It is proposed to take No. 9a, motion re establishment of Joint Committee on the Constitution; No. 19, Ráitis maidir leis an nGaeilge — Statements on the Irish Language, to conclude at 12 noon, if not previously concluded; No. 9b, motion re Zimbabwe and Roy Bennett; No. 18, Garda Síochána Bill 2004 [Seanad] — Second Stage (resumed); and No. 22, Land Bill 2004 [Seanad] — Second Stage (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, or the Order of the Dáil of 23 March 2005, that (1) No. 9a shall be taken immediately after the Order of Business and shall be decided without debate; (2) the proceedings on No. 9b shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after one hour and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the speech of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case; and (ii) subject to (i) Members may share time; and (3) the Dáil on its rising today shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 12 April 2005.
Order of Business.
There are three proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 9a agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 9b agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with the adjournment of the Dáil agreed to?
I am not prepared to agree to the adjournment of the House unless there is an emergency debate, or at least a statement by the Minister for Health and Children, to address the latest crisis in the health service relating to the Dunne inquiry.
I regret the Taoiseach is not present on the break up of the House for a further two weeks, as a number of serious issues need to be addressed. Is the Bill recently passed capable of dealing with the regulation of the spending of public money, given that it has come to light that a farm four miles——
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who described the Abbotstown proposal as a Ceaucescu-like development, has spent €30 million of the taxpayer's money on a 150-acre farm to build a prison.
There are other ways the Deputy can raise the matter.
Another farm comprising 243 acres, four miles away, was sold yesterday for just over €6 million.
Where are the prudent Progressive Democrats?
The Deputy is out of order. There are many ways the Deputy can raise the matter.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should reply.
One would not send him to buy a bag of bull's-eyes, never mind a farm.
This is another example of profligate spending from the public purse. Will the new development be the McDowell monument to political spending?
The Deputy is out of order.
I wish to raise a second issue, which is the Mícheál Martin special, the Dunne inquiry. I listened to an articulate argument on a national radio programme about this earlier. The previous Minister for Health and Children stated in writing that if the Dunne inquiry failed to bring a satisfactory conclusion to this matter, which is of serious concern to a large number of people, there would be a sworn public inquiry. When will the Government outline its proposals to deal with the consequence of closing the Dunne inquiry, in respect of which significant public money has been expended without arriving at a conclusion? Will the Government's response be a sworn public inquiry, as stated in writing by the previous Minister?
While people will welcome the issuing of a temporary visa to a Nigerian student who was deported, one is drawn to the conclusion — perhaps the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will comment on this — that the orders signed by him in this case were not read by him.
That does not arise on the Order of Business. That matter was discussed at length in the House this week.
On a humanitarian issue, the Minister can suddenly reverse an independent decision. Did he read the report on the order that was signed in the first instance?
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
It does.
On the Dunne inquiry, I call Deputy Gormley.
The Minister would like to reply. The whole country is talking about it.
He is speechless.
The Minister will be allowed reply on the Dunne inquiry, but we will hear Deputy Gormley on the same issue.
Will the Minister for Finance agree that the Dunne inquiry is yet another debacle involving the Department of Health and Children? Deadline after deadline was missed and despite the continuous representations by the Parents for Justice Group, which stated that it could not complete its work under the terms of reference, the Department continued with its stance. Will the Minister explain to the House why €20 million of taxpayers' money was spent on what has turned out to be an incomplete inquiry? Will he agree it has added to the suffering of the parents? What will the Government do now? Will it accede to the reasonable request of the parents and set up this statutory inquiry?
I call Deputy Rabbitte on the same issue.
Sir, I would like to hear the Minister. The omnibus reply is——
Deputy, I will hear you on this issue if you wish to contribute and then I will call the Minister, but we are not having a debate on it.
The country is having a debate on it. Why can we not have one?
We are on the Order of Business. It is not Question Time or Leaders' Questions.
Sir, I would like to hear the Minister for Finance.
I am not opening a debate on the issue. When I hear the Minister, that will be the end of it.
I did not open my mouth about anything, Sir. Why are you so protective?
When I hear the Minister it will conclude the issue.
Why are you so protective, Sir?
There is no question of being protective of anybody, Deputy.
You are interfering and I did not say anything.
We will have an orderly Order of Business. We will not have Question Time.
You got your retaliation in first, a Cheann Comhairle.
We have heard from the Opposition about the importance of value for money for the taxpayer. Regarding the Dunne inquiry, the total cost of the inquiry was approximately €20 million up to the end of December 2004. On 1 September last the Government decided that the chair of the inquiry should furnish to the Minister for Health and Children, not later than 31 March, a final report following which the inquiry would cease to exist. The Tánaiste expects to get a comprehensive report on paediatric hospitals and certain other matters on or before 31 March. The content of the report will inform the Tánaiste's decision on how to proceed beyond that date. I understand she met the Parents for Justice group yesterday and indicated that she will revert to it as soon as the contents of the report are known. We will take our legal advice from the Attorney General in the normal way and the Minister will then revert to the group concerned as to how we proceed.
I emphasise that the purpose of Government is to establish the facts. The important point is how we establish the facts surrounding these matters. That does not involve any particular route or inquiry. It is a matter of establishing the facts. An inquiry in Northern Ireland with a similar remit and terms of reference to the current one concluded its work in 15 to 18 months.
May I ask the Minister for Finance if it is the intention of the Government to revert to the original promise to——
Deputy, that does not arise at this stage.
What does not arise, Sir?
If the Deputy wishes to raise the matter on the Adjournment, he will have an opportunity to do so but he——
What does not arise?
We cannot have a debate on it on the Order of Business. The Order of Business is quite specific.
It is promised legislation.
The Deputy was given an opportunity to put his question. We cannot go on all day with a debate on this issue. There is other business arranged for the House.
This is unbelievable.
A Cheann Comhairle, I do not intend to refer to the Dunne shambles. Will the Minister for Finance indicate whether it is the intention of the Government to revert to the commitment in the programme for Government to introduce 200,000 additional medical cards, having regard to the developments of today when the Tánaiste came up with the bright idea for 200,000 yellow pack cards on the basis that no legislation was required and that she had the support of the IMO? She then found out that she had to legislate.
Again, that does not arise on the Order of Business, and the Deputy knows that.
She has legislated and the cards are no longer in prospect.
Deputy, that does not arise on the Order of Business.
This is not a shambles that she can blame on her predecessor. It is due to her lack of preparation and lack of work on it.
Deputy Rabbitte, you are out of order.
The Tánaiste may wish she was back in the bosom of IDA Ireland, but there are many people who cannot visit the family doctor because of the current pressure. The Minister can implement the Government decision to provide 200,000 medical cards as committed to in the programme for Government.
Deputy Sargent.
What has the Minister for Finance to say about it? A Cheann Comhairle, this is entirely unreasonable. The Minister for Finance wants to reply and I respectfully submit, Sir, that you ought to permit him to do so.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
We cannot have a general omnibus question time on the Order of Business, Deputy.
I do not want to prevent the Minister from answering, a Cheann Comhairle.
With the Ceann Comhairle's permission and respecting his ruling on this matter, the new medical cards are intended to allow 200,000 more people visit their GP free of charge. We do not accept that this is a material change in the GMS contract. We have always accepted that details regarding operational matters would be agreed with the IMO. The legislation was enacted this month. The Government has put everything in place. The IMO could help by sitting down with the Health Service Executive and the Department and agreeing the small operational details that are involved. I understand the only difference from a doctor's point of view is that they will be signing a different form. In every other respect it is the same procedure regarding their existing arrangements. There is no extra workload involved. The Government has made the decision, as we are entitled to do, to provide for an additional 200,000 doctor only medical cards for these people and it is incumbent on everyone to sit down and ensure the operational details are put in place immediately.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
People on very low incomes cannot visit their family doctor at present.
Deputy Rabbitte, I ask you to resume your seat and allow Deputy Sargent to speak.
Deputy Rabbitte should remind the IMO of that.
The Government ought to restore——
Deputy Rabbitte, I ask you to resume your seat. I call Deputy Sargent.
The Deputy should remind the IMO of that.
I would like clarification of the Government's promise on the date for a referendum on the EU constitution. In today's newspapers the Government announced the launch of a new website and there is reference to a referendum in autumn of next year. Is there clarity on the Government side as to when the referendum will be held? On promised legislation, and to tie in with that, will the defence amendment Bill be given any greater priority having regard to the fact that it is to amend the Defence Act 1954, with the EU battle groups in mind? Will the Minister give us an indication of dates for the referendum and that legislation?
It is not possible to say at this stage when the defence amendment Bill will be ready. I understand the heads of a Bill will be prepared during the course of this year.
Regarding the referendum on the EU constitution, work is continuing on that at Cabinet sub-committee level. I understand it is the intention, if it has not already begun, to start a consultation process with other party leaders in the House on developing a consensus on the wording so that we can bring this matter to the people, with the full support of this House, with a view to its being successfully enacted.
Is the Government waiting for the French result before it makes a decision?
I read during the week that changes have been agreed in the Stability and Growth Pact which will have an impact on our financial budgeting. Why was an Irish Minister not in attendance at the meeting at which these changes were agreed?
That matter does not arise on the Order of Business.
It does because if these changes raise interest rates by even half a point, it will cost Irish householders €500 million. We must have scrutiny of what is agreed on our behalf, even if Ministers do not bother to attend.
That does not arise on the Order of Business. Does the Deputy want to ask a question appropriate to the Order of Business?
Will this be brought before the House for discussion? Will it be brought before the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service? When will there be a discussion of what has been agreed in the Minister's absence?
Is a debate promised in the House?
If they wish to do so, the Whips can organise a debate on the decisions which were taken. I attended all the meetings other than the one last Sunday which took place while I was returning from the United States. We had no outstanding issues. Our officials were quite capable of dealing with the matter. No issue arose for us in the course of the last meeting. To suggest that we were not represented is——
The Minister is not concerned.
The European Central Bank immediately indicated that the decision could lead to a rise in interest rates which would have a significant impact on Irish housing.
I am aware of the ECB's statement on the matter. The purpose of the discussion on the changes in the Stability and Growth Pact was to ensure its wider acceptability and greater credibility. We have considered the experience of the past seven years to ensure that rules are not applied rigidly and automatically without taking into account certain relevant factors which are beneficial to us. I would have expected the Fine Gael finance spokesman to be broadly supportive of this approach given that every time he comes to the House he asks for more money to be spent.
Exactly.
The Minister should examine the fudge in the texts.
Another case of abuse of a migrant worker in this country has come to light today, this time in my constituency. It is virtually a daily occurrence. Will the Minister ensure that the employment permits Bill is brought to the House quickly so that we can ensure that the level of adherence to the terms and conditions which apply to the bringing of people to work in this country in good faith is monitored properly?
This matter is on the Government's legislative programme. We hope to publish the Bill before the start of the next Dáil session.
I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform's U-turn in the case of a young Nigerian student who will now be allowed to return to Ireland. The Minister had said in the Dáil that the floodgates would open if he were to make such a decision.
Does the Deputy have a question appropriate to the Order of Business?
Yes, I have.
It is a good question.
The matter was debated at length in the House this week.
I have a question.
The Minister should make a statement in the House.
He should offer an apology in the House.
I am merely giving the preamble to my question. I welcome the Minister's decision.
Does the Deputy have a question appropriate to the Order of the Business?
The Minister had said he would not be able to make such a decision in the case of a youngster who was about to do his leaving certificate because the floodgates would open if he did so. The deportation system is a shambles because of its lack of due process. Does the Minister propose to provide some statutory guidelines at this time to ensure that this type——
Is legislation promised?
——of inequity and scandal does not occur again?
Hear, hear. The Minister wants to answer.
The policy that is in place is working very well.
What is it?
I commend——
It is a revolving door policy.
We have no policy in place.
We have a policy in place.
We have no policy in place.
Allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
We inherited a situation in which no policy was in place.
The Government has no deportation policy.
It is making its policy up as it goes along.
There was no policy in place when we came to power.
There is no process.
The Minister has been called and he is on his feet.
No policy is in place.
The Government has done nothing for the last eight years.
It has adopted an ad hoc approach.
Its policy is not the same today as it was yesterday.
There is no policy.
I ask Deputy Costello to allow the Minister to finish.
It is entirely arbitrary.
The Deputy obviously does not require a reply at all.
The Minister should not be like that.
He is sulking.
I would like a response.
The Deputy should have allowed the Minister to respond when he was given the opportunity to do so.
The Minister has not given an indication of the Government's proposals.
I will answer the Deputy when he resumes his seat.
Is the Minister running the House as well?
Will Deputy Costello sit down?
Will the House be given a reply?
A Cheann Comhairle——
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
My understanding is that I should rise when the Deputy sits down.
That is the way it normally works.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
Suigh síos.
It is like a see-saw.
The Minister was on his feet to answer, but Deputy Costello prevented him from doing so.
I understand that an immigration Bill will be introduced. These matters can be further discussed in the context of that legislation. I commend the Minister, Deputy McDowell, for the decision he made this morning.
Hear, hear. It is a pity he did not make it first.
It is a pity that he did not make that decision before he signed the initial deportation order.
Absolutely.
The report on housing published by the ESRI this week is the fourth official report on housing to have been published in the last 12 months. None of the reports has been discussed in the House, even though I have asked the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste to arrange such a debate on numerous occasions. Will the Minister arrange a debate early in the new session on the four housing reports which have been published?
I understand that the Whips are discussing this matter.
That is nonsense.
There will be no problem with organising such a debate, subject to agreement.
That is a piece of nonsense.
There will be no problem with having the debate.
When the new Whip circulates the list of legislation for the next week, he does not——
I know the Deputy is in bad form after the by-election, but he should not take it out on me.
He does not even want to talk at meetings any more.
The Deputy is not in as bad form as the Minister.
We are in great form on the Independent benches since the by-election.
I would like to know when the prison service Bill will be introduced. The legislation is needed so that the House can prevent the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform from ripping off the taxpayer and shovelling taxpayers' money into grandiose dealings such as the purchase of a farm at eight times its market value.
Listen to Old McDonald.
We cannot discuss the Bill.
In particular, I would like to raise the issue of €26 million of taxpayer's money being thrown down the drain.
Hear, hear.
We cannot discuss the matter. It might be appropriate during the Second Stage debate on the Bill.
When will the prison service Bill be brought to the House so that we can have an early debate on this issue?
We need an emergency debate.
We have to call the Minister to account in this regard.
We need to curb his generosity.
I understand that it is not possible to say when the prison service Bill will be brought to the House. It should be borne in mind that not every piece of land that comes up for sale is suitable for a prison. It is obvious that a number of criteria are involved. I am sure if it had been known that the land was for a prison, the price might have been somewhat different.
Does the Minister know that the farm in question was bought on the same day that the proposal was made to the committee?
Old McDonald is speaking again.
It was not examined by the committee or the Minister. It cost €30 million, which is eight times its market value.
The Minister for Finance is supposed to be looking after financial matters.
The case of Olunkunle Eluhanla is not unique, as many other people are in similar positions.
Does the Deputy have a question on promised legislation?
The Deputy is asking about promised legislation.
Will the Minister look sympathetically, in the forthcoming immigration and residence Bill, at the cases of young people——
The Deputy will have to find another way of raising the matter because it does not arise on the Order of Business.
——under the age of 18 who are being deported simply because they are aging out?
That matter has been debated at length in the House this week.
Will the Government look sympathetically at the cases of young people who are being deported because of their ages and for no other reason?
We cannot have another debate on it now.
The Deputy asked about promised legislation.
The gas regulation Bill has been simmering on the back burner for a long time.
A bit like the Deputy.
Is it possible to encourage the Minister to turn up the heat by bringing the Bill to the House at the earliest possible date?
Well done, Bernard.
I understand that the simmering will continue for another while.
All the Deputies on the Government side are simmering.
I said "simmering", not "simpering".
I join the Minister for Finance in welcoming the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform's U-turn in the case of a young Nigerian man who was deported last week. I did not hear the Minister say when the immigration and residence Bill will be brought before the House. It is clear that the system is in need of urgent review. It is disgraceful that a young child was snatched from a classroom. Surely what is considered today as wrong was just as wrong yesterday. When will we have the opportunity to debate the matter in the House?
I understand that the Bill will be discussed during the course of this year.
Nine other children were deported on the same day.