On 16 December the Tánaiste informed the House that the Travers report into illegal charges for elderly patients would be published on 1 March. Last week we were told the report would be delayed by a further week and published today. We now learn of a further delay in publication of the report. Why has the report been further delayed to tomorrow? Do legal charges require further advice from the Attorney General before the report can be published? Will the Opposition leaders be given a copy of the report this evening so that the Taoiseach can be questioned tomorrow morning? It appears as though some internal media manipulation has taken place——

Hear, hear.

——so that the Taoiseach will not need to be present in the House again for five weeks to answer questions on the matter as when the Dáil meets on the week after next the Taoiseach will be attending a European Council meeting. I want to put the Taoiseach on notice that we will require a full Dáil debate on the matter in the House and not behind closed doors at some private committee.

What preliminary steps need to be taken, as referred to in the Government's report this evening? What advice did the Attorney General give that necessitated the further delay in publication of the report? Will the Opposition leaders be given a copy of the report, bound or unbound, this evening so that the Taoiseach can attend the House tomorrow morning and answer questions on this scandalous affair?

On 16 December the Tánaiste said she had asked for the report to be delivered by 1 March. The Government received the report this morning at its weekly meeting. It is a long, detailed and very important report, which the Government discussed this morning for the first time. It is a report into the handling of charges for persons in public long-term stay places of the Department of Health and Children since 1976. The report was completed by Mr. Travers last Friday. On the advice of the Attorney General the Government has decided that the method of publication should be through the Oireachtas. Members of the Oireachtas will be given a copy of the report tomorrow morning and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children will be in a position to consider it in the first instance. A full debate on the report will take place in due course. It is a lengthy and detailed report, running to more than 160 pages, which is deserving of careful consideration

The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, should keep his head down.

It would not be appropriate for me to make any further comment on the report in advance of its publication other than to express my thanks and that of the Government to Mr. Travers for undertaking the investigation.

The Minister is writing his resignation.

Obviously the measures to be taken in respect of charges that were levied remain to be determined.

The Minister should be ready.

The Government will proceed to take appropriate decisions on the issue, having regard to the Travers report, at the earliest possible opportunity.

Does the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, want the job?

The Taoiseach has not answered my questions. What are the preliminary steps that need to be taken? Does the Attorney General need to deal with any legal issues or threats, based on his advice to the Cabinet this morning? Will the report deal with public and political accountability? In fairness to the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, while she had to accept collective Cabinet responsibility for this matter, at least she acted when the matter was brought to a head following persistent questioning from this side of the House. At least the Attorney General's advice was sought unlike the incident where a letter was never sent to the Attorney General following the famous meeting attended by three Ministers some years ago.

They got their pay for it.

Does the report make recommendations in regard to political accountability? It is the Taoiseach's duty and requirement under the Public Service Management Act 1997 to have political responsibility vested in Ministers to regularise matters in situations where some illegal activity is clearly taking place. When this report is published, does the Taoiseach intend to take action against the Minister, Deputy Martin, and the Ministers of State, Deputies Callely and Tim O'Malley? If these persons did nothing during their time in the Department of Health and Children about the situation whereby hundreds of thousands of people had payments illegally taken from them by the Government, is the Taoiseach prepared to stand up and be decisive in terms of his requirement as Taoiseach?

Will he see to it that the leaders of the Opposition parties are given a copy of this report this evening so that we can question him tomorrow morning in the Dáil before he departs for five weeks? The Taoiseach's communications unit, which costs €300,000 per year, either did not see this on the front pages of the newspapers or has advised the Taoiseach that it may be appropriate that he absent himself from the House for that length of time.

The report will be leaked tomorrow morning.

Are we looking at a whitewash?

The Taoiseach should be allowed to respond without interruption.

Last week, Opposition Members taunted me that I would not publish this report before the by-elections. They have now changed their position.

The Taoiseach should be allowed to continue without interruption.

The system whereby the Government receives a report at 10.30 a.m. on a Tuesday and must issue it within a few hours is unfeasible.

It is a 160 page report.

There seem to be 20 Deputy Kennys all of a sudden.

Deputy Kenny was allowed to ask his question without interruption. The Taoiseach is entitled to the same courtesy in this House in making his reply. I ask Members to desist from interrupting.

The Taoiseach will not answer my question.

I listened very carefully to Deputy Kenny without any interruption from Members on this side of the House. The concept that a report should just appear and that I should immediately be answerable for it is not reasonable. It is sometimes a good idea to read reports and that is what I would like to do.

The Government must read the report.

The three Ministers at that meeting should have done more reading.

The Government must study the report and there will be a debate in due course.

What is another year?

Will the Taoiseach bring the report to the House?

The Taoiseach should be allowed to continue without interruption.

The report will be published within 24 hours of its receipt by the Government after little discussion and debate. That is record speed and nobody can say to the contrary. It is a nonsense that a report can be pushed through and debated in no time.

When will the Government consider the report?

Deputy Kenny has had an opportunity to put his question and should allow the Taoiseach to respond without interruption.

The Government received the report this morning and is considering it. One does not take a 164 page report as part of a Government discussion and expect everybody to read it for seven or eight hours.

It will make frightful bedtime reading.

The meeting was at 10.30 a.m. Opposition Members must get real about what happens in Government procedure.

There is such a thing as collective responsibility.

Government Members are slow readers.

Why were the media briefed about the report?

The Taoiseach is answering the question from Deputy O'Keeffe's leader and should be allowed to do so without interruption.

Members will know the contents of the report tomorrow and will need to take time to study it.

At what time tomorrow will it be released?

I will try to answer Deputy Kenny's question. It has been decided to circulate a copy of the Travers report to all Members of the House to enable a considered review of its findings and recommendations. Each Member will receive a copy tomorrow. This procedure is being followed for two primary reasons. First, it is in this House that issues relating to accountability and Departments are properly and correctly raised. Second, this House can adopt the report, debate its contents and authorise its public release and it will thus constitute a publication within the provisions of Article 15.12 of the Constitution. This will ensure full, open and free debate on the important public issues raised by the report without the fear of the risk of litigation.

It is in the public interest that there will be a full and frank debate in this House and Members will therefore have a copy of the Travers report tomorrow, the first practical opportunity to make it available. A date can then be fixed for a considerable debate on the issue. That has been the advice of the Attorney General.

It seems, therefore, no advance copies will be sent to the leaders of the Opposition parties.

The printing arrangements have been authorised to ensure all Members will have a copy of the report tomorrow.

When will there be a Dáil debate on the issue?

The Tánaiste first told us we would have the report on 1 March. Subsequently, she announced she would take the report last Friday and it would be brought to Government and published today. Will the Taoiseach name one other Parliament in the European Union where on a matter in which the taxpayer is exposed for somewhere between €500 million and €2 billion, depending on which account one believes, a Minister would organise a press conference outside the Houses of Parliament to announce the details of the relevant report?

However, the Taoiseach is trying to make a virtue out of the fact that accountability should take place in this House. He is fully aware that if the Tánaiste were to go ahead and publish this report today as she committed to doing by way of press conference, at least the leaders of the Opposition would have the opportunity to question him in this House tomorrow morning. The Taoiseach is evading scrutiny by managing to defer the publication so that we cannot discuss the report until he goes missing for five weeks.

Are the rumours in the press about the sacking of officials justified? I do not know whether they are warranted because I have not read the report, unlike the Taoiseach who has had it since Friday. He spoke of reading the report in seven or eight hours. One would read War and Peace in that time. Does no culpability attach to serving Ministers who attended the meeting of the management advisory committee, MAC, on 16 December 2003 where legal advice was presented to them by the South Eastern Health Board to the effect that these charges were illegal? The Supreme Court stated clearly that the introduction of the universal health card in 2001 had the effect “of placing beyond doubt any question of the legality of charging for the relevant services”. The court’s ruling further stated there was “no possible room for doubt” and that any charge imposed on such a person was “indisputably imposed in direct contravention of the law”.

How could there have been any doubt in the minds of Ministers who were given legal advice and convened a meeting of MAC to discuss that advice? The Minister who claimed to be absent would have received the minutes of that meeting. The Taoiseach is obliged to tell the House whether the rumoured sackings relate to officials only or whether serving Ministers attract the culpability associated with their neglect of the supervision that is reasonably expected of a Minister.

This report covers the period from the summer of 1976 and deals with all the issues. I am studying the report, as are my colleagues who only received it today. We have received advice as to how the report should be handled. It will be put out to a committee of the House and will be available within 24 hours despite the claims that we would not make it. I could say many things about the aspects of the report which I have read but it would be inappropriate to do so. All Members will have the report and there will be a full debate in this House in due course.

The serious issues dealt with in the report cannot be articulated in two minutes. We know the sum to be paid by taxpayers will be substantial and it is not an issue which can be answered by me in two minutes. We will deal with the report in the House in due course. I am sure we will have to deal with it a number of times in the House because we will have to provide the necessary resources — it is not simply a matter of having a debate on the report.

As for the other matters, Deputies should not give in to speculation about what has been said.

It is already covered in the press.

The report will be published within 24 hours. No press conference organised for today, tomorrow or any other time. The Attorney General's advice was sought because of possible litigation that can arise from reports of this nature. The advice was that the way to publish it was through the Oireachtas and I have made provisions in that regard. People would not be advised to try to deal with it any other way. I will say no more about that, other than the report will be published. The Tánaiste and I said a week ago that we would deal with this issue and in spite of the scepticism of the House that I would hold this back until after the by-elections, the report will be published tomorrow.

What about the press conference?

If the Taoiseach is saying the report is being published in this manner to attract the privilege that attaches to a report being laid before the Houses, he has the same privilege now. He has an army of advisers who write notes for him on every conceivable thing. Why does he not have a note indicating the political fallout of exposing the taxpayer to a fine of what we are told will be of the order of between €500 million and €2 billion? Why does he not have a note to say in the House the effect of that? How could he possibly have a Minister with responsibility for older people attending a meeting of MAC, being presented with legal advice on this who says he knows nothing about it, a Minister with responsibility for people who are incapacitated, the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, who has the same level of responsibility who knows nothing about it, and Steve Silvermint himself who knows nothing about anything? He never knew anything about it.

He sets up committees.

The same Minister, Deputy Martin, must know that as early as January 2001 the Ombudsman, when raising alarm bells about an aspect of this matter, said "accountability should apply to those actions of which the Minister was aware or of which the Minister as head of the Department could reasonably be expected to have been aware or to have made himself or herself aware". The Minister, Deputy Martin, got the minutes. He should not shake his head. He got the minutes. He is now trying to deny he got them.

The Deputy is reading the wrong quote.

Deputy Rabbitte's time is concluded.

Is the Taoiseach committing to a debate tomorrow or on Thursday before he escapes from this House for five weeks? I ask the Ceann Comhairle to exercise his authority to require the Taoiseach to say clearly whether we will have that debate tomorrow——

The Chair has no such authority, and the Deputy knows that. No Chair in the world has that authority.

You could have fooled me, Sir.

The Chair has no such authority.

If the Chair has no responsibility in this matter, will the Taoiseach indicate whether he will commit to a debate either tomorrow or the next day before he goes missing for five weeks?

The Chair has authority under Standing Order 31 in this regard.

I caution the House on this matter. The report is over 160 pages.

So what?

Please listen.

Are you a slow reader?

This is Deputy Rabbitte's question.

The Chair has authority under Standing Order 31 in this regard.

Deputy Rabbitte in his questions has come to a conclusion on what the report should or should not state. Perhaps he will be surprised when he reads it. I hope will read it. People want a report, they get it and almost hope it will not be published——

We have not got the report.

——so they can have a row about it. The Tánaiste and I said we would publish it. We will lay it before the House and Members can study and read it. We are ready to have a debate on it——

When?

When people have read the report and not a few minutes after it is available.

The Taoiseach will be away for five weeks.

Allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

If one has a serious report——

How does the Taoiseach know what he will leak from it?

It is not required for me to have a report or a debate on everything.

I draw attention to the fact that we are dealing with Deputy Rabbitte's question and the only Member who should be responded to is Deputy Rabbitte. The Chair will take appropriate action and ask somebody to leave if Deputies continue to ask——

Is the Chair referring to me?

Deputy Kenny had his opportunity to ask a question on behalf of the Fine Gael Party. This is Deputy Rabbitte's question. The Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

This is an important report which we will publish tomorrow, and we will have a proper debate on it in the House.

Will we have a debate on it before the Taoiseach escapes on Thursday?

Deputy Rabbitte had an opportunity to ask his question and I ask him to resume his seat.

Will we have the debate on Thursday?

The Deputy is being disorderly.

Yes, Sir, I am being orderly——

Disorderly. The Deputy is being disorderly and he knows it.

I am entitled to an answer. Will we have a debate on Thursday?

I ask the Deputy to resume his seat and allow the Taoiseach without interruption.

I have stated clearly that the Government will have a debate on this issue at a time to be decided.

That is not the question the Taoiseach was asked.

Allow the Taoiseach reply without interruption.

I say to Deputy Rabbitte that there is no Parliament in Europe where the leader of the day spends so much time answering questions.

The Taoiseach should answer the question.

We have only got promises.

I am not escaping anywhere from this or any other issue.

That is an outrageous statement and the Taoiseach knows it.

Allow the Taoiseach reply without interruption. Deputy Connaughton is not a member of the Labour Party.

Deputy Rabbitte does not really want a debate.

I do want a debate.

Deputy Rabbitte, I ask you to resume your seat.

He has come to a conclusion about this issue for several reasons——

Are we going to have a debate?

——and he wants to stand up and make one-liners about Ministers of State.

The Taoiseach is evading the question.

He does not want to read the report.

Will we have a debate on Thursday?

I hope he will read it before he makes his contribution.

I will read it if the Taoiseach gives it to me.

Yes. There will be a debate. Last week Deputy Rabbitte did not want a report into this matter, now we are giving the Deputy the report.

When will the Taoiseach give it to me?

Tomorrow he will get the report.

I call Deputy Sargent.

I hope we will have a debate before the Taoiseach escapes from this House.

Deputy, I called Deputy Sargent.

: I am not escaping anywhere.

The Taoiseach is escaping but he will not escape responsibility.

The Deputy is codding himself.

The Taoiseach is running away from a debate.

Deputy, allow Deputy Sargent to speak without interruption.

It is the same old story — just like the beef tribunal.

I ask Deputies to show some respect for their colleague, Deputy Sargent, to enable him to submit his question to the Taoiseach.

We are not being shown too much respect.

I take it that Thursday is the day, and we look forward to that.

On another matter, is the Taoiseach aware that an oral hearing has commenced in the Boyne Valley Hotel in Drogheda over the licensing of the first municipal waste incinerator in Ireland? Government policy has often been characterised as a burn it and bury it approach, although Ministers, Deputy Roche and Deputy McDowell, do not want the burning part of it in their areas. Our policy is different as it is a zero waste strategy which does not allow incineration. Does the Taoiseach recognise the growing anger among people over the failure of the EPA to execute its role in a strong, independent and effective way? Will he accept and take seriously the procedural flaws revealed in this process, whereby a planning application can be appealed to another body, An Bord Pleanála, which is entirely independent from the local authority, yet an EPA licence is appealed to the EPA? Given the EPA's biased and well known pro-incineration position, its quite sloppy approach to the GreenStar Kentstown 350 acre dump and that the EPA has been compromised over its public pronouncements which basically parrot Government policy, does he recognise that there is a need for an appeal body that stands aside from the EPA? Does the Taoiseach find it unacceptable that in the monitoring of dioxins, samples have to be sent abroad? Does he find it unacceptable that witnesses at the oral hearing are restricted if they are opposed to incineration, whereas the pro-incineration company proposing the plant can introduce all sorts of other cases? Does he agree that the built-in bias within the EPA needs to be addressed? It is time to review the EPA.

I am sure Deputy Sargent will agree that the EPA's oral hearing into the granting of a licence for the operation of an incinerator in County Meath will give all sides an opportunity to make their views known.

No.

No.

No.

The licence inquiry allows for a lengthy planning process, which is among the most onerous, detailed and open of all such processes. The EPA is independent in the exercise of its functions.

That is a joke.

The Deputy is entitled to his opinion that the EPA is a joke.

How can it make its own decisions?

I do not think it is a joke.

Hear, hear.

It is totally biased.

I do not think those involved in the EPA think it is a joke. The EPA's legislative base is not a joke.

The Green Party Deputies just do not like its decisions.

The Government's policy is that thermal treatment and energy recovery has an important role as a single element of an integrated approach to waste management.

The Taoiseach makes it sound like a hair dryer.

I have listened to Deputy Sargent's comments. Countries like Holland and Germany, which are recognised as being among the most environmentally advanced countries, combine high rates of recycling with the existing use of modern thermal treatment facilities.

They have nuclear power as well.

Their recycling performance has not suffered as a result of the provision of thermal treatment facilities. It is important to note that the introduction of thermal treatment will allow this country to reduce its environmentally unsustainable dependence on landfill.

Thousands of tonnes of ash will have to go to landfills.

One can make cement from it.

Deputy Sargent asked about the health effects of thermal treatment and argued that such effects should be considered during the environmental licensing process. The EPA cannot grant a waste licence if it is not satisfied that the activity in question will not cause environmental pollution. It operates to the highest EU and WHO standards. It follows the rules, directives and procedures——

Of the Government.

——of the EU and the WHO, in line with best international practice.

Just like in Argentina last November.

I reject the accusation that the EPA is a joke.

It is biased.

The EPA considers that human health will be protected if people comply with licence emission limits. It follows the procedures to a high standard.

This matter is far more serious than the Taoiseach realises. Does the Taoiseach appreciate that the position of the EPA is compromised, in light of the pronouncements of its director, Dr. Mary Kelly, in favour of incineration, as well as the appointment to its board of Ms Laura Burke, who is a former employee of Indaver Ireland, which is the company seeking an incinerator licence? In that context, how can the Taoiseach stand over his comment that the EPA is independent? The EPA is judge and jury in its own court, in effect, and will not be subject to any appeals system.

There is an onus on the Government to accept its responsibility to govern, for example by learning from the lessons which should have been learnt by now, ten years after the establishment of the EPA. Is the Taoiseach aware that it seems to the public that every polluter appears to have the ear of the Government? Is that because money talks, or because medical experts and environmental groups do not have the resources of the company that is proposing the incinerator? Will the Taoiseach review the operations of the EPA to try to restore some of Ireland's lost credibility as a clean and green food island? Will he ensure that the EPA is concerned with environmental protection, rather than simply with licensing industrial pollution?

I do not agree with the Deputy's view. Our planning process involves An Bord Pleanála and the EPA. The Deputy has suggested that a further organisation, which is independent of the EPA, should be established. I do not consider that to be the position. The Minister, Deputy Roche, has said he is aware of the concerns of local communities about the development of thermal treatment and other major waste management facilities.

He will not allow such facilities in his local area.

He believes in an approach of "anywhere but Wicklow".

Or Ringsend.

The Minister has said he will examine best practice as part of the ongoing environmental monitoring of projects. In particular, he will ensure that local communities are involved in overseeing such monitoring. The EPA does not just operate on the basis of its own rules, guidelines and standards.

The Government does.

It also follows the relevant EU directives, which are enormous, as Deputy Sargent will agree. The EPA follows such standards. It is not simply ignoring protestors and listening to developers.

The EPA always gives licences.

It considers the WHO standards. The EPA estimates that the 11 waste incinerators in operation in this country — Deputy Sargent would refer to them as hazardous — have contributed a fraction of 1% of national dioxin emissions to air.

That is a projection.

I have given the facts, as outlined by the experts. If one assumes that 1 million tonnes of municipal waste are managed by means of incineration over the coming decade, the EPA projects that dioxin emissions from waste incineration could account for less than 2% of national dioxin emissions to air.

That projection applies in the event of a malfunction.

The EPA has said that opponents of incineration should examine other issues.

That is nonsense.

If we have to examine other issues, what about food?

What about municipal incinerators?

Experts in this area have said that issues such as burning waste in back yards is not regulated.

There is nothing we can do about the burning of waste in back yards.

The effects of such activity can be far worse than the effects of the matters we are discussing. That is what the experts are saying.

Incineration will not stop the burning of waste in back yards.

I regret that the EPA has been rubbished to the extent it has been. The comments we have heard are unfair on professionals and experts who are working in this area. I do not believe that such people are a joke. The suggestion that certain issues should be reviewed after ten years is a fair point. I am sure the Minister will take it into account.

"Burn baby, burn"— that is the Government's approach.