It is proposed to take No. a9, motion re report on certain issues of management and administration in the Department of Health and Children associated with the practice of charges for persons in long-stay care in health board institutions and related matters; No. 9a, Finance Bill 2005 — Financial Resolution; No. 17, Finance Bill 2005 — Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; No. 16, Disability Bill 2004 — Second Stage (resumed); and No. 18, Land Bill 2004 [Seanad] - Second Stage (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. a9 and 9a shall be decided without debate. Private Members’ business shall be No. 35, Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2005 — Second Stage (resumed) to conclude at 8.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
There is one proposal to be put to the House, that the proposal for dealing with Nos. a9 and 9a, motions re report on Department of Health and Children and financial resolution, be agreed to.
Will the Taoiseach or the Chief Whip explain what this means? Deputy Rabbitte has called for a debate in the House before the Taoiseach leaves, even though he may not be leading the debate. Am I to understand that this is a procedure to allow for the matter to go before the committee and that the committee will report back inside three months?
I object to the proposal for No. a9. It is quite clear that this matter ought not be taken without debate. For some reason the committee meeting aborted at 11 a.m. and the report was not presented to the members of the committee at the time. It would appear now that the authority of the House must be secured in the fashion set out in No. a9 in order for the committee to proceed. I submit that ought not happen without the matter being discussed here. The Taoiseach will have to say why this stratagem is being resorted to.
Yesterday and this morning the Taoiseach led the House to believe that the report would be made available to the committee at 11 a.m. and not at its usual time of 9.30 a.m. One has just been presented with the report in the last three or four minutes. It is already clear from that report that the Secretary General briefed the Minister for Health and Children about the precise legal implications——
We cannot discuss the detail of the report at this stage. We are just discussing the manner in which the debate will be taken.
I am not discussing any details. I am explaining why I oppose the taking of No. a9 without debate. It is clear from the report to which I refer:
On Minister Martin's arrival at the meeting venue (Gresham Hotel), I was contacted by his Private Secretary and I left the meeting room for a short period during which I met with him at the entrance to the hotel and briefed him on the discussion so far, including nursing home charges, as well as on the mood generally at the meeting.
Only a brief comment is allowed under Standing Orders.
The report continues:
Earlier, proposals to deal with the legal concerns surrounding the issue of charges for long-stay care in health board institutions to which stand-alone legislative change was part——
It is not appropriate for the Deputy to continue discussing the report in detail. We are purely discussing the procedure by which the House will take those items.
I am not discussing it in detail. I am drawing the Ceann Comhairle's attention and the attention of the House in the briefest possible fashion out of a report of 167 pages to the reason this matter ought not be taken without debate and the Taoiseach should be expected to inform the House the reason it is being done in this fashion and clarify whether the House will have a full debate on the issues tomorrow.
The Green Party is opposed to the proposal for dealing with No. a9 because there was total confusion this morning at the meeting of the Joint Committee on Health and Children. It seems that the Government wants to put this matter to one side because it is embarrassing. We will not allow this Government to dump on civil servants. There are clear questions arising from this Travers report. The Secretary General has a clear recollection of discussing this matter with the then Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin. The Minister disputes this but who will take——
The House cannot have a debate on the details of the report.
It must be debated on the floor of this House. There must be real accountability. This Government is very good at shirking its responsibility. This is a clear dereliction of duty.
Hear, hear.
The Government is palming it off on the civil servants but it has political responsibility for this debacle. The Government allowed this to happen. It was briefed on the matter and now it is talking about memoranda. Those memoranda did not exist but I trust the Secretary General when he says that he briefed the Minister, Deputy Martin. We need answers in the House.
The proposition before the House seeks to kick to touch, so to speak, the Travers report and to present it to the Joint Committee on Health and Children or to a sub-committee thereof, as the motion states. The Taoiseach gave a commitment yesterday that the House would have an opportunity to address properly the content and ramifications of the Travers report on the floor of the House today or tomorrow, preferably today and with the Taoiseach present. Is it the case that this motion, as it suggests, is to override any such commitment already given to have the matter addressed in the House immediately or to set it aside for a period of up to three months? It must be addressed now. I still expect that despite No. a9 and its presentation and wording, the Taoiseach will confirm that the House will have the opportunity to do so today or tomorrow.
On a point of information, the Joint Committee on Health and Children met and immediately adjourned because it could not consider this report.
That does not arise. The Deputy's party leader spoke on behalf of his party.
The Taoiseach suggested that the committee would consider the report at 11 a.m. This has not happened. The report has been published without the committee's consideration of it.
The Deputy is being disorderly. I call on the Taoiseach.
I will answer the questions raised by the Deputies. No. a9 is a necessary procedural motion to allow the report go to the committee. It is the advice——
This is total incompetence.
We were told it was meeting——
They cannot even organise a committee meeting.
Allow the Taoiseach speak without interruption.
For obvious reasons this matter has been examined very carefully. The advice was that it required a motion in the House so that the committee could publish the report. The Tánaiste briefed the members of the committee.
We were not told. It is now published without the meeting.
Please allow the Taoiseach speak.
It is incompetence.
The motion must still be passed on the day the report is published and that is the legal advice.
Allow the Taoiseach speak without interruption.
Why not yesterday?
That is all it is even if people are trying to make something more of it. The debate will be held tomorrow. The form of that debate has been agreed. There will be statements on the report tomorrow, and perhaps when Members have studied the report there could be a further discussion in a fortnight's time. Rather than breaking up for a week, the House should have statements tomorrow. The House will need to finish the Finance Bill but a time could be arranged.
What about questions tomorrow?
I said there will be statements tomorrow.
What about questions?
Allow the Taoiseach without interruption please.
You are making a mockery of this place.
Pardon?
You are making a mockery of this place when we cannot ask questions.
The Deputy should withdraw that remark.
I am entitled to my view that the Taoiseach and his Government are making a mockery of this place to have statements without questions. I am entitled to my view, I have been elected by people. You will not suppress my views.
I thought the Deputy was reflecting on the Chair. I will hear the Taoiseach and put the question.
I was asked two questions. No. a9 is a motion to ensure that the report is properly presented to the Members and to the committee. I understand there will be a later meeting of the committee with the Tánaiste today. There will be a debate tomorrow which can either start tomorrow and continue later or else there will be statements and the House can return to the matter when Members have studied the report. There should be a debate in the House tomorrow. I confirm that the Tánaiste will open the debate and the Minister, Deputy Martin, will speak.
The report has been published. Does it have the privilege of the Dáil given that it has not formally gone before the committee by way of motion? In other words, does the published report have the status of a privileged document?
Will the Ceann Comhairle carry out an investigation into what has been happening here? Members of the Joint Committee on Health and Children were informed that we would meet at 11 a.m., despite the fact that we normally meet at 9.30 a.m., and that the meeting would be in private to ensure the report could be released. When we went downstairs, there was chaos and nobody knew what was going on. We then came to the House but the Taoiseach did not explain the failure to abide by the basic procedures of the House. Is it because things have got so bad that the Department of Health and Children is refusing to co-operate?
The Deputy has made her point.
Will the Ceann Comhairle investigate this matter on behalf of all Members to ensure the procedures of the House are abided by, particularly by people who have questions to answer and are trying to evade them by not allowing questions tomorrow?
I ask the Deputy to resume her seat.
There is no point in having statements unless Deputies can ask questions. The Ministers should be forced to answer them.
I confirm everything Deputy McManus said. Total confusion reigned this morning.
There is no need to repeat that.
The Ceann Comhairle should allow me to ask a question. Does the Taoiseach agree that the meeting of the Joint Committee on Health and Children should take place in public and Deputies should be enabled to ask questions on this saga?
The matter does not arise.
I am asking you, a Cheann Comhairle, whether we can ask questions on this matter.
It has nothing to do with the Chair.
This is supposed to be a Parliament and there must be democratic accountability. Why can Deputies not put questions?
The Deputy has made his point.
May I have an answer, please?
On a point of order, the Ceann Comhairle prevented Deputy Neville from imparting to the House information which the Taoiseach and his incompetent group do not appear to have.
The matter does not arise. There is no such thing as a point of information.
He then allowed other Deputies to speak at will. This is unfair and the Ceann Comhairle should be more balanced in his attitude.
Perhaps the Chair should listen carefully to Deputy Allen. One Member from each party is entitled to comment when a proposal is put before the House. Deputy Kenny spoke on behalf of the Fine Gael Party and a Member from each of the other parties spoke. When the Taoiseach had concluded the Chair — maybe the Chair was wrong and should take the Deputy's advice on the matter — allowed Deputy Kenny to speak a second time and each of the other parties to make another contribution. I will take note of Deputy Allen's point. He is correct that the Chair went outside the Standing Order and should not have done so.
We are dealing with a sea of incompetence.
The Deputy is an eejit. He sounds like a muppet.
The Minister knows all about incompetence. He could not find a needle in a haystack.
While I welcome that the Travers report will be addressed in the House tomorrow, as anticipated, nevertheless what the Taoiseach is proposing does not go far enough. Statements are an inadequate way to address the import of the report and all that swirls about it. It is imperative that the House has a proper engagement with the Minister for Health and Children on it. Statements alone, which do not equate to debate, are an unsatisfactory response to a very important report. I ask the Taoiseach to revisit the proposition that the House will have statements only tomorrow because it will not satisfy the needs in this regard.
The Deputy is being repetitive.
I ask him to change the proposal and indicate that we will have a full engagement with an opportunity for questions and answers with the relevant Minister.
On a point of order, given that the Ceann Comhairle extended Standing Orders a little, will he extend them again to allow me to make a brief comment?
That is not a point of order. I will put the question.
Why are we playing games when we should be talking about the real question? The Taoiseach is making a mockery of Deputies and should respond to the points we are making.
I will respond to the remarks made by Deputy Kenny at the outset of the debate. The advice of the Attorney General this morning was that procedurally the Tánaiste could attend the committee meeting and that it was in order for her to give an oral briefing and then put the report before the House even before we passed a motion, but we should make sure there was privilege, that the motion should be passed on the Order of Business of that day. The only reason for No. a9 is to follow procedures and avoid confusion.
Why was that not done yesterday?
Allow the Taoiseach to continue, please.
The Government only met yesterday morning to discuss the report.
It knew what it had to do.
If the Deputy wants to be an Abbey actress——
There was no doubt about what the Taoiseach had to do.
The Deputy is out of order.
That is the reason. I am trying to be helpful.
There was no doubt.
There was a lot of doubt. Second, I was asked yesterday by Deputy Rabbitte if we would have a debate on this on Thursday and the answer is "yes". The Whips can work out the detail. I have also said today——
Will we have a debate?
The Deputy asked a question and when I try to answer it he is interrupting me. I also said that if people want to read the report and have a debate tomorrow, perhaps the best way of doing that is by way of statements. When people have studied the report further we could have a further debate. It is a major issue of a financial——
What about action?
Members may discuss the matter with the Whips today. I am trying to find an ordered way of getting the report into the public domain and properly before the House. That is what we propose to do in No. a9 and we can have the debate tomorrow. I have suggested there should be statements and the Whips may discuss that. I have also suggested that we can come back to the matter after the St. Patrick’s Day break.
The Taoiseach stated he was seeking to do this in "an ordered way", but his only interest is control.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Brady, Martin.
- Brennan, Seamus.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Pat.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Collins, Michael.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Glennon, Jim.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGuinness, John.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Donnell, Liz.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Ned.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- Parlon, Tom.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Boyle, Dan.
- Breen, James.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connolly, Paudge.
- Costello, Joe.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairi.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stanton, David.
- Upton, Mary.
Following the judgment of the High Court which found that the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000 (Additional Functions) Order 2001 was ultra vires, will the Taoiseach indicate whether a regulation or legislation will be introduced to put this in order?
What is the name of the Bill?
I refer to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000 (Additional Functions) Order 2001 which was struck down by the High Court. I have asked about this for more than a year.
The Bill is to allow for the more effective and efficient operation of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and it should be available in the next week or so.
On a point of information, I understand from Deputy Paul McGrath, who was chairman of the committee dealing with the Kelly Fitzgerald report in 1996, that the committee met and proposed that the report be published. It then had the privileged status of the House.
That does not arise.
I hope the Ceann Comhairle will allow questions tomorrow.
In advance of his trip to America next Tuesday and in view of the outrageous statement by the IRA, is it the Taoiseach's intention——
That does not arise at this stage. Deputy Kenny will have to find another way to raise the matter.
The IRA has never made a statement in which it agreed to make an offer to the sisters of a murdered man that it would shoot the person it deemed responsible. Does the Ceann Comhairle not think that is important?
Of course it is. Since it is important, it should be dealt with in a proper way and in accordance with Standing Orders.
The Taoiseach has spent more time than anybody else dealing with the Good Friday Agreement——
I accept that.
——and I have always respected that. In advance of his trip to America——
Leaders' Question were put in place to facilitate Leaders'——
——does the Taoiseach intend to have any discussions with Mr. Adams or Mr. McGuinness in respect of Mr. Adams's statement this morning that he was not negotiating for an end to criminality last December when the Taoiseach spent so much time trying to get that matter cleared? As the Taoiseach said, we were within ten hours of resolving that matter. This is important.
I call Deputy Rabbitte on the same issue.
The Taoiseach wants to reply.
There are a number of issues about which I will be asked in the United States. In lots of ways, I would, if I found the circumstances, get some clarity on them. I have been through this before and I know the committee and members on Capitol Hill will ask about them. The statement is an extraordinary one and while it is not our practice to comment, the only statement in which I am interested is the one made by the people when they voted for the Good Friday Agreement. That statement makes it clear there is no place for violence of any kind by any organisation here. As I said outside the House this morning, the latest statement is so outrageous and offensive that we must make our views clear on it. I would not mind if some of the people with whom I deal made some of those issues clear, so I could answer questions next week.
Does the Taoiseach agree it is very difficult to see how the Unionist population of Northern Ireland, whether represented by the Official Unionist Party or the Democratic Unionist Party, can enter into discussions to get devolved government in Northern Ireland against the backdrop of such a blatant manifestation of the republican movement's living in what the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform quite properly called a twilight zone? This statement beggars all belief. The Taoiseach has been struggling to keep the door open to Sinn Féin. Unless there is a statement from the leadership of the republican movement, which repudiates this statement and its implications and which takes a step towards the disbandment of the IRA, I cannot see how the Taoiseach can reasonably believe the Unionist population will respond to any initiatives in this regard?
On the second matter, does the Taoiseach intend to be present for the debate tomorrow given the statements in this report that there is documentary evidence that the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, briefed him on this issue?
The Chair has already dealt with that. I call Deputy Sargent on the same issue.
I want to ask about the format of the debate tomorrow.
That will arise on tomorrow's Order of Business when it is on tomorrow's Order Paper. It is not appropriate to discuss——
It will then be decided because there is——
The House has already made one decision today and has dealt with this matter on Leaders' Questions. We had a long debate on it when we discussed the proposal before the House. It will be on tomorrow's Order Paper and then it will be appropriate to ask a question on the manner with which it will be dealt. We cannot go over the matter again.
We will not go over it.
On the same issue.
We will not go over it. There is an unresolved conflict of evidence between the Secretary General and the then Minister, Deputy Martin.
The Deputy is out of order and I ask him to resume his seat and allow Deputy Sargent to speak.
The Secretary General makes plain that he briefed the former Minister, Deputy Martin——
We will not spend the day discussing the matter which has already been dealt with by the House.
——but the then Minister denies it.
I call Deputy Sargent on the same issue.
I am merely trying to establish whether we will have the opportunity to put questions to the then Minister because——
That will arise tomorrow on the Order of Business. That does not arise today.
——there is a clear conflict of evidence between the Secretary General, who is apparently being removed——
The Deputy cannot continue on this matter. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat. There must be order in the House.
There must, Sir, but there must be discussion on the issue.
The issue has been discussed by way of two Leaders' Questions and it was discussed on a proposal before the House. The Chair has ruled that any discussion on tomorrow's debate arises on tomorrow's Order of Business and not on today's. I call Deputy Sargent on the issue of Northern Ireland.
The Taoiseach will not be here tomorrow. I wish to ask whether there will be a facility to ask questions tomorrow given the conflict of evidence.
I have ruled the Deputy out of order. If he does not resume his seat, the Chair will deal with him.
The Taoiseach has indicated he wishes to respond.
I sat down because I thought the Taoiseach was going to reply.
The Deputy should resume his seat as the Chair is speaking. The Chair called Deputy Kenny who raised the issue of the IRA statement. I called Deputy Rabbitte and asked him if he wanted to speak on the same matter. He probably did not hear me.
The Ceann Comhairle harassed Deputy Kenny when he was putting the question.
I now call Deputy Sargent. I will call Deputy Ó Caoláin and then I will hear the Taoiseach. It is a matter for the Taoiseach to reply to whatever he wants.
I will speak about tomorrow's debate in due course. I regard the IRA statement as gratuitous and quite insulting to put to the family of a murder victim. To offer them a further murder is incredible. Does the Taoiseach see merit in the request that the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation undertake to allow civic society and society beyond the parties engaged in the process to involve itself in trying to bring about some consensus on how progress can be made and to allow people who have effectively felt silenced and sidelined to engage again and to generate a level of momentum which can get the process going once more? On that basis will the Taoiseach give consideration to the suggestion that the Forum on Peace and Reconciliation might have a role? It needs to be brought back on board, given the logjam that currently exists.
Regarding the most recent IRA statement on the murder of Robert McCartney, I want to register my disappointment on two counts. I am disappointed that a physical attack on those responsible was even contemplated. I am further disappointed that the IRA statement, which is a very detailed account of what occurred and a positive contribution to achieving the truth, has been, in the main, wilfully ignored. I urge people to re-evaluate it.
I again commend the Sinn Féin president, Gerry Adams, for his continuing role in support of the McCartney family's search for truth and justice which I support 100%.
On tomorrow's debate, as I said earlier, I thought we would have statements, but I am open to change that if Deputy Rabbitte believes it would be helpful if the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, answered questions and clarified the issues. I would be happy to arrange with the Government Whip to allocate part of the time available to do that.
Thank you.
Deputy Kenny inquired about the issue involving Deputy Callely. In the discussions on the report Deputy Callely stated that the issue was mentioned to him and he noted on the side of the minute that he would raise it with me. He stated that during a vote on that day or some days after he mentioned to me that the issue of eligibility and entitlement was raised at the meeting and that the Department was seeking legal advice on the matter. That is what Deputy Callely raised and that is what it has been stated he raised. As part of the debate I will ask the Minister, Deputy Martin, to deal with the conflict between him and the Secretary General.
Deputy Kenny also asked a question to which it is important to have an answer before I go to the United States, given that I will be asked questions there. I do not want to be anything other than helpful to the peace process. However, so many issues have been raised and statements made, and I say it calmly and not in any way to be unhelpful, that I need at least to be able to answer questions, and I will try to communicate with him in the next few days.
I agree with Deputy Rabbitte that all of this is making it increasingly difficult to deal with trust and confidence issues. I do not want to take issue with Deputy Ó Caoláin. I am trying hard to find aspects that are helpful and constructive. I hear and accept what the Deputy said. However, it is some weeks since I had the meetings. It is important for all of us in this House, without exception, to recognise that it was the Irish people who made a statement in voting for the Good Friday Agreement. What we have all been trying to do in various ways is to ensure that is implemented. That statement makes clear that there is no place for violence of any kind by any organisation in this country, and there is more than one organisation that has, from time to time, been involved in violence. The latest statement by the IRA is outrageous and offensive.
Absolutely.
I met members of the McCartney family yesterday. Other Members of the House have also met them. I am aware that Deputy Kenny went to Belfast to meet them. I am sure Deputy Rabbitte and others have had similar meetings. We must get one thing straight once and for all. I say calmly that murder is murder, no matter who commits it. A crime is a crime, no matter who commits it. Everyone is equal before the law and innocent until proven guilty. Where a crime is committed it is investigated by the police, evidence is gathered, charges are brought and the accused receive a fair trial in an open court. We all believe in the rule of law, human rights and respect for the dignity of people. That is all the McCartneys want.
Hear, hear.
That is what the Government wants. It is what everybody in this House wants. It is what the Irish people want. They want no more and no less. It is not complicated. We have been saying this endlessly for several weeks now. I am not interested in hearing whether this represents some positive move by the IRA. Neither do I want to take issue by saying it is not. I am not interested in hearing that it is somehow positive or that it is not a threat or that nothing was carried out and we should be happy about that. I am interested only in hearing an answer on the issues which stopped us after so much effort on 8 December. How do we sort out decommissioning of weapons? Are we finally at the end of paramilitary activity? Are we going to see and end to criminal activity? If we can get to that position we can move forward. If we cannot, we are in a hell of a mess. Those are the only answers we need.