It is proposed to take No. 1, Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) Bill 2005 [Seanad] — Second Stage, to adjourn at 1 p.m. today, if not previously concluded; No. 2, University College Galway (Amendment) Bill 2005 [Seanad] — Second and Subsequent Stages; and No. a11, University College Galway (Amendment) Bill 2005 [Seanad] — Instruction to Committee, to be taken in the event of the proposal relating to all Stages of No. 2 being agreed. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the following arrangements shall apply to No. 2: (i) the proceedings on Second Stage shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after two hours; the opening 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; the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; Members may share time; and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed five minutes. No. a11 shall be taken on the conclusion of the Second Stage and shall be decided without debate and the proceedings on Committee and Remaining Stages shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 3.30 p.m. today by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in regard to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Education and Science.
Order of Business.
There is one proposal to put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 2, University College Galway (Amendment) Bill 2005 agreed to?
What is presented on the Order of Business is not what was agreed, which was to take Second Stage of the University College Galway (Amendment) Bill 2005 before it would be referred to committee. The Order Paper now contains section 2, which is to insert in page 3 the fact that sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10 of the Teaching Council Act 2001 are to be included as part of the debate on the University College Galway (Amendment) Bill. Will the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources explain what this is about, and why it is not possible that we should have a discussion in the House about the Teaching Council Act, which relates to the professional training of teachers, their development and the promotion of facilities for them? I do not consider it appropriate for this to be lumped in with an amendment to the 1929 Act dealing with the issue of the Irish language which was compulsory for professorships in NUIG. That compulsion has now been removed because of the proposal by the university to have a strategic development plan for Irish, of which all future development plans would have to take cognisance.
I object to a fundamental matter like the Teaching Council Act 2001 being inserted by stealth into the University College Galway (Amendment) Bill. Ample time should be provided for a discussion on the issue of education, including the Teaching Council, because the perception in this country is that all is lovey-dovey in the Department of Education and Science with our esteemed Minister when, in fact, the situation is quite the opposite in a number of areas. This House should have an opportunity to discuss the amendments to the Teaching Council Act as a separate entity because the quality of our teachers is fundamental to the future of the country, and we should discuss the quality of their training, the resources that are made available to them and the impact of that on the system of education. I would like to know why this is being inserted now.
Everyone in the House, to my knowledge — certainly everyone on these benches — is more than happy to facilitate the passage of the University College Galway (Amendment) Bill, for reasons of which the Minister is aware. Like Deputy Kenny, this is the first we have heard about the insertion of a matter that is completely different and that seems to have come to light as a result of the inability to appoint members to the Teaching Council because the legislative basis was not there to do it. Advantage has been taken of a distinctly different matter to provide that legislative basis.
We need to know why the Government proposes to handle it this way because we have had too much rushed legislation in the lifetime of the Government. Something as basic as this in terms of the Teaching Council Act has been omitted. We have experience of this practice, in particular from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, of sheer incompetence and rushed legislation with inadequate time given to the House to debate it, and now we have something included in proposed legislation, the title of which is before the House, that has absolutely nothing to do with the Teaching Council and makes no reference to it.
One of the reasons the taking of the University College Galway (Amendment) Bill was facilitated in the short time envisaged was that it dealt with the university itself and the amendment to the 1929 Act. Is the Government seriously taking for granted that this agreement can now be diluted and cast aside on the basis of introducing the Teaching Council Act 2001? This matter should be the subject of a meeting with the Whips before it proceeds. Deputy Boyle certainly was not informed about the Teaching Council aspect of this legislation and it appears that neither were the other Whips.
If the House is to proceed in an orderly fashion we should know in advance what legislation is coming forward and its context. It is also unfair to the people who have been approaching all of the spokespersons in the House on the legislation for them to discover very late in the day that provision had not been made for an aspect to the legislation. It is unfair and undemocratic and it indicates that the House is not being considered by the Government as part of the process but is being taken for granted again, to which I object.
Cosúil leis na Teachtaí eile, tá mé ag cur i gcoinne an guillotine ar an mBille seo, toisc nach bhfuil go leor ama á thabhairt, fiú don chuid a raibh muid ag déileáil leis mar gheall ar Ollscoil na Gaillimhe. Tá sé scannalach nach mbeidh ach 30 nóiméad againn chun déileáil le breis is 39 leasú ar an cheist seo atá os comhair na Dála. Tá sé scannalach a lú ama is atá ann chun déileáil leis an cheist mhór seo ó thaobh athruithe suntasacha i stádas na Gaeilge in Ollscoil na Gaillimhe de.
Chomh maith leis sin, tá an tAire tar éis an chuid nua seo a chur isteach sa Bhille. Tá buíochas á ghabháil le hobair rúnaí an Aire, mar ghlaoigh sé ar ár n-oifig, agus labhair sé lenárn-urlabhraí oideachais. Ní gá go n-aontaímid gur chóir go mbeadh sé seo anseo. Ba chóir go mbeadh Bille beag difriúil os comhair na Dála ag déileáil leis an cheist seo maidir le hAcht choiste na múinteoireachta. Tá sé ag sleamhnú isteach anseo, agus ní bheidh am againn chun déileáil leis i gceart, fiú san dá uair atá againn. Ba chóir dúinn an guillotine a ardú agus déileáil leis seo i gcaitheamh cúpla lá. Tá mé ag cur i gcoinne an mholta atá os ár gcomhair.
I acknowledge what Deputy Rabbitte and Deputy Kenny said in regard to the University College Galway (Amendment) Bill. There was a level of agreement and much co-operation with the Whips on the taking of this Bill. Another issue arose in regard to putting the Teaching Council on a statutory footing which I understand was discussed with the Whips. The Minister for Education and Science briefed the Whips on that——
It was not discussed with the Whips.
No, it was not.
——or the spokespersons rather. The Deputies should let me finish. The spokespersons were briefed to try to get their co-operation in regard to this matter. I agree with the Deputies who have spoken that this is not an ideal way to introduce something of this nature. If Members across the House are unhappy with this particular aspect of the proposal I am willing to withdraw it and just have Second Stage of the University College Galway (Amendment) Bill taken today to allow the Whips to discuss the other matter and to make suitable arrangements for it.
In reference to what Deputy Rabbitte said in regard to a debate on education, the Minister informed me that she would be very happy to take a debate on education at any stage. In deference to what has been said from across the House I propose that the University College Galway (Amendment) Bill, Second Stage, would adjourn at 3.30 p.m.
Is the proposal withdrawn?
Yes.
The proposal re No. 2 is withdrawn.
We agree with that and thank the Minister for making that arrangement. It means only Second Stage of the University College Galway (Amendment) Bill 2005 [Seanad] will be taken today.
I want to ask two questions on the Order of Business.
I beg Deputy Kenny's pardon. I thank the Minister for agreeing to that. Will all Stages be taken? Second Stage is to finish at 3.30 p.m.
No, Second Stage only.
When will Committee and Remaining Stages be taken?
It can be referred to Committee, if the Deputy wishes. We will see how it goes today and we can leave it to the Whips to make the arrangement then.
As I understand it, colleagues are content to deal with it, minus that section, on the floor of the House.
We need to discuss a mechanism for the second matter.
It is a short Bill.
If the Deputy does not mind, we will leave it go to Second Stage today.
I wish to raise two issues on the Order of Business. The Minister is obviously aware of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005 and the controversy arising therefrom which has been highlighted by Deputy Perry and a number of other Deputies, including members of the Fianna Fáil Party, for a number of weeks. The Minister wrote to the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. In his letter he stated a small group of fishermen have deliberately flouted the law and made considerable sums of money. This is the Legislature. We cannot stand by law breakers but the rush to legislation, and the rows therein, will only deal with issues for the future. What action is being taken in respect of his public comment that he is aware a small number deliberately flouted the law and made considerable sums of money or is there an attempt here to make the legislation retrospective in some way and that the existing legislation is incapable of dealing with the scale of allegations of charges against some persons which, I understand, involve moneys as high as three figure sums in the millions?
May I raise this matter with the Minister in respect of forthcoming legislation? Just a year ago, the Supreme Court ruled that taking charges off pensioners staying in public long-stay beds was an unjust attack by the State. It ruled that health boards had no right to charge for inpatient services. On 11 May last year the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, announced that all those who were illegally charged and are alive, and the estates of all of those who were charged and died in the six years prior to 9 December 2004, would have those charges repaid in full.
I was informed yesterday of a claim made by a family whose late mother had been charged fees in a public nursing home and that the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, the HSE and the Attorney General have lodged a full defence. In that defence the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children and her co-defendants deny any liability. They deny the illegality of charges and deny that any moneys were taken. They deny the entitlements to restitution. The statements made by the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children and her co-defendants are utterly at odds with the Supreme Court ruling and the Government's stated policy of repaying illegally taken fees. Applying to himself and his Government what the Taoiseach correctly stated, the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children and the Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot make one announcement in public and another to the court. I want to know from the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and from the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children why this dishonest defence has been put up. I want her to come into the House next week to explain — if the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, cannot do so for her — why this position has been adopted by Government when the Supreme Court was crystal clear in its verdict and crystal clear on what the Legislature had to do, and when it is equally crystal clear that the Government has denied all liability, denied any illegality, denied that moneys were taken and denied entitlement to restitution.
The Deputy has raised two matters. Does Deputy Rabbitte wish to comment on the fisheries matter?
I support Deputy Kenny on the remarks he has made.
Made is right.
Deputy Rabbitte fell asleep on the back foot.
I was waiting to hear the Minister's reply and then I was going to ask a supplementary.
The Chair was hoping it would be the other way round. I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Would the Minister, who is in the hot-seat today and who we welcome in that role, recognise that there is great consternation caused by this Bill currently before the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and take the honourable course of withdrawing the Bill in its entirety?
On the same subject, at long last there is the opportunity for the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, to directly take responsibility. The unfortunate Minister of State with responsibility for the marine, of course, has apparently disappeared. A number of Ministers are currently under considerable pressure. The Minister, in his famous letter on administrative penalties, seems to accept that they are constitutional. This was a key issue in the Bill. He states they are not suitable but he seems to infer that they are constitutional. That is the advice which he gave me last week in answer to a question on the communication regulations directives from Europe, where he stated he had sought the advice of the Attorney General, who had deemed them to be legal. That is the outstanding point. Nobody condones gross illegality and thievery from the Irish people in fishing by any unscrupulous people and it is fair to say the vast majority of decent fisherman and their families — the 40,000 people in maritime communities — are anxious that there would be a transparent regime, but the Minister and his predecessor, and particularly the former Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Fahey, never made the slightest attempt to introduce a transparent regime or to deal with miscreants who were evading the fishery laws of the State. The Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, has a grave responsibility to address this matter. I support the call being made that unless he can deal with the issue of administrative penalties, he should come back to us with a comprehensive Bill, which would also give us some opportunity of dealing with fishing illegality by European fleets in our waters.
The Health (Repayment Scheme) Bill will be with the House this session and the matter raised by Deputy Kenny will be dealt with in that.
I am looking forward to going to the committee after the Order of Business to deal with and respond to the various matters raised by Deputies on the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005, but it is a bit rich to be criticising me for not tackling the organised criminality that is going on in the sea fishing industries when the Members who spoke have consistently, over the past four or five months, tried to thwart the introduction of legislation that will deal with it.
Most of us are enthusiastic about it as well.
These same people——
Members sitting behind the Minister are enthusiastic about it.
——will be in this House in two, three or four years' time criticising the Government for the levels of fines, if the EU pursues us for not having proper sea fisheries control. France has already been fined €20 million by the EU for lack of enforcement and control of sea fisheries —€20 million straight off and €57 million for ongoing offences every six months. I will not expose the taxpayer of this country to that kind of criminality and to the potential of those kinds of fines. I need this legislation. When I meet the Commissioner next Monday week, I need to be able to assure the Commission that tough but fair legislation is in place and will be applied fairly.
Will it be the same legislation as in every other European country?
In the national interest, I ask Opposition Members to support this legislation and get it through the House as quickly as possible.
The Minister will make criminals out of all the fishermen.
Is it possible to pass fair legislation?
I call Deputy Perry to speak briefly. There cannot be a full discussion on this matter now.
Is it not a fact that the Commission will fine the Minister's Department for the non-implementation of existing legislation? There is a smear campaign against the whole fishing industry, 6,500 fishermen, even in The Irish Times today. What has the Department done about this under the current legislation?
The Minister indicated that this country will be fined millions of euro in the Brown case. That is not a fact. The Minister indicated that the unfounded allegation that failure to enact the present legislation in its present form would leave the taxpayers open to multi-million euro sanctions. The truth is that any sanctions contemplated concern the Government's failure to implement current legislation.
Who has political responsibility? Where is the Minister of State with responsibility for the marine? Every Member received a brief today on this Bill. This Bill is ill-conceived as demonstrated by the fact that the Government has tabled 120 amendments to it.
This Bill has brought the whole fishing industry down to a low level by way of leaks from the Minister's Department, many unfounded allegations and classifying 6,500 fishermen as dishonest. That is an outrageous allegation.
On a point of order, will the Minister state the position on the delegated functions order which he made entrusting functions to Deputy Gallagher? The Minister of State is in the House. He should be capable of taking this Bill today, as it is his function to do. Is he the Minister of State with responsibility for the marine? Will the proceedings at the committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources be legal?
That is not a point of order.
It is a point of order. This House made a resolution transferring the functions of responsibility for marine and fisheries to Deputy Gallagher. Is he still a Minister of State? What is his function in this Government? He was supposed to be a sort of half-Minister at the Cabinet. Why is he not taking this Bill today? It is his responsibility.
That is not a point of order. I call Deputy Rabbitte.
I will wait for the Minister to reply.
Why is the Minister trying to brand all fishermen criminals?
I would prefer that Deputy Rabbitte ask his question and the Minister can reply to all together.
I wish to raise a different matter. If the Minister wishes he may reply on this issue.
If we are to have a debate I would prefer to have it in committee.
The Minister is afraid to have the debate on the floor of the House.
I understand that the committee will hold the debate this morning and for three days next week. I will facilitate that debate, 24 hours a day, seven days a week until I get the Bill through.
The Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, can take it.
Has the Minister of State been reeled in?
That is a bulldozer job.
Deputy Perry mentioned that there are 120 Government amendments to the Bill. They come from listening to people who are genuinely concerned about the sea fisheries industry, and listening to our backbenchers.
Not on that side of the House.
They suggested that we have an independent sea-fisheries protection authority.
The Minister should talk to his backbenchers today. They will tell him how happy they are with the Bill. Where is the Minister of State with responsibility for the marine?
Will the Minister of State resign?
The Deputy cannot have it both ways. He cannot speak out of both sides of his mouth at one time on this matter.
The Minister has it every way. He appointed a Minister of State and delegated responsibility.
Deputy Perry should give the Minister hell.
As for the allegation that I have denigrated and categorised all fishermen as dishonest——
That is what the Bill does.
In my public statements I have made it quite clear that there is a small group of fishermen who are engaged in systematic criminal activity.
What is the Minister doing about that?
Go for them, Deputy Perry.
Why crucify all the fishermen?
That is why this legislation is before the House.
If there is criminal activity going on, as Deputy Kenny said, what is the Minister or the Minister of State doing about it?
I cannot understand how the so-called party of law and order does not support the legislation.
It is a travesty.
What is the Minister's Department doing about the people carrying out illegal activity? He is castigating the whole industry.
The Deputy is out of order. I call Deputy Rabbitte on a different matter.
What is the Minister doing about it? Nothing.
I will tell the Deputy afterwards, if he comes to the committee.
That is black propaganda.
We will move on. I call Deputy Rabbitte.
The Minister did not clarify the position of the Minister of State. Is he still a Minister of State?
I have allowed generous latitude on that question. We will proceed to hear Deputy Rabbitte.
Is the Minister willing to listen?
I am surprised at Deputy O'Keeffe who is a solicitor.
Will the Minister confirm whether he has a Minister of State at his Department?
The Deputy is being disorderly and should resume his seat. I call Deputy Rabbitte.
This House passed a resolution to appoint a Minister of State with responsibility for the marine. The Minister has now assumed those functions but we have heard no announcement from the Taoiseach or the Minister on the function of the Minister of State. The Minister has torn apart the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources but he will not answer even this basic question.
The Minister is bluffing.
If the Deputy knew his law he would know exactly what the term "designated functions" means.
I have one more question.
I cannot allow any more questions on this subject. I have been very generous in giving it time. I call Deputy Rabbitte.
I will talk to Deputy Perry at the committee.
What cases could not be prosecuted in the past two or three years under existing legislation? Will the Minister please answer that question?
The Deputy is wasting the time of the House. He is out of order.
Under existing law, what has the Minister been doing for the past two or three years?
What cases could not be prosecuted?
There was a case in Donegal three weeks ago.
The Minister should state the case.
I will not state the case. Unlike the Deputy, I will not use or abuse the privilege of the House.
Is there a book of evidence in the case? The Minister is making an allegation.
The Deputy knows all these matters can be attended to on Committee Stage. He is out of order.
There has been no case in the past two years that could not be prosecuted.
Will the Minister answer Deputy Perry's question?
Last June, the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children said she intended to bring legislation before the Oireachtas in autumn which would provide a clear legal framework for a repayment scheme for those who were unlawfully charged in nursing homes. She added that this would ensure that repayments were made as promptly as possible.
I have not heard her reply to the extraordinary development whereby the family of a dead patient, in prosecuting an action, has been met with a defence by the State and the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, that the State has no liability and does not accept any responsibility for overcharging or repayments. Will the Minister respond to that comment, and say when the legislation promised for last autumn will come before the House, and when the scheme of repayments to people overcharged in nursing homes will commence?
It will commence in the run-up to the election.
I mean no disrespect to the Minister present. I thought the Tánaiste would be here this morning. The trolley watch in Tallaght Hospital reached an all-time crisis yesterday when 58 patients were accommodated on trolleys.
When will the House receive the Barr report? It is six years since the killing of John Carthy.
On 15 June 2005 Deputy Hogan asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if he was satisfied that no person who was disqualified from holding a directorship of a private company was a member of a State board under the auspices of his Department. The Minister replied that he was not aware of any appointees to State boards under the auspices of his Department disqualified from holding a directorship of a private company. The Minister replied in one sentence, saying: "I am not aware of any appointees to State boards under the auspices of my Department currently disqualified from holding a directorship of a private company". I tabled a further question on 28 June, drawing his attention to a person disqualified by the High Court. I wrote to him again, on 1 July 2005, drawing his attention to the appointment to Bord na gCon of a person disqualified from holding a directorship in a private company and to the fact that he had taken representations from six different organisations asking him not to make the said appointment because of the disqualification. However, he proceeded to do so. Will the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, require the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, to set the record straight by saying why he made the decision and whether that person will continue to serve as a director of Bord na gCon?
The legislation about which the Deputy asked is to be taken this session. The scheme will follow from that. I understand that €400 million has been provided for it in this year's Estimates. I will contact the Deputy regarding the Barr report, since I do not know when it is to be published. I do not know what legislation the Deputy was inquiring about regarding the last matter, but I understand legal advice was taken at the time.
Yesterday, arising from concerns about child pornography on the Internet, I asked the Taoiseach his proposals for the possible early introduction of the electronic communications (miscellaneous provisions) Bill. The Minister assisted the Taoiseach in his answer and seemed to state the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 was the relevant legislation. However, it is considered in mainland Europe and the UK that the Internet watchdog provides the appropriate method to police such activity. Since the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, is here this morning, perhaps he might clarify that.
The second issue concerns the worries expressed by many regarding the fuel storage capacity and facilities of this country for both gas and oil. The national oil reserves agency Bill is shortly to come before the House. Perhaps the Minister might state when that is likely to happen and whether he will take account of that shortfall in the storage facilities.
The Taoiseach answered the first question on telecommunications yesterday. We have very extensive legislation on that area. Consideration is being given to strengthening that, perhaps through an agreement with the industry regarding 3G telephones. Discussions are ongoing, and it may or may not be included in the Bill. The national oil reserves agency Bill is to be taken this session. All relevant matters will be taken into account.
Before I ask regarding promised legislation, perhaps I might inquire regarding the report in today's newspapers about the Government Chief Whip, Deputy Kitt, who, although not present at a rezoning vote in 1992, received £2,000 and failed to declare the payment. Does the Minister of State intend making a personal statement to the House on the matter, given the questions that arise from that report?
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
Has the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, told his colleagues in Government of promised legislation on the curtailment of the use of mobile telephones? Why did I not hear that last week? We heard about penalty points but not about legislation on mobile telephones, instead learning of it through the radio this morning. To clarify matters for the House, is that legislation promised, being thought about, pending or part of some other legislation already promised?
I wish to ask regarding legislation on the interests of children, something that Deputy Durkan raised, namely, the register of persons who are considered unsafe to work with children Bill. I have repeatedly asked about it, and it had been promised for 2003. The Taoiseach told us the Department of Health and Children was discussing the establishment of a pre-employment consultancy service. A long time has passed since 2003, and rather than have children put in continuing danger, can the Government attend to it and not let matters slide further?
It is not possible to say when that register will be established, but the Departments of Education and Science and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which are responsible for the Bill, are still working on and discussing it. Discussions also took place with the Northern Ireland authorities.
Mobile telephones will be dealt with under a transport Bill, which I believe will come before the House shortly.
He is a man with much to deal with.
I hope that it receives more support from the other side of the House than when its introduction was attempted three years ago.
With three of the country's four sexual assault treatment units, at the Rotunda, Waterford Regional Hospital, and Letterkenny General Hospital, at risk of closure, can the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources advise what mechanism the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, employed to ensure funding for the Cork centre? Is legislation required to provide for State funding for each of the other three that I have named and the inclusion of a new network of sexual assault treatment units at other centres in Galway, the midlands and the north-east region?
No legislation is promised.
I thank the Minister for commenting on the preparation of the scheme for repayments to which he referred when responding to Deputy Rabbitte. I am not clear, however, why the Government, the Minister, the Attorney General and the HSE have mounted a full defence against a claim lodged by a family perfectly legitimately. That is a dishonest defence. If €400 million is left aside for repayment this year, why has that course of action been taken when it is absolutely in keeping with the Supreme Court decision?
The Deputy should keep to the Order of Business. The matter has been dealt with.
Perhaps the Minister might explain why they have taken this action and mounted that dishonest defence.
Regarding the safety review of the Corrib gas field, the report of which he is now considering, when are we likely to see it published? Is it likely to recommend extra safety features or a change of direction to bringing the gas ashore? Perhaps the Minister might comment on that.
We cannot turn the Order of Business into Question Time.
I appreciate that, but the Minister has the report.
I have the report.
Might we have an explanation for the delay on the nursing home repayments scheme? The information was with the Minister a year ago that the charges were illegal, and it seems extraordinary that it has taken so long. Can the Minister report to us why the delay has been so lengthy?
Since the Minister is so concerned about the taxpayer losing up to €56 million in fines, has the Minister yet discovered where it went in HSE spending? The Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, initially told the House the money had been transferred from capital to revenue. The next day the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, came in and said it was not so but that she did not know where it was. That was a few weeks ago. Has the Minister found the money yet, and does the Minister for Finance intend introducing a Supplementary Estimate? What has happened to that taxpayers' money?
No Supplementary Estimate is promised.
I am sorry, but the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, stated there would be one if necessary. Weeks have passed. Do we know yet whether a Supplementary Estimate will be introduced?
There is none promised.
The HSE western area is the size of Northern Ireland with a population of 350,000 people. It has eight consultant urologists. There are boxes of applications from GPs dating back to 1998, eight years, for patients to be seen by a consultant urologist in Galway. One man who has been waiting for one and a half years has now developed cancer.
The Deputy should ask a question on promised legislation.
Is legislation envisaged to ensure people are treated equally so the people of County Mayo can have the same chance of a normal lifespan as the people living in Dublin? I ask the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, to answer that question on behalf of the Government.
It would be more appropriate for the Deputy to table a question.
Is the Government interested in keeping people alive or do those of us living in the west matter? Will the Government set up a consultant urology unit in Mayo General Hospital in Castlebar?
There is no legislation specifically promised for the people of County Mayo but the Constitution takes care of that.
I wish it was enacted. The Constitution is not taking care of it.
The housing (miscellaneous provisions) Bill is promised for publication in 2006. The heads of the Bill have not yet been approved by the Government. Will the Minister arrange with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government or the Minister of State with responsibility for housing, to give a briefing on that Bill or on the miscellaneous provisions which are intended, to the Oireachtas committee and to perhaps discuss with the committee what miscellaneous provisions in the administration of our housing system might be amended? This is an area where the wider participation and the experience of Members of the House might be brought to bear in the preparation of a Bill which would deal with issues with which Members as public representatives deal on a daily basis.
I will ask the officials to convey that request to the Minister concerned because as the Deputy rightly stated, the provisions deal with tenant purchase schemes, the sale of flats, the strengthening of the powers of local authorities to deal with anti-social behaviour, and so on. This is certainly an area where Members of this House and members of local authorities would have expertise.
I am aware of families who are still awaiting the payment of third level education grants, even at this stage of the academic year. What is the current status of the promised third-level student support Bill? Are the heads of the Bill published and will it be in the House this session or next session? Will it be enacted in time for next year?
I understand the heads of the Bill are being drafted and it is expected it will be published during the course of this year.
Will the Minister say when it is intended to enact sections 55 to 62, Part VIII of the Local Government Act 2001? These sections deal with the proposal from a local authority for boundary extension.
I will ask an official to communicate with the Deputy on that matter as I do not have that information.