The Order of Business is No. 1, Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill 2023 – Second Stage, to be taken at 12.45 p.m. and to conclude no later than 2.45 p.m., if not previously concluded, with the time allocated to the opening remarks of the Minister not to exceed ten minutes, group spokespersons not to exceed eight minutes, all other Senators not to exceed five minutes and the Minister to be given no less than ten minutes to reply to the debate; No. 2, statements on access to third level places and student accommodation, to be taken at 3 p.m. and to conclude at 4.30 p.m., if not previously concluded, with the time allocated to the opening remarks of the Minister not to exceed ten minutes, group spokespersons not to exceed eight minutes, all other Senators not to exceed five minutes and the Minister to be given no less than ten minutes to reply to the debate; and No. 126(8), motion regarding Temple Street children's hospital, to be taken at 4.45 p.m., with the time allocated to this debate not to exceed two hours.
An tOrd Gnó - Order of Business
I propose an amendment to the Order of Business to introduce a Bill. I propose that No. 19 be taken before No. 1.
Is the Senator referring to the Sex Offenders (Amendment) (Coercive Control) Bill?
That is No. 17.
I beg the Cathaoirleach's pardon. I had No.19. My apologies.
It was No. 19 in a previous iteration. I just want to be fair to the Senator.
Thank you. My time is slipping away. I propose that No. 17 be taken before No. 1. Basically, this Bill calls for the implementation of a domestic violence register that will function in a similar manner to the sex offenders register. The Bill provides that a person convicted of the offence of coercive control is required to notify the Garda of their name and address and any change to those details in order to ensure that the information recorded by An Garda Síochána is accurate and always up to date. This Bill will be known as Jennifer's Bill as it is inspired by the tragic death of Jennifer Poole. I have been working with her brother Jason Poole. Many of us have had the opportunity to meet him and listen to the awful story of his sister being murdered by her ex-partner, who had actually done time before for domestic violence.
There are two other issues I want to raise. We spoke last week about the dramatic seizure of cocaine valued at around €157 million. I refer to it again this morning in relation to the illegal drugs trade in Ireland, the havoc it causes in communities and the heartbroken families at the centre of it all. In last week's Sunday Independent there was a poll that showed that around 50% of young people admitted they had tried cocaine or use it on a regular basis. Some may not develop an addiction but we all know they become part of that whole circle of horrific drug crime. Some do go on to become addicted, with all the devastating consequences and havoc wreaked on individuals and communities that entails. We are hearing in many quarters about fentanyl, which is approximately 100 times more potent than morphine and 50 times more potent than heroin. We need to have a debate with the Minister of State with responsibility for drugs, Deputy Hildegarde Naughton, to discuss how we as a country are preparing to deal with this epidemic that is almost on our shores.
The last point I want to raise relates to the cross-border healthcare directive, which is a really important initiative that allows medical procedures to go ahead in an EU country or a country that is part of the EEA. A constituent I am dealing with got the go-ahead to go and have a cataract removed. While she was on the operating table, the surgeon told her that she needed have to the other eye done and could have them both done at the same time and would be reimbursed. When she went to get reimbursed, she was only reimbursed for half the amount of money. They are refusing to reimburse the other half. This is a huge amount of money. I accept that the surgeon may not have had the go-ahead but still did it. I am trying to deal with it. We need to have a little bit of flexibility around this.
I am calling for a debate to be scheduled on the setting of minimum standards for the Government's response to problems and situations regarding the care of people in this country. Last week we heard that when it comes to providing accommodation for migrants and refugees, villages of tents are all we have at the moment. The attitude is one of saying "That is just how it is". That is just how it is because of the decisions of this Government. I spoke last week of the awful conditions in which Ukrainian refugees are living in Stradbally, County Laois, where people were in tents during Storm Agnes and did not even have use of many of the portaloos that were on site. I just do not think this is the way to treat people. I am blue in the face calling for a practical approach to immigration based on recognition of our logistical limits but it seems my philosophy is simply at odds with this Government. Rather than provide an appropriate standard of care to a number of refugees, this Government has chosen to provide an eternally decreasing standard of care to all refugees. It is a worrying approach to adopt. The concern is that this philosophy of compromising without limit when it comes to quality in order to cater without limit will spread to other areas. One thinks of our homeless - the 13,000 homeless - or of the people in receipt of the housing assistance payment, those on the social housing waiting list or those looking for affordable homes to rent or buy. What will it look like if the Government decides to say in dealing with those people that there is no lower limit as to how poor the quality of the response to the problem can be, so long as everyone is responded to? The Government needs to make its philosophy on this clear to the public, whether that means the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy O'Gorman, or the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, coming into this Chamber to answer this really important question. We have set the bar so low when it comes to how we deal with our refugees.
Following the extensive pre-legislative scrutiny undertaken by the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage, it was reported that yesterday the planning and development Bill 2023 has been approved by the Cabinet. The former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Frank Clarke, who was a guest speaker at a conference held last Friday morning, warned that Government plans to overhaul the planning system by slashing red tape have the potential to create unintended consequences that will lead to even greater delays. It is not every day of the week that a former Chief Justice is willing to offer an expert opinion on legislative proposals. Mr. Justice Clarke has warned this Government that if it proceeds with sweeping reforms, as widely flagged, it could prove counterproductive. He has said that tinkering with the planning laws could cause "seven or ten years worth of lack of clarity" and legal delays, with references to the Court of Justice of the European Union having the potential to cause inevitable serious delays. There is wide acceptance that there is a need for reform to make the planning system more user-friendly but it is imperative that any such proposed reforms do not cause a disproportionate and unjustified restriction to the right of access of individuals and organisations to courts in cases where plaintiffs are striving to vindicate environmental rights. I hope the initial plans, which envisaged placing on the shoulders of participants in a planning matter an onus to satisfy a higher threshold than any other person seeking access to the courts to review an administrative decision, are scrapped.
I also hope that the legislative intention initially proposed, which would, if enacted, prohibit taking an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the High Court is also scrapped as it would be in contravention of the Constitution.
I keenly await, although with some legislative trepidation, the Bill being published, including the proposed flagged complete overhaul of the tried and tested costs following the event - which is a good filtering system in the courts at the moment - and replacing that with a blanket administrative mechanism. I look forward to this House considering and debating this issue as legislators in due course when the Bill is published. The Government certainly cannot say it was not warned, including by the former Chief Justice. I appeal to the Government to tread carefully on a very complex matter of law which could have serious unintended consequences.