The Order of Business shall be as follows: No. 45, Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill, 1999 [Seanad] – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; and, No. 46, Agriculture Appeals Bill, 2001 [Seanad] – Second Stage (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), the Dáil shall waive its instruction that not more than two select committees shall meet to consider a Bill on any given day in the case of the proposed meeting of the Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service to consider the Euro Changeover (Amounts) Bill, 2001 tomorrow; and, (2) the Report and Final Stages of No. 45 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 7 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 Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Private Members' Business shall be No. 109, motion re health care services.
Order of Business.
There are two proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal to allow more than two select committees to meet tomorrow agreed to?
The proposal is, in itself, innocuous but until the Taoiseach or the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation explains the reason the Dáil was misled in the first week in May, I oppose it.
I share the concerns expressed by Deputy Noonan. Will the Taoiseach clarify whether the new committee rooms are equipped to provide the necessary simultaneous recording facilities?
That issue does not arise in regard to this proposal.
It does; we are being asked to increase the number of simultaneous committee meetings. I am seeking clarification on the recording facilities; as I understand it, the necessary staffing, resources and equipment do not exist.
The matter does not arise.
I cannot agree to this proposal given that the Taoiseach was unable, during Question Time, to provide a date on which the OECD recommendations on tax reform will come into effect.
That does not arise in relation to this proposal. The Deputy must find another way to raise the matter.
The Taoiseach is not giving priority to issues that are of fundamental importance to the country.
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Callely, Ivor.Collins, Michael.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.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.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Malley, Desmond.Power, Seán.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Woods, Michael. |
|
Belton, Louis J.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P. |
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Burke, Liam. Burke, Ulick. |
|
Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Enright, Thomas.Finucane, Michael.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McManus, Liz. |
Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack. |
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 45, Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill, 1999, Report and Final Stages, agreed to?
This is a proposal to guillotine legislation which will effectively give the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the discretionary power to decide whether a returning Irish national who married a foreign national and lived abroad for some years will have the automatic right to citizenship or if it will be granted at the discretion of the Minister. It is an outrageous invasion of privacy and stripping away of the rights of Irish citizens. We are opposed to the guillotining of this provision and for the manner in which the Bill has been taken through both Houses.
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Callely, Ivor.Collins, Michael.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.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.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond. Power, Seán. |
|
Reynolds, Albert.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel. |
Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
|
Belton, Louis J.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Enright, Thomas.Finucane, Michael.Gilmore, Éamon.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Howlin, Brendan.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek. |
McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Olivia.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack. |
It is a measure of the Taoiseach's utter determination to press ahead with the Stadium Ireland project at any cost that it took a freedom of information request to establish the facts. Why, when we were debating this issue last May, did he or the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Deputy McDaid, not inform the House that the Government had been advised by the Department of Finance through the Minister for Finance that the estimated cost of the stadium was probably £100 million more than the figures given in the House? The House was also not informed that there was little likelihood of private investors getting involved because there would not be a return on their investment. The Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation misled the House, and the Taoiseach, by standing over the figures, also misled the House.
The chairman of the Stadium Ireland project said this morning on the radio that the tendering process was continuing and that the bids would be presented to the Cabinet for approval in July. I understood that when the Tánaiste prevailed on the Taoiseach to do a full financial review of the project tenders would not be evaluated or accepted and that further contractual obligations would not be entered into.
I support what Deputy Noonan said. In light of the ambiguity which surrounds this project and the apparent lack of openness by the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, the Taoiseach and others, will the independent audit of this project and the value for money audit be truly independent? Instead of hiring cost consultants in the private sector at a considerable cost whose terms of reference could be written in a particular way to ensure a favourable outcome – it would not be the first time – is the Government prepared to ask the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is an independent person answerable to this House, to undertake the value for money audit that he is empowered to do before any contractual commitments are made on behalf of the taxpayers?
The Government decided on 1 May to undertake an independent overview of the costs and benefits of the Stadium Ireland project. That will be the second overview because the first professional estimate of the cost of the project was provided by PricewaterhouseCoopers in the feasibility study. That is the figure the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Stadium Ireland and I have used. The next professional analysis of the cost will be provided by the bidding process, which is currently under way. In the meantime, the Government at the beginning of this month decided to hire independent consultants to provide an overview to assist in determining the final Exchequer allocation to the project. That overview will assess the benefits as well as the costs of the development, the attendant infrastructural work and the upgrading of existing facilities in Abbotstown. The consultants, who have yet to be selected, will be required to complete the overview within three months. The Government will then make its decision on how best to proceed with this project. The consultants will work with a steering group of senior officials which will include the Departments of Finance, Tourism, Sport and Recreation, the Taoiseach and Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
As regards Deputy Noonan's other point about internal notes in the Department of Finance, the Department of Finance's internal note on the possible costs of the sports campus project significantly predates the decision to have an independent evaluation of the costs and benefits of the project.
The Department of Finance note also predates the meeting with Campus Ireland in March of this year, at which it gave a presentation on the stadium and campus project. I attended with the Tánaiste and senior officials, including officials from the Department of Finance. At that stage, Campus Ireland also gave its views on transport and other issues. These issues are now part of the examination.
In 1992, PriceWaterhouse Coopers examined whether Ireland should have a national stadium. There was a further examination more recently, which I have just mentioned, and now we are to have a third examination of the issue. It is not reasonable for Deputy Quinn to complain of a group of senior officials from a number of Departments deciding who will do the job, without involvement from me. I am unconcerned who gets the job.
What are the terms of reference for the consultants?
The terms of reference have been drawn up by Government and have been handled by a group of senior officials.
So those officials are the Government, are they?
I hope Deputy Quinn is not saying that the third group of independent consultants to look at this issue will have their report written for them in advance. Perhaps that is the way some conduct their business, but not this Government.
Order, please.
I look forward to an independent assessment of the project, including all matters which the Government have set out in the terms of reference. This assessment will be overseen by a number of officials. In the meantime, no contract other than the swimming pool contract will be signed. We must wait for the report. The Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation will continue with the development of excellent sporting facilities throughout the country, as he has done for all sports for the past four years. The Government is grateful for the work the Minister has done.
This is another classic example of the obfuscation which is becoming the hallmark of the Taoiseach in the House. The Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation provided false figures to the House. He provided false figures knowingly-—
Deputy Noonan, it is not in order to accuse a member of Government of deliberately misleading the House. An allegation of this nature can only be made by way of a substantive motion of censure.
It happened.
This is like "Alice in Wonderland".
I ask Deputy Noonan to withdraw the remark that the Minister deliberately misled the House.
I did not say that.
You did.
I said the Minister supplied false figures to the House.
Knowingly.
I withdraw the word "knowingly". He is not the brightest Minister. He may not have known what he was reading out.
"Policy not personality" is what Deputy Noonan said on his first day as party leader.
The Deputy is a nice man to talk about such matters.
Deputy Noonan should be heard without interruption.
They are joking.
In a debate in the House in the first week of May, the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation rebutted arguments that Stadium Ireland was on the way to costing £1 billion. In doing that, he did not reveal that the Minister for Finance was advised that the potential cost of the stadium was £100 million more than had been originally estimated by PriceWaterhouse Coopers. He did not reveal that there was a serious doubt about the project attracting any private investment other than the original £50 million.
Will the Taoiseach apologise to the House on behalf of his Minister? Will he correct the record and will he guarantee that contracts are not entered into until the financial evaluation takes place? I draw the Taoiseach's attention to advertisements placed in the national press last week concerning the move of the State laboratory and other facilities. The advertisements for contracts said that work is expected to commence in August 2001 and talked of a commitment of £200 million. Will the Tánaiste sit quietly and take this?
I will read from the Department of Finance note which I received with the freedom of information papers yesterday. It says that the Department of Finance's internal note on the possible costs of the campus project significantly predates the decision to have this independent evaluation of the costs and benefits of the project. The Department of Finance note also predates the Campus Ireland and Stadium Ireland presentation on the project in early March.
So what?
Why were the figures deliberately concealed from the House?
Members must allow the Taoiseach to speak. I remind Deputies that this is leaders question time. The only Members entitled to submit a question are the leaders of the two main parties. Other Members are not entitled to participate.
Deputy Shatter, please allow the Taoiseach to speak.
The Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, and all Ministers including the Minister for Finance, see correspondence relating to their Departments. However, no internal notes were involved in the Government decision, other than those the Minister has mentioned. I will not correct the record.
What happened to the Department of Finance note?
The Minister stated the facts—
Order, please. Deputy Shatter will appreciate that he is not the leader of his party and is not entitled to speak.
The figures which the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation gave were the official figures on which he was working. They were correct and he did not mislead the House.
In relation to the private sector element, an official in the Department of Finance has a view which may or may not be correct.
The chief executive of the Stadium Ireland project made his position clear on radio this morning.
His view is that there will not be private sector development for the project. However, many people are interested in private sector involvement. In spite of the continuous talking down of an excellent project, much of the private sector continues to show interest.
I remind the House that up to recently, some 0.1% of total spending was on sport. That is a sad indictment of past policies. The Government has moved that figure to 0.4%.
This is disgraceful.
After four years in Government, it is disgraceful.
The previous Government spent just £13.5 million on sport. When the Government gave £5 million to the Croke Park development in 1992 the Opposition parties almost had a seizure. They were totally against that. Now they are for it. This is an old argument. Once the project is finished Opposition Deputies will want to be there for the opening. It is always the same way.
How can the Taoiseach attempt to conceal £100 million?
Members' remarks should be addressed through the chair. We move to the second question. I call Deputy Quinn.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that the Government received a draft Bill to put beyond challenge the right of the Oireachtas to conduct an inquiry into matters of public interest? Will he confirm that he received that Bill two weeks ago and that he was informed by the Government Chief Whip of the absolute necessity to have the Bill sponsored, in order to address the issue of the competence of committees of inquiry from this House to conduct their business? Does the Taoiseach accept he has failed to enable the Bill to be processed by the Attorney General, who could not offer a view because it was left without a sponsor? Not even the Taoiseach's Department was prepared to sponsor the Bill and the Department of Finance refused to consider it because it had other matters in hand. As a consequence, the ability of the House and the unanimous desire of its Members to establish committees of inquiry into matters of public concern has been seriously compromised due to either the wilful negligence of the Government or the incompetence of the people who surround the Taoiseach.
Will the Taoiseach indicate the implications this has for the sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Public Enterprise which is inquiring into certain matters connected with CIE?
These matters are related. Two weeks ago the committee forwarded a Bill to the Minister for Finance and to the Government Whip, who passed it to the Attorney General for his consideration. There are a number of issues which arise in respect of this matter. The first of these involves the matters due to come before the High Court on 29 May. I am advised that we must obtain a determination on these matters, including the privilege issue, to which Deputy Noonan referred. This was raised by the Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport and it is a separate matter.
The four issues on which the court must decide in relation to the Abbeylara inquiry are the fundamental challenge to the committee's right to conduct inquiries and the claim that politicians are not capable of being unbiased due to being directly elected by popular support; whether the terms of reference confine committees to policy matters or whether the Dáil can order specific inquiries – that is a root and branch challenge; whether consent is properly conveyed by e-mail or whether a formal letter is required – this involves the e-commerce Act and the efforts of the Abbeylara committee legal team to ensure the committee has proper legal authorisation before it proceeds – and the compellability committee is adamant, and has offered its legal view, that it was properly conveyed; and whether, constitutionally, committees should find facts by giving opinions or allocate blame. In addition, the lawyers for the ERU applied to the Secretary General to the Government seeking exemption and anonymity for certain gardaí giving evidence. The Secretary General to the Government is independent in this practice.
Deputy Noonan raised a separate point about the new privilege issues raised by the Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport and the legislation being sought in respect of the CIE contract, which is being considered. I understand the Whips will meet to discuss matters. These are fundamental and extremely important issues and the House will benefit from the clarification the courts will provide in respect of some of them. Any information we obtain from the Attorney General will be passed, as soon as it comes into our possession, to the Whips by the Government Whip.
Does the Taoiseach accept that two weeks ago, long before any action that could invoke the precedence of the Sinn Féin funds case – which determines law in this area – was taken in the High Court, the Chief Whip was presented with a Bill, which had both all-party support and the approval of the senior counsel to the two committees of inquiry currently established by the Oireachtas, and was informed in no uncertain terms of the urgent need to have it initiated and passed? I contend that the legislation in question would have been passed without any opposition. However, for some inexplicable reason – at best incompetence, at worst connivance intended to spancel the ability of this House to do its work – this matter was allowed to reach the stage at which it currently stands. When will the legislation be initiated in the House in order that we can put beyond any doubt the power of the Oireachtas, in the form of an all-party committee, to conduct inquiries into matters of public concern? The onus is on the Executive and with the majority in this House. The Government has failed in its responsibility to equip us with the legislative powers and means necessary to enable us to do the job for which we were elected.
The Government Whip acted correctly in this instance. Deputy Quinn is correct in stating that he received the Bill and that he gave it to the Attorney General and the Minister for Finance. After that, however, matters are not so simple. These are major complex constitutional legal issues involved here. It was not a question of merely rushing a Bill through because the issues arose in respect of privilege, of advisers appearing before the committee, of how these people would be treated, etc. We could not deal quickly with these major complex legal issues. The Government, as the Chief Whip indicated at the time in question, supports the view of the committee. We must wait and see what will be the legal advice on these issues, which are also before the court for consideration.
So the railway inquiry is being effectively postponed.
We must move on to other issues. I call Deputy Noonan on another matter.
It has been postponed.
Deputy Shatter, I have called the leader of your party.
What is the status of the Campus Stadium Ireland Bill, the purpose of which is to establish the development company for the construction of the campus? What arrangements are in place to ensure the financial accountability of the ad hoc group responsible for the planning in the absence of the Bill?
The first part of the question is in order.
The heads of the Bill will be ready in approximately two to three weeks. The legislation will be passed this year.
What about the ad hoc group?
It is not unusual that such a group should be established.
I know the Chair will grant me the latitude to ask the Taoiseach to join me and other Members in expressing sympathy to Yvonne, Orla, Conor and Declan, the children of Austin Finn, the well known photographer who was tragically killed while on an assignment yesterday. Mr. Finn was known to every Member of the House and I believe it appropriate that we should mark his tragic and untimely passing.
I join Deputy Quinn and all Members in expressing sympathy to the family of the late Austin Finn. I was with Mr. Finn a few hours before his death at a corporation reconstruction project. He served his profession very well over the years. I wish to extend my sympathy to his family, his children and his friends. He was an excellent individual and a hard-working person. I wish to be associated with Deputy Quinn's expression of sympathy to his family.
I also wish to be associated with Deputy Quinn's expression of sympathy. On behalf of my party, I extend our sympathy to his children, his wide circle of friends and his many colleagues who were shocked by this tragic accident.
Will the Taoiseach indicate when livestock marts will re-open for business?
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the financial misery farmers are experiencing at present?
Does the Deputy have a question on legislation?
Will the Taoiseach reply?
I wish to inquire about No. 71 on the Order Paper, statements on housing, planning and transportation. As house construction is down 17% on last year and local authority housing projects are at their lowest level for eight years, will the Taoiseach agree to reschedule the item in question for debate in the House next week?
I will ask the Whip about that matter.
It is also a tragic day for the families affected by the horrific accident in Dublin port, as a result of which four people lost their lives and another remains in hospital.
I wish to inquire about the coastguard Bill and the coastal zone management Bill. That type of legislation appears to take a back seat. We are familiar with the horror caused by dangers at sea. Where stand both Bills?
There is other legislation which is definitely on the back burner but which is of great concern to the many thousands of people who work for the Aer Lingus company. Will the Minister for Public Enterprise make a statement in the House when the issue regarding the chief executive has been brought to some resolution?
That does not arise on the Order of Business. The first question on promised legislation is in order.
When will the Aer Lingus Bill come before the House?
The heads of the Coast Guard Bill are being prepared in the Department and it is still some time from publication. The Aer Lingus Bill is published.
Is the Taoiseach saying the legislation to permit the inquiry into certain matters in CIE to proceed will come before the House or will it have to await the separate case before the courts in respect of Abbeylara?
We await the Attorney General's advice on that matter.
When does the Taoiseach expect to receive his advice? Does he intend to bring that legislation—
That does not arise on the Order of Business. I call Deputy Ring.
Let me finish the question.
Deputy Shatter knows the rules governing the Order of Business.
Does the Taoiseach intend to bring the legislation before the House for its enactment before the summer recess? Will he clarify whether the legislation will be enacted to allow the Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport continue its work?
On another aspect of legislation, when will we see legislation to allow adopted persons gain access to their birth certificates and to provide for a contact register?
The second matter was cleared by the Cabinet today. On the first matter, it is intended to bring legislation forward but we must ensure we obtain the Attorney General's advice and that it is constitutional before we do so.
Will the Taoiseach get that advice before summer?
As quickly as possible.
I intended to raise the issue raised by Deputy Shatter. The list of proposed legislation states the Adoption Contact Register Bill is scheduled for publication in mid-2002. The Taoiseach has told us the heads have been agreed. Will he tell us when the Bill is likely to be published, if the information on the list is wrong and if the Bill will be published relatively soon?
The Minister of State responsible, Deputy Hanafin, has cleared the scheme of the Bill and is proceeding with the heads. I know she is anxious to deal with it as quickly as possible. I do not have an exact date but she is anxious to proceed as quickly as possible.
In light of recent comments by the Ombudsman, when does the Taoiseach expect the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill to be before the House? The Ombudsman was very concerned about local authorities and health boards.
The Taoiseach on promised legislation.
When will that Bill be before the House to give him further powers to deal with local authorities?
Later on this year.
The Minister for Public Enterprise introduced the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Bill in the Seanad on 16 May to set up a railway procurement agency. During the debate she said the legislation did not concern heavy rail. Is the Bill being withdrawn given that no railways exist which it can cover or will there be major amendments to the Bill? What is to happen to it? It will only cover a railway network which will not be in place for another 16 years.
The first part of the question is in order.
The Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Bill was published on 12 March and the Committee and Remaining Stages will be taken in the Seanad on 24 May.
This is an extraordinary situation. The purpose of the Bill was withdrawn by the Minister in her speech to the Seanad. Is the Bill being withdrawn?
No.
No railways exist for this railway procurement agency.
The Taoiseach spoke earlier of the importance of funding for local sport. Is it intended to introduce legislation for the future allocation of local sports partnerships?
Legislation is not promised. I call Deputy Belton.
The Dublin region only received one of these partnerships. People are very unhappy.
In light of the Taoiseach's and the Tánaiste's remarks that there is not a crisis in the health service, I would like them to take note that the casualty unit at Longford Hospital—
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
It very much arises if a person is from Longford.
There were questions to the Minister for Health and Children earlier today and there will be an opportunity to raise the issue in Private Members' time.
The carry-on of the Government in spinning stories day after day is a disgrace.
We move on to No. 45, Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill, 1999: Report and Final Stages.
The Government is a pure disgrace. It should face the facts.