The Order of Business is No. 1, Investment Funds, Companies and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2005 — Committee and Remaining Stages, to be taken on the conclusion of the Order of Business and to conclude not later than 5.30 p.m.; No. 2, statements on competitiveness and consumer protection (resumed) to be taken on the conclusion of No. 1 or at 5.30 p.m. if No. 1 has not concluded earlier, and to conclude not later than 7 p.m., with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 15 minutes and those of all other Senators not to exceed ten minutes. A spokesperson for one of the groups in the House did not speak during the previous debate. The Minister is to be called upon to reply not later than five minutes before the conclusion of statements.
Order of Business.
In recent months the Government has adopted the Opposition's position on the early release of the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe. I very much welcome the Government's change of heart and the fact that all of us now sing from the one hymn sheet. Can the Leader discover from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason those responsible for the killing of Detective Garda McCabe in Adare in 1996 remain as special status prisoners within the Irish Prison Service? It is an issue which must be addressed, not least because it was raised by the Garda Representative Association over the past 24 hours. The prisoners in question are common criminals who should be treated no differently from the other criminals within the prison system. It would be utterly wrong for their special status to continue to be observed and I ask the Leader to raise the matter with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. If time is available over the course of the next two or three days, I would like the Minister to issue a short statement in the House outlining his rationale for the continuation of special category prisoner status.
Last week, a very useful debate took place from the perspective of all sides on the Fine Gael Private Members' motion on the Government's plans for a second terminal at Dublin Airport, to which 20 of the 60 Members contributed. Can the Leader raise with the Minister for Transport the very serious matter which subsequently arose? When the Minister rose to speak in the House, he made — and I do not say this disrespectfully — a meaningless speech on the motion but the next day in County Wicklow opened his heart to the world and spoke of his preference for the governance of the new terminal.
Hear, hear.
What is the point in raising very important matters in the House if Ministers decide not to reveal their positions to Members but to describe them instead to the media within 24 hours? It is a disgrace to Parliament and unfair to the Leader who has made time available. While not all Ministers are offenders, the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, is very much offside on this issue.
Hear, hear.
A serious debate took place last Wednesday to which one third of the membership of the House contributed over the course of two hours. The Minister, however, decided not to explain his or the Taoiseach's position to Members but to tell the media the next day. It is a serious disrespect to this House and to Parliament which we must address.
I thoroughly agree with what Senator Brian Hayes said. What we were treated to by the Minister, Deputy Cullen, last week was insulting. I do not say it with the same feeling of respect as Senator Hayes. I have no respect whatsoever for Ministers who come to the House and behave the way Deputy Cullen did last week, followed by members of his party who waffled in exactly the same way. There is very little point in us having motions of this kind if Ministers are going to come in, stonewall and then go off and say something else the next day.
Perhaps the Leader of the House could reply specifically to this point. If we are going to have these ritual pieces of nonsense in this House of going through the motions of discussing such subjects, could we have a question and answer session? When a Minister comes to the House, can we have questions and answers about specific matters instead of motions? Would the Leader consider that, because as Senator Brian Hayes said——
That would require a change in Standing Orders.
Correct. That is exactly what I would like.
Hear, hear.
I thank the Cathaoirleach for helping me on that point. As Senator Brian Hayes rightly said, this came out in a question and answer session after the Irish Management Institute conference. The Minister did not say it in his speech. He waffled in his speech at the conference in the same way as he did here but when he was asked questions by Olivia O'Leary he spouted it all out. The whole plan came out while we were insulted the previous night. If necessary, let us have Ministers come to the House to answer questions like they do in the Dáil. Let us hold them accountable to Parliament instead of having them come in here to insult us. In effect, that debate was a waste of time. The contributions from this side of the House were very good but it was a complete waste of time from that side of the House. It treated the House with total disdain.
Perhaps the Leader can assist in the other matter I wish to raise. We do not appear to have a very full timetable this week. There is a story in today's newspapers about higher education which Senator Henry rightly raised here some time ago but it has now gone further. It appears the Government has responded to the report of the OECD on higher education in a way which may be anti-university. That may not be the case but it sounds as if it has resonances of being anti-university. I do not mean just Dublin University, I mean all universities and institutes of technology.
I would like to have a full debate on what is being called an innovation fund for which universities would have to compete. This may be a very good idea but it would be a major culture shock for the universities of Ireland if they have to engage in such a process. It is no coincidence and I suppose it is motivated by the report which states that Irish universities are falling out of the top international league.
I do not know whether the solution is to set up a fund and announce that all universities will have to compete for it but this House could usefully debate the issue. The Minister for Education and Science should come to the House. She is a thoroughly conscientious Minister who is putting a great deal of work into this issue. She should come to the House for a question and answer session about university education. We will get a great deal more out of her than we did from the Minister for Transport last week.
I wish to raise the unprecedented level of the current price of diesel and petrol. It has reached an all-time record of 105.9 cent——
Senator Leyden failed on that one himself.
It depends on where one buys it.
——for a litre of diesel or petrol. A debate would be appropriate as we have a discussion later on competitiveness and consumer protection.
It is the name and shame campaign again. Senator Leyden balked.
Order, please.
The Fine Gael Party's rip-off Ireland campaign has not been a great success either.
Will the Leader invite the Minister for Finance to the House to discuss the price of fuel because it has a direct effect on the economy, especially with inflation and the strength of the euro vis-à-vis the dollar, which is the price in which oil is quoted. It would be worthwhile to go through in detail the real cost of diesel and petrol. If we must name and shame I will resume that campaign again. I thank the Senators for their encouragement. The Fine Gael Party copied my idea. Of course, it is good at plagiarism.
Next time we will charge the Senator.
The Senator should put up the names.
I apologise to Senator Tuffy. I should not have called Senator Leyden before her.
I wish to raise the plans by the Minister for Education and Science to link the funding of third level colleges to a college's performance and whether it cuts back on costs. I would like to hear more on these plans before I judge them. More important than placement in university leagues is a college's function to educate students, and it is our performance in that area over the years that has given rise to our successful economy.
A survey was carried out by the Department of Health and Children on the health of students. The results showed a high incidence of students binge drinking. Other areas covered included whether students practised unsafe sex. It is important that the Minister for Education and Science backs colleges in providing support to students to help them with worries and mental health problems so they do not resort to binge-drinking. I would also like to debate this topic with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
In a related story, newspapers have reported that a member of the task force on alcohol has drawn attention to the fact that the Government has not implemented the task force's reports, something for which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has significant responsibility. A task force member also questioned the Minister's plans for café bars, stating it is in contradiction with the recommendations of the task force. There are high levels of binge drinking in the country and it seems they are even higher among students. We would like this matter debated in the House with the Minister.
The issue of suicide does not give me pleasure, nor will it any Member of this House or society. At the coroner's court in Tullamore yesterday, out of the seven deaths considered by the county coroner, five were suicide. It brings into focus the adverse impact this has on society. Few families have not been touched in some way by the cold fingers of suicide.
Are people aware that help is available? The former Midlands Health Board had a helpline which still exists and whose slogan is "Don't Get Down, Get Help". It is a sensitive area and even though everything else has been tried and this House has debated the issue before, we should do so again to establish what we, as parliamentarians, can do to help. Perhaps some positive suggestions might emanate from that debate.
The spiking of drinks is now common practice. Early last Sunday afternoon, I saw a young man take his pint of beer off the counter and into the toilet. This indicates the serious level to which this goes on. I ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who has been very proactive in other areas, to come to this House to debate this issue; perhaps some positive suggestions might be made to help stamp out this serious practice.
Does the Leader agree that café style bars are in direct conflict with one of the key recommendations of the task force on alcohol, as referred to by Senator Tuffy? The task force recommends a restriction on the number of outlets selling alcohol but the introduction of café style bars will make alcohol more readily available. I note that a very eminent member of the legal profession has stated these new licences are not intended to increase the availability of alcohol, but rather to limit its use. Many people will have difficulty with that logic. Will more mallows be available to disguise alcohol in coffee or tea?
We already have a proliferation of wine bars and we have the traditional pub. Most traditional pubs and other licensed premises serve food, tea and coffee. I do not think we need this new development and I believe the matter is a serious one. This is not suited to the Irish psyche, custom and tradition and it is unnecessary. Food and hot beverages are already widely available in licensed premises. I ask the Leader to give her opinion on the matter.
It is not often that those involved in bulk production want to move their product by rail. However, the beet growers in the midlands wish to do so because it is cost effective. There is a public interest in this. I urge the Minister for Transport to bring this matter to a positive conclusion because I do not wish to be held up behind slow moving, heavy beet lorries heading south from Portlaoise.
On the subject of environmentally friendly transport, I regret there are objections to the modification of DART stations, which will ensure that weekend travel will be impossible for several more months. This is another instance of An Taisce attempting to win friends and influence people. I urge An Taisce to examine other ways of making its views known.
I had an opportunity on Friday last to use a form of transport one hears about every week in this House, the western rail corridor. I travelled on the beginning of that corridor, from Limerick to Ennis. The service is excellent and well used, with eight trains per day in each direction. I would like to send this message to the Minister for Transport — are you right there, Martin, are you right?
The Minister will not give the Senator an answer.
I wish to comment briefly on two matters raised by Senator Ross. The Senator is correct and with the help of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, we could have a question and answer session with a Minister instead of a speech. I have protested on many occasions when Ministers talk for a lot longer than any individual contributor in the House would be permitted to — Ministers are not stopped and can talk for three quarters of an hour if they so wish — and that is taken out of the debating time allocated for the Members of the House.
The Senator must agree that I often notify Ministers their time is up and they conclude at that point. I do not let the Ministers off all of the time.
I accept that.
I know that Ministers may be given some latitude at times.
I am very glad to say that the Cathaoirleach is definitely a latitudinarian in these matters, but it is wrong and unfair. It would be much more efficient to have a question and answer session. Often Ministers simply read a prepared script, which may or may not address the main issues of the motion, or may seek politically to evade them. A script cannot possibly address the arguments raised during the debate in the House. A question and answer session would be much better. I agree with Senator Ross about the need for a debate. We have a good Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin. She could give the House more information about this innovation fund. Universities have been undergoing a painful restructuring and I hope this will assist them in being more efficient. However, it is important that we are in the top league. Only one of our universities — I am glad it is Trinity — is in the top 100 listed. We should ensure that as many as possible get into this listing. As regards the innovation fund, what concerns me is that it may be principally directed at science. I hate to think the humanities might be left out.
There are two issues I should like to raise. I ask the Leader to either organise a debate or express the House's concern to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform about the possible closure of the Coolock Law Centre. It is a very important adjunct to society in this marginalised area. I was listening to Mr. Turlough O'Donnell, the head of this operation, on the radio. It struck me that he was so complimentary about Government, lawyers and the manner in which barristers come in and help, for nothing. It is unusual to hear somebody being so positive. However, while he spoke about how wonderful the Department had been in supporting the law centre, the funding was frozen in 2002.
Has the Senator another issue to raise?
Yes, I have and will move on to that very quickly. I hope the Leader will raise these concerns with the Minister. Will she give some indication when No. 19, motion 6 on the Order Paper in the names of Senators Norris, Ross and Henry will be raised? It is about overseas development aid. The Leader and I were at a very interesting meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. Once again, and perhaps the Cathaoirleach's good office could be used in this matter, it clashed with the Order of Business in the Seanad.
The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, was giving a report to the meeting on overseas development aid. Both the Leader and I had to leave. We could only listen to part of the Minister of State's speech. He raised the question of the 0.7% of GNP target, but did not give a commitment in terms of a year. The Government had given a clear commitment as regards 2007. Now it wants to move the target to 2012. I am informed, however, that the mathematics indicate clearly that unless something radical is done it will be 2028 by the time this target is reached. It is important to have a debate in this House, so we may tease the matter out and get clear facts from the Minister of State.
I support Senator Glynn's request for a debate on suicide, and also Senator Ross's call for a debate on higher education. These are both very pressing issues. It was reported in the newspapers last week, that the effect of a European directive was that retail butchers could only sell direct to the so-called "end users". As such, they were precluded from selling to chefs and restaurants. If that is true, it is not the way good chefs do their business and it could have a deleterious effect on some very good small specialised butcher shops, which might be delivered into the hands of the multiples.
Will the Leader ask the Minister of State with responsibility for Europe whether this is a wrong interpretation of the directive or if it is something that has slipped through, unnoticed, in the scrutiny process? Does it tell us anything about how we might improve our scrutiny and can anything be done about it?
I would like to refer, again, to the task force on alcohol. The House had a very good debate on that subject last year. The task force made a number of recommendations, practically none of which have been acted upon as yet. There have been murmurings from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform about other items which are contrary to the task force's recommendations. When will these recommendations be acted upon, or is the Government going to treat them seriously?
I support my colleague, Senator Brian Hayes, as regards his comments on the special status being given to the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe. We must remember that photographs were taken with prominent Sinn Féin members in the prison and this gravely offended the McCabe family and members of the Garda Síochána. We need quick answers on why this special status continues to apply to these people.
I support Senator Glynn's comments on the suicide problem in Ireland. Of the seven deaths considered in Tullamore yesterday at the coroner's court, five were caused by suicide. It is very worrying and many people are concerned. Helplines and freefone numbers must be given greater publicity. Some slippage may have occurred following the new changes in the Health Service Executive in the midlands. There should be a greater concentration on local advertising of these helpline numbers.
I also support Senator Mansergh's comments on the difficulties facing beet growers in the midlands. There has been much talk of developing a depot in Portlaoise, but CIE should quickly disclose the real cost of such a move if it is to happen. There are rumours that a new rail line will have to be put in place for the development at Mallow. If that is the case, there is no use in fooling farmers. It should be spelled out clearly and quickly.
I support the call by Senator Ross for a debate on the Minister's hopes for the universities. I hope that the institutes of technology are addressed. The newspaper reports of the Minister's comments do not seem to cover these institutes, but the recent OECD report stated that they had a very important role to play in education.
We debated problems in accident and emergency departments last week when the Tánaiste was in the House. I supported her views that all vacant beds in hospitals throughout the country should be used to ease the situation in the acute hospitals. The Minister for Defence recently stated that St. Bricin's hospital could be used. Some people have apparently had a look at the hospital and have decided that it is not fit for public patients. Why, therefore, is it fit for Defence Forces personnel? What is the matter with it?
Senators
Hear, hear.
Surely Defence Forces personnel are entitled to the best of treatment. Approximately €1 million was spent recently on rewiring the hospital and on improving wheelchair access. What is going on? Can the Minister for Defence explain to us why this money was spent, yet the place is apparently unsuitable for the treatment of patients?
I support the call made by Senator Ross for a debate on third level education. If this funding is to lead to increased competition within the colleges for funds, it will only highlight the current inadequacy of funding by the Government. It will also lead to the demise of certain faculties in the universities, especially the humanities. There is, without doubt, a concentrated effort by industry and by the Government towards research and development in the universities. This has been very successful in bringing in funds from outside sources. However, some academics have claimed that it has been at the expense of arts and the humanities. The Minister should move quickly to rectify any adverse situation that could arise from such a development. The OECD indicated clearly a 10% cutback in funding for current expenditure within the university sector. The Minister should take steps to ensure that those funds are restored to adequately resource the colleges. She should then let the element of competition come into play for the extra funding, rather than use this funding method which promotes survival of the fittest and to hell with the rest. I am very concerned about the Minister's statement on the matter.
Senator Brian Hayes raised the matter of the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe. He asked now that both Government and Opposition are singing from the one hymn sheet, why the killers have special status. He wants me to ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform why they are in that special category. I will do that because it jarred with me when I heard it on the radio, as I am sure it did with those who read about it in the newspapers.
The Senator also raised the issue of the Minister for Transport's speech in this House last week on Private Members' business, on the Fine Gael motion. I listened on and off to the debate in my office. In the main I have found that the Ministers who come here do a good job and give us good value in what they have to say. Senator Brian Hayes said the speech was meaningless. I presume, as he made the speech, that it was meaningful to the Minister. He would, perhaps, say — I do not hold with this so Senators should not all jump until they have heard me out — that he was going to the Irish Management Institute the following week and that, perhaps, he had his speech prepared with all his points laid out. I do not hold with that. If he had, the Oireachtas Chamber was the place to unveil this, and that is the point made by the Senator.
Senator Ross took up the matter with regard to the second terminal at Dublin Airport. He said the Minister's speech showed disrespect to this House and that he was waffling. He asked why there should not be a question and answer session on these occasions. The Cathaoirleach stated that would require the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to change Standing Orders. I think that would be interesting. However, I remind Senator Ross that Dáil Reform proposals suggested that Ministers should answer on the hoof, so to speak, on issues of the day in the House. I thought this a great idea because I would love answering on the hoof, but apparently the suggestion did not find favour in the Cabinet ranks.
The suggestion seems fair, but the procedure would need to be well managed so that it would not dissolve into a shambles. It is one of the points suggested with regard to Seanad reform. We think it should, perhaps, be discussed at the next meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. This does not mean the Ministers will accept it if, or when, it is activated.
They will have to.
Senator Ross also seeks a debate on the Government's response to the OECD report on higher education. The Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, was here on 16 February and again on 22 March to discuss the report. I accept this was prior to the issuing of this statement. When the Minister came here she stayed for the length of the debate.
With regard to the idea she has put forward for an innovation fund for which the universities will bid, I hope, taking up Senator Ulick Burke's point, the humanities and the arts are not put to one side. I firmly believe that we cannot measure education input or output according to how institutions bid for money. The arts, humanities and associated disciplines should be predominant in all institutions. However, the innovation fund is a long time coming. The Provost of Trinity College, which nominates the Senator, has made great strides in the face of a great deal of opposition to changes to disciplines and mergers of schools and so on. Perhaps he knew this was coming. If an institution demonstrates it has done such work, it can bang the door louder on the ground of innovation. A balance must be maintained in the debate because university education should have general education as its basis, above all else, before one branches off into a particular sphere.
Senator Leyden called on the Minister for Finance to come to the House for a debate on the price of oil. He is on his hobby horse again about prices.
Senator Tuffy referred to the Minister for Education and Science's plans to link funding of third level institutions to performance and their impact on students and I would share her views on that issue. She also raised the health survey, binge drinking and café bars. The issue of café bars is being raised as if it is a new idea. However, we had a long debate on the issue when the intoxicating liquor legislation was before the House. I disagree with the eminent member of the task force who stated more drink outlets are not suitable.
As Senator Coghlan said, tea, coffee and food are available in most public houses. However, café bars involve a different approach to drinking. They will have a different ambience and it will not be case of people drinking pint after pint after pint. It is a more muted way of approaching our favourite pastime and that will be for the better. Café bars sound ideal. Somebody said they are not suitable for Ireland but I do not know why not. One does not have to sit outside and I agree that might not be suitable given our climate. However, the idea behind it is good. When men, in particular, enter bars, they tend to adopt the approach of, "My goodness, how many pints can I have before I have to leave this premises?" whereas one could have a glass of wine, a cup of coffee and a meaningful conversation in a café bar. Would it not be wonderful to have meaningful conversation?
Senator Glynn raised the issue of suicide. I took on board the comments of the County Offaly coroner yesterday and we will seek to have a debate on this issue. The Senator also sought a debate on the spiking of drinks but I do not know how we could debate that issue.
It is a major problem.
I know but how could one fill two hours on the spiking of drinks? I will try to schedule a drink-related debate and include that issue.
Senator Coghlan does not agree with café bars, as he prefers the full blooded variety. However, the legislation on them was fully debated.
Senator Mansergh raised the issue of transporting bulk products by rail. I agree it would be better than heavy trucks transporting products such as beet in front of cars on the road. He stated there are objectors to the modifications of the southside DART stations. Imagine objecting to something which will do so much good if the service operates better. He also referred to the western rail corridor and the rail link between Limerick and Ennis. He invoked Percy French, which was very good.
Senator Norris sought a questions and answers session on the plans for performance-related funding of third level institutions and wondered about the innovation fund. He raised the closure of the Coolock community law centre. I put a question mark beside this when I took my note on it because I do not know how correct is the Senator's assumption. He also referred to No. 19, motion 6 regarding overseas development aid. We will seek to have the Minister attend. He was at this afternoon's meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, and it is too bad they persist in holding the meeting at a time when we can stay only for five minutes. It had promised to be quite a lively debate, but Senator Norris and I had to leave.
Senator Maurice Hayes called for a debate on suicide, echoing Senator Glynn, and higher education. He also raised the EU directive that butchers may send only to the end consumer, that is, the purchaser, and asked if this is being interpreted correctly. Senator Cummins spoke on the task force recommendations on drink. I believe the recommendations were misunderstood.
The issue of according special status to the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe was also raised. I will raise that directly with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell.
Senator Moylan called for a debate on suicide and what the county coroner said in Offaly yesterday. He echoed what Senator Mansergh had said about beet growers and traffic on the roads. Senator Henry said that the institutes of technology were not mentioned in the piece we saw in the newspaper. However, I am sure we saw only a snippet of the whole. Some excellent work is being done; yesterday the Tánaiste was in Athlone at the new nursing school, which is a credit and absolutely wonderful. The Senator also asked why, if Defence Forces personnel were fit to lie in the beds in St. Bricin's, others could not do the same; I do not understand that either — perhaps it simply needs a lick of paint.
Senator Ulick Burke raised the demise of arts and the humanities. I would not like to see the innovation fund set everyone scrambling to be the best class in town, with what might be seen as the more workaday disciplines of the arts and humanities not followed up. Perhaps the Minister should intervene.