Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 May 2001

Vol. 535 No. 3

Order of Business.

The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 50, Valuation Bill, 2000 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; and No. 6, Industrial Designs Bill, 2000 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) Report and Final Stages of No. 50 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 1.30 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Finance; and (2) questions shall be taken today from 3.30 p.m. until 4.45 p.m. and in the event of a Private Notice Question being allowed, it shall be taken at 4.15 p.m. and the order shall not resume thereafter.

There are two proposals to be put to the House. The first is the proposal for dealing with No. 50, Report and Final Stages of the Valuation Bill, 2000. Is it agreed?

On No. 50, at the end of the Order of Business yesterday we on this side of the House were of the view that No. 48 on yesterday's Order Paper, the Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001, would be put before the House this morning for debate. We now understand from media reports of briefings by the Government that it is the Government's intention to abandon the constitutional amendment. I put it to the Taoiseach that if this is so he should inform the House. He should also ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to consider his position because in the history of the State this is the first time that the incompetence and arrogance of a Minister—

Since the Deputy's time in Government.

—has brought about a situation where a constitutional amendment must be withdrawn from the House.

On this matter the House should have been entitled to at least the courtesy of the Taoiseach indicating why the proposals, which were so vehemently argued by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform with such extraordinary ineptitude, have been ignominiously withdrawn. The attempt to amend the Constitution in the manner proffered yesterday in such a ham-fisted way meant the Bill had to be withdrawn. I understand the Taoiseach's discomfort and why the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is not present, but we are entitled to an explanation as to why the Bill has been withdrawn and when the matter can be properly resumed.

Following an exchange yesterday on the Order of Business, one of the items scheduled for the business of the House, Committee and Final Stages of the Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001, was deferred. I indicated at that stage that we would do all we could, including holding it back, to get agreement today. I asked the Whips to meet which they did, but there was no agreement there. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform met the Opposition spokespersons, Deputy Shatter and Deputy Howlin, to see if a satisfactory and mutually acceptable arrangement could be made for this House and the Seanad to pass the remaining Stages of the Bill so that the referendum could be held with the other referenda on 7 June.

I regret to inform the House that this did not prove possible. Despite every reasonable effort on the part of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to accommodate the Opposition concerns as to the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment, it was not possible to reach agreement.

There was no difficulty. Of course it was possible, entirely possible. The Government has no confidence in its own proposal.

In the light of this, the Government must decide an appropriate course of action. The outcome of this consideration is that we believe it would be inappropriate to put our proposal before the people on 7 June in these circumstances. The Government considered that a fundamental proposal touching on the separation of powers between the respective organs of Government in the State should not be pro ceeded with in a situation in which there is such fundamental disagreement as was seen in this House on Tuesday night. I do not wish to go back on all the arguments. Anyone who thinks that this all started with the legislation is not well briefed on the situation.

This proposal was examined by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. I do not wish to become adversarial about it. One aspect in the report of the all-party committee which was endorsed by the Opposition was that judicial conduct, as distinct from judicial decisions, may be reviewed by the Judicial Council, the composition of which includes a lay element and whose powers, duties and functions may be determined by law.

in the amendments submitted by the Opposition and in discussions with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform last night, it was very clear that the Opposition was insisting that the entire membership of the Judicial Council should be set out in the Constitution. Deputy Shatter wanted bodies and officers, for example, the Bar Council, which are otherwise not mentioned in the Constitution, to be included.

There were four Government amendments, not 14 as was claimed yesterday. The constitutional amendment proposed by the Government is a significant improvement on existing constitutional provisions. Unfortunately, there is no agreement in the House and I will not allow a constitutional arm of the State to be used as a political football in any referendum.

I will put the question.

(Interruptions.)

The Chair is on its feet. The Deputy is not in order.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with item 50 be agreed to."

Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.de Valera, Síle.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas. Moloney, John.

Tá–continued

Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.

Reynolds, Albert.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V.

Níl

Bell, Michael.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Currie, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Enright, Thomas.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.

McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Bradford and Stagg.
Question declared carried.

The next question relates to questions to be taken today. Is that agreed?

No. I refer to our reasons for opposing the Order of Business this morning and to the Taoiseach's reply to the taking of the amendment to the Constitution.

It is the duty of the Chair to point out that the question before the House relates to the fixing of the time for Question Time and has nothing to do with what the Deputy has raised. The Deputy is out of order.

I understand the Chair's position.

My position is in accordance with Standing Orders and the Deputy should respect Standing Orders. He can raise this under Leaders' Questions. It is not in order to refer to it now and it was not in order under the previous question.

I understand what the Chair is saying, but the Chair has allowed a situation to develop where the Taoiseach is on the record with an extensive reply which is not in accordance with the facts.

The question was not in accordance with the motion before the House.

Then the Chair should have done initially what he is doing now.

Hear, hear.

We are now half way across the river and the Chair is trying the situation.

On the last question, the Chair pointed out that it related to the valuation Bill. The Deputy persisted on being disorderly.

I was not disorderly in the least. The Chair seemed to be smiling benignly at me as I addressed the Taoiseach and everyone listened. I put it to the Chair that it is very unusual that a constitutional amendment is withdrawn. The Chair has certain discretion but I will not raise the temperature of the House. I have a suggestion that will be of benefit not only to the House but to the Government and if I could make it, at the Chair's discretion, I will not seek to be disorderly in any way other than in the—

The Chair has pointed out that there is a facility in Standing Orders, under Leaders' Questions, to raise these matters. That is what that time slot is for.

I understand that, but my understanding of the Standing Order which allows Leaders' Questions is that they should refer to topical issues of the day as distinct from matters of procedure and order in the House. This is effectively about the ordering of business. That is not the intention of Leaders' Questions and we can rescue something from this fiasco if the Taoiseach will listen to a proposal I have. We could then proceed in a very orderly manner.

I suggested last Tuesday that we should try to get consensus on this matter across the House. The way to do that is to refer this legislation to an all-party committee of the House, the committee on justice, which would hear evidence, listen to outside submissions and then report to the House in a manner which would allow us to proceed on an all-party basis to a referendum. That is what I want. It would rescue something from the fiasco created by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. While proposing amendments to meet our requirements he simultaneously launched an outrageous attack on Deputy Owen. That is no way to do business and the Taoiseach needs to talk to his Minister.

Very sensitive.

It is my view that if Deputy Roche were Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform he would not be as incompetent.

(Interruptions.)

I cannot go further than that in coming up with a more trenchant criticism of the present incumbent. Will the Taoiseach allow this to go to an all-party committee and let it be teased out on that basis? Let us have outside submissions and not seek to divide the country on a matter as fundamental to our democracy as the separation of powers.

We are reluctant to accept the Order of Business until such time as the Taoiseach makes time available to discuss—

The proposal before the House relates to Question Time.

—this disgraceful new tax amnesty. The Green Party opposes this amnesty and opposed the last one also. Will the Taoiseach make time available for this?

That is not appropriate at this stage.

I do not know what the Taoiseach's intentions are regarding Deputy Noonan's suggestion but I would not like the record to stand unchallenged. However well briefed the Taoiseach may have felt he was when reading his prepared script, he was very poorly informed and I would contest the accuracy of what he put on the record. I am bound by Standing Orders in respect of this but if the Taoiseach responds to Deputy Noonan's proposal then we can discuss the matter at the Chair's discretion. It should be clearly stated on behalf of my party colleagues who attempted to negotiate with the so-called Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that what the Taoiseach put on the record this morning is not true.

There is one proposal before the House. The question is: "That the proposal in relation to the fixing of Question Time today," be agreed.

I do not have anything to add, though there is a lot I could add. It is unfortunate that the work of the all-party committee on the Constitution, which dealt with this matter for several months, and the good work of the Denham report, which was taken forward in the legislation, did not allow this to occur. We ended up playing political football with this important issue—

Not true.

Not true.

(Interruptions.)

The Bill did not reflect the committee's recommendations.

Is the proposal in relation to the taking of questions agreed to?

On a point of order—

The Chair is on its feet putting the question. There cannot be a point of order.

Question put and agreed to.

We now proceed to Leaders' Questions.

May I raise an issue?

Not at this stage. We are taking Leaders' Questions now. The Deputy can raise an issue later, when we come to the Order of Business.

The name of the committee has been taken in vain by the Taoiseach this morning.

Today, as the House is aware, is World Asthma Day. I am sure the Taoiseach will join me in congratulating the Asthma Society of Ireland for its excellent work in educating and informing people about asthma to help them achieve better control of their condition. Ireland has the fourth highest incidence of the disease in the world and 143 people died of asthma last year in Ireland. It is the commonest illness among children and one in seven children in Ireland have asthma. Despite the fact that asthma is a long-term illness and can be effectively controlled with proper use of medication, asthma sufferers are not afforded the benefits of the long-term illness scheme. The only thing this Government has done in four years in office for the 250,000 asthma sufferers is to make them pay more for their medication through changes in the drug refund scheme. On World Asthma Day, will the Taoiseach make some gesture towards asthma sufferers and towards the cost of their medication?

I am acutely aware of the ravages of asthma as siblings of mine have suffered from it on occasion. Happily they have survived and continue to survive but it is not a disease that goes away. If any disease could be categorised as a long-term illness, it is this one. It rises and falls with savage effect on occasion. This is a concise example of how this Government, a very bad Government at the best of times, could, through a simple measure, have delivered long-term relief for 250,000 of our citizens and has significantly failed to do so. I urge the Taoiseach to note the day that is in it and to give a commitment to at least recognise the reality that asthma is a long-term illness.

I am glad to be associated with World Asthma Day. I commend the work of the Asthma Society of Ireland and like other Members wish to be associated with their activities today. I am aware of the number of people who suffer from asthma. I am well aware of the difficulties caused to them and to their extended families, but also of the extensive work that is done for over 250,000 people who suffer from asthma. For the first time in many years, asthma sufferers are being allowed to put their case and suggest a strategy for a radical overview of the health service. When I met their representatives last week, they made clear they acknowledge what has been done for them by the State for many years. Like all groups and associations, they have the right to seek improvements and I expect them to express that right. The Government is obliged to continue to make State resources avail able to those who suffer from asthma and other ailments.

Make an announcement.

The Taoiseach has refused to do so.

I welcome the Taoiseach's association with my words about the Asthma Society of Ireland but fine words butter no parsnips. The Government's actions have made medication for asthma sufferers more expensive, not less. To mark World Asthma Day, does the Taoiseach commit to adopting the Fine Gael policy of providing free medication to those who suffer from the condition? The GMS scheme must be used to treat asthma as the long-term illness that it is.

It is nice to make such points in Opposition, but Deputy Noonan had a personal opportunity to deal with this problem when in Government. Eligibility is a key aspect of the Minister for Health and Children's examination of a number of areas of health strategy. The Asthma Society of Ireland has put forward its case. Hopefully, Deputy Quinn will support the Minister's strategy in trying to improve this situation.

Was the Taoiseach informed or consulted by the Minister for Finance or the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners about proposals announced yesterday to deal with those who benefited as owners of bogus non-resident accounts, as revealed by the DIRT inquiry? Will the Taoiseach agree to the Labour Party spokesperson on Finance, Deputy McDowell's request that the Minister for Finance and the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners come before the finance committee to outline in detail what it is proposed to do as a result of the widespread concern that surrounds this issue? There is a suspicion that wrongdoing will once again be rewarded.

Will the Taoiseach give a commitment that the treatment of financial institutions and individuals who are deemed guilty of tax evasion will be equalised under the law? A statute of limitations of six years applies to banks but no such limitation applies to individuals.

The Revenue Commissioners informed the Government that they would respond to the Public Accounts Committee's request and that they would bring forward their procedures to do so. The Government did not engage in discussion regarding how this would be done as it is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners alone. Such debate would only arise if they sought additional amended regulations or legislation, which did not happen. As we know, the Revenue Commissioners yesterday issued a statement of practice on how they are to collect the tax due on the underlying income concealed in bogus non-resident accounts which were the subject of the DIRT inquiry, but this is a matter for the commissioners alone.

The PAC's recent report recognised the scale of the task it recommended to the Revenue Commissioners, which was to deal with the assessment and collection of underlying tax in a pragmatic and effective manner, while safeguarding the State's overall tax revenue. The chairman of the Revenue Commissioner's comments yesterday indicated he will be glad to outline how and why he sees this as the best way forward, but that is a matter for him and I cannot instruct him.

The Taoiseach's reply did not make clear whether he was informed or even consulted about this matter, although perhaps I did not hear correctly.

I was informed.

When the Taoiseach was informed, did he raise any objections to the proposed action? As the Minister for Finance who introduced the Waiver of Certain Tax, Interest and Penalties Act, 1993, does the Taoiseach regard the Revenue Commissioners' proposals as complying with section 9 of that Act? If so, is the Taoiseach happy that no additional powers are being sought or availed of through that legislation?

I was informed of what the Revenue Commissioners were doing but there was no discussion on the matter. The Revenue Commissioners told me on Tuesday morning that there would be a press conference on Wednesday.

Was the Taoiseach informed about the time of the press conference or about the content of what was to be said?

I was told about the press conference and given a brief summary of what would be said. There was no discussion on the matter.

Did the Taoiseach raise the matter?

No, because it was not an issue as it is within the powers of the Revenue Commissioners. The only question I asked was if they were seeking any additional or amended powers and it was made clear to me that they were not.

The Taoiseach did not answer or even address my supplementary question. I suggested a Public Accounts Committee recommendation that the position of financial institutions and individuals who are alleged to have evaded tax would be equalised and that the statute of limitations of six years that applies to banks be removed. Will the Taoiseach introduce legislation to do that?

That matter will have to be looked at if the Revenue Commissioners believe it is required.

It is a policy issue.

Leaders' questions have concluded, so contributions should be relevant to the Order of Business.

Relevant to legislation to amend the Constitution, is the Taoiseach aware of the proposals of the draft report of the all-party committee that measures taken to amend the Constitution should be fully debated by the Dáil and that an adequate period of time should be mandatory? A recommendation was made that we amend the Constitution to ensure that a Bill to amend the Constitution could not be passed unless three months had elapsed since the date of the Bill, except with the concurrence of the President in an emergency after consultation with the Council of State. Is the Taoiseach aware that the draft report proposes to amend Standing Orders to that effect as an interim measure?

Taking all that into account, will the Taoiseach confirm that the situation that prevailed regarding the judicial conduct Bill will not recur in any future proposal to amend the Constitution? The Bill was circulated on 22 March, but did not conform to the proposals of the all-party committee so the Government attempted to guillotine it after two hours on Committee Stage. Does the Taoiseach agree that the considered proposals of the all-party committee should be taken into account in future so that we have full and detailed consideration of any proposal to amend the basic laws of the State, which our Constitution deserves?

I commend the constitutional review group, the all-party committee on the Constitution and the report of Mrs. Justice Susan Denham, all of which fed into this debate. I hold the view that the difficulties arose elsewhere, but I take account of the Deputy's comments for future reference.

We need more haste and less speed.

The Labour Party is anxious to facilitate the Government in enacting the Local Government Bill, 2000, before the summer recess. I see from the draft schedule of business for next week that the resumed Second Stage of the Bill has not been listed to be brought back into the House. When will this Bill come back into the House? Is the Government serious about having this Bill enacted?

Yes, to both questions.

"When" was the first question.

That is the first time I have heard "when" answered by "yes". When will the Bill be taken again in the House? It will obviously not be taken next week. Will it be taken the following week?

This is May. Will it be taken the following week? It is not listed for next week.

It will be taken in May.

Will it be taken the following week, the week after next?

Which week?

He can answer yes or no to that question.

It will be taken in May.

Will it be in the week after next?

It will be taken in May.

We will never see this Bill.

Of which year?

May of which year?

2001 or 2002?

(Mayo): I do not know if the Minister for Public Enterprise has told the Taoiseach that there will be another rail strike on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week. Rather than proceeding with the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Bill, which has to do with the privatisation of the rail infrastructure, will the Taoiseach immediately invoke the industrial relations machinery of the Labour Relations Commission or the Labour Court and, in addition, will the Minister do something to try to resolve the industrial relations chaos within Iarnród Éireann?

It is not relevant to promised legislation.

(Mayo): It is extremely relevant to the travelling public next week. Somebody should intervene rather than allow this to go over the brink because the difficulties will continue indefinitely. It is another sad chapter.

The Minister is working hard on that.

Adopted persons and birth parents were promised an adoption contact register by the Government and up to now it was listed for this year. In the latest document published by the Government it is listed for mid-2002, in other words, they will not get to it in the lifetime of the Government.

That was a clear promise. Consultation took place well over a year ago with the former Minister of State and now we will not get an adoption contact register. This is a promise broken. Will the Taoiseach review the timescale for this Bill and bring it forward in order that it can be dealt with in the lifetime of the Government?

I will raise that with the Minister. The Bill is still due by mid-2001, but I accept that the heads have not yet been cleared and, therefore, that would be difficult. I will raise it with the Minister for Health and Children.

The Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution Bill is still on the Order Paper. Is the Government entirely abandoning that legislation or does the Taoiseach intend to take steps to allow it to progress in a manner which might achieve a consensus across both sides of this House?

It still remains on the Order Paper and perhaps, with the passage of time, we could reach consensus, although I think we are a long way from that considering the different views involved.

Would the Taoiseach agree—

I call Deputy Joe Higgins.

—to refer it to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights?

(Dublin West): The compliant PAYE tax paying population is to have a third version of a tax amnesty foisted on them according to the Revenue Commissioners. Will the Taoiseach state if legislation will be brought forward obliging the identification of those involved, particularly the big players responsible for a substantial amount of tax evasion?

Is it promised legislation?

(Dublin West): It is. Will the Taoiseach stand over another secret deal like the one Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party concluded in 1993 with substantial evaders?

Confine yourself to questions about promised legislation.

(Dublin West): Will there be legislation?

Is legislation promised?

As I said, this is being done under existing legislation. I understand that under the procedures the people involved will not be named. Of course if they do not follow what the Revenue Commissioners are saying and comply with these measures which are already in place, then the new powers of the 1999 Act will come into play and they will deal with them in time.

On proposed legislation, yesterday the National Disability Authority published a report, A Matter of Rights, and yesterday there were reports of a case of a young woman who has been asked to leave the Naval Service because she has been diagnosed as a coeliac.

Does the Deputy have a question on promised legislation?

When will he publish a strong Bill giving further rights to people with a disability? When will the Disability Bill reach this House?

Work on the Disability Bill, which is major legislation, is in progress and the Bill is expected later this year. It will provide a legislative base to advance and underpin the participation by people with a disability. It is the last of the range of Bills in this area and it will be published this year.

We have received the draft schedule for next week and it is, yet again, a grave disappointment that Report Stage of the Mental Health Bill is not listed. I have raised this many times with the Taoiseach and, indeed, with the Tánaiste. Certainly the response I received from the Tánaiste was supportive. I ask the Taoiseach to give special consideration to this issue? We have been waiting eight months for a small number of amendments to come back on Report Stage but the people who are suffering from psychiatric illness have been waiting many years for this Bill, which will vindicate their rights.

We cannot discuss that matter now.

Could I just ask for a response from the Taoiseach?

I usually disagree with the Deputy but in this case I agree with her. I have asked that it will be prioritised and I have been told it will be taken before the end of May, but I will keep a watch on it.

Can I ask the Taoiseach for a debate on the current position of the PPF? Is he aware that the furniture industry is on strike?

It is not relevant to the Order of Business.

Over 500 jobs are at stake in County Monaghan and there has been no effort to use mediation.

The question is not relevant to the Order of Business.

Will the Taoiseach take steps to have this resolved?

I call Deputy Seán Ryan.

On the Order of Business on Tuesday I advised the Taoiseach of the necessity of amending the Credit Union Act, 1997, to facilitate the credit unions' participation in the SSIA schemes. Given the inadequate reply I received yesterday, I would ask the Taoiseach and, indeed, the Tánaiste is there an intention to amend this scheme to facilitate the credit unions' involvement?

It is more appropriate to a parliamentary question.

If I could give a brief reply because the Deputy did raise this the other day, a Cheann Comhairle, I said on the Order of Business that it did not require legislation. I understand that there was some issue, that one needed £1,000 in shares before one could avail of the scheme. There is some uncertainty about this and there are differing views of whether that is the case. The Departments of Finance and Enterprise, Trade and Employment were to discuss the matter either yesterday or today with the Irish League of Credit Unions to try to resolve it. Hopefully the difficulty can be resolved without legislative change. If not, then I will have to report back next week.

What is the timeframe for the pensions Bill? On the latest disgraceful tax amnesty, it is my understanding that the DIRT report was not referred to the DPP or to the Bureau of Fraud Investigation but apparently that bureau is conducting an investigation. I wonder if the Taoiseach could brief us on how that investigation will be affected by these latest clandestine proposals.

The Deputy can pursue the matter in another way. What is the position on the question of the promised legislation?

It will be published this session.

Are there proposals to amend the Irish Citizenship and Nationality Act, 1956, as amended in 1986, to put an end to the disgraceful situation where the people who are tax exiles can use the receipts of the tax exile to purchase assets previously in public ownership in Ireland?

The Deputy should consider tabling a parliamentary question.

Are there proposals to amend the Irish Citizenship and Nationality Act, 1956?

There is an Immigration and Residents Bill, which is due later this year.

Top
Share