The Order of Business is No. 1, a procedural motion as agreed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges regarding the attendance by Mary Bannotti, MEP, in the House this afternoon. The arrangements are as outlined in the motion. It is proposed to take this item without debate; No. 2, the Broadcasting (Funding) Bill 2003 – Report and Final Stages, to be taken at the conclusion of the Order of Business and to conclude not later than 12 p.m; No. 3, statements on the United Nations mission to Liberia to be taken at 12 p.m. and to conclude not later than 2 p.m, with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 12 minutes, those of other Senators not to exceed eight minutes and Members may share time. There will be a sos from 2 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
Could the Leader cast some light on the continuing row between the Minister for Defence and the Taoiseach and the rest of his Cabinet colleagues on the issue of the Hanly report?
There is no row.
Things are difficult enough without Senator Callanan rowing his oar in.
There is no row.
The Taoiseach told the Dáil yesterday that the Minister totally accepts the Hanly report but in his second pot shot, the Minister for Defence came out last night and told us that the Hanly report is not the Ten Commandments. What is the position? As I understand it, the Leader of the House correctly said yesterday that it is not a discussion report or a policy position but the actual position going forward.
Is the Senator calling for a debate?
The Leader should clarify again, for the assistance of her own colleagues, the exact standing of this report.
On a second matter, will the Leader consider calling a meeting of the Seanad at 9 a.m. one day next week on the basis that the Tánaiste appears to have no difficulty going on Marian Finucane's radio programme and outlining her views on embryonic stem cell research but she has a difficulty coming to the House?
That matter is not relevant to the Order of Business.
I think it is.
The identity of those who go on the Marian Finucane programme or what the Tánaiste does outside the House is not relevant to the Order of Business.
I would have thought that who appears in this House is relevant. When will the Leader provide time to allow the Tánaiste to come into the House to outline the view of the Government on this matter? We got into difficulty on the Nice treaty because people's views were overlooked. People felt an elite group was in control and it is the case that the Government appears to be doing something which is completely at variance with two standing committees of the House, and that is worthy of debate. I know the Leader accepts that and I ask that the Tánaiste would come here and that the House would debate the matter. The European Parliament will debate this issue next week. Every other parliament in the European Union has debated it. This House and the other House should debate the matter urgently in plenary session so the Government, in whatever position it takes, will reflect the views of the people on 27 November.
I call Senator O'Toole. Sorry, Senator Henry.
I am confused with a lot of people but I have never been confused with Senator Joe O'Toole.
He has been confused for years.
It was a bad mistake, Senator Henry. Forgive me.
I support Senator Brian Hayes's call for a debate on stem cell research. As the Leader knows, I have been asking for this for quite some time. Indeed, I called for it on the Marian Finucane show some weeks ago.
We should all go on the Marian Finucane show.
The Marian Finucane show would not help you here, Senator.
I will not mention her again even though she is apparently having trouble with her ratings.
She is not the only one.
I hope when we address this issue, we will also look at the issue of the treatments which may emerge from embryonic stem cell research because while good progress is being made in adult stem cell research, there are degenerative diseases, about which listeners to the show this morning will have heard, that cause great grief to people. We want to be honest and say we will not allow these treatments if we advise the Tánaiste to vote in a way other than that which she appears to be considering.
We also need to address the issue of pharmaceutical companies undertaking this research, which should be under the control of parliaments and not left, as it is in the United States, to bio-banks of great financial worth. Some people do not understand that there are those who are trying to take control of this issue rather than let it develop on its own. We should also address the issue of pharmaceutical companies and whether they should be allowed to work here if they have associations with embryonic stem cell research elsewhere. How do we know that some of the technology they are developing elsewhere will not be applied here?
We need to look at this issue in a broad way. The Tánaiste's views on the topic need to be addressed. We also need to address whether we will allow these treatments to be used if they are found to be successful and to consider our attitude to pharmaceutical companies here which may be using these techniques in other countries. Should they be banned from having factories here?
There is a fundamental point here, that is, that the Tánaiste chose to debate this issue outside the Houses of the Oireachtas before she debated it in them.
Correct.
That is profoundly wrong, and I would say that regardless of who was the Tánaiste and who was in Government. A process has developed over the last 20 years where the last place members of Governments choose to make serious announcements is in the Houses of the Oireachtas. There is a fundamental issue here about where governance and accountability lie. I do not want to get into the debate on the merits or demerits of this issue; I have tried to avoid doing that. The real issue here is that ethical matters should not be determined by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and that such matters are not ones which should be determined by the Government without reference to the Oireachtas. One could go on forever about the arguments for the merits or demerits of this issue.
I know the professor of bio-chemistry in Dublin City University who believes embryonic stem cell research is a diversion and that most of the probably more productive research could be done in different ways. I cannot argue with him. The argument as to whether we would use treatments which come out of this research is a diversion as well. We regularly use things that are the product of weapons research, which I detest. We probably use things that are a consequence of chemical warfare research because things are discovered as a result of it. That does not justify an immoral action, nor does it necessitate one. We must live with our own ethical—
Speech.
It is a speech and I will justify my right to make one. This is a fundamental issue whether Senator Callanan understands it or not. It is about ethics and what we understand to be right and wrong. I do not have a monopoly on this issue but the Houses of Oireachtas is the place where these matters should be decided and not on the basis of advice from civil servants to the Tánaiste to be broadcast on the airwaves without reference to the Oireachtas. That is the point I wanted to make, and I will continue to do so.
I would like to know what advice the Government really got on Aer Rianta. Is there a logical reason behind the decisions taken? Was a decision taken after which advice was sought that turned out to be the opposite of what the decision-maker wanted? We have ended up with a situation where it appears that not only is the future viability of Cork and Shannon airports threatened, but possibly that of the other regional airports as well. The Oireachtas should know what is going on here – it is simply a fiat at the end. Taxpayers' money was used to fund studies into the future viability of Cork and Shannon Airports and other airports. We are now being told that even though taxpayers' money was used, we will not know what conclusions were drawn. That is wrong and it is the duty of the Leader to bring the Minister for Transport, however reluctant he may be, to the House to outline precisely what his advice was and how he came to the conclusions he reached.
I do not know whether anybody else saw a report on RTE last night on that awful tragedy in Iraq. RTE's European correspondent reported on attitudes in Italy, talked about the Italian Government being determined to keep the troops there and then proceeded to talk about Italian mammas wanting to bring their boys home. That was a profoundly offensive remark.
You have been given a lot of latitude.
The decision to bring troops home from Iraq is not a sign of weakness. In many cases, it could be a sign of people realising what is correct and moral. To use silly language about Italian mammas was to trivialise one side of a serious argument.
I call Senator Minihan, or rather Senator Dardis.
A leadership struggle.
I am slipping up. It is my second mistake.
As long as I am not confused with Senator Henry, I will be happy. Incidentally, I would not mind being confused with the Leader.
It is wrong to say the matter of stem cell research was not debated in the Oireachtas. I am a member of the Sub-committee on European Scrutiny of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs which looked at this issue and received comprehensive documents on it. This issue was referred by the sub-committee to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. If I recall correctly, the Tánaiste said this morning that she was prepared to attend the committee to discuss this issue. On several occasions, she emphasised the complexity of the matter. She was reluctant to form any judgments in advance of a national debate and said she was awaiting a report from Professor Dervilla Donnelly's expert committee on it. The matter has been discussed. It is, of course, appropriate for the House to discuss it as well – I would not deny that. I am sure that can be arranged in due course.
I wish to briefly go down memory lane. When I was growing up, it was great to go to the cinema to see the cowboys and Indians.
I do not see how that is relevant to the Order of Business.
I will come to that. The Indians never trusted the leaders of the cowboys and said they spoke with forked tongues. I had not heard that phrase until Mr. Hanly used it about the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith. He said collective Cabinet responsibility—
Comments about the Minister, Deputy Michael Smith, are not appropriate to the Order of Business.
It is about time the Government got its act together on the Hanly proposals. Either it is serious about them, or it is not. Perhaps Senator Leyden was right when he said in the Roscommon newspapers that it should be scrapped.
I support the call for a debate on embryonic stem cell research. I was fortunate to have heard the Tánaiste this morning and I was impressed by her presentation. I thought she was honest and fair and she made it clear there were ethical issues which she would like to debate. As Senator Dardis said, she has offered to come before the appropriate Oireachtas committee. It would be helpful if the debate could be developed, a point which the Tánaiste made. Developing the debate in this, and in the other, House would be also be helpful.
I, too, support calls for a debate on stem cell research. Members should be commended for insisting that this issue be debated in an open fashion and I hope the Tánaiste will be available at an early date to do so. I have asked previously about the status of the Hanly report, and I do so again. It is important that we, in Nenagh and in the mid-west, know what is happening. I suggest to the Minister for Defence a few political commandments such as "thou shalt not hang thy colleague out to dry" and "thou shalt not speak with a forked tongue."
The Minister for Defence is not here.
Does the Leader of the House think it will ever be possible to get somebody to chair a task force or write a report on behalf of the Government again?
I join with previous speakers in calling for a debate on stem cell research. I know we do not want to have a debate on the Order of Business, but some of the comments made here this morning are a little unbecoming given the seriousness of the issue. I, for one, have called for this debate on a number or occasions over the last few weeks. I am not aware that the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has refused to come before this House, but I am aware the Leader is trying to arrange a debate with the Tánaiste. Some of the remarks passed this morning were not justified. Without getting into the ethical issues, the reality is that there is an embargo on stem cell research until the end of this year. If a decision is not made at the end of this month there will be a free-for-all in the private sector to undertake embryo research with effect from next January. What people are trying to do here is to ensure any form of research is carried out under public control. That is the issue we are now facing, not the ethical issues which we can raise when we debate the matter in this House. The sooner we have this debate and clear up this matter the better.
Perhaps the Leader would enlighten the House on the Estimates. It is not clear to me how community employment schemes have fared therein, whether they have been increased or if there have been further cutbacks.
We have had them too.
Senators on the other side of the House may be more familiar with them.
If the Leader of the House can do that I would appreciate it. We all know how important they are in every parish and community and the great work that has been carried out under them. There is much uncertainty and it would be greatly appreciated if the Leader clarified the position.
The Leader of the House kindly informed the House yesterday, in her responses, that Second Stage of the PIAB Bill will be taken next Wednesday. Can she tell us this morning if it is the intention to take Committee and Remaining Stages the following week?
I would like to ask the Leader if she could arrange a debate, if at all possible, on the Book of Estimates next week, so that we can discuss all the issues involved.
I support and echo the calls made by other Senators about the need for an informed and balanced debate on all the issues involved in stem cell research and in particular the comments made by Senators Dardis, Ó Murchú and Henry.
There is always an issue with Government commissioned reports which are endorsed, and how one adapts and applies them to local circumstances, which is not an open and shut case, or a Ten Commandments type of thing. There are legitimate points of view on that.
I support the call made by Senator Brian Hayes for the Leader to seek clarification from the Minister for Health and Children on the status of the Hanly report. The Minister for Defence, Deputy Smith, may have decoupled himself from that report, but it has serious implications for north Tipperary and Clare. The Cathaoirleach is in the heart of the mid-west himself.
We cannot discuss that now.
While this unseemly row is going on between the Minister for Defence and the Taoiseach—
The Senator has made a request for a debate.
—the Hanly report is being implemented in the mid-west. It is vital the Leader of the House brings the Minister in here to clarify what is happening. If she does not, it will have serious consequences for Ennis and Nenagh. The general public have given a massive thumbs down to that proposal. The Leader of the House should realise it is time for action.
Inaction.
It is the wrong word.
I will try and spare the House the clichés.
I too support the request for a debate on stem cell research. This House is the ideal location for that debate and it is obvious that there is a wealth of information and experience on both sides of the House which would make the debate very useful.
Some weeks ago the House paid a very well deserved tribute to the memory of Lady Valerie Goulding, a former Senator. Lady Goulding contributed to this country, particularly in dealing with the polio outbreak of 1948. It is interesting, and there is some reference to this in today's newspapers, that the survivors of that outbreak are now entering old age and, having heroically lived their lives, are facing difficulties that other people of their age do not face. I ask the Leader whether it is possible for the Minister for Health and Children, the next time he comes to the House, to tell us whether provision can be made for them. That would be a wonderful memorial to Lady Goulding.
There are positive aspects in terms of better local government, but also many shortcomings, such as in planning, which both sides of the House raise as a very important urban and rural issue. Planning at local authority level is under-resourced and under pressure at the moment. We had a public announcement by the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party after the Ard Fheis, at which the Cathaoirleach was present—
I wish to make it clear that I was not present.
He was there in spirit.
—about addressing planning. Another of the party's Ministers, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, got 20 minutes on the "Six One News". Bryan Dobson travelled to Galway to talk about how they were going to address the problems in planning, especially in rural areas. However, I am bemused by the recent stealth tax announced by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, as in a rural area, for a 2,000 square foot house, there will be a stealth tax of €13,000. How is that going to ease the pressures of planning? We need the Minister here because between now and the March deadline for these development charges, we will have a glut of planning applications being submitted to all local authorities which do not have the resources to deal with them.
All those points can be raised in the debate.
Ordinary people in rural and urban areas will be waiting up to a year and a half to get their planning through.
The Senator has made his point.
We are restricting, not encouraging planning, which is completely against the Taoiseach's announcement.
I am sure the Leader of the House can clarify the development contributions which she proposed to clarify yesterday with the Minister. It is a matter for the local authorities and I am sure Senator McHugh is still a member of the local authority.
Has the Senator a question for the Leader?
On a point of information, I am still a member of the local authority.
I have a few questions for the Leader. As far as David Hanly's comments are concerned, they were quite arrogant about the Minister for Defence, who was only expressing a view.
That is not relevant to the Order of Business.
Is that the man from RTE?
Have you a question for the Leader?
I have as many rights in this House as Senator Ryan or anyone else.
I will tell the Senator the rights he has. Has the Senator a question?
Will the Leader of the House arrange with the Minister for Justice and Law Reform to come before this House next week to outline in detail the situation regarding the dispute with the Prison Officers Association and to outline here the very detailed briefing he gave to both the Progressive Democrats Party and the Fianna Fáil Party in the Fianna Fáil Party rooms last evening. I call on the Minister and the Prison Officers Association, to whose president I spoke last night, to come together to resolve this issue. It is unacceptable that Spike Island and the Curragh may be closed and Shelton Abbey and Loughan House may be privatised.
That is for the debate.
I also speak as a former member of the Curragh prison visiting committee.
I hope Senator Leyden is not a future member.
These points can be made during the debate. We are not having the debate now.
I will clarify one thing. Someone should concern themselves with the prisoners throughout the country who are extremely concerned about the proposals and about what will arise if an agreement is not reached between the Minister and the Prison Officers Association. Both parties must come together before the Labour Relations Commission to resolve this issue without confrontation. Irrespective of the cost of prison officers' pay, we must remember that prison officers have been held captive in Mountjoy and Limerick prisons. Their position should be respected. I call for the Minister to come to the House.
Those are matters for the debate. I call Senator Phelan.
My idea has been stolen by Senator Leyden. I was going to ask the Leader why, if the Minister could attend a meeting of Fianna Fáil backbenchers at the drop of a hat last night, he could not come to the House to discuss his proposed reforms of the Irish Prison Service.
The Minister was here yesterday.
He was here on a different matter. He should attend the House to discuss the prisons issue.
I join with my colleague, Senator McHugh, in asking the Leader to arrange for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to come to the House to discuss his views on development charges. This is an important issue which has arisen in all local authorities. The Minister also went on the airwaves yesterday to announce his position but he has not come to the House to explain his position. He should do so as soon as possible.
I support the call to invite the Tánaiste to the House to discuss embryonic stem cell research. I attended the sub-committee with Senator Leyden and I ask the Leader for clarification. Such research is banned in Europe until the end of December. It is important that the matter be discussed by the Oireachtas.
Hear, hear.
It has been discussed and a unanimous decision was reached by the sub-committee, but it is important that the views of Oireachtas Members are taken into consideration. When the matter is discussed in Europe we should not alone defend the ethics articles of the Constitution, but also see that our voice is heard in Europe to influence decisions taken there.
Recently I attended a public meeting in Athlone on the subject of the Hanly report, at which all representatives of Government parties were united in opposition to the report and said it would not be implemented.
That is right.
I was not there.
I ask that the Minister come to the House to clear the air regarding this damning report.
I disagree with those who have called for a debate on local government development charges. The debate should be on the broader issue of local authority funding. The levies are a matter for local authority members. Levies are already being applied and there are now proposals for managers. If we favour reform and the empowerment of local councillors we must allow them to make decisions such as these.
I ask the Leader to arrange for a debate on planning, particularly with regard to single houses in rural areas. I understand that draft guidelines are in the early stages of preparation in the Department and will be sent to local authorities. This is an important issue which should be debated in the House.
I support Senator Leyden's call for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to come to the House to debate the prisons issue. The Minister should be commended for tackling a matter which should have been tackled years ago. The amount of funding being diverted from the prisons' capital programme is unsustainable. Those of us who visited Mountjoy Prison recently would advocate that the capital programme be put in place to provide humane conditions for prisoners and not diverted to prison officers' overtime, as has happened in the past.
Will the Leader ask the Minister for Finance to come into the House to explain why we pay our taxes? She should also ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to be in attendance in the Distinguished Visitors Gallery as he seems to think people who build houses should pay for such things as swimming pools and community services. I understood these are paid for out of taxation. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government appears to have no idea of reality. He talks about ring-fencing development levies, but we all know they will disappear into a black hole to be used to fund other shortfalls in local government.
Many Senators have called for a debate on stem cell research. I ask the Leader to arrange a debate on degenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease, which may be affected by future stem cell research. People are living longer. While this is good news it presents difficulties. As people live longer they are more prone to suffer from such diseases. We need to debate this matter now and not in 30 years' time. Such a debate might be combined with the debate on stem cell research.
Senator Brian Hayes asked for clarification of the Government's position on the Hanly report. I can only report what the Minister for Health and Children has said. I heard him on the radio this morning say that the Cabinet has "signed off on Hanly".
Senator Brian Hayes also asked that the Tánaiste come to the Seanad to debate stem cell research. We are in contact with the Tánaiste and we hope a debate will be held shortly. I did not hear her on the radio this morning but it appears she made a good show for herself and was open about the matter under discussion.
Senator Henry raised the same matter. She pointed out the three main issues in the debate, which was salutary. The Senator understands this issue, but many of us will have much to learn from the debate. Senator Ryan called for a debate on the ethics of this issue within the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Senator Ryan also asked what advice the Government got on Aer Rianta and that I bring the Minister for Transport to the House. I will endeavour to do so. A debate on this issue would be timely. We are repeatedly told that the legislation is imminent but it has not yet appeared. Perhaps it will do so shortly. I did not see the programme on Iraq to which Senator Ryan referred, but I take his point about glib and offensive remarks being applied to a serious issue, especially as they can sometimes cause great offence.
Senator Finucane used the analogy of cowboys and Indians. I am not sure in which camp he would put the people he mentioned
I referred to people speaking with forked tongues.
Deputy Ardagh had a good idea last week.
He had. Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú thought the Tánaiste's radio interview contributed much to the debate on stem cell research. I hope we will hear an extension of that in the House.
Senator O'Meara also queried the status of the Hanly report. I repeat what I said to Senator Brian Hayes. I spoke to the Minister for Health and Children as well as listening to him on the radio. He explained to me that the report was signed off by the Cabinet.
Does that mean anything?
Senator O'Meara wondered who would chair a Government task force again. Mr. David Hanly seems to be a robust character and will stand up to any barracking he might get.
Arrogant, even.
Senator Leyden's suggestion that Mr. Hanly is an arrogant man should be withdrawn. I know him. He is not an arrogant man.
His comments are arrogant.
Senator Leyden should withdraw the comment. Mr. Hanly is not here to defend himself.
We cannot comment on people outside the House.
Mr. Hanly did a job for the Government.
Exactly.
For that he must be commended. Senator Minihan asked for a debate on stem cell research and I hope to facilitate this. Senator Coghlan asked about the Estimates. If he can contain himself until 2.30 p.m. he will get a fair idea about the community employment scheme. I hope further clarification on the timing of the Bill can be given on the PIAB after the leaders have a meeting. I met with the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment this morning and discussed the matter with her.
Senator Mansergh sought a debate on the Estimates and I hope we can have that next week. He also raised the issue of stem cell research. Senator Coonan raised the Hanly report and its implications for Ennis and Nenagh. While the Senator asked for action, some people have instead asked for inaction. Members have asked for the Minister for Health and Children to be brought here. If he is brought here he can only say what he said earlier.
Senator Maurice Hayes raised the issue of the survivors of the 1948 polio epidemic and if provision for them could be made through the Department of Health and Children. That would be testament to the late Senator, Lady Goulding. Senator McHugh raised the issue of better local government. When the Senator was talking about planning, Senator Dardis told me he recently met an Australian man who had received planning permission in two days.
That used to be the way.
Some things never change. He must have known the Minister for Finance.
It is like the Punchestown equestrian centre.
It now takes two years to get planning permission.
The swiftness of the Australian system is to be admired.
A Senator
It would reduce the levies enormously.
I did not know that Senator Leyden was a former member of the Curragh prison visiting committee. Senator Leyden said the prison officers should meet with the Minister's officials at the Labour Relations Commission.
Senator John Paul Phelan raised the matter of planning. Senator Brennan raised the matter of stem cell research. Senator Feighan raised the Hanly report and while I am aware of the meeting in Athlone, I did not attend it.
Was the Leader not supporting Government policy?
I was here. Senator Jim Walsh sought a debate on local authority funding, particularly single houses and the planning issue. He also praised the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for his forthright manner of dealing with matters. Many Members have asked for the Minister to come here to debate the particular issues. Senator Browne asked why we pay taxes. Taxes have been reduced in recent years.
That was not the question, I asked why we pay them.
He asked that when we have a debate on stem cell research we should also have a debate on degenerative diseases.