute law revision Bill being worked on in the Taoiseach's Department, which is a follow up to the 2005 Act, complete the process or will further legislation be required in respect of other obsolete Acts that may not be included in the tranche currently under consideration?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As previously stated in respect of the St. Andrews Agreement, the Attorney General wishes to wait to examine the legislation, when it emerges in its final form, before declaring his position on constitutional and other issues. The deadline is set for two weeks from Friday next, so there should be something shortly thereafter. Legislative issues could well arise but they will probably not be dealt with by my Department. However, I will have a co-ordinating role in respect of them. We will wait and see what emerges.

On the statute law revision Bill, there have already been four restatements of legislation in the areas of consumer law, defence, tourist traffic and succession. Earlier in the year, the Government gave approval for the Law Reform Commission to commence a programme of restatement and established the restatement steering group, which is made up of representatives of the commission and the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Council and which is chaired by my Department. In May, we announced a public consultation process to obtain the views of members of the public on areas in which the law should be restated, as a priority. There will, therefore, be restatement in other areas. The consultation process to which I refer has concluded and the restatement steering group will consider the submissions it has received and will soon agree rolling out a programme of further restatements.

While the group will have amended various statutes, deleted those from pre-1922 that are redundant or listed in a positive fashion the 1,350 to which I referred earlier, it believes that the latter should be transformed, on a restatement basis, into more modern legislation. It is not that these Acts are redundant — they are not — but many of them are written in old language and are not easily available. Many of them are only available in bound volumes.

It makes much more sense that over a period of time — the changes cannot be made simultaneously — they would be updated, on a restatement basis, in more modern legislation. That process has already started. I do not know how many years it would take but, obviously, whenever a particular aspect of the law is touched on, any of these old Acts should be restated in modern legislation. That is the way they hope to update it.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to ask the Taoiseach a question on his commitment, or promise, to bring forward legislation on the Kenny report. I am not sure which Department he envisages that relates to but, as he made the promise, I will ask him to adjudicate on that aspect and perhaps give us more information on when it might become a reality.

I appreciate the level of latitude the Ceann Comhairle has afforded on this question because we are dealing procedurally with legislation which predates the Act of Union, technically going back to the days of flogging and slavery, and of hanging, drawing and quartering people.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The report came after the Act of Union.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are going right back to the Dark Ages.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some want to go back again.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That did not give any protection anyway.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In Iraq, it might be right up to date. I appreciate the Ceann Comhairle's latitude. It indicates a reality.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ask a simple question and allow the Taoiseach to answer.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach expect any recommendations on the legislation, which we are dealing with in order, that he will find relevant to modern legislation?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Deputy referring to the 1,350 Acts?

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does he expect to learn anything from them or is he just abolishing them?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The rest are abolished, except for the 1,350 Acts.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Brehon laws could be in force.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Parts of them could still be in there. Some of the Acts date back to 1200.

The other matter, not the full process of the Kenny report but the land zoning issue, is being looked at in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It needs more than being looked at.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Bill is being drafted.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was interested in the Taoiseach's comment on the referendum that he proposed at the weekend, where some of his Ministers obviously got a little carried away, including my good friend, the Minister, Deputy Roche, who is beside him and who went into orbit like a cloud of CO2 emissions.

The Taoiseach stated that the comment he made about a proposed referendum on children has no status other than comment until the Cabinet agrees it. There are not many members of the Cabinet who will disagree with the Taoiseach and the vast majority of political representatives accept the principle of what is involved. However, he has pre-empted the committee, which has not yet reported on this, although it produced a 90-page report today. Is it his judgment that the possibility of a referendum on the Northern Ireland question is receding because Dr. Paisley may want an election immediately after the St. Andrew's business is concluded successfully?

Does he believe that such a referendum might not take place and that there would be a referendum on an agreed wording in respect of the protection of children's rights, on which at least there would be significant support, some time before a general election — which would be followed by a divisive campaign on how the country should be run? Perhaps that is the Taoiseach's assertion of good politics. Why did he choose to announce that a referendum would be likely to take place, given that the committee has not even reported on the matter and the Minister appointed has not yet consulted with any Opposition personnel on whatever proposed wording might exist? Second, in the event of referenda taking place, we have raised on a number of occasions the issue of consideration being given to recognition in the Constitution of the official Irish sign language, which is different from sign language in England. A small but significant number of people use it and it is important to them that it should be considered as well.

Third — I doubt the Taoiseach will pre-empt the report in this case — the Cabinet has received back from committee the report dealing with assisted human reproduction. Is he likely to make a statement on having an adjudication on that? When will the Cabinet consider that report, which was referred back to it by the committee some time ago?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to clarify two issues. Deputy Rabbitte asked why I did not say on previous occasions that that issue was pending and I replied that the Cabinet had not cleared it. However, the Cabinet has done so now. Second, it is not pre-empting the committee, which is examining the criminal law aspects. The suggestion, which is not just mine as it has been uttered on other occasions over the past 14 years, is this is a far broader issue, which should examine maltreatment, the care of children, the treatment of children within the homes and a range of other issues. I said I would say nothing on the committee until it had reported.

On the substantive issue, to the best of my knowledge, the first time this came up was when Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness raised it in the Kilkenny case. Subsequently, the Constitution review group, which reported in 1996, gave us guidelines on what we should do. The issue then came up in the two reports in Europe and the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has raised it a number of times over the past two or three years, including this year, when he said we would deal with that aspect.

I was careful the other day not to pre-empt the House or other interested parties because we must come to an agreed wording, which is not simple. I launched the report of the group that examined this on behalf of the Oireachtas last January. I stayed there some hours that night, as perhaps did the Deputy, because all the interested groups were present. There are plenty of different, diverging views on this issue and, therefore, it will not automatically be easy to agree the wording. However, I have asked the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, to work on consultation about the wording immediately. I do not want to comment on a date because we must get the agreed wording first.