The Order of Business is Nos. 1, 2 and 29, motion 12. No. 1 is a motion that was referred to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for consideration. The joint committee has now completed its deliberations. Under the Disability Act 2005, the six Departments named in the motion are required to produce sectoral plans relating to the delivery of services to people with disabilities. The motion seeks the approval of these plans put forward by the Departments concerned and it is proposed to take it without debate. No. 2, statements on the current situation in the Middle East, resumed, will be taken on the conclusion of the Order of Business and will conclude no later than 5 p.m. Notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, Members who have already contributed to the debate on this matter may do so again. Contributions of spokespersons shall not exceed ten minutes and those of all other Senators shall not exceed six minutes, and Members may share time. The Minister is to be called upon to reply no later than ten minutes before the conclusion of the statements. No. 29, motion 12, which relates to pre-nuptial agreements, will be taken from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Order of Business.
In respect of No. 1, may I ask the Acting Leader why the House is not taking this matter today? As I understand it, the relevant committees have not yet debated the sectoral plans produced in the various Departments. As this legislation was put in place in 2005 after a gestation period of approximately four years, the House has a responsibility to debate the matter as soon as possible. I ask him to comment in this regard.
I ask the Acting Leader and all Members to reflect on the distinctive and important role played by the Church of Ireland since the foundation of the State and on the particular ethos that has been brought to bear on Irish medicine and Irish medical practices over many years. In that light, the House should note the strong comments made yesterday by the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin, the Most Reverend John Neill, when he referred to the ongoing controversies surrounding the selection of the new national paediatric hospital, in which a decision has been made in favour of the Mater Hospital.
I raised this issue on the Adjournment last week and received an admission from the Government that no scoring mechanism was put in place by the evaluation task force regarding the six hospitals that made bids for the new national paediatric centre. Although this was the most important medical decision to be taken in respect of children for a generation, the six bids were not scored. To make matters worse, the very terms of reference for that evaluation task force was a McKinsey report containing nine criteria upon which the decision should have been based. However, the Department of Health and Children has admitted that the evaluation task force did not score each bid according to the set nine criteria.
Given Archbishop Neill's comments yesterday and the widespread public concern regarding the fairness of the evaluation process, the House should have a debate on this matter as soon as possible. This is particularly important in view of the comments made by the chairman of the Mater Hospital who stated that the Taoiseach had given an absolute promise, before the evaluation process had taken place, that the facility would end up in the Mater Hospital.
This is not simply a Dublin issue as it affects the best decision for paediatrics nationwide. While we have one chance to make the correct decision, an admission has been made that on a major piece of medical infrastructure, no evaluation ending up with a scoring mechanism took place. This was admitted in the House, at approximately 9.30 p.m. last Wednesday, 11 October. The House must return to this issue soon and I ask the Acting Leader to facilitate this.
I congratulate both Governments for the agreement reached between them last week at St. Andrew's. It is the responsibility of all mainstream political parties in both jurisdictions to support the Governments in their efforts during the coming months to bring about devolved shared government in Northern Ireland. Whatever difficulties may remain, I believe the basis is now in place to find an agreement that will bring about devolved government. I congratulate the Governments on this and ask the Acting Leader to facilitate a debate on the matter next week. I do not seek the Taoiseach's attendance in the House, as any of the three Ministers serving in the Department of Foreign Affairs would suffice to set out a paper and hear the response from all sides.
I am uneasy about taking No. 1 without debate. Almost all Members had an input to make during the passage of the Act and representations were made from all sides. While I do not wish to go against the procedure for dealing with such matters, it is a significant issue pertaining to how disabilities will be addressed under the different headings of health, enterprise, transport, etc. Issues ranging from the kind of bus design to who can get into schools, etc., will have a serious impact on many people. I want to hear an explanation. I would prefer not to accept it if it cannot be taken without debate. A debate on the issue has been withdrawn from the other House. Perhaps this matter can be clarified for Members.
As for the final issue raised by Senator Brian Hayes, I appreciate the need for a debate on the North of Ireland. However, the antics witnessed yesterday in Stormont will be part of the choreography of the coming weeks with people stepping in and out and with umbrage meeting outrage. I concluded that they should be left alone, behind a locked door and told to come out when ready. I was taken by the original idea that there would be only a black and white picture in yesterday's news with no television coverage. That lasted only an hour or two before we were out on the steps again. I am not saying this in a negative way; they have difficult work to do which they would be best to do alone. They should be left for a week or two before the debate is conducted, though it is important that the debate takes place before 24 November.
A number of years ago I raised the matter of the outrage felt by decent people in Limerick city regarding the brutal assassination of Brian Fitzgerald, head of security in the nightclub that imposed the strictest control of drugs in the city. For his pains he met his death. The Garda must be congratulated, yet again, on continuing with the case and bringing a second person to trial.
Hear, hear.
I am not prejudging the trial, that is not my business. It is encouraging that the Garda has moved this forward.
Dare I mention voting machines? I notice the Taoiseach has been talking about them again and has referred to the current voting system as "that old system that we need to get rid of". I happen to agree with the Taoiseach on this issue, though I have been afraid to say it for a number of years. The discussion in the past two or three years has focused on the machines. People were against the type of electronic voting system we tried to introduce. I have not heard any party say it is against electronic voting——
Individuals, including myself, have said it.
——with the exception of some neanderthals and luddites. If we could get the voting right in Trinity College——
I am working on that.
——I can see how the machines might be a help there.
Try using pencils and pens.
This issue is being addressed in the United States prior to the November elections and there is already a great deal of anxiety relating to the types of voting machines that will be used. We can all recall the row about hanging chads in the 2000 presidential election.
I suggest we have a debate where we no longer mention the €67 million that has been wasted on this so far and how much the machines are costing per year. We will say it once and then concentrate on the issue. I think we should move towards electronic voting of a kind in which we can have trust and confidence. This will require a marked paper which can be read like a lottery ticket by a machine and a total calculated. If there are subsequent arguments the paper can be checked. I would like a debate on this issue in a non-party political, non-confrontational manner.
The Taoiseach will be relieved to know Senator O'Toole agrees with him occasionally as he is well known as a critic of the Taoiseach.
He does not know the half of it.
I have a note here from the Disability Federation of Ireland stating it seeks a debate in the Seanad on many issues relating to the sectoral plans. This can be done in two ways. I understand the Government will propose that some time in the medium-term future there will be a talking heads session. The correct way is to postpone approval of this until it has been debated. The only other occasion I can recall where similar approval was given was the Appropriations Bill, where Seanad Éireann's powers are limited in any case. We pass that Bill and then we debate it.
We are trivialising disability by suggesting we will nod it through as if the reports do not matter. This means the Minister for Health and Children, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, the Minister for Transport, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and their officials will escape serious accountability.
This was nodded through one committee in a hurry, it is now being nodded through Seanad Éireann and will be nodded through Dáil Éireann. My party will not accept this. I therefore move amendment No. 1:
That item No. 1 on the Order of Business be taken at 7 p.m. for an open-ended debate, to continue for as long as Seanad Éireann wishes to continue it; at the end of the debate, having heard all of these Ministers or their representatives, the House will then take a decision on whether to approve the sectoral plans.
The idea that sectoral plans to do with what this Government turned into the most elaborate display of hoop-la, bells and whistles when it was announced should be nodded through both Houses of the Oireachtas with virtually no serious debate is preposterous. Each of those Ministers should have been scrutinised before the appropriate Oireachtas committee. That is what accountability means. To ask them questions after the event is not accountability. It is somewhat discomfiting for a Minister and takes up half an hour when he or she could be elsewhere, but it is not accountability. I therefore move the amendment to the Order of Business that a debate should commence at 7 p.m. and continue until all Members of the Seanad have spoken, and then we take a decision.
On an unrelated issue, does the Acting Leader know anything about the peculiar situation concerning penalty points incurred in this country in September, not for breaking an amber light or driving in the wrong place on a motorway, but for driving without insurance, in which 3,642 offences were identified by the Garda. Of the 3,642 offences, in 3,454 cases the Garda could not identify who the drivers were and they got off. Only 180 out of the 3,642 people involved were issued with penalty points because the rest could not be identified.
The Government is probably slightly exuberant because of a couple of aberrant opinion polls. I hope it gets over its exuberance and figures out at least the basic level of competence, which means we cannot have 3,500 different cars identified in a month with virtually 95% of the drivers remaining unpunished even though we know they are driving without insurance. For God's sake, is the Government serious about anything or is it all smoke and mirrors and deception?
I support and welcome the debate called for by Senator Brian Hayes on the location of the National Children's Hospital. I am on record as speaking in the House when the location of the new hospital was announced. The announcement was welcomed with great words and applause, it was said it was long-awaited and so on. Everyone sang from the same hymn sheet on that occasion, particularly——
I did not. I opposed it publicly, as I said.
——-medical personnel as well politicians. Having sat on the Joint Committee on Health and Children, I have engaged in the debate where it was said time and again that the National Children's Hospital should not be confused with a Dublin children's hospital. This is a hospital for the entire country to deal with children from the Inishowen peninsula to the furthest point in Kerry, from the most westerly point in Galway to the most easterly part of Monaghan or Louth. The best thing we could say is that those sick children and their parents should have easy access to that hospital, wherever it is located.
I am particularly sad at the tone the current debate is taking. Medicine does not recognise any boundaries or barriers, particularly religious or political.
What was the point of the committee?
Senator Feeney, without interruption.
Senator Brian Hayes was just off key.
The Senator should explain his interest.
Exactly, I agree with that.
Whether a sick child is Muslim, Christian, Catholic or Protestant should not enter the equation.
Agreed.
Nonsense, of course it does.
Give us a break. Where a woman is sick, she cannot be treated.
The hospital should be located on the best site for the sick children of Ireland and not confused with a Dublin hospital.
There has been a degree of success in the area of road safety. People are now more responsible when it comes to drunken driving. I welcome the compilation of the list of roads around the country with accident blackspots on which gardaí will feature. However, on consulting the list I was surprised to find that there are no roads in County Limerick that were regarded as blackspots. There are many roads in County Limerick on which fatalities have occurred. It amazes me that the Department of the Environment and Local Government does not compile a dossier of accident blackspots in every county and then, in conjunction with the National Roads Authority, do something about them. It would not take a lot of expenditure to take remedial action.
While I welcome the speed camera and the emphasis upon them, I am concerned about a statement made by an executive of Tele-traffic. That company has the exclusive contract to supply all the handheld laser speed guns to the Garda. The executive said it had provided the Garda with a new system to make up revenue. I hope the cautionary principle will operate and these speed guns will not be seen as a revenue making mechanism by the Exchequer. The public should be forewarned and they may then take precautions. It concerns me that the executive that sold these products to the Government would make such a statement.
I second Senator Ryan's amendment to the Order of Business.
Dialogue between the European Community and the United States authorities on the development of an open skies policy for aviation has been ongoing for many years. The Acting Leader will be aware that the Minister for Transport is involved in the discussions, which seem to be getting bogged down. Given that an agreement now appears unlikely, can the Acting Leader arrange for the Minister for Transport to outline to the House the Government position on the open skies policy? I presume that our current bilateral agreement with the United States will continue until such time as the open skies policy is agreed.
I join with Senator Brian Hayes in calling for a debate on the children's hospital. Senator Feeney was inaccurate in what she told the House; I am sure it was unintentional. I raised this issue immediately upon learning of it. I did so in light of the fact that there were calls from a group of senior consultants asking that an international peer review panel be established. It would not have caused a big hold-up, it would only have taken three weeks to review the criteria. This was not done.
Archbishop Neill has commented on the issue. As archbishop, his statements have invariably been moderate, considered and balanced. It is important to listen to him when he speaks on an issue like this. We cannot be coerced into agreement. While I believe in the separation of church and State, we need to listen when someone like Archbishop Neill speaks in such tones.
The children's hospital was closed down and amalgamated with Tallaght Hospital. Undertakings were given at the time but these have now been broken. There is no doubt that this will be a considerable loss to the surrounding area. I live next door to the Mater Hospital and we are living in a traffic jam. Any idiot can see that it is easier to get to Tallaght. If I had any children it would suit me to have the Mater Hospital upgraded and I do not begrudge anything that is brought to the north side of the city.
It is sometimes said that there is no religious boundary in the provision of treatment. This is incorrect and the Mater Hospital is a classic example of this. I raised this when cancer treatment was withdrawn from women on spurious grounds——
So did I.
——that had nothing to do with medicine but everything to do with the completely inappropriate ethical committees that sat in judgment.
Hear, hear.
I do not like Catholic ethical committees. I do not like Protestant ethical committees. Religious sectarianism of any kind does not have a role in this area. The only reason I would support what is described as a Protestant ethos is because it clears those theological conceptions out of the way and places at the centre of treatment the rights and welfare of the patient and the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship. That is an important value which should be open to all citizens of this State, not just Catholics or Protestants.
I want to raise a number of other issues.
Other Senators have indicated they wish to speak, Senator Norris.
I managed to get an extension of this time by 15 minutes, about which I am sure they will all be pleased.
A Senator
For himself.
Not just for myself.
He did it all on his own.
These are serious issues. We put forward the idea of the amendment to the Treaty of Amsterdam. We were given certain indications. We were told, for example, that there were only one or two pieces of information. That is wrong. A total of 34 pieces of information were given. We were told it would be hermetically sealed. The American authorities have indicated that this information is being made available to the FBI and the CIA as well. We should reopen this matter.
On a similar issue, we should have a debate on the Shell to Sea campaign. It is not appropriate that the Garda forces of this State should be enlisted in the interests of multinational corporations, particularly ones that have disgraced themselves throughout the world. It is not appropriate to have an elderly woman pushed to the ground and injured.
Finally, could we have some solidarity and respect for this House from our fellow Members? Yet again today the transport committee meets at 2.30 p.m. to coincide exactly with the Order of Business in this House. That is a gross lack of respect for this House. I have spoken to the Government side. I have had informal agreement. We should pull our members out of that committee. It cannot meet if we all show loyalty. It would be in quorate. I am dismayed by some of my fellow Senators who let us down by turning up at the committee and allowing it to function while they treat this House with absolute and total contempt. By collaborating with the committee, they are bringing this House into disrepute.
An bhféadfaimis cuireadh a thabhairt don Aire Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta, an Teachta Ó Cuív, teacht isteach go dtí an Teach seo agus tuarascáil a thabhairt dúinn ar stádas na logainmneacha Gaeilge i gcomhthéacs na reachtaíochta atá i bhfeidhm i láthair na huaire? Bheadh díospóireacht mar sin thar a bheith cabhrach, mar bheadh sí bunaithe ar fhíricí seachas ráflaí agus míthuiscint. Inviting the Minister, Deputy Ó Cúiv, into the House to discuss placenames in Irish, particularly in the Gaeltacht areas and in the context of the language legislation we now have, would be particularly helpful. I ask the Acting Leader to endeavour to have that debate in the next few weeks. I have no doubt the Minister would be delighted to come into the House, which should be so.
Also, it is right for this House to send best wishes to the political parties in the North of Ireland and to wish them well at this time, which is full of opportunity and potential. We would be wrong to underestimate the strong messages that have come out of the dialogue in Scotland and also the choreography that led to that dialogue. If we want one example of that we found it on "Questions & Answers" this week. One had only to listen to the new tone adopted by a member of the DUP and a member of Sinn Féin on the same programme, and to watch the body language. There is no doubt that powerful forces, minute though they may be and coming from the most unexpected areas, will endeavour to derail this effort. I believe that will not happen but it behoves everyone, not just people in public life, the media and others, to support it. Many people, including the churches, have shown support and attempted to sideline these minority forces, particularly those in the intelligence area. We must be careful to ensure the opportunity we have, which may never return, will not be wasted.
I support the motion by my colleague, Senator Ryan, on sectoral plans on disability. Many Senators took part in the debate on disability legislation and know that this legislation must be closely considered. We have received a request from the Disability Federation of Ireland to consider its concerns. We should do so because we have time and it would be remiss of us not to do so. I seek support in this respect.
A Privacy Bill is on the Order Paper of this House. Unlike the Defamation Bill, it has never been accompanied by an in-depth consultation or examination of its implications. It is clear that the Bill's provisions are of serious concern to the media and while that alone is not enough to merit concern on our part, it should be noted. The concerns expressed are broad and widespread. I suggest we debate the principles of privacy legislation and assist the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform by giving our views in a debate on Second Stage. I ask the Acting Leader to communicate a proposal that we examine this Bill and give our views to the Minister. As it stands, the Bill borders on being dangerous and some legal people believe it is unconstitutional.
The National Children's Hospital is not a Dublin issue. Children in need of the services of the National Children's Hospital come from throughout the country. The location of such a hospital is of importance to communities throughout the country. The recently expressed opinion of Archbishop Neill should be considered, as should the suggestion expressed by colleagues in this House that this matter be given the consideration it deserves.
I congratulate the parties involved at St. Andrew's, especially the Taoiseach for his part in bringing about the agreement. This is not an agreement in the sense we generally understand. It is more a syllabus for examination that the parties are now invited to pass. They should be left to themselves and we should respect people working under great pressure and difficulty. Senator O'Toole made a case for having a debate but the language he used made the case for not having a debate. It is not helpful to refer to antics or refer to people as if they were in a zoo. These people must negotiate with each other and with their own people at the same time. The next few weeks will be crucial and after that, the House can debate the matter.
Regarding the discussion of the National Children's Hospital, I am less concerned about its location than the need for it to be open to all on an ethical basis that everyone can accept. It should not be limited to practices based on a fairly narrow interpretation of Catholic medical ethics. I concur with Senator O'Meara's remarks. As Members are aware, I have an interest in this issue and believe it would be worthwhile setting aside time for a debate on it.
Over the weekend, we learned about the location of speed cameras, which I welcome. Many speed cameras are located along the Border, which brings me back to a point made by Senator McHugh and I in the past. When will an agreement be signed which will allow penalty points to be recognised and applicable on both sides of the Border? People on either side of the Border have a peculiarly cavalier attitude to driving on the other side.
Picking up on the points made by Senator Brian Hayes and Senator Ó Murchú, everyone here salutes the fine work carried out at St. Andrew's. We all agree there should be a debate on this issue. Perhaps it can be decided shortly when would be the most suitable time to hold such a debate? I believe it would be acceptable to all. We all believe the difficulty is only a glitch and I do not believe anyone here will do any damage in any contribution he or she might make. We are proactive and completely supportive of the restoration of the executive in the North.
The Acting Leader and Members will have noted that the chairman of An Bord Pleanála has stated that he would favour local authorities making provision for high-rise developments in their local area plans. He wishes to see clearer policies at local authority level that would give indications as to where high-rise developments would or would not be acceptable. Will they be confined to cities and certain areas of cities? Clearly, this is a very divisive issue, as Members will appreciate.
In view of its importance, could the Acting Leader tell the House whether the Government envisages, through the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and his Department, drawing up a blueprint or strict guidelines in respect of this issue, which I believe are necessary? We have already witnessed the lack of uniformity in so many planning matters between different local authorities throughout the country. Certain guidelines have been produced but in the absence of a directive, many of them are not proving to be very effective. We have witnessed how planning applications have been invalidated differently throughout the country and through different local authority areas. Given the importance of this issue and the considerable value involved——
Does Senator Coghlan have a question for the Leader?
Yes, it is a very important question for the Leader and everyone else. I ask the Acting Leader if he could arrange for the Minister to come to the House soon to address this issue and allow debate on the matter.
Last week, the National Consumer Agency published a report, Putting Consumers First, which deals with the issue of management companies established in new housing estates. The report, which contained many excellent recommendations, was the result of research into the functions of management companies, the different types of management companies, the non-existence of an arms length approach by both developers and those who run management companies and the duties and responsibilities of these companies.
This area is of major importance among many new communities in Dublin and across the country. It was the subject of a Private Members' motion in the House earlier this year. It is opportune for us to revisit the subject in light of the publication of this excellent report and I ask that the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Noel Ahern, come to the House to discuss the report and examine the type of legislation that can be introduced.
I concur entirely with the sentiments expressed by Senator Norris in respect of the persistence of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport in meeting at 2.30 p.m. on Wednesdays.
I thank Senator Brian Hayes for raising the issue of Tallaght Hospital and I add my voice to those who believe there should be a full debate on the matter in this House. I am astonished that the matter has not been fully debated. The issue at stake is not so much denominational as it is political, with the location of the hospital ending up in the Taoiseach's constituency. That does not seem to be a complete coincidence.
As Senator Norris stated, we should listen to the fears expressed yesterday by Archbishop Neill. We should also consider the fact that at least one consortium of businessmen, led by Noel Smyth, offered a free site for a national children's hospital which was turned down for inexplicable reasons without even a hearing by the committee examining the situation. It was decided to examine it after public outcry. It was given a cursory examination and turned down. The decision is fraught with flaws and must be investigated thoroughly.
I cannot understand why it is necessary to put all our eggs in one basket. I have sympathy with Members on the other side who state it is not only a Dublin issue.
We do not have time to debate it today.
We will not debate it.
Go on.
We have debated it.
I will ask a question to the Acting Leader and then finish.
It is not only a Dublin issue. More than anybody, it affects the people of Tallaght, which has the fastest-growing population in Ireland. However, the Mater Hospital is inaccessible to a large number of people who may need treatment extremely quickly. Will the Acting Leader tell the House why we cannot have a children's hospital established as a hub and spokes? A large hub could be established in the Mater Hospital and treatment could also be given to children in Dún Laoghaire, Tallaght and other places. I cannot see what is wrong with that. Perhaps it could be a compromise.
The ethical issue is another matter which can be resolved within an umbrella organisation. However, I cannot understand why it must all be placed in the Taoiseach's constituency.
Will the Acting Leader organise a debate on the register of electors, which was referred to earlier? I am mindful of the extremely good work done by local authorities, using enumerators such as those used in the census, to complete a thorough investigation of the register. Many people missing from the register for the last local elections will be added. However, a danger exists that many people who should not be on the register will remain on it. People studying or working away from home may be included on more than one register. Voting machines may provide the answer, as if we had electronic voting people could not vote more than once. This could be included in a debate on the register of electors.
I thought Senator Ross would support me. With all the talk about decentralisation, the national children's hospital represents a huge opportunity missed. I felt the most appropriate place for this hospital was the midlands.
Hear, hear.
We have a great road network north, south, east and west.
I thank the Senator for the praise.
It would be extremely accommodating for the citizens of Donegal, Galway, Cork and the midlands.
A number of Senators have indicated they wish to speak. Does Senator Bannon wish to raise any other issues?
People from the midlands and west of Ireland must go to Dublin the night before——
Does the Senator have another issue to raise? A number of Senators have indicated.
Yes, I do. Farmers from all over Ireland are across the road in Buswells Hotel and politicians are tripping over themselves agreeing with their 2007 budget submission.
Senator Bannon was there himself.
I call for a debate on the income crisis in farming at present. Farmers' incomes are declining rapidly and many issues are raised in their submission document which must be addressed.
The word "crisis" was not used.
A large number of stealth taxes have been introduced by this Government during the past nine years.
Senator Bannon without interruption.
Did they come up in their four by fours?
We have seen the escalation of costs associated with farming. Those are issues that must be addressed. Farmers feel that there is a weak Minister for Agriculture and Food who sold us out to the EU. We must have an urgent debate on the decline in farming incomes, an issue of concern to us all.
I also support the call for a debate on the new draft register of electors. I am puzzled by and alarmed at the number of people who have been left off it — almost 20% of the population is excluded. I know people who have been living in the same place for 40 years but who work elsewhere. They can be 12 hours away from home and cannot be facilitated by local authority representatives calling to collect forms. They are automatically eliminated from the register and I am therefore calling for a debate on the issue before it is too late.
I support the calls for a debate on agriculture, and I would like to commend the Minister on the great work she is doing. I would especially like to seek a debate on bio-fuels. Last week we had a debate on energy and there was a strong demand for excise duty to be removed from home-grown fuel. We have a case for such measures, particularly in light of the quantitative restriction law in the European Union. This country has already had a test case heard for Campus Oil, where we were allowed our own national refinery. I see no difficulty with all excise duties being removed from home-grown fuels. It would offer a wonderful opportunity to farmers interested in alternative crops.
I also call for a debate on Sudan. In recent years there has been ethnic cleansing on the basis of religious belief among the population in the south of the country. Further similar efforts are under way in Darfur in the west of Sudan. This is a catastrophe that could reach genocidal proportions because of the colour of people's skin. This country has a fundamentalist regime and it is of great concern that questions have arisen over the United States placing restrictions on necessary information.
Is the Senator seeking a debate on the issue?
I can, however, understand why the United States would want information in light of the events of 11 September 2001.
The Senator cannot elaborate. We are out of time.
I wholeheartedly support those who said we should avoid a debate on Northern Ireland. The prize of peace and agreement there is so worthwhile that at such a fragile time we should avoid debating the issue. We should be listening now, not pronouncing.
I agree with Senator Ó Murchú's remarks, however, about listening to Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson of the DUP speaking recently. I was especially impressed by his pronunciation of "Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis" and "Sinn Féin Ard-Chomhairle". His Gaeilge seems far better than that of many others. He would not have used such words only a short time ago.
I also agree with Senator Maurice Hayes. We can do something about the penalty points system on an all-Ireland basis. We should keep quiet about some things and speak about others. It is in our hands to do something about road deaths in this part of the country. We have done some work, the recent figures have been encouraging, and we must support the work that will make a difference. The question of speed cameras and other areas where we can work together, instead of those areas where we can do nothing, should be to the forefront.
The draft register of electors is a mess because local authorities are applying different standards when compiling the register. We should address this serious issue quickly.
I welcome Government support for the Private Members' motion tonight and look forward to the full debate. I ask that we bring the Minister for Finance or the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform into the House to debate stamp duty. We must know the Government's plans, if any, on the issue. Do they amount to an election promise or are they an aspiration? Will they be delivered in the budget? What precisely does the Government plan to do? Those who intend to buy or sell property in the coming months are confused. It would be no harm if a Government spokesman were to come before the House to discuss the issue.
The Senator should wait until the budget.
On a point I raised previously, it should be possible, when the House is sitting for two days, to take four matters on the Adjournment. I intend to write a second letter to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges seeking to have the issue addressed and call on Senators to support me. Of the nine matters submitted for debate on the Adjournment today, only three will be taken. This is not fair on Senators who sought a debate on a matter but were refused. I ask that the number of matters taken be increased when the House sits for two days in a week.
I support Senator Bannon's call for a debate on the register of electors. Perhaps we could defer the general election until such time as the matter is sorted out.
The new children's hospital will be the largest project undertaken by the State in the medical area for decades. Senator Brian Hayes and others have done us a great service in discovering that no scoring process was employed in the evaluation of the six sites chosen as possible locations for the new facility. The rage felt by people in Tallaght is shared by staff in St. James's Hospital who believe their facility is in a much better position to serve the people, certainly in terms of access, because it is a national hospital.
It is of great concern that the chairman of the board of the Mater Hospital, in addressing a function in the hospital attended by the Taoiseach, thanked the Taoiseach for fulfilling his promise to have the national children's hospital located on the Mater Hospital site and for his undertaking that the new facility would be completed before the 150th anniversary of the hospital. The Taoiseach did not contradict the chairman's remarks. For the purposes of clarity, it would be a good idea if the House debated this matter.
One cannot ask the Taoiseach for clarity.
I ask that the Minister for Health and Children comes before the House to explain recent severe cutbacks in patient transport services to hospital appointments, specifically in the Health Service Executive western region where residents have been brought to the nearest hospitals and health centres. In the past two months, I have encountered harrowing cases, including one of a 90 year old man who was refused transport to an appointment and one of a visually impaired man who was refused transport from the Mater Hospital in Dublin last week. Transplant patients have also been refused transport and old and vulnerable people are losing these services. The Minister should state whether this is a national trend or one that is confined to the HSE western region. It is incredible that I must raise this issue again. I ask that the Minister for Health and Children address it immediately.
The Pensions Board recently expressed concern about the decision of Aer Lingus pilots to use their pension fund to buy shares in their company. I do not often agree with the Pensions Board but in this case I do. I ask the Deputy Leader to invite the relevant Minister, probably the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, to come before the House to state whether he agrees with the concerns expressed by the board and indicate whether employees should use their pension fund to buy shares in their own company. This practice puts at risk the pensions fund. Given the volatile circumstances prevailing at Aer Lingus and Ryanair, employees could end up losing their pension fund.
Does the Senator have a question?
Yes, I ask that the Minister come before the House to indicate whether he agrees with the Pensions Board. It is wrong that employees use their pension fund for this purpose. Emergency legislation is required to protect the pension funds of all employees. If the recent action of Aer Lingus pilots was a blatant abuse of their pension fund, it is surprising the Minister has not responded to the comments made by the Pensions Board. An urgent response is required.
Ireland was recently ranked fourth in the world in terms of trade and investment. While this achievement must be welcomed, the fact that we languish further down the table in the area of technology and production is a worrying sign. Yesterday this was put into sharp focus when I stood in a 68,000 sq. ft. factory in Donegal which has been empty for ten years. Three years ago a private investor bought it and invested in it, installing all the modern conveniences and making it a state-of-the art facility with instant access to broadband. We have a worrying situation because nobody is biting. Nobody is interested.
Does Senator McHugh have a question for the Leader?
The Chair should either be equitable and let everybody have his or her say, or let nobody speak. This always happens. The Senators who speak last have approximately 30 seconds to make their points. I ask the Chair to allow me to finish my point.
The Chair must rule.
At our peril we ignore the primary and secondary sectors in this country. Our farmers are being rewarded for not farming. Our pelagic fishermen have their boats tied up in Greencastle and Killybegs. We must think outside the box and stop getting carried away with the spin that our economy is going well. Our economy is hanging by a thread because we ignore the primary and secondary sectors.
Does Senator McHugh have a question for the Leader?
Why are we not supporting a timber processing plant in the north west that would create 1,000 jobs in the morning? Why is the Government failing to do that?
That is not a question.
We should focus on the primary and secondary sectors, not just the tertiary sector.
Hear, hear.
Every ESB customer in the country faces energy cost increases of 20% form 1 January 2007. Last week we discussed the green paper on energy. Throughout that document we find the words "transparent" and "cost-effectiveness".
Does Senator Ulick Burke have a question for the Leader?
I do. I have tried on five different occasions, through every method open to me, including a parliamentary question in the Dáil through a colleague, in debate here on numerous occasions, as recently as last Wednesday when I asked the Minister if he would provide details of a contract given to Tynagh Energy——
That was debated. We will not hear it again.
Although it was debated, we were not answered. I want an answer now. It is a simple process. I ask the Acting Leader if we can have the details of a contract which states that 100% of the capacity of that generating station is to be paid for by the Government and the contract that was done for the ESB, while as little as 25% of that capacity might be used on any given day. That is what they call efficiency. There is something behind it. Gama Construction built this and we cannot find out who are the investors that have bought it. If the Acting Leader can give me the answer I want, we can debate it another day.
A multitude of questions has been asked and I do not know how it will be fair to those who want to contribute to the debate on the Middle East if I answer them comprehensively. The clocks seem to be running ten minutes fast on the hour.
There were 24 speakers on the Order of Business today.
I am also aware of the Standing Orders of the House. The first matter, item 1, the Disability Bill, was raised by Senators Brian Hayes, O'Toole, Ryan and O'Meara. This matter is to be taken without debate. I suggest the resolution be passed. The Leader gave an undertaking that this would be debated and I give a similar undertaking. I understand it will take place in the next fortnight to three weeks. It is a serious matter and merits full debate. We could not do it justice in this afternoon's timescale. I urge that the Whips meet and agree a time for this debate. There are serious issues here. The Disability Bill was debated comprehensively and well in this House and this matter can be dealt with in the same way. It needs a considered approach and more time. That is why we should wait. I propose not to take the amendment but to put the resolution without debate.
The National Children's Hospital was raised by Senators Brian Hayes, Feeney, Norris, O'Meara, Maurice Hayes, Ross, Bannon and Henry while Senator Feighan raised related health service issues. I noted what the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. John Neill, said and he has every right to say it. I am aware of the contribution the Church of Ireland has made to medical services. It brings an important dimension to that debate. We discussed that here when we considered the transfer of the Adelaide Hospital and the necessity to maintain the ethos. Religious ethos is important, be it Church of Ireland, Muslim or Roman Catholic. The morality of the patient, not the ethos of the hospital, should determine outcomes.
Senators
Hear, hear.
That was Senator Feeney's point, that the care of the patient is the paramount consideration——
The facts she stated were wrong.
Just as Senator Norris is capable of interpreting Senator Feeney's words I am capable of interpreting myself, as I have just done.
Senator Dardis interpreted Senator Feeney's words, not his own.
On the location of the hospital, notwithstanding what Senator Norris said about hub and spoke, we need the hub.
Senator Ross said that.
We cannot have the spokes without the hub. We need a national centre of excellence. This was determined by an independent committee. In my experience of such determinations it would be unusual for the committee to have used a points system——
Unusual? It is project management.
Although the determination has been made, everybody wants the ball back to play the game again. The best course is to build the facility and ensure the patients are looked after in the best possible way and receive the best care, which they will get in a national centre of excellence. A point was made on what is best for the patients and for paediatrics, and that is the overriding consideration.
The St. Andrew's agreement was raised by Senators Brian Hayes, O'Toole, Ó Murchú, Maurice Hayes, Coghlan and Quinn. We should stand back. I agree with Senator O'Toole that it is up to the parties to sort out their futures. Hopefully they will be given the time and space to do that. The first deadline is 10 November and the second is the 24 November. We should wait until the first, and possibly the second, deadline has passed before we debate the matter in detail. I agree with the remarks on the Taoiseach, the British Prime Minister and everybody associated with what was done at St. Andrew's. It was fruitful, and a major step forward. Hopefully the nuances can now be sorted and the glitch, as the Secretary of State described it, can be overcome and we can come to a lasting settlement involving devolved government and an executive in Northern Ireland.
I have nothing to say on the assassination of Mr. Brian Fitzgerald other than that I agree with Senator O'Toole's remarks on the Garda. Senator O'Toole also raised the matter of e-voting while Senators Michael Kitt, Bannon, Ormonde and Lydon raised the related matter of the electoral register. While I am an e-voting enthusiast, I accept the need for a paper trail. People must have confidence in the system and this is the only way they can. The hardware is fine; it is a question of finding the suitable software and backup. I hope e-voting is introduced because it is a step in the right direction. It is curious that Ireland, one of the largest software exporters in the world and a leader in this area, does not have electronic voting.
The register of electors is a more serious concern than the voting method. In my county the council recently circulated a letter saying just over 20% had responded to the house-to-house invitations to be put on the register and that people would drop off the register. That is serious. There is an onus on the State and the local authorities to ensure the register is up to date and that as many people as want to vote can do so and will not be impeded.
The matter of penalty points was raised by Senators Ryan, Finucane, Maurice Hayes and Quinn. I accept Senator Ryan's point about the numbers without insurance. However, we are all subject to the law and if there is a loophole in road traffic legislation, that loophole will be found. Identification is an important matter and one cannot go after people willy-nilly if they are not properly identified.
The point about both sides of the Border is important. When southern drivers go to the North and Northern drivers go south of the Border they appear to ignore the rules of the road in those jurisdictions. Perhaps when the Executive and the Assembly are up and running and there is more co-ordination between North and South, this matter can be dealt with effectively.
With regard to accident blackspots, I believe that is being dealt with. My local authority received money over several years from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to deal with accident blackspots. I do not know if that is still the case but it certainly was until a few years ago. The Garda is on record as saying that it is not a matter of revenue, regardless of what the man from America said. I accept what the Garda says.
What does the Government say?
Senator Daly referred to the open skies agreement. I will invite the Minister for Transport to the Seanad to discuss the issue.
Senator Norris referred to the requirements regarding passenger information. I am uncomfortable about that as well. It was pointed out this morning that a certain state was able to intervene to stop some flights on the basis of something that cropped up on a computer. The situation can get out of hand and there are civil liberty issues involved but we have debated the matter. There must be some level of security and, given the American experience on 11 September 2001, some of what has happened is understandable. Nevertheless, there is an issue in that area.
It is wrong to state that a multinational enlisted the help of the Garda. That did not happen. The Garda is responsible for maintaining the law, ensuring that there is peaceable protest and that people can go to work. That is why the gardaí are at that location. It is not at the behest of the multinational.
Senator Norris is right about committees. I have no control over whether people attend a committee meeting or come to the Seanad but the committees should facilitate the House. Senator Ó Murchú raised the matter of Irish placenames. I will see if we can arrange something on that matter.
Senator O'Meara and Senator Maurice Hayes referred to the privacy Bill. Senator O'Meara made the important point that while the provisions of the Bill might be of concern to the media, they might not be of concern to us. There is an important distinction. I accept that the matter should be teased out and the way to do it is on Second Stage, when the principle of the Bill is discussed. The Minister has always shown that he is amenable to accepting ideas on Second Stage and including them in a Bill. However, I will see if there can be consultations with him prior to that.
Senator Coghlan referred to the chairman of An Bord Pleanála and high rise buildings. That is a matter to be decided by each local authority in its development plan. Hopefully, the board will fall into line with those development plans but, as matters currently stand, it can disregard them, which is a curious situation. It is a matter that should be debated.
Senator Morrissey referred to the National Consumer Agency report and management companies. It is an important issue to which we should return. We discussed it previously with regard to housing estates. It is one thing to have such management companies for apartment blocks but it is another matter to have them for housing estates.
Senator Kitt referred to the register of electors, which I dealt with earlier. Senator Bannon gave his single transferable speech on the farmers. It seems to be the same speech he gives on the medical service, transport and everything else.
Everybody wants the children's hospital to be moved provided it is moved to their constituency. Perhaps the middle of the Bog of Allen is as good a place as any for the hospital but it has been decided to locate it at the Mater Hospital and I believe that is a good location for it.
I agree we should have a debate on agriculture. However, it is important to know the statistics rather than what the IFA says. Farm incomes rose significantly during the past 12 months; that is statistically correct.
The related matter of biofuels was raised by Senator Hanafin. It is part of the IFA budget proposals to provide some assistance for biofuels. They definitely require assistance if they are to be economical. Farmers will not grow these crops if they are not profitable. It is something we should discuss.
The issue of Sudan, although not strictly relevant, could be raised in the debate on the Middle East. Senator Browne raised the issue of stamp duty. The Tánaiste and leader of the Progressive Democrats did not say stamp duty would be changed in the forthcoming budget but that it would be renegotiated when the Progressive Democrats go back into Government——
That will be a long time.
We know how many days between now and then.
At least that indicates an ability——
Tell that to the auctioneers.
——to be able to do something about it——
I am not so sure about that.
——and I do not expect that Senator Browne will have a similar opportunity.
The most unpopular leader in the country said it.
I agree with Senator Terry's remarks about pension funds. It would be extremely dangerous and prejudice the pensions of the people involved to invest the pension fund in Aer Lingus. Anybody involved in investment will advise one to spread the risk. It might be plausible and laudable but it would be extremely dangerous. I note it went off the table very quickly the following morning.
What will the Government do about? That is the point. The Government is standing by. Should the Government let it happen?
Let the Acting Leader speak without interruption.
I will answer the question. The Government has no influence on what they do with their pension fund. It is their fund.
The Acting Leader without interruption.
The Acting Leader is inviting interruptions.
The matter raised by Senator McHugh is more appropriate for the Adjournment debate, although there are national questions about industrial policy at the centre of the question.
Senator Ulick Burke raised the issue of energy and the Green Paper. I need not answer that as it was answered last week.
It was not.
If the Minister cannot answer the question, I certainly cannot.
On a point of order, the propriety of the Acting Leader's responses to Members today and the fact that he wrote them on the back of the Order Paper is proof that since no answers are given, this is a waste of time.
It has taken 15 minutes to answer all the questions. Everybody who spoke on the Order of Business has been given a response.
Senator Ryan moved an amendment to the Order of Business——
On a point of order, my question was not answered. Is that silence an endorsement of the Government's attitude to the neglect of the primary and secondary sectors?
I cannot control the replies given by the Acting Leader. Senator Ryan has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business, "That No. 1 be taken at the conclusion of No. 29, motion No. 12." Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
Tá
- Bannon, James.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, Fergal.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Henry, Mary.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Norris, David.
- O’Meara, Kathleen.
- O’Toole, Joe.
- Phelan, John.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Ross, Shane.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Terry, Sheila.
Níl
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Callanan, Peter.
- Cox, Margaret.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dardis, John.
- Feeney, Geraldine.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Glynn, Camillus.
- Hanafin, John.
- Hayes, Maurice.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kett, Tony.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lydon, Donal J.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Minihan, John.
- Mooney, Paschal C.
- Morrissey, Tom.
- Moylan, Pat.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Phelan, Kieran.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- White, Mary M.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.