Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Jun 2012

Vol. 215 No. 14

Order of Business

The Order of Business is No. 1, motion regarding the proposal for a directive on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the European Union, to be taken without debate on the conclusion of the Order of Business; No. 2, statements on "A Decade of Commemorations", to be taken on the conclusion of No. 1 and to conclude no later than 1.45 p.m. with the contributions of group spokespersons not to exceed eight minutes and the contributions of all other Senators not to exceed five minutes, the Minister to be called on to reply to the debate no later than 1.35 p.m.; No. 3, Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2012 [Dáil] — Committee and Remaining Stages, to be taken at 1.45 p.m. and to conclude no later than 4 p.m.; and No. 4, motion on earlier signature of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2012, to be taken on the conclusion of No. 3, without debate.

I wish to notify Members that next week I have arranged for statements on the Euro-Science Open Forum 2012. As Senators will know, Dublin is the city of science this year. Senator Quinn has previously called for a debate on this subject, so I have arranged that for next week.

Without wishing to sound like a broken record, I have asked on numerous occasions when the Government will publish the pyrite report and its response to it. I am beginning to bore myself with this matter but it is too important to let go. I would remind the Leader that the Government promised to have a report out by the end of March. It then promised to have the report by the end of June, yet it is still not forthcoming. I know the Leader has been following up this matter and I appreciate that. I would like a commitment, however, that when the report is published time will be set aside in this House for proper debate on it with the Minister present. I would also remind the Government that the Statute of Limitations on this matter is six years. Many residents whose houses are affected by pyrite have been left high and dry by their insurance companies. The longer this goes on the more likely it is they will become statute barred. Therefore, the longer the Government delays this matter, the fewer the number of people who will have recourse to the courts. We have a Bill in preparation that we are waiting to introduce, but we must first see the pyrite report. I am hoping that it will deal with many of the concerns of thousands of people across the country.

When is it intended to publish the report on the Government's proposals on property tax? We have had numerous discussions here on the household tax, and I will not go back over old ground concerning how badly that was handled. At the time, the Government said it would publish fair and just proposals on property tax. I believe that report is ready, but the Government did not publish it before the referendum for obvious reasons. When will that be published and made available to the Houses of the Oireachtas in order that people will know the type and amount of property tax they will be asked by the Government to pay next year?

I was a little bemused that the Taoiseach in response to my party leader, Deputy Micheál Martin, in the Dáil yesterday would not give any confirmation of what he said to or discussed with Chancellor Merkel on the day of the referendum count last Friday. The exchange in the Dáil yesterday was astonishing when the Taoiseach could not even tell the Leader of the Opposition or other party leaders what he said to Chancellor Merkel and what she said to him. It raises questions as to whether the Taoiseach even spoke about changes to the ESM or about getting a deal for Ireland on debt. He has now said he has written to the relevant leaders across Europe. Will he publish that letter and will the Leader ask him to do so? The Irish people are entitled to know the Government's position. People need to know what the Government is seeking. Does it entail a debt write-down or the ESM taking over the bank debt? What is the Government's position?

A question please, Senator.

I ask the Leader to check with the Department of the Taoiseach and to ask the Taoiseach to publish the letter he wrote to the EU Heads of Government and to share the Government's position with the Irish people. What is our negotiating position? If the Taoiseach could not even tell elected Members of the other House yesterday——

It is well known.

It is not well known.

It is absolutely known.

It is not well known.

Allow Senator Darragh O'Brien to continue without interruption. Has the Senator a question for the Leader?

I would like to know the Government's position. What is its negotiating position? What is it looking for from Europe and from Chancellor Merkel?

It is a simple question. If the Taoiseach cannot tell us that, perhaps the Leader can tell us. I ask the Leader to check with the Taoiseach if he will publish the letter he wrote. I do not see any reason he should not do so. It should not be a secret as to what Ireland is looking for. The Taoiseach could not tell the leader of my party yesterday what the Government's position is on this matter. The Irish people deserve to know that. I ask the Leader to take this matter up with him.

In response to what Senator Darragh O'Brien has said, I am sure the Leader will respond. Senator O'Brien has raised the question as to what the Government is looking for from Europe. The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, in an interview on "Morning Ireland" this morning, and I do not know if the Senator heard it, gave a very clear answer to that question——

The Senator would say that.

The Minister was not on the phone to Chancellor Merkel. That is the problem.

——and cut through the "smoke and daggers", as a previous leader of the Senator's party might have said.

Was there a conference call between the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, and Chancellor Merkel as well?

Allow Senator Bacik to continue without interruption.

He cut through the fog of confusion——

A Senator

By the Government advisers. The Taoiseach even blamed them yesterday.

Senator Bacik to continue without interruption.

——that the Opposition is trying to create around this issue. It is very clear, as Minister Rabbitte said. What the Government is seeking is a restructuring or alleviation of the bank debt. It is as simple as that. That was what the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, said and he proceeded to explain why——

Did the Taoiseach ask Chancellor Merkel that last Friday?

——and that was very clearly set out. That is the Government's position.

Did the Taoiseach ask Chancellor Merkel that last Friday?

Senator O'Brien, please. Can we hear Senator Bacik without interruption? Has the Senator a question for the Leader?

The Senator is trying to confuse the issue.

Did he ask her did she have a good weekend or what?

Senator Bacik, without interruption.

My question to the Leader relates to a matter Senator Norris raised yesterday. I want to support the Senator in calling for a debate on homophobia and bullying. On the Order of Business in this House on 17 May we marked IDAHO, the International Day of Action Against Homophobia and Homophobic Bullying. At a meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality that morning, as Senator Conway explained, presentations were made by a number of groups working in the area of LGBT rights, which set out for us very clearly some of the very worrying statistics around homophobic bullying in Ireland, particularly among young people and school age students. Senator Norris raised that issue yesterday and I support him in calling for that debate, as we did on 17 May.

I welcome the fact that we will have a debate today on the decade of commemorations with the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, in attendance. As part of that debate we should consider the role of the national cultural institutions. It is something Senator Mac Conghail raised in this House in recent weeks and on which there has been a good deal of discussion in the media. I look forward to a robust and a considered exchange with the Minister on that issue during this morning's debate.

I support the calls that have been made in the past few days for a detailed debate on the question of the so-called constitutional convention. It is in danger of becoming a complete farce. There is a ragbag of issues involved — lowering the voting age to 17 and restricting the presidential term to five years, a proposal I made 15 to 20 years ago but nothing of——

(Interruptions).

Allow Senator Norris to continue without interruption.

Thank you. There is nothing whatever about some of the really serious issues. Even with regard to the Presidency, there was a report in 1998, signed up to by all the parties, which stated that the nomination process was completely undemocratic and unfair. The report made recommendations which were adopted by all parties. This matter was raised in the other House and was defeated by the Government. Is it serious about real constitutional reform? I rather doubt it is. Its composition is also questionable in that there is nobody from an expert constitutional background from the universities and nobody with experience in this area. It is a completely cosmetic exercise designed to divert the people. The reform of Seanad Éireann or its abolition are not tabled. If this matter is not to be considered by the constitutional convention, then the whole thing is an insult to the Irish people and to everybody involved in the convention.

Senators

Hear, hear.

I get the feeling that there is a whiff coming off this House similar to that which emanated from the Irish House of Lords when it was about to be extinguished and the then authority created a series of new peers like mushrooms all over the place so that it could abolish it. I can smell similar tactics operating around this joint. I am very glad that my ancestors voted against the abolition, against the union——

My ancestors did not have a vote.

——and for Catholic emancipation. I hope this kind of spirit will continue in this Upper House. I would be very concerned about this. I would like a full debate on it. The Seanad must be considered in it, otherwise it is not worth a damn.

I welcome very much what Senator Bacik said about the international day on homophobia. It is in danger of being overlooked. Regrettably in the Minister's contribution on the day, which was very well intentioned, it was subsumed into the general area of bullying. Bullying is very important as a general subject but there is a specific issue here in light of the extraordinary degree of homophobia that still continues to prevail in this country and within all the churches, including my own.

We have entered the summer period and hopefully the sun will shine on our beautiful island and the number of tourists who will come here will increase during the next few months. When I go to restaurants and meet people in the hospitality industry they regularly tell me that the reduction of the VAT rate to 9% made a huge different in terms of tourism and employment. I request the Leader to ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to come to the House at some stage for a debate on the Gathering. It is an innovative and interesting concept that was launched in recent weeks. It will encourage people of Irish decent throughout the world to make a special effort to visit Ireland in 2013. Communities around the country have been encouraged to run events and to up the ante to encourage people who would have connections with their communities to spend time in Ireland during 2013. It is a good initiative that deserves the support of this House and of all Irish citizens throughout the world and it deserves to be embraced by our embassies and business community throughout the world. Members may have ideas that could feed into the Gathering project and such a debate would be very worthwhile. Tourism is our only natural resource and were tourist numbers to increase it would have a massive benefit for our economy. A debate on tourism with a specific focus on the Gathering could be very useful.

I support Senator Norris's comments on the convention on the constitution. At a time when the Government has indicated one of the items for discussion will be the reduction of the voting age to 17, the Department of Defence has announced one must be 18 to join the Defence Forces. The reason I support Senator Norris is because I advise the Government to tread cautiously in launching any referendum because it will not have the support of Fianna Fáil if it launches a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad——

——especially if it puts down a simple "Yes" or "No" question and does not give the people an opportunity to discuss whether the House should be reformed, which I believe the vast majority of people would want. Many editorials in the media have indicated this also. I caution Government to tread very carefully if it goes down this road.

We saw what happened with the referendum on the powers of inquiry for the Dáil and Seanad when the Government did not have universal support. Since the Constitution was first introduced in 1937, it has been proven that referenda put before the people have passed only when they received political consensus. Where there was a lack of political consensus, the referenda have fallen and Fianna Fáil was the victim of this also when it tried to change the electoral system in the late 1950s.

With regard to the day against homophobia, I wish to bring another issue to the attention of the Leader and I would be interested to hear his comments on it. This is with regard to the persistent and regular references — it is somewhat relevant in the week that is in it — to Giovanni Trapattoni in the sports pages of our national newspapers as "the 73-year-old". We see constant references to the 73-year-old who did this or that.

It is the new 50.

If Mr. Trapattoni was 53, 43 or 33 it would not be mentioned at all.

He looks well on it.

This also gives me an opportunity to wish the Irish team well. We will have a feast of sport over the weekend and the Irish will be all over the world. I wonder whether there is a breach of any laws in this regard in that in my opinion and that of others it is ageist. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to make reference to Mr. Trapattoni as a 73-year-old. Why not refer to him as the Irish manager who is doing a good job for Ireland and who hopefully will qualify from the group stages.

Senators

Hear, hear.

I echo Senator Mooney's comments and I see he is wearing his green tie I am sure in honour of the forthcoming matches which I am sure we will all enjoy. I also send my best wishes to the Irish team and its wonderful manager, Mr. Trapattoni, whose age shall henceforth be forgotten.

I welcome Transparency International's report, Money, Politics, Power: Corruption Risks in Europe, published yesterday. I welcome it although its content on Ireland is less than welcome. It reminds us yet again that we still do not have a register of lobbyists, something we inherited from the previous Government which made no effort to have such a register. I see the report as something that places continuous pressure on both Houses to do something about it and to be the Government which does change it. I know there are plans for such a register but I hope this register will be mandatory. We should acknowledge that we are lobbied night, noon and morning. We are lobbied by e-mail, over coffee, in the AV room and in Buswells Hotel. It is a constant round of lobbying and people outside the buildings are not aware of the extent to which we are lobbied. Although sometimes it looks like a conversation, we are in fact constantly being lobbied and I for one would very much like to see a register of lobbyists introduced as a matter of urgency. I suggest to the Leader that this House might take a lead on this matter and debate it as early as he can arrange it.

Senator O'Keeffe referred to being lobbied in the AV room. One of the issues on which we have all had to reflect in recent years with regard to our economic woes is a failure of business ethics at many levels, particularly in banking, where people made short-term and self-interested decisions to the detriment of the community. As some colleagues will know, next week I will bring forward a Private Members' Bill, the business undertakings disclosure of overpayments Bill, the aim of which is to create a statutory obligation on undertakings or individuals who receive an overpayment to disclose it to the payer and facilitate its return. Ethical business practice would demand people disclose such an overpayment but good ethics should in many cases be backed up by good law. A briefing on this will take place in the audio visual room shortly after 11 a.m. I know colleagues are very busy but I would be very grateful if people could pass through for a brief outline of what the Bill will deal with.

There has been much talk about the constitutional convention and Senators Mac Conghail and Bradford have called for a debate on it. The article by Dr. Conor O'Mahony, a lecturer in constitutional law in UCC in The Irish Times today is required reading for the Government. What he has to say is very damning. He rightly diagnosis the very piecemeal, half-hearted and unstructured approach——

——to constitutional reform. I am one of those who believes our Constitution is excellent and I favour the approach of an item by item analysis and that we should have stand-alone referenda from time to time, as painful as this might be for the Government to contemplate. Although I am grateful for the certain degree of consultation that has gone on between the Government and the various political groupings in the House, I have reservations about the structure of the constitutional convention and the idea of randomly picking people from the electoral register. I presume some people will say they are not interested. There is also the issue of the inter-meshing of elected representatives and members of the public. Dr. O'Mahony rightly identifies that what happened in 1996 was a far superior approach whereby people with expertise and a track record made very considered recommendations, only one or two of which were ever brought forward in referenda. He rightly states it is strange to expect anything better would come from this. It seems to be a process that was driven by the desire of one party in government to make its mark on history but without thinking through what constitutional change actually requires. I would welcome a debate on this in the House very soon so we can discuss some of these issues. It was often stated that at the time of the Second Vatican Council the various bishops who arrived immediately threw out the agenda prepared for them by the Curia. If the constitutional convention does meet, it might be a good thing if the first thing it did was to state it would not deal with the set menu as prescribed by the Government but consider what issues should first get its attention.

Hear, hear, but it would be even better if the Government agreed to implement some of them.

Let us have a debate in the Seanad as soon as possible as a first step.

Senators

Hear, hear.

I thank Senator Mullen for teeing up my views on this matter. I agree with his request for a debate on the constitutional convention. While I am sure my views as to where it should go and what issues should be prioritised would differ from those of Senator Norris, it is urgent that we have a debate not only on the make up of the convention, but also on its purpose. I will repeat what I have stated previously. This House has 60 elected Members and the Dáil has 166 elected Members. Within this body of men and women we have every possible proponent of every possible idea with regard to constitutional change. Virtually every one of the so-called weighty matters to come before the constitutional convention has already been investigated or dissected by the Law Reform Commission or various other reports or agencies. The Members of both Houses should be leading the debate on any possible constitutional change. The constitutional convention sounds an attractive body but what the country needs is not the politics of soundbite but the politics of substance. We need weighty debate on the Constitution and the constitutional convention prior to its establishment. We have seen the list of so-called prioritised questions to put before it. One does not need to be a genius in any respect, political or otherwise, to know what its deliberations will be on the idea of reducing the voting age to 17. One does not need to be a prophet to know what it will say with regard to the term of office of the President. However there are issues which need to be debated but this debate should begin and end in the Houses of the Oireachtas. For better or worse we are the elected people and we should be the constitutional convention. It is a proposal of the Government so let us debate here the merits of the constitutional convention and let us tease it out.

These are questions that need to be raised. There are constitutional provisions which need to be changed but we in this House in conjunction with the Lower House have the capacity to be the leaders of that debate. A constitutional convention would simply rehearse debates that have already occurred. The article I read today referred to the 1996 work. All of this has been investigated and written up by many bodies. We, the politicians, must now lead. And as a start we should debate here the merits or otherwise of the constitutional convention. The debate on changing our Constitution is a serious matter and should be done with great care and not as some sort of political sideshow.

Ba mhaith linne, muid féin, soiléiriú a fháil ar cá seasann an Rialtas maidir le ceist na hEorpa agus ceist an airgid san Eoraip. In the run-up to the referendum we were told a considerable amount about stability, jobs, etc., and that this measure was only part of a much broader jigsaw of pieces that would be put together to provide that. We seek clarity and perhaps a debate on what are the other pieces of that jigsaw. The stability we were promised does not seem to have appeared and there seems to be more instability across Europe.

Sinn Féin wants the solution to everything overnight.

Since the Taoiseach spoke on Friday we have had great instability and it has become much more unclear.

A dose of realism would not go astray.

The workers in Pfizer, Iarnród Éireann, Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus do not feel the jobs they were promised have materialised.

I have called for a debate on this topic in the past. Strangely, an unusual issue came up during our debate on the septic tank legislation. We had a very interesting debate on what constitutes poverty. Anybody who saw last night's report about the 1,000 people going to the Capuchin centre in Dublin every day for bags of food would have been taken aback by the scale of poverty in the country. There is considerable expertise in this House to debate what poverty really is. The nature of poverty in Ireland has changed in the past year or two in particular. During that debate we discussed European guidelines on what constitutes poverty. Is it having a good coat, a good pair of shoes, being able to eat hot meals, etc.? In April Social Justice Ireland published a report entitled Shaping Ireland's Future, which indicated that 700,000 people, one sixth of the population, are living in poverty. I wonder if that was discussed in the telephone call with Chancellor Merkel on Friday. Some 200,000 of those are children and 10% of the poorest people have a disposable income of €210 a week while the richest have a disposable income of €2,276 per week. A debate on poverty would be very useful and would give us a very good picture of the kind of country in which we are living.

It would certainly give the Taoiseach some food for thought and some material to use in his next telephone call to Chancellor Merkel.

I join others in speaking about the constitutional convention. I believe it is a very crude approach to decide that one arm of the Houses of the Oireachtas should be cut off. The Seanad is intrinsically part of our Constitution and it makes no sense to have a constitutional convention without having the Seanad in those considerations.

Senators

Hear, hear.

While I am a member of a Government party, I am not shy in saying that.

The Senator is not shy.

It will be a very difficult time for us in this House and we should be given due consideration and should be facilitated with a debate. There have been calls for the Taoiseach to come here in the past. It would be no harm to have him in for a full and frank discussion on area.

That is an excellent idea.

I add to what Senator Norris and others said about the Seanad. In the next ten days the new constituencies are likely to be announced. The next Dáil will have eight fewer Deputies as it goes from 166 to 158. That will concentrate the minds of those in the other House regarding the future of this House.

The Senator should wait until he sees the boundaries.

It will be a great consolation to many, particularly Labour Party Deputies in constituencies where they have two Deputies at the moment and there will be only one subsequently.

They have no councillors.

That is a reality of life and we need to be realistic about this. We know that politics has its ups and downs.

Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

It would be worth having a discussion on the Seanad at this point. All the Members of this Seanad have performed extraordinarily well under your chairmanship, a Chathaoirligh, and under the leadership of the Leader and the opposition leaders. I returned to this House ten years ago and this Seanad is doing an excellent job. It will prove itself successful to the extent that the people will decide to vote against its abolition. I agree with Senator Mooney that people should be given the options of retention, abolition or reform.

I bring another treaty to the Members' minds. Last week we passed the fiscal treaty and I hope that everything that was promised will be implemented.

I hope they are implemented to a greater extent than the consolidated version of the treaties, particularly the Lisbon treaty and the role of the Oireachtas in this regard. I was a member of a committee chaired by the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, which published a report on 23 May 2008. I know the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, has been very supportive of this. That committee specifically recommended that significant reforms are made to Dáil and Seanad procedures to ensure regular consideration of EU matters in plenary session. However, that has not been the case. That was a clear commitment by all parties that supported both referendums on the Lisbon treaty. It was clearly stated that the Oireachtas would have a say on legislative procedures in the European Parliament and that we were part and parcel of Europe. However, committees do not represent a full Parliament — the Dáil and Seanad constitute the fully elected Parliament.

I again appeal to the Leader once a month to select issues going through the European Parliament and Commission to be discussed in this House with all its knowledge and expertise. I do not believe it would need the back-up that has been mentioned. People can discuss issues here and we can then send a report of the proceedings to the Minister of State with responsibility for Europe or to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. We in this House could contribute to many significant and important issues. This would be an issue worth bringing before the people who will respond very positively when they see the important role this House is playing in the implementation of the Lisbon treaty.

It was rather disingenuous of Senator Darragh O'Brien to suggest that the Taoiseach must say something regarding a private chat he had with another leader at a summit.

His own advisers spoke to the media about it.

As he knows well it is the decisions reached at a summit that count and not any private tittle-tattle that any leaders might have.

It is just tittle-tattle?

(Interruptions).

Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

As the House knows well, we are part of a programme into which Fianna Fáil locked us. We are dealing with the troika and we are getting on quite well.

What did the Taoiseach say to the Chancellor?

The Senator will have heard that Mario Draghi yesterday said we would be back to markets.

He did not say that.

Does Senator Paul Coghlan have tittle-tattle for the Leader?

No, I have no tittle-tattle for the Leader.

The Senator is undermining his own Taoiseach.

What did the Chancellor say to him?

Does Senator Coghlan have a question for the Leader?

Senator Coghlan is getting bogged down with the Opposition. Does he have a question for the Leader?

Senator Bacik told Senator Darragh O'Brien this morning and I heard what the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, said. We know what has to happen. It is as a result of the mess in which Fianna Fáil landed us. We have to break the link between sovereign and banking debt. We need to get the matter restructured which will involve longer maturity and lower interest rates.

The Taoiseach should introduce German classes into the Seanad. I thoroughly recommend them.

These decisions can only be reached at a summit and there will be one at the end of the month. The big problem at the moment is stabilising the banking sector in the eurozone.

Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

I have and I am looking forward to the Leader's response. However, this was just playacting which is not like Senator Darragh O'Brien, who dealt with some serious matters. The way he referred to this was somewhat of a joke, if I may say so. I will leave it to the Leader to respond.

During the referendum campaign people at the doors raised with members of the coalition Government a matter of grave public concern, which is that of special advisers. A very undignified spectacle is playing out in the newspapers at the moment. The Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, appears to be battling with the Minister for Public Enterprise and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, to get the best possible salary for a third special adviser.

Fianna Fáil were not too bad at that.

The Evening Herald newspaper says it understands there was dissatisfaction that the Minister failed——

Senators cannot display newspapers in the Chamber.

I am not displaying it. I have read it a number of times so I can probably quote it from memory. The Minister expressed dissatisfaction that his adviser could not get the top point in the salary scale. The spokesperson confirmed on the record to the newspaper that the Minister will be battling for the new special adviser to secure the top point on the principal officer scale. This man and this Government are completely out of touch with reality. The only thing the Minister will do is reduce the unemployment rate by one in north County Dublin. It appears that many people in north County Dublin want to have special adviser jobs with the Minister, Deputy James Reilly. It is not right that somebody on a pension of €137,000 should come back into the office, with the Minister battling on her behalf for a salary at the highest point of principal officer rate. It is completely out of touch with reality.

The Minister does not need these special advisers as the Department is full of advice. The Department does not administer the health service any more but advises the Minister on health policy. He is a doctor. We thought he had all the answers to the problems due to his experience as head of the Irish Medical Organisation and as a practising general practitioner, GP. Why does he need more advice? I thought he knew everything but it turns out that he does not and needs advice. It is shameful and pathetic that the main public battle the Minister for Health is engaged in at present is about whether his advisers get the top point of the salary scale. It is being reported in the newspapers, both on and off the record, and it is doing the Department of Health and the HSE a huge disservice. We must have a debate about it in the House with the Minister.

I support the call by my colleague, Senator Conway, for a debate with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, about The Gathering in 2013. This event has huge potential to bring many hundreds of thousands of people to Ireland. It will be good for local communities and will revitalise them. It will certainly generate badly needed investment and spending. It is also a great opportunity for tourists to see the beauty of our country in all its guises. Linked to that, I welcome the announcement by the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Alan Kelly, that €7 million in additional funding is to be made available for cycle routes throughout the country. An additional 334 km of cycle ways are to be provided as part of the national cycle network. It is an indication that the Government is committed to promoting Ireland as a tourism destination——

Instead of metro north.

It will also have a significant impact on health and people's ability to take exercise. I very much welcome the fact that 20 km of cycle ways will be provided along the old N6, from Ballinasloe to Athlone. A sum of €470,000 will be invested there. It will be hugely important to our area.

Have you a question for the Leader?

Is that from the Connacht Tribune?

My initial request to the Leader was that we have a discussion on The Gathering, in support of the request made by my colleague, Senator Conway. I also welcome very much the very positive initiative that will support and supplement the wonderful tourism amenities we have in east County Galway.

I propose an amendment to the Order of Business, that the Minister for Health attend the House immediately to make a statement on and discuss the urgent measures that are clearly required to deal with the 218,000 people waiting for a hospital outpatient appointment. Following referral from a GP, 218,000 people are waiting for a simple outpatient appointment to see a consultant in a hospital. This is long before they presumably get onto another waiting list to determine when their treatment might take place. Most worrying, 800 of these patients are waiting for more than four years. Lives are clearly being lost here. Conditions are worsening medically for these people as a result of having to wait such an inordinately long time.

I am sure the Leader is most concerned about this given that 540 of the 800 patients are in County Waterford. One wonders if a hospital which is considered to be a centre of excellence for such treatments is being adequately resourced by the Government. If not, what steps are being taken to ensure that the people of the south east and Waterford city are given the appropriate care? A four year waiting list for an outpatient appointment is ridiculous in the extreme. Roscommon is another area where there have been cutbacks. Indeed, the next largest number among the 800 is in that area. Clearly, resources are an issue when one must wait such a long time after being referred by a GP. When one considers what my colleague said about the posturing within the Cabinet about whose adviser gets what maximum payout, despite the €137,000 pension, it seems inconceivable that rather than the basic right of people to get appointments on referral from their GP we are more concerned with the amounts that Ministers' advisers will be paid. How many advisers does it take to show people that action is required? The figure of 218,000 people is a national scandal.

I support my colleagues who called for a debate on The Gathering next year, particularly on how we as individuals can play our part in its success. I believe everybody has a part to play.

I seek a review of speed limits, particularly on rural, class three roads. These roads have grass growing in the middle of them and vehicles cannot pass each other at the same time — one vehicle must pull into a gateway to allow the other to pass. These roads have speed limit signs of 80 km/h. They are particularly dangerous. People live beside them. Some of these roads have been abandoned by local authorities and I have photographs to prove it. Some of them are in my county. Some of them have potholes as big as craters; one would not see bigger on the moon. Yet the speed limit is 80 km/h. I call on the Leader to arrange a debate on this. It probably concerns rural Senators more than our urban colleagues, although I am sure some of our urban colleagues have travelled on these roads. They are unbelievable.

I call on the Department to introduce improved legislation to ensure that local authorities, by using their own expertise, make decisions about certain roads. Local authorities have area engineers who are familiar with the roads I am discussing and can make quick decisions to ensure revised speed limit signs are erected forthwith. These roads are just being used by rally drivers. Families cannot walk on them. We encourage people to walk in the countryside but they cannot walk on these roads. Parents with young children in prams cannot take them for a walk because of cars travelling at excess speeds. I call for a review and that speed limit signs be appropriate, whether it be 10 km/h, 20 km/h or 30 km/h. Certainly, in the cases I have in mind, it should not be 80 km/h.

I second the amendment to the Order of Business proposed by my colleague, Senator MacSharry. Will the Leader confirm the date the Taoiseach will come to the Seanad, how long he will be here and what format the questions session will take? Will it be confined to party leaders or will it be open to every Member of the Seanad to pose a question to the Taoiseach? It would be helpful if the Leader could answer those questions.

I join Senators Norris, Mooney, Noone and others in calling for the future of the Seanad to be part of the constitutional convention that is due to take place.

I ask the Leader to invite the Minister for Defence, Deputy Shatter, to the House for a debate on the future of the Defence Forces, with particular emphasis on the future of the Reserve Defence Force. There are strong rumours among members of the latter force that it is about to be abolished. While this may be dismissed by Members on the Government side by stating this is only a rumour, I note there were rumours that Dún Uí Néill Barracks, Cavan was about to be closed.

The Senator is good at floating rumours.

Moreover, there were rumours that the Army barracks at Mullingar, Castlebar and Clonmel were to be closed. They were being dismissed as mere rumours until days before the closure of the aforementioned barracks actually was announced by the Minister. Before this rumour becomes a reality, I call on the Minister, Deputy Shatter, to come to the House to discuss the future of the Reserve Defence Force, the general future of the Defence Forces and his plans for them. Finally, I agree with Senator Norris that Members should have a debate on homophobia.

I wish to raise again a matter I raised a couple of weeks ago, as I was not satisfied by the complete lack of response to it. I refer those schools which should have DEIS status but which do not, that is, those schools which did not meet the criteria in 2005 but that certainly would meet all the criteria now. These schools are experiencing the same cuts as any other school, which is particularly unfair. While I am not trying to open up a great can of worms or to run up a big bill for the Minister for Education and Skills, I keep hearing references in this Chamber to the relevance of the Seanad. In this context, Members might seek action on this issue on behalf of those children who will be most affected by the cuts. I do not refer to those schools that can take cuts and acknowledge there are schools that can take cuts and reductions. However, a number of schools can take nothing and I would like to think Members would support me on this matter. I acknowledge the Minister is highly likely to state that whatever cost might be incurred in this regard would have to be cost-neutral to the Department. Were this the case, I would support the Minister in this respect and would like to think other Senators would do likewise because there is a huge difference between those schools that simply cannot take any cuts and those which can. If the Minister gives Members a hearing and indicates he is prepared to bring to the table a programme to benefit those schools, Members should also be responsible. I cannot emphasise this issue enough and hope to raise this matter on the Adjournment next week with the consent of the Cathaoirleach. I wish to hear what the Minister has to say directly but depending upon the outcome, I hope to have the support of the Seanad. This would demonstrate the Seanad can make a real difference to those who most need it.

Senator Darragh O'Brien raised the serious matter of the pyrite report, about which I responded to the Senator yesterday. I remind him the expert group reviewing this important matter is independent and the Minister does not wish to interfere with its work as he wishes to give it ample time to oversee properly this problem, which is of concern to everyone involved. However, as I indicated yesterday, I am informed that the report is being prepared and is imminent. Following its publication, I will provide an opportunity to Members to have a discussion on the report in the House.

The Senator also questioned the position in respect of the property tax. As he is aware, a group under the independent chairmanship of Dr. Don Thornhill has been established to consider the policy approach to and the modalities for a full property tax. The group continues to progress its work in a highly active manner and is using economic expertise that is available to the Government. This reinforces the need for time to be allocated to this subject, on which Members will have a debate after the report has been issued to the Government.

In respect of the Taoiseach, what Ireland seeks and so on, the Government seeks the restructuring and alleviation of bank debt. This is a clear answer.

It is a better answer than was given yesterday.

Senator Bacik also alluded to the comments made this morning by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, which also clarify that matter.

Senators Norris, Mooney, Mullen, Bradford, Noone and others raised the constitutional convention. As Members are aware, the aforementioned convention is being set up and while the first two items to be discussed will be the voting age and the term for the presidency, it will expand from there. If the House wishes to hold a debate on the constitutional convention, I certainly will arrange such a debate.

There is no question of "If", as even the Leader's own side has indicated its desire for it.

The Leader, without interruption.

I am being helpful.

I have stated that I will arrange a debate and will do so.

Senators Conway, Brennan and Mullins raised the issue of the Gathering. Tourism certainly is a very important part of the economy and my office already has been in contact with the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to invite him to the House to discuss this important initiative. Senator Mooney also spoke on the constitutional convention and I welcome the clarity of the Fianna Fáil Party approach to a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad. The Government position is the referendum on children will be held in September or October of this year and the referendum on the Seanad will be held next year.

As for Mr. Trapattoni and the possibility of ageism coming into play, were all Members as good at the age of 73 as is Mr. Trapattoni at the age of 73, they all would be doing very well. He is a highly active man and is a wonderful example for everyone. Members wish the Irish team every success and indeed——

Consequently, there should be no reason to refer to his age.

I agree completely with the Senator that there is no such need.

Senator O'Keeffe called for a debate on the register of lobbyists and I certainly will try to arrange such a debate on this highly important issue. Senator Mullen indicated his intention to introduce a Bill next week on the disclosure of overpayments and Members will have ample time to discuss that issue next week. In response to Senator Ó Clochartaigh, I agreed yesterday to have a debate next week on the recently-held referendum. As I indicated to Senator Darragh O'Brien yesterday, that debate will take place next Thursday. As for a debate on poverty, the Minister for Social Protection has come into the House several times but I am sure she would be willing to return again at a later stage. In respect of Senator Noone's point regarding the Taoiseach, he certainly will appear in the Seanad before the end of the term. In reply to Senator Wilson, Members will use the same procedure as was used when all previous taoisigh came into the House.

Everyone will get to ask a question.

That never happened previously and so will not happen again.

Senator Leyden referred to the boundary commission and while it certainly will be a cause of joy for some, it undoubtedly will create challenges for many others. In respect of European Union proposals, as I stated previously I am fully in favour of having a debate on European issues and directives in this House. Only yesterday did I get some backup in regard to being able to present to the House some issues that would come up and I will do so, as soon as I have word. I have had no response from the people I met several months ago and am reactivating the matter with a view to having such debates in the House.

I assure Senator Byrne there is no battling between any Ministers, in any regard. The Government is working as a cohesive unit in the interests of the country. If the Senator wishes to discuss advisers' pay, a matter I have spoken about previously, the Government introduced a number of changes immediately after coming into office to reduce the costs of the political system of the State. Specifically, the Government halved the cost of ministerial transport by reducing Garda involvement and abolished State cars except for the President, Taoiseach, Tánaiste and the Minister for Justice and Equality, for security reasons.

What about acting on special advisers' pay?

If the Senator will allow me to answer, I will come to that as well.

The Leader, without interruption.

In this House we usually allow people to respond to the questions asked. Permitted staffing of the private offices and constituency offices of Ministers of State was reduced and at its first meeting the Government decided to reduce the Taoiseach's pay to €200,000 and reduce the pay of Ministers and Ministers of State pro rata.

The poor man — how can he manage?

Senator Norris is getting that, with his salary and pension.

The Leader, without interruption.

The Government also decided to cut down on the costs of special advisers close to Ministers. It succeeded in reducing the cost by about 23% when compared to the previous Government regime. Special advisers in this Government are on a lower pay scale when compared to the previous Government rates and the practice of paying attraction allowances has been abolished. The biggest reduction in pay is in the Taoiseach's office. Two years ago, the previous Taoiseach employed seven special advisers at a cost of almost €1.1 million. The present Taoiseach appointed only four special advisers, with one for the Chief Whip's office, with a total pay of €576,000——

——almost halving the cost, with a reduction of 47% in the cost of advisers. That is the answer in respect of advisers.

What about the €80,000 pay cap?

I hope the Senator pays heed to that because I gave that answer before.

It is an analogy, not an answer.

(Interruptions).

The Leader, without interruption.

Obviously, it did not sink in. I hope the answer sinks in this time.

Senator Mullins mentioned the Gathering. I will arrange for a debate on this matter.

I do not propose to accept the amendment to the Order of Business, proposed by Senator MacSharry. He is right; it is a very serious matter that we have 218,000 people awaiting an appointment for a consultant. That figure which came out is indicative of the transparency of this Government. When previous Governments were in place we could never discover what numbers of people there were or ascertain——

The Leader should stop. He gave a very good answer on the special advisers. He should not ruin it.

We could never get that type of information.

It came from the HSE. You do not control the HSE now.

The Leader, without interruption.

We could never get that kind of information when the Members opposite were in government. I hope they accept the transparency of the Government——

What if one needs orthopaedic treatment in Waterford? What is the Government doing for those people?

——in the provision of these services.

It must be hard to take.

There is a large number of people waiting for treatment for four years.

The Leader, without interruption.

It is transparency without any substance.

The Leader, without interruption.

I respect the protection given to me by the Cathaoirleach. Senator Brennan spoke about small rural roads and speed limits. I agree with him that one can drive along motorways where in areas there are 60 km/h speed limits but one can leave these and go onto a small country road where two cars can barely pass and where the speed limit is 80 km/h. I understand a review of speed limits is already under way. Members have been asked to submit proposals and outline where problems lie.

Senator Wilson mentioned the Defence Forces and the Reserve Defence Forces and I will try to find the information. Fianna Fáil is indulging in making rumours in this regard——

Tell that to the people of Cavan, Mullingar, Clonmel——

It is very dangerous to take rumours for facts but I will find the information for the Senator.

Senator D'Arcy spoke about DEIS status for certain schools that were not awarded that status in 2005. He will raise this as an Adjournment debate motion which is the appropriate way to raise the subject.

Senator MacSharry has moved an amendment to the Order of Business: "That a debate on the implications of 218,000 people being on waiting lists for an outpatient appointment with a consultant be taken today." Is the amendment being pressed?

Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 27.

  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Cullinane, David.
  • Daly, Mark.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Mac Conghail, Fiach.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • Mooney, Paschal.
  • Mullen, Rónán.
  • Norris, David.
  • Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
  • Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
  • O’Brien, Darragh.
  • O’Donovan, Denis.
  • O’Sullivan, Ned.
  • van Turnhout, Jillian.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl

  • Bacik, Ivana.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Brennan, Terry.
  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Coghlan, Eamonn.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Comiskey, Michael.
  • Conway, Martin.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • D’Arcy, Jim.
  • D’Arcy, Michael.
  • Gilroy, John.
  • Harte, Jimmy.
  • Heffernan, James.
  • Henry, Imelda.
  • Higgins, Lorraine.
  • Keane, Cáit.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Landy, Denis.
  • Moloney, Marie.
  • Mulcahy, Tony.
  • Mullins, Michael.
  • Noone, Catherine.
  • O’Keeffe, Susan.
  • O’Neill, Pat.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
  • Whelan, John.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Ned O’Sullivan and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Susan O’Keeffe.
Amendment declared lost.
Order of Business agreed to.
Top
Share