Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for their questions.

On IPAS and Mount Street, officials visited the tents on 16 March. Contrary to some reports, Crooksling has toilets, hot showers, personal toiletries, food, a bus service to Dublin and 24-hour security on site. Safetynet is providing health screening, which commenced on 18 March. There is a building where meals are served and men can charge phones and have food provided. Crosscare is also conducting support visits. That is essentially what is being provided at Crooksling at the moment.

I will have to come back to Deputy Barry with a more definitive answer on Covid-19 and long Covid, but my understanding is that Covid-19 is now being treated as any other respiratory virus would be treated and long Covid is being treated as any other chronic disease would be treated. It would be difficult to explain to someone who perhaps has multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease or some other chronic illness, why his or her employment rights are different from those of people who have long Covid. We have moved beyond the idea that Covid-19 is a different category of disease from other viral or post-viral syndromes. The suggestion is that people acquired long Covid at work, but that is not necessarily the case. Most people acquired Covid-19 in their homes where they spent most of their time. That may not have been the case for everyone, but it was generally the case.

The Minister set out the thinking behind the mother and baby institutions payment scheme on several occasions. It is an €800 million scheme, the biggest one of its nature ever. Redress is about more than financial compensation. It is also about birth information and tracing, medical cards and other practical supports that are being provided.

On Deputy Ó Murchú's question, I will follow up on the matter of Mr. Molloy. It would be strange if he was forced to retire and then rehired in a few months' time. We need a common sense approach to this if at all possible. I will follow it up with the Department of public expenditure.

Deputy Tóibín asked about the referendums. The referendums are over. They happened. The results have been accepted by the Government. On the leak of the Attorney General's advice, it was only one day's worth of advice. There was a lot more to it than the ten pages that were leaked and published. Those particular ten pages showed that the term "strive", in the Attorney General's view and in mine, was a strong term, was judicable, would have led to additional rights for carers and would potentially have left the State open to litigation and costs. If anything, it supported the arguments the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, made in favour of a "Yes" vote. Of course it was the view of the Departments of Finance and public expenditure to use the weakest language possible in order minimise the potential cost to the State. That is their job. It is the job of the Departments in charge of the money to warn the Government about the cost of anything we commit to do. It does not stop us committing to do it. That is why we chose strong wording, such as "strive", and that can be seen in the Attorney General's advice.

When it comes to durable relationships, no Attorney General will ever say that any new language in legislation or the Constitution is certain. If we were to get to the point where we publish advice from the Attorney General, it would have to be written in a different way because anyone who has been in government understands that the Attorney General will always say what to us is obvious, namely that it cannot be said with absolute certainty what a court will decide. That was presented in a very different way from the way the advice was read or read by me.

Deputy Paul Murphy's questions on-----

See this speech in context