Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the constitutional referenda he intends to hold during 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27076/02]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Proposed Legislation.
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the position in respect of the implementation of the recommendations of the Oireachtas committee on the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27077/02]
Trevor Sargent
Question:3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he plans to hold any referenda in 2003; if so, the subject of these referenda; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2413/03]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the action he proposes to take to implement the recommendations of the seventh progress report of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, entitled Parliament, published in March 2002; and the way in which he intends to act to provide representation in the Houses of the Oireachtas for citizens in the Six Counties, arising out of discussions he had during the peace process, the committee's report and other proposals and submissions received. [2771/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the constitutional referenda he intends to hold during 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3395/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
There are no plans at present to hold referenda in 2003. The previous Government acted on most of the key recommendations that have emanated from the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. In all, the previous Government brought forward nine referenda on cabinet confidentiality, the Amsterdam treaty, the British-Irish Agreement, local government, the death penalty, the International Criminal Court, the protection of human life in pregnancy and the Nice treaty. Unfortunately, a proposed referendum on judicial oversight did not proceed due to lack of cross-party support in the Dáil.
The Government will avail of any appropriate opportunity to take forward further recommendations of the all-party committee as the opportunity arises or if there is any particular issue which is pressing. The nature of the referendum process requires that careful consideration be given to the frequency with which referenda can realistically be held and the significance of the issue in question.
On the specific matter of the committee's seventh progress report concerning Parliament, there are various different recommendations ranging from eligibility for membership of Dáil Éireann to changing the composition and functions of the Seanad. The recommendations mostly require changes in standing orders and procedures rather than constitutional change and could be implemented by changes to standing orders in the Dáil or Seanad – and this is a matter for the Houses themselves. I have asked the Government Chief Whip to consult other parties on the participation of Northern Ireland representatives in the Dáil and I will shortly meet the Leader of the Seanad who is anxious to progress reforms in that House.
Now that the Convention on Europe has published most parts of a draft constitution, will the Taoiseach confirm that a referendum will be required to ratify that constitution? When does the Taoiseach envisage that will happen? Will it be held during the Italian Presidency or is it likely that he, as President, will deal with the treaty negotiations? What is the Government's attitude to the treaty containing references in whatever context to the words "federal" and "federalism"?
On the matter of the Convention on Europe, we have only seen the first draft clauses of the treaty. It is premature to say when it will be finished or what it will contain. I said at Christmas that there is a possibility that the convention would be finished in the summer. If that is the case the Intergovernmental Conference will be held in the autumn. I think that has been put back a little because the Swedish Government has decided to hold a referendum on the euro currency in October.
A number of referenda will be held during this year by all the applicant countries to deal with enlargement. It is thought to be highly unlikely that the Intergovernmental Conference will start even if the convention has finished. It is not certain but it seems there will be a break between the convention and the Intergovernmental Conference. That is not certain because the Italians are anxious to initiate the process during their Presidency and there is a strong possibility that will be the case. It could be put back to the Irish Presidency or even beyond but it is difficult to predict at this stage.
The question of whether we will require a referendum can only be considered when the pro cess has finished. It is probably likely that a referendum will be required but I do not want to give a definitive answer on that matter.
I am sure many issues will arise during the debate. Deputy Kenny will know that the federalist agenda for Europe is one that I have always argued against and will continue to do so.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach a different question. Will he consider bringing forward legislation to amend the Referendum Act 1998 in light of the recommendation in the sixth report of the all-party committee on the Constitution that the Referendum Commission put the proposals for and against referenda? Will the Taoiseach consider putting into effect the report of the all-party committee with regard to a reduction in the age eligibility limit for the Office of President from 35 to 18 years?
Has the Taoiseach considered the unique situation that applies to sign language in Ireland and recognising it as the third official language of the country? I was not aware until recently that Irish sign language, although it is used by only a small number of skilled people, is a unique form of communication distinct from sign language in any other country.
The Taoiseach does not need it.
A Deputy:
He is skilled at reading it.
The sixth report of the all-party committee on the Constitution review group deals with the fact that "for and against" arguments must be put, and legislation for that has been passed. The answer to the second question on the reduction of the age from 35 to 18 as recommended by the all-party committee is "No". It is a daft idea and I totally disagree with it. While I know Irish sign language is a vital part of communication and is used by probably a larger number than we imagine, I am not sure a constitutional provision would need to be made for it. I am not too sure of its status but will check the situation. I know it is used in education and as a means of communication. If I remember rightly from a visit to the Irish Deaf Society, several different forms of sign language are used.
The Taoiseach will be aware from the draft report of the all-party committee on the Constitution focusing on Government that Article 28 of the Constitution, dealing with conditions under which the Government might declare or participate in a war, was considered. There was a feeling that it needed to be extended to include "or other armed conflict". Will the Taoiseach agree that if that amendment was in place it would change the situation in which Ireland is currently co-operating with an armed conflict or war in Iraq? Is there a view in Government that there should be an amendment to extend the range of that article to include the term "or other armed conflict"? Does the Taoi seach agree there needs to be a credible policy of military neutrality following the Nice treaty and the inclusion of a reference which is supposedly about neutrality?
The first question is in order but the second is outside the substance of the five questions.
I am trying to stay within order. A referendum on neutrality is what my question is about and we are dealing here with a question about a referendum on the Constitution. I want to ask the Taoiseach if he is considering amendments to the Constitution mindful of the need to clear up the uncertainty as to whether Ireland is neutral, given that we have paid €1.5 million in landing charges—
The Deputy has made his point.
That matter was dealt with in mid-October in the Nice referendum when we changed our Constitution to deal with the issue. The people voted and there is no need to change the Constitution now. It is clear. We are not involved in any common defence initiative and are totally within our Constitution. The matter does not arise.
It is not clear at all.
The Taoiseach will be aware that the all-party committee on the Constitution recommended reform of the Seanad, including the election of 48 of its Members by the full electorate and by a list system. The Taoiseach will be aware that Seanad reform was among the recommendations of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, including the election of 48 of its number by the full electorate using a list system. Does he support this? Would he support the idea of the list being composed on an all-island basis, thereby affording direct elections to the Seanad across the 32 counties?
Can the Taoiseach confirm that granting attendance and speaking rights to Six County MPs and, perhaps even Assembly members, is something that requires only a change in Standing Orders for such a facility to be accommodated in this Chamber? This is also one of the areas addressed by the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution. I fear the Taoiseach is dithering because he has sent the matter back for discussion to the same committee, which has now reconvened following the last general election.
A question, please, Deputy.
Will the Taoiseach spell out clearly what is his position in regard to this proposal, recognising the importance of such a statement from him?
I know the Ceann Comhairle will not let me back in later because I do not have sufficient political avoirdupois.
I would not anticipate what the Ceann Comhairle might say or do.
That has been the pattern heretofore. He would accuse me of boxing above my weight. It is logical to add on a point vis-à-vis a referenda accommodating the proposed changes to the Seanad.
Does the Taoiseach not think it odd in regard to presidential elections that an Irish citizen born and living in County Down with an address there, had to find an accommodation address in order to stand in the last presidential election? Should we not grasp this moment and face up to the challenges that these anomalies present? Many would describe them as injustices. Should we not accommodate the opportunity throughout this island for citizens to not only present themselves for election to the presidency, but to share the franchise? Go raibh maith agat.
The Deputy has raised three points – the first in regard to Seanad reform. As I have said here previously, I am in favour of this. I have spoken to the Members of the Seanad and am to meet the representatives of the parties there in the next week. They have started an internal examination of what they wish to achieve. We have the all-party committee report and we also have some other reports; there are three separate reports in total.
First of all, the Seanad needs to consult among its Members as it believes it can make a number of changes within the electoral system. Proposals already exist but they are not the same. I have an official working on this area who is looking at finding areas of common concern. After I meet the representatives of the parties in the Seanad, I hope to be able to write to the party leaders on what is the best way to bring this forward.
I am in favour of Seanad reform, but I am not quite sure whether it will require amendments. I have been advised that we can do quite a good deal without amendments. That is also the conclusion of the all-party committee and the separate examination of the Seanad that took place some years ago.
With regard to the matter of representation, the all-party committee has given its views on this. I agree with its view that it would be valuable, from time to time, to have the expertise, experience and insight of Northern Irish politicians in specific and appropriate debates in the Oireachtas. The Government supports making the necessary procedural arrangements to allow MPs elected in Northern Ireland constituencies to speak on periodic debates on Northern Ireland, particularly on matters relating to the Good Friday Agreement. This was put forward by the committee and we have written and sought the support of other parties to bring it about.
The all-party committee referred to and made some suggestions about the presidency, but it did not include the one made by Deputy Ó Caoláin. This is not one to which I have yet given any thought. Perhaps if we come around to making changes in this area, which are not envisaged at present, this proposal can be discussed. This issue did not arise either during the long debate which was held on the matter a few years ago.
Last week the Minister for the Environment and Local Government did not seem to know too much about the 10,000 affordable houses in the new social contract. He said it would have no implications for the Exchequer and the Taoiseach was a bit woolly on the matter himself. Does the Taoiseach intend holding a referendum along the lines he suggested on 5 January in an interview with The Sunday Tribune, when he said that if he thought it would be successful he would propose a constitutional amendment to cap the price of land, given that land is the problem in this matter? Does the Taoiseach still think he might hold a referendum to that effect?
As I stated on that and previous occasions, I have asked the new all-party committee on the Constitution to give priority to looking at the constitutional aspects of land rights and particularly to revisit the proposals of the Kenny report of some years ago. This issue must be looked at and I am advised that a way of successfully doing something about it could be a constitutional referendum. Governments, including some led by me, have tried many things to deal with the problem of house prices in the greater Dublin area. The problem does not apply elsewhere, as people continually point out to me. However, in the greater Dublin area the price of land is the problem and it must be dealt with. Otherwise we will continue to see excessive house prices.
From memory I think we have seven reports from the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. How long will it take for the committee to give the Taoiseach this assessment? The Taoiseach has been in office for six years. Attaining a house of one's own is now more difficult than at any time during those six years.
I agree with the Taoiseach's analysis. The price of land and identifying land is the problem. Even the housing co-operatives say they cannot use the legislation because they cannot compete for land in the private marketplace. If we are all agreed on the analysis of the problem why are we deferring the decision about holding a referendum, which seems to have been encouraged by the recent Supreme Court case and which the Minister of State with responsibility for housing, Deputy Noel Ahern, said he would favour?
In parts of this county, including north County Dublin which is the territory of the Taoiseach's old mate, Rambo, land is controlled by six devel opers who have taken an option on land, even open meadow, although no money changes hand. Would it not be a contribution to getting house prices under control and a signal to developers and builders if a referendum were held, with all-party support, to cap the price of land for this public purpose?
I am glad Deputy Rabbitte agrees with me. When I made this proposal in the last Dáil I got very little agreement for it. I was told how impractical it was.
Not by me.
Deputy Rabbitte is correct, it was not by him. I do not represent north County Dublin but I know that in the Deputy's constituency a small site in the town centre of Tallaght was sold for between €20 and €30 million. He will understand these matters better than I do. I represent the inner-city where we do not have these problems.
In none of the seven reports did anyone suggest a constitutional amendment. I raised it in January and I have no doubt the chairman of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, Deputy O'Donovan, will deal with it as soon as possible.
Judge Kenny made the suggestion 30 years ago.
I am responsible for a lot but I am not responsible for running the country for the past 30 years.
It is about time the Taoiseach did something about it.
In the six years or so that I have been responsible, more efforts have been made to do something about housing—
The prices—
—than in the previous 24 years. We had the three Bacon reports, two major changes in legislation and the then Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey brought in the largest Planning and Development Act in 40 years.
They then reversed most of it.
All of those things happened.
The Minister's successor reversed it.
I will hear the Taoiseach without interruption.
Is the Taoiseach referring to Deputy O'Donovan?
Deputy Rabbitte, please allow the Taoiseach.
I apologise. I am merely asking, Sir—
The Chair will not allow a situation where any Member is frustrated from speaking when called by the Chair. The Taoiseach has been called to reply to a question and I ask that he be allowed do so.
I am asking if the Taoiseach is referring to Deputy O'Donovan and his committee.
I have already formally asked the all-party committee on the Constitution to see whether it can get all-party agreement. I agree with what the Deputy has said on this matter. While a considerable amount of work has been done in this area over the years, most of it 25 years ago, many other suggestions have been considered since. In relation to affordable housing, we are making substantial progress on the number of affordable houses that will be supplied. On the housing trusts in recent years, we have managed to get ourselves into a position where housing associations are building a substantial number of houses. They used to build a few hundred houses but now we have moved, though not as much as other European countries and particularly the United Kingdom, in regard to the number of houses being produced. We are using the system properly but the outstanding issue is still the land question. I have highlighted my opposition – and Deputy Rabbitte agrees with me – to the idea that people can pay large amounts of money on options on land for long periods.
The effect of that is that in five, ten, 15 or 20 years the price of land, when they finally come to build on those sites will be enormous and when they build on those sites they will say they need what I consider to be excessive margins on them, because they have to buy options on the next land and on it will go. I am totally opposed to that. Through the Bacon reports we have tried all kinds of mechanisms to combat this – some have worked, some have not. We tried to deal with it in the Planning and Development Act, the largest Act in 40 years and far larger than the original Act. Even with all those mechanisms, being partially successful, even very successful, until we look at the land question we will not get to the end of it.
Is the Taoiseach aware that in the first draft of the Free State Constitution it was clearly outlined that the land of the country should be in the common ownership of the people and it was the British Crown that shot that down as conflicting with the interests of landlords who were loyal to that Government? Can the Taoiseach say whether it is time to revisit that clause of the first draft of that first Constitution given that in 1937 when Eamon de Valera looked again at it, he came under the belt of the crozier and the Church did not want the common ownership clause included. Is it not time to realise the Government does not hold a brief for either the British Crown or the Church and that it should face up to the responsibility of putting to the people an amendment to the Constitution which would restore the common ownership of the land to the people of Ireland so that we can organise proper housing and have price structures that do not prohibit housing for our people? Will the Taoiseach agree it is time to grasp that nettle and to put the amendment which has been discussed around the House and at the all-party committee on the Constitution for so long?
I think I have answered that question. The Deputy is merely stating the things I have already stated and he thinks they are a good idea. We should also look at these things and at the powers of objectors because objectors drive the price of land as well. Deputy Sargent could help us to try to resolve that issue.
You are the Taoiseach.
Does the Taoiseach accept that the all-party committee on the Constitution has done an enormous amount of work for very little return? Does he accept that it would transform the approach the committee might adopt to this proposal of a constitutional amendment if he stated clearly that it was his intention to bring forward a constitutional amendment and a timeframe to reach that objective? Otherwise, it will inevitably be seen simply as deferring a decision on a crucial point in relation to land, something which everyone recognises. I welcome the fact the Taoiseach now recognises that. If it is left open-ended and for the all-party committee to deal with, it will not happen within a reasonable timeframe. It is up to the Taoiseach to give a commitment that he intends to hold this referendum, to state the approximate length of time he expects it will take before he holds it and to adopt a similar approach to that which he adopted to the abortion referendum.
There are two major issues. I have asked the all-party committee to look at this and to give me its views because, as the Deputy knows, if I take off on one track and do not get all-party agreement, we will not make much progress. I note what Deputy Rabbitte said in this regard and appreciate it. I do not wish to dictate to the all-party committee but I have asked it to make this the priority item and I understand it will do that.
NESC has almost completed a major report on housing; I might be wrong but I believe it is to report in March. It has looked at much of the work which has been around for the last 20 to 25 years. It has gone back to look at the situation before Kenny's time. That report will be very useful to us in our deliberations. We also have the work done by the former Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, over the last five years. Those examinations and reviews will also be very useful. Much of the work is finished and we will have to see if we can come to a conclusion.
Over the years others have looked at trying to get over the individual rights in these issues and have said they could not do so, but I am not convinced. I have spoken about this to the Attorney General and others and I am not convinced that there is no way to deal with this. Maybe I will be defeated and it will not be possible but if we can have constitutional referendums on everything else, it must be possible to try to deal with this issue.
If the Taoiseach has made a formal request to the all-party committee to look at this issue, will he give the House more detail on the nature of that request? If he has the text of the request with him, perhaps he will avail of the opportunity to read it into the record of the House. If it is not available to him, will he agree to circulate the text of the formal request he has made to the all-party committee?
Since the issue of land is clearly critical, although there is also the wider issue of housing provision, will the Taoiseach take up the suggestion made by the Labour Party that there should be a constitutional guarantee of the right to shelter? This is one of the few countries in Europe which has neither a constitutional nor a legislative guarantee of the right to housing.
I do not have the correspondence but the committee has written in reply to me on the issue. The chairman and vice-chairman have sought a meeting with me on the matter. They obviously have the contribution I made in the House on this issue in December, which Deputy Rabbitte quoted. I am not too sure if everything should be written into the Constitution. Most countries in Europe have very little in their Constitution, unlike ours, which is far more restrictive, despite what Deputy Gilmore said. I have no difficulty in trying to deal with the issues raised by the Deputy by way of legislation, which is a different matter.
Will the Taoiseach circulate the text of his request?
I will come back to the Deputy if time permits. I call Deputy Higgins.
I have been around the yard with the Taoiseach on this issue on a number of occasions in the past six years.
A question would be more appropriate, Deputy.
I have been sitting here patiently for 20 minutes in the hope that the Taoiseach might bring us a bit more forward on the question. The Taoiseach should stop playing games with us. Is it not the reality that nothing has been done in 30 years since the Kenny report? Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have been beholden to very powerful speculators who have made a fortune from speculating in land and held ordinary people to ransom for the price of a home while they did not lift a finger. Is it not the case that powerful supporters of the Taoiseach's party continue to be substantial land owners and to speculate in the price of land continuing at the same level or continuing to rise? Given that the Taoiseach has had the distinction of being Taoiseach while the price of a home for ordinary working people doubled or trebled in six years, what hope can we have that he will take action at this point? I call on him to take action, but what hope can we have that he will do so to burst the speculators' charter and legislate on this matter in the interests of the big majority of ordinary people who are victims of the speculators?
I cannot convince Deputy Higgins that I would do anything right, so I will not try very hard. I am convinced that supporters of my party would probably own less property than the .001% level of support the Deputy's party has, if someone would go to the trouble of analysing the matter. I reject totally the points he made about speculators. In other countries, those who have leanings towards the far and extreme left are normally the wealthiest people in society, while they lecture the rest of us. I do not accuse Deputy Higgins of lecturing us, but I do not accept his arguments in this regard.
We are doing our best to improve the situation and that is why in the Deputy's constituency where some 30 years ago, grass and clover was growing in fields there are now tens of thousands of people residing. The Deputy receives his mandate from the people who built houses in the area, together with shopping centres, schools and third level colleges. This is as a result of the progress Fianna Fáil has made and I am sure Fine Gael and Labour would claim some of the credit over the 30 years.
We fought very hard.
The Deputy opposed everything and still opposes most things. If the Deputy had his way they would still be green fields. Over the years, the people who owned the land sold it to builders and developers to build up the Deputy's fine constituency.
We do not want people to speculate us out of existence.
Deputy Higgins must allow the Taoiseach to reply.
The Deputy keeps saying everyone is poor and has nothing, but they all have houses. He should not talk down his area because he has a very fine area with fine developments, of which he should be very proud. I am very proud of the Deputy's area.
I call Deputy Rabbitte.
The Taoiseach is great. How he could possibly turn around a question like that, when the question put to him by Deputy Higgins is transparently true.
It is easy. One does not answer it.
We have already referred to the fact that there are seven reports from the all-party committee. Where are we going with all of this? Will we put a new Constitution to the people or are we going to take it bit by bit? Are we going anywhere with this other than giving Deputy O'Donovan something to do? Is there a point to all of this? The Minister was able to bring legislation through the Oireachtas in two weeks just before Christmas as a result of which 16,000 sites will be surrendered to builders with whom the Government has no connection, although Deputy Joe Higgins apparently has a close connection with them.
Very close.
If the Government was able to do that in two weeks, why can it not bring forward legislation, in the public good, to facilitate the staging of a referendum aimed at stopping the escalation in the price of building land—
Hear, hear.
—that is badly needed for social and affordable housing in this city and county?
The Government has dealt with an enormous amount of the seven reports that have been conducted to date. There have been more constitutional referendums in this country during the past five or six years than in any European country other than Switzerland. We have changed an enormous amount of legislation.
We cannot rush the second issue as to do so would probably lead to the same problems we have seen since publication of the Kenny report 30 years ago. We need to find a new method of dealing with the problem. Every Attorney General for the past 30 or 40 years has spoken of the difficulties in relation to land rights, property rights and civil rights. It is a complex area that needs to be carefully examined. The Supreme Court judgment on Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999, which was introduced by the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, shows that the common good can be taken into account in such matters. This important judgment can be used to aid us as we try to deal with this serious question. I assure Deputy Rabbitte that I will do my best to move this matter along as quickly as I can.
Having listened to the Taoiseach's responses, will his strategy for dealing with the housing crisis, whether through constitutional reform or other measures, be as enthusiastic and proactive as the strategy he outlined earlier for dealing with constitutional reform in relation to speaking time in the Dáil for public representatives from the North? I sense that there is no real enthusiasm on the part of the Taoiseach to follow up the matter.
A question, Deputy.
May I ask, given that land is a hugely important issue that is fundamental to the Irish people—
The Deputy should ask a question. Other Deputies are offering. We are coming to the end of Taoiseach's question time.
I would like to ask the Taoiseach, before he unnerves everybody involved in farming, whether, while recognising the common good, he will also recognise the individual rights of the citizen.
I will move on to Deputy Eamon Ryan if Deputy Ó Caoláin does not ask a question.
When will the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance take the necessary steps to restore the situation in relation to compulsory purchase orders vis-à-vis capital gains tax—
That does not arise in the context of questions on the Constitution.
It is a hugely important issue—
Of course it is an important issue, but the Deputy should submit a question to the appropriate Minister on it.
—when one is talking about land. It is a matter of great importance to people who are living adjacent to proposed bypasses and other people throughout the country.
I call Deputy Eamon Ryan.
When will the Government address that?
Deputy Eamon Ryan.
The Taoiseach is putting his hand in their pockets—
Deputy Ryan, without interruption.
—with all the rest of it.
I will answer that.
The Taoiseach set out in response to Deputy Higgins's question a planning nirvana that I did not recognise as Dublin – lovely new estates with schools and shops nearby. Does he agree that Dublin has suffered from inept and, after what we have heard from the various tribunals, corrupt planning to a greater extent than any other city? The fact that the various political parties are beholden to developers seems to have been a factor in the inept and corrupt behaviour I have mentioned.
I suggest that the Deputy read Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, which deal with the Constitution.
I have read the questions. Planning and land are linked.
Has the Deputy a question that relates to the five questions before the House?
We need to stop thinking that the more land available the better and start considering how best we can develop the land. In changing the Constitution, the requirement is that we phase in the system that will assist good planning. The Taoiseach said in his response that he would love to have done something over the past five years but other people said it would not be possible. Were those people within his party or outside it? What was the nature of their opposition to the change he has been trying to force over the past five or six years?
As always, I seem to have lost the Green Party and Sinn Féin and we have not even got to the end of question time on this issue.
Lost in what sense?
Lost in the sense that I want to get land cheap to build houses for people whereas the Deputy wants the land open and green.
Why is the Government selling off Army barracks to private land speculators?
The Taoiseach, without interruption, please.
It is imperative the Government addresses our concerns.
Deputy Ó Caoláin says that I will turn every farmer in the country wild. We are trying to get more land in the greater Dublin area to build more houses. The Deputy will be glad to know that 57,000 houses are now being built—
We need every one of them.
—as against about 24,000 some years ago. Land is a big question.
Deputy Ó Caoláin, please do not interrupt.
Deputy Ó Caoláin asked me if I would answer the first part, which is very important and does not require legislation. The Government is making the necessary procedural arrangements to allow MPs elected in Northern Ireland constituencies to speak in periodic debates on Northern Ireland matters, particularly on the operation of the Good Friday Agreement, as envisaged by the report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. The Government has been in touch with others in regard to bringing this about and in the final months of the last Dáil, other political parties did an amount of work to help to bring about that report. There is no delay and there is a will from all party leaders to deal with that issue.
I agree with Deputy Ryan that land and planning are important issues. I was not talking about the past five years. I said that in those years there was an amount of progress but that over the past 30 years, many people and Governments had tried to make progress on the Kenny report and on constitutional issues and that it was not possible, based on the issue of property rights—
Where did that advice come from?
I call Deputy Gilmore.
I am entitled to ask a question.
The Deputy is not entitled to ask a question when I have called Deputy Gilmore.
Legal arguments and legal cases stopped progress being made on this issue.
The Government could have brought in a constitutional amendment.
Deputy Higgins would probably oppose it.
This is ridiculous.
If, as the Taoiseach rightly said, the excessive price of building land is a main contributory cause of rising houses prices and if he now acknowledges that is so serious that he has referred it to the All-Party Committee on the Constitution and proposes to re-visit the Kenny report on the issue, why has the Government cut by half the capital gains tax which developers and land owners have to pay on the excessive profits they have been making on building land?
This matter does not arise from the question of the Constitution.
We are talking about changing the Constitution.
Has the Deputy a question on that subject? We are at the end of the Taoiseach's question time.
Since no constitutional issue arose with regard to capital gains tax, why has the Government cut it in half?
Questions to the Taoiseach are at an end.
Here we are huffing and puffing about the Constitution when the Government has already cut by 50% the take from these excessive profits.
That is just nonsense from times past.
It is fact.
The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to make a final reply.
There were high capital taxes in the mid-1970s and no houses were built. The Deputy can go back to his ideological past or he can contribute to building houses. He should cop himself on.
The Taoiseach should cop himself on. House prices are twice what they were when the Government took office.
That concludes Taoiseach's questions. We move on to questions to the Minister for Health and Children.
The Taoiseach should be ashamed of himself. Developers have been let off the hook.